Selective collection and recycling of household packaging waste in Belgium

Henri Meiresonne

Managing Director

Tel-Aviv 1 April 2008

HME-Tel-Aviv 01.04.2008 • • 2

Belgium

• 10,4 Mio inhabitants

• 327 inhabitants/km²

• 589 municipalities, ± 50 intermunicipal authorities

• 3 Regional governments - Waste is a regionalised matter

• Household waste = municipal responsibility (autonomy)

• Market quantities: ± 1.470 kT

- ± 770 kT household (± 75 kg/inh/year)

- ± 700 kT industrial

HME-Tel-Aviv 01.04.2008 • • 3

Basis = European Packaging Directive

• 1994: European Directive on Packagigng and Packaging Waste (1994, revised 2004)

• Producer responsability

- ≠ financial responsibility

- balanced sharing of responsibilities

- close cooperation between all parties concerned

Partnership as a key to success!

HME-Tel-Aviv 01.04.2008 • • 4

The Belgian packaging law

• Transposition of European packaging law in Belgian legislation = take-back obligation

• = defined as an obligation for each packaging responsible (producer, private label retailer, importer) to meet annually the recycling and recovery targets of the law- Via own system

- Via an accredited organisation (Fost Plus)

• The accredited organisation pays the full cost and determines HOW to reach the targets

but : with respect for the municipal autonomy

• Fost Plus is accredited by the authorities for household packaging (2004-2008). For industrial packaging: VAL-I-PAC.

HME-Tel-Aviv 01.04.2008 • • 5

Results (2007)

• 5 900 member companies= 730 kT household packaging

• 92% market coverage

• 116 kg/inhabitant collected - 70 kg paper-board

- 30 kg glass

- 15 kg PMD (lightweight packaging)

• 91 % recycling• 94 % recovery

HME-Tel-Aviv 01.04.2008 • • 6

Parties responsible for packaging (fillers)

(Inter)municipalities

RecyclersWaste management companies

IPC(Interregional

Packaging Commission)

Accreditation

Verification

Agreement5 years

How does the system work ?

HME-Tel-Aviv 01.04.2008 • • 7

Upstream : Members

• Household packaging

• Open-ended agreements (can be terminated each year)

• In principle : yearly declaration of packaging quantities

• Contribution determined by quantities and types of packaging

HME-Tel-Aviv 01.04.2008 • • 8

Downstream : Collection and sorting

• Co-operation with (inter)municipalities• Standard agreement for 5 years• Strict specifications for collection and sorting• Close administrative monitoring (PROFOST)• Public tender to waste operators = transparancy• Payment:

- if public tender : F+ covers full cost of collection

and sorting, communication, follow up, quality bonus…

- if no public tender : F+ covers average cost

HME-Tel-Aviv 01.04.2008 • • 9

Glass collection

HME-Tel-Aviv 01.04.2008 • • 10

Paper-Board collection

HME-Tel-Aviv 01.04.2008 • • 11

PMD (Plastic bottles, Metallic packaging, Drink Cartons) collection

HME-Tel-Aviv 01.04.2008 • • 12

Public waste yards

HME-Tel-Aviv 01.04.2008 • • 13

Recycling

• Collected and sorted packaging is allocated to recyclers on the basis of public tenders = transparancy

• Selection of recyclers is supervised by a joint committee (intermunicipalities, IPC, FOST Plus)

• Verification by independent auditors

HME-Tel-Aviv 01.04.2008 • • 14

Cost of the system

Packaging Responsibles Sale of material

(producers, private label for recycling

retailers, importers)

75 Mio EUR 38 Mio EUR

113 Mio EUR

Collecting and sorting Communication General expenses

(incl. intermun. qdm.) (incl. litter) Fost Plus

95 Mio EUR 9 Mio EUR 9 Mio EUR

HME-Tel-Aviv 01.04.2008 • • 15

Cost of the system

Cost to the industry

Examples of Green Dot fees per package :

- steel can 33 ml 0,0005 EUR

- alu tin 0,5 l 0,0008 EUR

- PET bottle 0,5 l 0,0043 EUR

- PET bottle 1,5 l 0,0059 EUR

HME-Tel-Aviv 01.04.2008 • • 16

Cost of the system

Cost to the citizen =

- 75 Mio EUR Green Dot fees (incl. in price of products)

- 8 Mio purchase of “blue sac” for light fraction

= total 83 Mio EUR

= 8 EUR per inhabitant per year

HME-Tel-Aviv 01.04.2008 • • 17

Key Factors for Success

• High, up-front investment in strategic studies rational and optimized collection scenario

• Industry and retail took the lead, and acted with solidarity

• PPS (Public Private Partnership)

• Tenders (collection, sorting, sale of materials)

>= transparancy and competition

• Communication Active participation of citizens

• Geographic progression (5 years to cover total country)

• Good relations with all the partners involved

• Quality management (materials and data) + controls

HME-Tel-Aviv 01.04.2008 • • 18

Communication

HME-Tel-Aviv 01.04.2008 • • 19

Communication - Schools

HME-Tel-Aviv 01.04.2008 • • 20

Is a deposit system an alternative ?

Usual arguments :

- High return rates

- Litter

But :

- return rates in Fost Plus system are equal or higher

- litter = a behavioural problem, not caused by industry

HME-Tel-Aviv 01.04.2008 • • 21

Reality : Deposit system =

- 5 to 15 times more expensive

- Creates more fragmented trafic (and pollution)

- Less convenient for citizens

- Limited to beverage packaging what about others ?

- Financially succesful when it fails

- Many possibilities for fraud (imports, double redemption…)

Conclusion : economically and ecologically, selective packaging collection is far superior

Is a deposit system an alternative ?

HME-Tel-Aviv 01.04.2008 • • 22

Communication - Littering

HME-Tel-Aviv 01.04.2008 • • 23

Prevention

HME-Tel-Aviv 01.04.2008 • • 24

Prevention

PREVENT.pack is the result of a co-operation between authorities and industry. It shows the packaging prevention efforts of companies, as an example to others.

HME-Tel-Aviv 01.04.2008 • • 25

Prevention: some examples

HME-Tel-Aviv 01.04.2008 • • 26

Prevention: the results

HME-Tel-Aviv 01.04.2008 • • 27

Green Dot in Europe

www.fostplus.behenri.meiresonne@fostplus.be