Recommendations for the Reduction of Phosphorus in
Detergents
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Presented by
Helene Horth, WRc
© WRc plc 2006
Project Management
· Funding: UNDP/GEF Danube Regional
Project
· Technical Supervision: ICPDR Secretariat
and Task Force
· Execution: WRc (UK) with assistance from
CECEP (Romania)
© WRc plc 2006
1
Project Objective
· Develop proposals for the introduction of
measures (voluntary agreements?) leading to a
reduction in phosphate in (laundry) detergents
used across the Danube River Basin
Current practice (legislation, policy, usage, production
structures) in DRB countries
Recommendations for voluntary agreements or other
measures
© WRc plc 2006
Premise
Project based on previously established need
for reduction of P load in Danube River
Basin (DRB) !
© WRc plc 2006
2
Main Tasks
· Task 1 Review existing legislation, policies and
voluntary agreements (EU and DRB countries)
· Task 2 Compile and evaluate data on P in
detergents, production structures and costs in
DRB countries
· Task 3 Develop proposals for voluntary
agreements between DRB countries and
detergent industry or other measures based on
project outcome
© WRc plc 2006
Approach
· Collection of information through
questionnaire, input from CECEP and other
sources, including local consultants
· Data collation and analysis
· Summarising/highlighting useful information
· Identification of information gaps and
relevant issues
· Recommendations
© WRc plc 2006
3
Difficulties
Definition of P free:
· EC 648/2004 labelling (phosphate,
phosphonates)
· > 30 %
· 15 30 %
· 5 15 %
· < 5 %
· no need to declare < 0.2 %
© WRc plc 2006
Populations & phosphate free
detergents by country
% D e te rg e n t
T o ta l p o p u la tio n
T o ta l p o p u la tio n
th a t is
(m illio n )1
in D a n u b e B a s in
P h o s p h a te
C o u n try
T o ta l la u n d ry d e te rg e n t
(m illio n )2
fre e
u s a g e (to n n e s /ye a r)
A u s tria 5 5 ,1 9 7
8 .1
7 .7
> 9 8 %
G e rm a n y 6 4 3 ,0 0 0
8 2 .0
9 .1
C ze c h R e p u b lic
9 .9
2 .7
H u n g a ry 1 2 6 ,3 0 0
1 0 .3
1 0 .3
> ~ 5 0 %
S lo ve n ia
2 .0
1 .7
S e rb ia -M o n te n e g ro 3
8 9 ,0 5 7 9 .3 9 .1
B o s n ia -H e rze g o v in a 7 ,4 8 5
4 .4
2 .5
B u lg a ria
7 .9
4 .4
< 1 0 %
C ro a tia 1 6 ,5 1 6
4 .7
3 .2
M o ld o va
4 .3
1 .1
S lo va k R e p u b lic
5 .4
5 .2
U k ra in e 2 1 9 ,8 7 3
4 9 .1
3 .1
N o t k n o w n 4
R o m a n ia
1 5 4 ,5 8 4 2 2 .4 2 1 .8
Note 1. Information from Whitaker's Almanack 2005
Note 2. From Joint Action Programme, 2000-2005
Note 3. Data for `phosphate-free' in Serbia-Montenegro may include detergents with up to 5% phosphate
Note 4: Data for products indicates no phosphate free
© WRc plc 2006
4
Need for action in DRB countries
Country
Proportion of DRB
population
No action needed:
AT, D, CZ
26%
Priority action:
Romania
26%
Action:
HU, CS
24%
Other 6
24%
© WRc plc 2006
Current situation in RBD
Legislation (combined
Germany (>98% P-free in
with voluntary and public 2005)
involvement) to reduce P Czech Republic (new)
in laundry detergents
Voluntary Agreements to Austria (~100% P-free)
reduce P in laundry
Czech Republic (partial
detergents
success)
(Slovenia no formal
agreement - >75% P free
but decreasing)
© WRc plc 2006
5
Example CZ
· Voluntary Agreement between producer
association and Ministry of Environment to
reduce P in detergents:
· Initial success (total P in detergents more than
halved from 1994-2003)
· Overall limited success because increasing
market share from non-members (free-riders)
(from negligible in 1995 to ~50% in 2005)
· Now legislation: all laundry detergents <0.5% P
© WRc plc 2006
Example Slovenia
· No formal agreement but virtually P-free in
2000
· Recent increase in P detergents
· Reason for increase: small
producers/imports (?) of P detergents
· Seems to re-enforce CZ example
· More details
© WRc plc 2006
6
Difficulties with voluntary
agreements
· Weaknesses in agreement
· Motivation
· Parties to agreement (companies, trade ass.)?
· Free-riders
· Imports
· Enforcement
· Consumer awareness
· Checking compliance
· Penalties
· Threat of legislation
© WRc plc 2006
Cost information
· Industry will not comment on production
costs (except to say that `P free implies
higher cost')
· Cost to consumers:
· Shop prices highly variable
· Insufficient data for accurate P / P free
comparison, but
· No evidence of higher shop prices for P free
© WRc plc 2006
7
Other issues
· Difficult to make voluntary agreements work
without legislative back-up (CZ, AT)
· Few related activities, e.g. eco-labelling, on
which to build
· Manufacturers not co-operative
· Manufacturers prefer to wait for legislation
© WRc plc 2006
AISE member associations in
Danube countries
C o u n try
A I S E m e m b e r a s s o c ia tio n ?
A u stria Y e s
B o s n ia -H e rz e g o v in a N o
B u lg a ria N o
C ro a tia N o
C ze ch R e p u b lic
Y e s
G e rm a n y Y e s
H u n g a ry Y e s
M o ld o v a N o
R o m a n ia Y e s
S e rb ia -M o n te n e g ro N o
S lo v a k ia Y e s
S lo v e n ia Y e s
U k ra in e N o
© WRc plc 2006
8
AISE Membership in Danube
countries
Association / AISE
Nr
Nr SMEs1 Nr
active
in
member
members
consumer
product
domain
Czech Republic
7
1
4
Hungary
19 11 13
Romania 16
1
15
Slovenia
21 13 20
Slovak Republic
?
?
?
Austria 17
10
8
Germany 128 99 75
Note 1. SME = small / medium sized enterprise
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Moldova, Serbia-Montenegro and the Ukraine have no members of AISE.
© WRc plc 2006
Data gaps
· Insufficient cost information
· Information on production structures
inadequate
· Economic effects of change from P
detergents to P free (detergent, phosphate,
other detergent builders industries)
© WRc plc 2006
9
Situation in EU
· Some MS have legislation:
· Germany, Czech Republic, Italy, the
Netherlands
· Two more MS soon to introduce legislation:
· Sweden and France
· Effective bans through voluntary
agreements:
· Austria and Ireland
© WRc plc 2006
Recent developments in EU
legislation
· Regulation 648/2004 on detergents - entry
into force 8 October 2005
· Art.16 p.1: `by Aril 2007, the Commission
shall evaluate, submit a report on and,
where justified, present a legislative
proposal on the use of phosphates with a
view to their gradual phase-out or restriction
to specific applications.'
© WRc plc 2006
10
Conclusion
· Action needed in all except AT, CZ, DE
· Voluntary agreements likely to be ineffective in
DRB
· Need for legislation (EU/national)
· Dialogue with industry / associations
· Harness consumer power!
· Dissemination of information
· Persuade consumers of environmental benefits
· Involvement of NGOs
© WRc plc 2006
Recommendations
· EU should take the lead:
· EU legislation would be most effective for DRB
(non-EU countries tend to follow EU legislation)
· If not EU, persuade national governments to
introduce legislation
· Complementary measures:
· Improved wastewater collection and treatment
· Good agricultural practice
© WRc plc 2006
11