Plastics chain project. Interventions to further close the plastics chain, in terms of raw materials and in an economic sense

Transcription

1 Plastics chain project Interventions to further close the plastics chain, in terms of raw materials and in an economic sense 1

2 August Objective is a further closing of the plastic packaging chain In Europe, packaging is a manufacturer s responsibility. This means that manufacturers are responsible for the logistics and costs involved in the waste management of the packaging for products they turn out. In the Netherlands, the relevant agreements between the associated businesses, the Association of Netherlands Municipalities (VNG) and the State are set out in the Framework Agreement for Packaging The parties involved in this framework agreement have a joint explicit ambition to arrive at a transition towards a closed raw materials cycle, and have agreed that important steps towards a raw materials cycle and a circular economy are to be taken within the duration of this Framework Agreement 1. A circular economy means that we use and reuse raw materials efficiently. It also means that products and materials are designed so that they can be reused and recycled with minimal reduction of value and without harmful environmental effects. This transition creates economic opportunities and provides environmental benefits, as it makes the Netherlands less dependent on the import of raw materials, contributes to CO 2 reduction and as such works towards a better climate and the prevention of litter 2. The further closing of the plastic packaging chain, from a raw material usage and economic perspective, forms a challenge for parties involved with the packaging dossier. The KIDV (the Netherlands Institute for Sustainable Packaging) board commissioned the plastics chain project in view of its significant relevance and due to the need for this knowledge by the parties involved in the Framework Agreement. This report covers part 1 of the plastics chain project. Seven sub-studies for the purpose of the plastics chain project have been carried out by the KIDV and partly by researchers on behalf of the KIDV. Part 1 of the plastics chain project offers the necessary knowledge that will allow the chain parties involved to take steps towards further closing of the plastics chain from 2018 to 2022 (the second half of the Framework Agreement term) both in terms of raw materials and in an economic sense. Part 2 of the plastics chain project, which will be completed during the second half of 2017, includes research into whether improvements can be made to the current system of collection schemes for plastic packaging material from households, in order to reduce environmental pressure, increase consumer convenience and reduce system costs. 1 Article 1.1 and 1.1.e of Addendum to Framework Agreement for Packaging on the approach to packaging and litter for the years Please note: in the process of reducing the plastic packaging chain, the litter issue is of a different order of magnitude in view of the relatively limited share of litter in the plastic packaging waste stream. Litter poses a different type of environmental issue (waste materials in the environment) and a social issue (annoyance to citizens) and therefore demands different interventions, that will be discussed in this report. 2

3 2. Challenges in the current plastic packaging chain One of the main functions of packaging is to protect and preserve products 3. This is important because in most cases the environmental pressure of the product is a multitude of the packaging s environmental pressure 4. For this reason, the functionality of the packaging forms the starting point of the plastics packaging chain. The use of plastics has increased twenty-fold globally over the last fifty years. It is expected that this figure will double again over the next twenty years 5. With a share of almost 40 percent, plastic packaging takes up the largest segment in the European plastics market 6. The plastics most commonly used in packaging are Polyethene (PE), Polypropylene (PP) and Polyethylene terephthalate (PET). The total amount of plastic packaging which enters the markets in the Netherlands every year is approximately 475 kilotons. Two-thirds of this ends up in household waste and approximately onethird in waste from businesses 7. There are three ways in which plastic packaging waste is collected for recycling in the Netherlands: 1. Via domestic waste. This system started in the Netherlands in 2008, so it is relatively new. The plastic packaging material from households is separated in two ways. Plastic packaging waste is separated by consumers prior to collection (separation at source), or it is separated after collection from the residual waste by waste management companies which use installations to separate the plastic packaging waste from the residual waste (mechanical biological waste treatment); 2. Via business waste. Plastic packaging waste from businesses is collected by waste management companies. After an optional sorting stage, it is offered to recyclers. Plastic packaging waste from businesses is usually made up of mono-streams; one waste stream consisting of one type of plastic. Business waste also contains a mixed plastics stream from offices, shops and the service sector, the so-called commercial waste 8, which is similar to the domestic stream. 3. Via deposit-refund schemes. Large PET bottles are part of plastic packaging waste, with a mandatory deposit-refund system in place. Plastic packaging waste that does not end up in one of the three collection systems above, is mainly incinerated in waste incineration plants (AVI s) with energy recovery. 3 In addition, packaging has an important use for marketing and the provision of information. 4 Food waste: literature study, OVAM, July The New Plastics Economy - Rethinking the future of plastics, World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation and McKinsey & Company, Factcheck plastic recycling, KIDV and Natuur en Milieu, March The large PET bottles from the Dutch deposit-refund system are included in business waste figures. 8 The plastic packaging waste in the commercial stream amounts to approximately 26 ktons, or 5% of the plastic packaging entering the market. Source: work package 4 of the plastics chain project Overview of the chain of plastic packaging waste, Dick Zwaveling on behalf of the KIDV,

4 A small share 9 of the total plastic packaging stream becomes litter on land or in water. The fact that this share is small is due to the effectiveness of the collection and recycling systems in the Netherlands; countries with more landfill and less effective collection systems experience more litter from plastic packaging materials. In the process of closing the plastic packaging chain, the litter issue is of a different order of magnitude and poses a different type of environmental issue (waste materials in the environment) and a social issue (annoyance to citizens). It is not yet possible to determine the environmental effect of litter due to the absence of data and a suitable methodology to measure environmental effects. The prevention of litter demands specific interventions. Although interventions such as increased application of design for recycling take into account the prevention of litter, other interventions from this report also contribute to limit litter. The plastic packaging chain is a complex packaging chain and more intricate than other packaging chains, such as those of paper and glass. This has several reasons: it comprises many sorts of plastics and countless packaging types, which may consist of a combination of different plastics to boot; many different parties play a role in the recycling of plastic packaging waste on the road to recycled plastics; there are various systems that run in parallel: source separation and mechanical biological waste treatment of the domestic stream with varying collection systems in different municipalities, deposit-refund schemes, and recycling of plastic waste streams from businesses; there is a strong economic link between the revenues of recycled plastics and the market for virgin plastics, which in turn is highly dependent on oil prices that not only control the raw material prices but also the fuel costs. This is where the plastics chain is truly different from other material chains. Also, the public image of plastic packaging is under fire, not least because of the issues of litter and the plastic soup. 3. Several reasons for further closing of the plastic packaging chain Although collection and recycling of plastic packaging from households has seen strong growth since 2008, which creates an environmental gain, the chain of raw materials is not closed yet. This is also the case for the economic aspect: in terms of both cost and quality, the broad stream of recycled plastics cannot compete with virgin plastics. This is because the plastic packaging chain is currently a dominantly supply-led market: the plastic packaging material is recycled, regardless of the demand for these recycled plastics. And although the demand for recycled plastics for packaging is certainly rising, the streams with a positive revenue (PET, PE, PP) are modest compared with the total volume of plastic packaging material collected. The other streams (mixed plastics and foils) experience 9 It is difficult to ascertain the quantity, volume and mass of litter in general - and of plastic packaging in particular - that end up as litter. Studies into litter are mostly indicative and based on assumptions. Further interpretation of the extent of the litter stream is presented in: Work package 4 of the plastics chain project Overview of the chain of plastic packaging waste, Dick Zwaveling on behalf of the KIDV,

5 low or even negative prices 10. The reason for this is that manufacturers don t always consider recycled plastics to be a like-for-like substitute for virgin plastics, as these don t always meet the manufacturer s technical requirements, such as food safety, smell, and look & feel. What s more, manufacturers require a constant stream of recycled plastics in terms of volume and quality, which the market is unable to provide at this time. There is only limited use of recycled plastics in food packaging, in part because of strict European legislation. These developments are exacerbated by the current low oil prices, resulting in virgin plastics often being the cheaper option. As the costs of collection, sorting and recycling of plastic packaging waste from households is not yet covered by the revenue from the recycled plastics, the deficit (revenue minus costs) keeps rising. In 2017, the Packaging Waste Fund pays municipalities a remuneration of 756 euro per tonne of plastic packaging waste that is offered for recycling. The system of recycling domestic plastic packaging waste costs manufacturers and importers - so in fact the Dutch consumer - more than 100 million euro per year 11. At the same time, the ambition has been expressed in both the Netherlands and Europe that there should be a development towards a circular economy, so that raw materials can be used several times. This provides environmental benefits, it makes Europe less dependent on other countries and it offers economic opportunities. The further closing of the plastic packaging chain is relevant, as packaging makes up approximately 40% of the European plastics market. Motivations for further closing of the plastics chain include: Increase in environmental benefits. The further closing of the chain in terms of raw materials has a positive environmental effect 12. The most sizeable environmental benefit is achieved by an increase of the volume of plastic packaging waste collected and recycled so that less plastic packaging waste is incinerated, and increased use of recycled plastics so that the use of virgin plastics is reduced. Increase of the cost recovery ratio. The further development of the plastics chain into a more demand-led market will result in an increase of the revenue from recycled plastics, with expected efficiency improvements in terms of costs. Both ensure an improvement of the cost recovery ratio of the collection- and recycling systems for plastic packaging waste. Community support 13. Overall, consumers are positive about the current collection systems for plastic packaging waste: deposit schemes, source separation and mechanical biological waste treatment. Consumers are also receptive to changes to the systems for source separation and mechanical biological waste treatment, as long as these changes are reasonable and they are well informed. Despite the consensus among consumers that plastic packaging is undesirable, there is a positive opinion on the use of recycled plastics in packaging This concerns the prices the recycler pays the sorting facility for sorted bales of plastic packaging waste in accordance with current DKR specifications. 11 For 2017, manufacturers and importers must pay a Waste Management Levy to the Packaging Waste Fund of 0.64 euro per kg of plastic packaging material that they put on the market. Producers and importers pass these costs on to the consumer. 12 This is also shown by the Environmental Effect Analysis by the Packaging Framework Agreement, TNO and CE Delft on behalf of the KIDV, May 2015, and Circular economy: an important instrument for CO 2 reduction, CE Delft on behalf of the KIDV, May Work package 6 of the plastics chain project: Study of consumer acceptance and cooperation regarding collection systems for plastic packaging waste, Cees Midden on behalf of the KIDV, The use of recycled plastic packaging for food products is deemed less desirable by consumers than for non-food products. 5

6 4. Current systems to be optimised first, then new systems to be added upon proven added value There has been research within the plastics chain project to ascertain the extent of possible closing of the plastic packaging chain on the long term (2030) through optimisation of current systems. To this end, interventions were developed on the basis of seven sub-studies (work packages) within the plastics chain project. Interventions have been incorporated into intervention package 1 Optimisation of current systems that aim at a further closing of the plastic chain with the current collection systems. These interventions are mutually reinforcing and require efforts from all chain partners involved. Paragraph 1.7 explains the main interventions for the period As the individual streams of plastic packaging waste in the chain continue to grow and become more complex, new technologies and systems are needed to collect and process these streams into recycled plastics. While the role of technology increases with the growing amount and increasing complexity of the stream of plastic packaging waste, the role of the consumer generally decreases. One possible innovation that could ensure further closing of the plastic packaging chain is chemical recycling. After the process of chemical recycling plastic packaging waste retains the same quality as virgin plastics within the chain 15. By drafting a roadmap with an accompanying research programme, the added value of chemical recycling and other new recycling systems can be determined. It has been shown that it is not yet feasible to make a strategic choice for the implementation of new systems on a large scale, because there is too much uncertainty and the processes have not yet been proven on an industrial scale. However, intervention package 2 in this report: Adding new systems does explore how the intervention packages might look like with the addition of new systems such as chemical recycling. This also charts the possible lock-ins that could occur when optimising the current systems which, in time, may obstruct the implementation of new systems, such as chemical recycling. 5. Closing the chain leads to limitations that cannot be tackled within the chain itself Complete closure of the plastic packaging chain is not possible at this time due to some systemic limitations. The resolution of these limitations requires interventions that are outside of the plastic packaging chain. These limitations are: Raw materials: especially the losses in various chain steps are significant. In the first chain step, collection by the consumer is significant at separation at the source and for mechanical biological waste treatment, its yield is important 16. After collection, each chain step has a certain yield, as 15 Chemical recycling is a broad concept and comprises various techniques, such as dissolving, depolymerisation, cracking and gasification. For further clarification of chemical recycling, see 16 The response from the consumer is determined by the number of consumers that actively separate plastic packaging materials at source. In municipalities that carry out mechanical biological waste treatment, the yield of the mechanical biological waste treatment facility determines how much plastic packaging waste is inserted into the chain at the first step. 6

7 material loss occurs at every step. The volume of recycled plastics at the end of the chain is therefore ultimately defined by the response at collection and the yield of every chain step that follows. If it is assumed that all three steps in the chain, source collection/mechanical biological waste treatment, sorting and recycling, can achieve an average yield of 75% to 80% in 2030 after optimisation, the limitation on the raw materials axis is approximately 45% (75% collection x 80% sorting x 75% recycling). This means that approximately 45% of the plastic packaging brought to market for households and bottle deposit-refund schemes can substitute virgin plastics after recycling. Along the more common terms of recycling percentages this means a recycling percentage of between 65% and 70% 17. This limitation can be overcome with radical innovations, such as chemical recycling. This could further increase the chain yield over time, as less chain steps are required and/or because for example, sorting residue can still be chemically recycled. Such innovations are therefore needed for the further closing of the plastic packaging chain outside of the current systemic boundaries, but these are still uncertain at the moment and not proven on an industrial scale. Economical: especially the oil price is important, as this determines the price of virgin and recycled plastics. for 2030 the plastics chain project assumes an average oil price of 53 euro per barrel is. Taking this into account, this means that after optimisation, the plastic packaging chain can be economically closed by approximately 50% in This is partly because the returns only apply to the net tonnage of recycled plastics, while the gross tonnage of plastic packaging materials enters the recycling system: the costs for undergoing all chain steps and the associated chain losses are borne by the net volume of tonnage of recycled plastics that remains. The yield is also limited by the oil price, which is hardly affected by the plastic packaging chain. An intervention that has broader ramifications than for just the plastic packaging chain, includes a higher oil price, or a tax substitute thereof, for instance a CO2 levy or a tax on raw materials, drives the price of virgin plastics upwards and therefore leads to a higher value for the recycled plastics. This contributes to the further closing of the chain in a financial sense, outside of the current systemic boundaries. Complete economic closure of the plastic packaging chain comes into sight in the event of high oil prices 18 and/or high CO2 levies 19, but these factors are not directly within the sphere of influence of chain partners The objective of the Packaging Framework Agreement is a recycling percentage of 52% in The recycling percentage is determined on the basis of the gross tonnage presented to the recycler, with the inclusion of the tonnage of business waste. 18 Indicative above 170 per barrel, see paragraph Fout! Verwijzingsbron niet gevonden.. Basic assumption in the model is an oil price of 53 per barrel in Indicative above 280 per tonne of CO2, see paragraph Fout! Verwijzingsbron niet gevonden.. For reference: the cost effectiveness of measures with high emission reduction potential: Wind at sea euro per tonne of CO2, Solar energy 130 euro per tonne of CO2, Biomass 140 euro per tonne of CO2, Biofuels in traffic 330 euro per tonne of CO2 and heat grids euro per tonne of CO2. Source: National costs of energy transition, Netherlands Institute for the Living Environment, April A broad CO 2 levy on all fossil sources is more the remit of the climate policy than the raw materials policy. In that case, a CO 2 levy is not directly within the sphere of influence of the chain parties involved in the plastic packaging chain. It could also be possible for the CO 2 levy/ CO 2 price to be organised within the plastic (packaging) chain. In that case, it would be more within the sphere of influence of the chain parties, but its procedure calculations would differ from the financial-economic model. 7

8 6. Further closing of the plastic packaging chain is possible in the longer term (2030) The plastic packaging chain has been calculated in the financial-economic model, both in terms of raw materials and in an economic sense 21. This provides the following results: The absence of interventions leads to an increasing chain deficit (revenue minus costs) 22. In an economic sense, a lack of interventions means an increase of the chain deficit (revenue minus costs) in 2030, according to initial indicative model calculations. With regard to raw materials, this also doesn t cause further closing of the plastics chain: it stagnates at a closure of the chain in terms of raw materials for plastic packaging waste from households and deposit-refund schemes of approximately 30%, which corresponds to a recycling percentage of around 50%. This means, when interventions are not implemented, that the recycling percentage barely rises above the current recycling percentage. This is represented by the blue dot in the figure below. The implementation of the interventions from Package 1 Optimisation of current systems could lead to the further closing of the plastic packaging chain, both economically and in regard to raw materials. According to initial indicative model calculations, this could in an economic sense raise the cost recovery rate up to approximately 50%. For raw materials, the closure of the chain can be increased up to approximately 45%, resulting in a rise of the recycling percentage from approximately 50% to approximately 65%. This situation is represented by the red dot in the figure below, which therefore approaches the boundaries of the current systems (the dotted lines in the figure below). In case of proven added value, new systems could lead to the further closing of the plastic packaging chain over time, both economically and for raw materials. There are some first tentative calculations from the model, with conservative assumptions on what Package 2 Adding new systems may mean for further closing of the chain. Although the calculations are uncertain, it places the results higher than the results from Package 1 Optimisation of current systems. As mentioned earlier, further research could show to what extent new systems such as chemical recycling can actually contribute to closing the plastic packaging chain. Then, the effects of the further closing of the chain can be calculated by the financial-economic model. Upon proven added value of new systems this would be outside of the current system boundaries and within the green area in the figure below. 21 In work package 2 of the plastics chain project Financial-economic model, a financial-economic model has been developed that can calculate the plastic packaging chain from 2016 to 2030, both for raw materials and the economical aspect. The financial-economic model does not provide an exact prediction, but an indicative image of the effects. For the model s disclaimer, see chapter Fout! Verwijzingsbron niet gevonden.. 22 Because of the inflation of costs and revenues and an increase in plastic packaging volumes brought to market. 8

9 7. Interventions with the greatest effect and impact in the period There are possible interventions throughout the plastic packaging chain for the further closing of the chain, both for raw materials and the economic aspect. These interventions can help to arrive at a more demand-led system for the plastic packaging chain, by among other things quality improvements. The figure below shows that there are seven dials within the plastic packaging chain that are turned by the implementation of interventions: 9

10 The tables below show the interventions in more detail for each of the seven dials. The first table shows the interventions that can be implemented within the scope of the Framework Agreement and have effect in the period The second table clarifies the interventions that can be utilised with effect outside of or in a broader scope than the Framework Agreement in the longer term. For each intervention an indication is given if it can be implemented on the short-term or medium-term and which chain parties are involved at the helm of the implementation. Interventions with effect within the scope of the Framework Agreement in the period Dial 1: Increase quality of recycled plastics Dial 2: Increase application of recycled plastics Dial 3: Create market for recycled plastics Dial 4: Improve recyclability of packaging Dial 5: Encouraging citizens Dial 6: Increase quality of collection and sorting and - Determining and implementing standards and quality agreements throughout the chain to meet the demand from manufacturers for a stream of recycled plastics that is constant in volume and quality, see also dial 6 and 7 (business community; medium term). - Implementation of differentiated rates to incentivise manufacturers to market packaging with recycled plastics (business community; short term). - Implementation of legislation for mandatory utilisation of recycled plastics in products (Central Government; medium term). - Roll-out circular/sustainable procurement with accountable objectives for procurement of products with recycled plastics (municipalities, Central Government and business community; short term). - Use of design for recycling to make packaging more suitable for the rest of the chain and to prevent litter (business community, State Government, KIDV; short term) by: o further specification of essential requirements where possible; o increasing manufacturers knowledge; o developing tools and guidelines; o making design for recycling a structural component of design and business processes. - Implementation of differentiated rates to bring packaging to market that is easier to recycle and/or fines for non-recyclable packaging (business community, State Government; short term). - Implementation of a uniform, nationally consistent and longstanding collection system, for example by agreeing on 2 or 3 standard systems based on high-rise percentages or selective collection combined with mechanical biological waste treatment, and supported by unambiguous communication (municipalities; short term) - Prevention of litter (Framework Agreement parties; short term) by: o reward systems and fining structures; o influencing behaviour, for instance with a snack wrapper route map and beach strategy; o smart management of public spaces. - Measuring the quality of the collection and mechanical biological waste treatment and direct feedback thereof to the municipalities for the purpose of controlling the collection and sorting to meet the quality requirements (municipalities; short term). - Better alignment of recycling, sorting and collection to meet the demand from manufacturers (Framework Agreement parties; short term) by: 10

11 Dial 7: Increase quality of recycling o effective steering of the various chain steps and the related transfer moments; o increasing the minimum percentage of mono-streams in the Framework Agreement; o implementing (customised) specifications for transfer moments in the chain, see dial 1. - Remuneration system aimed at quality (Framework Agreement parties; short term) through management of: o the contamination percentage at collection; o the best ratio of mono and mix plastics when sorting (source separation and mechanical biological waste treatment); o the quality and therefore the value of recycled plastics. - Offering the required financial guarantees for innovation of mechanical biological waste treatment, sorting and processing in the Netherlands to move away from dependence on the international market (Packaging Waste Fund, State Government; medium term). Interventions with effect outside of or in a broader scope than the Framework Agreement and in the longer term Dial 2: Increase application of recycled plastics Dial 7: Increase quality of recycling - Implementation of a CO2 levy or a raw materials tax to fiscally encourage the use of recycled plastics (State Government; medium term and dependent on Environmental Policy). - Drafting a roadmap for new systems, including chemical recycling 23, as an opportunity for the recovery of recycled plastics at the quality level of virgin plastics (chemical industry, State Government, Packaging Waste Fund; longterm effect). The interventions described above are mutually reinforcing. The tables show that all chain parties are involved with the interventions. Many interventions initially require decision-making by the Framework Agreement parties: the implementation is subsequently placed with an acting party or a combination of acting parties. Important for decision-making is the testing of individual interventions for feasibility, practicability and enforceability. 8. Focus points for the implementation of interventions When implementing the interventions above, it is important to take into account consumers, food safety, environmental effects, and to learn from international practice. These aspects have been studied in sub-studies 5, 6 and 7 of the plastics chain project. Below is a brief summary of the main insights for these topics in package 1 Optimisation of current systems and Package 2 Adding new systems : Consumers Overall, Dutch consumers are positive about the various collection systems for plastic packaging waste: deposit-refund schemes, at source separation and mechanical biological waste treatment. 23 The creation of a roadmap is not strictly speaking an intervention that leads to improved reduction of the plastic packaging chain, but the roadmap does provide new knowledge that is the basis for new interventions. 11

12 All three systems both have supporters and critics. The support for the deposit-refund scheme is relatively large, followed by support for separation at the source and then mechanical biological waste treatment. The sentiment here is that traditional and well-known schemes are the most favoured. The perception of the ease of a system plays an important role in whether the attitude towards the collection systems is positive or negative. All three of the collection systems are generally perceived as easy and simple. Problems mentioned for separation at the source are related to storage space and transport. Discarding plastic packaging in residual waste was assessed as the simplest method by most people by far. Also, storing and returning large PET bottles is considered convenient by almost all respondents. The objective ease and convenience is not the same as the perception of it. The perception of convenience is not only determined by the objective effort, time spent or complexity of the task, but especially by the subjective experience of the task. Consumers have a wide demand for information. This is not in regard to the task of separating plastic packaging waste or the recycling systems per se, but more in regard to what is achieved by doing it, the extent of recycling, the environmental effects and which products contain recycled material. Consumers are open and willing to change as far as separation at the source or mechanical biological waste treatment are concerned. Initiatives for changing collecting systems will not encounter resistance in advance. However, in order to garner support for any possible system transition between separation at the source and mechanical biological waste treatment, it would be advisable to take into account the important consumer motivations. On the other hand, there is some resistance to possible changes to the deposit-refund scheme. The current structure of the systems is valued very highly (average rating of very desirable). However, when asked about changes to the system, the desirability decreases. This is true for expansion of the system to include other packaging, and in situations that suggest the abolishment of the deposit-refund scheme the desirability decreases even further. There is no link between separation at the source activities and other forms of sustainable behaviour by consumers. This means that the awareness gained from separation at the source does not lead to the intention of other sustainable behaviour in the shop, such as buying less products with excess packaging, the prevention of litter or the reuse of plastic shopping bags. Although consumers on average rate plastic packaging as undesirable, especially if it has no clear function in their eyes, consumers are reasonably positive about the use of recycled plastic in packaging, especially when used for non-food packaging. Food safety The legislation for food safety (guideline by the European Food Safety Agency, EFSA) limits the large-scale application of recycled plastics in plastic packaging for food. With the exception of recycled PET bottles from the bottle deposit-refund stream, plastic streams do not meet the traceability requirements from the EFSA at this time. In the case of both intervention Package 1 and Package 2, plastic is recycled more often and remains within the (packaging) chain for longer. Consideration is needed for the conservation of the quality of the plastic molecules (polymer chains) when there are multiple recycling phases 12

13 and when the plastic packaging remains in the chain for longer. This could be done with the use of additives, for example, to prolong chains and safeguard quality. If packaging is made more suitable for reuse, it is important that the packaging shows information under which conditions, and for which food stuffs, the packaging can be reused. If recycled plastics from new systems such as chemical recycling are to be applied on a larger scale in the future, as described as an objective in Package 2, adaptations to laws and regulations will be required. Environmental effects The recycling of plastic packaging waste leads to a more closed plastics chain, environmental benefits and a contribution to the climate objectives (reduced CO 2 emissions). The biggest gain regarding CO 2 emissions can be achieved in the plastics chain by: o an increase of the volume of plastic packaging material collected (less incineration); o an increased usage of recycled plastics (more replacement of virgin plastics). The environmental difference between the recycling of mono and mix plastics streams is small when considering the CO 2 gain, this due to the substitution effect when the mix plastics stream replaces hardwood, concrete, metal and virgin plastics in applications in public spaces, for instance 24. If the reuse of (parts of) the packaging is taken into account during the design phase of the packaging, large environmental benefit is achieved. In terms of environmental effect, reuse and prevention have priority over the efforts to increase and improve recycling. Determining the environmental effect of the interventions that prevent plastic packaging ending up as litter on land or in water is not possible because of insufficient data and the absence of a methodology to measure. However, this is necessary to obtain a complete picture of all environmental effects. The addition of new systems such as chemical recycling (Package 2) allows for further closing of the plastics chain over time. Research is needed into the required volume of energy and chemical auxiliary materials to create an insight into the environmental benefits and/or disadvantages. The use of renewable energy could form an important prerequisite for environmental benefit. It is also important that chemical recycling should result in material recycling (recycled plastics for new products), and not in fuels such as diesel. International practice Germany, together with the Netherlands are front runners in regard to the achieved recycling rates. Both Germany and the Netherlands have different forms of comprehensive collection systems in place. In an economic sense the Netherlands achieves the lowest cost recovery rate of the examined countries. This is due to the relatively high collection and sorting costs and the relatively low revenues from the sale of the sorted domestic plastic packaging waste. The international comparison shows that longstanding uniform and consistent collection systems throughout the country combined with unified communication will lead to an optimum in response rate and offer a more stable composition of the collected material. This can be 24 Work package 5 of the plastics chain project: Market exploration of mixed plastics and foils, TNO,

14 strengthened by financial stimuli towards citizens to sort their packaging waste better and active control on contaminants during collection. Mechanical biological waste treatment is hardly applied internationally. The Netherlands could play a front runner role in this field, but this intervention could become risky if European legislation mainly concentrates on separation at source. The comparisons with the German and Belgian systems show that that centralised chain oversight during collection, sorting and commodification of domestic plastic packaging waste result in lower costs and higher revenues. Stimulating a free market for the collection and sorting processes 25 through regular tenders. For several of the examined countries this has contributed to lower collection and sorting costs than in the Netherlands. The international comparison with collection systems in Belgium and France shows that selective sorting at the source can result in a high cost recovery rate but limits the feasible recycling rate. Differentiated rates which promote improved recyclability of materials is being applied internationally, however, the precise effects on packaging brought to market are difficult to establish as there are more factors that affect the level of recyclability. 9. Process accountability Through the plastics chain projects, the board of the Netherlands Institute for Sustainable Packaging (KIDV) has commissioned an insight into the mechanics of the plastic packaging chain and into possible interventions to further close this chain, both in view of raw materials and in an economic sense. The KIDV started the plastics chain project using its own resources. The former Packaging Waste Fund, until 2013 tasked with implementing the Packaging Framework Agreement , has contributed financially to the plastics chain project. Seven work packages for the purpose of the plastics chain project have been carried out. The results from these sub-studies have contributed to the definition of the interventions, the determination of the input data for the Financial-Economic Model (FEM), the effect measurements and qualitative assessment of the impact of the interventions on the environment, consumers and food safety. The most significant knowledge from the work packages is explained in Fout! Verwijzingsbron niet gevonden.. The process leading to the creation of this report involved various parties, including the External Committee, the Consultative group, the Advisory Board, the board of the KIDV and the CBP. The members of the External Committee, the Consultative group, the Advisory Board and the KIDV board are listed in Fout! Verwijzingsbron niet gevonden.. 25 A prerequisite for stimulating free market for collection and sorting processes is that the concerning market has sufficient volumes available for sorting and/or recycling. 14

15 External Committee In view of the importance of independent determination of the methodology and usable data for the study, an independent scientific External Committee was instituted. Consultative group For the purpose of support and reflection regarding the process of the plastics chain project, a comprehensive Consultative group was formed. The various stakeholders from the plastic packaging chain are represented in this group. Additional consultation of the CPB Additional consultation took place with the Central Planning Bureau (CPB) specifically for the FEM work package. KIDV board The final report has been presented to the board of the KIDV for approval. The board consists of representatives from the Central Government, packaging businesses and municipalities and has an independent chairman. KIDV Advisory Board In accordance with KIDV procedures, the results of the plastics chain project have been presented to the KIDV Advisory Board. The results from part 1 of the plastics chain project offer the necessary knowledge that will allow the chain parties involved to take steps towards further closing of the plastics chain from 2018 to 2022 (the second half of the Framework Agreement term) both in terms of raw materials and in an economic sense, and as such will allow a contribution to a transition into a circular economy. 15