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

www.pro-e.org

15.06.2010 23