forum business magazine bucharest june 15, 2010 henri meiresonne president pro europe
DESCRIPTION
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. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
FORUM BUSINESS MAGAZINEBucharest June 15, 2010
Henri MeiresonnePresident PRO Europe
15.06.2010 1
Membership 2009
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
CroatiaItaly
15.06.2010 2
15.06.2010
33 compliance 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 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 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 million tons of plastic packaging have been recycled by PRO EUROPE member systems in 2008
Facts and Figures (2008/2009)
3
15.06.2010
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!
Basis = European Packaging Directive
4
Old Directive New Directive(February 2004)
Deadline for all to 30.06.2001 to 31.12.2008for 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
Revision of the Packaging Directive 94/62/EG
5
15.06.2010
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
-
Challenges
6
Recycling percentages 2007 in Europe
n.a.
n.a.
15.06.2010
Country Performance: Overall Recycling Quotas in 2007(%)
7
Belg
ium.
Aust
riaGer
man y
Czec
h Re
publ
ic
Luxe
mbour
g
Unite
d King
dom
Slov
akia
Nethe
rland
sIre
land
Swed
enFr
ance
Denmar
kIta
liePo
rtuga
lBu
lgar
iaSp
ain
Esto
niaPo
land
Greec
eHun
gary
Lithu
ania
Latv
iaRo
mania
Slov
ania
15.06.2010
Fost Plus: EPR-scheme in Belgium
Has performant results
Considered as being cost-efficient
8
Belgium: Treatment of household packaging
15.06.2010
The recycling percentage seems to have reached a ceiling
9
Parties responsible for packaging (fillers)
(Inter)municipalities
RecyclersWaste management companies
IPCAccreditation
Verification
How does the system work ?
15.06.2010 10
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 EUR 38 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
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
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
15.06.2010
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
14
Key Factors for Success
Standardized collection scheme
15.06.2010 15
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
Key Factors for Success: Legislation
15.06.2010
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
17
15.06.2010
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
18
Competition
15.06.2010
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
19
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
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
Lessons learned
15.06.2010
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
22