# IMMC.EESC-2022-06037-AC.ENG.xhtml.EESC-2022-06037-00-00-AC-TRA-EN.docx

| OPINION |
| --- |
| European Economic and Social Committee |
| Revision of Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste |
| _____________ |
| Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904, and repealing Directive 94/62/EC


  [COM(2022) 677 final – 2022/0396 (COD)] |
| |
| NAT/854 |
| |
| Rapporteur: István KOMORÓCZKI |
| Co-rapporteur: Panagiotis GKOFAS |

OPINION

European Economic and Social Committee

Revision of Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste

_____________

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904, and repealing Directive 94/62/EC

[COM(2022) 677 final – 2022/0396 (COD)]

NAT/854

Rapporteur: István KOMORÓCZKI

Co-rapporteur: Panagiotis GKOFAS

EN

Referral

| Referral | European Parliament, 13/03/2023


  Council, 08/03/2023 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Articles 114 and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment |
| Adopted in section | 13/04/2023 |
| Adopted at plenary | 27/04/2023 |
| Plenary session No | 578 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 153/0/1 |

Referral

European Parliament, 13/03/2023

European Parliament, 13/03/2023

Council, 08/03/2023

Council, 08/03/2023

Legal basis

Legal basis

Articles 114 and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Articles 114 and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Section responsible

Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment

Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment

Adopted in section

Adopted in section

13/04/2023

13/04/2023

Adopted at plenary

Adopted at plenary

27/04/2023

27/04/2023

Plenary session No

Plenary session No

578

578

Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions)

Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions)

153/0/1

153/0/1

1.Conclusions and recommendations

1.

Conclusions and recommendations

1.1Waste generated from packaging continues to increase globally and is highly detrimental to our health, lives, economies and the planet, when not properly managed. The EESC therefore welcomes this initiative and calls on the European Commission to address issues related to packaging, packaging waste and packaging policies in a coordinated manner, and to harmonise the rules across the EU.

1.1

Waste generated from packaging continues to increase globally and is highly detrimental to our health, lives, economies and the planet, when not properly managed. The EESC therefore welcomes this initiative and calls on the European Commission to address issues related to packaging, packaging waste and packaging policies in a coordinated manner, and to harmonise the rules across the EU.

1.2Evidence-based policy measures are needed in order to ensure the best environmental outcome. Climate change challenges provide an opportunity for Europe to build a sustainable and future-oriented industrial base. The EESC recommends that all upcoming policy initiatives should be based on scientific evidence and on a sound understanding of their real impact on the environment. It is strategically helpful to support the use of the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology as a tool to review the environmental impact of products throughout their entire life cycle.

1.2

Evidence-based policy measures are needed in order to ensure the best environmental outcome. Climate change challenges provide an opportunity for Europe to build a sustainable and future-oriented industrial base. The EESC recommends that all upcoming policy initiatives should be based on scientific evidence and on a sound understanding of their real impact on the environment. It is strategically helpful to support the use of the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology as a tool to review the environmental impact of products throughout their entire life cycle.

1.3The EESC supports ongoing efforts to decrease packaging waste, as it has a highly negative impact on the environment. At the same time, it regrets that the proposal does not include a thorough analysis of expected impacts on the environment, human health and economic operators. Packaging plays a key role in ensuring the safety, health and quality of food. From this perspective, environmental protection as well as the safety of consumers should be addressed with the new regulation.

1.3

The EESC supports ongoing efforts to decrease packaging waste, as it has a highly negative impact on the environment. At the same time, it regrets that the proposal does not include a thorough analysis of expected impacts on the environment, human health and economic operators. Packaging plays a key role in ensuring the safety, health and quality of food. From this perspective, environmental protection as well as the safety of consumers should be addressed with the new regulation.

1.4The EESC emphasises that reusing and refilling are far from the best choices, from a climate-change and environmental point of view. Due to long transport distances compared to local collection and recycling, the increased logistics will have a negative effect. Cleaning refillable bottles or reusable tableware increases energy consumption, emissions and water consumption. The EESC again regrets the lack of a proper impact assessment here.

1.4

The EESC emphasises that reusing and refilling are far from the best choices, from a climate-change and environmental point of view. Due to long transport distances compared to local collection and recycling, the increased logistics will have a negative effect. Cleaning refillable bottles or reusable tableware increases energy consumption, emissions and water consumption. The EESC again regrets the lack of a proper impact assessment here.

1.5The economic impact will clearly depend on the exact wording of the envisaged delegated acts, which are to be adopted only within five years after the adoption of the regulation. The mere fact that the concrete parameters of the rules will only be known after the adoption of the proposed regulation creates huge business uncertainties and a serious risk to the investment and innovation cycle.

1.5

The economic impact will clearly depend on the exact wording of the envisaged delegated acts, which are to be adopted only within five years after the adoption of the regulation. The mere fact that the concrete parameters of the rules will only be known after the adoption of the proposed regulation creates huge business uncertainties and a serious risk to the investment and innovation cycle.

1.6The Committee calls on all relevant stakeholders, such as social dialogue partners, economic operators, workers, consumers, consumer protection organisations, environmental organisations and the European Circular Economy Stakeholder Platform to be involved in the implementation of the new regulation. Transposing the updated regulation into national legislations should not impose unnecessary administrative or operational burdens to SMEs. In this regard, it is important to ensure that the deadlines for implementation and entry into force are adequate. The EESC points out that the regulation replaces the role of recycling established by the circular economy package with Art. 26, which is applied directly to all economic operators, regardless of whether or not it is environmentally efficient, combined with an enforced restriction of the use of packaging, regardless of whether or not it will lead to a health hazard or to the deterioration of the environment.

1.6

The Committee calls on all relevant stakeholders, such as social dialogue partners, economic operators, workers, consumers, consumer protection organisations, environmental organisations and the European Circular Economy Stakeholder Platform to be involved in the implementation of the new regulation. Transposing the updated regulation into national legislations should not impose unnecessary administrative or operational burdens to SMEs. In this regard, it is important to ensure that the deadlines for implementation and entry into force are adequate. The EESC points out that the regulation replaces the role of recycling established by the circular economy package with Art. 26, which is applied directly to all economic operators, regardless of whether or not it is environmentally efficient, combined with an enforced restriction of the use of packaging, regardless of whether or not it will lead to a health hazard or to the deterioration of the environment.

1.7When it comes to the "recycling at scale" criteria, the EESC proposes raising the percentage of packaging waste recycled at scale (packaging collected, sorted and recycled in EU Member States) from 75% to 90% of the EU population, and at the same time, covering at least two-thirds of EU Member States by 2030, to achieve effective implementation. The Committee also supports the implementation of recyclability performance grades and phasing-out the worst-performing Grade E packaging by 2030.

1.7

When it comes to the "recycling at scale" criteria, the EESC proposes raising the percentage of packaging waste recycled at scale (packaging collected, sorted and recycled in EU Member States) from 75% to 90% of the EU population, and at the same time, covering at least two-thirds of EU Member States by 2030, to achieve effective implementation. The Committee also supports the implementation of recyclability performance grades and phasing-out the worst-performing Grade E packaging by 2030.

1.8The EESC recommends mandatory recycled content targets to only be considered and applied for specific packaging materials, where this could lead to higher use of recyclates (e.g. plastics). In the case of steel packaging, mandatory recycled content targets would be detrimental and could lead to a disruption in the steel scrap market. In addition, the criteria for recyclability of packaging should include the requirements of design for recycling, separate collection, effective sorting, and the ability of the material to be recycled multiple times. Furthermore, any proposed waste-reduction targets set in the regulation should be set per material (material-specific targets), taking into account their specificities and recycling rates.

1.9The EESC also questions the effectiveness of a flat 15% target, as this has a discriminatory impact on consumers from countries that have a relatively low production per capita of packaging waste. Statistical figures show that production of packaging waste in countries with higher consumption is up to three times higher than in countries with low consumption, yet all countries without distinction are expected to reduce the amount of packaging per consumer by 15%. Instead, the target should be calculated on the basis of the number of inhabitants, economic activity, industrial production and the income of the inhabitants.

1.10The EESC calls for applying and enforcing protection and supporting schemes (public education, trainings, collective bargaining, compensation schemes and transfers to other industries) for workers employed in the industries in transition and which will soon be affected by the implementation of the revised regulation to transfer to other industries.

1.11The EESC encourages Members States to launch strategies to develop their repair industries and shops by providing incentives to invest in repair machines, lowering the price of spare parts, and creating synergies across sectors.

1.12Packaging is a fast-developing industry involving many places of work. It is therefore imperative to carry out impact assessments and to diligently monitor the new regulations on a regular basis in the Member States, both at central and local government level, as they are key for assessing the impacts on economic viability, work places and environmental sustainability.

1.13The European Commission is called on to adopt a differentiated, customised framework to evaluate, monitor and compare packaging strategies for various products. In order to decrease the amount of packaging waste, the actual need for packaging should be regularly assessed, and optimised solutions revisited. With regard to the well-functioning national deposit return systems it will be important to find ways where the new EU bar-codes and the existing national ones can continue and operate in parallel.

1.14Consumers should be involved in and incentivised for reusing, returning or recycling packaging material in an optimal manner, through positive and negative compensation mechanisms. Consumers will play an important role in the deposit return system, in reusing and re-filling, and the EESC calls for awareness raising and educational campaigns which will enable consumers to better see and understand their role.

1.15The EESC calls on the Council and the European Parliament to closely work together with local and regional authorities and economic operators in order to find the best ways to put in practice the labelling system.

1.16The quality and quantity of waste determine its potential for recycling. The EESC calls on Member States to evaluate the environmental and economic implications of the necessary waste-management activities during the planning phase.

1.17In terms of legislative principles, the regulation mixes a norm which directly affects individual economic operators with a directive which addresses framework objectives to Member States. Therefore it should be split in two legislative acts. For the first, as a directive setting up the targets for the Member States in terms of management of packaging and packaging waste. For the second, as a regulation on basic requirements for packaging and requirements for their recyclability and labelling.

1.18With regards to waste reduction, the EESC recommends that the review of packaging and packaging waste legislation be accompanied by a review of the Landfill Directive (99/31/EC), in order to reduce the amount of landfilled waste.

2.Background and foundations

The need to continuously consider the impacts of packaging on the environment

2.1Globally, most packaging is single-use and either thrown away or recycled instead of reused. Environment authorities in large industrialised nations estimate that close to half of all municipal solid waste comprises food and materials used in food packaging
  1
  .

2.2Due to the waste of valuable resources and the pollution caused by this consumption and disposal system, our health, the environment, sustainability, and the global climate are all at serious risk.

2.3It is therefore key that the European Commission regularly monitor packaging waste, as well as its collection, management and reuse, with all relevant stakeholders.

2.4Industries in transition, as well as employees and small owners in some sectors under scrutiny, are expected to face severe difficulties and income or job losses due to a decrease in total turnover caused by the substitution effect. Social protection schemes and re-training initiatives could reduce this impact.

2.5Likewise, some regions that rely on certain packaging technologies and industrial production might experience job losses and migration from both highly and less-specialised workers in the short term. Customised policies at local level are essential for avoiding brain drain and the desertification of rural and industrial areas.

2.6It is crucial to monitor the impact of the implementation of legislation through a permanent assessment mechanism in order to review the records of each country, exchange best practices and propose parametric revisions. Potential upgrades in the technological capacity of industries to reuse and recycle specific materials must be taken into account (e.g. biodegradable plastics), with a special focus on public health and long-term impacts on the environment.

Tools supported by the European Commission for managing issues related to packaging and packaging materials

2.7The Commission's draft regulation details the key roles that digitalisation and sustainability play in reducing packaging and packaging waste. It is essential to align them, as they are key for achieving the Green Deal targets and for enhancing Europe's resilience, future prosperity and sustainability.

Natural and energy resources for packaging – concerns and solutions

2.8Modern food packaging – a major use of packaging materials – offers a means of making food dependable, hygienic, shelf-stable and safe. However, most food packaging is still single-use and cannot be fully recycled, if not properly separated by other material fractions and collected, because they are either soiled with food, too small or multilayer.

2.9Each packaging type requires numerous resources, including energy, water, chemicals, petroleum, minerals, wood and textiles. In addition, its production frequently results in wastewater and sludge with harmful chemicals, and air emissions of greenhouse gases, heavy metals and particles.

2.10Various man-made and synthetic materials, including ceramics, glass, metal, paper, paperboard, cardboard, wax, wood, and increasingly plastics, are used to create modern food packaging. Most of this packaging is made of glass, stiff plastic, paper, and paperboard. Even though some more recent plastics are created from corn and other plant materials, the majority are still made from petroleum and contain additives such as polymers.

2.11It is pivotal that the European Commission set out in the proposal a minimum, mandatory bio-based content of at least 60% for compostable packaging. Paperboards are frequently lined with plastic that is not visible, and many different forms of packaging are labelled with text using printer inks.

2.12The increased use of different kinds of packaging, together with low reuse and recycling rates, may hinder the creation of a low-carbon circular economy in the EU.

2.13The EESC believes that compostable packaging which is safe for contact with food is the most suitable solution, and plays a key role in ensuring more waste is biodegradable. It would also decrease the amount of non-biodegradable plastics, which otherwise contaminate compost.

3.
     Plastic packaging

3.1The UN has deemed oceanic plastic pollution "a planetary calamity", mainly due to the amount of food packaging made of plastic that has found its way into rivers
  2
  . This raises concerns for all aquatic species.

3.2Member States will need to consider a new approach to plastics based on the circular economy. They can promote the development of circular packaging choices by opting for other materials or specific polymer materials to ensure a much better level of recyclability. When recyclability of plastics is not option, it should be used as generation for biofuel.

4.Permanent materials, recycling data and issues with refill targets of alcoholic drink bottles

4.1Different food packaging materials have different characteristics and properties which affect their recyclability potential. Materials such as aluminium, glass and steel are considered permanent materials, as they show minimal degradation during service life and can be endlessly recycled without losing quality or inherent material properties.

4.2Interest in permanent materials has grown significantly and in parallel with circular-economy thinking. Such materials need to be properly recognised in future legislation, with future policies efficiently supporting recycling them.

4.3Fibre-based and other natural material-based packaging can support growth decoupled from resource use. It is made from renewable materials, whilst being durable, attractive, recyclable and biodegradable. Recent studies have indicated that fibre packaging can be recycled in excess of 25 times, demonstrating it is an essential component of the circular economy.

4.4The recycling rate for glass packaging in the EU in 2020 reached an average of 76%
  3
  , with some room for improvement in collection schemes and sorting in some Member States. In 2017 the rates were 95% in Sweden, 88.4% in Germany, 78% in Italy and 61% in France
  4
  .

4.5The proposal lays down mandatory targets for reusing and refilling alcoholic drink bottles. However, key economic operators are of the firm opinion that these targets may pose significant challenges, both in terms of supply and public health risks, given that bottles are normally used by consumers for other practical purposes. This mandatory reuse might cause problems, partly due to infection from the development of pathogens and bacteria, among other things.

5.Water and land pollution from food packaging

5.1When packaging is discarded in landfills, especially plastic packaging, in addition to unacceptable heavy contamination in the ground and the environment, chemicals from the materials, such as inks and colours from labelling will also leak into the groundwater and soil.

5.2Plastic waste in particular frequently travels to the planet's most remote regions, endangering human, bird, and marine life. Plastic pollution in oceans has gotten so bad that the head of ocean affairs for the UN has called it a planetary crisis.

5.3Ocean contamination is just one of the negative effects of plastic on the ecosystem. According to one study, one-third of all plastic is thrown away and ends up in waterways or soil. Others indicate that the amount of microplastic pollution in soils worldwide is between 4 and 23 times worse than the amount of microplastic pollution in our oceans.

5.4Microplastics in the soil will negatively affect the behaviour of soil animals (such as earthworms), and thus spread illnesses and produce other harmful impacts. Microplastics have also been found in new born babies. In addition, degrading plastics absorb harmful substances such pesticides like DDT once they are in the land and waterways.

6.Pollution of air and oceans from food packaging

6.1Food packaging waste that cannot be composted or recycled often ends up in landfills, emitting air emissions, including greenhouse gases. Landfills release methane, ammonia and hydrogen sulphide. In contrast, incinerators release mercury, lead, hydrogen chloride, sulphur dioxides, nitrous oxides, particulate matter and dioxins, which are the most dangerous compounds.

6.2Most coffee cups and lids, coffee pods, Styrofoam containers, plastic bottles and caps, plastic wraps, six-pack holders, and plastic grocery bags are designed for single use. However, if they are not recycled, they clogs our waterways, where animals mistake them for food or become entangled.

6.3All the plastic floating around the oceans is incredibly harmful to animals. Ocean Conservancy
  5
  says: "Plastic has been found in 59% of sea birds like albatross and pelicans, in 100% of sea turtle species and more than 25% of fish sampled from seafood markets".

6.4While billions of pounds of plastic are made of trillions of pieces swirling around the oceans and carried along by the currents, only about 5% of that plastic mass is visible on the surface; the rest floats below or has settled on the ocean floor.

6.5The EESC believes that it is pivotal to encourage the organic recycling of food waste and of compostable food packaging waste, considering also that the separate collection for organic recycling of food waste will be mandatory from 31 December 2023. Livestock residues such as manure and slurry give the possibility to generate organic fertiliser, biogas or biomethane.

7.General comments

7.1The EESC supports the European Commission's ambition to revise the requirements for packaging and packaging waste, in order to limit the amount, the size and the weight of packaging on the EU Single Market, prevent the production of useless packaging waste, support high-quality recycling, and increase recyclability and the reuse of packaging.

7.2Any revision of the packaging and packaging waste legislation should be fully aligned with the overarching objectives of the EU Green Deal (climate neutrality, sustainable use of natural resources and environmental protection), and should be consistent with related legislation, such as the circular economy action plan, the Waste Framework Directive, the Single-Use Plastics Directive, the Ecodesign Directive, and EU legislation on food contact materials.

7.3The EESC emphasises the need for strict criteria on packaging recyclability. Packaging should be considered recyclable where the packaging can be recycled multiple times in a permanent material loop, and not simply where design criteria are met and the materials are separately collected and sorted without contamination.

7.4The EESC believes that the percentage criteria for packaging to be recycled at scale should be complemented by a quantitative requirement covering a sufficient number of EU Member States.

7.5The Committee supports the implementation of the recyclability performance grades, based on the "design for recycling" criteria for packaging categories. The EESC welcomes harmonisation for all materials, and hopes for the phasing-out of packaging to be awarded a Performance Grade E by 2030.

7.6In 2020, the average EU-wide recycling rate reached 85.5% for steel packaging, 74% for glass packaging, and 82% for paper packaging. The circular material loops for these materials are relatively effective. However, the adoption of a recycled content target for steel packaging, for instance, could destabilise and fragment the secondary raw materials / scrap market, and have a negative environmental impact. Mandatory recycled content targets should be applicable only for specific packaging groups and materials, where their adoption could lead to market improvements and an increased use of recyclates (e.g. plastics).

7.7The EESC highlights the fact that market shares of different packaging materials in the overall volume of Member States' packaging waste should be taken into account when assessing the potential for waste reduction. Reduction targets should be set for each packaging material (plastic, paper, ferrous metals, aluminium, etc.), taking into consideration the evolution of recycling rates over time, to ensure a level playing field and to prevent unnecessarily substituting certain packaging materials for alternatives with low recyclability.

7.8EU Member States should be effectively incentivised to support new investments in infrastructure and recycling technologies, as well as in research and development.

7.9The EESC believes that the review of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive should also be accompanied by a revision of the Landfill Directive (99/31/EC), in order to decrease disposing of packaging waste in landfills. Decreasing the amount of waste that ends up in landfills would be in line with the EU's commitment to recycling and to reducing waste.

7.10The revised regulation must respect and apply the principle of material neutrality, i.e. allow for a choice of a packaging material based on its suitability for particular use, its technical and structural characteristics and its overall environmental profile.

8.Special comments

8.1In addition to the proposed legislation, including that on labelling, communicating, collecting, sorting and reusability elements, the EESC believes that Member States should consider introducing restrictions in packaging material production and perhaps complemented by fiscal instruments in order to meet Green Deal deadlines.

8.2The EESC proposes that the EU and Member States support by all available means the recyclability and reuse of packaging, either by providing incentives for using recyclable or renewable material alternatives or disincentivising packaging materials with low recyclability characteristics.

8.3Economic operators involved in this important sector, with major responsibilities for employees and their workplaces, should be financially supported by the Member States in the transition process.

8.4Clear national and international policies should be established to identify waste producers whose waste is transported to other Member States.

8.5Member States should encourage stakeholders to develop new ideas for packaging and proper labelling to meet Green Deal targets and to avoid any fraud related to original European products.

8.6The role of municipalities in waste collection and waste management should be clearly defined to avoid having multiple different waste-management procedures and infrastructures.

Brussels, 27 April 2023

Oliver RÖPKE

The president of the European Economic and Social Committee

_____________