Product Take-Back in Europe - Some Legislative Initiatives (Past and Present)

1
Product Take-Back in Europe - Some Legislative
Initiatives (Past and Present)
2
EC Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive

• Problem Landfills are filling up and the
  European Member States must find a way to
  minimize their future use.
• Solution Use economic instruments to promote EC
  objectives within a single market.
• Means Recovery and recycling of packaging by
  weight in accordance with certain targets over
  time

3
Packaging Definition

• All materials for containment, handling, and
  delivery of products, goods, and raw materials.
• Includes
• Industrial packaging
• Primary, secondary, and tertiary packaging
• No small package exemption.
• No food, drug, and cosmetic exemption.

4
Within Five Years of Directive

• Each member state must
• recover by packaging weight
• minimum of 50
• maximum of 65
• recycle by overall weight of packaging in waste
  stream
• minimum of 25
• maximum of 45
• per material
• minimum of 15
• Note the maxima. Why would one put maxima on
  recovery?

5
Regulatory Instruments

• Within 3 years only packaging meeting the
  essential requirements may be placed upon the
  market.
• Essential requirements
• volume
• weight
• composition
• returnable
• recyclable
• recoverable
• recoverable in form of energy recovery
• compostible
• biodegradable

6
German Packaging Ordinance Duales System
Deutschland (DSD)

• Green dot symbol which may be applied to
  packaging for a licensing fee.
• Oldest system in place (since 1991).
• Private packaging waste collection system for
  collection, separation and recycling of used
  packaging.
• Onus on manufacturers, distributors, and
  retailers.
• Targets on collection and recycling of packaging
• 80 collection
• 90 of collected materials for sorting and
  recycling

7
DSD Material Type Distinction

• As of 1995, the following types and percentages
  are collected
• Glass 70
• Tinplate 70
• Aluminum/other materials 70
• Laminates 65
• Paper/corrugate 65
• Plastics 65

8
DSD Experience

• High success rate
• 95 awareness
• 75 returnable bottle rate
• High cost
• 6 billion to set up
• 1 billion annual operating cost
• 160/ton waste management cost
• Inability to recycle collected materials
• Trade barrier
• Increased market entry costs
• export of collected materials
• unfair dumping practices in underdeveloped
  countries
• Demand for revisions.

9
Electronic Waste in Europe

• Project to examine improvement in waste
  management started in Jan. 1994 and is to be
  completed by mid-1995.
• Take back to be considered
• Germany has prepared legislation
• France has recommended it in report
• Four working groups
• 1. Definitions
• 2. Roles and payments
• 3. Data on waste volumes and content
• 4. Feasibility, cost and benefits of recovery
• Other projects in Europe
• Used tires - Used cars
• Chlorinated solvents - Health care waste

10
Germany

• Electronic take-back law shelved for the moment
  (?)
• Household appliance manufacturers (Bosch-Siemens,
  AEG, Miele, Bauknecht) doing joint recycling with
  waste companies.
• Use both bring and curb-side pickup
• All based on disposal fee paid by user.
• Consumer electronics (Sony, Mitsubishi, Siemens,
  Apple, HP) have started a joint
  recovery/recycling initiative named CARE
  Comprehensive Approach for Recycling of
  Electronics.
• CARE proposes to develop, by 2000, international
  repair, reuse, and recovery standards for
  products, parts and materials.
• Austria will follow Germany on this subject.

11
German Waste Framework Law

• To come into force by 1996
• Establishes waste management hierarchy.
• Decrees will follow for specific waste streams.
• Products must be designed and manufactured to
• not create environmental problems during
  dismantling, recycling, or disposal
• be reusable, long-lived, easy to repair
• contain no hazardous materials

12
Netherlands

• Dutch Environmental Management Act makes
  manufacturers and importers of household
  appliances and consumer electronics responsible
  for developing collection and recycling schemes
  for their products.
• The Dutch Association of Suppliers of Household
  Appliances (VLEHAN) has developed a collection
  scheme that would be financed by a surcharge on
  new products. Tests to be run
• Collection of used refrigerators (in 1995)
• Collection of consumer electronics (in 1995)
• Household appliances and consumer electronics
  will be banned from landfills in proposed
  legislation.

13
United Kingdom and France

• UK
• Proposal from Industry Council for Electronic
  Equipment Recycling (ICER) on recycling
  refrigerators to personal computers.
• Tests to start in 1995 on 230,000 households.
• Tests both curbside and bring schemes and
  different recycling techniques.
• Levy scheme based on new products to fund
  recycling program.
• France
• Does not advocate take-back legislation.
• Prefers cooperative effort by producers,
  distributors, and consumers to develop recovery
  system.

14
Sweden and PVC

• The Swedish Life-Cycle Commission an advisory
  body set up by the government to develop
  proposals for material recycling and reuse has
  recommended a complete phaseout of PVC in Sweden
  by 2000.
• Nordic countries are discussing proposals to
  label electronic waste as hazardous waste.

15
Belgium Eco-Taxes

• Hits one way packaging and disposable products.
• Favors reuse systems
• Beverage packaging
• PVC beverage bottles
• Single-use cameras
• Batteries
• Containers of products for industrial use (inks,
  solvents, pesticides, glues, oils)
• Biocides (nonagricultural pesticides for consumer
  use)
• Flanders is preparing to negotiate voluntary
  waste management agreements with the white goods
  sector, starting with domestic refrigerators.

16
Belgium (cont.)

• Exemption examples
• recycled content of 40 to 80
• refillable containers
• Criticisms
• No sound environmental analysis.
• Protection of Belgian industry, distorting
  competition within the EC.
• Discriminates against certain packaging without
  economic justification.
• Does not consider recyclability as an
  alternative.
• Does not give sufficient credit to incineration.