Excerpt of Israeli Government Survey on Environmental Resources Management

Environmental Resources Management (ERM) have been commissioned by Thinkware Limited (on behalf of the Israeli Government) to undertake a survey of packaging waste management regulations in a number of specified countries:

• United Kingdom;

• Germany;

• France;

• Spain;

• Norway; and

• the United States of America.

The tasks and methodology employed in this study are detailed below:

• Task 1 - survey of national packaging waste legislation in the six countries, to include aspects relating to the implementation of the laws, the parties obligated under the regulations and whether any targets are included;

• Task 2 - to assess the effectiveness of the regulatory controls of the legislation by studying the environmental benefits, the ease of implementation, cost effectiveness and involvement of consumers in the regulations; and

• Task 3 - to report on a maximum of four countries including those without packaging waste legislation and countries in the process of introducing legislation, and to report on the current status of legislation, or why legislation was rejected.

Table 3.9 summarises the cost (Euros per tonne) of recovering packaging waste in countries where data is available.

However, in their report on the 1997 data submitted by Member States to the Commission, PriceWaterhouseCoopers state that "data on the amounts of packaging reused, recycled or recovered that were reported by the various countries are not comparable. This is due to the fact that, even though eight of the ten countries reported data in the standard formats, the definitions of packaging and other terms used are interpreted differently and the methods of data collection and analysis differ" (1).

Nevertheless, it is broadly accepted that the German system is the most costly, followed by the French system. This is because the some of the costs of the French system are included within the municipal budget (2).

In theory, the cost effectiveness of the regulations in each of the countries could be assessed by comparing the overall costs with the environmental benefits accruing from the regulations. While the actual quantity of material recovered and recycled is a measure of environmental benefit, other less easily quantifiable factors have to be accounted for in deciding whether or not the regulation is environmentally beneficial.

For example, environmental benefits of recycling and recovery may include less use of energy in material production, less use of virgin materials. There may be a point, both economically and environmentally, when it is not favourable to further increase recycling and recovery levels.

Very few cost-benefit studies have been conducted at a national level to evaluate the optimum level of recycling and recovery. Estimates regarding the costs and benefits of the Directive across all 15 Member States of the European Union have been calculated. They include:

• total investment costs approximately 29.7 billion Euros, mainly new plant and machinery;

• operational costs of 3.8 billion Euros a year, including 1.5 billion Euros on salaries; and income from the sales of recycled materials and energy produced at a level of 3 billion Euros a year (3).

Similarly, studies undertaken at a European level report the benefits of recycling packaging waste. These benefits include the decrease in use of energy, the savings on disposal costs and the saving of raw materials. The recycling of solid waste saves more energy than is generated by incinerating mixed solid waste (4). Recycling conserves energy that would otherwise be used extracting virgin raw materials from the environment and manufacturing products from them. In addition, the energy conserved by recycling is greater than the energy generated by incineration by much more than the additional energy necessary to separately collect recycled materials, process the materials and transport them to manufacturers.

A recent four country study (5) focusing on the cost efficiency of packaging recovery systems in the UK, France, Germany and the Netherlands broadly stated that recycling generates environmental benefits. The study did not compare compliance schemes but assessed the costs of implementing the Directive in each of the four countries.

The study reached the following broad conclusions:

• plastic packaging is the most expensive material to recycle in terms of energy saved;

• recycling of packaging from commercial and industrial sources is cheaper than household packaging waste; and

• the cost of recycling and recovery is affected by a number of factors including population density.

The Norwegian Government has undertaken several studies regarding the cost effectiveness of the voluntary agreements and their environmental benefits. A study focusing on the transportation issues concerning the recycling of plastics packaging waste favoured plastic recycling over use of virgin plastic materials. The highest environmental costs arose from transportation by consumers delivering plastic to recycling bins (6).

To conclude, optimal recycling rates depend upon the geographical area, products and processes. It is not possible to set an optimal target at the same level across many countries. Therefore many argue that the setting of arbitrary targets, as in the Directive, is not worthwhile, because the same target should not be applied to different countries, and also the targets set are not based on a cost benefit analysis of recycling and recovery (7).

In this section of the report ERM reviewed the status of packaging legislation in the following countries (in addition to those countries in Section 2 and Section 3:

• other European countries, including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland;

• countries in Central and Eastern Europe, including Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkey and the Ukraine;

• Hong Kong;

• Japan;

• Canada;

• New Zealand; and

• Australia.

Most countries identified as not currently having formalised packaging legislation are making progress towards implementing regulations, of these Hong Kong and Greece are highlighted in this report.

In its review, ERM was unable to find any countries who had considered the idea of regulations and rejected them. Therefore, Russia is highlighted as a country who has not yet considered packaging waste legislation.

As part of its Waste Reduction Framework Plan launched in November 1998, three working groups were established to explore the possibility of implementing producer responsibility schemes. These are the:

• working group on Styrofoam food containers, set up in 1999 and reporting in 2000;

• working group on plastic bags; and

• working group on beverage containers which will be formed in 2000.

The work of these groups is seen as paving the way for new legislation on packaging waste reduction and recycling if necessary. A Code of Practice will also be produced on packaging waste and recycling, to try and persuade manufacturers to reduce packaging waste.

The Government also plans to set up producer responsibility schemes to encourage producers to take responsibility for the management of their packaging waste. These schemes are scheduled to be established by 2004-2007. Initially, selected producers will be challenged to reduce the quantities of their packaging waste sent to landfill. If producers react positively to this challenge, the Government then plans to agree waste reduction targets with producers.

The Government wishes to encourage producers to design and implement their own schemes to achieve the targets. Producers will be allowed to decide how to fund these schemes, possibly through an industry based product charge or a deposit refund scheme.

At the beginning the focus will be on beverage container packaging, as this is seen as a sector of the market with considerable potential for improvement, and a type of packaging waste which has been targeted by many other countries. The working group on beverage containers are expected to pursue an initiative to introduce a deposit and refund system for certain types of beverage containers.

Greece is currently implementing packaging waste legislation to enable it to comply with the European Directive. However, although a draft law has been published, little further progress has been made. Therefore Greece has not yet implemented the recovery and recycling targets or the Essential Requirements from the Directive.

The main problem is that the draft law proposes establishing a new public sector body, NOAMPOW (see on National Organisation for the Alternative Management of Packaging and Packaging Waste) at a time when the Government is trying to reduce the size of the public sector. This body would administer implementation of the law.

It is planned that NOAMPOW will design and implement national programmes with the relevant economic operators. These will include:

• measures to encourage packaging reuse systems and the use of recycled material in the manufacture of new products;

• source separation measures;

• designation of packaging waste management methods;

• measures to achieve quantitative targets;

• guidelines for the organisation of return, collection and recovery systems;

• measures to promote European Union standards;

• awareness raising and information systems for consumers and other end users; and

• technical measures dealing with any difficulties arising from implementation of the law.

The draft law reproduces the targets set in the Directive, although it notes that achievement of the full targets can be postponed until 31st December 2005.

Greece did not submit information on packaging waste in 1997 as required by Commission Decision 97/138/EC. The Commission collected the following information from industry sources (8):

• overall recovery rate achieved – 25% (1997);

• overall recycling rate achieved – 25%(1997);

• paper and board recycling – 48% (1995/6);

• steel recycling – 17% (1995/6);

• aluminium recycling – 35% (1995/6);

• glass recycling - 26%(1997); and

• plastics recycling - 5% (1995/6).

Russia does not currently have any legislation concerning packaging waste and has no plans to implement such laws. A draft law on solid waste has been before the Russian Parliament for a year but has not made any progress.

The draft only contains general principles and no detailed rules, and does not mention packaging waste or producer responsibility. It is thought unlikely that waste management legislation, including packaging legislation will be adopted at the federal level. It is much more likely for legislation to be formulated on a city basis.

Some private companies in Russia who see business opportunities through packaging waste management and recycling are encouraging the Government to establish a waste management programme and for legislation to be implemented.

Whilst packaging legislation has not been rejected it is unlikely that legislation will be in place in Russia in the near future.

(1) Review of 1997 data on packaging and packaging waste recycling and recovery, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 1999.
(2) Materials Recycling Week, April 28 2000
(3) Investment and employment related to EU policy on air, water and waste, European Commission, October 1999.
(4) Discussion Paper on the Revision of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive 94/62/EC
(5) Cost Efficiency of Packaging Recovery Systems, The Case of France, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK, Taylor Nelson Sofres Consulting, February 2000
(6) Personal Communication, Materialretur, 07/06/00
(7) European Recovery and Recycling Association, Proposal- The Revision of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive, Salvatore Gabola, November 1999
(8) Review of Packaging Waste Legislation, Perchards, May 2000.

More articles on IP PETrecycling.cz:
Articles in archives: 2006 > 2005 > 2004  > 2003 > 2002 > 2001 > 2000