Packaging Waste Management following

the Extended Producer Responsibility

(EPR) Principle 1995-2012 in Europe and

the Austrian Experience"

Kiev, October 2012

6th Environmental Action Plan 2008

Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC

Source: EU Publication

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)

Design/construction

Production

Distribution

Utilisation

End-of-life

Waste

treatment

Product Life Cycle

Reuse

Recycling

Producer

Responsibility

Extended

Producer

Responsibility

What is Extended Producer Responsibility ?

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

• 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 growth

The Results

Source: ProE

MSW Generation vs Economic Growth GDP EU 12 In Mio. €/pa

Waste Generation

Source: European Environmental Agency 2011, Eurostat

1 000 000

27 EU Member States, Accession States and other

Countries

EPR, but close to market

UK (PRN System)

2 countries without any compliance scheme => Taxes

Denmark, Hungary

1 country with tax and compliance

scheme The Netherlands

Change from 2013 ! Tax versus EPR Ukraine ?

Fund versus EPR Croatia ?

1 country with Fund Scheme run by

industry Iceland

27 with Producer Responsibility Austria, Belgium, France, Spain, Germany, Ireland, Cyprus,

Luxembourg, Portugal, Sweden, Greece, Latvia, Malta, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Italy,

Slovenia, Estonia, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Norway, Finland, Serbia, Israel

Implementation of the EU Packaging Directive

Source: Pro-Europe 2011

Achievement of EU Targets

Source: Eurostat 2010

Packaging Recovery Systems

Examples of Business Volumes 2010

Country Name Revenue Inhabitants Revenue/Inh Profit/pa

(Mio €) (Mio) (€) (Mio €)

France EcoEmballages 540 65 8,31 non profit

Belgium FostPlus 140 11 12,73 non profit

Germany DSD 600 82 14,60 (*) ca. 30

Czech R Ekokom 64 10 6,40 non profit

Spain Ecoembes 410 47 8,72 non profit

Austria ARA 120 8 15,00 non profit

(*) 50% market share, Rev/Inh adjusted accordingly

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

• „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 level

The Three Main Types of EPR Systems

Source: ProE

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…“

• 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 sector

Lessons learned

Source: ARA, ProE

• 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 rate

Lessons learned (cont)

Source: ARA, ProE

Japan

Spanien, Sevilla

Packaging Waste – Curbside Collection 1

Packaging Waste – Curbside Collection 3

Drecnica, Slovenia

Florence, Italy

WS_CCHBC_19102005 Seite 18

Frankreich, Korsika

Argentinien, Buenos Aires

Packaging Waste – Curbside Collection 2

ARA – PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY PUT INTO PRACTICE

Vienna, 19.6.2012

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.

MSW IN AUSTRIA: TWO REGULATIONS FOCUS ON ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION

Source: Federal Environment Agency Austria, 2009.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

Biowaste collection and treatment

Recycling from separate collection

Treatment of household hazardous waste

Thermal treatment / Incineration

Mechanical-biological treatment

Untreated waste to controlled landfills

1.0%

12.9%

0.4%

5.9%

16.7%

63.1%

18.2%

32.3%

2.3%

34.7%

8.8%

3.7%

Packaging Ordinance

Landfill Ordinance

PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY FOR PACKAGING: ARA SYSTEM

AGR

Paper Plastics Metals Wood Compounds Textiles Ceramics Biodegradable

materials

Glass *

ARA

More than 15,000 licensees transfer to ARA their obligations arising under the Packaging Ordinance

Producers

Fillers, packers

importers

Retailers

Local authorities

Collection companies

Recycling companies

*

ARA System organises the nation-wide collection and recovery of packaging waste from households and industry and meets the targets set by the Ministry of Environment

Local authorities and more than 200 collection and recycling companies are the operational backbone

ARA Altstoff Recycling Austria AG AGR Austria Glasrecycling GmbH

* System operator according to Art. 29 Waste Management Act for each packaging material

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.

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

ELEMENTS OF THE ARA RECYCLING VALUE CHAIN

Collection infrastructure

Transport (optional)

Sorting Recycling Recovery

Energy recovery

Material recycling

Sorting plant

Customized industrial collection

Local communities

Public drop off containers

Household collection: Curbside bag collection

Local collection centers (MRF)

Curbside container collection

Regional collection

center Industrial and commercial collection

Collection

Private or public waste collectors

ARA SYSTEM – RESOURCES AND PARTNERS

As of 1 January 2010.

3 Service

offices

4 Aluminium

recycling

companies

458 Municipal partners

ca. 140 Collection centers for

commercial packaging

ca. 1,100 Municipal Recycling centers

3 Glass recycling

companies

30 Wood recycling

companies

4 Metal recycling

companies

8 Paper recycling companies

25 Plastic recycling

companies

267 Waste consultants

96 Collectors

9 Shredders 37 Transporters 19 Sorters

DIFFERENT MEANS OF LIGHTWEIGHT PACKAGING COLLECTION

COLLECTION AND RECOVERY IN 2010

Packaging material Collection containers Containers per

1,000 residents

Collection [tons]

Recovery¹) [tons]

Paper, cardboard 1,100,000 130 342,800 342,800

Glass 81,000 10 216,100 209,900

Plastics and lightweight packaging (container collection)

233,000 50

215,200 178,300

Households serviced by curbside (bag) collection

1,444,000 400

(sets of bags)

Metals 50,000 6 40,300 32,900

Wood -- -- 20,700 20,900

Total 2,908,000 835,100 784,800 1) Net figures.

0

100 000

200 000

300 000

400 000

500 000

600 000

700 000

800 000

900 000

95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

Tons

Glass*

Lightweight packaging incl. Wood

Metals

Paper & cardboard

ARA PACKAGING WASTE COLLECTION 1995 -2010: 34% GROWTH PROVIDES SECONDARY RAW MATERIALS AND SAVES 620,000 TONS CO2 EQUIVALENTS PER YEAR

* Glass: AGR

+0.6%

-0.5%

+3.2%

+0.8%

835,146 t

Data: ARA 2011

TOP RANKS FOR PACKAGING WASTE RECOVERY IN AUSTRIA

Source: EUROSTAT 2009

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

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

recycling rate total recovery rate

COMMUNICATION CAMPAIGNE VIENNA 2011