European and domestic experiences in the collection of packaging waste Budapest, February 24, 2009

1. European and domestic experiences in the collection of packaging waste Budapest, February 24, 2009 Overview about the situation in Europe Joachim Quoden General Manager

2. Deposit Systems in Europe Sweden Finland Norway Estonia Denmark Germany Netherlands

3. Deposit systems in Europe • Finland, Denmark, Iceland: No household collection of other packaging • Netherlands: The deposit system will be stopped if industry collects a certain % of plastic bottles until 2012 • Sweden + Norway: Deposit systems started a long time before the household collection system • Germany: Plastic recycling figures are going down since many years, so in total plastic packaging, no increase because of the deposit • Scandinavia: Monopoly approach of deposit system versus competitive approach in Germany

4. Progress towards the EU recycling targets: 2006 recycling rates Target deadline 2008 2011 2012 2015 2013 2014

5. The Environmental Aspect • Recovery Rates • Countries with mandatory deposit systems do not have higher recovery rates than countries with household collection systems for all kind of packaging • Resource Consumption • As the collection system for other packaging arising at households has to be continued, an additional transport system has to be established • Littering • As beverage containers represent only a small part of littered items the problem of littering is not solved • Education of people, enough containers for waste and adequate fines and monitoring are tools which help much more successful for all kinds of littered items

6. Littering- problem solved because of deposit?

7. The Environmental Aspect • Consumers Willingness to separate waste • Adding an additional stream to sort leads to frustration of the consumer and will decrease his motivation to sort his waste • Protection of the refillable sector • Mandatory deposit systems for one way beverage containers do not protect the refillable sector • In Sweden and Denmark the one way sector is gaining market share year by year • In Germany the refillable quota for water and soft drinks dropped to less than 30% although it should have been raised to about 72% • Producer Responsibility • The involvement of the producers and fillers of packaging in a compliance scheme for the take back and recycling of all kinds of packaging leads to incentives for prevention and optimisation of packaging whereas such incentives do not exist in a deposit system

8. The Economic Aspect • Increased costs for industry and the consumer • Existing systems for the collection become more expensive as they collect less packaging but have to have the same infrastructure • Mandatory deposit systems are 2 – 3 times more costly for such packaging than a household collection system • The deposit that the consumer has to pay to the retailer cannot be for consumption • Effects to the market • Cans have been taken out of the market in Germany • Smaller retailers have much more problems to run such a system because of missing space and missing money for reverse vending machines • Separate kinds of packaging have to be developped for each country where a deposit system exisits • Economical Winners • Producers of reverse vending machines

9. Costs for each packaging

10. Conditions how to implement a deposit system • European Commission will publish within the next weeks a „Communication on deposit systems“ to give guidelines for member states as most of the court cases are because of the introduction of a deposit system • Obstacles to the free movement of goods • MDS are likely to be obstacles to import. They are therefore only legal where the benefits to the environment are clear and proportionate. • Constant difficulties in boarder areas (Denmark/Germany; Finland/Estonia) • Availibility • MS that introduce MDS must make sure that there are systems in place to which importers can easily accede in order to comply with their obligations • Transition • There need to be sufficient transition periods to give operators and in particular importers time to efficiently adapt their way of doing business to the new scheme

11. Conditions how to implement a deposit system • Non-discriminatory access • Any system must provide for non-discriminatory access for all fillers, retailers and other players that have obligations under the scheme • Fees need to be reasonable, proportianate and non-discriminatory • No exchange of sensitive information • Legislators and market participants must ensure that an MDS does not lead to artificial market transparancy by exchanging sensitive information between competing retailers, fillers etc • No exclusivity • Customers must not be prevented from joining competing schemes • Scandinavian monopolistic approach questionable in the future • No tying • Tying of additional services to the operation of the deposit scheme can raise serious concerns

12. Is there an alternative? • Identification of your environmental goals • Identification which ways might lead to fulfil these environmental goals • Agreement with all stakeholders on these goals • Freedom to industry to decide for the way to reach these environmental goals • We believe that household collection for ALL kinds of packaging are the better solution from an economic AND ecologic point of view

13. Membership 2008 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 Greece Turkey Malta Cyprus

14. Facts and Figures (2007/2009) • 31compliance schemes active in 31 countries in 2009 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 1,800,000tons of plastic packaging have been recycled by PRO EUROPE member systems in 2007

15. We do not believe in deposit ! 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.