Driving Waste Management towardsRecycling

Estonia’s experience

25-26.11.2013, KievTAIEX workshop

Peeter Eek Waste Department,

Ministry of the Environment of Estonia peeter.eek@envir.ee

General background

1) EU 5-level Waste management Hierarchy- reduce, avoid- re-use- recycle- recover (energy recovery, back-filling for mineral materials)- disposal (incl. Landfilling)

Also: 'Zero-Waste' (~ 'no landfilling!) and 3R (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) concepts on International levels, where main aim/principle is the same

Why to recycle?

Arguments for recycling are mainly Environmental, but also economical (substitution of the virgin materials, partly also jobs creation etc.)

On real economy, there is always a Question – Why to recycle, as disposal or even 'other recovery' are cheaper

The aim should be 'high-quality recycling' – not easy to distinquish from the 'down-cycling'

Recycling could only be developed in combination of requiremenst/targets and/or economic instrumenst

Economic intruments in use

1) Landfill tax2) Packaging excise duty3) Deposit-refund scheme for certain drink packages4) Extended producer responsibility principle applied on packages in general, vehicles, electric- and electronic appliances, batteries and accumulators, tyres

Background

Environmental Charges, incl. 'Landfill tax' was introduced on 1991

On that time, were the Environmental Charges considered as main source of Income to the 'Environmental Fund' (since 2000 Centre of Environmental Investments), which have been main financial institution for Environmental Projects, until the EU funding was opened after 2001 (ISPA, CF, ERDF etc.) - the aim to Drive Waste management, was not primary on this time

The landfill tax was applied to all type of waste (incl. industrial, thus with differentiated tax levels. As absolute majority of the landfilled waste was related to the oils-shale industry, then was tax level for Household was 'very low'

Landfill taxtax levels

Landfill tax on landfilling, €/tPollution Charges Act 2002 Environmental Charges Act 2005

Waste 2002 2004 2005 2006 2009 2011 2013 2015

0,2 0,3 1,9 7,8 10 14,38 20,77 29,84

6 6 4 2 3

1,2 1,8 7,6 15,6 30

0,1 0,1 0,2 0,4 0,76 0,76 0,76 0,76Oilshale ash 0,3 0,3 0,3 0,4 1 1,44 2,07 2,98

Oil-shale semi-coke 0,3 0,4 0,4 0,4 1 1,44 2,07 2,98

3 2,5 2,5 2,5 8

Non-haz waste basic, inv Mixed municipla wasteFactor for Non-Compliance landfillsLandfill tax on 'Old non-compliance landfills'

Oil-shale gangue and enricment residous

Factor for Non-Compliance landfills

The use of revenues from landfill tax

Paid to the Environmental Investments Centre Fund - redivided to the different Environmental projects

The landfill tax revenue is not 'earmarked' for waste projects only

The income from total landfill tax ca 15M€ (> 10 €/inh/y), allocated for the waste projects ca 7-8 M€ (remaining part to environmental awareness, nature conservation etc).

75 % from the landfill tax for municipal waste, was* paid back to the municipality, where the was was collected, for the waste management related costs (first of all the costs related to the recycling yards)

* There is nearly no landfilling of the Municipal waste on 2013, all is recycled or recovered, so far even treatments residous are recovered

Lessons learned: Landfill tax (I)

Very powerful option to drive waste towards recovery, instead of landfilling. Could achieve several aims at once:1) motivate to imply better the waste management hierarchy2) to 'trigger' private/municipal investments to the recovery operations and facilities and hence to support internalisation of the external costs (or 'polluter pays principle‘)

Ca 130 M€ Investmenst to the MBT facilities and incinerator (ca 100 €/inhabitant) without any State support – this could be mentioned just because all major projects, both as landfills, but also on recycling side, have been developed with massive State support (incl. EU funding) aloneSuch a investmenst have supported also application of ‘polluter pays’ principle.

Lessons learned: Landfill tax (II)

3) Was a very helpful measure to come trough the period 2000-2009, when 'old' and 'new' landfills co-existed4) yields a good revenue, to be used for the Environmental projects or as general income to the budgets

Problems so far: The re-payment part of the landfill tax to the municipalities have reduced their interest for source separations and recovery – municipalities/regional authorities should be supported in other forms

Tax level have not created visibly ‘wild dumping etc’, but there are attempts of ‘sham-recovery’, especially of the MBT residous

Energy recovery of the MSW with the separation of the metals from the Incineration

bottom ash (IBA)

Agened IBA is used for reclamation of landfilling areas

Treatments of wate oils to 'base oil' for further treatment in oil refineris

Thresholds for Packaging excise Duty

Introduced on 1996, as first step to the alcohol packages, on 1998 to non-alcohol beverages, on 2005 to all sales packaging, on 2009 to all kind of packaging

Principle: The Packaging excise Duty act sets the compulsory recovery/recycling targets – from the amount, which remained missing from the target, should be paid the duty.

It is not a 'automatic tax to be paid, when packages are put to the market',- it should only be paid, if the recovery targets are not fulfilled

In fact whether packaging enterprises should pay the duty, depends from themselves

Thresholds for Packaging excise Duty

The rates of the duty, calculated initially to be ca 4 times higher, as collections recovery service prices on the market

Revenues are unsignifant, as major part of packaging companies prefer to dela with recovery

Packaging material Excise duty €/kg Recovery Recycling

1) glass 0,6 702) plastic 2,5 55 22,53) metal 2,5 60

1,2 70 605) wood 1,2 45 20

75From 2012 85metal until 2012 40

Packaging excise duty Target level (excemtion from excise duty)

4) paper and cardboard, inc composite cardboard

For the deposit refund system (glas, PET) until 2012

Lessons learned: Packaging excise duty (I)

Until 2005 : The 'recovery certificate system', where X companies entered to the contacts with Y waste managements companies, producing Z recovery certificates- it’s a nightmare of supervision (the same experience from several EU Countries)

Since 2005: Reporting for ‘put on te market’ and about the recovery goes mainly trough Packaging recovery organisations, just smaller part aside – situation improved, but supervision have remained an issue

Lessons learned: Packaging excise duty (II)

An option, where certain part from the Duty should be paid, when packaging brought to the market (5-10 % from total ?) would be preferred, as would guarantee routine supervision from behalf of the Tax Department

Generally have encouraged companies to join with the Packaging recovery organisations and to build up Country-wide take back schemes etc:

Problems so far: no signs of motivations to use mor reuseable packages or reduce of the packaging amount. The directly ‘payable part’ could be more influencial.

Aftersorting facility for source-separated packaging- and paper waste

Different plastic packaging materials for recycling

Deposit-refund scheme

Mandatory deposit for glass, PET, metal can with non-alcoholic beverage(up to 6 %). beer, non-alcoholic beverages was introduces in July 2005

The deposit value, initially ca 3 and 4 euro cents, since 2011 raised to 4 and 8 euro cents, will be paid separately in all steps of sale - retail shop will charge it from the consumer. The deposit value is set by Minister of the Environment, based on proposal of the producers

The 'empties' are returned mainly to the retail shops, where taken back mainly with the Reverse Vending Machines (RVM).

The Deposit System (Non-profit Company, owned by industrial and retailers associations together), decides upon the service fees of the producers and take-back compensations, paid for the retailers in addition of deposit value.

Smaller shops are exempted from the take-back obligations, from 200 m2 sales area is it compulsory, if the shop itself sales the deposit packages

Deposit system – resultsReturn rates on one-way pac, also refillables around 90 %

On 2011 ca 13 th t of high quality packaging materials were collected (doe's not include refillables, as those are returned directly to the fillers).

From the whole packaging amount, put to he market, is deposit packaging ca 10 %,

From the all recovered packaging makes it ca 15 %

Yet it is 100 % consumer packaging, most costly to collect in container system

Comparison of the Producers fees Deposit system v 'Green Dot‘

From July 2012

Conclusion: the deposit system is currently by costs far more cheaper for the producers as container collection system – it have not all the time been so.

Lessons learned: Deposit-refund system

PRO: very effective, collection rates 80-90 %, very clean material, suitable near 100 % for high quality recyclingVisibly reduces littering in public places, but also in nature

Gives an option to keep also refillable bottles on the market, hence helps to 'avoid waste'

Producers fees have changed in time, and on certain period been on €/kg bases even higher, then in container collection, but currently are remarkably cheaper (0 – for metal can!) due to the higher material prices and unredeemed deposit

CON: retailers refused the take back obligation in shops at the starting phase, the higher economic motivation could motivate also fraud

Extended produrecer responsibility Applied for:

All packaging materials, vehickles (cars), tyres, electric-electronic equipment (EEE), batteries and accumulators

Common requirements: to set country wide collection network (different requirements for each product), to guarantee free of charge take back of respective waste, recovery and recycling targets for each type of waste

Obligations to register by Ministry of the Environment, special labeling requirements for certain type of goods (EEE, batteries and accumulators etc)

Some additional requirements, to motivate establishing of Producer Responsibility Organisations (PRO)

For all covered product types (except the vehicles) there are several PRO-s in operation.

Collection of the 'Products of Concern' waste

Dismantling and treatments of the WEEE

Lessons learned: Extended Producer Responsibility (I)

PRO: cost are covered by producers, reduced need for public spendings - but the cost are added to the products, when put to the market

Free of charge take-back improves collection,

Lessons learned: Extended Producer Responsibility (II)

CONTRA: The producer responsibility organisations are sometimes non-transparent, ie controlled by very small group of producers → the proper use of recovery fees remains sometimes unclearThe legal requirements for wide and representative PRO-s are crucial, the EPR model ‘as such’ does not guarantee sucessSome companies hide from the obligations (free riders) – to participate in collective schemes, reporting, recovery obligations etc → The EPR sets high requirements for supervision, registering and reporting solutionsDivision of costs of the 'historical WEEE' (requirement from the EU Directive 2002/96/EC) is problematic.

Thank for Your attention!