EIMPack Economic Impact of the Packaging and …eimpack.ist.utl.pt/docs/Report_0_Belgium_revision2.pdfEIMPack – Economic Impact of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive Framework

EIMPack – Economic Impact of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive

Framework and Evolution of the Packaging Sector in Belgium - Report 0

June 2012

Legal notice

This report consists of a study based on the information provided by the utilities. It was prepared as part of the

work programme of EIMPack - Economic Impact of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive, financed

by European Investment Bank. The European Investment Bank or any person or company acting on behalf of

the Bank is not responsible for the use that may be made of the information contained in this report.

Research team

Rui Cunha Marques (Principal Investigator)

Nuno Ferreira da Cruz (Researcher)

Pedro Simões (Researcher grant)

Sandra Faria Ferreira (Research grant)

Marta Cabral Pereira (Research grant)

Simon De Jaegger (Consultant)

Task 3 – Financial Flows

i

Table of Contents

Page

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... II

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................III

1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1

2. LEGAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................. 3

2.1 Waste Management ................................................................................................ 3

2.2 Waste Management Policies ................................................................................... 8

2.3 Urban Solid Waste Management Models................................................................14

2.4 Waste Authorities ...................................................................................................16

3. URBAN WASTE SERVICES OPERATORS .................................................................18

4. LICENSED ENTITIES FOR MANAGING THE LOGISTICS CHAIN OF PACKAGING

WASTE ............................................................................................................................23

4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................23

4.2 Fost Plus ................................................................................................................23

4.3 Val-I-Pac ................................................................................................................25

5. ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ASPECTS ....................................................................27

6. CURRENT SITUATION ...............................................................................................31

7. CONCLUSIONS ..........................................................................................................36

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................38

ANNEXES .......................................................................................................................43

Annex I .........................................................................................................................44


ii

List of Figures

Figure 1 - The intercommunales for the urban waste services in Flemish region .............19

Figure 2 – The intercommunales for the urban waste services in Walloon region ............19

Figure 3 – The public company responsible for urban waste services in Brussels-Capital

region ..............................................................................................................................21

Figure 4 – Framework of household packaging waste management ................................24

Figure 5 – Framework of industrial packaging waste management ..................................26

Figure 6 – Generation of municipal waste (kg per capita) ................................................31

Figure 7 – Packaging waste generated by material (tonnes) ............................................33

Figure 8 – Recycling rate (%) for packaging waste by material ........................................34

Figure 9 – Recovery rate (%) for packaging waste by material ........................................35


iii

List of Tables

Table 1 – Reuse and recycling conditions for the ecotaxes’ exemptions ........................... 4

Table 2 – Updates of the Cooperation Agreement of 30 May 1996 ................................... 7

Table 3 – Main targets of “Waste Plans” implemented in Flanders until 2007 ..................13

Table 4 – Forms of inter-municipal cooperation in Flanders .............................................15

Table 5 – Type of infrastructures for treating the urban waste in Flanders for the year 2012

........................................................................................................................................20

Table 6 – Type of infrastructures for treating the urban waste in Wallonia .......................21

Table 7 – Type of infrastructures for urban waste services in Brussels-Capital region .....22

Table 8 – Green Dot fees from 2009 ................................................................................28

Table 9 – Fixed contributions from 2009 ..........................................................................29

Table 10 – Municipal waste generation and treatment (in thousands of tonnes) ..............32

Table 11 – Packaging waste generated by material (in tonnes) .......................................32


1. Introduction

1

1. Introduction

With the exception of radioactive waste, in Belgium waste policies are exclusive

competencies of the three Belgian regions since 1993. It was during this year that country

was constituted as a federal state composed by communities (The Flemish, French and

German communities) and regions (Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels-Capital).

Nevertheless, in fact, the national government has limited powers in this field, mainly

related to the products standardization and to the negotiation and implementation of the

international commitments of the country (such as the transposition of the European

Directives into the Belgian legislation, Criekemans, 2010).

Before the European Union (EU) Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste

(PPW), the Belgian government had already implemented fiscal instruments to encourage

to the ecodesign1 of products. The PPW Directive was transposed into Belgian legislation

through an Agreement established in 30 May 1996 among the three regions. It is called

the Interregional Cooperation Agreement. This agreement introduced the “shared

responsibility of producer” principle in Belgium. In order to comply with the ambitious

targets of recycling and recovery, it imposed “take-back” obligations to all economic

operators who place packaging and packaged products on the national market.

Nevertheless, the economic operators had the possibility to transfer those obligations to a

company licensed for managing the household and/or industrial packaging waste. Fost

Plus is the licensed company (called hereafter “green dot company”) for managing the

household flow while Val-I-Pac is a licensed organization to manage the industrial flow.

1 Ecodesign aims to develop products more environmentally friendly, i.e. reducing the use of non-renewable

resources and, therefore, to minimize their (negative) impacts.


1. Introduction

2

Currently, Belgium is the second most effective recycler of municipal waste in the EU. In

addition, it has shown a waste production per capita below the European average (as well

as the quantity of waste which is landfilled). On average, in 2007, 40% of municipal waste

produced in Europe was landfilled. In Belgium this rate was only 4%. Nowadays, this

percentage is even lower (approximately 1%). For the particular case of packaging waste,

in 1999 Belgium had already overcome the targets set by the PPW Directive to be met in

2008 (Eurostat, 2012).

This report intends to provide a snapshot regarding the waste sector in Belgium,

highlighting the packaging waste recycling issues. Therefore, after this brief introduction,

section 2 provides an overview of the legal framework of the waste sector, including the

management models and the competent authorities. Section 3 describes the urban waste

services operators and in section 4, the accredited companies responsible for managing

the packaging waste flow in Belgium are presented. Section 5 discusses the economic

and financial aspects of the current Belgian recycling system while in section 6, the

current state of affairs is characterised. Finally, the main conclusions are discussed in

section 7.


2. Legal Framework

3

2. Legal Framework

2.1 Waste Management

As mentioned in the introduction, the environmental and waste policies are exclusively

competencies of the Belgian regions. Nevertheless, certain federal policy competencies

can have an explicit impact waste management in Belgium. In particular product

standardization and product taxes - two federal competencies – are linked to waste

management. In this section we therefore briefly discuss eco-taxes before turning to the

regional waste policies.

The Belgian government started to integrate environmental and fiscal policies through the

implementation of the Eco-tax Act of 1993 (as part of the ordinary Law of 16 July 1993).

Since producers incorporate the tax in the product price, the tax is (to a large extent) paid

by the consumers. Therefore, the main objective of the law was to change producers’

behaviour, changing consumers’ behaviour when they have economically and

environmentally friendly alternatives (De Clercq, 1996). Besides the eco-tax be seen as

an incentive to promote socially desirable behaviours, it is an environmental tax which

partially finances the recycling of the end-of-life product. .

The beverage containers and packaging of certain industrial goods were among the

products covered by the eco-taxes scheme. Initially, the law stated that producers putting

reusable containers in the market would directly benefit from a reduction in the fiscal

taxes. On the other hand, producers placing non-environmentally friendly containers in the

market would have to pay a packaging contribution (Lavrysen and Misonne, 2004). The

Federal government still created a complex system of exemptions based on reuse and

recycling conditions (see table 1). However, this law was amended several times, since

some of its provisions proved to be unfeasible although also political reasons played a


2. Legal Framework

4

role. First, this law appealed to a single instrument (eco-tax) to achieve several objectives.

Second, the eco-tax heavily promotes reuse of packaging material although there is no

evidence it is the best option in all situations (De Clercq, 1996). Finally, some EU Member

States (MS) argued that the proposed scheme would constitute a barrier to trade and it

was discriminatory. Therefore, the provisions related to the exemptions were cancelled

and the last update of the fiscal regime entered into force on 10 April 2007, under which

non-refillable containers are taxed at a rate of 9,86 € per 100 litres while refillables are

taxed at 1/7th of that rate, 1,41 € (Perchards, 2007).

Table 1 – Reuse and recycling conditions for the ecotaxes’ exemptions

Reuse conditions

Beverage containers Containers/packaging that can be reused at least seven times and that are effectively collected through a deposit refund system, entirely financed by the producers themselves (according to the polluter-pays principle). Packaging of certain industrial

goods

Recycling conditions

Beverage containers (recycling targets over the period 1996-2000)

Glass 55-80%

Metals 40-80%

Plastics 20-70%

Composite packaging for foodstuffs 20-70%

Packaging of certain industrial goods (collection targets)

Packaging of glue with a content above 20 litres

After 6 months – 40%

After 1 year – 55%

After 2 years – 70%

Packaging of glue with a content between 10 and 20 litres

Must be collected by a voluntary collection system, but no specific targets apply

Packages of ink with a content above 2,5 litres

1 year – 40%

2 years – 60%

3 years – 85%

Packaging of pesticides for agriculture

After 1 year – 60%

After 2 years – 80%


2. Legal Framework

5

The Federal Act on Product Standards of 21 December 1998 aimed to promote

sustainable consumption and production patterns (Lavrysen and Misonne, 2004). It

adopted the essential requirements concerning the packaging and packaged products

marketing, imposed by the EU Directive 94/62/EC on PPW. This Act was amended by the

Laws of 10 September 2009 and of 27 July 2011 based on the REACH2 and CLP3

international regulations. According to the technical standards for all packaging imposed

by the Product Standards Act, the Royal Decree of 25 May 1999, amended by the Royal

Decree of 1 July 2006, limits the content of heavy metals in packaging material.

At the regional level, waste disposal activities are always subject to an environmental

permit. In the Flemish region, waste management is ruled by the Regional Statute of 14

December 2011 (Belgian Gazette, 28 February 2012). The practical implementation of the

principles outlined in the Statute is further précised in a bundle of Flemish regulations

called VLAREMA, which entered into force together with the statute. . In the Walloon

region, waste management is regulated by the Regional Statute of 27 June 1996 on waste

and revised on 10 May 2012 (Belgian Gazette, 29 May 2012), while the Brussels region

approved a new ordinance on 14 July 2012 (Belgian Gazette, 2 August 2012).

Although management of packaging waste is a regional responsibility, on May 30, 1996,

the three Belgian regions concluded an Interregional Cooperation Agreement on

prevention and management of packaging waste. This agreement, which applies to all

household and industrial packaging waste that is brought onto the Belgian market, is a

transposition of the PPW Directive into Belgian legislation. As the agreement has force of

law throughout Belgium, it also ensures a harmonized management of packaging waste

across the three regions (IVCIE, 2012). Afterwards, the Directive 2004/12/EC was

transposed in the revised Cooperation Agreement of 4 November 2008 which came into

force in 2009 (Pinckaers, 2012).

In line with the procedures carried out by other Member States, the agreement stipulates

that all economic agents responsible for packaging (such as producers, packers, fillers

2 REACH regulations regarding registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals’ use in the

products placed on the market.

3 CLP regulations regarding classification, labelling and packing of the products placed on the market.


2. Legal Framework

6

and importers and industrial consumers4) have to assume a “take-back” obligation. The

duties deriving from this “take-back” obligation, such as the responsibility to meet

recycling and recovery quotas, can be transferred to a licensed company for managing

this specific waste stream (Lavrysen and Misonne, 2004).

In Belgium, there are two licensed companies for managing packaging waste and to meet

the imposed recycling and recovery targets on behalf of the industry. Fost Plus is the

licensed company for managing the household packaging waste, holding 89% of the

Belgian market share in 2009. Val-I-Pac is licensed for the management of industrial flow,

managing 84% of the market. Only 2% of the economic agents with industrial packaging

responsible have assumed their “take-back” obligations through an individual recycling

system (Adams, 2011).

The licensed companies (Fost Plus and Val-I-Pac) have to submit to the competent

authority (Interregional Packaging Commission – IPC) the financial plan and the budget

for the period of the certification, stating the following (Lavrysen and Misonne, 2004):

The nature of packaging waste produced (from household or industrial flow) and

the estimation of the quantities of secondary raw materials resulting from recycling

of packaging material;

The method for calculating the contributions to pay for the collection and treatment

(including energy recovery and other forms of waste treatment) service, the cost

coverage and the way that the collection will be carried out;

The geographical area that will be covered by the service;

The minimum technical specifications for the sorting of the different packaging

waste materials, for planning and organizing the collection and for the sale of

sorted materials;

The financing model of the communication costs regarding the activities of waste

selective collection.

4 Industrial consumer (or industrial customer) is an entity that purchases products with the intent of using them

in the course of operating a business.


2. Legal Framework

7

The law on 30 May 1996 had already imposed national recycling and recovery targets

more ambitious than the European Directive. The recycling rates were increasing from

35% (in 1996) to 50% (in 1999) over the period 1996-1999. In the same period, the

recovery rates were increasing from 50% (in 1996) to 80% (in 1999). These targets were

raised in the legislation currently in force. In 2009, the recycling and recovery targets of

household packaging waste were 80% and 90%, respectively. In 2010, the recycling and

recovery targets of 80% and 85% (respectively) of the industrial flow should be fulfilled

(Adams, 2011). Table 2 highlights the main updates of the cooperation agreement of

1996.

Table 2 – Updates of the Cooperation Agreement of 30 May 1996

Cooperation Agreement of 30 May 1996 Cooperation Agreement of 4 November 2008

Applicable to household and industrial packaging waste

“Take back” obligations:

(1) Producers (packers/fillers)

(2) Importers

(3) Industrial consumer

“Take back” obligations:

(1) Producers (packers/fillers)

(2) Importers

(3) Industrial consumer

(4) Producers/importers of (empty) “service packaging”

Global recycling/recovery targets:

1996

Recycling – 35%

Total recovery – 50%

1997

Recycling – 40%


1998

Recycling – 45%


1999

Recycling – 50%


Global recycling/recovery targets:

From 2009

For household packaging waste:

Recycling – 80%


From 2010

For industrial packaging waste:

Recycling – 80%



2. Legal Framework

8

Table 3 – Updates of the Cooperation Agreement of 30 May 1996 (Cont.)

Cooperation Agreement of 30 May 1996 Cooperation Agreement of 4 November 2008

Specific recycling targets:

Before 1 January 1998, a minimum recycling target of at least 15% (by weight) of each packaging material from both household and industrial flows had to be achieved

Specific recycling targets (from 2009):

Glass – 60% (by weight)

Paper/cardboard – 60% (by weight)

Composite packaging for foodstuffs – 60% (by weight)

Metals – 50% (by weight)

Plastic – 30% (by weight)

Wood – 15% (by weight)

Regarding the new EU Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC, Belgium did not meet the

2010 deadline to transpose the Directive into national legislation. However, the three

regions recently adopted regional statutes translating the directive into Belgian regional

law. In Flanders, the decree of 14 December 2011 (Belgian Gazette, 28 February 2012),

and the corresponding implementation decisions came into force on July 2012; the

Walloon region enacted the new waste directive on 10 May 2012 (Belgian Gazette, 29

May 2012) and on 21 June 2012 the parliament of the Brussels-Capital region approved

an ordinance incorporating the new waste directive (Belgian Gazette, 2 August 2012).

2.2 Waste Management Policies

As waste policies are competencies of the Belgian regions, the Federal Government does

not have specific waste management strategies. The remaining federal competencies

related to waste policy are embedded in other strategies and action plans. For instance,

the Federal Plan for Sustainable Development for the period 2000-2004, adopted on 20

July 2000, emphasizes actions leading to sustainable consumption and production

patterns, including:

Policies for information, education and public awareness;

Policies for products design;

Policies for consumption by public entities.


2. Legal Framework

9

Concerning the waste issues, those federal actions supported the objectives for waste

reduction, sorting and recycling defined in the waste plans of the regional governments

(SSESD, 2000). In 2004, measures envisaging a more responsible use of natural

resources were approved in the Federal Plan for Sustainable Development for the period

2004-2008 (ETC, 2006). On the other hand, the Federal Products Plan (2009-2012) was

adopted in order to improve the environmental quality of the products placed in the

market. 5

The Federal government also contributed to the waste prevention and management, using

several policy instruments (EEA, 2011):

Standardization, certification and labeling of all products, according to the

products/packaging standards Acts;

Economic incentives based on the Eco-tax Act;

Actions of communication.

The specific socio-economic and geographical context of the Brussels region - its high

degree of urbanization, its relative small surface (about 161 km²) or the fact that the more

than 350,000 commuters from neighboring regions have a significant impact on waste

generation in the region - has an important bearing on the development of the regional

waste management strategy (IBGE, 2010). For instance due the limitations on available

space, the Brussels region has to rely on the infrastructure of neighboring regions for

landfilling certain residual waste streams. The specific context of the Brussels region is

also reflected in the regional waste plans. In general the waste plans set out guidelines,

defines targets and proposes measures for devising a more sustainable waste

management system in the Brussels region. In 1992, the Brussels region came up with its

first a Waste Prevention and Management Plan (hereafter “waste plan”). Since then the

plan has been revised, every 5 years. The first “waste plan” (1992-1997) mainly focused

on implementing selective waste collection. The second plan (1998-2002) emphasized the

importance of minimizing waste production. One of the main goals put forward in this plan

was to reduce waste generation by 10% in the period 1998-2002. The third version (2002-

2008) focused on waste sorting and recycling activities (Bambeke, 2011). The fourth plan

5 Environmental quality of a product is related to the ecodesign.


2. Legal Framework

10

was approved in March 2010, for an indefinite duration, being assessed and revised every

2 years. Once again, the waste prevention aspects deserved special attention. The main

concern is striving to achieve measurable reductions in the quantities of specific waste

flows (including paper and packaging waste) by 2013 and 2020 (EEA, 2011). In that

sense the plans mainly focusses on continuity and reinforcement of existing actions. In

addition the plan lists a series of measures which should be implemented by 2014. Priority

is, amongst others, given to legislative simplification, prevention campaigns, increasing

the number of container parks, data collection, etc. (IBGE, 2010). Note that the plan is

only binding for the provisions listed in the (revised) ordinance of 7 March 1991 (Belgian

Gazette 23 March 1991). These include amongst others the provisions linked to the

technical side of processing or the useful application of household waste.

The Flemish waste strategy includes several economic instruments such as disposal

taxes, landfill bans and financial incentives for recyclable waste collection. Moreover, an

important part of the Flemish waste strategy encompasses a set of voluntary agreements

with the main stakeholders involved in waste management (regional government,

municipalities and industries). The waste policy is operationalized via the ‘waste plans’.

Both the focus as the general objectives of the waste plans changed considerably during

the last decades. While first waste plan mainly focused on implementing a waste disposal

system, the emphasis of subsequent plans gradually switched to collecting and preventing

waste. Note that the current approach consist of system of several interlinked plans. In

particular the so-called Annual Environmental Program and the Implementation Plans

constitute the actual link between the policy intention and the implementation.

For instance the implementation plan for ‘Environmentally Responsible Household Waste

Management’ currently into force (published on 14 December 2007, Belgian Gazette, 7

January 2008) outlines several objectives and action programs in order to achieve three

main ambitions: (1) produce the least possible quantity of waste, (2) use the greatest

possible amount of waste to generate secondary raw materials through recycling, and (3)

dispose non-recyclable flows in the best possible way. Some of the main action programs

set out in this strategy encompass the following objectives:

Change the consumption patterns. The Flemish Government and its

administrations set an example, being active participants in the “National Action


2. Legal Framework

11

Plan for Sustainable Purchases by Government”. In addition, the Flemish

Government has developed databases with the indicators for environmentally

responsible product purchases.

Encourage waste reuse, implementing accredited reuse centre6 in order to achieve,

annually, at least 5 kg per capita of reusable goods delivered in centres;

Improve selective collection systems and sorting operations in order to increase

the quantities of recycled waste reintroduced into the market;

Collect 75% of household waste through selective collection methods.

Reduce the amount of residual waste7 treated, producing (a maximum) of 180 kg

of municipal waste per capita until 2010 and reducing 15% of industrial waste in

2015 being the main goal for Flanders to reduce to 150 kg per capita;

Ensure the capacity of final treatment, complying with the Best Available

Techniques and the emissions standards and increasing energy recovery.

By embedding the legal status of the implementation plans in the Flemish waste decree,

the provisions of the plans become binding for the authorities, institutions or persons

responsible for public waste related services. An overview of the focus and main

objectives of the waste plans in force is presented in Table 3.

In 1991, the Walloon regional government approved the first plan for waste prevention

and elimination in the Walloon region. The plan, initially intended for the 1991-1995

period, focused on the development of a global and integrated waste management system

with emphasis on prevention, recycling and responsible treatment of waste flows. In 1998,

the Walloon region presented the second Waste Management Plan, being valid by 2010.

The Plan covered industrial, municipal and hazardous waste management, defining

targets for prevention, composting, recycling and landfilling. Comparable to the Flemish

implementation plan, the orientation, guidelines and interpretations of the legal system

6 Centres financially supported (during the planning stage) by the Flemish government for selling used

products.

7 The term of residual waste refers to waste from household flow which were not separated and/or were not

sent for reprocessing.


2. Legal Framework

12

determined in the Walloon Waste Management Plan are binding for the regional and local

authorities as well as other entities or persons charged with public waste related services.

Since 2011 the environmental authorities have been preparing a new Waste Plan aiming

at the reduction of the environmental impact of waste production and treatment (Plan

wallon des déchets Horizon 2020). To serve this goal, the regional government has

performed several studies evaluating the current system and estimating the impact of

proposed changes. Examples include an evaluation of the regional policy regarding

container parks (SPW, 2012) an estimation the economic and environmental impact of a

deposit-refund system for beverage cans (RDC, 2011) and an assessment of the cost of

visual pollution caused by littering (SPW, 2011). Resulting recommendations and

propositions for the new waste plan are both on the strategic level as on the more

practical level and deal amongst others with prevention, reuse, selective collection and

treatment of waste.

The Walloon region has also imposed a taxation system with high taxes for landfilling, tax

deductions for environmentally friendly technologies and eco-taxes for certain products,

including packaging (ETC, 2006).


2. Legal Framework

13

Table 4 – Main targets of “Waste Plans” implemented in Flanders

1st

Waste Plan

(1986-1990)

2nd

Waste Plan

(1991-1995)

Environmental Management Plan

(1997-2001)8

The Strategic Waste Plan (2002-2006), with a view

to 2010

Environmentally Responsible Household

Waste Management

(2008-2015)

Type of waste

All types of waste

All types of waste with a focus on construction and demolition (C&D) waste and organic municipal waste

All types of waste with focus on organic waste (municipal and industrial flow)

All types of waste All types of waste

General objectives

Implementation of a waste treatment system

Prevention, reduction and recovery (including recycling)

Sectorial implementation plans and targets

C&D waste

- 25% of waste reduction

- 75% of waste recovery (recycling) by 2000

Organic waste

- Creation of 270.000 tonnes per year of composting capacity installed over 18 facilities

- 40% of the Flemish population to be covered by a selective collection system

- For garden waste of 300.000 tonnes per year of composting capacity to be developed

Household waste

- Prevention of 6% by 2001 and of 10% by 2006

- Increase recycling from 34% in 1995 to 52% by 2001 and to 55% by 2006

- Each municipality must generate less than 150 kg/person of residual waste by 2006

Selective collection of industrial waste in small & medium size enterprises (2000)

Household waste

- 13% of waste prevention by 2007

- 69% of waste selective collection and recycling or composting

- Residual waste should not be more than 180 kg/person in 2003; 165 kg/person in 2005; and 150 kg/person in 2007

- From 2005 only waste which cannot be incinerated may be landfilled

Household waste

- Residual waste should not be more than 180 kg/person in 2010 at municipal level; and 150 kg/person in 2015 at Flemish level

- Reuse at least 5 kg/person of goods by 2015

- 75% of waste selective collection

Results

- Organic waste targets achieved

- 10-15% of population carry out home composting

- C&D recycling increase from 43% in 1990 to 65% in 1995

Municipal waste recycling rate reaches 62% in 1999, achieving the 2001 and 2006 targets

Source: Adapted by CPPW, 2002 and ETC, 2006

8 In fact the implantation of the plan was extended untill the end of 2002.


2. Legal Framework

14

2.3 Urban Solid Waste Management Models

According to the Belgian Constitution, the municipalities can cooperate for all issues of

local interest, including household waste management. Almost all Belgian municipalities

share their waste management responsibilities through inter-municipal associations, better

known as inter-municipal cooperation (IMC). This IMC has sought to increase the

efficiency of the services provided by sharing the know-how and physical means of all

participants (Dellater, 2005). The industrial waste collection and treatment is the

responsibility of the private sector (CSD, 2009).

Before the successive constitutional reforms, the legal duties of municipalities were

regulated by the central government through the new Municipalities Act (named the Royal

Co-ordinating Decree of 24 June 1988, ratified by the Act of 26 May 1989) and the Act of

22 December 1986 regarding inter-municipal associations (CE, 2006).

Since 1993, after the last revision to the Belgian Constitution, the regional governments

became the competent authorities on matters concerning local administrations and IMC

(Heuverswyn, 2005). The Flemish and Walloon regions have opted for several forms of

IMC. The Brussels region has not made use of this type of cooperation for its waste

management (Wayenberg and De Rynck, 2012).

In Flemish region, the IMC is currently regulated by the Framework Decree of 6 July 2001

and the Decree of 18 July 2003 regarding the public-private sector cooperation (CE,

2006). The first Decree differentiated four forms of cooperation, as shown in Table 4.

These arrangements are divided into two “light” and two “heavy” forms of cooperation with

regard to their legal status and organizational structure. Waste management services

mainly are provided by the two “heavy” forms. These two forms of cooperation are

designated by “Service Association” and “Mandated Association”. Both management

models are created by a body of representatives of all municipalities involved. This body

has to prepare several documents: a management plan, a business plan, a motivational

note and the legal statutes. In these two “heavy” forms, partnerships can be established

with municipal companies, social service agencies, project associations (“light”

cooperation form) and other “heavy” forms. The private sector cannot participate in such

cooperation forms. The “Service Association” assumes the legal rights and duties of its

activity, but has no managerial autonomy (i.e., each municipality manages its own human,

physical and financial resources). The “Mandated Association” has managerial autonomy,


2. Legal Framework

15

so the municipalities can transfer their competences to the association. Both associations

("Service Association" and "Mandated Association"), are approved by the Flemish

government. These types of cooperation are, typically, known as Intercommunales (Inter-

municipal authorities, Peuter and Wayenberg, 2007).

Table 5 – Forms of inter-municipal cooperation in Flanders

“Light” form of Inter-municipal cooperation “Heavy” form of Inter-municipal cooperation

Inter-local Association

Project Association Service Association Mandated

Association

Cooperation-contract; no corporate personality

Corporation with by-laws



Cooperation on specific project

Cooperation on specific inter-

-municipal plan or project

Delivers several well defined services to

municipalities

Implementation of clearly defined competences in

functionally related policies

No transfer of competences



Transfer of competences to

association

Duration to be fixed in contract

Renew for periods of 6 years

Renew for periods of 18 years (maximum)

Renew for periods of 18 years (maximum)

Only a Management Board

Only a Management Board

General Meeting (twice a year), Board

of Directors and Management Board

General Meeting (twice a year), Board

of Directors and Management Board

Private companies can participate

Private companies cannot participate

Source: Delatter, 2005

In the Walloon region, the inter-municipal associations started to be regulated by the

Decree of 5 December 1996 (CE, 2006). In 2006, the Decree of 19 July 2006 modified the

first part of the Code of local democracy and decentralization regarding IMC in Wallonia,

setting three forms of cooperation, two “light” and one “heavy”, similarly to the Flemish

region. However, this region has sought to establish more synergies between the existing

inter-municipal authorities in order to reduce their number and raise their scale efficiency

(Wayenberg and De Rynck, 2012).

In the Brussels region, the municipalities’ competences are regulated by the Ordinances

of 18 July 2002 and 17 July 2003, which amended the new Municipalities Act and the


2. Legal Framework

16

Special Act of 13 July 2001 (CE, 2006). In 1990, a public enterprise for collecting and

treating household waste, named Regional Agency for Cleaning (ARP in the French

acronym and GAN in the Dutch acronym) was created in the Belgian capital (according

the Ordinance of 19 July 1990). The agency is also responsible for managing the

commercial waste with a similar nature and volume to that of household waste in

collaboration with the private sector under a contract with traders. However, the

management of industrial and special or hazardous waste is carried out almost exclusively

by private parties (Bambeke, 2011).

2.4 Waste Authorities

The Federal Ministry for Social Affairs, Health and the Environment was the main

competent authority for environmental legislation in Belgium on the federal level.

According to the new reforms to Belgium’s federal administrative structure (called the

“Copernic” reforms) in 2000, this ministry was renamed to The Health, Food Chain Safety

and Environment Federal Public Services (FPS). This federal body is responsible for

defining and implementing strategies related to the standardisation of products and the

sustainable production/consumption (among other strategies for public health).

At the regional level, each region has its own government and waste authorities. The

Brussels' Institute for Environmental Management (IBGE/BIM) was created by the Royal

Decree of 8 March 1989 to administer and control the application of environmental and

waste legislation in the Brussels region. It played a major role in the implementation of the

fourth Waste Management Plan (approved on March 2010), mainly concerning to public

information and awareness. The Flemish Public Waste Agency (OVAM) was established

in 1981 based on the Decree of 2 July 1981 (known as the Waste Decree). OVAM

prepares waste legislation on behalf of the Flemish Minister for the Environment. After

legislation has been approved by the Flemish Government, OVAM implements and

supervises its performance. A Waste Agency (belonging to the Walloon Ministry for

Natural Resources and Environment, DGRNE) was created by the Decree of 5 July 1985,

later followed by the Decree of 27 June 1996, to ensure the implementation of waste

policies in Wallonia.

For the particular case of packaging waste, the economic operators (producers, importers,

industrial consumers, etc.) must register and submit data based on the quantities of

packaging or packaged products handled to one of the three regional authorities. These


2. Legal Framework

17

authorities ensure the participation of the respective region in the Interregional Packaging

Commission (IPC).

The IPC was created to ensure a uniform management of packaging waste between the

three Belgian regions and for complying with the Cooperation Agreements, playing a

regulatory role. The main responsibilities of the IPC are (Adams, 2011):

Certifying the competent companies for managing this specific waste flow (Fost

Plus and Val-I-Pac) and auditing their activities to suspend or renew their licenses;

Controlling all procedures including their efficiency, checking the declaration forms

for compliance (delivered by the members of Fost Plus and Val-I-Pac, see section 4)

and performing in-situ audits;

Approving the prevention plans submitted, each 3 years, by all economic operators

that handle at least 300 tonnes of packaging and all producers or packers that

handle at least 100 tonnes of packaging or packaged products (IBGE/BIM, 2011);

Ensuring that the financial transfers arising from the packaging recycling systems

are carried out correctly and fairly, highlighting the industrial sector and the smaller

producers.


3. Urban Waste Services Operators

18


According to the major Belgian legislation, the municipalities are responsible for the

collection and treatment of household waste (and other type of waste that are similar to

the household flow). In Belgium, there are 589 municipalities and three regions. The

Brussels region has 19 municipalities while the Flemish and Walloon regions encompass

308 and 262 municipalities, respectively (Wayenberg and De Rynck, 2012). As mentioned

above, the majority of Belgian municipalities joined together to form inter-municipal

authorities (the intercommunales) sharing or transferring all their competencies regarding

urban waste services to these associations.

Therefore, since 1993, several urban waste services have been provided by the

intercommunales (in-house delivery or through outsourcing to private companies) in

Flanders and Wallonia. Currently, there are 26 intercommunales in Flanders and 8 in

Wallonia (see Figures 1 and 2).

In the Flemish region, about 555 kg per inhabitant of household waste has been

generated every year (CSD, 2009). The waste collection has been carried out by kerbside

collection and municipal drop-off containers. In 2009, there were 337 municipal recycling

centres, managed by the Flemish intercommunales, which collected around 50% of the

household waste. This region also invested on waste prevention and reuse; 199 Flemish

municipalities have already achieved the target of 150 kg of residual waste per inhabitant

(OVAM, 2009). Furthermore, there are already 100 reuse shops in Flanders, were around

7 kg per inhabitant of reusable goods are collected each year (Mariën, 2009). Regarding

waste treatment, currently, 72% of household waste selectively collected has been reused

and recycled (including composting, CSD, 2009). Respecting the Flanders waste

principles, a minimum fraction of household waste has been landfilled (1,2%, CSD, 2009



19

and OVAM, 2009). Table 5 shows the operational infrastructures in Flanders for the year

2012.

Source: Fost Plus, 2012a

Figure 1 - The intercommunales for the urban waste services in Flemish region


Figure 2 – The intercommunales for the urban waste services in Walloon region



20

Table 6 – Type of infrastructures for treating the urban waste in Flanders for the year 20129

Activity Number of infrastructures

Collection

340 container parks

126 waste electric and electronic equipment (WEEE) transport

872 used textiles transport

Sorting 27 paper and cardboard sorting and/or processing facilities

97 sorting and processing facilities of non-hazardous waste

Treatment and final disposal

149 composting plants

10 incineration plants

15 glass processing plants

95 WEEE processing plants

99 used textiles processing plants

4 landfills

Source: OVAM, 2012

In Wallonia, around 538 kg per inhabitant of household waste has been generated every

year (CSD, 2009). According to the Walloon Intermunicipal Companies for Waste

Treatment (COPIDEC), currently, the intercommunales of Wallonia provide kerbside

refuse and selective collection services as well as bring systems. Moreover, they also

manage several sorting and treatment infrastructures, as shown in Table 6. Currently, in

this region, about 64% of waste collected is recycled, 22% is incinerated and 14% is

landfilled.

9 The table lists the number of installations/companies licensed for urban waste management. Many of

these installations are also licensed to process/transport/sort waste originating from the industry.



21

Table 7 – Type of infrastructures for treating the urban waste in Wallonia


Collection

202 operational container parks

23 project container parks

341 drop-off containers for three packaging waste fractions

7489 drop-off containers for waste glass

Sorting

3 sorting centres for packaging waste

1 sorting centre for biodegradable waste a

4 transfer centres for WEEE

Treatment and final disposal

1 biomethanation plant a

9 composting centres

4 energy recovery plants

1 incineration plant for sludge from wastewater treatment

4 class 2 landfills

4 class 3 landfills

a ITRADEC is under a reorganisation process of its activities due to a major fire in its sorting centre for

biodegradable waste, transferring all this waste to the great incineration plant of IPALLE.

Source: COPIDEC, 2012

In the Brussels region, about 475 kg per inhabitant of household waste has been

produced every year (CDS, 2009). Around 25% of this waste has been reused and

recycled (including composting) and 75% has been incinerated. In Brussels, household

waste is not landfilled. The municipalities have entrusted those urban waste services to a

single public company, the ABP, since 1990 (see Figure 3). Table 7 presents the type of

infrastructures managed by the regional agency.


Figure 3 – The public company responsible for urban waste services in Brussels-Capital

region



22

Table 8 – Type of infrastructures for urban waste services in Brussels-Capital region


Collection and storage 2 drop-off centres

Sorting 1 sorting centre

Treatment 1 composting centre

1 incineration plant with energy recovery

Source: IBGE, 2012


4. Licensed Entities for Managing the Logistics Chain of Packaging Waste

23

4. Licensed Entities for Managing

the Logistics Chain of Packaging

Waste

4.1 Introduction

According to the Interregional Cooperation Agreement of 30 May 1996, the responsibility

of economic operators for the management of their packaging waste can be transferred to

a licensed company. There are two licensed packaging waste organizations in Belgium:

Fost Plus and Val-I-Pac. These entities should ensure the collection of packaging waste

and its adequate final disposal in order to comply with the national and EU recycling and

recovery targets.

4.2 Fost Plus

Fost Plus is a non-profit organization that promotes, coordinates and finances the

selective collection, sorting and recycling of household packaging waste. It was created in

1994 through private sector initiative (producers and importers of packaging, packaging

materials, and packaged products, retailers, and trade federations). In 1997, Fost Plus

became the green dot company, assuming the economic operators’ obligations regarding

household packaging waste (since it would be economically inefficient for each operator to

organize individually its own recycling system). Under the new version of the Interregional

Cooperation Agreement, its accreditation was renewed on 18 December 2008 for the

period 2009-2013.



24

Figure 4 shows a simplified scheme of the partnerships between Fost Plus and the

various stakeholders involved in the management of household packaging waste.

Source: authors elaboration based on Adams, 2011

Figure 4 – Framework of household packaging waste management

All parties responsible for packaging can join the Fost Plus system through a membership

contract (accessible on the Fost Plus’ website), accepting to submit an annual declaration

of household reusable and non-reusable packaging placed on the Belgian market. In

order to meet its members’ obligations, Fost Plus establishes contracts (for eight year

terms) with all inter-municipal authorities for the collection and/or sorting of the household

packaging waste flow. Some of the inter-municipal authorities carry out those activities

themselves, while others delegate their competences to the private-sector collectors



25

and/or sorting centres through public tenders. These collectors and sorting centres are

selected by the inter-municipal authorities and Fost Plus.

By the end of 2009, Fost Plus recorded 5.407 memberships, number that has been

declining since 2006 (Fost Plus, 2010a) and fell again in 2010 (Fost Plus, 2011a). Various

factors contributed to this, including mergers and bankruptcies, the recent regulation

regarding service packaging, as well as the new minimum threshold of 300 kg of

packaging waste (Fost Plus, 2011, p.6). Therefore, several members no longer have a

take-back obligation to fulfil.

4.3 Val-I-Pac

Val-I-Pac is a non-profit organization able to assume take-back obligations of industrial

packaging waste in Belgium. It was founded in 1997 by the initiative of the Belgian

business community. Val-I-Pac was licensed by the IPC under the Interregional

Cooperation Agreement on 30 May 1996 not for organising the waste collection and

recycling system but for gathering data on collection and recycling from private waste

collectors. In order to comply with the Val-I-Pac members’ obligations, Val-I-Pac provides

financial incentives to the industrial consumers to make the effort to sort their packaging

waste. In turn, the industrial consumers have to report information to the waste collectors,

as shown in Figure 5. The Val-I-Pac members have to pay an annual fee which should

cover not only the consumers’ incentives but also the service costs supported by the

waste collectors.

Currently, Val-I-Pac has 8.000 members (fillers, packers and importers), manages

annually around 650.000 tonnes of industrial packaging waste, and receives (monthly)

information about waste collection and recycling from more than 200 licensed waste

collectors. Furthermore, it has been paying incentives to more than 20.000 companies

every year.



26

Source: authors elaboration based on Adams, 2011

Figure 5 – Framework of industrial packaging waste management

According to the new version of the Cooperation Agreement, its accreditation was

renewed on 1 January 2012. The new license of activity sought to establish new

conditions on the incentives to the unpackers since some of them are also responsible for

packaging and have to comply with the industrial packaging legislation. Therefore, the

new accreditation required that unpackers which are also responsible for packaging have

to prove their compliance with the new agreement in order to continue receiving the Val-I-

Pac incentives.


5. Economic and Financial Aspects

27


The revision of the Interregional Cooperation Agreement introduced a new threshold of

300 kg of packaging per year placed in the Belgian market. Below this threshold the

companies are exempted of the legal obligations of recycling and recovery. Furthermore,

the recycling and recovery obligations were extended to the producers/importers of

(empty) “service packaging”.

Those companies can transfer their packaging responsibilities to Fost Plus (signing a

membership agreement) for managing the household packaging waste flow. Therefore,

member companies have to pay an annual contribution (a Green Dot fee) based on a

declaration with the types and quantities of packaging put into the market. The minimum

yearly contribution was fixed in €30 for the case of companies which handle less than 300

kg/year of packaging or only handle reusable packaging and want to use the “Green Dot”

mark (PRO-EUROPE, 2010).

Table 8 presents the Green Dot fees in force in the last four years, including 2012. In

general, the Green Dot fees have increased from 2009 to 2011, mainly due to three

factors: (1) the economic crisis which has caused a strong decline in the materials price;

(2) a decrease in the financial reserves (used in previous years to offset the lower green

dot fees); and (3) additional financial obligations imposed in the revised Cooperation

Agreement (Fost Plus, 2011a). This year (2012), the Green Dot fees decreased due to the

higher revenues from the sale of materials in 2011 (Fost Plus 2012b).

Fost Plus has two declaration systems: the fixed-price declaration and the detailed

declaration. The second one is applicable to every company who wants to join the Fost

Plus system while the first one is only applicable to companies with a turnover of

household packaging (placed on the Belgian market) of a maximum of €12.5 million. In



28

the detailed declaration, companies have to declare the number of consumer units10 per

packaging placed on the Belgian market and the financial contribution is calculated

according to the materials and weights of the packaging declared (see Table 8, Fost Plus,

2012c).

Table 9 – Green Dot fees from 2009

Green Dot fees (€/kg)

Packaging material 2009 2010 2011 2012

Glass 0,0214 0,0184 0,0186 0,0231

Paper/cardboard 0,0099 0,0176 0,0197 0,0202

Steel 0,0253 0,0376 0,0621 0,0525

Aluminium 0,0369 0,1379 0,1826 0,0654

PET 0,1095 0,1994 0,2874 0,1387

HDPE 0,1095 0,1994 0,2874 0,1387

Beverage cartons 0,2291 0,2728 0,2960 0,2848

Others recoverable 0,2632 0,3135 0,3303 0,3273

Others non-recoverable 0,3624 0,4417 0,4492 0,4304

Source: Fost Plus, 2009, 2010b, 2011b and 2012d

In the fixed-price declaration, companies have to declare the number of consumer units

per product family11 placed in the Belgian market (excluding the producers/importers of

empty “service packaging”). They pay a fixed-price per unit declared, depending on the

product family (Fost Plus, 2012b). Table 9 shows the fixed contributions in the last four

years, including 2012.

10

The consumer unit is the smallest unit that can be sold to the consumer.

11 Product family (also called product group or product line) is a group of products derived from a common

product platform. These goods or services use similar or the same production processes, have similar

physical characteristics, and may share customer segments, distribution channels, pricing methods,

promotional campaigns, and other elements of the marketing mix. The products comprising a family are

usually priced and discounted as a package.



29

Table 10 – Fixed contributions from 2009

Groups of product families Fixed contribution per unit declared (€)

2009 2010 2011 2012

Food 0,0026 0,0031 0,0035 0,0042

Drinks 1: sodas, adhesives, lemonades, fruit juices and vegetables, syrups, milk, water, beer

Drinks 2: wine, champagne, spirits, aperitifs

Drinks in reusable packaging

0,0036

0,0111

0,0000

0,0056

0,0100

0,0000

0,0074

0,0102

0,0000

0,0042

0,00137

0,0000

Cleaning and maintenance (including accessories)

0,0084 0,0127 0,0164 0,0091

Body care (hair care, teeth, samples and accessories included)

0,0035 0,0047 0,0055 0,0048

Pharmaceuticals 0,0030 0,0038 0,0042 0,0041

Garden items (products and garden tools) 0,0057 0,0073 0,0081 0,0111

Adhesives, paints, varnishes and related products

Miscellaneous (equipment included)

0,0113

0,0039

0,0144

0,0049

0,0171

0,0052

0,0278

0,0028

Clothing, footwear, textiles and accessories 0,0020 0,0026 0,0028 0,0039

Electro 1: Major appliances (TV, HiFi incl.)

Electro 2: Small appliances (radio, telephone incl.)

Electro 3: Accessories for appliances (lamps, batteries)

0,1401

0,0062

0,0011

0,1736

0,0085

0,0015

0,1842

0,0092

0,0016

0,1007

0,0159

0,0025

Kitchenware

Indoor and outdoor furniture

Lighting

0,0021

0,0257

0,0039

0,0027

0,0333

0,0054

0,0030

0,0356

0,0058

0,0028

0,0422

0,0034

Animals 0,0015 0,0023 0,0031 0,0025

Tobacco 0,0004 0,0006 0,0006 0,0008

Others 0,0017 0,0022 0,0025 0,0013

Source: Fost Plus, 2009, 2010b, 2011b, 2012c

Beyond the members’ contributions, Fost Plus also contracts directly with the recyclers

who pay for the packaging waste materials collected and sorted according to the materials

price index (see Annex I).



30

Therefore, the Green Dot contributions and the recyclers’ payments must cover the full

costs of packaging waste collection and sorting provided by the intercommunales.

Moreover, Fost Plus also has costs with the coordination and quality management and

with the public communication and awareness.


6. Current Situation

31


During 14 years, the production of municipal waste reached the higher values in the

period 2007-2009 (495 – 489 kg/inh.), as shown in Figure 6. However, Belgium per capita

rates were always below the European average (Eurostat, 2012). In 2010, the waste

production was substantially reduced, achieving the 1990s’ level.

Source: Eurostat, 2012

Figure 6 – Generation of municipal waste (kg per capita)

Belgium has been in the forefront regarding the management of municipal waste and, in

particular packaging waste. The municipal waste recycling has steadily increased over

time, reaching more than 50% from 2001 while in the EU only 27% (on average) of waste

were recycled in that year (Eurostat, 2012). Moreover, the landfilling has significantly



32

decreased, as shown in Table 10. Currently, Belgium landfills about 1% of the municipal

waste produced while the average in EU is 37% (Eurostat, 2012). The percentage of

waste incinerated has remained (approximately) constant over the years.

Table 11 – Municipal waste generation and treatment (in thousands of tonnes)

Year

Municipal waste generated

Landfilling Incineration Recyclinga

Quantity Quantity Rate Quantity Rate Quantity Rate

2001 4.838 559 11,6 1.650 34 2.451 51

2002 5.025 534 10,6 1.681 34 2.526 50

2003 4.842 459 9,5 1.678 35 2.547 53

2004 5.064 367 7,2 1.699 34 2.746 54

2005 5.024 354 7,0 1.757 35 2.702 54

2006 5.093 257 5,0 1.707 34 2.776 55

2007 5.256 265 5,0 1.749 33 2.934 56

2008 5.242 264 5,0 1.833 35 2.962 57

2009 5.276 159 3,0 1.761 33 3.023 57

2010 5.074 62 1,2 1.746 34 2.924 58

a Including material recycling and composting Source: Eurostat, 2012

Concerning packaging and packaging waste, the paper/cardboard is the most used

material, as shown in Table 11 and in Figure 7. In 2009, the use of the most packaging

materials decreased.

Table 12 – Packaging waste generated by material (in tonnes)12

Year Paper/cardboard Plastic Wood Metal Glass Other

packaging

2004 512.412 281.465 187.081 137.244 395.889 15.841

2005 530.075 290.248 191.853 135.963 388.278 16.430

2006 565.996 302.334 191.053 135.685 385.312 15.833

2007 588.517 308.741 201.322 135.561 366.864 16.716

2008 574.775 301.581 196.505 131.962 400.234 16.734

12

Note that the Eurostat figures include packaging waste from the industry as well (so Val-I-Pac is included

here) becoming more difficult to make comparisons. The same happens in other tables.



33

2009 553.249 303.532 179.865 121.288 396.050 13.130



Figure 7 – Packaging waste generated by material (tonnes)

Belgium has achieved very high recycling and recovery targets, as shown in Figures 8

and 9. Glass and metals are the packaging materials with the highest recycling rate,

reaching more than 90% in 2009.



34


Figure 8 – Recycling rate (%) for packaging waste by material

Despite the fact that plastic is a complicated material due to its complex chemical

composition (which difficulties its recycling) Belgium far exceeded the Directive’s specific

objective for 2008. These results demonstrate the success of the political efforts towards

recycling, the waste services effectiveness and the public awareness in Belgium.




35

Figure 9 – Recovery rate (%) for packaging waste by material


7. Conclusions

36

7. Conclusions

Belgium has implemented many legal documents and strategies on waste management

and, in particular, packaging waste over the years. The national rules have been imposing

steadily more ambitious targets than the ones prescribed by the European legislation.

Nowadays, it is considered the second best “recycling country” in Europe. Since the

1990s, waste production (per capita) and landfilling rates are below the European

averages. On the contrary, the recycling and recovery rates are much higher.

Both federal and regional government levels have played an important role in the success

history of Belgium. Although the waste management is an exclusively competency of the

regional governments (of Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels), the federal government has

indirectly contributed to waste prevention and the minimization of environmental impacts.

It encouraged the conception of more environmentally friendly products with an eco-

taxation system, benefiting the producers of reusable and/or recyclable products with a

fiscal reduction. In addition, the federal government also limited the use of hazardous

substances in the manufacturing of products.

At the regional level, each government established its own legal framework on waste

management. However, all frameworks are based on the similar ambitious: (1) to produce

the least possible waste, (2) to use the highest possible amount of waste to produce

secondary raw materials through recycling, and (3) landfilling only the waste that is not

recoverable. In fact, the landfill rates in Flanders and Wallonia are quite low and, in

Brussels, all waste is diverted from landfill.

However, there are two main differences distinguishing the waste management form in

the Brussels region from the Flemish and Walloon regions. These two regions have

implemented a taxation system and the municipal waste management competencies have

been transferred to intermunicipal associations (intercommunales). In the Brussels region


7. Conclusions

37

there is no taxation system and the municipal waste services are provided by a single

public company. On the other hand, the management of the industrial packaging waste

flow is carried out by the private sector in all the Belgian territory.

Regarding packaging waste, in 1996, the three regions established an Interregional

Cooperation Agreement in order to comply with the PPW Directive 94/62/EC. Later on, the

Directive 2004/12/EC set new targets of packaging waste recycling and recovery to meet

by 2008. However, a revised version of the Cooperation Agreement only came into force

in 2009. This was of little practical significance since the 2008 European targets had

already been achieved in 1999.

The high rates of recycling and recovery achieved by Belgium are the result of an

application of collection and disposal fees which have led to a greater diversion of waste

from landfills to recycling and incineration. Fost Plus and Val-I-Pac have also played a

major role in the management of the logistics chain of packaging waste with the

development of communication and awareness programs and financial supports or

incentives given to the intercommunales or private operators that are in charge of

collection and sorting activities. In addition, Fost Plus have been collaborating with various

entities (including the IPC) to identify and contact the economic operators that put

household packaging on the market without contributing financially to the recycling system

(the free riders).


References

38

References

Adams M. (2011). The Belgian legislation on Packaging Waste. Presentation at the

Stakeholder event of October 25th 2011 – European Commission. Interregional

Packaging Commission (IPC), Brussels, Belgium.

Bambeke J. (2011). Brussels Waste Management Plan with waste reduction targets,

Belgium. Drafted by Brussels Institute for Environmental Management (IBGE),

Belgium.

CE (2006). Structure and operation of local and regional democracy: Belgium. Directorate

of Co-operation for Local and Regional Democracy, Council of Europe (CE),

Strasbourg, France.

COPIDEC (2012). Collecte, Tri et Traitement, available on: http://www.copidec.be/

CPPW (2002). Creative Policy Packages for Waste: Flanders. Lessons for the UK,

Creative Policy Packages for Waste (CPPW) Project, available on http://www.green-

alliance.org.uk.

Criekemans D. (2010). Foreign Policy and Diplomacy of the Belgian Regions: Flanders

and Wallonia. Discussion papers in Diplomacy. Ingrid d’Hooghe & Ellen Huijgh

editors, Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’.

CSD (2009). Waste management (sub-theme 2.4). Belgian Report to the Eighteenth

Session of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), Brussels, Belgium.

De Clercq M. (1996). The Political Economy of Green Taxes: The Belgian Experience.

Environmental and Resource Economics 8 (1996), pp. 273-291.

Dellater (2005). Intermunicipal cooperation in Flanders. Association of Flemish Cities and

Municipalities (VVSG), CEMR, Brussels, Belgium.

http://www.copidec.be/

http://www.green-alliance.org.uk/

http://www.green-alliance.org.uk/


References

39

EEA (2011). 2011 Survey of resource efficiency policies in EEA member and cooperating

countries – Belgium. European Environment Agency (EEA), Denmark.

EC (2011). Environment: Commission prompts Belgium and Romania to comply with the

EU Waste Framework Directive. Press Release, available on: http://europa.eu.

ETC (2006). Country fact sheet: Belgium. European Topic Centre on Resource and Waste

Management, available at http://eea.eionet.europa.eu.

Eurostat (2012). Statistics database, available on: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu.

Fost Plus (2009). Les tarifs Point Vert 2009. Fost Plus, Brussels, Belgium.

Fost Plus (2010a). Annual Report 2009 – When packaging tells its own story. Fost Plus ,

Brussels, Belgium.

Fost Plus (2010b). Les tarifs Point Vert 2010. Fost Plus, Brussels, Belgium.

Fost Plus (2011a). Annual Report 2010 – Recycling a success thanks to everyone’s

involvement. Fost Plus, Brussels, Belgium.

Fost Plus (2011b). Les tarifs Point Vert 2011. Fost Plus, Brussels, Belgium.

Fost Plus (2012a). Map of Intermunicipal authorities, available on:

http://www.fostplus.be/SiteCollectionImages/Website%20Images/Partners/Kaart%20

Intercommunales%202009.jpg

Fost Plus (2012b). Annual Report 2011 – The recycling society in action. Fost Plus,

Brussels, Belgium.

Fost Plus (2012c). The fixed-price declaration and the detailed declaration. Fost Plus,

Brussels, Belgium (accessed on 12-04-2012).

Fost Plus (2012d). Les tarifs Point Vert 2012. Fost Plus, Brussels, Belgium.

Heuverswyn K.V. (2005). Comparative Analysis of the Interministerial Management of

Major Hazards: Belgium, France, Russia, Bulgaria. Prepared by the Institut

Supérieur de Planification d’Urgence (ISPU), Centre d’études juridiques EUR-OPA

Risques Majeurs, Brussels, Belgium.

http://europa.eu/

http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/

http://www.fostplus.be/SiteCollectionImages/Website%20Images/Partners/Kaart%20Intercommunales%202009.jpg

http://www.fostplus.be/SiteCollectionImages/Website%20Images/Partners/Kaart%20Intercommunales%202009.jpg


References

40

INBGE (2010). Plan de prévention et de gestion des déchets. Institute Bruxellois pour la

Gestion de l’Environnement (IBGE), Brussels, Belgium.

IBGE (2011). Obligations générales applicables à tout type de déchets. Institute Bruxellois

pour la Gestion de l’Environnement (IBGE), Brussels, Belgium.

IBGE (2012). Que fait-on avec les déchets? Institute Bruxellois pour la Gestion de

l’Environnement (IBGE), available on:

http://www.bruxelles-proprete.be/Content/html/services/quefaire.asp

IVCIE (2012). The Interregional Packaging Commission, Interregionale

Verpakkingscommissie / Commission Interrégionale de l’Emballage (IVCIE)

available on:

http://www.ivcie.be/en/page.php?pageId=500

Lavrysen L. and Misonne D. (2004). Producer Responsibility and Integrated Product

Policy in Belgium. Avosetta meeting, Brussels.

Mariën (2009). Prevention and management of household waste in Flanders. Published

by Flemish Public Waste Agency (OVAM), Flanders, Belgium.

OVAM (2008a). Implementation Plan for Environmentally Responsible Household Waste

Management. Brochure, Openbare Vlaamse Afvalstoffenmaatschappij (OVAM),

Mechelen, Belgium.

OVAM (2008b). Belgian point of view regarding the end-of-waste criteria for compost.

Published by Flemish Public Waste Agency (OVAM), Flanders, Belgium.

OVAM (2009). Activities Report 2009. Published by Flemish Public Waste Agency

(OVAM), Flanders, Belgium.

OVAM (2012). Database published by Flemish Public Waste Agency (OVAM), Flanders,

Belgium.

Perchards (2007). Packaging and Packaging Waste Law in Europe: Beverage Containers

Policy. The European Organization for Packaging and the Environment

(EUROPEN).

http://www.bruxelles-proprete.be/Content/html/services/quefaire.asp


References

41

Peuter and Wayenberg (2007). Belgium: Flemish Inter-municipal Cooperation under

Reform (Chapter 2). In: R. Hulst and A. van Montfort (eds.). Inter-Municipal

Cooperation in Europe, pp. 23-38.

Pinckaers M. (2012). Belgium – Luxembourg. Food and Agricultural Import Regulations

and Standards – Narrative. FAIRS Country Report prepared by USDA Foreign

Agricultural Service, Brussels, Belgium.

PRO-EUROPE (2010). Producer Responsibility in Action. Published by PRO-Europe,

Belgium.

RDC (2011). Évaluation contingente du coût des désagréments visuels causés par les

canettes dans les déchets sauvages en Wallonie. Etude pour l’Office Wallon des

Déchets. Research, Development & Consulting (RDC), Brussels, Belgium

SPW (2011). Réalisation d’une étude préparatoire à la mise en oeuvre d’un système de

consigne sur les canettes de boissons en Belgique. Service public de Wallonie

(SPW), Brussels, Belgium.

SPW (2012). Évaluation de la politique régionale relative aux parcs à conteneurs. Service

public de Wallonie (SPW), Brussels, Belgium.

SSESD (2000). Federal Plan for Sustainable Development 2000-2004. Translation

published by the Secretary of State for Energy and Sustainable Development

(SSESD), Brussels, Belgium.

ULB (2006). Belgium Law Digest Reviser. Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium.

Wayenberg and De Rynck (2012). Kingdom of Belgium, available on: http://www.cities-

localgovernments.org/gold/Upload/country_profile/Belgium.pdf (accessed on 03-04-

2012).

Websites

Association of Cities and Municipalities of Brussels-Capital Region (AVCB):

http://www.avcb-vsgb.be

Association of Flemish Cities and Municipalities (VVSG): http://www.vvsg.be

http://www.cities-localgovernments.org/gold/Upload/country_profile/Belgium.pdf

http://www.cities-localgovernments.org/gold/Upload/country_profile/Belgium.pdf

http://www.avcb-vsgb.be/

http://www.vvsg.be/


References

42

Association of Walloon Cities and Municipalities (UVCW): http://www.uvcw.be/

Brussels' Institute for Environmental Management (IBGE):

http://www.bruxellesenvironnement.be

Flemish Intermunicipal Companies for Waste Treatment (INTERAFVAL):

http://www.interafval.be/

Flemish Public Waste Agency (OVAM): http://www.ovam.be

Fost Plus: http://www.fostplus.be

Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment Federal Public Service:

http://www.health.belgium.be

Integrated Product Compliance: http://www.b2bweee.com/

Interregional Packaging Commission (IPC): http://www.ivcie.be

Official information and services: http://www.belgium.be

Public service of Wallonia: http://environnement.wallonie.be

Regional Agency for Cleaning (ABP): http://www.bruxelles-proprete.be

Val-I-Pac: http://www.valipac.be

Walloon Intermunicipal Companies for Waste Treatment (COPIDEC):


http://www.uvcw.be/

http://www.bruxellesenvironnement.be/

http://www.interafval.be/

http://www.ovam.be/

http://www.fostplus.be/

http://www.health.belgium.be/

http://www.b2bweee.com/

http://www.ivcie.be/

http://www.belgium.be/

http://environnement.wallonie.be/

http://www.bruxelles-proprete.be/

http://www.valipac.be/



43

Annexes


Annexes

44

Annex I

Materials price evolution

(Available on: http://www.fostplus.be)

GLASS PRICE

PAPER/CARDBOARD PRICE


Annexes

45

STEEL PRICE

ALUMINIUM PRICE


Annexes

46

PET PRICE

HDPE PRICE


Annexes

47

BEVERAGE CARTONS PRICE

Documents

EIMPack Economic Impact of the Packaging and …eimpack.ist.utl.pt/docs/Report_0_Belgium_revision2.pdfEIMPack – Economic Impact of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive Framework