Bru

ss

els

14 M

ay

20

13

EPR

Clu

b S

em

ina

r

EPR Schemes:

the Case of Poland

EPR schemes

in Poland

ACR+ / EPR Club Seminar

Brussels – 14 May 2013

Jean-Michel Kaleta

SITA Polska

3

Municipal waste in Poland

Current situation

4

2010 2012 2013 2014 2016 2020

Main targets and deadlines resulting from EU directives

Biodegradable

waste dumped

into landfills

reduced to 75%

(compared to

1995)

Biodegradable

waste dumped

into landfills

reduced to 50%

(compared to

1995)

Biodegradable

waste dumped

into landfills

reduced to 35%

(compared to

1995)

Landfill ban for

calorific waste

exceeding 6 GJ/T

53% of recovery

and 35% of

recycling of

packaging

waste

60% of recovery

and 55% of

recycling of

packaging

waste

Preparation for reuse

and recycling of 50%

of paper, metal,

plastic and glass

… and similar transition periods and deadlines for other waste streams (oil, WEEE,…)

5

Current status regarding EU targets

Percentage of waste dumped into landfills is one of the highest in Europe and recovery/recycling performance remains poor

• Poland is producing 12 million tons of Municipal Solid Waste („MSW”) – likely to be underestimated – of which 78% are still dumped into landfills

• No significant incineration capacity (0.3% of total waste produced)

Eurostat 2010

6

Current status regarding EU targets

Despite transition period negotiated in Accession Treaty, targets for 2013 relating to diversion of biodegradable waste from landfills will not be reached

• The first target in 2010 has not been reached: biodegradable waste put into landfills are twice higher than allowed

• Next target in 2013 (and eventually in 2020) will not been achieved too

• There is an urgent need to develop alternative treatment capacities to divert waste from landfills

Biodegradable waste

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2020

2013

2010

million tons

Biodegradable waste allowed in landillfs Biodegradable actually put into landfills

Biodegradable produced

6,8

3,3

2,2

6,4

1,5

Target in terms of reduction = 3,1 MT

Target in terms of reduction = 4,2 MT

Target in terms of reduction = 4,9 MT

7

Current status regarding EU targets

Recovery/recycling in Poland remains quite poor compared to other EU countries

0% 50% 100%

UE (27 pays)

Denmark

Belgium

The Netherlands

Germany

Czech Republic

Austria

Ireland

Luxemburg

Italy

Spain

Bulgaria

France

Slovenia

United Kingdom

Lituania

Greece

Estonia

Portugal

Finland

Sweden

Hungary

Cyprus

Lettonia

Slovakia

Roumania

Poland

Malta

Recycling of packaging waste

2010

2005

35%

• According to reported official data, recovery/recycling targets defined for 2010 were achieved for some key waste streams.

Example of packaging waste: recycling above 35% since 2005.

• Poland remains a bad performer in EU ranking

8

EPR schemes in Poland

9

Existing EPR schemes

• „Extended Producers Responsibility” rule has been introduced in Polish legal framework in 2001

• EPR is realized trough EPR organizations (so called „Recovery Organizations”)

• Currently, around 40 EPR organisations existing on the market

• EPR organizations cover the following waste streams:

Actually, EPR schemes run in Poland are quite poor and it most likely that real level of recovery and recycling is much lower than reported official data

− Packaging waste (incl. paper, plastic, glass, steel, aluminium)

− WEEE

− Batteries

− ELV

− Tyres

− Oils

− Plastic bags

− Light bulbs

10

Existing EPR schemes

Waste

Management

Companies

Pro

du

cers

/ I

mp

ort

ers

EP

R O

rgan

isati

on

s

(„R

ec

ove

ry O

rga

nis

ati

on

s”) Inhabitants

Industry &

commercial waste

Recyclers

Recycling

fee

Recycling

fee

Flows to be

recovered/recycled

Recovery/recycling

Confirmation (DPO/DPR)

Recycling

fee

11

Transparency and control issue

EPR schemes currently run in Poland are not transparent and not adequately controlled by local authorities

• Lack of transparency on the way EPR organisations are functioning:

− high number of EPR organisations which, over the years, entered in tough competition − lack of tracability

• Lack of controls by local authorities on:

− actual flows put on the market by producers − actual quantities of recycled waste

• Late implementation of appropriate regulation

− example: the new project law on packaging waste is under discussion since

several years now (currently being discussed at Parliament level) - and it still needs to be improved

12

Transparency and control issue

25,5%

12,6%

11,9%

9,6%

5,5%

5,5%

4,4%

3,1%

2,9%

2,7%

2,1% 2,1% 1,5% 1,5%

1,1%

0,8%

0,5%

0,5%

0,4% 0,1%

0,1%

0,1%

0,08% 0,05%

4,8%

Rekopol

Branżowa

PSR

Biosystem

Eko Cykl

Eko-punkt

Stolica

Interseroh

Koba

Eurobac

DOL-EKO

Drop

Vfw REPACK

SULO

Rebis

Lobis

ReEko

Recan

Energea

Auraeko

Zielony Punkt

O Trzy

Glob Kon-Wit

Total-Eko

POZOSTALI Others

Main recovery and recycling organizations in Poland

13

Transparency and control issue

Currently, EPR schemes are not contributing to create appropriate conditions to enhance environmental performance in terms of recovery and recycling Reported recovery and recycling % are likely to be largely overestimated:

• No guarantee that 100% of flows put on the market is evidenced • Documentation relating to recovery/recycling confirmation („DPR/DPO”) issued by EPR

Organisations is questionable:

− large number of fictive documents − until 2012, excess of DPR/DPO confirmations could be affected to the following year

(no longer possible - accordingly, significant decrease in recovery/recycling % is expected in 2013)

• Competition between EPR Organisations has resulted in a significant decrease in „recycling

fees” offered by EPR Organisations to the market – accordingly actual cost relating recovery/recycling (in particular cost of selective collection) is not covered by EPR system

Strong need to rationalize existing system and implement appropriate level of control on producers and EPR Organisations in order to ensure effectiveness of EPR schemes

14

Transparency and control issue

Recycled packaging waste (‘000 ton/year)

15

Municipal waste „ownership” issue

Currently, municipalities are not the „owners” of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)

• MSW market was opened to free market in the 90s’ (large privatization period)

• Limited role of municipalities in waste management system

• Waste collected by public or private companies – free market competition - based on collection permits delivered by municipalities

• Obligation for each MSW producer (individual, housing associations, commercials, industry,…) to sign a contract with an operator to ensure collection and treatment of its waste

• Treatment facilities chosen by collection companies (based on proximity rule)

16

Waste „ownership” issue

The existing framework has enabled to significantly increase collection standards over the last 15 years but has also jeopardized efforts to develop appropriate treatment solutions and increase recovery/recycling performance

• Large number of small competitors on collection market (ex: around 40 collection companies in Warsaw) resulting in price dumping and unfair competition

• (Significant) part of MSW is not collected (illegal landfills, waste burned for domestic needs)

• Investors (municipalities or private investors) unable to secure waste stream for new treatment facilities on the long term

From a financing perspective, alternative treatment facilities (Incineration, Mecano-Biological Treatment - MBT,…) are not „bankable”

• No incentive on the market (towards producers, waste collectors and recyclers) to develop recovery and recycling : no financial support, no visibility on the long term to launch appropriate investments

17

Waste „ownership” issue

A new law has entered into force on January 1, 2012 which will lead to the transfer of MSW ownership to municipalities.

The objective of the law is to rationalize waste collection, enhance the construction of new regional treatment facilities and increase recovery/recycling so that Poland can comply with EU requirements.

• This new regulatory framework should result in:

− the implementation of a „municipal waste tax” collected directly by municipalities (same framework as in other EU members)

− the obligation for municipalities to organize public tenders for collection and/or treatment of waste

− the improvement of selective collection and recycling the construction of new treatment facilities for non sorted MSW (incineration or MBT) according to regional master plans

• Implementation of the law (municipal tax and public tenders): June 30, 2013 the latest

Creation of a sustainable and effective cooperation between Municipalities (new players in the scheme), EPR organisations, waste management companies, recyclers and producers will be a big challenge over the next years

18

Existing system

MSW produced

by inhabitants

Collecting companies

Sorting (selective collection)

Sorting (mixed waste)

Compostin

g RDF Incineratio

n

Landfills

RECYCLING / RECOVERY = 10%

LANDFILL = 90%

Waste stream Contract Cash

Mu

nic

ipaliti

es

19

New system starting in July 2013

MSW produced

by inhabitants

Collecting companies

Sorting (selective collection)

MBP Compostin

g RDF Incineratio

n

Landfills (only „regional” treatment facilities)

Waste stream Contract Cash

Mu

nic

ipaliti

es

Municipal Tax

SELECTIVE

COLLECTION

MIXED

WASTE

ONLY BALAST

„REGIONAL” TREATMENT FACILITIES

ONLY BALAST

Collection

service

Treatment

service

20

Municipalities in EPR schemes

Waste

Management

Companies

Pro

du

cers

/ I

mp

ort

ers

EP

R O

rgan

isati

on

s

(„R

ec

ove

ry O

rga

nis

ati

on

s”) Municipalities

Industry &

commercial waste

Recyclers

Recycling

fee

Recycling

fee

Flows to be

recovered/recycled

Recovery/recycling

Confirmation (DPO/DPR)

Recycling

fee

21

Financial sustainability issue

Contributions made by EPR Organisations („Recycling fee”) are too low to finance actual recovery/recycling costs Level of „municipal tax” currently being implemented by municipalities (as a result of new law) will not cover selective collection costs Strong need to increase EPR Organisations financing capacity (ie increase in „recycling fee” paid by producers to EPR Organizatons) in order to reach a full cost coverage

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Paper/cardboard Glass

Recycling fee paid by EPR OrganisationsPoland versus Germany (€/T)

Poland

Germany

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130

Service cost per inhabitant (€/inhab./year)Collection, recovery and treatment of household waste

15 7540

5 2518

2210 50

3525 45

6040 80

9565 125

Poland

France

Total costsRecovery &treatment costsCollection costs

Thank you for attention !