&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington DC 20460
EPA/600/R-94/179
September 1994
Germany,
Garbage, and the
Green Dot
Challenging the
Throwaway Society
-------
-------
EPA/600/R-94/179
September 1994
GERMANY, GARBAGE, AND THE GREEN DOT
Challenging the Throwaway Society
Bette K. Fishbein
INFORM, Inc.
New York, NY 10005
EPA Cooperative Agreement No. CR-817087-01-0
Project Officer:
Emma Lou George !
Waste Minimization, Destruction and Disposal Research Division
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
DISCLAIMER
The information in this document has been funded wholly by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency under Cooperative Agreement CR #817087-01-0 to
INFORM, Inc. It has been subject to peer and administrative review, and has been approved
for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does
not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
Today's rapidly developing and changing technologies and industrial products and
practices frequently carry with them the increased generation of materials that, if improperly
dealt with, can threaten both public health and the environment. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's land, air and water
resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate
and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the
ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. These laws direct EPA to perform
research to define our environmental problems, measure the impacts, and search for
solutions.
The Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory is responsible for planning,
implementing, and managing research, development and demonstration programs to provide
an authoritative, defensible engineering basis in support of the policies, programs, and
regulations of the EPA with respect to drinking water, wastewater, pesticides, toxic
substances, solid and hazardous wastes, and Superfund-related activities. This publication is
one of the products of that research and provides a vital communication link between the
researcher and the user community. ;
This report, Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway
Society, funded through the Pollution Prevention Research Branch, is a major project in the
area of the Cleaner Products Program, which funds research for methods to support the
design and development of products whose manufacture, use, recycle and disposal represent
reduced impacts on the environment.
This report is an in-depth study of Germany's legislated approach to municipal solid
waste management. It provides informative discussion on methodology, implementation and
impacts of a mandatory system based on the premise that "the polluter pays" - the Green Dot
program. Comparisons to parallel solid waste issues within the United States provide
provocative alternatives for solutions to our solid waste crisis. Product design from
manufacturing, to marketing and ultimate disposal is an integral component of the equation
for innovative source reduction and responsible waste management. The reader is
encouraged to contact the author or project officer for more information concerning this
project and report.
I
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
111
-------
ABSTRACT
For US policymakers and citizens who are grappling with the question of how to
handle this country's mounting municipal garbage and commercial wastes, this report offers a
revolutionary approach taken by Germany to promote both recycling and source reduction.
The sweeping new German legislation is stimulating industry efforts to reduce packaging and
product waste by requiring that the businesses producing packages and products be
financially responsible for taking back their used materials and recycling, reusing or
disposing of them. The Germans call the concept underlying their legislation, "making the
polluter pay." Their approach is especially intriguing because it directly rewards business
innovation. Businesses that move most rapidly and effectively to cut back packaging wastes
and to make products that last longer and are more easily repaired and recycled will incur the
lowest recycling and disposal costs.
The US public and private sectors are trying to deal with an increasing solid waste
crisis - 252 million Americans produce more than 4 pounds of garbage per person per day -
a rate that is projected to increase; how to manage 196 million tons of municipal solid waste
generated each year; about the costs and political resistance to new landfills and incinerators
for waste disposal; and about the complex and expensive processes required to advance
recycling.
This report describes what Germans have done in solid waste policies, the difficulties
they are confronting and the impact on wastes to date. It discusses the environmental
problems that the US and other industrialized countries face, identifies practical solutions:
programs and policies that work to conserve our valuable air, land, water and natural
resources and enable us to live and do business less wastefully.
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Cooperative Agreement
CR #817087-01-0 by INFORM, Inc., under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. This work covers a period from October 1, 1990 to September 30,
1993, and was completed as of August, 1994.
IV
-------
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Why Look at Germany? 1
What is Municipal Solid Waste? \ 1
Municipal Solid Waste Problems in Germany and the United States 2
Solid Waste Policy Options 3
Learning from the German Approach ; . 4
Impact of the Packaging Ordinance 6
An International Laboratory 6
Chapter 2: Putting Germany in Perspective 8
Higher Population Density .: 8
Proximity to Other Nations ,; 8
Concern Over Damaged Forests ...i 9
Comparable Economic Strength , 9
Strong Environmental Commitment i! 10
Waste Generation: Difficult to Make International Comparisons 10
Similar Solid Waste Management Structures ,i . 11
Green Party Promotes Environmental Agenda ,! 11
Chapter 3: German Ordinance on the Avoidance of Packaging Waste. 13
Making the "Polluter Pay" 13
Background on the Passage of the Ordinance , 14
Provisions of the Ordinance ; 15
Packaging Statistics , 17
20
20
Role of Consumers
The Ordinance and the European Community
-------
Chapter 4: Transport Packaging 21
Case Studies: Reusable Transport Containers 22
ChapterS: Secondary Packaging 27
Secondary Packaging is Reduced 27
Just a Few Problems 28
Chapter 6: Primary Packaging and the Dual System 31
The Primary Packaging Waste Stream 31
Establishing the Dual System 32
Recycling and the Dual System 33
Financing the Dual System 38
Harmonization of DSD and the Waste Management System 44
Packaging Changes in Germany: The Impact of the Ordinance 46
Case Study: Tengelmann Supermarkets 48
Chapter 7: Maintaining the Refillable Beverage Container System 52
Refilling and the Packaging Ordinance 52
Refillable Plastic PET Containers 59
Case Study: Development of a Refillable PET Bottle for Juices 60
ChapterS: Plastics and the Packaging Ordinance 63
The Plastics Industry Resists 63
A Plastics Glut 64
The Role of Chemical Recycling 66
Who Will Invest in Plastics Recycling? 67
Environmental Concerns about Polyvinyl Chloride 68
Exporting Used Plastic Packaging 70
System's Success Hinges on Plastics Recycling 70
Chapter 9: Criticisms of the Packaging Ordinance and the Dual System 72
Criticism in Germany 72
International Concerns 78
The "Polluter Pays" Principle Outside Germany 81
Chapter 10: ProposedWaste AvoidanceandRecycling Legislation forProducts 84
The Closed-Loop Economy and Waste Management Act 84
Proposed Ordinance on the Reduction and Recycling of Waste from Automobiles 86
Proposed Ordinance on the Reduction and Recycling of Used
Electric and Electronic Equipment 90
A Revolution in Thinking 94
VI
-------
Chapter 11: Local Waste Management Initiatives 97
Local Source Reduction Strategies .. 97
Case Studies: Heidelberg and Wuppertal 100
Chapter 12: The German Packaging Ordinance and the European Community 103
Waste Policy in the European Community 103
EC Directive on Packaging Waste 106
Chapter 13: Implications of the German Approach for US Waste Policy 110
Some Lessons from Germany 110
Eleven Questions For US Solid Waste Policymakers 112
Conclusions 123
Epilogue 127
DSD Faces Another Financial Crisis 127
Amending the Packaging Ordinance 129
European Community Packaging Directive 130
Appendices 133
Appendix A: The Ordinance on the Avoidance of Packaging Waste. 133
Appendix B: Conversion of 1992 and 1993 Green Dot Fees to Dollars 153
Appendix C: Interviews 154
Appendix D: Bibliography
Index.
Figures
156
164
Figure 1-1: The German Packaging Ordinance at a Glance 5
Figure 6-1: The Dual System 34
Figure 6-2: Comparison of Recycling Quotas with Recycling Capacity 37
Figure 6-3: Comparison of 1992 and 1993 Green Dot Fees 43
Figure 7-1: Use of One-Way Glass Bottles in West Germany, 1966-1990 56
Figure 8-1: Packaging Changes Made by Companies in Germany to Eliminate or
Substitute for PVC, Composites, and Blister Packs 69
vu
-------
Tables
Table 2-1: A Comparison of the United States and Germany 9
Table 3-1: The Ordinance's Collection Quotas for One-Way Packaging 16
Table 3-2: The Ordinance's Sorting Quotas for Collected One-Way Packaging 17
Table 3-3: Implied Recycling Quotas for One-Way Packaging 17
Table 3-4: Packaging Consumption in Germany 1991 18
Table 3-5: Packaging Consumption Covered by the Ordinance 1991 19
Table 4-1: Comparative Prices for One-Way vs. Returnable Transport Containers 24
Table 6-1: Share of Primary Packages by Material 32
Table 6-2: 1992 Green Dot Fees 39
Table 6-3: 1993 Green Dot Fees 40
Table 6-4: Estimated DSD Costs and Green Dot Fees for 1994, by Material 41
Table 6-5: 1993 Green Dot Fees for Packaging One Liter of Beverage 42
Table 6-6: Changes in Total Packaging Consumption in Germany, 1991-92 47
Table 7-1: Volume of Beverages in One-Way and Refillable Containers in Germany 54
Table 7-2: Refill Quotas for Beverage Containers -Draft Ordinance on Reflllables 55
Table 7-3: Costs of One-Way and Refillable Packages for Beverages in Germany 57
Table 7-4: Selected German Supermarket Beverage Prices and Deposits 58
Table 10-1: Proposed Recycling Quotas for Materials in Automobiles, Draft Ordinance 87
Table 10-2: Estimated Quantity of Waste from Used Electric and Electronic Equipment 90
Table 12-1: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,
European Community, and European Free Trade Association
Member Countries 106
Table 13-1: Waste Management Funding Mechanisms andlncentives 113
Table 13-2: Recycling Rates for Packaging Materials 116
V1U
-------
Acknowledgments
Preparing a report on German legislation and
public policy presented INFORM with the chal-
lenge of understanding programs in a foreign
country and, particularly, with the difficulty of
getting accurate English translations of techni-
cal information. INFORM is indebted to the many
people in Germany, Brussels, and the United
States who helped bring this project to fruition.
First, I wish to thank each of those people
listed in Appendix C who took the time to meet
with me in Germany and to provide informa-
tion. They include: Olaf Bandt, Jan C. Bongaerts,
Bernd Buckenhofer, Bernd Franke, Rolf Friedel,
Renate Fries, Hubert Gehring, Wigand Kahl,
Sibille Kohler, Eberhard Kraft, Petra Locker,
Marlene Miihe, Jiirgen Maas, Hans-Jiirgen Oels,
Helmut Paschlau, Anja Raffalsky, Maria Rieping,
Erwin Rothgang, Frieder Rubik, Hans-Dieter
Schulz, Rafaella Schuster, Wolfgang Schutt,
Michael O. E. Scriba, Cynthia Pollock Shea,
Karl-Heinz Striegel, Clemens Stroetmann,
Matthias Wellmer.
Special thanks to Markus Hesse, and
Marianne Guinsburg for identifying those in Ger-
many knowledgeable about waste policy and
arranging many of these appointments. Also
thanks to Maggie Heller, who provided a con-
sumer perspective, and to Carla Schulz-Hoffman,
Rainer Lucas, and Uta von Winterfeld for their
hospitality.
I was able to keep informed on changing de-
velopments through those in Europe who were
willing to answer my many questions and pro-
vide current information and documents. Spe-
cial thanks to Ines Siegler at Duales System
Deutschland GmbH for her help and the volu-
minous statistics and press releases she provided.
Also to Ursula Schliessner and Timothy Feighery
in Brussels for keeping me up-to-date on devel-
opments in the European Community (EC). Very
special thanks to William D'Alessandro who
provided invaluable judgment and guidance in
understanding the complexities of EC environ-
mental regulations as well the new German waste
policies.
I am very grateful to Sigrun Wolff Saphire
for her excellent translations of the technical ma-
terials that were essential to this work.
Many reviewers offered helpful suggestions
and I especially thank James McCarthy, Reid
Lifset, Jack Azar, Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Bruce
Smart, and Gerhard Stark for their comments.
At INFORM I wish to thank Joanna D. Under-
wood, president, for her support and guidance,
IX
-------
and Warren Muir, iNFORM's science director, for
contributing his technical expertise. Thanks to
Sharene Azimi, editor of this report, for her inci-
sive analysis and her major role in bringing clar-
ity and style to the final manuscript, and to Elisa
Last, production coordinator, for creative design
and for assistance before and during production.
Thanks also to the INFORM staff who reviewed
the manuscript: Mimi Bluestone, David Saphire,
John Winter, Carolyn Nunley, and Joseph
Mohbat, and to Rona Hampton for her assistance
in communication with Germany. Thanks to Illy
Valyi and Emery Valyi for additional translations
and technical advice.
Finally, INFORM thanks the Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory of the Office of Research
and Development of the US Environmental Pro-
tection Agency for support for this research and
the American Council on Germany for support
for the travel in Germany. Although the infor-
mation in this document has been funded almost
wholly by the United States Environmental Pro-
tection Agency under assistance agreement num-
ber CR-817087-01-0 to INFORM, it does not
necessarily reflect the views of the Agency and
no official endorsement should be -inferred.
While this report benefitted from the help of
these and many other individuals, the contents
and analysis expressed are the sole responsibil-
ity of INFORM.
-------
Notes to the Reader
Reporting on such a dynamic subject as
Germany's packaging legislation has entailed
dealing with rapidly changing events. The main
text of this report includes information gathered
up to mid-1993, when the editorial and produc-
tion processes began. The Epilogue highlights
three major developments between mid-1993 and
the end of that year, when the report went to press.
These are:
1) The resolution of Duales System
Deutschland GmbH's financial crisis of
September 1993.
2) The German Federal Environment Min-
istry's proposed amendments to the 1991
Packaging Ordinance.
3) The political agreement reached in De-
cember 1993 on the European Commu-
nity Packaging Directive.
The fact that changes are being proposed to
the Packaging Ordinance makes it even more
important to understand the original ordinance
and why the need for change developed. Ger-
many has not altered its goals or the principles
upon which its legislation is based; rather, it is
proposing a slight reduction in the mandated re-
cycling rates and a delay in the dates by which
they must be achieved.
Technical Notes ..
German unification: East and West Ger-
many became unified on October 3,1990, to form
the Federal Republic of Germany. All national
data in this report refer to the unified country
unless otherwise specified.
Units of Measure: 'The metric system is used
in Germany and throughout the European Com-
munity. This text refers to both "metric tons" and
"tons" the latter being the measurement used
in the United States. The conversion table on the
next page illustrates how to convert from com-
monly used metric measurements to US figures.
Currency: The basic unit of German currency
is the Deutsche Mark, abbreviated DM. All mon-
etary conversions in this report are based on aver-
age exchange rates from1 January 1992 through the
first quarter of 1993. During this period the rela-
tionship between the Deutsche Mark and the dol-
lar hovered about 1.6:1. However, when interpreting
cost data, the reader is reminded that international
monetary values fluctuate.
XI
-------
Conversion Tables
To Convert:
From
Kilograms
Metric Tons
Liters
Liters
Meters
Units of Measure
To
Pounds
US tons (short)
Ounces (beverages)
US gallons (garbage)
Feet
Currency
To Convert to Dollars:
From
Deutsche Marks (DM)
European Currency Units (ECU)
British Pounds (£)
French Francs
Multiply by
2.2
1.1
33.8
0.26
3.3
Multiply by
0.6
1.3
1.7
0.2
Terminology: Translating from German to
English has posed difficulties for this study be-
cause a single word in German may have a num-
ber of different English translations. INFORM has
tried to make the terminology in this report con-
sistent and clear for the US reader.
Translations of packaging materials catego-
ries presented a particular challenge. In German,
packaging made of mixed materials is called
"Verbunde," which was translated in source ma-
terials as "composite," "compound," or "lami-
nate." This report refers to "Verbunde" as
"composite." The literal translation of the Ger-
man packaging material category called "Fein-
blech" is "thinsheet," which is not meaningful
to the non-technical reader. This category will
be called "steel," as it consists of steel barrels,
drums, transport containers, pallets, and straps.
In the case of paper-based packaging materials,
categorized as "Papier/Pappe/Karton" in Ger-
man, INFORM will call the category "paper/pa-
perboard." This is consistent with terminology
used by the United States Environmental Pro-
tection Agency in Characterization of Munici-
pal Solid Waste in the United States, 1992
Update, prepared by Franklin Associates, Ltd.
This category includes all paper-based packag-
ing materials, including corrugated containers.
For names of laws or ordinances, INFORM has
used translations by Germany's Federal Environ-
ment Ministry, when available.
xii
-------
THE
REUNITED
GERMANY
SCHLESWIG-
HOLSTEIN
MECKLENBURG-
WESTERN POMERANIA
RLIN \
(
BRANDENBURG I
NORTH RHINE-
WESTFALIA
Dortmund
SAXONY-
ANHALT
( Diisseldorf
( Wuppertal
Cologne «
\ Bonn
Dresden \> *
Heidelberg
Stuttgart
Note: Reunited Germany consists of 16 independent Lander, or states. Three major cities, Berlin,
Hamburg, and Bremen are also independent states.
Key: ^^ indicates the border between the former East and the former West Germany, prior
to reunification in 1990. The city of Berlin was divided between the two countries.
xiii
-------
-------
Chapter 1: Why Look at Germany?
The Federal Republic of Germany has initiated
the world's most ambitious national solid waste
policy. Aimed at promoting source reduction,
reuse, and recycling, Germany's new legisla-
tion is having international repercussions. The
Packaging Ordinance, passed in 1991, extends
industry responsibility for its packages to the
end of their life cycles, including the cost of
recycling after consumers discard the packages.
Germany is already circulating similar proposed
legislation to extend industry responsibility for
its products, specifically automobiles, electronic
equipment, newspapers, and batteries. The idea
of shifting responsibility for waste management
from the public sector to private industry is
sweeping Europe and is under consideration by
some policymakers in the United States.
This report offers a detailed description of
Germany's new approach not to advocate
adoption of the same policies here, but rather
to increase our understanding of the German
experience. This understanding can help us
make informed judgments as to whether
Germany's policies might help solve US prob-
lems and, if so, how they may be adapted to the
specific needs of the United States.
What is Municipal Solid Waste?
The particular waste stream addressed in this
report is municipal solid waste, commonly
called garbage. In the United States, it consists
of materials discarded by the residential, com-
mercial, and institutional sectors, and includes
paper, food, packaging, yard waste, clothing,
and appliances. Commercial wastes such as cor-
rugated boxes, wood pallets, lunchroom waste,
and office paper waste are included in munici-
pal solid waste, but industrial wastes, sludge,
and ash are not. Thus, the term "packaging
waste" does not include waste generated in the
production of that packaging.
The definition of municipal solid waste is
generally the same in Germany, but materials
collected for recycling in Germany are not in-
cluded in the waste stream data. Other discrep-
ancies in definitions and methodologies of mea-
suring waste preclude comparisons of waste
generation between the two countries, as dis-
cussed in Chapter 2.
In this report, the term "waste" is used in
its broadest sense: to describe materials dis-
Why Look at Germany?
-------
carded by their end users households, busi-
nesses, and institutions. Packaging waste there-
fore includes all discarded packaging, includ-
ing the portion that is ultimately recycled. This
definition is used by the US Environmental Pro-
tection Agency and by the European Commu-
nity, which divides waste into two categories:
waste for recovery and waste for disposal. How-
ever, it differs from the German definition,
which classifies discarded materials as either
Abfall (waste) or Wertstoffe (valuable materi-
als). The difficulty in using the German classi-
fications in this report is that when used pack-
aging is collected, it is often not known whether
it will be recycled, burned, or landfilled. Many
materials that are supposed to be recycled are
dumped illegally. Therefore, for lack of better
terminology at present, this report will refer to
all discarded materials as waste and to recy-
cling as one of the methods of handling this
waste. Consistent terminology for materials dis-
carded or recycled in the United States and in-
ternationally would be extremely useful for
public and private sector analysts.
Municipal Solid Waste Problems
in Germany and the United States
Germany is running out of disposal capacity for
the waste it generates, and Germans are unwill-
ing to site new incinerators and landfills. When
the German Cabinet approved the Packaging
Ordinance in November 1990, the Federal En-
vironment Ministry (the Bundesministerium fur
Urn welt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit, or
BMU) estimated that the former West Germany
was disposing of about 32 million metric tons
of municipal solid waste per year and that dis-
posal capacity would run out in two to five
years. "In order to head off a threatened waste
disposal emergency as early as possible," the
Ministry said, "it is necessary to take decisive
waste avoidance measures."1 (The name of this
ministry includes "the environment, protection
of nature and safety of nuclear reactors," but is
referred to in this report simply as the Federal
Environment Ministry.)
Many landfills in Germany are closing, ei-
ther because they are filled or because they do
not comply with strict new environmental regu-
lations. The number of landfills in the former
West Germany dropped from 4,000 in 1975 to
300 in 1991. In the former East Germany, there
are 11,000 dump sites, but most of them are
unregulated. About 24 percent of the waste that
is disposed of in Germany is incinerated, and
the remainder is landfilled. The former West
Germany has 49 waste-to-energy (incineration)
plants in operation, with 10 more planned or
under construction, while the former East Ger-
many has one.2
The crisis in Germany emanates primarily
from a decline in disposal capacity, not from a
surge in waste generation. Germany's popula-
tion density makes it difficult to locate disposal
facilities far from population centers. Opposi-
tion to the siting of new disposal facilities is so
intense in Germany that election to local pub-
lic office is virtually impossible for officials
who support such facilities.3 A proposal for one
incinerator in Baden-Wurttemberg generated
more than 100,000 complaints and lawsuits.4 A
new technical law mandates that valuable land-
fill space, in 10 years, be reserved for the resi-
dues from waste-to-energy plants, and will pro-
hibit the direct landfilling of municipal solid
waste.5
In the past, West Germany exported much
of its waste to East Germany and other Euro-
pean countries. It shipped about 700,000 tons
2 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
to France each year until August 1992, when
France closed its borders to German garbage,
leaving cities in southwest Germany Heidel-
berg and Ulm, for example searching for a
place to dispose of their waste. Since the fall of
Communism in Europe, Eastern Europe no
longer provides cheap disposal options. The
new European Community regulations on in-
terstate shipment of waste, discussed in Chap-
ter 12, aim at severely curtailing the export of
waste for disposal and making countries self-
sufficient in waste management. These mea-
sures will increase the pressure in Germany to
solve its waste problem.
The United States also faces a solid waste
problem. Parts of the United States are running
out of places to dispose of garbage that are en-
vironmentally and politically acceptable. New
York and New Jersey export waste across the
country, while states such as Indiana, Michi-
gan, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky that receive
this waste are seeking to restrict these ship-
ments. Legislation in California subjects locali-
ties to large fines if they do not reduce the
amount of waste they send to disposal.
The US municipal solid waste stream has
more than doubled since 1960, partly owing to
increased population and partly because the av-
erage US resident produces 1.6 more pounds
of garbage per day than 30 years ago, for a to-
tal of 4.3 pounds per day in 1990.6
As in Germany, landfills are closing in the
United States, and the public has expressed in-
tense opposition to the siting of new landfills
and incinerators. Only 6,600 landfills were in
operation in 1989, down from 20,000 a decade
earlier. Between 1987 and 1991, plans for 121
proposed waste-to-energy plants were canceled,
mainly as a result of public opposition to the
siting of the facilities.7
Environmental concerns are feeding the
popular antipathy to disposal facilities known
as the NIMBY (not in my backyard) syndrome.
Society has come to realize that the term "throw-
away" is misleading: in practice there is no
"away." Refuse can no longer be burned and
dumped without intense scrutiny of the result-
ing environmental effects.
Solid Waste Policy Options
To address the solid waste problem, the US En-
vironmental Protection Agency's hierarchy of
solid waste policy options designates reduction
of waste at source as the number one strategy,
followed by recycling, with treatment and dis-
posal last. Reducing the amount and/or toxic-
ity of waste generated is called source reduc-
tion. Although source reduction has become a
widely acclaimed strategy, it has been limited
in practice.
In recent years, some municipalities have
focused predominantly on recycling as the so-
lution to their garbage problems. However, ex-
panding recycling has not been simple because
it requires additional collection, sorting, and
processing systems. Moreover, the amount of
materials collected has greatly outstripped the
demand for these materials. Although it is de-
sirable to recycle waste that has already been
generated, there is no reason to devote scarce
resources to recycling waste that need not have
been generated in the first place.
Waste management professionals tend to
focus on the environmental effects of disposal,
but far greater environmental damage may re-
sult from the excessive and inefficient use of
raw materials in the extraction and production
processes. Thus the question of how to manage
municipal solid waste may be seen as part of a
Why Look at Germany? 3
-------
broader issue: resource management. Resource
management requires policies that encourage
reduction, reuse, and recycling not only to curb
the growing waste stream but also to conserve
for future generations our natural resources: air,
water, land, energy, and raw materials.
Learning from the
German Approach
Germany's waste policy incorporates a new
approach that, by shifting responsibility and in-
centives, aims to promote improved resource
management through both source reduction and
recycling. Understanding the German system
in some detail is necessary if US policymakers
are to learn from Germany's recent initiatives,
particularly with respect to the top waste policy
option in the United States source reduction.
What is Germany trying to accomplish? What
strategies are being used? How much do the
systems cost? What problems and successes can
be documented? By providing such informa-
tion, this report aims to contribute to the dis-
cussion of the viability of the German approach
as a model for policy in the United States.
Figure 1-1 provides a snapshot view of the
"Ordinance on the Avoidance of Packaging
Waste," Verpackungsverordnung, passed in
1991. In considering whether a similar law
could be adapted to US needs, one should view
the ordinance's elements both collectively and
separately, because they are not always mutu-
ally dependent. Some of the policies and strat-
egies might be applicable here, others less so.
We might choose to shift responsibility for
waste management to industry but select a dif-
ferent way of doing this, such as by imposing
advanced disposal fees (charging producers for
the cost of recycling and disposal), rather than
making industry take back what it produces.
Goals and Philosophy
The United States shares Germany's goals of
reducing the amount of waste sent to disposal
and developing a sound materials policy. The
German philosophy, however, raises a basic
question for policymakers: who should be re-
sponsible for waste?
The philosophy behind the Packaging Or-
dinance is based on what is known in Germany,
and in the field of resource economics, as the
"polluter pays" principle: those who produce
waste are responsible for recycling and dispos-
ing of it. In the United States today, waste man-
agement is a public responsibility, like educa-
tion and fire protection, funded by taxpayers.
Some critics contend that funding waste man-
agement with public money subsidizes waste-
fulness.8 By shifting responsibility for waste to
private industry, Germany aims to influence
industry as early as the design stage to make
less wasteful packages and products. Shifting
the responsibility, in effect, "internalizes" waste
management costs building them into pack-
age and product prices. Key policymakers in
the United States, including Senator Max
Baucus, chairman of the Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee, are raising the
crucial issue of shifting responsibility: Should
it be done here? If so, how?9
Strategy
Germany's basic strategy is to make industry
take back what it produces. Its approach per-
mits industry to decide on the specific imple-
4 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
Figure 1-1: The German Packaging Ordinance at a Glance
Underlying Principles
Goals: 1. Reduce packaging waste requiring disposal. '
2. Develop a sound materials policy.
Concepts: Industry should pay for managing the waste generated by packages.
Strategy: Make industry take back, reuse, and recycle packaging materials
independent of the public waste management system.
Implementation
Government-mandated recycling rates
Government-mandated refilling rates for beverages :
Materials industries' responsibility for recycling
Industry-imposed packaging fees
Convenient collection from consumers
Installation of bins so customers can leave outer packaging in stores
Preservation of existing waste management system
mentation mechanisms, rather than having the
government micro-manage the system. The
German government has imposed no taxes or
fees and is not involved in creating markets for
recyclable materials. In fact, industry has been
allowed to develop and operate its own system
for taking back and recycling packaging waste,
provided it meets the government quotas for
recycling and refilling. This strategy relies on
two basic assumptions: 1.) Industry is key to
waste and materials policy because it deter-
mines what packages and products are pro-
duced; and 2.) Incentives are a more effective
public policy tool for modifying industry prac-
tices than extensive government regulations.
Some of Germany's strategies may not be ap-
plicable to the larger, more populous United
States, with its different political and legal con-
straints, and some may even prove unsuccess-
ful in Germany.
Implementation Methods
The implementation methods outlined in Fig-
ure 1-1 could be used collectively or as stand-
alone measures. For example, requiring retail-
ers to provide bins so consumers can leave outer
packaging in the stores could be one part of a
comprehensive packaging law in the United
States, as it is in Germany. Or it could be a sin-
gular measure taken at the federal, state, or lo-
cal level to give retailers an incentive to encour-
age their suppliers to reduce packaging. The
methods need not be implemented in the United
States as they are in Germany. For example,
mandated recycling or refill rates could be set
at different levels from Germany's, or the fees
that have been set for German packaging could
be a used as a model for advanced disposal fees
in the United States.
: Why Look at Germany? 5
-------
Impact of the
Packaging Ordinance
Although the Packaging Ordinance was not
fully implemented until January 1993, some
early indications of its impact were evident
when this report was prepared for publication.
Some companies have changed their packages
in direct response to the ordinance, or in antici-
pation of its implementation.
From 1991 to 1992 in Germany a period
in which the economy was growing packag-
ing was reduced by more than 600,000 metric
tons, or about 4 percent. This reduction indi-
cates a reversal in the trend of annual increases
and represents packaging that was eliminated,
reused, or made of lighter materials. But
changes in packaging are not limited to reduc-
tions in weight: some companies have switched
to materials that are more easily and cheaply
recycled, e.g., substituting paper for plastic.
Changes made by companies in Germany
include:
Eliminating outer boxes, blister packs,
and wrappings
Reducing the size of boxes or amount of
outer wrappings
* Developing reusable shipping container
systems
Selling liquid and powdered products in
concentrated form
Using refill bags or bottles for cleaning
products
Replacing packaging made of mixed ma-
terials with a single material that is easier
to recycle
Moreover, the new packaging fees based on
material and weight (introduced in October
1993) are expected to accelerate packaging
changes by providing stronger financial incen-
tives for companies to reduce the weight of
materials and switch to materials that are easier
to recycle. Recycling of packaging materials has
increased in Germany, and with it have come
new technologies particularly for recycling
beverage cartons and plastics.
At the same time, refill rates for beverages
have increased, exceeding the requirement that
the volume of beverages sold in refillable con-
tainers not fall below the level when the Pack-
aging Ordinance went into effect.
Besides packaging, some manufacturers
have also changed their products in anticipa-
tion of legislation that would apply the "pol-
luter pays" principle to products such as auto-
mobiles and electronic equipment. Companies
in these industries are volunteering to take back
some of their products and have extended their
concern about their products to the end of the
life cycle. Thus auto and electronics manufac-
turers are incorporating reuse and recycling con-
siderations into their materials selection and de-
sign processes.
In sum, application of the "polluter pays"
principle in Germany is linked to a change in
the way manufacturers think. Many companies
are thinking about the environment when de-
signing packages and products, as demonstrated
by the innovations on the market.
An International Laboratory
As might be expected with such a bold new
approach, the German system has experienced
substantial difficulties. Still, it contains elements
that merit serious consideration in the United
States. The system's problems may be due in
part to the high level of the mandated recycling
6 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
rates and the speed at which they must be
achieved, not to the basic concepts underlying
the system. For the United States, Germany
serves as a laboratory for innovative municipal
solid waste policies and will provide much use-
ful data on their impact even given the two
nations' social, political, and cultural differ-
ences, described briefly in the next chapter.
The German legislation is relevant to the
United States beyond the potential for apply-
ing similar steps to alleviate US municipal solid
waste problems. Many US companies sell prod-
ucts on the German market and must comply
with German laws. US companies also com-
pete with German companies in the global mar-
ketplace and need to understand the new rules
under which German industry is operating.
Moreover, the German policies have already
extended well beyond Germany. The "polluter
pays" principle is sweeping Europe: legislation
has already been enacted in France, Austria, and
Belgium, and is under consideration in many
other European countries; and the European
Community is adopting a modified version of
the German approach in its own Packaging Di-
rective. The Canadian government is also us-
ing Germany as a model for its new system of
shared responsibility for packaging waste.
Notes
1. Federal Environment Ministry (BMU), "Packaging
Ordinance Approved: Abandoning the Throwaway
Society," press release, Bonn, November 14, 1990.
2. B ureau of National Affairs, "New Directive Sets Pa-
rameters for Incineration, Landfill Disposal," Inter-
national Environment Daily, Washington, DC, Sep-
tember 22,1992.
3. Hubert Gehring (BMU), "The German Packaging
Ordinance," Institute of Packaging Professionals
Conference: Environmental Packaging Legislation,
Baltimore, MD, July 16,1993.
4. Hubert Gehring (BMU), telephone interview, April
22, 1993.
5. Hubert Gehring (BMU), interview, Baltimore, MD,
July 15, 1993. :
6. Franklin Associates, Ltd., for the US Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, Characterization of Munici-
pal Solid Waste in the United States: 1992 Update,
Prairie Village, KS, p. ES-6 and 5-2.
7. INFORM (Bette K. Fishbein and Caroline Gelb), Mak-
ing Less Garbage: A Planning Guide for Commu-
nities, New York, 1992, p. 14.
8. Senator Max Baucus, keynote address, US Confer-
ence of Mayors: Reality-Based Recycling II Con-
ference, Washington, DC, April 1, 1993.
9. Ibid.
Why Look at Germany?
-------
Chapter 2: Putting Germany in Perspective
Noting the context in which the German policy
was developed, and some key similarities and
differences between the two countries that af-
fect waste policy, will help US policymakers
discern the relevance of Germany's legislation
for the United States.
Higher Population Density
Germany is far more crowded than the United
States. Its population density is more than eight
times greater, as indicated in Table 2-1. This is
comparable to one-third of the US population's
living in an area the size of Montana. The United
States has roughly three times as many people
as Germany in an area 26 times larger. Conse-
quently, Germany has less land available for dis-
posing of its waste, and its solid waste crisis is
far more acute. Germany's greater population
density has also affected the level of environ-
mental concern in that country.
Proximity to Other Nations
Germany's proximity to other countries and its
suffering from their environmental problems
have increased its residents' sensitivity to en-
vironmental issues. Unlike the United States,
Germany is not geographically isolated by
oceans; rather, it borders nations that generate
pollution, including airborne and water-borne
toxics, without regard to national boundaries.
The 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident in the
former Soviet Union produced serious conse-
quences in Germany particularly in Bavaria,
which suffered extensive radioactive contami-
nation. Cesium 137 activity, which may induce
genetic mutations, increased by a factor of four
to six throughout Germany but by a factor of
15 in Bavaria.1 Milk and milk products were
contaminated, as was the water in the Baltic Sea.
Such events have contributed to a greater aware-
ness among Germans of the fragility of the
earth's environment, together with a sense of
8 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
Table 2-1: A Comparison of the United States and Germany - Selected Data (1991)
Population (millions)
Land area (OOOs square miles)
People per square mile
Number of states
GDP ($ trillions)*
GDP per capita ($)
* Based on new measures develooi
United States
252
3,539
71
50
5.61
22,204
3d bv the International
Germany
80
135
588
16
1.25
19,500
Monetary Fund to compare
Gross Domestic Product based on purchasing power parity rather than exchange rates.
Sources: 1.) United States Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1992;
and 2.) Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, National Accounts Main
Aggregates Volume 1 (1960-1991), 1993.
urgency to solve environmental problems. The
Chernobyl accident led Germany to establish a
Federal Environment Ministry.
Concern Over Damaged Forests
The Germans' love of their forests runs deep
and has a long historical tradition. According
to a study of green consumerism, "the upsurge
in concern about the environment (in Germany)
really began...when it became clear that acid
rain was destroying the much loved forests."2
German forests are not abundant: forest area
per capita there is 1.3 square kilometers as com-
pared to 11.8 in the United States.3 The visual
impact of dying forests has played a major role
in developing a consensus on the need for en-
vironmental protection policies. The problem
is particularly serious at higher altitudes, where
large expanses of forest on mountain summits
and crests are disappearing, presenting highly
visible evidence of environmental damage.4 In
the former East Germany, one-third of the for-
ests are damaged; in the former West Germany,
16 percent.5
Comparable Economic Strength
i
A country's per capita gross domestic product
(GDP): its output of goods and services is
an indicator of its economic well-being and
capacity to fund waste management. In this re-
spect, the United States and Germany are simi-
lar. GDP in the United States in 1991 was $5.61
trillion about four times Germany's GDP of
$1.25 trillion but per capita GDP in the two
countries was $22,204 in the United States and
$19,500 in Germany, as shown in Table 2-1.
The financial commitment to environmen-
tal protection was similar in the former West
Germany and the United States. West Germany
spent about 1.6 percent of GDP on environmen-
tal protection in 1990, compared with about 1.4
percent in the United States. In both countries,
industry contributed 59 percent of this expen-
diture.6 Data for the former East Germany are
not available. i
Putting Germany in Perspective 9
-------
Strong Environmental
Commitment
Germany's raw material and energy resources
are more limited than those of the United States;
consequently, it has a tradition of conservation.
Through a month-long series of personal inter-
views with German industry, business, govern-
ment, consumer, and environmental represen-
tatives, INFORM found a general commitment
to protecting the environment and working col-
lectively and individually to that end.
INFORM's impressions are consistent with
survey findings in Europe that "for German
consumers environmental awareness is the
norm not the exception" and that "German con-
sumers are much 'greener' than the Dutch or
the British."7 A world environmental survey
found that Germany was not quite in the same
league as Sweden, which the survey rated the
"greenest" nation worldwide, but that Germany
has been "recognized as a green opinion leader
for many years" and that "West German regu-
lations have been among the toughest in the
world."8
Consumer participation in environmentally
favorable practices is widespread in Germany.
As discussed in Chapter 7, Germans bring back
most of their beverage bottles for refilling. They
are accustomed to depositing recyclable mate-
rials such as glass and paper at the drop-off
containers conveniently placed throughout cit-
ies and towns. Even in cities, Germans use bi-
cycles as a mode of transportation more than
US residents do.
In German hotels, signs in the bathrooms
note that, to help the environment, fresh towels
are provided only on request. Plastic bags are
not generally provided in hotel rooms, nor are
the free bath and beauty products commonly
provided in the United States. Furthermore,
Germany's industrial output per unit of energy
is higher than that of the United States, partly
owing to policies that favor efficiency.9 Gaso-
line, for example, is taxed much more heavily
in Germany and in all of Europe than in the
United States, resulting in higher prices and thus
incentives to make or buy more fuel-efficient
cars.10
While not comprehensive, these examples
indicate the context in which the Packaging
Ordinance was passed: in a country marked by
pervasive concern for conserving materials and
energy at the individual, institutional, and na-
tional levels and driven by a high level of gen-
eral environmental concern.
Waste Generation: Difficult to
Make International Comparisons
According to data published by the Organiza-
tion for Economic Cooperation and Develop-
ment (OECD), waste generation in Germany is
318 kilograms per person per year as compared
to 864 kilograms per person per year in the
Unites States.11 This might suggest that the av-
erage person in the United States generates two
to three times as much garbage as the average
person in Germany. However, data for the two
countries are not comparable: the German data
do not include materials collected for recycling,
nor do they include some commercial waste,
both of which are included in the US data. In-
ternational comparisons of waste generation are
usually unreliable because countries use differ-
ent data collection methodologies and differ-
ent definitions of waste.
An estimate of per capita generation in Ger-
many that is somewhat more comparable to that
10 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
in the United States can be made by adding re-
cycling quantities to the German data. Germany
disposes of about 40 million metric tons of
municipal solid waste each year and recycles
an estimated 10 million metric tons, meaning
generation is about 50 million metric tons, for
an estimated 625 kilograms per person per year
(compared with 864 in the United States).12
Nonetheless, other discrepancies remain, and
reconciling waste generation data for the two
countries is beyond the scope of this report.
INFORM's observations in Germany support
the hypothesis that, on average, less waste is
generated per person in Germany than in the
United States, but accurate data to confirm
this are lacking.
Germany's attempts to compile waste sta-
tistics were complicated by the unification of
the country in 1990. Until then, West Germany
collected data, but East Germany collected very
little. German reports indicate that the average
household waste per person per year, prior to
unification, was twice as high in West Germany
as in East Germany, but generation in the former
East Germany has increased rapidly, reducing
the disparity.13 A reminder: throughout this re-
port, data for Germany refer to the unified coun-
try unless otherwise specified.
Similar Solid Waste
Management Structures
Both the United States and Germany are fed-
eral democracies. Germany is a federation of
16 Lander that have a role roughly comparable
to the 50 US states. The allocation of responsi-
bility for solid waste management across the
levels of government is similar in the two coun-
tries. Solid waste management is primarily the
responsibility of local and regional governments
(cities and counties), although the federal gov-
ernment has played a much larger role in waste
policy in Germany.
Green Party Promotes
Environmental Agenda
In the 1980s, Germany was home to the world's
largest, most dynamic, and most successful
Green Party (Die Griineri).14 Founded in the late
1970s as a protest group opposed primarily to
nuclear power, the Greens broadened their en-
vironmental agenda and increased their vote
from 5.6 percent in 1983 to 8.3 percent in 1987
giving them 42 seats in the Bundestag (Par-
liament) in 1987.15 The Greens greatly increased
Germans' awareness of environmental issues and
promoted environmental legislation. However,
they suffered from internal dissension which ulti-
mately caused the Green Party's decline.
Nonetheless, much of the Green agenda has
been adopted by the traditional parties. Indeed,
Environment Minister Klaus Topfer of the con-
servative Christian Democratic Union (CDU)
is driving the innovative policies on municipal
solid waste. The Greens still hold elective of-
fice at the state and local levels and remain pow-
erful in some regions.
In May 1993, the Green Party of the former
West Germany and the former East German
party Alliance '90 merged. The new party is
called Alliance '907 Greens, but will use Greens
as its abbreviated name. The merger's purpose
was to enable the Greens to regain enough po-
litical strength in the 1994 elections to become
the country's third largest political party after
the Christian Democratic Union and the Social
Democratic Party (SPD). The new party will
Putting Germany in Perspective 11
-------
be committed to "human rights, ecology, de-
mocracy, social justice and the equality of men
and women," and will try to reconcile the
agenda of the ecology-minded western Greens
with that of the former East German group,
which was founded to support human rights and
oppose the former Communist regime.16
Notes
1. Federal Environmental Agency (UBA), Facts and
Figures on the Environment of Germany: 1988/89,
Berlin, p. 218.
2. Michael Peters Brand Development Division and
Diagnostics Market Research Ltd., Green, Greener,
Greenest: Tlie Green Consumer in the UK, Nether-
lands and Germany, London, September 1989, p. 19.
3. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Devel-
opment, OECD Environmental Data 1991, Paris,
1991, p. 87.
4. Federal Environmental Agency (UBA), op. cit.,
p. 89-90.
5. "German Forests Continue to Die," Europe Environ-
ment No. 398, Europe Information Service, Brus-
sels, November 17,1992, p. 12; and Federation of
German Industries (BDI), "International Environ-
mental PolicyPerspectives 2000," Cologne, May
1992, p. 11.
6. INFORM estimates based on GNP data in BDI,
"International Environmental Policy," op. cit., p. 8.
7. Michael Peters Brand Development Division,
op. cit., p. 127 and 146.
8. John Elkington, The Green Wave: A Report on the
1990 Greenworld Survey, compiled by Sustainability,
London, 1990, p. 51-52.
9. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Devel-
opment, op. cit., p. 193.
10. US Energy Information Administration, Interna-
tional Energy Annual, Washington, DC, 1992; and
International Energy Agency, Energy Prices and
Taxes 1992, Paris, 1993.
11. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Devel-
opment, op. cit., p. 133.
12. Hans-Jurgen Oels (Federal Environmental Agency
[UBA]), telephone interview, April 27, 1993.
13. Thomas Rummler and Wolfgang Schutt, The Ger-
man Packaging Ordinance: A Practical Guide with
Commentary, Hamburg: B. Behr's Verlag GmbH &
Co., 1990, p. 3.
14. Jonathan Porritt and David Winner, The Coming of
the Greens, London: Fontana Collins, 1988, p. 212.
15. Ibid., p. 214.
16. Stephen Kinzer, "Green Party Merges with an East
German Group," The New York Times, January 20,
1993, p. A7.
12 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
Chapter 3: German Ordinance
on the Avoidance of Packaging Waste
On June 12, 1991, the German Packaging Or-
dinance requiring industry to take back, reuse,
and/or recycle packaging materials went into
effect. Klaus Tb'pfer, head of the Federal Envi-
ronment Ministry (Bundesministerium fiir
Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit, or
BMU), had earlier claimed that "this ordinance,
unlike any other regulation taken up to now,
marks the final abandonment of the throwaway
society."1 By making industry take back its
packaging, the ordinance shifts the burden of
managing packaging waste from municipal au-
thorities to manufacturers, distributors, and re-
tailers. The goal is to give private industry the
incentive to consider the solid waste conse-
quences when it designs packages to envi-
sion how the package will be reused or recycled,
and what that will cost. Clearly, the company
can benefit financially if the package is elimi-
nated or reduced.
Making the "Polluter Pay"
For the first time anywhere, the ordinance ap-
plied the "polluter pays" principle to munici-
pal solid waste. According to the Federal Envi-
ronment Ministry, "Public financing of all en-
vironmental protection measures from taxpay-
ers' money is not the way to go. The German
key concept, rather, is the polluter-pays prin-
ciple. The costs of preventing and reducing
damage to the environment must be born by
those who make use of it."2 Public funds will
no longer be used to manage packaging waste.
Under this pioneering legislation, industry
retains responsibility for its packages after they
have been discarded by consumers. Consum-
ers, however, share the cost. Industry is ex-
pected to incorporate the pollection, sorting, re-
cycling, and disposal costs into the price of
packages and products. The legislation contains
no specific mandates for consumers.
The mandate for industry to "take back"
packaging is not meant literally; very few com-
panies will physically take back their own pack-
ages under the Packaging Ordinance. To this
extent, take-back is more of a theoretical con-
cept than a practical strategy. Government, busi-
ness, and environmentalist leaders agree it is
impractical to require the extra shipping that
would be entailed in making producers liter-
ally take back billions of packages each year.
German Ordinance on the Avoidance of Packaging Waste 13
-------
The strategy entails a shift in financial respon-
sibility to industry, but companies may arrange
for third parties to actually manage the waste.
Thus waste continues to be collected by a combi-
nation of municipal workers and private carters.
Background on the
Passage of the Ordinance
The authority for the Packaging Ordinance is
Germany's "Waste Avoidance and Waste Man-
agement Act," Abfallgesetz, of August 1986,
which empowered the federal government to
regulate the flow of packages and products so
they can be returned for "environmentally
friendly" reprocessing. At first, Germany tried
a voluntary approach, asking industry to reduce
packaging and increase recycling. When this
tactic failed, the government introduced the leg-
islation that became law on June 12,1991.3
When the Bundesrat, the upper house of Par-
liament, was considering the proposed new law,
the Ldnder, or states, demanded stricter mea-
sures, including regulation of excessive and en-
vironmentally damaging packaging, labeling of
plastics, and higher mandated rates for refill-
ing beverage containers. The federal govern-
ment argued that such regulations required no-
tification to the European Community and
would cause lengthy delays in passing the or-
dinance. The states' representatives in the Bun-
desrat agreed to drop their proposed amend-
ments but adopted a resolution calling for
supplementary measures to strengthen the or-
dinance. One such proposal, on refillable bev-
erage containers, was being circulated in mid-
1993, as discussed in Chapter 7.
The driving force behind the Packaging
Ordinance was Dr. Klaus Topfer, who has been
Germany's Environment Minister since May 7,
1987, longer than any other environment min-
ister in the European Community. Topfer, a
former professor of economics and regional
planning, has also held high-level leadership po-
sitions in the Christian Democratic Union
(CDU)the party of Chancellor Helmut Kohl.
The Packaging Ordinance is but the first in
a series of German ordinances based on the
"polluter pays" principle. It is the prototype for
proposed ordinances that would require indus-
try to take back automobiles, electronic equip-
ment, newspapers, and batteries to "internal-
ize" the costs of waste management, an
approach long advocated by economists but
never before implemented for municipal solid
waste on such a broad scale.
Internalization of costs is an economics term
used, in this case, to mean that producers of
packages and products are made to pay the costs
of collecting, sorting, recycling, and disposing
of their materials. They are prohibited from
placing the financial burden on the public waste
management system. However, these internal-
ized costs are expected to show up in increased
prices of those packages and products.
Why Target Packaging?
Packaging was targeted in Germany because it
accounts for about 50 percent of the volume
and 30 percent of the weight of municipal solid
waste, making it one of the largest sources of
municipal solid waste in Germany. Of the pack-
aging sent to disposal, about 70 percent is land-
filled and 30 percent incinerated. The capacity
of these disposal facilities is fast running out.4
Another reason for targeting packaging was
the long dispute with the European Commis-
sion the European Community's executive
body over Germany's ordinance requiring
the return of and mandatory deposits on one-
14 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
way plastic beverage containers. The EC Com-
mission argued that legislation singling out one
type of packaging was discriminatory. To avoid
such charges, the Packaging Ordinance extends
the return and deposit mandates to all packaging.5
Provisions of the Ordinance
The Packaging Ordinance, which is reprinted
in full in Appendix A, requires that industry,
not the public waste management system, take
back, reuse, and/or recycle all one-way pack-
aging, including packaging on imported prod-
ucts. It applies to all one-way packaging on the
German market except materials with hazard-
ous residues, subject to other regulations. Haz-
ardous residues include waste contaminated by
pesticides, disinfectants, solvents, acids, and
mineral oils.
The ordinance sets out four major objec-
tives:6
1. Packaging should be made from "envi-
ronmentally responsible" materials com-
patible with recycling.
2. Weight and volume should be minimized.
3. Packaging should be refillable, if feasible.
4. Packaging should be recycled if it can-
not be refilled.
While these are objectives rather than legal
obligations, they do indicate the high priority
the government gives to waste avoidance and
refilling.
The ordinance divides packaging into three
categories:
1. Transport packaging used to ship
goods to retailers (e.g., crates, pallets,
corrugated containers).
2. Secondary additional packaging de-
signed to facilitate self-service sales, to
prevent theft, or to advertise and market
the product (e.g., outer boxes, foils, blis-
ter packs). ;
3. Primary the basic package that con-
tains the product (e.g., soup can, jam jar,
soap powder box).
The Federal Environment Ministry distin-
guishes among these categories based on when
the package "loses its function." Transport pack-
aging loses its function at the store when goods
are stacked on the shelves. Secondary packag-
ing, always a second or third layer around a pri-
mary package, loses its function at the retail cash
register. Primary packaging, typically used un-
til the product is consumed, loses its function
with the consumer.
The ordinance sets (leadlines for industry
to begin taking back, reusing, or recycling each
of the three packaging categories:
December 1991. Manufacturers and dis-
tributors had to take back transport pack-
aging, i
April 1992. Retailers had to install
marked bins so customers could leave
secondary packaging in the stores.
January 1993. Customers could return
primary packaging to retailers. A mini-
mum mandatory deposit is imposed on
nonrefillable beverage containers, wash-
ing and cleansing agent containers, and
emulsion (water-based) paint containers.
The deposit on beverage and cleansing
agent containers of 0.2 liter and over =
DM0.50 ($0.30), 11.5 liter and over =
DM 1.00 ($0.60); the deposit on paint con-
tainers of 2 kg and over = DM2.00 ($ 1.20).
i
The regulation of transport and secondary
packaging went into effect as scheduled. How-
ever, the ordinance provided an exemption to
the primary packaging regulations if industry
proposed an alternative, privately financed plan
German Ordinance on the Avoidance of Packaging Waste 15
-------
that could meet the specified goals for collect-
ing and sorting packaging materials and for re-
filling beverage containers.
That exemption was granted for such an
alternative industry plan. Known as the "Dual
System," it is run by the private company
Duales System Deutschland GmbH (DSD),
which is described in Chapter 6. The exemp-
tion means stores need not take back primary
packaging and collect the mandatory deposits
described above, provided that the collection,
sorting, and refill quotas specified in the ordi-
nance are met. If DSD fails, retailers will have
to accept primary packages returned to the store.
The ordinance specifies two sets of goals
related to one-way primary packaging in Ger-
many: the quotas for collecting packaging
waste and the quotas for sorting the collected
materials. Assuming all sorted materials are de-
livered to recyclers, the recycling quota is the
product of the collection and sorting quotas set
out in the ordinance. These goals are illustrated
in Tables 3-1 through 3-3.
Collection Quotas
The collection quotas stipulate, for example,
that by January 1993,60 percent of glass con-
tainers and 30 percent of paper (by weight) had
to be collected. These lower initial rates repre-
sented the transitional phase for operating the
Dual System, allowing time for establishment
of an expanded recycling system. From Janu-
ary 1993 through June 1995, the individual quo-
tas are to be waived if 50 percent (by weight)
of the collective sum of these packaging mate-
rials are collected. By July 1995,80 percent by
weight of each of the materials must be col-
lected. This ambitious figure assumes that, if
waste is collected from every household, Ger-
man consumers will have placed 80 percent of
Table 3-1: The Ordinance's Collection Quotas for
One-Way Packaging
January 1993
Material (% by weight)
Glass 60
Tinplate 40
Aluminum 30
Plastic 30
Paper/Paperboard 30
Composite* 20
July 1995
(% by weight)
80
80
80
80
80
80
* Mixed materials as described on page 19.
Source: Federal Environment Ministry (BMU), Ordinance
on the Avoidance of Packaging Waste, June 12,1991.
these recyclable packaging materials into the
proper bins for collection.
Sorting Quotas
After collection, packaging materials must be
sorted (separated) and sent to recyclers at the
rates specified in Table 3-2. For example, by
January 1993,60 percent of the collected paper
had to be sorted for recycling; by July 1995,80
percent must be sorted. As in the case of col-
lection quotas, lower initial rates, particularly
for plastics and composites, allowed time to set
up new sorting and recycling facilities and took
into account the contamination of some of the
materials collected. Given the July 1995 sort-
ing quotas of 80 to 90 percent, the ordinance
allows a 10 to 20 percent margin for nonrecyc-
lable, or contaminated, materials.
A major dispute erupted in June 1993 over
whether the sorting quota for plastics applied
to the amount of material required to be col-
lected or the amount actually collected; i.e., how
should the system handle the plastics collected
in excess of the collection quota? The dispute
16 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
Table 3-2: The Ordinance's Sorting Quotas for
Collected One-Way Packaging
Material
Glass
Tinplate
Aluminum
Plastic
Paper/Paperboard
Composite
January 1993
(% by weight)
70
65
60
30
60
30
July 1995
(% by weight)
90
90
90
80
80
80
Table 3-3: Implied Recycling Quotas
Calculated from the Ordinance's Collection
and Sorting Quotas for One-Way Packaging
Source: Federal Environment Ministry (BMU), Ordinance
on the Avoidance of Packaging Waste, June 12,1991.
and its resolution are discussed in Chapters 6
and 8.
Implied Recycling Quotas
Although the legislation does not include ex-
plicit recycling quotas, the effective recycling
quota (as shown in Table 3-3) can be calculated
because the ordinance calls for all sorted mate-
rial to be delivered to recyclers. Thus, the recy-
cling quota is the product of the collection and
sorting quotas. By July 1995, for example, 80
percent of glass containers must be collected
and 90 percent of that amount must be sorted,
for an effective recycling rate of 72 percent. The
recycling rate in this context is the percentage
of primary packaging delivered to recyclers and
does not take into account processing losses in
recycling facilities.
Incineration, called "thermal recycling" by
some industry advocates when it is used to re-
cover energy from burning waste, is not per-
mitted as a method to meet the quotas. How-
ever, "chemical recycling" of plastics, a set of
processes that break down plastics into their
basic components, such as liquid petrolem (as
Glass
Tinplate
Aluminum
Plastic
Paper/Paperboard
Composite
January 1993
(% by weight)
4.2
26
18
9
18
6
July 1995
(% by weight)
72
72
72
64
64
64
Source: INFORM. The recycling quota is the product of
the collection and sorting quotas shown in Tables 3-1
and 3-2.
described in Chapter 8), will be permitted. No
quotas were set for materials whose contribu-
tion to packaging waste; is small, such as wood,
ceramic stoneware, and fabrics.
To qualify for the exemption from the pri-
mary packaging take-back and deposit man-
dates in the ordinance, Duales System
Deutschland (DSD) must ensure that the refill
rates for beverages do not decline below the
average refill rates in West Germany in 1990.
The refill rate for milk must not fall below 17
percent, and the refill rate for all other bever-
ages (beer, bottled water, soft drinks, juices,
wine) must not fall below 72 percent nation-
wide. Moreover, the refill rates in each state
must not fall below the average rate in that state
in 1991, when the ordinance took effect.
Packaging Statistics
The ordinance requires the federal government
to publish packaging statistics in the Bundesan-
zeiger (Federal Bulletin) every three years.
These must include the average amount of pack-
German Ordinance on the Avoidance of Packaging Waste 17
-------
Table 3-4: Packaging Consumption* in Germany 1991 (thousands of metric tons)
[Total packaging, less toxics, less refillables = packaging covered by the ordinance]
Material
Glass
Tlnplate**
Aluminum
Plastic
Paner/Paoerboard
Total
Packaging
4636.8
793.1
124.0
1606.5
5206.6
Toxics
4.7
77.1
1.3
60.1
18.7
Refillables
819.3
-
172.4
19.6
Packaging
Covered
by Ordinance
3812.8
716.0
122.7
1374.0
5178.3
Composite
a. Beverage cartons
b. Paper-based
c. Plastic-based
d. Aluminum-based
Composite total
Subtotal (quota materials)
Steel***
Wood, cork
Other
Subtotal (non-quota materials)
TOTAL
198.2
177.9
28.0
6.8
2.8
0.1
198.2
175.1
28.0
6.7
410.9
12.777.9
305.8
2249.9
13.5
2.9
164.8
99.7
99.7
264.5
1001.3
187.3
1188.2
408.0
11.611.8
18.8
1061.7
13.5
1094.0
12,705.8
* As discussed in Chapter 1, Germany classifies discarded materials as waste (Abfall) or valuable materials
(Wertstoffe). The total amount of packaging consumption includes both Abfall and Wertstoffe, and corresponds
to the US term "packaging waste."
** Coated steel cans for consumer goods, mostly food and beverages.
*** Steel barrels, drums, transport containers, pallets, and straps.
Source: Federal Environment Ministry (BMU), prepared by Geseilschaft fur Verpackungsmarktforschung (GVM),
Bundesanzelger, January 16,1993.
aging consumed per person in each state, clas-
sified by type of packaging material. The sta-
tistics will form the baseline data against which
the amounts collected will be compared; the
data may be used to calculate changes in the
amount of packaging used. The official 1991
data were published, several months behind
schedule, in January 1993. Tables 3-4 and 3-5
summarize those data, which were prepared by
the Group for Packaging Market Reserach
(Geseilschaft fur Verpackungsmarktforschung,
or GVM), a private packaging market research
firm under contract with the government. The
German government is also required to publish
annual data on the percentage of beverages sold
in refillable containers. These data, also pre-
pared by GVM, are presented in Chapter 7.
As shown in Table 3-4, the take-back re-
quirement of the ordinance covers approxi-
mately 12.7 million metric tons of packaging,
of a total 15.3 million metric tons consumed.
The difference is accounted for by packaging
that has been contaminated by toxics and re-
fillable packaging not subject to the take-back
provisions.
Table 3-5 shows the breakdown of packag-
ing covered in the ordinance by package cat-
egory and material type. About one-third of this
18 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
Table 3-5: Packaging Consumption* Covered by the Ordinance 1991 (thousands of metric tons)
[Secondary + transport + primary packaging = packaging covered by the ordinance]
Material
Glass
Tinplate**
Aluminum
Plastic
Paper/paperboard
Composite
a. Beverage cartons
b. Paper-based
c. Plastic-based
d. Aluminum-based
Composite total
Subtotal (quota materials)
Steel***
Wood, cork
Other
Secondary Transport
- -
1.8
- -
9.5 314.4
46.5 2867.3
_
0.3
0.2
-
0.5
56.0 3184.0
9.7
0.7 1030.5
-
Industrial
Primary Primary*
3812.8
703.4
122.7
927.6
1553.5
198.2
174.7 0.1
27.7 0.1
6.7
407.3
7527.3
1.7
28.7
6.1
_
10.8
;'l
122.5
711.0
,!
",
[
'
0.2
844.5
7.4
3.8
7.4
Packaging
Covered
by Ordinance
3812.8
716.0
122.7
1374.0
5178.3
198.2
175.1
28.0
6.7
408.0
11.611.8
18.8
1061.7
13.5
Subtotal (non-quota materials) 0.7
TOTAL 56.7
36.5
7561.8
863.1
* As discussed in Chapter 1, Germany classifies discarded materials as waste (Abfall) or valuable materials
(Wertstoffe). The total amount of packaging consumption includes both Abfall and Wertstoffe, and corresponds
to the US term "packaging waste."
t Primary packages for goods shipped to large companies. ,
** Coated steel cans for consumer goods, mostly food and beverages. i"
*** Steel barrels, drums, transport containers, pallets, and straps. \
il
Source: Federal Environment Ministry (BMU), prepared by Gesellschaft fur Verpackungsmarktforschung (GVM)
Bundesanzeiger, January 16, 1993.
total is transport packaging, and about two-
thirds is primary packaging. Secondary pack-
aging represents less than 0.5 percent of the
total. The materials aggregated in the subtotal
for non-quota materials will be collected by
DSD but are not subject to specific collection
and sorting quotas.
Throughout this report, "composite" de-
scribes packaging made of mixed materials
called Verbunde in German. Packaging falls into
this category when the consumer cannot sepa-
rate the constituent materials: for example, the
layers of plastic and metal bonded together in
an aseptic milk or juice carton. (Aseptic pro-
cessing entails ultra-high heating of a product
and immediate cooling. The sterilized product
is packaged in a sterilized multi-layer container,
which can preserve its contents for months with-
out refrigeration.) Mixed-material packaging
that can be separated j for example, foil and
paper wrappers around a chocolate bar are
not composite packaging. Composite packag-
ing has been differentiated into four groups
(shown in Table 3-5).
German Ordinance on the Avoidance of Packaging Waste 19
-------
Role of Consumers
As noted earlier, the Packaging Ordinance im-
poses no direct obligations on consumers. The
ordinance's success, however, depends on their
cooperation in putting used packaging in the
proper bins and returning refillable containers.
Some local laws prohibit placing recyclable
materials into regular garbage bins, but there is
no such federal law.
The Ordinance and the
European Community (EC)
The German government took great care to en-
sure that the Packaging Ordinance did not con-
flict with EC law; the ordinance contains no
technical provisions that would require formal
notification of the European Community, as this
would have delayed implementation. An unof-
ficial guide to the ordinance, The German Pack-
aging Ordinance A Practical Guide -with
Commentary, states: "The ordinance does no
more than impose behavioural obligations on
manufacturers and distributors and does not ad-
ditionally establish restrictions on packaging.
For this reason there are no rules relating to
mandatory identification of packaging, nor to
the composition of packaging. If it is decided
in the future that regulations need to go further,
as requested by the Bundesrat on 19 April 1991,
the need for such regulations to be notified in
accordance with [an EC directive]... should be
taken into account."7 The relationship of the
Packaging Ordinance to the European Commu-
nity is discussed more fully in Chapter 12.
The guide from which this quotation was
taken was written by Dr. Thomas Rummler, who
is responsible for administering the Packaging
Ordinance within the Federal Environment
Ministry, and Wolfgang Schutt, an industry con-
sultant, who played a major role in developing
the Dual System. Published in English and Ger-
man, the guide explains in detail the ordinance's
provisions and provides commentary on why
certain provisions were included. Environment
Minister Klaus Tb'pfer, in his introduction to the
guide, wrote: "I am convinced that the book
looks set to become a standard reference work
for the practical implementation of the Pack-
aging Ordinance." Although the guide was pub-
lished privately and is not an official govern-
ment document, it offers the best material
available on the ordinance and the thinking be-
hind it. It is a principal source in this report.
Notes
1. Federal Environment Ministry (BMU), "Packaging
Ordinance Approved: Abandoning the Throwaway
Society," press release, Bonn, November 14,1990.
2. Federal Environment Ministry (BMU), "Germany -
The Federal Environment Ministry," Bonn, August
1992 edition, p. 7.
3. Hubert Gehring (BMU), "The German Packaging
Ordinance," Institute of Packaging Professionals
Conference: Environmental Packaging Legislation,
Baltimore, MD, July 16, 1993.
4. Federal Environment Ministry (BMU), "Packaging
Ordinance Approved," op. cit; and Thomas Rummler
and Wolfgang Schutt, The German Packaging Or-
dinance: A Practical Guide with Commentary, Ham-
burg: B. Behr's Verlag GmbH & Co., 1990, p. 4.
5. Rummler and Schutt, ibid., p. 12.
6. Federal Environment Ministry (BMU), "Ordinance
on the Avoidance of Packaging Waste" (Verpack-
ungsverordnung) of June 12, 1991.
7. Rummler and Schutt, op. cit., p. 33.
20 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
Chapter 4: Transport Packaging
The first part of the German Packaging Ordi-
nance, the rules for transport packaging, took
effect in December 1991. Transport packaging
accounts for about one-third of packaging waste
covered by the ordinance. It is defined as
"drums, containers, crates, sacks, pallets, card-
board bo^es, foamed packaging materials,
shrink wrapping and similar coverings which
are component parts of transport packaging and
which serve to protect the goods from damage
during transport from the manufacturer to the
distributor or are used for reasons of transport
safety."1
The ordinance requires manufacturers and
distributors to "take back" transport packaging
and reuse or recycle it independent of the pub-
lic waste management system. However, the
requirement to "take back" is not meant liter-
ally, as unnecessary shipping of waste is unde-
sirable for economic and environmental rea-
sons. It makes little sense for a supermarket to
return shipping containers to a consumer prod-
uct company, which would then have to send
them to a recycler. Instead, the law allows manu-
facturers and distributors either to arrange for
third parties to pick up used packaging or to
pay the retailers to arrange for recycling.
Before the ordinance was passed, retailers
had to pay to recycle or dispose of transport
packaging. Under the new legislation, transport
packaging must be reused or recycled, rather
than burned or landfilled, and the manufactur-
ing sector which controls packaging deci-
sions is financially responsible for these
steps. Although the take-back provision is in-
tended to make manufacturers and distributors
financially responsible for the reuse or recycling
of the packaging, the law does not specify how
payments are to be allocated; industry is free to
decide how to fulfill its obligation. Companies
need not take back the specific packages they
shipped; rather, "the take-back obligation is lim-
ited to packages of the quantity, type, form and
size" that they shipped.2 The Federal Environ-
ment Ministry (Bundesministerium fiir Umwelt,
Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit, or BMU)
recommends that manufacturers obtain a cer-
tificate of recycling or reuse from third parties
to prove that they have complied with the law.3
The manufacturers and distributors respon-
sible for transport packaging have proposed the
establishment of a company, the Group for
Take-Back and Recycling of Transport Pack-
aging (Gesellschaft zur Rucknahme und Ver-
iTransport Packaging 21
-------
wertung vonTransportverpackungen, or RVT),
to manage the recycling of transport packaging
waste nationwide. Modeled after Duales Sys-
tem Deutschland (DSD), RVT would collect
fees from manufacturers and distributors for this
service. The possibility of having DSD man-
age the transport waste was discussed, but the
Federal Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt) ruled
this out.
Manufacturers and distributors, in general,
have chosen to compensate retailers for man-
aging the waste. Fee schedules are generally
based on the materials and quantities involved.
For example, Procter & Gamble GmbH, the
German subsidiary of the large US-based con-
sumer product company, pays retailers approxi-
mately DM785 ($471) per metric ton to arrange
for plastics recycling and approximately DM250
($150) per metric ton for corrugated recycling.4
Some smaller producers have arranged to com-
pensate the retailers about 0.1 - 0.3 percent of
the value of the goods shipped.
Transport insurers have reevaluated their
insurance rates out of concern for an increase
in damages that might result from over-reduc-
tion of packaging.5 However, the ordinance has
spurred innovation that could reduce product
damage in transport: the design of new reus-
able shipping container systems that are stur-
dier than the one-way containers they replace.
According to information sheets published by
the Federal Environment Ministry, "the most
sensible ecological and economic solution may
be multi-use [i.e., reusable] packaging."6
No data are available on changes in trans-
port packaging waste resulting from the Pack-
aging Ordinance. However, many new reusable
packaging systems have been developed in re-
sponse to the ordinance. Different systems have
been developed for particular products such as
fish, fruits and vegetables, medicine, bicycles,
and furniture, as well as a system for the gen-
eral line of consumer products sold in super-
markets. Two of these systems are described in
the following case studies.
Case Studies: Reusable
Transport Containers
Multi-use Returnable Transport
Packaging System (MTS)
MTS is an example of a reusable transport pack-
aging system, developed in response to the
Packaging Ordinance by Schoeller International
at the suggestion of Tengelmann. Schoeller and
Tengelmann are privately held companies with
international operations. Schoeller, which
manufactures plastic packaging, developed the
ubiquitous plastic crate for refillable bottles that
it manufactures and distributes throughout the
world for beverage companies, including Coca-
Cola and PepsiCo. Tengelmann, described more
fully in Chapter 6, owns large supermarket
chains in Germany, the United States, Canada,
the Netherlands, and Austria.
The MTS system, shown in the photographs
on page 23, consists of modular plastic contain-
ers designed to maximize use of the standard-
ized European shipping pallets. The crates and
the straps that bind them are made of a single
plastic resin, polypropylene, to facilitate recy-
cling. The containers consist of trays on top and
bottom with side frames that enable users to
stack them to different heights; their five basic
sizes can be built up to five different heights.
The pieces disassemble and collapse to facili-
tate storage, and the trays may be used for dis-
playing products on retail shelves.
22 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
Multi-use Returnable Transport Packaging System (MTS)
The system components:
1, Tray for bottom and ltd
2, Frame for side walls
Closed container:
2 trays, 2 frames
Open container
1 tray, 1 frame
Self-supporting packaging
with 2 trays
Source: Tengelmann and Schoeller International, Munich. (Patent pending.)
transport Packaging 23
-------
Table 4-1: Comparative Prices for One-Way Corrugated Containers vs.
Multi-use Returnable Transport Packaging System (MTS) Containers
Selected
Container Sizes
Corrugated
(including disposal costs)*
MTS Rental Fee
*Dlsposal costs Included range from DM0.02 to 0.05.
Source: INFORM, based on estimates by Schoeller International, June 1993.
MTS Deposit
(millimeters)
300 x 200 x 150
300 x 200 x 225
400 x 300 x 150
400 x 300 x 225
DM
0.51
0.58
0.77
0.85
1$1
(0.31)
(0.35)
(0.46)
(0.51)
DM
0.36
0.45
0.65
0.80
ID
(0.22)
(0.27)
(0.39)
(0.48)
DM
2.10
2.80
4.20
5.40
ill
(1.26)
(1.68)
(2.52)
(3.24)
A promotional videotape for MTS claims
that its primary purpose is its "immense eco-
logical advantage" over single-use containers,
because the system fulfills the three "Rs"
reduce, reuse, and recycle. Use of MTS as a
display tool at retail stores is being promoted
as a major improvement over existing shipping
containers. The system also eliminates the need
for cutting corrugated cartons with a knife, a
significant cause of personal injury and prod-
uct damage in supermarkets.7
According to Schoeller, the MTS crates are
expected to last 10 years and complete six to
eight cycles a year, for a total of 60-80 cycles.
The material can then be recycled four or five
times into new MTS containers. Schoeller esti-
mates that widespread use of MTS could help
reduce transport packaging waste by 1 million
metric tons per year.8 Primary packaging may
also be reduced, because the sturdy MTS crates
will permit use of less primary packaging with-
out causing product damage.
Schoeller has patented the crates, which are
to be leased by the piece for each cycle and are
not for sale to manufacturers. The containers
will be serviced by MTS Okologistik GmbH &
Co. KG, a company comprised of partners in
industry and trade, including major chain stores
such as Tengelmann, Metro, and Rewe. The
service company plans to buy the MTS con-
tainers from Schoeller and its licensees, deliver
them to manufacturers, and retrieve the empty
containers from the store after a single use. The
MTS containers would then be transported to de-
pots all over Europe, where they would be sorted,
washed, and stored for the next delivery.
Schoeller estimated that rental costs of the
MTS containers would be lower than current
purchase costs for single-use corrugated, as
shown in Table 4-1. For the sizes shown, the
purchase price of cardboard ranges from
DM0.51- 0.85 ($0.31- 0.51). This price includes
the cost of disposing of the cartons, which
ranges from DM0.02- 0.05. ($0.01- 0.03). The
rental fee per trip of the MTS containers is
lower, ranging from DM0.36- 0.80 ($0.22- 0.48).
This fee includes all servicing plus amortiza-
tion and administrative costs. The deposits on
the MTS containers are about six times the
rental fee; however, these deposits are gener-
ally accounting transactions, with no money
changing hands unless MTS containers are lost
or stolen. Given that stores must pay to recycle
or dispose of one-way containers, and waste
24 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
management costs are rapidly rising, Schoeller
claims its system will be cheaper, stating that
the "growing disposal expenses of one-way
packages result in a growing cost advantage of
MTS."9
Pilot tests have been conducted with such
major companies as Hertie, Karstadt, Rewe,
Woolworth, Colgate Palmolive, Henkel, Kraft,
Lever, and Procter & Gamble. More than 70,000
trays and frames have been tested for products
ranging from food to office supplies. Life-cycle
analysis has been conducted by the Fraunhofer
Institute for Food Technology and Packaging
in Munich (Fraunhofer Institut fur Leben-
smitteltechnologie und Verpackung), an inde-
pendent institute specializing in food technol-
ogy and packaging. The institute, which studied
raw materials use, air pollution, water consump-
tion, water pollution, and waste, found MTS
harms the environment less than cardboard car-
tons in all of these areas. INFORM has not as-
sessed the assumptions on which the life-cycle
analysis was based.
Schoeller expected MTS containers to be
on the market in early 1994, and predicted they
would become a standard shipping container
throughout Europe, similar to the standardized
European shipping pallets.10 Schoeller is in con-
tact with leading chain store groups, some of
which have already tested MTS in Scandinavia,
Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Swit-
zerland, and the United Kingdom.11
Procter & Gamble GmbH (P&G), a major
consumer goods manufacturer, points out that
it would have to invest in new filling equip-
ment and redesign consumer packages to fit the
new containers. Although MTS conforms to the
outside measurements of the standardized Eu-
ropean shipping pallets, the walls of the MTS
containers are thicker than those of corrugated,
reducing the inside container measurements and
requiring a change in the dimensions of the
packages shipped. P&G believes a reusable
container system like MTS may be viable if it
is economical and internationally usable, and
if it becomes standard throughout Europe. Ac-
cording to P&G, MTS has not yet met these
conditions.12
Schoeller says it will take 10 to 15 years
for MTS to gain its expected market share of
50 percent for "suitable products." (MTS will
not be used to ship fish or produce.) Schoeller
"assumes that, owing to the growing demand
for standardized packaging dimensions and to
the continuing brand innovations, most produc-
ers will redesign the consumer packages of their
products anyway in the next years. These con-
sumer packages can then be changed accord-
ing to the inside dimensions of MTS without
additional cost. The same applies to filling
equipment and other maichinery."13
International Fruit Container (IFCO)
Schoeller has also developed an International
Fruit Container (IFCO) a reusable, collaps-
ible food container for fruits and vegetables that
is also made of polypropylene. Like MTS, this
shipping system was developed in direct re-
sponse to the Packaging Ordinance. Schoeller
expected that the IFCO crates, which entered
the market in 1992, would have a delivery ca-
pacity of 20 million per month by the end of
1993.14 The rented IFCO containers come in
eight sizes and will have their own service com-
pany IFCO-International Fruit Container Or-
ganization GmbH. ;
Fruit and vegetable suppliers' complaints
about IFCO may portend difficulties for other
reusable container systems. When a major Ger-
man supermarket chain, Metro International,
sent letters to its fruit and vegetable suppliers
saying it would "whenever possible buy only
Transport Packaging 25
-------
goods delivered in IFCO crates," the suppliers
directed a deluge of protests to the European
Community. Metro, in response, gave assur-
ances that the system would not be "compul-
sory" or "exclusive."15 Standardization is re-
quired for the economic viability of reusable
systems: the challenge lies in reconciling stan-
dardization with antitrust and free trade concerns.
Besides working with Schoeller to develop
MTS, Tengelmann has published a packaging
guide for the producers from which it purchases
goods. With respect to transport packaging, it
advises producers to use standardized, reusable
shipping containers and to minimize packag-
ing. It also suggests that, if one-way packaging
is used, it be made of recyclable materials and
be labeled to identify the materials used.16
Notes
1. Federal Environment Ministry (BMU), "Ordinance
on the Avoidance of Packaging Waste" (Verpack-
ungsverordnung) of 12 June 1991, p. 4.
2. Thomas Rummler and Wolfgang Schutt, The Ger-
man Packaging Ordinance: A Practical Guide with
Commentary, Hamburg: B. Behr's Verlag GmbH &
Co., 1990. p. 79.
3. Federal Environment Ministry (BMU), "Key Point:
On the Spot Recycling and Reuse of Transport Pack-
aging," Bonn, p. 2.
4. Klaus Draeger (Procter & Gamble GmbH, Ger-
many), telephone interview, April 19,1993.
5. Michael Scriba, "Pack Leaders," Environment Risk,
May 1992.
6. Federal Environment Ministry (BMU), "Key Point,"
op. cit., p. 2.
7. Schoeller International (Munich), "Multi-use Return-
able Transport Packaging System (MTS)" video.
8. Ibid.
9. Tengelmann and Schoeller International (Munich),
"MTS Returnable Transport Packaging System,"
p. 10.
10. Sibille Kohler (Schoeller International, Munich),
written communication, June 16,1993.
11. Kohler, ibid.
12. Klaus Draeger (Procter & Gamble GmbH, Ger-
many), telephone interview, April 15,1993.
13. Kohler, op. cit.
14. International Fruit Container Organization (Diissel-
dorf), "A System of the Food Trade."
15. "Germany's Fruit and Vegetable Suppliers in Plas-
tic Crate Scare," European Environment, No. 411,
Europe Information Service, Brussels, June 8,1993,
p. IV-8.
16. Unternehmensgruppe Tengelmann, "OKO-Logis-
tische Verpackungsanforderungen" ("Environmen-
tal Packaging Requirements 1990"), p. 8.
26 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
ChapterS: Secondary Packaging
The German Packaging Ordinance's rules for
secondary packaging took effect in April 1992.
Secondary packaging consists of materials, be-
yond those needed to contain and safeguard a
product, that are designed to advertise, facili-
tate self-service, or prevent theft. It is distinct
from second layers of packaging that are nec-
essary to protect goods, or that insure durabil-
ity or sterility these are classified as primary
packaging. Secondary packaging includes outer
boxes, blister packs, or wrappings around the
primary package, e.g., a box for a bottle of
whiskey. (Blister packs are made of rigid plas-
tic that is heat-sealed to paperboard, as shown
in the first photograph on page 29.)The 56,000-
plus metric tons of secondary packaging waste
in Germany in 1992 accounted for less than one
half of one percent of all the packaging waste
covered by the ordinance.
The ordinance requires that retailers either
remove the secondary packaging or provide
marked bins near the point of sale so that cus-
tomers may leave secondary packaging in the
store. Like transport packaging, retailers must
reuse or recycle secondary packaging indepen-
dent of the public waste management system.
For health and safety reasons, pharmacies are
exempt from this provision.
The provisions for secondary packaging are
aimed at waste avoidance in the belief that much
secondary packaging is unnecessary. The guide
to the ordinance says, "Decisions about dimen-
sions of packaging should not be based prima-
rily on marketing criteria.! Packaging should not
be used if it is there punjly for marketing rea-
sons."1
Secondary Packaging is Reduced
Making retailers responsible for secondary
packaging waste gives them an incentive to
pressure suppliers to reduce or eliminate these
materials and retailer,? have done just that.
Duales System Deutschland (DSD) claims that
secondary packaging has been reduced by 80
percent.2 The Munich Department of Sanitation
estimates reductions in secondary packaging of
about 40 percent.3 Environment Minister Klaus
Topfer claimed in January 1993 that secondary
packaging had "largely disappeared."4
Secondary Packaging 27
-------
DSD has published before-and-after pho-
tographs of secondary packaging reductions.
Some of these photos appear at the end of this
chapter.
Although official statistics are not yet avail-
able, it is evident that secondary packaging is
being reduced as a result of retailer pressure on
manufacturers. Food industry retailers are pow-
erful in Germany because they are highly con-
centrated: seven or eight leading companies
control about 75 percent of the market. Tengel-
mann, one of the major food retailers, claims it
has been urging suppliers to reduce packaging
for years but that manufacturers have been more
responsive since the ordinance was passed.
Tengelmann says it cannot refuse to carry prod-
ucts with secondary packaging that has not been
reduced, as this would prevent it from getting
the amount of merchandise it needs, but it con-
tinues to pressure its suppliers and has published
brochures advising them how to reduce their
packaging.5 Large department store chains such
as Hertie and Karstadt have announced their in-
tention to eliminate all secondary packaging
from their stores.
Toothpaste has become a symbol of the re-
duction in secondary packaging. Shortly after
the ordinance was passed, Colgate began mar-
keting toothpaste in its tube only, without the
box. Other companies have followed suit, and
industry observers expect most toothpaste will
soon be sold without the box in Germany.6 The
tubes are displayed on the shelf in different
ways: some stand on their caps and are inserted
into holes in display trays; others lie in open
cartons like candy bars.
Just a Few Problems
According to Tengelmann and the Bavarian Re-
tailers Association (Landesverband des Bayer-
ischen Eizelhandels e.V.), problems due to re-
ductions in secondary packaging have been few
and manageable. The Bavarian Retailers Asso-
ciation at first expressed concern about prod-
uct damage resulting from packaging reduc-
tions.7 Tengelmann reported that when the
wooden box was eliminated from Camembert
cheese, and it was sold in a film wrap only, sales
dropped 30 percent. They have since recovered
by about 20 percent, leaving a net reduction of
10 percent. It may be that consumers are more
sensitive to changes in packaging for food than
for non-food items: consumer reaction to other
packaging reductions has been slight.
Tengelmann's discount stores reported some
increase in theft, but the retailer countered by
placing products in different locations.8
Supermarkets and department stores seem
to have their bins in place, but many smaller
retailers were not immediately complying. A
July 1992 survey by the National Retailers As-
sociation (Hauptverband des Deutschen Einzel-
handels or HDE), showed that, of 1,480 stores
surveyed, only 51 percent had the required bins,
three months after the secondary packaging re-
quirements went into effect. A survey in Munich
indicated that 66 percent of retailers had bins,
but some were not placed correctly. Munich
imposes fines up to a maximum of DM 100,000
($60,000) on retailers who refuse to set up bins
or fail to inform customers about leaving pack-
aging in the store.9
28 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
Before and After Photographs of Secondary Packaging Changes
CelaTlor GmbH plant food: eliminated blister
pack.
Asbach & Co. brandy: eliminated plastic wrap.
Croldino Schneider hand creme: eliminated
box.
Brilliant AG hair dryer: substituted paperboard
for blister pack. ;
Canon GmbH "Prima" camera: reduced size of
box and substituted used paper for polystyrene
casing.
Denta-Clin toothpaste: eliminated box;
developed display tray.
pase
Deutschland- "Date" und Fasten zum Gmnen Punkt: Der Okologische Wandel bei Verpackung-
1992'
Secondary Packaging 29
-------
Notes
1. Thomas Rummler and Wolfgang Schutt, The Ger-
man Packaging Ordinance: A Practical Guide with
Commentary, Hamburg: B. Behr's Verlag GmbH &
Co., Germany, 1990, p. 57.
2. Michael Scriba, "Pack Leaders," Environment Risk,
May 1992.
3. Helmut Paschlau (Landeshauptstadt Miinchen, Amt
fuT Abfallwirtschaft [City of Munich, Department
of Sanitation]), interview, October 9,1992.
4. Renter European Community Report, "German Anti-
Rubbish Law Cuts Down on Excess Packaging,"
January 4,1993.
5. Anja Raffalsky (Tengelmann, Mulheim) interview,
October 27,1992.
6. Rafaella Schuster (Landesverband des Bayerischen
Eizelhandels e.V. [Association of Bavarian Retail-
ers] Munich), interview, October 9,1992.
7. Schuster, interview, ibid.
8. Raffalsky, interview, op. cit.
9. Schuster, interview, op. cit.
30 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
Chapter 6: Primary Packaging and the Dual System
Primary packaging is by far the largest compo-
nent of packaging waste in Germany, account-
ing by weight in 1991 for about two-thirds of
the total covered in the ordinance, or 8 4 mil-
lion metric tons. Primary packaging includes
closed or open receptacles and coverings used
to contain goods until they are consumed (e g
the can for soup, jar for jam, box for soap pow-
der). Disposable dishes and cutlery are also
considered primary packaging. In short, primary
packaging is basically the packaging that con-
sumers actually take home.
The Packaging Ordinance states that retail-
ers had to "take back" primary packaging as of
January 1,1993, and reuse and recycle it inde-
pendent of the public waste management sys-
tem. The ordinance also mandates deposits on
nonrefillable containers for beverages, deter-
gents, and paints as described in Chapter 3 1
However, the ordinance allows an exemp-
tion from the mandatory deposits and from the
requirement to take back primary packages if
industry devises an alternative system that will
meet the specified collecting, sorting, and re-
filling quotas. With the exemption, the German
government gave industry the option to design
and operate its own system. Called the "Dual
System," the alternative is run by an industry-
operated company, Duales System Deutschland
(DSD). (The provisions for the exemption are
described in Article 6(3) of the Packaging Or-
dinance, reprinted in Appendix A.)
The Primary Packaging
Waste Stream
In 1991 there were an estimated 183 billion pri-
mary packages in Germany's waste stream -
160 billion discarded by households and 23 bil-
lion by industry. Table 6-1 shows the share of
packaging for each material by number of pack-
ages and weight. i
At 46 percent of packaging, by weight, glass
accounts for the most tonnage of the materials
to be collected, although it comprises less than
9 percent of the number of packages. Paper is
the next largest contributor of tonnage- it rep-
resents 27 percent, by weight, and more than
one-third of the number of packages. Packag-
ing materials other than glass and paper are of-
ten referred to in Germany as the "light frac-
tion." These include plastics, metals, and
Primary Packaging and the Dual System
31
-------
Table 6-1: Share of Primary Packages
by Material
Material
.
Glass
Tinplate
Aluminum
Plastic
Paper/paperboard
Composite
Other
Total
Number of
Packages
(percent)
8^87
5.94
1.83
28.69
34.49
20.12
0.06
100.00
Weight of
Packages
(percent)
'
45.6
8.5
1.5
j f\ C
12.5
26.9
4.8
0.6
100.00
Source: INFORM, based on Gesellschaft fur Verpack-
ungsmarklforschung (GVM) data.
composites and account for 27 percent, by
weight, and 57 percent of the number of pack-
ages Plastics alone account for 29 percent of
the packages, although they contribute only 12.5
percent of total packaging weight.
Establishing the Dual System
Getting the Exemption
Implementation of Duales System Deutsch-
land's proposed alternative plan for taking back
primary packaging was dependent on approval
from Germany's 16 LSnder, or states. The states
have the authority to grant or deny the exemp-
tion for an industry-run system and may revoke
approvals if they determine that the quotas are
not being met.
With support widespread in Germany tor
the underlying principle of the Packaging Or-
dinance making the "polluter pay" some
critics argue that the ordinance is not strong
enough; they are particularly critical of the in-
dustry-run Dual System. Several states, nota-
bly Bavaria, had threatened to deny the exemp-
tion for reasons discussed in Chapter 9, such as
its lack of sufficient attention to waste preven-
tion Despite the criticisms, all states granted
the exemption by January 1,1993, and the Dual
System went into effect as scheduled.
Implementation of the Dual System relieved
retailers of the task of taking back more than
100 billion packages each year, averted the high
deposits on one-way packages mandated by the
ordinance, and provided consumers with
curbside collection of a portion of primary pack-
aging. Under the ordinance, the minimum de-
posit for a soda can would have been DM0.50
($0.30) two-thirds the price of the soda it-
self, and more than three times current deposits
on a refillable bottle.
Still, the political battles are by no means
over The states of Bavaria, Lower Saxony, and
Baden-Wiirttemberg gave the exemption with
limitations that will be very difficult for DSD
to meet. In June 1993, DSD faced a crisis with
many of the states, led by Rhineland Palatinate
and Lower Saxony, threatening to withdraw the
exemption. Intense negotiations between DSD
and the states appeared likely to continue.
Membership in DSD
In September 1990, 95 companies, including
retailers, consumer product manufacturers, and
packaging manufacturers, founded DSD to op-
erate the Dual System for reducing and recov-
ering primary packaging waste. As of April
1993, nearly 600 companies had joined.2 Mem-
bers contribute working capital to DSD, each
paying a onetime fee of DM5,000 ($3,000), but
they reap no direct profits, as DSD is a not-for-
profit company. Members do, however, receive
32 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
valuable information and participate in deci-
sions important to their industries. DSD notes
that it "enjoys the support of" the Federation
of German Industries (Bundesverband der
Deutschen Industrie, or BDI) and the Associa-
tion of German Chambers of Industry and Com-
merce (Deutscher Industrie- und Handelstag, or
DIHT) the major industry organizations in
Germany.3
Drop-off and Curbside Collection
To meet the ordinance's ambitious goals for
recycling, collection must be convenient for
consumers. The DSD system includes a com-
bination of drop-off and curbside collection.
Figure 6-1 illustrates the flow of materials
through the Dual System for different types of
packaging.
Many of the igloos and containers for col-
lecting glass and paper shown under the "Drop-
off section of the figure were in place long
before DSD was created, as municipal govern-
ments had previously collected glass and paper
for recycling. DSD has required expansion of
the extensive existing system for glass to a ra-
tio of one group of drop-off bins for every 500
people. There are separate bins for clear, green,
and brown glass. DSD also required expansion
of the number of the existing drop-off bins for
paper to one for every 500 people. Other exist-
ing paper collection systems, which differ by
locality, will be maintained. Materials other than
paper and glass, including plastics, aluminum,
tinplate, and composites, are collected curbside
like regular household garbage. DSD pro-
vides yellow bins and bags for this waste and
picks it up free of charge to the households, as
the funding is provided by the green dot fees,
discussed later in this chapter.
DSD's plan to pick up primary packaging
from businesses was challenged by the German
Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt), as described
in Chapter 9.
Recycling and the Dual System
Guaranteeing Recycling
Duales System Deutschland is licensing its
trademark green dot (der Grune Punkt)
shown on the cover of this report as a sym-
bol to be placed on primary packages, signify-
ing that they will be recycled. Most retailers in
Germany will not carry packages without the
green dot. A company must meet two prerequi-
sites to qualify for a green dot on its packages:
a guarantee from a designated recycling com-
pany that the specific type of packaging mate-
rial will be recycled, and a contract with DSD
indicating that the license fee has been paid.
DSD says its members receive no preference
in the awarding of the green dot.
DSD has designated recyclers for six dif-
ferent materials: glass,, tinplate, aluminum,
plastics, paper, and composites. When these re-
cyclers make general guarantees that packages
made of certain materials will be recycled, in-
dividual agreements for these materials are not
necessary. For materials without general guar-
antees, the manufacturer must provide detailed
information on the materials in the package; the
recycler then determines whether to guarantee
that the material will be accepted for recycling.
If the guarantee is not given, the manufacturer
to keep its retailers will most likely have
to change the package. From the outset, gen-
eral guarantees have been given for glass,
tinplate, aluminum, some composite beverage
containers, and most paper packaging. Guar-
Primary Packaging and the Dual System 33
-------
Figure 6-1: The Dual System
Consumers
Dual System/
Green Spot
Recycling
guarantee
i
Ck
Igb
used
-*
($(
^^
sfor
glass
*^
>«)
Dropoff
1 J
ar Green Brc
G
Ind.
ass
jsny
>wn
Conl
for use
1
==U-^
liners
i paper
K^«
Drop-off
1
Types
Interse
paper
ohAG/
ndustry
Packaging bin
(*?_. nft
1 ' '
1 »*lB"'e
Curbsldo collection I \_J
Rlr
ns Po
BIL
pa
Verw
gebr!
wen
Plastics
1
LI
^
)
1
Laminated
board for
ts/ Bottles Foams
ter
±s
VGK*
rtungsges*
lUchteKun
xickungen
r '
Uschaft
ststoff-
mbH
liquid
Re-C
Gir
loc
HP
A
arton
bH
Metals
1
Tinplate
S
Ind
:el
iistiy
Aluminium
Deutsche
Aluminium
Verwertung
Recycling
GmbH
(DAVR)
* In June 1993, DSD extablished a new company, called DEKUR-Kunststoff Recycling GmbH, to assume the tasks of
plastic recycling formerly performed by VGK.
Source: Thomas Rummlerand Wolfgang Schutt, The German Packaging Ordinance: A Practical Guide with Commen-
tary, Hamburg: B. Behr's Verlag GmbH & Co., 1990.
A Munich resident uses the typical recycling "igloos" for glass and paper.
34 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
antees for plastics have changed over time. As
of April 1993, 60-70 percent of the packages
on the German market already carried green
dots.4 About 12,000 companies had already
signed contracts for the green dot, among them
1,900 companies based outside of Germany.5
Fees for Plastics
Companies have not always been given their
recycling guarantees free of charge. While the
general guarantees have all been free, the recy-
cler originally designated for plastics, the Re-
cycling Group for Used Plastic Packaging (Ver-
wertungsgesellschaft Gebrauchte Kunststoff
Verpackungen mbH, or VGK), charged 25 per-
cent of the green dot fee for the guarantee, ow-
ing to the high cost of recycling plastics. Thus
consumer product companies incurred addi-
tional costs by using plastic packaging. Because
the plastics industry was not making sufficient
progress in creating additional recycling capac-
ity, a new company, DEKUR-Kunststoff Re-
cycling GmbH (DKR), was formed in June
1993 to assume the tasks previously performed
by VGK, as discussed in Chapter 8.
Recycling Incentives
The German legislation mandates recycling
even if it is not economical. The theory is that
if industry must pay for recycling, it will have
an incentive to build up markets for recycled
materials by increasing use of recycled content
and by using materials that are more economi-
cal to recycle. The ordinance relies on incen-
tives to industry for the creation of markets for
secondary materials; the government is not in-
volved in creating these markets. According to
a DSD brochure, "Recycling costs are charged
to packaging manufacturers, included in their
cost calculations and passed on to the consumer
goods manufacturer."6 ,j
Theoretically, the cost of recycling is incor-
porated in the price of packaging. As consumer
product companies start, paying less for pack-
aging materials that are easily and economically
recycled, and more for materials that are diffi-
cult and expensive to recycle, the Dual System,
by internalizing the costs of recycling, should
alter the relative competitive advantages of the
different packaging materials.
!
Monitoring Recycling
j
A group of private companies, called Tech-
nische Uberwachungsvereine, or TUVs, that
perform technical inspections and certify prod-
ucts that must meet government specifications,
will monitor DSD's recycling activities to as-
sure that materials collected are actually re-
cycled. DSD established a working group of
TUVs "to inspect the sorting and recycling
plants and to submit regular reports on incom-
ing and outgoing materials."7
By March 1993, the JTUV in Cologne had
investigated 120 plastics recycling facilities, 85
in Germany and 35 around the world. TheTUV
in Essen was inspecting paper-recycling facili-
ties, and the TUV in Munich was inspecting
glass facilities.8
I
,\
Recycling Capacity \
. t
n ~
Estimates of capacity compared
with quotas i
Consumer and environmental groups have criti-
cized DSD for licensing its green dots before
sufficient recycling capacity was in place. DSD
claimed that recycling capacity in 1993 would
exceed the amount of materials required to be
recycled under the quotas set by the ordinance.
Primary Packaging and the Dual System 35
-------
Figure 6-2 shows estimates of the amount of
each material required to be recycled in 1993
and 1995 and DSD's estimate of the recycling
capacity for that material in 1993.
DSD has not indicated how much of this
capacity is outside of Germany. As discussed
in Chapter 9, green dot packaging materials are
flooding the world markets and lowering prices
for secondary materials. Countries that are re-
ceiving these materials, particularly those that
are members of the European Community (EC),
have protested the shipments and may curtail
them in the future, thereby reducing DSD's
recyling capcity.
The 1993 recycling quotas (shown in Table
3-3) ranged from a low of 6 percent for compos-
ites to a high of 42 percentfor glass. For 1995, the
mandated rates range from 64 percent to 72 per-
cent Thus, even if the recycling capacity exceeds
what is needed to meet the 1993 quotas, it is far
short of what will be needed for some materials
in 1995. For example, about 600,000 metric tons
of plastic will have to be recycled in 1995, far
exceeding the 1993 recycling capacity DSD esti-
mated at about 200,000 metric tons. Paper and
tinplate are the only materials for which DSD's
estimated 1993 recycling capacity exceeds the
1995 recycling quotas. Plastics are the only mate-
rials for which DSD has acknowledged difficul-
ties in reaching the recycling quotas.
Recycling of Specific Materials
Cartons. DSD appears to have had
considerable success in beverage carton recy-
cling, which is guaranteed by Re-Carton GmbH.
Two companies are recycling beverage cartons:
Strepp, with a capacity of 20,000 metric tons
per year in 1993 and 35,000 in 1995, and PWA
Industriepapier GmbH, with a capacity of
25,000 metric tons per year in 1993 and 58,000
in 1995.9 The typical composition of these car-
tons is: 70 percent paper; 22 percent polyeth-
ylene; 5 percent aluminum; and 3 percent bind-
ing agents. The recycling companies employ
two recycling methods. One method separates
the materials before recycling. DSD expected
that technology would be operative by 1994 to
recycle not only the paper components, but the
plastic and aluminum as well.10 The second
method shreds the mixed-material cartons and
presses them into plates similar to chipboard.
The plastic melts in this process and acts as a
bonding agent. The end product can be used in
furniture and construction.11 Despite the
progress made in recycling beverage cartons,
the estimated recycling capacity falls far short
of the 1995 quota.
Glass. In 1992,2.31 million metric tons of
glass packaging was recycled in Germany and
170,000 tons was exported for recycling. This
amounted to a total glass packaging recycling
rate of 62 percent and a domestic recycling rate
of 61 percent. The Packaging Ordinance re-
quires that 42 percent of glass packaging be
recycled in 1993 and 72 percent in 1995. The
production of one-way glass packaging is de-
creasing in Germany owing to increased use of
refillable bottles and substitution of other pack-
aging materials for glass. DSD says temporary
reprocessing problems could be solved by bet-
ter color separation and increased reprocessing
of used glass abroad.12 Given the decline in the
use of glass packaging, the 1993 recycling ca-
pacity may be adequate to meet the 1995 quota.
Pnppr/Paperboard. The three DSD-autho-
rized guarantors for paper recycling in Germany
are recycling paper within the country and ex-
porting used paper packaging to TUV-certified
recycling facilities in Hungary, Poland, Austria,
Italy, Taiwan, Thailand, and Indonesia. Evi-
dently, Germany is also shipping to other coun-
tries, as France and the United Kingdom have
complained about German paper being dumped
on their markets, as described in Chapter 9.
36 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
Figure 6-2: Comparison of Recycling Quotas with Recycling Capacity
unlimited
05
c
s
o
o
CO
T3
CO
CO
Recycling quota, January 1993
Recycling capacity in 1993
Recyling quota, July 1995
Glass
paSoard T'nP'ate A'UmInum C*>*^ P.ast.c
DSD claimed to have the capacity to recycle
1.5 million metric tons of paper in 1993 _ more
than the ordinance requires by 1995.13
Metals (Aluminum nnd Tinplatp) DSD es-
timated that 25,000 metric tons of aluminum
would be collected in 1993, and that a recy-
cling capacity of 30,000 tons would be avail-
able. DSD asserts that "this capacity can be in-
creased rapidly."" Tinplate containers do not
appear to pose a recycling problem. According
to DSD, capacity for recycling tinplate, which
has traditionally been recycled by the steel in-
dustry, is unlimited in the long run because it is
a small percentage of the scrap steel recycled
in Germany.15
Elastics. DSD faced a crisis in June 1993
because it was collecting far more plastics than
anticipated and lacked the capacity to recycle
it, and because 20 percent of plastic material
collected did not have the green dot.16 DSD
claimed it was being overwhelmed by its suc-
cess and that it collected four times as much
plastic packaging (400,000 metric tons) as it was
required to recycle in 1993. A major political
debate erupted over what to do with the addi-
tional plastics. The state of Rhineland-Palatinate
threatened to withdraw the exemption for plas-
tics, but DSD claimed it would be unfair to pun-
ish the system for collecting more plastic pack-
aging than the ordinance required.17 A detailed
Primary Packaging and the Dual System
37
-------
discussion of the plastics crisis is presented in
Chapter 8.
Financing the Dual System
DSD Revenues and Costs
.,
DSD originally estimated the costs of collect-
ing and sorting primary packaging at DM2 bil-
lion per year ($1.2 billion) and calibrated the
1992 fee schedule to generate this level of rev-
enue. In April 1993, DSD raised its cost esti-
mate to DM4.2 billion ($2.5 billion) for 1994.M
Much of this increase was due to DSD's deci-
sion to assume some of the cost of recycling
plastics, which was not included in the prior
estimate. Estimates of what the Dual System
would actually cost have been uncertain. A
study conducted at the Berlin Technical Col-
lege (Technische Fachhochschule in Berlin, or
TFB) concluded that DSD's 1992 green dot fees
were not sufficient to cover its collecting and
sorting costs, which TFB estimated could reach
DM6-9 billion ($3.6-5.4 billion) annually by
1995.19 In July 1993, the Federal Environment
Ministry (Bundesministerium fur Umwelt,
Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit, or BMU)
estimated DSD costs at DM5-6 billion ($3-3.6
billion) per year.20
Revenues from the green dot license fees
cover DSD's administrative costs, as well as op-
erating costs for collecting and sorting packag-
ing waste. DSD employs about 200 people in
an administrative system costing more than DM2
million ($1.2 million) per year.21 The fees also
cover expenses for public education and adver-
tising. As discussed in Chapter 8, DSD pays
part of the cost of recycling plastics. All other
recycling costs are the responsibility of the ma-
terials industries. To the extent that recycling
generates profits or incurs costs for manufac-
turers, these will be reflected in lower or higher
materials prices. The sorted packaging materi-
als, including valuable materials such as glass
and aluminum, are given to manufacturers free.
Aside from DSD's operating costs, the or-
ganization estimates that the waste management
industry will incur DM? billion ($4.2 billion) in
investment costs in infrastructure, including
sorting facilities. It had already invested DM5
billion ($3 billion) in the 18 months prior to
May 1993.22 Moreover, the materials industries
have to expand the infrastructure for recycling
glass, metal, and paper, and develop a system
for plastics and composites almost from scratch.
DSD's Financial Crisis
DSD faced a financial crisis in May 1993. An-
nouncing a shortfall of DM500 million ($300
million) for the remainder of 1993, DSD began
to negotiate a solution. As industry operates the
Dual System and did not want it to fail, it agreed
to make up the shortfall. First the retailers, who
feared they would have to take back packaging
if the system failed, agreed to contribute DM200
million ($120 million).23 Private agreements
determined how much each company would
pay. The waste management and utilities indus-
tries that manage the waste under DSD con-
tracts agreed to contribute DM 180 million ($108
million).24 The Federation of German Indus-
tries (BDI) and DSD decided that users of the
green dot (primarily consumer product manu-
facturers) would be asked to pay their dot fees
two months in advance thereby giving DSD
an interest-free loan. As a result of the agree-
ments, DSD announced in June that its finances
were "assured."25
Industry's contributions, however, were
38 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
conditioned on DSD's reducing its costs, and
on June 25 DSD announced "a drastic, unpar-
alleled cost cutting program" aimed at saving
DM240 million ($144 million) in the remaining
six months of 1993.26 DSD began renegotiation
of contracts with waste management firms and
localities. In the latter case, DSD claimed that
40 percent of the materials placed in the DSD
yellow bins were not packaging and that the
localities would have to pay DSD to collect this
portion.27 The localities claimed that only 20
percent of the materials in the bins was not pack-
aging, and both sides ultimately agreed that
waste composition studies would be undertaken
to resolve the dispute.
When DSD made its financial problems
public, it claimed that it was a victim of its suc-
cess in that it was collecting far more than the
ordinance required. But there were other causes
of the financial difficulties: operational costs
were high, and many companies were delin-
quent in paying the green dot fees. While print-
ing the green dot on their packages, some com-
panies were paying their fees late and, in some
cases, not at all. DSD claimed it was receiving
fees for only 50 percent of the primary pack-
ages on the market, even though 90 percent of
the packages carried the green dot symbol in
August 1993.28To address this problem, DSD
announced that it intended "to take action
against 'joyriders' [sic] who use the green dot
without paying for it by introducing a computer-
aided controlling system and tightening up sur-
veillance."29
In early September 1993, DSD was again tee-
tering on the brink of insolvency. This crisis, and
its resolution, is discussed in the Epilogue.
Setting the Green Dot Fees
DSD originally based the green dot fees on the
filling volume of individual packages, but in
Table 6-2: 1992 Green Dot Fees
Packaging Volume
DM per package
.0
.01
.02
.05
.20
<50 milliliters
50 - 200 milliliters
>200 milliliters - 3 liters
>3 - 30 liters :
>30 liters
Note: See Appendix B for table converted
to ounces and dollars.
Source: Duales System Deutschland, "The Green Dot-
Don t Let Packaging Go to Waste!"
i
March 1993 it announced a new schedule based
on weight and package, material. According to
DSD, the new 1993 fees were designed to re-
flect the actual cost of handling the different
materials. A comparison of the two fee sched-
ules is of interest from a US policy perspective
because they could be used as guides for pack-
aging taxes or advanced disposal fees.
The new fee schedule differs from the old
one in three key respects: 1.) the fee is differ-
ent for each material; 2.) fees are based on the
weight of the package, not the volume of the
product; and 3.) the total projected revenues
from the fees have doubled. DSD estimated that
green dot fees would generate DM4.2 billion in
1994 ($2.5 billion) compared with about DM2
billion ($1.2 billion) previously.
The 1992 Green Dot Fees
In 1992, the DSD licensing fees per package
ranged from DM0.01 to 0.20 ($0.006-0.12),
based on the filling volume of each package as
shown in Table 6-2. These green dot fees pro-
vided the revenues to fund the collection and
sorting of packaging waste. Recycling costs
were not included because they were to be born
by the individual materials industries. Although
Primary Packaging and the Dual System 39
-------
Table 6-3: 1993 Green Dot Fees
(Effective October 1,1993)
Material
...
Plastic
Composite
Aluminum
Tinplate
Paper/paperboard
Natural materials
Glass
DM per kilogram
3.00
1.66
1.00
0.56
0.33
0.20
0.16
Note: See Appendix B for table converted to
dollars per pound.
Source: Duales System Deutschland. ^
the Dual System did not officially go into effect
until January 1,1993, green dots became preva-
lent in 1992 when companies began applying for
the dots and DSD began collecting the fees it
needed to begin operating the system.
About three-quarters of the packages on the
German market fall into the 200-milliliter to
three-liter category, meaning most packages had
a green dot fee of DM0.02 ($0.012). For ex-
ample, a 330-milliliter can of Coca-Cola that
cost DM0.70 ($0.42) had a green dot fee of
DM0.02 ($0.012), amounting to about 3 percent
of the price, while a two-liter bottle of fabric
softener that cost DM3 ($1.80) also had a green
dot fee of 0.02 DM, in this case amounting to
only 0.7 percent of the price. As the 1992 fee
schedule was based on filling volume, all pack-
ages containing the same amount of product in-
curred the same fee, regardless of the material
or weight of the package. The fees, therefore,
did not affect manufacturers' choice of pack-
aging materials.
The 1993 Green Dot Fees
A new fee schedule based on material and
weight went into effect October 1, 1993. The
fee for plastics was originally set at 2.61 DM
per kilogram in March 1993, but was raised to
3.00 DM per kilogram in July 1993. Some of
the supporting data in this section are based on
the 2.61 DM-per-kilogram fee.
The 1993 fees, shown in Table 6-3, reflect
DSD's actual costs for managing materials. For
example, glass bears the lowest fee because it
requires virtually no sorting, as consumers drop
off different-colored glass in separate bins.
Because the new fees are based on package
weight, they provide an incentive for source
reduction reducing package weight. DSD
asserts that weight-based fees are fairer than
those based on product volume, because, for a
given material, lighter packages will have lower
fees.30
Table 6-4 shows DSD estimates of the ton-
nage and costs for each material. These are the
figures DSD used to calculate the green dot fees
in March 1993. For example, DSD estimated
the costs for paper at DM587 million ($352 mil-
lion). Dividing by the tonnage of paper pack-
aging bearing the green dot (about 1.7 million
metric tons) yields a per-ton fee of DM334, or
DM0.33 per kilogram the amount of the green
dot fee. The green dot fees differ from DSD's
actual per-kilogram collecting and sorting costs
because they are based on the number of pack-
ages bearing the green dot, which is greater than
the actual number that DSD will collect. More-
over, the costs represented in the fees include
not only waste management, but also general
administrative, operating, and public education
costs, allocated to each material. DSD has esti-
mated the costs for collecting and sorting at
DM198 ($119) per metric ton for glass, DM349
($209) for paper, and DM1915 ($1149) for all
other materials combined.31
Plastics account for more than half of the
estimated DSD costs because they are expen-
sive to collect and sort and include some recy-
40
. Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
Table 6-4: Estimated DSD Costs and Green Dot Fees for 1994, by Material
Material
Plastic
Composite
Aluminum
Tinplate
Paper/paperboard
Glass
Total
DSD Costs
(in millions of DM)
2197
523
99
335
587
458
4,198
Packages*
with green dot
(per 1000 metric tons)
842
314
100
594
1,753
2,870
6,473
Average Fee
(DM per ton)
2,610
1,660
1,000
563
334
160
Fee
(DM per kg**)
2.61***
1 6fi
^.m\J\J
1.00
0 56
x/» \J\J
0.33
0.16
' * *»>** «W *»' the green dot.
*** Later estimates raised the fee to DM3.00.
Source: INFORM, based on "Informationen zurneuen Gebuhrenordnung"
("Information about the New Fee Schedule"), Duales System Deutschland, April 1993.
cling costs, whereas the cost of handling other
materials includes collecting and sorting only.
Material and Weight vs. Filling Volume
Because the new fees are based on the weight
of the package, not the filling volume of the
product, it is difficult to compare the 1992 and
1993 fee schedules. For example, in 1992 the
fee for a one-liter bottle of soda made of either
glass or plastic was DM0.02 ($0.012). The 1993
schedule sets the fee for plastic 19 times higher
than for glass: DM3.00 as compared to DM0.16.
However, this comparison is misleading, be-
cause the fees are based on the weight of the
package, and plastic is lighter than glass. A bet-
ter perspective is that of a company deciding
what packaging material to use to deliver a cer-
tain amount of product.
To illustrate this comparison, Table 6-5
shows examples of the 1993 green dot fees for
different packaging materials containing one li-
ter of beverage, based on the weight of the pack-
age. These package weights, from the Berlin
Technical College (TFB) study of DSD costs,
are not necessarily representative of all bever-
age containers.32 Most of these materials are not
sold in the one-liter size, but they have been
standardized here for comparison. For example,
the weight for aluminum is based on three
0.330-liter soda cans.
In the table, the glass bottle weighs more
than 12 times as much as the plastic bottle
0.360 kilograms compared with 0.029 kilo-
grams. Under the 1993 fee schedule, the green
dot fee for this one-liter glass beverage bottle
will be DM0.058 and the fee for the one-liter
plastic beverage bottle will be DM0.087. In this
case, the fee for the plastic bottle is 50 percent
higher than the fee for the glass one a differ-
ence far lower than what the fee chart might
indicate at first glance. The lowest fee corre-
sponds to the lightest package the compos-
ite (aseptic) beverage carton. Note that the high-
est green dot fee for delivering one liter of
beverage is only two and'a half times the low-
est a much narrower range than the per-ki-
Primary Packaging arid the Dual System 41
-------
Table 6-5: 1993 Green Dot Fees for Packaging One Liter of Beverage
Type of
package
bottle
box
can
can
bottle
Package weight
(kilogram per liter)
0.029
0.021
0.048
0.106
0.360
Material
^
Plastic
Composite
Aluminum
Tinplate
Glass
and green dot fees.
Fees per kilogram
(DM)
3.00
1.66
1.00
0.56
0.16
Fees per liter
(DM)
0.087
0.035
0.048
0.059
0.058
logram fees for the various materials them-
selves, which vary by a factor of 19:1.
Note also that the relative weights of the
different packaging materials may vary by type
of package and product. For example, accord-
ing to Coca-Cola Foods data on the different
materials used to package orange juice, a glass
bottle weighs about 10 times as much as a plas-
tic bottle, whereas the TFB data in Table 6-5
puts glass at 12 times the weight of plastic.33
Likewise, the ratio of the weight of a plastic jar
to a glass jar could vary for different products,
such as cleaning fluids and peanut butter.
Despite these variations in relative weights,
the new fees are generally higher for plastics
on a per-package basis and may cause shifts
from plastics to other materials. Figure 6-3 com-
pares new and old green dot fees for selected
packages in Germany. These comparisons are
based on the DM2.61-per-kilogram fee for plas-
tics. In the case of a light plastic bag for potato
chips, the increase from the 1992 fees to the
1993 fees is small: from DM0.0200 to
DM0.0206. For a heavy plastic bottle of fabric
softener, however, the fee increases from
DM0.0200 to DM0.1623. This illustrates the dis-
advantage of heavy plastic packaging under the
new fee schedule. Obviously, DSD's increase
of the plastics fee to DM3.00 per kilogram will
augment these differences.
According to the Rudolph Wild Company
in Heidelberg, the Packaging Ordinance, and
particularly the new fee schedule, has led to a
stagnation in the market for one-way packages
and a boom in refill pouches for a variety of
products. Wild says the higher fees for heavy
plastic detergent bottles may encourage the use
of composite refill pouches.34 When a question
arose about how to assess the green dot fees for
composite packages that are mostly plastic,
DSD ruled that if plastic accounts for more than
half of the package weight, it incurs the DM3.00
fee for plastics rather than the DMl.66 fee for
composites.
Applying for the Green Dot
To determine the amount a company must pay
DSD in green dot fees, the company must esti-
mate the number of packaging units it expects
to sell on the German market in the following
year. Adjustments for over- or under-payments
are made at the end of the year.35 Applications
42 Germany. Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
Figure 6-3: Comparison of 1992 and 1993 Green Dot Fees for Selected Packag.es In Germany
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
Q 0.06
0.04
DM0.1623
DM0.0447
DM0.0200 DM0.0206
Potato chips, plastic
bag (200 g)
Canned peas,
tinplate (400 g)
Margarine, plastic
container (500 g)
Fabric softener, plastic
bottle (1000 ml)
* Based on plastics fee of 2.61 DM/kg. \
Source: Duales System Deutschland, "Comparison of License Fees" ("Lizenzgebuhren im Vergleich").
for the green dot are usually made by consumer
product companies. For imported goods, appli-
cations may be made by the importer or the
manufacturer. DSD originally intended to moni-
tor the accuracy of company reporting through
spot checks. Following the financial crisis of
September 1993, a new monitoring system was
established, as described in the Epilogue.
In the case of products sold in individual
packages within a box, the 1992 fee schedule
required separate dots for each of the packages.
For example, the Wild Company, which manu-
facturers a juice drink sold in boxes of 10 indi-
vidual servings, each in its own aluminum
pouch, had to pay for 11 green dots: one for
each pouch and one for the large box. Under
the 1993 fee schedule, the number of packages
per box will no longer be relevant, as the fee will
be assessed on the total weight of the packaging.
Packages Outside the Green Dot System
The green dot system was designed primarily
for the kinds of packages sold in supermarkets
that contain foods and small household items.
Supermarkets and department stores are requir-
ing green dots, and the suppliers are applying
for them. However, primary packaging in some
other industries, particularly for large items such
as computers, appliances, and furniture, is
sometimes being handled differently.
A computer manufacturer, Apple Computer,
for example, found that many of the small com-
puter retailers want to take the packages back
because this brings the customers back to the
store. Even before the new 1993 green dot fees
were announced, Apple was not getting the
green dot for its packages sold by small retail-
ers and was paying retailers directly to take back
Primary Packaging and the Dual System 43
-------
the packages. Apple was getting the green dot
for its computer packages sold through major
department stores, because the department
stores required it.
The 1993 green dot fee schedule gave com-
puter manufacturers an added reason to find
alternatives to the green dot because shifting to
fees based on weight and material resulted in
substantial cost increases for large containers.
According to Apple Computer, the new sched-
ule will increase the average green dot fees for
its packages six to eight times. Under the 1992
fee schedule, the maximum fee for containers
larger than 30 liters was DM0.25 ($0.15)
DSD's DM0.20 fee plus a surcharge for plastics
recycling. Thus the fee for the 277-liter pack-
age on Apple's 21-inch monitor, for example,
would have been DM0.25. Under the new sched-
ule based on weight and material, the fee on
the package, which consists of corrugated card-
board and plastic weighing more than five ki-
lograms, increased more than 16 times.36 Al-
though Apple does not expect to redesign
existing packages, it does plan to design pack-
ages for its new products that contain more card-
board and less plastic, thereby minimizing the
need to pay the higher fees for plastics.37
Alternative systems for handling primary
packages are permitted under the ordinance,
provided the manufacturer pays for taking back
the packages and for their reuse or recycling,
independent of the public waste management
system.
Harmonization of DSD and the
Waste Management System
The relationship between DSD and the locali-
ties is at the heart of the Dual System. The pro-
vision allowing for an exemption from the pri-
mary packaging regulations requires that the
Dual System "be harmonized with existing col-
lection, recycling, and reuse systems run by the
authorities for waste disposal in whose area it
is set up."38 This requirement was intended to
ensure that existing systems and facilities be
properly utilized and integrated into the new
system, and to prevent the development of an
entirely new waste management system.
True to its name, the Dual System will in
fact constitute a packaging waste management
system that literally operates parallel to exist-
ing municipal waste management systems. DSD
has signed separate contracts with local waste
management authorities throughout Germany.
As of April 1, 1993, almost all localities had
signed 534 out of 549 and negotiations
were under way with the remaining communi-
ties.39 The contracts specify how packaging waste
will be managed, who will do the managing, and
what fees DSD will pay the localities.
Revenue for Municipalities
The Dual System can be lucrative for local solid
waste management authorities. As communi-
ties negotiate their own contracts with DSD,
some get better terms than others. DSD may
agree to manage all packaging waste, in which
case the locality is relieved of the responsibil-
ity and can save the money it normally would
spend on managing this portion of its waste
stream one-third, by weight. Alternatively,
DSD may pay the locality as a subcontractor to
manage some or all of the packaging waste.
For example, the city of Wuppertal, with a
population of 390,000, had an annual munici-
pal solid waste budget of DM35 million ($21
million) per year and was to receive DM 10 mil-
lion ($6 million) per year under its contract with
DSD. Wuppertal negotiated a contract that en-
44 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
ables it to manage waste as it did before, using
municipal sanitation workers who will now be
paid in part by DSD. The city sees this arrange-
ment as protecting its interests: if DSD fails,
Wuppertal will have its sanitation system in-
tact. The city has arranged to retain control over
the glass and paper drop-off bins, because col-
lections from these facilities in residential
neighborhoods can be noisy, and Wuppertal
wants to maintain local control over this proce-
dure. DSD will share the costs, however. It will
pay all the costs of the glass bins because all of
the glass brought to these bins is packaging
waste. It will pay 25 percent of the cost of the
paper bins, because 25 percent of the paper de-
posited in them is estimated to be packaging;
the remainder is newspapers and other printed
materials. City workers will collect recyclable
materials from the drop-off and curbside (DSD)
bins and direct them to sorting and recycling
facilities.
DSD will pay Wuppertal based on the ton-
nage of packaging waste the city collects and
sorts. The city will also receive the standard
payments that DSD makes to all localities of
DM1 ($0.60) per person per year for public edu-
cation advertising and DM0.5 ($0.30) per per-
son per year to fund local waste advisers who
provide information to the public. Wuppertal
will receive a total of DM585,000 ($351,000)
per year for these purposes.
Shifting Financial Responsibility
Prior to the advent of the Dual System, munici-
palities had often funded solid waste manage-
ment by charging households based on the
amount of waste they generated (per-bin
charges), and also partly through general tax
revenues. In effect, the Dual System shifts the
financing of managing packaging waste from
the municipal solid waste budgets to the green
dot fees, which are like a sales tax in that com-
panies pass the fees on to consumers through
higher prices. At the same time, many locali-
ties are running out of disposal capacity, and
DSD relieves them of responsibility for about
one-third of their municipal solid waste, reduc-
ing the pressure to site additional waste disposal
facilities.
To the extent that DSD expenditures repre-
sent a shifting of costs from localities to the Dual
System, the money spent by consumers in green
dot fees should be offset by savings in the local
solid waste budgets. These local budgets had
been slated for huge increases, so the savings
may be in the form of smaller increases rather
than actual reductions. To some extent, how-
ever, the green dot fees represent a real increase
in costs, and these will not be offset locally. Es-
timates are not available on the incremental
costs of the Dual System compared with the
former costs of managing primary packaging
waste.
Ultimately, the public pays for managing
packaging waste one way or another. The shift
from taxpayers to industry means costs are
passed on in higher product prices; thus the in-
dividual ends up paying as a consumer, rather
than through local taxes or garbage collection
fees. With DSD costs of about DM4 billion ($2.4
billion) per year and a German population of
80 million, the green dot fees average DM50
($30) per person per year or DM200 per year
($120) for a family of four. However, this DM4
billion was not the full cost of the system, given
that recycling costs arej born by industry and
also passed on in higher prices. Polls have
shown that 76 percent of German consumers
believe the costs of managing packaging waste
should be included in the price of products.40
Primary Packaging and the Dual System 45
-------
Packaging Changes in Germany:
The Impact of the Ordinance
Assessing the ordinance's impact on the use of
primary packaging in Germany is difficult be-
cause the primary packaging provisions of the
Packaging Ordinance have been in effect only
since January 1993; thus as of mid-1993, when
this report was being completed, results were
just beginning to emerge. In some cases, when
packaging changes can be documented, it is not
clear whether they occurred in response to or
in anticipation of the ordinance, or if they would
have occurred anyway, without the legislation.
One consequence, however, seems certain:
the political debate and publicity surrounding
the ordinance have heightened public aware-
ness of the impact of packaging on the envi-
ronment. According to Dr. Jan Bongaerts,
Director of the Institute for European Environ-
mental Policy (IEEP) (Institut fur Europaische
Umweltpolitik), "The Packaging Ordinance has
drastically changed the attitudes of consumers
an(j even more so the retail trade. Strate-
gies for 'greening' packaging materials and
packaging systems are increasingly considered
as marketing instruments that have a promis-
ing future. As things stand, a return to the past
is out of the question."41 Bongaerts concludes
that the ordinance is leading to source reduc-
tion and the use of more recyclable materials;
he specifically cites reduced use of polyvinyl
chloride (PVC), blister packs, and polystyrene
cushioning, as well as increased use of lighter
packages and a trend to "avoid" packaging for
many appliances.42 (Many German environmen-
talists want to ban the use of PVC, as discussed in
Chapter 8.)
Reduced Packaging
The first official report on packaging changes
was prepared by the Group for Packaging Mar-
ket Research (Gesellschaft fur Verpackungs-
marktforschung, or GVM), for the Federal En-
vironment Ministry and released in July 1993.
It found that packaging consumption of mate-
rials with quotas in the ordinance was reduced
by 514,000 metric tons from 1991 to 1992, as
shown in Table 6-6.
The total packaging reduction was 661,000
metric tons. The data is for all packaging, as
shown in Table 3-4. No separate data were re-
leased for primary packaging; however, this is
the largest packaging category. Composite drink
cartons were the only type of packaging that
increased; they may increase even more under
the new green dot fee schedule, because they
are light and will have lower fees per container
relative to other materials.
GVM says its 1995 projections are conser-
vative and do not include major packaging
changes that may occur, such as a big shift from
corrugated containers to reusable plastic ship-
ping containers. Still, the forecast puts total
1995 packaging, by weight, below the 1991
total. GVM assumes a decrease in packaging
weight, particularly with the new fee schedule,
but expects the number of containers to increase
by 1995 because of economic growth.43 DSD
has noted that the reported decrease in packag-
ing between 1991 and 1992 occurred in a pe-
riod when Gross Domestic Product increased
in Germany, before the onset of the recession.
Environment Minister Klaus Topfer ex-
pressed satisfaction with the GVM study results:
"The fact that the amount of packaging used
has already been reduced two years after the
introduction of the Packaging Ordinance proves
that we are following the right course," he said.44
DSD points out that, prior to 1992, the quantity
46 Germany. Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
Table 6-6: Changes in Total Packaging Consumption* in Germany, 1991-92 (thousands of metric tons)
Materials
Glass
Tinplate**
Aluminum
Plastic
Paper/paperboard
Composite
a. Beverage cartons
b. Paper-based
c. Plastic-based
d. Aluminum-based
Composite total
Subtotal (quota materials)
Steel***
Wood, cork
Other
Subtotal (non-quota materials)
TOTAL
Actual
Packaging
Consumption
1991
4636.8
793.1
124.0
1606.5
5209.3
198.2
177.9
28.0
6.8
410.9
12,780,6
293.4
2249.9
14.0
2557.3
15,337.9
Actual
Packaging
Consumption
1992
4426.3
752.2
114.8
1542.1
5035.3
201.6
168.1
26.8
6.4
402.9
12,273.6
259.0
2131.6
12.5
2403.1
14,676.7
Change
1991-1992
-210
-41
-9
-64
-174
(+3)
-10
-1
0
-8
-514
-34
-118
-2
-154
-661
Percent
change
-5
' -5
-7
-4
-3
1 (+2)
-6
. -4
-0
-2
A
-12
-5
'I -14
£
-4
Projected
Packaging
Consumption
1995
3980.5
722.6
105.6
1498.5
5107.7
205.4
164.5
23.9
6.1
399.8
11.814.7
269.6
2064.9
12.1
' 2346.6
14,161.3
Note; INFORM has confirmed with GVM that the slight difference in the 1991 figure for paper in this table as compared with Tables
3-4 and 3-5 is due to a correction GVM made after the baseline data was published in January 1993.
* As discussed in Chapter 1, Germany classifies discarded materials as waste (Abfall) or valuable materials (Wertstoffe). The total
amount of packaging consumption includes both Abfall and Wertstoffe, and corresponds to the US term "packaging waste."
** Coated steel cans for consumer goods, mostly food and beverages.
*** Steel barrels, drums, transport containers, pallets, and straps.
Source: Entwicklung des Verpackungsverbrauchs 1992/1995: Vorausschatzung/Prognose (Development of the Use of Packaging
1992/1995: Estimate/Forecast), prepared by Gesellschaft fur Verpackungsmarktforschung (GVM), for the Federal Environment Minis-
try (BMU), July 1993. I
of packaging used in Germany rose steadily
each year, increasing 11.7 percent in 1990 and
3.5 percent in 1991; DSD also believes the data
demonstrate the success of the Packaging Or-
dinance and the Dual System.45
DSD has also conducted several surveys to
document packaging reductions. As those cited
here were conducted before January 1993, any
company actions in response to the ordinance
were taken either to comply with the provisions
on transport and secondary packaging or in an-
ticipation of the Dual System for primary pack-
aging. The surveys do 'not distinguish among
the three packaging categories.
Between August and November 1992, DSD
surveyed 8,689 companies that had obtained
green dots for their packages; 1,062 re-
sponded.46 Respondents included many large
companies that produce more than 21 billion
packages a year, more than one-tenth of all
German packages. ;j
Four of five companies reported "optimiz-
ing" their packages in!the last two years by
1.) reducing the materials, 2.) making them re-
Primary Packaging:and the Dual System 47
-------
usable or returnable, and 3.) changing materi-
als to make them more recyclable or to use re-
cycled content. When asked their plans for
1992-1994 with respect to reusable packaging,
12 percent expected to increase reusables, 73
percent to use the same amount, and 1 percent
to decrease reusable packaging; the remaining
14 percent did not respond. The companies re-
ported a decrease in the use of plastics, blister
packs, and composites. In response to questions
on blister packs, 77 percent reported not using
any, 8 percent planned to decrease their use, 11
percent planned to use the same, and 4 percent
to increase use.
Following are the responses of the compa-
nies in the DSD survey reporting on their plans
for 1992-1994. (Some companies reported mul-
tiple plans, so the percentages do not add up to
100.)
Use less material-38%
Reduce the number of materials - 18%
Replace composites - 12%
Replace blister packs - 9%
No plans-25%
The motives for "optimizing" packaging were
reported as follows:
Packaging Ordinance - 55%
Environment - 49%
Pressure from retailers - 42%
Technical - 30%
Pressure from consumers - 20%
Cheaper-20%
Design-11%
Use more recyclable materials - 7%
Increase shelf life and stability - 5%
These responses indicated that the Packag-
ing Ordinance was having a significant impact.
Not only was it cited as the top motive, but the
next two categories, environment and pressure
from retailers, are driven by the ordinance.
DSD has published before-and-after pho-
tographs of primary packages that have been
reduced. Some of these appear on the follow-
ing pages.
Some companies say their packaging
changes were not affected by the Packaging
Ordinance. Procter & Gamble GmbH (P&G)
says it has always worked to minimize packag-
ing and reduce the weight of packaging materi-
als, and that its policies are not based on reac-
tions to legislation.47 P&G cites its initiatives
in developing the refill pouch for fabric soft-
ener and in selling soap powders in concentrated
form as examples of policies to reduce packag-
ing that predated the Packaging Ordinance. At
the same time, P&G says toothpaste tubes sold
without the carton meet consumer demand, which
is, to a degree, influenced by the ordinance and
the accompanying public discussion.48
Case Study: Tengelmann
Supermarkets
Large retailers can exert great influence on con-
sumer product companies to make packaging
changes. Tengelmann is a large, privately held
company that operates more than 4,400 super-
markets in Germany.49 It owns a controlling 53
percent of the common stock in the Great At-
lantic and Pacific Tea Company in the United
States, which operates such supermarket chains
as A&P, Food Emporium, Waldbaum's, and
Borman's, and also produces food products.
Tengelmann's sales, including its foreign sub-
sidiaries, are estimated at $24 billion per year.
Because Tengelmann claims to have had an
active environmental program since 1984, it is
difficult to determine which activities were ini-
tiated in Germany in response to the Packaging
Ordinance. However, Tengelmann says the or-
48 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
Before and After Photographs of Primary Packaging Changes
Lever GmbH "Sunil" laundry detergent-
concentrated formula, reduced size of box,
used recycled plastic for handle.
Procter & Gamble GmbH "Ariel" laundry
detergent: developed light-weight refill bag.
L&L Feinkist
Handels GmbH
salmon:
replaced
composite
container with
glass jar and
metal lid.
Hans Maler flower bulbs: reduced size of box
by almost 50 percent.
Henkel KGaA "Pril" dishwashing liquid:
developed bottle with 30 percent recycled
content.
Thompson GmbH
"Sidolin " glass cleaner:
concentrated formula
and developed refill
bottle.
r , . , Punkt: Der Okologische Wandel bei Verpackun-
Ecological Change in Packaging"), November 1992.
Primary Packaging and the Dual System 49
-------
dinance has made its suppliers more responsive
to the company's long-standing appeals to re-
duce packaging.50
Besides working with Schoeller to develop
a reusable shipping container (as described in
Chapter 4), Tengelmann says its environmen-
tal efforts have included these packaging ini-
tiatives:
Technical assistance to suppliers on re-
ducing packaging -1988
Withdrawal of PVC bottles - 1989
Press advertisements to promote packag-
ing reductions -1990
Pilot project to recycle yogurt containers
-1990
Placement of recycling containers in
stores -1990
Making available, for a fee, reusable
shopping bags -1990
Use of Chep brand wooden reusable ship-
ping pallets -1991
Tengelmann says its environmental policies for
packaging between 1989 and 1991 have had
these results:
Reduced 6,800 metric tons of cardboard
and 486 metric tons of foil through pack-
aging modifications in cooperation with
industry
Directed that 200,000 one-way pallets be
replaced by reusables
Sent to recycling: 168,000 metric tons
of paper and paperboard, 380 metric tons
of foil, about 5 million wooden vegetable
and fruit boxes, and 67,000 one-way pal-
lets
Returned about 6.1 million wine bottles
to wine growers for refilling
Eliminated 400,000 fruit and vegetable
boxes by shifting to reusables
Tengelmann supermarkets were also test-
marketing reusable containers for detergents,
with deposits, and testing detergent-refilling
machines that allow consumers to refill and re-
use their own bottles. Tengelmann-owned
Wissoll Chocolates was even experimenting
with a packaging material made of starch and
sugar.
51
Notes
1. Thomas Rummler and Wolfgang Schutt, The Ger-
man Packaging Ordinance: A Practical Guide with
Commentary, Hamburg: B. Behr's Verlag GmbH &
Co., 1990, p. 102. The Packaging Ordinance targets
detergents because many are sold in bulky plastic
containers that cause disposal problems. The man-
datory deposit does not apply to the soft refill
pouches many companies now offer for these prod-
ucts. Among paints, only emulsion (water-based)
paints are targeted because other paints are consid-
ered hazardous and will be covered under a differ-
ent ordinance.
2. Ines Siegler (Information Officer, Duales System
Deutschland), written communication, April 23,
1993.
3. DSD, "The Green Dot: Don't Let Packaging Go to
Waste," Bonn, p. 1.
4. Siegler (DSD), written communication, op. cit.
5. Ibid.
6. DSD, "Packaging Materials are Raw Materials,"
Bonn, August 31, 1992, p. 10.
7. Ibid., p. 19.
8. Cynthia Pollock Shea (Bureau of National Affairs),
"Packaging Ordinance Leads Most Firms to Reduce
Packaging, Improve Recyclability," International
Environment Reporter, Washington, DC, March 24,
1993, p. 231-232.
9. Siegler (DSD), written communication, August 10,
1993.
10. DSD, "Beverage Cartons," Bonn, April 1,1993.
11. Siegler (DSD), written communication, August, 10,
1993.
12. DSD, "Report Regarding Quantity and Reprocess-
ing of Secondary Raw Materials Anticipated for
1993," Bonn.
50 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.
15. DSD, "Stand der Verwertung" (State of Recycling),
(Graph), DSD Business Report 1992, Bonn.
16. Jan C. Bongaerts (Institut fur Europaische Umwelt-
politik e.V., [Institute for European Environmental
Policy (IEEP)], Bonn), written communication, Sep-
tember 13,1993.
17. DSD, "Problems in Rhineland-Palatinate Being
Solved," press release, Bonn, June 16, 1993.
18. Siegler (DSD), written communication, op. cit.
19. Technische Fachhochschule Berlin, (Dr. Dieter
Berndt, et. al), Abschatzung dergegenwartigen und
zuktinfiigen KostenfUr das Sammeln und Sortieren
von Verkaufsverpackungen imdualen System (Trans-
parente Modellrechnung) (Estimate of Present and
Future Costs for Collection and Sorting of Sales
Packaging in the Dual System), Berlin, August 1992,
p. 18.
20. Hubert Gehring, (BMU), interview, Baltimore, MD
July 15, 1993.
21. Siegler (DSD), written communication, August 10
1993.
22. DSD, "Business Sector Strengthens Duales System,"
press release, Bonn, May 27, 1993.
23. Ibid.
24. DSD, "Drastic Reorganization at Duales System,"
press release, Bonn, June 25, 1993, p. 2.
25. DSD, "Duales System Finances Assured in the Long
Term," press release, Bonn, June 20, 1993, p. 1.
26. DSD, "Drastic Reorganization at Duales System,"
op. cit., p. 2.
27. Ibid.
28. DSD, "Duales System Presents Consolidation Con-
cept," press release, Bonn, August 28, 1993.
29. DSD, "Drastic Reorganization at Duales System,"
op. cit., p. 3.
30. DSD, "Informationen zur neuen Gebiihrenordnung"
(Information about the New Fee Schedule) April
1993.
31. Ibid.
32. Technische Fachhochschule Berlin, (Dr. Dieter
Berndt, et. al.) op. cit., p. 14.
33. Harry Teasley (Coca-Cola), "Presentation to Imple-
mentation Subcommittee/Packaging Standards Com-
mittee," Source Reduction Council of the Coalition
of Northeastern Governors, Boston, MA, April 24
1990.
34. Eberhard Kraft (Rudolph Wild Company, Heidel-
berg), telephone interview, July 1, 1993.
35. Rummler and Schutt, op. cit., p. 27.
36. Joachim Tabler (Apple Computer GmbH, Germany),
panel discussion at INFORM-US EPA: "Seeing Green:
A Workshop in Business Waste Prevention," Los An-
geles, CA, June 8, 1993.
37. Joachim Tabler (Apple Computer GmbH, Germany),
written communication, September 8,1993.
38. Ordinance on the Avoidance of Packaging Waste
(Verpackungsvewrdnung), Article 6 (3), June 12
1991.
39. Siegler (DSD), written communication, April 23
1993.
40. Pollock Shea (Bureau of National Affairs), op. cit
p. 231-232.
41. Jan C. Bongaerts (Institut fur Europaische Umwelt-
politik e.V., [Institute for European Environmental
Policy (IEEP)], Bonn), "The Packaging Ordinance
in Germany and its Implementation, First Experi-
ences," Report for European Congress: Packaging
and Environmental Strategies, Brussels, November
26-27, 1992, p. 12.
42. Ibid., p. 13-14.
43. Gesellschaft fur Verpackungsmarktforschung
(GVM) (Association for Packaging Market Re-
search), Entwicklung des Verpackungsverbrauchs
1992/1995: Vorausschittzung/Prognose (Develop-
ment of the Use of Packaging 1992/1995: Estimate/
Forecast), Wiesbaden, July 1993, p.3.
44. DSD, "Two Years of the Packaging Ordinance,"
press release, Bonn, July 21, 1993
45. Ibid.
46. DSD, "Daten und Fakten zum Griinen Punkt: Der
Okologische Wandel bei Verpackungen" ("Data and
Facts about the Green Dot: The Ecological Change
in Packaging"), Bonn, November, 1992.
47. Klaus Draeger (Procter & Gamble GmbH, Ger-
many), telephone interview, April 15, 1993.
48. Klaus Draeger (Procter & Gamble GmbH, Ger-
many), written communication, September 27,1993.
49. Rosemary Baumeister (Tengelmann, Mulheim), writ-
ten communication, April 30, 1993.
50. Anja Raffalsky (Tengelmann, Mulheim), interview
October 27, 1992.
51. "Recycling ist nur der zweitbeste Weg" ("Recycling
is the Second Best Choice"), Der Spiegel, 25/1993
p. 50.
Primary Packaging and the Dual System 51
-------
Chapter 7: Maintaining the Refutable
Beverage Container System
INFORM observed in Germany that refilling
bottles is a way of life for residents: the tradi-
tion of refilling is long-standing and enjoys
strong public support. Before passage of the
Packaging Ordinance, Germany already had
one of the most extensive refilling systems in
the world. Maintaining the existing refilling
system while promoting recycling of one-way
packaging materials is a major element of the
ordinance. The Bundesrat, the upper house of
Parliament, has even sought to increase the use
ofrefillables.
But the beverage market is changing. The
introduction of plastic refillable bottles has led
to shifts away from glass. And the number of
one-way beverage containers sold is increas-
ing because, even though refillables are increas-
ing their share of the market, the overall con-
sumption of beverages is increasing. The result:
a highly charged controversy over the relative
environmental impact of one-way and refillable
containers. This chapter explores the use of
refillables in Germany, the impact of the ordi-
nance on refilling, and recent trends and inno-
vations.
Refilling and the
Packaging Ordinance
The Packaging Ordinance requires that refill
rates be maintained if industry is to be exempt
from the mandated deposits on one-way con-
tainers and the requirement to take back pri-
mary packaging. That is, the ordinance speci-
fies that, as a condition of industry's exemption,
the refill rate for milk must not fall below 17
percent and the refill rate for all other bever-
ages combined (beer, water, juices, soft drinks,
and wine) must not fall below 72 percent. These
were the average refill rates in West Germany
in 1990. The ordinance also specifies that the
refill rate in each state must not fall below the
199 Irate in that state.
The threat of mandatory deposits is a strong
incentive to prevent the refill rates from fall-
ing. If DSD loses its exemption for beverage
containers, the federal government will impose
a DM0.50 ($0.30) minimum deposit on all one-
way containers, increasing to DM 1.00 ($0.60)
for a 1.5-liter bottle. With deposits of this mag-
52 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
nitude, one-way containers would lose the ad-
vantage of convenience over refillables, as con-
sumers would have to return them to redeem
the deposits.
The DM0.50 mandatory deposit on one-way
plastic beverage containers that Germany im-
posed in 1988 was dropped January 1, 1993,
when the provisions for primary packaging went
into effect. Under the ordinance, plastic bever-
age containers are treated no differently from
containers made of any other material. A major
reason for removing the deposit on plastic bev-
erage containers was to prevent retaliatory ac-
tion by the European Community (EC). As de-
scribed in Chapter 12, the EC has been battling
Germany for years on the issue of restrictive
trade policies; the European Community op-
posed the earlier mandatory deposits on plastic
beverage containers. Germany has crafted its
Packaging Ordinance to avoid future EC chal-
lenges and has set no material-specific refill-
ing quotas. The ordinance further protects
Germany's position by seeking to maintain the
status quo rather than seeking an increase in
refillables, which might be viewed in the Euro-
pean Community as a restrictive trade policy.
The ordinance supports refillable systems with-
out prohibiting one-way containers.
In their guide to the ordinance, Rummler
and Schutt point out that it contains no legally
binding provision to maintain the 72 percent
refill rate. Protecting this rate is a condition for
exemption from the primary packaging take-
back and deposit regulations, and industry de-
cides whether to seek that exemption.1
The Environmental Debate
The relative environmental impact of one-way
vs. refillable beverage containers remains con-
troversial. The Federal Environmental Agency
(Umweltbundesamt, or UB A) commissioned an
"eco-balance," or life-cycle analysis, to deter-
mine the environmental impact of different
types of packaging. (UBA is the government
agency responsible for implementing environ-
mental policy.) The study was conducted by the
Fraunhofer Institute for Food Technology and
Packaging in Munich (Fraunhofer-Institut fur
Lebensmitteltechnologie und Verpackung) in
conjunction with the Institute for Energy and
Environmental Research in Heidelberg (Institut
fur Energie- und Umweltforschung, or IFEU)
and the Group for Packaging Market Research
in Wiesbaden (Gesellschaft fur Verpackungs-
marktforschung, or GVM). Using a computer
model, the study group compared packaging
systems for fresh milk, such as refillable glass,
gable-top cartons, aseptic brick-shaped cartons,
and polyethylene pouches. Similar analysis was
done for beer packaged in steel cans, aluminum
cans, one-way glass, and refillable glass.
The Fraunhofer group published its data in
September 1993, showing the packages' envi-
ronmental impact, including air and water emis-
sions and raw materials consumption. More
than 200 measurements for example, the
amounts of carbon monoxide and nitrogen ox-
ides released to the air were made for each
packaging system. Hov/ever, the Fraunhofer
study draws no conclusions as to which pack-
aging system is best for the environment, or
whether refillables are better than one-way con-
tainers. The Fraunhofer Institute has said the
study was not intended to find whether
refillables are better than one-way containers,
but under which circumstances each system is
preferable. The institute noted the importance
of transport distances for all containers and the
number of trips made by refillable bottles in
assessing environmental impact. It further noted
that the study data may tie used to identify op-
portunities for improving the environmental
Maintaining the Refillable Beverage Container System 53
-------
performance of current packaging systems
both refillable and one-way.2
As Environment Minister Klaus Topfer
pointed out, life-cycle analysis does not end but
rather begins with such a study.3 The Federal
Environmental Agency (Umweltbundesamt, or
UB A) faces the difficult task of evaluating the
data. As there are no objective standards for
comparing different environmental effects,
UB A must determine the criteriapartly based
on political judgments.
The Rummler-Schutt guide to the ordinance
cites previous studies indicating that refillable
containers "promise very positive eco-balances"
where trippage rates are at least 20.4 The
trippage rate is the number of times a container
is refilled. Rummler and Schutt assert that the
refill systemsparticularly those for beer and
mineral water, which constitute the largest share
of the beverage market and the highest refill
rates "make an impressive contribution to
waste avoidance."s
When the Packaging Ordinance was first
circulated, environmentalists expressed concern
that its emphasis on recycling would undermine
the existing system for refilling beverage con-
tainers: consumers might think a recyclable can
with a green dot was as good for the environ-
ment or even better than a refillable bottle. So
environmentalists who support refilling as
do many German consumers succeeded in
getting the refillables quota inserted in the or-
dinance.
Developments in the former East Germany
provided another impetus to include a refill pro-
vision in the ordinance. After the unification of
East and West Germany, the local refill systems
in the former East Germany collapsed. The
number of one-way beverage containers in-
creased, causing a 1 - 2 percent decline in the
national refill rate. The refill provision was in-
tended to counter that trend in eastern Germany,
Table 7-1: Volume of Beverages in One-Way
and Refillable Containers in Germany
1991 1992
(Jan-June) (Jan.-June)
percent percent
All Drinks
Refillable
One Way
glass
cans
composites
Mineral Water
Refillable
glass
plastic
One Way
glass
cans
composites
Noncarbonated Drinks
Refillable
One Way
glass
cans
composites
Carbonated Soft Drinks
Refillable
glass
PET
One Way
glass
cans
Beer
Refillable
One Way
glass
cans
Wine
Refillable
One Way
glass
composites
100.00
72.60
27.40
11.65
7.83
7.92
100.00
91.73
91.38
0.34
8.27
7.25
0.53
0.50
100.00
35.14
64.86
19.22
0.09
45.55
100.00
73.91
64.35
9.56
26.09
10.24
15.85
100.00
82.32
17.68
5.28
12.40
100.00
39.26
60.74
56.97
3.77
100.00
74.61
25.39
11.16
7.00
7.23
100.00
91.66
90.83
0.83
8.34
7.28
0.45
0.61
100.00
37.12
62.88
18.95
0.08
43.85
100.00
75.90
61.92
13.98
24.10
9.98
14.13
100.00
83.61
16.39
4.87
11.52
100.00
39.65
60.35
56.32
4.03
Milk
Not available
Source: Gesellschaft fur Verpackungsmarktforschung
(GVM), Wiesbaden, 1992.
54 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
as well as to protect refillables throughout Ger-
many.6
Pressure for More Refillables
Table 7-1 shows the refill rates compiled for
the government by Gesellschaft fur Verpack-
ungsmarktforschung (GVM) and published in
September 1992. They indicate that the refill
rate increased from 72.60 percent in the first
half of 1991 to 74.61 percent in the first half of
1992 for beverages other than milk. Most one-
way containers in Germany are glass, and only
about 7 percent of beverages were sold in cans.
Refill rates were highest for mineral water and
beer 91.66 and 83.61 percent, respectively.
Refill rates for noncarbonated drinks, prima-
rily juices, were lower but rose to 37.12 per-
cent in the first half of 1992, from 35.14 a year
earlier.
As a condition of passing the Packaging
Ordinance, the Bundesrat insisted that the Fed-
eral Environment Ministry (the Bundesminister-
ium fur Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsich-
erheit, or BMU) draft a separate ordinance to
increase the refill quotas to 76 percent by 1996,
78 percent by 1998, and 81 percent by 2000.7
The government's draft in response to this de-
mand specifies refill quotas as shown in Table
7-2.
Despite refill quotas that seem high from
the US perspective, environmentalists in Ger-
many remain concerned about the growing
number of one-way containers. As noted ear-
lier, beverage consumption is increasing in
Germany, so even though the refill rate has held
steady, the number of one-way containers is
increasing.
The German Federation for the Environ-
ment and the Protection of Nature (Bund fur
Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e.V., or
BUND), the largest environmental organization
Table 7-2: Refill Quoitas 'Sot Beverage
Containers - Draft Ordinance on Refillables
1992 1997 1999 2002
(actual) (quota) (quota) (quota)
Mineral Water
Noncarbonated
Drinks
Carbonated Soft
Drinks
Beer
Wine
Milk
91.66
|
37^12
75.90
83.61
39.65
N/A
92
45
78
87
45
26
93
50
82
91
50
31
94
94
Source: Die Verbraucher Initiative (DVI), Bonn, 1992.
in Germany, with over 200,000 members, notes
that West German consumers used approxi-
mately four million one-way glass bottles in
1966. At that time the glass industry, organized
in the Bundesverband Glas, launched an adver-
tising campaign with the slogan "Ex und Hopp"
(drink and chuck), which BUND describes as
"the most disastrous attack on the environment
ever launched by the packaging industry."8 The
ad campaign increased the popularity of the
"modern" one-way glass bottles, which rose to
4 billion in 1985 and 5 billion in 1990.9 Figure
7-1 shows the increase in one-way glass bottles
(in filling volume), rising to more than 2 bil-
lion liters by 1990.
Even though the market share of refillables
has increased recently, BUND focuses on the
increased number of throwaway packages, and
specifically the 10 billion throwaway drink con-
tainers in 1991. BUND, dissatisfied with the
provisions on refillables in the Packaging Or-
dinance, wants to limit or ban one-way contain-
ers. !
As can be calculated from the GVM data
(Table 7-1), about 44 percent of the volume of
beverages sold in one-way containers in 1992
Maintaining the Refillable Beverage Container System 55
-------
Rgure 7-1: Use of One-Way Glass Bottles in West Germany, 1966-1990
S2
I
&
Source: BUND. "The Returnables Roundabout- Requirements for an Environmentally Friendly System of Returnable
Drink Containers, Bonn.
was packaged in glass. Cans and composites
like Tetra Pak each accounted for about 28 per-
cent. There were no one-way plastic beverage
containers, such as those used widely in the
United States. After one-way polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) bottles were put on the
market, the German government, in 1988, im-
posed high mandatory deposits on one-way
plastic bottles. This requirement resulted in re-
moval of the bottles from the market. The Coca-
Cola Company withdrew its one-way PET
bottle and introduced a refillable PET bottle.
Coke now sells 74 percent of its drinks in re-
fillable bottles glass and PET which the
company says are cheaper than one-way con-
tainers.10
Table 7-3 illustrates the relative costs of one-
way and refillable packages. BUND cites such
studies as evidence that refillable bottles are no
more expensive than one-way packaging.
The data in Table 7-3 are based on the as-
sumption that the refillable glass bottles make
15 trips. BUND concludes that a returnable
bottle system creates jobs because it requires
labor-intensive services, whereas one-way
packaging mostly involves consumption of en-
ergy and raw materials. Packaging materials
account for only 36 percent of the cost for re-
fillable bottles, compared with about 87 per-
cent for one-way containers.11 Washing the
bottles accounts for about 20 percent of the
packaging cost of refillable bottles.
BUND proposes five key strategies to opti-
mize the use of refillable bottles:
1. Minimize transport distances to save en-
ergy and avoid emissions.
2. Reduce throwaway components, e.g., lids
and labels.
3. Make all materials completely recyclable
when they can no longer be refilled.
4. Achieve highest possible trippage.
5. Standardize shapes, sizes, and materials
56 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
Table 7-3: Costs of One-Way and Refillable Packages for Beverages in Germany
(based on 1 liter of beverage)
Refillable One-Way
Glass Bottles Glass
(15 fillings) Bottles
2 x 0.5 liter
Beverage Aluminum
Carton Cans
(costs in Pfennigs*)
Packaging Costs
1-liter beverage container
twist-off cap
label
racks/box/films, 300 reuses
Recycling Costs
green dot price 1992
reprocessing costs
primary packaging
reprocessing costs
transport packaging
Bottle Cleaning
Additional costs for handling
for retailers (taking
back empties)
for wholesale
(redistribution)
Total Packaging Costs
2.1
4.5
1.5
0.3
0
0.1
0
5
7
3
23.5
23
4.5
1.5
3.9
2
2
1
0
0
0
37.9
18.5 28
0 0
0 0
1.2 1.8
2, 4
2 4
0..3 0.5
,i
0 0
0 0
0 0
24 38.3
* 100 Pfennigs = DMl.OO. All costs are based on 1992 prices.
Source: BUND, "The Returnables
Roundabout
Environmentally Friendly System of Returnable
- Requirements for an
Drink Containers," Bonn.
to allow companies to refill and recycle
bottles that are not necessarily their own.
Costs and Deposits
Germany has an established system for refill-
ing mineral water, beer, and soft drink contain-
ers, and the retail prices of these beverages are
usually cheaper in refillable bottles. As for milk,
however, the systems are not as established, and
milk in a refillable bottle often costs more at
retail than milk in a one-way container. One li-
ter of milk in a refillable bottle typically costs
about DM 1.89, including the DM0.30 deposit;
one liter of milk in Tetra Pak (aseptic) typically
costs DMl.19. When consumers bring their own
bottles to the store and fill them at a dispenser,
called a "steel cow," the cost is generally the
same as the purchase price of milk in a refill-
able bottle. I
Deposits on refillable bottles in Germany
are high relative to the price of the product
undoubtedly a factor in achieving the high
trippage rates. Table 7-4 shows prices and de-
posits for selected beverages by container type,
based on data collected by INFORM in super-
markets in Bonn and Hanover. The data illus-
trate the relationship of deposits to prices.
German consumers frequently buy bever-
Maintaining the Refillable Beverage Container System 57
-------
Table 7-4: Selected German Supermarket Beverage Prices and Deposits by Product and Container Type
Product
Becks Beer
Becks Beer
Becks Beer
Lowenbrau Beer
Coke
Coke
Coke
Coke
Mineral water
Melkland milk
Melkland milk
Container
can
RFG
1-way G
RFG
can
RFG
1-way G
RFPET
RFG
RFG
Tetra Pak
Volume
(liters)
6 x 0.33L
20 x 0.5L
6 x 0.33L
0.5L
0.33L
12xlL
6 x 0.33L
1.5L
12 x 0.7L
1L
1L
Price*
(DM)
5.99
21.99
4.99
1.25
0.69
15.99
4.49
2.09
9.99
1.59
1.19
Deposit
(DM)
0
6.00
0
0.15
0
6.60
0
0.70
6.60
0.30
0
Price
per liter
(DM)
2.99
2.20
2.50
2.50
2.07
1.33
2.50
1.39
0.83
1.59
1.19
Price per
liter incl.
deposit (DM)
-
2.80
-
2.80
-
1.88
-
1.86
1.38
1.89
-
Deposit
(% of price)
-
27%
12%
-
41%
-
33%
66%
19%
Note: l)6x 0.33 liters means 6 cans of 0.33 liter each. In cases of multi-packs, the deposit is for the containers
and the crate; for single containers the deposit is for the container only. 2) Price relationships may fluctuate
with special sales promotions.
Key: RFG = refutable glass. 1-way G = one-way glass. RFPET = refutable PET.
* Price not including deposit.
Source: INFORM, supermarket prices recorded October 1992 in Bonn and May 1993 in Hanover.
ages by the crate, paying a single deposit to
cover all of the bottles and the plastic reusable
crate. A typical deposit for a case of 12 one-
liter bottles of Coke is DM6.6041 percent of
the DM15.99 price. A case of twelve 1.5-liter
bottles of mineral water also carries a DM6.60
deposit. As the mineral water is cheaper than
Coke, the deposit amounts to 66 percent of the
price. Deposit as a percentage of beverage price
drops for beverages sold without a case, such
as individual bottles of beer, and for more ex-
pensive beverages. The predominance of
refillables in Germany indicates that the depos-
its do not discourage their use. In fact, the hefty
deposits encourage a high rate of return, and
thus many refilling trips, which increase the
environmental benefits of refillables.
Retailers and Refillables
For retailers, the refill system is more costly
than a one-way system because they must
handle deposit redemptions and provide space
for storing returned bottles. Some large super-
markets have separate beverage stores in their
parking lots, where customers can drive up, drop
off empties, and pick up new crates of bever-
ages. Inner-city retailers, however, must pro-
vide bottle storage space in the store.
Refill systems work best and are most eco-
nomical when each type of drink is sold in a
standardized bottle. In Germany, for each' type
of beverage there is a standard container that
companies may choose to use. Using the stan-
dard container reduces costs because a company
need not get its own bottles back for refilling,
58 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
but simply the same number of standard bottles
it shipped.
Despite the inconveniences and costs to re-
tailers, most cooperate with the refillable sys-
tem even very small local shops. Retailers
cooperate because German consumers have
demonstrated a dedication to refillables, be-
cause many store owners believe in the envi-
ronmental value of the system, and because re-
filling has a long tradition in Germany. Small
retailers may also like refillables because they
bring customers back to the store to return the
bottles. However, two of the major discount
supermarket chains, Aldi and Lidl, have refused
to carry any refillables. These stores discount
heavily, have a high-volume business, and claim
that they lack the space to handle refillable
bottles.
For some consumers, home delivery is a
more convenient way of participating in the
refill system. Residents may receive weekly
deliveries of crates of water, beer, and soft
drinks and have the empty bottles collected.
Given that most refillable bottles are of heavy
glass, and that many German apartments have
no elevators, the service is extremely conve-
nient, but it comes at a price: home-delivered
beverages may cost twice as much as those
bought in the store.
Refillable Plastic PET Containers
Refillable polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
bottles have been a great success in Germany
since their introduction in 1988. Their share of
the carbonated soft-drink market has grown
from 1.3 percent in 1988 to 14 percent in 1992,
mainly replacing refillable glass.12 This is the
fastest growing material for beverage contain-
ers in Germany and has already captured half
the soft drink markets in the Netherlands and
Norway.13 Refillable PET bottles are not used
in the United States. (iNFORM's new report, Case
Reopened: Reassessing Refillable Bottles, pre-
sents a detailed study of refillable beverage
containers in the United States.)
Refillable PET's advantages are that it is
light in weight, nonbreakable and, according to
the beverage industry, can make 25 trips. It is
easier to carry and transport than glass, and it
can be made in larger sizes, such as the popular
1.5-liter size.
However, some environmental groups in
Germany strongly prefer glass to PET. BUND,
for example, opposes the use of refillable PET
bottles for the following reasons:
Low trip rate. BUND estimates that re-
fillable PET bottles are making on aver-
age four or five trips, not the 25 trips
claimed by the Coca-Cola and PepsiCo
companies.14 Others in the beverage in-
dustry estimate the trippage at six to eight
but say it will increase, since the tech-
nology is improving rapidly.15
Recycling isn't a closed loop. BUND
notes that there is closed-loop recycling
for glass but not for PET. In other words,
refillable glass bottles are recycled into
new glass bottles at the end of their life-
cycle, whereas PET bottles are recycled
into different products, such as plastic
lumber. Recycled PET is not allowed to
be used for packaging that comes directly
into contact with food or beverages for
human consumption, because of the pos-
sibility of contamination.
Use of additives. BUND is concerned that
various additives are used in PET, mak-
ing standardization difficult. The addi-
tives have properties, such as heat toler-
ance, that react differently during
washing and refilling. BUND claims the
Maintaining the Refillable Beverage Container System 59
-------
variety of additives could create problems
in washing and refilling if one company
gets back another company's bottles.
Long-distance transport. BUND is con-
cerned about the energy and environmen-
tal consequences of shipping refillable
PET bottles over long distances. For ex-
ample, while Coke had 20 filling plants
for glass, it has only five for its PET
bottles in all of Germany. Coke says the
large investment needed for PET filling
plants requires it to consolidate its op-
erations for economic reasons and run the
plants on three shifts.16
Case Study: Development of a
Refillable PET Bottle for Juices
While Germany has a strong tradition of using
refillable bottles for mineral water, beer, and
carbonated soft drinks, this is not true for non-
carbonated drinks, such as juices. As shown in
Table 7-1, only 37 percent of noncarbonated soft
drinks are sold in refillable bottles. The follow-
ing section describes the Rudolph Wild
Company's development of a refillable plastic
bottle for hot-filled juices. The case study is
based on interviews INFORM conducted with
Wild representatives in Germany, and on infor-
mation from Schoeller Plast GmbH, one of the
companies in the partnership that ultimately
bought the bottling equipment from Wild.
(Schoeller Plast is affiliated with Schoeller In-
ternational, the company that developed the
MTS returnable shipping containers described
in Chapter 4.)
The Rudolph Wild company in Heidelberg
developed the refillable plastic polyethylene
(PET) bottle for its Capri-Sonne brand of juices.
The company is part of Wild International, a
private group of companies involved in manu-
facturing fruit juices, fruit flavorings, and other
fruit products for the food industry; filling
equipment; and refillable bottles and pouches.
Besides making bottles and pouches for its own
fruit products, the company makes refill
pouches for other products, including deter-
gents, shampoos, and cosmetics.
Wild usually sells its Capri-Sonne juice in
lightweight aluminum pouches, which it mar-
kets in 42 countries, including the United States,
where the licensee is Kraft-General Foods. Wild
got the green dot that is, the recycling guar-
antee from the aluminum industry, which re-
cycles the pouches.17 Capri-Sonne juice has
been a highly successful product for Wild, and
the company intended to continue marketing it
in the pouches as well as the refillable bottles.
Wild says both refillable and one-way contain-
ers have a place on the market. For the latter,
Wild cites the convenience of using them in
school lunches, on trips, and at the beach.
Green Dot Fees as an Incentive
DSD's 1992 green dot fees provided an incen-
tive to develop refillable bottles. Wild packages
Capri-Sonne juice in boxes of 10 pouches, so
11 green dots were required for the complete
box (one for each of the 10 pouches and one
for the outer box), for a total per-box fee of
DM0.22 ($0.13). The fees represented a 5.5 per-
cent addition to the previous DM3.99 ($2.40)
retail price. After implementation of the green
dot system, the retail price rose 11 percent to
DM4.50 ($2.70). Although green dot fees do not
account for all of this increase, they do account
for a large portion: an increase of 5.5 percent
at the manufacturer's level leads to a greater
increase in the consumer price because distribu-
tors and retailers mark up from a higher base.
60 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
Wild reports that 1992 was the first year sales
of Capri-Sonne did not increase, possibly due
to the large price increase.
Under the 1993 schedule, the green dot fees
for Capri-Sonne decreased substantially be-
cause they are based on weight, rather than the
number of packages in the box. The fee for a
box of 10 is about DM0.06 ($0.04) for the 10
pouches and DM0.06 for the box, for a total of
DM0.12 ($0.07) about half of the former
green dot fee.18
technical Problems and Costs
Technical problems arise in designing a refill-
able plastic bottle for juices because they are
not carbonated and must be filled at high tem-
peratures. The design of a plastic bottle is dif-
ferent for carbonated and noncarbonated bev-
erages. The pressure within the carbonated drink
bottle maintains its shape and prevents shrink-
age. Because of this pressure, a one-way bottle
can be thin and light in weight, and is thus eas-
ily collapsed and discarded when empty. Re-
fillable plastic bottles for carbonated drinks
must be mechanically stable when empty; there-
fore, they are heavier than one-way bottles. A
refillable bottle for noncarbonated beverages is
heavier still, as it also must hold its shape with-
out the carbonation. A bottle for hot-filled juices
must also be able to withstand high tempera-
tures for filling.
Wild fills its juices at 83°C. According to
the company, a round bottle would not have the
required mechanical stability for filling at this
temperature, so the Wild bottle is square, with
a design that allows for contraction and expan-
sion as the temperature of the juice changes.
These one-liter bottles can make up to 20 trips:
shrinkage from washing and refillingpre-
vents greater trippage. Shrinkage could be re-
duced if the bottles were made at a higher tem-
perature, but the higher temperatures make the
bottles cloudy, raising problems of consumer
acceptance.
The bottles are laser-coded on a rim around
the neck each time they are refilled, so they can
be pulled from the line after the 20th trip. To
assure that plastic bottles are not contaminated,
Wild placed "snifters" on the filling lines. The
snifters, which cost DM 1-2 million ($600,000 -
1.2 million) each, can detect if the bottle has
been contaminated by a foreign substance and
should be removed.
The Wild refillable one-liter bottle cost DMl
($0.60) to make, more than three times the cost
of a one-way PET bottle. It had a deposit fee of
DM0.70 ($0.42), refunded upon return of the
bottle. Wild estimated the cost of washing and
inspecting a six-bottle case at about DM0.20
($0.12) and put transportation costs at DM0.30
($0.18) per case, twice the cost for the lighter
one-way bottles. Yet, Wild estimated that the
refillable is cheaper than the one-way if it makes
more than five trips and is shipped less than
300km (about 180 miles). Wild said a standard
truck could cany approximately 18 metric tons
of liquid in pouches, compared with 12 tons in
refillable one-liter plastic bottles, and nine tons
in refillable glass bottles.
Use of the PET Bottle
The success of the refillable PET bottle used
by Coca-Cola and PepsiCo clearly encouraged
Wild to develop the new plastic refillable con-
tainer for juices. According to Wild, consum-
ers like them because they are light and do not
break. Wild notes PET is the fastest growing
material for beverage containers in Germany,
and all PET beverage containers hi Germany
are refillable.19
Maintaining the Refillable Beverage Container System 61
-------
Although Wild developed the refillable PET
bottle for its own juice products sold under the
Capri-Sonne label, it hoped to sell the bottle to
and do the filling for other companies. If the
separate Ordinance on Refillables is passed,
mandated refill rates for noncarbonated juices
and soft drinks could reach 45 percent in 1997
and 50 percent in 1999. In response to the Pack-
aging Ordinance, two of the largest juice com-
panies, namely Granini and Eckes, have in-
creased their use of refillables. Wild hoped its
bottle would become the standard for noncar-
bonated drinks, but the decision will ultimately
be made by the large juice producers.
Wild's plastic refillable went on the market
in July 1991; it was still the only plastic refill-
able for hot-filled beverages in Germany in
1992. As of INFORM's October 1992 visit, it had
not been very successful, perhaps because of
the way new products are marketed in Germany.
To get space on retail shelves, Wild had to pay
retailers a high "entrance fee." The refillable
bottle was in only 12.5 percent of stores at that
time, as Wild was not prepared to pay greater
entrance fees to increase its market penetration.
At the end of 1992 Wild sold the equipment
for the production of the refillable PET bottles
to a company called REF-PET SYSTEMS a
partnership between Schoeller Plast GmbH and
Franz Delbrouck GmbH. REF-PET intends to
produce and sell refillable PET bottles for both
noncarbonated and carbonated soft drinks, and
milk. As of mid-October 1993, it was running
tests on the hot-filled juice bottles to resolve
technical problems of filling at high tempera-
tures and extending shelf life. It expected to
begin marketing these bottles in the second half
of 1994. Schoeller said two other companies in
Germany and France are also developing re-
fillable plastic bottles for hot-filled juices.20
Notes
1. Thomas Rummler and Wolfgang Schutt, The Ger-
man Packaging Ordinance: A Practical Guide with
Commentary, Hamburg: B. Behr's Verlag GmbH &
Co., 1990, p. 59.
2. Fraunhofer-Institut, "Okobilanzen zu Einweg- und
Mehrwegverpackungssystemen am Beispiel von
Frischmilch und Bier" ("Ecobalances for One-way
and Refillable Packaging Systems Using the Ex-
amples of Fresh Milk and Beer"), press release,
Munich, September 8,1993.
3. Federal Environment Ministry (BMU), "Okobilanz
fur Gertrankeverpackungen" ("Ecobalance for Bev-
erage Packages"), press release, Bonn, September
21,1993.
4. Rummler and Schutt, op. cit., p. 58.
5. Rummler and Schutt, ibid.
6. Rummler and Schutt, ibid., p. 106.
7. Rummler and Schutt, ibid., p. 59.
8. BUND, "The Returnables Roundabout - Require-
ments for an Environmentally-Friendly System of
Returnable Drink Containers," Bonn, p. 11.
9. BUND, ibid.
10. Bernd Hader (Coca-Cola, Essen), telephone inter-
view, October 23,1992.
11. BUND, op. cit., p. 9.
12. Gesellschaft fur Verpackungsmarktforschung
(GVM) (Association for Packaging Market Re-
search), Wiesbaden, 1992.
13. Robert C. Levandoski, "Europe Eyes 90% Recov-
ery Rate for all Beverage Packaging," Beverage In-
dustry, April 1993, p. 47.
14. Olaf Bandt (BUND, Bonn), interview, October 21,
1992; and "PET-Mehrweg-(k)eine 6'kologische Al-
ternative?" ("PET- Refill-(no) Ecological Alterna-
tive?"), BUND, 1992.
15. Eberhard Kraft (Rudolf Wild Co., Heidelberg), in-
terview, October 14, 1992.
16. Bernd Hader (Coca-Cola, Essen), telephone inter-
view, October 23, 1992.
17. Eberhard Kraft (Rudolf Wild Co., Heidelberg), tele-
phone interview, July 1,1993.
18. Kraft, ibid.
19. Kraft, interview, October 14,1992.
20. Claus Trube (Schoeller Plast GmbH, Dusseldorf),
written communication, October 25 and November
4,1993.
62 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
Chapter 8: Plastics and the Packaging Ordinance
Meeting the Packaging Ordinance's recycling
quota for plastics has become the Achilles' heel
of the Dual System: the broad consensus is that
the system will fail, and industry will lose its
exemption unless this problem is solved. Duales
System Deutschland (DSD), facing a crisis in
mid-1993, completely restructured the system
for recycling plastics. It created a new company
to manage plastic recycling and replace the
original one, and it increased the green dot fees
for plastics. This chapter examines the issue of
plastics recycling in Germanyhow problems
evolved and what is being done to solve them.
The Plastics Industry Resists
Most of the materials industries responsible for
recycling packaging waste glass, metals,
paper, and composites have cooperated with
DSD and have worked to improve recycling
technologies and increase recycling capacities.
The plastics industry has not. The giant chemi-
cal companies that make plastics Bayer,
BASF, and Hoechst, for example have
claimed they cannot meet the recycling quotas
in the Packaging Ordinance and need more time.
Three approaches to handling used plastics
that the plastics industry considers recycling are:
1) mechanical recycling, in which plastics are
ground up and reused in a variety of products,
such as carpet fiber, bottles, and pipe, 2) chemi-
cal recycling, in which plastics are broken down
into smaller chemical compounds, such as syn-
thetic crude oil used as fuel, or chemicals that
may be used to create new products, and 3) in-
cineration with energy recovery. The big chemi-
cal companies continue to argue that incinera-
tion with energy recovery, which they call
"thermal recycling," should count toward the
recycling quotas, but the government has re-
jected this contentiori because it does not con-
sider this technology recycling.
The Packaging Ordinance undeniably poses
a major challenge for the plastics industry. Of
the 1.4 million metric tons of German plastic
packaging waste covered by the ordinance in
1992 (shown in Table; 3-5), only 50,000 metric
tons, or 3.8 percent, was recycled.1 The Pack-
aging Ordinance mandates 9 percent recycling
of plastic primary packaging in 1993 and 64
percent by 1995, raising serious questions of
whether and how these rates can be attained.
Plastics and the Packaging Ordinance 63
-------
The plastics industry has resisted making a
major investment in recycling because of the
expense, and perhaps also the fear that recycled
resins may undermine the market for virgin res-
ins. The Berlin Technical College (Technische
Fachhochschule Berlin, orTFB) study of DSD's
costs cited in Chapter 6 estimated the costs of
bins and collection for the "light fraction" of
packaging (plastics, metals, and composites) at
DM480-880 ($288-528) per ton. This study esti-
mated that the cost of sorting plastics ranges from
DM898 to DM4,256 ($539-2,554) per ton, and that
the total cost of recycling plastics, including col-
lecting and sorting, ranges from DM2,540-6,610
($1,524-3,966) per tonabout 20 times the cost
of collecting and burning plastics.2
The plastics industry has waged an inten-
sive campaign for government recognition of
incineration with energy recovery as a legiti-
mate recycling technology. According to Dr.
Karl-Geert Malle of BASF, one of the world's
biggest chemical producers, "It is a lot more
difficult to recycle plastics than paper or
glass....It costs more to recycle plastics than to
make new plastics and incinerate used plas-
tics."3 On the other hand, Gerhard Riischen,
chairman of Nestle" Deutschland and former
chairman of DSD's advisory board, says the
plastics industry took the wrong approach ini-
tially: "For too long a period they relied on
thermal recycling, which is rejected by public
opinion."4
DSD and the Federal Environment Minis-
try (Bundesministerium fur Umwelt, Natur-
schutz und Reaktorsicherheit, or BMU) have
rebuffed the plastics industry's pleas to count
"thermal recycling" toward the mandated re-
cycling quotas. According to Michael Scriba,
general counsel of DSD in 1992, "the chemical
industry needs to realize that the burning of plas-
tics is politically unacceptable."5 Rejecting
industry's request to delay implementation of
the 64 percent recycling quota from 1995 to
1999, Environment Minister Topfer said, "No
exceptions involving an extension of the dead-
lines will be made for any type of material."6
A Plastics Glut
In the spring of 1993, a plastics crisis erupted:
DSD was collecting more plastics than planned
and far more than could be recycled. Of the
roughly 1 million metric tons of primary plas-
tic packaging, DSD was required to collect 30
percent in 1993 and recycle 30 percent of what
it collected, for an effective mandated recycling
rate of 9 percent. In other words, the quota speci-
fied the collection of about 300,000 metric tons
and the recycling of about 90,000 metric tons.
DSD announced in May that it would collect
400,000 tons in 1993 more than four times
as much as it was mandated to recycle. A major
conflict developed over what DSD should do
with the plastics it collected but was not required
to recycle.
The ordinance itself failed to deal with the
issue, even though it might have been antici-
pated that a public that had conscientiously
sorted packaging waste and paid green dot fees
to have it collected separately would not be
happy to learn that DSD was sending much of
the material collected to landfills and incinera-
tors. Timing was part of the problem, as DSD
was required simultaneously to coordinate the
establishment of a new collection system with
the creation of new recycling capacity. While
the collection quotas for all materials are higher
than their respective recycling quotas, in prac-
tice the disparities became a significant prob-
lem only for plastics; DSD claimed it was able
to recycle all of the other materials collected.7
As of June 1993, DSD reported that the
64 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
Technical Inspection Agency (Technische Uber-
wachungsverein, or TUV) working group had
identified 276,000 metric tons of plastics recy-
cling capacity for 1993: 124,000 metric tons
in Germany and 152,000 tons abroad.8 By July
1993, DSD had signed contracts for recycling
161,000 metric tons: 60,000 metric tons in
Germany and 77,000 metric tons abroad were
slated for mechanical recycling. Another 24,000
metric tons were designated for chemical recy-
cling at a plant in Bottrop, Germany.9 The DSD
contracts for recycling 161,000 metric tons of
plastics in 1993 gave DSD a capacity almost
double the amount it was mandated to recycle,
but this capacity equaled only 40 percent of the
amount of plastics DSD would collect in 1993.
The States Protest
As stockpiles of plastics grew in 1993, public
concern also rose, leading a number of the
states, including Lower Saxony, Hamburg,
Baden-Wurttemberg, and Rhineland-Palatinate,
to protest. Monika Griefahn, the environment
minister of Lower Saxony, threatened to revoke
industry's exemption from the ordinance's man-
datory deposits and from the requirement that
stores take back primary packages. She was one
of the three state environment ministers who
had granted the exemption conditionally, as de-
scribed in Chapter 9. DSD contended that, as it
would exceed the collection quota for 1993,
there was no legal basis for this action. It
warned, "The environmental minister of Lower
Saxony is in grave danger of letting herself be
swayed by environmentally political reaction-
aries."10 According to Griefahn, if stores must
take back packages, they will pressure their
suppliers to use more refillable containers,
thereby reducing packaging waste.11
Klaudia Martini, the environment minister
of Rhineland-Palatinate, complained, "We are
suffocating under mountains of DSD waste and
we have no more storage for it."12 Martini, too,
threatened to withdraw industry's exemption.
After negotiations, DSD agreed to transport the
plastics collected in Rhineland-Palatinate either
to recycling facilities or intermediate storage
facilities.
Wolfram Brack, chairman of DSD's board
of directors, contended that DSD should not be
held responsible for the large amount of non-
packaging plastic materials it was collecting.
As described in Chapter 6, DSD claims 40 per-
cent of the materials in its bins much of it
plastic products is not packaging. Brack ar-
gues that, "The problems with which we are
currently being confronted in Rhineland-
Palatinate are due to the success of the Dual
System. Far more plastics are being collected,
sorted, and recycled at present than actually
required by the Packaging Ordinance. The fed-
eral states and municipalities are the first to
benefit from this. It is ridiculous to try to use
this success against the Dual System."13 The
municipalities would have to collect and dis-
pose of these materi;als if DSD did not collect
them. According to DSD, the amount of waste
going to landfills has declined by up to 30 per-
cent in many localities, saving local authorities
about DMl billion ($>600 million).14
DSD tried to alleviate the plastics crisis by
proposing to reduce the amount of plastics it
sorted until the recycling capacity could be in-
creased. Under this plan, only the plastics more
easily recycled, such as bottles, would be sorted,
and the remainder of plastics collected but not
sorted would be disposed of as waste sent to
incinerators or landfills. "We know this is an
unpopular decision," said Brack.15 He was cor-
rect: the decision led to widespread press re-
Plastics and the Packaging Ordinance 65
-------
ports that DSD had approved the burning of
plastics, and the plan was withdrawn. Environ-
ment Minister Klaus Topfer acted as the inter-
mediary in a compromise negotiated between
DSD and the Association of Local Authorities
that was announced July 25, 1993. Under this
agreement, DSD would continue to sort all the
plastics it collected but would recycle more
abroad and put the rest in storage for two or
three years until adequate recycling capacity
was available. Wolfram Briick claimed that a
capacity of 700,000 - 800,000 metric tons would
be available by 1996. As part of the compro-
mise, the localities agreed to help solve DSD's
financial problems by reducing the amount
DSD was to pay them by DM80 million ($48
million).16
The Role of Chemical Recycling
Germany must build plastics recycling capac-
ity quickly to meet the 1995 quota, set by the
Packaging Ordinance, for recycling more than
600,000 metric tons. Although the government
has denied industry's requests to count incin-
eration with energy recovery toward the plas-
tics recycling quota, it has agreed to count
"chemical" recycling. DSD believes "that the
future of plastic recycling lies in chemical re-
cycling processes, which reconvert used pack-
aging into the starting product oil, into petro-
chemical products or gases. These robust
processes are particularly suitable for the pro-
cessing of mixed plastics and consequently
simple sorting."17 Chemical recycling provides
three major advantages to industry: the sorting
process is cheaper, as mixed plastics can be pro-
cessed with little sorting; large capacity can be
developed in a relatively short time using ex-
isting oil refineries; and the end product, oil or
gas, does not compete with plastics.
Chemical recycling experiments have been
conducted at the Kohleol-Anlage Bottrop
(KAB) plant run by Veba Oel AG in Bottrop.
The plant's annual plastics recycling capacity
was 24,000 metric tons per year in mid-1993
and was expected to increase to 40,000 metric
tons per year by 1994.18 It employs the hydro-
genation process, in which the long plastic
chains are cracked at high pressure and high
temperatures in the absence of oxygen; hydro-
gen is added to create synthetic crude oil prod-
ucts, which can be used in fuels and lubricants
and to manufacture plastics.
DSD expects RWE Entsorgungs AG, Ger-
many's largest waste management company, to
chemically recycle 70,000 metric tons of plas-
tic per year starting in 1995, and it expects that
another 200,000 metric tons will be chemically
recycled at plants in the former East Germany,
around Halle, Merseburg, and Bitterfeld.19 Of
the 1995 recycling capacity identified by DSD
as of June 1993, chemical recycling accounted
for about half.20
In response to questions about the environ-
mental effects of chemical recycling, the TUVs
commissioned three universities to conduct a
technical study comparing data from two chemi-
cal recycling plants the KAB hydrogenation
plant and the Energiewerke Schwarze Pumpe
(ESPAG) gasification plant with data from
waste-to-energy plants.21 The universities com-
puted "energy balances" showing the percent-
age of energy recovered in the processes stud-
ied. The results indicated that only 50-70
percent of the energy present in plastics is re-
covered in modern waste-to-energy plants, com-
pared with 76-86 percent at the KAB hydroge-
nation plant and 73-76 percent at the ESPAG
gasification plant. Wolfram Briick of DSD con-
cluded, "These energy balances confirm that we
are moving in the right direction....We assume
66 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
that the results obtained will lead to political
support for Duales System and to further in-
vestments in recycling plants."22
However, despite the apparent energy bal-
ance advantages of chemical recycling over in-
cineration claimed in the study, INFORM'S analy-
sis finds it limited. The study does not consider
a key question: what is done with the end prod-
uct of the gasification or hydrogenation pro-
cesses? Are the resulting materials burned or
used as chemical building blocks? Energy bal-
ance studies do not answer comprehensive life-
cycle questions regarding the overall environ-
mental consequences of chemical recycling.
Briick claims chemical recycling will be
more economical than waste-to-energy incin-
eration. He says the hydrogenation costs are
now about DM800 ($480) per ton and that if
large-scale hydrogenation plants with capaci-
ties of several hundred thousand tons per year
were built, the costs of reprocessing plastics
could be reduced to about DM300 ($180) per
ton.23 Briick has pointed to average incinera-
tion costs of about DM600 ($360) per ton, but
he has not made public the basis of his esti-
mate. The figure seems high, compared with
the incineration tipping fees in the range of
DM 100-300 ($60 - $180), reported to INFORM
in Heidelberg and Wuppertal a range that
was consistent with the Berlin Technical Col-
lege (TFB) data.24 Fees at new waste-to-energy
plants are about DM400 ($240) per metric ton.25
Who Will Invest in
Plastics Recycling?
Should chemical recycling prove economically
and environmentally viable, it could enable
DSD to meet the plastics recycling quotas.
However, building the necessary recycling in-
frastructure requires a major investment, which
industry has not yet made. On June 25, 1993,
DSD announced a "drastic" reorganization of
plastics recycling. It established a new company,
called DEKUR-Kunststoff Recycling (DKR),
to take over the tasks of plastics recycling for-
merly performed by VGK (Verwertungsge-
sellschaft gebrauchte Kunststoffverpackungen
mbH), the company established and funded by
the chemical industry. In addition to VGK's
failure to make sufficient investment in recy-
cling capacity, its loss of credibility had become
damaging to the Dual System. The public
prosecutor's office in Frankfurt was investigat-
ing it on charges of fraud and deceit: VGK was
suspected of illegally shipping used plastic
packaging to France and to Bulgaria, as well as
other places in Eastern Europe.26
DKR will have capital of DM50 million ($30
million), half to be contributed by the public
utility and waste management industries and
one quarter each to be contributed by DSD and
the chemical industry.27 DKR's operating ex-
penses will be financed by green dot fees for
plastics, which DSD, raised in June to DM3.00
($1.80) per kilogram, from DM2.61 ($1.57) per
kilogram (announced in March 1993) "to as-
sure the long-term financing of DKR."28 As dis-
cussed in Chapter 6, the green dot fee for plas-
tic packaging is far higher than that for any other
material because the fee includes some recy-
cling costs: for all other materials, the respec-
tive materials industries bear the recycling costs.
Although the chemical industry has refused
to pay the full costs of plastics recycling, the
incentives are working as envisioned in the or-
dinance. Including plastics recycling costs in
the green dot fees means these costs will be in-
corporated into the price of plastic packaging,
thereby affecting the competitive position of
plastic relative to other packaging materials.
The GVM report on packaging changes re-
Plastics and the Packaging Ordinance 67
-------
leased in July 1993 (described in Chapter 6),
found that plastic packaging had decreased by
more than 60,000 metric tons, or about 4 per-
cent, from 1991 to 1992 about the average
decrease for all packaging materials. Larger de-
creases in plastic packaging were expected af-
ter the new green dot fees took effect in Octo-
ber 1993. The fee per kilogram for plastic is
almost 20 times the fee for glass. However,
because plastic is lighter, the per package dif-
ference in fees is not that great (as shown in
Table 6-5).
Despite the many opportunities to substi-
tute other materials for plastics in packaging,
their versatility affords many uses for which
there are no comparable substitutes. While the
ordinance discourages the use of plastic for
single-use packaging, it encourages a shift from
corrugated cardboard boxes to reusable plastic
shipping containers, such as the MTS reusable
container system described in Chapter 4.
Large, well-financed companies, such as the
utility RWE, have begun investing in chemical
recycling facilities for plastics, assuming that
when the take-back and recycling of products
such as automobiles and electronics are man-
dated (as discussed in Chapter 10), demand for
chemical recycling will increase. Packaging ac-
counts for 21 percent of plastic waste in Ger-
many; the auto industry accounts for 7 percent.29
Environmental Concerns about
Poly vinyl Chloride
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) poses a particular
problem that goes beyond the general complexi-
ties of recycling plastics. Some politicians and
consumer and environmental groups in Ger-
many have demanded a ban on PVC packag-
ing. Greenpeace has waged a major interna-
tional offensive against PVC, advocating a ban
on all chlorine production because of the toxics
emitted in the production and use of chlorinated
products. A study in the United States by Tellus
Institute, a nonprofit consulting firm, found
PVC the most environmentally damaging pack-
aging material. A study commissioned by the
German Federal Ministry for Research and
Technology in 1989 found that "although PVC
packaging makes up only 0.5 percent of the
volume of waste by weight, it is responsible for
50 percent of the chlorine in the waste stream."30
PVC complicates the recycling process. It
is difficult to separate PVC from polyethylene
terephthalate (PET), commonly used in bever-
age containers, because the materials look alike,
yet one PVC bottle can contaminate 100,000
PET bottles in the recycling process.31 At the
KAB plant, the mixed plastics feedstock can
contain only 10 percent PVC because the plant
cannot handle a higher percentage of chlorides.
As plastic packaging is not labeled by resin
in Germany, the consumer is not informed
whether a package contains PVC and therefore
cannot choose whether or not to purchase it.
PVC is often used to package meats and other
food products, including yogurt, jam, and
ketchup.
In a survey published in March 1992, DSD
contacted a random sample of 400 companies,
315 of which returned useful responses.32 DSD
queried the companies on the materials used to
substitute for blister packs, PVC, and compos-
ites. As the three pie charts in Figure 8-1 indi-
cate, much of the substitution for these packag-
ing materials was accomplished by actually
eliminating the entire package or a layer of
packaging. When substitute materials were
used, they consisted primarily of paper, poly-
ethylene (PE), and polypropylene (PP).
PVC packaging is being phased out in other
countries, including Switzerland, Sweden, the
68 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
Figure 8-1: Packaging Changes Made by Companies in Germany to Eliminate or Substitute for PVC
Composites, and Blister Packs
1. Elimination/Substitutions for PVC
Polyethylene
Polypropylene
Polystyrene
Paper/paperboard
Eliminate
2. Elimination/Substitutions for Composites
Polyethylene
Polypropylene
Recycled paper/
paperboard
3. Elimination/Substitutions for Blister Packs
Polyethylene
Polypropylene
Recycled paper/paperboard
Other recycled material
Wood
Paper/paperboard
Eliminate
Paper/paperboard
Eliminate
aboutrn n^tT ^fJ311?' "Daten und Fasten zum Grunen Punkt: Okologische Verpackungsoptimiemng" ("Data and Facts
about the Green Dot: Ecological Packaging Optimization"), Bonn, March 1992.
Plastics and the Packaging Ordinance 69
-------
Netherlands, and Australia. In the United States,
Procter & Gamble announced that it would
phase outPVC by 1994.33 The large department
Stores Hertie and Karstadt and the Tengelmann
supermarket chain have said they plan to elimi-
nate packages with PVC from their stores.34
According to the Environment Ministry, "there
is no future for PVC in packaging in Ger-
many."35
Exporting Used Plastic Packaging
Given the difficulties in building recycling ca-
pacity for plastics in Germany, it is not surpris-
ing that used plastic packaging is being ex-
ported.
Shipments of German plastic packaging
waste have turned up as far away as Jakarta and
Singapore, and the environment senator of the
city of Hamburg, Fritz Vahrenholt, stopped the
loading of 1,200 metric tons bound for India.
"Without proof of proper recycling, nothing is
leaving here," he said. Waste managers in Ger-
many assert that wastes from Europe, shipped
to Third World countries, usually end up in land-
fills.36 To prevent this, DSD has asked the TUVs
to monitor 110 plastics recyclers worldwide.
The new EC rules on international ship-
ments of waste, discussed in Chapter 12, pro-
hibit the export of recyclable materials destined
for landfills or incinerators. The regulations
require that materials shipped be actually re-
cycled, but monitoring is likely to remain a
problem.
System's Success Hinges on
Plastics Recycling
Recycling plastic packaging is clearly key to
the Dual System's success and even its sur-
vival. Meeting the recycling quotas of the Pack-
aging Ordinance has been more difficult for
plastics than for any other material. The timely
development of adequate recycling capacity,
using technologies accepted by the German
government and DSD, is necessary if industry
is not to lose its exemption.
Building adequate recycling capacity for
plastics will require an investment of billions
of Deutsche Marks. The series of crises that
faced DSD in 1993 have left the future of the
Dual System in doubt. The chemical industry
continues to hope that the crises and stockpil-
ing of plastics will force the government to ac-
cept burning plastics, "thermal recycling," as a
way of meeting the recycling quotas, even as
some of the opposition parties and environmen-
talists oppose counting chemical recycling to-
ward those quotas. New technologies, such as
using plastics as a substitute for coal in steel
production, are under consideration. But until
there is more certainty on a policy for plastics,
it is unlikely that the massive investments re-
quired to reach the recycling quotas will be
made.37
Notes
1. William H. Le Maire, "Germany's Precedent-Set-
ting Dual System, AModel for the Future or a Blue-
print for Chaos?" Packaging Strategies' Green 2000,
Vol. 2, No. 7, West Chester, PA, July 1992, p. 12.
2. Technische Fachhochschule Berlin, (Dr. Dieter
Berndt, et. al.),Abschatzung der gegenwartigen und
zukttnftigen Kostenfiir das Sammeln und Sortieren
von Verkaufsverpackungen imdualen System (Trans-
70 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15
16
17
18
19
20,
21.
parente Modellrechnung) (Estimate of Present and
Future Costs for Collection and Sorting of Sales
Packaging in the Dual System), Berlin, August 1992,
p. 18.
Samantha Swiss, "Pack up Your Troubles," Environ-
ment Risk, April 1992.
Don Loepp, "German Package Recycling Goals May
Be Unattainable," Plastics News, November 2,1992,
p.l.
Swiss, op. cit.
"Germans Heartened by First Test of Chemical Re-
cycling," Plastics News, May 18,1992, p. 15.
DSD, "New Sorting Criteria for Plastics: Sorted Ma-
terial Will Be Recycled," press release, Bonn, July
1, 1993.
DSD, "Recycling Capacities for Plastic 1993," press
release, Bonn, June 4, 1993.
Ibid.
DSD, "Threats to Revoke Exemption for Plastic
Packaging Constitute Totally Wrong Signal," press
release, Bonn, June 17, 1993.
Monika Griefahn (Environment Minister of Lower
Saxony), telephone interview, June 30, 1993.
. Arian Genillard, "Too Much of a Good Thing," Fi-
nancial Times, London, June 23, 1993, p. 10.
.DSD, "Problems in Rhineland-Palatinate Being
Solved," press release, Bonn, June 16, 1993.
. DSD, "Reform Proposals from Five Local Govern-
ment Bodies are Unimaginative," press release July
21, 1993.
. DSD, "New Sorting Criteria for Plastics," press re-
lease, July 1, 1993.
DSD, "Agreement with Local Authorities," press
release, July 25, 1993.
DSD "New Sorting Criteria for Plastics," op. cit.
DSD "Recycling Capacities for Plastic 1993,"
op. cit.
Ibid.
Ibid.
The study commissioned by the TUVs was con-
ducted under the direction of professors at three uni-
versities: Dr. F. Ebert, Universitat Kaiserslautern,
Department of Mechanical Process Engineering and
Fluid Mechanics; Dr. M. Baerns, Ruhr-Universitat
Bochum, Department of Technical Chemistry; Dr.
E. Klose, Technische Universitat Bergakademie
Freiberg, Institute for Energy Process Engineering
and Chemical Engineering.
22. DSD, "Recovery of Raw Materials from Plastic
Packaging," press release, July 7,1993.
23. Ibid. ',
24. Rolf Friedel (Stadt Heidelberg, Amt fur Abfallwirt-
schaft und Stadtreinigung [City of Heidelberg, De-
partment of Sanitation]), interview, October 14,
1992; and Erwin Rothgang (Amtes fur Umwelt-
schutz, Stadtverwaltung Wuppertal [Department of
Environmental Protection, City Administration Wup-
pertal]), interview, October 28, 1992.
25. Jan C. Bongaerts (Institut fur Europaische Umwelt-
politik e.V., [Institute for European Environmental
Policy (IEEP)], Bonn), written communication, Sep-
tember 13,1993.
26. "Recovery Loses Out to Eco-Tax Option," Europe
Environment, No. 412, Europe Information Service,
Brussels, June 22, 1993, p. 17.
27. DSD, "Drastic Reorganization at DSD," press re-
lease, June 25, 1993.
28. Ibid. ' i
29. BMW, "Recycling of Plastics," 1991.
30. Environmental Action Foundation, Washington, DC,
Solid Waste Action Paper #8, "The Real Wrap on
Poly vinyl Chloride Packaging," p. 3.
31. Ibid.
32. DSD, "Daten und Fakten zum Griinen Punkt: Oko-
logische Verpackungsoptimierung" ("Data and Facts
about the Green Dot: Ecological Packaging Optimi-
zation"), Bonn, March 1992, p. 3.
33. Environmental Action Foundation, op. cit., p. 4.
34. Maria Rieping (Die iVerbraucher Initiative [DVI]
[The Consumer Initiative], Bonn), interview, Octo-
ber 21, 1992. i
35. Hubert Gehring (BMU), interview, Baltimore, MD,
July 15, 1993. !
36. "Kippe in Fernost" (Garbage Dump in Far East), Der
Spiegel, No. 53, December 28, 1992, p. 48.
37. Joachim H. Spangenb'erg (The Wuppertal Institute),
"The German Waste Policy," September 27,1993.
Plastics and the Packaging Ordinance 71
-------
Chapter 9: Criticisms of the Packaging Ordinance
and the Dual System
Criticism in Germany
INFORM conducted a month-long series of in-
terviews with public and private organizations
throughout Germany in the fall of 1992 that
revealed widespread support for the underly-
ing principles of the Packaging Ordinance.
(Appendix C lists the sources interviewed.)
Throughout its interview and research process,
INFORM did not find public opposition to the
principle of making industry responsible for the
waste generated by its packages. INFORM also
found that industry favored the market-based
approach that allows the private sector to work
out the details, rather than subjecting compa-
nies to "command and control" government
regulations.
Despite generally positive reactions from
much of the public and industry, environmen-
talists, consumer groups, political leaders, and
the Green Party criticized the Packaging Ordi-
nance early on for not promoting a program
strong enough to reduce packaging waste sig-
nificantly. Critics have focused on Duales Sys-
tem Deutschland (DSD), charging that the Dual
System is "protecting the packaging industry
rather than the environment" and that DSD is a
"giant tax machine."1 At the outset, some local
officials expressed resentment at sharing their
authority and responsibilities with DSD. Some
have questioned the effectiveness of DSD while
others, like the Munich Department of Envi-
ronmental Protection, have claimed that the
entire system is a "betrayal" and a "sellout to
industry."2 The Bavarian city of Munich vocif-
erously opposed the system before eventually
joining it.
Prior to implementation of the Dual Sys-
tem in January 1993, Bavarian Environment
Minister Peter Gauweiler was the program's
most vocal critic and threatened to withhold
DSD's exemption for primary packaging within
the Bavarian state. Ultimately, he went along
with the rest of the country, and all the states
granted the exemption for the Dual System. Had
he not granted the exemption, retailers in Ba-
varia would have had to take primary packages
back, and mandatory deposits would have been
imposed.
At a press conference in December 1992,
shortly before the January 1,1993 deadline for
implementing the regulations for primary pack-
aging, Environment Ministers Peter Gauweiler
72 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
of Bavaria, Monika Grief ahn of Lower Saxony,
and Harald Schafer of Baden-Wiirttemberg
cited four principal reasons for their opposition
to the Packaging Ordinance and the Dual Sys-
tem:
1. They do not give enough attention to
waste avoidance.
2. They do not sufficiently promote refill-
able bottles.
3. They do not ban environmentally harm-
ful packages.
4. They mislead the public with the green
dot symbol.
Despite these objections, the three minis-
ters agreed to comply with the ordinance and
grant the exemption to DSD on five conditions:
1. DSD had to be in place in all localities
by March 1, 1993.
2. The exemption for plastics was given
only until June 1,1994, because DSD had
not demonstrated that the recycling ca-
pacity existed for the volume of plastics
that would be generated.
3. DSD must prove that the required amount
of plastic packaging is being recycled and
identify the products made from the re-
cycled material.
4. Independent experts like the Technical In-
spection Agencies (Technische Uberwa-
chungsvereine or TUVs) must monitor
DSD's sorting and recycling facilities in
Germany for plastics and composites, and
abroad for all materials.
5. The Dual System must be expanded to
reuse and recycle natural materials such
as wood, jute, and stoneware.3
The three ministers argued that the Packag-
ing Ordinance is unsatisfactory and that other
ordinances are needed to compensate for the
inadequacies. They urged Environment Minis-
ter Topfer to fulfill his pledge to promote an
ordinance on refillable beverage containers and
to compile a list of ecologically harmful or ques-
tionable packaging that should be prohibited.
The statement by the three ministers in-
cludes the major objections of most of the Dual
System's critics. INFORM heard many other spe-
cific objections to the system through interviews
with environmental and consumer organiza-
tions, state and local officials, academics, and
government and industry representatives. The
following sections describe three of the major
criticisms voiced by'these groups the ordi-
nance does not promote source reduction, the
Dual System undermines refillables, and the
green dot is misleading and other complaints
about the system. :
The Ordinance Promotes Recycling,
Not Source Reduction
The Packaging Ordinance does not specifically
address source reduction, called waste avoid-
ance (Abfallvermeidung) in Germany, which
raises the concern that a program focused on
recycling may ultimately undermine reduction
efforts. Similarly, DSD's stress on recycling
over source reduction in the local public infor-
mation campaigns that it funds has sometimes
created conflict between local officials, who
want to stress avoidance, and DSD's focus on
recycling. Munich, for example, attempted to
enforce waste avoidance through a ban on non-
refillable beverage containers, but the federal
court later found the ban unconstitutional. DSD
has now agreed to include avoidance in some
of its advertisements.
Criticisms of the Packaging Ordinance and the Dual System 73
-------
The Dual System Undermines Refillables
Most Germans support the refilling system for
beverages and take seriously any perceived
threat to this system. Although the ordinance
mandates that the refill rate not decline if the
Dual System is to retain its exemption, the
Bundesrat (upper house of Parliament) does not
consider this provision strong enough; it passed
the Packaging Ordinance on the condition that
the government pass a separate ordinance on
refillable containers that mandates higher refill
rates. A draft of this ordinance has been circulat-
ing since mid-1992 (as discussed in Chapter 7).
Many of the ordinance's critics have called
for restrictions or bans on one-way containers
and certain packaging materials, particularly the
plastic polyvinyl chloride (PVC).4 Some rec-
ommend mandated refill rates for non-bever-
age products, such as jams and marmalades, and
are concerned that the convenience of curbside
collection of packaging, provided by DSD, may
discourage consumers from returning refillable
bottles, thereby undermining the refillable sys-
tem. The green dot symbol is seen as a threat to
refillables, as discussed below.
The Green Dot is Misleading
Critics have argued that the green dot leads con-
sumers to believe that a package is environmen-
tally sound, when the green dot is effectively
the symbol of a non-environmentally sound
package because it appears only on one-way
packaging. For example, consumers may think
a one-way beverage can with a green dot is bet-
ter for the environment than a refillable bottle
without the dot, and this perspective might
undermine the refill system. An early DSD ad-
vertising campaign that claimed the green dot
identified packages that are good for the envi-
ronment faced broad criticism: DSD no longer
makes such a claim.
The green dot is supposed to stand for a
guarantee that the package on which it is placed
will be recycled. However, most packages carry
the dots even though sufficient capacity for re-
cycling is not yet in place. With the system still
in transition, at best the green dot means only
that the package can be recycled, not that it ac-
tually will be recycled. In 1993, the number of
green dots awarded was greatly outstripping the
number of packages being recycled, thereby
damaging the credibility of the Dual System.
DSD is Stockpiling Recyclables
Owing to the lack of adequate plastics recycling
capacity, DSD has stored large amounts of used
plastic packaging. A major fire in October 1992
called attention to the fact that recyclers were
stockpiling some plastics rather than recycling
them. The fire, at a plastics'recycling facility
where plastic materials were stored in
Lengerich, near Miinster, led officials to evacu-
ate the area because of hydrochloric acid emis-
sions from burning PVC. Although DSD says
the plastics were residues from plastic produc-
tion, not packaging materials collected by DSD,
the incident is an example of a less frequently
considered but nonetheless potentially damag-
ing environmental impact from storing plastics
for recycling, which reinforced demands for less
plastic packaging. As described in Chapter 8,
concern about plastics stockpiling led the envi-
ronment minister of Rhineland-Palatinate to
threaten to withdraw DSD's exemption for plas-
tics in that state.
74 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
Recycling is Not Effectively Monitored
Even though the Technical Inspection Agencies
(TUVs) have been appointed to ensure that DSD
is meeting its recycling goals, concern remains
that materials will be burned, landfilled, or ex-
ported to countries that will dispose of them in
an environmentally unsafe manner. For even if
the TUVs can document that a firm is recycling,
it is difficult to monitor its total input and out-
put. Firms abroad may be importing more used
materials than they can recycle and dumping
the excess. The DSD system is complex and
difficult to monitor. The three environment min-
isters from Bavaria, Lower Saxony, and Baden-
Wurttemberg have demanded that DSD specify
the end products of plastics recycling.
Critics are also concerned that the TUVs
are paid by DSD to monitor, and that they have
no authority to close down plants that do not
meet standards.
Life-Cycle Analysis is Needed
Some recycling technologies may pose more
environmental problems than disposal. The cur-
rent compromise allowing chemical recycling
of plastics has not undergone life-cycle analy-
sis, and the environmental impact of this pro-
cess has not been determined. If plastic pack-
aging is processed into synthetic crude oil,
which is then used as fuel, is this preferable to
waste-to-energy incineration, and should it be
called "recycling?"
The environment senator in Hamburg, Fritz
Vahrenholt, questioned whether recycling is al-
ways better for the environment than incinera-
tion. He said even environmentalists admit that
modern incinerators have lower emissions than
older incinerators, and maintains that it is bet-
ter to incinerate certain materials and separate
the ash than to recycle them.5
Germany's Federal Environmental Agency
(Umweltbundesamt, or UBA), commissioned
three nonprofit organizations to conduct life-
cycle analyses of packaging. As described in
Chapter 7, the organizations, led by the
Fraunhofer Institute, prepared a database to pro-
vide life-cycle information on issues raised by
the Packaging Ordinance. The Fraunhofer group
first used its computer model to evaluate dif-
ferent packaging alternatives for milk and beer,
but the programs may also be used to address
such questions as the life-cycle consequences
of chemical recycling.
The Green Dot System
Permits "Free Riders"
In a report titled "Will the Dual System Man-
age Packaging Waste?" the Kiel Institute for
World Economics, a nonprofit think tank in
Kiel, Germany, expressed concern over the po-
tential for "free riders" on the green dot sys-
tem. This report was issued in January 1992,
before the Dual System was operative. The in-
stitute said that retailers, particularly small ones,
have an incentive to carry packages without the
green dot because they will be cheaper. Kiel
contends this lack of participation could cause
the collapse of the Dual System. It has not so
far been a major problem, however, because
retailers have a strong incentive to make the
Dual System work: if ,it fails, they get the pack-
ages back. !
But another type of free rider has emerged.
Some companies are printing the green dot on
their packages without paying the required fees
to DSD, or are paying partial fees and placing
more packages on the market than they report
to DSD.6 !
Criticisms of the Packaging Ordinance and the Dual System 75
-------
Incentives Are Not Specific
Given the huge number of packages, it would
be virtually impossible to require each company
to take back its own packages and recycle them,
thereby creating company- and package- spe-
cific incentives. Instead, German industry is be-
ing made responsible for taking back packag-
ing "collectively." The Kiel report argues that
"the advantages of the polluter-pays principle
in terms of dynamic effects, however, may be
softened through the global reprocessing guar-
antees as they do not provide enough incentives
for the individual companies to improve their
products in terms of reprocessing costs."7 The
new 1993 green dot fee schedule (described in
Chapter 6) partially addresses this concern: al-
though the new schedule does not make incen-
tives company-specific, it does make them
material-specific.
The Ordinance Requires
Recycling at Any Cost
In general, German industry has not greatly
criticized the Packaging Ordinance because it
wants the Dual System, which it is running, to
succeed. However, industry has criticized the
extension of the Packaging Ordinance to other
products, and these criticisms reflect its under-
lying view of the packaging legislation as well.
The Federation of German Industries (Bundes-
verband der Deutschen Industrie e.V., or BDI),
has said, "Recycling at any price is not a ratio-
nal strategy....Returning materials for recycling
is only sensible when markets exist for the col-
lected materials."8 The plastics industry is par-
ticularly vociferous on this point, arguing that
the 64 percent recycling quota is too high, and
that the cost of recycling plastics is higher than
the cost of virgin resins.9
DSD Contracts are Too Costly
According to a study by the Wuppertal Insti-
tute, the disposal industry's profit margins from
its contracts with DSD were as high as 100 per-
cent, supporting charges that DSD's contracts
with the waste management industry and the
localities were unjustifiably costly.10 Strategies
to control these costs are discussed in the Epi-
logue.
Localities Lose Authority
Localities are ambivalent toward DSD ap-
preciating the funding but not liking the loss of
control over their waste management programs.
Some localities had been working to set up re-
cycling systems, which they did not want DSD
to scuttle. Approval of the Dual System required
them to negotiate which functions they would
carry out and which would be handled by DSD.
In some cases where DSD takes over the man-
agement of packaging waste (rather than pay-
ing localities to do so), municipal solid waste
departments have to lay off some workers. Lo-
calities have also pointed out that DSD is
taking the most politically appealing part of
waste management, recycling, and leaving the
localities with the unappealing portion, dis-
posal.11
Inefficient Separation of Materials
Critics claim that commingling metal and plas-
tic packaging materials in the yellow DSD bins
lowers the quality of the recyclable materials
and increases sorting costs. These bins are used
for foils, cans, films, composites, and all types
of plastic packages. In fact, all packaging other
than glass bottles and paper brought to drop-
76 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
off containers are put in the yellow DSD bins.
In addition, some local waste managers believe
it is inefficient to collect plastic packaging sepa-
rately from plastic products, and they would pre-
fer to collect plastics together, as ultimately they
may be going to the same recyclers.
DSD Violates Antitrust Laws
DSD's dominant role in the management of
packaging waste nationwide has put it in con-
flict with Germany's strict antitrust laws, de-
signed to prohibit unfair restraints on competi-
tion. Parties that feel they are injured have
brought alleged infractions to the attention of
the Federal Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt).
Negotiations have been under way between
DSD and the Cartel Office on a series of anti-
trust-related issues.
For example, small recyclers dependent on
DSD for their supply of recyclable materials
have complained that DSD is preventing com-
petition in the recycling industry. Companies
managing the bottle banks that sell the cullet
(crushed glass) complain that DSD is "killing"
their markets by offering glass free of charge
to recyclers.12 The nationwide DSD network has
led to greater concentration in the waste indus-
try: carters and recyclers not selected as DSD
contractors have complained to the Cartel Of-
fice, which is investigating the complaints.
Ines Siegler, a spokeswoman for DSD, says
that charges that DSD is preventing competi-
tion are unjustified "The law forces us to
have a nationwide network and therefore oper-
ate as a monopoly."13 According to Frank
Annighofer of the US management consulting
firm Arthur D. Little's European environment
department, "We cannot say now if the recy-
cling industry will also become monopolistic
as a result of DSD activities. But pressure is
likely to grow on legislators to ensure that this
is not the case."14
On January 12,1993, the Cartel Office filed
an action against DSD because of its intention
to extend its operations to include the collec-
tion of packaging waste from commercial en-
terprises. The office claimed that "the expan-
sion of DSD's activities, which have been
pushed for by the state environmental minis-
tries, would drive out many medium-sized com-
panies." The Cartel Office was concerned about
DSD's endangering the livelihood of the hun-
dreds of independent companies that handle
commercial waste. Environment Minister Klaus
Topfer supported DSD's contention that the
expansion was requested by the states and is
backed by the federal government in Bonn.15
DSD agreed in April 1993 to eliminate the al-
legedly unfair advantages of its own contrac-
tors, and the Cartel Office announced it would
drop the charges.16 ;
Negotiations continue between DSD and the
Cartel Office on how best to minimize restraints
of competition. On June 28, 1993, the Cartel
Office decided that DSD would not be permit-
ted to collect transport packaging waste.17
Another of the Cartel Office's concerns has
been the concentration of contractors that col-
lect and process waste for DSD. For example,
RWE, a large electric utility also in the waste
business, has bought: 70 waste management
companies in the last four years. The Cartel
Office was watching me situation but had not
initiated any action as of late 1993.18
Criticisms of the Packaging Ordinance and the Dual System 77
-------
International Concerns
The Ordinance is a Trade Barrier
Other EC nations have argued that the German
Packaging Ordinance is a barrier to free trade
in the European Community (as discussed more
fully in Chapter 12). The Industry Council for
Packaging and the Environment (INCPEN),
based in the United Kingdom and composed of
60 major European and international compa-
nies, has lodged a formal complaint with the
European Commission (the executive branch of
the European Community), against the German
Packaging Ordinance as has the British Depart-
ment of Trade and Industry (DTI). The Bel-
gium-based Association of European Plastics
Manufacturers is also demanding that the Eu-
ropean Community take action against the Ger-
man Packaging Ordinance.19
At the same time, the European Commu-
nity is working on its own Packaging Direc-
tive, which could overrule the German Ordi-
nance. German officials believe this unlikely,
however; they say they cannot be expected to
water down their environmental policies to the
level of poorer EC countries such as Spain,
Greece, and Ireland. German Secretary of State
for the Environment Clemens Stroetmann says
the European Community will have to make its
directive similar to Germany's; that each month
the German ordinance is in force will strengthen
Germany's negotiating position, as it will be
able to demonstrate success.20
The German Federal Environment Minis-
try says it would gladly defend its Packaging
Ordinance in the European Court. "By the time
the court ruled, we would be recycling 70 per-
cent of our waste....Would the judges really or-
der us to cut that to 60 percent?"21
Recyclables are Dumped Abroad
A scandal arose when packages with green dots
were found in landfills in France in 1992. The
media reported the incidents as evidence that
the companies that handle DSD's materials are
not recycling them but dumping them abroad.
Green dot packaging materials are classified as
"recyclables" rather than "waste," yet sightings
in foreign landfills indicate they are sometimes
being disposed of as "waste." Exporting mate-
rials for recycling is legal, but tracking these
materials to assure they do not end up in incin-
erators or landfills is difficult. DSD has denied
allegations, made on the German television pro-
gram "Panorama," that 60 percent of plastic
packaging waste shipped abroad by VGK (the
now-defunct plastics recycling company) was
not recycled.22
In response to these problems, the TUVs
have compiled a list of approved recyclers
worldwide to which DSD shipments will be
permitted. The new European Community di-
rective on waste shipments, described in Chap-
ter 12, will also require permitting and tracking
of such shipments. As the rules on exporting
waste in Germany and the EC are complex and
rapidly changing, it remains to be seen whether
the new monitoring will solve the problem of
dumping.
Markets are Disrupted
The United Kingdom, France, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, and Denmark
have complained to the European Commission
about the flood of packaging materials exported
to their countries from Germany. Germany, in
turn, has apologized for any "negative fallout"
of its policy and has promised to cooperate in
finding a solution.23
78 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
Companies selling raw materials for recy-
cling in the United Kingdom have claimed that
German exports of recyclable packaging mate-
rials are killing the UK recycling industry. "The
Germans are screwing it up for everyone else,"
says the British recycling group Recoup.24 Ger-
man plastips, paper, and bottles have flooded
UK markets, causing prices for secondary ma-
terials to collapse. One company reported a drop
in the price of plastic film from £120 ($180)
per metric ton to zero in 18 months.25 The Brit-
ish Department of Trade and Industry reported
that plastic waste imports to the United King-
dom increased 450 percent from 1991 to 1992
mostly coming from Germany.26 Recyclers
warned that, "Britain risked building up huge
stockpiles of recyclable materials while the
Germans continued to pay for other countries
to dispose of theirs."27 The British Plastics Fed-
eration feared that UK recycling firms would
turn to Germany as a source of materials, which
"would impede the development of a domesti-
cally driven recycling culture."28 Linpac and Re-
prise, the leading British plastics recycling
firms, have refused to handle German material
unless it is recycled for shipment back to Ger-
many.29
British materials manufacturers have also
complained that, despite the drop in secondary
materials prices, they must still pay relatively
high prices for these materials, whereas Ger-
man manufacturers can get them free. Glass
manufacturers in the United Kingdom have
pointed out that their German competitors are
getting cullet free from DSD and therefore have
a competitive advantage, subsidized by the
German consumer through the green dot fees.
The British Paper and Board Industry has voiced
similar complaints. It says German mills are
getting used paper free, while British mills must
pay £30-40 per ton ($51 to $68) for it.30 Rowena
Mills, head of the UK packaging consulting firm
RMA, Ltd., expressed the hope that "Germany
does not manage to export its waste problem as
successfully as it has managed to export its in-
flation and interest rate problems."31
In April 1993, French paper recycling firms
launched demonstrations throughout France,
blocking roads and disrupting traffic. The pro-
testers claimed that Germany was selling pa-
per to French mills "at artificially low prices
that French recovery and recycling firms can-
not match."32 The flood of imported paper from
Germany has led to a major decline in the price
of used paper and a 30 percent decrease in the
amount of paper waste collected in France since
January 1993.33 The price of old corrugated
cardboard fell from 550 francs ($110) in 1989
to 60 francs ($12) in April 1993. According to
French industry, "The way things are going, the
value of paper waste will soon reach zero, and
the amount of waste imported from Germany
will exceed the amount produced in France by
the end of the decade." This could cause the
collapse of the paper recycling industry and a
loss of 27,000 jobs.34 French paper recyclers
have asked that the government extend the Au-
gust 1992 decree that prohibits imports of gar-
bage for disposal from Germany to prohibit
waste paper imports as well.35 The French En-
vironment Minister, Michel Barnier, has said
that when recyclables arrive with a negative
price they should be considered waste.36
Germany has countered that it is a net im-
porter of packaging materials such as paper if
both virgin and secondary materials are counted;
that is, it imports moTe paper, overall, than it
exports. As long as other countries want to ship
paper to Germany, it; asserts, they should not
complain about Germany's exporting its used
paper, because the paper markets are connected.
Germany consumes 16 million metric tons of
paper per year but produces only 8 million tons.
DSD says this means that "a high recycling
Criticisms of the Packaging Ordinance and the Dual System 79
-------
rate.. .can only be realized in cooperation with
foreign countries."37
According to Greenpeace, imports of cheap
plastics for recycling from Germany are threat-
ening the livelihood of 200,000 impoverished
waste collectors in Indonesia. The Indonesian
recycling plants are buying directly from the
Germans, instead of from their local collectors.
Greenpeace says the income of the local col-
lectors has been cut in half, to $1.50 per day,
and that much of the material the Germans send
is burned or dumped not recycled.38
In response, DSD has said that the United
States, France, and Germany have long shipped
plastics to recycling facilities in Indonesia, and
that the German plastics shipped there are pri-
marily from industrial and municipal collec-
tions, not from DSD.39
The amount of German packaging materi-
als shipped to Asia has not been documented,
but press reports indicate shipments to many
destinations there, including China, the Philip-
pines, and Malaysia. Some of the materials are
not shipped directly to Asia by Germany; plas-
tic packaging shipped from Germany to the
Netherlands for recycling has been found in
Singapore.40
The Packaging Industry is a Scapegoat
In addition to complaints about trade barriers
and the disruption of markets, critics in the
United Kingdom have argued that there is no
"packaging problem," and that industry is be-
ing "scapegoated" arguments not voiced in
Germany. For example, Jonathan Sims, also of
the RMA, Ltd., packaging consulting firm, de-
clared at a July 1992 packaging conference in
the United States that the packaging problem
has been "identified wrongly and is being tack-
led by equally wrong means. Policy is being
guided by emotion and by political expediency
not by reason....Packaging has become a use-
ful scapegoat....If there is a problem, it is with
excessive consumption....More resources are
being spent transporting waste packaging
around Germany, sorting it, recycling it, than
are being saved. Repeat this on a European scale
and irUhe name of environmental benefit we
will be committing environmental vandalism."41
Concerns Raised in the United States
The US Department of Agriculture (USD A) is
concerned about health effects, price increases
that will be passed along to consumers, and dis-
crimination against US products. The depart-
ment says leaving secondary packaging in the
store can lead to deterioration of the basic pack-
age and reduce product safety. It is particularly
concerned about the health and safety impact
of refillable bottles.
USDA claims discrimination against US
products on the grounds that they have longer
distances to travel, need more packaging, and
will therefore have to pay higher green dot
fees.42 However, US consumer product compa-
nies generally package their products in Europe
for the European market. USDA has also said
it is difficult for US "companies to go through
the application process for the green dot, but it
has not produced evidence of discrimination
against non-German companies in granting
green dots.
Catherine Vial, an international trade spe-
cialist at the US Department of Commerce, has
criticized the German law, contending that: the
purpose of the Packaging Ordinance is to pro-
tect the German beer industry; "polluter pays"
means the consumer pays_; DSD is a monopoly;
and Germany is dumping the packaging mate-
rials it collects on foreign markets.43
80 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
Aside from the specifics of the German leg-
islation, at least one major US business organi-
zation has argued against its relevance for the
United States. According to Harvey Alter, man-
ager of resources policy for the US Chamber of
Commerce, the "dogma" that "there is too much
packaging" cannot be substantiated. He argues
that "we've had a garbage crisis every fifteen
years since 1885," that packaging is not a prob-
lem, and that incineration should count toward
recycling goals.44
In evaluating the German model, US
policymakers would do well to consider, in ad-
dition to the criticisms described here, a key
element lacking in the Packaging Ordinance:
consumer incentives. The ordinance depends on
voluntary consumer participation. It requires
retailers to provide bins for secondary packag-
ing but does not require consumers to leave the
packaging in the store. If DSD fails to meet the
recycling quotas, retailers must also take back
primary packaging, but the ordinance does not
require consumers to bring it back.
Shortly after implementation of the Dual
System in the winter of 1993, problems began
to develop with respect to consumer use~of the
yellow DSD bins. Many consumers were not
sorting their garbage correctly. As households
pay by the bin for trash pick-up, but DSD picks
up packaging waste in its bins free, households
have an incentive to put non-packaging trash
into the DSD bins.
The "Polluter Pays" Principle
Outside Germany
Undoubtedly, Germany's increased exports of
recyclable materials resulting from the Pack-
aging Ordinance have caused serious disloca-
tions in world markets, affecting recycling pro-
grams and manufacturing companies that use
secondary materials. What remains to be seen
is whether these dislocations represent "grow-
ing pains" that will diminish as recycling ca-
pacity increases in Germany and other coun-
tries, or whether they will remain a long-term
problem. ;
The forthcoming EC Packaging Directive
will apply to all of its member countries, with a
combined population of 341 million, and may
affect the implementation of the German legis-
lation and the markets for recyclables. Still, it
should be noted that none of the criticisms raised
in Europe attacks the basic concept of making
industry reponsible for managing packaging
waste.
Even as European countries are protesting
Germany's exports of used packaging materi-
als, many of them aire adopting the "polluter
pays" principle as the basis of their own pack-
aging legislation. The;y differentiate between the
exports resulting from the high recycling quo-
tas, which they oppose, and the basic principle
of manufacturers' responsibility, which they
support. Austria and France have adopted pack-
aging ordinances, based on the German model,
that make industry responsible for packaging
waste. Austria has hired the US management
consulting firm of Arthur D. Little to design a
system based on the E>SD model. France's "Eco-
Emballage" system has adopted the green dot
as its symbol, but it differs from the German
system in many respects. An important differ-
ence is that it puts waste-to-energy incineration
on a par with other recycling technologies, so
"thermal recycling" can count toward meeting
the recycling quotas.
In January 1993, the Swedish government
proposed take-back legislation for packages and
products. It has ambitious targets, like the Ger-
man law, and would require 65 percent recy-
cling of plastics by 1997,45 Moreover, Belgium's
Criticisms of the Packaging Ordinance and the Dual System 81
-------
new packaging initiative, "POST PLUS," re-
lies on packaging taxes to make industry re-
sponsible for packaging waste, and the Nether-
lands and Denmark are pressuring the European
Community to toughen its Packaging Directive
and make it more like Germany's. Closer to the
United States, Canada is seriously considering
a system of shared responsibility between in-
dustry and municipalities for managing pack-
aging waste, modeled in part on the German
system.
Notes
1. "Waste: New German Law for Economic Recy-
cling," Europe Environment, No. 408, Europe In-
formation Service, Brussels, April 15,1993, p. II-2.
2. Wigand Kahl (Landeshauptstaclt Miinchen, Umwelt-
schutzreferat [City of Munich, Environmental Divi-
sion]), interview, October 9,1992.
3. Bavarian Environment Ministry, press release,
Munich, December 15,1992.
4. Maria Rieping (Die Verbraucher Initiative [DVI]
[The Consumer Initiative], Bonn), interview, Octo-
ber 21, 1992; aMOMBandt (BUND, Bonn), inter-
view, October 21, 1992; and Jtirgen Maas (Die
GrOnen, Bonn), interview, October 23,1992.
5. "Recycling istnurderzweitbesteWeg" ("Recycling
is the Second Best Choice"), Der Spiegel, 25/1993,
p. 50.
6. Ibid., p. 34.
7. GernotKlepperandPeterMichaelis, "Will the 'Dual
System' Manage Packaging Waste?" Kiel Working
Paper No. 503, Kiel Institute of World Economics,
Kiel, January 1992, p. 19.
8. Bureau of National Affairs, "Cabinet Approves
Amended Waste Law Despite Widespread Industry
Objections," International Environment Daily,
Washington, DC, April 2,1993.
9. "Plastikbranche macht Druck" ("Plastics Industry
Applies Pressure"), Frankfurter Rundschau, Septem-
ber 21,1993, p. 14.
10. Joachim H. Spangenberg, "The German Waste
Policy," Wuppertal Institute, September 27, 1993,
p. 8.
11. Karl-Heinz Striegel (Landesamt fur Wasser und
Abfall [Agency for Waster and Waste]), North Rhine-
Westphalia, interview, October 27,1992.
12. "World News: Germany," Warmer Bulletin, No. 36,
February 1993, p. 9.
13. Ariane Genillard, "Falling Victim to its Own Suc-
cess," Financial Times, London, January 27, 1993,
p. 40.
14. Ibid.
15. Bureau of National Affairs, "German Cartel Office
Will Examine Regulation Scheme for Garbage Col-
lection," Antitrust and Trade Regulation Report,
Washington, DC, January 1,1993, p. 62.
16. Bureau of National Affairs, "German Agency Re-
solves Concerns AboutFirm's Waste Collection Ser-
vice Plans," International Environment Daily, Wash-
ington, DC, April 7,1993. Clarified by Ines Siegler
(DSD), telephone interview, April 26,1993.
17. "Environment Ministers Reach Consensus on Waste
Prevention," Europe Environment, No. 413, Europe
Information Service, Brussels, July 6, 1993, p. 1-5,
18. Quentin Peel, "German Waste Industry Under Fire,"
Financial Times, London, January 18,1993, p. 2.
19. "German Efforts Seen as a Threat," Chemical Week,
New York, February 17,1993, p. 20.
20. Clemens Stroetmann (German Secretary of State for
the Environment, Bonn), interview, October 22,
1992.
21. "Environmental Protection in Europe: Abolishing
Litter," The Economist, London, August 22, 1992,
p. 59.
22. DSD, "Verwertung von Kunstoff-Probemengen in
Indonesien ordnungsgemaB" ("Trial Quantities of
Plastics Properly Recycled in Indonesia"), press re-
lease, Bonn, March 29, 1993.
23. "Environment Ministers Reach Consensus on Waste
Prevention," Europe Environment, No. 413, Europe
Information Service, Brussels, July 16,1993, p. 1-4.
24. Sonia Purnell, "Germany's Waste-Size Problem,"
The. Daily Telegraph, London, March 26, 1993,
p. 23.
25. Ibid.
26. Emma Chynoweth, "Germany's Waste Policy Draws
More Complaints," Chemical Week, New York, May
12,1993, p. 24.
27. Ibid.
28. "German Efforts Seen as a Threat," op. cit.
29. Ibid.
82 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
30. Bureau of National Affairs, "German, EC Packag-
ing Measures Will Hurt U.K. Industry, House of
Commons Panel Told," International Environment
Daily, Washington, DC, March 8, 1993.
31. Rowena Mills, RMA, Ltd. (United Kingdom),
"Overview of Approved and Pending Environmen-
tal Packaging Legislation within Individual EC
Member Countries," Institute of Packaging Profes-
sionals Conference: Executive Update on Domes-
tic and International Environmental Packaging Leg-
islation, Alexandria, VA, July 24, 1992.
32. Bureau of National Affairs, "French Paper Recycling
Industry Launches Protests Against German Im-
ports," International Environment Daily, Washing-
ton, DC, April 16, 1993, p. 59.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid.
35. Ibid.
36. "Environment Ministers Reach Consensus on Waste
Prevention," op. cit., p. 1-4.
37. DSD, "Two Years of the Packaging Ordinance,"
press release, July 21,1992.
38. "German Waste Imports Seen Hurting Indonesian
Poor," The Reuter Library Report, March 5, 1993.
39. DSD, "Verwertung von Kunstoff-Probemengen in
Indonesien ordnungsgemaB" ("Trial Quantities of
Plastics Properly Recycled in Indonesia"), op. cit.
40. "Kippe in Fernost" ("Garbage Dump in Far East"),
Der Spiegel, Vol. 53, December 28, 1992, p. 48.
41. Jonathan Sims, RMA, Ltd. (United Kingdom), "Cur-
rent Status of European Community Environmental
Legislation," Institute of Packaging Professionals
Conference: Executive Update on Domestic and In-
ternational Environmental Packaging Legislation,
Alexandria, VA, July 24, 1992.
42. Audrey Talley (USDA), "The EC's Directive on
Packaging and Solid Waste and Germany's Ordi-
nance on Avoidance of Packaging Waste: Current
Status and Likely Impact on the American Packag-
ing Community," Institute of Packaging Profession-
als Conference: Executive Update on Domestic and
International Environmental Packaging Legislation,
Alexandria, VA, July 24, 1992.
43. Catherine Vial (US Department of Commerce), "The
EC's Directive on Packaging and Solid Waste and
Germany's Ordinance on Avoidance of Packaging
Waste: Current Status and Likely Impact on the
American Packaging Community," Institute of Pack-
aging Professionals Conference: Executive Update
on Domestic and International Environmental Pack-
aging Legislation, Alexandria, VA, July 24, 1992.
44. Harvey Alter (US Chamber of Commerce), "The
Likely Final Form and Packaging Implications of
the Resource Conseivation and Recovery Amend-
ments of 1992," Institute of Packaging Profession-
als Conference: Executive Update on Domestic and
International Environmental Packaging Legislation,
Alexandria, VA, July 24, 1992.
45. "Status of Proposed Takeback Regulation In Swe-
den and Germany," Business and the Environment,
Cutter Information Corp., January 1993, No 1
voi.4. ;
Criticisms of the Packaging Ordinanpe and the Dual System 83
-------
Chapter 10: Proposed Waste Avoidance
and Recycling Legislation for Products
Industry and government in Germany are ex-
panding the "take-back" strategy to encompass
not only packaging but many products. A new
comprehensive waste act awaiting parliamen-
tary approval in Germany would employ the
"polluter pays" principle in a law that would
pave the way for sweeping take-back ordinances
for products. Proposals for automobiles and
electronics have already affected the way in
which these products are made. Ordinances
have also been proposed to require the take-
back of batteries and newspapers. This chapter
looks at the proposed legislation for autos and
electronics, and at industry's response.
The Closed-Loop Economy and
Waste Management Act
On July 17, 1992, the Federal Environment
Ministry (Bundesministerium fur Umwelt,
Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit, or BMU)
issued a draft of new waste legislation that
would supersede the 1986 "Waste Avoidance
and Waste Management Act" (Abfallgesetz), on
which the Packaging Ordinance was based. The
new act is called "The.Closed-Loop Economy
and Waste Management Act" (Kreislaufwirt-
schafts-und Abfallgesetz); the "closed-loop
economy" refers to making industry responsible
for collecting and recycling its products after
they are discarded by consumers or other end
users. Under this legislation, all products, from
toys to clothes to furniture, could be subject to
take-back ordinances.
"A comprehensive materials policy, as op-
posed to a waste removal strategy, is the focus
of our efforts," said Environment Minister
Klaus Topfer, in describing the new act. He said
industry must be made responsible for taking
back and recycling its products if it is to prac-
tice sound materials policy at the design stage.
Tb'pfer has said that "privatizing" the costs of
recycling and disposal puts the burden on the
private sector, where it belongs, and that, in the
future, managing used products will be as im-
portant as supplying consumers with new
goods.1
The Cabinet approved the act on March 31,
1993, and the Federal Environment Ministry ex-
pected parliamentary approval in about one
year. The law would take effect two years after
passage.2 Although the new waste act would
84 Germany. Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
give the "polluter pays" principle the force of
law, applying to products as well as packages,
the Cabinet and the Bundesrat, the upper house
of Parliament, would still have to pass separate
ordinances for specific industries.
According to the Federal Environment
Ministry's announcement of the Cabinet's ap-
proval of the new law, "The saving of resources
and the avoidance of waste are the main priori-
ties of the new law. Industry, trade, and con-
sumers alike must make every effort in the fu-
ture to avoid waste materials as far as possible
and, only where the production of waste is un-
avoidable, to fall back on recycling in other
words, reintroducing the waste in the form of
secondary raw materials into the economic
cycle. This principle takes priority over waste
disposal. Nothing should be treated as waste that
can be recycled as a secondary raw material."3
The new act clearly defines a solid waste
hierarchy:
1. Avoidance (source reduction)
2. Recycling
3. Waste-to-energy incineration
4. Other processing or landfill
Under the 1986 waste law, the hierarchy was
more ambiguous: source reduction was placed
before recycling, but recycling could include
burning. This new act makes it clear that recy-
cling is preferable to waste-to-energy incinera-
tion.
The new act defines "waste" as materials
that cannot be recycled.4 Producers will have
to prove that their waste cannot be recycled be-
fore they can send it to an incinerator or land-
fill. Exports of "waste" will be forbidden. At
present, materials are defined by their owners
as either "waste" (Abfall) or "valuable materi-
als" (Wertstoffe). The inconsistent application
of these definitions has environmental impli-
cations because regulations are stricter for han-
dling the "Abfall" man "Wertstoffe. "5
The new act also requires companies to con-
duct materials audits and to report every three
years on the amount of materials recycled and
the amount of waste that remains.
The act gives the federal government ex-
plicit power to promulgate ordinances requir-
ing industry to take back waste generated by its
products. Industry may design its own programs
to take back waste; in fact, government bans
and regulations are to be kept to a minimum.
"The dismantling and recycling of used prod-
ucts is to be made into the main priority...and
is to be taken into account in the early stages of
production."6
Under the act, waste must be disposed of
within Germany, except for cooperative ar-
rangements with neighboring countries in bor-
der areas. Recyclable materials may be ex-
ported, subject to Euorpean Community
regulations and international surveillance. The
Federal Environment Ministry asserts that the
new waste management law is an instrument
for adopting the EC waste legislation into na-
tional law and notes that the new EC waste
transportation ordinance, which will take effect
in 1994, requires member states to be self-suf-
ficient in waste management. The ministry con-
cludes, "The step from waste disposal to a fu-
ture-oriented waste management and product
recycling system is an integral component of
the ecological and social market economy in
an industrial society.''7
Response to the Waste Management Act
The Federation of German Industries (Bundes-
verband der Deutschen Industrie e.V., or BDI)
claimed in the summer of 1992 that the law was
not warranted, as industry had long worked to
conserve resources.8 BDI has taken particular
Proposed Waste Reduction and Recycling Legislation 85
-------
exception to the waste management hierarchy,
contending that it makes no sense and that in-
cineration and landfilling, if done locally, can
be preferable to reuse or recycling that requires
shipping materials long distances, sorting, and
cleaning the materials. The organization argues
that Germany needs more disposal facilities and
that politicians have not done their job in mak-
ing such facilities acceptable to the German
public.9
According to BDI, the proposed law will
interfere with industry, increase the cost of pro-
duction, and make German industry less com-
petitive. It finds the reporting requirements ex-
cessive, in conflict with the need for
confidentiality, and unfair in that they may be
administered differently in the different states.
Extending product durability is not always
preferable, BDI says, because it conflicts with
consumer preferences for new designs and
"fashion" and can prevent the introduction of
new technological improvements that could
benefit the environment, such as products with
improved energy efficiency.10
To BDI, the "closed-loop economy" with
no waste is an illusion. It asserted in April 1993
that "Recycling at any price is not a rational
strategy....Returning materials for recycling is
only sensible when markets exist for the col-
lected materials." To BDFs objections, Tbpfer
responded, "Industry always says it can do
things better on its own, but without public pres-
sure it doesn't act to develop new systems and
technologies."11 Tb'pfer also maintained that the
law is in the interest of business and would chal-
lenge the "creativity of the economy and soci-
ety."12
Secretary of State for the Environment
Clemens Stroetmann says, "We know a circu-
latory economy is not 100 percent possible.. .but
it is indisputable that this is a sensible idea.
Germany has no more room for landfills and
almost no natural resources left, so we need the
increasingly precious resources we have."13
The new act's critics are not limited to busi-
ness. Members of the Green and Social Demo-
cratic parties have charged that Tb'pfer has sold
out to the chemical industry and produced a
watered-down bill that is "largely inadequate
for environmental needs."14
Proposed Ordinance on the
Reduction and Recycling of
Waste from Automobiles
A draft of this ordinance, originally proposed
in 1990, was circulated by the Federal Envi-
ronment Ministry in August 1992. Since the
auto industry has been working to design cars
that are more recyclable, it has not opposed the
ordinance in principle, although it is negotiat-
ing with the government over specific items.
Some of the provisions, described below, may
be changed before the ordinance takes effect.
The challenge posed by the auto ordinance
is less than that of the Packaging Ordinance be-
cause the former entails fewer companies, fewer
units, and far less material in terms of weight
or volume. Approximately 2.6 million cars are
scrapped each year in Germany, compared with
180 billion packages. Unlike packaging waste,
most auto material has long been recycled.
The material composition of a typical car is
about 75 percent metal and 10 percent plastic,
with the remainder made up of rubber, glass,
and other materials.15 About 75 percent of the
materials in the scrapped cars is recycled
(mostly ferrous metals), but a residue called
"fluff," of about 450,000 metric tons, is
landfilled. Fluff is primarily plastic but also
contains fluids, fabrics, glass, rubber, and dirt.
Recycling the remaining 450,000 metric tons
86 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
of fluff from autos is a much less daunting task
than recycling 12 million metric tons of pack-
aging waste. Discarded auto parts are not in-
cluded in fluff, but most end up in landfills as
well only 10 percent of old parts the auto
industry replaces are reused or recycled.
Objectives of the Auto Ordinance
The ordinance specifies that the auto industry
work toward these objectives:
1. To design and manufacture autos and
their parts for maximum durability, easy
dismantling, reuse, and recycling.
2. To use materials that facilitate recycling,
that are labeled uniformly, and that make
possible benign disposal of the residues.
3. To reuse parts in the manufacturing of
automobiles or as spare parts, and to re-
cycle parts that cannot be reused.
Auto Take-Back Provisions
The draft ordinance would require auto manu-
facturers and dealers to take back scrap cars of
the brand they sell from the car's last owner,
free of charge. Auto dealers would also have to
take back spare and replacement parts.
In a major new approach to auto recycling
based on an EC idea, a "Certificate of Disposal"
will be introduced to certify that the auto has
been taken to an authorized dismantling and
recycling facility. For the owner of a car, the
certificate will be a prerequisite for the deregi-
stration of a scrapped vehicle; the owner re-
mains responsible for the vehicle unless this
certificate is filed. The goal is to encourage re-
cycling and to prevent illegal dumping.
The draft ordinance requires manufacturers
to meet quotas for reusing or recycling the auto
materials they take back, as shown in Table 10-1.
Table 10-1: Proposed Recycling Quotas for
Materials in Automobiles, from Draft Ordinance
Material
Steel
Nonferrous metals
Tires
Glass
Plastics
Other elastomers*
1996
(% by weight)
100
85
40
30
20
20
2000
(% by weight)
100
90
50
50
50
30
* Synthetic compounds with the elasticity
characteristic of rubber.
Source: BMW of North America, March 1993.
Manufacturers and dealers may engage a third
party to manage the recycling. They will still have
to furnish proof on the use of recycled materials
and the method of disposal of the residues.
Auto Industry Objections
The auto industry objects to the provision that
cars must be taken back free of charge. It is
particularly concerned about the cost of recy-
cling older cars that were not designed for dis-
assembly and recycling. The industry has pro-
posed charging the last owner for the cost of
disassembling and recycling, currently esti-
mated at about DM200 per car ($120), but the
government wants the industry to "internalize"
these costs by including them in the price of
new cars.16 As negotiations continued on this
issue, industry was advocating "free pricing,"
by which the final cost or price would be nego-
tiated between the last owner of the car and the
recycling center.17
The auto industry also opposed the mate-
rial-specific recycling quotas in the proposed
ordinance (shown in Table 10-1). Manufactur-
Proposed Waste Reduction and Recycling Legislation 87
-------
ers and recyclers claim it is feasible to recycle
20 percent of the fluff by the year 2000; that is,
20 percent of the 25 percent of auto materials
not now recycled, or about 90,000 metric tons
per year. They say they can recycle 60 percent
of the fluff by 2000 if chemical and "thermal"
recycling (incineration with energy recovery)
are allowed to count toward the recycling
goals.18 The government has considered declar-
ing "fluff a hazardous material, which would
increase the cost of disposing of it and the pres-
sure to recycle it.
The question of who is to dismantle
scrapped cars is also at issue. The auto manu-
facturers prefer to authorize some of Germany's
4,000 "dismantlers" to handle used cars, but
may need only several hundred. The fate of the
remaining dismantling operations has become
a political issue. Manufacturers' authorization
of the dismantlers raises antitrust issues. Ac-
cording to BMW, if manufacturers are required
to meet specified quotas, they should be able to
control the dismantling process because they
will be responsible for assuring that the materi-
als get recycled; they also want to control the
costs.19 In October 1991, BMW named
Preimesser, in Munich, to be its first authorized
dismantles BMW said it intends to authorize
an additional 100 dismantlers in Germany
within the next three years.20
Some of industry's criticisms of the ordi-
nance are similar to those raised against the new
waste act: recycling and incineration should
be ranked equally; the administrative burden is
excessive; and extending product durability will
prevent the introduction of new, more environ-
mentally sound technologies. Some concerns,
however, are specific to the auto industry: re-
use must be limited by the demands for quality
and safety; it is unfair to make the take-back
requirement retroactive to cars not designed for
recycling; and industry cannot recycle imported
parts, as it does not know their material com-
position.21
Auto Industry Initiatives
With these reservations, the auto industry is
responding positively to the proposed ordi-
nance. Led by Volkswagen, two US-owned
companies in Germany, Ford and Opel, have
announced they will take back some of their
models free of charge at the end of their useful
lives. The guarantee is an effective marketing
tool, relieving consumers of the fear that they
may have to pay to dispose of their cars. Most
of the actual take-backs will not occur for at
least 10 years, when current models will begin
to be scrapped, with the exception of cars dam-
aged in accidents.
Although it is not clear whether the compa-
nies will ultimately take back and disassemble
their own cars or whether they will arrange for
others to do so, the auto makers are conducting
pilot studies to determine the most efficient and
cost-effective disassembly systems and ways of
linking disassembly with new design. If third
parties handle disassembly, the auto manufac-
turers will be able to advise on the best, most
cost-effective system for their cars. The Ger-
man automobile manufacturers association
(Verband der Automobilindustrie, or VDA) has
formed an organization called PRAVDA, to
develop a recycling strategy for the industry.
The major initiatives already taken to make
autos more recyclable include:
1. Designing for disassembly: reducing the
number of fasteners and types of fasten-
ers to make the disassembly process
quicker and cheaper; developing special
equipment and techniques for disassem-
88 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
bly; and developing efficient systems for
draining auto fluids to avoid contaminat-
ing other materials.
2. Reducing the number of different plastic
resins used.
3. Replacing plastics that are difficult to re-
cycle with thermoplastics, such as
polypropylene and polyurethane, that are
easier to recycle.
4. Coding all plastic resins for rapid identi-
fication.
5. Increasing recycled content.
6. Recycling parts, e.g., bumpers and the
precious metals in catalytic converters.
Volkswagen
Volkswagen started a pilot project for disassem-
bly and recycling in April 1990. It recycles its
bumpers in a closed-loop system: old bumpers
are used in new bumpers that have 20-30 per-
cent recycled content. Higher levels of recycled
content could be achieved if more used bumpers
were available. The bumpers are generally made
of polypropylene. The company has decreased
the use of poly vinyl chloride (PVC) and elimi-
nated chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), cadmium,
and asbestos in all components it produces.22
Volkswagen's newly designed fuel tank,
with 11 fewer parts, is both easier to disassemble
and cheaper to make. Volkswagen says making
fuel tanks from recycled plastics is one of the
first successes of its recycling project; it de-
scribes the tanks as "visually as well as func-
tionally perfect."23 As of May 1993, these fuel
tanks were still in the testing stage and had not
gone into production.24 The company believes
the economics of auto recycling will improve
because cars will be designed for recyclability.25
BMW (Bayerische Motoren Werke A.G.)
BMW has developed new systems and cost es-
timates for disassembly, evaluated the
recyclability of materials, and transferred this
information back to its designers. The company
has been operating a pilot recycling project at
its dismantling plant in Landshut, near Munich,
since 1990. It began to establish authorized re-
cycling centers in 1991 and expected to have
20 such centers nationwide by the end of 1993.
BMW is also setting up such centers in the
United Kingdom, France, and the Netherlands.
A parallel pilot project involves 30 BMW deal-
ers in taking back old BMWs. The company
estimates that by the year 2000, 20 million ve-
hicles will be taken off the road in Europe each
year, and about 2:50,000 of these will be
BMWs.26
In 1992, BMW launched a two-year pilot
recycling project in the United States with the
Automotive Dismamtlers and Recyclers Asso-
ciation (ADRA), based on experience in Ger-
many. The project is taking place in the Bronx,
NY; Los Angeles; and Orlando, FL. Owners of
used BMWs may exchange their cars for cash.
The authorized project centers will take back
any used BMW, regardless of the production
year, but will deduct the costs of dismantling
and recycling from the price the center pays the
car owner for the used vehicle. (Older models
are more expensive to dismantle and recycle.)
As an incentive to customers, BMW gives a
$500 certificate toward the purchase of a new
or dealer-certified used BMW.27
Identification of used plastic materials is key
to the efficient dismantling and recycling of
cars. BMW has developed a color coding sys-
tem for plastics that has been adopted by the
German automotive industry, to be used along
with labeling. It has also developed color cod-
ing for auto fluids to enable them to be more
easily separated and recycled.
Like other auto companies, BMW is aim-
ing to reduce the number of plastic resins used,
avoid composites, and eliminate toxic, nonre-
Proposed Waste Reduction iand Recycling Legislation 89
-------
cyclable materials. The company regrinds
bumpers and uses them to line luggage com-
partments; seating foam is reused for noise in-
sulation; and engines, transmission housings,
and alternators are reconditioned and sold as
spare parts with BMW warranties. In its new
Series-3 cars, 81 percent of the materials, by
weight, can be reused or recycled.28
BMW says, "Although BMW does not sup-
port many of the requirements proposed [in the
ordinance], including the recycling quotas,
BMW in general is supportive of the legisla-
tion which would provide the economic incen-
tives for manufacturers and consumers alike to
achieve a greater re-utilization of the automo-
bile materials once it [sic] reaches the end of
its life cycle."29
In an October 1992 speech, Karl H. Gerlin-
ger, President and CEO of BMW of North Am-
erica, Inc., noted that firms that pursue product
life-cycle management will have an advantage
over those that do not.30 The "Big Three" US
auto manufacturers (General Motors, Chrysler,
and Ford) seem to concur. According to Plas-
tics News, "Because of Germany's actions, the
Big Three believe BMW, Volkswagen and
Daimler-Benz of Germany have a strategic lead
as the time approaches when vehicles will have
to meet any country's recycling standards."31
Soon there will be other standards to meet out-
side of Germany: Austria, France, and the
United Kingdom, as well as the European Com-
munity, are planning to enact legislation that
shifts the responsibility for reduction and recy-
cling of auto waste to industry.
Table 10-2: Estimated Quantity of Waste from
Used Electric and Electronic Equipment
Product Category
Household appliances
Entertainment systems
Information technology
Medical
Other
TOTAL
1994*
(metric tons)
600,000
234,000
98,000
7,000
353,000
1,292,000
1998
(metric tons)
823,000
444,000
104,000
15,000
487,000
1,873,000
* 'West" Germany only
Source: Deutscher Bundestag-12.Wahlperiode (Lower
House of Parliament, 12th legislative period), 12/4820,
p. 4.
Proposed Ordinance on the
Reduction and Recycling of Used
Electric and Electronic Equipment
This proposed ordinance, originally circulated
in July 1991 and later revised, covers a hetero-
geneous group of products that contain electric
or electronic parts, including large household
appliances (e.g., washing machines and stoves);
small household appliances (e.g., hair dryers,
toasters, electric razors, and clocks); entertain-
ment systems (e.g., stereos and televisions);
office equipment (e.g., computers, copy ma-
chines, and telephones); medical equipment;
electronic tools; and large office information
and communications equipment (e.g., data pro-
cessing machines and telephone exchanges).32
The July 1991 draft called for the ordinance to
take effect in January 1994, but the ordinance
had not been adopted when this report was pre-
pared for publication. The timetable was slowed
by the economic recession and the parliamen-
tary elections scheduled for the fall of 1994.
90 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
Electronic waste constitutes roughly 4 per-
cent of the German solid waste stream. Elec-
tronic waste was estimated at about 1.3 million
metric tons for the former West Germany in
1994 and 1.9 million metric tons for all of Ger-
many in 1998, as shown in Table 10-2.
Objectives of the Electronics Ordinance
The objectives of the ordinance are to promote
source reduction and recycling by:
1. Using more "environmentally compatible
and recyclable materials."
2. Making products easier to repair and dis-
assemble.
3. Establishing collection systems that are
easily accessible to end users and that
achieve a high return rate.
4. Delivering returned equipment for reuse
and recycling.
5. Properly disposing of equipment that can-
not be recycled.33
Electronics Take-back Provisions
Under the electronics ordinance, sellers would
be required to take back used equipment from
end users; manufacturers would have to take it
back from the sellers. Both sellers and manu-
facturers are responsible for delivering the
equipment for reuse, recycling, and/or disposal,
although third parties could be contracted to
fulfill these obligations. Complex provisions
specify who must take back what equipment,
but the take-back will basically be limited to
equipment that the manufacturer or seller car-
ries in its product line.34 Unlike the Packaging
Ordinance, the requirement for companies to
take back only their own products provides
company-specific incentives for source reduc-
tion and recycling.
Electronics Industry Negotiations
The electronics industry is actively negotiating
the provisions of the electronics ordinance with
the government through the association of tool
makers (Verband Deutscher Maschinen- und
Anlagenbau e.V., or VDMA) and the associa-
tion of the electronics industry (Zentralverband
Elektrotechnik-und Elektronikindustrie e.V., or
ZVEI). Industry is pressing the government not
to require the free take-back of electronic equip-
ment. If companies cannot charge for taking
back products, they will have to include these
costs in product prices, in keeping with the Fed-
eral Environment Ministry's support of the "pol-
luter pays" principle. But ZVEI has voiced con-
cern about the expense of taking back products
that were not designed for disassembly or take-
back. Its members are willing to start taking
back 1993 equipment in 1998, but they do not
want to take back the older products still in use.
Proposed revisions would allow industry to
charge for taking ba.ck older equipment, pro-
vided the fees charged do not exceed the costs
of collecting, recycling, or disposing of the par-
ticular equipment.35 The issue will not be fi-
nally resolved until the ordinance is passed.
Another area of contention relates to small
retailers. According to the Association of Ba-
varian Retailers (Landesverband des Bayeri-
schen Einzelhandels e.V), small retailers are
concerned that the ordinance will put them at a
disadvantage because they do not have suffi-
cient space to store the equipment they must
take back. The proposed revisions allow sell-
ers with less than 100 square meters (1076
square feet) of space to limit the take-back to
the specific number of new pieces of equipment
bought by the end user. In other words, a pur-
chaser of one television may bring only one TV
back to a small retailer but could bring several
Proposed Waste Reduction and Recycling Legislation 91
-------
back to a larger retailer, provided that retailer
carries that brand.36
While serious negotiations proceed over
specific provisions of the ordinance, and prob-
lems with the logistics of a take-back system
persist, ZVEI is in general agreement with the
objectives of the ordinance, and its members
are working to make their products less waste-
ful and more easily recyclable.37
Computer Industry Initiatives
In the computer industry, a number of compa-
nies anticipating passage of the ordinance
are already taking back their products vol-
untarily and designing them for return and dis-
assembly. Some, such as Compaq, Dell, and
Zenith, typically charge consumers between
DM30 and DM 100 ($18-$60) to take back per-
sonal computers, but Apple, NEC, and Siemens
take theirs back free of charge.38 Consumers are
concerned that localities will refuse to collect
electronic waste once the ordinance is passed;
they want an assurance that when they purchase
electronic equipment they will be able to get
rid of it. The industry also sees the profit po-
tential in taking back some equipment, particu-
larly if it contains a lot of valuable metal.
Smaller electronics companies are using third
parties to take back their products, and a new
industry for recycling electronics has devel-
oped.
IBM
IBM has been taking back its products volun-
tarily in Germany since 1990, and it sees de-
sign for reuse and recycling as a top priority.
IBM reuses many of the parts and directs the
remainder to recycling and disposal. There is a
nominal charge for take-back to cover trans-
portation and handling. In 1991, IBM Germany
took back 438 tons of old equipment.39
Based on the experience in Germany, IBM
characterizes the waste in the average computer
product, by weight, as follows:
Scrap iron 67.0%
Packaging materials 9.5%
Plastics 8.0%
Cathode ray tubes 6.8%
Precious metals 3.3%
Reusable parts 2.6%
Aluminum 1.8%
Nonferrous'metals 0.5%
Hazardous waste 0.5%
100.0%
IBM notes that "today, environmental re-
strictions are moving into the very heart of prod-
uct development and design."40 The company
is considering environmental questions in the
initial stages of product design, including:
What components and materials can be
reused and recycled?
How can product packaging be recycled?
Will any components or materials be con-
sidered hazardous waste at the end of the
product's useful life?
What-are the ultimate disposal options for
the product?
At IBM, product developers are now re-
sponsible for a product's entire lifespan not
just its design and manufacture. The company
has devised an environmental impact assess-
ment (EIA) to help product managers compile
environmental information. The company says
the EIA "provides data on the materials con-
tained within and used by the product, techni-
cal data on energy usage, transportation, stor-
age, recyclability, reuse and disposal options for
the product, its consumables and packaging."41
An example of the new design for recycling
and disassembly is the Personal System/2 Mod-
92 Germany, Cartage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
els 40 and 57. These computers are designed
with a new "snap technology" in which many
fasteners have been eliminated to facilitate dis-
assembly. The new models use only one plastic
resin instead of the dozens that were formerly
used. The change simplifies manufacturing and
recycling and saves the company money in pur-
chasing, as the resin chosen can be bought in
much larger quantities than before.42
IBM now requires coding to identify plas-
tics, based on the codes used by the German
automobile industry, discussed in the previous
section. The codes are molded into the parts so
that materials may be separated for recycling.
Coding can increase the material's value over
that of mixed plastic scrap.
IBM has established the Engineering Cen-
ter for Environmentally Conscious Products in
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, to
maximize reuse and recycling and minimize the
volume of materials requiring disposal. The re-
sults of the research from this center are shared
by IBM facilities worldwide. As many IBM
products have a standard design for the global
market, the changes will be felt around the
world. IBM also voluntarily takes back its prod-
ucts in the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and
Austria and planned to do so in France and Italy
in 1993. IBM says its voluntary take-back pro-
gram in Germany is in response to customer
demand, not to the proposed German electronic
ordinance, and that the company policy is to be
pro-active.43
Xerox
Xerox, another large US company, says it be-
gan taking back products in the late 1960s, long
before Germany proposed such legislation; the
company says the German initiatives have ac-
celerated industry movement in this direction.
Xerox says it designs its products for global
rather than national markets and that its designs
are driven by the market with the most strin-
gent standards; in environmental terms, that
market is Germany. The company also expects
the trends set in Germany to spread throughout
Europe.44 According to Jack Azar, manager of
environmental design and resource conserva-
tion, Xerox and many electronic and business
equipment companies are treating "take-back"
and "product stewardship" as a "given."45
While Xerox has been taking back some of
its products since the late 1960s, it did not de-
velop a "design-for-the-environment" strategy
until 1991. An asset management organization
set up within the company now prepares de-
signer guidelines that are applied at the
product's "concept development stage." The
guidelines are similar to those used by the auto
industry and IBM. Xerox policy follows a hier-
archy for the equipment it takes back:
1. Redistribution to new customers if it is
in working order.
2. Restoration through remanufacturing.
3. Conversion into another product.
4. Salvaging of parts.
5. Recycling of materials.
Xerox says it "wants to develop new products
that, at end of [their] life, will contribute virtu-
ally nothing to landfills."46
To deal with the problems posed by plas-
tics, the company aims to use 100 percent re-
cyclable thermoplastic resins, 25 percent post-
consumer recycled materials by 1995, and 50
percent by 2000. Xerox is reducing the number
of plastic resins it uses from more than 500 to
fewer than 50: fewer than 10 resins may satisfy
80 percent of the resin applications.47
In the first year of its "Asset Recycling Pro-
gram," Xerox not only reduced its waste but
saved $50 million. It contends that its efforts
are hindered by government procurement guide-
Proposed Waste Reduction and Recycling Legislation 93
-------
lines in the United States and abroad that
require products purchased to be "new." The
guidelines categorize products using recycled
content, particularly reused parts and compo-
nents, as "used." As government is such a ma-
jor purchaser, these guidelines create a signifi-
cant disincentive for companies to use
secondary materials and recycled parts. Accord-
ing to Xerox, the growing interest in recycling
durable goods "reflects a recognition that most
of our planet's resources are finite and should
not be squandered by discarding material that
is still useful...the industrial community has
come to the realization that such waste repre-
sents a significant and avoidable busi-
ness cost."48
Other Electronics Companies
Apple Computer, a US company with no manu-
facturing facilities in Germany, began taking
back its products in August 1992 at its Munich
service center. Apple, too, is trying to maximize
the reuse of parts and to keep its equipment run-
ning longer through refurbishing and upgrad-
ing. The company takes back equipment free,
but the customer must pay for shipping. Ger-
many is the only country in which Apple takes
back its products.
Take-back of electronic equipment in Ger-
many is not limited to computers and office
machines. Grundig, a German television manu-
facturer, is offering "green TVs" that it prom-
ises to take back. By developing experience in
designing and manufacturing products with
take-back considerations in mind, the company
can enhance its competitive position when the
ordinance goes into effect.49
Siemens, the large German electronics
manufacturer, is studying the life cycle of its
products with particular attention to the impact
of taking its products back. It is developing a
program, called "design for upgrade," under
which machines are designed to be easily up-
graded so that only obsolete parts must be dis-
carded.50 Siemens Nixdorf, which makes com-
puters, is working on "re-commercializing" its
machines: that is, taking them back, refurbish-
ing them, and reselling them.51
A Revolution in Thinking
In sum, the changes made by automobile and
electronics companies in Germany will likely
have an impact around the world. Five years
ago, electronics companies were developing
new models of products with little attention to
what would be done with the older ones they
replaced. This thinking has changed dramati-
cally, and companies are taking a new look at
how they can optimize their use of materials
for the long term. Reusing and upgrading are
new objectives in the computer industry. Ger-
many now has two associations for electronic
waste recycling, and many more firms entering
the business. Both take-back legislation and
voluntary take-back programs are more ad-
vanced in Germany than in any other country
in the world.
The German government's drive for take-
back legislation has increased worldwide
awareness and concern about industry's respon-
sibility for its products, and created pressures
that brought about these changes even before
specific legislation was passed. The take-back
strategy may lead to more leasing of equipment,
which has long been a practice in the auto and
electronics industries. As companies design for
disassembly and recycling, they may want to
have complete responsibility for their products
from cradle to grave. Not only can taking back
and servicing their own equipment protect com-
panies' proprietary design features, but recy-
94 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
cling cars and some equipment offers the po-
tential for profitability.
Notes
1. Bureau of National Affairs, "Waste Law Proposal
Will Require Industry to Recycle All Products," In-
ternational Environment Daily, Washington, DC,
July 28, 1992.
2. Bureau of National Affairs, "Cabinet Approves
Amended Waste Law Despite Widespread Industry
Objections," International Environment Daily,
Washington, DC, April 2,1993.
3. Federal Environment Ministry (BMU), "The Fed-
eral Government Passes New Waste Management
Act," press release, Bonn, March 31, 1993.
4. Federal Environment Ministry (BMU), "To'pfer legt
neues Abfallgesetz vor: Kreislaufwirtschaft statt
Abfallbeseitigung" ("Topfer Presents New Waste
Legislation: Closed-Loop Economy Instead of Waste
Disposal), press release, July 17,1992, p. 3.
5. Jiirgen Maas (Die Griinen, Bonn), interview, Octo-
ber 23,1992.
6. Federal Environment Ministry (BMU), "The Fed-
eral Government Passes New Waste Management
Act," op. cit.
1. Ibid.
8. Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie e.V., (BDI)
(Association of German Industry), "Grundsatzstell-
ungnahme" ("Position Paper"), Cologne: June/July
1992.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Bureau of National Affaris, "Cabinet Approves
Amended Waste Law," op. cit.
12. "Waste: New German Plan for Economic Recy-
cling," Europe Environment, No. 408, Europe In-
formation Service, Brussels, April 15,1993, p. II-2.
13. Ferdinand Protzman, "Germany's Push to Expand
the Scope of Recycling," The New York Times, July
4, 1993, p. F-8.
14. "Waste: New German Plan for Economic Recy-
cling," op. cit., p. II-2.
15. Volkswagen, "Recycling at Volkswagen," 1991,
p. 15 and 18.
16. Karl-HeinzZiwica (BMW of North America), "Les-
sons from the German Experience with Vehicle Re-
cycling," Massachusetts Institute of Technology:
Design and Disposal of Durable Products Confer-
ence, Cambridge, MA, March 24-25, 1993.
17. Ziwica, written communication, September 3,1993.
18. Ziwica, "Lessons from the German Experience with
Vehicle Recycling," op. cit.
19. Ziwica, written communication, September 3,1993.
20. Ziwica, "Lessons from the German Experience with
Vehicle Recycling," pp. cit.
21. BDI, "Stellungnahme zur AltautoV" ("Response Po-
sition Paper on Automobile Take-back Ordinance"),
Cologne, October 1992.
22. GunnarLarsson (Volkswagen AG), "Automotive Re-
cycling in Germany Today and in the Future," Mas-
sachusetts Institute of Technology: Design and Dis-
posal of Durable Products Conference, Cambridge,
MA, March 24-25, 1993.
23. Volkswagen, "Recycling at Volkswagen," op. cit.,
p. 16.
24. Rolf Buchheim (Volkswagen, Wolfsburg, Germany)
telephone interview, May 6,1993.
25. Volkswagen, "Recycling at Volkswagen," op. cit,
p. 19. !
26. BMW, "A Consistent. Initiative to Protect the Envi-
ronment: BMW Car Recycling," July 1992, p. 2.
27. Ziwica,"Lessons from the German Experience with
Vehicle Recycling," op. cit.
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid. ''
30. Karl H. Gerlinger (BMW), "Market Incentives and
the Environment," October 15, 1992, p. 3.
31. "Saturn Working Toward Auto Recycling," Plastics
News, April 5, 1993, p. 19.
32. Federal Environment Ministry (BMU), WAII 3-30
114/7, Working Paper of 15 October 1992, "Regula-
tion Regarding the Avoidance, Reduction and Recy-
cling of the Waste of Used Electric and Electronic
Equipment - Electronic Scrap Regulation," p. 3-4.
33. Ibid. p. 1-2.
34. Latham & Watkins, International Environment Net-
work, IEN Client Alert, "German Electronic Waste
Regulation," November 20, 1992.
35. Federal Environment Ministry (BMU), working pa-
per of 15 October 1992, op. cit., p. 5-7.
36. Ibid. ;
Proposed Waste Reduction and Recycling Legislation 95.
-------
37. Zentralverband Elektrotechnik-und Electronikindus-
triee.V. (ZVEI) (Association of Electrotechnicaland
Electronic Industries), "Elektronik-Schrott-Verord-
nung: ZVEI diskutiert offene Probleme mil BMU-
Staatssekretar Stroetinann" ("Scrap Electronics Or-
dinance: ZVEI Discusses Open Problems with
Environmental Secretary of State Stroetmann), April
29,1993.
38. "Welche Computer Strom sparen und leise arbeiten"
("Computers that Save Electricity and Run Quietly"),
Impulse, March 1993, p. 184.
39. Barbara Hill (IBM), "Integrating Environmental At-
tributes into Product Development," at Faredisfare
lo scenario del produttore riproduttore, Politecnico
di Milano, Italy, October 23,1992, p. 3 and 5.
40. Hill, i&M., p. 1.
41. Hill, ibid., p. 3.
42. Ed Grimm (IBM), "Update on Safety, Energy and
the Environment," 1992.
43. Barbara Hill (IBM), written communication, Sep-
tember 1,1993.
44. Jack Azar (Xerox), telephone interview, June 16,
1993.
45. Jack Azar, "Recycling Initiatives in the American
Electronics Industry," Massachusetts Institute of
Technology: Design and Disposal of Durable Prod-
ucts Conference, Cambridge, MA, March 24-25,
1993.
46. Jack C. Azar, James C. MacKenzie and Richard S.
Morabito, "Environmental Life-Cycle Design at
Xerox," draft for EPA Journal, July 1993.
47. Azar, MacKenzie, and Morabito, ibid.
48. Ibid.
49. Dr. Braden Allenby (National Academy of Engineer-
ing), "Europe Trip Report, Oct. 14-23, 1992," No-
vember 1992, in papers from Massachusetts Insti-
tute of Technology: Design and Disposal of Durable
Products Conference, Cambridge, MA, March 24-
25,1993, p. 18.
50. Ibid., p. 19.
51. Ibid., p. 20.
96 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
Chapter 11: Local Waste Management Initiatives
German policymakers have been so focused on
promoting changes in the production process
as a means of reducing waste that less attention
has so far been given to changes in product use
on the municipal, institutional, and individual
levels. But, despite the prevalent philosophy that
source reduction should be accomplished
through changes in industrial design and pro-
duction, some local governments have devel-
oped programs to reduce the amount of munici-
pal solid waste generated. Some states, for
example, North Rhine-Westphalia, already re-
quire their localities to submit recycling and
source reduction plans, and new federal tech-
nical guidelines will require localities to sub-
mit municipal solid waste plans to their states.
INFORM did not conduct a survey of mu-
nicipal solid waste policies throughout Ger-
many, but did identify, during a month of travel,
some local initiatives that provide examples of
strategies for US planners and policymakers to
consider.
Local Source Reduction Strategies
The mechanisms for waste avoidance Ger-
man localities employ include:
Bans and taxes on disposables
Source reduction education
Repair and reuse programs
Charging households for the amount of
waste they generate (quantity-based user
fees)
Promoting backyard composting
Banning Disposables at Events
Held on Public Property
A number of cities, including Munich and
Heidelberg, have banned the use of disposable
beverage containers at events on public prop-
erty. Cities can impose such bans because they
issue permits for the use of public land. Mobile
Local Waste Management Initiatives 97
-------
dishwashers are available for the events. At the
two-week-long 1992 Oktoberfest in Munich,
the exclusive use of reusable glasses and mugs
cut the waste generated from 915 to 400 metric
tons.1 At Heidelberg's annual fair, which at-
tracted more than 100,000 people, waste was
reduced by 40 percent.2
Munich also bans disposables at publicly
owned sports arenas and swimming pools; ven-
dors sell beverages in refillable plastic cups and
charge customers a deposit. The publicly owned
beer gardens in Munich use only washable mugs
and tableware. The private beer gardens are now
adopting the same policy, owing to consumer
pressure.
Munich is working to ban disposables in
public facilities, including schools and govern-
ment offices. Although Munich's general ban
on one-way beverage containers was found by
the federal courts to be unconstitutional, Munich
still hopes to persuade McDonald's to elimi-
nate disposable containers voluntarily.
Under the Heidelberg waste management law
of December 1,1991, government cafeterias must
use reusable dishes, glasses, and utensils.
Taxing Disposables
The City of Kassel taxes disposable cutlery,
crockery, and beverage containers used in lo-
cal fast-food restaurants, roadside and market
stalls, and hospitals. The tax, which ranges from
DM0.1 - 0.5 ($0.06 - 0.30), is designed to dis-
courage use of these disposable products and
reduce waste volumes by 500 metric tons per
year.3
Subsidized Workers to
Promote Source Reduction
Cologne started a program using unemployed
people to educate the public on source reduc-
tion. These workers, many of them academics,
were paid by the federal government to teach
source reduction in the schools and the com-
munity, with the understanding that after two
years the city might hire them. However, as
source reduction outreach is now federally man-
dated, these workers can no longer be used for
this purpose. To avoid conflicts with the labor
unions, "subsidized" workers cannot be used
for any mandated activity.
The Cologne city government and the fed-
eral unemployment office also fund the
"Umweltzentram West" (Environment Center
West) pilot project. Founded by a church, the
project employs "disadvantaged" people (e.g.,
high school dropouts and the long-term unem-
ployed) to repair used appliances. The center
then sells the appliances cheaply to the poor
and, increasingly, to "green" consumers. In a
similar private program called EMMAUS,
which started in France and now operates in
several German cities, homeless and mentally
ill people recycle, repair, and resell used appli-
ances and furniture.4
In a program in Wuppertal, former prison-
ers collect appliances, such as refrigerators,
freezers, and washing machines, that would oth-
erwise be disposed of, then repair them or sepa-
rate their materials for recycling. The federal
government also pays unemployed workers to
repair and resell unclaimed furniture after some-
one dies. However, the Wuppertal municipal
solid waste department has expressed skepti-
cism over whether the mixing of social and
waste management goals results in satisfactory
results for either.5
98 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
Quantity-Based User Fees (QBUFs)
Charging citizens for waste collection based on
the amount they generate is an important local
policy in Germany unlike the United States,
where waste management is usually funded by
general tax revenues. In Germany, cities and
towns generally set a basic charge for once-a-
week collection of a waste container. Citizens
may reduce their costs by opting for a smaller
container or less frequent collection.
The rates vary considerably by locality, but
many are in the range of DM200 to DM600 ($120
- $360) per year for weekly collection of a con-
tainer of about 120 liters. In light of declining
disposal capacity and more stringent environ-
mental regulations for landfills and incinerators,
many localities planned major increases in their
waste fees in 1993 often about 50 percent.
While in theory the total amount residents pay
to localities for waste management should de-
crease as a result of the shift of materials from
municipal to DSD bins, many residents may in
fact experience only smaller municipal in-
creases.
The Dual System complicates local waste
collection. As noted in Chapter 6, when Duales
System Deutschland (DSD) signs a contract
with a locality, DSD may agree to manage the
packaging waste, pay the locality to do so, or
arrange a combination of DSD and local man-
agement. In all cases, the costs of managing
packaging waste one third of the waste
stream are transferred from the locality to
DSD. Even if the per-bin charges increase,
households may pay less to the localities be-
cause they can put packaging waste in DSD's
yellow bins. The citizen pays regardless ei-
ther through green dot fees or local collection
charges.
Evidence shows that quantity-based fees are
an effective incentive that can substantially re-
duce the waste going to incinerators or land-
fills. In Esslingen, near Stuttgart, flat rates were
replaced by a charge of DM3.75 ($2.25) per bin
starting in January 1991. Esslingen residents put
bins out for collection only when full. As a re-
sult of this change, waste declined from 300
kilograms per household per year to 155 kilo-
grams per household per year a reduction of
48 percent. Another community, Billigheim,
began charging a flat rate of DM? ($4.20) per
month for each bin, plus DM0.15 ($0.09) per
kilogram of garbage. This led to a 50 percent
reduction in waste. The high-tech Billigheim
system incorporates microchips in the bins and
scales in the trucks, enabling collectors to iden-
tify automatically the; household and the weight
of the waste.6
The reported waste reductions in these
towns can be attributed to both source reduc-
tion and recycling. The former is achieved pri-
marily through backyard composting, the lat-
ter primarily by bringing more glass and paper
to drop-off bins. ;
Preparing Municipal Solid Waste Plans
Source reduction initiatives at the local level
usually begin with solid waste planning and the
setting of source reduction goals. As in the
United States, many states and localities in
Germany are preparing long-term solid waste
plans for the first time:. These plans may include
analysis of the waste stream, source reduction
and recycling goals, and estimates of future dis-
posal capacity needs. The state of North Rhine-
Westphalia, for example, where Cologne is lo-
cated, has set a source reduction goal of 15
percent and a recycling goal of 30 percent, both
to be achieved in 10 years.
Local Waste
Management Initiatives 99
-------
Case Studies: Heidelberg
and Wuppertal
These case studies illustrate the costs of waste
management in two German cities, how this
relates to the Dual System, and how some local
source reduction strategies are being imple-
mented. Because there is no standardized re-
porting system for waste in Germany, the fol-
lowing descriptions are intended for illustration
only, and not for direct comparisons of waste
generation or budgets. For example, Heidelberg
includes sewage treatment in its waste budget,
Wuppertal does not.
Heidelberg
Heidelberg, a city of 140,000 people in south-
west Germany, has become a leader in waste
reduction because of its serious municipal solid
waste problem. The city used to dump one-third
of its waste, about 25,000 metric tons per year,
in France, where tipping fees were much lower
than those in Germany. In August 1992, France
closed its borders to German waste destined for
disposal. This left Heidelberg and other cities
in the state of Baden-Wurttemberg searching
for disposal options. Heidelberg now ships
waste to Mannheim at a cost of DM486 per ton
($292), almost double the DM250 ($150) per
ton it cost to dump in France.7
Heidelberg generated about 86,000 metric
tons of municipal solid waste in 1992, about
54,000 metric tons of which was household
waste. (The 86,000 metric tons includes com-
mercial waste but not the commercial waste that
is recycled.) The city has an incinerator that
burns 40,000 metric tons per year, but it does
not have a landfill. Heidelberg recycles about
46 percent of its household waste, some through
municipal composting of yard and food waste.
The city distributes the mulch from compost-
ing leaves free of charge. It aims to recycle 55
percent of the household waste stream (about
30,000 metric tons) by 1994 but expects to
eliminate only 2,000 metric tons through source
reduction. The municipal solid waste depart-
ment asserts that the highest recycling rate it
can realistically achieve is 60 - 70 percent.
Heidelberg's waste budget rose about 40
percent in 1993, to about DM50 - 55 million ($30
- 33 million). Annual per-bin charges for house-
hold garbage increased about 30 percent, to
DM486 ($292) for weekly collection of a 120-
liter bin. This is the basic bin for an 8-12 per-
son multi-family residence. A family of four
would generally fill a 120-liter can each week,
but Heidelberg's separate collection and mu-
nicipal composting of organic waste lowers its
per-person output of garbage. Heidelberg cuts
the fees in half for those who opt for pickup
once every two weeks. Citizens may also ar-
range to have pickups only when their bins are
full. They do so by buying stickers that they
place on the full bins. Each sticker costs DM9.40
($5.60): the yearly charge divided by 52. Un-
used stickers may be redeemed for cash at the
end of the year. Of the 21,500 bins used to serve
Heidelberg's population, 2,100 are picked up
every two weeks, and residents use stickers on
5,500. Local officials cite this as evidence that
one-third of the population is reducing its waste.
One way to "reduce" the waste in the house-
hold bin is to bring more material to the drop-
off bins for paper and glass actually a re-
quirement since recyclables are banned from
disposal in Heidelberg. Backyard composting
is another reduction strategy. The city has al-
ready distributed 2,000 free composting bins
and expects to distribute more.
Heidelberg estimated that green dot fees
would cost its citizens DM200 - 500 ($120 - 249)
100 Germany. Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
per family per year under the 1993 fee sched-
ule. The city will get about DM6 million ($3.6
million) per year from DSD, about 12.5 per-
cent of its annual waste budget. The average
three-person family pays about DM120 ($72)
annually in per-bin fees. If this is added to the
average green dot fee of DM350 ($210), the typi-
cal family will pay DM470 ($282) per year for
waste management. The Dual System, however,
should reduce the waste put out for regular col-
lection because DSD provides special yellow
bins for collecting packaging waste.
In response to the Packaging Ordinance,
Heidelberg has banned transport packaging
from disposal. This has reduced the commer-
cial waste going to disposal by 20 percent. The
city imposes fines of DMlOO-10,000 ($60 -
$6,000) for stores that do not provide bins for
secondary packaging as the Packaging Ordi-
nance requires.
Wuppertal
Wuppertal is an industrial city of 390,000
people, east of Diisseldorf and northeast of Co-
logne in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia.
It generates 200,000 metric tons of municipal
solid waste per year, half from households and
half from commercial sources. The city shares
an incinerator that has the capacity to burn
330,000 metric tons per year with a nearby com-
munity, Remscheid. Built in the 1970s, the in-
cinerator has been refurbished and was to have
three upgraded furnaces by 1997. Debate sur-
rounds the proposed retrofitting of a fourth fur-
nace: the Wuppertal waste department wants
to reduce waste, not increase burning.8
In 1992, Wuppertal charged DM83 ($50) per
person per year to pick up 40 liters of waste a
week. A family of three would thus incur costs
of DM249 ($150) per year for weekly collec-
tion of a 120-liter bin. In 1993, the fee for a
120-liter bin rose 35 percent to DM335 per year
($201). However, Wuppertal estimated that this
bin size would service a four-person household,
because 10 liters per person would be diverted
to the DSD bins. Thus the amount paid to
Wuppertal per person remained about the same.
Wuppertal's novel program to encourage
waste reduction began in January 1992, when
the city mailed residential property owners
cards listing options for waste reduction. If
households reduce their waste by 50 percent,
their bill is reduced by 35 percent; if they re-
duce waste by 25 percent, the bill is reduced by
17.5 percent. Households that participate can
request smaller bins or fewer pickups. What is
unusual about the Wuppertal scheme is that
every household must post a large sticker on its
bin indicating the reduction option it has cho-
sen. Besides providing information to waste
collectors, the sticker also creates pressure to
reduce waste, as the neighbors can see which
families are "good citizens."
Wuppertal estimates the new system has
reduced waste by 10,000 - 20,000 metric, tons
10 to 20 percent of household waste. Of its
50,000 residential buildings, 13,000 chose,
through the sticker system, to reduce waste by
50 percent; 9,600 by 25 percent. Much of this
waste, however, is deposited in drop-off recy-
cling bins for paper and glass. The city has in-
creased the distribution of these bins from 200
to 400, as required by DSD, almost doubling
the amount of paper and glass collected.
Residents in single-family homes may sub-
stantially reduce wash; by composting food and
yard waste. Wuppertal planned to reduce the
standard waste allotment from 40 to 30 liters
per person in 1993, and perhaps to 20 liters in
1994. The reduction would not necessarily re-
flect a real cut in total waste generation, as pack-
aging waste would be shifted to the DSD bins.
Local Waste Management Initiatives 101
-------
As noted in Chapter 6, Wuppertal was to
receive DM 10 million ($6 million) under its
contract with DSD almost one third of its
former solid waste budget of DM35 million ($21
million). Wuppertal continues to use munici-
pal sanitation workers to collect household
waste, including the waste from the yellow DSD
bins. The glass and paper from the drop-off bins
is collected by municipal workers, who take it
to transfer points for pickup by recyclers.
Wuppertal's rationale in negotiating a contract
with DSD was to preserve its sanitation sys-
tem, in the event DSD should fail. Also, by con-
tinuing to use its own municipal workers, noise
levels and schedules can be controlled locally.
Besides banning disposables for events held
on public property, as in Heidelberg and
Munich, the Wuppertal waste department meets
regularly with one teacher in each of the 200
schools to coordinate environmental policies.
The department also helps schools obtain reus-
able supplies by buying bulk quantities for
groups of schools. The University of Wuppertal
no longer provides disposable cups for bever-
ages in campus lounges and cafeterias. Anyone
wishing to drink must bring a cup or buy a re-
usable one at the University store.
Notes
I. Helmut Paschlau (Landeshauptstadt Munchen, Amt
fur Abfallwirtschaft [City of Munich, Department
of Sanitation]), interview, October 9,1992.
2. Rolf Friedel (Stadt Heidelberg, Amt fur Abfallwirt-
schaft und Stadtreinigung [City of Heidelberg, De-
partment of Sanitation]), interview, October 14,
1992.
3. "World News: Germany," Warmer Bulletin, No. 36,
February 1993, p. 9.
4. Renate Fries (Presse- und Informationsdienst fiir
Politik, Wirtschaft und Kultur GbR [Information and
Press Service for Policy, Economy and Culture],
Cologne), interview, October 24, 1992. Also, writ-
ten communication, September 2, 1993.
5. Erwin Rothgang (Amtes fiir Umweltschutz, Stadt-
verwaltung Wuppertal [Department of Environmen-
tal Protection, City Administration Wuppertal]), in-
terview, October 28,1992.
6. "World News: Germany," op. cit., p. 9.
7. Case study based on Rolf Friedel (Stadt Heidelberg,
Amt fur Abfallwirtschaft und Stadtreinigung [City
of Heidelberg, Department of Sanitation]), interview,
October 14,1992. Also, written communication, Sep-
tember 14, 1993.
8. Case study based on Erwin Rothgang (Amtes fiir
Umweltschutz, Stadverwaltung Wuppertal [Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection, City Administra-
tion Wuppertal]), interview, October 28,1992. Also,
written communication, September 21,1993.
102 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
Chapter 12: The German Packaging Ordinance
and the European Community
Germany exercised great care in crafting its
Packaging Ordinance to avoid conflicts with
European Community (EC) law, but the Euro-
pean Community could still pass legislation that
overrides the German ordinance. The relation-
ship of German law to EC law is somewhat
analogous to that of state law to federal law in
the United States (although the US govern-
ment's authority in relation to the states is more
established than the European Community's)
raising common questions for the United States
and Europe. Can states limit waste shipments
from other states, or is free trade in waste pro-
tected? How should conflicts between free trade
and environmental protection be resolved?
Should there be a common environmental
policy? If so, may individual states enact more
stringent legislation? To what degree should
waste prevention be emphasized over waste
management (particularly recycling), and how
might such an emphasis affect economic
growth?
Passage of EC packaging legislation could
affect implementation of Germany's Packaging
Ordinance. It could also affect US companies
doing business overseas, possibly forcing pro-
ducers to modify their packaging and accept fi-
nancial responsibility for recovering packaging
waste in all 12 member states. Moreover, the
issue of balancing free trade and environmen-
tal protection across international boundaries is
likely to become increasingly important for the
United States with respect to the North Ameri-
can Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Waste Policy in the
European Community
The European Community consists of 12 mem-
ber states: Germany, Italy, the United King-
dom, France, Spain, the Netherlands, Portugal,
Greece, Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, and Lux-
embourg. Negotiations are under way to admit
Austria, Sweden, Finland, and Norway, and the
Community is discussing membership for east-
ern European countries.1 The movement toward
a unified Europe with a common market, com-
mon defense, and even a common currency has
slowed as sentiments swing between this goal
and the need to protect the sovereignty of EC
member states.
The European Community government con-
The German Packaging Ordinance and the European Community 103
-------
sists of the Council of Ministers, which makes
the major policy decisions, and is comprised of
ministers from each of the member states; the
European Commission (the executive branch);
the European Parliament (an advisory body di-
rectly elected by EC citizens); and the Euro-
pean Court of Justice.
Two issues currently before the European
Community could have substantial impact on
the success and continued implementation of
the German Packaging Ordinance: 1.) the regu-
lations on the transboundary shipments of waste
and 2.) the proposed EC Directive on Packag-
ing Waste.
Environmental standards among the EC
member states vary widely. Harmonizing these
disparities can avert barriers to trade and ease
the difficulty of dealing with diverse national
laws. But should the environmental standards
of countries as different as Germany and Greece
be harmonized? And, more specifically, should
a country be required to reduce its environmen-
tal standards in the interests of harmonization?
"Subsidiarity" or "Member States' Rights"
The debate on member-state versus central au-
thority in the European Community is centered
on what is called the "subsidiarity" principle,
under which the European Community will act
only in instances when objectives cannot be
achieved by member states or can be better
achieved at the Community level.2 Subsidiarity
is similar to what is known in the United States
as "states' rights" and, in the environmental
arena, it relates to how authority over environ-
mental policies is to be allocated between mem-
ber states and the central EC government in
Brussels. While subsidiarity is intended to in-
crease the authority of member states vis-a-vis
the central government, the members agree little
on specifics. For example, what are the respec-
tive roles of the EC government and the mem-
ber states regarding environmental protection,
including regulating packaging waste and waste
shipments? The answer is crucial for German
waste policies, for it could determine whether
Germany is permitted to maintain its more strin-
gent environmental policies. Former EC Envi-
ronmental Commissioner Karel van Miert has
stated that the environment could become "the
sacrificial lamb" in the power struggle between
Brussels and the member states over limiting
EC decision making.3
Free Trade vs. Environmental Protection
The legal basis for waste legislation continues
to be debated within the European Community:
is the primary interest free trade or environmen-
tal protection? The dispute is not merely tech-
nical or procedural; it has important substan-
tive implications. If waste legislation is
authorized under the environmental protection
provision of the EC treaty (article 130S), mem-
ber states may keep or adopt stronger environ-
mental protection measures than the European
Community. If the legislation is authorized un-
der the free trade provision of the treaty (article
100 A), environmental protection measures in
member states are largely limited by the inter-
ests of free trade and cannot be more stringent
than those of the European Community, with-
out prior approval by the EC Commission.
Resolution of this issue is critical to Germany,
which has stricter environmental protection
policies than most EC countries.
104 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
Appendix D: Bibliography
Ackerman, Frank. "Analyzing the True Costs of Pack-
aging." Biocycle. April 1993.
Allenby, Braden (National Academy of Engineering).
"Europe Trip Report, Oct. 14-23, 1992." In papers
from Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Design
and Disposal of Durable Products Conference. Cam-
bridge, MA: March 24-25.
Azar, Jack (Xerox Corporation). "Recycling Initiatives
in the American Electronics Industry." Massachusetts
Institute of Technology: Design and Disposal of Du-
rable Products Conference. Cambridge, MA: March
24-25, 1993.
Azar, Jack C., James C. MacKenzie, and Richard S.
Morabito, "Environmental Life-Cycle Design at
Xerox." Draft for EPA Journal. June 1993.
Bayerische Motoren Werke A.G. (BMW).
"A Consistent Initiative to Protect the Environ-
ment: BMW Car Recycling." July 1992.
"Recycling of Plastics." 1991.
Bayerisches Staatsministerium fur Landesentwicklung
und Umweltfragen (Bavarian Ministry for Regional
Development and the Environment). "Gemeinsame
Erklarung von Staatsminister Dr. Gauweiler, der nie-
dersachsischen Ministerin fur Umwelt, Monika
Griefahn und dem Minister fur Umwelt des Landes
Baden-Wiirttemberg, Harald Schafer, zum Dualen
System: Derzeit Zulassung nur befristet und mit
zusatzlichen Auflagen moglich" (Joint Statement of
the Environment Ministers of Bavaria, Lower Saxony,
and Baden-Wurttemberg.) Press release. December
15,1992. i
1
I
Boerner, Christopher and Kenneth Chilton (Center for
the Study of American Business). "Recycling's De-
mand Side: Lessons from Germany's 'Green Dot.'"
Washington University, St. Louis: 1993.
Bongaerts, Jan C. (Institut fur Europaische Umweltpoli-
tik e.V.) (Institute for European Environmental
Policy). "The Packaging Ordinance in Germany and
its Implementation, First Experiences." Report for Eu-
ropean Congress: Packaging and Environmental
Strategies. Brussels: November 26-27, 1992.
Bund fur Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e.V.
(BUND) (German Federation for the Environment
and the Protection of Nature). Bonn.
"EEC = European Ecological Collapse?" Re-
sponse to an EC Commission draft of the
packaging directive of September 30,1991.
"Pet-Mehrweg-(k)eine okologische Alternative?"
("PET-Refill"(no) Ecological Alternative?").
1992.
"The Returnables Roundabout- Requirements for
an Environmentally Friendly System of Re-
turnable Drink Containers."
I
Bundesministerium fur Umwelt, Naturschutz und Re-
aktorsicherheit (BMU) (Federal Ministry for the En-
vironment, Protection of Nature and Nuclear Safety
[Federal Environment Ministry]). Bonn.
156 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
Envin Rothgang, Amtes fur Umweltschutz, Stadtverwal-
tung Wuppertal (Wuppertal Sanitation Department).
Fricdcr Rubik, Institut fur Okologische Wirtschaftsfor-
schung GmbH (lOW) (Institute for Environmental
Economics), Heidelberg.
Hans-Dieter Schulz, Planungsverband Ausserer Wirt-
schaftsraum Munchen (Economic Planning Associa-
tion), Munich.
Rafaella Schuster, Landesverband des Bayerischen
Eizelhandels e.V. (Association of Bavarian Retailers),
Munich.
Wolfgang Schutt, INTEC, Bonn.
Michael O. E. Scriba, Duales System Deutschland,
Bonn.
Cynthia Pollock Shea, Bureau of National Affairs, Bonn.
Karl-Heinz Striegel, Landesamt fur Wasser und Abfall
Nordrhein-Westfalen (North Rhine-Westphalia De-
partment for Water and Waste), Dusseldorf.
Clemens Stroetmann, Secretary of State for
Bundesministerium fur Umwelt, Naturschutz und
Reaktorsicherheit (BMU) (Federal Environment Min-
istry), Bonn.
Matthias Wellmer, Die Griinen (Green Patty), Wuppertal.
In addition to the personal interviews noted
above, Ms. Fishbein conducted extensive tele-
phone interviews and exchanged written com-
munication with many sources in both Germany
and the United States, as indicated in the Notes
sections of this report.
Appendices 155
-------
Appendix C: Interviews
Bette Fishbein conducted interviews with the
following people in Germany. All interviews
were held in October 1992 unless otherwise
noted.
Olaf Bandt, BUND fur Umwelt und Naturschutz
Deutschland e.V. (German Federation for the Envi-
ronment and the Protection of Nature), Bonn.
Jan C. Bongaerts, InstitutfurEuropaischeUmweltpolitik
e.V. (Institute for European Environmental Policy),
Bonn.
Bernd Buckenhofer, Bayerischer Stadtetag (Bavarian
Council of Cities), Munich.
B ernd Franke, tnstitut fiir Energie-und Umweltforschung
(IFEU), (Institute for Energy and Environmental
Research), Heidelberg.
Rolf Friedel, Stadt Heidelberg, AmtfiirAbfall wirtschaft
und Stadtreinigung (City of Heidelberg Department
of Sanitation).
Renate Fries, Presse- und Informationsdienst fiir Politik,
Wirtschaft und Kultur GbR (Information and Press
Service for Policy, Economy and Culture), Cologne.
Hubert Gehring, Bundesministerium fiir Umwelt,
Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (BMU) (Federal
Environment Ministry), Bonn.
Wigand Kahl, Landeshauptstadt Miinchen Umwelt-
schutzreferat (Munich Environment Department).
Sibille Kohler, Schoeller International GmbH & Co.,
KG, Munich.
Eberhard Kraft, Rudolf Wild International GmbH & Co.
KG, Heidelberg.
Petra Locker, Bundesministerium fiir Umwelt, Natur-
schutz und Reaktorsicherheit (BMU) (Federal Envi-
ronment Ministry), Bonn.
Marlene Miihe, Bundesministerium fiir Umwelt, Natur-
schutz und Reaktorsicherheit (BMU), (Federal En-
vironment Ministry), Bonn.
Jiirgen Maas, Die Griinen, Fraktion im Rat der Stadt
Bonn (Green Party Representative, Bonn City Coun-
cil), i
Hans-Jiirgen Dels, Umweltbundesamt (UBA) (Federal
Environment Agency), Berlin, May 1991.
Helmut Paschlau, Landeshauptstadt Miinchen, Amt fiir
Abfallwirtschaft (Munich Sanitation Department).
Anja Raffalsky, Tengelmann Warenhandelgesellschaft,
Miilheim.
Maria Rieping, Die Verbraucher Initiative (DVI) (The
Consumer Initiative), Bonn.
154 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
Appendix B: Conversion of 1992 and 1993
Green Dot Fees to Dollars
1992 Green Dot Fees
(Conversion of Table 6-2 to ounces and dollars)
Packaging Volume
(in ounces)
Dollars per
Package
Less than 1.7 $0
1.7 - 6.8 $0.006
6.8 -101 $0.012
101 -1014 $0.030
More than 1014 (7.9 gallons) $0.120
To convert from milliliters to ounces, multiply by
0.0338.
Source: INFORM calculations based on Duales System
Deutschland fees.
1993 Green Dot Fees (Effective October 1993)
(Conversion of Table 6-3 to dollars per pound)
Material
Dollars per
Pound
Plastic
Composites
Aluminum
Tinplate
Paper/paperboard
Natural materials
Glass
$0.82
$0.45
$0.27
$0.15
$0.09
$0.05
$0.04
Source: INFORM calculations based on Duales System
Deutschland fees.
Appendices 153
-------
-20-
IV. Requirements for the recycling of reusable materials
The quantities of reusable materials specified under
III shall be recycled or reused. The applicant shall,
in a verifiable form and on the dates specified under
II, present proof that recycling and reuse of the
reusable materials is guaranteed.
152 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
-19-
Material
glass
tin plate
aluminium
cardboard
paper
plastics
compounded
materials
On 1 January 1993
70%
65%
60%
60%
60%
30%
30%
on 1 July 1995
90%
90%
90%
80%
80%
80%
80%
Proof of the sorting quotas shall be furnished by the
applicant in a verifiable form on the dates specified
under II.
Residual material from the sorting process which
cannot be recycled or reused shall be transferred as
industrial waste to those responsible for public waste
disposal.
Residual material from the sorting process which
cannot be recycled or reused shall be deemed to be
only those materials
which cannot be broken down by manual or machine
sorting into fractions that may be recycled or
reused
which are soiled or contaminated by contents other
than that the original contents of the packaging
or by soiling or contamination of the packaging
material
which are not parts of packaging.
Appendices 151
-------
-18-
Material
glass
tinplate
aluminium
cardboard
paper
plastics
compounded
materials
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
The Federal Government shall, every three years,
beginning on 31 August 1992, based on appropriate
surveys, publish in the Federal Bulletin (Bundesan-
zeiger) the average amount of packaging per inhabitant
used in each individual catchment area, classified
according to packaging materials and per-capita
consumption. [
Proof of the actually collected proportion shall be
furnished by the applicant by 1 March in 1993 and
1994, based on the population statistics of the catch-
ment area (Art. 3 para. 4) and the per-capita consump-
tion of used packaging published by the Federal
Government.. '
I
III. Quantitative requirements to be met fcjy sorting
facilities: ;
.1
From the packaging collected in the catchment area
(Art. 3 para. 4), at least the following types of
materials shall be extracted in an appropriate quality
for recycling and reuse and in the following quan-
tities (given in % by weight):
150 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
-17-
II. Quantitative requirements for collecting systems
In the catchment area (Art. 3 para. 4) of the appli-
cant, the following minimum mean annual percentages
(in % by weight), referred to the total amount of
packaging material in the catchment area, shall be
achieved for the collected materials:
On 1 January 1993
Material
glass
tinplate
aluminium
cardboard
paper
plastics
compounded
matierals
60%
40%
30%
30%
30%
30%
20%
From 1 January 1993 to 30 June 1995, the quotas
specified for each individual packaging material shall
be deemed to be met if at least 50% of the total
packaging material accumulated has in fact been
collected.
From 1 July 1995 proof must be furnished that the
following percentages have been reached:
Appendices 149
-------
-16-
Annex to Art. 6 para. 3
The competent authority shall . provide the confirmation
pursuant to Art. 6 para. 3 if the following requirements
are met:.
I. General requirements
,1
Using appropriate systems, it shall be ensured that
packaging is collected from domestic households
(collection systems), or in the vicinity of domestic
households by means of containers or other suitable
collecting receptacles (so-called "bring systems") or
by a combination of both these systems atnd subsequent-
ly sorted, reused and recycled. The relevant systems
shall include existing systems operated by municipal
corporations . For the systems under sentence 1
the collection quotas specified under II
ii
the sorting quotas specified under III and
the standards for reuse and recycling specified in
IV
shall be reached.
148 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
-15-
Art. 5 and Art. 12 nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 shall enter into
force on 1 April 1992; Art. 6 paras. 1, la, 2, 4 and 5,
Arts. 7 to 9 and Art. 12 nos. 6, 7 and 8 shall enter into
force on 1 January 1993. Art. 6 para. 3 and the Annex to
Art. 6 para. 3 and Art. 10 shall enter into force on the
day following the promulgation of this Ordinance.
Art. 14
Expiration
The Ordinance on the Return of Packaging Material
and the Levying of Deposits on Plastic Drinks Packaging
(Verordnung uber die Rucknahme und Pfanderhebung von
Getrankeverpackungen aus Kunststoffen) shall cease
to be effective on 1 January 1993.
The Bundesrat has given its consent.
Appendices 147
-------
-14-
4. in contravention of Art. 5 para. 3 sentence 1 does not
provide clearly visible and easily accessible collec-
tion containers, j
5. in contravention of Art. 5 para. 3 sentence 2 does not
reuse or recycle secondary packaging independently of
the public waste disposal system,
6. in contravention of Art. 6 para. 1 sentence <1 or
para. 2 sentence 1 does not accept returned sales
packaging,
6 a in contravention of Art. 6 para, la does not accept
return of sales packaging, j
ii
7. in contravention of Art. 6 para. 2 sentence 1 does not
reuse or recycle returned sales packaging independent-
ly of the public waste disposal system, or
8. in contravention of Art. 7, also in conjunction with
Art. 8, does not levy or reimburse a deposit.
Art. 13
'i
Entry into Force .1
With the exception of Arts. 5 to 10 and Art. 12 nos. 2 to
8, this Ordinance shall enter into force on 1 December
1991.
146 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
-13-
SECTION FOUR
Administrative Offences, Transitional
and Concluding Provisions
Art. 11
Appointment of Third Parties
Manufacturers and distributors may call upon third parties
to fulfill obligations specified in this Ordinance. The
return of packaging and the reimbursement of deposits may
also be carried out using automatic machines.
Art. 12
Administrative Offences
An administrative offence within the meaning of Art. 18,
para. 1 no. 11 of the Waste Management and Waste Avoidance
Act shall be deemed to have been committed by any person
who, deliberately or negligently
1. in contravention of Art. 4 does not accept returned
transport packaging or does not reuse or recycle
transport packaging independently of the public waste
disposal system,
2. in contravention of Art. 5 para. 1 does not remove
secondary packaging and also does not give the final
consumer the opportunity of removing such packaging,
3. in contravention of Art. 5 para. 2 does not provide
the information specified therein,
Appendices 145
-------
-12-
(3) The Federal Government shall publish the proportions
of return packaging pursuant to para. 2 by 30 June
each year in the Federal Bulletin (Bundesanzeiger). If
the proportion of return packaging falls below the
percentages under para. 2, another survey shall be
carried out on the relevant proportions of return
packaging as of the first day of the sixth calendar
month following announcement. This survey shall also
be published in the Federal Bulletin. If the results
of this second survey show that the proportion of the
return packaging is still lower than the percentages
under para. 2, Art. 7 shall apply from the first day
of the sixth calendar month following the last public
announcement.
Art. 10
Restriction on the obligation to accept returned packaging
and to reimburse deposits.
Distributors in a catchment area in which Arts. 7 and 8
apply, may refuse to accept returned packaging cind re-
imburse deposits for packaging originating from catchment
areas in which an exemption has been granted pursuant to
Art. 6 para. 3. They may, for the purposes of differentia-
tion, issue their packaging with deposit stamps or mark it
in another way.
144 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
r
-11-
2. emulsion paints with a net weight of 2 kg. In this
case, the deposit shall be 2.00 DM.
Art. 9
Exemption from the obligation to accept returned packaging
and to charge deposits- protection of return systems
(1) Arts. 7 and 8 shall not apply if, in the catchment
area of the final distributor a system in accordance
with Art. 6 para. 3 has been set up and if the highest
Land authority responsible for waste disposal or the
authority designated by it has confirmed this by means
of a general disposition. Art. 6 para. 4 shall apply
mutatis mutandis.
(2) Any exemption pursuant to paragraph 1 shall only apply
to the packaging of beer, mineral water, spring water,
table water, drinking water and remedial waters,
carbonated refreshment drinks, fruit juices, juice
concentrates, vegetable juices and non-carbonated
refreshment drinks, wine (except slightly sparkling
wines, sparkling wines, vermouth and desert wines), if
the proportion of return packaging in the catchment
area concerned does not fall belbw the level register-
ed in the particular catchment area in 1991 and as a
whole does not fall below 72% in the area of validity
of the Waste Avoidance and Waste Management Act; for
pasteurized milk the corresponding proportion for
return bottles shall be 17%.
The Federal Government shall decide, three years after
this Ordinance comes into force, on any necessary in-
creases and differentiations of the relevant propor-
tions of return packaging.
Appendices 143
-------
-10-
SECTION III
Obligation to accept return of and charge deposits
on drinks packaging, packaging of washing and
cleansing agents and emulsion paints
Art. 7
Obligation to charge deposits on drinks packaging
Distributors who supply liquid foodstuffs in throw-away
drinks packaging with a net volume of 0.2 1 shall be
obliged to charge the purchaser a deposit per drinks
packaging of 0.50 DM including turnover tax. The minimum
deposit for non-reusable packaging shall be 0.50 DM includ-
ing turnover tax; a deposit of at least 1.00 DM including
turnover tax shall be charged if the net volume equals-or
exceeds 1.5 1. The deposit shall be charged by each further
distributor at all commercial levels until delivery to the
final consumer. The deposit shall be repaid on return of
the packaging (Art. 6 paras. 1 and 2).
Art. 8
Obligation to charge deposits on packaging of :washing and
cleansing agents and emulsion paints
Art. 7 shall apply mutatis mutandis to packaging of
1. washing and cleansing agents within the meaning of
Art. 2 para. 1 of the Washing and Cleansing Agents Act
(Wasch- und Reinigungsmittelgesetz) with a. net volume
of 0.2 1 or more, except soft packaging and cardboard-
reinforced soft packaging in which washing and cleans-
ing agents are brought into circulation for refill
purposes, <
142 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
r
9
disposal may, for a suitable fee, demand the takeover
or joint use of facilities required for collecting and
sorting materials of the type referred to in the Annex
to this Ordinance. The competent upper Land authority
or the authority designated by it, shall, on applica-
tion, confirm, by means of a general disposition to be
announced publicly, that such a system has been set up
on a comprehensive scale. The exception as defined in
sentence 1 shall be effective from the time of the
public announcement. If the application is filed be-
fore 1 January 1993, the proof that a system has been
set up guaranteeing the regular collection of used
sales packaging from the final consumer or in the
vicinity of the final consumer shall suffice for an
exemption up to 1 March 1993.
(4) The competent authorities may revoke their decision
pursuant to para. 3 sentence 6 as soon as and insofar
as they ascertain that the standards set in the Annex
to this Ordinance are not being met. They shall like-
wise announce the revocation publicly. They may limit
the revocation to certain types of substances provided
that, in respect of these substances only, the collec-
tion, sort-ing and recycling quotas specified in the
Annex to this Ordinance have not been attained. Art. 6
paras. 1, la and 2 shall apply on the first day of the
sixth calendar month following the public announcement
of the revocation.
(5) Mail order firms shall be exempt from their obligation
pursuant to para, la if they participate in the system
provided under para. 3 sentence 1.
Appendices 141
-------
(la) Mail order firms shall be obliged to accept used
packaging free of charge from the final consumer, for
example, by providing suitable return options within
reasonable distance of the final consumer. Reference
shall be made to the return option both along with the
dispatched goods and in the catalogues.
(2) Manufacturers and distributors shall be obliged to
accept the packaging returned to distributors pursuant
to para. 1 and to reuse or recycle it independently of
the public waste disposal system. This obligation
shall be limited to packaging of the type, form and
size of packaging supplied by the manufacturer or
distributor in question or of goods supplied by the
said manufacturer and distributor.
(3) The obligations pursuant to paras. 1, la and 2 shall
not apply to manufacturers and distributors who are
party to a system which guarantees regular collection
of used packaging from the final consumer or, to an
adequate extent, in the vicinity of the final consumer
throughout the catchment area of distributors subject
to the provisions of para. 1 and which meets the
requirements specified in the Annex to this Ordinance.
This system shall be harmonised with existing
collection, recycling and reuse systems run by the
authorities responsible for waste disposal in whose
area it is set up. This harmonisation shall be a
prerequisite for the confirmation pursuant to
sentence 6. Attention shall be given in particular to
the concerns of the authorities responsible for waste
disposal. The authorities responsible for waste
140 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
-7-
(2) If the distributor does not remove the secondary
packaging himself, he shall be obliged, by means of
clearly recognisable and legible signs at the cash
desk, to indicate that the consumer has the oppor-
tunity, either at the point of sale or in the near
vicinity of the point of sale, to remove the secondary
packaging from the acquired goods and to leave it
there.
(3) The distributor shall be obliged to provide suitable
collecting containers at the point of sale or in the
vicinity of the point of sale to accommodate the
secondary packaging and ensure that these are clearly
visible and easily accessible to the final consumer.
Different material groups shall be collected separate-
ly to the extent this is possible without labelling.
The distributor shall be obliged to reuse secondary
packaging or recycle it independently of the public
waste disposal system.
Art. 6
Obligation to accept returned sales packaging
(1) The distributor shall be obliged to accept sales
packing used by the final consumer free of charge and
in or in the near vicinity of the point of sale. This
obligation shall be limited to packaging of the type,
form and size of goods supplied by the distributor in
his own product range and packaging of goods supplied
by the distributor in his own product range. In the
case of distributors with sales areas of less than
200 m2, the obligation to accept return shall be
limited to the packaging of brands brought into circu-
lation by the distributor.
Appendices 139
-------
-6-
Section II
Obligation to accept return
and to recycle and reuse
packaging material
Art. 4 i
Obligation to accept returned transport packaging
Manufacturer and distributor shall be obliged to accept the
return of used transport packaging and to reuse or recycle
it independently of the public waste disposal system unless
the consumer demands the delivery of the goods in the
transport packaging; in this case the provisions on the
return of sales packaging shall apply accordingly. Packag-
ing which is used as both transport and sales packaging
shall be treated as sales packaging.
Art. 5
Obligation to accept returned secondary packaging
(1) Distributors providing goods in secondary packaging
shall be obliged to remove such packaging on delivery
of the goods to the final consumer or to give the
final consumer the opportunity to remove and return
the secondary packaging free of charge at the point of
sale or in the near vicinity of the point of sale
unless the consumer desires the good to be delivered
in their secondary packaging; in this case the
provisions relating to the return of sales packaging
shall apply accordingly.
138 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
-5-
3. Secondary packaging
Blister packaging, plastic sheets, cardboard boxes
or similar packaging which is intended as
additional packaging around the sales packaging
a) to allow goods to be sold on a self-service
basis or
b) to make more difficult or prevent the
possibility of theft or
c) to serve, in the main, advertising purposes.
(2) Drinks packaging within the meaning of this Ordinance
shall include closed or mainly closed receptacles such
as bags, cans, bottles, cartons, oblong plastic bags,
made from any kind of material designed for liquid
foodstuffs within the meaning of Art. 1 para. 1 of the
Foodstuffs and Commodities Act (Lebensmittel- und
Bedarfsgegenstandegesetz), intended for consumption as
drinks, with the exception of yoghurt and kefir.
(3) Return packaging within the meaning of this Ordinance
shall be receptacles which are returned for repeated
reuse for the same purpose.
(4) The catchment area of the manufacturer or distributor
shall be deemed to be the area of the country in which
the goods are brought into circulation.
(5) The final consumer within the meaning of this Act
shall be the purchaser who does not further resell the
goods in the form deliveredto him.
Appendices 137
-------
-4-
constitute an environmental risk pursuant to
Art. 3a para. 2 of the Chemicals Act,
such as plant protection agents, disinfectants,
pesticides, solvents, acids, alkalis, mineral oil
or mineral oil products; or
2. which must be disposed of in a particular way in
compliance with' other legal provisions.
:i ' . .
Art. 3
1
Definition of Terms
j
(1) Packaging within the meaning of this Ordinance shall
include
1. Transport packaging
Drums, containers, crates, sacks including pal-
lets, cardboard boxes, foamed packaging materials,
shrink wrapping and similar coverings which are
component parts of transport packaging and which
serve to protect the goods from damage during
transport from the manufacturer to the distributor
or are used for reasons of transport;safety.
2. Sales packaging
" 1
Closed or open receptacles and coverings of goods,
such as cups, bags, blister packaging, cans, tins,
drums, bottles, metal containers, cardboard and
cartons, sacks, trays, carrier bags or similar
coverings which are used by the consumer to trans-
port the goods or until such time as the goods are
consumed. Sales packaging within the meaning of
this Ordinance shall also include throw-away
dishes and throw-away cutlery.
136 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
-3-
Art. 2
Scope of Application
(1) The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to anyone
who, commercially or within the framework of any
business undertaking or public body within the area of
validity of the Waste Avoidance and Waste Management
Act
1. manufactures packaging or products from which
packaging is directly manufactured (manufacturer)
or
2. brings into circulation packaging, products from
which packaging is directly manufactured or pack-
aged products at any commercial level (distribu-
tors ) .
(2) Distributors within the meaning of this Ordinance
shall also include mail order firms.
(3) The provisions of this Ordinance shall not apply to
packaging
1. with residual substances or preparations
or soiled or contaminated by substances or pre-
parations
that constitute a health risk pursuant to
Art. 1 nos. 6 to 15 of the Ordinance on the
Hazard Criteria of Substances and Preparations
under the Chemicals Act (Verordnung iiber die
Gefahrlichkeitsmerkmale von Stoffen und
Zubereitungen nach dem Chemikaliengesetz)
Appendices 135
-------
-2-
Section I ;
Waste management objectives
Scope and definition of terms 1-
Art. 1 I
,i
Waste management objectives j
(1) Packaging shall be manufactured from materials which
are environmentally compatible and do not hamper the
environmentally compatible reuse or recyling of the
materials used.
(2) Waste from packaging shall be avoided by insuring that
packaging
\
1. is restricted in volume and weight to the dimen-
sions actually required to protect the contents
and to market the product,
2. is designed-in such a way that it may be refilled
provided this is technically feasible and reason-
able as well as compatible with the regulations
applying to the contents.
j
3. is reused or recycled if the conditions for re-
filling do not obtain.
134 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
Appendix A: The Ordinance on the Avoidance
of Packaging Waste
Ordinance on the Avoidance of Packaging Waste
(Packaging Ordinance - Verpackungsverordnung - VerpackVO)
of 12 June 1991
The Federal Government, having heard the parties concerned
and pursuant to Art. 14 para. 1 sentence 1 nos. 1 and 4 and
para. 2 sentence 3 nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the Waste Avoidance
and Waste Management Act (Abfallgesetz) of 27 August 1986
(Federal Law Gazette BGB1. I page 1410), hereby decrees as
followsi
Appendices 133
-------
aging materials, such as glass, which is rela-
tively easy to recycle. By using more glass and
recycling most of it, the minimum weight-based
recycling target could have been met, while all
the lighter materials were dumped in landfills.
Under the compromise, at least some portion
of each packaging material will be recycled.31
The EC representatives from Germany, the
Netherlands, and Denmark have expressed their
disapproval of the maximum targets. However,
the EC directive will not go into effect prior to
1996, and the targets become effective five
years later in 2001 at the earliest. This al-
lows time for these countries to develop recy-
cling capacity and thus potentially qualify for
exemptions from the maximum limits.
Notes
1. "Collapse of Grime Punkt Scheme Could Lead to
Eco-Tax," European Report No. 1882, Europe In-
formation Service, Brussels, September 4, 1993.
2. Ibid.
3.' Federal Environment Ministry (BMU), "Results of
Top-level Discussions on Duales System Deutsch-
land," press release, Bonn, September 3, 1993.
4. DSD, "Board of Managing Directors Extended,"
press release, Bonn, October 13, 1993; and "Elec-
tion of New Supervisory Board," press release, Oc-
tober 1993.
5. Jan Bongaerts (Institut fur Europaische Umwelt-
politik e.V. [Institute for European Environmental
Policy]), telephone interview, October 27, 1993.
6. "Widerstand gegen Griinen Punkt" ("Resistance to
the Green Dot"), Frankfurter Rundschau, Septem-
ber 18, 1993.
7. "Stadte drohen DSD mit Gerichtsvollzieher" ("Cit-
ies Threatening DSD with Debt Collectors"), Allge-
tneine Zeitung Mainz, September 17,1993.
8. Ibid.
9. Ines Siegler (DSD), telephone interview, November
11, 1993.
10. DSD, "Current Situation: the Reasons for Fee Col-
lection by Retailers," press release, Bonn, October
12,1993.
11. DSD, "Reorganization Concept for Dual System Pro-
duces Results," press release, Bonn, October 12,
1993. i
12. "Germany's Packaging Law May Get Court Test,"
Modern Plastics, New York: McGraw Hill, October
1993, p. 12.
13. Bureau of National Affairs, "Germany Briefs EC En-
vironment Ministers on Plans to Cut Packaging Ex-
ports," International Environment Daily, November
1, 1993.
14. "DSD Drops Contractor as the Waste Piles Up,"
Modern Plastics, New York: McGraw Hill, Septem-
ber 1993, p. 15.
15. Bureau of National Affairs, "Germany Briefs EC En-
vironment Ministers," op. cit.
16. Ibid. :
17. Provisional Draft Text of the Amendment to the Ger-
man Packaging Ordinance, English version provided
by Ursula Schleissraer, Brussels, December 16,1993.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
20. David Gardner, "Row Over Packaging Waste Divides
EU," Financial Times, London, December 3, 1993,
p. 2. :
21. Brian Love, "Environment Council Strikes Deal on
Packaging Waste," Reuters News Service, Brussels,
December, 16, 1993.
22. Ibid. \
23. Ibid.
24. "Nine-Way Political Agreement on Draft Directive,"
EuropeanReport, No. 1911, Europe Information Ser-
vice, Brussels, December 18, 1993, p. IV-1.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid.
27. Love, op. cit.
28. "Germans Defend Recycling Scheme," Financial
Times, London, December 17,1993, p. 3.
29. William D'Alessandro (Victor House News), writ-
ten communication, December 15,1993.
30. "EC Member States Head for Showdown over Re-
cycling," Europe Environment, No. 420, Europe In-
formation Service, Brussels, November 9, 1993,
p. 12.
31. Ibid.
132 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
and Portugal will have five years longer to com-
ply with the recovery and recycling targets.24
Countries such as Germany, the Netherlands,
and Denmark that want to exceed 45 percent
recycling will have to apply to the European
Commission for exemptions. These will only
be granted if the country can prove it has ad-
equate recycling capacity and that it will not
disrupt materials markets in EC member
states.25 This provision is intended to address
other EC countries' charges that Germany is
flooding the EC markets with used packaging
materials. Luxembourg, because it is so small,
will be permitted to exceed the limits if it has
agreements with waste management facilities
in neighboring states. The Dutch have com-
plained that this scenario means that countries
operating within the specified recycling limits
will be able to export large amounts of packag-
ing waste to other EC countries, whereas those
who wish to exceed the limit will be subject to
scrutiny.26
Considering the lengthy and heated debate
that preceded the compromise, EC member
states responded as might have been expected.
Belgium, which held the presidency, called the
agreement "a real step forward." The British
said, "common sense has prevailed...and the
directive has been transformed...from one
driven by green zealots." The Dutch on the other
hand claimed "for the single market [i.e., free
trade] it's a good proposal, but not for the envi-
ronment. It has nothing to do with the environ-
ment."27 German Environment Minister Topfer
said the agreement would set back recycling
programs in Europe and force Germany to pro-
duce more waste. He claimed "it is not supposed
to be the EC's job to standardize the environ-
mental tempo in all member states at any price
or even to reverse it."28
Aspects of the agreement remain unclear.
For example, it allows member states to encour-
age reuse and refilling if this is compatible with
the EC treaty and does not create barriers to
trade. It is not clear how this will affect
Denmark's legislation that bans cans for beer
and soft drinks. In a ruling on this legislation,
the European Court previously held that barri-
ers to trade could be justified by the need to
protect the environment.29
Developing a Packaging Directive that will
apply to countries as disparate as Germany and
Greece is a major challenge. The December
1993 agreement appears to be a step forward
for the European Community, although it will
pose difficulties for many of its members. If
the directive is ultimately approved, all EC
member states will have to develop policies for
the recovery and recycling of packaging waste
and will have to set national targets that con-
form with the ranges set by the Community.
Although the 25 percent minimum target is only
slightly higher than the estimated average pack-
aging recycling rate for all EC countries (20
percent), it represents an improvement because
all countries will have to meet this minimum.
This is likely to increase the average recycling
rate in the European Community considerably.
As late as November 1993, only four EC
member states Germany, the Netherlands,
Denmark, and Belgium supported the inclu-
sion of specific recycling targets in the draft
directive. Most others argued for setting recov-
ery targets only, and no targets for recycling,
so they would be free to use as much waste-to-
energy incineration as they chose. The same
four member states pushed for recycling tar-
gets for each material against strong opposition,
particularly from the United Kingdom and
France.30 The compromise resulted in the in-
clusion of recycling as well as recovery targets,
and a minimum 15 percent recycling target for
each material. Failure to set targets by material
could have led to increased use of heavy pack-
Epilogue 131
-------
der of the quota can be met by "chemical" re-
cycling. The draft also says that waste-energy
incineration can be used for plastics collected
in excess of the quota.
Other changes in the proposed amendments
would require documentation, confirmed by an
auditor, of the number of primary packages a
company sells on the German market. The
amendments would require that the cost of the
green dot for each package be printed on the
package for purposes of "informing the con-
sumer." There would also be a requirement that
if the Dual System should fail, the take-back
provision for retailers would go into effect in
one month.19 This is reduced from the six
months specified in the original Packaging Or-
dinance and addresses the local authorities'
concern that they would have to collect the dis-
carded packaging.
As this report goes to press, the proposed
amendments to the Packaging Ordinance are
under discussion in Germany but no action has
been taken by the Parliament. The outcome may
be affected by the EC Packaging Directive, as
described in the following section.
EC Packaging Directive
After four years of wrangling, the EC Council
of Ministers reached a "political agreement" on
a Packaging Directive in December 1993, al-
though the agreement will have to be put in
writing to make it a "common position." While
changes could still be made by the European
Parliament, arriving at a "common position" is
a highly significant step toward finalizing the
directive. As the directive is scheduled to go
into effect 18 months after its passage, this could
occur as early as 1996.
The EC compromise was difficult to achieve
and was accomplished due to the determina-
tion of most member states to reach agreement
before the term of the Belgian presidency ex-
pired at the end of 1993, and before Germany
assumes the presidency in the second half of
1994, following Greece. (The Presidency of the
EC rotates every six months.) The disagree-
ments with Germany on recycling targets and
waste exports provided the impetus for most
EC member states to finalize the directive be-
fore Germany's term in the presidency.20 How-
ever, the political agreement was not unani-
mous: Germany, the Netherlands, and Denmark
opposed it.21
The EC Packaging Directive of December
1993 is very different from the earlier versions.
The concern with preventing the generation of
waste seems to have been overpowered by the
concern about Germany's flooding European
Community markets with used packaging ma-
terials. In a major change from earlier drafts of
the directive, this version sets maximum as well
as minimum recovery and recycling targets to
which member states must adhere. (Recovery
includes all processes that recover value from
waste, including waste-to-energy incineration.)
Within five years of the directive's effective
date, 50 to 65 percent, by weight, of packaging
must be recovered and 25 to 45 percent re-
cycled. In other words, no EC country may re-
cycle more than 45j percent of its packaging
waste.22 !
These recycling targets differ from those in
earlier drafts of the EC directive, which speci-
fied minimum recycling of 40 percent in five
years, 60 percent in ten years, and did not set
any maximum recycling targets. The rates are
set for all packaging materials collectively, but
at least 15 percent of each packaging material
must be recycled. At the end of the five-year
period, new targets will be set.23
The poorer EC countries Greece, Ireland,
130 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
mounting piles of plastics that cannot be re-
cycled in Germany, and the complaints from
European countries to which Germany is ex-
porting plastic packaging waste. The United
Kingdom's environment ministry says Germany
is stockpiling 250,000 metric tons of plastics.13
Warehouses are filling up, and there are reports
of plastics being stored on military bases and
on rafts on a lake in the former East Germany.14
At a packaging summit Germany hosted in
Bonn in late October 1993, Minister Topfer re-
sponded to complaints about shipments of waste
and assured the other EC environment minis-
ters that there would be a significant decrease
in Germany's exports of packaging waste, par-
ticularly plastics.15 Wolfram Brack, chairman
of DSD's board of directors, has said that start-
ing in 1994, DSD will not sign new contracts
to recycle plastic packaging waste within the
European Community, but it will honor current
contracts.16
Amending the Packaging
Ordinance
Since its passage in 1991, there have been many
requests, particularly from industry, to revise
the Packaging Ordinance. The Environment
Ministry had consistently denied these requests,
but in September 1993 it finally relented and
agreed to make revising the ordinance a part of
the nine-point plan to rescue the Dual System.
The Bundesrat (upper house of Parliament)
debated the Ministry's proposed amendments
to the Packaging Ordinance in December 1993,
but no vote was taken. The principal changes
are a slight reduction in the recycling quotas
(which are stated, not implied as in the ordi-
nance) and a delay in the time for achieving
them as shown in the following table.
Proposed Amended Recycling Quotas
Material
Glass
Tinplate
Aluminum
Plastics
Paper/
paperboard
Composites
January
1993
(percent
40
30
20
10
10
10
January
1996
by weight)
70
70
70
50
50
50
January
1998
70
70
70
60
60
60
Source: Provisional draft text of the Amendment to the
German Packaging Ordinance.
A comparison with the ordinance's implied
recycling quotas shown in Table 3-3 indicates
that the decrease in the highest recycling quo-
tas is small they are reduced from 64 and 72
percent to 60 and 70 percent, respectively. The
time, delay, however is significant. Under the
proposed amendments, the maximum quotas do
not have to be achieved until January 1998, in-
stead of January 1995. The new quota schedule
would significantly impact paper and plastics
the materials that Germany has been accused
of dumping abroad. From 1993 to 1996, only
10 percent of paper would have to be recycled,
down from the old quotas of 18 percent in 1993
and 64 percent by 1995. Delaying the dates
would give the plastics industry much-needed
time to develop new recycling capacity.17
The proposed amendments specify that the
quotas be met with what they call "material"
recycling, which is defined to exclude waste-
to-energy incineration. For plastics, half of the
quota must be met "by mechanical recycling
insofar as an appropriate 'high value' recycling
is technically possible and economically rea-
sonable."18 This is a qualified mandate for me-
chanical recycling and implies that the remain-
Epilogue 129
-------
Restructuring DSD, including a major
role for the waste management industry.
Capping DSD payments for waste man-
agement at a maximum of DM40 ($24)
per person per year through 1994, so there
would be no increase in fees before that
time.
Reviewing the Packaging Ordinance and
considering amendments.3
The waste management companies with
which DSD has contracts agreed to convert
DSD's DM640 million ($384 million) debt to
loans, in exchange for a major role in DSD's
management. The contractors will appoint one-
fourth of the members of DSD's advisory board
and one of DSD's four managing directors.4
This policy has raised concern among environ-
mentalists and the Federal Cartel Office
(Bundeskartellamt) about potential conflicts of
interest, because the waste management firms
will now sit on the advisory board of the com-
pany that determines how much they will be
paid. Further, local authorities fear these firms
may pressure to get DSD contracts at the ex-
pense of using municipal workers for waste
collection.5
Although representatives of the local au-
thorities at the September meetings agreed to
the nine points, many localities balked when
asked to implement the arrangement. Major cit-
ies such as Frankfurt, Wiesbaden, Darmstadt,
Kassel, Mainz, Stuttgart, Hamburg and Hanover
resisted converting the debts to loans.6 Mainz,
which DSD owed DM2 million ($1.2 million),
threatened to start a debt collection process. The
Mayor of Mainz asked why cities should sub-
sidize DSD, when industry was avoiding pay-
ing the green dot fees.7 The localities argued
that they were short of funds, that it was not
their position to give loans, and that DSD lacked
collateral to back them. They requested that
Environment Minister Topfer arrange for the
federal government to guarantee the loans, but
he refused.8 Nonetheless, many localities were
concerned that they might have to collect used
packaging materials if the Dual System were
to fail, which would require a big increase in
local taxes. Despite their initial resistance, the
localities did, according to DSD, ultimately
agree to convert the- DSD debt to loans.9
Major changes have been made to guaran-
tee that manufacturers pay their green dot fees
in full and on time. Companies must submit a
certified statement from accountants that their
fees have been paid in full. If they cannot pro-
vide this, retailers will withhold lump sum
amounts and forward them to DSD. For ex-
ample, retailers will withhold 2.5 percent of the
wholesale value of shipments of food, cleaning
supplies, and cosmetics from companies with-
out the proper certificate.10 Moreover, DSD has
amended its contracts to allow it to send inde-
pendent examiners into companies to review
their books, and it will impose fines on compa-
nies that fail to pay the green dot fees.11
The strict enforcement program had imme-
diate impact. For example, one of Germany's
largest dairy companies, Molkerei Alois Muller,
had been holding its green dot fees in a savings
account rather than paying them to DSD. It said
it would not pay them until recycling systems
for plastics were in place. This company, which
has filed a lawsuit claiming the Packaging Or-
dinance is unconstitutional, has submitted to
pressure from retailers and has agreed to pay
DSD DM5.4 million ($3.2 million).12
The capping of DSD expenditures at DM40
($24) per person per year through 1994 repre-
sents another major change. For the moment,
this allays the fears that DSD's costs would in-
crease at a rapid, uncontrolled rate and boost
the green dot fees.
Adding to DSD's financial woes are the
128 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
Epilogue
As described in the Notes to the Reader at the
beginning of this report, INFORM has been con-
fronted with rapidly changing events through-
out the course of this research. The main body
of this text went into production in mid-1993.
This Epilogue highlights three important events
between that time and the end of December
1993, when the book went to press.
DSD Faces Another
Financial Crisis
As described in Chapter 6, DSD averted a seri-
ous financial crisis in June 1993 when industry
agreed to contribute additional funds, and DSD
announced plans to control its costs and improve
the collection of green dot fees. But the an-
nouncement in July that DSD's finances were
"assured" turned out to be short-lived. By Au-
gust, DSD was once again on the brink of in-
solvency. This time DSD announced a deficit
of DM700 million ($420 million) for the remain-
der of 1993.' DSD owed more than DM800 mil-
lion ($480 million) to waste management firms
and localities under the contracts it had signed
for the collection and sorting of packaging
waste. Waste management firms were threat-
ening to discontinue collections, and Environ-
ment Minister Topfer said the mandatory de-
posits and retailer take-back of packaging
specified in the ordinance would go into effect
if the problem was not solved by September 3,
1993. He also said he was considering impos-
ing taxes on packaging.2
Representatives of manufacturers, the waste
industry, retailers, local authorities, and DSD
held a series of crisis meetings the first three
days of September. Environment Minister
Topfer chaired the final meeting. The represen-
tatives agreed that their three main goals were:
to solve DSD's financial problems; to assure
that companies pay the required green dot fees;
and to control costs. To achieve these goals, the
group agreed on a nine-point program and set
up a task force to put it into effect. The key
points were as follows:
Conversion of DSD debts (owed to the
waste industry and local authorities) to
interest bearing loans.
Assuring payment of green dot fees
through auditing, fines, and having retail-
ers withhold amounts due.
Epilogue 127
-------
19. Reid Lifset (Yale University Program on Solid Waste
Policy), "Extended Producer Responsibility: Ration-
ales and Practices in North America," Massachusetts
Institute of Technology: Design and Disposal of
Durable Products Conference, March 1993, p. 42.
20. New York City Department of Sanitation, Bureau of
Waste Prevention, Reuse and Recycling, "New York
City's Waste Prevention Program," July 12, 1993.
21. Mayor Sharpe James, "Make Private Industry Re-
sponsible for Recycling," press release, Newark
Public Information Office, August 12, 1993, p. 2.
22. Ibid. p. 4, 5.
23. Jack C. Azar, James C. MacKenzie, and Richard S.
Morabito, "Environmental Life-Cycle Design at
Xerox," draft for EPA Journal, July 1993.
24. Frank Popoff, "Life After Rio: Merging Economics
and Environmentallism," Chemical Week Confer-
ence, Houston, October 15,1992, p. 4.
25. "European Commission Seeks to Consolidate the
Links," Europe Environment, No. 410, Europe In-
formation Service, Brussels, May 18,1993, p. 1-10.
26. Frances Cairncross, "How Europe's Companies Re-
position to Recycle," Harvard Business Review,
March-April 1992, p. 40.
27. Bureau of National Affairs, "New Directive Sets Pa-
rameters for Incineration, Landfill Disposal," Sep-
tember 22, 1992.
126 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
US public policy has already applied the
"polluter pays" principle to hazardous waste
management and may be able to shift some or
all of the responsibility for municipal solid
waste as well. Once policymakers resolve the
question of responsibility, the United States can
begin to evaluate the various strategies, some
implemented in Germany and some not, that
would constitute the most effective materials
management policy. The United States may
look at Germany as providing a laboratory for
the study of solid waste policies. The experi-
ences there, along with the statistical data that
will be reported, will be of great value to
policymakers around the world.
Our ability to learn from the German expe-
rience is not contingent upon the Dual System's
success. The problems it has faced relate pri-
marily to implementation strategies the high
mandated recycling quotas and the speed at
which they must be attained not to the basic
concepts. By understanding what strategies
have failed and why, the United States can avoid
making similar mistakes. Germany has raised
the critical issue of manufacturers' responsibil-
ity, and this concept is sweeping the industrial
world. Future US policies can be developed
within the framework of resource management,
taking a broad view of our use of materials and
other resources to develop policies that will
permit us to live within our environmental
means, as well as within our economic means.
Notes
1. Senator Max Baucus, keynote address, U.S. Con-
ference of Mayors: Reality-Based Recycling II Con-
ference, Washington, DC, April 1,1993.
2. Lisa A. Skumatz and Philip A. Zach, "Community
Adoption of Variable Rates: an Update," Resource
Recycling, June 1993, p. 68.
3. Chaz Miller, "Recycling in the States: 1992 Up-
date," Waste Age, March 1993, p. 34.
4. John Holusha, "White House Issues an Order to Bol-
ster Recycling of Paper," The New York Times,
October 21, 1993, p. A-l.
5. INFORM (Bette K. Fishbein and Caroline Gelb), Mak-
ing Less Garbage: A Planning Guide for Commu-
nities, 1992, p. 54.
6. INFORM (Maarten de Kadt), "Evaluating Recycling
Programs: Do You Have the Data?" Resource Re-
cycling, June 1992.
7. Jerry Powell, "Thermal Plastics Processing: Is it Re-
cycling?" Resource Recycling, May 1993, p. 52-55.
8. J. Winston Porter, "Recycling at the Crossroads,"
Porter & Associates, Sterling, VA, January 1993,
p. 4.
9. Barry Commoner, et. al, Development and Pilot Test
of an Intensive Municipal Solid Waste Recycling Sys-
tem for the Town of East Hampton: Final Report,
New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority, 982-ERER-ER-87, Albany, NY: Decem-
ber 1988.
10. Barry Commoner et. al., Development of Innovative
Procedures to Achieve High Rates of Recycling in
Low Income Neighborhoods, submitted to the Pew
Charitable Trusts and the Aaron Diamond Founda-
tion, April 10, 1992.
11. Clifford Case, "Eliminating Barriers to Recycling
in the 90's: The Work of the National Recycling
Coalition and the Recycling Advisory Council," New
York State Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion: Fifth Annual Recycling Conference, Syracuse,
September 28,1993.
12. Chaz Miller, "Recycling in the States, 1992 Update,"
op. cit.
13. Edgar Miller (Recycling Advisory Council), phone
interview, November 17, 1993.
14. Arthur D. Little, "A Report on Advanced Disposal
Fees," Cambridge, MA, p. 2-3.
15. Russell H. Martin, "ADF Battle in Florida," Biocycle,
November 1992, p. 59.
16. Edgar Miller, phone interview, op. cit.
17. Senator Max Baucus keynote address at U.S. Con-
ference of Mayors, op. cit.
18. Paul Relis (California Waste Management Board),
written communication to Board members, August
3, 1992.
Implications of the German Approach for US Waste Policy 125
-------
planet's resources are finite and should not be
squandered by discarding material that is still
useful. In the industrial community we have
been coming to the realization that such waste
represents a significant and an avoidable
business cost."23 And the chairman of Dow
Chemical has called for an environmental policy
based on full-cost pricing: "What is full-cost
pricing? It means that we price goods and ser-
vices to reflect their true environmental costs,
including production, use, recycling and
disposal....Our air, water and earth are no longer
the 'free goods' our society once believed. They
must be redefined as assets, so that they can be
efficiently and appropriately allocated. Ideally,
we should learn to live off the interest of these
assets, rather than by depleting the assets them-
selves."24
The European Commission, in May 1993,
commented on resource management in rela-
tion to a study of the links between job creation
and environmental protection. The Commission
sard "the high rate of unemployment and the
deterioration of the environment could be the
symptoms of the same cracks in our current
model of economic development: inefficient
use of our resources has led to under-use of
human resources and over-use of environmen-
tal resources."25 In other words, industrial so-
cieties under-use labor and over-use materials.
The biggest questions about Germany's
Packaging Ordinance relate to the Dual Sys-
tem itself: Will it reduce the amount of pri-
mary packaging? Will the recycling quotas be
achieved? Is the system cost-effective? Will it
survive financially and politically? It is in the
interest of the Kohl government and industry
for the Dual System to succeed: both have in-
vested great effort in the system, and industry
has invested a lot of money as well. Industry
has a major stake in the Dual System's success
because it operates and controls the system and
would lose this authority if the system were to
fail: a likely alternative is more government
control. German Environment Minister Klaus
Topfer has already said he is prepared to im-
pose packaging taxes if the Dual System fails,
and many environmentalists are calling for
packaging bans. .
To the extent that packages and products
are globally designed or are made by multi-na-
tional companies, the United States stands to
benefit from industry responses to the German
legislation particularly where source reduc-
tion strategies save: companies money. Design
changes often move quickly around the world
the changes in automobiles and computers
are a case in point. Germany has been described
as the "California of Europe," and its Packag-
ing Ordinance has been compared to
California's pioneering auto emission standards.
In both cases, many companies made decisions
to produce everything to the world's toughest
standards.26 Some US companies, however, may
find themselves at a disadvantage vis-a-vis
German competitors who are ahead in devel-
oping more environmentally friendly packages
and products.
Policymakers in the United States need to
resolve the issue of who is responsible for solid
waste and to devise a mechanism to transfer
responsibility, if that is found desirable. The
decision of how individuals should pay for
waste whether a.s taxpayers, as users of the
waste management system, or as consumers
affects source reduction incentives. Responsi-
bility, or lack of it,i may be at the heart of our
municipal solid wiaste problem. Historically,
those who created waste have not been respon-
sible for paying for its recycling or disposal.
Such a system inevitably encourages wasteful-
ness. Environment Minister Topfer stresses the
need to "avoid burdening future generations
with the problems of our affluence."27
124 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
consumers could leave packaging in the
store is another German strategy that
could be implemented at the local level
without federal or state action. In Ger-
many this provision has given retailers a
strong incentive to pressure their suppli-
ers to reduce packaging.
Pressure from Local Government
Many academics and environmentalists have
long supported the concept of internalizing
costs, which leads to expanded manufacturers'
responsibility. Now local government officials
are supporting this idea. Local governments are
facing ever-higher recycling mandates as the
public clamors for more recycling, but they have
not been able to solve the market problem with-
out more help from industry. Costs of recycling
programs are rising, competing for funds with
much-needed services such as education, law
enforcement, fire protection, and health care.
The United States can expect strong pres-
sure from local governments to shift responsi-
bility for managing waste from municipalities
to industry. The first action of Mayor Sharpe
James of Newark, when he became chairman
of the US Conference of Mayors' Solid Waste
Task Force, was to commission a study of strat-
egies making recycling the responsibility of
manufacturers. "The recycling system in the US
would be greatly enhanced if it copied
Germany's Dual System," said James. "It would
help correct a situation in which municipalities
are picking up the tab to recycle huge amounts
of waste produced by the private sector.... As it
stands right now, a consumer product company
can sell a ring in a refrigerator box and taxpay-
ers will subsidize the disposal of the packaging
waste. There need to be incentives to minimize
waste."21
James notes that the US Conference of
Mayors is working with Senator Max Baucus
on legislation making US industry responsible
for recycling what it produces. James says, "Our
position is not going to be a popular one with
many members of the private sector in this
country as companies maintain that it can't be
done....And that's just not true dozens of
American companies like IBM, Procter &
Gamble, and Colgate Palmolive are already par-
ticipating successfully in the Dual collection
system in Germany....Getting private industry
to assume a fair share of the burden in manag-
ing our resources and waste is a trend that will
only grow stronger across the globe."22
Conclusions
Germany's "polluter pays" policies have al-
ready succeeded in one important respect: they
have helped change the way companies think.
Throughout the world, manufacturers of durable
goods such as cars and computers are begin-
ning to design for disassembly and to reevalu-
ate their use of materials. The thinking of these
companies has changed dramatically from what
it was 10 years ago, and Germany's polluter-
pays policies certainly deserve significant credit
for being a catalyst for much of this change. In
the process of materials selection, companies
manufacturing packages and products are look-
ing not only at front-end costs but also at ulti-
mate disposal costs, disposal or recycling prob-
lems the material may cause, and opportunities
for reuse.
Many leaders in the business community are
now embracing the concept of a materials
policy. Executives at Xerox wrote in 1993:
"This growing interest in recycling durable
goods goes beyond the problem of landfill ca-
pacity. It reflects a recognition that most of our
Implications of the German Approach for US Waste Policy 123
-------
In Germany, DSD's 1993 green dot
fees are similar to ADFs in that they
charge manufacturers in advance for the
cost of recycling their packages. How-
ever, the green dot fees are imposed by
industry rather than government. None-
theless, the German fees, based on weight
and material, could provide US
policymakers with an example of how
such fees might be set.
US Legislative Initiatives
In the United States, legislation incorporating
the concept of manufacturer responsibility has
been proposed at the federal, state, and local
level, as illustrated by these examples.
Responsible entity legislation: In 1992,
a "responsible entity" provision was in-
cluded in the federal legislation to reau-
thorize the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). It would have
required all brand name manufacturers
with annual receipts of $50 million or
more to "recover," by themselves or
through contracts with others, 50 percent
of packaging materials made of glass,
paper, metal, or plastic by the year 2000
through source reduction, reuse, or use
of recycled content. Although the provi-
sion died along with the RCRA reautho-
rization bill, Senator Max Baucus has
said this would be the cornerstone of his
solid waste proposals. Speaking at the US
Conference of Mayors in April 1993,
Senator Baucus cited Germany as a
source of his ideas to "internalize" waste
management costs and shift them from
the taxpayer to industry.17
Sustainable Manufacturing: On the
state level, the California Integrated
Waste Management Board planned to
introduce "manufacturers' responsibil-
ity" legislation in 1994, which it calls
"sustainable manufacturing." The pro-
posed legislation would include a broad
range of strategies to change the way
businesses deal with the environmental
impacts of their products. Paul Relis of
the California Waste Management Board
has said, "As we look to the future of
waste management in California, I be-
lieve the German system should receive
our closest study."18
"Rates and dates" packaging legisla-
tion: Ten states have proposed legisla-
tion mandating that packaging be reus-
able, recyclable, or made of recycled
content. The actual rates specified and the
dates for achieving them have varied
among the states. California and Oregon
passed such legislation for rigid plastic
containers in 1991.19 In Massachusetts,
legislators proposed a "rates and dates"
bill that was considered a prototype for
the country but went on to defeat in a No-
vember 1992 referendum after a massive
industry-sponsored lobbying campaign
against it.
Local initiatives: In New York City, the
Department of Sanitation is applying the
German approach of producer responsi-
bility in the development of local legis-
lative proposals that would require retail-
ers to take back dry-cell batteries, white
goods (appliances), and tires. The legis-
lation would ban both the collection and
disposal of appliances, for example,
within the city's waste management sys-
tem. Consumers purchasing new appli-
ances would be entitled to bring back an
old one, of the same type but not neces-
sarily the same brand.20
Requiring retailers to provide bins so
122 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
operate sorting and processing facilities,
and may pay municipalities for the costs
of collecting recyclables, to the extent
that these costs exceed those of regular
garbage collection.
Utilization Requirements: This strat-
egy would require a manufacturer to re-
cover a percentage of the materials used
in its products, either by using the mate-
rials in its own manufacturing process or
by contracting with third parties to do so.
Minimum-content standards: These
standards require the use of a specified
quantity of secondary materials in pack-
ages and/or products. In the United
States, minimum-content legislation be-
gan by targeting newspapers and has ex-
panded to include other products. Thir-
teen states now have minimum-content
legislation for newspapers, and 11 more
have similar voluntary agreements. These
initiatives have contributed to the large
increase in use of recycled content by
newspaper publishers with circulations
over 200,000: from 9 percent in 1989 to
19 percent in 1992.12
Virgin material taxes: These taxes can
be imposed on the virgin content of prod-
ucts and packages at the manufacturing
level as a way of encouraging the use of
secondary materials by making them
more competitively priced compared to
virgin materials. Such taxes could also
encourage source reduction by making
materials more expensive, thereby creat-
ing incentives to use less for example,
by making materials more costly relative
to labor. Virgin materials taxes can be a
mechanism for internalizing solid waste
costs if they are based on the costs of
waste management.
National materials trust fund: The
RAC list includes a proposal for estab-
lishing a national trust fund by imposing
fees on packages, based on the materials
used. The fund would provide rebates to
companies based on the percentage of
secondary materials that they use in their
products and packages.
Another way to expand manufacturer re-
sponsibility that US policymakers have been
discussing for almost a decade is the advanced
disposal fee (ADF) charging producers in
advance for disposing of their products or pack-
ages. The RAC left ADFs off its list because it
views them as a mechanism that is a variation
on the policy options of a materials trust fund
and virgin materials taxes.13
Advanced Disposal Fees (ADF): An
ADF is a fee levied on a product, based
on the cost of waste management. ADFs
reflect the approach that these costs
should be the responsibility of manufac-
turers, who pass them on to consumers
in product prices. In a 1991 study of
ADFs in the United States, the consult-
ing firm Arthur D. Little found states con-
sidering 28 ADF-type bills, with 60 per-
cent of them focusing on packaging.14
More than half the states already have
ADFs for specific commodities, such as
tires, motor oil, appliances, or lead-acid
batteries.15 Only Florida has attempted
broader ADF application; its law imposes
a one-cent fee on containers that are not
recycled at a rate of at least 50 percent,
increasing to two cents in October 1995.
Early evidence indicates that the Florida
ADF, effective October 1993, is leading
industry to increase investment in recy-
cling, as this is often cheaper than pay-
ing the fees.16
Implications of the German Approach for US Waste Policy 121
-------
US beer and soft drink market, comprising a
70 percent share for beer and a 50 percent share
for soft drinks. In Germany, only about 11 per-
cent of these beverages are sold in cans.
The question of whether refillable bottles
are better for the environment than one-way
containers continues to be controversial in the
United States and throughout Europe. A detailed
analysis of this issue is beyond the scope of this
report, but a forthcoming INFORM publication,
Case Reopened: Reassessing Refillable Bottles
(Spring 1994), will provide a comprehensive
study of refillable beverage containers and re-
lated policy implications. The report raises the
following questions: As an environmental strat-
egy, is refilling, in some or all cases, preferable
to the recycling of one-way containers? Is re-
filling a practical option given today's technol-
ogy, distribution systems, material and labor
costs, marketing practices, and regulatory en-
vironment? If refilling is beneficial but is not a
practical option under current conditions, how
would these conditions need to change in order
for refilling to be practical?
Even if Germany and the United States were
to agree on the ideal policy regarding refillable
versus one-way containers, their policy deci-
sions would likely vary because the countries
are starting from very different places. It is far
easier and less costly for Germany to maintain
its existing refillable structure than for the
United States to recreate one. Any environmen-
tal benefits from expanding refilling would have
to be weighed against the costs entailed in re-
viving the US refilling system.
The German experience can provide a use-
ful model for US policymakers if the United
States decides to promote more refillable
bottles. Most Germans agree that their refilling
system is worth preserving. Many aspects of
the German system, such as standardized
bottles, higher bottle deposit fees, the ubiqui-
tous reusable carrying crates, and local bever-
age distribution patterns could be instructive in
designing US refillable policies and programs.
11. What policy mechanisms are available
if US policymakers decide to expand
manufacturer responsibility for products
and packages?
Recycling Advisory Council Policy Options
The Market Development Subcommittee of the
Recycling Advisory Council (RAC), a 15-year-
old advocacy and education organization, has
listed six policy options as its top priorities.11
The RAC is made up of high-level representa-
tives from the federal government, municipali-
ties, environmental groups, public interest
organizations, community-based recycling
groups, the recycling industry, and industry in
general. The RAC defines these six policy op-
tions as follows:
Manufacturers'Responsibility: Based
on the German model, this policy would
make manufacturers responsible for fi-
nancing the recovery of a specified per-
centage of the materials used in their
products. Manufacturers' responsibility
could be accomplished by creating an
alternative waste management system,
such as Germany's Dual System, or by
having industry contract out waste man-
agement functions or finance existing
waste management programs.
Shared Responsibility: Under consid-
eration in Canada, this concept requires
industry and the public sector to share re-
sponsibility for recycling. Industry may
establish an organization to which it
would contribute fees for funding recy-
cling. The organization may own and
120 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
and incentives but allows industry to devise its
own implementation system. Presumably, if
industry must shoulder responsibility for man-
aging and paying for recycling, it will have a
positive incentive to make recycling work and
make it cost effective, as well as to reduce the
amount of materials it must handle. Yet, as dis-
cussed in Question 2, DSD's free recycling bins
provide a "perverse" incentive one that less-
ens the source reduction incentives for consum-
ers by shifting their costs from quantity-based
fees to an "invisible" increase in product prices.
Some environmentalists, as noted in Chap-
ter 9, have criticized the Packaging Ordinance
as emphasizing recycling and seeming to ig-
nore source reduction. However, source reduc-
tion of transport and secondary packaging has
occurred because the law requires consumer
product companies to pay for managing the
waste generated by their shipping containers,
and provides incentives for retailers to urge
suppliers to eliminate packaging. The new in-
dustry-developed green dot fee schedule, which
took effect in October 1993, clearly contains
incentives for source reduction of primary pack-
aging through fees directly related to packag-
ing weight. The German system is coherent in
this respect: the incentives for industry are gen-
erally consistent with the policy goals.
Some US solid waste policies at present,
while not mentioning source reduction, have
implicit, perverse incentives that discourage it.
For example, tonnage grants paid to communi-
ties based on the amount of materials collected
for recycling (such as exist in New Jersey) are
a disincentive to reduce waste at the source. A
reduction in the amount of materials collected
for recycling would decrease a community's
weight-based grants. By contrast, a policy re-
warding communities based on the amount of
materials diverted from disposal, such as
Westchester County, New York, has adopted,
encourages both source reduction and recycling.
Some US policies today actually provide
disincentives for both source reduction and re-
cycling. For example, the federal subsidies for
virgin materials like timber and oil that lower
the prices of these virgin materials provide a
disincentive for using secondary materials and
for reducing the amount of materials used. The
policy of exempting government agencies and
public institutions from paying for waste man-
agement gives them little incentive to reduce
or recycle. Charging them for waste disposal
would provide economic incentives for both.
10. Could US policies encouraging the use
of refillable beverage containers effectively
promote source reduction in this country?
The most striking difference between packag-
ing in Germany and the United States is the
extensive use in Germany of refillable bever-
age containers. In both countries, refillable
bottles were widely used prior to the 1960s.
Germany maintained its system, and the refill
rate for beer and soft drinks in Germany is 80
percent today. In the United States, 84 percent
of beer and soft drinks were sold in refillable
containers in 1964, but this has now dropped to
5 percent.
Germany did not retain its refillable system
through happenstance. Public policy there
firmly supports the use of refillable bottles, as
demonstrated by the high refill rates specified
in the Packaging Ordinance. The government
has even taken action against one-way contain-
ers, meeting the introduction of the single-use
PET bottle in 1988 with a mandatory deposit
on one-way plastic bottles. Beverage compa-
nies withdrew the single-use PET bottles and
replaced them with refillable PET bottles. In
contrast, one-way cans currently dominate the
Implications of the German Approach for US Waste Policy 119
-------
In any case, the German mechanism for rais-
ing money to fund the new system the green
dot fees might have poor political prospects
in the United States because it is, in effect, a
regressive sales tax, constituting a greater per-
centage of income for poorer people. Powerful
public figures in the United States, such as
former Representative Al Ullman (D, Oregon),
who was chairman of the House Ways and
Means Committee in the 1970s, have been voted
out of office after supporting a similarly regres-
sive national sales tax, the Value-Added Tax
(VAT). Although regressivity is a major issue
in the United States, it does not appear to be an
issue in Germany a country accustomed to
raising large amounts of revenue through a na-
tional sales tax.
7. How could the United States ensure that
recycling targets are met?
The German experience has shown that dump-
ing of recyclables constitutes a serious prob-
lem. Even if materials are sent to an authorized
recycler, there is no certainty that they will be
recycled because recyclers may accept ship-
ments that greatly exceed their capacity. DSD
is experiencing difficulty in keeping track of
materials shipped for recycling both within
Germany's borders and to foreign nations; the
United States would probably experience simi-
lar problems. Some monitoring will always be
required, and its effectiveness will remain prob-
lematic.
The most effective way to ensure that ma-
terials are actually recycled would be to build
the necessary recycling capacity within each
country. Government can encourage this by
providing tax and other incentives for industry
to build additional capacity.
8. Could the take- back strategy work in the
United States?
The take-back strategy is an outgrowth of
Germany's preference for incentive policy over
"command and control" regulations the mar-
ket-based approach. The advantage of this ap-
proach is that, by allowing industry to set the
green dot fees for each packaging material, it
avoided the intense lobbying that would have
occurred had government set the fees. However,
the type of collaboration among competitors
required to establish and operate an entity like
DSD might run afoul of US antitrust laws, and
competing US companies do not traditionally
work together as German companies do.
Moreover, the United States is much larger
than Germany, so setting up a US "Dual Sys-
tem" that would negotiate contracts with every
waste district in the country would be a huge
undertaking. Although the take-back strategy
for packaging might be difficult to implement
in the United States, it might be feasible for
larger items such as cars and computers. Many
US states already have take-back legislation,
in the form of mandatory deposits, that has func-
tioned well for beverage containers.
But shifting responsibility to industry is not
contingent on a take-back strategy; it could be
accomplished through other mechanisms, such
as taxes, fees, or mandated utilization rates, as
described in Question 11.
9. How could public policy incorporate
positive, not perverse, incentives to reduce
and recycle waste?
Incentives are the cornerstone of Germany's
market-based approach to reducing and recy-
cling waste. Based on the assumption that in-
dustry is more efl'ective than government at
tasks such as creating markets for secondary
materials, German policy provides the quotas
118 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
goals depends on how much society is willing
to pay for added collection costs, building re-
cycling facilities, and reprocessing materials,
and how it quantifies the benefits of recycling.
A recycling policy raises such economic issues
as the comparison of recycling costs to disposal
costs, and the price of secondary materials com-
pared to virgin materials of the same quality.
Even consumer participation is an economic
issue. To take an extreme example, a $10 de-
posit on each package would lead most con-
sumers to bring them back to the store for re-
demption and recycling.
Moreover, determining a "practical" recy-
cling rate changes over time. Technological
changes create new opportunities to recycle: 10
years ago there was virtually no recycling of
aseptic beverage containers anywhere in the
world, yet DSD now estimates substantial ca-
pacity in Germany by 1994.
6. How much should a society spend on a
recycling policy? And how should the costs
be allocated?
A policy that mandates internalization of recy-
cling costs raises questions about the investment
industry must make to establish recycling, and
about the effect of these internalized costs on
both materials markets and consumer prices.
Some within industry charge that the Ger-
man system's high recycling quotas mandate
recycling "at any cost." On one hand, the in-
cremental cost of recycling may rise as recy-
cling rates increase, because industry typically
recycles materials that are easier and most eco-
nomical first, leaving the more marginal mate-
rials for later. On the other hand, recycling on
such a massive scale, as attempted by Germany,
could lead to economies of scale and develop-
ment of new technologies that ultimately reduce
per-unit costs. Germany is serving as a labora-
tory that, through implementing its policies and
conducting life-cycle analyses, will provide in-
formation on the economic and environmental
viability of achieving the mandated quotas.
The German policy is intended to apply
pressure on industry to reuse and recycle mate-
rials. The policy anticipates that the recycling
costs will be high for some materials, that these
costs will be reflected in higher prices, and that
ultimately materials that are costly to recycle
will be used less. The plastics crisis in Germany
is a manifestation of the application of this pres-
sure. Germany has chosen not to ban any mate-
rials, but rather to internalize the costs of man-
aging the waste and to let market forces
determine the demand for the materials. The
struggle underway in Germany will determine
whether the use of plastic packaging is substan-
tially decreased or whether the government al-
lows more waste-to-energy incineration.
Current costs of the Dual System are high,
partly owing to the push to attain the quotas
rapidly. There may, however, be a contrast in
short-term and long-term costs of recycling.
Costs that are initially high during the transi-
tion period from an economy based on primary
raw materials to one based on secondary mate-
rials may decline after the large investments
required for the transition are completed and
technologies are improved.
Industry in Germany imposes the packag-
ing fees, which are virtually a sales tax, but it is
not accountable to the public as elected offi-
cials are. This raises the question of how the
level of the fees will be controlled. Consumer
groups have called DSD "a giant tax machine"
(as described in Chapter 9), and some have com-
plained that DSD contracts with the waste man-
agement industry are over-generous. Industry,
however, clearly has some incentive to keep the
fees down, as it would suffer from any decline
in consumer spending due to large increases in
the fees.
Implications of the German Approach for US Waste Policy 117
-------
For example, if mixed plastic packaging is
"chemically recycled" into synthetic crude oil
that is then burned, does this harm the environ-
ment less than burning these materials in a
waste-to-energy plant? And what are the rela-
tive costs? Clearly, the chemical recycling op-
tion should not be chosen simply because it is
called "recycling."
It is interesting to note that, in response to
mandates to achieve high recycling rates,
"chemical recycling" is being promoted in Ger-
many and also in the US state of Washington.7
5. What recycling rates can realistically
be achieved?
Great difference of opinion exists regarding
what recycling rates can realistically be
achieved. These rates vary by material and even
within material classifications. For example, in
the United States in 1990, the overall recycling
rate for plastic packaging materials was less
than 4 percent, yet within the plastics category,
31.5 percent of polyethylene (PET) soft drink
bottles was recycled. Aluminum had the high-
est recycling rate of any packaging material
more than 50 percent yet most of this was
attributable to aluminum cans' recycling rate
of 63 percent: all other types of aluminum pack-
aging have recycling rates of less than 10 per-
cent.
To put Germany's recycling rates in con-
text, Table 13-2 shows the actual US recycling
rates for packaging materials in 1990 and the
German Packaging Ordinance's quotas for the
same materials. Although the US figures are for
all packages and the German quotas are for pri-
mary packages only, this discrepancy has a sig-
nificant affect only on the paper category: the
high US rate reflects the recycling of corrugated
shipping containers, classified as transport pack-
aging under the German Ordinance.
Table 13-2: Recycling Rates for Packaging
Materials
Materials
Glass
Tinplate
Aluminum
Plastic
Paper/
paperboard
Composites
US
actual*
1990
22.0
22.1
53.3
3.7
36.9
NA ,
German
quota**
1993
42
26
18
9
18
German
quota**
1995
72
72
72
64
64
* For all packaging
** For primary packaging
Source: US data horn-Characterization of Municipal
Solid Waste in the United States 1992 Update, pre-
pared by Franklin Associates Ltd., for the US Environ-
mental Protection Agency, July 1992.
No consensus;currently exists as to what
recycling rates are practical, or even what "prac-
tical" means. When J. Winston Porter was an
assistant administrator of the US Environmen-
tal Protection Agency in 1988, he set the na-
tional recycling goal at 25 percent by 1992. The
US recycled about 21 percent of its municipal
solid waste in 1992. Porter now says that "a
practical ceiling fcjr a national recycling rate is
about 33 percent."8 In contrast, Barry Com-
moner, director of the Center for the Biology
of Natural Systems (CBNS) at Queens College
in New York City, argues that much higher rates
are feasible. A CBNS project in East Hampton,
NY, demonstrated that more than 84 percent of
household garbage could be recycled.9 CBNS
has also identified almost 30 buildings in the
Park Slope neighborhood of Brooklyn, New
York that achieved household recycling rates
of 50 percent or more.10
Almost any material can be recycled at high
rates if cost is not a concern. Setting recycling
116 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
has legislation encouraging its agencies to pro-
cure products with recycled content 35 of
them offer price preferences for paper with re-
cycled content.3
After months of lobbying and negotiating
on the federal level, President Bill Clinton is-
sued an executive order in October 1993 requir-
ing federal agencies and the military to buy
paper with 20 percent recycled content by the
end of 1994 and 30 percent by the end of 1998.
The order was intended to encourage paper
companies' investment in recycling equipment
by guaranteeing a market for recycled paper and
also to aid localities in securing markets for the
used paper they collect.4
While procurement policy has been used in
the United States to promote recycling, it has
not been used to promote source reduction in
general, or packaging reduction in particular.
Source reduction affects the markets for sec-
ondary materials by limiting the supply, thereby
potentially alleviating the dislocations that may
result from a flood of materials. Some govern-
ment procurement policies have actually dis-
couraged source reduction. For example, the
computer industry has been hampered in its ef-
forts to reuse parts by government procurement
policies that require equipment to be "new."
The competitive bidding required by many
procurement policies favors disposables over
reusables because disposable products gener-
ally have a cheaper initial purchase price, even
though they tend to be more expensive over
their lifetime. One remedy would be to insti-
tute a system of "life-cycle costing," as the state
of Wisconsin has done. Instead of comparing
products based on purchase price, Wisconsin
assesses the annual cost of products over their
useful life.5
4. What is recycling? What's in a name?
There is an urgent need both within the United
States and internationally to establish standard
definitions for recycling and waste generation:
recycling rates are expressed as a percentage
of the waste stream. The lack of standard ter-
minology often makes comparisons of data
impossible. INFORM has found that published
recycling rates are misleading because they are
commonly based on materials collected for re-
cycling, rather than the amounts actually re-
cycled.6 Failure to recycle materials collected
may be the result of contamination of materi-
als, damage caused during collection, improper
sorting, lack of markets, and processing losses
in recycling facilities.
The German Packaging Ordinance avoids
the definition issue by not setting recycling quo-
tas. The ordinance sets collection and sorting
quotas and states that all sorted materials should
be delivered to recyclers, thereby implying the
recycling quota. It is not known to what extent
recyclers actually recycle the materials, and
what portion is dumped or lost in the process.
Still, the German rates are a better measure of
recycling than the rates often published in the
United States based solely on collections.
In the face of high mandated recycling rates,
policy can become hostage to semantics. An
example is the pressure from some industry
spokespersons to call waste-to-energy incinera-
tion "thermal recycling" and to have this count
toward meeting recycling quotas. The German
government has not permitted burning to count,
but it does call plastics hydrogenation processes
"chemical recycling." If recycling policies are
to succeed, it is important that they define re-
cycling when setting quotas. Further,
policymakers need to ask the right questions.
Implications of the German Approach for US Waste Policy 115
-------
The corollary to the German focus on in-
dustry as the producer of waste is that less at-
tention is being paid to consumers, who can in-
fluence the amount of waste generated by their
choice and use of products. As producers are
more able than consumers to influence pack-
aging changes, the German policies are de-
signed to affect industry directly, at the design
stage, rather than to bring about changes in con-
sumer purchasing habits that might have an in-
direct affect on packaging decisions.
3. How can markets be created for
secondary materials?
The biggest problem facing recycling programs
in industrialized countries around the world has
been lack of markets for the materials collected.
In the United States, municipalities must meet
higher and higher recycling targets due to pub-
lic pressure for recycling, yet often they cannot
find markets for the resulting secondary mate-
rials. As the amount of recyclables collected
grows, the gap between supply and demand for
these materials threatens to widen.
Industry Incentives
Germany's policies do not specifically address
markets for the materials to be collected, but
they do engage industry in the effort to develop
markets by changing the rules of the market-
place and increasing industry's responsibility
for waste. In theory, requiring industry to take
back and reuse or recycle its packages and prod-
ucts gives it strong incentives to create markets
for secondary materials by using more recycled
content, and by reducing the use of materials
that are difficult or expensive to recycle. Pre-
sumably, materials that are costly to recycle,
like plastics, will become more expensive and
will be used less.
To date, however, Germany is flooding
world markets for secondary materials with
packaging waste, particularly plastics. It is too
soon to know to what extent these dislocations
may be merely a transitional effect that will dis-
sipate as Germany increases its recycling ca-
pacity. Shifting from the use of virgin materi-
als to secondary materials throughout the world
will cause substantial dislocations for industry.
It is not yet known what costs and benefits
would be derived from such a shift and if and
how secondary materials markets can be devel-
oped to absorb the increase in the quantity of
materials. ;
The proposed ordinances for autos and elec-
tronics in Germany make incentives to reduce
and recycle company-specific, and manufactur-
ers are already reflecting this in their product
design. Under the Packaging Ordinance the in-
centives apply to industry collectively, because
companies do not take back their own pack-
ages, and the incentives for industry to create
secondary materials markets are less direct.
State and local governments across the
United States have sought market development
strategies. These often address local situations
for example, by providing incentives for in-
vestment in recycling industries and they
often focus on particular materials, such as im-
proving the market for old newsprint by man-
dating minimum recycled content. Despite mar-
ket development efforts in every state in the
nation, the market problem has persisted in the
United States, and there is no coherent national
policy. ;
Government Procurement Policy
As government in the United States accounts
for about 20 percent of the Gross Domestic
Productemploying one in six workers at the
federal, state, or local level and constituting the
nation's largest customer government pro-
curement policies can have substantial impact
on markets for secondary materials. Every state
114 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
Table 13-1: Waste Management Funding Mechanisms and Incentives
How the Individual Pays Funding Mechanism
Source Reduction and Recycling Incentives
Taxpayer
System user
Consumer
General tax revenues
Per-bin garbage fees
Waste management
costs incorporated in
product prices
(internalizing costs)
Almost nonexistent.
Individuals: Strong incentive to reduce
costs by purchasing less wasteful and
more recyclable packages and products.
Industry; Weak, indirect incentive to
respond to consumer preferences .
Individuals: Weak incentive to change
purchase patterns as fee is a small
percentage of purchase price.
Industry: Strong incentive to save by
reducing materials and using more easily
recycled materials.
2. What should be the consumer's role in
reducing and recycling waste?
Germany's shifting of responsibility for waste
management has provided incentives for indus-
try to reduce packaging, but what incentives to
reduce waste does this strategy give consum-
ers? And how important is the consumer's role?
Individuals always pay for waste manage-
ment, whether as taxpayers, as users of the sys-
tem, or as consumers or some combination
of these three (as shown in Table 13-1). Fund-
ing waste management through general tax rev-
enues provides little incentive for individuals
or industry to reduce waste, although this is the
typical funding mechanism in the United States.
Funding through user fees, such as per-bin
charges for garbage, provides a strong incen-
tive for consumers to reduce waste and to in-
crease recycling, since there is usually no charge
for picking up recyclables.
Making people pay by the bag for their trash
is common in Germany, and in the United States
an increasing number of communities are adopt-
ing quantity-based user fees (QBUFs); that is,
charging households based on the amount of
waste they generate. More than 1,000 commu-
nities in 25 US states planned to have such
charges in place by the end of 1993.2 Besides
providing a direct incentive for consumers to
reduce waste, a policy based on user fees af-
fects industry indirectly by giving the consumer
an incentive to buy less wasteful packages and
products; presumably, industry would then re-
spond to the new consumer preferences.
In Germany, the per-bin charges, based on
the amount of waste generated, have increased
rapidly, providing a strong incentive for house-
holds to reduce waste and to put as much as
possible in the free recycling bins. On the other
hand, the Dual System's shift of the financing
for managing packaging waste from per-bin
charges to an increase in consumer prices may
actually lessen incentives for consumers to re-
duce waste in Germany. Under the Dual Sys-
tem, the individual still pays, but now as a con-
sumer: in a hidden tax that is just a few cents
per package one less likely to provide an
incentive to reduce waste.
Implications of the German Approach for US Waste Policy 113
-------
Eleven Questions For US Solid
Waste Policymakers
1. How should responsibility for waste be
allocated between industry and the public
sector?
This is the most important question raised by
the German policies. In the United States, resi-
dential waste is primarily the responsibility of
local government, and its management is funded
by taxpayers. Senator Max Baucus (D, Mon-
tana), chairman of the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee, has said this use of
public money for waste means "taxpayers are
subsidizing wastefulness."1
In Germany, the "polluter pays" principle
shifts the financial responsibility for residen-
tial waste from the public sector (funded by user
fees and taxes) to industry, thereby providing
an incentive for industry to produce less waste-
ful-packages and products. Even though indus-
try can pass the costs on to consumers, compa-
nies have an incentive to keep the costs down
so their products can be priced competitively.
Shifting responsibility does not mean that
manufacturers are being made into garbage col-
lectors in Germany; waste continues to be col-
lected by waste management companies and
municipalities, but producers must assume the
financial responsibility.
"Polluter-pays" municipal solid waste leg-
islation is new in Germany, but there is evidence
that it is beginning to have an impact. The first
official reports on packaging waste generation,
described in Chapter 6, show a 4 percent de-
cline in packaging of 661,000 metric tons from
1991 to 1992, a time when the economy was
growing. As discussed in Chapter 10, the auto
and electronics industries have made significant
changes in selecting materials and designing
products.
Shifting responsibility for waste manage-
ment to industry is synonymous with "internal-
izing" the costs of waste management. Instead
of being funded by public monies, waste man-
agement costs are reflected in the prices con-
sumers pay for products. Failure to internalize
costs can skew industry's decision-making pro-
cess in favor of short-lived and disposable prod-
ucts. For example, a beverage company that
refills its bottles bears the cost of collecting,
storing, and washiiig those bottles. If the com-
pany shifts to one-way containers, the costs of
collecting, recycling, or disposing of the con-
tainers are not part of the company's account-
ing equation these costs become the respon-
sibility of the public sector, the taxpayer.
Without internalization of costs, this uneven
playing field between refillable and disposable
containers is likely to affect the company's
choices. Similarly, when companies make de-
cisions on the durability of their products, if
costs are not internalized the additional cost of
disposing of the shorter-lived products is not
taken into account and becomes a problem for
local solid waste departments, not for the com-
panies making the design decisions.
Germany has also shifted responsibility for
waste within the business sector. The Packag-
ing Ordinance relieves retailers of the financial
responsibility for shipping container waste and
makes those with greater control of the design
stage manufacturers and distributors pay
for managing the waste.
Some countries that are basing their poli-
cies on the "polluter pays" principle, such as
France and Canada., have opted for shared re-
sponsibility between private industry and the
public sector.
112 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
and only 30 percent of the amount collected was
to be recycled. The ordinance did not specify
what was to be done with the 70 percent of plas-
tics collected that was not required to be re-
cycled. Collection and sorting quotas were set
lower in 1993 to allow time to build up recy-
cling capacity, but the level of collections could
not be controlled, and the discrepancy between
the amount collected and recycling capacity
emerged as a major issue.
Recognizing that incinerating or landfilling
materials collected separately for recycling is
not politically viable, policymakers might avoid
such problems in the future by phasing in col-
lections geographically, so that the total col-
lected does not exceed recycling capacity.
The failure of many in industry to pay the
required green dot fees also contributed to
DSD's financial crisis. In the summer of 1993,
90 percent of the packages on the German mar-
ket carried the green dot symbol, but fees were
paid for only 50-60 percent of the packages.
By the time DSD began to develop compliance
mechanisms and monitoring procedures, the
Dual System was running colossal deficits. To
avoid this, future programs modeled on the Dual
System would need to focus on financial com-
pliance and articulate strong enforcement mea-
sures before commencing operations.
The German experience also provides posi-
tive lessons. DSD imposed dynamic, not static,
fees. In other words, fees can change as costs
change. If, due to new technologies or greater
efficiency, the costs of recycling certain mate-
rials were to decrease, the green dot fees would
also decrease. This policy differs from some ad-
vanced disposal fees considered in the United
States that define a fixed rate per package, such
as the Florida fee of one cent per container.
The German Packaging Ordinance is an
ambitious plan to mandate recycling and reuse
which, by making industry responsible for the
cost of collecting, sorting, and recycling pack-
aging waste, includes economic incentives to
reduce the amount and toxicity of waste gener-
ated. Duales System Deutschland's decision to
make the green dot fees weight-based and ma-
terial-specific further increases the source re-
duction incentive by charging companies more
for packages that are heavier or more difficult
and expensive to recycle. In the larger context
of resource management, the German initiative
addresses the issue of materials use by inter-
nalizing costs. This provides a powerful impe-
tus for industry to incorporate end-use consid-
erations into the design and development of
packages and products, particularly when se-
lecting materials.
One of the most positive aspects of the Ger-
man system is the consistency between objec-
tives and incentives for industry. For example,
the costs of recycling plastic were internalized
as the ordinance intended, even though DSD,
not the plastics industry, ended up financing the
recycling: when the plastics industry failed to
build enough recycling capacity, DSD assumed
some of this responsibility itself, and it incorpo-
rated the costs in the green dot fee for plastics.
The issue for US policymakers is not
whether the German system, particularly the
Dual System, will succeed or even survive.
Modifications of the German policies might
avoid many of the problems that have been en-
countered. The issue, instead, is whether the
ideas or strategies implemented in Germany
could be productively used in the United States
to move this country toward a sound materials
policy.
Implications of the German Approach for US Waste Policy 111
-------
Chapter 13: Implications of the
German Approach for US Waste Policy
Some Lessons from Germany
In evaluating potential applications of the Ger-
man approach for US waste policy, it is useful
to consider some of the problems Germany has
encountered, so they can be avoided in the
United States. A number of related factors led
to the crisis the Dual System faced in 1993:
consumers put more materials in the DSD bins
than DSD had planned to collect; Germany
lacked adequate recycling capacity for the col-
lected materials; the Packaging Ordinance did
not require DSD to recycle all of the materials
it collected; and many companies failed to pay
their green dot fees in full and on time.
The reasons for these shortcomings are in-
structive. Instead of gradually phasing in the
Dual System, political pressures forced DSD
to move quickly and make the system nation-
wide shortly after its implementation in Janu-
ary 1993. The government had intended to
phase in the amount of packaging collected from
an average of 50 percent in 1993 to 80 percent
in 1995; however, there was no way to control
these amounts, and DSD ended up collecting
more used packaging than anticipated. DSD
provided curbside bins for the "light fraction"
of packaging waste! specifically, plastic and
metallic materials. It intended to collect only
30 percent of plastic packaging, but consumers
put much more of it in the yellow bins. They
also discarded plastic products, which DSD
never intended to collect, in the yellow bins.
DSD might have anticipated this result, given
the strong incentive for households to put ma-
terials in the DSD bins. Households pay steep
fees based on the amount of garbage they put
in their regular garbage bins and can reduce
those fees by placing more in the DSD contain-
ers, which are picked up free.
The Packaging Ordinance's requirement
that only a portion of the materials DSD col-
lected be recycled in 1993 also created prob-
lems. German citizens who were separating
their waste and paying for DSD collections
through the green dot fees were outraged by
DSD's suggestion of sending used packaging
to incinerators and landfills after it had been
collected separately at additional cost and ef-
fort. To take the most visible example, 30 per-
cent of plastic packaging was to be collected,
110 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
waste management hierarchy, with Germany
giving greater preference to refillable packag-
ing than the European Community and the lat-
ter allowing more incineration than Germany.
Germany also places greater responsibility for
waste on industry (the producers) than does the
European Community, which has favored
shared responsibility between the private and
public sectors, although the matter is still be-
ing debated. Germany has deferred to the Eu-
ropean Community and has waited to pass regu-
lations on package labeling, reducing toxics,
and the banning of specific materials such as
PVC. However, the recycling quotas set by
Germany are higher than those of the European
Community and must be met much sooner.
The European Court of Justice may ultimately
have to rule on whether the more stringent mea-
sures taken by Germany are .primarily protect-
ing the environment or are a form of green pro-
tectionism.
Notes
I. Alan Riding, "Europeans Try to Revive a Faded
Dream of Unity," The New York Times, June 20,
1993, p. 8.
2. "EC Environmental Policies and the Subsidiarity
Debate," The ENDS Report, No. 215, December
1992, p. 19.
3. David Gardner, "Brussels Green Sprouts," Finan-
cial Times, London, October 21, 1992, p. 22.
4. "Environment Ministers Approve Waste Shipments
Regulation," Europe Environment, No. 397, Europe
Information Service, Brussels, November 5, 1992,
p. 1-4.
5. The European Community, Council Regulation
#259/93, on the "Supervision and Control of Ship-
ments of Waste within, into, and out of the Euro-
pean Community," Article 4.3(a), Brussels, Febru-
ary 1,1993.
6. "Court Refuses to Annul Framework Directive," Eu-
rope Environment, No. 407, Europe Information
Service, Brussels, March 30,1993, p. 1-6.
7. Bureau of National Affairs, "Illegal Exports from
Germany to France Spur Ministers to Form Interim
Trade Plan," International Environment Daily, Wash-
ington, DC, August 25, 1992.
8. The European Community, "Draft Council Direc-
tive on Packaging and Packaging Waste," Commis-
sion of the European Communities, com(92)278
final-Syn436, Brussels, July 15, 1992, p. 2-3.
9. The European Community, "Discussion Document
on Packaging Waste," October 1990, p. 28.
10. The European Community, "Draft Council Direc-
tive," July 15, 1992, op. cit. The September 1993
draft of the directive specifies the following limits
for heavy metals in packaging: Lead 150 ppm,
Cadmium 1.5 ppm, Hexavalent chromium 100 ppm,
and Mercury 1 ppm.
11. "European Parliament Committee Adopts Much
Amended Report," Europe Environment, No. 411,
Europe Information Service, Brussels, June 8,1993,
p. 1-20.
12. The European Community, "Draft Proposal for a
Council Directive on Packaging and Packaging
Waste, DGXI-A4," DraftNo. 2, September 30,1991.
13. "Negotiations Startup Again on New Foundations,"
Europe Environment, No. 414, Europe Information
Service, Brussels, July 20,1993, p. 1-21.
14. "ESC Calls for More Preventive Action," Europe
Environment, No. 408, Europe Information Service,
Brussels, April 15,1993, p. 1-1; and "Packaging
Waste: National Experts Call for More Emphasis
on Prevention," Multinational Service: The National
and Regional Contexts, Section III, No. 0330, March
12,1993, Europe Information Service, Brussels.
15. "European Environmentalists Agree on Packaging
Agenda," The ENDS Report, Environmental Data
Services Ltd., No. 215, December 1992, p. 23.
16. "Negotiations Start Up Again on New Foundations,"
Europe Environment, No. 414, Europe Information
Service, Brussels, July 20,1993, p. 1-21.
17. Ibid., p. 1-22.
18. "European Parliament Mends Draft Directive," Eu-
rope Environment, No. 413, Europe Information
Service, Brussels, July 6, p. 1-11, 12.
19. "DTI Assessment of EC Packaging Rules," The
ENDS Report, No. 217, February 1993, p. 14.
20. "U.K. to Oppose EC Targets for Packaging Waste,"
The ENDS Report, p. 40-41.
21. "Packaging Waste: National Experts Call for More
Emphasis on Prevention," op. cit.
The German Packaging Ordinance and the European Community 109
-------
Belgium, and the Netherlands, in particular,
advocate reusing or refilling. Moreover, 55
European non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) have established a common agenda on
packaging issues in which they emphasize pre-
vention, support the reintroduction of refill sys-
tems in Western Europe, and oppose the intro-
duction of one-way packaging in Eastern
Europe. The groups are concerned about the
gradual weakening of the Packaging Directive.
"Every new draft has shown further watering
down and confusion and would lead to lower
standards in many member states."15
All 12 member states agreed at the Council
of Environmental Ministers meeting in June
1993 that prevention should receive greater
emphasis. They are considering guidelines on
eliminating secondaiy and unnecessary pack-
aging and encouraging the reuse of packaging.
These guidelines could be implemented by the
member states.16
Setting Recycling Targets
The European Commission has accepted
Parliament's amendment to the Packaging Di-
rective, which sets intermediate, five-year tar-
gets of 60 percent recovery and 40 percent re-
cycling of each packaging material by weight.
The European Community seems to be mov-
ing toward greater flexibility in the directive,
as specific goals may be impossible to achieve
in rural, sparsely populated areas. Discussion'
continues as to whether the goals should be set
by material or whether there should be global
goals for all packaging. As of mid-1993, there
was no agreement on whether a clause would
be introduced allowing member states to adopt
more stringent goals. Moreover, the issue of
unequal financial hardship had not been re-
solved.17 Greece and Ireland, the two poorest
members of the European Community, claim
they could not handle the directive's financial
burden, nor its quantitative objectives.18
Allowing EC Packaging Taxes
Parliament voted to allow the European Com-
munity to create "economic instruments," such
as packaging taxes, to promote the Packaging
Directive's objectives. The Commission's ini-
tial proposal would allow only individual mem-
ber states to adopt economic instruments. Which
version would be included in the final directive
was unresolved as of mid-1993.
The Directive and the Member States
The United Kingdom and Germany oppose each
other on most of the issues under debate. ABrit-
ish study of the proposed EC Packaging Direc-
tive estimated the additional cost of compliance
for British industry at about £2.6 billion ($4.42
billion) per year more than half attributable
to the cost of recycling plastics.19 The United
Kingdom opposes material-specific recovery
and recycling targets and supports a single tar-
get for diverting all packaging materials col-
lectively from landfills, enabling member states
to decide how much, of each material should be
reused, recycled, or incinerated. The United
Kingdom argues that the reporting requirements
will constitute an excessive burden and says
member states should be restrained from going
"further or faster" than the EC directive.20 The
Netherlands, on the other hand, has said it would
not take a single step backward to comply with
weaker EC legislation.21
The German ordinance and the EC direc-
tive could conflict in several areas. The initia-
tives are based on different definitions of the
108 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
The EC Packaging Directive aims prima-
rily to reduce packaging waste going to final
disposal (landfills or incinerators without en-
ergy recovery), and to adopt a common policy
for member states to avoid distortions in com-
petition, restraints of trade, and the need for
companies to contend with different regulations
in each of the 12 member states. However, the
member states differ substantially on what that
common policy should be. Germany, Denmark,
and the Netherlands have pushed for the strong-
est legislation by promoting, for example, waste
prevention and refilling. But other EC member
states (particularly the United Kingdom), along
with private industry, have pressured for more
lenient measures, including a lower recycling
rate, recycling rates that are not material-spe-
cific, and greater acceptance of incineration.
A key provision of the draft Packaging Di-
rective circulated in 1993 states that within 10
years of its effective date, 90 percent, by weight,
of all packaging must be recovered (by recy-
cling, composting, or waste-to-energy burning)
and 60 percent, by weight, of each packaging
material must be recycled or composted. Final
disposal (landfilling or incineration without en-
ergy recovery) of packaging will be limited to
the residues of the sorting and collecting pro-
cesses and must not exceed 10 percent of pack-
aging consumption. Moreover, this draft of the
directive would require companies to meet stan-
dards for heavy metals in packaging, measured
in parts per million, no later than five years af-
ter the directive takes effect.10
In June 1993, the European Parliament
adopted the Commission's proposed Packag-
ing Directive, with amendments, clearing the
way for redrafting by the Commission and con-
sideration by the Council of Ministers. The par-
liamentary environment committee's report on
this directive was described as "the most lob-
bied report in the history of the European Par-
liament,"11 even though its role is only advi-
sory.
The Debate Over Prevention
The concept of waste prevention, or source re-
duction, continues to be hotly debated. Early
drafts of the EC Packaging Directive included
a "standstill" provision specifying that per-
capita consumption of packaging in 10 years
could not exceed the EC average in 1990, esti-
mated at 150 kilograms (330 pounds) per capita
per year.12 Industry, which views the standstill
principle as a hindrance to economic growth,
succeeded in getting the provision removed. But
environmental groups such as the European En-
vironmental Bureau and the Greens in the Eu-
ropean Parliament continue to press for its in-
clusion on the grounds that prevention at the
source should be the top priority. Parliament
adopted an amendment specifying a hierarchy
of waste policy options from prevention as the
highest option through reuse, recycling, incin-
eration with energy recovery, incineration with-
out energy recovery, and, last, landfilling.
However, the EC Commission has made it
clear that it will not accept the hierarchy and
favors a more flexible approach. The Commis-
sion objects to policies that favor reuse over
recycling. It argues that all the waste process-
ing methods should be equivalent: in other
words, recycling should not be preferred over
waste-to-energy incineration.13
The Economic and Social Committee (ESC)
of the European Community, which has advi-
sory powers only, has joined the environmen-
tal organizations and the member states' del-
egations in the Council of Ministers in calling
for more emphasis on prevention.14 Denmark,
The German Packaging Ordinance and the European Community 107
-------
Table 12-1: Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD), European
Community (EC), and European Free Trade
Association (EFTA) Member Countries
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
OECD
EC
EFTA
United Kingdom
United States
Sources: OECD Environmental Data, 1991, Paris,
1991; and The New York Times, December 9, 1991.
ing the United Kingdom, France, and Belgium
(as described in Chapter 9), are becoming in-
creasingly troubled by the flood of materials
from Germany and may take other actions.
EC Directive on Packaging Waste
The European Community has been develop-
ing a Packaging Directive since 1990, but it had
not been adopted by the time this report was
prepared for publication. (Refer to the Epilogue
for a description of the political agreement
reached on the directive in December 1993.)
The EC directive could have a range of impli-
cations for the future of the German Packaging
Ordinance, from no impact (if Germany is per-
mitted to follow its own regulations, irrespec-
tive of what the European Community adopts),
to overruling the German ordinance and requir-
ing Germany to conform to the EC directive.
Most likely, the impact will fall somewhere
between these extremes, with some of the is-
sues to be resolved by the European Court.
However, as Germany is the most powerful
country in the European Community, with the
largest population and the dominant economy,
it may play an important role in shaping the EC
directive. i
As in Germany, packaging is a major com-
ponent of municipal solid waste generated in
the European Community, accounting for 25-
30 percent of the total. The European Commu-
nity reports that its 341 million inhabitants gen-
erate about 50 millioin tons of packaging waste
per year: 25 million tons from households, 15
million tons from the service sector, and 10
million tons from industry.8 About 20 percent
of this waste is recydled, 60 percent landfilled,
and 20 percent incinerated.9
106 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
EC Regulation of Waste Shipments
In October 1992, after two years of delibera-
tions, the EC Council of Ministers agreed on
new regulations for the transboundary shipment
of waste. The measures an application of the
"subsidiarity" principle are of great impor-
tance to Germany, a major exporter of waste.
Formally adopted in February 1993, they were
intended to take effect in 1994. They regulate
the supervision and control of waste shipments
within, into, and out of the European Commu-
nity.4
The new regulations reversed a prior policy
that protected free trade in waste. Under the new
regulations, "member states may take measures
in accordance with the Treaty to prohibit gen-
erally or partially or to object systematically to
shipments of waste."5 The regulations distin-
guish between waste for disposal and waste for
recovery (which includes recycling and waste-
to-energy incineration) and allow a country to
close its borders to waste for disposal. The Eu-
ropean debate on this issue has a direct parallel
in the United States, where free trade in waste
has been protected by the Interstate Commerce
clause of the Constitution. Legislation has been
proposed in the US Congress that would per-
mit states to limit imports of waste for disposal
as the new EC regulations do. As of mid-1993,
the United States had not adopted the proposed
legislation. The issue is not completely resolved
in the European Community either, as the Eu-
ropean Parliament has sued to have the waste
shipment regulations annulled on the grounds
that the Council of Ministers should have based
them on free trade (article 100A), not environ-
mental protection (article 130S).6 The lawsuit
is partly political, as the Parliament has greater
power under article 100A.
Implications of EC Regulations
for German Waste Policy
The details of the waste regulations, including
the complicated requirements for advance no-
tification and consent, are beyond the scope of
this report, but some implications for Germany,
as a major waste exporter, should be noted. The
new regulations allowing EC countries to close
their borders to waste destined for disposal will
put added pressure on Germany to reduce and
recycle its waste. For shipments of waste for
disposal among EC members, the new regula-
tions require prior notification to the importing
country and a certificate of disposal to docu-
ment that the waste was legally disposed of;
these regulations are intended to curtail illegal
dumping.
The regulations legalize France's August
1992 ban on imports of waste for disposal,
which caused serious problems in southwest-
ern Germany. Communities there had legally
been shipping 700,000 tons of waste per year
to French landfills at a cost of about one-third
of disposal costs in Germany.7
Exports of waste for disposal outside of the
European Community will be virtually banned
with a few exceptions for European countries
that are members of the European Free Trade
Association shown in Table 12-1.
The impact on shipments of waste for re-
covery will be less severe, although additional
tracking documents and, in some cases, agree-
ments with receiving countries will be required.
Shipments of recyclables to 69 African, Carib-
bean, and Pacific countries will be forbidden.
The new regulations alone will not restrict
Duales System Deutschland's (DSD) exports of
used packaging materials from Germany to
other EC countries, as these are "waste for re-
covery." However, receiving countries, includ-
The German Packaging Ordinance and the European Community 105
-------
"Environmental Protection in Germany," August
1992.
"The Federal Government Passes New Waste
Management Act." Press release. March 31,
1993.
"Germany - The Federal Environment Ministry."
August 1992.
Information Sheet on the Packaging Ordinance:
"The Distinction between Transport, Second-
ary, and Sales Packaging."
"Key Point: On the Spot Recycling and Reuse of
Transport Packaging."
"Key Point: Where is Used Transport Packaging
to be Returned to?"
"Okobilanz fur Gertrankeverpackungen" ("Eco-
balance for Beverage Packages"). Press re-
lease. September 21, 1993.
"Ordinance on the Avoidance of Packaging Waste"
(Packaging Ordinance - Verpackungsverord-
nting - VerpackVO) of June 12, 1991.
"Ordinance on Source Reduction and the Recy-
cling of Used Electrical and Electronic Goods
and Appliances" (Draft). July 1991.
"Ordinance on Source Reduction and Recycling
of Waste from Automobile Disposal" (Draft).
August 1992.
"Packaging Ordinance Approved: Abandoning the
Throwaway Society." Press release. Novem-
ber 14, 1990.
"Regulation Regarding the Avoidance, Reduction
and Recycling of the Waste of Used Electric
and Electronic Equipment - Electronic Scrap
Regulation." WAII 3-30 114/7, Working pa-
per as of October 1992.
"Topfer legt neues Abfallgesetz vor: Kreislaufwirt-
schaft statt Abfallbeseitigung" ("Topfer Pre-
sents New Waste Legislation: Closed-Loop
Economy Instead of Waste Disposal"). Press
release. July 17, 1992.
BundesverbandderDeutschen Industrie e.V. (BDI) (Fed-
eration of German Industries). Cologne.
"Bin Beitrag zur aktuellen abfallpolitischen
Diskussion" ("A Contribution to the Ongo-
ing Waste Discussion"). November 4, 1992.
"Grundsatzstellungnahme" ("Position Paper").
June/July 1992.
"International Environmental Policy Perspec-
tives 2000." May 1992.
"Making Market Forces Work to Improve the En-
vironment." Paper delivered by Heinrich
Weiss, President of BDI, at the Second World
,1
Industrial Conference on Environmental Man-
agement. Rotterdam, April 10,1991.
Report 1988-1990: Environmental Policy Octo-
ber 1, 1990. ,
"Stellungnahme zum Entwurf einer Verordnung
zur Forderung von Getrankemehrwegsyste-
men" ("Position Paper in Response to the
Separate Ordinance on Refillables") May
1992. ,
Bureau of National Affairs. Washington, DC.
"Cabinet Approves Amended Waste Law Despite
Widespread Industry Objections." Interna-
tional Environment Daily. April 2, 1993.
"French Paper Recycling Industry Launches Pro-
tests Against German Imports." International
Environment Daily. April 16, 1993.
"German Cartel Office Will Examine Regulation
Scheme for G(arbage Collection." Antitrust
and Trade Regulation Report. January 1
1993. ;
"German, EC Packaging Measures Will Hurt U.K.
Industry, House of Commons Panel Told."
International Environment Daily. March 8
1993.
"Illegal Exports from Germany to France Spur
Ministers to Form Interim Trade Plan." In-
ternational Environment Daily. August 25
1992.
"New Directive Sels Parameters for Incineration,
Landfill Disposal." International Environ-
ment Daily. September 22, 1992.
"Waste Law Proposal Will Require Industry to
Recycle All Products." International Environ-
ment Daily. July 28, 1992.
Cairncross, Frances. "How Europe's Companies Repo-
sition to Recycle." Harvard Business Review. March-
April 1992. !
Case, Clifford. "Eliminating Barriers to Recycling in the
90's: The Work of the National Recycling Coalition
and the Recycling Advisory Council." New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation: Fifth
Annual Recycling Conference. Syracuse: September
28, 1993.
Cavanaugh, Joseph (Joe Cavanagh Associates, Packag-
ing Consultants, Bay Shore, NY). "Non Reffllable
vs. Refillable Beverage Containers: The United States
Experience." Paper presented at Bev-Pak '92 Con-
ference.
Appendices 157
-------
Chynoweth, Emma.
"Veba and RWE recycle plastics waste to crude."
Chemical Week. August 19,1992.
"Germany's Waste Policy Draws More Com-
plaints." Chemical Week. May 12,1993.
Conradt, David P. (American Institute for Contempo-
rary German Studies, Johns Hopkins University).
Unified Germany at the Polls. Washington, DC:
1990.
Grassland's European Environmental Bulletin. Inter-
national Environment Group. August 27 and Septem-
ber 12,1991.
Cutter Information Corp. "Status of Proposed Takeback
Regulation in Sweden and Germany." Business and
(he Environment., Vol. 4, No. 1. January 1993.
Devcny, Kathleen. "Toothpaste Makers Tout New Pack-
aging." The Wall Street Journal. November 10,1992.
Duales System Deutschland GmbH (DSD). Bonn.
"Agreement with Local Authorities." Press release.
July 25,1993.
"Beverage Cartons." April 1,1993.
"Business Sector Strengthens Duales System."
Press release. May 27,1993.
"Daten und Fakten zum Griinen Punkt: Oko-
logische Verpackungsoptimierung" ("Data
and Facts about the Green Dot: Ecological
Packaging Optimization"). March 1992.
"Daten und Fakten zum Griinen Punkt: Der Oko-
logische Wandel bei Verpackungen" ("Data
and Facts about the Green Dot: The Ecologi-
cal Change in Packaging"). November 1992.
"Daten und Fakten zum Griinen Punkt: Abfallver-
halten der Verbraucher im Dualen System"
("Data and Facts about the Green Dot: Waste
Behavior of Consumers in the Dual System").
March 1993.
"Don't Let Packaging Go to Waste."
"Drastic Reorganization at Duales System." Press
release. June 25,1993.
"Duales System Finances Assured in the Long
Term." Press release. June 20,1993.
"Informationen zur neuen Gebiihrenordnung"
("Information about the New Fee Schedule").
April 1993.
"New Sorting Criteria for Plastics: Sorted Mate-
rial Will Be Recycled." Press release. July 1,
1993.
"Packaging Materials are Raw Materials." August
31, 1992.
"Problems in Rhineland-Palatinate Being Solved."
Press release. June 16,1993.
"Recovery of Raw Materials from Plastic Pack-
aging." Press release. July 7, 1993.
"Recycling Capacities for Plastic 1993." Press
release. June 4,1993.
"Reform Proposals from Five Local Government
Bodies are Unimaginative." Press release.
July 21,1993."
"Report Regarding Quantity and Reprocessing of
Secondary Raw Materials Anticipated for
1993."
"Stand der Verwertung" ("State of Recycling").
(Graph). DSD Business Report 1992.
"Threats to Revoke Exemption for Plastic Pack-
aging Constitute Totally Wrong Signal." Press
release. June 17,1993.
"Two Years of the Packaging Ordinance." Press
release. July 21, 1993.
"Verwertung von Kunststoff-Probemengen in In-
donesien ordnungsgemaB" ("Trial Quantities
of Plastics Properly Recycled in Indonesia").
Press release. March 29,1993.
Elkington, John. The Green Wave: A Report on the 1990
Greenworld Survey. London: Sustainability. 1990.
Environmental Action Foundation. Solid Waste Action
Paper #8, "The Real Wrap on Polyvinyl Chloride
Packaging." Washington, DC.
Environmental Data Services Ltd., London.
"Battle Joined Over Packaging Directive." The
ENDS Report No. 210, July 1992.
"BMW Opens First Car Dismantling Plant." The
ENDS Report No. 215. December 1992.
"Brussels Makes Concessions in New Draft on
Packaging." The ENDS Report No. 204. Janu-
ary 1992.
"European Environmentalists Agree on Packag-
ing Agenda." The ENDs Report No. 215. De-
cember 1992.
"DTI Assessment of EC Packaging Rules." The
ENDs Report No. 217. February 1993.
"Transfrontier Waste Meeting Focuses on Exports,
Liability." The ENDS Report No. 215. Decem-
ber 1992.
"U.K. to Oppose EC Targets for Packaging Waste."
The ENDS Report No. 217. February 1993.
158 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
"Uncertainty about Impact of Transfrontier Waste
Rules." The ENDS Report No. 213. October
1992.
"Environmental Protection in Europe: Abolishing Lit-
ter." The Economist. August 22,1993.
Europe Information Service. Brussels.
"ACE Criticizes German Legislation." Europe
Environment No. 410. May 18,1993.
"BCME Opposes Discrimination Among Packag-
ing Materials." Europe Environment No. 398.
November 17, 1992.
"Commission Waves Through Proposal for Direc-
tive." Europe Environment No. 392. July 8
1992.
"Communication on Industrial Competitiveness
and Environmental Protection." Europe En-
vironment No. 399. December 1,1992.
"Council Adopts Waste Shipments Regulation."
Europe Environment No. 404. February 16
1993.
"Court Refuses to Annul Framework Directive."
Europe Environment No. 407. March 30
1993.
"Debates on Subsidiarity and Waste Trade." Eu-
rope EnvironmentNo. 403. February 2,1993.
"EC Court Opines on Waste and Freedom Of
Movement." Europe Environment No. 391
July 14,1992.
"EC: Draft Directive on Packaging and Packag-
ing Waste." Europe Environment No. 393.
September 8, 1992. Supplement.
"EC Experts Want More Flexible Targets." Europe
Environment No. 399. December 1, 1992.
"Economic Aspects of the Community's Strategy
for Limiting CO2 Emissions." Europe Envi-
ronmentNo. 397. Novembers, 1992. Supple-
ment.
"Environment Ministers Approve Waste Ship-
ments Regulation." Europe Environment No.
397. November 5, 1992.
"Environment Ministers Reach Consensus on
Waste Prevention." Europe Environment No
413. July 6, 1993.
"ESC Calls for More Preventive Action." Europe
Environment No. 408. April 15,1993.
"European Commission Seeks to Consolidate the
Links." Europe Environment No. 410 May
18, 1993.
"European Parliament Committee Adopts Much
Amended Report." Europe Environment No
411. June 8,1993.
"European Parliament Committee Tables Resolu-
tion on Waste." Europe Environment No. 396.
October 20, 1992.
"European Parliament Mends Draft Directive."
Europe Environment No. 413. July 6, 1993.
"French Decree arid Franco-German Decisions."
Europe Environment No. 393. September 8
1992.
"German Forests Continue to Die." Europe Envi-
ronment No. 398. November 17, 1992.
"Germany's Fruit and Vegetable Suppliers in Plas-
tic Crate Scare." Europe Environment No.
411. June 8, 1993.
"German System Fights for Survival." Europe En-
vironment No. 416. September 14,1993.
"Green MEP Denounces Suspicious Transport in
EC." Europe Environment No. 390. June 30
1992.
"Greenpeace Denounces Decision on Waste Ex-
ports." Europe EnvironmentNo. 397. Novem-
ber 5, 1992.
"Karel Van Miert Unveils Priorities." Europe En-
vironment No, 392. July 26, 1992.
"Negotiations Start Up Again on New Founda-
tions." Europe Environment No. 414. July 20
1993.
"No Decision on Transfers before October." Eu-
rope Environment No. 390. June 30,1992.
"Packaging Waste: National Experts Call for More
Emphasis on Prevention." Multinational Ser-
vice: The National and Regional Contexts
Section III, No. 0330. March 12, 1993.
"Progress Toward EC Regulation on Waste Trans-
fers." Europe Environment No. 395. October
6, 1992.
"Recovery Loses Out to Eco-Tax Option." Europe
Environment No. 412. June 22, 1993.
"Regulation of Wasts Shipments to go to EC Court
of Justice." Europe Environment No. 403.
February 2, 1993.
"Van Miert Attacks Nigerian Toxic Waste Import
Proposal." Europe Environment No. 398.
November 17, 1992.
"Waste: New German Law for Economic Recy-
cling." Europe Environment No. 408 April
15,1993.
"Waste Shipment Regulation Could End up in the
Dock."Europea/i Report No.1893. February
27, 1993.
Appendices 159
-------
"Waste Transfers Top Heavy Agenda for October
20." Europe Report No. 396. October 20,
1992.
The European Community. Brussels.
Commission of the European Community.
"Amended Proposal for a Council Directive
on Packaging and Packaging Waste." Septem-
ber 9,1993.
Commission of the European Community. "Draft
Council Directive on Packaging and Packag-
ing Waste." com (92)278 final-Syn436. July
15,1992.
Council Regulation #259/93. "Supervision and
Control of Shipments of Waste within, into,
and out of the European Community." Article
4.3(a). February 1,1993.
"Discussion Document on Packaging Waste."
October 1990.
"Draft Proposal for a Council Directive on Pack-
aging and Packaging Waste, DGXI-A4." Draft
No. 2. September 30,1991.
Fox, Josh and Karen Hurst (Community Environmental
Council, Inc.). A Question of Responsibility: Recy-
cling Market Development (Review draft). 1993.
Franklin Associates, Ltd., for the US Environmental
Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal
Solid Waste in the United States: 1992 Update. Prai-
rie Village, KS: 1992.
Fraunhofer-Institut (Fraunhofer Institute). "Okobilanzen
zu Einweg- und Mehrwegverpackungssystemen am
Beispiel von Frischmilch und Bier" ("Ecobalances
for One-Way and Refillable Packaging Systems Us-
ing the Examples of Fresh Milk and Beer.") Press
release. Munich: September 8,1993.
Gardner, David. "Brussels Green Sprouts." Financial
Times. October 21,1992.
Gardner, Jonathan.
"Ex-EPA Official Disputes APC, Says Recycling
Goal Unrealistic." Plastics News. January 18,
1993.
"Feds May Buy More Recyled Products." Plas-
tics News. March 22, 1993
"International EPS Groups Ink Recycling Pact."
Plastics News. November 16,1992.
"RCRA Plan Would Modify Plastics Recycling
Demands." Plastics News. July 20,1993.
Genillard, Ariane.
"Falling Victim to Its Own Success." Financial
Times. London: January 27,1993.
"Too Much of a Good Thing." Financial Times.
London: June 23,1993.
Gerlinger, Karl H. (BMW). "Market Incentives and the
Environment." October 15,1992.
"German Anti-Rubbish Law Cuts Down on Excess Pack-
aging." Renter European Community Report. Janu-
ary 4, 1993.
"German Efforts Seen as a Threat." Chemical Week.
February 17,1993.
German Information Center, New York.
"Cabinet Adopts Recycling Bill, Business Voices
Objections." The Week in Germany. April 9,
1993.
"The Crude Side of Plastics: They Can be Con-
verted to Oil." The Week in Germany. Octo-
ber 2,1992.
"(Western) Greens and (Eastern) Alliance '90 Vote
to Unite." The Week in Germany. January 22,
1993.
"German Law May Force Carmakers to Recycle." Plas-
tics News. September 7, 1992.
"German Waste Imports Seen Hurting Indonesian Poor."
The Reuter Library Report. March 5, 1993.
"Germans Heartened by First Test of Chemical Recy-
cling." Plastics News. May 18, 1992.
Gesellschaft fur Verpackungsmarktforschung (GVM)
(Association for Packaging Market Research).
Entwicklung des Verpackungsverbrauchs 1992/1995:
Vorausschatzung/Prognose (Development of the Use
of Packaging 1992/1995: Estimate/Forecast). Wies-
baden: July 1993.
Grimm, Ed (IBM). "Update on Safety, Energy and the
Environment." 1992.
Hershkowitz, Allen. "How Garbage Could Meet Its
Maker." The Atlantic Monthly. June 1993.
Hill, Barbara (IBM). "Integrating Environmental At-
tributes into Product Development." Presented at
Faredisfare lo scenario del produttore riproduttore,
Politecnico di Milano, Italy: October 23,1992.
160 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
"Indonesia Fights Plastic Waste Invasion." Toxic Trade
Update. Greenpeace, Washington, DC.
INFORM (Bette K. Fishbein and Caroline Gelb). Mak-
ing Less Garbage: A Planning Guide for Communi-
ties. New York: 1992.
INFORM (David Saphire). Case Reopened: Reassess-
ing Refillable Bottles. New York: draft 1993.
International Fruit Container Organization. "A System
of the Food Trade." Dusseldorf.
James, Sharpe. "Make Private Industry Responsible for
Recycling." Press release, Newark Public Informa-
tion Office. August 12, 1993.
Kay, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler. European Com-
munity Environmental Law. April and August 1992.
Kinzer, Stephen. "Green Party Merges with an East
German Group." The New York Times. January 20,
1993.
"Kippe in Fernost" ("Garbage Dump in Far East"). Der
Spiegel No. 53. December 28, 1992.
Klepper, Gernot and Peter Michaelis. "Will the Dual
System Manage Packaging Waste?" Working Paper
No. 503. Kiel Institute of World Economics. Kiel:
January 1992.
Koelsch, Claire M. and Hans D. Schulz, "Verpackung-
verordnung and Duales System Deutschland: Status
Report." Draft, 1992.
Larsson, Gunnar (Volkswagen AG). "Automotive Re-
cycling in Germany Today and in the Future." Mas-
sachusetts Institute of Technology: Design and Dis-
posal of Durable Products Conference. Cambridge,
MA: March 24-25, 1993.
Latham & Watkins, International Environment Network,
IEN Client Alert. "German Electronic Waste Regula-
tion." November 20, 1992.
Le Make, William H. "Germany's Precedent-Setting
Dual System, A Model for the Future or a Blueprint
for Chaos?" Packaging Strategies' Green 2000 Vol.
2, No. 7. West Chester, PA: July 1992.
"Lessons in Recycling from Germany." Plastics News.
November 16,1992.
Levandoski, Robert C. "Europe Eyes 90% Recovery
Rate for All Beverage Packaging." Beverage Indus-
try. April 1993.
Lifset, Reid (Yale University Program on Solid Waste
Policy). "Extended Producer Responsibility: Ration-
ales and Practices in North America." Massachusetts
Institute of Technology: Design and Disposal of Du-
rable Products Conference. Cambridge, MA: March
24-25 1993.
Loepp, Don.
"German Official Rethinks Incineration Stance."
Plastics News. November 9. 1992.
"German Package Recycling Goals May be Unat-
tainable." Plastics News. November 2,1992.
"Plastics Vulnerable in Green Movement." Plas-
tics News. November 2, 1992.
McCarthy, James E.
"Packaging Waste: Can the U.S. Learn from Other
Countries?" Biocycle. October 1992.
"Waste Reduction and Packaging in Europe." Re-
source Recycling. July 1991.
Michael Peters Brand Development Division and Diag-
nostics Market Research Ltd., Green, Greener, Green-
est: The Green Consumer in the UK, Netherlands and
Germany. London: September 1989.
Mills, Rowena (RMA Ltd., United Kingdom). "Over-
view of Approved and Pending Environmental Pack-
aging Legislation within Individual EC Member
Countries." Institute of Packaging Professionals Con-
ference: Executive Update on Domestic and Interna-
tional Environmental Packaging Legislation. Alex-
andria, VA: July, 24, ] 992.
Murphy, Mary. "Has Germany Bitten Off More Than It
Can Chew?" Packaging Week. April 8/15, 1993.
New York City Department of Sanitation, Bureau of
Waste Prevention, Reuse and Recycling. "New York
City's Waste Prevention Program." July 12, 1993.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Develop-
ment. OECD Environmental Data 1991. Paris, 1991.
Appendices 161
-------
Peel, Quentin. "German Waste Industry Under Fire."
Financial Times. London, January 18,1993.
"Plastikbranche macht Druck" ("Plastics Industry Ap-
plies Pressure). Frankfurter Rundschau. September
21,1993.
Popoff, Frank. "Life After Rio: Merging Economics and
Environmentalism." Chemical Week Conference.
Houston: October 15,1992.
Porritl, Jonathan and David Winner. The Coming of the
Greens. London: Fontana/Collins, 1988.
Porter, Winston. "Recycling at the Crossroads." Porter
& Associates. Sterling, VA: January 1993.
Powell, Jerry. "Thermal Plastics Processing: Is it recy-
cling?" Resource Recycling. May 1993.
Protzman, Ferdinand. "Germany's Push to Expand the
Scope of Recycling." The New York Times. July 4,
1993.
Purnell, Sonia. "Germany's Waste-Size Problem." The
Daily Telegraph. March 26,1993.
"Recycling ist nur der zweitbeste Weg" ("Recycling is
the Second Best Choice"). Der Spiegel. 25/1993.
Redding, Peter M. "The Development of European Pack-
aging Laws." Environmental Claims Journal. Win-
ter 1992/93.
Riding, Alan. "Europeans Try to Revive a Faded Dream
of Unity." The New York Times. June 20,1993.
Rose, Michael. "Red Tape for Green Waste?" Warmer
Bulletin Number 36. February 1993.
Rummler, Thomas and Wolfgang Schutt. The German
Packaging Ordinance: A Practical Guide with Com-
mentary. Hamburg: B. Behr's Verlag GmbH & Co.,
1990.
"Saturn Working Toward Auto Recycling." Plastics
News. April 5,1993.
Schoeller International. "Multi-use Returnable Transport
Packaging System (MTS)" (Video). Munich.
Scriba, Michael. "Pack Leaders." Environment Risk.
May 1992.
Shea, Cynthia Pollock.
"Packaging Ordinance Leads Most Firms to Re-
duce Packaging, Improve Recyclability." In-
ternational Environment Reporter. Washing-
ton, DC: Bureau of National Affairs, March
24,1993.
"Packaging Recycling Laws." Biocycle. June
1992.
Short, Herb. "Germans Heartened by the First Test of
Chemical Recycling." Plastics News. May 18,1992.
Short, Herb and Gardner, Jonathan. "Global Firms Must
Struggle with German Recycling Law." Plastics
News. March 30,1992.
Sims, Jonathan (RMA, Ltd., United Kingdom). "Cur-
rent Status of European Community Environmental
Legislation." Institute of Packaging Professionals
Conference: Executive Update on Domestic and In-
ternational Environmental Packaging Legislation. Al-
exandria, VA: July 24,1992.
Skumatz, Lisa A. and Philip A. Zach. "Community
Adoption of Variable Rates: an Update." Resource
Recycling. June 1993.
Spangenberg, Joachim H. "The German Waste Policy."
Wuppertal Institute. September 27, 1993.
"Stadt drohen DSD mil Gerichtsvollzieher" ("Cities
Threatening DSD with Debt Collectors"). Allgemeine
Zeitung Mainz. September 17, 1993.
Stroetmann, Clemens (German Secretary of State for the
Environment). Speech on the Federal Government's
Environment Policy as a Framework for Entrepre-
nuerial Actions, given at the meeting of the DOW
Corporate Environmental Advisory Council. July 19,
1992.
Swiss, Samantha. "Pack up your Troubles." Environ-
ment Risk. April 1992.
162 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
Talley, Audrey (USDA). "The EC's Directive on Pack-
aging and Solid Waste and Germany's Ordinance on
Avoidance of Packaging Waste: Current Status and
Likely Impact on the American Packaging
Community." Institute of Packaging Professionals
Conference: Executive Update on Domestic and In-
ternational Environment Packaging Legislation. Al-
exandria, VA: July 24, 1992.
Teasley, Harry (Coca-Cola Company). "Presentation to
Implementation Subcommittee/Packaging Standards
Committee." Source Reduction Council of the Coa-
lition of Northeastern Governors. Boston, MA: April
24,1990.
Technische Fachhochschule Berlin (Berlin Technical
College), (Professors Dieter Berndt, Marcus Thiele,
Karsten Klappert, Thomas Reiner, and Andreas
Riedel). Abschatzung der gegenwdrtigen und
zuktinftigen KostenfUr das Sammeln und Sortieren
von Verkaufsverpackungen im dualen System
(Transparente Modellrechnung) (Estimate of Present
and Future Costs for Collection and Sorting of Sales
Packaging in the Dual System). Berlin: August 1992.
Tengelmann. Unternehmensgruppe Tengelmann.
"OKO-Logistische Verpackungsanforderurigen"
("Environmental Packaging Requirements
1990").
"Overview of activities for environmental protec-
tion in the Tengelmann group since 1984."
Tengelmann and Schoeller International. "MTS Return-
able Transport Packaging System." Munich.
Umweltbundesamt (UBA) (Federal Environmental
Agency). Facts and Figures on the Environment of
Germany: 1988/89. Berlin.
United States Department of Commerce. "Germany's
New Packaging Laws - The Green Dot Arrives."
Washington, DC: January 16, 1992.
US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Green
Products by Design: Choices for a Cleaner Environ-
ment. OTA-E-541. Washington, DC: October 1992.
Volkswagen. "Recycling at Volkswagen." 1991.
Von Hettler, Jorg. "Probleme tonnenweise" ("Tons of
Problems"). Die Zeit, No. 2. January 8,1993.
The Warmer Group. Tunbridge Wells, Kent, United
Kingdom.
"Over-Packaging, or Over-Consumption?"
The Warmer Bulletin. No. 37. May 1993.
"A Red Light for the Rule of Reason?"
The Warmer Bulletin. No. 38. August 1993.
"World News: Germany." The Warmer Bulletin.
No. 36. February 1993.
"Welche Computer Strom sparen und leise arbeiten"
("Computers that Save Electricity and Run Quietly").
Impulse. March 1993.
"Widerstand gegen Griinen Punkt, GroBstadte wollen
bei Sanierung der DSD nichtmitziehen" ("Resistance
to the Green Dot: Large Cities Do Not Want to Co-
operate on Plan to Restructure DSD"). Frankfurter
Rundschau. September 18,1993.
ZentralverbandElektrotechnik- und Elektronikindustrie
e.V. (ZVEI) (Association of Electrotechnical and
Electronic Industries). "Elektronik-Schrott-Verord-
nung: ZVEI diskutiert offene Probleme mil BMU-
Staatssekretar Stroetmiann" ("Scrap Electronics Or-
dinance: ZVEI Discusses Open Problems with
Environmental Secretary of State Stroetmann"). April
29, 1993.
Ziwica, Karl-Heinz (BMW of North America). "Les-
sons from the German Experience with Vehicle Re-
cycling." Massachusetts Institute of Technology:
Design and Disposal of Durable Products Conference.
Cambridge, MA: March 24-25, 1993.
Appendices 163
-------
Index
Abfall (waste), 2, 85
Advanced Disposal Fees (ADFs), 121-122
Alliance '90/Greens, 11
Alter, Harvey, 81
Annighofer, Frank, 77
Apple Computer, 43-44,92,94
Arthur D. Little, Inc., 77, 81,121
Association of Bavarian Retailers, 28,91
Association of European Plastics Manufacturers, 78
Association of German Chambers of Industry and
Commerce (DIHT), 33
Association of Local Authorities, 66
Association of the Electronics Industry (ZVEI), 91, 92
Association of Tool Makers (VDMA), 91
Australia, PVC packaging phase out in, 70
Austria
legislation for reduction and recycling of
auto waste, 90
"polluter pays" principle, 7, 81
Automobiles, proposed ordinance on the reduction
and recycling ofwaste from, 86-90
Automotive Dismantlers and Recyclers Association
(ADRA), 89
Azar, Jack, 93
B
Baden-Wiirttemberg, Germany, 2, 100
Dual System exemption (primary packaging),
32,65
Bamier, Michel, 79
BASF, 63, 64
Baucus, Sen. Max, 4,112, 122, 123
Bavaria, Germany, 8
Dual System exemption, 32
Bavarian Retailers Association, 28, 91
Bayerische Moteren Werke A. G. (BMW), 88, 89-90
Belgium
and the European Community (EC) packaging
directive, 108,131
"POST PLUS," 81-82
German exports of packaging materials to, 78,106
MTS in, 25
"polluter pays" principle, 7
Berlin Technical College (TFB), 38, 41, 64
Beverage cartons, recycling, 36
Beverage container system, maintaining the refillable,
52-62
Beverage containers
disposable, ban on, 97-98
environmental debate of one-way vs.
refillable, 53-55
US policy and refillable, 119-120
Bins
per-bin charges, 113
requiring retailers to provide bins for used
packaging, 5, 27, 28
BMW. See Bayerische Moteren Werke A. G. (BMW)
Bongaerts, Jan, 46
Bottrop, Germany, chemical recycling plant in, 65, 66,
68
British Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), 78,
79
British Paper and Board Industry, 79
British Plastics Federation, 79
Briick, Wolfram, 65-66, 67, 129
Bulgaria, German exports of used plastic packaging
to, 67
Bund Urn welt und Naturschutz Deutschland e.V.
(BUND). See German Federation for the Environ-
ment and the Protection of Nature
Bundesanzeiger (Federal Bulletin), 17
Bundesministerium fur Umwelt, Naturschutz und
Reaktorsicherheit (BMU). See Federal Environ-
ment Ministry (BMU)
164 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
the Bundesrat, 14, 55, 74, 85, 129
Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie e.V. (BDI).
See Federation of German Industries (BDI)
Bundesverband Glas, 55
California
"rates and dates packaging" legislation, 122
waste reduction legislation, 3
California Integrated Waste Management Board, 122
Canada, "polluter pays" principle, 7, 82, 112
Capri-Sonne juices
development of refillable PET bottle for, 60
in pouches, 60-61
Center for the Biology of Natural Systems (CBNS)
NYC, 116
Chemical recycling, 17, 63, 65, 66-67
Chernobyl nuclear accident and Germany, 8
China, German exports of packaging materials to, 80
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), 89
Christian Democratic Union (CDU), 11, 14
Chrysler Corp., 90
Clinton, William Jefferson "Bill," 115
Closed Loop Economy and Waste Management Act
84-86
Coca-Cola Co., 22, 42, 56, 59, 60, 61
Colgate-Palmolive Co., 25, 28
Collection quotas, 16, 115
Cologne, Germany, "Umweltzentrum West" (Environ-
ment Center West) pilot project, 98
Commoner, Barry, 116
Compaq Corp., 92
Composite packaging, 19, 41
Computer industry, 92-94, 115
Consumers
consumer participation in environmental
practices, 10
home delivered beverages and, 59
role of the consumer in reducing and recycling
waste, 20, 113-114
DEKUR-Kunststoff Recycling GmbH (DKR), 35, 67
Dell Computer Corp., 92
Denmark
German exports of packaging materials to, 78
on European Community (EC) packaging
directive, 82, 107, 130, 131, 132
Deposits on refillable bottles, 52-53, 57-58
Deutscher Industrie- und Handlestag (DIHT). See
Association of German Chambers of Industry and
Commerce (DIHT)
Disposables
at events held on public property, banning 73
97-98
taxing, 98
Dow Chemical Co., 124
Drop-off and curbside collection, 33
Dual System, 16
criticisms of the, 72-83
establishing the, 32-33
exemption negotiations and DSD, 32
financing the, 38-44
primary packaging and the, 31-51
recycling and the, 33-38
and refillables, 74
revenue for municipalities and shifting financial
responsibility, 44-45
Duales System Deutschland GmbH (DSD), 16
contracts with the, 76, 99, 128
criticisms of the, 72-83
drop-off and curbside collection, 33
Dual System exemption negotiations and, 32
exports of used packaging materials, 70, 129
financial crisis of 1993, 38-39, 127-129
and Germany's antitrust laws, 77
and localities, 44-45, 76
membership in, 32-33
packaging reduction surveys, 47-48
and the plastics industry, 63-70
recyclables dumped abroad, 78
refill rates for beverages and, 17
revenues and costs, 38
and secondary packaging, 27, 28
stockpiling recyclables, 74, 129
the waste management system and
harmonization of, 44-45 ,
"Eco-balance" (life-cycle analysis) of packaging, 53
"Eco-Emballage" system, 81
Electric and electronic equipment, proposed ordinance
on the reduction and recycling of used 90-96
EMMAUS, 98
Energiewerke Schwarze Pumpe (ESPAG) gasification
plant, 66
Environmental impact assessment (EIA), 92
European Commission, 78, 104, 107, 108, 124
Index 165
-------
E (continued)
European Community (EC)
and the German Packaging Ordinance, 20, 53,
103-109
Packaging Directive, 7,78, 81, 82,106-109,
130-132
packaging waste definition, 2
recycling capacity and the, 36
regulations on interstate shipment of waste, 3, 70,
78,105
European Court of Justice, 106,109
European Environmental Bureau, 107
European Free Trade Association (EFTA), 105,106
Exemption for the Dual System, getting an, 32
Federal Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt), 22,77,128
Federal Environment Ministry (BMU), 2
Closed-Loop Economy and Waste Management
Act, 84-85
on DSD's revenues and costs, 38
establishment of, 9
on Packaging Ordinance, 13, 53,78,129
and the plastics industry, 64,70
and refill quotas, 55
and "take-back" packaging mandate on transport
packaging, 21, 22
Federal Environmental Agency (UB A), 54,75
Federation of German Industries (BDI), 33,38,76
response to Waste Management Act, 85-86
Florida, Advanced Disposal Fees (ADFs), 121
Fluff, 86-87,88
Ford Motor Co., 88,90
Forests, damage to German, 9
"POST PLUS," 82
France
BMW recycling centers in, 89
"Eco-Emballage" system, 81
EMMAUS program, 98
and the European Community (EC) packaging
directive, 131
German exports of packaging materials to, 78
paper to, 36
plastics to, 67
waste for disposal to, 3,100,105, 106
legislation for reduction and recycling of auto
waste, 90
paper recycling firms demonstrations, 79
plastics to Indonesian recycling plants, 80
"polluter pays" principle, 7, 81, 112
Franz Delbrouck GmbH, 62
Fraunhofer Institute for Food Technology and
Packaging, 25, 53-54, 75
Free trade vs. environmental protection, 104
Garbage, 1. See also municipal solid waste
Gasification plant, 66
Gasoline, 10
Gauweiler, Peter, 72-73
General Motors Corp., 90
Gerlinger, Karl H., 90
German Automobile Manufacturers Association
(VDA), 88
German Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt), 22, 77, 128
German Federal Ministry for Research and
Technology, 68
German Federation for the Environment and the
Protection of Nature (BUND), 55-57, 59-60
German Packaging Ordinance. See Packaging
Ordinance
"The German Packaging Ordinance - A Practical
Guide with Commentary," 20
Germany
antitrust laws, 77
and Chernobyl nuclear accident, 8
computer companies in, 92-94
concern over damaged forests, 9
environmental practices, 10
and the European Community (EC) packaging
directive, 107, 108-109, 130, 131, 132
exports of waste, 2-3, 36, 67, 70, 78-80, 100,
105-106, 129, 131
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in, 9, 46
impact of the Packaging Ordinance, 6, 46-48
implications of EC regulations for German waste
policy, 105-106
incineration, 2
landfills in, 2, 3
local waste management initiatives, 97-102
municipal solid waste management structure in, 11
municipal solid waste problems in, 2-3
plastics recycling in, 37-38, 63-71
plastics to Indonesian recycling plants, 80
population density in, 2, 8
proximity to other nations, 8-9
166 Germany. Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
Germany (continued)
waste avoidance in, 73
proposed waste avoidance and recycling
legislation for products, 84-96
waste generation in, 10-11
waste-to-energy plants, 2
Gesellschaft fur Verpackungsmarktforschung (GVM).
See Group for Packaging Market Research (GVM)
Gesellschaft fur Riicknahme und Verwertung von
Transportverpackungen (RVT). See Group for
Take-Back and Recycling of Transport Packaging
(RVT)
Glass recycling, 36
one-way glass bottles, 55
Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, 48
Green consumerism, 9
Green dot fees
as an incentive to develop refillable bottles, 60-61
industry's failure to pay, 39, 75
material and weight vs. filling volume, 6, 41-42
1992, 39-40, 153
1993, 40-41, 153
1994 estimated, 41
for plastics, 35
setting the, 39-42
Green dot symbol (der Grime Punkt), 33, 35
applying for the green dot, 42-43
critics and the, 74
"free riders" on the green dot system, 39, 75
packages outside the green dot system, 43-44
Green Party (Die Griinen), 11-12, 86, 107
Greenpeace, 68, 80
Griefahn, Monika, 65, 73
Gross Domestic Product (GDP), 9, 46, 114
Group for Packaging Market Research (GVM), 18 46
53, 55, 67-68
Group for Take-Back and Recycling of Transport
Packaging (RVT), 21-22
Grundig, 94
H
Hamburg, Germany, and the exemption for plastics
65
Hauptverband des Deutschen Einzelhandels (HDE).
Sge National Retailers Association (HDE)
Hazardous residues materials, 15
Heidelberg, Germany
ban on disposables at events held on public
property, 97-98
cost of waste management in, 100-101
export of waste for disposal, 3
waste management law, 98
Hertie department store, 25, 28, 70
House Ways and Means; Committee, 118
Hydrogenation processes, 66-67
I i
IBM Corp., 92-93 \
Incineration
"thermal recycling," 17, 63
tipping fees, 67, 100
waste-to-energy plants
in Germany, 2
in the United States, 3
Indiana, legislation to restrict shipments of exported
waste, 3 ;
Indonesia, recycling plaiiits in, 80
Industry Council for Packaging and the Environment
(INCPEN), 78 ;
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
(IFEU), 53
Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEUP),
46 :
International Fruit Container (IFCO), 25-26
James, Sharpe, 123
K
Karstadt department store, 25, 28, 70
Kassel, Germany, 98 ;
Kentucky, legislation to restrict shipments of exported
waste, 3
Kiel Institute for World Economics, 75, 76
Kohleol-Anlage Bottrop (KAB) hydrogenation plant
66,68 ;_
Kraft-General Foods, 60 '
Kreislaufwirtschafts-und Abfallgesetz (Closed Loop
Economy and Waste Management Act), 84-86
Index 167
-------
Ulnder or states, 11,14, 32
LUndesverband des Bayerischen Einzelhandels e.V.
See Bavarian Retailers Association
Landfills
in France, 78,105
in Germany, 2
in the United States, 3
Life-cycle analysis, 25,75
"Eco-balance," 53
Life-cycle costing, 115
"Light fraction" packaging materials, 31-32, 64
Lower Saxony, Germany
Dual System exemption (primary packaging), 32,
65
Luxembourg
German exports of packaging materials to, 78,131
MTS in, 25
M
Mainz, Germany, 128
Malaysia, German exports of packaging materials to,
80
Malle, Karl-Geert, 64
"Manufacturers' responsibility" policy, 120
Martini, Klaudia, 65
Massachusetts, "rates and dates packaging" legisla-
tion, 122
Mechanical recycling, 63, 65,129
Metals (aluminum and tinplate), recycling, 37, 116
Metro International, 24, 25-26
Michigan, legislation to restrict shipments of exported
waste, 3
Mills, Rowena, 79
Minimum-content standards, 121
Ministry for the Environment. See Federal Environ-
ment Ministry (BMU)
Mixed-material packaging, 19
MTS Okologistik GmbH & Co. KG, 24
MOller, Molkerei Alois, 128
Multi-use returnable transport packaging system
(MTS), 22-26
Munich, Germany
ban on disposables at events held on public
property, 73,97-98
Department of Environmental Protection, 72
Department, of Sanitation, 27
waste avoidance in, 73
Municipal solid waste
defined, 1-2
municipal solid waste problems in Germany and
the US, 2-3
"polluter pays" principle and, 13-14
solid waste policy options, 3-4
US solid waste stream, 3
Municipal solid waste management structure, 11
Municipal solid waste plans, preparing, 99
N
National materials trust fund, 121
National Retailers Association (HDE), 28
NEC Inc., 92
Nestle Deutschland, 64
Netherlands
BMW recycling centers in the, 89
German exports of packaging materials to the,
78,80
MTS in the, 25
on European Community (EC) packaging directive,
82, 107, 108, 130, 131,132
PVC packaging phase out in the, 70
New Jersey, interstate export of waste, 3
New York City Department of Sanitation, 122
New York state, interstate export of waste, 3
NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) syndrome, 3
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), 108
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), 103
North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, 99
One-way containers vs. refillable beverage containers,
53-55, 119-120
One-way packaging, 74
collection quotas for, 16
environmental debate of one-way vs. refillable
beverage containers, 53-55
green dot fees for, 42
one-way and refillable containers, 53-55
one-way glass bottles, 55
recycling quotas for, 17
sorting quotas for, 16-17
"Ordinance on the Avoidance of Packaging Waste"
(Verpackungsverordnung) 4, 133-152
Oregon, "rates and dates packaging" legislation, 122
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Develop-
ment (OECD), 10, 106
168 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
Packaging Ordinance
amending the, 129-130
background on passing the, 1,14-15
basic strategy of, 4-5
criticisms of the, 72-83
and the European Community (EC), 20, 103-109
goals and philosophy of, 4
impact of the, 6,46-48
implementation methods, 5
and international concerns, 78-81
plastics and the, 63-71
provisions of the, 15-17
refilling and the, 52-59
as a trade barrier, 78
Packaging statistics, 17-19
Packaging taxes, EC, 108
Packaging waste
defined, 1-2
European Community (EC) directive on, 106-109
Packaging Ordinance and the avoidance of, 13-20
Paper/paperboard
French paper recycling firms demonstrations, 79
recycling, 36-37
Pennsylvania, legislation to restrict shipments of ex-
ported waste, 3
PepsiCo., 22, 59, 61
Per-bin charges, 113
Phillipines, German exports of packaging materials to
the, 80
Plastic (PET) containers, refillable, 59-60
for juices, 60-62
Plastics
beverage containers, 56, 59-62
chemical recycling of, 17, 63, 65, 66-67
green dot fees for, 35, 40, 41, 42, 43
packaging, 32, 116
exporting used, 70, 129
and the Packaging Ordinance, 63-71
recycling, 37-38, 63-71
recycling fees for, 35
recycling quotas, 36
refillable plastic (PET) containers, 59-62
sorting quotas and, 16-17
stockpiling, 74,129
"Polluter pays" principle, 4, 6, 13-14, 112
and Closed-Loop and Waste Management Act
84-85
outside Germany, 81-82
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles, 56, 68, 119
refillable PET bottle for juices, 60-62
refillable plastic PET containers, 59-60
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC), 46, 68-70, 89
Population density
in Germany, 2, 8
in the United States,, 3, 8
Porter, J. Winston, 116
PRAVDA (auto organization), 88
Preimesser, 88
Primary packaging
and the Dual System, 31-51
MTS crates and, 24
packages outside the green dot system, 43-44
Packaging Ordinance's rules for, 15
Procter and Gamble GmbH (P&G), 22,-25, 48, 70
Procurement policy, US, 114-115
"Product stewardship," ,93
PWA Industriepapier GmbH, 36
Quantity-based user fees (QBUFs), 99, 113
"Rates and dates packaging" legislation, 122
Re-Carton GmbH, 36
Recycling, 73
automobiles, 86-90 :
chemical, 17, 63, 65,66-67
definitions for, 115-116
and the Dual System, 33-38
dumping recyclables Abroad, 78
EC recycling targets, 108
electronic waste, 90-96
incentives, 35, 118-119
inefficient separation.^ materials, 76-77
markets for secondary materials, 114-115
mechanical, 63, 65, 129
monitoring, 35, 75
plastics, 37-38, 63-71
quotas and capacity, 17, 35, 36, 129-130
as solid waste policy option, 3
of specific materials, 36-38
stockpiling recyclables, 74, 129
"thermal," 63, 17
waste for recovery, 2, 105-106
Recycling Advisory Council (RAC), 120-121
Recycling Group for Used Plastic Packaging (VGK)
35, 67, 78
Recycling markets, incer lives to build, 114
Recycling policy costs, 117-118
Recycling rates, 116-117
Index 169
-------
R (continued)
Recycling targets
EC, 108
meeting, 118
Refill quotas, 55
Refill rates for beverages, 6,17
Dual System anclrefillables, 74
maintaining Uie refillable beverage container
system, 52-62
US policy and refillable beverage containers,
119-120
Refillable plastic (PET) containers, 59-62
Refillables and the Dual System, 74
REF-PET SYSTEMS, 62
Relis, Paul, 122
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
122
Resource management, 4
Responsible entity legislation, 122
Retailers
and rcfillables, 58-59
requiring retailers to provide bins for used
packaging, 5, 27,28
Reusable transport containers, 22-26
Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany
Dual System exemption (primary packaging), 32,
37,65
RMA, Ltd., 79,80
Rudolph Wild Co.
development of refillable PET bottle, 60-62
fee schedules for packaging, 42,43
Rummlcr, Thomas, 20, 53, 54
Rilschen, Gerhard, 64
RVT. See Group for Take-Back and Recycling of
Transport Packaging (RVT)
RWE Entsorgungs AG, 66,68
Scandinavia, MTS in, 25
SchJifer, Harald, 73
Schoeller International, and MTS, 22,24,25
Schocller Plast GmbH, 60,62
Schutt, Wolfgang, 20, 53, 54
Scriba, Michael, 64
Secondary packaging
Packaging Ordinance's rules for, 15, 27-30
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, 4,
112
"Shared responsibility" concept, 120-121
Siegler, Ines, 77
Siemens, 92, 94
Siemens Nixdorf, 94
Sims, Jonathan, 80
Singapore
German exports of
packaging materials to, 80
used plastic packaging to, 70
Social Democratic Party (SPD), 11, 86
Solid waste policy options/hierarchy, 3-4
Sorting quotas, 16-17, 115
Source reduction, 3, 73
debate over, 107-108
local source reduction strategies, 97-99
proposed waste avoidance and recycling legislation
for products, 84-96
Spain, German exports of packaging materials to, 78
Strepp, 36
Stroetmann, Clemens, 78, 86
"Subsidiarity" or "member states' rights," 104
Subsidized workers and source reduction, 98
Sustainable manufacturing, 122
Sweden
proposed lake-back legislation in, 81
PVC packaging phase out in, 68
Switzerland
MTS in, 25
PVC packaging phase out in, 68
"Take-back" packaging mandate, 13-14
incentives, 76
on primary packaging, 31
on secondary packaging, 27
on transport packaging, 21
"Take-back" provisions
and the auto industry, 87
and the electronics industry, 91
Take-back strategies in the US, 118
Taxes
packaging, EC, 108
taxing disposables, 98
Value-Added Tax (VAT), 118
virgin materials, 121
Technical Inspection Agencies (TUVs), 35, 36, 65, 66,
73, 75
Technische Fachhochschule Berlin (TFB). See Berlin
Technical College
Technische Uberwachungsvereine. See Technical In-
spection Agenicies
Tellus Institute, 68
170 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
Tengelmann Supermarkets, 48, 50, 70
and MTS, 22, 24, 26
and secondary packaging, 28
TetraPak, 56, 57
Thermal recycling. See Waste-to-energy incineration
Topfer, Klaus
on Closed-Loop Economy and Waste Management
Act, 84, 86
and DSD, 64, 66, 77, 124, 127, 129
and the European Community (EC) packaging
directive, 131
and the Green Party, 11
on life-cycle analysis, 54
and Packaging Ordinance, 13, 14,20
on results of GVM study, 46
and secondary packaging, 27
Transboundary shipment of waste, European Commu-
nity regulation of the, 3, 70, 78, 105
Transport packaging
Heidelberg ban on, 101
Packaging Ordinance's rules for, 15, 21-26
reusable transport containers, 22-26
Trippage rates, 57, 59
TUVs. See Technical Inspection Agencies (TUVs)
United States (continued)
implications of the German approach for US waste
policy, 110-126
incineration, 3
landfills in the, 3
municipal solid waste in the, 1
municipal solid waste management structure in the,
11
municipal solid waste problems in the, 3
plastics to Indonesian recycling plants, 80
"polluter pays" principle and hazardous waste
management, 125
population density in the, 3, 8
PVC packaging phase out in the, 70
solid waste policy options in the, 3
waste generation/waste management in the, 10-11
US Conference of Mayors Solid Waste Task Force,
122, 123
US Department of Agriculture (USDA), 80
US Department of Commerce, 80
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 116
packaging waste definition, 2
solid waste policy options, 3
"Utilization requirements" strategy, 121
U
Ullman.Al, 118
Ulm, Germany, export of waste for disposal, 3
Umweltbundesamt (UBA). See Federal Environmen-
tal Agency
"Umweltzentrum West" (Environment Center West)
pilot project, 98
United Kingdom
BMW recycling centers in the, 89
on European Community (EC) packaging directive,
107, 108, 131
German exports of
packaging materals to the, 78-79, 106
paper to the, 36
plastics to the, 129
recyclable packaging to the, 79
legislation for the reduction and recycling of auto
waste, 90
MTS in the, 25
view of packaging industry, 80
United States
BMW recycling project in the, 89
computer industry, 92-94
EC packaging legislation and the, 103, 105
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the, 9, 114
V
Vahrenholt, Fritz, 70, 75
Value-Added Tax (VAT), 118
van Miert, Karel, 104
Veba Oel AG, 66
Verband der Automobilindustrie (VDA). See German
Automobile Manufacturers Association
Verband Deutscher Maschinen-und Anlagenbau e.V.
(VDMA). See Association of Tool Makers
Verbunde, 19
Verwertungsgesellschaft Gebrauchte Kunststoff
Verpackungen mbH (VGK). See Recycling Group
for Used Plastic Packaging (VGK)
Vial, Catherine, 80
Virgin material taxes, 121
Volkswagen, 88, 89
W
Waste allocation between indusuy and the public
sector, 112
Index 171
-------
W (continued)
Waste avoidance, 73
debate over, 107-108
proposed waste avoidance and recycling legislation
for products, 84-96
strategies, local, 97-99
"Waste Avoidance and Management Act" (Abfallge-
setz), 14, 84
Waste for disposal, 2,105
Waste for recovery, 2,105-106
Waste generation in Germany and the US, 10-11
Waste Management Act, 84-86
Waste management system and DSD, 44-45
Waste policy in the European Community (EC),
103-106
Waste prevention, concept of. See Source reduction
Waste shipments, EC regulation of, 3, 70,78, 105
Waste stream
Germany's primary packaging, 31-32
US solid, 3
Waste-to-energy incineration
incineration plants
in Germany, 2
in the United States, 3
"thermal recycling," 17,63
Wertstoffe (valuable materials), 2, 85
Wisconsin, "life-cycle costing," 115
Wuppertal, Germany
cost of waste management in, 101-102
municipal solid waste budget, 44-45
Municipal Solid Waste Department, 98
University of Wuppertal, 102
Wuppertal Institute, 76
Xerox Corp., 93-94, 123-124
Zenith Electronics Corp., 92
Zentralverband Elektrotechnik-und Elektronikindus-
trie e.V. (ZVEI). See Association of the Electronics
Industry (ZVEI)
172 Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society
-------
-------
-------
-------
m
-a
o
I
-vi
(O
O 3 ~
O BJ Q.
O c
- to
-05'
g. a>
I»
o o rn c
= CD g 3
CD
a.
o.3 ^
§ * § -
Iffli
N>
si
3.
3 >
CD
-------
|