Selective collection and recycling of household packaging waste in Belgium

1. Selective collection and recycling of household packaging waste in Belgium Henri Meiresonne Managing Director Tel-Aviv 1 April 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

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!

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.

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

6. How does the system work ? Parties responsible for packaging (fillers) IPC (Interregional Packaging Commission) Accreditation Verification Agreement 5 years (Inter)municipalities Recyclers Waste management companies

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

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

9. Glass collection

10. Paper-Board collection

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

12. Public waste yards

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

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

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

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

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

18. Communication

19. Communication - Schools

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

21. Is a deposit system an alternative ? 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

22. Communication - Littering

23. Prevention

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.

25. Prevention: some examples

26. Prevention: the results

27. Green Dot in Europe

28. www.fostplus.be henri.meiresonne@fostplus.be