European and domestic experiences in the collection of packaging waste

Budapest, February 24, 2009

Overview about the situation in EuropeJoachim QuodenGeneral Manager

Deposit Systems in Europe

Sweden

Germany

NorwayFinland

DenmarkEstonia

Netherlands

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

Progress towards the EU recycling targets: 2006 recycling rates

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Belgium

Austria

Germ

any

Luxembourg

Netherlands

UK

Sweden

Denm

ark

Italy

France

Spain

Finland

Ireland

Portugal

Greece

Czech R

epublic

Hungary

Estonia

Slovenia

Lithuania

Slovakia

Cyprus

Rom

ania

Malta

Poland

Bulgaria

Latvia

Target deadline 2008 2011 2012 20152014

2013

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

Littering- problem solved because of deposit?

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

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

Costs for each packaging

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Can Alu0,33 l

Can Steel0,33 l

PET bottle0,5 l

Glass bottle0,5 l

Dänemark - Deposit Norwegen - DepositAustria - Kerbside Belgium - Kerbside

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

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

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

Membership 2008

Sweden

PolandGermany

France

Spain

Portugal

Ireland

Norway

Latvia

Belgium

AustriaHungary

Greece

Luxembourg

Turkey

Lithuania

Slovenia

CzechRepublic

Slovakia

Cyprus

Great Britain

Malta

Bulgaria

Estonia

Romania

Ukraine

Finland

Iceland

Netherlands

Canada

Croatia

Facts and Figures (2007/2009)

31 compliance 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 1,800,000 tons of plastic packaging have been recycled by PRO EUROPE member systems in 2007

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.