You are on page 1of 20

CMS Workshop, Country Reports

Country: Romania

1
CMS’ set up, legal conditions

• In Romania CMS is already in place: Yes (SCAPA)


• CMS establishment and functioning: is it regulated by national law?
- If yes, what kind of law? When was it published?
- If no – was CMS establishment an initiative of the Industry?
- established as an initiative of the industry with ECPA support
- operates under national legislation:
- HG 621/ 2005 (Governmental decision);
- OG 41/2007 (Governmental ordinance).
- with further amendments.
• The proper rinsed package is classified hazardous or non-
hazardous?
• Non-hazardous
• The owner of CMS is: (CPA, Operator?)
• CPA AIPROM
2
CMS legal conditions
• Agreements have been signed among following players (CMA, Operator, CMS members)
a. Between CPA and Operator on organization, functioning, promotion and control of CMS
b. Between CMS member and operator
c. Between CPA and CMS member.
• Who are CMS members (CPA member companies, non-members, etc):
All member companies of AIPROM (17) + one non-member company agreed upon with CPA
• Defined roles and responsibilities
CPA is responsible for: strategic development decisions, selection of system operator,
support in operational system, promotion decisions, budgeting evaluation, audit
Operator is responsible for: management of the system, collection, inspection,
contracting transportation and incineration, logistics, promotion decisions and
execution, filling in documentation according to national legislation, reporting to CPA
and authorities
Collection point is responsible for: accepting only decontaminated packages according
to SCAPA conditions, issuing loading-unloading documents.
CMS’ members duties are: forecast quantities of empty containers to be placed on the
market and inform Operator by May 1st and December 1st of each year, promote the
system with distributors and users, report to authorities
Other: Incinerators: filling in of documents, according to SCAPA requirements
3
CMS Fees, payments, way of controlling
• CMS fees: Operational one, equal for all members (y/n)
Based on estimated quantity to be collected from each member. Fee amount is
regulated end of each year.
• Fees depending on collected material (y/n)
Fixed fee/ton of collected material (765 EUR/ton)
• Who is responsible for budgeting, invoices?
Operator and CPA agree on budgeting and communication plan, the Operator is
responsible for invoicing.
• Who controlls proper functioning of whole CMS? CPA
• What other elements, apart of finance, are controlled?
Appropriate type of collected materials, compliance with SCAPA collection
requirements, traceability of documentation in accordance to national legislation,
promotional activities and their documentation, compliance with agreed procedures.
• Auditing: y/n Yes, by the Association Pr. Coordinator
• What is done against free rider? All AIPROM members are part of the CMS and
current legislation takes care of the others; still, industry members cover 85% of the
market
• Free rider total volume of packaging sent to the market in 2010: no certain data
available
• % of total market: approx. 85% covered by SCAPA members 4
SCAPA strategic review

AIPROM – RIGK meeting


August 4th, 2011
SCAPA objectives

Optimization of collection percentages;


Minimization of risks;
Constant improvement of the quality of services;
Start of recycling, in accordance to ECPA recommendations;
Good image of SCAPA on the Romanian market;
Diversification of collection methods, in order to allow all
categories of farmers to access the system.
SCAPA evolution 2008-2011
Total Q on the market [t] Collected Q [t]

1,300

1,034
941 943

559

418

205

95

2008 2009 2010 2011

10% 44% 54% 16%


Collected quantities/semester
350

300

250
Quantity [t]

200

150

100

50

0
2008 2009I 2009II 2010I 2010II 2011I

Year
10 16 28 30 24 16
% % % % % %
% of the total quantity on the market during the respective period
Collection from CC vs. PC
CC PC

43 t 73 t 147 t 211 t 165 t 116 t

45% 47% 56% 67% 68% 57%

55% 53% 44% 33% 32% 43%

52 t 82 t 116 t 104 t 79 t 89 t

2008 2009I 2009II 2010I 2010II 2011I


Possible reasons for the
decrease
of the collected quantities in
2011
Delay in phasing of treatments and sales due to weather
conditions;
Consequence of the AIPROM audit – stricter rules for
acceptance;
Allocation of resources (ex. inspectors’ activities during
collection campaigns);
Communication activities: direct promotion by inspectors with
respect to renewal of old contacts (PC).
Examples
CC Cargill Braila – no quantities collected
Year 2008 2009 I 2009 II 2010 I 2010 II 2011 I
Collecte 0 0 0 0 0 0
d Q [kg]
CC Chimagri Braila – trend of collection in just one campaign

Year 2008 2009 I 2009 II 2010 I 2010 II 2011 I


Collecte 520 0 2100 0 2000 0
d Q [kg]
PC Unisol Dolj – collected just once, in the past

Year 2008 2009 I 2009 II 2010 I 2010 II 2011 I


Collecte 2300 0 0 0
d Q [kg]
Statistics - CC

• Repackers (collection of industrial packaging)


Company Redoxim Chemark Alcedo Glissando
Timisoara Codlea Heresti Timisoara
Total Q [t] 54 53 30 70
• In 2010, these 4 collected 74 t, representing 13% of the
total collected quantity.
Statistics - PC Evolution of no. of PC/semester
124 (23)

Total number of PC: 293 104 (32)


102 (27)
Constant collection: 25 90 (30)

32 49 (out of
which, 7 PC
from previous
semester)

2008 2009I 2009II 2010I 2010II 2011


Particular case: PC TCE 3 Brazi Braila

Collection from PC TCE 3 Brazi


[t/semester]
In 2010, Qtotal = 47 t, 28

representing 8.5% of
total collected. 18 20
19

14
9

2008 2009I 2009II 2010I 2010II 2011I


AIPROM recommendations
Cancel CC which have collected 0 kg;
For CC which collect exclusively during one collection campaign, cancel the other campaign with 0 kg.
Observe collection trends during campaigns and extend or reduce number of days for collection
accordingly;
Review SCAPA infrastructure depending on regional specifics;
Diversify collection and promotion methods (ex. SCAPAmobil)
Introduce new communication methods: tombola, triple rinse devices, SCAPAmobil,
large size dispensers.
Reallocate RIGK inspectors’ activity towards:
Loyalty of PC which participated once – constant collection;
New Collection Points;
Any other added value actions.
Department specifics
Examples

Ialomita – large farms


Recommendation: focus on PC;
Dambovita – small farms, orchards
Recommendation: focus on SCAPAmobil during treatment
period and on PC;
Maramures – very small cultivated area
Recommendation: one CC, no other action.

 Note: AIPROM will present more detailed


recommendations for each region.
CMS and National Authorities

• Are any Authorities involved in functioning of


CMS?
Not involved in functioning, but in consultations and
controlling: ANPM and Garda de Mediu
• Have any Authorities influenced establishement of
CMS? (are going to influence?)
Ministry of Agriculture (National Phyto-sanitary
Agency), Ministry of Environment
• Cooperation with Authorities: y/n
yes

16
CMS – Experience I/II

Benefits
1. 561.66 ton of recovered empty containers represents 51.83% of the
total quantity placed on the market; by comparison, national overall
target for recovery was of 48% in 2010 -> cleaner environment;
2. Increase visibility of industry‘s efforts for a cleaner environment;
3. It is an efficient exercise for industry;
4. Environmental protection practices and benefits.
Obstacles and Painpoints
1. Reaching national (progressive) targets for recycling (in 2010
industry recycling percentage = 0);
2. National legislation demands high target of recycling, whereas
ECPA guidelines are very cautious when recycling is about empty
packages of PPP, when traceability of operations is difficult;
3. Technical limitations of the market for recycling multi-layer HDPE.
17
CMS – Experience II/II

Needs:
1. Ensure that reprocessing and recycling of containers into new
products is safe to health and the environment – increase
traceability
2. Improve risk assessments.
3. Continue to raise awareness amongst farmers regarding proper
disposal of PPP packaging waste.

Next Steps:
Development towards segments not yet covered by SCAPA: micro-
packaging, obsolete stocks, empty containers of seed treatment
products

18
Collection Scheme Details I/II

Total volume of packing sent to the market in 2010


(tonnes/year)
1. Plastic: 413.034 t
2. Paper: 130.166 t
3. Metal: 8.460 t

Rates of collection (volume of material places on


the market vs collected):
1. Plastic: 56.8%
2. Paper: 41.1%
3. Metal: 41.2%

19
Collection Scheme Details II/II

Way of disposal:
Incineration with energy recovery
% of packing recycled: 0
If recycled, fate of material known/controlled?
Known
Cost of disposal/ton (in €/year)
850 €/ton; starting with 2011: 765 €/ton – for member
companies
Cost for incineration varies between 40-70 €/ton

20

You might also like