estudio ariadna- resumen final eng final...ariadna project report summary - spain 22/06/2017 3...

UNESCOChair

inLifeCycleandClimateChangeESCI-UPF

ARIADNAPROJECT

“Sustainability study on the introduction of a mandatory DRS for packaging in Spain:

Comparative environmental, social and economic analysis versus current situation”

MESSAGEFORMATJune2017

ARIADNAPROJECTREPORTSUMMARY-SPAIN 22/06/2017

2 UNESCOChairinLifeCycleandClimateChangeESCI-UPF

Studytitle:

ARIADNAPROJECT:“SustainabilitystudyontheintroductionofamandatoryDRSforpackaginginSpain:comparativeenvironmental,socialandeconomicanalysisversuscurrentsituation”

Studyconductedby:1

ESCI-UPF

Authors:DrPereFullanaiPalmer1(ProjectDirector),DrAlbaBalaGala1(Project’sTechnicalCoordinator),DrRosaColoméPerales2,DrSilviaAyusoSiart3,

BlancaDíazSuch1,DrIvánMuñozOrtiz4,DrJoséLuisRetolazaÁvalos5,DrJoanRibasTur2DrMercèRocaiPuigvert2DrBoWeidema4

Editedby

Dr.BeatrizCorderoCrespo1,ChristianRoviraGrueso6

1UNESCOChairinLifeCycleandClimateChangeESCI-UPF2ResearchinInternationalStudiesandEconomics(ESCI-UPF)3MangoChaironCorporateSocialResponsibility(ESCI-UPF)4InternationalLifeCycleAcademy

5Global Center for Sustainable Business, Universidad deDeusto

6CommunicationsDepartment(ESCI-UPF)

Studysponsoredby:

ANAREVI(NationalGroupofGlassRecyclers),ANEABE(NationalAssociationofBottledWaterandDrinkManufacturers),ANEP(National Association of PET Packaging), ANFABRA (National Association of Soft Drink Manufacturers), ANGED (NationalAssociationofLargeDistributionCompanies),CERVECEROSDEESPAÑA,ECOACERO(EcologicalAssociationfortheRecyclingofTin Plate), ECOEMBES (Ecoembalajes España), ECOVIDRIO, FIAB (Federation of Food and Drink Industries) and TETRA PAKHISPANIASA.

Barcelona,June2017

ESCI-UPFisaneducationaluniversityinstitutionlinkedtotheUniversitatPompeuFabra(UPF),whoseCharterincludes,inArticle1c),thegoalof:“Providing training and research services to the company’s international department that affects any area of business management,environmentalmanagement,sustainabilityandinternationalrelations”.

InresponsetothisCharter,theUNESCOChaironLifeCycleandClimateChange,theMangoChaironCorporateSocialResponsibilityandtheResearchinInternationalStudiesandEconomics(RISE)Groupcreatedaresearchunitthatintegratesthethreeareasofsustainability.

StartingwiththeEnvironmentalManagementResearchGroup(GiGa,createdin2004),theUNESCOChairinLifeCycleandClimateChangewascreatedon17December2010inanagreementbetweenESCI-UPFattheUniversitatPompeuFabra(UPF)andtheUnitedNationsOrganizationforEducation,ScienceandCulture(UNESCO).Itsmissionistopromoteresearchandeducation,toestablishnetworksofcollaborationandtogenerateknowledgeforthesustainabledevelopmentofproductsandprocessesnationallyandinternationallybyenablingcooperationbetweeninternationallyrenownedresearchersandprofessionalsfromuniversitiesandotherinstitutionsinEurope,LatinAmerica,theCaribbean,Africaandotherpartsoftheworld.

©2017UNESCOChairinLifeCycleandClimateChangeESCI-UPF.

Anydirectorindirectreproduction,distribution,transformation,presentationinfullorinpartofthecontent,dataandmodelspresentedin

this document, or of any of its elements is prohibited. To order copies of this document, consult with the UNESCO Chair at

[email protected].

Thedocument’sauthorsare responsible for the choiceandpresentationof the information containedherein, aswell as for theopinions

presented.TheseopinionsdonotnecessarilyreflectthoseofUNESCO,whichacceptsnoresponsibilityforthem.



1. Legislativebackground

Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste requires member States to take preventivemeasuresagainstthegenerationofpackagingwaste,topromotereusesystemsandtodevelopsystemsforrecyclingandrecoveringpackaging,thusfosteringareductionintheamountofthistypeofwastethatisdiscarded.Directive2004/12/EC,whichexpandsandamendsthepreviousone, laysouttheneedtoestablishreturn,collectionandrecoverysystemsformanagingpackagingandpackagingwasteineverymemberState.ItisimportanttorecallthattheEU’sCourtofJusticehasnotifiedmemberStatesthatwishto impose a DRS that they must strictly justify the need to do so, as well as its suitability andproportionality.

Subsequently,andasaresultofthetranspositionofDirective2008/98/EC,WasteFrameworkDirective,tonationallaw,Law22/2011wascreatedonwasteandcontaminatedsoilthat,inadditiontopromotingthe implementationofprevention,reuseandrecyclingmeasures,aspiresto increasethetransparencyandtheenvironmentalandeconomicefficiencyofwastemanagementactivitiesbypromotinginnovationasthedrivingforce.

InArticle21.2,itstatesthattopromotepreventionandreuseinthehigh-qualityrecyclingofglass,plasticandmetalpackagingandpackagingwaste,measuresmaybeadoptedthatareintendedtofacilitatetheestablishmentofdepositandreturnsystems.Itstatesthat“thetechnicalandeconomicviabilityofthese

systems,theirenvironmentalandsocialimpactsandtheirimpactonhumanhealthshallbeconsidered,

whilerespectingtheneedtoensuretheproperoperationofthedomesticmarket.TheGovernmentshall

sendtotheParliamenttherequiredreportsonthetechnical,environmentalandeconomicviabilitythat

arewrittenbeforeanyimplementationofadepositandreturnsystem”.InArticle30.3italsostatesthat“ThesemeasuresshallbeestablishedviaaRoyalDecreeapprovedbytheCabinetofMinisters,takingintoaccount their technical and economic viability and their overall environmental, social and health

impacts”.

Said text specifies the requirement to set up the separate collection of waste and details theestablishment of a common legal framework for the application of extended producer responsibility(EPR).Inkeepingwiththisframework,depositandreturnsystemsshallbevoluntaryinnature.Theymaybesetuponamandatorybasisforthereuseofproductsortoensuretheprocessingofwastethatishardtorecoverordisposeof,wastewhosehazardouscharacteristicsdeterminetheneedtoestablishsuchasystemforitsproperhandling,orwhenthemanagementtargetsspecifiedintheapplicablelawarenotmet. In thespecific caseofpackagingandpackagingwaste, there isalsoa levelof compliance that isspecified for the recycling targets laid out in European packaging directives, as well as the viableexpectations of exceeding said targets, considering the real possibilities that small and mediumenterpriseshaveofimplementingthem.

2. ImplementingaDRSforsingle-usepackagingandpreviousstudies

In Europe, the origins of the implementation of a DRS for single-use packaging are the four Nordiccountries,withSwedenpioneeringthesystemin1994(Returpack). ItwasfollowedbyFinland(Palpa),



Norway (Norsk Resirk/Infinitum) and Denmark (Dansk Retursystem). Two common factors in theimplementationofaDRSforsingle-usepackagingintheNordiccountrieswere:

- theDRSforsingle-usepackagingwas implementedontopofawidespreadDRSforreturnablepackaging,and

- whentheDRSwasimplemented,therewerenoothergeneralizedmodelsforrecoveringsingle-usepackaging.

Then,afterbeingimplementedinGermanyin2003,theDRSspreadtoCroatiaandmorerecently(March2016)toLithuania.ThegovernmentsofcountrieslikeFrance,theUnitedKingdom,theCzechRepublic,IrelandandBelgiumcommissionedstudies(primarilytechnicalandeconomic)toanalyzethesuitabilityofimplementingaDRSforsingle-usedrinkpackaging,whichtheyallrejected.

IntheEU,14countrieshaveconsideredtheintroductionofaDRSforsingle-usepackaging.Ofthese,8haveimplementeditand6havenot.

Thebibliography indicates thataDRS recoversbetween80and90%of thepackaging included in thesystem,anamountthataccountsfor1to5%oftheusedpackagingthatisgeneratedintheregion.Noneofthesesystemsrecoversdrinkcartons.Glassisalsonotincludedinallofthem,buttheyalldorecoverdrinkcansandPETcontainers.

In Spain, in 1997 the Packaging and Packaging Waste Law was laid out - for household single-usepackaging - the principle of Producer Responsibility, allowing producers to choose between twomanagementmodels: joining an Extended Producer Responsibility Organization (EPR) or setting up aDepositRefundSystem(DRS).Eversince,packagershavebeencomplyingwiththeirhouseholdpackagingwasteobligationsbytakingpartinanEPR.NopackagerhasvoluntarilysetupaDRStomanagethewastefromsingle-usehouseholdpackaginginSpain.

TheNationalWastePlan(PEMAR)placestheachievementofrecyclingandpreparingforreuse50%ofhouseholdandcommercialpackagingasthemostimportantchallengetoachieveinwastemanagementin Spain. Themost recent figure for the recycling of household and commercial waste published byEurostatwas33%in2015,versusaEuropeanaverageof45%.ThisgapwiththeEuropeanaverageismuchlowerinthecaseoftherecyclingofpackaging,whereSpainisslightlyabovetheEuropeanaverageandabovemost countries,even somewithagreatenvironmental tradition and/orwithDRS inplace, likeAustria,DenmarkandNorway.

SomeproponentshaveincludedamongtheirproposalstheideaofrequiringaDRStorecyclesingle-usepackagingforcertaindrinks.

A significant number of studies have already been conducted, promoted by different social actors orstakeholders.Thosefoundaredescribedbelow.

Manyproposals havebeendebated in Spain so thatwastemanagement can successfully face thechallengesofthisdemandingfuture.Sincethetimeandresourcesarelimited,andsincealarge-scaleimplementation has social, environmental and economic consequences, before any decisions aremade,adetailedcost-benefitanalysisforeachoptionwillberequired.



OfthestudiespromotedbyRetorna,thefollowingareworthnoting:• INEDITenvironmentalstudy(2011),commissionedbyRetorna.• ISTASlabourstudy(2011),commissionedbyRetorna.• INCLAMenvironmentalstudy(2012),commissionedbyRetorna.• EUNOMIAeconomicstudy(2012),commissionedbyRetorna.

TheorganizationsthatrunthecurrentEPRshavealsodonestudies:• Sismegaeconomic,environmentalandmanagementstudy(2011),commissionedbyEcoembes.• InstitutCerdàeconomicandenvironmentalstudy(2012),commissionedbyEcovidrio.

Otherorganizationshavealsodonestudiesonbehalfofvariousstakeholders:• ISRoperationalstudy(2009),aninitiativeoftheISRBoard.• UCEbibliographicstudy(2011),aninitiativeoftheSpanishConsumerUnion.• Tecnomalogistical,economicandmanagementstudy,commissionedbytheSpanishFederation

ofMunicipalitiesandProvinces(FEMP).• TheeconomicstudiescommissionedbythePackagingandSocietyPlatform(PES)andconducted

bytheUniversidaddeLasPalmasdeGranCanaria(fortheCanaryIslands)andbytheUniversidaddeAlicante(fortheregionofValencia),usingamethodologydevelopedbytheUniversidaddeAlcaládeHenaresandtheUniversidadPolitécnicadeMadridthroughtheEcoembeschairforthenationalcase.ESCI-UPFstartedtwostudiesusingthesamemethodologyforCataloniaandtheBalearic Islands. They were not completed, however, due to the start of themore detailedARIADNAProject.

Lastly,weknowoffivenewinitiativesthatarebeingcarriedoutin2016-2017:

• ENT technical, environmental and economic viability study (2016), commissioned by thegovernmentofCatalonia.

• ESCI-UPF environmental, social and economic study (2016), commissioned by the proponentslistedatthestartofthisdocument.

• Operational,environmentalandeconomicstudybytheInstitutCerdà(2016),commissionedbythegovernmentoftheBalearicIslands.

• NOVOTECenvironmental,socialandeconomicstudy(2016),commissionedbyFEMP.• ThegovernmentofValenciahasexpresseditsinterestinimplementingaDSR,thoughwedonot

knowif ithascommissionedanindependentstudytoevaluateitsviability.Wewereunabletofindanypublicstudies.

InMay2015,theCatalanWasteAgency(ARC)publishedatenderto“contractastudyonthetechnical,environmental and economic viability of implementing a DRS for drink packaging in Catalonia”. Thematerial scope of the DRS that the tender proposes studying is broad and complex, as it includes asignificantnumberofmaterialsandproductsthathavenotbeenconsideredinothercountrieswithaDRS.

• Formaterials,itincludes:steel,aluminium,drinkcartons,HDPE,PETandglass.• Forproducts,itincludes:water,softdrinks,juice,beer,wine,sparklingwineandspirits.• Thesizeofthecontainermustbebetween0.1and3litres.



• TheamountofthedepositspecifiedbytheARCis10centspercontainer.

Thisstudy,conductedbyENT,isexpectedtobecompletedinthefirstmonthsof2017.

SincetheARCstudydidnotfocusonthelifecycleortakeintoaccountsocialaspects,theUNESCOChaironLifeCycleandClimateChangeinformed,firsttheARCandthenEcoembesandEcovidrio,thatitwouldbeimportanttoconductastudythatconsiderstheseaspects,andthatESCI-UPFcoulddosuchastudy.Ecoembes and Ecovidrio decided to promote (along with the organizations shown on page 2) a fullsustainability study usingwhatevermethodology the ESCI-UPF deemed suitable andwith a proposedtimelinesimilartothatoftheARC.ItwouldbeconductedbothspecificallyforCataloniaandforSpainasawhole. Among other factors, it was considered essential to consultwith the parties thatwould beimpacted by or involved in its practical execution, including: organizations representing consumers,housewives, neighbours, businesses, hotels, distributors, local agencies, regional governments,packagers,recyclers,environmentalorganizations,educators,themedia,tradeunions,politicalpartiesandEPRs.



3. ExtendedProducerResponsibilityOrganization(EPR)

TheExtendedProducerResponsibilityOrganization(EPR),betterknownasanIntegratedManagementSystem,orIMS,isamanagementalternativeinwhichthoseresponsibleformarketingpackagedproductsjoinanon-profitenvironmentalorganizationinordertocoordinateandfinancethesystemforrecoveringandrecyclingthewasteinquestion,cooperatingtechnicallywithlocalandregionalgovernments.EPRsalsoencourageeco-designamongmanufacturersinanefforttoreducetheenvironmentalimpactofthepackaging they market. The allocation of powers in Spain specifies that local agencies are solelyresponsible formanagingmunicipalwaste. It relies, therefore,onapublic-privatecooperationmodelsinceitusesprivatesectorfundstofinanceonetask,wastemanagement,thatisforthemostpartcarriedoutbypublicagencies.

AnotherdefiningcharacteristicofapackagingEPRinSpainisitsuniversalnature.Itseekstoefficientlymanage all types of household packaging and containers throughout Spain. This iswhy they are alsoknown as collective systems. It includes every region, every material and all types of household

packaging,fromthemosttotheleastvaluable,fromthemosttotheleastrecyclable,fromthelargest

tothesmallest.Ithasseveralareasofaction:

• Encourageeco-designandpreventthegenerationofpackagingbyimplementingsectorialplanstopreventpackagingwasteandprovidingfreetoolsandservicestopackagingcompaniessotheycanmakeenvironmentalimprovementstotheirpackaging.

• Financetheaddedcostthattheseparatecollectionofhouseholdpackagingrepresentsforlocalagencies and provide technical advice to improve the efficiency and quality of the service.Optionally, Ecovidriooffers thepossibility of replacing this financingbydirectlymanaging theseparatecollectionofglasscontainers,withpredefinedlevelsofservice.

• Economicandtechnicalaidtoencourageseparatecollectionsofhouseholdpackaginginplacesthatareprivatelymanaged(airports,sportscentres,musicfestivals,prisons,foodhalls,hospitals,etc.).

• Economicandtechnicalaid to localagenciestorecoverhouseholdpackagingwastefrombulktrashflowsthroughplantstoprocesstheresidualfraction.

• Promote,inconcertwithgovernmentsandsocialgroups,awarenessandeducationprogramsthatengagecitizensandtherelevantprofessionalsectors,likehotelsandshopkeepers.



4. DepositRefundSystem(DRS)

ADepositRefundSystem(DRS)forsingle-use(non-reusable)packagingisamanagementalternativeinwhichthoseresponsibleformarketingpackagedproductschargeadeposit tosuccessivecustomers,upthroughtothe finalconsumer,anamount foreachcontainer in thesystem.Thisdeposit isrefundedinitsentiretytotheconsumeraslongashereturnsthepackagingwasteinperfectconditions(notcrushed)tocommercialestablishments,whereitisprocessedforsubsequentrecycling.Thepointsofsaleareresponsibleforacceptingthepackagingwaste,whichtheycandomanuallyorbyusingspecificmachines.PackaginginaDRSmustbelabelledwithauniquesymbolandabarcodethatisusedtoidentifyandprocessit.

Asforparticipation,thesystemcouldbevoluntaryormandatory.Asforitsapplicability,itcouldbeuniversalorlimitedtospecificpackagingtypes.Itisveryimportantthatthesetermsnotbeconfused.

TheDRSstudiesinthisprojectwouldbemandatoryandwouldbeintendedtorecycle-notreuse-certainsingle-usedrinkcontainers.

Inpractice,notallpackagingwaste is ideal foraDRS,andasa result thesystem’sscope is restricted.Thismakes it sothat its implementation isproposedinparallelwiththeprocessingoftheremainingpackagingtypes,whichwouldcontinuetobehandledthroughanEPR.

ARIADNAPROJECTREPORTSUMMARY-SPAIN. 22/06/2017




5. Purposeofthestudy

There is a proliferation of information and opinions that rely little on the social, environmental andeconomic impactsofpackagingwastemanagementsystems inSpain,andagrowing interestbysomesocialactors,andspecificallybysomegovernments,toproposeachangetothesystem.

The presented legislative background shows that in order to change a model, especially when aconsolidatedandwidespreadseparatecollectionsystemexistsforpackaging,thetechnicalviabilityandproperoperationofthedomesticmarketmustbeassured.Astudyofthethreeareasofsustainabilitymustalsopointtoaclearbenefitfromsaidchange.Thisprojectdoesnotevaluatethetechnicalviabilityof theDRS, its technologies, its implementationof theproperadaptationbythevariousstakeholders,especiallySMEs.Italsodoesnotevaluatetheregionalornationalinfluencesitcouldhaveontheoperationofthemarket.

ThegoaloftheARIADNAProjectistoanalysetheeconomic,environmentalandsocialsustainabilityofimplementing a mandatory DRS in Spain2 (and in Catalonia, as a pilot region) with the followingcharacteristics:

- ThedepositforthepackagingtypesintheDRSis10centspercontainer.- ThetypesofcontainersincludedintheDRSareasfollows:

• Materials:PET,HDPE,steel,aluminium,cartonfordrinks,glass• Products:water,softdrinks,juice,beer,wines,sparklingwineandspirits

- Thecontainersizemustbesmallerthan3litres

Thestudycomparestwosituations:1. Thecurrentsituation(SystemA)formanaginghouseholdpackagingwastein2014inSpainunder

anEPR.2. Thehypotheticalsituation(SystemB)formanaginghouseholdpackagingwastein2014inSpain

iftherehadbeenafullyoperationalDRSwithnolearningcurve(withahypotheticalreturnrateof90%)forthedrinkcontainersdescribed,alongsideanEPRforallotherpackaging.

2“SustainabilitystudyontheintroductionofamandatoryDRSforpackaginginSpain:comparativeenvironmental,socialandeconomicanalysisagainstcurrentsituation” www.esci.upf.edu/es/ponte-al-dia/noticias/introduccion-del-sddr



Thegoalwastofindandpresentmorerigorous,systematic,transparentandobjectiveinformationbasedonscientificmethodsthatwouldmakeiteasierfortherelevantagenciestomakedecisionsandtoinformalloftheactorsinvolved.Inaddition,beingawareofthesourcesofuncertaintythatthiskindofstudycanentail,itsconsistencyhasbeenenhancedbyusingvarioustransparencymechanismsandatriplereview:

- involvingapanelofinterested/affectedpartiesthroughperiodicmeetingsforthedurationoftheproject.Theirmainmissionistocontributetoobtainingqualitydata,toensurethatconsistentdecisionsaremadeandtocontributetoformulatingthestudy’sstartingassumptions.

- submittingthestudytoapanelofindependentexpertsattheendoftheprojectsoastoensurethatthevariousmethodologieswereappliedcorrectly,and

- openingthestudytopublicscrutinyattheconclusionofthecriticalreviewinordertoallowotherstakeholdersthatdidnotparticipateintheprojecttotakepartinthereviewprocess.

Asageneralrule,whenfacedwithachoicebetweenseveraloptionsfortheinitialdataorsomeotherworkinghypothesis,weoptedforaconservativepositionthatwouldbenefittheimplementationofaDRS.Whenthiswasnotdone,itisnotedinthedocumentandabasisforthedecisionisprovided.Similarly,inkeepingwith therecommendation in the ISO14044standard,wecarriedoutaseriesofsensitivityanalysesforthosevariablesthat,apriori,couldhaveagreaterinfluenceontheresults.Lastly,inordertoberigorousinthemethodologyandtoaccountforthehighervariabilitythatdataonwastemanagementhasversusotherindustrialsectors,wewilldouncertaintyanalysesandsubmitthestudytoareview,ascommentedearlier.

The UNESCO Chair hopes that the study evolves toward a consensus, integrating the improvementsrecommendedbyexpertsandbythegeneralpublicandprovidingscientificreasoningfornotconsideringthoseproposalsthatarerejected.



6. Methodology

Environmentalanalysis

Asdetailedinthepurposeofthestudy,wecarryoutacomparativeevaluationbetweentwoalternativesfor managing packaging waste: System A, the current method based on an EPR, and System B, acombinationofDRSandEPR.ThestudyreliesontheLifeCycleAssessment(LCA),themethodologythatstipulations,regulationsandstandardsrecommendforarigorousenvironmentalevaluation,especiallywhen attempting to compare alternatives. European policies (and Waste Directives) place specialemphasisonapplyingthelifecycleapproachasanessentialtool intheareaofwastemanagementtoestablish objective criteriawhenmaking decisions toward sustainable development. According to theEuropean Commission:«Refining decisionswithin or outside the (waste) hierarchy can lead to betterenvironmentalresults.The“best”optionisofteninfluencedbyspecificlocalconditions,anditisimportantto tread carefully to avoid simply shifting environmental burdens from one area to another. Politicalofficials and decision makers must base their decisions on solid evidence. The LCA provides rigorousscientific informationtoensurethattheoptionwiththebestoutcomefortheenvironmentis identifiedandimplemented.»

InordertomakethemostoftheLCA’spotentialwhenstrategicallyplanninghowtomanagewaste,assuggestedbytheEU’sThematicStrategyonthePreventionandRecyclingofWaste,decisionmakershavetobesuppliedwithobjectiveinformationandqualityscientificdatathatareeasytouse.Themostsustainableoptionscomplementenvironmental informationwitheconomicdataandsocial indicators,alwaysunderalifecycleanalysisapproach.

The ISO 14040:2006 international standard defines LCA as «a technique for determining theenvironmentalaspectsandthepotentialimpactsassociatedwithaproduct,bycompilinganinventoryofthesystem’srelevantinputsandoutputs,evaluatingthepotentialimpactsassociatedwiththeinputsandoutputsandinterpretingtheresultsoftheinventoryandimpactphasesintermsofthestudy’sobjectives».Several environmental impact categories are studied, such as: global warming (carbon footprint),acidification,useofnaturalresources,eutrophication,waterusage,etc.

Economicanalysis

Afterreviewingtherelevantliterature,theeconomicanalysisdoesacomparativeaccountingofthecostsofthecollectionsystemsthatareanalysedintheARIADNAProject:EPRontheonehandandalimitedDRS+EPRontheother.Thecostaccountingmethodologyhasbeenfullydevelopedfordecadesandneedsnoadditionalintroduction.Theanalysisincludestwomainblocks,oneforeachcollectionsystem:

• EPR.AnalysisofEPRcosts,total,pertonandpercitizen,firstonanaggregatelevelandthenbymaterialsandactivities(collection,transport,etc.).

• DRS.SincethissystemisnotcurrentlyinuseinSpain,itmustfirstbedesignedandsized(designofwasteflowsbyfractionandcalculationoftheinfrastructurerequiredtocollectandsortthewasteduringthenewphasesthattheDRSentails),sothatitsnetcostscanthenbeinventoriedandanalysed.Inthisphase,it iscruciallyimportanttohaveapanelofreviewersmadeupofrepresentativesfromallofthestakeholdersinvolvedinitsimplementation.Thiswillallowusto



havethebestsourcesofinformationsoastosizethepotentialsystemandavoid,totheextentpossible,theadoptionofarbitraryassumptions.

Socialanalysis

Sincethereisnostandardmethodologicalframeworkforthesocialanalysis,itiscarriedoutfromvariousdifferentandcomplementaryperspectives.First,weconductabibliographicreviewofexistingstudiesonthesocialimpactofpackagingcollectioninanefforttodeterminethemethodsandmetricsusedtodate.ThesocialimpactoftheEPRandDRSpackagingcollectionsystemsisevaluatedusingtwomethodsthatappearedrecently(theauthorsofsaidmethodsareincludedintheworkgroup):

• Thesocialfootprint(Weidema,B.P.,2016)and

• Anadaptationofthemethodologyforquantifyingintegratedsocialvalue(Retolaza,J.L.,2014).

Theformer,thesocialfootprint,conductsasocio-economicdiagnosisbyusingalife-cycleapproach,whilethe latter aims to quantify the interests perceived by all of the significant stakeholders. The socialfootprint methodology may be regarded as a simple, but at the same time practical and complete,approachforasocialLCA,onethatretainsthelife-cycleperspectivewhileavoidingtheonerousdemandfordatatypicallyassociatedwithafullsocialLCA.Thismethodemploysthesamedefinitionoftheterm“social”aswelfareeconomics,thatis,ittakesintoaccountsocialcoststhatincludenotonlyprivatecosts,butalsoexternalcosts(alsocalledexternalities).

Thequantificationofintegratedsocialvaluemethodologyisbasedontheperspectiveofthetheoryofstakeholdersandonaphenomenologicalapproachtotheconceptofvalue.Theseareusedtoobjectifyandvisualizethevaluethatanorganizationcreatesforallofitsstakeholders.Themethodologycombinesqualitative and quantitative analysis. The qualitative analysis seeks to evaluate the impacts that anorganization generates for its main stakeholders and is based on conducting interviews withrepresentatives from all of these stakeholders. The quantitative analysis focuses on quantifying theperceivedbenefitsbydevelopingindicatorsandproxies(valueapproximations)thatallowmonetizingthevalue generated. In this study, we adapt this methodology to take into account the benefits anddrawbacks for stakeholders that can affect or that are affected by the packaging collection systemsstudied. Versus the top-down approach of the social footprint method, this relies on a bottom-upprocedure to identify those social (andeconomic)aspects that theaffectedgroupsand/or individualsperceiveasrelevant.



7. Entitiesinvolvedinthestudy



8. Functionalunitandreferenceflows

The functional unit employed in this study is the collection,management and recycling of single-use

packagingwaste(lightandglasscontainers)undertheEPRin2014.

TheinitialdataforSystemAarebasedonpublicinformation(andoccasionallyonnon-publicinformation

butwithmoredetail)madeavailablebygovernmentagenciesandondatasuppliedbyEcoembesand

Ecovidrio (all of it duly audited). Theyarebasedon real informationboth in termsof size andof the

public’sinvolvementinthesystemandontheresourcesrequiredforitsoperation.Incontrast,forSystemBwehad toestablisha seriesofassumptions todefineand scaleanon-existent situation. The scale,

participationand resourcesneeded for itsproperoperationwereestimatedforbothFlow1 (theDRS

packaging)andFlow2(therest),sincetheoperationoftheEPRwouldbeaffectedbythecoexistenceof

thetwosystems.ManyofthedataonspecificprocessesweresuppliedbythosewhocreatedthedataandwhositonthePIP(PanelofInterestedParties).

Thegeneralreferenceflowsforthetwosystemswillbethesamequantitatively,thosedefinedasawhole

forallEPRmembers(EcoembesandEcovidrio)in2014.Thetotalamountofpackagingthatcomprisesthe

study’sfunctionalunitis2,500,721t.

LIGHTPACKAGING(LP) GLASSTOTALINSTUDY

(LP+GLASS) t % t % t %

Flow1:DRS-eligiblecontainers 330,818 29% 1,092,656 80% 1,423,474 57%

Flow2:ContainersexcludedfromDRS 802,618 71% 274,629 20% 1,077,247 43%

Total 1,133,435 100% 1,367,285 100% 2,500,721 100%

9. Summaryofmaterialbalanceresults

In order to determine the social, environmental and economic impact of the two systems under

consideration, we must define a material balance for all of the collection, processing and selection

processesincludedinthestudy.Thismeansstartingwiththeamountofpackagingplacedonthemarket

and determining how it moves through the different collection channels (separate collection, bulk

collection,out-of-homecollectionsor collectionviaDRS) and treatmentprocesses, from the time the

containerbecomeswasteuntilthematerialsthatcompriseitarerecoveredinfacilitiesandprocessedto

besenttoarecycler.

First,wedeterminedthematerialbalanceforSystemA(forwhichinitialdataareavailable),andwethen

calculatedthematerialbalanceforSystemB,whichrequiresmakingassumptionsaboutpotentialfuture

scenarios.Theresultsofthesebalancesareshownonthetablesthatfollow.



SYSTEMA

Units BEVERAGECARDBOARD METALS PLASTICS GLASS

SUMMARYTABLE

GROSSAMOUNTRECOVERED t 94,589 276,459 410,845 953,100LANDFILLED t 29,152 53,561 195,736 410,043

ENERGYRECOVERY t 9,255 0 60,324 0LITTERING t 388 541 2,586 4,142TOTAL 133,383 330,561 669,492 1,367,285

SYSTEMB

Units BEVERAGECARDBOARD METALS PLASTICS GLASS

SUMMARYTABLE

GROSSAMOUNTRECOVERED t 100,649 300,126 433,398 1,214,800

LANDFILLED t 24,535 30,146 179,426 151,066ENERGYRECOVERY t 7,880 0 54,382 0

LITTERING t 320 289 2,286 1,419TOTAL 133,383 330,561 669,492 1,367,285

Aswecansee,ifweconsideronlymaterialflowindicators,SystemBseemstoperformbetter.Itrecovered313,980additionaltons(an increaseofalmost12.5%inthepackagingrecyclingrateandof1.5%withrespect to all theMunicipal SolidWaste (MSW) in Spain), lowered the amountofwaste landfilledby303,319tons,7.317tonswillnolongerbeincinerated,anditloweredthenumberoftonslitteredby3,343tons. This improvement in material flows, however, does not directly correlate to its environmentalimpact,aswewillseelater.Inotherwords,theprocessesneededtoachievethesegoalshaveahigherenvironmentalimpact.

10. Summaryoftheresultsoftheenvironmentalanalysis

Six environmental impact categories were analysed though a Life Cycle Assessment, including global

impactcategories(suchasglobalwarmingandtheuseofnaturalresources),theimpactonthequalityof

ecosystemsandwater,andtheimpactonhumanhealth.Asthetablebelowshows,theoverallresultsare

negative. Thismeans that the savings associatedwith thematerials and/or energy recovered by the

systems(itscredits)arehigherthantheenvironmentalimpactsassociatedwiththewastecollectionand

managementoperations.Therefore,itmaybesaidthattheimplementationofbothpackagingcollectionandrecoverysystemsanalysedisbeneficialtotheenvironment.



SYSTEMA SYSTEMB IMPACTS CREDITS OVERALL IMPACTS CREDITS OVERALL

ACIDIFICATION(molesofH+eq.) 2,772,494 -5,526,411 -2,753,917 4,875,055 -6,765,241 -1,890,186

GLOBALWARMING(kgCO2eq.)

1,072,084,939 -1,750,461,092 -678,376,152 1,582,282,122 -2,129,021,124 -546,739,002

EUTROPHICATION(molesofNeq.) 8,145,188 -13,152,212 -5,007,023 14,375,824 -16,171,756 -1,795,932

OZONELAYER(kgCFC-11eq.) 49.495 -57.104 -7.609 67.825 -73.999 -6.175

PHOTOCHEMICALOXIDIZERS(kgofC2H4eq.)

169,687 -566,909 -397,223 291,685 -660,412 -368,726

DEPLETIONOFRESOURCES(kgSbeq.)

3,680 -23,566 -19,886 5,852 -27,758 -21,906

Ifwedoamorein-depthanalysis,weseethatthecreditsassociatedwithSystemBarealwayshigherthan

thoseforSystemA.ThisisbecausetheadditionofDRS(withthetheoreticalreturnrateconsideredof

90%) would yield an increase in the amount of packaging recovered. This increased recovery rate,

however, entails ahigherenvironmental impactdue to the requiredwaste collection,processingand

recyclingprocesses.

Thefigurebelowbreaksdownthecomparativeresultsoftheanalysis.Foreveryimpactcategory,exceptslightlyforthedepletionofabioticresources(10.2%lowerimpact),theresultsforSystemAarebetterthanforSystemB.Valuesfurtherawayfrom0allowustostatewithgreatercertaintythatSystemAis

betterthanB.Forvaluescloserto0,thereismoreuncertaintyastowhichsystemisbetter.Similarly,in

light of the results, we can state that, as a whole, the introduction of a DRS system would causeenvironmentalharmincomparisontothecurrentsystem.



Whenweconsiderwhichstageshavethemostimpact,weseeinbothsystemsthat,ingeneralterms,the

recyclingprocesseshave thegreatest impact, followedby thecollectionand transportprocesses.The

sortingprocessandtheequipmenthavethelowestimpact.ThemaindifferencesdetectedinSystemB

with respect to theexisting systemare: ahigher contribution from the collectionand transport (e.g.,

movement of uncompacted containers for 54% of the packaging collected manually) and a higher

contributionfromequipment(e.g.energyandmaterialuse).Thecontributionofthecreditsisdistributed

verysimilarly,withthecreditsassociatedwiththerecoveryofmaterialsforSystemBincreasingslightly

(by0.9%),at theexpenseof thedecreasebythesameratioof thecreditsassociatedwiththeenergy

recovery.

SYSTEMA

EquipmentCollection

andtransport

Sorting Recycling Landfilling/incineration

Energycredits

Materialcredits

ACIDIFICATION 2.8% 20.1% 2.4% 68.8% 5.8% -3.3% -96.7%

GLOBALWARMING 1.8% 9.6% 1.0% 69.0% 18.6% -3.2% -96.8%

EUTROPHICATION 1.7% 34.3% 2.9% 51.9% 9.2% -3.3% -96.7%

OZONELAYER 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 97.6% 1.1% 0.0% -100.0%

PHOTOCHEMICALOXIDIZERS 3.0% 27.8% 1.4% 58.9% 8.8% -1.2% -98.8%

DEPLETIONOFRESOURCES 13.4% 1.1% 0.6% 84.6% 0.4% -0.8% -99.2%

SYSTEMB

EquipmentCollection

andtransport

Sorting Recycling Landfilling/incineration

Energycredits

Materialcredits

ACIDIFICATION 6.8% 39.3% 1.4% 50.5% 2.0% -2.4% -97.6%

GLOBALWARMING 6.8% 21.5% 1.0% 59.5% 11.1% -2.3% -97.7%

EUTROPHICATION 5.2% 52.9% 1.5% 37.3% 3.1% -2.4% -97.6%

OZONELAYER 2.5% 0.0% 0.2% 96.9% 0.4% 0.0% -100.0%

PHOTOCHEMICALOXIDIZERS 26.4% 25.5% 0.9% 42.9% 4.3% -0.9% -99.1%

DEPLETIONOFRESOURCES 17.1% 2.2% 0.9% 79.7% 0.1% -0.6% -99.4%



11. Summaryoftheresultsoftheeconomicanalysis

TheeconomicanalysiswasdisaggregatedforSystemAandSystemB,separatingtheresultsofFlow1andFlow2 ineachofthembeforepresentingtheaggregatedresultsofthetwoflowsandacomparisonbetweenSystemAandSystemB.Thetablebelowshowstheresults,aswellastheadditionalcostforSystemBwithrespecttoSystemA:

*Thisnetcostcorrespondsto90%ofthepackaginginFlow1managedbytheDRSand10%managedbytheEPR.

ForSpanishsociety,thenetcostofmanagingallofthelightpackagingandglasswastewithSystemBwouldgoupby€1.784B(goingfrom€491.6Mto€2,275.8M).Thisisbecause:

- ThewaythattheDRSmanagesthepackagingwastewouldcost€1.645Bmorethanwiththecurrentsystem(goingfrom€164.4Mto€1,810.3M).

ITEM(ALLMATERIALS)SYSTEMA SYSTEMB

FLOW1 FLOW2 TOTAL FLOW1 FLOW2 TOTALTons 1,423,474 1,077,247 2,500,720 1,423,474 1,077,247 2,500,720

Packagingunits 17,802,793,360 N/A N/A 17,802,793,360 N/A N/ATOTALNETCOST(€/yr.) 164,422,302 327,199,800 491,622,102 1,810,321,089 465,473,766 2,275,794,855NETCOSTPERINHABITANT(€/inh/yr.) 3.5 7.0 10.5 38.7 10.0 48.7

ITEM(ALLMATERIALS)ADDITIONAL

FLOW1 FLOW2 TOTALTons 1,423,474 1,077,247 2,500,720

Packagingunits 17,802,793,360 N/A N/ATOTALNETCOST(€/yr.) 1,645,898,787 138,273,966 1,784,172,753NETCOSTPERINHABITANT(€/inh/yr.) 35.2 3.0 38.1



- The DRS would also increase the cost of processing the remaining packaging waste (that not in the DRS), raising the net cost for Spanishmunicipalitiesby€138.2M(goingfrom€327.1Mto€465.4M).

InordertoanalysetheintroductionofaDRSalongsidetheEPR,aDRSwasevaluatedthatisadaptedtoSpain’scommercialstructure.ThetotalcostoftheDRSinSystemB(€1.794B)hasthestructureshowninthetablebelow.Theincreasedeconomic impactwouldaffectthepointsofsale,whichwouldberequiredtotakepartinhandlingtheDRScontainersatanannualcostof€1.508B.Thisresultsfromthenecessaryprocessingofthecontainersatthepointsofsale.21%ofthiscostcorrespondstotheautomatedhandlingofcontainersand79%topointsofsalewithmanualprocessing.Theannualcostofthetransportphasefromthepointofsaletothecounting/pre-treatmentplantswouldbe€323M.79%correspondstothehandlingofcontainersfrommanualpointsofsaleand21%tothosefromautomatedpointsofsale.

ANNUALAMOUNT(M€)

COSTSLabeling Handlingatpointofsale Transport Counting/pre-treatment Indirectcosts Totalcosts131 1,508 323 79 68 2,109

REVENUE Saleofmaterials Unreturneddeposits Totalrevenue NETCOST

137 178 315 1,794

Basedontheestimatesmadeinthisstudy,54%ofthetons(51%oftheunits)wouldbehandledthroughamanualsystemand46%ofthetons(49%oftheunits)wouldbehandledusingautomaticsystems.ThisisalargedifferencewithrespecttocountriesinthenorthofEuropethathassignificantrepercussionsofallkinds,sincemostofthewastemanagedbytheDRSwouldhavetobesentuncompactedtothe45countingplantsthatwouldhavetobeopened.Handlingatthepointofsaleandtransportingamaterialwithsuchalowdensityrequiresalargeallocationofresourcesandahighenvironmentalimpact.Itisestimatedthat10,895pointsofsalewouldhandlethepackagingwasteusingreversevendingmachines(RVM),whichwouldrequirepurchasing38,752suchRVMs(atacostof€819.71M).

Thecostpercontainerprocessed foreachtypeofpointofsale isshowninthetablebelow.Notethatthecostforeachtypeofestablishmentwouldbedifferentdependingonhowthepackagingwasteishandled.Thepointsofsalewithmanualprocessingwouldbearahighercost.



HANDLINGMETHOD Superstore Largesupermarket

Mediumsupermarket

Smallsupermarket

Minimarket

Traditionalstore Gasstation Bar Hotel-

RestaurantNighttimeConsumption

Automatic(Large-capacitymachine) €0.0238 Automatic(Large-capacitymachine+Inverselogistics) €0.0238 €0.0359

Automatic(Medium-capacitymachine+storageinstore) €0.0224 €0.0281 €0.0537

Automatic(Medium-capacitymachinewithnostorageinstore) €0.0296 €0.0341 €0.0498 €0.1167

Manual €0.0602 €0.0654 €0.0824 €0.0908 €0.0862 €0.2425 €0.1137 €0.1499

The channel thatwouldhandle themost tonsofwastewouldbe large supermarkets, followedbybars, above the superstores. In cost terms, themostsignificanteconomicimpactwouldbetobars(€732.5M),followedbylarge,mediumandsmallsupermarkets(€384.1M).Inall,thefoodservicesectorwouldincurcostsinexcessof€941.6M,andthecommercesectorinexcessof€566.5M.



12. Summaryoftheresultsofthesocialanalysis

AnanalysisofsocialbenefitsandharmsofthepackagingcollectionsystemsstudiesrevealsaseriesofpositiveandnegativeeffectsassociatedwithahypotheticalimplementationofaDRS.These effects primarily involve the economic costs and benefits that would result from theintroductionofthenewsystem.ThoseaspectsthatwerenotconsideredintheenvironmentalandeconomicstudyoftheARIADNAProjectarediscussedqualitativelyfromthestandpointofthe different stakeholders involved. In addition, the analysis quantifies and monetizes thebenefits andharms thatmaybedeemed relevant for society as awhole; specifically, thoseresulting fromthespaceand time requirements, theneed to learnand the repercussionsoflittering.ThesocialcostsandbenefitsofSystemsAandBaresummarizedinthefollowingtable.

SystemA(EPR) SystemB(EPR+DRS)Costperhousehold Spacerequired 1.00EUR 1.49EURTimerequired 21.26EUR 136.54EURLearningneeds* - -Benefits Reductioninlittering 0EUR 20.41EURNetcostperhousehold 22.26EUR 117.62EURNetcostperinhabitant 8.83EUR 46.67EUR*notconsidered,sincetheyareincludedintheeconomicevaluation

• Ontheonehand,SystemBinvolvesgreaterharmsorcostsforsocietyasawholebothin termsof thespace required (1.5 timesmore thanSystemA)and timerequired (6timesmorethanSystemA).

• Ontheotherhand,SystemBoffersthesocialbenefitassociatedwithreducedlitteringofthepackagingtypesincludedinthisstudy.Thiswouldresultingreaterenjoymentofpublicspaces.

ThesocialfootprintresultsforSystemsAandBareshowninthetablebelow.Theresultsareshownonthreelevelsforbothsystems:the impactonproductivity(IP),theredistributionofrevenue (RR) and the social footprint (SF), resulting from adding IP and RR. The units ofmeasurementaremillionsofeuros(in2014),adjustedbypurchasingpowerparityandweightedbyutility.Thisadjustmentandweighingmeansthattheamountsshowninthetablecannotbedirectlycomparedtothoseresultingfromtheeconomicstudy.



System Indicator TotalLabelingofpackaging

Collectedinstores

Collectedincontainers

Transport

Sorting,pre-treatment,counting,

classification

RecyclingFinal

disposalOther

activitiesConsumer

A

Impactonproductivity(IPA)

-5,247 0 0 321 639 468 -6,886 93 118

Redistributionofrevenue(RRA)

181 0 0 -17 -40 -28 239 -6 -11 44

SocialFootprint

(SFA=IPA+RRA)

-5,067

0 0 304 599 440 -6,647 87 107 44

B

Impactonproductivity(IPB)

-2,413 28 3,019 321 1,364 612 -8,081 62 263

Redistributionofrevenue(RRB)

-100 -22 -450 -17 -85 -37 281 -4 -25 259

SocialFootprint

(SFB=IPB+RRB)-

2,5136 2,568 304 1,279 575 -7,800 58 238 259



• Theresultsshowthatthesocialfootprintforbothsystemsisnegativeoverall,meaningthatbothsystemshaveanetbenefitforsociety.Theresultinbothcasesisdominatedbythevalueoftheimpactonproductivity,sincethevalueoftheredistributionofrevenueisoneorderofmagnitudelower.

• Fromacomparativestandpoint,theresultsshowthatthisbenefittosocietyishigherforSystemAthanforSystemB.

• SystemBismorebeneficialthanSystemAintermsoftheredistributionofrevenue,sincetheformeryieldsanegativeresultwhiletheresultforthelatterispositive.ThisbenefitfromSystemB,however, isnotenoughtooffsetthegeneralbenefitsexhibitedbySystemA,whichyieldsarelativelyhighsocialbenefitthroughitsimpactonproductivity.



13. Conclusionsandrecommendations

GENERAL

1. In order to comply with the law on waste and with the European Commission’s

recommendations, before deciding whether to require the implementation of a DRS, itstechnicalviabilityandsustainabilitymustbestudiedthroughout its lifecycle in threeareas:social, environmental and economic. A study that does not consider these aspects is not

adequateformakingdecisionsinvolvingwastepolicy.

2. Existingdataonwastemanagementaremorevariable than those thatareavailable forotherindustrialsectors,suchaschemical,automotive,constructionandothers.Thisvariabilityappliestobothgeographicandtime-relatedaspects.Inaddition,thevarioussourcesavailable(includingofficialones)aresometimesconflicting.Itisimportanttonotethisfactandcorrectlyarguefortheoptionselected.Itisessentialthatthesourcesofdataleadtothenecessaryconsensus.TheARIADNA Project featured a Panel of Interested Parties,with representatives from the entirevalue chain, who provided, compared and validated the data and assumptions taken intoconsideration.

3. Obtainingasufficientlyaccuratematerialbalance(quantificationofthevariousmaterialflows)isthefirst,andmostdifficult,stepinevaluatingthesustainability.Giventheinherentuncertaintyinthewastemanagementfigures,firsttheflowsthathavethegreatestinfluenceontheresultaretallied,andthenthetotalisclosedoutwiththeleastinfluentialflowstobalancetheinputsandoutputs.

4. A full and rigorous analysis indicates that the suggested change to the management ofpackagingwastecausedbytheadditionofaDRSundertheconditionsofthisstudywouldbelesssustainablethancontinuingwiththecurrentsystem,since:itssocialimpactwouldnotbe

beneficialtoSpanishcitizensortotheparametersevaluatedforthegeneraleconomy;itscostwouldbemuchhigherforsociety;andtheenvironmentalimpactwouldbehigherinmostoftheimpactcategories.

5. InSpain,mostoftheDRSpackagingwastewouldbehandledmanuallybystoresandconsumersandinvolveavastnetworkofsmallestablishments.ThisishugelydifferentfromcountriesinthenorthofEurope,withsignificantrepercussionsofallkinds,sincemostofthewastemanagedbytheDRSwouldhavetobesentuncompactedtothecountingplants.

6. Thevastmajorityoftheeconomicandhumanresourcesthechangewouldrequirewouldbebetterdevotedtoimprovingtheexistingsystemandtheprocessingofothertypesofwastethat

aremoreabundantandenvironmentallyproblematic.Packagingwasteisasmallandrelativelyproblem-freefractionofallmunicipalwaste,andthepackagingproposedfortheDRSisthekindthatishandledwellbythecurrentsystem.

7. Thesetofmethodologies,researchersandcalculationtools,alongwiththehelpprovidedbyapanelofinterestedparties,meanthattheARIADNAprojectisreproducibleondifferentscalesforbothEPRandforotherpossibleimplementationsoftheDRS.



8. IftheARIADNAmethodologywereagreeduponasbeingthemostsuitable,itwouldbeinterestingtobeabletoshareandcomplementtheinformationandteamsfromseveralstudiesandcreateanadhocteamtoresolvethisandnewchallengesinvolvingpackagingwaste.

ENVIRONMENTAL

Themainfindingsoftheenvironmentalstudyareasfollows:

1. Theenvironmental savingsofbothsystemsexceedtheir impacts,meaningbothofferapositiveenvironmentalservice.However,eveniftheDRSwerefullydevelopedandattainedareturnrateof90%forcontainers,thecurrentsystemobtainssignificantlybetterresultsineveryimpactcategory

analysed,with theexceptionof the resourcedepletionpotential,which is closely related to thepotentialhigherrecyclingrateofSystemB(12.5%forpackagingand1.5%forallMSWinSpain).

2. The increased recycling rateof theDRS reliesonprocesses thatentailmorepollution, primarilyassociatedwiththeneedformoreequipment(machinery,bagsandboxes)andwiththelessefficienttransportofthepackagingwastethatiscollectedmanually(approximately54%oftheweightofDRScontainers).Theseresultsareduetothecommercialstructureandtothecharacteristicsofthestoresthat sell packaged drinks in Spain, which may differ from that of other countries that haveimplementedaDRS.

3. Asfortheimpactonhumanhealth,whichtheLawonWastealsoconsiders,itisrepresentedbytheimpactcategoriesonozonelayerdepletionandsmog.Forthesecategories,SystemAperformsbetterthanBineveryscenarioanalysed.

4. TheimpactofcollectingpackagingsubjecttoaDRS(Flow1)inSystemBismuchhigherthanthat

for Flow 2, and even higher in every impact category analysed than the total in System A forcollectingthetwoflows.

5. InkeepingwiththerecommendationintheISO14044standard,wecarriedoutaseriesofsensitivityanalysesforthosevariablesthat,apriori,couldhaveagreaterinfluenceontheresults.Overall,weconcludethatnoneofthealternativesanalysed(inboththebaseandalternatescenarios)suggestchangingsystems,notevenfortheresourcedepletionimpactcategory.ThedifferenceinthisimpactcategoryforthetwosystemsanalysedisverysmallandassumesaDRSpackagingreturnrateof90%.AsmallerreturnratewouldreducethedifferenceinthisimpactcategorybetweenthetwosystemsandincreasethedifferenceintheremainingimpactcategoriesinfavourofSystemA.

ECONOMIC

Themainfindingsoftheeconomicstudyareasfollows:

1. For Spanish society, the total net collection costwould go from€491,622,102 in SystemA to€2,275,794,855inSystemB,a4.6-foldincreaseinthetotalcostofcollectingpackaginginSpain.Theadditionalcostwouldbe€1,784,172,753.Thisincreasedcostwouldbedueprimarilyto:



o HandlingthepackaginginFlow1wouldcost€1,645,898,787morethanunderthecurrentsystem (going from €164,422,302 to €1,810,321,089). 99% of this additional cost isassociatedwithcollectionunderaDRS.

o Furthermore,addingaDRSwouldalsomakeitmoreexpensivetohandlethepackagingwasteforpackagingnotundertheDRS,raisingthenetcostforSpanishmunicipalitiesby€138,273,966(goingfrom€327,199,800to€465,473,766).

2. In per capita terms, the net cost per inhabitantwould go from10.5 to 48.3 euros, a 4.6-foldincrease in cost and an additional expense of €38.1 per person. This increase in cost can bedisaggregatedbetweenFlow1andFlow2:

o In per capita terms, the net cost of Flow 1 would go from €3.5/inhabitant to€38.7/inhabitant,anincreaseof1,001.02%oran11.01-foldincreaseinthecost.

o ThenetcostofmanagingthepackaginginFlow2wouldincrease,bothintotaltermsandin per capita terms, by 42.26%. In euros per inhabitant, this means going from€7/inhabitantwithSystemAto€10/inhabitantwithSystemB.

3. IfwefocusonFlow1packaging,whichwouldbesubjecttotheDRS,theadditionalincreaseinthenetcostwouldbe€1,645,898,787,equivalenttomultiplyingthenetcostby11.01.

4. ThescaleoftheDRSusedrevealedthat54%ofthetonsofpackagingsubjecttotheDRSwouldbe managed manually (which entails high costs for labour and for storing and transportinguncompactedpackaging),andtheremaining46%wouldbeprocessedusingautomatedsystems(whichentailshighmachinerycosts).ThisishugelydifferentwithrespecttocountriesinthenorthofEurope,withsignificantrepercussionsofallkinds,sincemostofthewastemanagedbytheDRSwouldhave tobesentuncompacted to45countingplants.Thehandlingat thestoreand thetransportofsuchlow-densitymaterialrequirealargeallocationofresources.

5. Themostsignificanteconomicimpactinvolvesthepointsofsale,thecostforwhichwouldgoupto€1.508Bannually.

Thisisbecausetheseestablishmentswouldhavetoprocessthiswasteatthestore,andaswesaw in thecostestimate,21%of thiscostwouldcorrespondto theautomatichandlingof thepackagingand79%tothemanualhandling.

Thechannelthatwouldprocessthemosttonsofwastewouldbelargesupermarkets,followedbybars,abovethesuperstorechannel.Incostterms,themostsignificanteconomicimpactwouldbe to bars (€732.5M annually), followed by large,medium and small supermarkets (€384.1Mannually).Inall,thefoodservicesectorwouldincurannualcostsinexcessof€941.6M,andthecommercesectorinexcessof€566.5M.

6. The annual cost of the transport phase from the point of sale to the counting/pre-treatmentplantswouldbe€323M.78%wouldcorrespondtothehandlingofcontainersfrompointsofsalethatprocessthecollectionmanuallyand21%tothosefromthosethatwouldresorttoautomatedprocesses.

7. Itiscalculatedthat10,895pointsofsalewouldprocessthepackagingwasteusingRVM,whichwouldrequirethepurchaseof38,752machines(atacostof€819.71M).



SOCIAL

Ananalysisofthebenefitsandharmsreachesthefollowingconclusions:

1. Ifthesocialcostsandbenefitsaretranslatedintomonetaryterms,thebenefitsdonotoffsetthecosts, andSystemBhas5 timesmorenet costs thanSystemA.The largest social costs comeprimarilyfromtheincreasedtimerequiredforconsumerstoprocesscontainerssubjecttotheDRS.

2. Ifthesocialcostsperinhabitantwereintegratedintothecostsresultingfromtheeconomicstudy,thelatterwouldincreaseby83%forSystemAand96%forSystemB;thatis,thecostsofbothsystemswouldapproximatelydouble.

Themainfindingsofthesocialfootprintstudyareasfollows:

1. Thesocialfootprintforbothsystemsisnegativeoverall,meaningthatbothsystemshaveanetbenefitforsociety.

2. ThebenefitforsocietyishigherforSystemAthanforSystemB;specifically,theintroductionofaDRS alongside EPRwouldworsen the social footprint ofmanaging packagingwaste in Spain,reducing its beneficial impact by 50% compared to the current situation, despite the higherrecyclingratethataDRSwouldachievebasedonthestudy’sassumptions.

3. Thesefindingsmatchthoseoftheeconomicandenvironmentalanalyses:thebenefitstosocietyof System B are reduced by the cost of the other activities in this system, especially thoseassociatedwiththecollectionandtransportofcontainers.

4. Itshouldbenotedthatintwospecificaspects,SystemBinvolvesasmallersocialfootprintthanSystemA:recycling(lowerproductionofrawmaterialsinSpainandinothercountries)andfinaldisposalofwaste(lowerwastelandfilling/incinerationratesinSpain).Thissmallersocialfootprint,however,isnotbalancedoutbythissystem’shighersocialfootprintinotheractivities,especiallyinthecollectionofcontainersfromstores(productionofmaterialsandmachineryforcollection,useofcommercialspace,etc.)andthetransportofpackagingandpackagingwaste.

estudio ariadna- resumen final eng final...ariadna project report summary - spain 22/06/2017 3...

Documents