Belgrade December 10, 2008 Integrated waste management of household waste in Europe with a special focus on packaging and its recycling Joachim Quoden General 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 p To harmonize national regulations regarding packaging & packaging waste management in the EU-countries p To avoid or reduce the impact of packaging waste on the environment p To guarantee the functioning of the internal market p 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 DirectiveNew Directive (February 2004) Deadline for allto to for P, GR, IREto to for new members to – 2015 RecoveryMin.: 50 %Min.: 60 % Max.: 65 %Max.: - RecyclingMin.: 25 %Min.: 55 % Max.: 45 %Max.: 80 % Recycling specific Materials GlassMin.: 15 %Min.: 60 % PaperMin.: 15 %Min.: 60 % MetalMin.: 15 %Min.: 50 % PlasticMin.: 15 %Min.: 22,5 % WoodMin.: -Min.: 15 %

Country Performance: Overall Recycling Quotas în 2006(%)

Country Performance : Plastic Recycling Quotas in 2006 (%)

Country Performance : Paper Recycling Quotas in 2006 (%)

Country Performance : Glass Recycling Quotas in 2006 (%)

Country Performance : Metal Recycling Quotas in 2006 (%)

GDP real and packaging consumption end-user in Germany 1995 – 2006 Quelle: destatis, GVM, eigene Berechnungen Stand: April 2008

GDP versus packaging consumption in Austria Quellen: Statistik Austria, WIFO, Prognos (Marktmengen ), Umweltministerium (Marktmengen )

GDP versus packaging consumption in Belgium

Environmental benefits of Packaging Directive greenhouse gas savings (around 25M tonnes of CO 2 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 => Taxes Denmark 26 with Producer Responsibility Austria, 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 market UK (PRN System) 27 EU COUNTRIES + 2 EEA + 2 Accession Countries Croatia ??? Fund versus EPR 1 with Fund Scheme run by industry Iceland 1 with tax and compliance scheme The 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 system GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS INSTITUTIONS MATERIALREPROCESSINGORGANISATIONS Obliged Companies  Fees PUBLIC  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 LOCALAUTHORITIES  Recycling guarantee  Assume legal undertakings  Take-back guarantee

Packaging collection and recycling Collection Recycling  New Products Sorting

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 Denmark Estonia Netherlands

Costs for each packaging

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 Poland Germany France Spain Portugal Ireland Norway Latvia Belgium Austria Hungary Greece Luxembourg Turkey Lithuania Slovenia Czech Republic 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, Brussels Belgium Phone: