The Future of Sustainable Packaging: Increasing the value of a throw-away-item

1. The Future of Sustainable Packaging: Increasing the value of a throw-away-item Anne-Mette Jørgensen Director Projects, IMSA Amsterdam Utrecht, May 20th, 2010

2. Designed for temporary use Associated with throw-away-lifestyle Difficult to control -> litter on streets, in nature, in oceans Seen to contribute substantially to Plastic Soup Symbol of waste of resources Closely associated with transportation of goods (globalisation) Plastics associated with toxic substances – threat to environment and human health Paper associated with deforestation and destruction of biodiversity SUSTAINABLE PACKAGING: A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS

3. PACKAGING AS A SYMBOL OF INSUSTAINABLE LIFESTYLE

4. BUT CAN WE MISS IT?? NO!! • Even the most ‘primitive’ cultures depend on packaging • Packaging is essential to the transportation of goods – some goods (e.g. water) cannot be transported at all without packaging • Without packaging, products decay faster -> more waste of resources • Packaging is essential to hygiene • Without packaging, we can convey very little information about a product to consumers • And so on… PACKAGING HAS A HIGH VALUE

5. PACKAGING – SOME FACTS (1) • Each European produces 176 kg of packaging waste each year (EEA, 2005) • In the EU-15, per capita consumption of packaging increased with 6,8% from 1998 – 2006 • Outside EU-15 increase is much larger: e.g. 9,5% from 2004-2006 in new EU-8

6. PACKAGING – SOME FACTS (2) Packaging waste generation rises with economic growth

7. PACKAGING – SOME FACTS (3) • Ca. 70% of packaging material is used for food and beverages • Use of paper & board and plastic packaging is increasing

8. PACKAGING – SOME FACTS (4) • 2% of all oil won world-wide is used for packaging • World-wide only 5% of plastic packaging is recycled • 43% of paper production in EU is used for packaging • World-wide paper production is accountable for more than 40% of all timber felled • In the EU, packaging accounts for ca. 1/3 of household waste – in the US it accounts for more than 50% If world population grows to the projected 9 billion in 2050 and Global GDP grows at a conservative 4% a year, this could imply a growth in packaging waste of almost 700% by 2050

9. 2010 - 2050: WE REACH THE TOP! • Oil peak • Population peak • Phosphate peak • Water peak • Pollution peak • Fertile soil peak • Biodiversity peak • Forest peak • … • GDP peak?? • Increasing demand for ever scarcer resources: packaging versus food?!

10. CLUB OF ROME, LIMITS TO GROWTH– THE 30 YEARS UPDATE, 2004 Reference scenario – Business as usual pollution resources population industrial outputper capita food per capita 1900 2000 2100

11. POLICY DEVELOPMENTS TOWARDS 2050 • Collapse of Wall Street & Mother Earth: end of free market ideology? • Hot, flat and crowded: globalisation of people; regionalisation of production? Changing lifestyles and transportation patterns? • Intensified policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate climate change • State interventions to protect availability of scarce resources: oil, water, metals, phosphate, … • Incentives to save scarce resources, e.g. bans/taxes on plastic bags and other superfluous packaging

12. SO, WHAT CAN WE DO? Current strategies for sustainable packaging focus on one or more of four options: • New materials • Reduce • Reuse • Recycle

13. SO, WHAT CAN WE DO? – NEW MATERIALS • Focus is on a shift from fossil-based to bio-based & biodegradable materials • Advantage: (partly) solves problem of plastic litter, incl. Plastic Soup • Disadvantages • Many bio-based materials have a less favourable carbon-balance than fossil-based plastics • Scarcity of fertile land, water and phosphate eventually limit availability of bio-based resources – while demand for food enormously increases

14. SO, WHAT CAN WE DO? - REDUCE • Just to stay at the current level of resource demand for packaging material, a Factor 7 reduction of resource use per capita is needed by 2050! • Substantial reduction could be achieved by more efficient packaging (max. one layer) and by a change of lifestyle (less fast food on the go; more regional food products) • Reducing beyond a certain point may lead to quality loss and increased waste of the product inside the packaging • This approach could take place at the cost of jobs & income in packaging industry www.preventpack.be

15. SO, WHAT CAN WE DO? - REUSE • Reusing is feasible only for packaging that can be collected in an undamaged state and sufficiently cleaned or for packaging that is so strong and attractive that people want to keep it and reuse it themselves • In most developed countries reuse of packaging material is subject to very strict legislation and illegal for many purposes • Focus on reuse demands a fundamentally different approach to packaging design and logistics; focus on solidity, durability, cleanability and multi-functionality • Also demands change in lifestyle: consumer needs to contribute actively to reuse

16. SO, WHAT CAN WE DO? - RECYCLE • Recycling is often the only option, but difficult, costly, energy intensive and sometimes associated with health and safety risks • Current recycling = downcycling, i.e. prolongation of the product’s life time, but eventually resources become waste Recycling and energy recovery of packaging waste is increasing in the EU-15

17. FROM DOWNCYCLING TO UPCYCLING • Real recycling – Cradle-to-Cradle - means: continuously keeping all resources within a cycle; i.e. without loss of quality or nutrients • This approach implies a different approach to packaging design, logistics and waste handling Product of consumption Product of service Technical cycle Biological cycle

18. SUSTAINABLE PACKAGING IN THE FUTURE To address the challenges of the future, we need to combine and improve all four approaches. Sustainable packaging implies designing packaging in such a way that: • It reduces the net environmental impact of the product throughout its life cycle, i.e. the packaging leads to a larger saving of resources in the life cycle of the product it protects than it costs to produce the packaging itself = functionality • It is healthy and safe in any possible use and stage of its life cycle – also when it is upcycled into e.g. a food-contact material or when used as compost for agriculture = quality • Packaging that is supposed to enter the technical cycle is avaluable resource, which is worthwhile collecting so the materials may be recycled without loss of quality or upcycled into an even more valuable product = purity • Packaging that is meant for the biological cycle is fully biodegradable, non-toxic and functions as a nutrient to our soil = nourishing • Production process takes place using renewable energy sources and minimising transportation of materials = efficiency

19. NEED FOR NEW BUSINESS MODELS To achieve this, new business models are crucial: • Producer retains ownership and responsibility throughout life cycle • Government installs price incentives for functionality and recycling/upcycling • Government and chain partners support waste separation and take-back systems with incentives for consumers • Chain partners share information about product contents and cooperate in developing new materials

20. STELLINGEN • Voor duurzame verpakkingen moeten we af van het principe van de drie Rs. • Verpakkingen moeten meer waarde krijgen, ook nadat ze afgedankt zijn. • Om dit te realiseren zijn nieuwe vormen van samenwerking binnen de keten onmisbaar: • De designer en de gebruiker van de verpakking moeten al vanaf het begin nadenken over wat er met de verpakking moet gebeuren op het moment dat ie wordt weggegooid • De gebruiker van de verpakking en de detailhandel moeten zich afvragen hoe zij ertoe kunnen bijdragen dat de verpakking in de keten/cyklus blijft • De afvalverwerker en de verpakkingsproducent moeten zich afvragen hoe zij ervoor kunnen zorgen dat de verpakking na gebruik zijn waarde behoudt of vergroot

21. Dank voor uw aandacht!Voor meer informatie:www.imsa.nl