Sciaena - Ocean # Conservation # Awareness

…1 www.sciaena.org | [email protected] Faro – April 24th, 2023 Sciaena’s feedback on the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation proposal Introduction This feedback is based on the position paper presented by the Rethink Plastic Alliance (RPA) and includes some extra points conferred by Sciaena – an ocean conservation NGO from Portugal – to be considered as improvements for the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) proposed by the European Commission. First, we welcome the proposed waste prevention and reuse targets, as well as the strengthened measures for tackling packaging waste. As it is well known, ambitious waste prevention targets and well-designed reuse systems can bring significant environmental benefits, including reducing emissions as well as resource, energy, and chemical use.

…bring significant environmental benefits, including reducing emissions as well as resource, energy, and chemical use. Unfortunately, although the proposal shows signs of going in the direction of prioritizing prevention and reuse, the document brings up recyclability first and previous to measures for prevention – as reuse and DRS – which contradicts the hierarchy proposed by Circular Economy approaches1. And, additionally, the proposed recyclability targets fall short on the objective to achieve 100% reusable or recyclable packaging by 2030. The proposal also includes loopholes and exemptions that might undermine the urgency of stopping the growing trend of packaging waste levels. As well, it also fails at incentivising the elimination of harmful chemicals in packaging, which is a major human health concern regarding packaging pollution, especially plastic.

…chemicals in packaging, which is a major human health concern regarding packaging pollution, especially plastic. 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. Also, it should be taken into consideration the future Global Plastics Treaty, which should be ready by 2024 and contemplates the creation of an International Legally Binding Instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment and might have impacts over this regulation.

Instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment and might have impacts over this regulation. 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, the environment, and sustainable businesses. The following points outline some recommendations to support the revision of the EU packaging legislation:

The following points outline some recommendations to support the revision of the EU packaging legislation: 1. In times of crisis, time cannot be taken for granted. The PPWR offers an important opportunity for the much-needed transition towards more circular packaging systems, at a time where it is crucial to tackle emissions, pollution, and a sustainable resource use in all sectors. Unfortunately, the publication of the Commission’s proposal was delayed by over a year compared to what had 1 https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circulate-products-and-materials Ref. Ares(2023)2891774 - 24/04/2023 2 www.sciaena.org | [email protected] been announced in the Circular Economy Action Plan2, and it comes after an extensive period of impact assessments and stakeholders’ consultations, started in 2019. Furthermore, we are witnessing deliberate efforts by the packaging sector/industry…

…achieving the much- needed objectives of this proposal, especially in times of crisis.

…that might threaten achieving the much- needed objectives of this proposal, especially in times of crisis. 2. Prioritize the essentials and vitals. It is a well-known fact that human and ecosystems health (including the marine environment) are being jeopardised by plastic pollution. Thus, it is fundamental to prioritise them in this proposal and its outcomes, above any economic or industrial interests. In this line, hazardous chemicals or substances of concern are addressed very vaguely into the PPWR proposal. It should include a clear link to REACH restrictions process when there is an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. All substances recognised in the EU as substances of concern and very high concern should be restricted or banned – depending on the level of concern – from use in packaging. This also means facing the uncomfortable truth about the urgency of a system…

…the environment and human health, along with research and investments for real solutions to tackle this issue. 3. Prevention and reuse targets must be the leading players. The pollution crisis demands immediate, urgent, and radical actions to be tackled as needed. For that reason, it is compulsory to apply the precautionary principle and maintain coherence with the hierarchy proposed by Circular Economy, in which reduction of waste is the first priority. Real solutions to achieve a reduction in packaging are: 1. First, banning all unnecessary packaging and production cut-offs; 2. Refill and reuse options coupled with DRS for facilitating delivery and collection must be the main characters of this proposal; 3. Only then, compostables and recyclability (both single-use item-based systems) should come as options for those products that can’t be part of a reuse or refill system.

…item-based systems) should come as options for those products that can’t be part of a reuse or refill system. As the proposal is written, it downplays the hierarchy proposed for an effective Circular Economy, since recyclability (Article 6 an. d 7) and compostable packaging (Article 8) comes up before prevention and minimization (Article 9) measures as reuse or refill (Article 10, 23-26 and 45) and DRS (Article 44) which is, 2 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/pdf/new_circular_economy_action_plan.pdf 3 www.sciaena.org | [email protected] indeed, only addressing single-use items in the proposal. a.

| [email protected] indeed, only addressing single-use items in the proposal. a. Legal basis for waste prevention measures and more ambitious targets As of today, Member States (MS) draw up their own implementation plans to achieve the goals of an EU regulation, which must be evaluated, commented, and finally approved by the Commission, to ensure that they fulfil the purpose and, at the same time, giving MS the power of initiative to adapt the measures onto their specific reality.

…the purpose and, at the same time, giving MS the power of initiative to adapt the measures onto their specific reality. However, as recognized in the paper position from the Rethink Plastic Alliance, there is a contradiction between Article 4 and Article 38.2-5, where the former prevents MS to develop their own requirements and measures beyond the regulation to restrict placing in the market packaging that complies with the regulation, whilst the latter mandates MS to develop waste prevention provisions to meet their packaging waste reduction targets. This, besides challenging the actual system for implementation plans, excessively restricts Member States’ possibilities to achieve waste prevention and to minimise the environmental impact of packaging, pursuant Article 38.

…to achieve waste prevention and to minimise the environmental impact of packaging, pursuant Article 38. We strongly recommend including Article 191 TFEU (environmental basis) as legal basis for this regulation, next to Article 114 TFEU (single market) regarding the provisions of Chapter VII on management of packaging and packaging waste, to ensure that Member States can implement more ambitious measures to meet the waste prevention targets. Furthermore, the current prevention targets set in the proposal are not ambitious enough to limit the packaging waste generated to a similar level as had in 2009 (149.9 kg of packaging waste per capita); thus, we agree with the RPA position paper that proposes an initial prevention target to reverse at least 20% the increased packaging volumes materialised over the last decade.

23 → 12

originalus šaltinis (PDF) ↗