Use of Economic Instruments (EIs) and Waste Management Performances. Stakeholder event, 25 October Emma Watkins, IEEP

Transcription

1 Use of Economic Instruments (EIs) and Waste Management Performances Stakeholder event, 25 October 2011 Emma Watkins, IEEP IEEP with BIO Intelligence Service, Ecologic, Umweltbundesamt, Arcadis and Eunomia

2 Introduction (1) Study objectives: Analyse relationship between EI use and waste management performances of MS Assess potential of moving towards a common EU approach to use of EIs Main tasks: 1.Data collection 2.Case studies on MS and specific EIs 3.Modelling exercise 4.Options for a common EU approach 5.Stakeholder consultation 2

3 Introduction (2) EIs studied: 1. Waste disposal & treatment fees (landfill & incineration) 2. Pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) schemes 3. Producer responsibility schemes (specific waste streams) Methodological approach: Data collection Stakeholder consultation Case studies on specific MS and EIs Modelling exercise Policy options All results/data are interim; not complete EU27 picture 3

4 Landfill and incineration taxes/fees IEEP with BIO Intelligence Service, Ecologic, Umweltbundesamt, Arcadis and Eunomia

5 Landfill & incineration (1) Distinction between: a) Tax (levy for disposal, charged by public authority, usually environmental aim) b) Gate fee (charge for service, charged by waste disposal operator, covers cost/profit, varies due to facility used, market forces, remaining available capacity etc) Total cost of disposal = a + b Information from MS sources, ministries, websites, previous reports 5

6 Results to date Landfill tax / fees (1) Overview of total median cost of landfill (non-hazardous municipal waste, legal landfills) 6

7 Results to date Landfill tax / fees (2) Total median landfill charge and percentage of MSW landfilled,

8 Results to date Landfill tax / fees (3) Landfill tax rates compared with percentage of municipal waste sent to landfill (AT, SE, UK / EE, FI, NL, SK / DK, FR, IE, LV, PL) Strong apparent correlation between increasing landfill tax rates and decreasing rates of MSW landfill for AT, SE, UK Estonia Landfill tax rate ( ) MSW landfilled (% of MSW generated) No apparent correlation between landfill tax and MSW landfill for DK, FR, IE, LV and PL Austria Landfill tax rate ( ) MSW landfilled (% of MSW generated) Slight apparent correlation between increasing landfill tax and decreasing MSW landfill for EE, FI, NL, SK France Landfill tax rate ( ) MSW landfilled (% of MSW generated) 8

9 Results to date Incineration tax / fees (1) Overview of total median cost of incineration (municipal waste) 9

10 Results to date Incineration tax / fees (2) Comparison between the cost of landfilling and the cost of incineration (municipal waste) Current median incineration gate fees ( per tonne) Current max. incineration tax ( per tonne) Current median landfill gate fee ( per tonne) Current highest landfill tax ( per tonne) 20 0 AT BE BG CY CZ DK EE FI FR DE GR HU IE IT LV LT LU MT NL PL PT RO SE SK SI* ES UK 10

11 Results to date Incineration tax / fees (3) Total median incineration charge and percentage of MSW recycled,

12 Landfill and incineration discussion 1. Is a MS focus on EIs to address the bottom of the waste hierarchy (i.e. disposal) useful? 2. Should all MS be encouraged to implement landfill and/or incineration taxes? 3. Are there particular success stories or problems with implementation of landfill and incineration taxes? 12

13 Pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) schemes IEEP with BIO Intelligence Service, Ecologic, Umweltbundesamt, Arcadis and Eunomia

14 Results to date Pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) (1) 14 MS have some PAYT schemes for municipal waste Only 3 MS (AT, FI, IE) have PAYT schemes in all municipalities Types of schemes (NB several MS use a mixture of different types of schemes): Volume-based: 10 MS; Weight-based: 8 MS; Frequency-based: 7 MS Broad range of amounts charged: Fixed annual fees per household: from 40 (ES) to up to 350 (LU) Fees for purchasing mandatory refuse bags: from 0.65 (ES) to 5.50 (DE) Fees per emptying of a bin: from 3.17 (FI) to 4.20 (FI) Fees per kg: from 0.17 (SK) to 0.36 (SE) Information from websites, previous reports 14

15 Results to date Pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) (2) Municipal waste generated in 1995, 2002 and 2009 (kg/capita) 15

16 Results to date Pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) (3) Factors that influence the success of PAYT schemes: Basis for charging (volume, weight, collection frequency, fixed annual charge) can lead to very different revenues Population coverage greater coverage allows larger volumes to be collected, greater efficiency Regional cooperation between municipalities/waste treatment organisations can increase effectiveness of collection and treatment Awareness and advice to citizens can help to change waste generation behaviour 16

17 Pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) - discussion 1. Do PAYT schemes encourage implementation of the waste hierarchy? 2. Should all MS be encouraged to implement PAYT schemes for municipal / household waste? 3. Do PAYT schemes contribute to meeting EU recycling targets? Would more ambitious targets help encourage more use of PAYT schemes? 4. Is it more effective to charge households by weight / volume / number of collections? 5. Are there particular success stories or problems with implementation of PAYT schemes? 17

18 Producer responsibility schemes: introduction IEEP with BIO Intelligence Service, Ecologic, Umweltbundesamt, Arcadis and Eunomia

19 Results to date Producer responsibility (1) Study defines producer responsibility as: financial responsibility placed on producers / importers for waste management of their products Focus on schemes developed to implement EU legislation (i.e. Packaging, WEEE, ELV, Batteries Directives) Information from PR scheme websites, stakeholders, EU associations, previous reports 19

20 Results to date Producer responsibility (2) Evidence found of schemes for: Packaging: 27 MS mix of taxation, depositrefund, Green Dot fee per tonne of material WEEE: 24 MS fee per unit or per kg of type of appliance sold Batteries: 21 MS fee per kg or per battery (use/chemical content/size or weight) or based on market share ELV: 20 MS fee based on EURO standard or per tonne of vehicle or based on market share Most common other schemes address: tyres (15 MS); paper/card (9 MS); oils (7 MS); medicines (3 MS) 20

21 Producer responsibility schemes: Packaging IEEP with BIO Intelligence Service, Ecologic, Umweltbundesamt, Arcadis and Eunomia

22 Results to date Packaging (1) Producer responsibility schemes identified in all 27 MS Mix of approaches: deposit-refund, taxation, Green Dot fee per tonne of material Main focus of study to date on Green Dot schemes: Aim of schemes to reduce packaging and/or ensure producers cover the cost of collection / sorting / recycling of waste packaging Research suggests that schemes in 7 MS (AT, BE, CY, DE, LV, SI, ES; also soon FI) aim to fully cover costs of collection / sorting / recycling 22

23 Results to date Packaging (2) Maximum average fee charged under Green Dot schemes ( per tonne) for paper, glass and wood packaging (latest available data) Maximum average fee charged under Green Dot schemes ( per tonne) for aluminium, steel and plastic packaging (latest available data) 23

24 Results to date Packaging (3) Recycling and recovery rates for packaging waste,

25 Results to date Packaging (4) Overall cost of contributions to packaging Green Dot scheme compared with recovery and recycling rates Member State %recycled %recovered Overall cost ra nking EUR per capita per year, 2008 (paper+ plastic+ glass) BE* DE-1* NL LU AT* IT CZ PT ES* FR IE Member State %recycled %recovered Overall cost ra nking EUR per capita per year, 2008 (paper+ plastic+ glass) SI* FI HU LT LV* BG PL SK EE GR RO

26 Packaging discussion 1. Should producers fully cover the cost of collection / recycling / treatment of their packaging? 2. Do packaging producer responsibility schemes actively contribute to meeting EU recycling targets? 3. Do existing schemes encourage eco-design? 4. Might individual producer responsibility be more effective than participation in collective schemes? 5. Are there particular success stories or problems with implementation of packaging producer responsibility schemes? 26

27 Producer responsibility schemes: WEEE IEEP with BIO Intelligence Service, Ecologic, Umweltbundesamt, Arcadis and Eunomia

28 Results to date WEEE (1) Producer responsibility schemes identified in 24 MS Fees charged based on the amount placed on the market by producers Per unit or Per kg of type of appliance sold or Based on turnover and length of time active in the market (IE) or Varying according to contracts negotiated with waste management companies Research suggests that schemes in 8 MS (AT, BE, CY, CA, DK, IE, LV, PL) aim to fully cover costs of collection / sorting / recycling 28

29 Results to date WEEE (2) Maximum payment to WEEE scheme, per item sold Small appliance Large appliance Fridge CRT monitor TV Maximum payment to WEEE scheme, per kg of type of appliance sold 0 AT CY EE GR LV SK 29

30 Results to date WEEE (3) WEEE put on the market, collected and recycled / recovered / reused (kg/capita),

31 WEEE discussion 1. Should producers fully cover the cost of collection / recycling / treatment of their WEEE? 2. Do WEEE producer responsibility schemes actively contribute to meeting EU recycling targets? 3. Do existing schemes encourage eco-design? 4. Might individual producer responsibility be more effective than participation in collective schemes? 5. Are there particular success stories or problems with implementation of WEEE producer responsibility schemes? 31

32 Producer responsibility schemes: Other waste streams IEEP with BIO Intelligence Service, Ecologic, Umweltbundesamt, Arcadis and Eunomia

33 Results to date other waste streams (1) ELV Producer responsibility schemes identified in 20 MS All specify ELV must be taken back at no cost to the final owner of the vehicle Fee based on EURO standard or per tonne of vehicle or based on market share Several MS (BE, BG, DK, GR, LV, LT, NL, PT, UK) have eco-organisms to coordinate take-back and recovery 33

34 Results to date other waste streams (2) ELV reuse & recycling, and reuse & recovery rates,

35 Results to date other waste streams (3) Batteries Producer responsibility schemes identified in 21 MS Fees to producers based on the amount of batteries placed on the market (per kg or per battery or according to market share) Cost determined in different ways: Consumer / vehicle / industrial battery (AT, LT) Chemical content (LV, PT) Size/weight (CY, SK) 35

36 Results to date other waste streams (4) Other materials subject to producer responsibility schemes in several MS: Tyres: identified in 15 MS (AT, BE, BG, CY, DK, EE, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LV, NL, SK, SI) Paper/cardboard: identified in 9 MS (BE, CY, DK, FI, FR, LV, LT, NL, SK) Oils (motor/lubricating/mineral/edible): identified in 7 MS (AT, BE, CY, DE, LV, SI, ES) Unused/old medicines: identified in 3 MS (BE, EE, FR) 36

37 Other producer responsibility discussion 1. Should producers fully cover the cost of collection / recycling / treatment of waste products? 2. Do producer responsibility schemes actively contribute to meeting EU recycling targets? 3. Do existing schemes encourage eco-design? 4. Might individual producer responsibility be more effective than participation in collective schemes? 5. Are there particular success stories or problems with implementation of producer responsibility schemes? 37

38 Issues for discussion (see background paper) IEEP with BIO Intelligence Service, Ecologic, Umweltbundesamt, Arcadis and Eunomia

39 Issues for discussion 1. Role of EIs to ensure application of the waste hierarchy and achievement of EU targets. 2. Other EIs relevant to ensure application of the waste hierarchy. 3. Effective combinations of EIs to ensure application of the waste hierarchy. 4. Main barriers to application of EIs. 5. Limits/constraints to the use of producer responsibility schemes, and conditions for their success. 6. Candidate waste streams for producer responsibility schemes. 7. Main causes when there is a lack of correlation between use of an EI and the national recycling rate. 8. Lessons learned from use of EIs in the waste sector. 9. Need for further EU initiatives to promote EI use. 10. Specific model of EIs v case-by-case approach. 39