1. FORUM BUSINESS MAGAZINE Bucharest June 15, 2010 Henri Meiresonne President PRO Europe 15.06.20101

2. Membership 2009 Sweden Poland Germany France Spain Portugal Ireland Norway Latvia Belgium Austria Hungary Greece Luxembourg Turkey Lithuania Slovenia Czech Republic Slovakia Cyprus Great Britain Malta Bulgaria Estonia Romania Ukraine Finland Iceland Netherlands Canada Croatia Italy 15.06.20102

3. 33 compliance schemes active in 33 countries in 2008 of which 26 use the Green Dot About 150,000 companies are licensees / members of the PRO EUROPE member systems More than 480 billion packaging items have been labeled with the Green Dot More than 565 million inhabitants live in PRO EUROPE member countries More than 310 million inhabitants have access to separate collection of PRO EUROPE member systems More than 23 million tons of packaging have been recovered by PRO EUROPE member systems in 2008 = saving of 25 million tons CO2 emissions More than 2.1 million tons of plastic packaging have been recycled by PRO EUROPE member systems in 2008 Facts and Figures (2008/2009) 3

4. 15.06.2010 1994: European Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste (1994, revised 2004) Extended Producer Responsibility = extending the responsibility of producers to the end-of-life of their packages ≠ financial responsibility balanced sharing of responsibilities close cooperation between all parties concerned Partnership as a key to success! Basis = European Packaging Directive 4

5. Old DirectiveNew Directive (February 2004) Deadline for allto 30.06.2001to 31.12.2008 for new members2005 - 2009to 31.12.2012 – 2015 RecoveryMin.: 50%Min.: 60% RecyclingMin.: 25%Min.: 55% Recycling specific Materials GlassMin.: 15%Min.: 60% PaperMin.: 15%Min.: 60% MetalMin.: 15%Min.: 50% PlasticMin.: 15%Min.: 22.5% WoodMin.: -Min.: 15% 15.06.2010 Revision of the Packaging Directive 94/62/EG 5

6. 15.06.2010 In each country, the challenges are to reach the directive targets in a cost effective way On the European level, the main challenge is to bring the new(er) members up to the levels achieved by the old(er) members - Challenges 6

7. Recycling percentages 2007 in Europe n.a. 15.06.2010 Country Performance: Overall Recycling Quotas in 2007(%) 7 Belgium. Austria Germany Czech Republic Luxembourg United Kingdom Slovakia Netherlands Ireland Sweden France Denmark Italie Portugal Bulgaria Spain Estonia Poland GreeceHungary Lithuania Latvia RomaniaSlovania

8. 15.06.2010 Fost Plus: EPR-scheme in Belgium Has performant results Considered as being cost-efficient 8

9. Belgium: Treatment of household packaging 15.06.2010 The recycling percentage seems to have reached a ceiling 9

10. Parties responsible for packaging (fillers) (Inter)municipalities Recyclers Waste management companies IPC Accreditation Verification How does the system work ? 15.06.201010

11. Cost of the system (for 10.8 million inhabitants and 94% recycling rate) Packaging Responsibles Sale of material (producers, private label for recycling retailers, importers) 75 Mio EUR 38 Mio EUR 113 Mio EUR Collecting and sorting Communication General expenses (incl. intermun. adm.) (incl. litter)Fost Plus 95 Mio EUR 9 Mio EUR 9 Mio EUR 15.06.201011

12. Cost of the system Cost to the citizen = - 75 Mio EUR Green Dot fees (incl. in price of products) - 8 Mio purchase of “blue bag” for light fraction = total 83 Mio EUR = 8 EUR per inhabitant per year 15.06.201012

13. Cost of the system Cost to the industry Examples of Green Dot fees per package : - steel can 33 ml 0.0005 EUR - alu can 0,5 l 0.0008 EUR - PET bottle 0,5 l0.0043 EUR - PET bottle 1,5 l0.0059 EUR 15.06.201013

14. 15.06.2010 Industry and retail took the lead, and acted with solidarity and commitment Industry invested in studies to define optimized collection scenario Legislation (see below) Public-Private Partnership: very close collaboration with municipalities Tenders (collection, sorting, sale materials) = transparency and competition Communication  Active participation of citizens High cost of residual waste (DIFTAR) Geographic progression (10 years to cover total country) Good relations with all the partners involved Quality management (materials and data) + controls 14 Key Factors for Success

15. Standardized collection scheme 15.06.201015

16. Collection and sorting costs/material (2009) €/Ton€/inhabitant Glas491.5 P-B511.1 (30%) PMD collection & sorting 3685.3 15.06.201016

17. Key Factors for Success: Legislation 15.06.2010 The law stipulates collaboration of accredited organism with the municipalities (not sanitation companies): public-private partnership The accreditation confirms and recognizes a basic collection scenario 100% of the cost is covered by the industry exceptions are possible but cost not covered by the industry This is a strong framework for the negotiations with the communes Municipalities are obliged to organize selective collection The general/residual household waste is subjected to the pay-as-you throw principle (Gradual) introduction of a landfill ban – incineration with energy recovery as alternative (100%) Strict enforcement on fillers, EPR-scheme, citizens and municipalities 17

18. 15.06.2010 Why are some countries not catching up ? Because industry is not fully committed Or there is a lack on required supporting legal framework/instruments And/or because authorities do not give the necessary trust to the industry to allow them to set up a system in the way that has proven successful where deposit systems are set up next to selective collection systems where legislation is made so as to install competitive EPR-schemes where the basic scenario is not sound (e.g. Collection of all packaging waste regardless of economical and ecological recyclability 18

19. Competition 15.06.2010 In practice : Still 1 waste operator doing the work = 90% of the cost Competition = on level of administration = 10% of the work Competition in practice ≠ about efficiency in operations ≠ about quality of service to consumer More important = - competition on the level of operations - managed by one strong EPR scheme - not for profit = more services for same amount of money Other problems with competition Control over the free riders Control of material flows and effective recycling 19

20. Is a deposit system an alternative ? Reality : Deposit system = - 5 to 15 times more expensive - Creates more fragmented traffic (and pollution) - Less convenient for citizens - Limited to beverage packaging  what about others ? - Financially succesful when it fails - Many possibilities for fraud (imports, double redemption…) Conclusion : economically, ecologically and socially, selective packaging collection is far superior = 3 pillars of sustainability 15.06.201020

21. Is a packaging tax an alternative ? Denmark: 140 million € taxes for 5.4 million people (26 € / inhabitant) Netherlands: 350 million € taxes for 16.4 million people (21 € / inhabitant) Money mainly not used for recycling of packaging No influence of industry how money is used How to push local authorities to improve their waste management system? 15.06.201021

22. Lessons learned 15.06.2010 Obliged Industry (fillers and retailers) has to commit itself fully and has to be pro-active; This includes a commitment to bear a substantial part of the cost All stakeholders should agree on the common goal and the way to reach this goal : selective collection (a necessary evil!) with basic collection scenario The legislation has to be realistic and feasible (strict framework + flexibility) Legislation has to take into account the whole waste management = most appropriate mix of instruments to support EPR Government has to enforce and monitor the implementation Local authorities should collaborate with industry experts in designing their waste management system 22

23. www.pro-e.org 15.06.201023