Polish Confederation Lewiatan

Comments of the Polish Confederation Lewiatan in consultations on the delegated act regarding Article 29 of the PPWR As the Polish Confederation Lewiatan, we appreciate the work of the European Commission on a common-sense approach to the exclusion of packaging such as stretch films and PET straps from the reuse obligations resulting from Article 29(2) and (3) of the PPWR. The Commission has taken into account some of the arguments raised by stakeholders from various sectors regarding these provisions. However the draft does not include a similar exemption in relation to Article 29(1) of the above-mentioned Regulation and does not take into account the available environmental premises, which raises serious reservations both from the substantive perspective and the practical feasibility of the regulation. A key concern is the lack of legal certainty about how reuse levels are calculated.

…feasibility of the regulation. A key concern is the lack of legal certainty about how reuse levels are calculated. The European Commission has not provided information on the methodology for calculating the levels of reuse of transport packaging referred to in Article 29 of the PPWR Regulation, and the Regulation itself does not indicate such details. Without this information, it is impossible to properly assess the feasibility of the proposed derogation for stretch film. The EC's proposal does not specify whether the reuse targets of 100% or 40% are to be calculated on the basis of the weight of a particular material (i.e. for stretch film) or per unit of transport packaging consisting of different materials, considered as a whole (cardboard, pallet + stretch film).

…of transport packaging consisting of different materials, considered as a whole (cardboard, pallet + stretch film). Current reporting systems, in line with EU law (Directive 94/62/EC), are based on the type and material of the packaging and not on the unit of transport packaging composed of different materials. This lack of clarity creates significant legal uncertainty and makes it difficult for economic operators to assess the feasibility of the proposed rules. At the same time, it is incomprehensible that the Commission's approach differs within a single article of the PPWR. We note with great concern that the draft delegated act is based solely on Article 29(18)(a) of the PPWR, i.e.

PPWR. We note with great concern that the draft delegated act is based solely on Article 29(18)(a) of the PPWR, i.e. on the condition of specific economic constraints on the part of operators, completely ignoring the environmental condition provided for in Article 29(18)(c) according to which for stretch films and PET straps, disposable systems are characterized by a better environmental balance than reusable systems. The results of these analyses show that the implementation of reuse systems for these formats would lead to higher emissions, higher resource consumption and reduced logistics efficiency, which is contrary to the objectives of the PPWR. In accordance with Article 29(18)(c), such environmental evidence is the basis for excluding certain packaging formats from the reuse targets at the level of the formats as such.

…is the basis for excluding certain packaging formats from the reuse targets at the level of the formats as such. However, the draft delegated act is limited only to the operational exemptions in Article 29(2) and (3), leaving stretch films and PET straps within the scope of Article 29(1). This approach does not solve the fundamental problem and does not make use of the possibility to exclude these formats throughout Article 29(1) to (3). Keeping stretch films and strapping within the scope of Article 29(1) means that these formats continue to affect the result of the indicator calculated "in total", forcing investments in parallel one-off and reusable systems, additional reporting, IT costs and the reorganization of supply chains – despite the lack of environmental justification for such systems.

IT costs and the reorganization of supply chains – despite the lack of environmental justification for such systems. Importantly, we are dealing here with a situation of the so-called "reverse logic", in which the Commission proposes to exclude from reuse obligations where their implementation would be the Ref. Ares(2026)218328 - 09/01/2026 simplest in principle, i.e. in closed loops of internal logistics (Article 29(2) and (3)), while maintaining the above-mentioned obligations in paragraph 1 of the above-mentioned article, concerning deliveries to the end customer, even though it is the last stage where forcing reusable systems for materials such as stretch film or strapping is logistically extremely demanding and environmentally harmful. In addition, in the case of the so-called home delivery services, i.e.

…extremely demanding and environmentally harmful. In addition, in the case of the so-called home delivery services, i.e. deliveries of shipments directly to customers' places of residence, often including bulky and non-standard goods, the introduction of reuse systems for stretch film is associated with operational paralysis, namely: - lack of time to recover the packaging, i.e.

…for stretch film is associated with operational paralysis, namely: - lack of time to recover the packaging, i.e. the courier making the delivery does not have the opportunity to wait for the customer to unpack the product so as to pick up a reusable cover or protective mat from him; - Logistical carbon footprint: requiring thousands of dispersed customers to return reusable packaging would force additional vans to drive ("empty mileage") and therefore instead of reducing emissions, we will get increased vehicle traffic in cities and a higher carbon footprint of reverse logistics; - Space limitations: the transport of volumetric reusable systems in courier vehicles will drastically reduce their cargo space, which will force them to send more vehicles on routes (this will affect excessive costs for entrepreneurs and customers, as well as be associated with higher emissions).

…will affect excessive costs for entrepreneurs and customers, as well as be associated with higher emissions). Stretch film, by its very nature, has the characteristics of single-use packaging and does not meet the definitional or practical prerequisites for its repeated use. The function of stretch film is to mechanically secure loads with irregular, three-dimensional shapes by tightly wrapping them. This requires the use of a thin and stretchy film with very good adhesive properties, which adheres tightly to the surface of the load. Attempts to develop reusable stretch film systems, carried out, in demonstration conditions, confirm the impossibility of retaining its key adhesive properties after the first use. In practice, removing the film after use results in permanent damage to it – it loses its ability to adhere again and functionality, making it impossible to reuse.

…in permanent damage to it – it loses its ability to adhere again and functionality, making it impossible to reuse. There are currently no technologies that allow industrial cleaning and reuse of used stretch film in logistics. Attempts to develop alternative load-securing systems (such as belts or reusable elastic elements) have failed to provide adequate load stabilisation and have not proven effective under operational conditions. These systems tend to lose adjustment, resulting in insufficient transport security, mechanical damage to products and resource waste, which runs counter to the environmental objectives of many Green Deal regulations. It should be underlined that, in the light of Article 29(18)(b) of the PPWR, the Commission is empowered to establish exemptions when hygiene and food safety problems prevent the achievement of the objectives.

…is empowered to establish exemptions when hygiene and food safety problems prevent the achievement of the objectives. The maintenance of stretch film within the scope of Article 29(1) is in direct contradiction with this premise. In retail logistics (the so-called "mix" deliveries), where there are dozens of heterogeneous products of different sizes and structures on one pallet, stretch film is the only medium that guarantees microbiological and mechanical stability of the cargo. The inability to use stretch film for pallet units with a heterogeneous structure will drastically increase the scale of cargo losses. None of the currently available reusable solutions (nets, belts, covers) is capable of providing such tight and stable consolidation of products with diverse shapes.

(nets, belts, covers) is capable of providing such tight and stable consolidation of products with diverse shapes. In the food sector, this will lead to the destruction of unit packaging, leakage and cross-contamination, which in turn will force the large-scale disposal of otherwise wholesome food. Rather than preventing food waste, the regulation in its current form will become a catalyst for supply chain losses. To sum up, in our opinion, the appropriate regulatory direction is to exclude stretch film and strapping as packaging formats from the scope of reuse targets set out in Article 29(1)-(3), rather than to grant only temporary exemptions to selected groups of operators. A format-based approach ensures environmental coherence, the primacy of food safety, cost proportionality and legal certainty for market operators.

13 → 12

originalus šaltinis (PDF) ↗