Novamont SpA

…1 REVISION OF THE PPWD’ ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS: A FOCUS ON BIODEGRADABLE & COMPOSTABLE PLASTICS PACKAGING Introduction The review of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (PPWD) in 2018 required the European Commission to examine the feasibility of reinforcing the Essential Requirements (ERs) for packaging with a view to “improving design for reuse and promoting high quality recycling, as well as strengthening their enforcement”. In this context and, moreover, in the context of the EU’s New Circular Economy Package and Plastics Strategy, the European Commission will work on the revision of the Essential Requirements for placing packaging (Directive 1994/64). The European Commission assigned to the consultants, Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd, a study assessing possible options and feasibility for the review of the PPWD’s Essential Requirements (ER).

Ltd, a study assessing possible options and feasibility for the review of the PPWD’s Essential Requirements (ER). The study was recently published1 and this document represent a first analysis with a particular focus on biodegradable and compostable plastics packaging. Executive Summary The study on the legal review of the ER focuses on the need to provide a definition of “recyclable” packaging. Within the several options provided by Eunomia, it seems that the definition does not include the organic recycling/reprocessing of packaging. Not including the reprocessing of compostable packaging (both paper and cellulose) within the definition of recyclable packaging would not respect EU legislation (Waste Framework Directive and Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive) creating legal uncertainty and would lead to different legislative frameworks across Europe.

Waste Directive) creating legal uncertainty and would lead to different legislative frameworks across Europe. It is, therefore, paramount that the definition of “recyclable” packaging includes expressively organic recycling. For the revision of the Essential Requirements for biodegradable and compostable packaging Eunomia outlines three different options.

…of the Essential Requirements for biodegradable and compostable packaging Eunomia outlines three different options. The preferred option – in line with the other study carried out by Eunomia “Relevance of Biodegradable and Compostable Consumer Plastic Products and Packaging in a Circular Economy”2 – would introduce a requirement for an assessment at the packaging specification/design stage of whether or not compostable packaging is suitable for the intended application and “choices for products and packaging should prioritise recyclability over compostability”.This option would: • fix by law what could be done with compostable plastics – which per se is a serious discrimination for these materials; • neglect the organic recycling/reprocessing of packaging creating a hierarchy among recycling technologies that represents a breach of EU legislation (WFD and PPWD).

…packaging creating a hierarchy among recycling technologies that represents a breach of EU legislation (WFD and PPWD). 1 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/05a3dace-8378-11ea-bf12-01aa75ed71a1/language- en/format-PDF/source-129788400 2 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/3fde3279-77af-11ea-a07e-01aa75ed71a1/language- en/format-PDF/source-129791435 Ref. Ares(2020)7795479 - 19/12/2020 2 1. Definition of “recyclable” packaging The study on the legal review of the ER focuses on the need to provide a definition of “recyclable”, which should help to define which packaging is effectively and efficiently recycled at European level and consequently admitted on the market. The study gives three options: • Option 1: Recyclable defined by qualitative statements: it would include general conditions regarding collection and reprocessing of packaging.

…by qualitative statements: it would include general conditions regarding collection and reprocessing of packaging. “Recyclable packaging is that which can be effectively and efficiently separated from the waste stream, collected, sorted and aggregated into defined streams for recycling processes, and recycled at scale through relevant industrial processes such that it is turned into a secondary raw material, in line with Article 6a of the PPWD for calculating recycling targets, and of a sufficient quality that it can find end markets to replace the use of primary raw material. Innovative packaging placed on the market that requires new infrastructure to be developed shall be recycled at scale within a certain period of time.

…market that requires new infrastructure to be developed shall be recycled at scale within a certain period of time. At least 95% of the functional unit of packaging shall be recyclable according to this definition, with the remaining minor components compatible with the relevant recycling process and not hindering the recyclability of the main components, through reference to CR 13688.” As admitted by Eunomia a practical interpretation will vary between Member States, due to differences in recycling capacities and technologies. • Option 2: Attach to the above reported definition of recyclable a combination of both DfR (design for recycling/positive-negative lists) and recycling rate approach. At its essence, the DfR approach would require the adoption and regular updating (every 3 years) of lists of design features that are compatible with or disrupt recycling processes.

…regular updating (every 3 years) of lists of design features that are compatible with or disrupt recycling processes. The recycling rate approach would add that producers would have to prove that they are recyclable and recycled above a threshold level (20% is suggested). The approach to design for recycling criteria has evolved into a complex series of permutations aiming to address the shortfalls highlighted by stakeholders of such a system. The procedure to establish the lists would involve a technical committee and the final deliverable would take the form of a legally-binding act, probably adopted by comitology. Eunomia suggests that all stakeholders would be represented on the technical committee, nevertheless it is not clear what would be the legal basis for civil society stakeholders’ participation and for an appeal process.

…it is not clear what would be the legal basis for civil society stakeholders’ participation and for an appeal process. Only EU institutional stakeholders have the legal authority under the Treaties to adopt legally-binding acts via a technical committee • Option 3: Attach to the above reported definition of recyclable a recycling rate threshold would be added. Producers would have to prove that the packaging is recyclable and recycled above a threshold level (20% is suggested) at European level. Eunomia states that this would be a more objective approach and one that would define the ‘what’ without prescribing the ‘how’, thus offering more flexibility in packaging design. However, a significant effort would be required to make it technically feasible.

…more flexibility in packaging design. However, a significant effort would be required to make it technically feasible. CONSIDERATION ON “RECYCLABLE” DEFINITION’S OPTIONS Concerning biodegradable and compostable plastic packaging it should be recognized that the current definition of “recyclable” (option 1) might neglect the organic recycling/reprocessing of packaging, even though the definition proposed recalls article 6a of the PPWD which includes organic recycling in line with the current Essential Requirements. If this recycling technology – thus compostable materials – 3 would be excluded from this definition it would represent a serious violation of EU legislation and it would discriminate a packaging that has been on the market for over 25 years complaint to EU’s legislation and relative harmonized standards (EN 13432).

…has been on the market for over 25 years complaint to EU’s legislation and relative harmonized standards (EN 13432). The definition of “recyclable” packaging needs to explicitly comprise not only mechanic but also organic recycling as is the case in WFD Art 3 point 17, which states: ‘recycling’ means any recovery operation by which waste materials are reprocessed into products, materials or substances whether for the original or other purposes. It includes the reprocessing of organic material but does not include energy recovery and the reprocessing into materials that are to be used as fuels or for backfilling operations Organic recycling is relevant for both paper and compostable plastic items, especially in the light of Member States that allow for certified compostable packaging to enter the biowaste collection and treatment (article 22 of the WFD).

…that allow for certified compostable packaging to enter the biowaste collection and treatment (article 22 of the WFD). Consequently, it cannot be discriminated, thus the definition of recyclable should be revised in order that it explicitly covers also organic recycling in line with the WFD and calculation method of the recycling of compostable plastic packaging provided by the PPWD (article 6a.4). The option providing a combination of both DfR (design for recycling/positive-negative lists) and recycling rate approach (option 2), is quite challenging. The level of complexity of the DfR approach does not reflect all recycling technologies: the study provided by Eunomia is clearly based only on examples coming from mechanical recyclers of plastics, neglecting – once again – the organic recycling of plastics, thus composters.

36 → 12

originalus šaltinis (PDF) ↗

NOVAMONT POSITION ON THE PROPOSAL FOR A REGULATION AMENDING DIRECTIVE 94/62/EC ON PACKAGING AND PACKAGING WASTE (PPWR) On 30 November 2022, the European Commission presented the proposal for a Regulation on a new regulatory framework for packaging and packaging waste (PPWR). Though the proposal goes in the right direction by acknowledging that compostable applications have a beneficial role to play in the circular economy (see in particular art. 8.1), further improvement of the proposal is needed to unleash the full potential of this innovative technology and to ensure Europe can profit of the considerable return on investment into the circular bioeconomy while keeping European industry competitive and preventing the leadership from being handed over to markets outside of Europe.

European industry competitive and preventing the leadership from being handed over to markets outside of Europe. 1. MINIMUM CONTENT OF RENEWABLE RAW MATERIALS / BIOBASED The proposal rightly exempts compostable packaging from mandatory targets of recycled content (art. 7.4). Innovative material should be evaluated on their potential to de-fossilize the industry. In line with the Taxonomy Regulation and the Policy Framework on Bioplastics, a minimum content (at least 60%) of renewable raw material for compostable packaging should be set out by the PPWR. Equivalence of bio-based and recycled content appears to be the best tool to ensure both food safety as well as environmental protection.

…recycled content appears to be the best tool to ensure both food safety as well as environmental protection. 2. COMPOSTABLE PACKAGING AND FOOD CONTACT APPLICATIONS The proposal recognizes the positive role of compostable packaging in some applications (art. 8.1). When contaminated with food residues, the only viable solution for these applications is composting (organic recycling). Considering the complexity of ensuring food safety through material recycling, other food contact applications should be added to the positive list (article 8, par. 1 and 2) now, as long as they comply with eco-design criteria for organic recycling provided in Annex III. In addition, Member States that have fully transposed the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) should be able to decide on exemptions from restrictions for single use compostable packaging set out in the proposal (art. 22).

…able to decide on exemptions from restrictions for single use compostable packaging set out in the proposal (art. 22). 3. LIGHTWEIGHT PLASTIC CARRIER BAGS AND ADEQUATE COLLECTION AND RECYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE The Waste Framework Directive (WFD) provides for the mandatory collection and recycling through composting of domestic organic waste in all MS by the end of 2023. The proposal (Art. 8, 2) appears to question this obligation and should be modified to ensure lightweight plastic carrier bags can be used in all Member States where Art. 22 of the WFD has been transposed and adequate waste management systems set up. The same flexibility and possibility should be guarantee for Member States relating to packaging other than that cited in art. 8, par. 1 and 2, and in particular with regard to compostable packaging listed in point 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Annex V.

…art. 8, par. 1 and 2, and in particular with regard to compostable packaging listed in point 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Annex V. 4. COMPOSTABLE PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS Art. 8 of the proposal sets up requirements for compostable packaging based on intrinsic material properties (compostability). Some of the assumptions behind such requirements (e.g. preventing contamination of other recycling streams) are not related to intrinsic properties but the potential misuse of packaging waste - which are better addressed by communication campaigns – which is true for all packaging material. ANNEX III is the right place to address eco-design criteria of compostable packaging, therefore article 8 should refers to Annex III when it comes to evaluate the recyclability of compostable packaging.

…therefore article 8 should refers to Annex III when it comes to evaluate the recyclability of compostable packaging. 5. Stifling Innovation The proposal sets out rigid boundaries in packaging design and development, instead of promoting innovation towards a more sustainable use of materials, de facto limiting innovation in packaging. To give legal certainly, bio-based, biodegradable and compostable polymers should be included in the definition of “innovative materials”. The proposal is ambiguous in this respect. Innovative polymers should have a 5-year derogation from “recyclable packaging” measures to allow for different polymers to be aggregated into defined streams. A timeframe to upscale proper sorting technologies should be defined to enable better quality waste streams. EPR fees should be “earmarked” accordingly. Ref. Ares(2023)2835174 - 21/04/2023

originalus šaltinis (PDF) ↗