Posts Tagged ‘Europe’

GlobalPSC Sustaining Corporate Member – The Compliance Map Ltd

Posted by GlobalPSC at 3:22 pm, March 11th, 2016Comments1

 

Compliance Map develops solutions to help businesses manage their environmental compliance obligations arising from regulations and directives and to help optimize their use of resources. This includes product stewardship responsibilities, reporting and minimization of waste as well as carbon disclosure that will play a significant part in identifying, monitoring and driving down their customer’s global environmental impacts.

Both Product Stewardship and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) regulations and standards are at the core of Compliance Map’s solution offering. This includes mechanisms to collect, store and produce remittance reports required for submission to EPR schemes for directives such as WEEE (waste electrical and electronic equipment), Battery as well as deposit and worldwide Packaging programmes. The solution offered automatically manages sales warehousing data and combines with relevant Packaging, WEEE, Battery, Oil, Beverage or Paint information to produce costs and weight reports ready to be remitted to registered schemes on a monthly, quarterly or annually basis. This enables companies to automate the entire process by which they track and report waste to schemes and programmes worldwide and make better use of their own resources.

Compliance Map are made of a team of regulatory compliance experts with over 20+ years of experience in the arena of environmental compliance which has been fed into their software solution offerings, creating a holistic approach to managing obligations businesses face in today’s regulatory climate.

 

Guest Blog – Dutch Sustainability Plans for Packaging

Posted by GlobalPSC at 1:24 pm, August 13th, 2015Comments2

The Global Product Stewardship Council periodically invites thought leaders on product stewardship and producer responsibility to contribute guest blogs. Our guest blogger for this post is Gill Bevington, Policy Analyst, Packaging for Perchards.

 

 

The packaging sustainability institute, KIDV, KIDV has published an overview in English about the progress of the sustainability plans which industry undertook to develop as part of its commitments in the Framework Agreement on Packaging.

KIDV reports that sectoral sustainability plans covering 80% of the weight of packaging on the market have now been submitted. This first set of plans sets out objectives and measures to achieve them by 2018 and further plans will be developed with objectives for 2022.

Since the Framework Agreement was signed, the Packaging Decree has been revised. The revised Decree, which was adopted in 2014, gives the Minister powers to impose statutory sustainability requirements on packaging. These new powers are seen as fall back powers if the plans now being developed do not deliver the results the Dutch authorities are hoping for. It is important therefore that Dutch industry supports and implements the plans.

KIDV’s methodology for the plans is to identify the front runners in each sector, and then aim to bring all companies in that sector up to the same level. Targets for the sector are based on the best in class. The plans were assessed by an independent review committee established by KIDV and consisting of four experts from different universities.

As KIDV’s approach was innovative, it was challenging to get the sectors involved in the development of the plans. Some showed reluctance at first, comments KIDV, but because the approach was unfamiliar, not through lack of interest. KIDV warns that the process will take time, depending on the level of investment needed to implement the plans and because the scientific knowledge needed to set targets was not available in all cases.

Each sectoral plan sets out the measures to be taken by producers in order to increase the sustainability of product-pack combinations within their sector, both measures to be taken by 2018 and then by 2022. Each sector is responsible for implementing its plan. The focus is currently on the product-pack combinations with the greatest potential environmental benefit.

The first plans to be developed cover the fruit and vegetables, food (including animal feed) and e-commerce sectors. A sub-plan for rPET 2018-2022 has been submitted by the Dutch association for soft drinks, waters and juices.

The main focus of the first plans to be submitted is:

  • greater use of sustainably managed and certified raw materials, such as FSC;
  • increase in the proportion of secondary raw materials in packaging, such as in plastic bottles and pots, tubs and trays (PTT)s;
  • decrease in the quantity of materials used, through optimisation and source reduction;
  • increasing the recyclability of packaging, through the use of mono-materials;
  • use of recycling logos on packaging to enable consumers to sort their packaging better.

There is nothing new about policy-makers encouraging producers to improve the environmental performance of their packaging. Industry bodies throughout Europe have for years published good practice examples of optimised packaging, including source reduction, improved recyclability etc, which aim both to encourage other producers and to demonstrate to policy-makers the efforts being made.

It has always been up to each producer to decide whether and how to optimise its packaging. Even in countries like Belgium and Spain, where producers have to submit prevention plans to the authorities, the producers set their own targets in their plans. But the new Dutch approach is different – it seeks to identify which are the best product-pack combinations in a sector under different headings and then to bring all producers in that sector up to that standard. With the threat of legislation if the plans do not yield as much as expected, sectoral trade associations will be working hard to encourage their members to participate in the process.

But it raises some questions:

  • What happens if the front runner is in that enviable position because of a unique set of circumstances which other producers in the sector cannot emulate?
  • How much pressure will individual companies be under to improve their sustainability in order to meet the targets in the plan? There may be sound reasons why a producer cannot match the best in class. Plans are being implemented by the sectors so individual companies will be judged by their peers (competitors) who will understand the constraints. But if it looks as though the objectives in a plan will not be met, which could have implications for all producers in the sector, what then?
  • What about imported products, for which the importer will have to persuade its foreign suppliers to make the necessary changes? That might not be possible or desirable because of the longer transport distances and/or because the preferred packaging type is not available in the country of production. Individual Dutch importers are of course free to set their own product/packaging specifications, but if those specifications are set out in a formal plan, could they represent a barrier to trade to suppliers in other EU member states?
  • Could there be problems with commercial confidentiality? Some front runners may be happy to be named and to provide information about their packaging. But others may prefer to keep the data confidential because their optimised packaging helps to give them their competitive edge. And will the laggards be named and shamed, even if there are sound reasons why they cannot match the best in class?

What happens if the results in 2018 are not as good as expected, even if the sectors have worked hard to improve the sustainability of their packaging? How will Dutch policy-makers respond? Will they acknowledge that the achievements are as good as they possibly can be and that, using the methodology, performance will continue to improve in future? Or will they conclude that this “voluntary” action is insufficient and that legislation is necessary? It remains to be seen whether this new Dutch approach is just rhetoric or whether it will deliver real improvements.

The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Global Product Stewardship Council. 

Gill Bevington joined Perchards in 1991 and currently serves as Policy Analyst, Packaging. She monitors, analyses and reports on European legislative developments on packaging (and industry response to them) at national and EU level, and is an expert on national packaging waste management initiatives across Europe. Gill has carried out many tailor-made studies for clients on aspects of the packaging legislation in place in various European countries and speaks regularly at conferences on the subject. 

 

Delivering Resource-Efficient Products in Europe

Posted by GlobalPSC at 3:22 pm, March 31st, 2015Comments1

The European Environment Bureau (EEB), a federation of environmental citizens’ organisations, has released a report on how ecodesign can drive a circular economy in Europe through resource-efficient products.

Drawing from a range of research, the report highlights some of the broader life-cycle and resource implications of products sold in Europe:

  • 40% of all the raw materials used in the EU were sourced elsewhere. For some raw material categories like metal ores, the import dependency is over 90% (Eurostat 2014).
  • Increasing resource productivity by 2% per year could create two million extra jobs in the EU by 2030 (European Commission 2014).
  • Stimulating economic activity in the areas of product development, remanufacturing and refurbishment would provide net material cost savings to EU manufacturing worth up to €410-490 billion per year by 2025 (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2013).
  • Selected electrical and electronic devices placed on the EU market over one year cause the equivalent of 1,500 million tonnes of CO2 emissions over their lifecycle, equal to the entire energy production of the UK, Germany and Poland combined (EEB).

The report highlights three options that can be combined to reduce resource use in products:

  • identifying design requirements that support better repairability and durability of products;
  • ensuring that selected materials in products are managed carefully from production to end-of-life, including options to use high shares of recycled content and support their high-quality recyclability;
 and
  • removing problematic or hazardous substances undermining the potential for re-using material from products.

Since 2005, design decisions on many energy-using products have been regulated under the EU Ecodesign Directive, with a focus on reducing energy consumption during usage and little emphasis on resource use. The EEB report argues that the relative weight of greenhouse gas emissions embedded in products will grow when looking at a product’s emissions over its life-cycle, resulting in a gradual shift in the attention of policy-makers from the usage phase to the design and production phase of products.

 

Packaging Discussions Focus on Circular Economy, Free-riders and Competition

Posted by GlobalPSC at 6:06 am, March 1st, 2015Comments1

2015-02-24 20.30.36(L-R: Ullar Huik of ETO, Helmut Schmitz of Duales System Holding GmbH, Joacim Quoden of EXPRA and Seamus Clancy of Repak)

The GlobalPSC and several of our members addressed a range of packaging extended producer responsibility (EPR) and product stewardship issues for packaging and printed paper in Brussels, Belgium, late February as part of the EPR Toolkit Seminar and Packaging Waste & Sustainability Forum.

Joachim Quoden, Managing Director of the Extended Producer Responsibility Alliance (EXPRA)  and member of the GlobalPSC Advisory Group, chaired the EPR Toolkit Seminar on 24 February. The seminar emphasised harmonising EPR rules and guidelines in Europe, learning from international experience (including lessons on Australia by GlobalPSC CEO Russ Martin and Canada by Chris van Rossem of the Canadian Stewardship Services Alliance) and the roles of transparency and competition.

The roles of packaging and EPR in the Circular Economy and in ensuring transparency and accountability of producers were hot topics of discussion throughout the events, analysis of which will be made available to GlobalPSC members.

European Commission Withdraws Circular Economy Package

Posted by GlobalPSC at 4:22 pm, December 21st, 2014Comments0

In an expected move, the European Commission has withdrawn the Circular Economy Package from consideration, with the package likely to be revisited in around one year.

The Commission normally proposes around 130 initiatives a year, but has committed to adopting 23 targeted initiatives in 2015.

In Questions and Answers: the 2015 Work Programme, the Commission states,

“In some cases the Commission is proposing to withdraw proposals in order to replace them subsequently by more ambitious proposals or to tailor them more closely to its ten priorities (for example to present a new proposal with a broader approach on the circular economy to meet our ambitions in a more effective way).”

The GlobalPSC will continue to follow Circular Economy developments closely and share insights.

GlobalPSC Forms Advisory Group on Product Stewardship and Extended Producer Responsibility

Posted by GlobalPSC at 8:02 pm, July 31st, 2014Comments9

GlobalPSC_Advisory_Group_0714At the Global Product Stewardship Council, we take pride in the breadth and depth of experience represented by our members and our extensive global network of those in the know. We regularly seek information and advice from a diverse range of experts across varying product types, regulatory perspectives and program experience. It therefore gives us great pleasure to announce the founding members of the GlobalPSC Advisory Group spanning Europe, Africa, North America and the Asia Pacific:

Brief profiles for GlobalPSC Advisory Group members are provided here.

The GlobalPSC will regularly canvass information and views from the Advisory Group, as we did recently in preparing  submissions to governments on proposed changes to product stewardship and extended producer responsibility frameworks in Nova Scotia and New Zealand. We greatly appreciate their contributions to the continued growth of the GlobalPSC and look forward to working with them in the years to come.

European Experience on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)

Posted by GlobalPSC at 4:37 pm, July 10th, 2014Comments0

The European Commission has developed guidance drawing on European experience with extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes. The report provides an overview of existing EPR schemes in the EU-28, examines their performance and reports on their cost-effectiveness (fees paid by producers vs. collection rates) by product type via 36 case studies.

Some of the interesting findings include:

  • The extent to which net operational costs are covered by producers’ fees is highly variable. Using packaging as an example, the net cost coverage by producers’ fees ranges from around 10 % in the UK to 100% in five of the Member States examined.
  • Sound waste management and recycling have generally improved, notably through the implementation of EPR.
  • There is a general lack of transparency and availability of reliable data, especially for waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE).
  • The best performing schemes are not necessarily the most expensive.
  • No single EPR model emerges as the best performing and the most cost-effective.
  • There is no clear evidence of a strong positive impact of EPR on the eco-design of the products.
  • Few or no targets or indicators regarding eco-design have been developed.
  • Collective schemes can de-incentivise individual producers’ efforts for eco-design.

The report is provided in the Knowledge Base available to GlobalPSC members, under the Programs tab.

EU Launches New Green Growth Package and Amendments to Product-Specific Directives

Posted by GlobalPSC at 3:42 pm, July 10th, 2014Comments1

On 2 July 2014, the European Commission launched its Green Growth package. The aim is to link waste policy with resource efficiency through the “circular economy” to reduce resource consumption, maximise reuse and recycling, and improve security of supply and create jobs by reprocessing waste materials within Europe.

The Commission is now proposing a target of 70% recycling and preparation for reuse by 2030 and a ban on the landfilling of recyclable materials by 2025. The Commission is also proposing some aspirational targets – reducing food waste by 30% between 2017 and 2026, and ending the landfilling of recoverable waste by 2030. The Commission is proposing to replace overall recovery targets (recycling, energy recovery, etc.) under the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive with overall and material-specific targets for recycling and preparation for reuse.

Member States must ensure that financial contributions into extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes by producers “cover the entire cost of waste management, including separate collection and treatment, adequate information to waste holders, data gathering and reporting.”  Producers must also “support litter prevention and clean-up initiatives.”

An overview of the proposals and targets, led by GlobalPSC Foundation Members Perchards, is provided in the Knowledge Base available to GlobalPSC members under the Frameworks & Harmonisation tab. 

Packaging Product Stewardship One Focus of Clean Enviro Summit Singapore

Posted by GlobalPSC at 10:26 pm, June 30th, 2014Comments1

In early June, the GlobalPSC and several of our members spoke on packaging product stewardship and recycling during the Clean Enviro Summit Singapore (CESS) at the request of Singapore’s National Environment Agency and event organisers. Collectively, the CESS, the World Cities Summit and the Singapore International Water Week attracted more than 20,000 participants from 118 countries.

CESS Packaging PS Session Group 2 cr

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Pictured L-R: Russ Martin of the GlobalPSC, Derek Stephenson of the Reclay Group, Joachim Quoden of the Extended Producer Responsibility Alliance, David Kiu of Unilever, Garth Hickle of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and GlobalPSC Executive Committee, and Dr Mervyn Jones of WRAP)

Product stewardship programs examined included those in Europe, North America and the Asia Pacific region. Opportunities for increasing packaging recycling rates, incorporating informal collections in developing countries and the roles of packaging in reducing food wastage and meeting consumer needs featured prominently in the discussions. Details will be made available in the Knowledge Base available to GlobalPSC members.

Slide1(Pictured: Garth Hickle addressing packaging product stewardship developments in North America)

GlobalPSC Member Profile – Extended Producer Responsibility Alliance (EXPRA)

Posted by GlobalPSC at 2:01 pm, May 30th, 2014Comments7

 

 

 

 

 

The Extended Producer Responsibility Alliance (EXPRA), founded in 2013, is the umbrella organisation for packaging and packaging waste recovery and recycling systems which are owned by obliged industry and work on a not-for-profit basis. EXPRA acts as the authoritative voice and common policy platform representing the interests of all its member packaging recovery and recycling organisations founded and run by or on behalf of obliged industry.

These national recovery organisations are pursuing similar goals, essentially finding themselves and their stakeholders in a similar situations. They have set themselves the task of relieving industrial companies and commercial enterprises of their individual obligation to take back used sales packaging through the operation of a scheme which fulfills these obligations on a nation-wide basis on behalf of their member companies.

The aim is to ensure the recovery and recycling of packaging waste in the most economically efficient and ecologically sound manner. The members of EXPRA wish to demonstrate that the recycling of used packaging is an important step on the path towards the sustainable development that is necessary to safeguard our planet for future generations.

 

For further information please contact:

EXPRA aisbl/ivzw

Extended Producers Responsibility Alliance

Avenue Olympiades 2

1140 Brussels (Evere)

BELGIUM

 

Phone: +32 2 513 70 55

E-mail: info(at)expra.eu

Subscribe
Receive news and updates from us

GlobalPSC Facebook
 
Global Product Stewardship Council

PO Box 755, Turramurra, NSW 2074, Australia
Tel: +61 2 9489 8851
Fax: +61 2 9489 8553
Email: info@globalpsc.net