Stiglitz Christian. Packaging waste management following the extended producer responsibility (epr) principle 1995 2012 in europe and the austrian experience

1,939 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Stiglitz Christian. Packaging waste management following the extended producer responsibility (epr) principle 1995 2012 in europe and the austrian experience

  1. 1. Packaging Waste Management following the Extended Producer Responsibility(EPR) Principle 1995-2012 in Europe and the Austrian Experience"Kiev, October 2012
  2. 2. 6th Environmental Action Plan 2008 Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/ECSource: EU Publication
  3. 3. EU Waste Stream Regulations based on EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility • Packaging and Packaging Waste(1994 etc) • Batteries and Accumulators (1994 etc) • End of life Vehicles (2002) • Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment (2002)
  4. 4. What is Extended Producer Responsibility ? Product Life Cycle Design/constructionProducerResponsibility Production Distribution Utilisation Extended End-of-life Producer Responsibility Waste treatment Reuse Recycling
  5. 5. The Internalisation of Waste Management Costs – The Theory • Goods producer must pay for the treatment of the packaging of his products at the end of their lives • These costs increase the market price of the products • Goods producer must minimize these costs to stay competitive • Goods producer targets product design to reduce waste volumes ,facilitate recovery and recycling
  6. 6. The Results • 24 packaging reciovery systems in EU Member states and 6 systems in other European states are active following the EPR principle • About 185,000 companies are contributing through EPR based systems • out 400 million inhabitants have access to separate collection financed by EPR based systems • About 33,300,000 tons of packaging have been recovered by´those systems in 2010, among them more than 3.3 Mio t plastic packaging • 28 systems are using the GREEN DOT symbol and are member of the PRO- Europe Association • In the EU growth of MSW as well as packaging waste was decoupled from GDP growthSource: ProE
  7. 7. MSW Generation vs Economic Growth GDP EU 12 1 000 000 In Mio. €/paWasteGeneration Source: European Environmental Agency 2011, Eurostat
  8. 8. Implementation of the EU Packaging Directive 1 country with tax 2 countries without and compliance any compliance scheme scheme => Taxes The Netherlands Denmark, Hungary Change from 2013 ! Tax versus EPR Ukraine ? 27 EU MemberEPR, but close to States, Accession market Fund versus EPR States and other Croatia ?UK (PRN System) Countries 1 country with Fund 27 with Producer Responsibility Scheme run by Austria, Belgium, France, Spain, Germany, Ireland, Cyprus, industry Luxembourg, Portugal, Sweden, Greece, Latvia, Malta, Iceland Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Italy, Slovenia, Estonia, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Norway, Finland, Serbia, IsraelSource: Pro-Europe 2011
  9. 9. Achievement of EU TargetsSource: Eurostat 2010
  10. 10. Packaging Recovery Systems Examples of Business Volumes 2010Country Name Revenue Inhabitants Revenue/Inh Profit/pa (Mio €) (Mio) (€) (Mio €)France EcoEmballages 540 65 8,31 non profitBelgium FostPlus 140 11 12,73 non profitGermany DSD 600 82 14,60 (*) ca. 30Czech R Ekokom 64 10 6,40 non profitSpain Ecoembes 410 47 8,72 non profitAustria ARA 120 8 15,00 non profit(*) 50% market share, Rev/Inh adjusted accordingly
  11. 11. Welfare effects of the Packaging Directive /Example ARA System in Austria 1994-2003 • Domestic Added Value created ca. 1.000 Mio € • • New jobs created ca. 2.000 • Incremental taxes to government ca. 200 Mio € • Direct Investments by Waste Industry ca. 130 Mio € Source: Institute for Higher Studies, Austria 2004
  12. 12. The Three Main Types of EPR Systems • „Dual model“ (e.g. Austria, Germany) Full responsibility for industry for collection, sorting and recycling; separate collection system besides collection of local authorities, limited influence from local authorities • „Shared model“ (e.g. France, Spain, Czech Republic) Shared responsibility between industry and local authorities, common agreements on the way of collection necessary • Tradable Credits Model (UK, Poland) No link between industry and collection volumes at local levelSource: ProE
  13. 13. The latest EU study:“Use of Economic Instruments and Waste Management Performances”EC DG ENV 10.April 2012 Among the analysis of success of the various political options the study found that: “the most successful EPR systems appear to have some common features: • a common fully private body • run, owned and supported by the opbligated producers • requiring producers to finance collection and recycling…“
  14. 14. Lessons learned • Legislation has to be realistic, feasible, flexible and must be enforced by the government • The obliged industry has to play their role and take responsibility • Freeriding (non-participation) must be minimized • Government has to implement an integrated approach with additional tools like landfill taxes / ban, PAYT systems, Green Procurement rules, infrastructure to treat non recyclable waste • Existing recovery systems have to be integrated e.g. the informal sectorSource: ARA, ProE
  15. 15. Lessons learned (cont) • At the start, the necessary recovery and recycling infrastructure has to be promoted • To ensure fair nationwide build up of separate collection, the best solution seems to be a single system approach with competition on the collection, sorting and recycling level • There must be a clear and strong message to consumers and citizens to inform and motivate them towards separate collection • country targets should be set consistent within the existing framework of MSW management e.g the level of landfilling, recycling, incineration etc capacities and grow at a harmonized rateSource: ARA, ProE
  16. 16. Packaging Waste – Curbside Collection 1 Japan Spanien, Sevilla
  17. 17. Packaging Waste – Curbside Collection 3Drecnica, Slovenia Florence, Italy
  18. 18. Packaging Waste – Curbside Collection 2 Argentinien, Buenos AiresFrankreich, Korsika WS_CCHBC_19102005 Seite 18
  19. 19. ARA – PRODUCERRESPONSIBILITY PUT INTOPRACTICEVienna, 19.6.2012
  20. 20. AUSTRIA: FACTS AND FIGURES Capital Vienna Area 84,000 km² Population 8.4 million GNP 2009¹⁾ 275.5 billion € GNP per capita 29,700 € Post consumer wastes (MSW and others)²⁾ 3.7 million tons Packaging waste³⁾ 1.1 million tons 1) Eurostat, as of November 2009. 2) Federal Ministry of Environment, 2008. 3) Federal Ministry of Environment, 2007.
  21. 21. MSW IN AUSTRIA: TWO REGULATIONS FOCUS ONENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND RESOURCECONSERVATION 1.0%100% 12.9% Biowaste collection 18.2%90% and treatment 0.4% 5.9% Packaging80% Ordinance Recycling from separate collection70% 16.7% 32.3% Treatment of60% household hazardous waste50% 2.3% Thermal treatment /40% Incineration 63.1%30% 34.7% Mechanical- biological treatment20% Landfill10% Ordinance 8.8% Untreated waste to 3.7% controlled landfills 0% 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 Source: Federal Environment Agency Austria, 2009.
  22. 22. PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY FOR PACKAGING:ARA SYSTEMMore than 15,000 licensees ARA System organises the nation-wide Local authorities andtransfer to ARA their obligations collection and recovery of packaging waste more than 200 collectionarising under the Packaging from households and industry and meets the and recycling companiesOrdinance targets set by the Ministry of Environment are the operational backbone  Paper *  Plastics Local Producers  Metals authorities  Wood  Compounds ARA  Textiles Fillers,  Ceramics  Biodegradable Collection packers materials companies importers  Glass * Retailers AGR Recycling companies ARA Altstoff Recycling Austria AG AGR Austria Glasrecycling GmbH * System operator according to Art. 29 Waste Management Act for each packaging material
  23. 23. ARA SYSTEM – SERVICE RANGE AND STRUCTURE Founded by Austrian packaging manufacturers, fillers, packers, importers and trade companies to ensure compliance with the Austrian Packaging Ordinance One-stop provider of compliance for household and commercial packaging waste Non-profit orientation No cross-subsidies between household and commercial sector or between packaging materials Specifications for regional collection systems at district level define the service scope and responsibilities of private collectors and municipalities and are up-dated annually. Local authorities and municipalities provide ARA with country-wide collection infrastructures and offer communication at the local level. For collection, sorting and recovery, public tenders are held every 3 to 5 years.
  24. 24. ARA COLLECTION AND RECOVERY SERVICES Collection from private households Collection from small shops Regional collection centers Commercial collection services Customized industrial collection services Event services Sorting of municipal and commercial wastes Energy recovery from packaging in municipal solid waste
  25. 25. ELEMENTS OF THE ARA RECYCLING VALUE CHAIN Collection Collection Transport Recycling Sorting infrastructure (optional) RecoveryHouseholdcollection:Curbside bagcollection MaterialCurbside container recyclingcollection Sorting plant Private or publicPublic drop off waste collectorscontainers Local communitiesLocal collectioncenters (MRF) Regional Energy collection recovery centerIndustrial andcommercial collectionCustomized industrialcollection
  26. 26. ARA SYSTEM – RESOURCES AND PARTNERS ca. 140 Collection ca. 1,100 Municipal 458 Municipal centers for Recycling 96 Collectors partners commercial centers packaging 37 Transporters 19 Sorters 9 Shredders 25 Plastic 4 Aluminium 4 Metal 8 Paper recycling recycling recycling recycling companies companies companies companies 3 Glass 30 Wood 3 Service 267 Waste recycling recycling consultants offices companies companies As of 1 January 2010.
  27. 27. DIFFERENT MEANS OF LIGHTWEIGHT PACKAGINGCOLLECTION
  28. 28. COLLECTION AND RECOVERY IN 2010 Containers per Collection Recovery¹)Packaging material Collection containers 1,000 [tons] [tons] residentsPaper, cardboard 1,100,000 130 342,800 342,800Glass 81,000 10 216,100 209,900Plastics and lightweightpackaging 233,000 50 (container collection) 215,200 178,300 Households serviced by 400 1,444,000 curbside (bag) collection (sets of bags)Metals 50,000 6 40,300 32,900Wood -- -- 20,700 20,900Total 2,908,000 835,100 784,800 1) Net figures.
  29. 29. ARA PACKAGING WASTE COLLECTION 1995 -2010:34% GROWTH PROVIDES SECONDARY RAWMATERIALS AND SAVES 620,000 TONS CO2EQUIVALENTS PER YEAR Tons 900 000 835,146 t 800 000 +0.8% 700 000 Glass* 600 000 +3.2% 500 000 Lightweight packaging incl. 400 000 Wood -0.5% Metals 300 000 +0.6% 200 000 Paper & cardboard 100 000 * Glass: AGR 0 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 Data: ARA 2011
  30. 30. TOP RANKS FOR PACKAGING WASTE RECOVERYIN AUSTRIA recycling rate total recovery rate100%80%60%40%20% 0% BE AT DE CZ LU UK SK NL IE SE FR IT DK PT BG ES FI EE PL GR HU LT SI LV RO CY MT Source: EUROSTAT 2009
  31. 31. COMMUNICATION CAMPAIGNE VIENNA 2011

×