Commending the European Commission’s foresight in proposing the package, APEAL also complimented the efficiency of the rapporteur Simona Bonafé and the shadow rapporteurs throughout the EP procedure.
“Swift implementation of the CEP will deliver numerous benefits, specifically: a harmonised EU approach, greater legal certainty and a more viable internal market,” said Alexis Van Maercke, secretary general of APEAL.
As the model material for a circular economy, with 76% recycled in 20141, steel is ideally positioned to reach ambitious but achievable recycling rates by 2025. APEAL welcomes that the EP has confirmed the Commission proposal to opt for a specific steel recycling target as opposed to the current legislation. This approach will foster greater understanding of the recycling performance of all permanent materials.
Alexis Van Maercke added: “APEAL is also pleased to note the EP’s reference to ‘multiple recycling’ is confirmed and backed by a large majority of the Members of the EP. By introducing the concept of multiple recycling, where products and packaging materials are kept in the material loop and can become resources for other products and packaging, the EP contributes to increasing understanding of the corresponding concept of permanent materials such as steel, that can be recycled multiple times, indeed forever.
“We urge all EU member states to take the principle of multiple recycling on board in the final legislation and incorporate also the ‘permanent materials’ concept in the Council text.”
Amongst the other proposals in the package, APEAL supports the approach to place the measurement point of recycling at the input to the final recycling process. Indeed, this point corresponds to the point of ‘real recycling’.
Strongly encouraging safeguarding the ‘internal market’ legal base of the PPWD 1, Alexis Van Maercke concluded: “Member States’ national waste legislation proposals should preserve the Internal market and the free circulation of packaging and packaged goods.
“These proposals should not create disruption due to differences in interpretation or implementation. We call upon EU policy makers to strengthen the legal framework in this direction.”