M42 (EPR reporting harmonisation) will provide much of the reporting framework needed to monitor many of the identified objectives. The aim of the monitoring arrangements detailed above is to collect factual data on the implementation of the legislative proposal. This would help a future evaluation assess whether the new provisions achieve the intended objectives efficiently.

For hazardous substances, M32a has no effect on the monitoring as it relies on existing information on packaging. M32b and M32c introduce a new obligation for the notification of all substances of concern used in packaging by the supplier who places the packaging and packaging materials on the EU market. Its monitoring involves a notification system that would imply the development of a dedicated IT infrastructure. Finally, monitoring of labelling will be done by the Member States’ market surveillance authorities.

Market surveillance authorities will support monitoring activities at the level of obligated economic operators. Monitoring the target of increasing the level of recycled content in packaging would be undertaken through M34b (reporting obligation on the recycled content), which obliges economic operators to provide data on the levels of recycled content in their packaging by 2025. Authorised certification bodies will certify the recycled content of packaging formats to economic operators. Monitoring the increase in packaging recyclability requires a harmonised approach to defining recyclability, on-line self-assessment tool and a certification system with accredited certifiers. M22b sets out details of the proposed assessment system. In case M22c was preferred, this would require setting up of new tracing technologies at industrial scale; this is considered unfeasible before 2030. The monitoring of the amount of packaging waste generated, is already covered through data transmitted to Eurostat. In order to monitor measures to reduce cross-contamination of compostable packaging in the recycling stream, it is first necessary to understand the current levels of cross-contamination and then to monitor progress. Member States should regularly undertake waste stream surveys to obtain the data required.

Effective monitoring relies on harmonised reporting of packaging placed on the market and the reporting on the collection and recycling rates of the different packaging materials. Existing reporting obligations would provide much of the reporting framework needed to monitor targets; however, some additional reporting obligations on Member States will be introduced for waste prevention targets. For reusable packaging targets, monitoring the increase in its use could be done via existing reporting requirements under Art. 12(3) PPWD or through a new system – based on digital product passport - to track reuse per item combined with auditing and results of pilot studies on performance evaluation, if the future definition on reuse was to capture broad reuse systems (e.g., refill on the go, return at home, etc.).

The certification of recyclability, which is the key to raise recycling rates and quality recycling, results in administrative costs for the packaging producers of EUR 1.14 billion.

The One In One Out analysis (see Annex 3 for details) considers administrative burdens for businesses and citizens (excluding public authorities). Many measures will have negligible costs, associated with, for example, updating Essential Requirements. The most significant costs will relate to the new, harmonised labelling (requirement to label packaging with alphanumeric codes will be replaced by pictograms): the additional administrative burden is estimated at around EUR 2.6 billion during the 4 years phase in period. However, this will be offset (at least) by savings: the savings in administrative costs simply from avoiding multiple labels, are in the order of 0.3% to 3% of the concerned industry´s turnover. If we apply a 0.5% saving only to the EU food and drink industry (turnover of €1.1 trillion), their administrative costs would be reduced by EUR 5.5 billion. Stakeholders are supportive of the changes, given the likely net benefits.

The preferred option, enshrined in the Regulation, will include important reductions in regulatory burden due to the harmonisation: In the context of recyclability, this option will streamline procedures by providing a clear definition of recyclable packaging based on Design for Recycling criteria. The harmonised state of the art labelling for consumer sorting, recycled content and reusable packaging will significantly reduce the compliance cost of the packaging producers, apart from the efficiency gains. In addition to that, the preferred option will allow the harmonised collection of data on hazardous waste on packaging and integrate minimum criteria for packaging of priority products under mandatory GPP, thus facilitating a coherent approach among Member States. Furthermore, Option 2 will harmonise the EPR reporting system for packaging producers. Governance frameworks for monitoring, reporting and enforcing systems will need to be established at Member States for efficient implementation and enforcement.

With respect to the regulatory burden for the operators, the preferred option will ensure savings in waste management costs especially due to the mandatory target of packaging waste reduction introduced by M2b and the better waste sorting due to M27c-y. Nevertheless, in the first years of implementation, compliance costs will increase for packaging producers who would need to re-design packaging as per M22b, M8b and M29d. Furthermore, the Regulation will provide legal certainty in various contentious issues, thus facilitating operators´ decision making.

The Regulation will reduce the burden for Member States to develop and establish their national systems within the framework of the current Directive. The harmonised framework for packaging and its waste streams will simplify several procedures, for example the reporting of the transposition of the provisions in the Directive and the respective follow up work in the Commission.

The reduction in packaging waste would also lead to reduced amounts of shipped waste, including exported from the EU. This is consistent with the EU’s objective to stop exporting its waste problems by ensuring exported waste is treated in a sustainable manner, while respecting the EU’s international legal obligations. Overall, the proposal is in line with the Basel Convention and will also be consistent with the ongoing work on a global Plastics Treaty.

In line with current EU international cooperation, the EU will provide support to developing and least developed countries for the green transition. In particular, efforts will be made to mitigate possible adverse effects if need be (for example, via capacity building to ensure a better understanding of the Essential Requirements or the definition of recyclability). In the medium/long term EU packaging requirements are likely to influence packaging requirements internationally.

As the proposed initiative will aim at further harmonisation, it will also facilitate imports from outside the EU, which will not have to comply with diverging requirements amongst the MS: this should also be beneficial for Market Surveillance Authorities. Third countries (most recently Canada, the US and South Korea), as part of the regular discussions on Technical Barriers to Trade, have underlined their desire to have more harmonisation in Europe – in particular for labelling and rules for single use packaging- and that the current different regimes in the MS lead to unnecessary costs for their businesses operating in Europe.

The measures should not be more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfil their environmental objectives. The proposed initiative would mostly not affect production costs in a significant manner. The only area, where exporters to the EU might be significantly affected, are the requirements for minimum inclusion rates of recycled plastic in new packaging. The assessment of this measure underpins (see Annex 9.5), that its environmental benefits clearly justify this requirement for plastic packaging placed on the EU market.

The measures would apply equally to domestic and imported products. European producers would not be disadvantaged in their ability to function inside or outside Europe; nor would non-European producers be disadvantaged in the sense that they would face the same requirements. For example, the current Essential Requirements would be updated on over-packaging, and imported products would need to comply.

The impact for SMEs is considered proportionate as reasonable efforts are required to reach the objectives of each measure under Option 2. In case a measure had significant negative impacts on SMEs, an exemption was included e.g. in M8c, M35em, M42b. In order to facilitate compliance by SMEs with their obligations and requirements under the new Regulation, guidance should be elaborated by the Commission in consultation with the stakeholders. If a specific measure implied disproportionate burden for SMEs that could not be addressed by an exemption, it was either put in Option 3 (e.g. M34b) or completely discarded. The proposed option would strike a proper balance between predictability and legal certainty and allowing for technological progress. This is important for packaging as it is a developing and innovative market, where there is a need to facilitate adaptability and regulatory responsiveness in line with technological and market developments.

The new Regulation should foresee sufficient time for economic operators to comply with their obligations under this Regulation. Also, for Member States, adequate phase in time should be established to allow them setting up the administrative infrastructure necessary for its application. The application of the Regulation should therefore also be deferred to a date where those preparations can reasonably be finalised.

In terms of technical and economic feasibility, the measures will improve the availability of recycled source material and improve the quality of recyclates. In doing so, the proposed option will reduce the costs of recycled materials and thereby reduce the use of virgin materials. It will do so through a mixture of enabling more efficient markets by addressing information failures and directing through additional targets, as well as addressing regulatory failures. Where possible prices will be redirected to make markets more efficient. Doing so it will support Member States in meeting both the existing targets (which for some are a challenge) and the new targets that will be set. Overall, it is expected that all packaging will be reusable or recyclable in an economically feasible manner by 2030 and there will be a significant reduction in packaging, over-packaging and thereby packaging waste.

·GPP criteria: In Denmark, all public procurement must be eco-labelled by 2030.The specific phasing in will take place in close collaboration with the companies in the individual areas, so that we, for example, ensure that small and medium-sized companies are not disadvantaged.

·Labelling: The Nordic pictogram system are mandatory to use on all waste bins in Denmark and consists of a number of symbols and colours that are used in connection with waste sorting. The symbols for waste sorting can also be used on packaging. A symbol on a packaging design ensures a visual link between the empty packaging and the waste container, making it simpler for consumers to sort packaging waste. 150+ private users have already voluntary adopted the pictograms on their products and packaging.

·DRS: Several Member Stats have a DRS for beverage packing in plastic (predominantly PET) and metal (some for glass) in place - including The Netherlands, Sweden, Estonia, Finland, Lithuania, Germany and Denmark. Hungary, Romania, and Portugal are expected to achieve effective DRS soon.

·Value chain collaborations: Denmark have introduced several sector collaborations on waste reduction with e.g. the HORECA sector. They face a target of 50 % reduction of certain plastic take-away packaging in 2026. The goal must initially be sought to be achieved through a binding sector collaboration in the restaurant sector. Further regulation will be implemented, if the goal is not achieved voluntary, ensuring that small and medium-sized companies are not disadvantaged.

·Uptake in reuse solutions: In France, larger retail stores must provide customers with clean containers suitable for reuse and accept that consumers bring their own container. In Germany, owners of restaurants and retailers will have to offer reusable alternatives instead of single-use plastic packaging from 2023 when selling food and beverages for immediate consumption.

·Waste reduction targets: France recently set reduction, reuse and recycling targets for 2021-2025 (e.g. the reduction target is 20% by 31 December 2025). Spain is setting quantified targets, with a reduction in the weight of waste produced of 15% by 2025 compared to 2010, in addition to the current target of a 10% reduction from 2020 onwards.

Overall, the preferred measures included under Option 2+ are technically feasible and efficient in delivering economic, environmental and social improvements. Notably, the preferred measures will help Member States reinforce design for reuse and promote high quality recycling to reduce the generation of packaging waste. The transition to a low-carbon and circular economy can be implemented meeting the targets in the field packaging and packaging waste. Furthermore, the Regulation will allow the setup of a coherent approach among Member States.

Overall, the reduction in packaging volumes and transition to a resource efficient waste value chain translates into reduced costs of packaging and efficiency gains for society as a whole. Moving towards a more circular economy within packaging would deliver benefits such as empowering consumers, reducing negative impacts on the environment and human health, improving the security of the supply of raw materials (including a reduction in using fossil resources), increasing competitiveness, stimulating innovation and boosting economic growth. The proposed measures will stimulate the creation of jobs linked to the circular economy, including those that involve e.g. the creation of new business models for reuse systems, better recycling and sorting management as well as reverse logistics, R&D and innovation, sustainable product design, digitalisation, but also education, government and professional services, that all support the transition towards circular economy by reducing packaging and waste generation. Furthermore, the preferred option will reduce hazardous chemicals in packaging and phase out unsustainable packaging such as single use hotel ‘miniatures’ for liquid hair shampoo or single use multi-item collation packaging for fresh vegetables. Finally, it will change consumer behaviour, allowing citizens to make sustainable choices by providing them with relevant information and affordable options. It will also nudge consumers towards more environmentally friendly purchases by correcting market failures.

Due to the recent geopolitical developments, special focus was given to the EU`s import dependency on raw materials and fossil fuel: The measures on recycled content reduce fossil fuel requirements of the EU by 3.1 million t per year (almost 1/4 of the fossil fuel needed currently for plastic packaging production). The overall decrease in fossil fuel needs of Option 2+ is difficult to quantify but the fact that the GHG savings of the recycled content measure represent 22% of the total GHG savings indicates an order of magnitude of 12-15 million t fossil fuel savings. Further, the measures to improve recyclability increase the overall packaging recycling rate from 66.5% in 2018 to 73% in 2030 (landfill is decreased from 18.7% to 9.6%). This push for circularity results in significantly reduced needs of virgin raw materials such as wood, glass and aluminium.

The modelled reduction in GHG emission is 23 million t compared to the baseline 2030 (42% of the total CO2e emissions of Hungary) and would bring them down to 43 million t. Option 1 would still lead to an increase to 62 million t in 2030 and Option 3 would decrease them by an additional 6 million t. Water use would be reduced by 1.1 million m3. The monetised environmental externalities are reduced by EUR 6.4 billion relative to the baseline 2030.

Option 2+ results in overall economic savings of EUR 47.2 billion compared to the baseline 2030: additional costs for reuse and DRS of EUR 4.6 billion, reduced costs in waste management of EUR 4.2 billion and reduced sales and consumption of packaging of EUR 51.7 billion. In reverse, this option results in additional annual administrative costs of EUR 1.3 billion, mainly for certification of the packaging recyclability and of the recycled content in plastic packaging. The complex impacts on employment are estimated to result in a slight net increase of about 29.000 “green” jobs. If the economic savings were completely transferred to the consumers, the yearly savings per citizen are in the order of 100€.

Packaging waste generation would be reduced in 2030 by 18 million t (32 million t in 2040) compared to baseline waste generation of 92.4 million t for 2030 (107 million t in 2040). This means that 3.1 million t less packaging waste is generated than in 2018 (Option 1: +13Mt, Option 3: -7Mt). The biggest reductions are modelled for the producers of transport packaging (Corrugated and other board boxes: -7.6 million t down from 29.7 million t in baseline 2030, wood pallets: -4 million t down from 13.9 million t in baseline 2030, plastic wrapping: -1.5 million t down from 4.4 million t in baseline 2030) and glass beverage containers (-1.7 million t down from 12 million t in baseline 2030). On the other side, producers of plastic crates and boxes for multi-use would increase sales by 0.8 million t compared to baseline 2030.

The modelling and the discussion in chapter 6 demonstrates that the combination of measures included in the preferred option package is overall the best performing and most proportionate combination:

An important issue is the complementarity and coherence of the different measures. Setting mandatory reduction targets of packaging waste at Member State level is the overarching measure in the intervention area of prevention and reuse. M2b sets an exogenous reduction target of packaging waste per capita for 2030 compared 2018 of 5% (19.1% less packaging waste than in the baseline). In order to ensure that the reduction efforts continue beyond 2030, a reduction target of 10% could be set for 2035 (reduction of 29% compared to baseline) and for 2040 a reduction target of 15% could be set (reduction of 37% compared to baseline). The measures on packaging recyclability will improve the market conditions along the waste value chain, support Member States in meeting the existing recycling targets in the PPWD and allow those who do so already to progress further. Further, the enhanced recyclability is a pre-condition for more packaging circularity.

Ma&b+: Mandatory DRS for plastic bottles and beverage cans (waiver if Member States can prove 90% collections targets achieved by other means) and minimum requirements for all DRS

M29d+: Mandatory compostability for certain out of the selected plastics packaging types and requirement of material recyclability for the remaining biodegradable plastic packaging

M2b: Mandatory target of 5% reduction of packaging waste per capita in 2030 compared to 2018, supplemented with a reduction targets for 2035 and 2040

Table 9 brings together all measures that were included into the preferred policy option package based on the assessment of their specific and complementary impacts in the various areas.

However, a diligent case by case evaluation was undertaken in order to detect elements of measures outside Option 2, whose integration into the preferred policy option would further improve the environmental performance and feasibility, while still being proportionate. Along this line, some refinement of Option 2 was done to better respect the subsidiarity principle and to take into account pertinent stakeholder positions. With respect to the remaining confusion of citizens in the measure about compostability of Option 2 (M29d), whether certain biodegradable plastic packaging should be disposed of in the bio-waste stream or the receptacle for material recycling, it should be clarified that these packaging items are to be valorised via material recycling. This, combined with the short list of mandatorily compostable packaging items, would eliminate the hybrid status of these packaging items and thus increase carbon circularity, as recycling of these packaging makes it possible to have a biogenic carbon sink instead of a short-term CO2 release via composting. Moreover, flexibility could be given to Member States, where -subject to the respective infrastructure established on their territory- lightweight plastic carrier bags >15 micron cannot enter the bio-waste stream, so that these plastic carrier bags go into material recycling and not into composting. Furthermore, a waiver from the mandatory DRS for plastic bottles and beverage cans could be established in the preferred option in case the Member State can ensure that the 90% collection rate is achieved by other means (combination of Ma&b with M26cc). With respect to these refinements, the preferred policy package is rather ´Option 2+´ than the pure Option 2.

On the other side, the full set of measures in Option 3, alternative or additional to those in Option 2, are much more difficult to implement, risk economic viability and feasibility, and cause significantly higher administrative burden and costs. In reverse, the overall additional benefits on environment and jobs of Option 3 vs Option 2 are less significant.

Based on the assessment of the measures combined in the options packages, the overall preferred option is Option 2. It contains the measures in Option 1 that are supportive or even pre-requisites for the Option 2 measures, i.e. to facilitate delivery on the mandatory targets and stricter requirements in a balanced approach, thus fostering effectiveness (achievement of the objectives) and efficiency (cost-effectiveness). The measures in Option 1 (no targets established nor strict harmonised provisions) alone are not sufficient to stop the growth in packaging generation (increase just reduced by 2%). Thus, packaging waste would increase by 16.8% in 2030 compared to 2018. Moreover, the recycling rates would not increase, neither would high quality recycling and resource efficiency be enhanced. Finally, it would fail to deliver sufficiently on the environmental objectives of the Green Deal; the GHG emissions would still increase compared to 2018, as they are only reduced by 3.3 million t compared to the baseline 2030.

With respect to the problems in the respective sections of chapter 2 and arguments detailed in section 5.1, there will be a switch from a Directive to a Regulation. As packaging and its waste management varies depending on the product category, the new Regulation will work in coherence and synergy with existing related regulations and other initiatives announced in the CEAP or implementing the European Green Deal, such as the WFD, SUPD, FCM and other food legislation, REACH Regulation, EU Taxonomy Regulation and the upcoming Regulations on Eco-design for Sustainable Products.

Table 8 shows the effectiveness (overall and for the different specific objectives), efficiency (are benefits delivered at low cost?), coherence and the economic, social and environmental impacts. Pluses reflect positive impacts.

The social impacts in Option 2 and 3 are broadly similar, with some limited net direct positive job creation. This could be offset through changes in other sectors, but the impacts are not considered significant (and to some extent are captured in the efficiency and economic impact categories).

Overall, Option 1 of better standardisation and clearer Essential Requirements is a low risk option, delivering some environmental benefits at very low cost (so is very efficient). Option 2 is a significant step forward, with some significant choice for legislators, such as the reuse, waste reduction and recycled content targets, steps forward in compostability and the measures to ensure full recyclability by 2030. Option 3 could be the most effective, but actual effectiveness / efficiency would be reduced by the challenges inherent in implementing more ambitious targets and more intrusive provisions for the operators. In terms of coherence, each of the options complements, for example, the Single Use Plastics Directive and efforts to reduce plastics use.

·Option 3 involves a further step up in the effectiveness for delivery of the different specific objectives. The measure is also the most economically beneficial and delivers the highest environmental benefits. However, the ease of implementation is lower, reflecting the difficulty of delivering some of the measures in practice. Also, the measures would involve further administrative costs for operators and authorities. Hence, the effectiveness gain comes at a disproportionate price.

·Option 2 involves a considerable increase in effectiveness, contributing to a greater degree to the different specific objectives. The measure is economically beneficial, with significant savings for consumers and delivers significant environmental benefits. The measures could involve some administrative costs, depending in part on the choices of Member States.

·Option 1 is easy to implement, would deliver some economic benefits for consumers, and some positive contribution towards the environmental objectives.

The overall savings for consumers, mainly due to the reduced expenditures on packaging, may be to a small extent be offset by ‘hassle’ or ‘in-convenience’ costs that are not covered in the model, such as the cost of better packaging sorting or for the reuse systems. For individual consumers, the impacts will vary depending on their consumption habits and their preferences.

For option 3 (Table 7), the savings for the EU economy are EUR 53.9 billion per annum in 2030, plus environmental benefits of EUR 8.3 billion. The specific impacts are in line with those of option 2, but reach a higher level. Again, the reduction in packaging of 23% is the main driver for the impacts and the environmental benefits of the measures on compostability and DRS are not compensated by the economic costs.

There will though be increases of costs for operators for reuse and DRS. On top of this, the monetised environmental benefits is EUR 6.4 billion. Whereas the additional costs in the areas of recycled content are more than compensated by the reduction of environmental externalities, this is not the case for M29d and Ma&b. The latter is due to the costs for the introduction of mandatory DRS schemes. On M29d, the environmental benefits of more plastic waste composting are not so evident to compensate for the higher costs of the additional compostable plastics.

Option 2 (table 7) results in overall economic savings of EUR 47.2 billion from 2030 baseline revenues of EUR 378 billion, which are predominantly due to the reduction of packaging by 19%. Having to buy less packaging, creates financial savings to consumers (line d). This has been calculated through an examination of turnover from the packaging producers: if consumers buy 100 Euros less of packaging, producers receive 100 Euros less of income (ie turnover falls) and their expenditure on raw materials, labour etc falls along with their profits. However, that 100 Euros is a benefit from the point of view of society.

The modelling results for option 1 (Table 5) shows a reduction in economic costs of EUR 1.6 billion and monetised environmental benefits of EUR 967 million, giving a total net benefit of EUR 2.6 billion in 2030.

The modelling captures all of the different financial impacts. The only measure outside the model with quantified financial impacts relates to labelling, but whilst this has significant costs it also has significant savings. As such, it does not change the net impact as the measure effectively has net zero costs.

The results of modelling measures by themselves (sections 6.1-6.4) are not the same as the results of modelling the measures as part of the policy options in this section due to overlaps, which are sorted out in the comprehensive analysis. More generally, the model does not capture the benefits of moving towards a more circular economy within packaging, including benefits such as empowering consumers, reducing negative impacts on the environment and human health, improving the security of the supply of raw materials (including a reduction in using fossil resources), increasing competitiveness, stimulating innovation and boosting economic growth. New business models focused on for example reuse or recycling offer innovation opportunities and the creation of new employment, including those that involve e.g. the creation of new business models for reuse systems, better recycling and sorting management as well as reverse logistics, R&D and innovation, sustainable product design, and digitalisation.

Costs are measured relative to the baseline, so a negative impact represents a saving; for example, a negative value in “waste management costs” means that waste management costs are reduced. The assumption is that all cost savings (reductions of operators´ turn-over) will be fully passed through to consumers/EU citizens. (This assumption is reasonable, as the markets tend to be competitive.) Raw material and waste management costs are therefore included in packaging consumption and to avoid double counting are not added on top.

This section sets out the cost-benefit analysis by intervention area, and where possible measure, for Options 1, 2 and 3. These are based on the mass flow model described in Annex 4. The analysis covers the financial impacts calculated in the model. Some measures could not be included in the model. In particular, measures in Option 1 are to a large extent outside the model as, for example, the costs and benefits of reducing over packaging in line with a revised Essential Requirements is difficult to quantify.

Avoiding unnecessary packaging also would result in moves to reusable alternatives, but the main impact is the reduction in revenue by single use packaging producers, resulting overall in net savings for the consumers.

The mandatory reuse targets see a significant transfer of revenue from single use packaging producers to multi-use packaging producers. This is net reduction in packaging requirements is passed through as a cost reduction to retailers. The costs associated with production and the logistics of reusable packaging are met by the retailers, but as this is lower than the cost savings, there is a net financial benefit to consumers. This diagram also applies to 8c, but with higher costs due to the higher targets.

The following figures showcase for the measures with the most significant economic impacts an overview of how the costs identified are transferred from the packaging producers to the consumers, including the waste management (EPR fees). Whilst it is not certain whether all costs borne by industry will be transferred, it is assumed for the purposes of the analysis that any increase in costs by producers will filter down the value chain. All costs are for the specific measure and will change when combined with other measure as part of an option, although the key actors and where revenues transfer from one industry to another will not change.

This measure would indirectly encourage the increased use of recycled content in packaging. Improving the quality of and access to data on the current performance of the packaging sector in the area of recycled content will help identify best practice and improve the effectiveness of policy making in this regard. However, the administrative burden for this reporting obligation is significant, without having positive effects on job creation. Stakeholders expressed concern about the additional administrative burden and some suggested to postpone targets for recycled content while such a system is established and delivering data for the decisions on recycled content targets.

Similar to the alternative M40b, it is expected to be effective as it is mandatory and will entail the widening of existing GPP criteria. In terms of administrative burden, the implementation of the current measure’s administrative activities would impact: (i) The European Commission to develop GPP criteria (this might be less burdensome than creation of specific criteria under M40b); (ii) Member States to ensure that new criteria are implemented, monitored, and reported on, (iii) Public bodies to update their tendering process, and (iv) Suppliers to update their packaging source options. Overall, similar to M40b, specific economic, environmental and social impacts could not be quantified since they depend on the choice of the GPP criteria selected. The social impact is expected to be minimal, resulting in the creation of jobs in the reuse business and the reduction of littler in local environments. Stakeholders were mostly positive about this measure, some highlighted that the new criteria should be aligned with other packaging sustainability criteria.

This measure deploys a horizontal approach to mandating the application of a general set of packaging criteria across all public sector contracts where packaging arises. It would require Member States and related contracting authorities to apply mandatory minimum packaging criteria to relevant contracts above and below OJEU financial threshold.

Effectiveness of option 3 on the restrictions of substances under the reviewed PPWD would be similar of M33a. The task of restricting substances of concern relevant to packaging would be done with the advice of a dedicated expert group established under the PPWD and enacted via delegated acts under the PPWD (instead of under REACH). Similar to M33a, implementation of this measure would be simple as the approach relies on procedures already established under the REACH Regulation. An additional difficulty might arise in ensuring the availability of adequate chemicals risk management expertise in the responsible Commission service. Further administrative burden is expected for stakeholders that would be affected by the scope of a specific restriction on a substance used in packaging. Economic impacts are expected to be the same as in M33a. In terms of social and environmental impacts, it would be similar to M33a, providing more effective tool to ensure protection of the human health and environment from the substances of concern in packaging. Stakeholders’ views express concerns that PPWD may not be the appropriate instrument for restricting chemicals and that this should be left to REACH and the Food Contact Material (FCM) regulation.

This measure differs from the alternative M33a in that the procedure to make these restrictions into law would be carried out under the revised PPWD itself, via delegated acts and by introducing the list of restricted substances in an annex, to be created for this purpose in the Regulation.

This measure would have higher costs in terms of implementation as compared to M32b. Economic impacts will be higher than M32b while no significant social and environmental impacts are expected for this measure as its nature is only information analysis. The potential need for testing could however have a small economic impact on operators. This measure is likely to impose an additional administrative burden on producers/importers, as it will include substances that were not previously reported. Producers/importers have to collect information from their supply chain or obtain/verify it directly through targeted chemical analysis.

M32c has a wider scope than the alternative 32b: the substances to be notified would cover all the substances known to be present in any given packaging or packaging material placed on the market. Therefore, this measure would be effective in developing an exhaustive inventory of all substances in packaging. However, it is likely to raise important concerns in industry in terms of the communication and use of confidential business information.

There is evidence that in some Member States and for certain beverage containers, well designed and operated EPR schemes are efficient to achieve high collection rates without DRS in place. Considering that all Member States will by 2025 have EPR schemes in place, it is expected that the costs to close the gap to a 90% collection target via specific measures within the EPR schemes would not exceed the costs of mandatory DRS for beverage containers. However, separate waste collection via EPR schemes may not be so efficient to reach high collection rates than DRS. The environmental savings of this measure is similar to Ma/b and could be slightly higher because also other containers of the same packaging type could be included into the separate collection scheme. Stakeholders from Member States without DRS for aluminium beverage cans and plastic bottles, but with well-established EPR systems, argued that these Member States should exempted from the mandatory DRS if they can guarantee the 90% collection rate via EPR schemes.

This measure focusses on the separate collection via EPR schemes for certain packaging, which have proven to be efficient and effective in terms of the amount of separately collected waste and its high purity. Ma&b ensures that a 90% collection target is reached in a cost-efficient way by means of mandatory DRS for aluminium beverage cans and plastic bottles. M26cc however, refers to the possibility of setting up efficient and effective EPR based actions for beverage containers.

Stakeholders' views were divided, with stakeholders placing PET bottles on the market strongly in favour, because they would have a privileged, assured and less costly supply of recycled PET. Stakeholders who would not have a right to first refusal believe the regulatory intervention into the newly created market for the various recyclates will jeopardise single market rules, restrict these markets and lead therefore to suboptimal allocations and damage their ability to innovate.

This measure will, via an addition to the minimum requirements of DRS, give priority access to recyclates from packaging collected through mandatory DRS to each beverage container producer that is registered in the respective DRS and places such deposit containers on the market. The measure is solely focussing on PET recycling, even though it could also cover beverage cans or glass bottles, in case they were under a DRS. It is effectively facilitating and assuring PET bottle producers meeting EU recycled content targets (bottle-to-bottle recycling). However, in case of aluminium cans there is already a very high closed loop recycling without regulating recyclate market. Further, glass bottle producers already experience that recycled glass commands a premium price, meaning bottle-to-bottle demand is supported without priority access. The measure may cause tensions related to the change in market conditions for many operators. It would have a price curbing effect for rPET, at least on the significant, prioritised market share; thus, the incentive for the waste value chain to closed-loop recycle PET is reduced. The measure will reallocate costs and benefits across economic actors: Drinks producers filling PET bottles will benefit from an ability to obtain grade rPET food more easily, and may pay a lower price due to the priority access. Other food or non-food packaging producers as well as other users of recycled plastic (e.g. textiles) will find access to food grade rPET harder. The EPR fees would decrease less, as the PET recyclers would have to sell the rPET at lower prices to the priviledged PET bottle producers. There are no significant social impacts expected.

The study above underpins that closing these data gaps would efficiently ensure that the objectives in the PPWD are not undermined. Implementation should not lead to problems as reporting regimes exist already for LPCBs and many Member States already collects the data which will become mandatory on a voluntary basis. There is a small one-off and annual additional administrative burden on public authorities in the 14 Member States, where PCBs ≥50 microns are not yet reported. Further, 5 Member States would have similar additional administrative burden for the mandatory disaggregation of the LPCBs data in <15 micron (VLPCBs) and 15<50 micron (Member States concerned are listed in Annex 9.10).

An evaluation of the measures in the PPWD as regards PCBs unveiled a lack of data on consumption of VLPCBs and PCBs ≥50 micron in order to assess, if the consumption of these bags has increased as a substitution effect to reductions of LPCBs of 15<50 micron. Further, there is evidence that PCBs ≥100 microns are intended to have a long lifetime, are reused many times and have only a small littering potential. The measure therefore extends the current reporting requirements on Member States to include

In 2018, the PPWD introduced provisions aiming to reduce consumption of LPCBs (bags with a wall thickness of 0<50 micron) in order to combat littering and promote waste prevention. In concrete, the PPWD requires Member States to report annual consumption data on all LPCBs, while it is voluntary for VLPCBs (bags with a wall thickness of 0<15 micron), LPCBs of 15<50 micron and PCBs ≥50 micron is.

Some stakeholders observed that EPR systems are becoming increasingly divergent from each other. They also drew attention to the fact that the granularity of the data required is linked to the administrative burden and therefore harmonisation will be crucial to limit additional efforts and haveshowed almost unanimous support for this measure on the condition that it does notdisproportionately increase the administrative burden. Several participants specifically pointed out that harmonisation not only of what is reported, but also of the timing of reporting, would facilitate the planning and scheduling of administrative tasks.

The economic impacts of the measure are attributed to the increased data processing needs associated with harmonised and more detailed EPR data. The majority of packaging producers would be required to provide more detailed product data to the relevant EPR systems. It is recommended to introduce a de minimis threshold for producers below a certain size to limit the additional reporting requirements faced by small producers. The economic impact on EPR systems could be equivalent to 0-1 FTE during the set-up and 0-0.5 FTE once the system is operational (per PRO). It is unlikely that national governments would experience a significant economic impact.This measure is not expected to have a significant environmental impact.

The overall economic, environmental and social impacts could not be quantified since they depend on the choice of the criteria and de-minimis threshold. Evidently, the requirement for the applicants to prove compliance with the packaging criteria implies some administrative burden. Furthermore, it is predicted that this measure will have a positive environmental impact due to the prevention and reduction of packaging waste. The social impact is expected to be minimal. Stakeholders were mostly positive about this measure and were in favour of mandatory minimum packaging criteria for GPP. However, several stakeholders pointed out that there was a need for additional considerations, namely (i) minimum requirements should not restrict the ability of contracting authorities to set more ambitious sustainability requirements, (ii) mandatory requirements should be aligned with established packaging criteria, and (iii) there should be pre-defined procedures to enable exemptions in exceptional circumstances.

The measure is expected to be effective in increasing the demand for lower environmental impact packaging in products and services. The uptake of the mandatory and efficient GPP criteria will be wider and consistent across Member States. The measure would support the attainment of objectives under other policy areas, such as recycled content, recyclability, packaging minimisation and reuse. In terms of ease of implementation and administrative burden, an expert group would identify, based on best practices, high potential impact products and services, as well as related packaging-specific criteria. Subsequently, the criteria will be set out in an implementing act. Member states will need to set up monitoring, reporting and enforcing systems. Public bodies will be required to ensure that the tendering processes include the relevant GPP criteria, and that staff is trained on mainstreaming, assessment and verification of those criteria.

This measure will set out mandatory minimum Green Public Procurement compliance criteria for packaging of products and services with high efficiency. An initial selection based on the Common Procurement Vocabulary identified 13 product groups, considering factors such as the amount of packaging and the potential impacts. The criteria would be applied by authorities for contracts above a certain financial threshold. Applicants for public sector contracts are required to provide information related to the packaging criteria.

Considering economic impacts, restrictions on substances of concern in packaging may require additional efforts for packaging manufacturers in the form of additional communication with suppliers regarding substances in packaging materials or even adaptation costs by changing the formulation or changing the packaging formats. The magnitude of these costs is unknown due to the lack of data. A beneficial social impact is expected through the improvement of human health through a more limited use of substances of concern in packaging, but it is difficult to quantify as it will be largely dependent on the precise substances restricted and their precise patterns of use. Positive environmental impacts are also expected though difficult to quantify at present due to the lack of available data. Several stakeholders believe that the PPWD is not the appropriate instrument for restriction and therefore support this measure where such restrictions would be left to REACH (and as applicable, to the FCM Regulation).

This measure would ensure that there is a reliable and well tested process for assessing the risks posed by substances of concern in packaging and to, as appropriate, effectively limit their use and presence. This would increase the uptake and confidence in secondary raw materials obtained from packaging. The measure would be complemented by M31 (updated definition of hazardous substances in packaging and M32a (more information on the presence of substances of concern in packaging).

A study on determining the restrictions on substances of concern in packaging will be carried out by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), which has the needed experience to carry out these assessments. This will cost around 817 ooo EUR (consisting of 400 000 outsourcing the study to ECHA and some 175 000 staf costs for 3 years).

This measure has a broader scope than M32a in terms of the amount of substances covered. However, only a subset of substances classified as hazardous substances in Annex VI of the CLP regulation meet the criteria to be considered “substances of concern”. This is however a large set of substances, prioritised under the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability. The ease of implementation depends on the notification scheme chosen. The first one will require substantial efforts in the development of the IT infrastructure, the second will be be even greater if EPR systems have to be created ex-novo. The third one relies on a system that is going to be developed under ESPR, however, given the developments pending in this area, it is not possible at this stage to assess the impacts of relying on such a system. Additional administrative burden will be imposed on suppliers of packaging due to the increased scope of substances to be reported. Significant burdens can also be envisaged for public administrations, particularly the European Commission and ECHA for the coordination and IT development. The economic impact will depend on the choice of the system but is expected to be several million Euros over a few years for the development and adaptation of the IT system and a permanent increase in the fixed maintenance and operational costs of the database. No significant social and environmental impacts are expected.

Under this measure, which is an alternative to M32a, in addition to the use of existing information described under 32a, a new legal obligation would be introduced by which all substances of concern used in packaging would have to be notified by the supplier placing the packaging and packaging materials on the EU market. The notification could be done through:

Significant administrative burden for the Commission occurs for the development of reusability standards and designing the EU symbol. To the extent that the symbol facilitates more reuse– and thus the efficiency and effectiveness of reuse systems overall – it is expected that the measure would have environmental benefits. Stakeholders were more concerned about preventing the further multiplication of divergent national requirements on reuse labelling than for establishing an EU label. Views also diverged on the value for the consumer of additional performance information (such as the number of reuses an item can serve).

This measure will introduce a mandatory symbol for reusable packaging. The measure will overcome the current fragmentation in reuse labelling schemes at national level and therefore preserving the integrity of the single market by preventing divergence in mandatory labelling requirements. Harmonising the reuse labelling may additionally encourage consumer preferences for reuse and support more packaging reuse. This measure and its impacts are closely linked with M27c-y on labelling criteria to facilitate consumers´ sorting and M38-j labelling on criteria for recycled content and could be part of the future implementing act on labelling.

If this measure is introduced alongside other labelling measures, its additional costs alone would be minimal, with all packaging being redesigned over the course of the transition period for M27c-y in any case. Most packaging industry stakeholders were more concerned about divergent labelling and NGOs criticised misleading claims on recycled content in a non-EU harmonised system (“green washing”).

This measure will prevent Member States from setting up their unique national labelling requirements on how recycled content in packaging, and so preserve the integrity of the single market. Such standardised information may additionally impact consumer purchasing preferences and encourage competition between economic operators, if it is considered that demonstrating “recycled content” provides them with a marketing or reputational advantage. The respective implementing act ensures that the claims are not misused.

This measure will restrict the ways in which information on subjects covered by the labelling measures under the revised packaging legislation is communicated and prevent Member States and EPRs from mandating their unique national labelling requirements on these subjects. The measure will preserve the integrity of the single market and further reduce consumer confusion as to correct disposal of waste packaging and some of packaging characteristics. If it is introduced alongside other labelling measures, it will reinforce their impacts and the additional costs of this measure alone would be minimal, with all packaging being redesigned over the course of the transition period for M27c-y in any case. Enforcement costs for Member States would be minimally affected, in line with M27c-y. Over time, removal of the diverging national labelling systems might lead to savings of EUR18 billion, thus outweighing the cost estimate for M27c-y. This is confirmed by all stakeholders.

The cost for redesign of impacted packaging labels of products for the economic operators would be EUR 18.1 billion, spread over the implementation period of three years (EUR 6 billion per year for three years). These costs could be significantly reduced by allowing four years for transition (cost falls to EUR 10.3 billion in total, equivalent to EUR 2.6 billion per year for four years). All the estimated costs are administrative costs and refer to the implementation of the labelling per single keeping unit (SKU) and on waste receptacles, external development and testing costs, designing of communication information and annual inspection costs to ensure that the new EU labels are in use. The measure will contribute to environmental benefits through clearer information on the material composition of packaging, particularly when aligned with other measures to improve labelling consistency and clarity. It will lead to improved sorting, thus less contamination of recycling streams and more material being recycled, and this with higher quality. Waste management and consumer stakeholders strongly called for better, harmonised and more comprehensive sorting instructions to consumers, and this under consideration of local collection and sorting infrastructure differing across the EU.

The estimated total (cumulative) cost to businesses, citizens and public administrations of implementing the new EU harmonised labelling system for the labelling of the receptacles is estimated at around EUR 330 million over the implementation period (3 or 4 years). In contrast, the model estimated cost savings in the EU waste management sector of EUR 140 million due to reduced fees for waste incineration and the efficiency gains in the waste treatment value chain. Thus, there are aggregated additional costs for the labelling of waste receptacles -including in the waste management sector- of EUR 210 million over the phase in period.

Overall, 15 Member States will have to enforce the EU harmonised labels with pictograms on waste receptacles and packaging products for the first time, the remaining simply having to adapt their systems during the phase in period. These Member States will reap the largest share of the waste management efficiency gains (EU total: material capture rates +2%; purity of collected waste +12%). There will be one-off costs to the Commission of EUR 0.8 million to develop (design, testing, rollout of the EU labels) and establish in an implementing act the new labelling system, and EUR 15 million each year for waste collectors to conduct annual inspections to ensure that the new EU labels are in use.

The new uniform labelling systems avoid consumer confusion as to where to dispose of their waste packaging and will allow for harmonisation of collection systems across the Member States. They are implemented in conjunction with consumer awareness campaigns. The inspiration is taken from the pictogram system, which is already being very successfully implemented in Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway and Baltic countries. Material composition (rather than “recyclability”) will be labelled. The measure will prevent Member States from mandating their own consumer-facing packaging sorting instructions or labelling systems, thus preserve the integrity of the single market, and be combined with measure x (Removal of alphanumeric codes, “One in One out”). The approved symbols will be an on-pack requirement, thus visible as a direct prompt to the consumer at point of disposal. It will also require labelling waste collection containers with the same symbols as packaging, in order to allow consumers a straightforward identification of the correct waste container for the corresponding packaging and an overall improvement to separate waste collection.

There was broad support (especially from NGO and soft drink industry) for the extension of DRS and EU wide minimum requirements. While most stakeholders supported the expansion of DRS for certain packaging, about half also supported a possibility of national exemption from a mandatory DRS for specific beverage container, if the country is already capturing a high rate of targeted containers through alternative means. The environmental NGOs pointed out that if refillable packaging were to be included in a mandatory DRS, it makes sense for refillables to have a lower deposit than one-way packaging, to encourage reuse. Member States favoured the further harmonisation and the development of harmonised minimum DRS requirements.

The implementation timeline (3 Phases: 4-9 months preparation, 14-24 months implementation, 12 month “go-live” and support) would start in 2027 to reach 90% collections by 2030. The main administrative costs are expected for producers related to the design and implementation of the DRSs. The measure would amount to annualised cost of EUR 980 million, comprising of cost of EUR 1.04 billion in producer fees for beverage containers and savings of EUR 55 million EPR fees. 15k new FTEs relative to the baseline are estimated for 2030. The distributional effects, cost transfers and the Member States, which would have to introduce a DRS (some Member States have already introduced DRS to meet the SUPD targets) are detailed in Annex 9.7.

DRS systems ensure high recovery and purity rates, which are preconditions for high quality recycling. Therefore, this measure requires Member States to set up DRS for plastic bottles and metal cans mandatorily, supplemented by DRS for other beverage containers on a voluntary basis and establishment of minimum requirements for all DRS; the latter measures are supportive, subsidiary elements for the Member States. The measure will facilitate the scale-up of DRS, while improving consumer and economic operators’ uptake. It would contribute to M35em and m35eh by allowing for collection of more and purer waste materials.

No major difficulties are expected in its implementation given it relies upon existing information on packaging. The administrative burden for suppliers of packaging would remain unchanged. Only a small increase in administrative burden would be expected to occur for the European Commission, the European Chemicals Agency and the national administrations, which would translate in the effort to run dedicated data-mining in existing databases and to tender and run support studies for the identification and prioritisation of substances in packaging. The economic impact associated with the execution of this measure is modest and would rely on the public administrations, responsible for running and paying for the data-mining and support studies described above. No significant social and environmental impacts are envisaged from this measure given it only entails desk work information gathering and analysis. The majority of stakeholders were in favour of this measure.

This measure aims at collecting, identifying and prioritising relevant substances of concern in packaging for which potential limitations or restrictions could be envisaged. This measure may not be effective to gain a comprehensive overview of all the hazardous substances potentially contained in packaging, but will draw on available information and registers covering substances of concern to enable an initial prioritisation for swift further restriction action, as appropriate.

This measure is considered effective as it will significantly reduce confusion about the substances in scope of this obligation. Manufacturers may need to engage in new communication with their suppliers, to update information based on the more precise definition of substances covered (“substances of concern”), which will require some additional administrative burden. In terms of economic impact, adaptation costs may be needed for changing the formulation of packaging materials or switching packaging formats. However, the extent of the economic impact cannot be determined given the variety of packaging in the scope and the current lack of a specific mapping of relevant substances of concern in packaging and the frequency and extent of their use. This measure will achieve a positive social impact due to the improved protection of human health. Furthermore, the protection of the environment will be improved thanks to the reduction or elimination of substances of concern in packaging, thereby also limiting potential emissions during the waste phase. In general, stakeholders indicated that hazardous substances in packaging should be addressed via REACH, the EU Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability and the Food Contact Material regulations.

This measure is included in Option 1 and it aims at: a) reviewing the objectives of the packaging legislation by including the protection of human health, b) including the whole life-cycle of packaging, when establishing the requirements on the content of hazardous substances in packaging and c) updating the Essential Requirements by replacing “noxious and other hazardous substances and materials” with “substances of concern” as described in the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability and defined in the Commission proposal for the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation.

There was broad support for harmonising labelling requirements and consensus that the alphanumeric coding does not support consumer sorting. Stakeholders of industry and brands stressed that space on labels is limited and therefore the necessity of each labelling particular should be substantiated. There was strong support for digitisation of information, a language-neutral system (logos, pictograms or codes) and a consumer testing phase. NGOs stressed the need to accompany any new labelling requirement with dedicated communication to ensure that it is accepted and drives the intended behaviour. The industry representing biodegradability would like specific information on biodegradable packaging, but this was opposed by all other stakeholders.

Removing the alphanumeric codes will not adversely affect consumer behaviour, but to minimise disruption, it should be aligned with the introduction of M27c-y on consumer-facing sorting labelling. Economic, environmental and social impacts are marginal.

This measure would remove the obligation for the alphanumeric labelling of the packaging materials, as there is no evidence alphanumeric coding has ever been used in any meaningful way by consumers, neither is it used by the waste sorters. New packaging labelling requirements to facilitate smarter sorting in the waste management sectorn would be mandated. Apart from the already widely applied optical sorting (NIR), digital watermarking and serialisation have demonstrated to be technically viable labelling technologies, but they are not yet rolled out. Also integration of information into a Digital Product Passport could be an option.

The detailed analysis of the measures about hazardous substances can be found in Annex 9.6, on DRS and waste collection in Annex 9.7, on labelling in Annex 9.8, on GPP in Annex 9.9 and Data Reporting, including on PCBs, and Enforcement in Annex 9.10.

Stakeholder opinions were similar to M35em, but intensified, as certain recyclate markets become very tight and the call for exemptions thus stronger.

This measure requires higher recycling rates of the plastic waste than 35em and thus the mass flow is tighter, impacting the feasibility. Admin burden for the Commission and Member States, and certification costs for the industry are estimated equal than in M35em. As the market are tighter, the prices for recyclates tend to be higher than in 35em, thus the additional production costs would increase more than EUR 500 million. The reduction in fossil fuel requirements of the EU would be 4.5 million tonnes per year. The model estimated savings of 12 million tonnes of CO2e, 930k m3 of water use and EUR 1.35 billion of externalities.

There is big support from all sides to foster closed loop recycling via recycled content targets for plastic packaging. However, there are concerns from certain industries, e.g. food and pharma, about high costs for or unavailability of recyclates (see section 2.4.3 of Annex 9.5). Thus, several stakeholders expressed the need for the deployment of new recycling technologies, such as chemical recycling, exemptions from the targets for certain plastic packaging, measures to restrict the losses of recyclates to other sectors and for the targets to be re-evaluated in ~5 years to avoid unnecessary market prohibitions if the material is not available. Another exemption should focus on SMEs: a de-minimis threshold of 100 tonnes plastic production p.a. from the requirement to incorporate recycled content affects ~ 2000 plastic packaging convertors (10%); it would result in reducing the recycled content in 2030 by ~ 200k t i.e., ~ 4% reduction in the total mass of recycled content and ~1 percentage point reduction in the overall average plastic packaging recycled content. Further, industry requested to ensure well-functioning markets for secondary raw materials and the creation of efficient infrastructure in the waste value chain. The chemical recycling industry has stressed the importance of this type of recycling to increase recycled content especially in food packaging. Stakeholders representing plastics argued that recycled content targets should also be set in other material categories to avoid discrimination of plastics, while the representative of glass, metal and paper/cardboard stressed that for these materials there are already high shares of closed loop recycling without recycled content targets.

Carrying out recycling and incorporating recycled content within the EU reduces the effect of the uncertainty of oil supply associated with geopolitical issues. The medium ambition 2030 target would therefore reduce fossil fuel requirements of the EU by 3.1 million tonnes per year. The increase in plastics recycling related jobs in the EU is estimated to be 26k FTE (2030). The model estimated savings of 6.5 billion tonnes of CO2e and EUR 710 million of externalities compared to the 2030 baseline.

At the beginning of 2022 recycled PET became more expensive than fossil based PET (1000-1500€/tonne). If a 100 €/t price differential between rPET and virgin resin were to be maintained across the plastics packaging sector this would be an increase in costs to the industry of EUR 270 million annually for the medium ambition 2030 target. A price differential between recycled PET and virgin resin of 100 €/tonne means an increase of the material costs for a 13g PET beverage bottle produced from 50% recycled PET of 0.00065€. The price differential will increase with higher targets, as the recyclate markets will be tighter. Further, high recyclate prices exert a pull to have higher plastics recycling rates.

Apart from a precondition to have M37, a key aspect in terms of implementation will be to determine a mass balance approach as a key enabler of chemical recycling, in order to make the needed recyclates available. Due to the specific challenges for ‘contact sensitive’ plastic packaging, the economic impacts are likely to be significantly higher than for the non-contact sensitive, i.e. those recyclate markets will be tighter. As well as some administrative burden for the Commission and Member States, the estimated certification costs for the industry are divided into One-off costs around EUR 30 million and EUR 120 million recurring costs.

·The basis for the targets would be packaging placed on the EU market, such that they would be implemented by operators monitored and enforced by the Member States.

·The targets would be applied as a requirement on each item of obligated packaging, as opposed to an average to be met across a group of packaging items, based on the methodology for their quantification set out in M37 and certified for the respective packing item;

This measure would set mandatory targets for post-consumer recycled content in plastic packaging from the years 2030 and 2040, with two variants in terms of ambition.

The economic, social and environmental impacts of this measure in isolation are negligible, but it should be seen as a crucial basis for M34 and M35, as strongly supported by stakeholders. The inclusion of chemical recycling was subject of intense debate, especially the concrete allocation in a mass balance approach.

This measure introduces provisions to establish a harmonised methodology for the calculation, reporting and verification of recycled content levels in packaging, as well as clarifying the definition of the terms recycled content. The elaboration of the respective Implementing Act could revert on the respective act for the SUPD.

The detailed analysis of the measures in this intervention area can be found in Annex 9.5.

This measure would require that all products identified in M29 are made from compostable plastics. Consumer confusion - thus also the issue of cross contamination - is eliminated. However, the measure would imply further complexity for the packaging industry compared to M29d in terms of investments in research and development. Strong opposition from the waste management sector and Member States can be expected, as the compostability at local level of several out of the newly mandatory compostables is severely challenged. As regards economic impacts, the costs of switching to compostable polymers primarily result in higher material costs which exceed savings in waste management by EUR 170 million. The model estimated savings of 2.1 million tonnes of CO2e and EUR 518 million of externalities. Some additional 28k FTE are created.

Most stakeholders support the quantitative definition of recyclable packaging but are aware about the challenges of its implementation. In contrast to the qualitative definition in M22a, and although it may have generated interest, there was a broad consensus that M22c is not feasible before 2040 and neither desirable, as it would be difficult to implement considering that a high level of granularity (i.e. level of detail that should be considered by categories/types of packaging materials) would be required. Further, the current EU recycling targets are material specific and not product specific. One NGO suggested to launch a data collection system via the PROs now and based on this establish targets at a later stage.

A quantitative definition of recyclable packaging based on actual recycling rates within a packaging category or for a specific packaging item would be established. This measure is an alternative to M22b. Packaging item would be considered recyclable, if it is recycled (as a packaging format or a category of packaging) beyond a certain threshold. The feasibility would depend on the roll-out of new digital technologies that would enable the calculation of recycling rates for specific packaging items/categories. As such technologies are unlikely to be EU-wide in place by 2030, this measure would only be effective by 2040; the recycling rates for the concerned packaging would increase by 15-31% compared to the baseline, which corresponds to an overall increase of recycling rates by 2-3% in 2040. Significant additional administrative burdens are required to implement the new data systems and reporting process. These additional costs for packaging production are estimated to be EUR 1.6 billion and EUR 49 million for sorting and recycling, compared to the 2040 baseline. Savings by 2040 of 8.3 million tonnes of CO2e, 287k m3 of water use and EUR 2.5 billion of externalities are estimated. Shifting from incineration and landfill towards recycling would generate 36k FTEs.

Additional investments to shift to more compostable plastics will be limited, as also in the baseline these polymers are soaring. The economic impacts are reduced costs in waste management (less incineration and landfill) and food waste contamination removal in the order of EUR 200 million in 2030, but the additional costs for more compostable plastics (~EUR 380 million) lead to cost a cost increase of app. EUR 180 million. The model estimated savings of 1.1 million tonnes of CO2e and EUR 262 millions of externalities. Also, the environmental performance would significantly improve, if the hybrid status is completely phased out, because the plastic recycling will have better parameters in the future. The social impact is negligible.

Under this measure, lightweight plastic carrier bags, tea bags (and the similar coffee pods or bags) and labels sticking on fruit & vegetable must be produced from compostable plastic polymers. The other products selected in M29 would be allowed to be made from compostable polymers (hybrid status as in M29a). For the first group of products, consumer confusion and contamination issues arising in the bio-waste treatment plants and plastic recycling plants is reduced. For the other products listed in M29a, the consumer confusion remains high, as both compostable and conventional plastic polymers are allowed.

Measure 29d: Mandatory compostability for certain out of the selected plastics packaging types and for the remaining ones compostable or conventional plastics possible +M28

The economic impacts of this measure could not be quantified but largely affect packaging producers: harmonised fee modulation criteria will lead to a better application of the “polluter pays principle”, especially for the producers of the least recyclable forms of packaging. The environmental benefits would be evident due to reduced negative impacts of packaging waste management. The model estimates a small job creation in recycling industry of 5,700 FTEs by 2030. Stakeholders welcomed a coordinated approach to EPR fee modulation.

The measure envisages harmonisation of EPR fee modulation criteria. The setting of the actual fees and their magnitude would still be left to PROs and/or Member States. The measure would make the attainment of the recycling targets in the baseline more efficient and cost effective, as it will act as price driven incentive for improved packaging design; in this sense, the measure complements and strengthens the effect of M22b. At the same time, the use of standardised packaging formats for reuse could lead to lower EPR fees for reusable packaging. Implementation of this measure is simple as PROs already collect much of the data required to operationalise the measure and would play a key role in monitoring. As fee modulation is already required by PPWD, the additional administrative burden is expected to be small.

Overall, there is a broad consensus on the need for harmonised DfR criteria to have a uniform packaging classification on the internal market. Requests from industry stakeholders to ensure the recyclability assessment not to be too onerous have been addressed by creating the two-step procedure, where a self-assessment (first step) exempts the majority of the packaging types from a mandatory third party certification.

Administrative burden of this measures is expected to be significant. The Commission will need to manage the processes of establishing DfR criteria for 29 packaging categories in delegated acts and set a system for recyclability assessment including criteria for accreditation of certifying bodies. The costs for the preparatory work to establish the DfR criteria are established to be between EUR 1.8 and 2.6 million per year over 10 years. Packaging producers will have administrative burden associated with undertaking the two-stage assessment. This has been estimated at annual costs of EUR 385 million for first stage (self-assessment) and annual costs of EUR 750 million for the second stage (third-party assessment) if this takes place every 10 years. The economic impact will lead to EUR 868 million of additional production costs and EUR 172 million of additional costs in waste management, relative to the baseline in 2030. These costs are likely to be relatively low compared to an unregulated scenario. In terms of environmental benefit, savings equal to 4.2 million tonnes of CO2e, 150k m3 of water use, EUR 930 million reduced externalities of GHG and air quality. The measure will generate ~ 19k additional FTEs.

The maximum potential increase in the recycling rate is estimated to be between 11-20% for packaging types that are more challenging to recycle while for overall packaging recycling rates it will correspond to an increase of ~2% relative to the baseline in 2030.

This measure is complementary to the qualitative definition of recyclable packaging (M22a) and is based on the mandatory use of design for recycling (DfR) criteria and two-step recyclability assessments to determine whether packaging is recyclable. The qualitative definition (M22a) would be used as a set of guiding principles to support the development of mandatory DfR assessment methodology. While the measure is expected to be demanding to implement, it should be highly effective in raising recycling rates and improving the quality of recycled material. Linking the measure to the modulation of EPR fees would reinforce its effectiveness. The DfR approach will be flanked by a negative list of packaging characteristics, which impede or hinder recycling, which will have the effect of reversing the burden of proof and requiring packaging producers of such packaging to prove recyclability via third party certification system.

Economic and environmental impacts would be moderate as it is assumed that some transition to compostable items is already occurring in the baseline scenario, also the social impact would be negligible.

There are areas where the use of compostable plastic is beneficial, due to increased collection of organic waste and its diversion from residual waste or reduction in plastic contamination of compost. Therefore, a scoping exercise was undertaken to select plastic packaging, for which compostable materials are favourable: Lightweight plastic carrier bags, tea bags and coffee pads, fruit & vegetable labels (stickers), fast food trays that are unsuitable for re-use, films for perishable, trays for fruit & vegetables. In this measure, both compostable and/or conventional plastics are allowed to produce these packaging types.

M28 is feasible. There are too many uncertainties regarding the development of bio-waste treatment industry and the compostable polymers market to be able to estimate the impacts of avoided contamination. Slightly higher organic recycling rates and improvements in quality of the compost can be expected.

The updating of the Essential Requirements and EN 13432 will ensure better management of compostable packaging. To that end, the measure would improve the definition of compostable packaging and update the standard to ensure that real life conditions of composting are considered. This will lead to reduced cross-contamination of both waste streams.

The qualitative definition is widely supported and preferred over the quantitative definition in M22c. On the question whether key terms should be defined in the basic or in an implementing act, a majority of stakeholders called for definitions and key criteria to be clearly set out in the body of the act, while expressing concern about leaving the details to implementing acts and other secondary legislation. Further, representatives of the recycling sector argued for technological neutrality concerning chemical recycling to allow this type of recycling to coexist next to mechanical recycling. Finally, on the relevance of existing definitions of recyclability e.g. in EN13430, a majority of stakeholders argued that these definitions were obsolete.

If the measure is applied alone, it could be hampered by different interpretations between Member States, which could also increase the administrative burden for producers. The maximum additional cost of packaging producers is EUR 260 million and EUR 91 million for the recycling industry in 2030. Savings of 1.2 million tonnes of CO2e, 44k m3 of water use, EUR 270 million of externalities and a maximum increase in jobs of 5,700 are estimated relative to the baseline in 2030.

The Commission would define recyclable packaging as this much needed definition is currently non-existent. The impact of a qualitative definition alone on the recycling rates is not estimated to be significant. However, for some packaging types recycling rates are expected to increase by 3-5%.

Some stakeholders argued that non-recyclable reusable packaging should be allowed until 2035, subject to proven reuse and significantly better environmental parameters than single-use packaging. On the other hand, mainly NGOs argued that exemptions should not be allowed, as they risk being abused by the market.

The CBA model estimated that the measure will increase the recycling rates by maximum 1.7%. The CBA model estimates a net increase in production costs for packaging producers of EUR 107 million. Furthermore, the shift from incineration and landfill to recycling of some packaging materials will increase waste management costs by EUR 39 million. Savings of 550k t of CO2e, 18k m3 of water and EUR 163 million of externalities can be expected. 2k additional jobs are created in packaging production and waste management.

This measure requires that all reusable packaging must also be recyclable by 2030. The effectiveness and feasibility will be strictly linked to the level of stringency of the minimum reusability criteria (Measure 10) and recyclability assessment procedure and criteria as defined in M22b. The measure complements M21a and will require an extra effort by the operators in the reuse sectors.

The update of the essential requirement to bring coherence across Member States is widely supported by stakeholders, apart from a debate on the scope of what is included in recycling (i.e. composting). The removal of 'energy recovery' from the essential requirement was broadly supported, although the wood sector indicated that the best end-of-life for wood might be energy recovery.

The CBA model estimates EUR 237 million of additional costs relative to the baseline 2030, mainly born by those producers of packaging types that do not meet the new requirements. The reduction in the quantity of packaging waste material sent to incineration could generate savings of 812k tonnes of CO2e, of 29k m3 of water use and EUR 179 million less of externalities. 3,800 jobs would be created.

M21a will be the basis for clearer, better enforceable Essential Requirements on packaging, clearly prioritising recycling over recovery. It will make clear that packaging cannot be designed for energy recovery as it will remove the essential requirement on energy recovery and update the essential requirement on material recycling by requiring that not only a percentage of packaging item must be recyclable.

The detailed analysis of the measures on recyclability is in Annex 9.3 and on compostability in Annex 9.4.

The economic impacts modelled entail EUR 4.9 billion savings in waste management costs, EUR 160 million avoided costs of DRS, EUR 59.9 billion loss of producer revenues, EUR 12.9 billion savings in material costs and EUR 4.8 billion costs in reuse schemes. The environmental impact includes an estimated decrease in 2030 relative to the baseline of 14.6 million tonnes of CO2e and monetised reduction of GHG emission and air pollution of EUR 4.9 billion. A net loss of around 18k jobs is modelled. Stakeholder opinions were similar but fortified to M2b and concerned packaging industry was strongly opposed to the ban of heaviest packaging.

Due to the additional M3 (bans of heaviest packaging items) and the higher reuse targets in M8c, the EU harmonised measures contribute to more than 70% to the waste reduction, leaving still about 30% to the Member States to develop internal market compliant national measures to meet the target.

The measure is similar to M2b, but with a higher target. In terms of effectiveness, it would reduce packaging waste by 23% in 2030 compared to the baseline, which is equivalent to a reduction of 10% compared to the waste generated in 2018. As regards implementation and administrative burden, see M2b, but the implementation by the Member States would become even harder considering the increases till the application date of the new law and the sharper reduction within the few years between the application date and 2030.

The following economic impacts have been identified: (i) Light-weighting of a current design (or selecting a lighter standard bottle) saves material costs (estimated EUR 294 million in 2030), (ii) initial investment costs are generally paid back quickly through material cost savings, (iii) if applied across the EU, there will be no disadvantage to any single EU producer as all will be treated equally, so long as imported bottles are also treated the same way and enforcement is effective, (iv) the margin (e.g. +20%) of weight allowed with respect to the lightest option gives margin to SMEs to comply, (v) waste management and EPR cost savings are estimated at EUR 81 million by 2030. The environmental benefits of this measure are predicted to be significant and predominately linked to a reduction in GHG emissions and water use. The change in 2030 relative to the baseline estimates a reduction of 766k tonnes CO2e and 39k m3 of water. The monetary value of the reduction in GHG emission and air pollution is estimated to be 104 million EUR. In terms of social impacts, a small negative impact on jobs is expected (-3,700 in 2030), only affecting raw material suppliers in the EU. Stakeholders are generally very concerned about the availability of the data required for this measure at the EU-level and the need to keep that data up to date. Many stakeholders preferred to set a best-in-class threshold only as a voluntary approach.

This measure would consist of two steps: (i) identifying, for a given kind of packaging, the lightest option available on the market, (ii) if such weight is X, banning, by 2030, any such packaging exceeding X by 20%. This measure would be targeted initially only at bottles (possibly adding jars) made of plastic and glass, as they are easy to define, relatively simple in nature, and have good weight reduction potential. The modelled impacts of this measure would lead to a reduction of 2.7% in overall waste generation in 2030. The implementation of this measure is predicted to be complicated. The measure would ensure a more harmonised approach to the implementation of M2b.

For the implementation, administrative burden would derive from monitoring and reporting the progress with respect to the targets, both for public authorities and businesses. The economic impacts are estimated for 2030 to be EUR 852 million savings in waste management costs (lower EPR fees and avoided costs of one-way DRS), EUR 24.2 billion loss of producer revenues, EUR 2.5 billion savings in material costs and capital and operating costs of EUR 2.2 billion for reuse schemes (including DRS for refillables). The increase in reusable packaging is estimated for 2030 to lead to decreases in GHG emissions of 2.67 million t CO2e [15.76 million t CO2e in 2040], in environmental externalities of EUR 704 million [EUR 3.12 billion in 2040], and in water consumption of 118k m3 [451k m3 in 2040]. The measure would result in a net creation of 629k FTE in 2030. Stakeholders´ positions were similar than concerning M8b, but in a reinforced way.

This measure is identical with M8b, but with higher targets for the selected packaging types (see table 3). It is expected that the targets reduce packaging waste by 7.8% in 2030 [26.4% in 2040]. Further, the measure increases the share of reusable packaging from 2.4% in the 2030 baseline to 8.6% [19.2% in 2040].

Packaging producers concerned by turnover losses suggested that instead of the strict reduction of packaging, voluntary measures should rather avoid waste ending up in landfill or incineration and foster recycling. There was a wide range of views on the setting of these targets, which were considered either too high or too low. On the materials included, the plastics industry asked for the target to be the same for all materials while representatives of other packaging materials (e.g. glass or paper) preferred to increase the target for materials considered more difficult to collect and recycle at the present time such as plastics. A general concern was expressed if Member States diverge in the setting of targets and/or the measures to be taken to achieve them and that an over-arching target should not only encourage the switch to lighter single-use materials.

The administrative burden associated with it will depend on how Member States deliver on the target. The economic impacts are estimated for 2030 to be EUR 4.2 billion savings in waste management costs, EUR 429 million avoided costs of DRS, EUR 52.2 billion loss of producer revenues, EUR 11 billion savings in material costs and EUR 4 billion costs in reuse schemes. In terms of social impacts, the jobs created in the reuse sector are overcompensated by the reduction of jobs in packaging production, resulting net in a loss of around 22 k jobs in 2030. The environmental benefits are linked to a reduction in GHG emissions in 2030 relative to the baseline estimated at 11.8 million tonnes CO2e. The monetary value of GHG emission and air pollution reduction is estimated at EUR 3.7 billion.

The measure will be supported by the EU harmonised M5 (void space), M7 (phase out of unnecessary packaging) and M8b (reuse targets), which contribute to almost 60% of the waste reduction. Concerning the complementary M10a, M10b, M10c and M19 (all supporting more reuse) and M1 (over-packaging), the Member States have leeway to identify the optimal mix of policies to meet the target reflecting their national circumstances. First of all, they might monitor to what extent economic operators undertake voluntary actions to generate less packaging waste beyond the legal requirements, e.g. further fostering reuse and refill, because it is appreciated by the consumers. In addition, the Member States can opt for actions under the scope of the ORD or other measures compliant with the internal market rules, such as mandating corporate waste management plans, in order to fill the gap between the impacts of the harmonised measures and target.

Member States are given a target to reduce the absolute packaging waste figure in terms of kg packaging waste per inhabitant. The reduction target of 19% compared to the 2030 baseline is equivalent to a 5% reduction from the 2018 figure, with wood, paper/board and plastic packaging having the greatest impacts. The measure is ambitious considering the steady increases till the application date (the baseline projection does not take into account the Covid pandemic, which seems to have increased waste generation) and the need for a turn-around of the trend to come to a reduction.

The modelled impacts show an overall reduction of 4.4% in packaging waste in 2030, compared to the baseline. The administrative burden would be on Member States market surveillance authorities, with different enforcement issues on transit packaging. In addition, the list of banned items would need to be reviewed and updated, if necessary, after the implementation. The economic impacts due to avoided packaging include EUR 1.24 billion savings in EPR fees, EUR 15.4 billion loss of producer turnover, material cost savings of EUR 1.7 billion and EUR 979 million costs in reuse schemes. The environmental benefits are linked to a reduction in GHG emissions and water use. The change in 2030 relative to the baseline estimates a reduction of 2.18 million tonnes CO2e and 91k m3 of water. The monetary value of the reduction in GHG emission and air pollution is estimated to be EUR 516 million. In terms of social impacts, 490k FTE would be created. Stakeholder views on this measure were polarized, with NGOs generally in strong support, industry strongly against insisting on the need for LCA data to ensure that the changes had a positive impact on GHG emissions and did not result in increased product waste.

This measure would entail the gradual elimination from the EU market of several items of ‘unnecessary’ packaging. In scope are some single use transit packaging used between companies, some single-use retail packaging, notably certain plastic packaging for fruit and vegetables, and some packaging formats in the HORECA sector (single use packaging for condiments, preserves, sauces and similar, single use miniature hygiene and toiletry packaging, EPS packaging layers in retail pizza and other retail food packaging) and packaging using double walls, false bottoms and other means to create impression of a greater volume than it is. Experience with the SUPD shows that a proper implementation would require a clear description of the product scope, by issuing guidelines, which will imply some administrative burden. The measure contributes to a harmonised approach to the implementation of M2b but would require an appropriate phase out period.

This measure further clarifies the legal framework for reusable packaging focusing on establishing requirements for reuse systems, both in the legislation and via a request to CEN to standardise specific reuse systems. More concretely, the full range of reuse systems, e.g. consumer led (refill), industry led (return), B2C, B2B, would precisely addressed in the new regulation. The improved legal definitions and standards will contribute to an enhanced development of reusable packaging systems with a broader coverage and improved performance. Economic, social and environmental impacts are similar to M10a but slightly higher. Stakeholders generally support the standardisation of the legal framework of reuse systems.

Stakeholders agreed that the standardisation of the formats is the most contentious proposition; standards should be considered on a case-by-case basis depending on the sector and the type of reuse. In contrary, NGOs are very keen on standardisation of reusable packaging formats at EU level, as this would be the most effective way of creating a scalable model for major product groups.

This measure would improve the legal definition of reusable packaging, including setting a minimum number of rotations. In addition, the Commission would launch a standardisation of some reusable packaging formats (e.g reusable food trays). The economic and social impacts would be higher than under M10a, but so would be the environmental performance. The measure would contribute to increase reuse. Expected economic impacts include increased cost for infrastructure development and replacement of the current formats, and reduction of manufacturing costs and easier deployment of reusable packaging systems.

As regards the distribution of impacts: With mandatory targets, there would be less divergence of activities between Member States and also between competing enterprises than under voluntary regimes. In terms of how effects on packaging manufacturers and producers of products would be distributed across the EU, those countries where a high volume of single-use packaging is manufactured, or products are sold in single-use packaging, will be more affected than those for which this is not the case. Businesses manufacturing reusable packaging and who would gain market shares may also not be evenly distributed across Europe.

To mitigate the concerns raised by stakeholders and Member States, exemptions from the obligation to meet re-use and refill targets can be established for economic operator. Concretely, economic operators could be exempted from the obligation to meet the targets, if they only place packaging below a certain threshold on the market or comply with the definition of micro-company in accordance with rules set out in the Commission Recommendation 2003/361 or have a sales area below 100 m2.

NGOs stressed that reuse should always be the first option, while some industry stakeholders favouring in recent years single use (especially food and beverage industry or paper packaging industry) expressed that reusable product could lead to trade-offs in terms of food safety, food security, food waste risks or environmental performance. They were not very supportive of a general reuse target but are more open to differentiated targets by sector and type of packaging, and clearly opposed to 100% targets. A majority of stakeholders argued for mandatory instead of voluntary targets to ensure security of investment, to avoid undermining the single market through heterogeneous implementation and to enable economies of scale. Opposing views on target levels were expressed from 'not ambitious enough' to 'unrealistic and unachievable'.

For the implementation, administrative burden would derive from monitoring and reporting of compliance with the targets, both for public authorities and businesses. The economic impacts are estimated for 2030 to be EUR 461 million savings in waste management costs (lower EPR fees and avoided costs of one-way DRS), EUR 15.82 billion reduction in SU production and consumption, EUR 1.62 billion savings in material costs, and capital & operating costs of EUR 1.48 billion for reuse schemes (including DRS for refillables). The increase in reusable packaging is estimated to lead to decreases in GHG emissions of 1.25 million t CO2e in 2030 [5.54 million t CO2e in 2040], in environmental externalities of EUR 427 million in 2030 [EUR 1.72 billion in 2040], and in water consumption of 69k m3 in 2030 [212k m3 in 2040]. The measure would result in a net creation of 468k FTE in 2030 (loss in SU production and new jobs in MU sector).

A coffee shop (target = 30%), for example, which sells 10000 cups of coffee for take away per year is obliged to sell and report a minimum of 3000 coffee served in MU coffee cups. In case of an assumed average number of rotations of a MU coffee cup of 15, the coffee shop would, at a MU rate of the 30%, reduce packaging by 24.8%. The modelling expects the targets to decrease packaging waste compared to the baseline by 4.9% in 2030 [13.3% in 2040]. Further, the measure will stop the downward trend in reuse and increases the share of products sold in MU packaging from 2.4% in the baseline 2030 to 5.9% [10.3% in 2040].

The concrete targets for 2030 have been set to ensure a “critical mass” for the concerned operators i.e., that there are at least some economies of scale for the additional logistical and organisational costs. On the other side, very high targets e.g., 100%, risk that businesses that only market their (premium) products in single-use packaging cannot shift to MU packaging and are kicked out of the market. The whole set of the reuse measures is designed to set feasible targets and to avoid that the transport of the emptied reusable packaging does not devour the environmental benefits, neither undermine the safety of the packaged products: For example, the harmonisation of packaging formats, exemptions (see below), the fact that for products with a significant market share of premium brands relative low