1. THE ORGANISATION OF THE COLLECTION OF MUNICIPAL WASTE Jean-Pierre Hannequart Directeur Général IBGE / President ACR+ KIEV, 26 november 2013

2. PLAN WHY TO COLLECT ? MINIMUM LEGAL FRAMEWORK KEY- TECHNICAL ORGANISATIONAL ASPECTS FINANCIAL ASPECTS/COSTS- FUNDING MSW COLLECTION PERFORMANCE

3. WHY TO COLLECT HSW? Public health Environment (pollution +ressources) Socio-Economic development

4. WASTE COLLECTION JOBS / THE CASE OF BELGIUM Public sector - Private sector BRUX. 890 806 84 WALLON. 1410 1127 283 FLANDRE 3481 2061 1420 TOTAL 5781

5. MINIMUM LEGAL FRAMEWORK (a) Repartition of Responsabilities Management Obligations Costs Imputation Minimum Separate Collection Obligations

6. REPARTITION OF RESPONSABILITIES : The principle of local authorities competence ( with the help-planning of regional and/or national authorities) The municipality should determine appropriate roles for the public and private sectors. The collection system may be operated by (1) a municipal department, (2) a contracted private firm or firms, or (3) a combination of public and private haulers. Regardless of the management options chosen, a clear organizational structure and repartition of responsabilities should be developed…by MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES MINIMUM LEGAL FRAMEWORK (b)

7. MANAGEMENT OBLIGATION (cfr art.15§1) … any original waste producer or other holder carries out the treatment of waste himself or has the treatment handle by a dealer or an establishment or undertaking which carries out waste treatment operations or arranged by a private or public waste collector MINIMUM LEGAL FRAMEWORK (c)

8. COSTS IMPUTATION / cfr ART.14 Directive 2008/98 : …the costs of waste management shall be borne by the original waste producer or by the current or previous waste holders. Member States may decide that the costs of waste management are to be borne partly or wholly by the producer of the product from which the waste came and that the distributors of such product may share these costs. MINIMUM LEGAL FRAMEWORK (d)

9. SEPARATE COLLECTION OBLIGATIONS /cfr Art. 11/Directive 2008/98: … by 2015 separate collection shall be set up for at least the following: paper, metal, plastic and glass. …subject to technical, environmental & economical practicability Art. 22: MS shall take measures, as appropriate,…to encourage the separate collection of bio-waste with a view to the composting and digestion… « Bio-waste » =biodegradable garden and park waste, food and kitchen waste…and comparable waste from food processing plants MINIMUM LEGAL FRAMEWORK (e)

10. SPECIFIC COLLECTION/RECYCLING TARGET : WEEE : 4KG/inhab/year (Dir.2002/96) BATTERIES : 25% in 2012 and 45% in 2016 (Dir.2006/66) ---- (PACKAGING : recycling rate of 55-80% in 2008 - minimum 60% for glass and for paper-cardboard - minimum 50% for metal - minimum 22,5% for plastic - minimum 15% for wood (Dir.1994/62 modifiée par 2004/12) MINIMUM LEGAL FRAMEWORK (f)

11. KEY ORGANISATIONNAL ASPECTS (a) Bins / Bags / Containers Collection vehicules Point and frequency of collection Collection routes Storage/Treatment Labour management (informal sector/ social economy) Citizens involment … Event Title, Date

12. KEY ORGANISATIONNAL ASPECTS(b) NUMBER AND CATEGORIES OF SEPARATION AT SOURCE: -GLASS / PAPER -PACKAGING (PLASTIC-METAL-BEVERAGE CARTONS)…AND SIMILAR MATERIALS -BIOWASTE -BULKY ( TEXTILES / WEEE / FURNITURE /OTHERS -PRODUCTS  WASTE

13. FINANCIAL ASPECTS / COSTS (a) Cost for Municipal Waste Management in France 2010 (Euros/tonnes): Full cost : 214 Technical cost : 204 Cost Repartition: -Treatment :42% -Collection :48% Event Title, Date

14. FINANCIAL ASPECTS /COSTS (b) Cost of Residual Waste Collection – Euro/HHLD (EUNOMIA) URB RUR GE 30 40 GR 32 57 UK 31 45 Event Title, Date

15. FINANCIAL ASPECTS /COSTS (c) Waste Cost (62 French Medium Cities) Low High Medium Door to Door 49 162 117 Déchetterie 49 129 86 Landfilling 48 95 74 Incineration 73 133 98 (-5) Storting for Recyc. 80 309 162 (-211)

16. There is a choice of funding methods : -property taxes -waste service fees -user-based fees -PAYT / REP FINANCIAL ASPECTS / FUNDING (a)

17. Splitting of tariffs · Partly Stable income · Prevention adverse effects Billing Parameters · Volume · Frequency · Weight Container dependent systems · Bags : stickers or pay-bags · Individual bins : size or weight many different systems of “ PAY AS YOU TROW” FINANCIAL ASPECTS / FUNDING (b)

18. WHAT IS THE PRODUCERS’ CONTRIBUTION ? …WITH THE BELGIAN EPR SYSTEM FOR HOUSEHOLD PACKAGING (FOSTPLUS) / million Euro 2011 Packaging Responsible/ 64 Value of material for recycling /64  128  105 : for collection and sorting 10: General 5,5 : for Regional Authority expenses 5,5 : for communication FostPlus 1,5 : for prevention / quality control

19. MSW COLLECTION PERFORMANCE (a) AUSTRIA GERMANY BELGIUM NETHERLANDS SWEDEN PORTUGAL GREECE 70% 66% 60% 55% 20% 18% 2009 RECYCLING RATE

20. 11/02/200920 Source : EUROSTAT (2007) PACKAGING RECYCLING IN THE EU MSW COLLECTION PERFORMANCE (b)

21. GRAPHIC PAPER COLLECTION RATE 2008 SUEDE : 85% ALLEMAGNE 75% UK 69% ESPAGNE 64% BELGIQUE 59% FRANCE 48% Source:Ernst and Young /Benchmark collecte des fibreux /mars 2011 MSW COLLECTION PERFORMANCE (c)

22. GLASS COLLECTION FOR RECYCLING (2010) EU-27 : 67% Belgium 95% Bulgaria 34% France 67% Germany 81% Spain 56% Etc….cfr « www.feve.org/StatsFolder MSW COLLECTION PERFORMANCE (d)

23. LOOK AT LRAS PERFORMANCES MSW COLLECTION PERFORMANCE

24. Gulledelle 100 1200 Brussels 32.2.775.76.02 jphannequart@environnement.irisnet.be