Packaging Consultation Workshop 15 th April 2019 Welcome. Bill Boyd - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Packaging Consultation Workshop

15th April 2019

Welcome.

Bill Boyd MPMA

Agenda for Today and Objective

• Perspective from Government, Environmental Organisation and

Environmental Consultant

• Presentations on the issues covered by the consultation documents
• Opportunity to have wide-ranging discussions/debate on the main

issues

• Agree where there is an alignment of interests to help inform our

consultation response

• Next steps and timetable for circulation of draft consultation

response

Key Objectives re Consultation Outcomes

• Maintain a level playing field for metal packaging vs other packaging

materials

• Ensure metal packaging supply chain does not subsidise other

materials

• Minimise additional cost of proposed measures e.g. litter collection, fly

tipping etc.

• Avoidance of unintended consequences: e.g. impact of DRS on aerosol

kerbside collection, recycled content

What’s likely to happen

• huge political momentum behind DRS:
• environmental lobby, politicians, CCEP
• DRS a done deal in Scotland does tilts the balance towards DRS in England
• EPR reform:
• full net cost described as a principle or proposal
• supply chain will pay more
• metal packaging will have to contribute more

The Packaging Consultations “unwrapped”.

Linda Crichton Defra

Alupro Packaging Consultations Workshop 15th April 2019

Packaging Consultations Unwrapped

The Resources & Waste Strategy

• Supports the ambitions of the

25 Year Environment Plan

• Develops policy around EU

Exit and beyond.

• Contains policy activities and

actions we can progress now

• Sets out new proposals with

a longer term focus.

• Published December 2018

8

..waste policy is a devolved matter

9

Three consultations

More consistent collections DRS for drinks containers

And, HMT consultation on tax on plastic packaging

Packaging EPR

Key outcomes we want to achieve

• Reduce unnecessary packaging
• More packaging designed to be re-useable and recyclable
• More waste to be recycled including packaging
• Higher quality materials available for recycling
• Less littering of packaging
• Generate demand for recycled materials
• Support move towards a more circular economy

Consistency in Household and Business Recycling Collections in England

Consistent collections – key points

• Core set of materials to be collected - households & businesses
• Paper/card; glass; plastic bottles + plastic pots, tubs and trays; metal packaging
• Food & drink cartons?
• Other materials?
• Weekly separate collections of food waste – households & businesses
• Minimum of 5kg/week threshold for businesses to separate food waste
• Measures supported by statutory guidance for local authorities
• Including on separate collections
• Other proposals
• Non binding performance indicators for local authorities
• Free garden waste collections

Collection of a core set of materials and clarity over what can and can’t be recycled will help improve quality

Introducing a Deposit Return Scheme (DRS) for England, Wales and Northern Ireland

DRS – key points

2 options

• All-in - no restriction on the size of containers in-scope (multi-packs

included)

• On-the-go - containers in-scope restricted to those <750ml in size

(excludes multi-packs)

Same materials and drinks proposed for both models

• Materials – plastic (PET + HDPE), aluminium, steel, glass
• cartons, pouches, coffee cups?
• Drinks

√ water, soft drink, juices, alcohol, milk containing X milk and equivalent plant-based products

DRS - proposed model

Brand owner &/or importers RVMs or manual

Reforming the UK packaging producer responsibility system

Packaging producer responsibility

Scope of consultation is broad – widespread reform

• Part A – principles for a reformed packaging

producer responsibility system

• Part B- future packaging waste recycling

targets

• Part C – future governance arrangements

Packaging EPR - key principles

• Incentivise recyclable packaging
• Producers to meet full net cost requirements – consistent with polluter

pays principle

• Producer fees to fund the cost of managing packaging waste
• deliver a simpler (for consumers) and more effective system
• ensure costs to producers do not exceed those necessary to services to

provide a cost-efficient system

• Appropriate measures to ensure packaging waste is managed in an

environmentally responsible way, promote compliance and limit the

• pportunities for fraud and waste crime
• Coherent and consistent with other measures
• Clear targets/outcomes to be set by government

EPR Proposals - Part A

• Definition of full net cost recovery
• Measures to incentivise producers to use more sustainable packaging
• 2 approaches - modulated fees and deposits
• underpinned by agreed ‘list’ of what packaging is recyclable
• Point of compliance – who pays?
• retain shared responsibility approach?
• move to a single point of compliance?
• small producers and on-line sellers
• Payments to local authorities and others
• requirement to meet collection requirements (link to consistency)
• Mandatory labelling of packaging - recyclable / not recyclable
• Communications – recycling and litter campaigns (national and local)

EPR Proposals - Part B recycling targets

• New recycling targets proposed for 2025 and 2030 – by material
• Requiring packaging data to be reported and recycling targets to be met by nation
• Seeking views on more ambitious targets for 2030
• Asking if sub targets should be set – e.g. for other packaging materials; for ‘closed loop’

recycling

EPR Proposals - Part C Governance

• Four governance options proposed
• High level descriptions provided
• key responsibilities of different stakeholders outlined
• Models 1, 2, 3 adopt modulated fees
• Model 4 – adopts deposit fee as incentive mechanism with non

recyclable packaging fee and cost recovery fee to ensure full net cost recovery

• All models provide for competition

21

Model 1: Enhanced business as usual – Competing Compliance Schemes

NOT FOR CIRCULATION

Consumers & Businesses Local authorities & waste companies Waste handling & sorting facilities Recycling and reprocessing (Exporters) Packaging Producers (Importers)

Payments to LAs for collecting/ recycling packaging waste

Packaging Board Compliance Schemes

Packaging fee (modulated fee) Scheme membership fees Regulator registration fee

Waste flows Producer fees EPR payments

Proportion of producer fees for litter & comms Payments for recycling – hh-like packaging Evidence of C&I recycling

Model 2: Producer management organisation

NOT FOR CIRCULATION

Single Producer Organisation Packaging Producers (Importers) Government

• versight

Consumers & Businesses

Local authorities & waste companies Waste handling and sorting facilities Recycling and reprocessing (Exporters) Packaging fee (modulated) Scheme membership fees Regulator registration fee Payments to LAs for Packaging waste Payments for Hh-like packaging waste

Waste flows Producer fees EPR payments

Reporting C&I recycling

Evidence of C&I recycling

Model 3: Producer organisation & compliance schemes

NOT FOR CIRCULATION

Producer Management Organisation Compliance schemes Waste flows Producer fees EPR payments

Packaging Fee Scheme membership fees Regulator registration fee

Consumers & Businesses Waste handling & sorting facilities Local authorities & waste companies Recycling and reprocessing (Exporters) Government

• versight

Packaging Producers

(Importers)

Payments for packaging waste Fees hh / hh-like

C C

Model 4 - Government-managed deposit based scheme

NOT FOR CIRCULATION

Government Scheme Administrator

Deposit refunded

• n evidence
• f recycling

Deposit fee for recyclable packaging Fee for non recyclable packaging Cost recovery fee

Consumers & Businesses Local authorities & waste companies Waste handling & sorting facilities Recycling and reprocessing (Exporters) Packaging Producers (Importers) Waste flows Producer fees EPR Payments

Payments for evidence of recycling Payments to LAs for packaging waste

Next steps

• Please respond to the consultations using Citizen Space questionnaire
• Defra consultations close on 13 May (23:59)
• We will…
• publish a summary of responses to each consultation
• develop more detailed proposals and draft regulations for consultation in 2020
• Indicative timescale is for new arrangements to be in place from 2023

Thank you

Consultations available at:

• https://consult.defra.gov.uk/
• https://consult.defra.gov.uk/environmental-

quality/resource-and-waste-and-plastic-packaging- tax-consu-1/ Closing dates:

• 13 May (23:59) for Defra consultations
• 12 May (23:59) for HMT Plastic Packaging Ta

What do NGO’s think of the Government’s proposals?

Libby Peake Green Alliance

Modelling the cost

• f collections to

inform Resources and Waste Strategy consultation on DRS

@resourcefutures

Will French – 15th April 2019

Res esea earch overview Resource Futures commissioned to complete a study to inform the upcoming Resources and Waste Strategy Consultation responses. The study focusses on the impact of a Deposit Return Scheme (DRS)

• n local authority (LA) collection systems.

What I’ll cover today

• Model overview
• LA costs of collecting different packaging materials
• Impact of DRS and EPR on costs (per Hh and by material)
• Concentrations of aerosols in LA collection systems

Introduction

@resourcefutures

@resourcefutures

Model overview and scope

• Kerbside collections (residual and dry recycling)
• Urban and rural local authorities (England)
• Six baseline models created (co-mingled, twin-stream and multi-stream)
• Composition data <–> Placed on Market (POM) data
• Both ‘on-the-go’ and ‘all-in’ DRS scenarios modelled
• EPR applied to Baseline and DRS scenarios
• Collection cost of litter, HWRC/bring banks, organics out of scope
• Collection cost based on vehicles, staff, containers and disposal/treament
• EPR: Impact of types of packaging entering the market

@resourcefutures

EPR approach

Residual disposal cost per tonne of EPR packaging collected Dry recycling collection (vehicles and staff) cost per tonne of EPR packaging collected Dry recycling sorting / treatment (including MRF gate fee) cost per tonne

• f EPR

packaging collected EPR payment to local authorities Income received per tonne of EPR packaging netted off

• Producers to pay full net cost

recovery

• Three components:

➢ Cost of providing a recycling collection service (minimum service requirements required) ➢ Recycling payment for the amount of packaging waste collected and recycled ➢ Residual waste payment related to the cost of disposal

@resourcefutures

Scenario builder

Enter deposit value and whether LA can redeem deposits of items in kerbside system Set proportion of deposits redeemed, assuming a ‘funding formula’ is unlikely to capture all potential unredeemed items User can select beverage containers included in DRS scope and capture rate for each

Material value per tonne collected: plastics and metals

Metals: decrease in per tonne value in both DRS scenarios as aluminium beverage cans removed. Most notable for all-in DRS where multi-pack aluminium cans are also captured. Plastics: decrease in per tonne value in both DRS scenarios as PET and HDPE beverage containers are removed.

Indicative material value per tonne collected: MRF

Urban collections: cost per Hh

@resourcefutures

@resourcefutures

Urban cost per Hh – DRS only

Co-mingled Twin-stream Multi-stream

Similarly to co-mingled collections, twin stream collection shows MRF gate fees and residual disposal savings. A small vehicle number reduction can be achieved in Scenario 2. Co-mingled collection shows saving in each DRS scenario. Vehicle numbers remain the same, however, savings made on MRF gate fees and residual disposal. Multi-stream collection shows a reduction in income received from dry recycling as valuable material diverted to DRS. However, vehicle numbers required reduce balancing total cost.

@resourcefutures

Urban cost per Hh – DRS with EPR

(wit ithout deposits redeemed by LA)

Co-mingled Twin-stream Multi-stream

@resourcefutures

Urban cost per Hh – DRS with EPR

(wit ith deposits redeemed by LA)

Co-mingled Twin-stream Multi-stream

Urban collections: cost per tonne by material

@resourcefutures

@resourcefutures

Urban – metal cost per tonne

Co-mingled Twin-stream Multi-stream

@resourcefutures

Urban – plastic cost per tonne

Co-mingled Twin-stream Multi-stream

@resourcefutures

Urban – glass cost per tonne

Co-mingled Twin-stream Multi-stream

Concentration of aerosols in collection systems

@resourcefutures

@resourcefutures

0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 1.0% 1.1% 2.8% 2.9% 3.0% 4.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.7% 0.8% 2.2% 2.7% 2.8% 3.9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Baseline On-the-go DRS All-in DRS Baseline On-the-go DRS All-in DRS Baseline On-the-go DRS All-in DRS Baseline On-the-go DRS All-in DRS Baseline On-the-go DRS All-in DRS Baseline On-the-go DRS All-in DRS Comingled - urban Twin-stream - urban Multi-stream - urban Comingled - rural Twin-stream - rural Multi-stream - rural

Other recyclables (collected in same vehicle compartment as metals) Steel beverage cans Steel non-beverage cans Aluminium beverage cans Aluminium non-beverage cans Aluminium Foil Aerosols

DRS varying capture rate sensitivity analysis

@resourcefutures

@resourcefutures

Sensitivity analysis – varying DRS capture rate

Baseline On-the-go DRS with EPR All-in DRS with EPR

@resourcefutures

Summary

• LA ‘basket value’ of plastics and metals decreases with DRS scenarios
• DR

DRS on

• nly

ly – collection costs in line with Baseline

• Co-mingled + twin-stream: Disposal / treatment saving
• Multi-stream: Material income loss balanced with potential for

vehicle/staff saving

• DR

DRS with ith EPR – collection costs for DRS scenarios increase compared to Baseline with EPR

• Ability to redeem deposits of DRS items collected at kerbside is significant to

LAs

• Analysis by material
• EPR covers LA cost of packaging material outside DRS scope (minus

residual collection)

• DRS: impact of removing valuable beverage containers from the

collection system

resourcefutures.co.uk | CREATE Centre, Smeaton Road, Bristol BS1 6XN

Will French Senior Consultant

will.french@resourcefutures.co.uk 07812 088 695 /resourcefutures @resourcefutures /resource-futures

resourcefutures.co.uk | CREATE Centre, Smeaton Road, Bristol BS1 6XN Following slides hidden, but can be used if required for Q&A

@resourcefutures

Model structure

@resourcefutures

Collection assumptions

User can enter material cost / income for each scenario A number of assumptions are required on the proportion of beverage / non beverage containers based on Resource Futures composition estimates. These can be updated here if required

What are the key proposals which will impact the metal packaging sector?

Rick Hindley

Our obje jective: achieve & surpass the hig ighest metal packaging recycling rates in Europe

Proposed Targets

Compatibility

Packaging EPR DRS Plastic recycled content tax High targets More collections End markets

£

Ext xtended Producer Responsibility

Key Proposals:

• Producers pick up full net cost of recycling and disposal (residual) of

packaging – upwards of £600 million pa.

• Cover costs of litter.
• Single point of obligation or shared responsibility?
• Remove de-minimus.
• Modulated fees – recyclability and net cost of collection.
• Reprocessor/Exporter compulsory reporting.
• Governance models.

Cost Im Impact

£0 £20 £40 £60 £80 £100 £120 £140 £160 £180 £200 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Av Millions

Annual cost of compliance 1997 - 2018

Cost Im Impact

£0 £100 £200 £300 £400 £500 £600 £700

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Av 2023

Millions

Predicted cost of recycling

Full ll Net Cost Recovery ry

• Collecting and transporting household and household-like packaging waste for

recycling.

• Communications to consumers.
• Clean-up pf litter and fly-tipped packaging waste.
• Collection and reporting of relevant data including litter and fly-tipping.
• Compliance monitoring costs by regulator.
• System management and administration costs.
• Sorting and treatment of household and household-like for recycling with

income netted off.

• Disposal of packaging waste in residual waste stream.

£644m recycling £174/£197m residual £800m litter

Consistency

• Relates to ALL household waste inc. food and garden waste

etc.

• 2017 HH recycling rate 45.2% - EU target 50% by 2020.
• EPR obligated producers (packaging) contribute to capital

costs.

• Designed to work in harmony with other proposals on

waste.

• Identifies a core set of materials and methods.
• Proposals do not specifically reference foil and aerosols – must be

included.

• Target:
• Zero food waste to landfill by 2030.
• Recycle 65% of municipal waste by 2035.
• Work toward zero avoidable waste by 2025.

EU Sin ingle Use Pla lastics Dir irective (S (SUP)

Presented to preserve member States’ harmony, stops individual action, free market implications

• Passed the EU Trialogue with large majorities.
• Expected into EU Law by 28th May 2019.
• SUP Directive = “lex specialis” takes precedence over WFD & P&PWD.
• Definition & scope; "Single Use Plastics”(SUP) - includes fishing gear &
• xydegradables plastics.

Key Articles:

• Art2 – SUP Directive = “lex specialis”
• Art4 – Ambitious & sustained reduction of SUP’s – 18 months from adoption.
• Art6 – Tethered caps on PET bottles (not crowns) within 5 years from adoption.
• PET bottles by 2025 > 25% recycled content (rules defined by 1/01/22).
• PET bottles by 2030 > 30% recycled content (rules defined by 1/01/22).
• Art7 – Labelling, clear + informative 2 years from adoption.
• Art8 – Producers to cover costs of litter and collection (31/12/2024).
• Art9 – Collected separately for recycling PET bottles 90% by 2029.

Pla lastic Tax

• HM Treasury consultation.
• Applicable to ALL plastic packaging – UK manufactured and

empty imports.

• Functioning as a main structural component of finished product.
• Definition of Plastic Packaging set in legislation.
• Tax point: convertor finished products & unfilled importers.
• Ability to pass tax up the value chain
• Retailer margin added.
• Tax applicable to all plastic packaging containing <30% recycled

content

• Tiered option discussed.
• Rate of tax; open to consultation.
• Tax revenues go to HM Treasury not returned.
• Proposed: in force from April 2022.

Scotland DRS Update

➢ Scheme design will be announced late April/early May with draft regulations in the summer ➢ PET and metal cans will be in scope, glass very likely but business case still being considered ➢ Scotland will implement before rest of UK, ambition remains early 2021 ➢ All beverage types except milk (and HDPE generally) likely in scope including alcohol and bottles sizes up to 3 litres depending on RVM capability ➢ Officials and ZWS will recommend to Minister that scheme administrator is industry-led not-for-profit…potentially with some stipulations around societal benefits ➢ Remain open to on-trade (closed-loop systems) exemptions where consumption takes place on the premises but to be agreed ➢ Only smallest retailers will be exempt from being return points to prevent accessibility issues for consumers ➢ Deposit amount 15p or 20p ➢ A huge amount of preparatory work to do and will need industry logistical and operational expertise to help deliver this incredibly ambitious timeline ➢ Next step is to develop a more detailed work programme across key operational and administrative areas with timelines ➢ Scotland DRS promoted as “cheaper” option than proposed (full net cost) EPR (material dependant)

DRS Consultation

• Policy drivers:
• Litter.
• Increase recycling.
• Quality of recyclate.
• “All in” or “On the Go”.
• Which materials?
• Which formats?
• Litter reduction is the main driver.
• Justified through dis-amenity value.
• Proposal that Treasury should get unredeemed

deposits.

DRS Options

All In:

• Scandinavian model.
• PET, HDPE, can & glass – 22.8 billion units.
• Assumed 85% return rate at £0.15 deposit.
• Net costs:
• 1YR: £845m YR 2-10 £641m p.a.
• £535m unredeemed deposits EXCLUDED.
• Producer fees 1YR £310m YR 2 -10 £107m.
• Material value £173m.
• 36,749 RVMs estimated.
• Disamenity value £986m p.a.

On the Go:

• Not done anywhere else.
• PET, HDPE, cans & glass – 7.9 billion units.
• Single serve “on the go” containers <750ml
• nly – multi-packs excluded.
• Assumed 85% return rate at £0.15 deposit.
• Net costs:
• 1YR: £429m YR 2-10 £265m p.a.
• £177m unredeemed deposits EXCLUDED.
• Producer fees 1YR £251m YR 2 -10 £87m.
• Material value £173m.
• 12,670 RVMs estimated.
• Disamenity value £321m p.a.

Is Is DRS an Unstoppable Wave?

• Needed to achieve single use plastics

directive targets.

• Fillers are now all supportive.
• Retailer views mixed – but publicly

supportive.

• Local Authorities mixed – but favour EPR

first then DRS if necessary to fill gaps,

• Government is hugely influenced by the

NGOs and the media.

Consultation Im Impacts

CREATING AN EFFECTIVE DRS SCHEME

Marcel Arsand

Sustainability Manager – UK and Nordics Ball Beverage Packaging Europe

71

What is the data telling you?

CREATING AN EFFECTIVE DRS SCHEME

72

WHAT IS THE DATA TELLING YOU?

73

WHAT IS THE DATA TELLING YOU?

74

WHAT IS THE DATA TELLING YOU?

The justification Combat damage on returning planes represented areas of the plane that could withstand damage (since the planes returned to base). Planes that were actually hit in the undamaged areas (engines and cockpit) suffered critical failure and didn’t return, and therefore were not in the sample analysed.

75

What is the data telling you? How are you interpreting it?

76

Creating an effective (and fair) DRS scheme

77

• 1. Include a wide range of materials,

formats and sizes

CREATING AN EFFECTIVE DRS SCHEME

IT HAS TO COVER A WIDE RANGE OF MATERIALS, FORMATS AND SIZES

IT HAS TO COVER A WIDE RANGE OF MATERIALS, FORMATS AND SIZES

Aluminium cans Clear PET bottles

8x

IT HAS TO COVER A WIDE RANGE OF MATERIALS, FORMATS AND SIZES

If it is not included in a DRS, it should be properly included in an EPR, taking into account the value of the material and real recyclability

81

• 2a. Include varying deposit fees

depending on size

CREATING AN EFFECTIVE DRS SCHEME

VARYING DEPOSIT FEES DEPENDING ON SIZE

82

Example: Finland

VARYING DEPOSIT FEES DEPENDING ON SIZE

83

Example: Finland

Norway Sweden Denmark California (US) Maine (US) Alberta (Canada) British Columbia (Canada) etc.

84

• 2b. The value of the deposit

shouldn’t create market distortion

VALUE OF THE DEPOSIT SHOULDN’T CREATE MARKET DISTORTION

£8.00 (33p/can) = 7.92 L + e.g. 10p deposit x24 = £2.40 = £10.40 total

↑ 30% per unit

£6.00 (£1.5/bottle) = 8.0 L + e.g.10p deposit x4 = 40p = £6.40 total

↑ 6.5% per unit

Note: Multipack cans represent circa 80% of the beverage market in the UK (Nielsen. 2017)

VALUE OF THE DEPOSIT SHOULDN’T CREATE MARKET DISTORTION

£8.00 (33p/can) = 7.92 L + e.g. 15p deposit x24 = £3.60 = £11.60 total

↑ 45% per unit

£6.00 (£1.5/bottle) = 8.0 L + e.g.15p deposit x4 = 60p = £6.60 total

↑ 10% per unit

Note: Multipack cans represent circa 80% of the beverage market in the UK (Nielsen. 2017)

VALUE OF THE DEPOSIT SHOULDN’T CREATE MARKET DISTORTION

£8.00 (33p/can) → 7.9L + e.g. 10p/unit x24 = £2.40 = £10.40 total

↑ 30% per unit

£6.00 → (£1.5 bottle) → 8.0L + e.g.10p/unit x4 = 40p = £6.4 total (£4 cheaper)

↑ 6% per unit

NEW SOUTH WALES* large PET sales ↑3% multipack cans sales ↓13% UNITED KINGDON** Survey: almost 25% of can consumers would switch to large PET assuming a 10p fixed deposit

Source: *CCEP // **UK survey commissioned by Alupro and conducted by ICARO (2018)

88

• 4. It should promote recyclability by

design with clear guidelines and modulated fees

DESIGN FOR RECYCLING IS KEY

89

DESIGN FOR RECYCLING IS KEY

90

What is the real recyclability of: PET with silicone valve? PET with full body sleeve? Opaque PET? Flexible pouches? Black plastic bottles? Multilayer carton?

PROMOTE RECYCLABILITY BY DESIGN AND MODULATED FEES

91

PROMOTE RECYCLABILITY BY DESIGN AND MODULATED FEES

92

Polluter pay principle! Each material to cover its full net cost without cross subsidy.

93

• 5. It has to be easy and convenient

for consumers

IT HAS TO BE EASY AND CONVENIENT FOR CONSUMERS

94

IT HAS TO BE EASY AND CONVENIENT FOR CONSUMERS

IT HAS TO BE EASY AND CONVENIENT FOR CONSUMERS

IT HAS TO BE EASY AND CONVENIENT FOR CONSUMERS

IT HAS TO BE EASY AND CONVENIENT FOR CONSUMERS

ON THE GO

London underground

5M people

per day

ONLINE RETAIL

UK grocery shopping

= 20%

All selling points

should be able to accept and pay the deposit

99

• 6. Unredeemed value has to be kept

in the system

WHEN UNREDEEMED DEPOSIT IS KEPT BY THE GOVERNMENT

100

Connecticut

Population: 3.5M DRS since 1980 return rate

50%

Massachusetts

Population: 7M DRS since 1983 return rate

57%

New York

Population: 19M DRS since 1983

(Gov keep 80%)

return rate

66%

What is the incentive to increase these recycling rates?

101

But is DRS the most cost effective way of increasing recycling rates?

102

What is the data telling you? How are you interpreting it?

RECYCLING RATES FOR BEVERAGE CANS WITHOUT DRS

103

Brazil Population: 210M Area: 8.5M km2

97%

Population served with recycling collection:

17%

RECYCLING RATES FOR BEVERAGE CANS IN COUNTRIES WITHOUT DRS

104

Switzerland Population: 8.5M Area: 41k km2

91%

Belgium Population: 14M Area: 31k km2

98%

Poland Population: 38M Area: 312k km2

80%

Argentina Population: 43M Area: 2.8M km2

80%

RECYCLING RATES FOR BEVERAGE CANS IN COUNTRIES WITH DRS

105

Norway Population: 5.5M Area: 385k km2

97%

Finland Population: 5M Area: 338k km2

95%

Estonia Population: 1.3M Area: 45k km2

74%

Sweden Population: 10M Area: 450k km2

85%

RECYCLING RATES FOR BEVERAGE CANS WITH DRS

106

DRS

84%

Incinerator Bottom Ash

9%

Other sorting

2%

Energy recovery

2%

Source: INFINITUM

Norway Population: 5.5M Area: 385k km2

97%

107

DRS only focus on beverage containers…

108

…but what about increasing

• verall packaging recycling rate?

INCREASING RECYCLING OF ALL PACKAGING, NOT JUST BEVERAGE

109

TOTAL RECYCLING RATES - COMPARISON

110

61% 59% 55%

39% 28% 37% 60% 68% 82% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% United Kingdom Estonia Norway

Recycling Rate

Total Packaging Plastic Packaging Metal Packaging

111

Is DRS the best way of encouraging consumer behavior?

DO WE NEED TO BE REWARDED FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR?

112

113

In a social experiment in the Netherlands (where

• nly large PET bottles

have a deposit), different sizes of beverage packaging was littered in the street. The public ignored small PET and cans but collected all large PET bottle. Their message: “money is collected, waste is not…”

DO WE NEED TO BE REWARDED FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR?

DO WE NEED TO BE REWARDED FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR?

114

115

What is the data telling you? How are you interpreting it?

116

Thanks!

Marcel Arsand

marcel.arsand@ball.com

Summing up.

Bill Boyd MPMA

What does the fu future hold?

Risks:

• Regulations favour other packaging material

formats and cause loss of market share

• Inability to pass on additional costs reduces

business profitability

• Metal packaging ends up subsidising other

packaging materials e.g. plastic

• EPR costs for non beverage packaging

increase with removal of drinks cans.

• Proposed new measures are not ‘managed’

by the packaging industry and fail to deliver increased recycling rates and litter reduction

• Kerbside collection of non beverage

packaging could be negatively impacted.

• Material currently recycled in the UK is

exported for recycling.

• Plastic Tax spreads to other materials.

Opportunities:

• Modulated fees benefit high value materials.
• Packaging materials that have lower recycling

rates become less competitive

• Increased spend on recycling communication

activities (MetalMatters, Every Can Counts) improves recognition of metal packaging’s environmental credentials

• Adoption of best kerbside collection practice

increases recycling rates at low cost

• Reformed EPR system run by packaging

business and delivers value for money

• Well designed DRS could bring opportunities

for drinks cans.

• Collection consistency could improve capture

rates.

Only Certainty – Costs Will Increase

Key Dates re Consultation & Guid ide Tip ips

• Deadline for responses:
• -DRS,EPR and Consistent Collections: 12 May
• -Plastic Tax 13 May
• Further consultations: early 2020
• ’Tips’ re responding to consultation:

▪ use the online form ▪ cite evidence/facts to support any position taken ▪ be brief ▪ avoid abbreviations/acronyms: write out full name of organisation

Thank You