Orgalim – Europe's Technology Industries

Brussels, 24 April 2023 Orgalim recommendations on the proposal for a new Regulation on Packaging and Packaging Waste Orgalim represents Europe’s technology industries, providing innovative technology solutions which are underpinning the twin green and digital transitions and can unlock a greener, healthier and more prosperous future for the European Union and its citizens. Our industries support the objectives of the proposed new Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) to contribute to the transition to a circular economy and to the efficient functioning of the internal market by harmonising national measures on packaging and packaging waste. We see the operation of the internal market as absolutely central for the circular economy to function and to deliver sustainability gains at scale.

…as absolutely central for the circular economy to function and to deliver sustainability gains at scale. We welcome a Regulation instead of a Directive because the Regulation will ensure that the obligations will be implemented at the same time, and in the same way, in all EU Member States. We fully support EU-wide harmonised, and thus uniform, requirements on packaging and packaging waste so that the new EU Packaging Regulation can replace the current "patchwork" of different national provisions in the various EU Member States. Our most important message is that the European Commission must ensure that no further individual national measures on packaging and packaging waste are implemented in the EU Member States.

…that no further individual national measures on packaging and packaging waste are implemented in the EU Member States. Executive summary What we support: • Requirements harmonised at EU level • The proportionality principle and a thorough impact assessment • Ensuring effective enforcement and market surveillance What concerns us: • Requirements for recycled content must be realistic • Sufficient transition time and exemptions where relevant are needed • The administrative burden should be minimised • Reuse requirements require a thorough impact assessment Ref. Ares(2023)2890093 - 24/04/2023 2 Functionality of packaging, product security and stability are key for our industries. The packaging serves to protect and transport the product and to inform the end-users about the product and its disposal.

…packaging serves to protect and transport the product and to inform the end-users about the product and its disposal. The PPWR should provide an opportunity to ensure that packaging delivers on these functions in the most environmentally friendly way. This means further consideration of where the highest beneficial impact could be achieved (e.g. at packaging or product level). These are our main recommendations to policymakers to make the proposed new Regulation on packaging and packaging waste successful with requirements that are workable and proportionate for our industries: • Requirements should be proportionate and contribute to the circular economy. There must be proven environmental benefits that exceed the costs to industry. The burden put on companies must be proportionate and with realistic timelines.

…that exceed the costs to industry. The burden put on companies must be proportionate and with realistic timelines. Additional requirements should be kept as minimal as possible and must be manageable and affordable for all economic operators – in particular for SMEs. • Requirements should not have a significant negative impact on the industry’s competitiveness, meaning that the regulatory regime must recognise the uniqueness of the challenges faced by individual industry sectors at the different stages of the packaging life cycle. • Requirements (for example information requirements) should be technology-neutral and not hinder the development of new innovations, business models and products. • Requirements must be based on scientific assessment methods through recognised European or ISO/IEC/ITU international standards and must be reliable and verifiable.

…methods through recognised European or ISO/IEC/ITU international standards and must be reliable and verifiable. In other words, EU lawmakers should prioritise harmonised standards before technical specifications, as this allows each given stakeholder sector to propose tailor-made solutions to address the established requirements. • To achieve the requirements on targets, coordination will be needed between the various economic operators and serious attention should be given to compliance with competition law. • To facilitate compliance, including with competition law, it is important that companies can rely on public support, especially in relation to reuse targets. You will find below more detailed descriptions of our recommendations for policymakers. What we support Requirements harmonised at EU level For the circular economy to develop further, scale is imperative.

What we support Requirements harmonised at EU level For the circular economy to develop further, scale is imperative. Harmonisation of packaging and labelling requirements, and implementation through harmonised standards, are the most cost-effective ways to achieve scaling up. On the contrary, national measures - even with the best of intentions - are detrimental to the internal market and to the development of a scaled up circular economy. • We recommend securing the functioning of the internal market by harmonising all requirements at EU level (including administrative, procedural and material requirements).

…market by harmonising all requirements at EU level (including administrative, procedural and material requirements). The proposed Regulation must clearly restrict Member States from imposing national requirements beyond the scope of the harmonised requirements or similar practices considered as “gold plating” which erode the harmonisation objective and undermine the scaling up of circular solutions across the EU. Furthermore, Member States should not have the possibility to set up national labels for their Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) systems, since this permission contradicts the objective of harmonisation. 3 • We recommend the use of an EU harmonised declaration template to avoid different requirements from the Producers Responsibility Organisations (PROs) or national registers in the EU Member States and to diminish the administrative burden.

Organisations (PROs) or national registers in the EU Member States and to diminish the administrative burden. Member States should not require additional information beyond the information in the template. In other words, the information to be provided in the template must be exactly the same in all EU Member States. • We recommend focusing harmonised EU labelling on materials, for example using pictograms. We recognise that Member States currently have different waste collection and handling infrastructures. However, the waste materials will be the same and we suggest considering the addition of further sorting instructions via a type of digital marking technology (such as a QR code on the packaging) as is already the case in Italy. • We recommend that the EU harmonised labelling requirements also allow for the possibility of digital labelling on a voluntary basis as an alternative.

…labelling requirements also allow for the possibility of digital labelling on a voluntary basis as an alternative. Additionally, the possibility of using well-known, existing systems such as the alphanumeric code instead of new labels should be reviewed. The proportionality principle and a thorough impact assessment Requirements regarding recycling, recycled content and reuse, are welcome as they can drive the scaling up of circular solutions. However, it is worth recalling the Commission’s vision for packaging: “All packaging, including plastics, on the EU market is reusable or recyclable in an economically viable, cost-effective manner by 20301”.

…on the EU market is reusable or recyclable in an economically viable, cost-effective manner by 20301”. The waste hierarchy represents policy principles that guide the work of policymakers on the circular economy, and for decision-making purposes they should always be placed in context and be subject to analysis tools such as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). If, as a result of this analysis, there are no net environmental benefits, but rather negative evidence, then applying the waste hierarchy rigidly is detrimental to both the environment and the economy. In this context, a general ban on certain packaging formats without a prior analysis and impact assessment would not make sense. We welcome the Commission’s realistic approach to potentially reassessing the defined minimum percentages due to the limited availability or excessive prices of specific recycled plastics (Articles 7-9 and 7-10).

…percentages due to the limited availability or excessive prices of specific recycled plastics (Articles 7-9 and 7-10). Reviewing the packaging minimum requirements may allow more ambitious requirements in other product legislation (e.g. the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR)) which would further benefit the environment. • We recommend adopting the approach of the Ecodesign legislation by setting measurable and enforceable requirements based on the proportionality principle and a thorough and specific impact assessment. Effective enforcement and market surveillance Ensuring effective enforcement and market surveillance will be of the utmost importance for the success of the application of the new proposed Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation and will be even more necessary in the future to ensure a level playing field.

24 → 12

originalus šaltinis (PDF) ↗