Production Phase

Waste prevention in the production phase refers to a broad range of policy measures with a

51

significant potential to reduce the amount of waste that is generated and the related environmental impacts. Waste prevention in this phase inter alia includes the efficient extraction of raw materials as well as production processes that minimise the waste of resources. The production phase also covers the smart distribution and logistics that highly influence the share of products wasted before they even reach private households. And it includes all aspects of waste-light product design (e.g.

reparability, upgrade options etc.) that be a key aspect for waste prevention. Waste prevention programmes all around the globe show a variety of different policy measures in this field including economic, regulatory and information-based measures. The following presents selected good practice examples, many of which are implemented in similar ways in other countries.

Economic Instruments

Economic or market-based instruments aim to set financial incentives that support waste prevention efforts. This includes disposal fees for industry or municipalities as well as subsidies for less waste-intensive production patterns. All these instruments aim to internalise the external costs of waste generation in the production costs. Box 3.2 presents an example from New Zealand which uses a waste disposal levy, similar to the practices in many other countries. Another increasingly important field for market-based approaches is support for new circular business models, such as those are based on sharing or leasing and help to reduce waste generation.

Box 3.2 Production phase, economic instruments - Case study: New Zealand

The waste disposal levy for all waste sent to landfill was mandatory introduced under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (Ministry of the Environment, 2013a). Disposal facility operators must pay $10 per tonne (excluding GST) of waste they dispose of at their facility. Disposal facility operators (as defined by the Waste Minimisation Act 2008) may pass this cost on to the waste producer, e.g. businesses. The objective of the levy is to encourage waste minimisation by increasing the cost of waste disposal, creating funding opportunities for waste minimisation initiatives as well as providing an economic incentive to polluters to change their behaviour. The revenue from the levy is distributed to territorial authorities, is put into the Waste Minimisation Fund and used to recover administrative costs associated with the waste disposal levy.

The waste disposal levy payments to territorial authorities’ accounts for half of the revenue collected and is calculated on the basis of the population. Territorial authorities are obligated to spend the money on promoting and implementing waste minimisation in accordance with their waste management and minimisation plan (WMMP). To help territorial authorities in their spending decisions the Ministry of the Environment published Waste Levy Spending Guidelines for territorial authorities (Ministry of the Environment, 2013b). Councils report regularly on their spending of the waste disposal levy revenue, e.g. communication and education or research. Levy revenue used to recover administrative costs associated with the waste disposal levy include initial one off costs (e.g. developing guidance for councils, IT systems to manage levy collection) and on-going administrative costs (e.g. collection of the levy from disposal facility operators, monitoring that territorial authorities are using the funds for the intended purposes).

The remaining levy revenue goes to the Waste Minimisation Fund. Approximately $10-12 million is collected through the levy per year (Ministry of the Environment, 2013c). The Fund funds projects that promote or implement waste minimisation.

52 Regulatory Instruments

Regulatory instruments based on laws or technical requirements have been the dominant approach for waste management in most countries. With regard to waste prevention the share of such strict and binding instruments in the production phase is significantly lower and often focussed on qualitative waste prevention by regulating the use of hazardous substances. Also, most countries now use a pollutant release and transfer registers to raise awareness and encourage improved environmental performance as an incentive for waste prevention. Box 3.3 provides an example of how such a register is used in Israel.

Box 3.3 Production phase, regulatory instruments - Case study: Israel ISRAEL:POLLUTANT RELEASE AND TRANSFER REGISTER (PRTR)

Israel’s Protection of the Environment (Releases and Transfers to the Environment – Reporting and Registration Obligations) Law came into force in April 2012 and introduced the Pollutant Release and Transfer Register. The PRTR was officially launched in 2013. The law requires facilities with significant impact on the environment, which encompass hundreds of facilities, to report on their emissions and transfers of waste. The main objectives of the law are to increase the transparency of environmental information in Israel and to encourage facilities to reduce emissions and transfers of pollutants and waste into the environment. The mandatory program is aimed to encourage different sectors of the economy to improve their environmental performance, adopt cleaner production techniques, reduce pollution and waste and increase efficiency.

Data on 114 pollutants released to air, water, sea and soil or transferred offsite for treatment and disposal of waste and wastewater, is published on the website of the Environmental Protection Ministry (http://www.sviva.gov.il/PRTRIsrael/Pages/default.aspx) and accessibly for the public. The data is submitted based on reports by more than 400 factories in Israel. The main industries are active in the fields energy, production and processing of metals, minerals, chemicals, waste and wastewater management, intensive agriculture as well as food and beverages (Israel Ministry of environmental protection, 2015). In 2013, 497 reports were submitted (Israel Ministry of environmental protection, 2014).

Similar registries exist in several other countries, e.g. the European Pollutant Emission Register (EPER) and can be seen as a starting point for concrete waste prevention measures mainly focusing on hazardous waste.

Information-based instruments

Based on the information provided by the countries for this report but also other reviews of waste prevention measures there is a clear focus on information-based waste prevention measures targeted at the production phase that aim to highlight potential cost saving opportunities for the industry as well as the marketing effects of greener products or processes (see EEA, 2014). An example for Sweden is provided in box 3.4, but similar measures are being developed in many countries, focusing on specific sectors (e.g., construction and demolition, packaging), types of enterprises (usually SMEs), particular life-cycle phases (e.g., product design, production), or aiming at promoting synergies between sectors (e.g., industrial symbiosis).

53 Box 3.4 Case Study: Sweden

SWEDEN:DIALOGUE WITH THE TEXTILE INDUSTRY,2011-2014

The dialogue between the Swedish Chemicals Agency and industry professionals was part of the national action plan for a toxic-free everyday environment, on-going 2011-2014 (KEMI, 2015). The dialogue was about the risks of hazardous substances in articles. Important objectives of the dialogue were to increase the company's awareness and knowledge about the risks of hazardous substances in articles as well as reducing chemical risks by voluntarily phase out hazardous chemicals beyond what the law requires.

The dialogue provided the opportunity to exchange knowledge between different companies, but also between companies, researchers, government agencies and industry associations. The participants contribute to the creation of proposal for new policies for textiles on EU-level, support a “Call for Action” sent to the commission to push for sharper policies on chemicals in textiles in REACH and established a research project where participators create a knowledge platform on chemicals and textiles. Overall the dialogues have led to an increased knowledge on use and content of hazardous substances in textiles compared to 2014.

Other instruments

Voluntary agreements on waste prevention have raised increasing attention over the last years;

especially if they combine easy to monitor indicators and targets with sufficient flexibility for the producers how to reduce waste generation or toxicity of waste. The Australian Packaging Covenant (Australian Department of the Environment, 2011) can be seen as a good practice example of a voluntary agreement.

The analysis of on-going and planned activities in the countries shows some common characteristics:

• There is a clear focus on information-oriented measures that in most cases aim to highlight cost saving potentials based on existing good practice examples. Many of these measures seem to be based on an underlying assumption that there is a large potential of win-win waste prevention opportunities that enterprises are currently not exploiting due to transaction costs of information gathering or evaluation. These measures are in many cases related to voluntary agreements by industrial sectors. Some countries, such as Spain, also focus on chain-approaches that aim at waste prevention potentials that are located at the interface of different steps in the value chain. These measures are often related to voluntary agreements by industrial sectors that often include quantitative targets.

• Regulatory approaches often focus on product regulation especially with regard to hazardous substances. In some countries this is closely linked to health issues as an important enabler of qualitative waste prevention. At the same time countries seem to struggle to select relevant products, given the complexity and dynamics of product innovation. Another challenge that such approaches present lies in the significant level of cross-departmental and/or cross-jurisdictional coordination that is required.

54

• Economic instruments for waste prevention seem to be used to a lesser extent on the production side. Disposal fees that often also refer to the consumption side set some incentives for waste prevention, but the main effects relate to improved sorting and pre-treatment of waste. Another subcategory is market-creating instruments that emphasize the reduction of transaction costs e.g. by defining common quality standards etc.