Towards Osaka Blue Ocean Vision - G20 Implementation Framework for Actions on Marine Plastic Litter

Germany

Actions and Progress on Marine Plastic Litter
Last Update : 2025/10/21

Policy Framework

National Action Plan

Name(Year):
● National Circular Economy Strategy (NCES) (2025)
● Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) Programme of Measures (PoM) (2022)
● Action Plan “Nein zur Wegwerfgesellschaft” (2018)
● Member of the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution

Brief Description:
National Circular Economy Strategy (NCES)
The German government has drawn up a National Circular Economy Strategy (NCES). It brings together all of the national goals and measures in the transition to a comprehensive circular economy. Every phase of the cycle has to be considered: product design, materials selection, production, a product lifespan that is as long as possible and finally, reuse or recycling. The NCES aims to make sure waste is avoided in the first place. This can be achieved if products are well designed, long lasting and easy to repair, and if raw materials – from building materials and textiles to industrial metals – are kept in circulation for as long as possible. This is technically feasible and makes good economic sense.

MSFD PoM:
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD, 2008/56/EC) aims at achieving or maintaining a Good Environmental Status in European Marine Waters. Descriptor 10 in Annex I demands, that properties and quantities of marine litter do not cause harm the coastal and marine environment. To achieve this goal, a long-term monitoring of litter in the different marine compartments has been set up and 11 measures have been adopted to tackle the relevant sea- and land-based sources.

Action Plan “Nein zur Wegwerfgesellschaft”
The package of measures includes a mix of statutory and voluntary measures to avoid plastic. Plastic alternatives such as drinking tap water instead of using PET bottles are also to be encouraged.

Member of High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution
The German government is member of the High Ambition Coalition (HAC) and strives together with 65 countries to develop an ambitious an international legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution as called for in UNEA Resolution 5/14. HAC remains committed to the goal of ending plastic pollution by 2040 and emphasizes the need for a treaty that is comprehensive in scope and addresses the full life cycle of plastics – from production and consumption to design and end of life.

Legal Framework

Name(Year):
● Kreislaufwirtschaftsgesetz (KrWG)
● Verpackungsgesetz (VerpackG), (Packaging Act)
● Wasserhaushaltsgesetz (WHG)
● Hohe-See-Einbringungsgesetz (HSEG)
● Einwegkunststofffondsgesetz (EWKFondsG)
● Einwegkunststoffverbotsverordnung (EWKVerbotsV)
● Einwegkunststoffkennzeichnungsverordnung (EWKKennzV)

Brief Description:

  • KrWG – i.a. implementation of EU Waste Framework Directive (WFD)
  • VerpackG – i.a. implementation of EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (PPWD)
  • WHG – i.a. implementation of EU MSFD
  • HSEG – i.a. implementation of London Convention (LC)/London Protocol (LP)
  • EWKFondsG – i.a. implementation of EU Single-Use-Plastics-Directive (SUPD 2019/904)
  • EWKVerbotsV – i.a. implementation of SUPD
  • EWKKennzV – i.a. implementation of SUPD

Indicators and/or Targets

■ Plastic Recycling:
Indicators:
Recycling quota for packaging subject to mandatory PRO participation (packaging that typically accumulates as waste at private end consumers) are regulated by the packaging Act, including recycling quota of plastic packaging.
Targets (if any):
Packaging Act requires 63 % (input quota) mechanical recycling of plastic packaging subject to mandatory system participation, in 2023 the target was overfulfilled with a recycling quota of 68.9%.

■ Plastic Use Reduction:
Indicators:
Data for plastic use reduction for certain single-use plastic products is part of regular reporting in accordance with the Single-Use-Plastic-Directive (SUPD) and is regulated by the environmental statistics act.
Targets (if any):
The reduction in consumption can be measured on the basis of the weight of the plastic content of the single-use plastic items placed on the market or on the basis of the number of items. The target is to achieve a measurable quantitative reduction in the consumption of certain single-use plastic products on the territory of the Member State by 2026 compared to 2022.

■ Beach Cleanup:
Indicators:
Data is available from regular official beach litter monitoring and partly from the NGOs and public authorities carrying out clean ups on beaches and in other public spaces.
Targets (if any):
The indicator is defined in terms of median litter abundance per 100 m beach for comparison with the threshold value of less than 20 litter items per 100 m beach.

■ Ghost Fishing Gear Recovery:
Indicators:
Fishing for Litter data is regularly reported to OSPAR covering passively fished waste during fishing operations.
Targets (if any):
To increase the total number of vessels participating in FFL schemes in the OSPAR maritime area by 100% in 2021, compared to the baseline situation in 2017.

■ Others:
Indicators:
Plastic particles in the stomachs of Northern Fulmars
Targets (if any):
OSPAR long-term target that fewer than 10% of fulmars should have no more than 0.1g of plastic in their stomachs.

Technical Standards, Guidelines and Methodologies

Topics: ■ Production / Manufacturing

Brief Description:
Minimum standard for determining the recyclability of packaging subject to mandatory PRO participation pursuant to section 21 (3) VerpackG, annually updated standard published by Central Agency Packaging Register (Zentrale Stelle Verpackungsregister – ZSVR), in agreement with the German Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt – UBA).

Monitoring of marine litter:

  1. Monitoring handbook of the current German Bund/Länder monitoring programs (BLMP)
  2. Guidance on Monitoring of Marine Litter in European Seas (MSFD TG ML, JRC Scientific and Policy Reports)

Back to the Top

Measures

Measures across Value Chain
Actions for encouraging sustainable / circular product design (example: improved durability, reparability, recyclability, reduction of material use per product…etc.) Yes

Specific Measures:
National support programme to encourage repair
(EU) Right to Repair and Ecodesign Directive
(EU) Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation

Policy actions for encouraging plastic alternatives, recycled materials at production stage. Yes

Specific Measures:
■ Use of Recycled Materials
 
Brief Description:

  • A mandatory minimum use of recyclates for certain single-use plastic beverage bottles from 2025 (based on EU Single use plastics Directive EU 2019/904)
Steps taken towards restricting microplastics in products. No

Brief Description:
As the EU REACH restriction on microplastics came into force in 2023, no additional restriction is in place.
Reduce single-use plastic (shopping bags, straws etc.) by regulations or voluntary measures (such as ban, levy, others) Yes

■ Regulatory Measures (ex: production ban, Ban on use..etc)
Brief Description:
Since 1.1.2022 the use of plastic bags with a thickness between 15- 50 micrometers is forbidden by the Packaging Act.

Different bans and regulations according to the EU Single use Plastics Directive EU 2019/904 (SUPD).
For example since 2021, the placing on the market of certain single use plastic products (cotton buds, cutlery, plates, straws, stirrers and balloon sticks made of plastic etc.) has been banned as well as the introduction of extended producer responsibility for certain single-use plastic products. Furthermore, the Labelling of Single-Use Plastics Ordinance (Einwegkunststoffkennzeichnungsverordnung) requires labelling indicating the negative impact of improper disposal for certain products.

An obligation to offer reusable packaging alternatives for single-use plastic food packaging for take-away food and single-use beverage cups since 2023.

An extension of the compulsory deposit to almost all single-use plastic beverage bottles and all beverage cans since 2022

■ Economic Measures (levy, tax, subsidies…etc.)
Brief Description:
Since 2024, the EWKFondsG has been in force and implements the requirements of the SUPD. It requires the producers of certain single-use plastic products to make an annual payment into the Single-Use Plastics Fund. The aim is to pass on the costs of cleaning public spaces, waste disposal and environmental education measures from the local authorities to the polluters. Products such as to-go cups, fast food packaging, tobacco filters and wet wipes, which often end up in the environment, are subject to the levy.
The fund is an important tool for preventing the accumulation of litter in the environment.

Back to "Measures" top
Introduce Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Yes

Specific Measures:

Targeted Products Packaging
Nature of Responsibility ■ Financial Responsibility
■ Operational Responsibility
■ Collective Producer Responsibility
■ Individual Producer Responsibility
Modality Mandatory EPR
■ Product Take Back
■ Deposit Refund System 		Voluntary EPR
-
Eco-modulation
(if applicable)

■ Fees Modulated Based on Recyclability of Products
Performance Indicators

■ Recycling Rate* (mechanical recycling) Current: 68.9 % (Targets, if any: 63 %)
(target and current rate for plastic packaging that falls under mandatory PRO participation)
Brief Description

Packaging that typically accumulates as waste at private end consumers and equivalent collection points is subject to mandatory participation at producer responsibility organizations (PRO) and the PROs have to fulfill the recycling quota. Manufacturers and downstream distributors in the supply chain for commercial packaging are obliged to take back packaging of the same type, shape and size as the packaging they placed on the market and primarily prepare it for reuse or must send it for recycling. DRS for single use beverage bottles/cans.
Improve waste management and recycling system Yes

Specific Measures:
See in particular under 2.1 and 2.2 above

Promoting plastic waste re-use, recycling and recovery opportunities Yes

Specific Measures:
An obligation to offer reusable packaging alternatives for single-use plastic food packaging for take-away food and single-use beverage cups
Install capturing trap/filter on drainage/river -
Conduct clean-up activities in rivers/ wetlands/ beaches/ coasts/ coral reefs/ sea floor, involving local communities involving local communities Yes
Specific Measures:

Clean-up activities organized by municipalities, NGOs, authorities and other initiatives are taking place on beaches, on riverbanks and also inland. Furthermore, many communities are taking part on the International Coastal Cleanup Day happening each year in autumn. Many of these activities can be found in the database of activities of the members of the national Round Table on Marine Litter (https://www.muell-im-meer.de/de/aktivitaeten).
Within the network of the Round Table assisting documents have been produced such as the report: “Harmonized protocols for beach litter on the basis of the Joint List of Litter Categories” and “Tips for the performance of environmentally sound coastal clean-up activities” (https://www.muell-im-meer.de/de/ergebnisse/produkte).

Back to "Measures" top
Issue-specific Measures
＜1＞ Abandoned, Lost and Discarded Fishing Gear (ALDFG)
Taken/to be taken National Level Action and/or Community Level Action on Clean sea initiatives including ghost net retrieval, ocean-bound plastics etc. Yes

Specific Measures:

  • Detection (by specific sonar and digital marking) and verification (by divers) of ALDFG
  • Retrieval campaigns in the Baltic Sea
  • Suitability test of sonar in the North Sea
  • Fishing for litter concept implemented in around 20 harbors of the North- and Baltic Sea
Taken actions for preventing abandoned, lost and discarded fishing gear (ALDFG) being generated. Yes

Specific Measures:
Created/creating collection/recycling mechanism for ALDFG Yes

Specific Measures:
＜2＞ Port Waste Reception
For waste management in ports, please provide details regarding their solid waste management practices/facilities including:
Whether there is an applicable legal framework Yes

Brief Description:
The Port reception facilities Directive (PRFD), which regulates waste management in ports, is implemented in Germany by state legislation (federal states). German ports have specialised port reception facilities for the disposal of waste from ships that comply with the requirements of the MARPOL Convention (International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships). These facilities are designed to properly collect and dispose of various types of waste, including solid waste from ship operations.

The institution(s) responsible for (or playing a central role in, if voluntary action) managing the waste from ships? (example: port management authority, fishers' association...etc.) Yes

The responsible institutions are port authorities, operators of port reception facilities, waste management companies, masters of seagoing vessels as well as fishermen by themselves ect.

Whether ports possess waste reception facilities/systems to handle solid waste from ships, the volume of waste collected and the percentage of ports with waste reception facilities? Yes

Brief Description:
The ports in Germany must provide sufficient waste reception facilities from incoming vessels. The port reception facilities are to be considered adequate if they are suitable for receiving the type and quantity of waste from ships regularly calling at the ports without unduly delaying the ships. The facilities provided in German ports differ from port to port due to their location, size of the port, amount of waste collected/ discharged and operating procedures.
The handling procedures for each distinct waste stream once onshore. Yes

Brief Description:
If the waste is delivered ashore, the general requirements of waste legislation apply and thus also the procedures for the treatment of the individual waste streams provided for in these regulations.

Back to "Measures" top
Partnership and Innovation
Boost multi-stakeholder involvement and awareness-raising Yes

Specific Measures:
Packaging act obliges the PROs to inform private final consumers about the meaning and purpose of the separate collection of packaging waste (public relations work). With regard to single-use plastic packaging, the systems must provide information on the impact of littering on the environment, in particular on the marine environment and on measures to prevent it.
Encourage/ Incentivize action by private sector companies to reduce/ sustainably manage their plastic waste. Yes

Specific Measures:
The “Runder Tisch Meeresmüll” (www.muell-im-meer.de) has been set up to support the implementation of measures e.g. of the national MSDF PoM and actions e.g. of the Regional Action Plans on Marine Litter of OSPAR and HELCOM. Around 130 stakeholders from different sectors are involved. It also serves as a great network to spread e.g. detailed info on initiatives and best practice examples, raise awareness and produce joined products to influence national and international processes.

Encourage public awareness on MPL issues through formal education system and/or curriculum for Yes

Specific Measures:
An education concept to reach out to different age classes and professionals who work in the marine environment has been developed and disseminated. Education material is available from various initiatives initiated by public authorities and NGOs. A dedicated education module has been developed for application in the education of fishermen.
See also: www.muell-im-meer.de;
https://foodture.bildungscent.de/bildungsmaterial-zu-plastikmuell-im-meer/;
https://kurswechsel.bildungscent.de/wissen/

Promote innovative solutions through Research & Development (e.g., subsidy program, investment fund etc.) Yes

Specific Measures:
The RV Sonne expedition (BMBF funded project E-POLIO-T, 3/2023 – 7/2026) measures pollutants such as microplastic along the transect between Singapore and Port Louis in the Indian Ocean.

“Plasticpirates” is a citizen science project to collect data of plastic waste and raise awareness throughout Europe for its impact in rivers and, since 2024, along coastlines.

Back to "Measures" top
Monitoring, Data Management, Understanding Flow of Plastics/MPL
Conduct Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of plastic products. What are the challenges if LCA is not conducted? Yes

Scope: ■ International
 
Challenges (if applicable):
 
General challenges of LCAs of plastic products:
There are only first initiatives to integrate plastic emissions and their environmental impact into the life cycle assessment as part of the impact assessment. On the one hand, the necessary data and methods are not available at life cycle inventory level. Secondly, there are no robust characterization models. Moreover, the latter have so far only dealt with the effects of plastic emissions in aquatic ecosystems (and to a very limited extent). With regard to impact assessment, the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission also states that no models for the integration of plastic emissions into life cycle assessments exist to date and therefore no recommendation for impact assessment can be given (Nessi et al. 2021).

Investigation of the environmental impact of packaging made from biodegradable plastics (UBA-Texte 52/2012)
Scope: ■ National
 
Brief Description:
The ecological assessment in the study was based on a literature search and an in-depth analysis of the studies that were of particular interest. In addition, supplementary overview life cycle assessments of packaging made from bioplastics compared to packaging made from conventional plastics were carried out.
 
Challenges (if applicable):
A comparison of bio-based plastic packaging with fossil-based packaging reveals impacts in different impact categories. Converting to bio-PE would increase the amount of land required.

Evaluation of the environmental impact of take-away beverage cups and possible measures to reduce the consumption (UBA-Texte 29/2019)
Scope: ■ National
 
Brief Description:
The evaluation shows that, on the one hand, the volume of waste to be disposed of poses a challenge to the municipalities and, on the other hand, overcrowded waste bins also indirectly exacerbate the littering problem. The life cycle assessment of the cups shows that light disposable paper cups are superior to heavy paper cups and plastic cups in the mathematical environmental assessment. The picture changes, however, if the cup is no longer evaluated as an isolated product, but as used in the current status quo.
At this point, the lid plays a decisive role in determining the result. Since paper cups have a significantly higher percentage of lidding, the "paper cup" system under average German conditions contains more fossil-based plastic than the plastic cup system.
The results show that replacement of disposable cups for hot drinks by reusable cups is usually associated with positive environmental effects if:

  • The reusable systems can achieve at least a circulation number greater than 10, better a circulation number greater than 25, through adequate return logistics or through self-responsible consumer behavior.
  • The reusable systems are not to be equipped with disposable components such as lids, etc.
  • The rinsing process of reusable systems takes place with a certified green electricity product

 
Challenges (if applicable):
The impact category climate change was also calculated without the renewable CO2 content in the paper and the waste incineration plant (MVA) disposal method was taken as the basis case. At least for the paper cups, this corresponds to the status quo and avoids results that can easily be misinterpreted as a CO2 sink.

Review of the effectiveness of article 21 VerpackG (Packaging Act) and development of proposals for further legal developments
Scope: ■ National
 
Brief Description:
In order to avoid or at least reduce negative impacts of packaging waste on the environment, Section 21 Par. 1 VerpackG (German Packaging Act) requires the systems (producer responsibility organizations) to base the participation fees of the first distributors (producers) on environmental criteria. Incentives are to be created in order to increase the recyclability of packaging and to promote the use of recyclates and renewable raw materials.
The results show the high importance of mechanical recycling, which leads to clear environmental advantages compared to energy recovery. The higher the share of recyclable packaging that goes into mechanical recycling, the better the overall results in almost all impact categories.
The use of recyclates in non-recyclable products performs significantly worse than their use in recyclable products. Accordingly, promoting the use of recyclates in recyclable packaging or products in particular is environmentally advantageous.
The life cycle assessments carried out do not show any clear advantage of bio-based plastics over petroleum-based plastics.
For the use of fiber-based, (conditionally) recyclable packaging in comparison to plastic packaging with good recyclability, the LCA results for the particularly relevant categories "climate change" and "land use" also show no clear result. Compared with plastic packaging, fiber-based packaging cannot therefore be classified across the board as more environmentally friendly.
 
Challenges (if applicable):
Due to the availability of data, only renewable raw materials that are specifically obtained in agriculture and forestry could be considered in this study. As soon as residual materials are used to a relevant extent as feedstock for recyclable biobased plastics and corresponding basic data for life cycle assessments are available, a supplementary assessment should be carried out on the basis of the data then available.
Conduct Material Flow Analysis (MFA) on plastics. What are the challenges if MFA is not conducted? Yes

Scope: ■ National
 
Brief Description:
The scope of this study is the environment in Germany. The approach differentiates between two basic emission pathways:

  • Emission from littering of plastic waste
  • Emissions from plastic products and plastic containing products intended to be used in the environment.

 
For both pathways, models were built, allowing an estimation of the plastics remaining in the environment based on available information and expert assumptions.
The modelling of the pathway from littering is based on information on the plastics found in the environment. Here the main sinks have been differentiated according to their use (roads, service stations, parking lots, pedestrian zones, coasts, river sides and inland swimming areas).
For the pathway of plastic products and plastic containing products intended to be used in the environment, the modelling is based on the quantities placed on the market (POM) for 63 product groups and assumptions on the share remaining in the environment after the end of the use-phase.
From plastic products used in the environment, emissions often occur over a long time span (up to multiple decades) and also the permanent remain of entire products or product parts in the environment partly occurs only after long-time usage.
In conclusion based on this data basis the following observations can be made:

  • The emissions from various plastic applications dominate the overall picture. Next to the transport sector, which is dominated by tyre abrasion, particularly the construction sector is a relevant source for plastic emissions.
  • Tyre abrasion represents the quantitatively largest (single) source for plastic emission. The uncertainties (or differences in the assumed abrasion factors) are below 30 %. There is strong consensus among experts on the quantitative relevance of this source.
  • Next to the abrasion from the intended use of tyres, the source contributing the most to emissions remaining in the environment is the incomplete removal of plastic products after their use.
  • Littering of mostly small plastic objects such as packaging is also a relevant source of plastic emissions into the environment. Regarding the total emissions, however, this source is one amongst many similarly important sources. In many areas, cleaning measures can reduce the permanent presence in the environment. Changes in the nature and intensity of such cleaning measures are reflected in the developed model as a change of the captured share of waste or rather as slippage.

 
Challenges (if applicable):
In the developed model the emissions occurring in the future are counted “back” to the period of “the placing on market”. For an even more exact depiction of the yearly emissions, time series analyses of the POM as well as the variance of the respective usage lengths over time would have to be considered in the modelling. For both aspects, so far no consistent databases are available.
Main uncertainties and questions regarding the emissions in the environment are:

  • The effectiveness of the existing cleaning measurements: Systematic data regarding cleaning measures, accounting for amounts with regard to different land use types, efficacy / slippage are missing here. The influence of the assumptions made on slip and plastic proportion has been depicted using the example of littering along roads. Parameter variations in line with the assumptions made in other studies can influence the results of the estimations by up to a factor of 10.
  • The differentiation between littering and non-littering: because this distinction cannot be made for the plastic products found in the environment, this differentiation brings an additional uncertainty into the total estimations, which according to expert’s valuation is not countered by an added value regarding the conclusions.
Conduct monitoring / estimation / scientific research on leakage of plastics/microplastics to the natural environment and/or flow of ocean surface.
What are the challenges if these actions are not conducted? 		Yes

Specific Measures:
■ Established a Monitoring/reporting Program/Mechanism

Scope: ■ National ■ Regional
■ Macro Plastics ■ Microplastics (<5mm)■ Ocean

Brief Description:
Mature monitoring protocols are available for macro litter including plastics in the marine compartments beach, water column and seafloor (MSFD D10C1) and indicator species have been defined for ingestion and entanglement (MSFD D10C3 and C4).

Challenges (if applicable):
A remaining challenge remains D10C2 of the MSFD on micro litter in the different marine compartments since monitoring and assessment approaches create hard to compare results. However, joint approaches with the involvement of DE are currently been developed in the EU Technical Group on Marine Litter and OSPAR and HELCOM. OSPAR currently agreed on a new common indicator on micro litter in sediments.
International Collaboration
Participate in international cooperation through international organizations, multi-national groups, etc. Yes

Specific Measures:
Participation in activities of OSPAR, HELCOM, UNEP, WTO, Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee “End Plastic Pollution” and under the Basel Convention
Support target region by your international cooperation initiatives/projects: Yes

Target Regions:
■ Africa ■ Middle East and North Africa ■ South Asia
■ Central Asia ■ South East ■ Latin America and Caribbean

Specific Measures:
The German government supports more than 30 bilateral, regional and global circular economy, waste management and plastic litter prevention projects since 2015. Specific measures on marine litter include regional projects on marine litter prevention in SICA (Caribe Circular), ASEAN (3RproMar), and the Western Balkans, contributions to international funds, such as the Clean Oceans Initiative and the World Bank PROBLUE Trust Fund as well as the Grant Programme against Marine Litter ‘Marine Debris Framework – Regional hubs around the globe’ (Marine: DeFRAG) . The main goal of the Grant Programme is to prevent plastic waste at the source.
See https://www.z-u-g.org/en/responsibilities-and-tasks/grant-programme-against-marine-litter/ and https://www.giz.de/en/downloads/giz-2023-towards-clean-oceans.pdf

Back to "Measures" top

Back to the Top

Challenges

■ Recycling System Improvement

Specific Challenges:
While the plastic recycling quota of the packaging act boosted plastic recycling, however the demand side for recycled material did not develop in the same way. Therefor minimum recycled content requirements, as foreseen by the EU-Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation, need to complement recycling quota.

■ Data Collection Related to Marine Plastic Litter

Specific Challenges:
A remaining challenge remains D10C2 of the MSFD on micro litter in the different marine compartments since monitoring and assessment approaches create results, which are hard to compare. However, joint approaches with the involvement of DE are currently been developed in the EU Technical Group on Marine Litter and OSPAR and HELCOM. OSPAR currently agreed on a new common indicator on micro litter in sediments.

■ Lack of Financial Incentives for Waste Treatment in General

Specific Challenges:
Extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations and recycling quota are appropriate incentives for waste treatment. However, we face the challenge that mixed residual waste ends up in separated waste streams. This is because end consumers do not have to pay for those streams due to the EPR system ( like light weight packaging) while there is a fee on mixed municipal waste). This deteriorated the quality of the separately collected waste.

Back to the Top

Best Practices

■ National Level ■ Local/Community Level ■ International Initiative

Description:
The “Blue Angel” – the German national ecolabel – developed criteria for:

  • Artificial turf that does not emit microplastic. This is mainly an offering to local communities with regard to sustainable public procurement.
  • Reusable systems to-go for food and beverages, in order to reduce the number of disposable cups and to strengthen environmentally friendly reusable cup systems. The criteria include requirements for the cups themselves as well as for the suppliers.

The Global Action Partnership for EPR by GIZ, UNEP, OECD, WWF, and hosted by the PREVENT Waste Alliance offers a EPR Helpdesk for tailored technical support for requesting parties.

Back to the Top

Futher Information

 

Back to the Top

Contact Details

Name: Dr. Axel Borchmann
Position: Head of Unit
Division: Water management, Water and Soil Conservation, Marine Conservation
Organization: Federal Ministry of the Environment, Climate Action, Nature Protection and Nuclear safety
Email: axel.borchmann@bmukn.bund.de

Recent Meeting