bvse e.V. · Trade and business associations · DE
…1 Comments of the bvse e.V. on the European Commission's proposal for a Regulation on packaging and packaging waste COM (2022) 677 final We hereby comment on the European Commission's proposal for a Regulation on packaging and packaging waste, COM (2022) 677 final. The proposed revision of EU legislation has three main objectives: Preventing packaging waste by restricting unnecessary packaging and promoting reusable and refillable packaging solutions. Promote a high-quality and closed-loop recycling system by making all packaging on the EU market economically recyclable by 2030. Reducing the demand for primary raw materials and creating a well-functioning market for secondary raw materials through mandatory recycled content targets .
…and creating a well-functioning market for secondary raw materials through mandatory recycled content targets . The defined goals of the Commission are in principle suitable for establishing a uniform packaging policy within Europe, which at the same time also supports the achievement of climate neutrality in Europe linked to the European Green Deal. In our view, the promotion of closed cycles and the strengthening of markets for secondary raw materials are essential for decoupling economic growth from the consumption of primary raw materials and also for a well-functioning recycling economy. Too much detailing of regulation: Regulation COM (2022) 677 applies to all packaging and packaging waste generated, regardless of its origin. The Commission is presenting an extremely detailed proposal for a regulation on packaging and packaging waste with a very, very high level of regulation.
…detailed proposal for a regulation on packaging and packaging waste with a very, very high level of regulation. This proposal is not a continuation of the existing Packaging Directive, but completely redefines this area. A lean, superordinate legal regulation, which is filled in by the Member States, would be more expedient here. Uniform regulations throughout Europe: Since there are in use very different systems for packaging collection and recycling of packaging waste across Europe, the Commission is trying to achieve a harmonization of the packaging sector with a directly applicable regulation that has now been presented. In view of the heterogeneity that already exists in implementation of the existing Packaging Directive in the European Member States, it is unlikely that this ambitious project of the Commission will succeed in total.
…in the European Member States, it is unlikely that this ambitious project of the Commission will succeed in total. Article 4(4) provides the possibility of supplementing the present COM (2022) 677 in the Member States according to national sustainability or information requirements. From the point of view of the bvse e.V., this option is not advantageous, as the present proposal already over-regulates the area of packaging and packaging waste. And this would lead to an additional patchwork of requirements, which at the same time would be an obstacle in the internal markets. Article 4(5) gives the Member States the possibility to extend the labelling in the areas of EPR as well as of deposit and of return systems of the present regulation. The bvse e.V. does not consider this to be expedient of the present regulation. Ref.
…systems of the present regulation. The bvse e.V. does not consider this to be expedient of the present regulation. Ref. Ares(2023)1852452 - 14/03/2023 2 Numerous new terms and terminology - bureaucracy: The EU-Com uses new terminology and numerous terms, which are defined in detail. Article 3 defines in total 69 terms and concepts. In addition, further terms refer to existing legal regulations. And this alone will necessitate the judicial clarification of numerous terms and concepts. Furthermore, the number of persons involved for regulation’s implementation is significantly expanded. In particular, numerous register obligations and reporting requirements should be mentioned here as negative. The bureaucracy necessary for implementation in the Member States is considerably expanded by the present regulation.
The bureaucracy necessary for implementation in the Member States is considerably expanded by the present regulation. Or to put it another way: in the new regulation, the level of detail in the definitions is surprising. Moreover, it is astonishing how many stakeholders are needed for the implementation of the submitted proposal, see Article 3(8) to Article 3(18). The comprehensive differentiations of plastic carrier bags into 4 categories is a set back, see Article 3(45) to Article 3(48). A distinction into plastic carrier bags smaller than 50 µm and smaller than 15 µm should be sufficient here, see SUPD - Directive (EU) 2019/904, which defines lightweight plastic carrier bags in the sense of Article 3(1c) of Directive 94/62/EC. The obligations for packaging manufacturers defined in Article 11 are far too detailed and too extensive.
…94/62/EC. The obligations for packaging manufacturers defined in Article 11 are far too detailed and too extensive. The overall requirements for the labelling and marking of packaging defined in Article 11, which are accompanied by extensive reporting obligations, will mean that breaches of the legal requirements are inevitable. And this is an impetus for numerous bureaucratic requirements that will make recycling considerably more difficult. Mechanical recycling: In the present draft COM (2022) 677 there are no indications or restrictions on the type of recycling. And thus, according to the understanding of the bvse e.V., only mechanical recycling is addressed here. If other recycling processes are addressed in the present draft, this should be included directly in the ordinance and not regulated via delegated acts.
…addressed in the present draft, this should be included directly in the ordinance and not regulated via delegated acts. Furthermore, in the case of feedstock recycling, which includes chemical recycling processes, their position in the waste hierarchy should be clarified if level 4, "other recovery", is not meant, see Article 4 of Directive 2008/98/EC (Waste Framework Directive). We recommend to consider a definition of chemical recycling in 2008/98/EC and, if necessary, to refer to it directly in the Regulation on Packaging and Packaging Waste. All types of waste – post consumer (pc) and post industrial (pi) - should be chargeable: In the present draft, we do not see any restriction that refers to the type of waste to be recovered. And thus, all wastes, that is pc-wastes as well as pi-wastes, are to be taken into account for the quotas.
…recovered. And thus, all wastes, that is pc-wastes as well as pi-wastes, are to be taken into account for the quotas. Both pc waste and pi waste are to be included in all quota calculations, i.e. recycling quota as well as minimum recycling content. By-products: In this context, we also refer to the term by-products, here Article 5, according to Directive 2008/98/EC. Consequently, by-products are also part of waste recovery and are thus to be included in all quota calculations. Compostable packaging: The EU-Com prioritises compostable packaging with Regulation COM (2022) 677. Compostable packaging is prioritised over all other light packaging insofar as, for example, the obligations for recycling quotas according to Article 46 and for recyclate input quotas according to Article 7 do not 3 apply to these biomaterials.
…according to Article 46 and for recyclate input quotas according to Article 7 do not 3 apply to these biomaterials. And in the opinion of the bvse e.V., this will mean a clear shift away from light packaging materials towards compostable packaging. This will be disadvantageous for disposal and recycling because of the unavoidable mixing of compostable packaging with paper and cardboard or mineral oil-based plastics. Moreover, reference should also be made here to the discussions on "food and fuel". The use of biodegradable plastics should definitely be limited to the applications mentioned in the proposed regulation. Under no circumstances should the regulation lead to even more packaging labelled as compostable. False incentives must not be created to promote this packaging as an environmentally friendly alternative to existing lightweight packaging.
…not be created to promote this packaging as an environmentally friendly alternative to existing lightweight packaging. In the implementation of Article 8, attention must be paid to the full degradability of "biodegradable plastic". The Commission should therefore refer to the EN 13432 standard and work towards ensuring that it is formulated in such a way as to guarantee the complete degradability of bioplastics. Article 8(1) specifies, among other things, the biodegradability of plastic bags with a wall thickness of less than 50 µm. These requirements for the biodegradability of plastic bags are disadvantageous for the recycling of plastic films, which include plastic bags, because in recycling practice it is not possible to distinguish between mineral oil-based plastics and bioplastics, which means that mixtures of both material flows are unavoidable.
…between mineral oil-based plastics and bioplastics, which means that mixtures of both material flows are unavoidable. And this has the consequence that mineral oil-based plastics are contaminated with bioplastics. Or to put it another way, biodegradable adhesive labels hinder the recycling of plastic bags despite the requirements of Article 8(2) to Article 8(5). Material stream specifics: The re-usable targets for all lightweight packaging proposed in this regulation cannot be implemented in practice. In the case of re-usable requirements, a distinction hast to be made according to the respective material flows. The recycability of plastics, paper, cardboard, glass, aluminium or tinplate differs considerably. Hence, all re-usable targets for paper and cardboard are ecologically disadvantageous.
33 → 12