belgian experiences on the management of packaging waste oct 2012/marc adams... · belgian...

Belgian experiences on the

management of packaging waste

ACR+ EPR Club Lunch Seminar

EPR scheme and EU packaging law

Marc Adams, Director (a.i.)

Interregional Packaging Commission

1

Contents

• 1. Belgium: a federal state

• 2. Federal legislation

• 3. Cooperation agreement (of

November 4th 2008)

• 4. Accredited organisations

• 5. Belgian recycling figures

• 6. Role of the regulator (IPC)

• 7. Conclusions

2

1. Belgium: a federal state

3

3 Regions:

• Flanders (6 mio

inhabitants)

• Wallonia (4 mio)

• Brussels (1 mio)

Regions are

competent for waste

management

1 uniform collection

scheme, but with

regional (and local)

variations


• 3 regions (Flanders, Wallonia,

Brussels)

• 3 communities (Flemish, French,

German speaking)

• 1 federal state

exclusive competences

4


• Federal state = competent for:

– Foreign affairs

– Defence

– Social security

– Income taxes

– Internal (Belgian) market

5


• Regions & Communities =

competent for:

– Culture

– Education

– Economy

– Environment (waste, water, soil, …)

6


Packaging situation:

European packaging directive 94/62/EC (as

revised by directive 2004/12/EC) has 2

major chapters:

– Recycling and recovery targets for

packaging waste → Regional competence

– Essential requirements for the marketing

of packaging → Federal competence

7

2. Federal legislation

• Federal law concerning product

standards of december 21st 1998

– Transposition of essential requirements

(packaging directive)

– Partial transposition of CEN-standards

• Ecotax on beverage packaging

• Ecotax on “harmful” products like

plastic carrier bags

8

3. Cooperation agreement

• Inter-regional Law: valid on the

entire Belgian territory

• 1st version → cooperation

agreement of May 30th 1996

• Since 2009: 2nd version →

cooperation agreement of

November 4th 2008

9


10

• Responsible company:

– Belgian producer (= packer/filler)

– Belgian importer

– Belgian industrial consumer

– Belgian producer/importer of (empty) “service packaging”, i.e. products that are only packed at the point of sale, like carrier bags

• Double responsibility:

– Household packaging waste

– “Industrial” (i.e. non-household) packaging waste


Obligations:

• To meet the recycling and recovery targets

=> minimum of 300 kilos annually

• To report to the authorities

• To introduce a packaging prevention plan

(larger responsible companies) => minimum

of 300 tons annually (or 100 tons production in

Belgium)

11


Recycling and recovery targets for companies

Global targets:

• 80% overall recycling – From 2009 for household packaging waste

– From 2010 for industrial packaging waste

• 90% overall recovery for household packaging waste (from 2009)

• 85% overall recovery for industrial packaging waste (from 2010)

12


Recycling and recovery targets for companies

Specific targets per material:

• 50% recycling for metal

• 60% recycling for glass

• 60% recycling for paper/cardboard

• 60% recycling for beverage cartons

• 30% (mechanical) recycling for plastics

• 15% recycling for wood

13


14

• Individual compliance (not frequent)

• Accredited organisation:

– Fost Plus for household packaging waste

– Val-I-Pac for “industrial” (i.e. non-household) packaging waste

4. Accredited organisations

Status:

– Private sector initiative

– Government accreditation

– Non profit organisation

– Must cover the totality of Belgium

– Must prove recycling and recovery

– Strict government control

15


Fost Plus collection system:

– Intermunicipalities collect household

packaging waste for Fost Plus: • Paper & cardboard (curbside collection)

• Coloured & non-coloured glass (bottle banks)

• PMD/PMC-fraction (curbside collection):

– P = plastic bottles (PET) & flasks (HDPE)

– M = metals

– D/C = “drink cartons” = “tetra pak”

16


17


– Fost Plus pays full cost of: • Collection

• Sorting of PMD/PMC fraction

– Fost Plus organises recycling of

collected & sorted fractions

– At all stages: public tender

procedures

18


Green dot:

• Fost Plus gives his members the right to use

the logo

• The “green dot” logo has no official status

19


Responsible company

Household

Waste

Product

Fost Plus

(Inter)municipalities

Packaging

Packaging waste

IPC Full cost of

selective collection

of packaging waste

20


Responsible company

Household

Waste

Product

Fost Plus

(Inter)municipalities

Packaging

Packaging waste

IPC Full cost of


of packaging waste

21

Recyclers


Val-I-Pac system:

– Val-I-Pac doesn’t organise collection or

recycling of industrial packaging waste

– Val-I-Pac gathers data on collection and

recycling from private waste collectors –

collectors have to give proof of recycling

– Val-I-Pac gives financial incentives to

industrial consumers aimed at increasing


22


Responsible company

Industrial consumer Waste

Product

Val-I-Pac

Waste collectors

Packaging

Packaging waste

IPC

Recyclers

Financial incentive for sorting of

packaging waste

23

5. Belgian recycling figures

2010 Fost Plus recycling figures:

Paper/cardboard 100% (116,4%)

Glass 100% (111,7%)

Plastics 37,9%

Metals 100% (102,1%)

Drink cartons 80,4%

Others 0,8%

Total recycling 83,2%

Total recovery 94,5%

24


2011 Fost Plus recycling figures

(provisional):

Paper/cardboard 100% (114,6%)

Glass 100% (114,7%)

Plastics 37,5%

Metals 100% (102,1%)

Drink cartons 79,0%

Others 0,8%

Total recycling 82,7%

25


2010 Val-I-Pac recycling figures:

– Plastics 55,7 %

– Paper/cardboard 96,1 %

– Metals 85,1 %

– Wood 64,6 %

– Others 10,7 %

– Total 81,6 %

26


2011 Val-I-Pac recycling figures

(provisional):

– Plastics 55 %

– Paper/cardboard 97 %

– Metals 83 %

– Wood 63 %

– Total 81,2 %

27


• Global belgian recycling in 2009 (including individuel compliance, free-riders and new reusable packaging): 79,1%

• Global belgian recycling in 2010: 79,8%

28


Source: European

Commission, DG

ENV, study on

“Use of economic

instruments and

waste

management

performances”, 10

April 2012 29

6. Role of the regulator (IPC)

• To responsabilize industry (the responsible

companies) AND to defend the interest of the

public, for instance: – To approve the collection scheme proposed by the accredited

organisation, but also “enlarge” it, when necessary

– To make sure everybody gets a correct and just payment (for

instance, in the not household sector, smaller companies)

• To make sure that the data are 100% correct!

• To control and to sanction the remaining

free-riders! This is important for the

functioning of the system

30


Not the role of the regulator = to control all

members of the accredited organisations

– Members’ declarations are controled by the

accredited organisations – principle of selfcontrol

– IPC prefers to control the control procedures on its

efficiency – to do this, a sample of members’

declarations must be checked

31


Also for the recycling figures, the regulator

imposes its control procedures on the accredited

organisations, BUT it shares the end

responsability for the correctness of the figures:

- In the accreditation text of Val-I-Pac a complex

procedure is imposed, which included a programme

for controls on recycling (after trading) in the Far

East

- The IPC does its own “double-check”

32

7. Conclusions

• These is a need for a stable legal framework – it takes

time to create an efficiently functioning system

• Communication to the public is very important –

contradictions have to be avoided at all cost – it’s very

useful to have just 1 collection scheme (with several

variations) on the entire Belgian territory

• Controllability is paramount! The gov. administration

must be able to verify all the data and to certify that the

recycling/recovery targets were really met

35

7. Conclusions on competition

• Competition needs to be guaranteed, but not necessarily

on the organisational level!

• A monopoly on the organisational level isn’t harmful as

long as all risk of monopoly abuse is avoided; this isn’t

very difficult to do

• When there is competition between accredited

organisations: a level playing field needs to be created!

Without a level playing field, there is no fair/honest

competition

36

7. Conclusions on competition

• Belgium has a fully functional competition (on the

operational level) AND the scale advantages of an

organisational monopoly

• In Belgium accredited organisations have to be “non for

profit”

– This is the best guarantee that there won’t be an abuse of

monopoly

– This also guarantees prices are as low as they possibly can be

– There are no profit margins to fill!

37

7. Conclusions

• Important to develop and support selective collection at

the source and act agains incivilities (littering, incorrect

sorting,…)

– In Belgium the (inter)municipalities are obliged by law to

organise the selective collection

– (Inter)municipalities play a major role in the fight against

incivilities

• Important to collect (selectively at the source) for

recycling only! This means making choices!

– Easily recyclable materials should be collected for recycling!

– Others: not!

38

7. Conclusions

• Economic instruments can be very helpful, when used

properly (landfill-bans, taxation on waste incineration,

pay-as-you-throw) – they can also be very harmful,

when used incorrectly:

– “Green certificates” for the incineration of wood have

had (in Belgium) a clear negative effect on wood

recycling

– Unbalanced “eco-taxes” can create unwanted market

distortions and uncontrollable parallel imports

39

Thank you for your attention!

To contact us:

– IVCIE, Avenue des Arts 10-11, 1210 Brussels

– www.ivcie.be

– Tel: 02/209 03 60

– Fax: 02/209 03 98

40

http://www.ivcie.be/

belgian experiences on the management of packaging waste oct 2012/marc adams... · belgian...

Documents