NAXOS2018 Extended Producer Responsibility as key tool to implement - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

NAXOS2018

Extended Producer Responsibility as key tool to implement Circular Economy

6th International Conference

• n

Sustainable Solid Waste Management, 13‐16 June

MONIKA ROMENSKA REGULATORY AND PA MANAGER, EXPRA

EXPRA

in a nutshe ll

26 ME

MBE RS

industry-o wne d, no n-pro fit

20

• f e xpe rie nc e a nd

e xpe rtise in the wa ste ma na g e me nt fie ld

HAVE YE ARS

• ve r

200

with pa c ka g ing c o lle c tio n, so rting a nd re c yc ling infra struc ture

PROVI DE MI L L I ON PE OPL E

• ve r

19

• f pa c ka g ing e ve ry

ye a r

E NSURE RE CYCL I NG AND RE COVE RY MI L L I ON T ONNE S

• f o ve r

5 ANNI

VE RSARY

Our Members – non-profit 26 PROs

What is Extended Producer Responsibility?

“an environmental policy approach in which a producer’s responsibility for a product is extended to the post‐consumer stage of a product’s life cycle”

OECD

 Shifting the responsibility towards the producer;  Provide incentives for eco design;

GOALS

Extended producer responsibility schemes form an essential part of efficient waste management.

WFD

Why Extended Producer Responsibility?

Compliance a nd Performance

#1

Ga the ring a nd sha ring

Knowledge

#2

Re info rc ing Policy

#3

NATIONAL AUTHORITIES:

• Set legal framework;
• Implement it through

accreditattion;

• Define clear roles of all

actors;

• Ensure control and

enforcement; OBLIGED INDUSTRY:

• Take ownership of their

responsibility;

• Allign and act as one;
• Set up run and controll

efficient EPR Orgnaziations; PROs:

• Coordinate relations with

all partners involved;

• Provide tender contracts

and tender books;

• Ensure quality (quality

requirements are fulfilled) LOCAL AUTHORITIES:

• Cooperate with the EPR

scheme

• Implement and stimulate

separate collection;

• Ensure quality of provided

services; RECYCLING INDUSTRY

• Provide qualitative services;
• Come up with innovative

ideas;

• Be transparent: traceability

and efficiency

CONSUMERS/CITIZENS Sort their waste at home in the way that has been communicated to them

Stakeholders: Roles and Responsibilities

EPR’s role in a circular economy

EPR Packaging Recovery Organisation

• c a l Autho rity’ s Wa ste Ma na g e me nt

Ope ra tio na l

AND fina nc ia l

re spo nsib ility

Implementation of the Packaging Directive

3 countries without any compliance scheme => Taxes

De nma rk, Hung a ry, Cro a tia

Trading of certificates

UK , (Po la nd)

30 with Producer Responsibility

Austria , Be lg ium, F ra nc e , Spa in, Ge rma ny, I re la nd, Cyprus, L uxe mb o urg , Po rtug a l, Swe de n, Gre e c e , L a tvia , Ma lta , L ithua nia , Cze c h Re pub lic , Slo va k Re pub lic , I ta ly, Slo ve nia , E sto nia , Ro ma nia , Bulg a ria , T urke y, No rwa y, F inla nd, Se rb ia , I sra e l, Ne the rla nds, Po la nd, Ma c e do nia , Bo snia I He rze g o vina

36 European Countries

Tax versus EPR continuous discussion

Ukra ine , Russia ?

1 country with Fund Scheme run by industry

I c e la nd

EPR - several ways of implementation

EPR System in hands

• f obliged industry

(BE , E S, I T , NL , NO, CZ, F R, I E , PT )

Competing PROs

(DE , PL , RO, BG)

‘Tradable Credits’ Model with several traders

(UK )

Several PRO‘s sharing infrastructure

(DE , AT )

PROs acting in different areas

(RO, BG)

PROs have established parallel infrastructure

(E E )

Operational responsibility fully with local authorities

(F R, NL , CZ)

Collection and sorting with local authorities

(BE , E S, I T )

EPR system in parallel to a deposit system

(DE , NO, SE , F I , E E )

One comprehensive system for all (household) packaging

(e .g . BE , F R, E S, I T )

Household & ICI Packaging treated differently

(DE , F R, BE , E S)

Same rules for all packaging

(e .g . I T , CZ, SK , RO)

Full cost approach

(e .g . DE , AT , BE , SE )

Shared cost approach

(e .g . I T , E S, F R)

Incentive cost approach

(UK )

No operational responsibility for local authorities

(e .g . DE , AT , SE )

Sustainable production

Pro mo ting e c o de sig n a nd pa c ka g ing o ptimiza tio n b y: Pro visio n o f info rma tio n & c o nsulta tio n; F e e struc ture ; E xc ha ng e o f b e st pra c tic e s; Wo rksho ps a nd tra ining s.

Collection and sorting

E sta b lishing re le va nt c o lle c tio n infra struc ture : Clo se c o o pe ra tio n with L

• c a l a utho ritie s;

Pro mo ting inno va tio n;

Development of recycling and recovery rates for packaging, EU-27, 2005–2014

Recycling rate for all packaging 2015

New targets 65% by 2025

Consumer – Consumer – in the center of the in the center of the system system

What does this mean?

Making people aware or conscious of, change their behaviour > believers Critical success factors: ‐A strong insight that moves people ‐Sustainable efforts during a long period

EPR and the new Waste Legislation

Cha lle ng e s & Oppo rtunitie s E PR g e ne ra l, minimum re q uire me nts Hig he r ta rg e ts Re c yc ling c a lc ula tio n Da ta & Re po rting ha rmo nisa tio n E a rly Wa rning Syste m De finitio ns

• The waste legislation review is an opportunity for the

harmonisation of the EPR rule across the EU.

• The EPR minimum requirements (Art 8a WFD) touch upon:
• Defining role and responsibilities
• Establishing a reporting system and ensuring information transparency
• Cost coverage (closed list)
• Fee modulation
• Incentives for taking part in the separate collection systems
• Monitoring and enforcement framework (including self‐control

mechanism)

The Waste Legislation Review : what role for EPR?

Implementation: Early warning report

The Commission in cooperation with the European Environment Agency, will draw up reports on the progress towards the achievement of the targets (three years before each time‐limit at the latest). The reports shall include the following: (a) an estimation of the achievement of the targets by each Member State; (b) a list of Member States at risk of not achieving the targets within the respective time limits accompanied by appropriate recommendations; (b) examples of best practices that are used throughout the Union and that could provide guidance for progressing towards achieving the targets;

18

Measurement point

Unified calculation method: Default method: when the packaging waste enters the recycling

• peration

Derogation: measuring at the output of any sorting operation (against certain criteria. The details of the applicable method will be fine‐tuned by the Commission via the comitology process. This includes a method for calculating the losses and taking into account reusable packaging)

EU Recycling PW Targets

55% 60% 60% 22,50% 50% 50% 15% 65% 75% 70% 50% 50% 70% 25% 70% 85% 75% 55% 60% 80% 30% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Overall paper glass Plastic ALuminium Ferrous metals Wood Current min taregts New Tragets 2025 New Tragets 2030

20

Pro vide e c o no mic inc e ntive s fo r b usine sse s to de ve lo p mo re susta ina b le pro duc ts (e .g . c o - mo dula tio n) E nc o ura g e de sig n fo r re c yc ling Pro mo te g re a te r dia lo g ue b e twe e n pro duc e rs, lo c a l a utho ritie s a nd re c yc le rs He lp impro ve the e ffic ie nc y o f the re c yc ling pro c e ss Re duc e wa ste a nd litte ring

When it comes to Extended Producers Responsibility schemes, the Commission believes that EPR can:

CEP: what role for EPR?

Next Steps

• The environmental approach with the highest room of manoeuvre
• Providing a recycling solution for all packaging while helping

enable the circular plastics’ economy

EPR’s potential

• More stringent recycling measurement that will affect

performance

• Chinese ban and its effect on materials’ supply and demand
• Data and reporting quality

Variables

• Fragmented markets affect EPR schemes’ performance
• Definition of stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities, transparency

‐free‐riding control ‐ and enforcement will play a crucial role

Implementation

• f new rules

EXPRA beliefs : How to make EPR successful? (1)

E PR is one tool within a c o mpre he nsive po lic y a ppro a c h; Diffe re nt stakeholders sho uld ha ve clear roles to play,

ensuring no conflict of interests!;

E PR o rg a nisa tio ns sho uld b e run by obliged companies on

a not-for-profit basis; Focus on separate collection a nd c o lle c tio n infra struc ture

fo r inhabitants is ke y fo r the suc c e ss o f the syste m!

EXPRA beliefs : How to make EPR successful? (2)

Ensure transparency o f o pe ra tio ns a nd da ta ;

Ca lc ula te the fe e s fo r a ll ma te ria ls c o ve re d in a fair manner; E PR o rg a nisa tio ns sho uld control the use of the fees c o lle c te d, a nd influence infrastructure design if ne c e ssa ry;

Packaging optimisation, design-for-recycling, clear communication and education of inhabitants and company representatives a re e sse ntia l pa rts o f suc c e ssful E

PR syste ms Co ntinuo usly improve system performance;

THANK YOU!

Contact

E XPRA a isb l 2 Ave nue de s Olympia de s 1140 Brusse ls – E ve re Be lg ium