Interesų grupė
© Mar-2023 1 / 48 AMENDMENTS FOR PACKAGING AND PACKAGING WASTE REGULATION PROPOSAL This document is intended to suggest amendments to the proposal for Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation 2022/0396 (COD) submitted to consultation on the 30th of November 2023. As the Belgian Federation for Chemicals, Life Sciences and Polymers, we have the unique distinction of covering both very demanding users as well as manufacturers of plastics packaging, along the entire value chain, from basic substances to recycling. Our coverage is therefore very broad with a particular attention to the services delivered to society and to public health. Our proposal for amendments is as balanced as possible considering and clarifying the political intent, the policy effectiveness of both the proposal and the repealed directive, the services to society and our industry requirements.
…effectiveness of both the proposal and the repealed directive, the services to society and our industry requirements. Reference: PPWR, 2022/0396 (COD) Date: 30 March 2023 Author: Olivier Van Volden - [email protected] – +32 478 491 556 Table of content 1 Article 1 Subject Matter ............................................................................................................................................................ 3 1.1 Why amending the subject matter? 3 1.2 Proposed amendment 4 2 Article 2 Scope .......................................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Why amending the scope ?
…5 2.1 Why amending the scope ? 5 2.2 Proposed amendment 5 3 Article 3 Definitions .................................................................................................................................................................. 6 3.1 Why amending the definition of packaging? 6 3.2 Why amending the definition of integrated component and separated component? 8 3.3 Why amending the definition of economic operators? 8 3.4 Why amending the definition of post-consumer plastic waste? 10 3.5 Why amending contact sensitive packaging? 11 3.6 Proposed amendments 12 4 Article 4 Free Movement ........................................................................................................................................................ 14 4.1 Why amending free movement ?
…14 4.1 Why amending free movement ? 14 4.2 Proposed amendment 14 5 Article 5 Requirements for substances in packaging ........................................................................................................... 15 5.1 Why amending requirements for substances by clarifying substance of concern and product composition? 15 5.2 Proposed amendment 18 6 Article 6 Recyclable Packaging .............................................................................................................................................. 19 6.1 Why amending reviewing recyclability, at scale, collection rate, recyclable grade, and recyclable reusable packaging? 19 6.2 Proposed amendment 21 7 Article 7 Minimum Recycled Content in plastic packaging. ..................................................................................................
…plastic packaging. .................................................................................................. 25 7.1 Why amending recycled content on various applications? 25 7.2 Proposed amendment 28 8 Article 8 Compostable Packaging .......................................................................................................................................... 30 8.1 Why amending considering the content of the packaging? 30 8.2 Proposed amendment 30 9 Article 9 Packaging Minimisation........................................................................................................................................... 30 9.1 Why amending by understanding the goal of packaging minimisation? 30 Ref.
…30 9.1 Why amending by understanding the goal of packaging minimisation? 30 Ref. Ares(2023)2344909 - 31/03/2023 © Mar-2023 2 / 48 9.2 Annex IV Methodology For Packaging Minimisation Assessment and proposed amendment 32 9.3 Proposed amendment 33 10 Article 10 Reusable Packaging............................................................................................................................................. 34 10.1 Why amending by understanding the versatilities of reuse options? 34 10.2 Proposed amendment 36 10.3 Proposed amendment to Annex VI 37 11 Article 22 Restrictions on use of certain packaging formats .............................................................................................. 37 11.1 Why amending by understanding the targeted applications?
…37 11.1 Why amending by understanding the targeted applications? 37 11.2 Proposed amendment 38 11.3 Assessment of Annex V 38 12 Article 26 Re-use and Refill targets ..................................................................................................................................... 41 12.1 Why amending by considering the broad scope of operational requirements? 41 12.2 Proposed amendment 41 13 The legal instrument ............................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................ 44 13.1 Regulatory Impact Assessment 44 13.2 Proportionality 44 13.3 Directive versus Regulation 45 13.4 Dual legal basis on some articles 45 13.5 Resources to draft Delegated and Implementing Acts 46 13.6 Competent authorities and enforcement 46 © Mar-2023 3 / 48 1 Article 1 Subject Matter 1.1 Why amending the subject matter? 1.1.1 From 1992 to 2022 It should be noted that the subject addressed by the proposed regulation of 2023 fundamentally differs from the directive. In 1994, the issue of waste management was extended to packaging while considering that the need for packaging cannot be undermined. The product norm aspect of the directive aimed to support the internal market by setting appropriate rules valid across the Union.
…norm aspect of the directive aimed to support the internal market by setting appropriate rules valid across the Union. While certain member states effectively and efficiently implement the directive, others were obviously more reluctant. In 1994, with respect to waste, the principal goal was to avoid littering, while collected waste was usually destroyed. The publication of the Waste framework directive further attempted to foster appropriate waste management and introduced a ladder to value waste before destruction. In this respect, avoiding waste means avoiding discarding of an item as waste. In other words, it means to keep the item in the regular economy as much as possible. Under the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (PPWD), the intention of avoiding waste aimed to limit the use of packaging to what is necessary.
Waste Directive (PPWD), the intention of avoiding waste aimed to limit the use of packaging to what is necessary. The directive also set a trajectory to better and more efficient packaging solution, using the intention of reducing waste in weight. The eventual change in packaging material should have been demonstrated using life cycle assessment while promoting the use of lighter materials that the regular ones used in the 80’s. The Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) was primarily used to ensure collection, by sharing the burden for a clean environment between all stakeholders (industry placing an item on the market, public bodies in charge on maintaining the public place clean (effective cleaning and enforcement), and the end users who will eventually discard the item).
…the public place clean (effective cleaning and enforcement), and the end users who will eventually discard the item). The development of the legislation and the political intent finetuned EPR to ensure valuation of the discarded item by reuse (after losing the waste status), by recycling or by energy recovery. The trajectory of waste management started in the 90’s should have eventually led to avoid destruction of waste, or landfills. This is a failure to be nuanced as some MS were ambitious and successfully achieved high targets. As stated in the recitals, the proposal for a regulation has many objectives which may be summarised as • imposing harmonisation rules on packaging and the management of packaging waste across the Union o define some requirements for packaging to contain circular (recycled) material or to be reused.
…across the Union o define some requirements for packaging to contain circular (recycled) material or to be reused. o appropriate and unified labelling o similar collection and EPR schemes in all countries • promote disposal prevention by reusing packaging whenever possible. • reduce the dependency on primary resource for the manufacturing of packaging by supporting either efficient reconditioning for reuse (from waste) or material recovery by recycling technologies as source of material for new packaging. These intents are complementary which suggests that • reuse is not per se the appropriate solution, • any scheme must be economically and environmentally beneficiary. • the trajectory is driven by the green deal and by the transition towards circular economy or to sustainability.
247 → 12