1 / 23

FORUM BUSINESS MAGAZINE Bucharest June 15, 2010 Henri Meiresonne President PRO Europe

FORUM BUSINESS MAGAZINE Bucharest June 15, 2010 Henri Meiresonne President PRO Europe. 15.06.2010. 1. Membership 2009. France. Czech Republic. Iceland. Sweden. Finland. Great Britain. Norway. Estonia. Canada. Latvia. Ireland. Lithuania. Netherlands. Poland. Germany. Belgium.

octavia-kemp
Download Presentation

FORUM BUSINESS MAGAZINE Bucharest June 15, 2010 Henri Meiresonne President PRO Europe

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. FORUM BUSINESS MAGAZINE Bucharest June 15, 2010 Henri Meiresonne President PRO Europe 15.06.2010 1

  2. Membership 2009 France Czech Republic Iceland Sweden Finland Great Britain Norway Estonia Canada Latvia Ireland Lithuania Netherlands Poland Germany Belgium Ukraine Luxembourg Slovakia Austria Hungary Slovenia Romania Portugal Croatia Bulgaria Spain Italy Greece Turkey Malta Cyprus 15.06.2010 2

  3. Facts and Figures (2008/2009) • 33compliance schemes active in 33 countries in 2008 of which 26 use the Green Dot • About 150,000 companies are licensees / members of the PRO EUROPE member systems • More than 480 billion packaging items have been labeled with the Green Dot • More than565 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 23 million tons of packaging have been recovered by PRO EUROPE member systems in 2008 = saving of 25 million tons CO2 emissions • More than 2.1 milliontons of plastic packaging have been recycled by PRO EUROPE member systems in 2008 15.06.2010 3

  4. Basis = EuropeanPackagingDirective • 1994: European Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste (1994, revised 2004) • Extended Producer Responsibility = extending the responsibility of producers to the end-of-life of their packages • ≠ financial responsibility • balanced sharing of responsibilities • close cooperation between all parties concerned Partnership as a key to success! 15.06.2010 4

  5. Revision of the Packaging Directive 94/62/EG Old Directive New Directive (February 2004) Deadline for all to 30.06.2001 to 31.12.2008 for new members 2005 - 2009 to 31.12.2012 – 2015 Recovery Min.: 50% Min.: 60% Recycling Min.: 25% Min.: 55% 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% 15.06.2010 5

  6. Challenges • In each country, the challenges are • to reach the directive targets • in a cost effective way • On the European level, the main challenge is to bring the new(er) members up to the levels achieved by the old(er) members 15.06.2010 6

  7. Country Performance: Overall Recycling Quotas in 2007(%) Recycling percentages 2007 in Europe n.a. n.a. Belgium. Sweden Bulgaria Spain France Austria Slovakia Portugal Italie Ireland Estonia Germany Denmark Poland Greece Hungary Romania Slovania Lithuania Latvia Netherlands Luxembourg United Kingdom CzechRepublic 15.06.2010 7

  8. Fost Plus: EPR-scheme in Belgium • Has performant results • Considered as being cost-efficient 15.06.2010 8

  9. Belgium: Treatment of household packaging The recycling percentage seems to have reached a ceiling 15.06.2010 9

  10. How does the system work ? Parties responsible for packaging (fillers) IPC Accreditation Verification (Inter)municipalities Recyclers Waste management companies 15.06.2010 10

  11. Cost of the system (for 10.8 million inhabitants and 94% recycling rate) Packaging Responsibles Sale of material (producers, private label for recycling retailers, importers) 75 Mio EUR38 Mio EUR 113 Mio EUR Collecting and sorting Communication General expenses (incl. intermun. adm.) (incl. litter) Fost Plus 95 Mio EUR 9 Mio EUR 9 Mio EUR 15.06.2010 11

  12. Cost of the system Cost to the citizen = - 75 Mio EUR Green Dot fees (incl. in price of products) - 8 Mio purchase of “blue bag” for light fraction = total 83 Mio EUR = 8 EUR per inhabitant per year 15.06.2010 12

  13. Cost of the system Cost to the industry Examples of Green Dot fees per package : - steel can 33 ml 0.0005 EUR - alu can 0,5 l 0.0008 EUR - PET bottle 0,5 l 0.0043 EUR - PET bottle 1,5 l 0.0059 EUR 15.06.2010 13

  14. Key Factors forSuccess • Industry and retail took the lead, and acted with solidarity and commitment • Industry invested in studies to define optimized collection scenario • Legislation (see below) • Public-Private Partnership: very close collaboration with municipalities • Tenders (collection, sorting, sale materials)= transparency and competition • Communication  Active participation of citizens • High cost of residual waste (DIFTAR) • Geographic progression (10 years to cover total country) • Good relations with all the partners involved • Quality management (materials and data) + controls 15.06.2010 14

  15. Standardized collection scheme 15.06.2010 15

  16. Collection and sorting costs/material (2009) • €/Ton €/inhabitant • Glas 49 1.5 • P-B 51 1.1 (30%) • PMD collection & sorting 368 5.3 15.06.2010 16

  17. Key Factors for Success: Legislation • The law stipulates collaboration of accredited organism with the municipalities (not sanitation companies): public-private partnership • The accreditation confirms and recognizes a basic collection scenario • 100% of the cost is covered by the industry • exceptions are possible but cost not covered by the industry This is a strong framework for the negotiations with the communes • Municipalities are obliged to organize selective collection • The general/residual household waste is subjected to the pay-as-you throw principle • (Gradual) introduction of a landfill ban – incineration with energy recovery as alternative (100%) • Strict enforcement on fillers, EPR-scheme, citizens and municipalities 15.06.2010 17

  18. Why are some countries not catching up ? • Because industry is not fully committed • Or there is a lack on required supporting legal framework/instruments • And/or because authorities do not give the necessary trust to the industry to allow them to set up a system in the way that has proven successful • where deposit systems are set up next to selective collection systems • where legislation is made so as to install competitive EPR-schemes • where the basic scenario is not sound (e.g. Collection of all packaging waste regardless of economical and ecological recyclability 15.06.2010 18

  19. Competition • In practice : • Still 1 waste operator doing the work = 90% of the cost • Competition = on level of administration = 10% of the work • Competition in practice ≠ about efficiency in operations≠ about quality of service to consumer • More important = - competition on the level of operations - managed by one strong EPR scheme - not for profit = more services for same amount of money • Other problems with competition • Control over the free riders • Control of material flows and effective recycling 15.06.2010 19

  20. Is a deposit system an alternative ? Reality : Deposit system = • 5 to 15 times more expensive • Creates more fragmented traffic (and pollution) • Less convenient for citizens • Limited to beverage packaging  what about others ? • Financially succesful when it fails • Many possibilities for fraud (imports, double redemption…) Conclusion : economically, ecologically and socially, selective packaging collection is far superior = 3 pillars of sustainability 15.06.2010 20

  21. Is a packaging tax an alternative ? • 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 • How to push local authorities to improve their waste management system? 15.06.2010 21

  22. Lessons learned • Obliged Industry (fillers and retailers) has to commit itself fully and has to be pro-active; This includes a commitment to bear a substantial part of the cost • All stakeholders should agree on the common goal and the way to reach this goal : selective collection (a necessary evil!) with basic collection scenario • The legislation has to be realistic and feasible (strict framework + flexibility) Legislation has to take into account the whole waste management = most appropriate mix of instruments to support EPR • Government has to enforce and monitor the implementation • Local authorities should collaborate with industry experts in designing their waste management system 15.06.2010 22

  23. www.pro-e.org 15.06.2010 23

More Related