Laurence BOURET is a waste management expert for 15 years. She started her career in the public sector before joining the car industry. She dedicated 5 years to her children before developing along with Jacques PELISSARD, former MP and former President of the French Mayor’s Association, the first national resource center for waste management. Since 2013 she manages a unique and peculiar not-for-profit Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) called DASTRI.

Russ Martin is Chief Executive Officer of the GlobalPSC and Director of Martin Steward Russ has over 28 years experience in product stewardship, public policy and sustainability in the US, Australia and Middle East. ship & Management Strategies Pty Ltd (MS2), an Australia-based consultancy. Russ has delivered major presentations in China, Singapore, Belgium, Serbia, the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand on product stewardship and sustainability.

SPEAKERS

F. Adshead F. Aggeri C. Albert K. Aldred Cheek C. Alliès (SHC) (Mines ParisTech) (SICR) (PSI) (Primum Non Nocere)

M. Armstrong JM. Banez R FZ. Barca P. Binnemans F. Bonnet (Min. Env.) (MARS) (Min. Env.) (Eucobat) (ACR+)

F. Bonnifet P. Börkey J. Bouzenot M. Carvell C. Chaumeil (Bouygues C3D) (OECD) (Rudologia) (Lorax Comp.) (FFD)

A. Claudot F. De Mengin F M. Dempsey C. Diochot A. Doi (ECO-TLC) (VALDELIA) (HP) (C2D) (Metro Vancouver)

M. Dubois C. Fabricius J T. Fraineux F. Ganizate P. Gelbhart (EY) (Novo Nordisk) (Provence TLC) (SantéCité Achat) (USPO)

G. Gonzalez C S. Gorecki V. Gourves F. Gracia T. Grimmond (Min. Env) (DGS) (FCBA) (CHU Montpellier) (Consultant) SPEAKERS

M. Guiraud I. Gulphe-Lachaud R. Henderson A. Humbert-D. P. Iglecias (EucoLight) (BVA Opinion) (GSK) (VALDELIA) (CETESB)

N. Imbert J. Joyce S. Kerbarh A. Krotova FM. Lambert (Green Cross) (HealthBeacon) (MP) (GRI) (I.N Eco. Circulaire)

S. Lebre-Badré JY. Le Coq R. Leiva N P. Leroy T. Lindhqvist (CITEO) (GSK) (Valoryza) (WEEE Forum) (Lund University)

S. Malangeau S. Maoulana M T.Moreau Desf. C. Pautrat D. Pernot (Fr. Experimentation) (Min. Foreign Aff) (CYCLAMED) (ERP Recycling) (ADELPHE)

M. Pery J. Quoden W. Ringel M. Romineska S. Roschnik (Neoline) (EXPRA) (TOMRA) (EXPRA) (NHS)

K. Sadauskas H. Sanborn M. Sandrini M. Scalia E. Schalk M (Euro. Commission) (NSAC) (Aquafil) (EURATEX) (FDA) SPEAKERS

N. Shpitzer M F. Squinazi Y. Steffen C. van Rossem J. Vernier (Min. Env.) (Public Healt Fr) (NOVARTIS) (CSSA) (Fr. EPR Commission)

J. Wicki D. Woodring K. Yu (ALMETA) (Ocean Rec. Alliance) (CRRA) SESSION 1

FROM THEORY TO REALITY SESSION 1 THE CONCEPT OF EPR & PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP

Thomas Lindhqvist

Senior lecturer at The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics (IIEC)

Peter Börkey

Principal Administrator, OECD Environment Directorate

See slide show SESSION 1 THE SITUATION WORLDWIDE

Extended Producer Responsibility in the EU

Françoise Bonnet

Secretary General of ACR+ 63, avenue d’Auderghem, 1040 Brussels. Tel. + 32 2 234 65 00

Abstract European waste/resource policy has been driven by an increasing concern to protect the environment. As early as 1975, the first directives were born: Directive 75/442 / EEC on waste management in general and Directive 75/493 / EEC on the disposal of used oils. Many more will follow in the years after. The main guiding principles underlying environmental protection, such as the polluter pays principle, are included in the EU Treaty itself. The core of these waste management programs and legislation can be summed up succinctly by: • The precautionary principle • The principles of proximity and self-sufficiency • The polluter pays principle • The hierarchy of waste (refined over the years) The problem of waste management in the context of the European construction has been a dual issue since the beginning: environmental and economic. First of all because "the establishment and functioning of an internal market for products can not ignore the 'dead products' which have thus ended their useful function and become 'waste'". Secondly because waste management was initially (and still is in many jurisdictions) perceived as a "financial burden" by municipalities. Important source of costs, not income.

See slide show SESSION 1 THE SITUATION WORLDWIDE

EPR in Australia & New Zealand

Russ Martin

Global PSC Chief Executive Officer PO Box 755 Turramurra NSW 2074 Australia. Tel. +61 417 445 644

Abstract Australia and New Zealand have long had a history of preferring voluntary product stewardship over traditional extended producer responsibility (EPR). Australian publishers first made voluntary industry commitments to a National Environmental Sustainability Agreement endorsed by state and federal governments that has run since 1991. Two Australian schemes, the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation and National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme (NTCRS), are ‘co-regulatory’ models with regulatory underpinnings similar to basic EPR. No enforcement actions have been taken to date for either. Australia also introduced the Product Stewardship for Oil Scheme in 2001. Both countries have frameworks in place to allow for mandatory approaches, but have not done so. Australia’s Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) process is intended to minimise burdensome regulation and to ensure that where regulation is pursued, it is appropriate and cost-effective to address the identified problem. However, the RIS process is also a significant barrier to developing product stewardship and EPR schemes, at a minimum requiring several years and hundreds of thousands of dollars, yet still delivering uncertain outcomes. This process impeded an EPR framework for tyres, instead dictating a voluntary approach by the tyre industry. To get a co-regulatory approach in place for waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) under the NTCRS, consumer preparedness to pay for higher recycling rates for WEEE had to be proven and the Product Stewardship Act 2011 (Act) passed to provide a framework for justifying, developing and implementing voluntary, co-regulatory and mandatory schemes. The Act is currently undergoing a review. The Global Product Stewardship Council’s first International Stewardship Forum provided a foundation for the review. Additional discussions are currently being undertaken with stakeholders. Both countries have accredited or otherwise supported a range of voluntary approaches. Several Australian states and territories have recently implemented container deposit schemes (CDS), leaving only one state without CDS in place or pending. Australia has also released a draft work plan for reducing the environmental impacts of products through a new Product Impact Management Scheme, with details pending. See slide show SESSION 1 THE SITUATION WORLDWIDE

Achievements and Challenges of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) implementation in China: in a case of WEEE

Keli Yu, Yunong Liu

Corresponding author at : China National Resources Recycling Association Tel.: +86 138 112 434 05, [email protected]

Abstract EPR is an important policy approach for the implementation of Sustainable Material Management and the resource preservation and whole of life-cycle approaches that it promotes. At present, major OECD countries have established their own EPR management systems for packaging, scrapped vehicles, batteries and Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). China also follows the EPR theory in the management of some types of solid waste, in particular, WEEE management has gained some experience and success. In 2012, the Chinese government established fund subsidy system for WEEE based on EPR theory, which had promoted the development of WEEE industry. Whereas, the fund subsidy system has been appeared the phenomenon of imbalance of income and expenditure in recently years, and WEEE management system also faces a series of challenges. In this article, we briefly introduce evolution of China's WEEE management and the operation of the WEEE fund. And then some problems in WEEE management system are summarized. Finally, some suggestions focusing on improvement EPR system are put forward. Key words: Extended Producer Responsibility, Electrical and Electronic Equipment, Fund subsidy systemc Full presentation 1. Introduction In recent years，with the improvement of people consumption level, sales volume of all kinds of products continue to increase, as a result ,a large number of products will be eliminated and discarded. In order to control the impact of waste on the environment, and at the same time to effectively recycle waste resources, many countries have enacted corresponding laws on waste management, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) theory is widely used in the formulation of laws. Germany is the first EU country to implement EPR theory for packaging. In 1991, the regulations on the “Prevention and Recycling of Packaging Waste” promulgated and its amendments are the world's first special packaging regulations established for the purpose of promoting the establishment of producer responsibility. In 1997, Sweden formulated the “Ordinance on Producer Responsibility for Cars” based on the EPR theory. South Korea has established a mature EPR system for paper-based packaging, glass bottles, metal cans, synthetic resin packaging, batteries, tires, lubricants and electronic equipment through the EPR pilot of these seven products in 2003. China was one of the first developing countries to use the EPR system for the special solid waste management, and WEEE has become a pilot area of Chinese EPR theory. China is a major consumer of electrical and electronic products. By the third quarter of 2018, the sales volume of various electrical and electronic products is 142.06 million units TV sets, 52.28 million units washing machine, 156.28 million units air conditioner, 59.957 million units refrigerator, 25.26 million units computer and 1.26 billion units mobile phone. SESSION 1 THE SITUATION WORLDWIDE

Every year, a large number of electrical and electronic products are discarded. In comparison to the recycling of conventional materials, such as paper and glass, WEEE is composed of a mix of complex components and materials. If WEEE is managed improperly, harmful substances in WEEE will cause damage to the environment. Therefore, China enacted “Management Regulation on Recycling of Waste Electrical and Electronic Products” (WEEE regulations) on January 1, 2011, and it successfully promoted the development of China’s waste WEEE industry. However, due to some deficiencies in the design of WEEE management system, a series of problems have also arisen in recent years. In this article, we firstly review the application of EPR theory in WEEE management China, and then summarized the positive results achieved in recent years. Meanwhile, some problems in WEEE management are put forward. Finally, we concluded several suggestions to for the improvement of the system. 2. Application of EPR theory in WEEE management in China As an environmental policy tool, EPR theory provides an effective financial link between the producer and waste recycling, and make it clear that producers should be responsible for the classified collection, disposal and recycling of discarded products. In general, EPR policies have two main objectives: (1) to increase the recovery rate of designated products and materials; (2) to promote the environmental design of products by clarifying the economic responsibility of producers. To achieve the two goals, the producer responsibility defined by the EPR system in major developed countries mainly includes the following four aspects: a. Recycling responsibility EPR policies in various countries mainly implement the recycling responsibility of producers by clarifying the recycling target of a specific commodity or material to producers. Under the recycling target system, the government requires producers to compulsory or voluntarily complete the recycling target of specified commodities or materials, and rewards and punishments will be given to producers according to the completion of recycling, encourage them to organize or entrust relevant organizations to carry out recycling of WEEE. b. Economic responsibility As the core content, EPR politics in all countries clearly stipulate that producers should bear all or part of the economic responsibility for eliminating environmental impacts in the product life cycle, such as the cost of product recycling, transportation, recycling or final disposal. Countries mainly adopt deposit system, advance handling fee, additional tax on materials and targeted tax/subsidy mode. c. Product compliance responsibility Product compliance responsibility mainly requires producers from the perspective of environmental design of products. The corresponding responsibilities of producers can be ensured by legislation, it can also be initiated by the industry itself through the development of voluntary industry guidelines. For example, the RoHS directive of the European Union makes mandatory requirements to restrict the use of some toxic and harmful substances in electrical and electronic products. d. Information disclosure responsibility Information disclosure responsibility, as an indirect way, urges producers to fulfill the above three responsibilities by clarifying their information disclosure obligations. In the EPR systems of various countries, the information disclosure responsibilities that producers should undertake mainly include disclosing product composition labels, reporting production and operation conditions on time, promoting the concept of waste classification to consumers, and providing information on product use materials for recycling users. SESSION 1 THE SITUATION WORLDWIDE

dChina began to explore the EPR theory in the field of electrical and electronic products. Drawing on the successful experience of developed countries and combining with China's actual situation, China enacted “WEEE regulations”, and it has formed a special fund operation mode. The producer, including electrical and electronic producer, consignee or agent of imported electrical and electronic products, should fulfill the obligation of pay fund. The funds shall be under the unified management of Ministry of Finance (MOF), mainly used for WEEE recycling and treatment. WEEE dismantling enterprises with qualification can receive fund subsidies according to the dismantling quantity of WEEE. China’s WEEE processing fund system is shown in figure 1.

Fig. 1. China’s WEEE processing fund system China as a developing country, it is difficult to implement the fund system for all kinds of WEEE. Hence, the establishment of WEEE management system needs to be carried out step by step. At the early stage, following five kinds of WEEE, television, personal computer, air-conditioner, refrigerator and washing machine apply to the fund. Fund collection and fund subsidy standard is shown in the Table. 1

. Table 1 Fund collection and fund subsidy standard

Fund collection WEEE Fund subsidy standard(CNY / unit) standard(CNY / unit) 60(14-25 inch CRT TVs) TV 13 70(25 inch CRT TVs；other TVs(LED TVs, etc.)) Computer 10 70(Not including tablets, hand-held computers) 35(Single tank WM and Dryer(Cap:3-10kg）) Washing 7 45(Double barrel WM and other automatic machine WM(Cap: 3-10kg）)

Refrigerator 12 80

Air conditioner 7 130

SESSION 1 THE SITUATION WORLDWIDE

3. Status and achievements of WEEE management 3.1 WEEE treatment industry develops rapidly From 2012 to 2018, 109 enterprises with qualification have been established, WEEE treatment capacity reaches 152 million units per year. The collection and treatment capacity of WEEE in China has been increasing year by year. In 2018, the treatment capacity reached 81.049 million, 69.92 million units more than that in 2012, with an annual growth rate of 68.26%, details is shown in Fig.2 and Table 2. The development of formal dismantling enterprises has replaced informal disassembly to a great extent.

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Dismantling quantity(million set) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Computer 0,42 1,26 7,85 13,16 14,92 12,27 9,79 Air conditioner 0,00056 0,0055 0,11 0,19 2,11 3,98 5,06 Washing machine 0,36 1,71 3,28 6,37 12,71 13,6 14,41 Refrigerator 0,17 0,62 1,58 3,33 6,15 8,04 9,22 TV 9,14 40,27 57,64 53,17 44,25 42,08 42,53

Fig.2. The dismantling amount of WEEE from 2012-2018 Table 2 Annual growth rate of WEEE dismantling quantity

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Average Annual 334.53% 60.62% 8.17% 5.13% -0.20% 1.30% 68.26% growth rate

3.2 Producers have begun to implement the EPR theory Some producers have set up waste electrical recycle and treatment enterprises. By the end of 2018, there are 7 WEEE dismantling enterprises established by 3 EEE producers, namely ChangHong, Gree and TCL, with an annual dismantling capacity of 17.435 million units. According to statistics, in 2018, the number of WEEE dismantled by these 7 enterprises affiliated to producers account for about 10% of the national total, details is shown in Fig.3. SESSION 1 THE SITUATION WORLDWIDE

7 WEEE dismantling enterprises 13%

National total 87%

Fig.3. 7 enterprises dismantling situation

Take ChangHong as an example, the free-spraying high-gloss plastic materials developed by ChangHong have been applied in household appliances, so that the appearance of household appliances can be beautiful without painting and spraying, thus avoiding the impact of waste water and waste gas discharged in the process of painting and spraying on the environment. In 2013, ChangHong has recycled the discarded plastic such as the disassembled TV shell. Recycled plastic is used in the production of electrical and electronic products of ChangHong, which is mainly used as raw material for the shell of TV set and the windshield plate of air conditioner. 3.3 Established a mature dismantling technology of WEEE Under the guidance of “WEEE regulations”, Chinese enterprises with qualification have established a set of mature WEEE (mainly TV, Computer, Washing machine, Refrigerator and Air conditioner) dismantling process. At present, dismantling of WEEE is half conducted by hands and half by mechanization, and came to be standardized management gradually. Disassembling process of several kinds of WEEE is shown in the Fig.3-8. 4. Problems and Suggestions 4.1 Imbalance between fund levies and subsidies There is a price differential between fund levies and subsidies (shown in Table 1), the levy price is lower than the subsidy price. By the end of 2018, the fund gap for the treatment of WEEE has exceeded 10 billion CNY (1.45 billion USD). The existing fund system ignores the production of WEEE is increasing rapidly, meanwhile, the WEEE elimination quantity was not accurately predicted. According to the current collection standard, the collection amount of WEEE fund is about 2.7 billion CNY pre year on average. In 2014, fund expenditure exceeded 3 billion CNY. From 2015 to 2017, the demand for fund subsidies exceeded 5 billion CNY. Subsidies cannot be paid on time, and the enterprises face a problem of lacking funds. If this problem cannot be solved timely and effectively, some enterprises may go bust. Suggestions：The main reason for the huge gap in the fund is that the fund levy standard has not been dynamically adjusted in combination with the disposal cost, environmental cost and market changes of WEEE. To solve this problem, there are two suggestions: (1) Make fund allocation plan. Based on the number of EEE put on the domestic market, fund collection, actual amount of WEEE recycled, theoretical scrap measurement of electrical appliances, predicting that the amount of WEEE entering the market and the total amount of fund collection in the next year, formulating the annual fund allocation plan; (2) Establish subsidy classification system. The subsidies an enterprise receives depend on the actual annual WEEE dismantle quantity and pollution source control. For instance, no subsidy will be given if the quantity is less than a certain value. If the waste is not disposed according to the regulations, a certain amount of subsidy will be deducted. SESSION 1 THE SITUATION WORLDWIDE

Fig.3 CRT TV(Computer monitors) Fig.3 CRT TV(Computer monitors) disassembly process disassembly process

Fig.5 Refrigerator disassembly process Fig.6 Flat-screen TV disassembly process

Fig.8 Computer mainframe TV Fig.7 Washing machine TV disassembly disassembly process process SESSION 1 THE SITUATION WORLDWIDE

4.2 Some deficiencies in the current WEEE collection system Presently the WEEE recycling in China is managed mostly by informal recycling businesses, such as small traders, they are now the main force of Chinese recyclers, street to street, recycling much of the WEEE and selling them to informal dismantling enterprises. Informal dismantling enterprises always use crude disassembly method, such as open burning, improper acid leaching. This made most of the WEEE was neither effectively recycled nor safety treated. In these years, the recycling quantity of WEEE in enterprises with qualification gradually decreases. The reason for this phenomenon: Firstly, “WEEE regulations” without detailed recycling administrative measures; Secondly, lack effective supervision; Thirdly, EEE producers are not involved in recycling. Suggestions：(1) Revised “WEEE regulations”, EPR theory specified in the regulation, define the scope of responsibility of the producer, reasonably divide the responsibilities of the relevant parties. For instance, it can be stipulated in the regulations, research and set up the recycling target of WEEE, the EEE producer should establish recycling system and achieve annual targets. The governments through financial subsidy, reduction in tax and some other incentive method, increase producer engagement and enthusiasm. (2) The government strengthens the supervision, actively working against illegal recovery and dismantling organization. Doing propaganda work, and arouse the whole society to send WEEE to regular recycling system. 4.3 Eco-design is not widely adopted by Chinese EEE producer Product eco-design by producer is an important aspect of implementing EPR theory, however most of producers have no concern about whether their products easily dismantled and recycled when they become WEEE, ignoring the environmental impact of their products. Such situation may cause a decline in treatment efficiency and resource recovery rate. Suggestions：For EEE, it is required to formulate policy guidelines and evaluation standards for EPR theory of WEEE, guide producers to carry out eco-design, give priority to the use of recycled raw materials, and actively participate in the recycling and recycling of WEEE. Research on the establishment of WEEE renewable material utilization rate, to force EEE producers carry out eco- design, at the same time, producer with better implementation of eco-design can get tax breaks to boost their enthusiasm

See slide show SESSION 1 THE SITUATION WORLDWIDE

The situation worlwide : ISRAEL

Noa Shpitzer- Mizrachi

Director of EPR Division State of Israel, Ministry of Environmental Protection Tel. +972 50 6233044, [email protected]

Abstract Israel became a full member of the OECD in 2010, and thus adopted a progressive policy in many areas, including environmental protection. EPR laws — advanced waste management laws —which were first legislated in the early 1990s in Europe, form the model adopted by the State of Israel also because of its membership in the OECD. According to the EPR policy mechanism, the producer's responsibility begins with product design and production in a sustainable manner, and ends with collection of the waste and its recycling, including the financing of this system. However, it can be said with certainty that although EPR laws are a necessary condition for managing the waste market, they are not sufficient conditions alone for managing an optimal waste market. Israel has four EPR laws: The Deposit Law (1999) and the Tire Law (2007), for which there are no PRO's and the responsibility applies directly to the producers and importers, and the Packaging Law (2011) and the WEEE Law (2012), which are relatively new laws for which 3 PRO's have been recognized in Israel to meet the duties of producers and importers of these waste streams. EPR laws impose obligations on various stakeholders with conflicting interests. In addition, in Israel the system is a financial system rather than an operational system. The local authorities have autonomy to deal with their municipal waste. This means that 256 local authorities are all required to carry out separate bids to select waste collection contractors and to receive the expenses refund. It seems that the Israeli financial system is more complex than the operational system. The Israeli legislature thought these complex laws would lead to the regulation of waste treatment throughout its value chain. Or in short - "The laws will do the job." Throughout the implementation of Israel’s EPR laws, mostly in the last decade, it turned out that the assumption was naive. The regulation governing the treatment of these waste streams requires preliminary regulatory actions and complementary actions in the management of the entire value chain. EPR laws define new game rules that relate to environmental protection, as well as public health and safety: Waste collection infrastructure must be included in the array of considerations for this issue. It must be safe to use. Legal and regulatory restrictions on waste exports can be dealt with by public health and safety. Israel has an appropriate protocol for exporting nonhazardous waste to countries which are not members of the OECD. SESSION 1 THE SITUATION WORLDWIDE

Full control of waste should be sought throughout the whole value chain in order to prevent waste leakage into areas where the State of Israel has no control and can not supervise the treatment of waste. At present, conditions in Israel do not allow full traceability of materials, and we are exposed to cross-border pollution. This is true mainly for the WEEE and tires waste streams. Appropriate treatment standards must be defined and set in a manner that ensures regulation and public safety. Even EPR for glass packaging waste — collection and disposal regulations — contributes to this issue; even if it is not hazardous waste as defined, it can still be harmful to the public. In this context, additional waste streams and additional policy mechanisms should be examined in the near future within the framework of EPR, in accordance with consumer trends and evolving practices, for example, home medical treatment which will likely cause medical waste to enter in the household waste stream. EPR will not be necessary in order to meet recycling targets, but rather to protect public health and safety and the environment. Understanding the common interest in protecting the environment and public health and safety, and fulfilling the maximum obligations of all stakeholders, is critical. Without such understanding, the management of these waste streams and the protection of the environment and the public will not happen. In Israel, a decade since these laws have been passed, the interests of all stakeholders are stronger than the understanding of the common interest, which is not yet fully achieved.

See slide show SESSION 1 THE SITUATION WORLDWIDE

Implementing an EPR mechanism from scratch in the 2020s

Guillermo González and Daniel Vargas

Director of EPR Division Circular Economy Office, Ministry of the Environment, Chile [email protected]; [email protected]

Full presentation During the past year, Chile’s Ministry of the Environment has been confronted with the challenge of defining exactly how the Extended Producer Responsibility mechanism (EPR) will look like in the country, by setting the specific regulations for a set of different products. This challenge is not exactly the same one faced by other countries in the past. The following elements make our case different in interesting ways: 1. There is currently three decades of accumulated international experience on the subject, which may allow us to leapfrog on certain aspects, such as competition controls and eco-design incentives. 2. Recycling and environmental protection have become topics of high relevance for citizens, which allows us to be more ambitious from the start, but also creates risks for short term policies that might be undesired in the long term. 3. Chile has been relatively passive on the subject of waste management and recycling in the past, which means that there is limited infrastructure and local experience for collection and recovery of recyclable waste. 4. Particular characteristics from Chile, like its outstretched geography which requires specific regulations to ensure the entire country is covered by the collection system. Congress enacted our EPR law in 2016, which included six products that will be subject to this scheme: packaging, tires, vehicle batteries, household batteries, lubrication oils, and electric equipment. Since then, work has centered on producing the regulation needed for the EPR obligations to come into force. We have so far developed draft rules for packaging and tires. In this essay, we share some elements that have been included in these drafts, that relate to the four points mentioned above and that we deem could be useful for other countries facing similar challenges. SESSION 1 THE SITUATION WORLDWIDE

Leapfrogging opportunities: competition and eco-design

Decades of international experience have shown that competition problems have arisen during the operation of EPR schemes. Our EPR law entails some specific rules and controls from the national antitrust authorities, beyond those considered in our general competition law, in order to mitigate these risks. These rules and controls are: every collection and recovery service must be contracted through a public tender; collection and recovery must be tendered separately; Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs) must be open to every producer on equal terms; the bylaws from every PRO created in Chile must be reviewed and approved by the antitrust authority; the bidding rules of the tenders conducted by PROs must also be approved by the antitrust authority; and the Ministry of Environment must consult with the competition agency before restricting the operation of collective and individual PROs.

This comprehensive list of measures is geared at preventing the type of malpractices that were reported in several countries in the first place. It must be said, however, that they make the initial phase of the implementation more complex and burdensome. This is the case because competition and antitrust analysis tends to be sophisticated and therefore demands extensive periods of time and expensive processes. Streamlining these controls is therefore recommended.

Box: Relevant facts about Chile

Chile has a population of 17.5 million, and a size that is 37% larger than Metropolitan France’s, but extended over a length of 4,300 km. However, over 90% of the population is concentrated in the central regions, stretching for around 1,500 km, meaning that the rest of the country (the Atacama Desert in the extreme north and Patagonia in the extreme south) are not only sparsely populated but also very far from the main industrial areas.

The country’s per capita income is currently at around USD 26,000 (PPP), the highest in Latin America and not very distant from those with the lowest levels in the EU region, like Greece. However, income disparity is comparatively high; the richest 10% capture 2.5 times the income as compared to the poorest 40%, while in Greece the ratio is 1.3, 1.1 in France and 0.9 in the Czech Republic (Palma ratio, OECD data). This means that, while some sectors of the population enjoy a developed nation standard of living and public services, a large portion is still living at a relatively basic standard.

Chile has been recognized for its institutional strength. It ranks as the 27th least corrupt country worldwide, ahead of countries like Spain or South Korea (Transparency International) and the 25th best country in the world in the Rule of Law Index (World Justice Project). This makes implementation of laws comparatively easier than in the rest of the region.

Its economic, social and institutional development led to Chile becoming an OECD member since 2010. One of the entry conditions was precisely to enact legislation on EPR, due to its relative lag in waste policy. Currently, still 96% of all municipal waste is being landfilled. Waste-to-energy has not been developed in Chile. SESSION 1 THE SITUATION WORLDWIDE

A second failure that has been reported from existing EPR schemes is the limited effect on waste generation. Also, it has been found that, in practice, EPR has not fostered eco-design innovations. We have considered two elements in our regulation, eco-modulation of producer’s fees and a prevention incentive, that intend to address these issues, while still believing that further regulatory efforts might be needed in the future.

Eco-modulation of the fees charged to the producers by the PROs has only recently been promoted by the EU, and it makes sense for new EPR schemes to leapfrog in this aspect. Eco-modulation means that PROs need to impose higher fees to those products that are more difficult to recycle. It seems like an obvious idea, but it is an outcome that has not necessarily occurred in many countries. For example, Finland’s Rinki charges EUR 130 per ton of metal and only EUR 30 per ton of plastic put on the market, providing perverse market signals to producers. In our draft rule, we have allowed this modulation to be defined by the PROs themselves, but it will need be approved by the Ministry of the Environment.

We are innovating in our packaging regulation with the idea of a “prevention incentive”. We want to incentivize producers to innovate in the ways of delivering their products with less material, what generally entails relevant investment costs associated with transforming production lines. The objective is to partially cover those costs, by giving producers a benefit beyond the natural reduction in the fees to be paid to the PROs that comes with cutting down packaging. The prevention incentive means that a reduction of material put on the market, to deliver the same amount of goods, can be counted as recycling of materials in proportion to the amount of waste reduced.

Given the wide array of reduction strategies that could exist when it comes to packaging, we believe that it is impossible to make a general rule and formula to determine the benefit. Thus, producers will be able get this incentive by submitting an application which will be analyzed by the Ministry of the Environment on a case-by- case basis.

Keeping in mind that this kind of incentive could have many perverse effects if wrongly designed, we added different requirements for the application. First, the application has to establish why the initiative allows him to sell the same product in the same amount with less waste generation. The Ministry will then evaluate if the initiative is worthy of an exemption of part of the recycling target and give the benefit accordingly. Second, the benefit from the incentive runs for a limited time, between one and five years. Third, the benefit will never be so high that the total amount of waste eliminated when meeting the recycling targets reaches higher volumes with the incentive than without it. This kind of incentives should push for solutions that are more in line with a circular economy approach and not just a recycling approach. SESSION 1 THE SITUATION WORLDWIDE

Higher environmental concern: a double-edge sword

Climate action and environment protection initiatives have recently gathered a lot of popular support. An example is our Plastic Bag Ban law, which was approved in May of 2018 with 100% of votes in favor in both chambers of Congress and was voted by citizens as the best public policy of that year – even as it requires consumers to make a rather difficult change in their shopping habits. The rise of plastic pollution awareness during the last couple of years probably played an important effect.

This level of enthusiasm works as a double-edge sword. On the one hand, it allows us to move much faster, pushing for more ambitious EPR targets from the start. On the other hand, it puts a lot of pressure on Congress and local governments to implement policies that address the problem immediately. Unfortunately, short term policies often do not really address the core environmental problem or can even hinder other better long term solutions, like EPR, which takes several years to be properly implemented. We currently have a large number of legislative and local government initiatives intending to ban all sort of plastic products, with little regard for the environmental impacts of their alternatives, and some of them representing a risk to a successful implementation of the EPR scheme (for example, some bills propose banning all PET bottles).

In a need to show “quick wins” of the packaging EPR regulation, we have considered short term obligations for producers, in addition to the long term ones. By the eight year, packaging producers will have to cover 85% of households with door to door collection. Yet, by the end of the second year, they will also be forced to offer drop point collection for all the towns and cities with a population of over 40,000, so that all citizens who want to recycle have somewhere to take their materials in a short time frame.

The challenge of starting from (almost) zero

It is relevant to note that unlike other countries without EPR laws, local and central governments in Chile have done very little to foster the recovery and collection of recyclable packaging waste, mainly because local governments have not had the resources to do so. This has resulted in a very small recycling industry, especially when it comes to household packaging. Here, PROs will not only have to come in and manage and further develop a system, but rather create that system from almost zero. We expect that this new regulation implies that PROs generate the demand that will give birth to a real recycling industry. At least two aspects make this a particularly hard challenge for PROs: First, there is very little experience on household collection of packaging waste in Chile. Second, most consumers do not have the habit to sort their waste. SESSION 1 THE SITUATION WORLDWIDE

A key challenge in developing this new system has to do with getting PROs to work with municipalities around the collection challenge. Our EPR law gives the producers the freedom to form any number of collective PROs. This could take us to situations where different PROs compete to get access to municipalities. As mentioned before, we see high competition as a virtuous element for a successful EPR: mainly high competition between collectors and recyclers and high competition between PROs to attract producers. However, we don’t see competition between PROs to get access to waste as virtuous. Because of that, we think that competition between PROs to sign contracts with municipalities may generate higher collection costs that will be borne by the consumer at the end of the day. To avoid this risk, we have set a rule by which a given municipality will have access to only one PRO at a given time. We have also forced PROs to define a standard collection service for each population density and geography.

Getting the extreme areas on board

As mentioned in the box, Chile is a very long country and also highly centralized in its population distribution and economic activity. That means that very often, the further away from Santiago a region is, the most abandoned by public policies it is. That would probably also be the case for collection and recovery of waste by PROs, assuming we do not force them to do something different.

To avoid that scenario, we took two different approaches. In the case of tires, there is a national recovery target, but also a regional target for every region, which are lower than the national one and proportional to the generation of each region. In the case of packaging, the obligation to cover 85% of households with door to door collection forces the PROs to reach most territories within the country, but allows them to leave out very small communities and rural areas that are too expensive to collect waste from.

To conclude, Chile has a big opportunity to put in place an EPR mechanisms built on top of decades of experience gained in other countries, enabling the possibility to leapfrog straight into a XXI century system. That opportunity also comes with a set of different challenges and the success of our leap into EPR depends on the ability to confront those challenges in the right way. The way in which we are tackling the different issues will hopefully be of help to other countries.

See slide show SESSION 1 THE SITUATION WORLDWIDE

Reverse logistics in environmental licensing: the experience of the State of São Paulo - Brazil

Patrícia Iglecias

Président of CETESB – Environmental Company of the State of São Paulo. Associate Professor of the University of São Paulo School of Law, Av. Prof. Frederico Hermann Jr., 345 - São Paulo – SP, BRAZIL. Tel. + 55 11 3133.3000, [email protected]

Abstract Current Brazilian context requires the integration of public policies related to environmental protection and economic development in order to achieve sustainability. The State of São Paulo has been working toward this goal, aiming to harmonize these apparently conflicting ideas and interests. Based on the National Policy on Solid Waste (Federal Law n. 12,305/2010), which sets forth principles, objectives, instruments and directives related to the integrated management of solid waste and its consequent responsibilities, São Paulo progressed to publish Resolution 45 in 2015, which requires proof of existence of a system of reverse logistics as a prerequisite to renew operational environmental licenses for manufacturers of numerous products including: automotive lubricating oil and its packaging and filters, automotive batteries, portable batteries, lamps, tires, pesticides and their packaging, packages of wall ink, cooking oil, medicines, electronic devices and food packaging, cosmetics, beverages, and personal hygiene and cleaning products. CETESB Directory Decision n. 76/2018/C took yet another step in this direction, defining quantitative and geographic goals for each sector and establishing the procedural rules to prove compliance with the obligation to promote reverse logistics of listed products and packaging in ordinary environmental licensing. In doing so, CETESB Directory Decision n. 76 establishes sustainable development as a prerequisite for environmental licensing. This article aims to share the State of São Paulo’s experience in this field. SESSION 1 THE SITUATION WORLDWIDE

Full presentation Reverse logistics in Brazil and in the State of São Paulo

Manufacturers, importers, distributers and retailers of products and packages that, even after use, require or may require special storage, collection, transport, treatment or final destination are required to structure and implement a take-back system, according to article 33 of National Policy on Solid Waste (Federal Law n. 12,305/2010), article 53 of State Policy on Solid Waste (State Law n. 12,300/2006) and article 2 of Resolution of the Secretariat for the Environment n. 45/2015.

Reverse logistics is the group of actions and processes promoted to enable the collection and the return of certain kinds of solid waste to business sector for recycling or other form of adequate environmental destination. It is a take-back system inserted in an extended producer responsibility waste management system.

The implementation of a system of reverse logistics must present technical and economic viability, according to article 3, §2º, of Federal Law n. 12,605/2010 and article 21, §1º, of Federal Decree n. 7,404/2010.

For the effectiveness of reverse logistics implementation, it is essential that each of the actors involved meets the responsibilities assigned to them by the National Policy on Solid Waste. Final consumers are required to properly and separately store the waste subject to reverse logistics, as well as return them after use to the reverse logistics system operator. Retailers and distributors have the responsibility to receive the waste from consumers and return it to manufacturers or importers, the latter being responsible for recycling and environmentally sound disposal of such waste.

In this context, the development and effective implementation of communication plans for the final consumers are essential for proper operation of the reverse logistics system and for achieving significant results in the collection and recycling or disposal of waste.

According to the National Policy on Solid Waste, the return of post-consumption products and packaging to manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers, must occur independently of the public urban cleansing and solid waste management service, whose competence is municipal. In this way, the implementation of reverse logistics transfers part of the responsibility and cost of managing these municipal wastes to the companies inside the production chain.

The implementation of reverse logistics also generates other benefits related to (i) the reduction of the amount of solid waste that is disposed in landfills and (ii) the promotion of improvements in products design and packaging, by increasing the use of recycled materials to replace virgin resources (iii) the reduction of waste generation, by using less packaging and increasing products’ lifespan.

Article 33 of the National Policy on Solid Waste establishes a list of products and packaging subject to reverse logistics. In the State of São Paulo, this listing was complemented by Resolution of the Secretariat for the Environment n. 45/2015,, based on the provision of art. 19, sole paragraph, of State Decree nº 54,645 / 2009. The list valid for the State of São Paulo includes the following products and packaging: SESSION 1 THE SITUATION WORLDWIDE

a) Lubricating oil;

b) Cooking oil;

c) Automotive lubricating oil filter;

d) Automotive batteries;

e) Portable Batteries;

f) Electrical and electronic products and their accessories;

g) Fluorescent, sodium and mercury vapor and mixed light lamps;

h) Tires;

i) Household medicines;

j) Packaging of products that compose the recyclable fraction of municipal solid waste or equivalent,(except those classified as dangerous by Brazilian legislation) such as food; drinks; personal hygiene, perfumery and cosmetic products; cleansing products, among others;

(k) Packaging which, after consumption of the product, are considered waste of significant environmental impact, such as those of pesticides and lubricating oil.

According to National Policy on Solid Waste, reverse logistics systems can be implemented and operationalized by means of (i) regulation issued by public authorities; (ii) sectoral agreements between the business sector and public authorities; and (iii) terms of commitment agreed between the business sector and public authorities, when there is no sectoral agreement or specific regulation in the same ​​coverage area or in order to set commitments and targets that are more restrict than those established in sectorial agreement or regulation (Article 32 of Federal Decree 7404/2010).

In order to establish a sectorial agreement, the federal government publishes a call for proposals for the private sector to present proposals to implement a reverse logistics system. This announcement is preceded by an evaluation of the technical and economic viability of the implementation of reverse logistics, promoted by a technical group formed by representatives of several ministries of the federal government. SESSION 1 THE SITUATION WORLDWIDE

At the federal level, reverse logistics systems have been implemented for the following wastes by regulations or sectorial agreements:

1. Packaging of pesticides;

2. Used or contaminated lubricating oil;

3. Plastic Packaging of Lubricating Oils;

4. Portable batteries;

5. Tires;

6. Fluorescent lamps;

7. Packaging in general.

In the State of São Paulo, CETESB and the Secretariat for Infrastructure and Environment (former Secretariat for the Environment) have signed Terms of Commitment with entities representing sectors that do not have sectoral agreements signed at the federal level, as well as for sectors that already have sectoral agreements, but with more restrictive goals or rules than those of such agreements.

At the state level, Terms of Commitment are in force for the following sectors:

1. Packaging of pesticides;

2. Used Automotive Lubricant Oil Filters;

3. Cooking Oil;

4. Portable Batteries;

5. Lead-Acid Batteries;

6. Used Plastic Packaging of Lubricating Oils;

7. Empty Packaging for Sanitizing Disinfectants for Professional Use;

8. Household electrical and electronic products;

9. Packaging in general.

The contents of each of these Terms of Commitment, as well as the results obtained so far, can be accessed on CETESB website (https://cetesb.sp.gov.br/logisticareversa/termos-de-compromisso-de-logistica -reverse / phase- 2-terms-of-commitment-to-logistics-reverse-of-waste-post-consumption-2015-in-progress /). SESSION 1 THE SITUATION WORLDWIDE

Reverse logistics as a requirement for environmental licensing

For products and packaging subject to reverse logistics, Resolution of the Secretariat for the Environment n. 45/2015 established that compliance with obligations related to reverse logistics would be a condition for the issuance or renewal of environmental permits, which represented an innovation in environmental management in the country. As a result of this resolution, CETESB issued the Board Decision n. 076/2018/C, which regulated the gradual inclusion of implementation of reverse logistics as a requirement for state environmental licensing. This Board Decision defines the rules and conditions for monitoring and verification of compliance with reverse logistics requirements.

Following the issuance of Board Decision n. 76/2018/C, companies and business associations representing the production chain were able to present Reverse Logistics Plans, regardless whether they signed Terms of Commitment with CETESB and the Secretariat for Infrastructure and Environment or not.

This Board Decision establishes which sectors are obligated to prove compliance with reverse logistics goals, as well as quantitative and geographic targets for each product or package subjected to reverse logistics. It also determines that the fulfillment of the producer’s obligations related to the structuring and implementation of reverse logistics systems may be done by adhering to a Term of Commitment or through the implementation of a collective or individual reverse logistics system. It also establishes that the demonstration of fulfillment of legal obligations requires the submission of a four-year Reverse Logistics Plan and Annual Reports of Results.

In 2019, letters were sent to 329 companies licensed by CETESB, notifying them to submit Reverse Logistic Plans or justifications for non-compliance with the Board Decision n. 76/2018/C. Up to March 31, 2019, 38 plans were received, which are being analyzed by CETESB’s staff. These plans comprise already more than 2 thousand companies that trade products in the State of São Paulo.

Since the issuance of the Board Decision, CETESB has been enforcing the implementation of reverse logistics for companies subjected to this regulation, by sending notifications to these companies and other appropriate measures. The individual and collective Reverse Logistics Plans already received are being analyzed by the technical team and the companies or business entities involved are receiving feedback on the plans presented, with guidelines on revisions and improvements necessary to fully comply with the Board Decision.

Challenges and next steps

CETESB’s legal mandate does not allow the agency to control all business actors that are held liable for implementing reverse logistics systems by the National Policy on Solid Waste. According to article 8, XIV, of the Complementary Law n. 140/2011, Brazilian States have mandate to grant environmental licenses to economic activities that are not licensed by the federal government or municipalities. It means that the great majority of product manufacturers that are installed in the State of São Paulo and that are obligated to implement reverse logistics are oversaw by CETESB. SESSION 1 THE SITUATION WORLDWIDE

Retailers and distributers are granted with land use permits by the municipality and importers are controlled by the federal government, which establishes importation guidelines. Therefore, CETESB is not able to oversee the fulfillment of all agents’ obligations towards reverse logistics. For this reason, the efficiency of take-back systems depends heavily on the collaboration of the federal government and the municipalities.

Aiming to promote the collaboration of municipalities, since the beginning of this year, CETESB is organizing work meetings with mayors, and municipalities’ staff inside the project “CETESB with open doors”. These meetings are arranged in order to offer guidance on how municipalities can oversee the implementation of reverse logistics at the local level and on public management solutions that can contribute to the reduction of the amount of solid waste that is sent to landfills. These meetings have been occurring at CETESB headquarters and in several regions of the State and already reached 182 municipalities.

As an outcome of these meetings, CETESB is elaborating a guideline on how to include requirements related to the fulfillment of reverse logistics obligations for granting land use permits for commerce and distribution developments, such as the installation of waste collection points in commercial establishments.

Besides, for the first time at the state level, CETESB is negotiating the inclusion of municipalities in Terms of Commitments for Reverse Logistics with business sectors in order to: (i) define rules for the compensation of municipalities when they undertake the implementation of any activities related to reverse logistics system that are attributed to the production chain by the National Policy on Solid Waste, according to art. 33, §7; (ii) facilitate the exchange of information between CETESB and the municipality, thereby increasing oversight efficiency; and (iii) increase cooperation between the municipality and the reverse logistics system operator in the dissemination of relevant information, such as the location of waste collection points.

See slide show SESSION 1 THE SITUATION WORLDWIDE

Extended Producer Responsibility in the U.S.: Progress and Prospects

Kristin Aldred Cheek

Director, Policy & Programs, Product Stewardship Institute, 1 Beacon Street, Suite 1500, Boston, MA 02108 Tel. + 1 617.236.8293

Abstract In the absence of a federal framework for extended producer responsibility (EPR) in the U.S., the Product Stewardship Institute (PSI) builds capacity for product stewardship programs and unifies state and local governments across the nation to advance EPR policy. PSI leads government members through evidence-based, collaborative processes to develop models for effective EPR programs and engages stakeholders from government, environmental organizations, and industry to refine those models and pass legislation. Producers benefit from this approach, as well as governments, because it creates a foundation for harmonized programs across an otherwise disparate landscape.

Paint stewardship provides the most effective example of this approach, with 10 laws across the U.S. Based on a model PSI mediated with industry and other stakeholders at the table. Since PSI was founded in 2000, the number of EPR laws in the U.S. has grown steadily, now reaching 117 EPR laws in 33 states and the District of Columbia for 14 product areas. Products covered by EPR programs include electronics, pharmaceuticals, batteries, paint, mercury-containing thermostats and lamps, mattresses, and carpets. In 2019, the focus shifted significantly toward packaging and paper products in the aftermath of the China Sword and related waste policy changes globally. The prospects for more EPR programs are improving as the public demands changes to protect environmental and human health, and as state and local governments work together to enact change.

Full Présentation U.S. Context The United States lacks a federal framework or mandate governing extended producer responsibility (EPR), leaving state and local governments to make independent determinations about product stewardship and EPR on a product-by-product basis. EPR in the U.S. starts, then, with convening people and developing priorities at the state and local level, where the health, environmental, and fiscal impacts of waste are felt most acutely. SESSION 1 THE SITUATION WORLDWIDE

The Product Stewardship Institute (PSI) was founded in 2000 to develop and implement product stewardship and EPR nationally and to give state and local governments a voice on the national level. Unifying state and local governments across the country (PSI now counts 47 states and hundreds local governments among its members) has amplified their individual voices, giving them leverage in negotiations with industry, and increasing their ability to share best practices across places and products.

Creating Models for EPR Programs

PSI leads members through evidence-based, collaborative processes to develop models for effective EPR programs and engages stakeholders from government, environmental organizations, and industry to refine those models and pass legislation. Producers benefit from this approach, as well as governments, because it creates a foundation for harmonized programs across an otherwise disparate landscape.

The first national forum on product stewardship policies and programs, which marked PSI’s launch, focused on electronics, paint, mercury-containing products, pesticides, and tires – states’ top five priority products at the time. Since then, state and local governments’ product interests, as well as the scope of our work, have expanded considerably. We now have models for EPR legislation for more than a dozen product categories, with additional models currently in development.

Definitions of Product Stewardship and EPR in the U.S.

The U.S. definitions of product stewardship and EPR differ somewhat from those in other parts of the world. PSI first developed the Principles of Product Stewardship in 2001, which formed the basis for the field in the U.S. In 2012, PSI updated its earlier definition, this time with the California Product Stewardship Council and the Product Policy Institute. The revised definition for product stewardship (which encompass both voluntary and legislated programs), along with the definition for EPR (which covers legislated take-back systems), have since been broadly adopted in the U.S.

• Product stewardship is the act of minimizing the health, safety, environmental, and social impacts of a product and its packaging throughout all lifecycle stages, while also maximizing economic benefits. The manufacturer, or producer, of the product has the greatest ability to minimize adverse impacts, but other stakeholders, such as suppliers, retailers, and consumers, also play a role. Stewardship can be either voluntary or required by law.

• Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is a mandatory type of product stewardship that includes, at a minimum, the requirement that the manufacturer's responsibility for its product extends to post-consumer management of that product and its packaging. There are two related features of EPR policy: (1) shifting financial and management responsibility, with government oversight, upstream to the manufacturer and away from the public sector; and (2) providing incentives to manufacturers to incorporate environmental considerations into the design of their products and packaging. SESSION 1 THE SITUATION WORLDWIDE

Under this definition of EPR, programs that are funded by consumers and managed by government, such as used oil fees, tire fees, and California’s electronics recycling law, are not considered EPR. While a program must either be financed or managed by producers at minimum to fall under the definition of EPR, an ideal program is both financed and managed by producers to take the burden from governments and taxpayers and create added incentives for producers to reduce waste. Overall, the regulatory approach is preferred to voluntary because it creates sustainable funding and a level playing field for producers.

Since 2000, the number of EPR laws in the U.S. has grown considerably (see figure below), from 8 laws on one product (batteries) in 6 states, to 117 laws on 16 products in 33 states. Products covered by EPR programs today include electronics, pharmaceuticals, paint, mercury-containing thermostats and lamps, mattresses, and carpets. California has 9 state laws, followed by Vermont with 8, and Maine with 7. Maine is the only state with a “framework” law for product stewardship, which enables it to more easily consider new EPR programs, and is the first and only state to take a robust and concrete step toward creating EPR for packaging by passing a “Resolve” to develop legislation by the end of 2019.

EPR Laws in the U.S. (includes state and local as of June 2019)

140 120 100 80 60

NumberofLaws 40 20 0

Year SESSION 1 THE SITUATION WORLDWIDE

Keys to Success

EPR for paint is the most successful, harmonized – and sustainable – program in the U.S. There are now 10 paint programs, with the most recent law passing this year, 10 years after the first one was enacted (and an 11th pending). The creation of the paint stewardship program in the U.S. provides a model for an effective process that PSI pioneered and continues to champion. In the case of paint, and more recently mattresses, the two critical elements have been, (1) the development of a coalition of governments, producers, environmental groups, and other stakeholders in support of change, and (2) the facilitation of stakeholder engagement throughout the process to define the problem, clarify joint goals, agree on a solution, and negotiate the details. Producers’ active participation in the process provides the best chance at developing a sustainable solution and harmonization across states. On-going program evaluation creates opportunities for continued refinement and improvement.

Barriers to EPR Adoption

Of course, producers actively oppose EPR for most products in the U.S., which is the chief barrier to adoption. When the industry walks away and governments fail to coalesce around a model, the risk is fractured system, with laws of varied strength and effectiveness and no coordinating body, as is the case with the nation’s 23 electronics EPR laws. Significant political will is required to push EPR programs forward in this environment. Having PSI as a national organization advocating for EPR and representing multiple state and local governments makes it easier for them to make progress than if they work in isolation.

Trends and Emerging Issues

Governments’ priorities shift over time depending on external factors and political preferences, and other factors. In 2019, the focus nationally shifted significantly toward packaging and paper products, evidenced by the 8 states introducing EPR for packaging bills in the 2019 session, along with study bills and related legislation introduced in numerous other states. The shift was a reaction to the China Sword and similar import restrictions on packaging waste put in place across the globe. Other pressing and emerging products of concern include pharmaceuticals, textiles, solar panels, mattresses, carpet, and sharps. In each case, PSI works with members to build models and the capacity for action, and then works to enact legislation based on needs and priorities.

The American public is demanding change. Rising costs, more visible impacts from waste (particularly plastics), and growing concern about climate change are creating more opportunity to advance EPR policies. In addition, in light of past experiences with e-waste and plastics, governments are seeking more transparency about the final destination of waste and are considering mechanisms within EPR policies to ensure that environmental and human health are protected.

See slide show SESSION 1 THE SITUATION WORLDWIDE

Extended Producer Responsibility in Canada with a focus on British Columbia

Meegan Armstrong

Unit Head, Extended Producer Responsibility Section, Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, British Columbia Canada, 525 Superior Street, Victoria, B.C., Canada, V8V 0C5. Tel. + 1 250 778-698-4889 | [email protected]

Abstract In Canada, provinces have responsibility for managing waste and in turn generally delegate this responsibility to local governments. However, broader waste management policies like extended producer responsibility (EPR) are generally regulated by provincial and territorial governments and guided and tracked federally.

The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) is the minister-led intergovernmental forum for collective action on environmental issues of national and international concern. On October 29th, 2009, the Council of Ministers approved a Canada-wide Action Plan for Extended Producer Responsibility (CAP-EPR). Through the CAP-EPR, the CCME and its member jurisdictions committed to working towards the development and implementation of EPR programs across the country in two phases and in accordance with corresponding timelines. While CAP-EPR has influenced the establishment of legislated EPR programs across Canada, program delivery is highly variable and many of the jurisdictions have maintained other forms of product stewardship. British Columbia is the North American leader with the greatest number of EPR programs. This presentation will provide an overview of the implementation of EPR across Canada with a focus on the economic, environmental and other benefits experienced in British Columbia. Full presentation In Canada, provinces have responsibility for managing waste and in turn generally delegate this responsibility to local governments. However, broader waste management policies like extended producer responsibility (EPR), are generally regulated by provincial and territorial governments and guided and tracked federally. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) is the minister-led intergovernmental forum for collective action on environmental issues of national and international concern. CCME is composed of the environment ministers from the federal, provincial and territorial governments. On October 29th, 2009, the Council of Ministers approved a Canada-wide Action Plan for Extended Producer Responsibility (CAP-EPR). Through the CAP-EPR, the CCME and its member jurisdictions committed to working towards the development and implementation of EPR programs across the country in two phases and in accordance with the following timelines: SESSION 1 THE SITUATION WORLDWIDE

In Phase I, the following material types/groups were targeted for EPR by 2015: • Packaging • Printed Materials • Mercury-containing lamps • Other mercury-containing products • Electronic and electrical equipment • Household hazardous and special wastes • Automotive products

In Phase II, the following material types/groups were targeted for EPR by 2017: • Construction materials • Demolition materials • Furniture • Textiles and carpet • Appliances, including ozone-depleting substances

Extended Producer Responsibility in Canada While CAP-EPR has influenced the establishment of legislated EPR (E-L) programs across Canada, adherence to the timeline has been highly variable, with jurisdictions establishing their own priorities and regulations. Many of the jurisdictions have maintained other forms of product stewardship including voluntary EPR (E-V), shared responsibility (S) and product stewardship (P). Table 1 provides a current overview of the implementation of legislated EPR along with other forms of stewardship in Canada. Below are definitions of the various forms: • Legislated EPR (E-L): programs or requirements where producers are directly responsible for both the funding and the operation of the programs, as required via legislation or regulations. • Voluntary EPR (E-V): industry-led programs where producers have come together to provide a provincial, territorial or Canada-wide collection and recycling program for specific products that have reached their end- of-life. • Shared responsibility (S): programs operated by governments (e.g., municipalities or other public agencies) but with varying degrees of producer responsibility and/or funding. These are commonly found in the areas of packaging and printed paper, where municipalities provide collection and sorting/processing services with substantial funding provided by producers, notably through a producer responsibility organization or an industry funded organization. • Product stewardship (P): programs in which producers are neither directly responsible for program funding, nor for program operations. These are waste diversion initiatives funded by consumers or general taxpayers and are operated by public agencies or delegated administrative organizations. These programs may be mandated through legislation and regulations or may be voluntary. Producers may play an advisory role. SESSION 1 THE SITUATION WORLDWIDE

Program delivery is highly variable across Canada. While EPR regulations and policy are generally developed at the provincial ministry level, implementation and oversight as well as program monitoring may be delegated to a different agency or authority.

All provinces, except Alberta, have at least one regulated EPR program for the CCME Phase I products. British Columbia (B.C.) is the only province that has regulated a product from the Phase II list, with the implementation of an EPR program for large appliances in 2012. Overall, EPR has been embraced by Canadian jurisdictions, however a national harmonized approach through the coordination and implementation of policies and programs would be welcomed by producers, as it would allow for economies of scale and increased efficiencies. There have been efforts under the CCME to advance harmonization and it is expected this will continue.

Table 1: EPR and other policies across Canada for CAP-EPR Phase 1 Materials (updated 2019)

Material/ BC AB SK MB ON QC PE NB NS NL YT NT NU Product Category Packaging - milk E – V P P S S S P E – V S (E – V) P P Containers Packaging - beverage P P (P) containers E – L P P E – L liquor/win beer & soft P P P P P P liqu e drinks (0thers S) or/ bee r Multi-packaging and E – L conside S S S S conside conside consider consid printed materials r r r er Electronics - audio- E – L conside E – L E – L E – L E – L E – L E – L E – L E – L P consid visual and telecom r er Electronics – cell E – L E – V E – V E – L E – L E – L E – L E – V* E – L E – L P E – V phones Electronics - computers, E – L P E – L E – L E – L E – L E – L E-L E – L E – L P P accessories and IT equipment Electronics - tools E – L conside consider conside r r Electronics - TVs E – L P E – L E – L E – L E – L E – L E-L E – L E – L P P HHSW - batteries E – L E – L conside E – V E – L E – L E – V E – V E – V E – V (single use, single use E – V rechargeable) r HHSW - corrosives & E – L S conside E – L consider P consid irritants r corrosives er HHSW - aerosols, E – L E – L E – L S conside consider P consider consid solvents & flammables solvents & solvents r er flammable s HHSW - mercury E – L conside conside E – L E-V E – L E – L consider consid lamps, other mercury r r er products HHSW - paint E – L P E – L E – L E – L E – L E – L E – L E – L E – L

HHSW - pesticides/ E – L E – V E – V E – L E – L E – V E – V E – V E – V E – V fertilizers & containers pesticid es HHSW - E – L E – V E – V E – L E – L consider E – L E – V E – V E – V E – V E – pharmaceuticals V HHSW - conside E – L E – L consider E – L E – V E – V consid E – V sharps/syringes r As of er 2020 Automotive - batteries E – L E – L consider E – L E – V E – V

Automotive - tires E – L P E-L E – L E – L P P P P P P

Automotive - used oil, oil E – L E – L containers and/or filters E – L P E – L E – L containers E – L E – L E – L 2020 E-L and filters Automotive - other E – L conside E – L E – L E – L E – L E – L E – L E – L E-L (e.g., glycol) r (Diesel Glycol Exhaust 2020 Fluid [DEF] containers SESSION 1 THE SITUATION WORLDWIDE

Extended Producer Responsibility in British Columbia

B.C. is the North American leader with the greatest number of EPR programs. In 1970, B.C. became the first jurisdiction in North America to establish a mandatory beverage container deposit-refund system (soft drink and beer). In 1994, B.C. launched the first EPR program for paint with the Post-Consumer Paint Stewardship Program Regulation, followed three years later by the Post-Consumer Residual

Stewardship Program Regulation, covering solvents, flammable liquids, pesticides, gasoline and medications. Both regulations were repealed in 2003 and 2004 respectively and replaced by the Recycling Regulation in 2004, under the authority of the Environmental Management Act

The Recycling Regulation is an EPR framework legislation that sets out requirements for producers’ responsibility for five product categories as detailed in schedules: Schedule 1 beverage containers (deposit-refund), Schedule 2 residual products (e.g., household hazardous waste), Schedule 3 electrical and electronic equipment (e.g., TVs, computers, small appliances), Schedule 4 tires, and Schedule 5 packaging and paper products. Listing obligated materials by schedule allows for the simple addition of new material or products without overhauling the entire regulation.

Producers can either develop and implement their own plan or appoint an agency. In B.C., of the 22 approved EPR programs, the majority are run by not-for-profit agencies with two independent producer programs.

EPR plans, which are required to be reviewed every 5 years, and are approved by the Director of Waste Management once they are satisfied that the plan addresses the following performance requirements:

• Product Recovery Target(s)

• Collection System

• Consumer Awareness

• Collection System Costs

• Stakeholder Consultation

• Dispute Resolution

• Life Cycle Management

• Pollution Prevention Hierarchy SESSION 1 THE SITUATION WORLDWIDE

Program accountability is achieved through annual reporting and assurance requirements. All EPR programs must report against their performance measures by July 1st annually, for the previous calendar year. Programs must also provide an audit of their non-financial information and, if they have chosen to fund their system with a visible fee program, must also submit an audited financial statement

The Success of Extended Producer Responsibility in British Columbia

The B.C. Ministry Environment and Climate Change Strategy commissioned studies on the 2011 and 2014 program years and determined that B.C. realizes substantial economic and environmental benefits as a result of implementing EPR :

• EPR programs were estimated to reduce mixed waste collection and landfilling costs by $32 million, annually.

• A market value of $47 million was estimated for EPR materials that were recycled and sold to markets in 2014;

• Most of the materials are destined for commodity markets. Although agencies are obliged to report on the final disposition of program materials, once managed as a commodity the materials are no longer traced.

• EPR programs were estimated to result in nearly 2,300 jobs when losses from reduced mixed waste (garbage) collection and landfilling were taken into account. Over 900 jobs in B.C. can be credited to the EPR programs operating in the province in 2014.

• Approximately 160,000 tonnes of material were diverted from landfills compared to the status quo; recent data estimates diversion in now closer to 500,000 tonnes annually

• The net reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for 2014 that can be accredited to the EPR programs was over 200,000 tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) (equivalent to taking over 42,000 cars off the roads for a year), with an energy saving of 3.2 million GJ (equivalent to the energy content of over 500,000 barrels of crude oil). The results reflect the net effect on GHG emissions and energy use when all direct and indirect impacts are considered over the life cycle of the materials recycled by EPR programs.

• Some EPR programs recover relatively small quantities of designated materials but have significant benefits in reducing environmental contamination and environmental risk avoidance to water, land and air by keeping hazardous materials out of landfills, energy recovery facilities/incinerators and the environment. SESSION 1 THE SITUATION WORLDWIDE

With respect to human health benefits, while B.C. has not undertaken any direct studies in this area, it’s likely the increased collection and proper management and control of material at end-of-life through EPR programs has a positive impact. As an example, before the introduction of the EPR program for tires, municipalities and organizations often had to deal with scrap tire piles that posed a significant environmental and human health liability such as tire fires and potential for human health disease outbreaks caused by rodents and mosquitoes breeding in scrap tire piles.

B.C. has also begun to see EPR incent design for environment with the implementation of North America’s first EPR program for packaging and printed products (PPP). The economies of scale realized by shifting PPP from the patchwork of management under the regional governments to producers has allowed industry the opportunity to invest ($20 million in capital by private sector) and innovate, such as the Keurig Green Mountain pilot project to explore the potential to recover more small format plastics. Additionally, B.C.’s PPP EPR program recently expanded the types of plastics collected, and lowered contamination of collected materials.

Conclusion

B.C. has been actively implementing EPR since 2004, in advance of the CCME Canada-wide Action Plan on Extended Producer Responsibility, and in doing so has realized substantial economic and environmental benefits, including advancing design for better recycling. The human health benefits have not been studied directly, but intuitively, increased collection and proper management and control of material at end-of-life through EPR programs are likely to have positively impacted human health.

Going forward, B.C. is now able to consider expansion to capture more products under the Recycling Regulation and is expecting producers and their EPR programs to demonstrate continuous improvement in all areas.

See slide show SESSION 1 THE SITUATION WORLDWIDE

Gestion des déchets ménagers et industriels

Said Maoulana Mohamed

Deputy Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Abstract Les comores sont confrontées à une croissance urbaine et donc une croissance des déchets. Le développement économique engendre également une consommation plus importante de produits et par conséquent une augmentation des déchets ménagers et des déchets industriels, ce qui sera aussi amplifié lorsque les comores s'ouvriront au tourisme. L'Afrique ne représente seulement que 5% de la production mondiale de déchets mais cette part est en augmentation rapide et mal maîtrisée. Les déchets en Afrique sont évalués à 0,65 kg/habitant/jour contre 2kgthab.lj au U.S.A et I kg/hablj enEurope. En revanche le PNIIE pense gu'en 2017I'Afrique dépassera I'Europe en PEE (Déchets Équipements É-lectriques et ÉIecironiques). La Réunion plus procho de ce que poulrait devenir les comores à moyen terme produit 609 kglan/habitant dont 340 kg d,ordures ménagères. La gestion des déchets nécessite des investissements importants et coûteux et une planification sur plusieurs années de projet de construction d'usines de traitements et de recyclages. Mais ce coût peut être compensé par les bénéfices sanitaires et économiques qui en résulteront. Le cas de I'Union des Comores Aux Comores les déchets sont actuellement soit brûlés à I'air libre par la population, soit majoritairement envoyés dans des sites de décharge. certains déchets sont réutilisés par des petits commerçants comme les bouteilles plastiques en guise de récipient/conteneur, ou les canettes en aluminium qui sont ensuite fondus pour la fabrication de casseroles artisanales. La gestion des décharges est limitée, aucune filière de recyclage, de traitement ou d'assainissement n'est présente et il y a une absence de stratégie pour les autres catégories de déchets. 1. Catégorie de déchets Les catégories de déchets peuvent être séparées en trois grandes catégories: - Les déchets municipaux et urbains: déchets encombrants des ménages, déchets espaces verts, ordures ménagères, déchets de nettoiement, déchets de l’assainissement collectif. - Les déchets industriels. - Les déchets dangereux: huiles usées, déchets médicaux, pesticide obsolètes, téléphone mobile usés, batteries usées, produits chimiques des écoles, usés déchets électroniques, déchets de mercure. Les ordures ménagères comprennent les déchets suivants: cendres, débris de verre,-vaisselle, papier, carton, crottins, fumiers, feuilles mortes, boues. A cela s'ajoute les récipients réglementaires (casernes, hôpitaux, prisons,écoles). Les autres déchets peuvent être les suivants: déchets gravas, décombres, débris, abattoirs, déchets anatomiques et infectieux provenant d,hôpitaux et cliniques. SESSION 1 THE SITUATION WORLDWIDE

Management of solid waste streams in Algeria

Fatma Zohra Barca

Director of Integrated Waste Management, National Waste Agency, Ministry of Environment & Renewable Energies, Algeria

Abstract

The 2015 national constitution, through articles 66 and 68, clearly expresses the importance of protecting public health and the right to a healthy environment. Hence the political will and priority given by public authorities to promote sound and integrated waste management. To this end, the country has made considerable efforts over the past two decades both in the management of household and assimilated waste and in the management of industrial waste. In this context, several key actions and achievements have been achieved, including: • A regulatory framework initiated by the framework law n°01-19 of 12 December 2001 on waste management, control and disposal, in other words the framework law that regulates the waste sector as a whole; • An institutional framework that defines the tasks, in particular, of the Ministry of the Environment and Renewable Energy (MEER) as well as those bodies under supervision, including the National Waste Agency. The latter is in charge of implementing the national policy for integrated waste management. • The development and implementation of two programmes aimed at clarifying the multiple aspects of a coherent and progressive implementation of waste: the National Integrated Municipal Waste Management Programme (PROGDEM), and the National Plan for the Management of Special Waste (PNAGDES). • Significant investments between 2002 and 2017 for collection and transport equipment and for the construction of infrastructure dedicated to treatment (TEC, Sorting Centre, Waste Facility, etc.). • The first national strategy for integrated waste management by 2035, based on highly qualitative aspects with the involvement of the various stakeholders. This strategy provides for various policy measures to achieve integrated waste management in Algeria by 2035 with a transition to a circular economy, which cannot be implemented without organising the sectors. In this context, a chapter of the strategy was devoted to Extended Producer Responsibility, which can be an economic instrument that will make producers responsible for the waste they place on the market, i.e. the polluter-pays principle. SESSION 1 THE SITUATION WORLDWIDE

Bearing in mind that this principle is already established in framework law 01-19, which places the responsibility on waste generators to take the necessary measures to ensure, or to have ensured at their own expense, the ecological disposal of their waste. To this end, the current regulations have provided three options for generators to meet their obligation: 1. Set up their own take-back and recovery system; 2. Entrust the management of their packaging to an approved organisation; 3. Adhere to the public system for the take-back and recovery of packaging waste "Eco-Jem".

Indeed, Executive Decree No. 04-199 of 19 July 2004 laid down the procedures for creating, organizing, operating, and financing the public system for the treatment of packaging waste, establishing the system for the recovery and take-back of packaging waste known as "Eco-Jem". The regulations in force have not been applied as expected because of the difficulties encountered in the development of implementing legislation due to legal ambiguities and undrafted implementing legislation. In order to relaunch the organisation of the packaging waste sector, the National Waste Agency has proposed an implementing text to make this sector operational. For the other sectors, in particular those of special waste, it should be noted that an organisation exists on the national territory, from pre-collection to treatment. The activities at different levels of the waste management component are carried out by operators approved by the Ministry of the Environment, however, the regulatory framework is lacking for the organisation of the tyre, waste oil, battery, etc. sectors.

See slide show SESSION 1 FOCUS ON HEALTH PRODUCTS

NHS Sustainability Journey

Sonia Roschnik

NHS - National Health System, Director Sustainable Development Unit 2-4 Victoria House, Capital Park, Fulbourn, United-Kingdom Tel. + 44 01138 253220, [email protected]

Abstract

Every country and sector need to consider how to deliver on the Sustainable Development Goals in order to take care of people and planet. The health sector should be taking this particularly seriously in two ways: in relation to its own services and to demonstrate leadership because this is a health issue. The NHS in the UK has been on this journey for 10 years and has published a comprehensive carbon footprint including some modelling to identify how best to reduce carbon emissions and the elements needed to reduce it. In 2018, the NHS had reduced its footprint by 18.5% since 2007 despite an increase in activity of 27%. In 2019 the NHS produced a long-term plan which includes key commitments to reduce carbon by 51% by 2025, reduce waste and water, improve air quality, and reduce single use plastics.

See slide show SESSION 1 FOCUS ON HEALTH PRODUCTS

Valorization of unused medicines

Thierry Moreau Defarges

CYCLAMED, Chair 60 ter rue Bellevue, 92100, Boulogne-Billancourt Tel. +33 6 07 87 98 08, [email protected]

Abstract Launched in 1993 on the initiative of pharmaceutical laboratories, Cyclamed is actively supported by pharmacies and pharmaceutical wholesaler-distributors. Cyclamed is the second oldest “eco-organisme” created in France. It is a not-for-profit organisation set up to: • Protect our environment by ensuring proper environmental management of household medicines, • Take care of our health by raising public awareness about incorrect use or misuse of leftover medicine (that which is no longer needed or has expired), and • Recover energy that could lightand heat houses.

By law and French agreement, Cyclamed has the ability to collect only leftover human medicines from homes (households), and not from hospital or elsewhere. The recovery rate is 62%, demonstrating strong engagement from patients and pharmacists and the quality of communication achieved by Cyclamed. Cyclamed is also proud of its optimized footprint carbon. Collecting leftover medicine from pharmacies, which wholesalers store in containers and then transport by truck, produces only 810 tons of CO2.

See slide show SESSION 1 FOCUS ON HEALTH PRODUCTS

Pharmacuetical and Sharps EPR : How California Led the Way In the U.S

Heidi Sanborn

MPA, Executive Director, National Stewardship Action Council 1822 21st St #200 Sacramento, CA 95819, USA Tel. +1 916-431-7804, [email protected]

Abstract The California Product Stewardship Council (CPSC) is a thriving nonprofit for over 12 years and, in 2015, formed a national affiliate, the National Stewardship Action Council (NSAC), to take lessons learned in California to the rest of the nation. California has passed more extended producer responsibility (EPR) bills and is implementing more programs than any other state. NSAC was formed to advocate for a circular economy and EPR is a way to achieve circularity. NSAC conducts research and educates others on how these policies work at the federal, state, and local level to address problem products, such as pharmaceuticals and needles as well as lobbies for bills nationally. In California, EPR legislation was debated in the State Legislature for years with support from a wide group of interests, yet, bills were blocked by industry opposition. In 2012, the Alameda County (City of Oakland across from San Francisco) Board of Supervisors adopted the first EPR ordinance in the country for pharmaceuticals which was soon followed by King County, WA. The pharmaceutical industry filed a lawsuit against Alameda and King Counties for violation of interstate commerce clause, which they lost in 2015. The industry appealed the verdict all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ultimately denied hearing the case, upholding the lower court rulings. This precedent-setting lawsuit meant that local EPR ordinances for any product with a public health and safety impact was legal in the U.S. In California, it paved the way for 12 more local ordinances that created a patchwork of programs which the pharmaceutical industry had to administer. In 2015, Alameda County passed the first EPR ordinance for sharps in November soon followed by Santa Cruz County in December, the first-in-the-nation EPR ordinances for needles. By 2018, California had 12 different local EPR ordinances for pharmaceuticals and needles EPR programs, each one increasing program requirements and encouraging the industry to join the negotiation table at the state level, setting the stage for a historic statewide bill SB 212 for pharmaceuticals and needles passed in September 2018. This presentation will discuss the history, advocacy methods, and lessons learned from both the state- and county-level policies including stakeholder concerns and the critical role of diverse community-based support. CPSC was instrumental in passing the local ordinances, supporting the lawsuit, and passing the statewide bill. The presentation will share with the audience the implementation progress made by the counties and the current state of regulation development by the State of California. Attendees will leave with a deep understanding of the California experience and how it has impacted other states and is being used as a model for other States including Illinois. See slide show SESSION 2

EPR AS A BRIDGE BETWEEN HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT SESSION 2 INTRODUCTION

Patients expectations

Marine Paraire

Type1 running team

Recycle PP from sharp containers : a French experimentation

Sébastien Gorecki

French Ministry for health

Experiment on recovery of plastic materials from medical waste in France

Sébastien Malangeau

France experimentation SESSION 2 THE SHARP CONTAINER BUSINESS CASE

Full presentation What convinced you of the validity of this experiment that you have just authorized? Following the publication in 2016 of a decree concerning equipment for pretreatment by disinfection of waste from healthcare activities with infectious risks (DASRI), the Ministries of the Environment and Health planned to establish a general framework for the recovery of waste from pre-treatment by disinfection of DASRI. Since the publication of this decree, the attention of the Ministry of Health has regularly been drawn to this issue by companies wishing to carry out projects to recover materials from pre-treatment by disinfecting DASRI. In addition, the question of the recovery of this waste is part of the roadmap for a circular economy (FREC) published on 27 April 2018 by the ministry in charge of ecology. Thus, in 2018, the company COSMOLYS, based in the Northern Department, approached the Ministries to study the possibility of carrying out such a project. The company had already made investments with the help of ADEME to acquire a machine to treat DASRIA that had been pre-treated by disinfection and to isolate polypropylene from it for recovery. However, in the absence of a regulatory framework, this project could not be carried out. Through the "France expérimentation" scheme, which the DITP has just presented to you, the Ministries in charge of health and the environment have therefore set up a framework by decree of 28 March 2019 to test the recovery of plastic materials resulting from the pre-treatment by disinfection of DASRI for a period of 3 years. The use of this experiment has several advantages. It will enable the company to develop its process and study the possible outlets for the recovery of recovered materials (polypropylene in particular) and will also provide public authorities with feedback to better identify the risks associated with the recovery of pre-treated DASRIs and the aspects that would require a regulatory framework in order to establish a general framework.

What are the consequences of this experiment? The experimental decree allows any company wishing to carry out such an experiment, throughout the national territory, to apply for authorization from the Prefect of the department. In order to enable the ministries to monitor the experiments set up on the territory, it is planned that the DGS and the DGPR be informed, by the Prefect of the department, of any request for experiments. We therefore hope to be able to follow several experiments in order to benefit from a complete feedback. Finally, the decree provides that for each project carried out during the 3 years of the experiment, the Ministries are to receive a report on the results of the experiment, on the basis of which a decision can be taken whether or not to make the system sustainable. In the light of the results of the experiment, it may therefore be decided to make this system sustainable and to set a general framework for the recovery of this type of waste.

Can you detail the framework of this experiment for us? Are measures taken to ensure the health safety of this experiment? As explained above, the national framework for experimentation is defined by means of an inter-ministerial decree which provides for certain conditions for conducting this experimentation - the project is carried out in a classified installation, duly authorised under heading 2790 of the nomenclature of classified installations for the protection of the environment, in order to allow experimentation in a secure industrial context; - This experimentation is subject to authorization by the Prefect, the experimentation authorization is issued by the Prefect of the department after consulting the Director General of the Regional Health Agency on the basis of a file submitted by the petitioner; - microbiological monitoring of pre-treatment and recycling waste is provided for; thus, the decree defines the monitoring procedures and in particular the nature of the tests to be conducted to monitor the experiment and the acceptance criteria; - SESSION 2 THE SHARP CONTAINER BUSINESS CASE

A limited duration in time because it is an experiment: it sets the duration of the experiment at 3 years In view of the need to protect public health, the DGS requested the HCSP's opinion on the order and more particularly on the protocol for monitoring the experiment. The HCSP issued its opinion on 6 November last. Its recommendations were taken into account in the order. Thus, in order to ensure safety Finally, the decree provides that for each project carried out during the 3 years of the experiment, the Ministries are to receive a report on the results of the experiment, on the basis of which a decision can be taken whether or not to make the system sustainable. In the light of the results of the experiment, it may therefore be decided to make this system sustainable and to set a general framework for the recovery of this type of waste.

Can you detail the framework of this experiment for us? Are measures taken to ensure the health safety of this experiment? As explained above, the national framework for experimentation is defined by means of an inter-ministerial decree which provides for certain conditions for conducting this experimentation - the project is carried out in a classified installation, duly authorised under heading 2790 of the nomenclature of classified installations for the protection of the environment, in order to allow experimentation in a secure industrial context; - This experimentation is subject to authorization by the Prefect, the experimentation authorization is issued by the Prefect of the department after consulting the Director General of the Regional Health Agency on the basis of a file submitted by the petitioner; - microbiological monitoring of pre-treatment and recycling waste is provided for; thus, the decree defines the monitoring procedures and in particular the nature of the tests to be conducted to monitor the experiment and the acceptance criteria; - A limited duration in time because it is an experiment: it sets the duration of the experiment at 3 years In view of the need to protect public health, the DGS requested the HCSP's opinion on the order and more particularly on the protocol for monitoring the experiment. The HCSP issued its opinion on 6 November last. Its recommendations were taken into account in the order. Thus, in order to ensure safety

See slide show SESSION 2 THE SHARP CONTAINER BUSINESS CASE

Reusable Sharps Containers: Safety, Sustainability & Standards

Terry Grimmond

Consultant Microbiologist, Grimmond and Associates, New Zealand. [email protected]

Abstract Single-use sharps containers were first developed commercially in 1975 and reusable sharps containers (RSC) were developed independently in USA and Australia in 1986. RSC are used in Australia, USA, UK, NZ, South Africa, Canada, South America, and by WHO and Medecins Sans Frontieres. National market share (percentage of hospitals using RSC) is approximately 80% in USA, 70% in Australia, 45% in Canada, 20% in UK and 7% in South Africa, and since 1986, it is estimated more than 150 million RSC uses have occurred worldwide. Single-use and reusable SC are identical in design, function, shape, siting, and time to fill. In ISO Standard 23907 Part 1 (Single-use) and Draft Part 2 (Reusable), the requirements for design and performance tests are identical in both. Both are essential in healthcare, and in the world literature, no instance of disease transmission has been cited with Single-use or Reusable SC in their decades of use. But there are differences. Hospitals using Single- use plastic SC may, for every 100 licensed beds, discard 2.4 – 4.6 tons of plastic containers and may generate 16-23 tons of greenhouse gas emissions in their manufacture and life, every year.1,2 However, peer-reviewed studies show reusable SC may : • Eliminate 99% of sharps-container plastic landfilled.1,2 • Eliminate 65-84% of sharps waste stream greenhouse gas emissions.1,2 • Significantly reduce sharps injuries.3,4, • Reduce labour used in container exchanges.1,2

When healthcare facilities consider adopting RSC, they may ask, “If sharps containers may contain pathogens, why are RSC not a risk for our facility?” The reasons are multiple: • Bioburden in full SC is minimal as sharps pre-use are sterile, so too >95% of bloods in/on them. • Sharps containers are a “Low-touch Environment surface” i.e. very low transmission risk.5 • Sharps must be disposed with one hand, i.e. the container is not touched during deposit.6,7 • RSC decontamination processes remove a Log6 pathogen challenge (ISO requires Log4).7 • Gloves worn during the sharps procedure are removed after sharps are disposed.8 • Sharps containers do not meet 2 of 6 essential links in the Chain of Infection.8

RSC have yet to be approved for use in Sweden, France and Germany and it is hoped this forum may initiate discussion to allow RSC use in these countries. SESSION 2 THE SHARP CONTAINER BUSINESS CASE

References : 1. McPherson B, Sharip M, Grimmond T. 2019. impact on life cycle carbon footprint of converting from disposable to reusable sharps containers. PeerJ 2019;7:e6204. https://peerj.com/articles/6204.pdf. 2. Grimmond T, Reiner S. Impact on Carbon Footprint: An LCA of Disposable vs Reusable Sharps Containers in a Large US Hospital. Waste Management & Research 2012;30:639-642. 3. Grimmond T, Naisoro W. Sharps injury reduction: A 6-yr, 3-phase study comparing use of a small patient-room sharps disposal container with a larger engineered container. J Infect Prev 2014;15 (5):170- 174. 4. Grimmond T, Bylund S, at al. Sharps injury reduction using a sharps container with enhanced engineering: A 28 hospital nonrandomized intervention and cohort study. Am J Infect Control 2010;38:799-805. 5. Guidelines for Environmental Infection Control in Health-Care Facilities. CDC. 2003, pages 71-5. https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/pdf/guidelines/environmental-guidelines.pdf 6. ISO 23907-1:2019. Sharps injury protection — Requirements and test methods —Part 1:Single-use sharps containers. https://www.iso.org/standard/71506.html 7. ISO/DIS 23907-2. Sharps injury protection -- Requirements and test methods -- Part 2: Reusable sharps containers (under development). https://www.iso.org/standard/72503.html 8. Grimmond T, Neelakanta A, Miller M, et al. A microbiological study to investigate the carriage and transmission potential of Clostridium difficile spores on single-use and reusable sharps containers. Am J Infect Control 2018;46:1154-9.

See slide show SESSION 2 THE SHARP CONTAINER BUSINESS CASE

Regulation and Outreach Initiative to Promote Safe Use of Sharps Containers in the U.S.

Elaine S. Mayhall, Ph.D.

Scientific Reviewer, Office of Product Evaluation and Quality, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Abstract Efforts to reduce medical device waste in the U.S. include use of FDA-cleared reusable sharps containers and reprocessed single use medical devices, donation of unneeded medical devices, and recycling of plastic and other waste materials. The Occupational Safety and Health Act Bloodborne Pathogens Standard requires engineering and work practice controls, including use of sharps disposal containers in the workplace where occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens is anticipated. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation of sharps disposal containers as Class II medical devices requires manufacturers to obtain premarket clearance through the 510(k) regulatory pathway. The FDA does not enforce the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard. The use of voluntary consensus standards, such as ISO 23907 First edition 2012-09-01 Sharps injury protection - Requirements and test methods - Sharps containers, in preparation and evaluation of 510(k) premarket submissions is recommended.

See slide show SESSION 2 THE INNOVATIVE DEVICES BUSINESS CASE

Patients impatience

Claude Chaumeil

Vice President in charge of patient strategy at the French Federation of Diabetics

Pharmacy as a key stone

Paul Gelbhart

USPO, Pharmacists syndicate

A tailored technical solution

Jost Wicki

Project Manager, ALMETA SESSION 2 THE INNOVATIVE DEVICES BUSINESS CASE

The valorisation of complex medical devices after use: regulatory, environmental, health and logistics issues

Docteur Fabien Squinazi

High Council of Public Health – France [email protected]

Abstract The development and marketing of innovative and connected medical devices (MDs), called complex MDs, for patients undergoing self-treatment at home, raises the question of their management after use. Indeed, these complex DMs sometimes consist of perforators and electrical and electronic equipment and/or batteries, portable accumulators, not compatible with the disposal of traditional waste from healthcare activities at risk of infection (DASRI). Electrical and electronic components need to be recycled and recovered, according to the roadmap for a circular economy. Thus, the valuation of complex DMs after use must meet several challenges. Regulatory issues: The regulations applied to DASRI and waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) serve different purposes and the current provisions do not currently make it possible to identify channels for the disposal and recovery of complex DMs. It is proposed to create a new class of DASRIs produced by patients undergoing self-treatment, called "complex DASRIs intended for recovery", whose collection and treatment process would differ from that of "traditional DASRIs intended for abandonment". Complex DASRIs are derived from complex DMs comprising a system in direct contact with the patient that poses an infectious risk, possibly a secure perforator and electrical and electronic equipment and/or portable batteries, accumulators, which cannot be easily separated by the patient. Environmental issues: Three one-off destocking operations for insulin pumps were carried out in 2018 by the eco-organisation DASTRI, by exemption from the regulations, following an opinion from the HCSP of 7 July 2017. They collected a total of 620,000 used pumps and about 1.9 million recycled batteries from the Almeta site in Bellach (Switzerland). Health issues: The goal is to control the infectious risk and ensure the health and safety of persons handling these complex DASRIs, from collection to recovery and final disposal. Thus, the integrity of the mechanism that encases the possible perforator and the packaging itself, which must be reopened for recovery, must be verified. Logistical challenges: A local collection point that is easily accessible to the patient should be preferred. The frequency of collection and transport arrangements should be less restrictive. SESSION 3

EPR AS A POSITIVE BUSINESS FOR COMPANIES SESSION 3 SRI AND SUSTAINABLE REPORTING

Taking responsibility for waste impacts throughout the value chain

Anna Krotova

Manager, Sustainability Reporting Standards, GRI

Abstract The volume of waste generation is growing worldwide, yet we are far from being able to deal with it adequately and responsibly. In the face of what has become a global waste crisis, GRI started the revision of its reporting Standard on waste. The Standard, which is reported on annually by nearly 4,000 companies worldwide, was updated by a multi-stakeholder expert group earlier this year and is now out for public consultation until July 15. One of the key issues that the revised Standard is trying to address is taking responsibility for waste and waste- related impacts throughout a company’s full value chain.

All too often we’ve seen the burden of waste management pushed off onto others, when companies would ship off their waste for “recycling” or other treatment overseas only for it to be burned in the open or handled manually in conditions harmful to human health. China’s ban on plastic waste imports uncovered how unprepared we all were to deal with the problem we created ourselves. The revised Standard prompts companies to start recognizing and taking responsibility for “indirect waste” – that which is generated by consumers using their products, or by suppliers that provide materials to the company for it to make a product. It is the choice of the company to put a product on the market, therefore both the “upstream” and “downstream” consequences need to be recognized and managed.

In this session, we will discuss how GRI’s revised draft Standard on waste can support companies in directing their sustainability efforts towards measuring and managing waste impacts. We will discuss how it can support a change in the way businesses perceive waste – not as an inevitable result of a process, or the end of product’s life, but as a consequence of decisions and practices made long before it is generated. Understanding this connection can bring fundamental change in how companies operate. Full presentation There are many mechanisms that can influence businesses to play an environmental and social role in our societies. These mechanisms come down to providing financial incentives and setting up cost structures that help businesses recognize the value of environmental and social capital and internalize externalities in the way they make and deliver products and services. They also come down to addressing fundamental questions about how value is created and measured, and strong governance of resource use by public officials. However, businesses do not need to wait for these mechanisms to be set in place in order to act, and they are, in fact, already taking steps to improve their performance through sustainability reporting. The practice of sustainability reporting started in response to the demand for greater corporate transparency after the 1989 Exxon Valdez environmental disaster in the Gulf of Alaska. The US non-profit organization the Coalition on Environmentally Responsible Economies (Ceres) and the Tellus Institute, together with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), founded GRI in 1997 to set up a framework for corporate sustainability disclosure. Since then, voluntary disclosure of sustainability information has advanced from being a niche practice to a mainstream activity that companies, large and small, undertake to gain business insight and improve their environmental and social contribution and impacts, and their business processes. Sustainability reporting helps companies understand the consequences of their use of resources to make and deliver products and services, on the world around them. In very simple terms, it is a basic practice of good housekeeping and plays a foundational role in helping companies understand the impacts they cause or contribute to. In turn, this knowledge informs their decisions on strategy and operations, driving improvements in performance. The ultimate purpose of sustainability information disclosure is to improve the triple bottom line, or financial, social and environmental outcomes of business activity. By recording key metrics, forecasting impacts, and making this data public, companies can discover new ways to improve their environmental and social footprint and have a natural incentive to do so. Reporting also improves accountability and transparency by enabling companies to communicate key information to stakeholders on their engagements with the society and the environment, improving an organization’s social license to operate. Recent studies have shown that more than 80% of mainstream investors now rely on environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosures for decision making. The total assets that are under some form of ESG management have skyrocketed to nearly USD 23 trillion (United States Dollar). Today, more than 85% of the world’s largest S&P 500 listed companies report on their ESG information. Of these, 75% use the GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards (GRI Standards) to report this information. Further, 90% of the Spanish IBEX 35 listed companies, 80% of the French CAC 40 listed companies, and 78% of the US Dow 30 listed companies use GRI for their ESG disclosures. As of 2019, 51 capital markets around the world reference or require the use of GRI Standards for their listed companies to disclose ESG information, and nearly 125 policy instruments in 60 countries reference the GRI Standards. Waste generation and management, is one area where businesses are yet to improve performance and transparency. The volume of waste generation is growing worldwide, but we are far from being able to deal with it adequately and responsibly. Currently, we are consuming an equivalent of 2.7 Earths. With the growing population in low-income regions of the world, consumption is only set to rise further, contributing in turn to increasing waste generation. In 2010, high-income countries in Europe and North America accounted for about half the waste generation in the world. Forecasts suggest that by 2030, Asia will surpass these countries in terms of overall municipal solid waste generation, and by 2050, Africa might potentially surpass both Asia and the high-income countries. The exponential growth in waste generation in the absence of adequate and responsible waste management has had far-reaching environmental and social impacts. The growth of plastic waste and its mismanagement, for instance, has escalated the problem of marine litter with devastating effects on marine ecosystems. Food waste is another waste stream that continues to be of concern, as indicated by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s assessments that one-third of all food produced in the world is lost or wasted. Target 12.3 of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) explicitly calls for “halving per capita food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reducing food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses”. One of the fastest growing waste streams in recent times has been e-waste, due to the increased consumer demand for electronic products, and their perceived obsolescence with rapid changes in technology and the invention of new electronic devices. In fact, the composition of waste itself is becoming increasingly complex due to the growth in production of hi-tech products and creation of novel entities. The exponential growth in waste generation in the absence of adequate and responsible waste management has had far-reaching environmental and social impacts. The growth of plastic waste and its mismanagement, for instance, has escalated the problem of marine litter with devastating effects on marine ecosystems. Food waste is another waste stream that continues to be of concern, as indicated by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s assessments that one-third of all food produced in the world is lost or wasted. Target 12.3 of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) explicitly calls for “halving per capita food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reducing food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses”. One of the fastest growing waste streams in recent times has been e-waste, due to the increased consumer demand for electronic products, and their perceived obsolescence with rapid changes in technology and the invention of new electronic devices. In fact, the composition of waste itself is becoming increasingly complex due to the growth in production of hi-tech products and creation of novel entities. China’s ban on import of low-quality plastics has lifted the veil on how unprepared high-income countries are to recycle plastics. China’s ban poses a risk of increased exports of plastic waste to developing countries with less stringent regulations. Companies in high-income countries are desperately looking for routes to ship their waste out of sight, much of it finding itself sitting in harbors waiting for a solution. This calls on the business sector to take an ever more leading role in preventing waste generation and taking responsibility for the waste that they do create or contribute to through their products and services, taking into consideration their decisions and practices throughout the value chain. With this mandate and in response to the global waste crisis, GRI launched the revision of its reporting Standard on waste (GRI 306: Effluents and Waste 2016) in September 2018. The Standard is now out for public consultation and is expected to be released early in 2020. One of the key objectives of revising the Standard was to steer companies towards taking responsibility for waste and waste-related impacts throughout their value chains. The revisions to the Standard encourage companies to start recognizing and taking responsibility for ‘indirect waste’ – i.e., waste generated by consumers using their products, or by suppliers that provide materials that go into making the products. Many consumer goods manufacturers or e-commerce companies generate very little waste in their own activities, yet their largest impact lies in the goods that they sell, which become waste once they are used by the consumer and reach their end of life. The revisions to the Standard prompt companies to reflect and report on what stage of the process they take responsibility for this waste, and how. The revisions to the Standard also recognize the complexity of the waste problem and that it might be unrealistic to expect companies to take full ownership of post-consumer waste. In line with the purpose of sustainability reporting, the revisions seek to help companies to understand, communicate, and eventually address the cause of waste generation, and not just the consequence, as has been the case in waste management in the past. The revisions aim to change how businesses perceive waste: not as an inevitable result of a process or the end of a product’s life, but as a consequence of decisions and practices made long before waste is generated. Reporting on the revised GRI Standard on waste will support companies to direct their sustainability efforts towards introducing significant improvements in waste generation and management rather than merely implementing incremental fixes. By collecting and reporting information that captures significant waste-related impacts throughout their value chain, companies will be able to identify the means to better manage these impacts. For many companies, this will mean rethinking how they make products, ultimately taking more responsibility for product design and management. It can also help companies recognize the value inherent in waste materials and the opportunities waste can bring as a resource. To conclude, nearly 4,000 organizations worldwide, annually publish sustainability reports prepared in accordance with or based on the GRI Standards. If these companies understand their performance and responsibility vis-à-vis the resources that they use and the impacts they have, it presents a significant opportunity for them to improve their environmental and social performance and contribute to sustainable development.

1United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Global food losses and food waste—extent, causes and prevention, 2011, http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/mb060e/mb060e00.pdf, accessed on 19 June 2019. 2International Solid Waste Association (ISWA), Global Waste Management Outlook, 2015.

See slide show SESSION 3 WASTE AS A LINK OF THE HEALTH VALUE CHAIN

Stakeholders expectations

Jean Yves Le Coq

GSK VP Secrétaire General Directeur Affaires Économiques & Gouvernementales & Communication

One of our challenges: how to reconcile, on the one hand, the business stakes of a company such as GSK that operates in a competitive environment and invests massively in scientific innovation, with on the other hand increasingly strong societal expectations about the place and role of the company in its ecosystem and the Society at large? To answer: this question 3 essential points: 1st: identify, where, as a company, we can make a difference: examples through our global health policy 2nd: how to build a “positive business” model: like other companies, and other sectors, we are aware that taking into account our societal and environmental impact is essential, because it helps build a relationship of trust with our stakeholders 3rd: how to register as a partner of the authorities and institutions. At GSK, our unique contribution to society is our scientific expertise. But innovation can only be achieved through strong and constructive collaboration with authorities and institutions. In conclusion we must both global challenges that are common to different stakeholders, while acting at the same time at a local level on our ecosystem. An example of this very concrete commitment is GSK’s participation in the DASTRI EPR scheme in France

A unique EPR Scheme for sharps

Laurence Bouret

DASTRI CEO 17 rue de l’Amiral Hamelin 75016 PARIS + 33 6 24 56 04 82 See slide show Mail : [email protected] SESSION 3 WASTE AS A LINK OF THE HEALTH VALUE CHAIN

Positive collaboration for sustainable healthcare

Dr. Fiona Adshead

Dr. Fiona Adshead Sustainable Healthcare Coalition, Chair 22 Burnley Road, London, UK, SW9 0SJ Tel. +44 7850 515 759, [email protected]

Abstract Open-minded collaboration across public and private healthcare can be a powerful driving force to facilitate the journey towards good health and wellbeing on a finite planet: the Sustainable Healthcare Coalition (SHC) is one such example. The Sustainable Development Unit (SDU), which works nationally on behalf of the health and care system in England to embed and promote sustainable development, first invited the SHC to come together in response to evidence that pharmaceutical and medical device products were responsible for much of the NHS’s carbon footprint. Sharing data and expertise, the group was able to create world-first guidance on how to measure the carbon footprint of pharmaceuticals and medical devices. The SHC is a partnership of healthcare companies and other health agencies drawn together to address some of the most pressing sustainability issues in global healthcare. It is a healthcare sector led group that looks for the greatest opportunities to inspire sustainable practices through the collaboration of its members. Focusing on key obstacles, the partnership shares data and insights, and develops best-practice guidance for use in healthcare systems and their supply chain partners. The partnership learns through evaluation and promotes stories of impact, designed to inform and inspire global health systems to make the transition to sustainability. The current membership consists of some of the world’s leading healthcare companies and the SDU. This core group draws on participation from other health system players including trade bodies, state healthcare providers, and national and international agencies. The presentation will highlight the structure, mission, and vision of the SHC and some of the successes it has already had in delivering internationally-relevant guidance and tools for sustainable healthcare systems. It is also an invitation to people of the public and private sector, industry and academia in healthcare and related fields to engage to share ideas and explore opportunities for collaborative action to add mutual value and accelerate our common journey towards good and sustainable healthcare.

See slide show SESSION 3 WASTE AS A LINK OF THE HEALTH VALUE CHAIN

A connected solution that increases medication adherence and persistence to therapy and delivers actionable insights for an efficient waste collection service. Jim Joyce

CEO, HealthBeacon Ltd

Full presentation BACKGROUND The HealthBeacon™ is a smart sharps bin for patients who self-administer injectable medications in the home setting. The smart sharps bin encases a traditional waste bin and provides patients with an easy, elegant, safe, and connected way to dispose of their used needles, syringes, vials or injectors. The solution provides a convenient and simple digitally connected platform for managing patients medical waste at large scale. The World Health Organization states that in a widespread report that “in developed countries, adherence among patients suffering chronic diseases averages only 50%”. This is a worldwide problem of striking magnitude. Traditionally, people used to go to hospital for injections, but with the advances in medical science home administration is now possible. However, with this transition to the home setting comes adherence challenges as patients are now without the care structure and intervention of a health professional. The HealthBeacon smart sharps bin system has made it easier for patients, using injectable medications, to stay on track with their treatment schedule. The system is personalized and programmed to suit each patient’s needs. It sends customised SMS reminders to keep people on track and is aimed at those who need regular medication. By automating the administration process, patients no longer need to remember often complex injection schedules. If the patient forgets to take their medication or is non adherent to their schedule, the system will identify and provide precision outreach to the patients that require attention. The technology and platform have resulted in an improved persistence to treatment by 20-30% within the first year. METHODS The HealthBeacon smart waste bin is simply plug in and play. The unit arrives pre-programmed to the patient’s home with their medical waste bin enclosed in the smart unit. The system notifies the patient when their injection is due through a series of smart notifications and allows the patient to safely dispose of their used injectable medication into the HealthBeacon unit. There is no change in behaviour required from the patient. After the patient has administered the drug, they simply place the used needle, syringe, vial or injector into the HealthBeacon. The smart sharps unit provides a validated date and time stamped image of the injectable medication being dispended in the unit. The smart reminder system of HealthBeacon limits the number of unnecessary touch points with the patients. Patients only get a follow up SMS or email reminders when an injection drop is not recorded. SESSION 3 WASTE AS A LINK OF THE HEALTH VALUE CHAIN

HealthBeacon allows more personalized interventions. If a scheduled injection is missed and not deposited into the HealthBeacon at the scheduled time, the patient will receive a text message reminder based on their predetermined schedule. The elegant design of the HealthBeacon unit is a pleasant alternative for patients to the standard yellow sharps bin with warning messages which can act as a reminder to the patient of their chronic illness. In addition, the positive reinforcement and feedback are both important factors to maintain motivation during a chronic treatment. With HealthBeacon, the patient receives a positive “well done” message after dropping the medication into the bin along with their personalized adherence score. The adherence score shows how well the patients adhere to the agreed treatment schedule and has added transparency and consistency to the conversation about complying with treatment. Environmentally friendly and safe waste collection - With HealthBeacon the patient can safely dispose used needles, syringes, vials or injectors after their injection. Once the smart sharps bin is almost full, the Unit will display the “Almost Full” message on the LCD screen based on the patient’s calendar of scheduled drops and the number of pens or syringe that the patient has deposited into the smart sharps unit. When the bin has reached full capacity, the LCD will display “Bin Full”. The full waste bin is now ready for collection and disposal. A new bin can automatically be sent to the patient’s home. Depending on local regulations the patient can typically dispose of the bin at the pharmacy or communal waste collection. The HealthBeacon platform provides a connected solution which creates actionable insights and leads to a more efficient waste collection service. The solution provides both cost and time efficiencies in the management and collection of medical waste through the connected units serving up actionable data on the status of each bin in the patients home. The system identifies and alerts where units are almost full and where bins are full and require collection or replacement. The HealthBeacon waste bin is not classified as a Medical Device based on criteria of EU medical device directive 93/42/EEC and has gone through extensive external approvals including FDA 510k clearance and CE Mark. The smart sharps unit is compliant and meets all law, regulatory and legal requirements protecting a data subject's privacy including Health Insurance Portability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) and EU General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679. RESULTS The HealthBeacon smart sharps bin system has made it easier for patients, using injectable medications, to stay on track with their treatment schedule. The technology and platform have resulted in improved persistence to therapy by 20-30% within the first year. The HealthBeacon is an independent device proving adherence & persistence to therapy while also sharing valuable data with the patients ecosystem in order to provide the best level of care and service to the patients. The HealthBeacon has been globally validated and accepted by pharmaceutical companies. Patients acceptance levels with the HealthBeacon Smart Reminder System has been shown to be more than 90% and the platform has tracked over 250,000 injections to date. CONCLUSIONS The HealthBeacon technology and platform provides an opportunity to increase patient persistence and adherence to their treatment and connect the millions of medical waste sharps containers to deliver an efficient and cost-effective waste management solution.

See slide show SESSION 3 WASTE AS A LINK OF THE HEALTH VALUE CHAIN

Health, a major driver in a Very High Quality Health and Environmental approach

Cédric Allies

Primum Non Nocere, Consultant CSR 5bis rue Franklin 34500 Béziers, France Tel. + 33 6 52 85 21 68 | 04 67 00 31 70, [email protected]

Abstract

The world of health brings credibility to the solutions that are implemented in institutions, and the activity oriented towards the human interest must be exemplary in its impact on the environment. Health thus plays its part in the challenges to be met. The act of purchasing carried out in this awareness of societal and environmental issues becomes the first lever for improvement in public and private organizations. Environmental purchasing criteria are no longer limited to asking service providers and suppliers about their commitment to sustainable development. The criteria now imply environmental results in products and services with a clear objective: to limit the impact of the establishment's activity even further. The establishments are thus committed to a Very High Quality Social and Environmental Health approach. Sometimes they are emblematic services, which drive the entire organisation of an establishment, such as maternity wards, whose users are extremely vulnerable to environmental health issues, leaving a special place to providers and suppliers who move the lines by shifting the value chain on environmental performance. We will give inspiring examples through the support that Primum Non Nocere provides. You will also discover the tools and ambitions deployed in both public and private structures. »

See slide show SESSION 3 WASTE AS A LINK OF THE HEALTH VALUE CHAIN

Montpellier University Hospital structures its responsible purchasing approach

François Gracia Montpellier University Hospital, Ingénieur en Chef CE,

Responsable Accréditation Qualité Gestion des Déchets, Direction Logistique & Transport Tel. + 33 4 67 33 22 50 / +33 6 84 32 93 73

+33 4 67 33 20 13 (secrétariat), [email protected]

Abstract

At the Montpellier University Hospital, we quickly took into account the sustainable development aspect when drafting contract specifications before consulting, particularly with regard to waste collection and treatment contracts. With the teams of the Purchasing Department of the University Hospital Centre, and with UniHa for a specific Regional market for the collection and processing of DASRI, we have oriented our choices and our contracts towards sustainable public procurement. 1/ Economies of scale have been achieved by creating specific batches according to the types of waste and especially by the treatment method: Paid supply chains, Free supply chains, Recoverable supply chain (recipes).... 2/ Beyond common-sense approaches, sustainable development actions have been deployed such as limiting the number of kilometres in road flows. The economic impact is obvious. Savings have therefore been observed by prioritizing contracting with local companies, thus reducing transport times (and therefore costs and environmental impacts) and also promoting employment in the local area. 3/ It seemed essential to us to integrate a social dimension that could be perfectly adapted to certain waste sorting services or processes. A social component was integrated through the implementation of certain sectors for which the participation (co-contracting and/or subcontracting) of a Social and Solidarity Enterprise (people in reintegration) was required. Finally, we implemented specific channels allowing a social and environmental link with people outside the university hospital, local associations, or large industrial groups, with CHU as the federator and coordinator of the whole. Examples will be presented to you. Currently, the establishment of Territorial Hospital Groups (GHT) should make it possible to increase the capacity of health establishments to buy better. GHTs were implemented in many cases when contracts were already awarded, which did not make it possible to optimize a negotiation phase. In addition, the complementarity and agreement of public and private health structures is imperative in terms of purchasing in certain areas. SESSION 3 WASTE AS A LINK OF THE HEALTH VALUE CHAIN

Independent private institutions allowing for a long-term strategy

Florestan GANIZATE

Directeur Achats SASU SantéCité Achats Groupe Coopératif SantéCité - 24 rue Chaptal – 75009 Paris 01 58 13 64 01 - 06 95 14 06 10 [email protected]

Abstract

Santé Cité brings together more than 130 private health establishments, with the particularity that each independent establishment that is a member is also a cooperator in the national dynamic, while deploying a strong territorial anchoring in the health offer. Our cooperative group's ambition is thus to propose a third way, between a centralised national group exercise and the independent exercise, which is too often isolated. A responsible purchasing approach is structured with the ambition of involving suppliers and service providers in reducing the direct impacts related to the activity of the establishments. This is reflected in approaches to the ecodesign of buildings (origin, quality and absence of harmfulness of materials), criteria relating to environmental health, sometimes in targeted services such as exposure to chemical risks in maternity wards, for example, or the reduction / recyclability of materials. All this work requires a significant amount of sourcing and analysis time, shared on a national scale for cooperating institutions. The current observation is that we feel that suppliers are constrained when it comes to meeting our expectations, whereas we would like them to be proactive. Overview of SantéCité Cooperative Group • More than 133 clinics with 45 groups • +/- 2.5 billion e of turnover • Strong local foot print within the whole domestic territory in in providing patient care • All medical specialties Involvement in CSR • Exemples : some building projects, some medical units are taking the lead => improvement of the whole value added chain for project environement friendly • Expectation towards suppliers ❑ Patient care production is our core business ❑ Everybody from the Clinic President to the Surgeon to the nurses are stakeholders for reducing environemental impact; ❑ Suppliers are one of our main stakholders : SESSION 3 WASTE AS A LINK OF THE HEALTH VALUE CHAIN

• Present at each phase, and almost each gestures • A lot of information, KPI, CSR plans are asked to our suppliers. Every body is happy to have suppliers that improve their own waste management, that are respectfull of demale/male parity etc • But, that quite often ends at the exit of the production chain • We need to go much further and enforce models that will consider the MD/IMD/Molecule from the very raw materiel until the ultime waste of it • KPI • Set up a Total Impact of Ownership, just as Total Cost of Ownership • Strongly accelerate eco conception

Summary: Suppliers are the main stakeholders involved the patient care industry. We need to reconsider the impact of MD, MDI, Molecules that should be measured from the very first raw materials until very ultimate degree of waste. That will mean going through end to end KPI and a strong developement of eco conception SESSION 3 EPR AS A BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY

Focus on EPR sectors and positive business

Arnaud Humbert-Droz

Président exécutif, Valdelia, 93 rue du Lac, 31670 LABÈGE Tel. 06 48 65 95 16

Focus on EPR sectors and positive business

Anthony Boulay

Manager Pôle Eco'Services and Market & Communications Developer Steelcase, 23 Boulevard Jules Ferry, 75011 Paris

Fabrice Bonnifet

Directeur Développement Durable, Bougues Président C3D SESSION 4

EPR AND NEW PLASTIC ECONOMY SESSION 4 INTRODUCTION

“The Growing Needs for Global EPR Programs”

Douglas Woodring

Founder and Managing Director – Ocean Recovery Alliance and the Plasticity Forum 20F Central Tower, 28 Queen’s Road, Central, Hong Kong Tel. + 852-2803-0018, [email protected]

Abstract An estimated 8 million tons of plastic enters the ocean each year – a large number, but dwarfed by the roughly 4.9 billion tons of plastic waste dumped on land and sea since 1950. The cause: 50 years of disposable plastic products and packaging, with globally inadequate investment in low-waste alternatives and recycling systems. Consumers do not pay – and few companies voluntarily shoulder the full cost of preventing or cleaning up the waste produced by their products. A key barrier to both investment and the rapid adoption of better solutions and policies remains sheer cost. Today, the world faces immense challenges with closing, “cleaner” borders, and the lack of financial incentives to drive significant change. Proposed revisions of the Basel Convention are meant to reduce the ills caused by the trading of plastic waste, but in fact, the closed borders may actually exacerbate the problem. Without new EPR programs across countries, and in fact, in the form of Extended Exporter Responsibility (EER), the plastic pollution puzzle is only going to get more complicated. Countries with good EER policies and programs which are standardizing and monitoring plastic for recycling should be able to trade to those countries who have the ability to process and absorb (use) the materials. Closed borders, on the contrary, mean that each country has to replicate resources, technical know-how and capacities for their own waste management efficiencies. However, this is not likely to happen for many years, and likely even decades to come. Similarly, much of the world has explored plastic bans, taxes, alternative materials, or producer responsibility regulations in order to curb plastic waste, but little focus has been given to the potential financial incentives that can drive needed investment and make solutions cheaper, even profitable. Fortunately, an innovative new class of free market solutions – Clean Tax Cuts (CTCs) – can directly drive up investment, and also drive down that crucial cost barrier which has left the world with a large gap in recycling and material recovery capacity. CTCs should also drive down costs for a variety of best-practice frameworks: voluntary product stewardship or legislated extended producer responsibility for reducing product life-cycle impacts and waste, concepts championed by the Product Stewardship Institute for the past two decades. CTCs can introduce new cost- cutting, reward-based elements into these frameworks, reducing their financial burdens and increasing their benefits, allowing the most promising systems to expand at scale. Companies, entrepreneurs, governments and communities win, as most of the recycling systems and programs used today were not set up to handle the wide variety of plastic material and fail on collection, contamination and sorting. Achieving economies of scale with old models has been challenging, and this is where positive economic stimulus can play a strong role in filling the capacity gap that exists today between consumption and waste creation. SESSION 4 INTRODUCTION

Full presentation Closing borders to plastics can create even more barriers to a circular economy Tired of being the world's dumping ground for recycled waste materials from other countries, Asian nations are striking back with punitive environmental trade regulations which is set to leave waste-exporting nations in delirium. A few weeks ago, the Malaysian environment minister, Yeo Bee Yin, stated clearly that countries should manage their own waste, and that Malaysia will take care of its own. Modern economic theory maintains that the trade of global "goods" and services should happen between countries who each have something to trade with one another, embracing their competitive advantages — letting others excel where their own advantages exist. This theory has been widely adopted in the case of waste recovery and recycling, where the high costs of processing in developed countries mean that on- shore solutions for processing do not happen at the same rate that trash is being created. What the theory does not account for is the trade in "bads" between nations. Specifically, a country’s externalities (in this case, waste) are sent to another’s shores to take advantage of that country’s "competitive advantages" — low labor costs and lax environmental enforcement. Making matters worse is that hollowed-out manufacturing industries in waste-exporting countries, which also have followed cheap labor and lax environmental standards, mean that local capacity to use recycled content in new products has been minimized. Without the incentive or even capacity to reuse recycled content in onshore facilities, the cycle of exporting waste offshore continues. As a result of the planet’s awakening to the vast challenges of what do to with plastic in its second-life, we now have two large-scale trade wars to contend with. One is not related to plastic directly and involves the two largest economies, the United States and China. The other is much broader in scope and interrogates previously perceived values of globalization: Countries are putting up trade barriers to protect their own environments. A country’s externalities (in this case, waste) are sent to another’s shores to take advantage of that country’s 'competitive advantages' — low labor costs and lax environmental enforcement. These green trade barriers should be expected to continue, as plastic pollution is not the only ill which countries share with one another, but it is one currently generating the most mindshare and momentum across virtually every country on the planet. Countries that stand to lose heavily in the short term (until they greatly innovate their way to large scale domestic capacity building) include Canada, the United States, Spain, Britain, Australia and Japan. All of a sudden, the ideas of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) [HS1] — that is, the approach in which producers have responsibility for the environmental costs and disposal of post-consumer products — has evolved to global level, in the form of Extended Exporter Responsibility (EER) — in which countries must also take responsibility for their post-consumption. For those who have an ear on this issue, they know that the plastic pollution puzzle is only going to get more complicated. Countries with good EER that are standardizing and monitoring plastic for recycling should be able to trade to those countries who have the ability to process and absorb (use) the materials. Closed borders, on the contrary, mean that each country has to replicate resources, technical know-how and capacities for their own waste management efficiencies. However, this is not likely to happen for many years, and likely even decades to come. Stranded assets of valuable waste resources will not be able to be sent to the processors that can use them. Simultaneously, poor domestic recovery of materials in most countries means that the entrepreneurs and innovators taking advantage of free trade and the New Trade Theory (with its focus on increasing returns to scale and the benefits of network effects) may not be able to easily find domestic feedstocks to keep their machines running. SESSION 4 INTRODUCTION

To put the scale of this logjam into context, one can conservatively estimate (PDF) that just 10 percent of the plastic waste sent to Asia for recycling was of quality too poor to make value from. If all of this "poor quality" material from the EU alone was returned to its rightful exporting countries for the past 10 years of their exports, they would receive over 95,000 40-foot containers, each containing 35 metric tons of material. This would create a line of containers over 750 miles long — Amsterdam to Budapest.

Doug Woodring Click to expand. It may not be likely that all 95,000 containers will be returned to their ports of origination, but it is clear that the ability to keep moving this volume of material offshore will quickly evaporate. Improperly thought-through trade restrictions will cause considerable medium-term pain in terms of plastic pollution reduction; however, this is also where opportunities will present themselves. We see all types of disruptions and innovative interventions needed to solve the complex plastic waste challenge. As a result, Canada may be a leading example of turning this trade confrontation into a chance to truly focus and engage on the creating its own, domestic circular economy. The EU is also making great inroads on circular economy activities, yet much more work is needed to actually remove the volumes of "exported recycling materials" from their definition and metrics explaining recycling. New collaborations, problem solving and innovative trade policies with proper management and enforcement can help steer us in the right direction for improvements across countries with reduced plastic waste. Join us at Plasticity Amsterdam on June 20 for our continued discussion on how some solutions needed to address these new plastic defences can be optimized for everyone involved. SESSION 4 INTRODUCTION

DEVELOPING A CANADIAN PLASTIC PACT: A LOCAL GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVE

Andrew DOI

Metro Vancouver, Environmental Planner, 4730 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada, V5H 0C6. Tel. + 1 604 436 6825, [email protected]

Full presentation As part of Canada’s G-7 presidency in 2018, the Federal Government introduced an Ocean Plastics Charter to address the impact of plastic discards on ocean health and marine litter. The Charter identified actions in five key areas, including: Sustainable design, production and after-use markets Collection, management and other systems and infrastructure Sustainable lifestyles and education Research, innovation and new technologies Coastal and shoreline action. Based upon the framework established in the Ocean Plastics Charter, and other international efforts, such as the New Plastics Economy initiative of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, several multi-stakeholder processes have been launched by government and industry leaders. For example, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment published a Strategy on Zero Plastic Waste2, and the Circular Economy Leadership Coalition consulted on a potential Canadian Plastic Pact3. These processes are considering a number of approaches to address plastics, including expanding and enhancing Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs. EPR in Canada is variable, since each province establishes its own priorities and regulations. Although there are major differences from province-to-province, in nearly all communities, local governments play a key role in managing solid waste and recycling programs, and some cities are taking a leadership position in addressing single-use items. This paper will provide commentary on local government perspectives on Canadian EPR programs, focusing on the Province of British Columbia, and will specifically address the development of a potential Canadian Plastics Pact.

______

1 “Ocean Plastics Charter”, Canada And The G7, Government of Canada, accessed on May 30, 2019, https://international.gc.ca/world-monde/assets/pdfs/international_relations-relations_internationales/g7/2018-06-09-healthy_oceans- sante_oceans-annex-en.pdf

2 “Strategy On Zero Plastics Waste”, Current Priorities, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, accessed on May 30, 2019, https://www.ccme.ca/en/current_priorities/waste/waste/strategy-on-zero-plastic-waste.html

3 Sarah Brooks, “Accelerating A Canada Plastics Pact”, Blog Accelerating A Canada Plastics Pact, Circular Economy Leadership Coalition, accessed on May 30, 2019 http://circulareconomyleaders.ca/wcef2019/blog-accelerating-a-canada- plastics-pact.html SESSION 4 INTRODUCTION

Background

In its recent study on plastics management and markets, Environment and Climate Change Canada determined that plastic discards (including durable and single-use products and packaging) are recycled at 9% of the total, 1% is lost to the environment, 86% is landfilled and 4% ends up in waste-to- energy facilities. In 2016, the total amount of plastic moving through the Canadian economy was estimated at 3,268 kilotonnes. These statistics indicate several opportunities to enhance and expand systems to collect, and capture value from, plastic discards. Key sectors utilizing plastics include: packaging 33%, construction 26%, automotive 10%, electronic and electrical devices 6%, and textiles 6%. Within Canada, the management of waste is primarily a responsibility of provincial governments, although the Federal Government does play a role on specific issues (e.g., requirements for labeling, including whether or not an item is recyclable). British Columbia (BC) is Canada’s westernmost province, and is home to over four and a half million residents. EPR has been a central waste management policy for decades, with its roots reaching back to the Litter Act in 1970, which established a deposit-refund program for beer and soft drink containers. Metro Vancouver is BC’s largest community, representing over 50% of the provincial population within 0.3% of the overall area. Local governments in BC are responsible for planning and managing solid waste, and often play key roles in collecting materials from residents and businesses, operating recycling facilities and transfer stations, as well as landfill and waste-to-energy disposal options. Within Metro Vancouver, existing EPR programs collect over 250,000 tonnes of materials per year, which makes up almost one third of recyclable material collected in the region (excluding food and yard waste, and construction and demolition debris). Clearly, EPR is already well-integrated into the waste and recycling practices in the Metro Vancouver region. Ocean Plastics Charter As part of Canada’s G-7 presidency in 2018, the Federal Government introduced an Ocean Plastics Charter to address the impact of plastic discards on ocean health and marine litter. The Charter identified actions in five key areas, including: Sustainable design, production and after-use markets Collection, management and other systems and infrastructure Sustainable lifestyles and education Research, innovation and new technologies Coastal and shoreline action A number of countries also made commitments to the Ocean Plastics Charter, including France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and the European Union. The Charter identifies actions and objectives to be achieved over the next 10 years, or so.

6 ibid, 6. 7“Ocean Plastics Charter”, Canada And The G7, Government of Canada. 8“Strategy On Zero Plastics Waste”, Current Priorities, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 9ibid SESSION 4 INTRODUCTION

Based upon the framework established in the Ocean Plastics Charter, and other international efforts, such as the New Plastics Economy initiative of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, several multi-stakeholder processes have been launched by government and industry leaders. Some key developments in Canada are described further below. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment published a Strategy on Zero Plastic Waste in 2018, with special emphasis in three areas: 1) prevent plastic waste, 2) collect all plastics, and 3) recover value from plastics . The Strategy for Zero Plastic Waste is currently undergoing further consideration in order to develop an action plan which will identify future actions to address plastics management, including product and packaging redesign, improved collection and market development (perhaps through EPR), and marine and aquatic environment clean-up . Developing in parallel with the Strategy on Zero Plastic Waste, the Circular Economy Leadership Coalition, a not-for-profit alliance of corporate and non-governmental organization leaders, began consulting on a potential Canadian Plastic Pact. Still under development, a Canadian Plastics Pact will likely result from a harmonized, cross-sector collaboration, based upon the following: a) “Elimination of problematic and unnecessary single-use packaging b) Designing for products to be reusable, recyclable and compostable c) Increasing the level of reuse, recycling, composting and, possibly, recovery d) Increasing average recycled content in packaging” . In addition, the Federal Government has recently announced a new initiative to curb the use of single-use plastics as early as 2021, although few details have emerged at this moment. Overview of Canadian EPR Provinces in Canada have responsibility for managing waste, often a responsibility delegated to local governments. As a result, the management of waste is often tailored to the needs and objectives of individual communities. Consequently, broader policies, like EPR, have evolved separately in the provinces and have been designed, at least in part, with local priorities in mind. Although there have been past processes which sought to harmonize EPR programs and policies throughout the country, EPR remains a provincial jurisdiction. As a result, regulatory approaches, product categories, and performance measures and targets of EPR program implementation across Canada remains variable. EPR in BC In BC, EPR is regulated by framework legislation, the BC Recycling Regulation, which specifies five product categories, namely: beverage containers (deposit-refund), residual products (e.g., household hazardous waste), electrical and electronic equipment (i.e., anything with a cord or battery, including the battery), tires, and packaging and paper products. Over 20 EPR programs have been implemented to service these product categories. The programs in BC represent some of the most comprehensive and advanced EPR programs in the country, or even throughout North America.

10Sarah Brooks, “Accelerating A Canada Plastics Pact”, Blog Accelerating A Canada Plastics Pact, Circular Economy Leadership Coalition. SESSION 4 INTRODUCTION

The overall approach in BC is to set a level-playing field for producers and set performance targets, then turn over program planning, funding, and implementation to industry. Prescription in program operation is rare, and program progress is advanced through guidance documents. Over the past few years, guidance documents have specified new outcomes related to third-party verification of non- financial information, producers paying the costs of collection, and dispute resolution. The guidance work represents a focus of provincial regulators to work on improving the performance of existing programs, since the last program was added in 2011 (packaging and paper products). (Please reference presentation by Meegan Armstrong for a fuller examination of BC’s EPR programs.)

Local Government Perspectives, Roles, and Responsibilities in EPR

Within BC, specific responsibilities for managing waste are assigned to local governments, including protecting public health through the planning, management, and collection of garbage. Additionally, local governments play a key role in managing food scraps and other organic materials. Under the BC Recycling Regulation, participating in EPR programs is entirely voluntary for local governments. Local governments can be as involved or disengaged as they choose, and may play different roles in different EPR programs. Many choose to participate in efforts which divert additional materials from disposal in the garbage or that maintain very high levels of service to the community.

In many cases, local governments have decades of experience in operating residential recycling programs, and in processing and marketing collected materials. Even under EPR, where a producer responsibility organization (PRO) may be willing to operate direct service (i.e., to hire a hauler to collect recyclable material from residents with minimal involvement of the local government), some local governments may choose to continue to collect recycling in order to ensure high levels of service to residents. On the other hand, some BC local governments have turned collection over to the PRO, and focused their efforts on other responsibilities and priorities in their communities.

Local governments have few levers to influence design, which may be why local governments have begun to adopt distribution bans to limit the use/application of specific products, or reduce the amount of specific materials in the waste and recycling streams. In the absence of widespread voluntary actions taken by industry, or regulatory instruments utilized by senior governments, there appears to be a proliferation of individual communities adopting distribution bans across Canada. Several of Canada’s largest cities, including Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver have announced programs to reduce single-use items. A recent announcement by the Federal Government to address single-use items is a new development, although few details have been shared at this time. As described in the Ocean Plastics Charter section above, a number of processes have emerged, proposing solutions to managing plastic discards, and a key question arising from local governments will be how to identify these opportunities, and how to dedicate the necessary resources to fully participate. Finding a way to streamline local government consultation will be critical.

11“Microplastics”, Microplastics, Ocean Wise, accessed on June 12, 2019, https://ocean.org/our- work/research/microplastics/ 12“Humans Unknowingly Consume A Lot Of Microplastics”, News, University of Victoria, accessed on June 12, 2019, https://www.uvic.ca/news/topics/2019+microplastics-consumption-kierancox+media-release SESSION 4 INTRODUCTION

Beyond the typical domain of solid waste management (i.e., from terrestrial sources), there is growing recognition of the impacts of micro-plastic particles on aquatic and marine receiving environments. The shedding of micro-plastics from textiles is often mediated through another core competency of local government, that is wastewater collection and treatment and stormwater management. Identifying the flows of micro-plastics in municipal wastewater systems, and the associated impacts in receiving environments, are still being determined. That said, notable progress is being made through Ocean Wise research, in partnership with the Vancouver Aquarium, on the impacts of micro-plastics on marine life and a study of human consumption of micro-plastics from the University of Victoria. The micro- plastics issue will involve the development of creative new solutions. The non-traditional application of EPR principles may demonstrate interesting new innovations for producer responsibility to apply to the ‘in-use’ phase of products, rather than at the end-of-life, which has been far more typical.

Building upon the success of BC’s EPR track record, local governments have called on provincial regulators to enhance and expand EPR programs to include other product categories, including items such as mattresses and bulky furniture, foodware and utensils, and others.

Conclusion A Canadian Plastic Pact can be a catalyst, which ties together a number of processes aimed at addressing plastic discards. In some circumstances, this will require groups, who are not accustomed to working together, to find innovative and collaborative solutions. In some cases this will involve market competitors working cooperatively, in some cases it will be regulators and obligated parties working towards common objectives, and in some cases it will be designers and recyclers working together to eliminate barriers. Forging new and sometimes uncomfortable relationships will be required in order to find lasting solutions. For example, will it be possible to reconcile the approach of governments to serve the public interest, PROs seeking to achieve recovery targets at a specific levels of economic and operational efficiencies, and producers seeking to make a profit?

EPR can play a role in facilitating collaboration between product and packaging designers and end-fate processors. There have been cases in BC where the PRO (Recycle BC) has worked directly with producers and downstream recycling processors to trial innovative new collection and recycling systems. The role for EPR is less clear in shifting consumption patterns away from single-use items, for example, and towards a circular economy which prevent plastic discards from being created in the first place. EPR alone cannot solve all issues in dealing with plastics management, supportive policies, programs and actions will be required. One Canadian plastics and EPR expert suggests nationally harmonized EPR performance targets, as well as low-carbon standards for plastics, as first steps on the path for a circular economy for plastics .

13Usman Valiente, “Canada’s Mounting Plastic Problem Needs A Co-ordinated Government Fix”, Opinion, The Globe And Mail, accessed June 12, 2019, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canadas-mounting-plastic-problem- needs-a-co-ordinated-government-fix/ SESSION 4 HEALTH AND WEEE PLASTICS

ADELPHE’S WORKING GROUP ON BLISTER PACK END-OF-LIFE

Delphine Pernot

Adelphe, 93-95 Rue de Provence, 75009 Paris, 0 809 108 108, [email protected]

Adelphe, as part of CITEO, is the extended producer responsibility scheme for packaging in France, which deals specifically with pharmaceutical packaging. Our mission is to find a solution for recycling or recovery from all kinds of packaging in order to improve packaging environmental footprint and to reach 0 landfill for packaging waste. Currently, pharmaceutical products packaging represents about 1.5% of household packaging waste, or about 71,000 tons per year in France. According to forecasts, pharmaceutical packaging will increase in the next few years, reaching $18 billion wordwide by 2022, which means a 4.5 to 5 percent increase per year.

In France, blister packs represent 40% of pharmaceutical packaging as measured by units put on the market in 2017 and 16% of the weight, more than 11 tons of blister packs2. Blister packs are made primarily of aluminum and plastics, and the plastic part is generally PVC. According to a consumer survey, only 67% of the public knows how to sort a pharmaceutical blister pack for recycling, as compared to an average of 73% for all kinds of packaging, and only 34% of the public sorts it systematically3. Increasing awareness is the first lever to increase the blister pack recycling rate.

Sanitary and medical litter represents 4.7% of collected ocean litter according to the Surfrider Foundation during their 2017 Ocean initiatives.4 The worldwide cost for pharmaceutical plastic waste in the sea is estimated at $65 million.5 With the worldwide discussion on circular economy and more specifically on plastic pollution and the new European Directive, the pharmaceutical sector definitely has its part to play. ______1 https://www.beroeinc.com/category-intelligence/blister-packaging-market/ 2 Adelphe internal estimation, to be confirmed 3 Etude TOP 100 Adelphe CITEO 4 https://www.initiativesoceanes.org/2018/dp/DP_IO2018_EN_mag.pdf 5http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/good-environmental-status/descriptor- 10/pdf/Marine_litter_vital_graphics.pdf SESSION 4 HEALTH AND WEEE PLASTICS

Since several years, Adelphe works with the pharmaceutical sector to improve the environmental footprint of their packaging through the development of several ecodesign tools such as a Life cycle analysis called BEE or an on- line hands-on tool to define an ecodesign strategy called FEEL. Next step, we are launching in October a working group in France on blister pack end-of-life, with the goal of identifying next steps to greater recyclability. Pharmaceutical blister packs bring the following end-of-life challenges: • They are an issue for recycling, as PVC packaging do not have a recycling stream in France, and mixed plastic/metal packaging is not recyclable in the plastic packaging stream • They are an issue for use as Refuse Derived Fuel by the cement industry for instance, as PVC is not tolerated in the stream: its combustion is a source of dioxins and corrodes kilns The purpose of this working group will be to work collectively in order to: • evaluate the environmental and economic costs of the end-of-life of blister packs • identify possible technical solutions to enable blister packs to be recycled or recovered • raise awareness and share knowledge. We will gather pharmaceutical industry companies, pharmaceutical packaging producers, professional and non- professional consumers of blister packs, and packaging end-of-life management representatives. SESSION 4 HEALTH AND WEEE PLASTICS

SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGY NOVARTIS AG Yves STEFFEN

NOVARTIS, Head Device & Packaging Commercialization, Novartis Pharma AG 4002 Basel, Swiss. Tel. +41 79 834 64 37, [email protected]

Abstract This presentation will focus on the Novartis sustainability strategy, showing solutions already implemented or initiated to improve the company’s environmental footprint. The presentation will cover the ways in which innovative packaging materials and smart design development input requirements can improve current medical devices, and how combining product & process design improves sustainability. In addition, a simple digital solution can help to improve your current environmental baseline. The Novartis solutions also take into consideration health regulation requirements and the business needs of pharmaceutical companies focused on biologic products. Full presentation Last year the Novartis ECN (Executive Committee Novartis) has approved a strategy on sustainability for the company that covers actions until 2030. The ambition is to be a catalyst for positive change and the leader in environmental sustainability. The strategy includes 3 main topics. Climate - Carbon neutrality. Water – Water Sustainability. Waste – Circular economy & plastic neutrality. The focus and impact from devices & secondary packaging manufacturing and products is on waste. By improving current design a positive impact will spill over to achieve climate & water sustainability targets. Focusing on the waste target the ambition is to remove PVC in packaging by 2025 and to reduce waste disposal by half of the same year. By 2030 the aim is to be plastic neutral and ensure that all new products meet sustainable design principals. To achieve the targets set on waste reduction and circular economy several projects have been initiated and in an execution phase with others being planned. Introduction of plastic and PVC especially have a long history in the pharmaceutical industry as packaging material. Many packaging concepts and manufacturing lines are setup to suit PVC as a primary or secondary packaging material. Should we consider if plastic is still fantastic? Decades of use have helped us to improve and drive costs down for PVC as a packaging material. New sustainable solutions are usually very expensive and cannot compete with the established plastics currently used in packaging. PLA and PET-G have better characteristics over PVC but costs twice as much or in some cases more than twice per kg than PVC, which can be a challenge, especially for generics and other low cost products. Changing to a complete plastic free packaging solution is not usually suitable for the established manufacturing processes and packaging lines. Changing manufacturing processes along with qualification and validation of new packaging lines is very investment intensive and generally associated with long lead times if the change in the packaging setup triggers an update to regulatory submission files of the concerned product(s). SESSION 4 HEALTH AND WEEE PLASTICS

How can processes be improved and your impact on plastic waste and CO2 emissions be lowered? Recently many manufacturers and suppliers of PVC provide attractive materials that can easily be implemented using your current process setup and have a minimal impact on the submission. Especially in the biologics product portfolio blisters or secondary packaging material have no function other than transport protection. Novartis tested 4 alternative materials using selected evaluation factors. • Forming behavior on the packaging line • Equal foil distribution over the whole blister (no material weak spots) • Sealing & pealing behavior • Look and feel • Cost (compared to current PVC) • Sustainability The final selected material was BioPET-A which is largely used in the food industry but not known in the pharmaceutical community. The blister material complies with all EU and US regulations. However, sustainable packaging design does not only focus on packaging materials it has a wider impact also including patients and social responsibilities. Sustainable development means working towards achieving economic, environmental and social goals. Sustainable packaging should: • be designed holistically with the product in order to optimize overall environmental performance • Be made from responsible sourced materials • Be designed to be effective and safe throughout its life cycle • Meet market criteria for performance and cost • Meet consumer choice and expectations • Be recovered efficiently after use On the last bullet point there are many solutions that can help to reduce waste and recycle packaging materials. For example, returning to your supplier of blister foils your manufacturing waste from the blister cutting process of packaging material for medical devices. The collection of such waste and providing it to your blister suppliers can even generate an income for your manufacturing plant and can be used as a nice case for economic recycling as no additional transports or recycling sites are required as this can be managed all at the supplier of the blister foils. A holistic design also includes other packaging materials such as folding boxes and packaging inserts. These packaging materials usually were not in focus over the last years but this will change now. Changing a folding box design and carton materials can improve sustainability and cost compared to existing packaging designs. Reduced dimensions of folding boxes can help to improve your cold storage space and energy need as well as your shipper configurations. Improve basis weight “grammage” of the folding box board can lower your overall carton supply need (if machinability is not impacted by the grammage reduction) Cardboard of the folding boxes from recycled sources & produced at an ISO 9001 certified facility. From certified mills to the SFI®, PEFC™, FSC™ Chain of Custody Standards. SESSION 4 HEALTH AND WEEE PLASTICS

All above-mentioned solutions can help to improve you ecological footprint on a short-term basis. Long term sustainable design input requirements should be introduce in your design development process to help drive product and manufacturing process solutions long term on a more sustainable path. An example using a single use combination product. Large health authority organizations have been pushing for so-called 2-step devices, mostly single use, to assure patient friendly use of a device for drug delivery. Given the world wide interest on sustainable solutions especially on the reduction of plastic waste regulators are showing more acceptance for multi-use devices which has a great impact on waste reduction. So whenever possible, a re-usable device should be the preferred solution for new product design rather than a single use device. Also we are changing shipper boxes from device components from plastic to carton which saves plastic waste and costs for the products. This also goes for the plastic trays, which are used for shipment of the device components to the final assembly point. Alternative plastic materials or paper foam trays can be a solution here to reduce your current baseline on waste which have a very limited or no impact on your current manufacturing process design. Also simple digital solutions can help to design your product more sustainable and make the packaging design even more patient friendly. The implementation of a QR code navigating the patient to a defined landing page can make the use of an instruction for use or patient information for biologic products obsolete in the original packaging setup. Such a solution has several benefits. • Better understating of medical device handing by watching an instruction video rather than reading instructions • Reduction of overall packaging dimension • Improved manufacturing process robustness – improved yield figures • Less complaints from the market due to mishandling of combination products and medical devices • Less overall product costs for final packed products Such a solution is very simple to introduce in your current packaging design and has no negative impact on existing manufacturing lines and processes. However only 4 countries worldwide yet allow the use of a QR code on secondary packing boxes and removal of the PIL/IFU from the pack. All other countries do not yet allow removing the printed packaging insets in the final product. Several other initiatives are being started (e.g. closing the loop on single use autoinjectors by sending back used devices to a defined recycling center) but several hurdles are being identified in order to enable such innovative ideas. Many of the current regulations have been setup without considerations of new technologies & materials for sustainable design solutions as they were not available at the time of issuing the regulations. Allowing changing regulations and adapting to current product design requirements can help to faster adapt the industry products & process designs to improve their current baseline on waste, water and climate neutrality. Sustainability is in everyone’s interest and by re-thinking current process and design setups of products can also help to become more efficient and productive in operations and development. Being on the journey now for a couple of months with the team I can only encourage everyone to think about improving your process & product designs on sustainable targets. It has been very refreshing to work outside of the normal industry standard solutions and in many cases, we could also manage to simplify and improve our current processes and costs in addition to meet the set sustainable targets. Support is provided by all suppliers and manufacturers as well as improving our economy footprint is not limited to the pharmaceutical industry – everyone is impacted and can help to change the future by acting today! SESSION 4 HEALTH AND WEEE PLASTICS

CIRCULAR FOR ZERO

Christina Fabricius JESSEN

NOVO NORDISK, Business Analyst, Novo Alle 1, 2880 Bagsvaerd, Denmark Tel. +45 3075 9369, [email protected]

Abstract ADOPTING A CIRCULAR MINDSET Every year, we use large amounts of energy, water and raw materials in the production and distribution of our medicines and injection pens. Globally, 29 million people rely on our medicine, putting us on the frontline of some of today’s most pressing environmental challenges - global warming, plastic waste and water scarcity. We want our actions to contribute towards a sustainable, healthy environment for the long term. Our ambition is bold and simple: to have zero environmental impact. To get there we are adopting a circular mindset – designing products that can be recycled or re-used, reshaping our business practice to minimise consumption and eliminate waste, and working with suppliers who share our ambition. Our strategy to reach our ambition is called, Circular for Zero. We know that many people are working to make the circular economy a reality and we want to be part of that change STARTING THE JOURNEY TOWARDS ZERO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Achieving zero environmental impact will have its challenges, and many questions still need to be answered, but we have already set out on the journey. Today, all of the electricity that we use in our production comes from renewable sources including wind, solar and hydropower. But we are asking ourselves, "how can we do more?", particularly with the disposal of our products. We believe the answers will come as we transition our business from a linear mind-set of “take-make-dispose” to a circular mind-set that keeps our products and materials in use. We are starting our journey by exploring three questions: How can we reduce the environmental impact from our global operations and transport to zero? How can we upgrade existing products and design new products that promote reuse and recycling? How can we improve collaborations with suppliers to switch towards circular sourcing and procurement? DESIGNING ECO-FRIENDLY PRODUCTS If we want our products to be reused and recycled, we need to start with decisions that affect how and where they end up. From the raw materials that go into them to the way they are put together, we are re-designing both our existing and future products to reduce the number that end up as waste. SESSION 4 PLASTICS IN CARPETS AND CIGARETTE BUTTS

CARPET EPR : Policy, Infrastructure & Markets

Hendi Sanborn

MPA, Executive Director, National Stewardship Action Council 1822 21st St #200 Sacramento, CA 95819, USA Tel. +1 916-431-7804, [email protected]

Maria Sandrini

Brand and Corporate Communication manager, AQUAFIL SPA

Mauro Scalia

Director Sustainable Businesses, EURATEX SESSION 4 PLASTICS IN CARPETS AND CIGARETTE BUTTS

Abstract

Carpet recycling has evolved in the last decade, especially with respect to policy, infrastructure and markets. This session looks at the current state of carpet recycling in the United States and the World with speakers from a leading carpet recycling company based in Garda Italy, Aquafil, and a prominent US NGO the National Stewardship Action Council (NSAC), both with missions of achieving a circular economy. In 2010, California passed the first carpet stewardship legislation in the world which holds carpet producers responsible for developing a recycling system funded by a consumer fee. The carpet stewardship program in California provides subsidies and financial incentives to collectors, sorters, recyclers, and manufacturers using post-consumer carpet content in their products. Aquafil receives subsidies for using recycled carpet from California in their Econyl fiber thus motivating them to build a facility in Northern California. California post-consumer carpet is also going into other products, such as car products, rubber mats and ramps, stepping stones, etc, all receiving financial support for using carpet materials from California. Several years into the program, even with financial support, carpet still contributed 570,000 tons to the waste stream as shown in CalRecycle’s 2015 Waste Characterization Study. As a result of poor program performance, NGO’s sponsored and passed clean-up legislation in partnership with Interface, in 2017. AB 1158 fixed many of the problems with the original legislation, such as protecting consumer fee revenue from being used on incineration, mandating recycling goals, improving transparency, and incentivizing design for recyclability, all through a stakeholder advisory committee, on which Aquafil has an appointed member. With low recycling rates and failure to meet public transparency with fee money, the State agency assessed fines against the Stewardship Organization running the program, which faces crucial programmatic deadlines and possible legislative changes in September 2019. Lessons learned on the original carpet stewardship program with be shared with the audience from the perspective of advocates and recyclers to encourage other countries and communities to pass carpet EPR legislation that will drive this industry to be much more circular. We want to share techniques used by industry to achieve their goals and what techniques we used for success despite their recalcitrance.

See slide show SESSION 4 PLASTICS IN CARPETS AND CIGARETTE BUTTS

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) as a tool for litter management: a case study on cigarette butts

Dr. Marteen Dubois

Executive Director, Climate Change and Sustainability Services, EY, 2 De Kleetlaan, 1831 Diegem, Belgium. Tel. + 32 475 840 098

Abstract Cigarette butts are one of the most littered items around the world. While a single cigarette butt is small and light, the numbers littered are substantial. The fine paper and tobacco residues degrade rapidly in most natural environments, but it can take up to several years for the filter (made of cellulose acetate, a wood-based bioplastic) to degrade. The key concern with cigarette butts is litter, not resource efficiency. Large-scale recycling of cigarette butts is not feasible today owing to the low value of potential applications and the excessive costs for separate collection. Moreover, research efforts for eco-design have not yet lead to functional solutions for biodegradable filters. Under the current conditions, the best available technology to deal with cigarette butts is to dispose of them in a waste incinerator with energy recovery or a sanitary landfill. The policy initiatives should therefore focus on preventing CBL and thereby reducing the clean-up costs. One of the potential policy measures to address CBL is Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a policy instrument that places operational or financial responsibility on producers, for the management of the waste that is generated by their consumers. EPR has already been implemented for products with wide-ranging characteristics but not yet for cigarettes. Up to now, the prime role of EPR has been to further recycling or to manage hazardous waste. However, the recent EU Single-Use Plastics (SUP) directive and other initiatives highlight the potential role of EPR to address littering. The role of EPR would be to bridge all the local and sometimes isolated initiatives against CBL. EPR schemes can scale up the good practices and put forward a substantiated approach that integrates the three key elements for successful anti-littering strategies: awareness, infrastructure and enforcement. Thanks to the legal backbone, EPR can be a strong policy instrument. However, the legal structure also requires time to develop and will require administrative tasks to ensure compliance. Consequently, it can take several years before the first EPR scheme for CBL will be functional. Full presentation One of the potential policy measures to address CBL is Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a policy instrument that places operational or financial responsibility on producers, for the management of the waste that is generated by their consumers. EPR has already been implemented for products with wide-ranging characteristics but not yet for cigarettes. Up to now, the prime role of EPR has been to further recycling or to manage hazardous waste. However, the recent EU Single-Use Plastics (SUP) directive and other initiatives highlight the potential role of EPR to address littering. SESSION 4 PLASTICS IN CARPETS AND CIGARETTE BUTTS

Compared to other policy instruments, EPR has several advantages: EPR has shown its effectiveness in the past to foster recycling for many different waste streams. There are already some examples where EPR is used to address littering of packaging. Although packaging waste and cigarette butts have structural differences (e.g. smell, size, perception), it highlights that EPR could be used to reduce litter. The collaboration between regulators that impose binding targets and the tobacco industry that optimizes the operational management, allows for result-driven and efficient EPR schemes. EPR could address CBL, while maintaining a level playing field since all competitors are subject to the same rules. The suitability of EPR for cigarettes has been screened using five criteria that have been put forward by literature: the level of control at the end-of-use stage; the environmental scope for improvement; existing incentives for end-of-use treatment; the availability of alternative policy instruments; and political priorities. The preliminary assessment indicates that EPR could be a suitable instrument to scale up anti-littering actions and provide a sustainable financing mechanism. The role of EPR would be to bridge all the local and sometimes isolated initiatives against CBL. EPR schemes can scale up the good practices and put forward a substantiated approach that integrates the three key elements for successful anti-littering strategies: awareness, infrastructure and enforcement. Thanks to the legal backbone, EPR can be a strong policy instrument. However, the legal structure also requires time to develop and will require administrative tasks to ensure compliance. Consequently, it can take several years before the first EPR scheme for CBL will be functional. Voluntary commitments taken by individual producers or the tobacco sector as a whole would be an alternative for EPR to speed up the process. Since a voluntary approach is not subject to an extensive and rigid legal structure, it can be rolled out rapidly and in a harmonized way across countries. However, history learns that voluntary approaches are rarely comprehensive enough to be structural game-changers. Indeed individual producers that are willing to take action may be restrained because competitors do not take similar engagements. Consequently, approaches that rely on voluntary commitments, would be strengthened substantially by combining it with taxation or regulation that is conditional on performance. If cigarette producers that contribute to comprehensive anti-littering programs are exempted from (cumbersome) regulation or a tax, all market actors would be incentivized to make and fulfil pro-active voluntary commitments. Tobacco players would most likely internalize EPR fees in the price of cigarettes. There is more research needed to determine the level of the EPR fees, but a rough assessment indicates that the costs in most European countries would be far below one percent of the sales price. Since the price elasticity of demand for cigarettes is low, the impact on overall sales will probably be limited. Nonetheless, since the volume of sold cigarettes is high, the overall EPR budget would be substantial. The design of an EPR scheme determines its efficiency and performance. The definition of a ‘producer’ and the control mechanisms of reported volumes are key to restrain fraud and freeriding. Also, collaboration between the stakeholders is needed because CBL is part of the overall litter issue and fragmented efforts risk to harm the efficiency and effectiveness of the different actions. Moreover, since enforcement is an essential element of effective anti-littering programs, the involvement of enforcement authorities is important to achieve progress. SESSION 5

COST & PERFORMANCE SESSION 5 MAIN EPR ACHIEVEMENTS

Extended Producer Responsibility in the European Union

Françoise Bonnet

Secretary General of ACR+ 63, avenue d’Auderghem, 1040 Brussels. Tel. + 32 2 234 65 00

Full presentation 1. The European context European waste/resource policy has been driven by an increasing concern to protect the environment. It is not new. As early as 1975, the first directives were born: the Direcitve on waste management in general and the Directive on the disposal of used oils. Many more will follow in the years after. Moreover, since 1973 environmental policy has been based on action programs. Presently, the 7th Action Programme is of application. Although not binding in the same manner as a Directive or a Regulation , these programs, which have all addressed the issue of waste and material resource management, have determined the basic policy orientations. The current program like the “Roadmap to a resource efficient Europe” before clearly indicates that market-based instruments like Extended Producer Responsibility should be applied more systematically when feasible in order to reach the objective of turning waste into resource . Finally, the main guiding principles underlying environmental protection are included in the EU Treaty itself, which is a binding agreement between EU member countries. . The core of these waste management programs and legislation can be summed up succinctly by: - The precautionary principle - The principles of proximity and self-sufficiency ______1Directive 75/442 / EEC 2Directive 75/493 / EEC 3The adoption procedure for environment action programmes – and hence their legal status – has also evolved with time: whereas the first five environment action programmes where adopted by the Commission alone and subsequently endorsed by a Council resolution, the last two were adopted under the co-decision/ordinary legislative procedure where Parliament and Council act on equal footing on a proposal from the Commission. As a result, the sixth and seventh environment action programmes have legally binding status.Source: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2018/630336/EPRS_BRI(2018)630336_EN.pdf

4“Turning waste into a resource, as called for in the Roadmap to a Resource-efficient Europe, requires the full implementation of Union waste legislation throughout the Union, based on strict application of the waste hierarchy and covering different types of waste (…) To achieve that aim, market-based instruments and other measures that privilege prevention, recycling and re-use should be applied much more systematically throughout the Union, including extended producer responsibility, while the development of non-toxic material cycles should be supported.“ (“Living well, within the limits of our planet”,7th Environment Action Programme, pg 40,§40).

“Member States, with the Commission should as of 2012, assess: - Measures to extend producer responsibility to the full life- cycle of the products they make (including via new business models, through guidance on take-back and recycling schemes and support for repair services); “ (Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe EC Communication to the EP, the Council, the EESC, and the CoR (COM(2011) 571 final, pg 8):

« The Commission will: - Assess the introduction of minimum recycled material rates, durability and reusability criteria and extensions of producer responsibility for key products (in 2012)”, Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe EC Communication to the EP, the Council, the EESC, and the CoR (COM(2011) 571 final, pg 9): SESSION 5 MAIN EPR ACHIEVEMENTS

- The polluter pays principle - The hierarchy of waste (refined over the years) Over the years, national and regional / local laws have adopted these principles and developed them to different extents in their jurisdiction. 2. The economic aspects of waste management: driving change at the local level The problem of waste management in the context of the European construction has been a dual issue since the beginning: environmental and economic. The waste management regulation has been closely linked to economic laws since its beginning. First of all because "the establishment and functioning of an internal market for products cannot ignore the 'dead products' which have thus ended their useful function and become 'waste'". Waste is therefore above all "products" for which the internal market rules apply in principle. A relatively wide range of legal and economic instruments that can be used by the public authorities to promote more rational and sustainable waste management has often risked undermining the various economic freedoms enshrined in the EU Treaty. Secondly because waste management was initially (and still is in many jurisdictions) perceived as a "financial burden" by municipalities. Important source of costs, not income. This perception is changing dramatically, for various reasons that European legislation certainly contributes for an important part. This financial burden at the end of the 1980s led to strong waste management policies and regulations. It was a question of finding the way to finance the management of waste, the quantity of which was constantly increasing. It was therefore necessary to try, for the public authorities, to apply the polluter-pays principle as closely as possible to the source and to reduce this quantity of waste to be treated. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) systems, as they currently operate in several European countries such as France and Belgium, have made it possible to provide a significant source of funding for local selective collection systems. Of course, they also achieved high collection and recycling rates. And to a “lesser extent”, better eco-design as the system was also conceived to promote sustainable products supposed to last longer and to produce less waste. Other instruments such as the incineration and landfill tax or incentive pricing schemes are also part of the "winning recipe". For first time, application of the EPR principle appeared in individual Member States in the beginning of the 1990s (German Packaging Ordinance, later also in France and Belgium). Therefore, there was a need to legislate on the EU level in order to preserve the single market. The first EU piece of law applying the EPR principle was the EU Directive on Packaging and packaging waste .Thereafter, three other directives were adopted: the EU Directive on waste of electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) , the EU Direcitve on batteries & accumulators and the EU Directive on end-of-life vehicles (ELV). Generally, beside the application of the Extended Producer Responsibility principle, those laws require, among others, a collection rate objective and a recycling rate objective. The means to achieve them are left to the discretion of the Member States (a EU Directive is not directly applicable into the national legislation of Member States contrary to EU Regulations). Most of the Member States opted to set up EPR schemes but not all of them (cfr the Danish tax system on packaging) .

______5Directive 94/62/EC 6 Directive 2012/19/EC 7 Direcitve 2006/66/EC 8Directive 2000/53/EC 9For a detailed overview of the different systems put in place in the EU Member States, see Development of Guidance on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), final report, 2014, BIO by Deloitte on behalf of the European Commission-DG ENV SESSION 5 MAIN EPR ACHIEVEMENTS

These different specific directives are governed by the Waste Framework Directive (WFD), which provides the overall framework for waste management in the EU. Its article 8 and 14 set out the basic principles to be followed by any EPR system implemented at national level . The recent modifications of the WFD in May 2018 intend to better harmonise the different systems by laying down general minimum requirements for all extended producer responsibility schemes when established in accordance with Article 8(1). For that purpose an article 8a has been added to article 8 imposing the following key rules: - A full cost coverage by the producers of waste collection and treatment cost, information and data gathering cost - Transparency among the actors of the value chain - Clear roles and responsibilities among the different actors of the value chain - Eco-modulation of producers fees - Governance of the whole system - Monitoring, reporting and enforcement framework 3. Achieved results After more than 20 years of existence (at least for the packaging EPR schemes), the results are there. Collection and recycling rates have been increasing constantly for the 4 waste streams governed by an EU Directive. The graph below shows the results for packaging waste.

______10Directive 2008/98/EC 11Art.8: In order to strengthen the re-use and the prevention, recycling and other recovery of waste, Member States may take legislative or non-legislative measures to ensure that any natural or legal person who professionally develops, manufactures, processes, treats, sells or imports products (producer of the product) has extended producer responsibility. Art. 14: 1. In accordance with the polluter-pays principle, the costs of waste management shall be borne by the original waste producer or by the current or previous waste holders. 12Directive (EU) 2018/851 of the European Parliament and the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive 2008/98/EC on waste, J.O. L 150/109 of 14 June 2018 SESSION 5 MAIN EPR ACHIEVEMENTS

At local level, Directive 94/62 / EC (the "Packaging Directive") has certainly played a major role in the day- to-day lives of citizens, since it has "spawned" the establishment of selective collections as well as sorting and recycling. It can certainly be said that the imposition of quantified collection and recycling targets has been a driving force for the implementation of sustainable solid waste management through the adoption of both local and national policies and legislation, as well as a series of investments in terms of sorting and recycling infrastructures.

The implementation of EPR systems governed by the EU legislative framework have given also very good results in terms of data collection. The United Nations University report on Ewaste guidelines published in 2018 mentions it clearly : “the recast of the WEEE Directive requires every Member State to collect and report data in 6 categories, which are representative of the e-waste collection streams. An implementing act further specifies the common methodology for calculation of collection rates and the categorization of the products in 54 UNU-KEYs (European Commission, 2017). The adoption of such a harmonised measurement framework allows countries to compile e-waste statistics that are comparable and harmonised among countries in the EU (including Norway and Switzerland)”.

The two following graphs give a good overview on what and how data can be collected at EU level. SESSION 5 MAIN EPR ACHIEVEMENTS

4. What to expect at local level in the future ? At the time of circular economy, economic aspects take a larger scale and in the opposite direction, the waste being perceived more and more as a secondary raw material whose marketing will escape the communities. At EU level, with the so-called “Circular Economy Package”, an important “step”/”turning point” has been taken: more focus is given to the production stage. Producers are pushed to better eco-design their products through different measures or instruments. Among these is the ban of certain products or substances, the future binding obligation for recycled content in new products (PET bottles) and the eco-modulation of producer fees (meaning that producers pay a higher fee for products which are not recyclable or which disturb sorting operations). On the other hand, producers are called to cover the full cost of the end of life of their products (collection and treatment costs), as well as information cost and the cost of data gathering. In some Member States, they are also asked to cover costs for public awareness campaigns and for littering. As for the municipalities, they should be prepared to adapt their waste management business model to the “circular economy wave”. Indeed, regulated primarily for the sake of hygiene and public safety, municipal waste management has historically been, in many countries, a competence devolved to local authorities (municipalities). It was subsequently subjected to increasingly stringent rules designed to protect the environment, and therefore often delegated to intermunicipal or private sector for the sake of economic efficiency (economies of scale) and rational management costs (in order to be able to take heavy investments and at the forefront of technology). Nowadays, through EPR systems, producers become an important actor of the value chain, deciding more and more on what technologies/selective collection systems are needed at local level since they are the payers…. Municipalities must be ready: if a true circular economy is to be established in the European Union, in the future they will be intended to manage only the residual waste. For them it is therefore more important than ever before, to focus on prevention and to permanently reverse the curve of production quantities of waste produced. SESSION 5 MAIN EPR ACHIEVEMENTS

Collection Targets for Batteries - Measurement of collection performances

Peter Binnemans

Eucobat aisbl – Secretary General – Excelsiorlaan 91 – 1930 Zaventem – Belgium [email protected]

Abastract The concept of a collection target in relation to the volume placed on the market is not appropriate for (waste) batteries. In most cases, there is no correlation between the quantities of batteries recently put on the market and waste batteries that are available for collection. Most batteries are not available for collection within three years of the date they’ve been put on the market. A collection target can only be adequate if it is related to the quantities of waste batteries available for collection. Based upon the quantities of batteries put on the market, and the known lifespan of the different types of batteries, the batteries that are “end-of-life” can be calculated. Taking into account the quantities of exported second hand or waste electrical appliances, the quantities of batteries “available-for-collection” can be rated. Full presentation

1. Eucobat position A collection target can only be adequate if it is related to the quantities of waste available for collection. Only this way, it allows to measure the performance and the effectivity of the collection scheme. Based upon the quantities of batteries put on the market, and the known lifespan of the different types of batteries, the batteries that are “end-of-life” can be calculated. Taking into account the quantities of exported second hand or waste electrical appliances, the quantities of batteries “available-for-collection” can be rated. An extensive European study on the lifespan of batteries indicates that the quantities of batteries “end- of-life” can be rated at approximately 80% of the batteries put on the market. The ProSUM study, ordered by the European Commission concludes that at least 45.000 tonnes, or 19% of the batteries “end-of-life” are exported from the EU, incorporated in a second hand or waste electrical appliance, and are thus not available for collection in the European Union. In other words, only 80% of the batteries “end-of-life” are available for collection. As a consequence, Eucobat proposes to define the collection target in function of the quantities of “batteries available-for-collection”, rated at 65% of the batteries “put-on-the-market” (80% * 80%). SESSION 5 MAIN EPR ACHIEVEMENTS

2, The Batteries Directive

The actual Batteries Directive defines the ‘collection rate’ as the percentage obtained by dividing the weight of waste portable batteries and accumulators collected in a calendar year by the average weight of portable batteries and accumulators put on the market during that calendar year and the preceding two calendar years. According to the directive, Member States have to achieve the following minimum collection rates: (a) 25 % by 26 September 2012; (b) 45 % by 26 September 2016. These targets prove to be challenging, even for mature schemes (Figures: Eucobat 2017). Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

3, Inadequacy of the current collection target

The concept of a collection target for the waste volume in relation to the volume placed on the market is not appropriate for (waste) batteries. In most cases, there is no correlation between the quantities of batteries recently put on the market and waste batteries that are available for collection. Most batteries are not available for collection within three years of the date they’ve been put on the market. The main reasons for this are the evolution of the battery market and the lifespan of the batteries. a) Evolution of the battery market

Since 2001, the number of rechargeable lithium batteries put on the market increased steadily and more than significantly. The impact on the collection rate increases each year. While the weight of alkaline / zinc carbon batteries put on the market has decreased with 10% between 2001 and 2017, the weight of rechargeable lithium batteries put on the market has been multiplied by 21 during the same period, as shown in the graph below. SESSION 5 MAIN EPR ACHIEVEMENTS

Batteries put on the market per chemistry (Figures Eucobat - 2001=100)

2500

2000 Zinc/Carbon - Alkaline Lithium Primary 1500 Button Cells NiCd 1000 NiMH Lead Acid 500 Lithium Rechargeable 0 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

There are no indications that this market trend would change in the near future. As a consequence, the market share of the rechargeable lithium batteries in the total battery mix has increased dramatically. Evolution Portable Battery Mix POM (Figures Eucobat)

100% Lithium Rechargeable 80% Lead Acid 60% NiMH

40% NiCd Button Cells 20% Lithium Primary

0% Zinc/Carbon - Alkaline

2011 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 b) Lifespan of the batteries and availability for collection

The lifespan of batteries is in many cases much longer than three years, so there is no strong correlation between batteries recently put on the market and the waste batteries collected. This lack of correlation is most evident for the rechargeable batteries. Their lifespan is significant longer than three years, in particular for the newer chemistries with high energy density, mainly used in cordless power tools, laptops and cell phones. Not only the technical lifespan of these rechargeable batteries is much longer than 3 years, consumers tend to keep them with the connected appliance even after the appliance has been replaced (hoarding effect). SESSION 5 MAIN EPR ACHIEVEMENTS

To a certain extent, the same reasoning is valid for the primary batteries. Thanks to the growing capacity of the batteries put on the market and the increasing energy efficiency of the appliances they are used in, the technical lifespan of the primary batteries is rising each year, and in more and more cases exceeding the three-year period. Furthermore, given the extension of the expiration date of the batteries (up to 7 years), an important part of the batteries remain in the drawer for a long time before they are effectively used. Based upon an extensive study on the lifespan of batteries, one can conclude that: • If the weight of batteries put on market (POM) is stable, the average POM during the last three years is very similar to the amount of batteries at the end of life (with the 3-year average deviating at most 13% from the end of life batteries).

• If the weight of batteries put on market (POM) decreases, the average POM during the last three years is on average about 40% lower than the amount of batteries at the end of life. SESSION 5 MAIN EPR ACHIEVEMENTS

4.Eucobat Position A collection target can only be adequate if it is related to the quantities of waste available for collection. Based upon the quantities of batteries put on the market, and the known lifespan of the different types of batteries, the batteries that are “end-of-life” can be calculated easily. Taking into account the quantities of exported second hand or waste electrical appliances, the quantities of batteries “available-for-collection” can be rated. An extensive European study on the lifespan of batteries indicates that the quantities of batteries “end-of- life” can be rated at approximately 80% of the batteries put on the market. The ProSUM study, ordered by the European Commission concludes that at least 45.000 tonnes, or 19% of the batteries “end-of-life” are exported from the EU, incorporated in a second hand or waste electrical appliance, and are thus not available for collection in the European Union. In other words, only 80% of the batteries “end-of-life” are available for collection. As a consequence, Eucobat proposes to define the collection target in function of the quantities of “batteries available-for-collection”, rated at 65% of the batteries “put-on-the-market” (80% * 80%). This concept has already been integrated in the new WEEE Directive, where a methodology for calculating collection rates based on WEEE generated should be developed in the near future. This methodology allows taking into account the differing life cycles of the batteries and of the appliances they are used in, as well as the market situation and saturation. It requires however the obligation for all actors to report to the national authorities and the obligation for the member states to monitor all waste streams. The producers remain responsible for accepting all waste batteries handed over to them. 5.Elements influencing the collection rate When defining a collection target, one should take into account several elements that influence the collection rate: • Lifespan of batteries • WEEE collection rate • Removal of batteries from WEEE • Impact of competition • Interpretation of definitions • General consumer awareness towards waste • Density of the collection network • Intensive consumer awareness campaigns a. Lifespan of the batteries and evolution of the battery market It is evident that the lifespan of the batteries and the evolution of the battery market are the main elements influencing the collection rate if the collection target is not defined in function of the batteries available for collection, as explained above. SESSION 5 MAIN EPR ACHIEVEMENTS

b. WEEE collection rate Many batteries are discarded together with the appliance they were used in. The batteries can mainly be found in ICT equipment (laptops, cell phones, ….), consumer electronics and power tools. These are also the WEEE categories with the lowest collection rates implying that there are but few batteries that may be collected from this waste stream. While generally for the members of Eucobat, the batteries put on the market integrated in an appliance represent 20 - 35% of the total amount of batteries put on the market, the batteries collected from the WEEE dismantlers generally only represent 4 - 13% of the total amount of collected batteries. c. Removal of batteries from WEEE According to Article 8.2 and Annex VII of the WEEE Directive, proper treatment of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) includes the removal of batteries from any separately collected WEEE. As stipulated in Article 3.1.l of the WEEE Directive, ‘removal’ means manual, mechanical, chemical or metallurgic handling with the result that hazardous substances, mixtures and components are contained in an identifiable stream or are an identifiable part of a stream within the treatment process. A substance, mixture or component is identifiable if it can be monitored to verify environmentally safe treatment. The European standard EN 50625-1 stipulates that batteries that are accessible in the equipment without using tools should be removed from WEEE before any treatment process that can cause damage to them. Batteries that are not accessible in the equipment without using tools should be (part of) an identifiable stream. Special precautions and safety measures should be in place for the treatment of WEEE, which may contain lithium batteries and for operations involving used lithium batteries, and for fractions containing lithium batteries. Lithium batteries should be protected to prevent exposure to excessive heat, water, or any crushing or physical damage during handling, sorting, and storage.

Article 11 of the Battery Directive stipulates that appliances should be designed in such a way that waste batteries and accumulators can be readily removed. However, while the original Battery Directive indicated that the batteries should be removable by the end- user, the new amendment of the Battery Directive stipulates that, where they cannot be readily removed by the end-user, waste batteries and accumulators should be readily removable by qualified professionals that are independent of the manufacturer, such as independent repair and service centers and WEEE dismantlers Directive 2006/66/EC of 6 September 2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators Appliances in which batteries and accumulators are incorporated should be accompanied by instructions on how those batteries and accumulators can be safely removed by either the end-user or by independent qualified professionals. Where appropriate, the instructions should also inform the end-user of the types of battery or accumulator incorporated into the appliance. These provisions do not apply where, for safety, performance, medical or data integrity reasons, continuity of power supply is necessary and a permanent connection between the appliance and the battery or accumulator is required. SESSION 5 MAIN EPR ACHIEVEMENTS

The combination of the above-mentioned provisions that • batteries should only be removable by qualified professionals, thus allowing the mandatory use of a (specific) tool (Battery Directive), • only those batteries that can be removed without using a tool should be removed from the appliances (European standard EN 50625-1), implies that a substantial part of the batteries from WEEE won’t be removed. Given the quantities of batteries incorporated in appliances, this has a serious impact on the collection rate for batteries. d. The impact of competition There is a correlation between the number of compliance schemes in a member state and the achieved collection rate, as shown by the following graphic: Eucobat fully adheres to the principles of free and fair competition, but a higher number of collection schemes increases the risk of unfair competition. A level playing field with uniform standards for all actors is required to ensure fair competition. There is a need for a control mechanism to guarantee that all discarded batteries, including the negative value stream, are collected and that cherry picking is avoided. The efforts of competing schemes to collect the batteries at the lowest costs, and the focus on high performing collection points prevents the nationwide service for all collection points, e.g. in poorer populated regions. A nationwide coordination is required in order to optimize the effectiveness of consumer awareness measures and the provision of sufficient collection points for users, and to ensure the take-back of waste batteries from all entities that collect them without distorting the competition between the schemes. e. Interpretation of definitions The producers can easily apply the definitions of the current Batteries Directive, as they know in most cases the intended use of the batteries they put on the market, which is one of the criteria of these definitions. It is however much more difficult for the operational actors to apply these definitions, as they only receive the batteries and battery packs, without knowing the applications they were used in. They are obliged to use a set of criteria that differs from country to country. The different interpretations in the Members States have a serious impact on the reported collection rates. As a consequence, these differences make it very difficult to compare the figures of the Member States. f. General consumer awareness towards waste There is a strong relation between the general consumer awareness towards waste and the battery collection rate. The member states where the consumer awareness and attitude towards selective collection of specific waste streams is high, are also the countries where the compliance schemes achieve the highest collection rates for batteries. SESSION 5 MAIN EPR ACHIEVEMENTS

g. Density of the collection network A minimum density of the collection network is required to ensure effective collection, but: • there is not necessarily a direct correlation between the achieved collection rate and the number of collection points; • once the optimal density has been reached, additional collection points will not lead to an increase of the collected quantities, due to the substitution effect; • the size, the quantity and the dispersity of the collection points influence the covered transport distances, the carbon footprint of the logistic scheme and the related costs. Distributors have an important role in contributing to the success of the collection. They should provide for the collection, at retail shops or in their immediate proximity free of charge to end- users and with no obligation to buy a new battery, unless an assessment shows that alternative existing collection schemes are likely to be at least as effective. Consumers have to actively contribute to the success of such collection and should be encouraged to return waste batteries. The visibility and accessibility of the receptacles are essential to achieve a high level of convenience.

See slide show SESSION 5 MAIN EPR ACHIEVEMENTS

EPR Achievements: The case of paint in the U.S.

Kristin Aldred Cheek

Director, Policy & Programs, Product Stewardship Institute, 1 Beacon Street, Suite 1500, Boston, MA 02108 Tel. + 1 617.236.8293

Abstract Each year in the U.S., more than 78 million gallons of paint, or approximately 10% of what consumers purchase, goes unused. At a cost of about $8 per gallon, it would cost local governments and their taxpayers more than $600 million annually if all leftover paint was collected and properly managed. In 2002, the Product Stewardship Institute (PSI) invited the paint industry to work collaboratively along with state and local governments, recyclers, and other stakeholders to address the problem of leftover paint. This work led to the development of a model for an extended producer responsibility (EPR) program for paint with broad support from stakeholders, including industry. The first state law based on this model passed in 2009 and the 10th in 2019 (with the 11th pending). Together, the programs will cover nearly 90 million people and more than a quarter of the U.S population. The programs currently process about 7 million gallons of paint each year, the majority of which is water-based latex paint that can be recycled back into new paint. Recognizing that a successful EPR program for paint requires a healthy paint recycling industry to accept, remanufacture, and market recycled paint, PSI convened recycled paint manufacturers to strengthen the industry, which led to the 2019 launch of the International Paint Recycling Association (IPRA), the first organization in the world to represent the recycled paint industry.

Full presentation

The Leftover Paint Problem

Each year in the U.S., more than 78 million gallons of paint, or approximately 10% of what consumers purchase, goes unused. At a cost of about $8 per gallon, it would cost local governments and their taxpayers more than $600 million annually if all leftover paint was collected and properly managed. Oil- based paint, which is considered a hazardous waste in the U.S., is particularly expensive to manage. In the absence of producer responsibility, local household hazardous waste (HHW) facilities spend up to 50% of their budgets on paint alone. Due to budget constraints, local governments often instruct residents to dry out latex (water-based) paint and place it in the trash, wasting a valuable resource and causing environmental impacts. (In California, latex paint must be handled as hazardous waste, unless it is destined for reuse or recycling). SESSION 5 MAIN EPR ACHIEVEMENTS

The Road to Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for Paint in the U.S. In 2002, PSI invited the paint industry (through its national association, today called the American Coatings Association) to work collaboratively along with state and local governments and other stakeholders to address the problem of leftover paint. With the industry on board to create a solution, PSI developed a Paint Product Stewardship Action Plan, which included important technical background and information on recycled paint markets and regulatory barriers. The Action Plan became the basis for the Paint Product Stewardship Initiative and a series of national dialogue meetings that took place in 2003 and 2004. PSI led stakeholders through discussions and negotiations to eventually reach two Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs). The first MOU was completed in 2005 and was signed by more than 60 entities. It is the only such agreement for product stewardship in the U.S. signed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Following eight pilot projects conducted to develop a greater understanding of the problem and solutions, PSI mediated a second MOU, which established a roadmap for creating a model extended producer responsibility program for the U.S.

Launching EPR for Paint The consensus-based process and development of a model that multiple stakeholders supported laid the groundwork for harmonization in program design across the U.S. In 2009, Oregon was the first state to pass an EPR bill for paint, based on the model. Since then nine additional states and the District of Columbia have passed bills based on the same model. Nine programs are operating, one (State of Washington) was recently signed into law, and one (New York State) passed both legislative chambers and is expected to be signed into law by early July 2019. The long road to legislation and continued interest in and passage of bills point to the need for long-term engagement on EPR issues in the U.S. Even with a supportive industry and a clear model, passing legislation requires considerable education, persistence, and prolonged stakeholder engagement in each state. Features of the Paint Stewardship Program

Laws establishing each state program, as well as recent and pending bills, include the following features:

• A requirement for producers to submit a plan to the state for review and approval, and for the plan to include a description of how producers will collect, transport, reuse, recycle, and process paint according to the waste management hierarchy and environmentally sound management practices; • The ability of producers to organize under a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) (in this case, PaintCare, a non-profit organization), which submits a plan to the state and manages the program; • An eco-fee charged to consumers on each can of paint they purchase (typically $0.35-0.49 for cans larger than a half pint and smaller than 1 gallon; $0.75-0.99 for 1 gallon; and $1.60-1.99 for larger than 1 gallon up to 5 gallons); • Convenience requirements based on distance and population (e.g., 95% of residents must be within 15 miles of a drop-off site, and one additional site must be added per 30,000 residents); • Communication requirements to educate consumers about the program, the fee, how to determine the right amount of paint to purchase to reduce leftover paint, and how to store leftover paint correctly); • Voluntary participation by paint retailers, who can choose to serve as a drop-off site; • A ban on the sale of paint that is not registered with the state under an approved stewardship plan; • A requirement for an annual report detailing paint collection and processing, consumer education and convenience, and financials; • A third-party financial audit, in part to ensure that the fees collected cover the cost of the paint stewardship program only. SESSION 5 MAIN EPR ACHIEVEMENTS

Status of Paint Laws in the U.S.

As noted above, there are nine programs operating, one recently passed into law, and one pending (passed by the state legislature, awaiting the governor’s signature). Two other states (New Jersey and Massachusetts) have introduced bills that are still under consideration this legislation session, and many others are interested in bringing the paint EPR model to their state.

State Law Passed Program Implemented Oregon June 2009 July 2010 California September 2010 October 2012 Colorado June 2011 July 2013 Rhode Island June 2012 July 2014 Vermont May 2013 May 2014 Minnesota May 2013 November 2014 Maine July 2013 October 2015 Colorado June 2014 July 2015 Washington, D.C. March 2015 November 2016 State of Washington May 2019 November 2020 (planned) New York Pending June 2019 January 2021 (planned)

Program Performance

In addition to program design, reporting for the state paint programs is largely harmonized. In 2014, PSI led a process with PaintCare and state and local governments from six states to create a report template with an outline and key information to be included in each section. The consistent template harmonizes reporting and simplifies comparison among programs.

The following table summarizes performance in each state. The states vary in terms of population size, population density, and land area, all of which can impact the ease with which the industry can meet convenience standards. Several factors can influence recycling rates as well, including: the availability of processing infrastructure (to recycle paint), the presence of a strong reuse network, local climate (which may impact the quality of leftover paint stored by residents), and local practices (e.g., to divert non- recyclable paint from the stewardship program at HHW sites). Current EPR programs for paint cover approximately 19% of the U.S. population, or 62 million people (set to increase 27% with Washington and New York, or nearly 90 million people). SESSION 5 MAIN EPR ACHIEVEMENTS

U.S. Paint Stewardship Programs by State

District Connecticu Rhode California Colorado of Maine Minnesota Oregon Vermont Totals t Island Columbia State Characteristics Population 39,557,045 5,695,564 3,572,665 702,455 1,338,404 5,611,179 4,190,713 1,057,315 626,299 62,351,639 Square Miles 163,696 104,093 5,543 68 35,379 86,936 98,379 1,545 9,616 505,255 Urbanization rate 95% 86% 88% 100% 39% 73% 81% 91% 39% Year-Round Drop-Off Sites Retail Store 577 152 103 8 75 198 117 25 67 1,322 Household Hazardous Waste and other Public Waste 166 12 42 1 39 53 26 4 9 352 Facilities Recycler, Recycling Center, 19 9 2 - 3 4 26 - 1 64 or Reuse Store Totals 762 173 147 9 117 255 169 29 77 1,738 Convenience Percent of Residents within 98.5% 94.7% 100% 100% 94.2% 93.4% 96.7% 99.9% 99.5% 15 miles of a Drop-Off Site Paint Processing Annual Amount Processed* 3,881,913 724,047 342,350 39,130 129,907 993,564 795,786 84,210 110,567 7,101,474 Percent Latex 83% 76% 80% 81% 76% 81% 80% 77% 76% Percent Oil-Based 17% 24% 20% 19% 24% 19% 20% 23% 24% Percent of Latex Reused or 74% 81% 82% 97% 82% 50% 59% 82% 81% 70%** Recycled Into Paint *Most recent program data available as of June 2019. ** Average based on total figures for all states combined. The programs vary considerably in size. California processes nearly 4 million gallons of paint annually for a population of about 40 million people. The next largest program is Minnesota, at nearly 1 million gallons of paint for a population of 5.6 million people. The smallest program is in the District of Columbia, which processes 39,000 gallons for a population of about 700,000 people.

Most year-round collection sites are in retail stores, with more than 1,300 voluntary drop-offs located in paint and hardware stores. An additional 352 year-round drop-offs are located at HHW sites, landfills, and transfer stations. Paint recyclers (remanufacturers), recycling centers, and reuse stores also host year- round drop-offs. In each program, at least 93% of residents have access to a year-round drop-off site within 15 miles of their home. The programs offer large-volume pick-ups (for people or organizations with 200 gallons or more) and events to increase access to people needing to bring back leftover paint.

Overall, about 18% of paint processed through the state programs is oil-based, while the large majority (82%) is latex. Approximately 70% of collected latex paint is recycled or reused. The remainder is solidified and landfilled, used as fuel, used in non-paint recycled products (such as cement products), or mixed with a thickening material and applied as daily landfill cover. Most oil-based paint is used as fuel or incinerated; a small amount (less than 5%) is reused. Across the states, the average per gallon cost of processing paint is approximately $8. SESSION 5 MAIN EPR ACHIEVEMENTS

Paint Recycling Infrastructure A successful EPR program for paint requires a healthy paint recycling industry to accept, remanufacture, and market recycled paint. In 2017, PSI began organizing paint recyclers in North America, eventually bringing them together to identify common challenges and priorities. The International Paint Recycling Association (IPRA) officially launched in 2019 to promote the quality, availability, and value of recycled latex paint. IPRA is the first organization in the world to represent the recycled paint industry. Founding members include a dozen companies and local government paint recycling operations working in 20 states and multiple Canadian provinces. IPRA’s first major initiative is to develop the IPRA Green Standard® paint certification program to guarantee that certified products meet stringent performance standards.

The Future of EPR for Paint and Paint Recycling With two or more new programs likely being established in the next two years, paint stewardship and the recycled paint industry are positioned for considerable growth. The paint stewardship program does face some challenges, such as how to manage the dry or semi-dry portions of returned latex paint that cannot be recycled into new paint. PSI conducted a research study on emerging technologies to use this portion of paint, and PaintCare has administered a grant program to help nurture innovations that are higher on the waste management hierarchy. PSI has also conducted evaluations for four state programs. These studies feed information back into the programs for continuous improvement and provide state and local governments an avenue for on-going input on the implementation of programs. As the recycled paint industry has matured and quality has risen, the reputation of recycled paint has improved, but the industry still faces challenges for achieving broader market acceptance. The establishment and growth of IPRA will bolster the recycled paint industry and support continued expansive of EPR for paint programs. Regulators are also increasingly interested in tracking and understanding the ultimate destination of paint collected through the EPR for paint programs, particularly the portion of recycled paint that is sold to export markets.

Sources: PaintCare annual reports and summaries available via https://www.paintcare.org/paintcare-states/ A description of the process used to establish paint stewardship in the U.S., along with more information about paint stewardship in the U.S. can be found here: https://www.productstewardship.us/page/PSI_and_Paint To learn more about IPRA and recycled paint, visit recycledpaint.org

See slide show SESSION 5 ECONOMIC & LEGAL DRIVERS OF PERFORMANCE

Fee modulation Introduction

Chris Van Rossem

Technical Advisory Services, Canadian Stewardship Services Alliance (CSSA)

Full presentation Background and Context It is being increasingly recognized that if a shift towards a more circular economy is to be successful, then the concept of stimulating innovation needs to be more central to environmental policy design. This raises questions regarding the most appropriate policy instruments to help stimulate innovation, but also raises more fundamental questions regarding the process of how environmental policy can play a role in engaging firms’ innovative behaviour. It is in the above context that the principle of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) has emerged and finds its value. EPR embodies the idea of life cycle thinking, has an inherent product focus, and has the overall aim to reduce environmental impacts of products at source, by providing incentives through the extension of responsibility to the actor most capable of making the necessary change. To be more explicit, the EPR principle is considered to be built on two main environmentally-related goals. The first includes the goal to promote upstream design changes of new products primarily aiming at, but not limited to, reducing the impacts from end-of-life management. The second goal centres on ensuring downstream improvements of collection and recycling infrastructure that facilitates high re-utilisation of products, components and materials. As EPR is as policy principle, it needs to be implemented through the use of administrative, economic and informative policy instruments. Practical application to date has usually included the physical and/or financial obligation for producers to take-back their products at end-of-life, including collection and recycling targets and in the European policy context, the restriction of hazardous substances in products that are known to cause environmental impacts during the waste management phase. Undoubtedly, there has been a wide uptake of EPR by government around the world as a suitable policy approach to address the environmental impacts associated with the waste management of products, including the desire to shift the costs away from taxpayers and on to producers and consumers. However, in the current discourse over what constitutes successful EPR policy implementation, there is an on-going debate over the ability of program design to include an appropriate incentive mechanism to stimulate producers to improve the design of their products for reduced life cycle impacts, and especially the impacts and costs from the end-of-life management. SESSION 5 ECONOMIC & LEGAL DRIVERS OF PERFORMANCE

Collective Producer Responsibility (CPR) vs Individual Producer Responsibility (IPR) With respect to whether EPR can influence product design, an important distinction is often made between EPR programs that are based on collective producer responsibility (CPR) versus individual producer responsibility (IPR). In responding to producer responsibility legislation, producers have typically collaborated to set up national or provincial collective compliance schemes often referred to as producer responsibility organizations (PROs) to fulfil their assigned individual legal responsibility. Fees levied on producer’s to cover the costs to manage end-of-life products and/or packaging in collective programs are most often unit-based per product placed on the market. This provides little economic incentive for producers to invest in any design change, as compliance fees would not be impacted/reduced as a result of any producer efforts. Therefore, these programs can be characterized as having implemented both a collective physical and collective financial responsibility. The adoption of the Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) at the end of 2002 was considered a landmark piece of EPR legislation. With respect to the EPR principle, the final text of the directive included an explicit goal of encouraging the design and production of EEE which take into full account and facilitate their repair, possible upgrading, reuse disassembly and recycling. The main mechanism to achieve this goal is through use of individual producer responsibility (IPR), where each producer is responsible for the waste from his/her own products. The directive recital not only explicitly states that in order to give maximum effect to the concept of producer responsibility, each producer should be responsible for financing the management of the waste from his own products, but importantly, the producer should be able to choose to fulfil this obligation either individually or by joining a collective scheme. This signaled that it was contemplated by policy makers that individual financial responsibility could practically implemented in Collective Producer Responsibility programs. An IPR working group made up of industry and academics interesting in researching practical solutions to implementing IPR in the WEEE Directive developed case studies and examples of ways to implement IPR in both individual producer compliance schemes and collective schemes. Despite this effort, most MS did not transpose this specific requirement in their national laws and collective financial responsibility models continued to be the norm. More recently with the adoption of the Waste Framework Directive, the modulation or differentiation of compliance fees will become a mandatory requirement in EPR programs by January 2023. Article 8a point 4. b. requires that in the case of collective fulfilment of extended producer responsibility obligations, compliance fees be modulated for individual products or groups of similar products, taking into account their durability, reparability, re-usability and recyclability and the presence of hazardous substances. Where available, the modulation of fees shall be based on harmonized criteria in order to ensure a smooth functioning of the internal market. This new requirement placed on Producer Responsibility Organizations to modulate fees can be seen as a direct response to the lack of incentives provided through collective EPR implementation without individual financial responsibility fee structures. Although the Commission is expected to issue guidance on fee modulation by the end of 2019, some MS have already begun to implement this requirement in their national legislation. SESSION 5 ECONOMIC & LEGAL DRIVERS OF PERFORMANCE

Themes/Questions for consideration by presenters/panelists on this topic What should be the scope for fee modulation in EPR programs? In the Waste Framework Directive, durability, reparability, re-usability and recyclability and the presence of hazardous substances, are explicitly mentioned as criteria to be considered. 1. How are each of these criteria defined? 2. Who should be involved in the development of the criteria? 3. What normative standards already exist and what needs to be developed? 4. Within a product group (i.e. WEEE, Batteries, ELV’s, Packaging) which product types/packaging materials should be prioritized? 5. Within a product group is it appropriate that there be a phasing in process, or are all product types and materials targeted simultaneously? 6. Does the incorporation of recycled content (recyclate) in new products and packaging fall under the general criteria “recyclability”? Target audience 1. Which actor is the primary target of the incentives from fee modulation? a. Should it be the Producer, or in cases where eco/compliance fees are visible at the point of sale, is the intention to send price signal to Consumers as well? 1. What percentage of the product’s price or packaging cost is required to incent the producer to redesign the product or packaging to avoid a penalty or receive a bonus? 2. Similarly, if the suitable target is the consumer what percentage of the product’s price or packaging cost is required to incent the consumer to buy the product or packaging with the lower fee? Administrative Costs 1. What is the degree of administrative burden that is associated with implementation of fee modulation? 2. Who are the main actors that are impacted? Producers, PRO’s, Regulators, others? 3. Do producers currently have the information on the characteristics of their products/packaging necessary to assess against modulation criteria?, and if no, how significant would the costs be to collect it? 4. What type of tracking and other information systems have been developed or will need to be developed for producers to assess their product/packaging attributes against the criteria? 5. Are small producers and first importers of products and packaged goods disproportionately impacted by the requirements of fee modulation? If so, how can this burden be mitigated? Enforcement 1. What is the appropriate level of “burden of proof” placed on producers to illustrate conformance with the fee modulation criteria? a. Certified conformance to technical standards? b. Provision of Bill of Materials for products and packaging? c. Self-declaration – with random auditing? 2. Who is responsible for enforcement when information provided is falsified? – PROS, National Register, or Environmental Ministry? 3. In cases where multiple PROs are operating in competition in a jurisdiction, are all PROs expected to use the same design criteria and fee modulation levels? SESSION 5 ECONOMIC & LEGAL DRIVERS OF PERFORMANCE

Setting the Modulated Fees Because it is likely difficult to determine in advance the current number of products/packaging on the market that would meet the eco-design criteria in the first year of modulated fees it could be expected that predicting total fee revenue that would be generated in each material fee category after modulated fees are applied would be highly uncertain. 1. Because of this uncertainty, does this necessitate setting higher base fees in the first year of modulated fee implementation to ensure enough total fee revenue is generated to cover the product/packaging costs? 2. Does this situation lead to fee surpluses? 3. IF so, how are fee surpluses used in subsequent years? If used in subsequent fee setting years to offset costs, wouldn’t this invariably lead to lowering the fee rates year over year and lead to fluctuating fee rates. 4. Other there other ways to mitigate the expected uncertainty impact, like for example phasing in the effective date of fee modulation whereby in the first year there is only a requirement to report against the criteria with no fee impact? This would allow PROs to gather indicative information used to set modulated fee rates in subsequent years. 5. Would sampling of the producer members be another strategy to determine the baseline from which to set fee modulation? Evidence – Impacts on the market 1. How is the baseline established from which the impact of the eco fee modulation can be measured against? 2. It is unlikely that a full assessment of the market can be made in advance of the introduction of the eco fee modulation criteria and therefore the baseline is likely set after the first year of reporting against the criteria. • Given this, could it be expected that some improvements in product/packaging design to avoid a penalty or receive a bonus cannot be measured? 3. What has been the impact on the market to date in programs that have implemented fee modulation? Compatibility with other legal instruments like recycled content mandates and product standards to minimize 1. In cases where minimum requirements for design for recyclability are mandatory, are modulated fees appropriate? 2. Does the mandatory requirement become the minimum requirement and additional performance against the minimum criteria would receive a bonus only.

See slide show SESSION 5 ECONOMIC & LEGAL DRIVERS OF PERFORMANCE

Fee modulation & product design

Peter Börkey

Principal Administrator, OECD Environment Directorate

Fee modulation & cost impact

Franck Aggeri

Mines Paris Tech

Fee modulation & price/cost signal

Juan Manuel Banez Romero

European Public Affairs Manager, Mars Inc. M 0032 499585993, [email protected] SESSION 5 ECONOMIC & LEGAL DRIVERS OF PERFORMANCE

Fee modulation and furniture

Valerie Gourvès

Head furniture department, FCBA, 10 rue Galilée 77420 Champs sur Marne Tel. + 33 1 72 84 98 30 [email protected]

Abstract In 1995, the French furniture industry decided to launch their own volunteer environmental certification, called NF ENVIRONNEMENT. As this time, there was no EPR, no specific regulation. At this moment, contract furniture manufacturers realized that, more and more public purchasers were preoccupied with environment in general. So, they defined with different stakeholders the requirement for a furniture to be able to have a environmental label. Obviously, the furniture needed to be of a good quality, this can be evaluated by testing according to performance standard, but also, need to reduce environmental impact compare to a standard product. This lead the producer to think about ECO-conception. This certification is particularly protective since it relies on five key demands: - Quality and Durability - Health and security - Environment Criteria concerning the entire life cycle of the furniture: each stage in the life of a piece of furniture can have an effect on the environment – raw materials, manufacturing process, transportation and also the end use of the furniture and its recycling. Today, not only public purchasers are concerned by environment, but any consumer ! At the end, not only EPR is a good regulation, but because, It will soon possible to modulate the contribution according the effort companies do in matter of environment, this will also encourage manufacturer to adopt an environmental approach in term of conception for the benefit of all at the end. SESSION 5 ECONOMIC & LEGAL DRIVERS OF PERFORMANCE

GSK Complete the Cycle

Richard Henderson

EHSS Performance and Reporting Lead, GSK, 980 Great West Road Brentford, Middlesex, TW8 9GS United Kingdom.

Abstract GSK developed a scheme to recycle inhalers used to treat asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to reduce their end of life environmental impact. This scheme has been operational in the UK since 2011. The presentation will discuss learnings from the scheme and the future challenges to materially increase the numbers of inhalers recovered.

See slide show SESSION 5 ECONOMIC & LEGAL DRIVERS OF PERFORMANCE

Deposit Systems for Used Beverage Packaging

Wolfgang Ringel TOMRA

Nowadays, an idea is spreading globally: deposit on used beverage packaging. Almost 40 territories have now introduced it, e.g. 10 US States, Canadian provinces, Nordic markets, Germany, and almost entire Australia. Others have just made the decision, e.g. Portugal, Scotland and Turkey. Why is it a growing trend? ₋ High recycling rates. People don´t throw away money, and if so, others pick it up to get the deposit back. Well-designed schemes achieve up to 98% of recycling. ₋ High quality material for bottle-to-bottle recycling. PET and aluminium can be collected as mono fractions delivering high prices, keeping the system’s costs down. ₋ Significant littering reduction. Several studies show that littered beverage packaging disappear from streets, beaches, parks, etc. ₋ Costs savings for municipalities. Less littering causes less cleaning costs, fewer beverage packaging in bins saves collection/sorting costs and valuable landfill space, as shown in 30 different studies on global level. ₋ Increase of environmental awareness and highest participation rates. As a result, legislators find interesting to discuss this solution. But how does it work? Deposit is a flexible instrument. The legal framework depends on what the focus is on: legislation (mandatory or voluntary), deposit amounts (high, medium, low or differentiated by packaging/beverage), coverage (drink or container types), point of return (retail, depot or hybrid), financials (per container cost or alternatives), handling fee (yes or no), organization (centralized or not), logistics (waste disposal companies, dedicated logistic or retail backhaul). These are a few adjusting screws which are in the hands of legislators and can make a tremendous difference when it comes to the practical design of a deposit system. Consequently, none of the aforementioned deposit systems is a simple copy of another. But before introducing any deposit system, a careful assessment must be made taking into account the specificity of a country including costs and benefits, people´s mentality, the national waste disposal and recycling industries, geography, legal aspects and timing. Tailor-made solutions are required and can be derived from existing implementations. See slide show SESSION 6

NEED FOR A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD SESSION 6 CONSISTENT STANDARDS OF QUALITY & REPORTING

Packaging reporting

Michelle Carvell

Director & COO, Lorax Compliance Suite 6, Eleven Arches House, Yates Avenue, CV21 1FD, UK Tel. +44 7468 597979

Abstract Packaging compliance schemes throughout Europe are rapidly changing their reporting requirements as they implement the Circular Economy package from 2018. Some front running schemes have started to introduce modulated fees which require companies to collect increasingly more detailed information about their products and packaging. The Open Scope legislation which also came into force in 2018 requires producers to report additional products and whilst the high level number of categories has reduced to 6, many countries also still use diverse lists of subcategories which mean simplified reporting in a simple fashion is not always possible. Packaging reporting also has very little harmonisation between different countries, which can leave Producers with a large amount of research, investigation, and technical reporting requirements in order to be fully compliant. Developing harmonised reporting practises would ease the burden on producers and should be something the EU at least strives towards.

See slide show SESSION 6 CONSISTENT STANDARDS OF QUALITY & REPORTING

Packaging reporting

Mark Dempsey

Sustainability – WEEE HP. Cain Rd, Amen Corner, Binfield, United-Kingdom Tel. +44 (0)7890 411638, [email protected]

Abstract Suggested question: What does the WEEE Directive tell us about setting collection targets and measuring collection rates? Setting Collection Targets: Lessons for EPR from the EU WEEE Directive • The WEEE Directive sets a new collection target of 65% of EEE placed on the market, to be achieved by 2019 • Research in several Member States has revealed that there are large flows of WEEE beyond the Producer take back systems. • In April 2008 the combined Dutch WEEE recycling systems published a research report that showed that out of a total of 18.5 kg of WEEE that is generated per inhabitant per year, 14.8 kg (80%) is recycled but only 5.7kg (31%) is recycled by the producer funded WEEE systems, with the majority of WEEE recycled by commercial collectors. • A study by UNU in 2012 found similar results for the Netherlands with 75% - 80% of WEEE being collected but only 36% reaching producers WEEE recycling systems. • In the UK a study by WRAP found that only half of the WEEE treated was recorded through the WEEE compliance schemes. • Research by Magalini etal (2012) showed that in Italy 69% of WEEE is collected when accounting for all flows. • A study by Okopol of WEEE flows in Germany found that only 32% of WEEE reached producers recycling systems but accounting for all flows 82% is collected. • WEEE is collected by retailers, recyclers, and municipalities and recycled for profit. This activity is driven by the economic value of WEEE. • If collection rates are only measures based on WEEE collected by producer schemes, it is clear that the high collection targets within the WEEE Directive would be very difficult to achieve. • This has led to the EU agreeing that All WEEE Flows must be measured by Member States in order to reach their collection targets. • The EU Commissions FAQ answer 7.6 states: Member States are required to collect information on WEEE collected through all routes. This means that Member States should adopt measures to involve all actors in WEEE collection and to receive information on the quantities and categories of WEEE collected through all routes.” • Member States are now measuring All WEEE Flows through a variety of mechanisms. • Future EPR policies should ensure that high collection targets must be accompanied by comprehensive data collection, or alternatively percentage targets should be replaced by targets based on creating a convenient ______collection network. See slide show References : Witteveen+Bos (2008) Onderzoek naar complementaire afvalstromen voor e-waste in Nederland, 10 April 2008 Okopol, WEEE Flows in Germany, December 2011 Huisman, J., van der Maesen, M., Eijsbouts, R.J.J., Wang., F., Baldé, C.P., Wielenga, C.A., (2012), The Dutch WEEE Flows. United Nations University, ISP – SCYCLE, Bonn, Germany, March 15, 2012. WRAP, Market flows of WEEE materials, February 2011 Magalini, F., Huisman, J., Wang, F., (2012) Household WEEE Generated in Italy, United Nations University, ECODOM< December 2012 SESSION 6 CONSISTENT STANDARDS OF QUALITY & REPORTING

National & European register

Julien Bouzenot

Director, Rudologia Tel. +33 6 34 63 00 86, [email protected]

Abstract After more than 25 years of hindsight, it is possible to affirm that the EPR schemes bring 2 essential inputs: - Resources (financial and/or technical) - Knowledge (data on upstream and downstream flows, traceability, evolution trends, control, R&D, improvement of environmental quality, etc.) The name Rudologia comes from "rudology", the science of waste. We therefore attach great importance to knowledge and are convinced that the future lies in the interconnection of upstream data, products with downstream data, and waste. In France, not all sectors are concerned by the same reporting requirements, whether they are marketers, local authorities in charge of waste management or treatment operators. In a world where information (false or true) circulates continuously and everyone has access to it without a filter at all times, a clear and common reporting framework makes it possible to bring rationality to exchanges.

See slide show SESSION 6 FREE RIDERS’ IMPACT ON EPR MODEL

Countering online free riders

Pascal Leroy WEEE Forum, Secretary General, 80 Auguste Reyerslann, 1030 Brussels, Belgium. Tel. +32 473 75 61 53, [email protected]

Joachim QUODEN

EXPRA, Managing Director, 2 Avenue Olympiades 1140 Brussels, Belgium. Tel. +49 171 201 70 55, [email protected]

Marc GUIRAUD

EucoLight, Secretary General, 80 Boulevard Auguste Reyers, 1030 Brussels, Belgium. Tel. +32 27 06 87 18, [email protected] SESSION 6 FREE RIDERS’ IMPACT ON EPR MODEL

Full presentation

Online free riding is an issue of great concern. Online (often distance) sellers not registered and not undertaking take back, or not paying for collection and reprocessing, impose an unfair cost on other producers and retailers, distort the market, make compliant companies less competitive and result in an overstatement of WEEE collection rates. In this session, the representatives of the packaging waste, lighting and e-waste streams will explain how this challenge can be addressed successfully. The WEEE Forum, EXPRA and EucoLight are of the opinion that the solution to this problem is, amongst other things: Updated regulatory measures, at EU and/or Member State level, to define online platforms as the ‘producer’ of all products for which they facilitate, by whatever means, the import or entry into the Member State territory”. Better enforcement and enhanced, structured co-operation between producer responsibility organisations, on the one hand, and enforcement agencies, customs and other authorities, home delivery companies and marketplaces, on the other. Awareness campaigns to educate market operators about their EPR obligations. Full presentation Successfully countering online free-riders Response to the consultation regarding the study to support the preparation of the Commission’s guidance for extended producer responsibility schemes Thirty-six producer responsibility organisations (PRO) in Europe, Australasia and North America, as represented by the WEEE Forum, are at the forefront of turning the extended producer responsibility principle into an effective electronic waste management policy approach across the world. Representative of the whole spectrum of the electrical equipment manufacturing industry, they have acquired know-how on the technical aspects of collection, logistics and processing of WEEE, and therefore of the basic elements of eco-design. Since their foundation, the PRO of the WEEE Forum have collected, de-polluted and recycled or sent for preparation for re-use 21 million tons of WEEE. The PRO of the WEEE Forum acknowledge that the European Commission is keen to identify existing practices and experience, and possible solutions, to tackle free-riders, i.e. market operators that circumvent extended producer responsibility and related obligations, such as registration and payment of fees. Recommendations will be collated in a Guidance on these topics and will be presented at a workshop for stakeholders which is planned to take place in late June 2019. This paper seeks to present the main considerations to be taken account of when developing the Guidance.

Main messages Online free-riding is an issue of great concern. Online (often distance) sellers not registered and not undertaking take back, or not paying for collection and reprocessing, impose an unfair cost on other producers and retailers, distort the market, make compliant companies less competitive and result in an overstatement of WEEE collection rates The WEEE Forum is of the opinion that the solution to this problem is: ➢ Updated regulatory measures, at EU and/or Member State level, to define online platforms as the ‘producer’ of all products for which they facilitate, by whatever means, the import or entry into the Member State territory”. ➢ Better enforcement and enhanced, structured co-operation between producer responsibility organisations, on the one hand, and enforcement agencies, customs and other authorities, home delivery companies and marketplaces, on the other. ➢ Awareness campaigns to educate market operators about their EPR obligations SESSION 6 FREE RIDERS’ IMPACT ON EPR MODEL

.

Context Under Directive 2008/98/EC on waste, as amended by Directive 2018/851, in relation to the minimum requirements for EPR schemes, paragraph 5 of Article 8a states the following: Member States shall establish an adequate monitoring and enforcement framework with a view to ensuring that producers of products and organisations implementing extended producer responsibility obligations on their behalf implement their extended producer responsibility obligations, including in the case of distance sales, that the financial means are properly used and that all actors involved in the implementation of the extended producer responsibility schemes report reliable data. The producer responsibility organisations (PRO) of the WEEE Forum acknowledge that the European Commission is keen to identify existing practices and experience, and possible solutions, to tackle free-riders, generally understood to occur when one firm benefits from the actions and efforts of another without paying or sharing the costs. More specifically, in the area of EPR, ‘online free-riders’ are market operators that circumvent extended producer responsibility and related obligations, such as registration and payment of fees. This paper seeks to present the main considerations to be taken account of when developing the Guidance Considerations Online free-riding is an issue of great concern. Online (often distance) sellers not registered and not undertaking take back, or not paying for collection and reprocessing, impose an unfair cost on other producers and retailers, distort the market, make compliant companies less competitive and result in an overstatement of WEEE collection rates – the lower the placed on market figures the easier it is for Member States to reach the collection targets, so the lesser the need for stringent enforcement. Since online free-riding risks resulting in underfunded waste streams, it may undermine the sustainability of the EPR scheme. According to the OECD, online free-riding is not just a small-seller issue and it is not just confined to websites in Asia; even some of the largest online platforms evade their obligations. There are acute problems when there is no legal entity in a Member State. ‘Marketplace’ platforms legally avoid EPR obligations as they are not the seller nor the importer. Furthermore, EPR regulations are complex and confusing for online sellers, whilst enforcement activity is resource intensive and not well co-ordinated across jurisdictions. And finally, consumers do not understand the problem. The OECD estimates online free-riding to account for 5-10% of all sales. SENS eRecycling, a PRO in Switzerland, for example, estimates that 5% of electrical and electronic equipment placed on the Swiss market is non-compliant. According to Eunomia, a UK-based consultancy, online sales in the EU have grown by over 18% from 2014 to 2015. The estimated share of online (non-store) EEE retail in the EU is estimated to exceed 30% of the market. Of online shoppers, 32% bought goods from other EU Member States, 20% non-EU in 2016. Being WEEE compliant entails an undeniable administrative burden and the WEEE management cost is, for certain sectors, 10-20% of the total sales price – and for batteries it can be 100%, so the reward for dodging the system is extraordinary. The huge scale of free riding puts compliant companies, and ‘bricks and mortar’ retailers at a material commercial disadvantage. The issue is particularly acute for companies selling lighting and light- weight products. According to recent research undertaken by UK WEEE Scheme Forum, the share of unregistered products in the total UK market varies from 8% (washing machines and dryers) to 88% (fitness watches). It is reasonable to assume that the share of unregistered products is similar in the rest of Europe.

Washing Fitness Display LED Electric hair mahines and Tablet PC Power tools watches screens lightbulbs care dryers #products checked 70 70 50 25 120 113 120 . #products potentially unregistered 28 38 44 3 91 57 9 % products unregistered 40% 54% 88% 12% 76% 50% 8% SESSION 6 FREE RIDERS’ IMPACT ON EPR MODEL

In the past few years, the WEEE Forum has hosted several events and has engaged with various stakeholders and the authors of the OECD report. More data is required to quantify the full scale of the problem. The WEEE Forum is of the view that the three areas where progress should be made are: legislation, enforcement and awareness. Legislation The UK authorities, in association with market actors, are toying with the idea that, if the market operator that makes the product available on the market is not a manufacturer, nor an importer, but does facilitate the EU import or market entry, for example through offering a (multi-seller) online platform, he is deemed a 'producer'. Failing that, and as a minimum, marketplaces (or multi-seller online platforms) need to play a bigger role in countering free-riding. They could, for example, be required to notify the seller about his EPR obligations and compliance, and to exclude those sellers that do not conform. The concept of Authorised Representative (AR) could potentially help to address the problem, but needs further analysis to ensure it is appropriate, and that liabilities of the AR are adequately defined. Eighty per cent of the problem is related to transactions that take place within the European single market. In many cases the product will have originated from outside of the EU but is held in stock by fulfilment houses and other online operators inside the EU. Tackling this first will be easier and will solve a major part of the problem. Policymakers should consider making batteries, packaging and WEEE subject to the same legislative framework as far as the definition of 'producer' is concerned and amend the Blue Guide. Many businesses are subject to all three laws, and divergence in legal definitions creates unnecessary and costly confusion. Credit card companies must be involved in discussions around sharing responsibility, the principle being, for example, that a consumer cannot use his/her credit card to purchase goods from EPR non-registered companies on marketplaces. Alternatively, the credit card company could be required to verify that the company from whom goods are purchased with its cards has EPR registered. EPR and VAT registration must be linked with each other. The important thing to note is that no EU law disallows Member States to take the above measures. Many measures do not necessarily require EU legislation to make progress, yet an adjustment of legal responsibilities, for example at Member State level, is certainly desirable. Enforcement There is a need for enhanced, structured co-operation between producer responsibility organisations, on the one hand, and enforcement agencies, customs and other authorities, home delivery companies and marketplaces, on the other, to pro-actively identify free-riders and counter free-riding. Enforcement of legislation across Member States borders is typically challenging but not impossible, as the example of Belgium vis-à-vis Germany and the Netherlands shows. Enforcement of EU laws in China is hard, but the topic of online free-riding could be subject to negotiations in EU-China trade deals. Or China could be encouraged to set up PRO to allow for better control. In any case, enforcement agencies must be tougher when it comes to the verification of conformity with existing legislation. A few high-profile and well-publicised court cases, possibly commented on by thought leaders on social media, would alert some of the free-riders into action. The enforcement agencies of all Member States must be represented in the European WEEE Enforcement Net work in order to optimise seamless co-operation across Europe. Evidence of wrong-doing or unregistered activities must be reported to the enforcement agencies and throughout the network. SESSION 6 FREE RIDERS’ IMPACT ON EPR MODEL

Awareness There is some need for education of online operators, who may not all be aware of the need to comply. Certification of online operators that do verify the compliance of the product they sell could help consumers to exercise an informed choice. Authorities or PRO should consider running awareness campaigns in the rest of the world, especially in those jurisdictions where non-compliant marketplaces originate from. Specific questions The background paper that Eunomia shared with delegates in the workshop on 13 March 2019, hosted by the European Commission, discusses issues related to the study it is preparing, and raises three questions. The following paragraphs seek to present a response. The background paper that Eunomia shared with delegates in the workshop on 13 March 2019, hosted by the European Commission, discusses issues related to the study it is preparing, and raises three questions. The following paragraphs seek to present a response. Is there any systematic effort (and by whom) to establish the extent to which free-riding occurs? If so, what does this involve? The free-riding issue has given rise to the formation of working groups in several Member States. In Portugal, for example, a working group composed of producer responsibility organisations and their associates, producer associations, controlling authorities and enforcement authorities, discuss solutions for every type of free-riding. Free-riding is identified, are adjustments in reporting what is placed on the market made (to inform reported recycling performance)? If so, is such an adjustment a legal requirement? If so, is this subject to independent verification, and by whom? Free-riding is usually identified in the form of sub-declaration through the audit process to producers, which is a legal responsibility of the PRO to their producers. In Portugal, retroactive adjustments in reporting are allowed under PRO contract until the two previous years and the responsibility transfer will only be effective if the payment is regularized. What measures are in place to detect and tackle SME free-riders/large companies which may be under- reporting quantities placed on the market including distance (usually online) sales? Some of the proposed measures include the development and widened sharing of EPR education material, delegation of the responsibility of auditing to an independent entity, creation of a centralized platform to denounce free-riding and definition of rules for the simplification and yet security of the activity of Authorized Representative. The customs authorities also require the presentation of a contract with a PRO whenever they detect the importation of a product covered by EPR legislation

See slide show SESSION 7

OPPORTUNITIES & CHALLENGES FOR NEW COMERS SESSION 7 An inclusive model for the informal sector

CHILE’S WASTE PICKERS A formal collection approach

Rodrigo LEIVA NEUMANN

VALORIZA SpA, Chief Executive Officer, Málaga 211 office 82, Santiago, Chile. Tel. +56 9 72 14 30 53, [email protected]

Full presentation 1. INTRODUCTION In June 2016, Chile introduced an EPR Law to promote recycling throughout the whole country. The Law was inspired by the European experience and by directives to define rules for establishing collective and individual compliance schemes (PRO - Product Recovery Organization), with the focus in the first stage on six priority products subject to recovery targets: packaging, WEEE, Used Oils, Tyres, Car Batteries, and Batteries. Full producer responsibility and not-for-profit PROs were established. Furthermore, the law specifically takes into consideration the waste pickers as one of the main stakeholders. Waste pickers are defined as natural persons who, by using artisanal and semi-industrial techniques, engage directly and regularly in the selective collection of household waste or equivalent and in the management of reception and storage facilities of such waste,sorting and pre-treatment. Waste pickers are allowed to participate in waste collection and sorting processes as formal contractors, being registered and duly certified under the framework of the National System of Certification of Labour Competencies. The creation of a Labour Competency profile enables them to acquire necessary knowledge and skills to manage waste according to the current regulations and to become waste contractors if they are certified through the National System of Certification of Labour Competencies and registered in the EPR Information System.

Also, they are enabled to participate in environmental awareness campaigns and authorised to sign direct service agreements with Municipalities and PROs. The Chilean governmental agencies, waste pickers, municipalities and producer organizations are working together throughout the country to implement the certification processes and to prepare the waste pickers’ communities to participate as formal contractors in waste collection and sorting activities. 2. THE CHILEAN LAW TO PROMOTE RECYCLING AND REDUCE WASTE GENERATION Chile passed this law to reduce waste generation and to promote waste recovery. The EPR model is one of the ways through which the Environmental Agency plans to achieve this and, as previously mentioned, this EPR model deals with six priority products. This law will be made operational through specific decrees which relate to these products, and will establish recovery targets and the rules of operation for PROs. SESSION 7 An inclusive model for the informal sector

In Chile, the Environmental Agency (EA) is legally required to implement the law, and they have been given the specific legal powers to help them to do this: • Eco-design • Product certification and labeling • Deposit and refund systems • EPR - full producer responsibility • Environmentally rational waste management (Landfill taxes) • Measures to not throw out products which are still suitable for consumption Right now, the EA is developing several standards that will require companies to improve their environmental performance. So far, their focus has been on implementing the EPR model across the priority products. Here is the schedule that the Environmental Agency is working on:

Source: Chilean Environmental Agency

You can see that by 2024, the Environmental Agency expects to implement the full framework, giving priority to Tyres and Packaging. • Tyres are a priority because we thought they would be one of the easier products to manage and would, therefore, give us the best chance of early success. • Packaging is a priority because even though it is much more complex, it is the biggest problem when it comes to waste generation,so it must be done as a matter of urgency. 3. HOW THE LAW CONSIDERS WASTE PICKERS Waste pickers are defined by law as natural persons who, by using artisanal and semi-industrial techniques, engage directly and regularly in the selective collection of household waste or equivalent and in the management of reception and storage facilities of such waste, including sorting and pre-treatment. Waste pickers are allowed to participate in waste collection and sorting processes as formal contractors, being registered and duly certified under the framework of the National System of Certification of Labour Competencies. The creation of a Labour Competency profile enables them to acquire necessary knowledge and skills to manage waste according to the current regulations and to become waste contractors if they are certified through the National System of Certification of Labour Competencies and registered in the EPR Information System. Also, they are enabled to participate in environmental awareness campaigns and authorised to sign direct service agreements with Municipalities and PROs. The Chilean governmental agencies, waste pickers, municipalities, and producer organizations are working together throughout the country to implement the certification processes and to prepare the waste pickers’ communities to participate as formal contractors in waste collection and sorting activities. SESSION 7 An inclusive model for the informal sector

• Chile is approaching this differently, using the EPR law as an opportunity to help one of the poorest parts of the workforce to really benefit through their own efforts and contributions.

• Chile is formalising the role of the waste picker and establishing waste pickers as a self-managed group that is empowered within the system.

• Formalization means that waste pickers become authorised waste contractors.

• Waste pickers have recognized certifications and work to their formal trade standards.

• Formalization of the sector also means that waste pickers operate as real businesses – paying taxes, obeying health and safety regulations, and being responsible employers.

4. THE CHILEAN POLICY FOR THE INCLUSION OF WASTE PICKERS State action is required to promote the effective inclusion of waste pickers in the waste management system, with the objective of remedying the effects of social exclusion of a large group of workers and, at the same time, taking advantage of the collection capacity of recyclable materials for better waste management in the country. THE POLICY COMMITTEE National and international agencies and foundations form this policy committee: • Ministry of Health

• Ministry of Social Development.

• Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare.

• Ministry of Housing and Urbanism.

• Ministry of Economy.

• The Solidarity and Social Investment Fund.

• Municipalities

• The International Labour Organization.

• The National Movement of Waste Pickers of Chile.

• The AVINA Foundation.

• Ministry of the Environment. SESSION 7 An inclusive model for the informal sector

GENERAL OBJECTIVE

Promote the social, economic, and environmental inclusion of waste pickers based on environmentally adequate waste management. For this purpose, the policy considers three strategic axes: the environmental, the economic, and the social axis.

The objective of the environmental axis is to increase recovery of waste through the work of the waste pickers.

To achieve the objective of the environmental axis, three specific objectives are considered: • Account for the environmental contribution of waste pickers in waste recycling.

• Advance the inclusion of waste pickers in the environmentally adequate management of waste.

• Protect the work of waste pickers from the health and occupational risks of handling waste.

The objective of the economic axis is to strengthen the business capacities of the waste pickers.

To achieve the economic objective, four specific objectives are considered: • Certify the skills and work skills of the waste pickers.

• Identify and develop economic instruments to promote inclusive recycling.

• Strengthen the technical and business capacities of waste pickers and promote inclusive business chains.

• Promote a decent work culture in the different places of the recycling production chain.

The objective of the social axis is to establish the human dignity of the waste pickers and their public recognition.

To achieve the social objective, four specific objectives are considered: • Identify and economically characterize the waste pickers.

• Strengthen the social capital of waste pickers’ organizations, as well as their capacity to access social programs and policies.

• Achieve greater social recognition of waste pickers’ work.

• Identify alternatives for the employability of waste pickers.

5. THE NATIONAL LABOUR COMPETENCY CERTIFICATION COMMISSION-CHILEVALORA Starting a new recognized “trade” or a new workforce sector is not easy. I will explain how Chile is accomplishing it: First of all we already had CHILEVALORA, a National Labour Competency Certification Commission. CHILEVALORA’s mission is the formal recognition of people’s labour competencies, regardless of the way in which they have been acquired and whether or not they have a degree or an academic degree granted by formal education. SESSION 7 An inclusive model for the informal sector

CHILEVALORA promotes opportunities for continuous learning, recognition, and valorisation through evaluation and certification processes based on standards defined and validated by the productive sectors. This commission is made up of 3 key stakeholders • Government

• Employers’ organizations

• Workers’ organizations

Representatives from each of these stakeholders came together to focus on the new workforce sector which they decided to call the “Collection and Recycling” service sector.

Their task is to create a trade. So they must:

• Define waste pickers’ profiles.

• Develop training programs for waste pickers.

• Develop the evaluation standards for certification.

6.STAKEHOLDERS THAT HAVE PARTICIPATED

The table below shows the list of private stakeholders that have been financing the training and certification processes.

These stakeholders are motivated by a sense of responsibility, industry leadership, and need, knowing that a well designed and implemented system will be more cost-effective for them.

ORGANIZATION ACTIVITY

CCU Bottler (Pepsi Cola, Heineken, San Pedro winery,…others Embotelladora Andina Bottler (Coca Cola) DISAL Waste management company Cristalerías de Chile Glass Recycler (Glasswork, Owens Illinois license) Falabella Retailer Fundación Arcos Dorados McDonalds (Fast Food) Lo Valledor Agricultural food distributor Avina NGO (financing the National Waste Pickers Organization)

7. WASTE PICKERS PROFILES FOR CERTIFICATION A Waste Contractor (or formalized waste picker) is defined as one of these four profiles: 1. Basic recycler 2. Advanced Recycler 3. Storage Recycler 4. Manager Recycler SESSION 7 An inclusive model for the informal sector

For example, The Advanced Recycler: Manages the semi-industrial collection of recyclable materials from households, commerce, and industry, according to current regulations. COMPETENCE 1: Plan and execute the process of commercialization of recyclable materials according to commercial objectives and requirements, and current regulations COMPETENCE 2: Carry out the process of collecting and transporting recyclable materials according to hygiene, safety, and environmental regulations. COMPETENCE 3: Carry out a mechanical pre-treatment process for recyclable materials, according to the manufacturer's recommendations and buyer's requirements. WASTE PICKERS PROFILES FOR CERTIFICATION

The certification process is quite interesting and is designed to make it very practical for waste pickers. • When a waste picker is ready to be evaluated, they book an evaluation with one of the certification organisations and pay a fee. • The Certification organisation will visit the place where the waste pickers work with a specific evaluation form. SESSION 7 An inclusive model for the informal sector

PROFILE ADVANCED RECYCLER

• The Certification organisation will observe the waste picker while they are working and ask them questions about the job to see where they can meet the evaluation standards. • When the waste picker demonstrates that they can meet all of the evaluation criteria, the certifying organization will certify them. I really like this evaluation process because it includes everyone – even the people who cannot read, or take tests, or write – it only evaluates what is really important for the job. It is respectful. It ensures dignity and recognizes their status in society. 8. RESULTS SINCE THE EPR LAW WAS PROMULGATED IN 2016 The following table shows what we are really achieving.

Waste Pickers Status Nu mbe r Proud waste pickers workforce (including family groups) 60.0 00 Already Members of waste pickers organizations 5.00 0 Curious, already Registered in the system 1.50 0 In training and Certification Process 500

Happy and already Certified 350

This is a law that provides waste pickers a better quality of life, not just for themselves, but also for their children and their future generations. For many families, this breaks the cycle of poverty. AND through this, we are using existing capacity to increase recycling rates, and reducing waste. Win-Win!! Our challenge now, is to reach every waste picker, to give them this formalization opportunity. SESSION 7 OPPORTUNITIES & CHALLENGES FOR NEW COMERS

EPR companies faced with the challenge of behavioural change

Séverine Lèbre-Badré

Citeo Head of communications - 50 Bd Haussmann 75009 PARIS Tel. + 33 1 81 69 05 82

Isabelle Gulphe-Lachaud

Research Department, BVA Opinion SESSION 7 OPPORTUNITIES & CHALLENGES FOR NEW COMERS

Abstract

When setting up EPR companies and particularly financial EPR companies, which focus on a wide variety of solutions, sorting is a topic that requires specific work and consideration. In basic terms, the individual and voluntary act of sorting is subject to a complex decision tree involving different drivers and stakeholders at each stage of the process, from the point of purchase to the receipt of waste at a sorting centre. The challenge for Citeo is to identify solutions that limit uncertainty at each decision-making step in the sorting process in order to provide reassurance and maximise sorting.

If we tackle the issue of behavioural change in depth, it is evident that no single solution works in isolation. None of the concepts currently in vogue, such as nudges, design thinking, collective intelligence and social comparison are alone capable of providing solutions. Instead, we must draw on all these notions and coordinate them in a way that is both empirical and subject to certain rules. Ensuring genuine engagement as opposed to the trivialisation a good deed for the environment that inspires no emotional investment and must be organised at local level Encouraging commitment – we at Citeo have replaced the phrase “awareness-raising” with the word “engagement”, not out of a desire to play with semantics, but to reflect the fact that advocating sorting has become a rallying cry that we could not disregard.

Communicating at local level – users’ experience of sorting is difficult, substandard and absolutely non- standardised, so it is not appropriate to take a superior or prescriptive tone. Instead, in an environment where views on sorting, recycling and the environment have become hotly disputed, and with the special resources available to a financial EPR company, we must find a way of communicating locally without compromising the harmonious national framework or our means of action.

Over the past two years, we at Citeo have therefore been working on this issue of engagement and encouraging people to take action through a consumer empowerment strategy. Our strategy consists of 3 key elements: Giving people who sort their waste a central role and encouraging approaches based on guidelines and ambassadorship. Combined approaches that automatically include actions at grassroots level and revolve around our single public service, the Sorting Guide, offering all sorting guidelines for all municipalities in France in one app;

Encouraging dissemination of solutions: education and knowledge;And involving consumers in overhauling the recycling system. In the lead-up to the Great National Debate, Public Workshops were piloted in 2018 and fed into the debate. They became Citeo's laboratory for social observation and action. Based on the consensus conference method, our aim is to give public consumers a key role in discussions and action on the development of the circular economy

The issues addressed in these Workshops organised and supervised by French pollster BVA to ensure objectivity and methodological rigour, are public and consumer-focused circular economy issues. We listen to participants and ask them to work on concrete individual and collective aspects of sorting in light of these issues. In 2018, 50 public proposals were analysed and shared with all stakeholders. These related to three issues: See slide show SESSION 7 OPPORTUNITIES & CHALLENGES FOR NEW COMERS

Best practices in communication to inhabitants

Monika Romenska

EXPRA, Regulatory & Public Affairs Manager, Avenue des Olympiades 2, 1140 Brussels, Belgium Tel. +32 471 57 17 59, [email protected]

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is an efficient resource management tool whereby producers take over the responsibility for the end-of-life management of their used products. This can include collection, sorting, and treating them for their recycling and recovery. But EPR does not end there: one of its goals is to create a sustainable production and consumption policy.

Respectively, EPR encourages separate waste collection and recycling, as it is often implemented to help Member States to reach their recycling targets. By doing so, EPR also ensures citizens’ cooperation, as they need to separately collect and sort their waste in order to facilitate recycling processes. This entails promoting education and awareness raising campaigns towards consumers, aimed at encouraging separate collection and recycling while discouraging littering.

We in EXPRA strongly believe that EPR organizations should support an environmentally and economically sustainable recycling society, which benefits inhabitants. For that purpose, communication with consumers is a key prerequisite for a successful EPR organization — irrespective of the type of system chosen, selective collection cannot perform up to standard without the consumers’ understanding and involvement. Our 26 members, industry-owned, not-for-profit PROs, for over 20+ years engage in raising awareness about sorting and recycling and generally promoting environmentally friendly behavior among inhabitants, as well as organizing and/or providing support for educational programmes.

Via the link below you can see some of the best examples of these efforts: http://www.expra.eu/en/communication

See slide show SESSION 7 OPPORTUNITIES & CHALLENGES FOR NEW COMERS

Extended Producer Responsibility in the U.S.: Progress and Prospects

Kristin Aldred Cheek

Director, Policy & Programs, Product Stewardship Institute, 1 Beacon Street, Suite 1500, Boston, MA 02108 Tel. + 1 617.236.8293

Full presentation Creating a circular economy, one in which every product is captured for recycling or safe management, will require consumer behavior change on a grand scale, particularly in the U.S. While we simply cannot achieve a circular economy if consumers do not reuse, recycle, or return products, the consumer behavior side of the circular economy challenge has received relatively little attention compared to resource extraction, production, or supply chain issues. What will bring about behavior change? Without a doubt, we would not have gotten as far as we have without communications and education strategies. Awareness and knowledge have had an impact. But we know that there is a persistent gap between people’s knowledge, attitudes, and intention to carry out a behavior and their actual behavior. To achieve behavior change on the scale needed today, we need strategies and tools that take the whole system into account. Attention to the physical environment -- to where and when materials are collected and how the systems around that collection are designed -- is important, as is the design of the products themselves and any signifiers those products include to help direct behavior. This approach shifts the focus away from educating and motivating individuals and places more responsibility on producers and policymakers to make environmentally sustainable behavior simpler and even more automatic. We can look to the public health field for a model for taking a systems view of behavior change. Contemporary public health behavior change initiatives focus less on individuals and more on their environment. For example, to increase physical activity, rather than focusing on people’s attitudes about walking and biking, communities are spending their resources on building safer, more walkable routes and protected bike lanes and changing policies to promote pedestrians and bicycles over cars. The most successful initiatives target multiple levels in a system, from individual knowledge and attitudes, to product design, social norms, design of the built environment (infrastructure, buildings, etc.), and policy. Overall, there’s been recognition in the public health field that it is unfair to ask people to change their behavior when they don’t have ready access to the infrastructure or products needed to support that behavior. A systems perspective hasn’t been widely applied in the environmental behavior field yet, though there are examples of this type of thinking. The inclusion of convenience standards in extended producer responsibility legislation, for example, acknowledges the fact that it’s not enough for people to be aware of take-back locations, those locations need to be easily accessible and even familiar (e.g., locating drug drop-offs at pharmacies rather than police stations). Plastic bag bans that include a fee on paper bags are designed to deter a shift to paper bag use and the associated environmental impacts. Terracycle’s LOOP service with reusable containers is an attempt to return to a time before single-use packaging reigned. What more opportunities are there to support sustainable behavior, particularly for product reuse and take-back? Extended producer responsibility for packaging can create statewide recycling systems with consistent education and branding, which would be an antidote to the confusing hundreds or even thousands of unique programs that exist in each U.S. state today. More uniform recycling systems would also enable producers to label products with instructions that accurately reflect the local availability of recycling infrastructure. Product design changes that make reuse, repair, repurposing, take-back, and recycling easier are another part of the solution, and they can be incentivized with eco- modulated fees. Building product take-back into customer relationships (product-as-service) is another strategy. Persuading people to change their behavior is one part of the equation, but it’s not enough. We need to design a system with products, infrastructure, and policy that support change. SESSION 7 OPPORTUNITIES & CHALLENGES FOR NEW COMERS

Resources

Aldred Cheek, Kristin. A systems-based inquiry into pro-environmental behavior and behavior change across the product lifecycle. (2018) Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Bin, S., & Dowlatabadi, H. (2005). Consumer lifestyle approach to US energy use and the related CO2 emissions. Energy Policy, 33(2), 197–208. French, S. A., Story, M., & Jeffery, R. W. (2001). Environmental influences on eating and physical activity. Annual Review of Public Health, 22(1), 309–335. Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C. (2008). The short list: The most effective actions U.S. households can take to curb climate change. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 50(5), 12–25. Jackson, R. (2003). The impact of the built environment on health: An emerging field. American Journal of Public Health 93, 1382_1384.

Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260. Kurz, T. (2002). The psychology of environmentally sustainable behavior: Fitting together pieces of the puzzle. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 2(1), 257–278. Nisbet, E. K. L., & Gick, M. L. (2008). Can health psychology help the planet? Applying theory and models of health behaviour to environmental actions. Canadian Psychology, 49(4), 296–303. Schultz, P. W. (2014). Strategies for promoting proenvironmental behavior: Lots of tools but few instructions. European Psychologist, 19(2), 107–117. Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309–317. Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424. Winter, D. D. N., & Koger, S. M. (2004). The psychology of environmental problems. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wells, N. M., Evans, G. W., & Yang, Y. (2010). Environments and health: Planning decisions as public-health decisions. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 27(2), 124–143.

See slide show SESSION 7 OPPORTUNITIES & CHALLENGES FOR NEW COMERS

Multi-stream Compliance Organisations Communication in France

Frédéric Hédouin CEO Corepile - CRO for battery recycling P : +33 1 56903093 – Cell phone : + 33 6 75090686 [email protected] Corepile S.A. - 17 rue Georges Bizet - 75 116 Paris

Abstract Since 2015, several local PRO’s (representing up to 12 different waste streams) have initiated a collective project of “photo pedagogical exhibitions” - focused at real life collected waste and recycled materials (or valorization) with impactful key visuals and aligned information messages (top line messages, key figures, did you know?). Over 3 years, 10 cities have exhibited, generating lots of local or national PR and touched up to 1 million visitors! In the upcoming months new cities are on the programme in France but also in China through “Institut Français”… Coordination via Alain Fouray photographer / Infinitum

See slide show SESSION 7 OPPORTUNITIES & CHALLENGES FOR NEW COMERS

Which EPR governance?

Noa Schpitzer Mizrachi

Director of EPR Division State of Israel, Ministry of Environmental Protection Tel. +972 50 6233044, [email protected]

Abstract Israel became a full member of the OECD in 2010, and thus adopted a progressive policy in many areas, including environmental protection. EPR laws — advanced waste management laws —which were first legislated in the early 1990s in Europe, form the model adopted by the State of Israel also because of its membership in the OECD. According to the EPR policy mechanism, the producer's responsibility begins with product design and production in a sustainable manner, and ends with collection of the waste and its recycling, including the financing of this system. However, it can be said with certainty that although EPR laws are a necessary condition for managing the waste market, they are not sufficient conditions alone for managing an optimal waste market. Israel has four EPR laws: The Deposit Law (1999) and the Tire Law (2007), for which there are no PRO's and the responsibility applies directly to the producers and importers, and the Packaging Law (2011) and the WEEE Law (2012), which are relatively new laws for which 3 PRO's have been recognized in Israel to meet the duties of producers and importers of these waste streams. EPR laws impose obligations on various stakeholders with conflicting interests. In addition, in Israel the system is a financial system rather than an operational system. The local authorities have autonomy to deal with their municipal waste. This means that 256 local authorities are all required to carry out separate bids to select waste collection contractors and to receive the expenses refund. It seems that the Israeli financial system is more complex than the operational system. The Israeli legislature thought these complex laws would lead to the regulation of waste treatment throughout its value chain. Or in short - "The laws will do the job." Throughout the implementation of Israel’s EPR laws, mostly in the last decade, it turned out that the assumption was naive. The regulation governing the treatment of these waste streams requires preliminary regulatory actions and complementary actions in the management of the entire value chain. EPR laws define new game rules that relate to environmental protection, as well as public health and safety: SESSION 7 OPPORTUNITIES & CHALLENGES FOR NEW COMERS

Waste collection infrastructure must be included in the array of considerations for this issue. It must be safe to use. Legal and regulatory restrictions on waste exports can be dealt with by public health and safety. Israel has an appropriate protocol for exporting nonhazardous waste to countries which are not members of the OECD. Full control of waste should be sought throughout the whole value chain in order to prevent waste leakage into areas where the State of Israel has no control and can not supervise the treatment of waste. At present, conditions in Israel do not allow full traceability of materials, and we are exposed to cross-border pollution. This is true mainly for the WEEE and tires waste streams. Appropriate treatment standards must be defined and set in a manner that ensures regulation and public safety. Even EPR for glass packaging waste — collection and disposal regulations — contributes to this issue; even if it is not hazardous waste as defined, it can still be harmful to the public. SESSION 7 OPPORTUNITIES & CHALLENGES FOR NEW COMERS

Fair competition in batteries collection

Peter Binnemans

EUCOBAT, European Compliance Organizations for Batteries Excelsiorlaan 91, 1930 Zaventem, Belgium Tel. +32 2 720 40 80, [email protected]

Introduction The compliance organizations (or extended producer responsibility schemes) form an essential part of efficient waste management. The number of compliance organizations, their size, structure, effectiveness and performance differ significantly between Member States, as their strategy is to a large extent defined or influenced by specific country regulations and the local market forces. In general terms, competition is welcomed by the European Union and represents a good driver for efficiency and continuous improvement. Nevertheless, an unregulated competition between compliance organizations, the efforts of competing to collect the batteries at the lowest costs and the focus on high performing collection points could create unfair market conditions and important disadvantages for the environment and for consumers. Evaluation Eucobat fully adheres to the principles of free and fair competition. In general, a competitive system with multiple competitors leads to an improvement of efficiency and innovation and to a greater choice for the producers of the batteries. There are however some risks linked to an unregulated competition. As convenience for the consumer when disposing of batteries is a key success factor for the collection of discarded batteries, providing and servicing a dense network of collection points is of the utmost importance. But the harder the competition, the more the efforts of competing schemes to collect the batteries at the lowest costs will prevent the development of a nationwide collection network with a service for all collection points. The focus will be in this case on high performing collection points and on battery chemistries with a positive residual value (e.g. lead batteries) instead of collection points in poorer populated regions and battery chemistries with a (high) negative residual value (e.g. alkaline or lithium batteries). A system managed by one single compliance organization can focus on quality besides the cost element. It also ensures greater transparency as the communication towards consumers, collection points, companies and member states is unique and thus coherent. For the operational costs, this system creates economies of scale, which will bring it greater negotiating power when issuing tenders for operational tasks, such as logistics, sorting and recycling. This negotiation position can result in competitive prices, which will benefit the cost efficiency of the system. A potential risk of a mono compliance organization with a non-profit status is the lack of challenge from the market, which could result in less efficiency in the long term. The well-considered composition of supervisory boards can contribute to keeping compliance schemes dynamic and efficient. A supervisory board composed entirely of producers will always strive for competitive prices for the services offered. SESSION 7 OPPORTUNITIES & CHALLENGES FOR NEW COMERS

Eucobat Position Eucobat fully adheres to the principles of free and fair competition. A level playing field with uniform standards is required to ensure this fair competition. In order to ensure a high level of efficiency and performance, and taking into account the specificities of each country, member states need to ensure that: All waste batteries are collected, including the batteries with a negative residual value and those discarded in poorer populated regions. Cherry picking is avoided, as well related to the battery chemistries as to the collection points. Communication is a shared responsibility of all compliance organizations and all producers, that are accountable for a contribution. A collection network with sufficient collection points ensures the consumer convenience. Each compliance organization and each producer makes the necessary efforts, so the mix of waste batteries collected corresponds to the mix of batteries put on the market by him or by the affiliated producers. To this extent and to ensure fair competition between producers, compliance schemes, and suppliers, nationwide coordination is required without distorting the competition between the schemes. This could be realized by a national coordinating body that coordinates and monitors the respect of the uniform standards for collection of waste batteries and communication to consumers. This coordinating body should be jointly managed and financed by all the compliance organizations and report to the national authorities.

About Eucobat Eucobat aisbl is the European association of national collection schemes for batteries. They assure that all waste batteries are collected and recycled in an ecologically sound way, and in this way contribute to a better environment

See slide show SESSION 7 OPPORTUNITIES & CHALLENGES FOR NEW COMERS

EPR design

Christophe Pautrat

EUROPEAN RECYCLING PLATFORM, Président 62 rue Saint-Lazare, 75 009 Paris, France Tel. +33 1 71 32 39 40, [email protected]

Full Presentation EPR systems have been developing at a steady pace around the globe, with an increasing share of the world population covered. While the environmental and economic merits of such systems do not trigger significant theoretical debate anymore, there is still no consensus as to what an efficient and effective EPR system is or should be. A quick scan of ERP systems currently in place will reveal a variety of models at play, often at odds with each other. This can be very confusing for policy makers who want to establish producers’ responsibility in their country or for manufacturers and importers who are preparing a response to such initiatives or considering embarking upon a voluntary stewardship program.

There are at least a dozen dimensions that contribute to shape an EPR model: • Product market • Waste market • Raw materials market • Competition • Profit • Permit • Taxation (tax or entrepreneurial model) • Business model (financial / operational) • Visible fee • Pricing model (Put On Market / Activity Based) • Territory • Stakeholders role (State, producers, retailers, operators, consumers…) • Targets / Enforcement • Governance • Innovation Debating the respective merits of a position in some of above dimensions can result in endless discussions. Regardless, any EPR initiative will have to make related decisions and that will impact drastically the ramp-up and the performance of the EPR solution. . Let’s dive into each of these dimensions. EPR revolves around 3 distinct markets which drive the performance of the entire system: the product market for which the EPR solution is designed, the waste collection and treatment market, which conditions how operations can take place and the raw materials market which impact the overall cost of the designed solution. SESSION 7 OPPORTUNITIES & CHALLENGES FOR NEW COMERS

Products market The quantitative dimension of the products market has to be understood, as well as its the details of its segmentation. In parallel, a careful review of its structure, in particular with regards to the main players (manufacturers? Importers? Online Platforms?) and how many they are should be made. The cross analysis of the product segments and players is relevant as well to ensure a balanced system is set-up. Product lifecycle is also an element to be considered: for instance, how quickly does a product reach the end of its first life, how likely the producer might not exist anymore once the product becomes waste, whether the product has from inception a potential for reuse and what are the environmental impacts at each stage of the life cycle.

Waste market The market for waste collection, treatment and preparation for reuse may already be well established, or not. In the first case, existing waste operators could be involved as partners of the EPR systems in order to enable their full participation. In the latter case, there may be a need, through regulations, to foster investment in that field and to take into account when applicable the informal economy sector for whom EPR can be as much a threat as an opportunity for professionalisation.

Raw materials market While the reuse market is developing in Western Europe, an important part of discarded products are still recycled today and the process entails producing and trading output fractions. Is there a market for such output fractions? Is it a local or a global market? What are the opportunities for closing the loop and using such fractions in the industry?

Territory EPR designers must take into account whether the markets onto which they will operate are local, regional or global. For instance, even in a strictly local product market, it may be necessary to export the waste collected for proper treatment for example because of non-existence of high quality and efficient recycling options in the local market. Policies shall not prevent this provided the export is for proper recycling. Moreover, and also as required by the Waste Framework Directive §8a EPR designers need to approach the full national market not only the regions their customers sell to (= no cherry picking).

Competition This is a much-debated topic with strong proponents of competition between several PROs arguing with similarly convinced proponents of monopoly. EPR exists in either form, and in shades in between. There is strong evidence that competition can boost innovation and drive performance upwards while moderating the cost to society, while monopolies can grow complacent over time. However, under poorly drafted regulations and weak enforcement, both result in lower EPR effectiveness, with rogue players exploiting the loopholes. Producers often feedback that in a competitive PRO market they receive a suitable level of service and have an actual ability to take part in the EPR governance through their purchasing decisions. Regulatory authorities will ponder on the merits of a competitive landscape (where achieving their national targets is not falling on single player) vs. the effort to assure a level playing field among PROs. SESSION 7 OPPORTUNITIES & CHALLENGES FOR NEW COMERS

Profit Another source of debate is whether PRO should be for profit or not. Advocates of profit-making PRO will argue that it drives operational performance, while supporters of non-for-profit PRO underline the fact that search for profit could on the contrary lead PRO to make decisions at odd with their mission, for instance by reducing quality levels or collection volume (depending on their pricing model). Some stakeholders also take a moral stance on this topic. On the other hand, history shows that also non-for profit setups might pile up significant reserves that are misused instead of investing into innovation. Moreover, a strict non-for-profit obligation might hinder the most innovative organizations to enter this market. Here again, the policy framework with clear performance criteria assuring entrepreneurial flexibility and a level playing field is key combined with an effective enforcement of those.

Permit Permits are not strictly needed to operate a PRO and stewardship organizations exist without such framework, either because they operate in a voluntary manner, or within a convention with relevant authorities or simply under the regulations. This is clearly a domain which relates to the regulatory culture of the territory where the EPR system is established. Advantages of a permit process is that is usually allow for more detailed description than a piece of regulation, and therefore clarifies expectations and the old do’s and don’ts. Also, a permit is a strong incentive for a PRO to run their processes always in a compliant way, because losing it would eliminate their business base. Main disadvantage lies in the administrative efforts and the quality of the prose: too vague and it does not offer much guidance, too detailed and it can hinder innovation, performance and actually target achievement.

Governance Should PRO be owned by obligated producers? Should they be controlled by obligated producers? This is often seen as a way to fully implement EPR. However, from a producer perspective, having the choice of how to comply can make a lot of sense. Not all producers, in effect, actively participate in the governance of PRO (board rooms have some capacity limits…), and some would rather buy a service from a PRO operating as a business rather than a club. Some would also argue that producer governance could result in aiming at just attaining targets rather than exceeding them. In addition and in particular large PROs would have so many individual internal stakeholders that its is practically impossible for an individual producer to fulfil its role governing the scheme. In fact, history shows that because of this, producers can lose control over their own organization they shall govern. In setups were only few producers take the lead by a role as owner or board etc. they assume additional work and hence a competitive disadvantage. Here less active producers would be forced to “freeride” on the governance. Hence, most producers prefer to contract a service provider and execute their governing role by choosing the best performing PRO, while this would not prevent others to setup their own solution fully controlled by them.

Taxation (tax or entrepreneurial model) EPR can take various shapes. While at core it would mean for each producer to sustain all and only its products’ end-of-life costs in order to be incentivized to design product with less environmental impact, economies of scales and the need for better control drive many EPR projects into collective solutions (Producer Responsibility Organization - PRO). PRO charge a service fee to participating producers for the work done under this framework. Such service fees are sometimes perceived as tantamount to taxation by obligated producers (especially when they have no bargaining power). But outright taxation may also be a solution considered to ensure proper and equitable collection among participants, with the risk of such taxes being diverted for other use than the one originally intended. Such approach might prove beneficial in a mostly importer market where customs could ensure fees collection for distribution among PRO or other eligible participants. SESSION 7 OPPORTUNITIES & CHALLENGES FOR NEW COMERS

Business model (financial / operational) Financial EPR is basically a system where PROs are distributing the fees to incumbent players, typically civic amenities, logistic companies, sorting facilities and waste operators / recyclers. It is considered advantageous by some stakeholders as it does not disrupt an operational status quo, while allowing stewards to exercise their responsibility (albeit financially only). On the other hand, operational EPR generates a transfer of operational responsibility to PRO. While most do not invest in tangible assets, like trucks or treatment sites, they design the reverse chain they want to operate, they select the service providers and control the quality and the performance of operations. It gives more control to PRO, and therefore more opportunities to implement changes and innovate.

Visible fee Visible fee can be understood as simply displaying an information about the cost of end of life management or as a way to inform, and thus transfer it down to customers, up to, possibly the end user of the product. An information-only visible will allow to raise awareness, while a transferable visible fee allows for unloading part or all of the environmental cost onto stakeholders other than producers themselves. This somewhat defeats the purpose of EPR, and it is usually seen either as a stance to involve financially all that derive a profit from the product sale (e.g. retailers) or to deal with the burden of historical waste in the early stages of an EPR system. Besides this, a visible fee requires significant administrative burden for producers and retailers. Any change in the fee needs to be communicated far in advance along the whole value chain requiring changes in catalogues, websites and in the shops, what could also create environmental impacts if catalogues need to be disposed. And since producers hesitate to do this effort, a visible fee can turn being anti-competitive since they would avoid changing for PROs having other prices. At the same time, PROs need to price very conservatively to avoid losses since they can’t change their prices easily, what leads to additional surpluses. Consequently, besides the positive impact of awareness raising, EPR without visible fee will make it easier to incentivize producers to design products with less administrative and negative environmental impact.

Pricing model (Put on Market / Activity Based) While it is not often addressed at regulatory level, the choice of the pricing model is relevant for both producers and PRO. There are two main pricing models available to PRO: pricing in proportion of the products placed on the market (either by unit or weight) and pricing in proportion of the operations performed during a given period. Typically, activity-based pricing is truer to the actual costs, while Put On Market pricing simplifies fees modulation and is easier to budget for producers. Both can be combined together and with other price components (like membership fees for instance). Each model has its merits and its flaws. In a greenfield environment, when forecast is poor or collection volumes are low, securing part of all of the funding of a PRO through upfront payment makes sense.

Stakeholders role (state, producers, retailers, operators, consumers…) It is absolutely necessary to define clearly and unequivocally the role of each stakeholder in an EPR system. During the diagnosis established prior to establishing a EPR scheme the interests and position of each stakeholder should be carefully reviewed and the main drivers of their activities integrated into the EPR scheme design. This leads to a number of decisions where the ultimate goal should not be forgotten. Will the regulatory authority micromanage the PRO or let them work towards clear targets? Do retailers share responsibilities with producers? Do local authorities have any particular role? Can waste operators collect and treat waste in parallel to the PROs’ scope of actions? Which rules and standards shall waste operators follow? Which role have PROs in enforcement e.g. on the control of producer reports? How to make sure consumers contribute to separate collection and enforce this? SESSION 7 OPPORTUNITIES & CHALLENGES FOR NEW COMERS

Targets / Enforcement The clearer the targets, the easier the control and the enforcement. And no law will have the expected impact, if enforcement lacks. There are multiple EPR regulations that fail to reach their targets. It is sometimes due to poor targets setting, or contradicting targets (and ancillary targets hindering the achievement of the main targets), or excessive focus on the how rather than the what. Targets outside the scope of EPR are sometimes squeezed in an EPR regulation draft as a way to mollify particular stakeholders. Regularly reviewed, stretch but realistic targets are also key to stimulate continued innovation and investment by providing the required investment security. Lack of enforcement is actually quite frequent, it can be a deliberate stance, especially in an early stage of an EPR system, but can have other root causes: lack of resources, lack of intent or conflict of interest in the EPR scheme governance.

Innovation Beside dealing with the waste at hand, designing an EPR solution also involve clarifying the ambition in terms of future waste reduction and recyclability development. Modulated fees, provided they affect the producers bottom line, may be an effective incentive for green design. While there is no universal perfect model applicable to all situations, some combinations will perform better under some circumstances. It is possible for a country or a trade association to narrow down the options in their respective context until a workable, effective setup up can be designed. This process is better conducted with the external support of experienced professionals who have developed expertise in the operation of various models. Irrespective of the selected solution, the following principles should guide the drafting process for most if not all EPR projects: Set smart targets

• Set targets that are clearly defined, stretch, but also achievable for both collection and recycling of waste

• Define transparent, applicable and harmonised methods for the calculation of target achievements

• Define harmonized quality standards for secondary raw materials and align waste, products and chemicals legislation

• Stop subsidies for linear materials and processes hindering the implementation of circular solutions

• Fully utilize design requirements

• Accelerate and enforce the ban on landfill

• Restrict the incineration of recyclable waste Ensure a level playing field • Assure clear and harmonised minimum requirements for EPR • Combat free-riding on the EPR obligations by reducing the complexity of administrative requirements and allowing a straightforward implementation in particular for SME and importers • Impose sufficiently high and enforceable financial incentives (e.g. through modulated fees) based on a fair and EU-wide harmonized methodology and accepted evidence documentation SESSION 7 OPPORTUNITIES & CHALLENGES FOR NEW COMERS

Empower consumers Explain to consumers their power and how each individual can make a difference in the transition towards a circular economy, e.g. through children education and awareness raising campaigns • Provide transparent and verified information on the recyclability and reusability of products and packaging • Empower consumers to correctly dispose of their waste products and packaging • Foster new ways of consumption which are based on the principle of sharing rather than on the principle of ownership Harmonize rules • Assure a stable policy framework to guarantee investment security • Reduce legal complexity and administrative burden through harmonisation of rules and processes • Harmonize all provisions with regard to product design for a true impact, such as criteria for modulated fees, the use of markings, consumer information delivered with the product, or design requirements considering the global or EU internal market • Set up clear, transparent and practical roles and responsibilities for all relevant actors involved • Facilitate entrepreneurship and enable businesses to develop and implement innovative ideas • Remove monopolistic and protectionist structures as well as other legislative and non-legislative barriers that hinder EPR performance • Promote cooperation between competing businesses where reasonable, e.g. in the field of research and development, awareness raising campaigns, clearing mechanisms for EPR schemes or modulated fees Ensure effective enforcement • Implement effective enforcement especially with regard to compliance with and of EPR schemes, collection quality from consumers and municipalities, recycling quality, treatment standards and uncontrolled waste flows • Assure enforceability of targets and obligations • Set up independent national authorities which operate producer registries, monitor compliance of all actors, and ensure proper implementation of EPR • Intensify cross-border cooperation and mutual support among states, e.g. through global “enforcement networks” Promote research and development • Regularly assign sufficient public budgets for research and development in order to foster innovation • Use penalty payments obtained through non-compliance with existing rules and provisions as source for public research and development funds • Redirect state subsidies from linear businesses to innovative circular businesses and research and development • Support start-ups to incubate new ideas and “out of the box” thinking and facilitate the communication around to get attention and engagement of potential applicants See slide show By applying these principles and paying a careful attention to the characteristics of the considered scope, decision-makers will maximise their chances to achieve a successful implementation and development of their EPR solution. SESSION 7 OPPORTUNITIES & CHALLENGES FOR NEW COMERS

WEEE directive & collection target

Mark Dempsey

Sustainability – WEEE HP. Cain Rd, Amen Corner, Binfield, United-Kingdom Tel. +44 (0)7890 411638, [email protected]

Abstract

• Suggested question: What does the WEEE Directive tell us about setting collection targets and measuring collection rates? • Setting Collection Targets: Lessons for EPR from the EU WEEE Directive • The WEEE Directive sets a new collection target of 65% of EEE placed on the market, to be achieved by 2019 • Research in several Member States has revealed that there are large flows of WEEE beyond the Producer take back systems. • In April 2008 the combined Dutch WEEE recycling systems published a research report that showed that out of a total of 18.5 kg of WEEE that is generated per inhabitant per year, 14.8 kg (80%) is recycled but only 5.7kg (31%) is recycled by the producer funded WEEE systems, with the majority of WEEE recycled by commercial collectors. • A study by UNU in 2012 found similar results for the Netherlands with 75% - 80% of WEEE being collected but only 36% reaching producers WEEE recycling systems. • In the UK a study by WRAP found that only half of the WEEE treated was recorded through the WEEE compliance schemes. • Research by Magalini etal (2012) showed that in Italy 69% of WEEE is collected when accounting for all flows. • A study by Okopol of WEEE flows in Germany found that only 32% of WEEE reached producers recycling systems but accounting for all flows 82% is collected. • WEEE is collected by retailers, recyclers, and municipalities and recycled for profit. This activity is driven by the economic value of WEEE. • If collection rates are only measures based on WEEE collected by producers schemes, it is clear that the high collection targets within the WEEE Directive would be very difficult to achieve. • This has led to the EU agreeing that All WEEE Flows must be measured by Member States in order to reach their collection targets. • The EU Commissions FAQ answer 7.6 states: Member States are required to collect information on WEEE collected through all routes. This means that Member States should adopt measures to involve all actors in WEEE collection and to receive information on the quantities and categories of WEEE collected through all routes.” • Member States are now measuring All WEEE Flows through a variety of mechanisms. • Future EPR policies should ensure that high collection targets must be accompanied by comprehensive data collection, or alternatively percentage targets should be replaced by targets based on creating a convenient collection network. See slide show SESSION 7 OPPORTUNITIES & CHALLENGES FOR NEW COMERS

Management of solid waste streams in Algeria

Fatma Zohra Barca

Director of Integrated Waste Management, National Waste Agency, Ministry of Environment & Renewable Energies, Algeria

Abstract The 2015 national constitution, through articles 66 and 68, clearly expresses the importance of protecting public health and the right to a healthy environment. Hence the political will and priority given by public authorities to promote sound and integrated waste management. To this end, the country has made considerable efforts over the past two decades both in the management of household and assimilated waste and in the management of industrial waste. In this context, several key actions and achievements have been achieved, including: A regulatory framework initiated by the framework law n°01-19 of 12 December 2001 on waste management, control and disposal, in other words the framework law that regulates the waste sector as a whole; An institutional framework that defines the tasks, in particular, of the Ministry of the Environment and Renewable Energy (MEER) as well as those bodies under supervision, including the National Waste Agency. The latter is in charge of implementing the national policy for integrated waste management. The development and implementation of two programmes aimed at clarifying the multiple aspects of a coherent and progressive implementation of waste: the National Integrated Municipal Waste Management Programme (PROGDEM), and the National Plan for the Management of Special Waste (PNAGDES). Significant investments between 2002 and 2017 for collection and transport equipment and for the construction of infrastructure dedicated to treatment (TEC, Sorting Centre, Waste Facility, etc.). The first national strategy for integrated waste management by 2035, based on highly qualitative aspects with the involvement of the various stakeholders. This strategy provides for various policy measures to achieve integrated waste management in Algeria by 2035 with a transition to a circular economy, which cannot be implemented without organising the sectors. In this context, a chapter of the strategy was devoted to Extended Producer Responsibility, which can be an economic instrument that will make producers responsible for the waste they place on the market, i.e. the polluter-pays principle. Bearing in mind that this principle is already established in framework law 01-19, which places the responsibility on waste generators to take the necessary measures to ensure, or to have ensured at their own expense, the ecological disposal of their waste. To this end, the current regulations have provided three options for generators to meet their obligation: • Set up their own take-back and recovery system; • Entrust the management of their packaging to an approved organisation; • Adhere to the public system for the take-back and recovery of packaging waste "Eco-Jem". SESSION 8

EPR AND INSULARITY SESSION 8 WASTE TRANSFER & REGIONAL COOPERATION

EPR in French Overseas Territories

Christiane Albert

CEO, SICR/GREEN

Christelle Diochot-Despois

Director, C2D Consulting SESSION 8 WASTE TRANSFER & REGIONAL COOPERATION

Abstract

The EPR sectors must be implemented throughout France, including the overseas territories where the environmental code applies (Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guyana, Reunion, Mayotte, Saint- Martin, St. Pierre and Miquelon); The rise of the PWR sectors in these territories, however, is hampered by difficulties arising from local contexts that require appropriate responses. This is the reason why ADEME, the public authorities and eco- organizations took up the issue in June 2014 to set up a strategy for the deployment of the EPR sectors in the overseas territories. The work carried out as part of the mission to support the establishment of the EPR sector in the overseas territories led to the development of an action plan to increase the separate collection of waste sent to a PWR sector in the different territories, reduce costs, and relocate in these territories, wherever possible, the value chain of treatment solutions as part of a co-construction involving overseas stakeholders. To effectively implement and monitor this action plan, regional inter-stakeholder platforms (inter-DOM) will be developed by major area (Indian Ocean and Caribbean). ,. These platforms will spur proposals, development of innovation, and coordination of resources. In order to fulfill its performance objectives, the existing REP networks, supported by ADEME, wish to set up an inter-DOM collaborative platform. The objective of such a sector is to increase existing performance levels, which are currently considered insufficient. It will be necessary to elicit a real force of local proposals to enable development of innovation and to coordinate existing resources and capacity. The company C2D CONSULTING has been selected by the EO to fulfill this mission. At the same time, “Entreprise et Environnement” in Martinique, “ACORPE” in French Guyana, and SICR in La Réunion are working together to set up such projects in their respective territories. The overall project aims to bring together the specific knowledge of each territory by providing a strategic response for the effective implementation of all existing and future EPR schemes. The project is divided into 6 axes: 1. Promote local solutions for recovery, including energy recovery 2. The objectives are to allow the development of local preprocessing operations whenever possible. 3. Promote reuse and reuse 4. This is to identify the actors of the SSE and to encourage the implementation of the action plan by the Eco- organisms by initiating for example, feasibility studies, or by accompanying the partners (public or private) in editing and helping to define the terms of partnerships. 5. Support the development of inter-DROM-COM transport SESSION 8 WASTE TRANSFER & REGIONAL COOPERATION

NEOLINE for exemplary maritime transport

Captain Michel PERY

Chairman NEOLINE SAS 60 bd. du Maréchal JUIN 44000 NANTES [email protected]

Abstract NEOLINE, pioneer ship-owner, responds to the necessary energy transition with an innovative logistic solution which is industrial, competitive, ecological and independent from energy prices. The team is composed of experts with a strong merchant marine background. NEOLINE made strong technical and commercial positioning: Wind will be the main propulsive energy. It is a strong and free energy, available most of time in most of places. Optimized commercial speed of 11 knots allows to drastically reduce the needed propulsion energy. To achieve the 90% consumption reduction, the team had to be closely involved in ships design, as well as in the commercial development in order to secure an efficient logistical tool. Only already industrialized equipments and technologies are adopted. In the next 10 years, very promising solutions will be available to reach true 0 emission shipping. The first “pilot-line”, will link poorly connected harbours, without direct competition with existing services. This positioning leads to a strong territorial anchorage, very interesting for local industries. Ships will be specialized in oversized ro-ro cargoes. This new service will allow a good global profitability. This service is also particularly suitable for overseas territories, where logistic massification is not possible. As an example, the pilot-line will innovatively link St-Pierre to St-Nazaire in 9 days, local authorities are interested to export all kind of wastes without having to transit through foreign countries. After showing a successful operation on the pilot line, same or bigger ships will be deployed. Pilot ship “NEOLINER 136” particulars: Ro-Ro ship, 136 meters x 24,20 meters, 4 masts ( 2 pairs of duplex), 8 sails ( total of 4200 m2), 4000 kW of Diesel/electrical, air draft 65 meters reducible to 40.5 meters by folding the masts, water draft 13 meters reducible to 5.5 meters by folding the anti-drifting fins, cargo capacity 5000 tons or 1500 meters lane or 283 TEUs, commercial speed 11 knts, crew 14, 12 passengers. Pilot-line: Regular round-trip between Saint Nazaire – Bilbao – Charleston – Baltimore – Saint Pierre et Miquelon – Saint Nazaire for a total duration of 1 month, with 2 ships allowing a departure every 2 weeks. Achievements: NEOLINE is currently seeking funding for the pilot-line, negotiating with various actors and investors. See slide show NEOLINE SAS hold Letters Of Interest from shippers, with quantities and prices for more than 1 ship. NEOLINE SAS is currently in negotiation with the shipyard. Timeframe : The first “NEOLINER 136” in service end of 2021 / the second “NEOLINER 136” in service 2022 SESSION 8 WASTE TRANSFER & REGIONAL COOPERATION

Nicolas Imbert

Green Cross France et Territoires 33 rue Chaptal, 92 300 Levallois, France +33 1 84 16 07 89

Abstract Green Cross France and Territories provides keys for action, solutions to switch effectively from vulnerability to resilience. The organization inspire, impulse and develop tangible ecological transformation at territorial scale, via water seashores and ocean, food, energy and sustainable cities, circular economy, cooperation and solidarity. In the scope of circular economy, Green Cross was via Nicolas Imbert Founding Member of the National Institute of Circular Economy, is on the Steering Committee of the French National Circular Economy Roadmap, and published in 2015 "circular economy : Keys to Action ", dedicated to local government and business decision-makers. Green Cross has also carried out numerous projects and trainings, in France and internationally, regarding the implementation of circular economy, on land and at sea, and how to reach via Circular economy tangible impact on a territory, in multiple dimensions such as resources, employment, innovation, economy, environment, society...

Said Maoulana Mohamed

Foreign Affairs , Comoros Islands

See slide show SESSION 8 CIRCULAR ECONOMY & INSULARITY

Textile & circular economy

Alain Claudot

CEO ECO TLC

The French roadmap and circular economy law

Stéphanie Kerbarh

Member of Parliament Seine-Maritime SESSION 8 WHAT FUTURE FOR EPR & PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP

Jacques Vernier

Chairman of the national EPR commission Former Mayor, European and French MP

Hugo Veil

SG of Climates