EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY: WORLD TRENDS AND A POSSIBLE SCENARIO FOR SOUTH AFRICA

1
EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITYWORLD TRENDS
AND A POSSIBLE SCENARIO FOR SOUTH AFRICA
David Perchard IPSA Packaging Congress Sandton
Convention Centre Johannesburg 12 March 2009
33 High Street, St Albans, Hertfordshire, AL3
4EH, United Kingdom Tel [phone]
Fax [phone] Email
info_at_perchards.com Web www.perchards.com
2
EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY

• A policy approach under which producers accept
  significant
• responsibility financial and/or physical for
  the treatment or
• disposal of post-consumer products (OECD)
• Extended producer responsibility for all types of
  packaging in
• the 27 EU member states 4 EEA and EU candidate
  countries
• Extended producer responsibility for some types
  of packaging in
• Japan, South Korea, Taiwan
• 3 Canadian provinces (Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec)

3
EPR FOR PACKAGING IN EUROPE 1

• The EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive of
  1994
• requires member states to ensure systems are set
  up to enable the
• Directives recycling targets to be met
• There is a legal obligation on producers, who can
  either
• meet the recycling targets themselves (which is
  rarely feasible for consumer packaging) or
• join an organisation which will fund collection
  on its members behalf
• Collective systems usually need official approval
  they must show that they have an effective
  operating plan and the financial and technical
  capacity to do the job

4
EPR FOR PACKAGING IN EUROPE 2

• In 25 EU countries, a national recovery
  organisation from the private sector collects
  funds from brand-owners according to the amount
  of packaging they place on the national market
• In 8 of them, an organisation run by the
  packaging supply chain has competitors (usually
  run by waste management companies) charging in
  the same way
• The fees packers fillers pay are
  material-specific, but apply irrespective of the
  contents of the packaging
• The money is used to fund the separate collection
  of packaging from households, sorting it and
  delivering it to recyclers

5
EPR FOR PACKAGING IN EUROPE 3

• Collectors (municipalities or waste management
  companies working under contract with them) are
  paid according to the tonnage delivered for
  recycling provided it meets quality specs
• In Austria, Belgium Germany, the industry
  system pays the total cost of packaging waste
  management and owns the collected materials
• In other countries, the industry system pays the
  additional cost and doesnt own the materials
• The material sectors organisations sometimes
  give a take-back guarantee, to ensure that
  collectors can pass the material on

6
IT WORKS!
7
EUROPEAN RECYCLING RATES AND TARGETS, 2006
Target deadline 2008
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
8
HOW DOES SOUTH AFRICA COMPARE?
9
EPR FOR PACKAGING IN EUROPE 4

• Even without a recycling tradition and good
  infrastructure, this approach achieves good
  results in just a few years
• Central Eastern European experience shows that
  once you start measuring, you find that you are
  recycling more than you thought (especially
  commercial industrial packaging)
• But the cost of meeting the EU targets varies
  widely from one member state to another so how
  do you meet the objectives at minimum cost?

10
SIX KEY MESSAGES FROM EUROPE

• 1) Every country is different theres no ideal
  solution
• 2) Nevertheless, there are certain cost
  magnifiers whose effects can be minimised by
  careful design of the system
• 3) Legislation should allow flexibility and
  reasonable time for system development
• 4) Too much segmentation of the targets should be
  avoided
• 5) Competition considerations should not prevent
  recovery organisations from acting as a focus for
  the national effort
• 6) The cost of complying with legislation should
  not be disproportionate to its benefit

11
WHAT DEAT WANTS TO SEE 1

• No more manual harvesting of recyclables from
  landfill sites harvesters moved into less
  dangerous, more sustainable jobs
• Achievable and realistic recycling targets
• No extra burden on municipalities
• An industry levy to fund not only operating costs
  but also investment in infrastructure

12
WHAT DEAT WANTS TO SEE 2

• A ten-year programme to introduce modern
  practices for household waste management
• Pilot schemes in
• Cape Town, where systems are most advanced, and
• a town with no infrastructure in place
• A proposal from industry before August/September
  this year
• so DEAT can apply to the Treasury for funds from
  the Buyisa surplus to support these projects in
  the next fiscal year

13
KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SA AND THE EU

• SA much more self-sufficient in production of
  packaging, paper and packaged goods than
  individual EU countries
• avoidance of trade distortions is a key EU issue
• data collection difficult in Europe because no
  Customs records
• SA much more self-sufficient in recycling
  capacity than the EU
• SA has a large pool of low-wage and informal
  labour
• anything valuable thats accessible to harvesters
  will be collected, provided harvesters able to
  sell it on
• which is also the case in the Balkans and Turkey

14
ADJUSTING THE EU MODEL FOR SA CONDITIONS

• Its envisaged that material producers, not
  brand-owners, will initially pay the levy and
  pass the cost down the chain
• As the system will be material-based rather than
  product-based, non-packaging paper to be included
  as well as packaging paper
• A decentralised organisational system, as in
  Scandinavia
• Existing material organisations to lead the
  recycling effort, with a new umbrella body to
  carry out joint tasks, e.g. consumer
  communications,
• dialogue with DEAT about the programme as a
  whole
• whereas in most EU countries the umbrella body
  leads

15
WHAT WILL PRODUCERS PAY FOR?

• The additional cost of separate collection,
  sorting and delivery to a recycler
• Municipalities have a basic legal obligation to
  collect waste from households
• The most cost-effective operating methods
• If municipalities want to gold-plate the system,
  they pay the extra cost
• Payments to take account of the market value of
  the collected material

16
HOW MUCH WILL THE LEVY BE?

• Nobody knows yet!
• Pilot schemes are being costed, but
• its better to raise more than your immediate
  needs so levies can be kept stable rather than
  live from hand to mouth and have to ask for
  unbudgeted increases
• Even in Europe, levy rates vary widely from
  country to country

17
EXAMPLES OF EUROPEAN LEVIES 1
18
EXAMPLES OF EUROPEAN LEVIES 2
19
COLLECTION METHODS 1
20
COLLECTION METHODS 2
21
COLLECTION METHODS 3
22
LEAKAGES FROM THE SYSTEM
23
EXAMPLES OF EUROPEAN LEVIES 3
24
COLLECTION AND SORTING

• Initial emphasis on low-hanging fruit
• collection in high-income areas
• collecting materials that will help meet targets
  most cheaply
• Later on, other materials and service to
  lower-income areas where different collection
  methods will be needed
• Find ways of involving informal collectors
• Ensure that materials collected are sufficiently
  clean and free from contamination, to maximise
  their marketability

25
OUTLETS FOR THE COLLECTED MATERIAL

• As collection increases, existing recycling
  capacity may no longer be sufficient for some
  materials
• Shrinkage of global demand may mean that there is
  no market for some materials once reprocessed
• Therefore
• new markets for recyclate may need to be
  developed
• Waste-to-Energy and Refuse Derived Fuel will be
  in the plan

26
DOWNSTREAM ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES

• Major retailers and packaged goods manufacturers
  are looking at and setting themselves and their
  suppliers targets for
• packaging optimisation
• (lightweighting, increased recyclability)
• sustainable production and distribution
• (to optimise material, water and energy
  consumption, and reduce carbon footprint)
• And theres also the litter issue
• These arent part of the immediate plan, but
  downstream best-practice will have to be factored
  in later

27
WHAT NEXT? PACSA AND RAGS TASKS

• PACSA and RAG to
• submit an outline plan to DEAT by end July
• secure industry commitment for the plan
• establish an organisational structure with an
  umbrella body by end 2009
• start collecting the levy in 2010

28
WHAT NEXT? DEATS TASKS

• DEAT to
• incorporate the outline plan in an application to
  the Treasury to use unspent Buyisa funds for
  pilot projects in 2010
• consult the competition authorities on the plan
• consult industry on appropriate recycling taregts
• include the targets in a National Waste
  Management Strategy to be prepared over the next
  two years
• draft Regulations imposing legal obligations on
  all producers

29
WHAT NEXT? SCOPE OF THE OUTLINE PLAN

• Funding
• How industry will organise itself to deliver on
  its commitments
• Communicating the programme
• Collection and sorting the pilot projects
• Collection and sorting provisional plans for
  the roll-out
• Enforcement issues
• Outlets for the collected materials
• Targets
• Design of a statistical database
• Issues relating to the regulatory back-up