Europe in the Grip of Recycling Chaos
E
uropean policy on recycling packaging waste is in crisis following the near collapse of Germany’s ambitious recycling program, launched under Environment Minister Klaus Topfer’s packaging ordinance of 1991. German consumers have been so enthusiastic in their recycling efforts that the organization set up to collect and recycle the wasteDuales System Deutschland (DSD)-is appealing for a DM 500 million ($290 million) cash injection to avoid bankruptcy. DSD can barely afford to collect the waste, forecast to be more than 4 million tons in 1993, let alone recycle it. Because of the lack of recycling capacity, DSD will have to store 120,000 tons of unwashed plastics waste this year. About 40% of the 400,000 tons of waste plastic DSD expects to collect this year are being exported. Germany has the capacity to recycle only 124,000 tons. As a consequence, the economics of fledgling recycling schemes in other European countries have been turned upside down. Why collect waste from French, British, or Italian consumers when German waste is more plentiful and, thanks to the DSD subsidy, much cheaper? Several of the 1 2 European Community (EC) governments have asked the EC Commission in Brussels if the exports can be halted or at least scaled down. But at an EC environment ministers’ meeting on June 29, France threatened to block imports of German waste unless Germany mitigates the problems. The political implications of a unilateral import ban would be considerable. It would contravene the principles of free trade and cooperation on which the Community was founded. The disarray in the German program could hardly have come at a more sensitive time in the development of EC recycling policy. A proposed EC directive on recycling packaging wastes has just been passed by the European Parliament. The directive still h a s to pass through the Council of Ministers, 1492 Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 27, No. 8,1993
B Y JULIAN ROSE which represents the 1 2 EC governments, before it becomes law. The recycling chaos in Germany will be ammunition for those on the Council, such as the British, who hope to slim down the proposals. The central aim of the directive is to harmonize recycling targets across the EC, to avoid the hazards of countries moving at different paces within the barrier-free Europe. And the directive sets ambitious targets: the recovery of 90% of packaging materials w i t h i n 1 0 years, 60% of which must be recycled. The net recycling rate, 54%, will apply separately to all packaging materials in the waste stream: plastics, paper, glass, and metals. But the packaging industry is already seizing on Germany’s recycling woes in its efforts to revise the proposed law. “Evidence n o w emerging from Germany shows the dangers of poorly thought out and scientifically unsupportable legislation,” says the London-based Industry Council for Packaging and the Environment. “And the draft EC directive’s targets are built on precisely the same philosophy with unwarranted priority on recycling.” The directive leaves considerable flexibility to governments to decide how best to reach the targets, and there is provision for the targets to be revised if experience shows that they are overambitious. But the targets still fall far short of those in Germany. The target set under the Topfer ordinance is to collect 80% of packaging materials by 1995, of which 80% or 90% (depending on material type) must be recycled or reused. This gives an effective recycling rate of at least 64%. Under the first phase of the ordinance, effective throughout 1992, manufacturers and distributors were obliged to reclaim packaging materials. And under the second phase, beginning in January 1993, consumers were supposed to be able to take packaging back to retail outlets, which would then arrange for it to be recycled.
However, the “take-back” clause was never implemented for retail outlets. Instead, retailers and waste firms launched a new company, DSD, to collect packaging wastes directly from households using specially provided bins. DSD is funded through a levy on packaged goods, which are then awarded a green dot on supermarket shelves. Consumers are asked to sort their wastes into piles of plastic, glass, metal, and paper. Topfer gave his blessing to DSD with the proviso that if it fails to meet the recycling targets, the “take-back” regulations may be introduced. Germany is not the only European country that has a program to stimulate recycling. A more modest, though ground-breaking, system was set up under the French government’s packaging decree, effective in January 1993. Able to learn from German e x p e r i e n c e , t h e French chose not to set specific targets for recycling packaging waste. Instead, the term “valorization” is used-which embraces recycling, material reuse, composting, and, most important, incineration with energy recovery. An official body, Eco-Emballages, has been set up to coordinate the collection of packaging wastes within the existing waste management structure. And the target is to “valorize” 75% of the materials by 2003. Like the German system, EcoEmballages imposes a charge on packaging producers, but the charge is much lower. France’s willingness to tolerate incineration, or “thermal recycling,” as an alternative to material recycling interests other governments and may become a feature of the EC directive. Even Topfer says plastics incineration may now be considered as a solution to the country’s recycling crisis. Julian Rose is a London-based freelance writer specializing in environmental and technological issues. He was previously editor of Environmental News.
0013-936X/93/0927-1492$04.00/0 0 1993 American Chemical Society
