European emphasizes that it “supports supports the objectives of the Circular Economy package and much of the content of the legislative proposals”. It also points out the success that has been made in increasing packaging waste recycling and recovery rates1 over the last two decades. But it also says that there are substantial differences between the Member states that a Circular economy package has to capture. There are five aspects EUROPEN comments on.
Safeguard the free movement of packaging and packaged goods in the Internal Market
The ambition of a Circular Economy in Europe would be fatally undermined if the Internal Market does not function properly. The Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (PPWD) has the EU Internal Market as its legal base and includes a notification procedure under Article 16. This requirement safeguards against national protectionist or discriminatory measures and thus against barriers to the free movement of packaging and packaged goods in the EU Internal Market. Therefore, the PPWD remains fundamental for this Internal Market guarantee. Given the differences in legal base between the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) and the PPWD and the specific sector policy needs of packaging (versus products), EUROPEN maintains the need for explicit provisions within the PPWD. For instance, the impact of national EPR schemes modulating fees for packaging risks fragmenting the Internal Market due to different criteria used but also due to the divergent impacts of similar criteria for fee modulation per EPR scheme, Member State and related packaging waste management infrastructures.
Harmonise EU waste legislation where relevant, while keeping the sectoral policy approach for packaging and packaging waste (packaging is not a product)
Packaging optimises resource use, helps to minimise (product and food) waste, protects products along different value chains and provides consumers with varied uses, choices and benefits of the products it contains. Packaging is a product facilitator, as part of a packaged product.
Unlike pure EU waste stream directives that only address the end-of-life of certain products, the PPWD covers the full life cycle of packaging. As packaging is not a product, policy harmonisation between the WFD and the PPWD needs to be carefully assessed case-by-case. For instance, EUROPEN welcomes the harmonisation of definitions in the PPWD with the WFD, but requiring EPR schemes to “gather data on products placed on the Union market by producers subject to EPR” (WFD proposal Article 8a (1) third indent would create a disproportionate and onerous administrative burden if EPR schemes for packaging waste are required to collect data about individual packaged products. This is just one example of the potential misinterpretation of the proposed harmonised EPR minimum requirements in the WFD, applicable to all waste streams. EUROPEN maintains the need for explicit provisions in the PPWD for EPR minimum requirements for packaging waste. This will also facilitate the update and accurate transposition in national packaging laws.
A specific sectoral policy approach for packaging remains essential. Targeted measures are necessary to ensure that packaging, including post-consumer packaging3, gets collected separately for recycling in those Member States where recycling capacities are in place. Legislation in some Member States permits heavy reliance on the collection and recycling/recovery of industrial, commercial and institutional (IC&I) packaging waste to meet legal targets. Although it is easier and cheaper to collect, focus on IC&I packaging waste only weakens both Member States’ and industry’s ability to achieve higher recycling and recovery rates.
The Commission should continue to be assisted by the Committee for the Adaptation to Scientific and Technical Progress, composed of the representatives of the Member States and chaired by the representative of the Commission as stated in the initial PPWD Article 21 Committee. However, this Article 21 Committee has been modified in the new PPWD so that it now refers only to “a” Committee which composition is no longer specified. EUROPEN would like the composition of this Committee to explicitly include national environmental/waste and industry experts in order to mirror the PPWD’s legal base and dual objectives.
Support minimum requirements on transparency and accountability for EPR schemes for packaging waste
Below comments should be assessed in joint consideration with our above strong calls to introduce EPR minimum requirements for packaging waste in the PPWD. Given our longstanding expertise in the packaging waste stream, our comments below regarding the EPR minimum requirements in the WFD are made in the context of packaging waste and our related specific market and value chain needs.
EUROPEN welcomes the Commission’s intention to improve the transparency of and rule enforcement for EPR schemes, which will help to avoid cherry-picking of materials and geographic scope and improve cost-efficiency among all EPR schemes. They also welcome Article 8a (5), which will facilitate full implementation and enforcement and will secure improved accountability among obliged industry, EPR schemes, waste management operators and all other actors involved in EPR implementation at national level.
EUROPEN fully supports the introduction of the net cost principle under Article 8a (4)a first indent in the WFD proposal. In order to ensure the full application of this principle, EPR schemes for packaging waste should be required to be transparent about the revenues received from the sales of secondary raw materials from their packaging. This requirement is also relevant within the context of the Circular Economy Action Plan to boost markets for secondary raw materials and there traceability. Data on secondary material pricing within EPR will serve as a measure of the economic benefit of returning materials back into the economy and as a long-term indicator for growth in this important market. Support harmonised though clarified calculation method for ‘preparing for re-use’ / recycling targets for packaging
EUROPEN welcomes the proposed harmonised method for calculating ‘preparing for re-use’/recycling targets. Robust measurement and accurate reporting will be crucial to ensure transparent and comparable data across the EU. The PPWD proposal rightly establishes the point of measurement for packaging recycling as the point of input to a final ‘preparing for re-use’ or recycling process, after sorting operations have been completed. The option to count output from sorting operations under certain conditions is fully consistent with this measurement approach.
EUROPEN welcomes the formula proposed in the PPWD Annex IV, though the definitions in the proposed ‘preparing for re-use’ calculation method (PPWD proposal Annex IV) should be clarified. For instance, in contrast to other waste statistics, Eurostat’s data on “packaging waste generated” does not mean the amount of “packaging collected” but rather all packaging “placed on the market” and Annex IV should reflect this reality5.
In addition, EUROPEN believes that Member States without EPR schemes for packaging waste must also be required to ensure that their packaging waste management systems deliver results in an enforceable, transparent and accountable manner entirely consistent with the EPR minimum requirements for packaging waste.
