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_at_fostplus.be