Do s & Dont s in EPR Case study analysis: leassons learnt Steve Claus Vigorous inspriring EPR consultant Bogota, Colombia September 21, 2017 (2pm-2.30pm)
Set up of this session Deal with a case study Steve Claus to inform the audience about the Estonian case, providing insights into deposit (one-way and/or reusable packaging + multiple EPR-schemes) - 10 minutes Groups (per table) to discuss and define SWOT-analysis 15 minutes Some groups to present SWOT on stage + draft general SWOT 10 minutes Conclusions/ recommendations with regards to the case study 5 minutes General conclusions - leassons learnt 15 minutes 2/10
(1) The Estonian case Factsheet GDP Estonia is lower then GDP Sweden, Finland Almost no door-to-door collection of packaging waste Bins in the street Mandatory deposit for import and production of one-way glass, plastic and metal containers for beer, soft drinks, cider, low content alc. beverages, water (excluding containers <0,1 and >3,0 litres) 3/10
(1) The Estonian case Deposit and plural EPR systems 4/10
(1) Estonia System costs and recycling results Deposit system one-way packaging costs +/- 12 m recycled material +/- 13 kt cost/ton +/- 900 EPR schemes one-way packaging costs +/- 11 m recycled materials +/- 92 kt cost per ton: +/- 120 5/10
(1) Estonia case Conclusions Social costs per recycled material ton is several times higher in deposit system than in EPR due to need for: - space, reverse vending machines, handling and logistics Deposit system recycling capacity is quite limited by bottle/jar volume, shape, label, material and even content Deposit system is Estonia is financed in large extent by non-redeemed deposit received from Finnish and Swedish tourists (1/3rd of deposit is unredeemed) Deposit is only possible for a limited set of packed products (part of beverage products) Final conclusion Set up an integrated packaging waste management scheme to tackle a broad range of packaging 6/10
Lessons learnt from different case studies in the world Every stakeholder plays its role: (1) Central/National/Regional authorities - Setting legal framework for EPR and for sustainable waste management policy - Accrediting organizations - Ensuring the right level of control, boundary conditions and enforcement - Outlining clear roles for all actors involved (2) Obliged industry (OI) - Take ownership over their responsibility and act as one - Set up, run and control efficient EPR systems (3) The Packaging Recovery Organization (PRO) - Coordinate relation with all partners involved - Provide tender contracts and tender books - Ensure quality and ensure that quality requirements are fulfilled 7/10
Lessons learnt from different case studies in the world Every stakeholder plays its role (cntd ): (4) Local authorities - Cooperate with the EPR scheme - Implement and stimulate separate collection (apply PAYT) - 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 (5) Waste management operators - To provide qualitative services - To come up with innovative ideas (6) The citizens - Sort! KEY SUCCESS FACTORS DESIGNATED ROLES FOR ALL PARTIES INVOLVED + PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP 8/10
Lessons learnt from different case studies in the world Key Success Factors Realistic, feasible and flexible legislation Obliged industry (fillers) to act as one Public Private Partnership (PPP) Optimized and standardized collection scenario, which was implemented progressively Competition on the right level Quality and control management Support for appropriate communication to meet the needs of all the target groups KEY SUCCESS FACTORS DESIGNATED ROLES FOR ALL PARTIES INVOLVED + PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP 9/10
Any questions? Thank you for your attention! 10/10