European Environmental Bureau

Brussels – March 2023 Rethink Plastic alliance: feedback on the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation proposal Introduction The Rethink Plastic alliance welcomes the European Commission proposal for the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR). Notably, we welcome the proposed waste prevention and reuse targets, as well as the strengthened measures for tackling packaging waste. Ambitious waste prevention targets and well-designed reuse systems can bring significant environmental benefits including reducing emissions as well as resource, energy and chemicals use. Although the proposal goes in the right direction by prioritising prevention and reuse, it falls short on the objective to achieve 100% reusable or recyclable packaging by 2030.

…prevention and reuse, it falls short on the objective to achieve 100% reusable or recyclable packaging by 2030. Also, the proposal offers too many loopholes and exemptions to effectively reverse the trend of growing levels of packaging waste, and it fails to incentivise the elimination of harmful chemicals in packaging. In the upcoming negotiations, it will be crucial to build on the proposal and swiftly adopt a robust framework for the packaging sector if the EU is serious about achieving its Circular Economy and Green Deal goals. We understand the complex context of the negotiations, with strong industry pressure calling for further weakening of the proposal, but it is pivotal to not lose sight of the need for strong binding legislation to drive the circular transition of the packaging sector for the benefit of people and the environment.

…legislation to drive the circular transition of the packaging sector for the benefit of people and the environment. The following outlines the Rethink Plastic alliance’s main recommendations to support the revision of the EU packaging legislation:

…outlines the Rethink Plastic alliance’s main recommendations to support the revision of the EU packaging legislation: 1. No time to waste To stop the continuous growth of packaging waste, the legislative process must be concluded in this parliamentary term. Unfortunately, the publication of the Commission proposal was delayed by over a year compared to what had been announced in the Circular Economy Action Plan1. The proposal also comes after an extensive period of impact assessments and stakeholders consultations (started in 2019), and it is therefore now key to complete this work. Any delays at 1 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/pdf/new_circular_economy_action_plan.pdf 1 Ref. Ares(2023)1716924 - 09/03/2023 this stage would make it difficult to finalise the discussions before the end of this legislature creating further legal uncertainty. The PPWR offers an important…

…on policy makers to prioritise consumer and environmental protection by ensuring a timely adoption of the legislation. 2. Prevention and reuse targets to tackle the waste crisis a. Legal basis: ensure Member States can take the necessary measures to pursue waste prevention We welcome the decision to ensure EU harmonisation on aspects such as the definition of recyclability or the standardisation of reusable packaging and systems. However, in the current proposal we see a contradiction between Article 4 on Free Movement which prevents Member States to develop measures to restrict packaging complying with the regulation, and Article 38.2-5 which mandates Member States to develop waste prevention provisions in order to meet their packaging waste reduction targets.

…mandates Member States to develop waste prevention provisions in order to meet their packaging waste reduction targets. This excessively restricts Member States’ possibilities to achieve waste prevention and to minimise the environmental impact of packaging, pursuant Article 38. “Corporate waste management plans” and “voluntary actions”, as referred to in the Impact Assessment, are unlikely to deliver tangible results2. In absence of stronger harmonised waste prevention measures within the regulation, it must be ensured that more ambitious measures can still be implemented in the Member States, especially those necessary to meet the waste prevention targets and to enable the uptake of reuse.

…the Member States, especially those necessary to meet the waste prevention targets and to enable the uptake of reuse. One solution, given the clear environmental objectives of the regulation, is that Article 191 TFEU (environmental basis) should also be included as a legal basis for this regulation next to Article 114 TFEU (single market), particularly with regard to the provisions of Chapter VII on management of packaging and packaging waste. Alternatively, opening clauses must also be clearly included, wherever necessary, to enable Member States to pursue waste prevention initiatives. b. Waste prevention targets should be more ambitious The targets set in the proposal are an important milestone from a regulatory perspective but are nowhere near ambitious enough.

…set in the proposal are an important milestone from a regulatory perspective but are nowhere near ambitious enough. Reversing at least the 20% increase in packaging volumes that happened over the last decade should be the initial prevention target. In line with climate and resource protection ambitions, packaging volumes must decrease drastically. With the Commission's current targets, limiting packaging waste generated per 2 Executive summary of the Impact assessment (30 Nov. 2022), pag. 27-28 2 capita to a similar level as in 2009 (149.9kg of packaging waste per capita) is not possible before 2040. It is necessary to take countermeasures earlier and to set the ambitious target of achieving a reduction equal to the increase of the last 10 years as early as 2030, meaning a 15% instead of 5% waste prevention target per capita by 2030.

…increase of the last 10 years as early as 2030, meaning a 15% instead of 5% waste prevention target per capita by 2030. In order to avoid driving simple substitutions between single-use applications made of different materials (from heavier to lighter packaging materials), material-specific sub-targets should be set, e.g. for packaging made of plastics, composite material, paper, glass and metal. c. Lack of a weight optimisation approach The overall objective of the legislation should be to reduce the environmental impact of packaging systems. This includes optimising packaging circularity with its weight. The current Essential Requirements for packaging have proven to be ineffective due to their unenforceability. The qualitative criteria, stipulated in Annex II of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive, require extensive research to prove cases of non-compliance.

Annex II of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive, require extensive research to prove cases of non-compliance. We know that national authorities do not have sufficient capacities to enforce these qualitative requirements, leading to a situation where non-compliance remains unsanctioned. Although the Commission has proposed to limit the qualitative criteria in the performance criteria listed in Annex IV, the enforceability issues remain unresolved in absence of supporting quantitative criteria. As already identified in the preparatory study, there are many packaging formats on the market which are unnecessarily heavy3 - driving resource use and secondary impacts (e.g. transport emissions). Clearer and enforceable rules are thus needed to effectively drive packaging optimisation.

(e.g. transport emissions). Clearer and enforceable rules are thus needed to effectively drive packaging optimisation. We therefore call on the co legislators to include quantitative criteria that ensure the enforceability of the packaging minimisation provisions. A possibility could be to define maximum weights relative to the content and tailored to the packaging material used for certain common types and formats: for example, a glass wine bottle really does not have to weigh more than 350 grams4. Alternatively, the Commission could request the European standardisation organisations to update the harmonised standard for establishing maximum weight limits for certain common packaging types and formats in order to prevent overweighting of packaging.

…maximum weight limits for certain common packaging types and formats in order to prevent overweighting of packaging. Although Article 9 is supposed to set standards for the prevention of unnecessary packaging, the current approach contains loopholes that will strongly undermine its effectiveness. For example, we do not support exemptions for the packaging of products subject to geographical indications of origin. Giving such products a free pass on optimising the sustainability of their packaging for marketing purposes (“including double walls, false bottoms and unnecessary layers”) is contradictory and reduces the impact that stricter packaging minimisation rules could have to reduce the packaging sector’s material footprint. 3. Reuse 4 Ibid.

52 → 12

originalus šaltinis (PDF) ↗