A Package Deal: Europe s Extended Producer Responsibility Alliance (EXPRA) A Webinar Brought to You by PSI. November 20, 2013

Transcription

1 A Package Deal: Europe s Extended Producer Responsibility Alliance (EXPRA) A Webinar Brought to You by PSI November 20,

2 The Principles of Product Stewardship Circa

3 4

4 The DNA of Product Stewardship Programs 5

5 6

6 Who is the Product Stewardship dhi Institute? 7

7 8

8 EPR laws or bill passages in the U.S. in 2013:

9 2 3. For a total of 76 EPR laws* in 32 states around the nation *Not including beverage container deposit laws. 10

10 EPR? EPR? 11

11 12

12 Packaging Recycling: Europe vs. USA 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% 13

13 14

14 Thomas Lindhqvist i Joachim Quoden 15

15 DO NOT use the Raise Hand function! Got a question? Here s how to ask it. DO use the Questions box! 16

16 17

17 A note to our friends in the media: Contact information for follow up interviews will be available at the end of the webinar. 18

18 19

19 DO NOT use the Raise Hand function! Got a question? Here s how to ask it. DO use the Questions box! 20

20 Please welcome our first guest speaker: Prof. Thomas Lindhqvist International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics Lund University, Sweden 21

21 Why EPR and what happened? Thomas Lindhqvist IIIEE Lund University PSI webinar A Package Deal 20 November 2013 The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics Lund University, Sweden

22 The Background to EPR Traditionally the real problem was the big industrial facilities But around 1990 we recognise better the E i i f Ch i i S d 2500 Total pollution from other Manufacturing 2000 Use & End-of-Life life cycles and diffuse 1500 sources Emissions of Chromium in Sweden The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics Lund University, Sweden

23 A New Perspective Environmental impacts are the result of consumption of products and services and the life cycles connected to these By intervention in one stage of the life cycle, changes can be triggered in other parts of the product chain The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics Lund University, Sweden

24 1980s The Waste Problems Get More Attention Waste amounts growing Space for landfills Toxic emissions from incineration The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics Lund University, Sweden

25 Identified Needs Situation in the late-1980s and onwards: Demand for improved waste treatment Demand for more recycling That is More money Better products (design changes) The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics Lund University, Sweden

26 The bright idea Engage producers to give incentives for change Use knowledge of producers to develop new systems Gather enough resources (financial) The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics Lund University, Sweden

27 Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Originally a Swedish concept Concept presented and developed in two reports written by the author to the Swedish Ministry of Environment in 1990 and 1991 A principle for policy making: Extending the responsibility of producers over the life cycle of the products they manufacture in order to get environmental improvements of the whole life cycle and in particular the end-of-life treatment. The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics Lund University, Sweden

28 EPR in Europe and USA Concept of Product Stewardship is not frequently used in Europe thus not the same need for definition PSI, PPI & CalPSC definition of EPR is well in line with European understanding But success of EPR depends on the implementation of principles in the definition The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics Lund University, Sweden

29 Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) - a policy principle Gives guidance for policymakers to address: Two groups of objectives: - Using resources in waste 1. Effective collection 2. High treatment standard 3. Re-use and recycling - Incentives for design changes In line with waste hierarchy The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics Lund University, Sweden

30 EPR and Morale EPR is not about putting moral blame on producers EPR is about finding effective and efficient solutions to problems Responsibilities should be allocated so that problems are addressed in the best way The one who can change should be given responsibility (often = producers) and incentives for change The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics Lund University, Sweden

31 Shared or Allocated Responsibilities EPR will never put all responsibilities on producers Responsibilities will always be divided between the different actors in the product chain Shared responsibilities tend to make no one willing to take action Responsibilities need to be clearly l allocated EPR claims that if more responsibilities (than traditionally) are given to producers then better results will be achieved with less resources The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics Lund University, Sweden

32 Various Types of Responsibilities Financial Informative Physical Not all responsibilities have to be allocated to the same actor Who pays? (financial) Who organises? (physical) Who provides information? (informative) Different phases of the collection-recycling chain can be allocated to different actors The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics Lund University, Sweden

33 Product groups under EPR in Europe The most frequently covered product group: Packaging Cars (end-of-life vehicles) Electrical and Electronic Equipment Batteries But also, for instance: Newsprint, tyres, pharmaceuticals, textiles,... The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics Lund University, Sweden

34 Packaging & Design Change Fees based on weight and material => Less packaging => Shift of materials Facilitating recycling German consumption private consumers Indices 1991 = 100 GNP - Total Packaging Consumption The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics Lund University, Sweden

35 Some Lessons Simplicity and convenience for citizens are crucialcial Allow for system to develop and become more efficient Encourage new products and solutions Enforce the system for all business actors Allocation of collection costs are crucial The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics Lund University, Sweden

36 EPR Systems and Public Appreciation In various opinion polls recycling systems are typically rated as the number one measure people are prepared to take to solve environmental problems Citizens in general are very favourable to recycling activities, but often ask for more convenience and better opportunities to sort The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics Lund University, Sweden

37 Same or Varying Targets? Targets for collection/recycling can be set following various principles: Same targets for all materials (to promote changes between materials) Lower targets for materials that are less recyclable Unfortunately the latter approach dominates in Europe favouring materials that are less preferred The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics Lund University, Sweden

38 You get what you ask for! Case: Beverage Cartons Norway, Germany and Belgium have 50 separate recycling targetst for this type of packaging Recycling rate (%) The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics Lund University, Sweden

39 Allocation of Roles in End-of-Life Management The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics Lund University, Sweden

40 Role of Municipalities The roles of municipalities vary considerably throughout Europe From just consultations with producers To being de facto responsible for collection, transport and selling for recycling Good experiences with having municipalities collecting in some countries Growing discussion and debate in several countries on what is the best allocation of various responsibilities The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics Lund University, Sweden

41 How do we form our policies? When should we recycle and when not? Progress comes from changing the old ways of thinking! And from looking at the world from new perspectives! p Policies What does and systems an LCA should allow advice and promote us? new approaches and solutions! The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics Lund University, Sweden

42 Thank you for the attention! EPR research at IIIEE The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics Lund University, Sweden

43 Please welcome our second guest speaker: Joachim Quoden Managing Director Extended Producer Responsibility Alliance 44

44 A 'Package' Deal: Europe's Extended Producer Responsibility Alliance Joachim Quoden, Managing Director of EXPRA

45 We are EXPRA Established in The coalition for packaging and packaging waste recovery and recycling systems (compliance schemes) which are owned by obliged industry. Currently, 18 members in 18 countries from Europe, Israel and Quebec. Working in close partnership with obliged companies and their associations. 46

46 47 EU Member State Performance

47 European Packaging Directive 94/62/EG Directive 1994 Deadline Directive 2004 Deadline Recovery overall Recycling overall Recycling Glass Recycling Paper Recycling Metals Recycling Plastics Several special deadlines for new member states until

48 Implementation of the Packaging Directive 3 countries without any compliance scheme => Taxes Denmark, Hungary, Croatia EPR, but close to market UK 36 European countries Tax versus EPR Ukraine? 1 country with Fund Scheme run by industry Iceland 30 with Producer Responsibility Austria, Belgium, France, Spain, Germany, Ireland, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Portugal, Sweden, Greece, Latvia, Malta, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Italy, Slovenia, Estonia, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Norway, Finland, Serbia, Israel, Netherlands, Poland, Macedonia, Bosnia 49

49 Overall Recycling Results in % 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 00% 10.00% 0.00% 50

50 Diverging Member State performance Why are some countries lagging behind? Lack of pro-activeness among municipalities Lack of support, guidelines, partnership with municipalities Lack of full commitment from industry Lack of required supporting national legal framework and enforcement Lack of trust from authorities and industry to allow the set up of a system that is proven to be successful 51

51 EPR in Europe Reasons for diversity: EPR in Europe has moved away from Diversity it in Uniformity it to chaos Lack of a European Framework for EPR Safe conduct Lack of European-wide guidelines and best practices Lack of private and public commitment Competition principle is abused Divergent waste management performance across the EU Lack of system transparency, efficiency and performance Lucrative opportunities are converted into cash 52

52 Producer responsibility- several ways of implementation Dual model (e.g. Austria, Germany) Full responsibility for industry for collection, sorting and recycling; separate collection system besides collection of local authorities, very small 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) No link between industry and collection at local l level l 53

53 The EU waste policy review The Fitness Check of EU waste policy The waste target review Ex-post evaluations of five waste stream Directives: Packaging, Batteries, ELVs, Sewage sludge and PCBs Results shall be published in the beginning of 2014 Summaries for each of the 5 waste streams have been drafted and discussed during a stakeholders workshop Final consultation until the end of November 2013 Public Consultation until September 10, 2013 Higher targets especially for plastics are demanded by many stakeholders Data basis is unfortunately not very reliable 54

54 EPR Guidelines Commission developing guidelines on EPR Follows 2012 study on the use of Economic Instruments and Waste Management Performances, according to which: EPR is an effective tool to shift waste streams to more sustainable paths BIOIS and other consultants are running another study about EPR and its implementation in the European Member States 10 statements have been drafted and published for consultation to all stakeholders 55

55 EXPRA s contribution The 10 Best Practices for Packaging EPR Providing a hub for its members for inspiring best practice sharing Acting as a knowledge partner for EU institutions and stakeholders efficient and environmentally sound waste management Providing awareness raising efforts to stakeholders 56

56 Moving towards better performance with key actors with clearly defined roles and EPR principles p Actor 1: Legislators with a key role to ensure balanced legislation Actor 2: Industry / EPR schemes with a key role to take financial and coordination responsibility Recognition of authentic EPR in key EU legislation Ensuring the right level of control, boundary conditions and enforcement Outlining clear roles for all actors involved Avoiding counterproductive measures Implement legislation through accreditation Set up efficient EPR systems Coordinate relation with all partners involved Provide tender contracts and tender books Ensure quality and ensure that quality requirements are fulfilled Take ownership over your responsibility 57

57 Moving towards better performance with key actors and EPR principles p Actor 3: Actor 4: Municipalities The operator with an (collection, obligation to sorting cooperate company or with the EPR recycler) with scheme to: a key role Actor 5: The citizen with a key role to collect, separate and recycle Cooperate with the EPR scheme Implement separate collection Ensure quality of the services provided through the operators Acknowledge the crucial role of the citizens and carry out awareness raising campaigns and create incentives for citizens to separate waste Apply the PAYT principle To provide qualitative ti services To come up with innovative ideas 58

58 Our mission - 1 To promote authentic EPR for packaging waste in Europe. To promote a sustainable and efficient, not-for- profit/profit-not-for- t f distribution EPR scheme, driven by the obliged industry and offering a service of public or collective interest. To promote our packaging EPR Best Practices with national, European and international stakeholders, institutions and authorities. 59

59 Our mission 2 Enabling Members to improve their services by at the same time lowest sustainable costs to their client companies and convenient infrastructure for the inhabitants. Identifying strengths and weaknesses of EPR systems in general and to identify especially weaknesses in each of our members to be able to change them into strengths Offering a platform for exchange of experience and know how and common projects 60

60 Our Members Herrco Greece EcoEmbes Spain CONAI Italy Nedvang Netherlands EKO KOM Czech Republic Valorlux Eco Rom Eco Pack Envipak Greenpak Green Dot Luxembourg Romania Bulgaria Slovakia Malta Cyprus CEVKO Green Dot TMIR PAKOMAK Turkey Norway Israel Macedonia Öko Pannon Hungary EEQ Quebec Canada 61

61 EXPRA stands for Extended enhance responsibility even beyond a legal definition. Producer the legally identified industry actor. Responsibility to successfully fulfill your legal requirements, and in no way delegating it to a third party. Alliance an establishment of like-minded organisations, aiming to promote common goals and shared interests. 62

62 Our Beliefs -1- EPR organisations should be run by obliged companies EPR organisations should control the use of the fees collected, and influence infrastructure design In order to ensure that the right legislation is in place and implemented, different stakeholders have clear roles to play Packaging optimisation, design-for-recycling, clear communication and education of inhabitants t and company representatives are essential parts of successful EPR systems 63

63 Our Beliefs -2- Transparency of operations is crucial The fees for all materials covered should be calculated in a fair manner Separate collection and waste infrastructure that covers out of home consumption should be further promoted The aim should be to continuously improve system performance 64

64 How can we help? Joachim Quoden Managing Director EXPRA aisbl 2 Avenue des Olympiades 1140 Brussels Evere Belgium joachim.quoden@expra.eu

65 PARTNERSHIP IS A KEY TO SUCCESS EXPRA Extended Producer Responsibility Alliance INSPIRING PACKAGING RECYCLING

66 Questions and Answers 67

67 DO NOT use the Raise Hand function! Got a question? Here s how to ask it. DO use the Questions box! 68

68 Thank you! Thomas Lindhqvist i Joachim Quoden thomas.lindhqvist@iiiee.lu.se joachim.quoden@expra.eu 69

69 To access recordings of past webinars: 70

70 Your opinion matters. 71

71 Thank you! Scott Cassel PSI Founder & CEO (617) us 72