# CE2004078EN.01083101.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/831 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/831

---

(2004/C 78 E/0884)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3592/03

by Karl-Heinz Florenz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Deposits on disposable drinks packaging in Germany from an environmental point of view

Subject:

For around 10 years, disposable packaging has been collected in Germany ‘inter alia’ as lightweight packaging under the Dual System. As a result of the introduction of a deposit on disposable drinks packaging (‘Dosenpfand’) on 1 October 2003, an as yet undetermined quantity of disposable drinks containers now carries a compulsory deposit. This packaging is collected at sales points and transported separately for subsequent recycling.

How does the Commission view this procedure, in particular when comparing the previous collection and recycling system with the present, separate collection and recycling system from an environmental point of view?

Does the Commission intend to carry out a comparative environmental assessment, or will Germany be asked to submit a comparative environmental assessment?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

(29 January 2004)

Take-back systems for packaging waste have to fulfil the criteria of Article 7 of the packaging and packaging waste Directive 94/62/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 1994 (1). This includes, in particular, the non-discriminatory access of economic operators, including importers, to such systems. There is, however, no requirement to set up such systems in a particular way (dual systems, deposit systems, etc.). This article only briefly refers to environmental aspects and states that requirements regarding the protection of environmental and consumer health need to be taken into account, without specifying in what way this must be done.

1

The Commission is not aware of comparative studies between dual systems and systems based on one-way deposits. Available information, therefore, is of a qualitative nature only. One-way deposits will normally have higher logistical requirements. These higher logistical requirements may also be associated to specific environmental impacts. However, systems based on one-way deposits will also achieve higher return rates and may reduce littering. Furthermore, the quality of the collected material may be better because of a lower content of impurities than in material collected by dual systems.

The Commission has no intention of carrying out a comparative environmental assessment or requiring Germany to carry out such an assessment because it will be difficult to obtain unambiguous results and there is no requirement to choose the best system from an environmental point of view. Therefore, an assessment of the environmental performance of various take-back systems would be unlikely to produce results that would influence the assessment of the conformity of the German one-way deposits with Community legislation. The open infringement procedure against Germany exclusively concerns the Internal Market aspects of this article.

However, the Commission has put to debate options on how to develop producer responsibility systems within the Thematic Strategy on Waste Prevention and Recycling. Furthermore, the Commission has launched a study on the implementation of Directive 94/62/EC and options to strengthen prevention and re-use of packaging. While this study will not concern the comparison between various take-back systems for one-way packaging directly, it may address effects by such systems of encouraging re-usable packaging.

---

(1)  OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

1

---