WORLD TRADE WT/CTE/W/75
5March 1998
ORGANIZATION(98-0852)
Committee onTrade andEnvironment
ECO-PACKAGING; OVERVIEW OFRECENT WORK
INOTHER INTERNATIONAL FORA
Note bytheSecretariat
I. INTRODUCTION
1. ThisNote hasbeen prepared inresponse totherequest bytheCommittee onTrade and
Environment (CTE) foranoverview ofwork recently undertaken inother international forainthe
fieldofeco-packaging, particularly withrespect toitsmarket access effects.1While anumber ofrecent
studies havebeenproduced oneco-packaging andarepresented below, more empirical evidence on
itsmarket access effects isrequired.2
2. Theorganizations reviewed inthisNote include: (a)theInternational Trade Centre (ITC) ,
(b)theOrganisation forEconomic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD), and(c)theInternational
Organization forStandardization (ISO).
II. THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE CENTRE
3. In1997, theITCpublished fourtypes ofdocuments pertaining toeco-packaging: (a)packaging
datafactsheets, (b)export packaging notes, (c)packaging publications relating toissues thatarisefrom
theAgreements onTechnical Barriers toTrade (TBT) andSanitary andPhytosanitary (SPS) Measures,
and(d)eco-packaging technical papers.3
4. Packaging datafactsheets present anoverview oftheeco-packaging schemes inplace in
developed countries. Thefollowing factsheets arethemost relevant tomarket access:
(i) ThePackaging Legislation ofItalyanditsPotential Impact onExport Packaging from
Developing Countries (No.41);
(ii) ThePackaging Legislation ofSpain anditsPotential Impact onExport Packaging from
Developing Countries (No.42);and
(iii) ThePackaging Legislation oftheUnited States anditsPotential Impact onExport
Packaging from Developing Countries (No.43).
1Asimilar Note, WT/CTE/W/45 (15April 1997), wasprepared bytheSecretariat oneco-labelling.
2Information onthemarket access effects ofeco-packaging waspreviously reviewed bytheSecretariat in
TRE/W/9(10March1993)ontheTradeEffectsofNewPackagingandLabellingRequirementsAimedatProtecting
theEnvironment ,andinWT/CTE/W/26 (26March 1996) onTheEffects ofEnvironmental Measures onMarket
Access, Especially inRelation toDeveloping Countries, InParticular theLeast Developed Among Them .
3Forafulllistof1997 ITCpublications intheareaofeco-packaging, delegations areinvited toconsult the
WTO Secretariat.WT/CTE/W/75
Page2
5. Despite theirtitles, theabove-mentioned factsheets arenotdesigned todiscuss market access
effects, buttrytoprovide exporters withfactual information about theregulations theyneedtocomply
with. However, theyareuseful tomarket access issues insofarastheyhighlight thedifferent aspects
ofeco-packaging schemes thatdeveloping countries havetoadapt themselves to.
6. TheITChasissued onlyoneexport packaging notein1997, designed tolayouttheregulations
withwhich developing country exports must comply forsaleinFrance andSwitzerland. Thenote
isentitled "Packaging forExport Products from Developing Countries, inLight ofRelevant French
andSwiss Environmental Regulations Concerning Packaging" (No.41). Themarket access effects
arenotthemselves thesubject ofdiscussion inthisnote, where focus isplaced ondescribing French
andSwiss regulations.
7. Ofthepackaging publications related toTBTandSPSissues, thepublication entitled "The
Packaging Legislation oftheUnited Kingdom andItsImplications fortheExporters ofPackaged
Products" (No.36),isthemost relevant tomarket access. Itdescribes thepackaging legislation of
theUK,andverybriefly discusses howitmaybecomplied with. Conclusions reached, thatcould
berelevant tomarket access discussions, areofthefollowing nature:
Theimpact oftheregulations oncompanies which choose tomeettheirobligations privately
willbeconsiderable. Companies planning todothisshould startpreparing atoncetogather
allnecessary data,astheywillthusfindmeeting thelegislation 'sdemands fareasier andless
onerous thaniftheywaitforthefinaldeadline.
8. OftheITC'seco-packaging technical papers, thetwostudies ofrelevance tomarket access
include:
(i) Safeandenvironmentally acceptable packaging -current criteria andlifecycle data
inindustrialized countries (No.40); and
(ii) Adapting packaging tomeetmarket, health andsafety andenvironmental requirements
indeveloping countries inAfrica (byC.B. Thornton).
9. Thefirstofthese papers isdesigned toinform exporters toindustrialized countries of
developments ineco-packaging, andinhealth andsafety regulations astheyapply tofoodpackaging.
Thesecond isacasestudy ofthepackaging industry inZimbabwe, andofhowithashadtochange
tomeetenvironmental regulations inexport markets. Thepaper describes theenvironmental problems
associated withdifferent forms ofpackaging usedinZimbabwe, andconcludes withanumber of
recommendations fordeveloping country exporters.
III. THE ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT
10. AttheOECD 'sJoint Session ofTrade andEnvironment Experts, heldinParis from
28-29 April 1997, itwasagreed thatfuture workwould beundertaken onlife-cycle management policies
thatdealwithissues suchaspackaging, take-back requirements andrecycling programmes.
11. Recent OECD studies thathavetouched ontheissue ofeco-packaging, haveexamined the
principle ofextended producer responsibility (EPR).4According totheOECD, EPRisanemerging
4TheOECD isorganizing anExtended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Workshop onLifting Barriers and
Limits toEPRApproaches, tobeheldinHelsinki, Finland, from 11-13 May1998. Theworkshop willaddress
thepotential effects ofEPR ontrade andcompetition.WT/CTE/W/75
Page3
strategy being usedinOECD (andother) countries topromote theintegration ofenvironmental costs
associated withproducts throughout theirlifecycles intothemarket price oftheproducts.
12. Asmany OECD governments haveexpressed aninterest inEPR, which several viewasan
interpretationofthePolluterPaysPrinciple,theOECDhasidentifiedtheinstancesinwhichthisprinciple
hasbeenusedinOECD countries, andexamined thekeyissues tobeaddressed inEPRstrategies.
EPRhasbeenapplied intheareaofpackaging. Ofthestudies tobeconsulted inthisregard arethe
following:
(i) Extended Producer Responsibility intheOECD Area, Report onLegal and
Administrative Approaches inMember Countries and Policy Options for
EPRProgrammes. Phase 1Report. OECD Environment Monographs No.114.1996.
(ii) Extended Producer Responsibility. Phase 2:CaseStudy onTheGerman Packaging
Ordinance. Group onPollution Prevention andControl. 1997.
(iii) Extended Producer Responsibility. Phase 2:Case Study onTheDutch Packaging
Covenant. Group onPollution Prevention andControl. 1997.
13. With respect tothemarket access effects ofeco-packaging, thefirstoftheabove-mentioned
studies isofsome relevance. Itbriefly examines howEPRisapplied topackaging through different
instruments, suchasdeposit-refund schemes andproduct charges (although thisisnotitsmainfocus),
andaddresses theeffects ofEPRoncompetition andinternational trade.
14. Inthecasestudy ontheDutch Packaging Covenant, theCovenant isassessed asapolicy tool
forimplementing EPR. Itsenvironmental implications, impact onresource efficiency, technological
innovation, andeffect onindustrial competitiveness areassessed. Itisthelatter section thatisthemost
relevant tomarket access, butisfairly briefandconfined toDutch producers.
15. While thecasestudy ontheGerman Packaging Ordinance addresses similar issues, itdoes
nothaveasection onindustrial competitiveness. However, information onthepotential market access
effects oftheOrdinance maybederived fromasection entitled "Economic Evaluation ofthePackaging
Ordinance".
IV. INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR STANDARDIZATION
16. TwoofISO'sTechnicalCommitteesaddresspackaging.TechnicalCommittee122onPackaging
works onstandardization inthefieldofpackaging withregard toterminology anddefinitions, packaging
dimensions, performance requirements andtests. Technical Committee 52onLight Gauge Metal
Containers works onstandardizing these containers. However, neither oneofthese twoCommittees
addresses theenvironmental aspects ofpackaging.
__________