Posts Tagged ‘Perchards’

GlobalPSC Expands Board for Greater Program and North American Coverage

Posted by GlobalPSC at 12:22 pm, December 18th, 2015Comments2

The GlobalPSC Executive Committee (Board) recently expanded its coverage to include more members with practical program experience in implementing North American product stewardship and extended producer responsibility (EPR) approaches in addition to further deepening its policy expertise. These additions were reaffirmed and complemented by the Board and GlobalPSC members during our recent Annual General Meeting (AGM). These changes will further the GlobalPSC vision of facilitating the development and implementation of effective product stewardship schemes globally.

Recently, the Board expanded its coverage to include David Lawes (BC Used Oil Management Association), Kylie Hughes (Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection) and Mark Kurschner (Product Care Association). During the AGM, Carl Smith (Call2Recycle) was also appointed to the Board. All Board appointments, including long-serving members Scott CasselGarth Hickle and Ed Cordner were affirmed during the AGM and are valid for one year.

The GlobalPSC Board recognises the invaluable contributions of Neil Hastie during his years of service on the Board and as President. Neil has elected to step back from his GlobalPSC duties to focus on other pursuits. Neil has our continued appreciation and support.

During the AGM, the following Board members were elected as office-holders for one-year terms:

The President’s Report and Financial Report from the AGM are available to members.

 

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. 

 

Australian Report Shows Low Handheld Battery Recycling Rate

Posted by GlobalPSC at 3:15 pm, July 14th, 2014Comments2

 

Batteries cr1Australia has today released a material flow analysis showing that handheld batteries are being recycled at a rate of only 2.7 per cent.

 

Approximately 400 million handheld batteries weighing 5kg or less were sold in Australia in 2012-13. For the same time period, 14,703 tonnes of batteries were disposed of and 403 tonnes were collected for recycling. Recovery rates for sealed lead acid, nickel cadmium, lithium primary and nickel metal hydride batteries were all in the 4.4 – 5.5 per cent range, while the recovery rate for alkaline and zinc carbon batteries was estimated at 1.6 per cent.

Batteries were collected through different channels including commercial collections (139 tonnes), retail store drop-off (111 tonnes), e-waste collections (45 tonnes), household hazardous waste collections (16 tonnes) and other recovery routes (91 tonnes). The rest (14,345 tonnes) were disposed to landfill.

On a unit number basis, 90 per cent of the batteries sales proposed to be subject to the Australian product stewardship scheme are single‐use batteries and 10% are rechargeable batteries. On a weight basis, 50% are single‐use and 50% are rechargeable.

Consumption trends indicate that lithium ion batteries will continue to grow as a proportion of all battery sales, increasing from around 24 per cent in 2013 to 33 per cent in 2020.

The report, ‘Study into market share and stocks and flows of handheld batteries in Australia’, was commissioned by the Battery Implementation Working Group (BIWG) on behalf of Australian governments to assist in developing a national battery product stewardship scheme for Australia. Environment Ministers agreed on the need to include end-of-life handheld batteries and waste paint in the Standing Council on Environment and Water’s work plan. The Australian Government identified handheld batteries as priority products potentially covered under Australia’s Product Stewardship Act in 2013 and reaffirmed their designation in 2014.

Sustainable Resource Use (SRU), in association with Perchards Ltd and Sagis Ltd, conducted the work to provide an evidence base to inform the work of the BIWG.

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

 

Proposed Scheme Released for National Battery Product Stewardship Approach in Australia

Posted by GlobalPSC at 3:05 pm, March 7th, 2014Comments4

The Battery Implementation Working Group (BIWG) tasked with developing a national handheld battery product stewardship scheme for Australia has today released a discussion paper for consultation as well as a project communique on efforts to date. Consultation on the proposed scheme is open until 31 March.

Australian, state and territory governments have made product stewardship for handheld batteries a national priority and dedicated resources to the development of an appropriate scheme, including project funding and the establishment of the BIWG, with bipartisan support.

The discussion paper outlines a proposed voluntary, industry-led national Battery Product Stewardship Scheme (Scheme) for Australia, along with a number of options for the operation of the Scheme. The proposed Scheme would apply to all handheld batteries less than 5 kg, with the exception of embedded batteries, and comprise the following elements:

  • A Battery Stewardship Agreement that would provide a collective written commitment between stewards for developing, funding and implementing the Scheme.
  • A 5-year Strategic Plan to be developed jointly by the producer responsibility organisation (PRO) and stewards that would provide more detail for how the PRO and stewards will implement the Scheme in accordance with the Agreement.
  • Transparent annual reporting of performance against the Strategic Plan.
  • Importers seeking to meet the objectives of the Agreement through their own arrangement rather than through an industry-wide PRO would be expected to deliver a comparable Strategic Plan and annual reports to Stewards under the Agreement.

As a voluntary, industry-led national approach, the proposed Scheme is open to a broad range of stakeholders and has the benefits of simplicity of design, reduced barriers to participation and ease of understanding. The proposed Scheme would provide more immediate action with lower costs and greater certainty compared to immediate pursuit of a co-regulatory approach. Stakeholders that are already implementing collection programs or are likely to do so in the near future can be better recognised for their early action. A voluntary approach provides the flexibility to modify and improve the Scheme in order to improve performance and reduce costs, especially in the first few years of implementation.

It is envisaged that importers of handheld batteries would have primary financial responsibility for funding the Scheme, although it is recognised that other parties may make additional direct or in-kind contributions. Other parties may have roles as stewards, for example, by providing collection facilities at point-of-sale or at local council waste management sites. Options considered are provided in the discussion paper.

The Global Product Stewardship Council and GlobalPSC members have been active throughout the process:

European Commission proposes mandatory CSR disclosure for large companies

Posted by GlobalPSC at 3:24 pm, April 19th, 2013Comments1

by David Perchard, GlobalPSC Vice-President and Managing Director of Perchards Ltd

On 16 April the Commission adopted a proposal for a directive that will amend the Accounting Directives by requiring companies with more than 500 employees and either a balance sheet total of over EUR 20 million or a net turnover of over EUR 40 million, to include in their annual reports a non-financial statement containing information relating to environmental, social and employee matters, respect for human rights, anti-corruption and bribery matters.

This would have to include a description of company policy in these areas, the results of these policies, the risks related to them and how the company manages those risks. Where a company does not pursue policies in relation to one or more of these matters, it would have to provide an explanation for not doing so.

See here for further information.

Profiles for GlobalPSC Members

Posted by GlobalPSC at 2:57 pm, August 31st, 2012Comments0

The Global Product Stewardship Council is pleased to have a diverse range of businesses, governments and NGOs among our members. Check out recent profiles on the following GlobalPSC members:

Current members that wish to create a new profile or update their existing profile should contact the GlobalPSC at admin@globalpsc.net. Information on making the most of GlobalPSC membership is also available here.

GlobalPSC Foundation Member Profile – Perchards

Posted by GlobalPSC at 7:16 pm, August 22nd, 2012Comments4

 

 

Perchards Ltd is a Foundation Member of the Global Product Stewardship Council.

Perchards monitors and analyses legislative developments on packaging, e-waste and spent batteries worldwide, and helps companies with compliance. Perchards has advised more than 350 clients in 36 countries, and its web-based information service is used by subscribers from all over the world.

Perchards publishes comprehensive and regularly updated reports on legislation and policy in 40 European countries and at EU level, and has also published surveys of packaging legislation and policy in the Canadian provinces, US states and in 15 African countries.  It also offers clients a tailored service providing monitoring and information, policy analysis and advice on strategic development.

Perchards has carried out studies for the European Commission, the World Bank group, the Commonwealth of Australia, the EPA of one Australian state, the Czech Environment Ministry, the Irish EPA, the Slovak Environment Ministry and for two government departments in the UK.

They include a major report for the Commission on the implementation of the EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive and its impact on the functioning of the European Internal Market.  From 2001 to 2007 Perchards also took part in a series of Commission seminars in EU candidate countries, explaining aspects of implementation of the Directive, the lessons learned by existing member states and the pitfalls to be avoided.

Perchards has given evidence to a Knesset committee in Israel and helped to prepare South Africa’s Packaging and Paper Industry Waste Management Plan for submission to the government.  Consultants from Perchards regularly speak at conferences all over the world, and in 2011 outlined European experience of extended producer responsibility (EPR) at a US state legislators’ forum.

Managing Director David Perchard has written several papers on packaging eco-design, and from 1998 to 2006 was Packaging Consultant to CEN, the European Standards Committee, while the European standards on packaging and the environment were being developed. David also serves as GlobalPSC Vice-President.

 

European Parliament Resolution on Resource-efficiency Includes EPR

Posted by GlobalPSC at 10:33 am, June 4th, 2012Comments0

 

 

 

 

On 24 May 2012, the European Parliament adopted a Resolution on a resource-efficient Europe. The Resolution calls for more EU-wide extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes, and for new legislative and labelling initiatives aimed at promoting sustainability. A summary of the Resolution’s recommendations and analysis of its implications has been posted on the Global Product Stewardship Council Knowledge Base available to GlobalPSC members, courtesy of GlobalPSC members Perchards.

GlobalPSC members can access the information by logging in to the Knowledge Base at www.globalpsc.net.

New European Program Information for GlobalPSC Members

Posted by GlobalPSC at 9:48 pm, May 2nd, 2012Comments0

New information on European programs has been posted on the Global Product Stewardship Council Knowledge Base available to GlobalPSC members, courtesy of GlobalPSC members Perchards.

News items have been posted for the following:

  • Delay for the Recast WEEE Directive.
  • French adoption of several decrees to implement commitments made in the Grenelle forum and set out in principle in the two Grenelle laws.
  • Draft French decree on a common set of symbols to provide consumers with waste sorting instructions for recyclable products.
  • Defra (UK) report on progress of its Waste Policy Review.
  • 2010 data on municipal solid waste generation and treatment.

GlobalPSC members can access the information by logging in to the Knowledge Base at www.globalpsc.net.

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