The Contribution of the Integrated Management System for Packaging Waste for Sustainable Development in Portugal JLetras Nov. 2013

The Contribution of the Integrated Management System for Packaging Waste for Sustainable Development in Portugal JLetras Nov. 2013

OUTLINE Objectives and Scope Environmental Assessment Economic Assessment Social Assessment Conclusions 2

OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE 3

OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE Scope Integrated Packaging Waste Management System (SIGRE) handled by SPV Main Objectives: Assess the direct and indirect SIGRE contribution to the environmental, economic and social Portuguese development Project commissioned to 4

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 5

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Scope: Municipal and Trade&Industry packaging waste management systems o Household waste packaging ( urban sub-system) produced mainly by individual consumers and collected by municipal authorities municipal waste o Industrial/commercial waste packaging ( non-urban subsystem) produced by trade and industry and collected by private waste management companies 6

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Main Objectives: o Produce information about environmental costs and benefits of waste packaging management; o Identify the most important aspects related with packaging waste management (processes, materials,...). Considering: o Impacts: Waste collection, Sorting, Transport, Treatment and Recovery operations; o Avoided impacts: Recovery operations (recycling - material, incineration and landfill biogas - energy). 7

120 115 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Climate change Ozone depletion Human toxicity Photochemical oxidant formatio Analysing 1 p 'CR (3D/IST BAU NOR) - Ciclo de Vida /GWh'; Method: ReCiPe Midpoint (H) V1.05 / Europe ReCiPe H / Normalisation / Excluding long-term emissions Particulate matter formation Ionising radiation Terrestrial acidification Freshwater eutrophication Marine eutrophica tion CR - Sistema AHBS Terrestrial ecotoxicity Freshwater ecotoxicity Marine ecotoxicity CR (3D/IST BAU NOR) - Operação AHBS Agricultural land occupation Urban land occupation Natural land transformation Metal depletion Fossil depletion ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - METHODOLOGY LCA Tool used: SIMAPRO 7.3.3 Resources Atmospheric emissions Water emissions Hydroelectric energy 594,0 MJ CO2 748000,0 g Residual water 1,7 m3 Natural gas (vol) 14,5 m3 SOx 2690,0 g Cl - 63900,0 g Uranium 4,8 g NOx 2310,0 g Inorganic subst. 39500,0 g Process water 1,0 m3 VOC 1640,0 g Suspension solids 5030,0 g Glass cullet 625,0 kg Dust 1300,0 g Sulphates 627,0 g Sand 253,0 kg CO 787,0 g Oils 283,0 g Fuel oil 183,0 kg Metane 781,0 g VOC 74,0 g Lime stone 110,0 kg HCl 67,9 g Metallic ions 59,3 g Rock salt 108,0 kg Pb 44,6 g NH4+ 29,3 g Calcium carbonate 80,5 kg Ammonia 38,2 g Ba 24,3 g Coal 49,1 kg HF 15,8 g Fe 23,6 g Rock 35,5 kg metals 4,2 g Al 20,3 g Anthracite 13,0 kg CxHy aromatic 3,8 g N tot 9,9 g N2O 2,0 g COD 9,6 g Benzene 1,9 g CxHy aromatics 7,8 g Ni 0,4 g Nitrates 6,3 g Life Cycle Inventory Life Cycle Impact Assessment Recipe (2008) IES/JRC (2010). LCA Handbook Interpretation 8 8

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FUNCT. UNIT Packaging waste managed in SIGRE (base year 2011) Quantities and materials that reflect SPV s responsibility, independently of the existence or not of financial transfers. Landfill, non-selective collection flows, etc. are considered Licensed Packaging in 2011: Subsystem / Material (ton) Steel Aluminiu m Wood Paper & Cardboard Plastics Glass Others Total Household subsystem Industrial & comercial subsystem 44.978 8.778 4.732 220.746 182.256 397.371 2.004 860.865 30.294 503 49.769 216.895 25.840 13.016 505 336.823 Total 75.272 9.281 54.501 437.641 208.096 410.387 2.509 1.197.688 9 9

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SYST. BORDERS Municipal Sub-System 2 4 7 Selective collection Sorting Recycling Avoided products 1 Household waste 5 3 Mixed waste collection Incineration Avoided electricity Mechanical treatment 6 Composting 8 Avoided fertilizer Landfill (dir. + ind.) Avoided electricity 9 Materials considered: Steel, Aluminium, Wood, Plastics, Paper and Cardboard, Glass, Other materials 10 10

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SYST. BORDERS Trade&Industry Sub-System 17 Recycling Avoided products 11 Ind./Com. waste Incineration 15 Avoided electricity 19 Landfill (dir. + ind.) Avoided electricity Materials considered: Steel, Aluminium, Wood, Plastics, Paper and Cardboard, Glass, Other materials 11 11

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT RESULTS Globally packaging waste management generates an environmental gain (contribution by process) o Avoided impacts with recovery > Impact resulting from collection sorting Landilling papel/board (P. MSW) Plastic Incineration (Packaging MSW) Recycling (two subssystems) Characterization Results, relative importance ILCD 2011 selected impact categories 12 12

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT RESULTS Individual material analysis reveals that normally the environmental benefits of recovery outweigh the impact caused by waste management (collection, sorting ) Incineration of Packaging in MSW Characterization Results, relative importance ILCD 2011 selected impact categories 13 13

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT RESULTS Examples of Environmental Benefits of Packaging Waste Management through recovery/recycling GHG Emissions - 116 kt CO 2 eq o Electricity consumption of 124.302 portuguese families o Carbon saving equivalent to 198 km 2 of Pines o 15.750 around the world airplane rides Energy Consumption (inc. feedstock energy) - 12.689 TJ of primary energy o 1,32% of national yearly primary energy consumption o 303 kt equivalent of oil Water Consumption - 688.716 m 3 o The yearly consumption of 10.812 inhabitants in Portugal o 275 olympic pools 14 14

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT RESULTS Comparing different waste management scenarios (all to landfill and all to incineration) the present setting is the preferred option. Characterization Results, relative importance ILCD 2011 selected impact categories 15 15

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT RESULTS Examples of benefits facing alternative scenarios Comparison with all to landfill : GHG Emissions - 401 kt CO 2 eq o Electricity consumption of 429.993 portuguese families o Carbon saving equivalent to 686 km 2 of Pines Comparison with all to incineration : o 54.482 around the world airplane rides GHG Emissions - 396 kt CO 2 eq o Electricity consumption of 425.059 portuguese families o Carbon saving equivalent to 678 km 2 of Pines o 53.857 around the world airplane rides 16

ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 17

ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Scope: Economic Agents of the SIGRE s Value Chain Objectives: o To generate information on the economic profile of companies financing the SIGRE by paying the green dot fee; o To assess the economic impact of the SIGRE on the Portuguese economy Methodology: o Analysis supported on data bases from SPV, INE and other sources; o Resort to and input-output approach (Leontief) 18

ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT: RESULTS Analysis of Packers and Fillers (Licensees) CAE Secção % das empresas nacionais Volume de Vendas aderentes (M ) d.e. A - Agricultura, produção animal, caça, floresta e pesca 1,85% 1.085,9 B - Indústrias extrativas 0,83% 19,7 C - Indústrias transformadoras 6,68% 33.042,7 D - Electricidade, gás, vapor, água quente e fria e ar frio 0,68% 3,7 E - Captação, tratamento e distribuição de água; saneamento, gestão de resíduos e despoluição 4,40% 169,9 F - Construção 0,02% 90,8 G - Comércio por grosso e a retalho; reparação de veículos automóveis e motociclos 1,52% 37.437,8 H - Transportes e armazenagem 0,44% 75,5 % Sales Volume 47% 29% I - Alojamento, restauração e similares 0,15% 78,8 Total 0,9% 72.921,8 Green Dot Fees in 2010 71,9 M 31% o 0,1% sales volumes of packers and fillers o 0,08% total costs of external services for portuguese companies % Sales volume of nonfinancial companies o 10K Licensees Vs. > 720 k companies 19

ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT: RESULTS Collection, sorting, take-back and recycling companies have a combined sales volume of 1.600 M representing 34% of all environmental services in Portugal; Taking the combined economic activity code indicator for all SIGRE partners and their performance, it would rank 28 th in a list of 88 sectors generating a positive gross added value of 2,25 ( / ). o 80% of sales and services of SPV in 2011 SIGRE for GDP + 71 M o 0,04% of Portugal s GDP o Average GDP of 4.400 inhabitants 20

SOCIAL ASSESSMENT 21

SOCIAL ASSESSMENT Scope: Jobs in the SIGRE value chain + SPV s social responsability projects Objectives: o Assess the jobs profiles of the waste management companies responsible for the waste collection, treatment and recovery; o Estimate of the jobs associated with packaging waste management; o Assess the impact of SPV s social responsibility projects. 22

SOCIAL ASSESSMENT - RESULTS Estimation of jobs based in 2008 7.100 jobs in SIGRE s partner companies 0,23% of jobs in non-financial companies of Portugal Added jobs: SMAUT Transportadores Retomadores OGR Workers Directly related to SIGRE SPV Recolha selectiva Triagem Tratamento, incineração, aterro e outras actividades não operacionais RE Urbanos RE Não Urbanos RE Urbanos RE Não Urbanos 46 713 613 306 98 72 243 276 ~2.400 Total More reliable data o ~2.400 jobs directly caused by packaging waste management in SIGRE o Majority of added jobs is in the municipal waste flow (83%) o ~0,08% of jobs for non-financial companies o Impact of social responsability projects 23

CONCLUSIONS 24

CONCLUSIONS The strategy for the promotion of packaging waste recycling is supported from the point of view of the 3 pillars of sustainable development: GHG Emissions: - 116 kt CO 2 eq Economic Multipliers: o GAV: 2,25 GDP compared with undifferentiated waste management for PW: +71 M /year +2.400 jobs generated by the SIGRE 25

Thank you! joao.letras@pontoverde.pt 26