Belgrade

December 10, 2008

Integrated waste management of household waste in Europe with a special focus on

packaging and its recycling

Joachim QuodenGeneral Manager

European Context

Small countries, dense population, high level of consumption

Threat of waste catastrophe in many European countries at end of ‘80’s/beginning of ‘90’s

Limited natural resources Limited landfill capacities Limited amount of tolerance in population regarding

throwaway society

Broader Policy Objectives

Introduce Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Stop end-of-pipe thinking Set up closed cycle economy Internalize external costs Close material loop Reduce waste going to landfills

Packaging – Only One Part of Comprehensive Framework

Revised Wast Framework Directive (2008!) Landfill directive WEEE directive (electrical equipment) RoHS (hazardous waste) Batteries ELV directive (vehicles) REACH (chemicals) Integrated product policy

The revised Waste Framework Directive 2008

Encouraging the prevention of waste Introducing a general waste treatment hierarchy Promoting the use of waste as a secondary resource Reduce the landfill of waste as well as potent greenhouse gases

arising from such landfill sites Member States must design and implement waste prevention

programmes New recycling targets: By 2020, Member States must recycle 50%

of their household and similar waste and 70% of their construction and demolition waste

By 2015 separate collection shall be set up for at least the following: paper, metal, plastic and glass

Clarifying the notions of recovery, disposal, end of waste status and by-product

Specifying a procedure for the establishment of technical minimum standards for certain waste management operations

European Packaging Directive: Objectives

To harmonize national regulations regarding packaging & packaging waste management in the EU-countries

To avoid or reduce the impact of packaging waste on the environment

To guarantee the functioning of the internal market

To remove obstacles to trade & the distortion & restriction of competition

All member states have to implement the Packaging Directive into national law following the general guidelines but have freedom in the way how to do it

Revision of the Packaging Directive 94/62/EG

Old Directive New Directive(February 2004)

Deadline for all to 30.06.2001 to 31.12.2008for P, GR, IRE to 30.06.2005 to 31.12.2011for new members 2005 - 2009 to 31.12.2012 – 2015

Recovery Min.: 50 % Min.: 60 %Max.: 65 % Max.: -

Recycling Min.: 25 % Min.: 55 %Max.: 45 % Max.: 80 %

Recycling specific Materials

Glass Min.: 15 % Min.: 60 %Paper Min.: 15 % Min.: 60 %Metal Min.: 15 % Min.: 50 %Plastic Min.: 15 % Min.: 22,5 %Wood Min.: - Min.: 15 %

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Malta

Cyprus

Romania

Bulgaria

Slovakia

Lithuania

Slovenia

Greece

Estonia

Latvia

Hungary

Finland

Poland

Portugal

Spain

Ireland

France

Italy

Denmark

UK

Sweden

Netherlands

Czech Rep.

Luxembourg

Germany

Austria

Belgium

Country Performance: Overall Recycling Quotas în 2006(%)

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Malta

Greece

Cyprus

Portugal

Finland

Romania

Bulgaria

France

Ireland

Denmark

Hungary

Latvia

UK

Spain

Poland

Lithuania

Italy

Luxembourg

Estonia

Austria

Belgium

Slovenia

Slovakia

Germany

Sweden

Czech Rep.

Country Performance : Plastic Recycling Quotas in 2006 (%)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Malta

Cyprus

Bulgaria

Poland

Estonia

Romania

Latvia

Lithuania

Slovakia

Denmark

Slovenia

Italy

Portugal

Greece

Spain

Luxembourg

Sweden

Ireland

UK

Germany

France

Finland

Austria

Belgium

Czech Rep.

Hungary

Country Performance : Paper Recycling Quotas in 2006 (%)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Romania

Cyprus

Malta

Slovakia

Hungary

Greece

Lithuania

Poland

Latvia

Slovenia

Portugal

Estonia

Spain

UK

Bulgaria

Italy

France

Ireland

Czech Rep.

Finland

Germany

Austria

Sweden

Luxembourg

Belgium

Denmark

Country Performance : Glass Recycling Quotas in 2006 (%)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Bulgaria

Malta

Slovenia

Slovakia

Latvia

Ireland

Greece

Czech Rep.

Estonia

UK

Finland

Lithuania

Austria

Poland

Portugal

Spain

Italy

Denmark

Hungary

France

Sweden

Cyprus

Romania

Luxembourg

Germany

Belgium

Country Performance : Metal Recycling Quotas in 2006 (%)

GDP real and packaging consumption end-user in Germany 1995 – 2006

100,00100,99

102,81

104,90

107,01

110,45

111,82 111,82 111,57

112,76113,64

116,90

100,00

98,4397,87

100,90

105,62 105,96

102,36

104,04

101,12

99,5598,65

99,44

95,00

100,00

105,00

110,00

115,00

120,0019

95

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Jahr

Inde

x 19

95 =

100

BIP-real

Verpackungsverbrauch

Quelle: destatis, GVM, eigene Berechnungen Stand: April 2008

GDP versus packaging consumption in Austria

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

BIP

Marktmenge Verpackungen

In % (1991 = 100)

Quellen: Statistik Austria, WIFO, Prognos (Marktmengen 1991-1996), Umweltministerium (Marktmengen 1997-2005)

GDP versus packaging consumption in Belgium

Environmental benefits of Packaging Directive greenhouse gas savings (around 25M tonnes of CO2

equivalent) resource savings (~10M tonnes of oil equivalent) reduced particulates emissions, decreased acidification, less

traffic noise, odours, visual disturbance

Sustainable Production & Consumption

European Commission DG Environment

Implementation of the Packaging Directive

1 without compliance scheme => TaxesDenmark

26 with Producer ResponsibilityAustria, Belgium, France, Spain, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Sweden, Greece, Latvia,Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Cyprus, Malta, Estonia, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Norway, Finland, Italy,

EPR, but close to marketUK (PRN System)

27 EU COUNTRIES + 2 EEA

+ 2 Accession Countries Croatia ???Fund versus EPR

1 with Fund Scheme run by industryIceland

1 with tax and compliance schemeThe Netherlands

„Dual model“ (Germany, Austria):

Full responsibility for industry for collection, sorting and recycling; separate collection system besides collection of local authorities, no or limited influence from local authorities

„Shared model“ (France, Spain, Czech Rep.):

Shared responsibility between industry and local authorities, common agreements on the way of collection necessary

Tradable Credits Model (UK):

No link between industry and collection on the local level

Common principle, but several ways of implementation

The French systemThe French system

GOVERNMENTGOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS INSTITUTIONS

MATERIAL MATERIAL REPROCESSING REPROCESSING ORGANISATIONSORGANISATIONS

Obliged CompaniesObliged Companies

Fees

PUBLICPUBLIC

Awareness raising

Commitment to recovery

Funding of the additional cost of selective collection

• Awareness raising and information

R&D support

Approval Marking

Take-back guarantee Commitment

to recovery and recycling LOCALLOCAL

AUTHORITIESAUTHORITIES

Recycling guarantee

Assume legal undertakings

Take-back guarantee

Packaging collection and recycling

Collection

Recycling New ProductsSorting

How Schemes Differ (1)

Scope of activities household packaging only up to all packaging other waste streams (WEEE)

Share of costs recycling costs up to total costs

Recycling quotas 22,5% minimum quota of Directive up to 60% for plastics

Collection system bring system up to kerbside collection

How Schemes Differ (2)

Time allowed for implementation 1 year to 10 years

Need to cover all households Acceptable ways of recovery

energy recovery & materials recycling no energy recovery

Number of free-riders Labour costs Multiple compliance schemes

The solution for PET? - Deposit Systems?

Sweden

Germany

Norway

Finland

DenmarkEstonia

Netherlands

Costs for each packaging

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Can Alu0,33 l

Can Steel0,33 l

PET bottle0,5 l

Glass bottle0,5 l

Dänemark - Deposit Norwegen - DepositAustria - Kerbside Belgium - Kerbside

We do not think so ! Kerbside is the better way !

Mandatory deposit systems

Lack clear envirnomental or economic justification Introduce distortions to the Internal Market Have negative effects on consumers general willingness to sort their

packaging Damage the viability of existing proven and optimised system of collection and

recycling of ALL kinds of packaging Lead to an increase of environmental pollution Are an ineffective approach towards the littering problem No higher collection quotas for all kinds of plastic packaging from households

Therefore, we would question the imposition of mandatory deposit systems on one way packaging and suggest that producers and compliance organisations should be offered the freedom to meet recycling targets in the most appropriate manner for each member state without endangering the functioning of the internal market.

Cost factors of the different schemes

Scope of activities (household up to all packaging)

share of costs (recycling costs up to total costs)

recycling quotas (15% minimum quota of the Directive up to 60% for plastics)

collection system (bring system up to kerbside collection)

time of implementation (1 year up to 10 years)

need to cover all households

possible ways of recovery (energy recovery possible?)

number of free-riders

Labour costs

How to ensure the effective use of industries funding Packaging Tax system like Denmark

No control from industry about the use of the tax Packaging Tax system like Netherlands

Partly control about the use of the tax Packaging Tax system like Iceland

Full control about the use of the tax Shared responsibility system like in France

Incentives to local authorities to improve waste management system and to save industries and consumers money

Full cost system like in Belgium Incentives to local authorities to improve waste management system and to save

industries money Full control about sorting and recycling by tendering process

Full cost system like in Austria Full control about the whole system by tendering process

Full cost system like in Germany No control about the use of the fees as all players are for profit

Incentive system like in the UK No control about the use of the fees by the recyclers

Lessons learned

All stakeholders should agree on the common goal and the way to reach this goal

The legislation has to be realistic and feasible Legislation has to be flexibel to allow adaption of the system

to local circumstances Legislation has to take into account the whole waste

management Government has to monitor the implementation Obliged Industry (fillers and retailers) has to involve fully itself

and has to be pro-active Local authorities have to accept the help of industry experts

in designing their waste management system

What is the alternative of EPR?

Packaging Taxes Denmark: 140 million € taxes for 5,4 million people (26 € / inhabitant) Netherlands: 350 million € taxes for 16,4 million people (21 € / inhabitant) Money mainly not used for recycling of packaging No influence of industry how money is used Are local authorities asked to improve their waste mangement system?

Mandatory Deposit for one way beverage containers Offen in addition to packaging taxes Costs minimum 3 times higher than collection system for all packaging High investments from retailers needed (700 million € in Germany) Lots of space in the retail shops needed High running costs per year (800 million € per anno in Germany)

Membership 2008

Sweden

PolandGermany

France

Spain

Portugal

Ireland

Norway

Latvia

Belgium

AustriaHungary

Greece

Luxembourg

Turkey

Lithuania

Slovenia

CzechRepublic

Slovakia

Cyprus

Great Britain

Malta

Bulgaria

Estonia

Romania

Ukraine

Finland

Iceland

Netherlands

Canada

Croatia

PRO EUROPE‘S Mission

To help its national recovery schemes by: Promoting convergence of regulations and administration

Protecting and promotion of the Green Dot

Being a Know how provider to members, their clients and authorities

Running a network of exchanges and experiences

Supporting secondary raw materials markets

Offering added value services to members and their clients

Promoting holistic, stable, ecologically and economically feasible packaging waste management systems

Exchange of Know-How

Working Groups Technical Working Group (lead by Eco-Emballages)

Congress & Communication (lead by DSD)

Prevention (lead by Eco Embes)

System Development (lead by EKO-KOM)

Regulatory Affairs Committee (lead by FOST Plus)

Workshops Marketing

Deposit for one way beverage containers

Biodegradable packaging

Relation to local authorities

Best practices in collection, sorting and recycling

Facts and Figures (2007/2008)

31 compliance schemes active in 31 countries in 2008 of which 25 use the Green Dot

About 140,000 companies are licensees / members of the PRO EUROPE member systems

More than 460 billion packaging items have been labeled with the Green Dot

More than 565 million inhabitants live in PRO EUROPE member countries

More than 310 million inhabitants have access to separate collection of PRO EUROPE member systems

More than 22,100,000 tons of packaging have been recovered by PRO EUROPE member systems in 2007

More than 1,800,000 tons of plastic packaging have been recycled by PRO EUROPE member systems in 2007

Founded and run by or on behalf of fillers, packaging producers, importers and retailers

Independent from government and waste management companies

Financing of selective collection, sorting, recovery and recycling of packaging waste by industry

Communicating to consumers to create new behaviors mostly by using the Green Dot

Internalisation of external costs

Implementation of Producer Responsibility

What does a PRO EUROPE member Organisation stand for ?

Brochures

How can we help?

Joachim Quoden

PRO EUROPE s.p.r.l.

Rue Martin V, 40

1200 Brussels

Belgium

info@pro-europe.info

www.pro-europe.info

Phone: +49 171 201 70 55