• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
EaP GREEN: Experience of the implementation of EU Directives based on EPR principles
 

EaP GREEN: Experience of the implementation of EU Directives based on EPR principles

on

  • 109 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
109
Views on SlideShare
109
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    EaP GREEN: Experience of the implementation of EU Directives based on EPR principles EaP GREEN: Experience of the implementation of EU Directives based on EPR principles Presentation Transcript

    • Experience of the implementation of EU Directives based on EPR principles Olivier De Clercq DG Environment, Waste Management and Recycling Unit A2
    • Outline 1. Implementation of EU Waste legislation 2. EPR Guidance Study
    • 1. Implementation of EU Waste legislation
    • Thematic Strategy on Waste Prevention and Recycling Waste Framework Directive (Includes Municipal and Construction Demolition waste) Waste Shipment Regulation Landfill Directive Incineration Specifications Packaging Mining waste Sewage Sludge PCB/ PCT Vehicles WEEE & Restriction of use Batteries In red: with targets FrameworkTreatmentStreams
    • European Binding targetsEU Targets Recovery Recycling Collection rate Packaging 2008 60% 55% Cars 2015 95% 85% 100% Electronics 2006 2016 2019/21 70% 50% min 4 kg per inhabitant per year 85% of WEEE arising (recast) Batteries 2011 50% to 75% (efficiency) 2012 25% 2016 45% Tyres 2006 0 landfill of tyres Biowaste diverted from landfills 2006 reduction to 75% of the 1995 level 2009 reduction to 50% of the 1995 level 2016 reduction to 35% of the 1995 level Municipal waste 2015 Separate collection: at least paper/metal/plastic/glass 2020 50% recycling household waste
    • Waste as Resource PREVENTION PREPARATION FOR REUSE RECYCLING (COMPOSTING) OTHER RECOVERY DISPOSAL
    • Source: Eurostat 2012 Municipal waste generation 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 CZ PL SK LV EE RO LT EL HU SI BG BE SE PTEU 27 FI FR IT UK ES DE AT NL M T LU IE CY DK Kgpercapita 2004 2010
    • Municipal Waste Treatment (2011)
    • Number of countries at different levels of the municipal waste management hierarchy
    • Focus on Implementation - Packaging waste Source: Eurostat Waste Data Centre 2010 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 BE BG2014 CZ2012 DK DE EE2012 IE EL ES FR IT CY2012 LV2015 LT2012 LU HU2012MT2013 NL AT PL2014 PT RO2013 SI2012 SK2012 FI SE UK Percent(%) Recycling Energy Recovery Recovery Target 2008Recycling Target 2008
    • Participation cost per material in 6 Member States with different level of recycling performances Differentiated application of Producer Responsibility Source: derived from Pro Europe 2011 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Aluminium Glass Paper - cardboard Drink carton €/ton BE - High DE - High CZ - High FR - Middle CY - Low LT - Low
    • Source: Arising based on UN University study estimates, Collected based on Member States reports under Eurostat validation 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 AustriaBelgiumG erm anyDenm arkG reece SpainFinlandFranceIreland Italy Luxem bourg NetherlandsPortugalSw eden UKBulgariaCyprus Czech RepublicEstoniaHungary Lithuania Latvia M altaPolandRom aniaSloveniaSlovakia Arising 2006 Collected 2008 85% target (2016 proposed) Curent collection Target: 4 kg per year - from 2 0 0 9 for New M S (except Sl - 2 0 0 8 ) 4 New targets for e-waste recycling Kg per year and per capita
    • 2. EPR Guidance Study
    • Study on EPR  Objectives • Describe, compare and analyse different types of EPR systems operating in the EU. • Identify necessary conditions and best practices for the functioning of EPR systems. • Propose and assess options to promote an optimal use of EPR systems across the EU.  Timing • Study launched in December 2012 for 15 months  Project team : BIO Intelligence Service, in partnership with Arcadis, Ecologic, Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Umweltbundesamt (UBA).  Project website: http://epr.eu-smr.eu /
    • EPR Study 2013: Selection of MS for case studies 15 BATTERIES ELVs GRAPHIC PAPER OILS PACKAGING WEEE Austria Austria Finland Belgium Austria Denmark Belgium Finland France Finland Belgium Finland Denmark Germany Netherlands Germany Czech Rep. France France Netherlands Sweden Italy France Ireland Netherlands Slovak Rep. Portugal Germany Latvia Switzerland Sweden Spain Netherlands Sweden United Kingdom United Kingdom
    • 16 Case-studies content  Legal framework and objectives  General legal framework  Targets  System functioning  Role of system actors  Producers  Retailers/distributers  Municipalities  Waste collection and treatment operators  System performance  Cost efficiency  General governance  Governance of PROs  Control of the system  Control over performance reporting • Risk assessment • Reporting and monitoring • Data availability  Financial control: free riders and penalties  Competition  PROs  Treatment operators  Ecodesign and prevention  Impact on consumers  Advantages / success factors  Disadvantages /challenges  Best practices and potential Golden Rules
    • Figure 1: Cost effectiveness of EPR schemes on packaging (2010 or 2011) Note: The x-axis starts at 50%. Benchmark
    • Benchmark Figure 1: Cost effectiveness of EPR schemes for portable batteries in 2011
    • 19 Case studies – Existing practices Share of responsibilities  EPR builds on existing waste management responsibilities (e.g. local authorities for municipal waste management) or replaces it.  Great diversity of approaches:  « Simple » financial responsibility (e.g. Packaging Recovery Notes in the UK)  Financial responsibility through contracts with municipalities (e.g. Eco-emballages in France)  Partial operational responsibility (e.g. Fost Plus in Belgium, most WEEE systems studied)  Full operational responsibility (e.g. graphic paper in Sweden)
    • 20  Dialogue among stakeholders was identified as a key to success (public national and local authorities, producers, retailers, waste management companies, consumers, NGOs, etc.)  From frequent and organised consultation to few or no dialogue  e.g. : Administrative Advisory Commissions in France Organisation of dialogue Case studies – Existing practices Share of responsibilities
    • 21  Most EPR schemes have the obligation to finance the management of end-of-life products  True cost principle: Reflect the EOL costs in the producers’ contributions  Cost-coverage: Full cost coverage by EPR schemes or shared burden?  Existing EPR schemes vary on several aspects:  Costs covered: operational costs for separately collected waste and/or mixed waste; communication; audit/control; etc. e.g. separately collected waste for most EPR schemes; residual fraction included in costs covered by Eco-Emballages (France)  Percentage of cost covered: Full or partial e.g. 100% of operational costs (on the basis of a “standard” level of service) for most schemes ; objective of 80% for Eco-Emballages in France, no requirement in some countries (e.g. in the UK) Case studies – Existing practices Costs
    •  Two levels of (possible) competition  Producer Responsibility Organisation(s): one centralised or several competing PROs?  Waste management industry: how does an EPR scheme contribute to fair competition in this sector?  Three most frequent configurations  EPR schemes managed by one single PRO  EPR schemes managed by several competing PROs, coordinated by a clearing-house  Free competition of PROs Presentation of the issue and existing practices Case studies – Existing practices Fair competition
    • 23  The need for reliable and comparable data is confronted to difficulties of measuring EPR schemes’ performance  Perimeter varies: Household/commercial and industrial waste; products covered; separately collected and residual fraction; etc.  Data availability and confidentiality: especially when several PROs are in competition  Methods for data collection and reporting: Recycling rates = Recycled quantities / Waste arising Costs = Collection + transportation + sorting – revenues + etc. Case studies – Existing practices Transparency and control
    • 24  Control of the implementation of EPR schemes targets three aspects:  Control on free-riding  Control on collection and treatment operations  Control on PROs Control : Presentation of the issue and existing practices Case studies – Existing practices Transparency and control
    • 5 key principles Ensuring a permanent dialogue between all involved actors producers - retailers - citizens – waste collectors – municipalities/private operators – sorters – recyclers Ensuring full transparency Ensuring cost effectiveness Ensuring a proper control Ensure a fair competition
    • Implementing the principles National legislation • Clear definition of the responsibilities – full financial responsibility on producers, precise requirements for the other actors • Reliable system of sanctions - € per tonne • Targets - at minimum EU targets, progressive targets • Recognition procedure for collective schemes • True cost principle - fees have to be linked to exact costs/recyclability
    • Recognition procedure for collective schemes • Full coverage of the territory by an high density collection network (adapted to habitat) • Public information • Audits, maximum overall costs • Non-discrimination for producer/importers • Specific rules for specific waste streams/products Implementing the principles
    • Organising efficient control • Risk based - combination of public and auto-control • Enough public resources • Clear verified and accessible reporting • Efficient actions against free riders • Focus on statistics and quality/reliability • Export of waste – full application of the Waste shipment regulation (business to business contracts, controls on the field) Supporting measures • Landfill/Incineration taxes/bans, pay as you throw systems, incentives/penalties for municipalities Implementing the principles
    • Thank you for your attention! DG ENV “waste” website: http://ec.europa.eu/enviro nment//waste/index.htm Olivier.De- Clercq@ec.europa.eu