“Management of Packaging Waste in Europe – Learnings and best practices” by Joachim Quoden Managing Director PRO EUROPE Packaging and Packaging Waste Management - legal framework June 5, 2012 Split, Croatia

PRO EUROPE Facts and Figures  35 compliance schemes active in 35 countries in 2011 of which 28 use the Green Dot  About 185,000 companies are contributing licensees / members of the PRO EUROPE member systems  About 400 million inhabitants have access to separate collection financed by PRO EUROPE member systems  About 33,300,000 tons of packaging have been recovered by PRO EUROPE member systems in 2010  More than 26 million tons of C0² equivalent has been saved by the work of PRO EUROPE member systems in 2010  More than 3,300,000 tons of plastic packaging have been recycled by PRO EUROPE member systems in 2010

PRO EUROPE‘S Mission To help its national recovery schemes by: – Providing expert advice to members, their clients and authorities – Running a network of exchanges and experiences – Protecting and promotion of the Green Dot – Promoting convergence of regulations and administration – 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

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 ?

European Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive A good example for a successful legislation in the EU and model for other countries?

Targets of the PPWD To avoid or reduce the impact of packaging waste on the environment To harmonize national regulations regarding packaging & packaging waste management in the EU-countries To guarantee the functioning of the internal market BUT, total freedom for Member States how to reach the targets! So, there is not ONE model solution to apply around the world!

European Packaging Directive 94/62/EG Several special deadlines for new member states until 2015

Country Performance: Overall Recycling Quotas in 2009(%)

Implementation of the Packaging Directive 27 EU countries + 2 EEA + 2 Accession + other countries EPR, but close to market UK (PRN System) 2 countries without any compliance scheme => Taxes Denmark, Hungary 1 country with tax and compliance scheme The Netherlands Change from 2013 ! Tax versus EPR Ukraine ?? Fund versus EPR Croatia ??? 1 country with Fund Scheme run by industry Iceland 27 with Producer Responsibility Austria, Belgium, France, Spain, Germany, Ireland, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Portugal, Sweden, Greece, Latvia, Malta, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Italy, Slovenia, Estonia, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Norway, Finland, Serbia, Israel

Why did a few countries choose a tax solution? Some countries believe in a strong state that has to be involved in all matters of relevance Some governments believe that via taxes they can influence the choice of packaging material by promoting „good“ packaging and punishinig „bad“ packaging A way to collect a lot of money from inhabitants under the excuse of environmental protection (Denmark: 26€/inh/y)

Why did many countries choose EPR? Recognizing that industry with its competence can find solutions that are efficient both for the environment and for economy Inventing new taxes is not favoured by voters Packaging Supply Chain has a big influence in the design of packaging and only this can lead to optimisation of packaged products

Producer responsibility- several ways of implementation  „Dual model“ (e.g. Austria, Germany) Full responsibility for industry for collection, sorting and recycling; separate collection system besides collection of local authorities, limited influence from local authorities  „Shared model“ (e.g. France, Spain, Czech Republic) Shared responsibility between industry and local authorities, common agreements on the way of collection necessary  Tradable Credits Model (UK, Poland) No link between industry and collection at local level

So, which is the best system ? All 12 „old“ countries have fulfilled the minimum recycling and recovery quotas of the EU Packaging Directive (deadline )! But, all 12 systems have different goals so that it is (nearly) impossible even to benchmark them Every system has different costs to bear instead or in addition to the costs of municipalities. So, the question is which are YOUR goals for YOUR country!

What are your goals? Achieving certain recycling rates? Establishing infrastructure for the recycling of household packaging? Gaining certain level of control of the system? Ensuring transparency? Optimisation/prevention initiatives? Education and information of the inhabitants? Ecological criteria for the recycling of used packaging?

Key lessons learned I  All stakeholders should agree on a common solution  Legislation has to be realistic, feasible, flexible  Focus legislation on goals and objectives and ensure a level playing field  Every stakeholder has to play their role  Legislation has to be enforced by the government  Governments have to implement an integrated approach with additional tools like landfill taxes / ban, PAYT systems, Green Procurement rules, infrastructure to treat non recyclable waste …..

Key lessons learned II  If goal is high collection and recycling results especially for household packaging, the best solution is a single system approach with competition on the collection, sorting and recycling level  If goals include additional targets like prevention, education, consumer communication etc., a single system approach is able to deliver consistent projects and messages  If the goal is achieving the minimum required recycling rate at the lowest cost possible, competition at the “system” level could be introduced

Key lessons learned III  If you choose to have competition on the system level, very clear rules have to be set which have to be fulfilled by all market players and which have to be strongly monitored and also enforced by the government  If waste management companies are also operating compliance schemes (Vertical integration) a “Chinese Wall” is needed (DG Competition guidelines 2005)

Challenges at EU and national level Significant differences in country performance (e.g. span from just above 10% to almost 90% in recycling quotas in 2009). Significant variance in implementation of, and compliance with, EU waste legislation. Pending key issues – e.g. no final agreement on updated list of examples given in Annex I of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive to illustrate the definition of packaging. Fight against Food Waste has to be taken into account when designing packaging Fight against marine debris and its sources is increasing on the worldwide agenda Separate collection from 2015 forward and 50% recycling of ALL household waste from 2020 will be obligatory ( WFD)

Evaluation of the EU Commission The European Commission has just published 2 important studies about the implementation of waste legislation in Europe ‘Study on Coherence of Waste Legislation’, df/Coherence_waste_legislation.pdf 'Use of Economic Instruments and Waste Management Performances, (under "New" )

AWARENESS INITIATION SYSTEMATIZATION VALORIZATION & DIFFUSION Planning Assistance Best practices Environmental calculators Consumer information Publications Trainings Design for recycling tools Optimization tools proposed by PRO EUROPE’s members: for each step of the optimization’s approach

How can we help? Joachim Quoden PRO EUROPE s.p.r.l. Rue Martin V, Brussels Belgium Phone: