EaP GREEN: Experience of the implementation of EU Directives based on EPR principles
Post on 14-Jun-2015
124 Views
Preview:
Transcript
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
2009 reduction to 50% of the 1995 level
2016 reduction to 35% 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
Case studies – Existing practices
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)
Case studies – Existing practices
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
Case studies – 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.
Case studies – Existing practices
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
Case studies – 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
Implementing the principles
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
Implementing the principles
Thank you for your attention!
DG ENV “waste” website: http://ec.europa.eu/environment//waste/index.htm
Olivier.De-Clercq@ec.europa.eu
top related