EaP GREEN: Experience of the implementation of EU Directives based on EPR principles

Experience of the implementation of EU

Directives based on EPR principles

Olivier De ClercqDG Environment, Waste Management and Recycling Unit A2

Outline

1. Implementation of EU Waste legislation

2. EPR Guidance Study

1. Implementation of EU Waste legislation

Thematic Strategy on Waste Prevention and Recycling

Waste FrameworkDirective

(Includes Municipal and ConstructionDemolition waste)

Waste Shipment Regulation

Landfill DirectiveIncineration Specifications

Packaging Mining waste

SewageSludge

PCB/ PCT

Vehicles WEEE &

Restriction of use

Batteries

In red: with targets

Fra

mew

ork

Tre

atm

en

tS

tream

s

European Binding targets EU Targets Recovery Recycling Collection rate

Packaging 2008 60% 55%

Cars 201595% 85% 100%

Electronics

20062016

2019/21

70% 50%

min 4 kg per inhabitant per year

85% of WEEE arising (recast)

Batteries2011

50% to 75% (efficiency)

2012 25%

2016 45%

Tyres 2006 0 landfill of tyres

Biowaste diverted from landfills

2006 reduction to 75% of the 1995 level



Municipal waste

2015 Separate collection: at least paper/metal/plastic/glass

2020 50% recycling household waste

Construction/Demolition

2020 70% construction and demolition waste re-use/recovery and recycling

Waste as Resource

PREVENTION

PREPARATION FOR REUSE

RECYCLING (COMPOSTING)

OTHER RECOVERY

DISPOSAL

Source: Eurostat 2012

Municipal waste generation

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Kg

per

cap

ita

2004

2010

Municipal Waste Treatment (2011)

Number of countries at different levels of the municipal waste management hierarchy

Focus on Implementation - Packaging waste

Source: Eurostat Waste Data Centre 2010

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

BE

BG

201

4C

Z 2

012

DK

DE

EE

201

2 IE EL

ES

FR IT

CY

20

12L

V 2

015

LT

201

2

LU

HU

201

2M

T 2

013

NL

AT

PL

201

4

PT

RO

201

3S

I 201

2S

K 2

012 F

I

SE

UK

Pe

r c

en

t (%

)

Recycling Energy Recovery

Recovery Target 2008Recycling

Target 2008

Participation cost per material in 6 Member States with different level of recycling performances

Differentiated application of Producer Responsibility

Source: derived from Pro Europe 2011

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Aluminium Glass Paper - cardboard Drink carton

€/to

n

BE - High

DE - High

CZ - High

FR - Middle

CY - Low

LT - Low

Source: Arising based on UN University study estimates, Collected based on Member States reports under Eurostat validation

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Arising 2006 Collected 2008 85% target (2016 proposed)

Curent collection Target: 4kg per year - from 2009 for New MS (except Sl - 2008)

4

New targets for e-waste recycling

Kg per year and per capita

2. EPR Guidance Study

Study on EPR

Objectives • Describe, compare and analyse different types of EPR systems

operating in the EU.• Identify necessary conditions and best practices for the functioning of

EPR systems.• Propose and assess options to promote an optimal use of EPR systems

across the EU.

Timing• Study launched in December 2012 for 15 months Project team : BIO Intelligence Service, in partnership with Arcadis,

Ecologic, Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Umweltbundesamt (UBA).

Project website: http://epr.eu-smr.eu /

EPR Study 2013: Selection of MS for case studies

15

BATTERIES

ELVs

GRAPHIC PAPER

OILS

PACKAGING

WEEE

Austria Austria Finland Belgium Austria Denmark

Belgium Finland France Finland Belgium Finland

Denmark Germany Netherlands Germany Czech Rep. France

France Netherlands Sweden Italy France Ireland

Netherlands Slovak Rep. Portugal Germany Latvia

Switzerland Sweden Spain Netherlands Sweden

United Kingdom

United Kingdom

16

Case-studies content

Legal framework and objectives

General legal framework Targets System functioning

Role of system actors Producers Retailers/distributers Municipalities Waste collection and treatment

operators

System performance

Cost efficiency

General governance

Governance of PROs

Control of the system Control over performance reporting

• Risk assessment

• Reporting and monitoring

• Data availability

Financial control: free riders and penalties

Competition PROs Treatment operators

Ecodesign and prevention

Impact on consumers

Advantages / success factors

Disadvantages /challenges

Best practices and potential Golden Rules

Figure 1: Cost effectiveness of EPR schemes on packaging (2010 or 2011)

Note: The x-axis starts at 50%.

Benchmark

Benchmark

Figure 1: Cost effectiveness of EPR schemes for portable batteries in 2011

19

Case studies – Existing practices

Share of responsibilities

EPR builds on existing waste management responsibilities (e.g. local authorities for municipal waste management) or replaces it.

Great diversity of approaches:

« Simple » financial responsibility (e.g. Packaging Recovery Notes in the UK)

Financial responsibility through contracts with municipalities (e.g. Eco-emballages in France)

Partial operational responsibility (e.g. Fost Plus in Belgium, most WEEE systems studied)

Full operational responsibility (e.g. graphic paper in Sweden)

20

Dialogue among stakeholders was identified as a key to success (public national and local authorities, producers, retailers, waste management companies, consumers, NGOs, etc.)

From frequent and organised consultation to few or no dialogue

e.g. : Administrative Advisory

Commissions in France

Organisation of dialogue


Share of responsibilities

21

Most EPR schemes have the obligation to finance the management of end-of-life products

True cost principle: Reflect the EOL costs in the producers’ contributions

Cost-coverage: Full cost coverage by EPR schemes or shared burden?

Existing EPR schemes vary on several aspects: Costs covered: operational costs for separately collected waste

and/or mixed waste; communication; audit/control; etc.

e.g. separately collected waste for most EPR schemes; residual fraction included in costs covered by Eco-Emballages (France)

Percentage of cost covered: Full or partial

e.g. 100% of operational costs (on the basis of a “standard” level of service) for most schemes ; objective of 80% for Eco-Emballages in France, no requirement in some countries (e.g. in the UK)


Costs

Two levels of (possible) competition Producer Responsibility Organisation(s): one centralised

or several competing PROs?

Waste management industry: how does an EPR scheme contribute to fair competition in this sector?

Three most frequent configurations EPR schemes managed by one single PRO

EPR schemes managed by several competing PROs, coordinated by a clearing-house

Free competition of PROs

Presentation of the issue and existing practices


Fair competition

23

The need for reliable and comparable data is confronted to difficulties of measuring EPR schemes’ performance

Perimeter varies: Household/commercial and industrial waste; products covered; separately collected and residual fraction; etc.

Data availability and confidentiality: especially when several PROs are in competition

Methods for data collection and reporting:

Recycling rates = Recycled quantities / Waste arising

Costs = Collection + transportation + sorting – revenues + etc.


Transparency and control

24

Control of the implementation of EPR schemes targets three aspects:

Control on free-riding

Control on collection and treatment operations

Control on PROs

Control : Presentation of the issue and existing practices


Transparency and control

5 key principles

Ensuring a permanent dialogue between all involved actors producers - retailers - citizens – waste collectors – municipalities/private operators – sorters – recyclers

Ensuring full transparency

Ensuring cost effectiveness

Ensuring a proper control

Ensure a fair competition

Implementing the principles

National legislation

•Clear definition of the responsibilities – full financial responsibility on producers, precise requirements for the other actors •Reliable system of sanctions - € per tonne•Targets - at minimum EU targets, progressive targets •Recognition procedure for collective schemes •True cost principle - fees have to be linked to exact costs/recyclability

Recognition procedure for collective schemes

•Full coverage of the territory by an high density collection network (adapted to habitat)•Public information •Audits, maximum overall costs•Non-discrimination for producer/importers •Specific rules for specific waste streams/products


Organising efficient control •Risk based - combination of public and auto-control •Enough public resources•Clear verified and accessible reporting •Efficient actions against free riders •Focus on statistics and quality/reliability•Export of waste – full application of the Waste shipment regulation (business to business contracts, controls on the field)

Supporting measures •Landfill/Incineration taxes/bans, pay as you throw systems, incentives/penalties for municipalities


Thank you for your attention!

DG ENV “waste” website: http://ec.europa.eu/environment//waste/index.htm

[email protected]

EaP GREEN: Experience of the implementation of EU Directives based on EPR principles

Environment

Transcript of EaP GREEN: Experience of the implementation of EU Directives based on EPR principles