Packaging Product Stewardship: Global Developments Russ Martin President, Global Product Stewardship Council Drivers for Packaging Product Stewardship Auckland Round Table 10 July, 2012
Packaging Product Stewardship - Preview Lots of movement in different directions or not? Ongoing debates Europe, Australia, US, Latin America Industry involvement in renewed pushes for product stewardship and extended producer responsibility (EPR) Israel, Canada, US Greater regulation with industry support? Israel, South Africa, Canada, US, potentially Australia Implications for Australian packaging industry
EUROPEN Green Paper on Packaging & Sustainability Multi-stakeholder dialogue reported November 2011 packaging should be seen as part of the solution in achieving a resource efficient society Seven key considerations: material selection design consumer choice production use end-of-life innovative business models http://www.globalpsc.net/blog/europen-greenpaper-on-packaging-sustainability/
The EC s Three-tier Policy Structure Framework legislation The Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) (the WFD) The Waste Shipment Regulation (EC) no. 1013/2006 Waste treatment legislation The Landfill Directive (1999/71/EC) The Waste Incineration Directive (2000/76/EC) Future recycling standards, to be based on the WFD Producer responsibility legislation The Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (94/62/EC) The End of Life Vehicles Directive (2000/53/EC) The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (2002/96/EC) The Batteries and Accumulators Directive (2006/66/EC)
Changes to the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive? 1 European Commission plans to submit proposals for revision (or repeal) in 2014, with a view to adoption in 2015 or 2016 Still fit for purpose? Revised to bring into line with the WFD? Tightening of The Essential Requirements: to make prosecutions easier? to prescribe minimum ratios of product to packaging (as in China, South Korea, Taiwan)? Incorporate broader life-cycle thinking? e.g. prevention, resource-efficiency, carbon content best way to address life-cycle thinking? Source: Perchards, www.perchards.com
Changes to the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive? 2 Address packaging and its contents holistically, though the Sustainable Consumption and Production program? Forget about the sustainability of packaging in isolation? Continue with recycling (and maybe recovery) targets in the PPWD alongside the household waste diversion targets in the WFD? Introduce household packaging recycling targets? Abolish the packaging targets in favour of material-specific recycling targets covering all waste streams? Retain the packaging targets alongside material-specific recycling targets covering all waste streams? Source: Perchards, www.perchards.com
Packaging and Printed Materials in North America U.S. EPA Dialogue on Sustainable Financing of Recycling of Packaging at the Municipal Level http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/smm/sfmr/packaging-report.pdf Optimising Current Systems Alcoa AMERIPEN PAC NEXT Initiative CurbsideValue Partnership Carton Council EPR Legislation Provincial legislation -British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba State legislation Vermont, Rhode Island Nestle Waters North America / Future 500 / Recycling Reinvented PAC NEXT Initiative Product Stewardship Institute
Greater Industry Involvement in Packaging EPR Vermont EPR Act 2010 60% recycling target for packaging and printed material within 5 years tied EPR introduction to deposit repeal; was not adopted current bill does not include deposit repeal Rhode Island (pending) - packaging EPR study commission Nestle Waters North America/Recycling Reinvented/Future 500 intended to build support for EPR about 30 organisations and companies have participated in dialogues NWNA CEO Kim Jeffery on business case for EPR at http://bit.ly/lyxfei Recycling Reinvented created January 2012 as a non-profit to educate and advocate for EPR for packaging and printed paper in the United States 2012 emphasis on raising corporate awareness and support emphasis on state legislation in 2013 and 2014
PAC NEXT Initiative Formed by the Packaging Association (PAC) in September 2011 to help industry transition to a world without packaging waste North American in scope with an emphasis on Canada 5 Committees -System Optimization -Policy Harmonization -Material Optimization -Consumer Engagement -Sustainable Centerof Excellence Developing a report of best practices of EPR and other recovery policies Product Stewardship Institute is the only NGO represented on the Leadership Committee (comprised of retailers, consumer packaged goods companies, packaging manufacturers, and other stakeholders)
Canadian EPR and Product Stewardship Programs 2011 Source: Encorp Pacific (Canada)
Canada-Wide Strategy for Sustainable Packaging EPR Action Plan & Packaging Strategy adopted October 2009 coordinatedprovincial and federal initiativethrough Canadian Council on Ministers of Environment Action Plan commits all jurisdictions to work towards having EPR legislation & systems for packaging etc within 6 years EPR requirements should encourage take-back initiatives, with or without deposits territories will consider whether alternative measures are more appropriate Builds on Action Plan for EPR by outlining a harmonised approach to EPR requirements for packaging (household, C&I and service packaging)
EPR for Packaging and Printed Paper in British Columbia Packaging and Printed Paper designated for EPR under the BC Recycling Regulation requires producers to collect & recycle the products they make & sell Important dates: May 2011: Packaging and Printed Paper added to Recycling Regulation October 2011: MOE-led public meetings Spring 2012: Producer-led consultations November 2012: Stewardship plan submission (led by Multi-Material British Columbia) May 2014: Stewardship program implementation Details and presentations available at http://www.globalpsc.net/blog/videonow-available-epr-in-british-columbia-for-packaging-and-printed-paper/
EPR Regulations South Africa National Environmental Management: Waste Act (2008) requires Industry Waste Plans for designated materials Packaging and paper sector was identified as a priority Packaging Council of South Africa submitted a plan in August 2011: Objective: recycling rate from 44.5% in 2009 to 51% over five years Collection co-ordinated by new industry body called South African Packaging and Paper Recycling and Environmental Programme Informal collectors are expected to play a key role in collection job creation is a priority of this plan will also keep costs low Paper and Packaging Industry plan on hold while regs made Source: Perchards, www.perchards.com
EPR Regulations Israel Packaging Law Introduces EPR for all single-use consumer and transport packaging made of paper, board, plastic, metal and glass Recycling targets as % of 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 packaging put on market (Jul-Dec) Glass, paper or carton 30 40 50 55 60 Metal 20 30 40 45 50 Plastic 15 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Wood 15 15 15 15 15 Overall target 30 40 50 55 60 Municipalities must ensure the separation of wet and dry wastes from households Ministry of Environmental Protection will finance waste sorting and recycling infrastructure in all municipalities Source: Perchards, www.perchards.com
Australian Packaging Product Stewardship Packaging Impacts Consultation Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) Consideration of regulating packaging under the Product Stewardship Act 2011 National Bin Network Industry to voluntarily fund an additional $20 million per year to increase recycling at home and away from home, while decreasing litter
Australian Packaging Impacts Consultation RIS Problem analysis 62.5% of all packaging recycled in 2010 (2.8 MT) 37.5% to landfill or littered (1.7 MT) 40,000-160,000 T of packaging littered annually significant differences between material types Options MS2 examined best practices overseas options Wright Corporate Strategies examined domestic models 7 options based on overseas and domestic models Cost-benefit analysis results http://www.ephc.gov.au/product_stewardship /packaging_impacts
Australian Packaging Impacts CRIS Non-regulatory Co-regulatory Mandatory Options Examined Option 1 - National Waste Packaging Strategy Option 2A - Co-regulatory Packaging Stewardship Option 2B -Industry Packaging Scheme (proposed by industry participants) Option 2C - Extended Packaging Stewardship Scheme Option 3 -Mandatory Advance Disposal Fee (ADF) Option 4A -Boomerang Alliance (BA) Container Deposit Scheme (CDS) Option 4B -Hybrid CDS http://www.ephc.gov.au/product_stewardship /packaging_impacts
Australian Packaging Impacts CRIS Results Costs PV $millions Option 1 National Strategy Option 2A Co-reg APC Option 2B Industry Scheme Option 2C Extended Scheme Option 3 Mandatory ADF Option 4A BA CDS Option 4B Hybrid CDS 311 258 554 984 981 2,125 2,471 Benefits PV $millions 262 304 503 786 786 710 710 Net Present Value Benefit Cost Ratio $millions -49 46-51 -198-195 -1,414-1,761 Number 0.84 1.18 0.91 0.80 0.80 0.33 0.29 CBA does not include society s willingness to pay (WTP) for increased recycling and reduced litter or co-benefits Not appropriate to add these WTP values to CBA results because there is likely to be element of double counting No preferred option http://www.ephc.gov.au/product_stewardship /packaging_impacts
Implications for AUS/NZ Packaging Industries On 24 August the Standing Council on Environment and Water will likely call for a Decision Regulation Impact Statement to look at options in more detail: 1 industry option & 1 CDS option? will mean another year before a decision highly political decision line ball at this stage Greater regulation of packaging in some form: under Product Stewardship Act 2011? stronger regulatory safety net than under Australian Packaging Covenant?
Implications for AUS/NZ Packaging Industries Product stewardship / EPR increasingly important to packaging sustainability and increasingly expected across supply chains Multi-national companies that address these requirements strategically will continue to expect their suppliers to assist in providing effective (and cost-effective) responses. With increased physical and financial responsibility being assumed, there will be an expectation for greater program control and flexibility