Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste"

(COM(2001) 729 final - 2001/0291 (COD))

(2002/C 221/09)

On 31 January 2002 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 6 May 2002. The rapporteur was Mr Adams.

At its 391st plenary session of 29 and 30 May 2002 (meeting of 29 May), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 100 votes in favour and 3 abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1. The Commission proposal is concerned with targets for the recovery and recycling of packaging waste. The objective is to continue the harmonisation of national measures with a view to reducing impact on the environment and ensuring the functioning of the Internal Market. Some measures on this issue were first introduced in 1985. Subsequently the need for comprehensive legislation on packaging and packing waste was recognised by economic operators and Member States. After extensive consultation (the Committee's Opinion of 24 March 1993(1) gave a positive and broad endorsement), Directive 94/62/EC was adopted. It proved to be the right policy choice. In most of the Member States the directive has been implemented successfully although this has involved recognising and transferring a large part of the costs involved in non-sustainable disposable methods to producers and consumers. Even in the less well-performing countries a positive trend has been launched. The present proposal seeks to fulfil the requirement to further increase those targets set in the first phase (to be achieved by 30 June 2001) - the new targets are to be achieved by 30 June 2006. New targets are also proposed and set for specific waste materials based in part on life-cycle assessments and cost-benefit analysis. The directive also establishes that this review and revision process shall continue to take place every five years.

1.2. The proposal does not review the basis or necessity for the need to minimise, recycle and recover packaging waste, this having been comprehensively explored in the original Directive and, by general consent, remaining an urgent environmental imperative enjoying widespread public support throughout the EU. The proposal also notes that several other current initiatives are dealing with related issues - for example the Communication/White Paper on Integrated Product Policy, the Thematic Strategy on Recycling, the Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Resources and the Directive on Electrical and Electronic Equipment. However, the current proposal does explore the effectiveness and achievability of existing and proposed targets.

1.3. This opinion adopts a similar approach whilst recognising, as does the Commission, that other aspects of the 1994 Directive, such as prevention, re-use and further work on transferring the environmental impact costs of packaging into the product cost will need to be considered urgently in the near future. Indeed, the Committee has already contributed significantly to this forthcoming debate in its Own-initiative Opinion on the Development of outlets for food and non-food packaging waste produced by Mr Verhaeghe and adopted in December 1999(2). That opinion remains highly relevant, covering many related issues, and is commended as a complementary view on the technical, environmental and economic issues surrounding packaging waste management and conversion of waste into secondary materials. This opinion, in its own conclusions, will therefore re-state the main points endorsed by the EESC in December 1999.

1.4. All sectors of society have been affected by this directive. It is a success story for the Commission and all those involved in its development and implementation. It has been instrumental in raising environmental awareness generally in Europe but particularly in stimulating a response in those Member States with low levels of recycling. As a result, consumers and producers, whilst recognising the benefits of packaging, increasingly understand their responsibility to sustainably dispose of the by-products of their consumption or production. Where business, the consumer and local and national government have worked to a common plan significant, even spectacular, gains in recycling have been made.

1.5. The Committee recognises that appropriate packaging provides numerous benefits in terms of protection, health, safety, information, security and shelf-life and that therefore dealing with packaging waste, once regarded as an externality in the production process, should become internalised as part of the cost calculation. The EESC's opinion therefore focuses on whether the existing targets in the directive have been effective in promoting sustainable recycling and recovery and whether the new targets proposed can be implemented by 2006.

2. Definitions (A short guide to the terminology and definitions used in the proposal and opinion)

2.1. Overall recovery target: Recovery of packaging waste comprises the recycling of materials and the recovery of energy or fuels from materials through incineration or other processes.

2.2. Material specific targets: Separate minimum recycling targets are defined for glass, paper/board, metals and plastics. The proposed 20 % recycling target for plastic packaging waste is to be achieved by mechanical or chemical recycling only. Targets for a fifth stream of recyclable materials such as wood, textiles and composites have not been set, though it is recognised that recycling these materials may form a part (7 %) of the overall recycling target.

2.3. Composite materials: Packaging containing a mix of materials. These can give rise to recycling difficulties due to problems in separating into constituent elements. The major share of composites will be classified by the dominant material used in their manufacture.

2.4. Maximum target: The intention of setting a maximum recycling and recovery target was to ensure that distortions in the internal market did not occur through high volume collection of recyclables without Member States providing appropriate processing facilities. The maxima can be exceeded by agreement provided such facilities are in place or planned. A number of Member States are already exceeding current targets and projections of continued take-up of recycling in these states indicate that the proposed maximum targets will, in practice, continue to be exceeded. The provision of a maximum target either recognised finite technical limits to recycling or was designed to protect developing materials collection and sorting programmes in other Member States from being affected by over-supply of material from other countries.

3. Main content of the proposal

3.1. The following table sets out the targets that were agreed for the first phase of the directive and the proposed targets for the second phase.

First and second phase (proposed) targets (by weight)

>TABLE>

3.2. The narrowing of the difference between the minimum recovery and minimum recycling targets acknowledges the fact that for the majority of selectively collected packaging waste, recycling is environmentally superior and justified on a cost/benefit basis. However the proposal also places a requirement on Member States to encourage energy recovery in certain circumstances. This is because the energy recovery of certain fractions of packaging waste can improve the environmental balance of packaging-waste management and makes for the overall ecological and economic optimisation of all waste streams, if these operations are conducted in installations with adequate air pollution control equipment and a high degree of energy recovery efficiency. Nevertheless, there needs to be continuing awareness of the concerns of the general public and environmental organisations in particular of the potential health and environmental impacts from incineration of waste, particularly where this takes place in installations that have not yet been adapted to the IPPC standard or in installations with poorer emission levels than waste-incineration plants. In addition the provision of incineration plant is a major capital cost which tends to lock waste management into a fixed pattern, thus reducing flexibility. For these reasons it is not proposed to increase recovery targets beyond 75 %.

3.3. Member States are again encouraged to re-use the materials obtained from recycling in packing and other products.

3.4. Greece, Ireland and Portugal may postpone the attainment of the revised targets until 30 June 2009, an extension of three years.

3.5. Definitions of "mechanical", "chemical" and "feedstock" recycling are given.

3.6. An annexe further defines packaging materials, responding to queries which have arisen during implementation of the original directive.

4. General comments

4.1. The targets proposed have been set following wide consultation with representatives of European packaging and recycling, recovery and waste-disposal industries, environmental and consumer NGOs and other interested parties. The present targets are lower than those originally proposed in the first consultation round and have thus moved towards levels dictated by consumer behaviour, industrial capabilities, and participation of local authorities in those countries where recycling is less developed. The position of a number of consumer, environmental and non-governmental organisations participating in the consultation was to argue for higher recycling targets, a re-use quota, deposit schemes and packaging taxes. These views have not been reflected in the proposed directive. The Committee is of the view that if the full production, marketing, social and environmental costs of product packaging was reflected in the price then the pressure for supplementary packaging taxes would be reduced or eliminated. However, there is not yet agreement at all such social and environmental costs can be identified and quantified.

4.2. The Committee wishes to emphasise that the main objective of a more sustainable approach to packaging will only be achieved if built on an integrated foundation of political will, public education, business engagement and the active support of municipal authorities. This common pattern has been evident in those countries achieving higher recycling and recovery targets.

4.3. The Commission's proposal is informed by a number of independent studies of the issues and in particular by one commissioned from RDC/Pira on costs and benefits of various targets. Whilst this study is still in draft form it has been published and broadly supports the proposals in the directive. The complexity of the issues involved in cost/benefit analysis has led to a considerable delay in the original timetable, but the Commission considers that there is still sufficient time for national legislation to incorporate new targets where necessary.

4.4. The Commission also believes that there is adequate time for the sectors to set up or extend the necessary infrastructure to meet the new targets. Industry representatives from some Member States which would have high achievement targets dispute this. The Committee's view is that the packaging industry in the great majority of Member States has shown itself to be flexible and adaptable in achieving the first round of targets - and indeed higher national targets than are being proposed in the directive - and this encouraging performance will enable it to respond adequately to the new targets. The Committee believes this will only be the case if all sectors - national and municipal authorities, business and consumers - actively cooperate and support recycling and recovery programmes.

4.5. In this context the experience of Member States is relevant, six of which had already, in 1998, achieved overall recycling levels equivalent to those now proposed by the Commission for 2006 - eight years ahead of the proposed schedule. Also in 1998 eight Member States had achieved recycling levels equivalent to those now proposed by the Commission for 2006 for glass and paper, four had achieved them for plastics and three for metals.

Recycling performance

>TABLE>

4.6. The EESC recognises that when the original Directive was adopted there were three groupings of Member States:

- those with a significantly less developed recycling capacity - in terms of consumer awareness, collection and reprocessing;

- those with the internal resources and potential to rapidly develop collection and processing capacity but where, traditionally, non-sustainable methods were extensively used for waste processing and consumer awareness of recycling had not been actively encouraged;

- those with an established collection and reprocessing capacity supported by relatively high consumer awareness.

4.7. The original targets, and those now proposed in the amendments to the directive, seek to accommodate all three groupings by encouraging progressive convergence towards eco-efficient recycling targets, allowing the build-up of capacity, collection schemes and consumer education. The directive, by setting specific targets, has undoubtedly stimulated recycling and recovery initiatives at all levels in Member States. Those with low awareness have made significant efforts, those with established programmes have further extended and improved them.

4.8. The Commission accepts that the proposed new targets will have a minimal direct effect on several Member States, who are already achieving the proposed targets. However, it argues that the new targets will result in an additional 4,7 million tonnes of packaging materials being recycled by 2006 as countries with less developed recycling programmes meet the requirement.

4.9. Reducing the environmental impact of packaging is to be seen as an irrevocable priority. However, it should always be positioned in a "fair" balance with the other vital needs consumers expect to be met by packaging: food safety, preservation, product protection, information and convenience. Given the operation of the single market the EU must act as arbiter in determining this balance.

5. Specific comments

5.1. The Committee recognises that technical issues play an important and increasing part in recycling and recovery programmes and would urge further support for research, particularly into the recycling and re-use of plastics and polymers and the development of industry capacity.

5.2. The high marginal costs of collection, sorting and processing to achieve the higher percentages of recycling for packaging will present financial and capacity challenges though these may be partly offset by increased consumer awareness. Nevertheless increasingly higher targets for recycling will incur costs and every effort must be made to retain the active support and involvement of the consumer, who will be asked to bear these costs.

5.3. In many Member States a significant sector of the social economy has developed around the various aspects of recycling and re-use. The Committee asks the Commission to bear in mind that the increasing professionalisation and industrialisation of recovery, recycling and re-use processes may threaten jobs already created which provide accessible employment for disadvantaged groups. In particular the development of chemical processes for some plastics (to stand alongside or replace mechanical processes) favours technologically advanced industry to the possible detriment of labour-intensive processes.

5.4. Wood is not identified as a separate materials stream with its own target in the original directive or the proposed revision although the volume and weight of wood in the waste stream is significant. The Committee suggests that the revised directive comments on the particular role that wood has to play in packaging and the consequent waste-management issues.

5.5. The revision is part of a continual process which is stimulating industry, commerce and consumers to be aware of the impact of packaging waste on the environment. Industrial and commercial packaging waste sources have already responded well to minimisation, recycling and re-use programmes, often encouraged by additional national target-setting and legislation. Often, the packaging lifecycle stays within clearly identifiable and restricted users and there are opportunities for directly controlled cost efficiencies.

5.6. There is substantial variation between optimal recycling rates identified in the RDC/Pira report of as much as 31 %. This is to certain extent (around 10 %) due to varying geographical conditions. Other important factors include participation, alternative waste-management methods, transport distances etc. Significant challenges in achieving some of the proposed targets will face some of the Members States, especially those which in the past placed less emphasis on consumer awareness about re-use and recycling and consequently developed a lower recycling capacity. These challenges may be severe in some materials areas (for example the recycling of green glass in the UK due to the massive net import of wine). However, the Committee is of the opinion that significant social and environmental gains have already been made in encouraging sustainability in packaging and that further progress should not be jeopardised by setting targets which would be comfortably achieved by those Member States slowest to implement effective, coordinated programmes. The implication of this is that some Member States may have to review their internal implementation schemes to meet the directive targets and provide additional incentives or support on specific materials.

5.7. Household waste generates most of the glass-packaging waste, about half of the metals and plastics waste and one third of paper and cardboard waste produced. There is an increasing focus on the need to minimise packaging in consumer goods and improve recovery from the municipal waste stream, which is less easy to control than industrial and commercial streams and more mixed in content. This opinion therefore takes the opportunity to stress the need for increased support for national, regional and municipal initiatives on the recovery of packaging waste from household sources. This supports the Committee's previously expressed desire to see environmental policy on packaging and packaging waste progress towards an ambitious and pro-active approach focusing on prevention and recovery of packaging waste.

6. Conclusions

6.1. The Committee recognises and fully supports Directive 94/62/EC as an important driving force in encouraging national legislation to introduce systems for selective collection, sorting and recovery of packaging waste and in raising awareness of the role of packaging as both an important and necessary element in the product lifecycle and also as a significant contributor to the waste stream. It further endorses the commitment to progressively raise recycling and recovery targets and to introduce a substantial increase in those targets in the current proposed amendment.

6.2. The current proposed revised targets have been set with particular reference to those Member States with low recycling rates. For them the targets are demanding but, in the view of the Committee, achievable through pro-active, concerted effort. In taking this view the EESC notes significant progress in the last five years, both in the introduction of specific and progressive national legislation and in the response of the packaging and recycling, recovery and waste-disposal industries. The Committee notes, however, that in several Member States consumer awareness of their own role in increased recycling remains low and urges specific consumer education and awareness-raising initiatives by the EU and Member States on recycling, re-use and acceptance of a move towards minimal packaging consistent with health and safety requirements. As the consumer society developed in the second half of last century traditions of re-use and recycling were adopted by some countries but not others. This continues to have a strong effect. Member States will also need to ensure that municipal authorities demonstrate through concrete action their support for packaging waste recycling.

6.3. There remain a number of difficulties in the recycling of packaging waste and the Committee continues to urge a pro-active policy based on participation, incorporating all those involved in the chain of production, use and disposal of packaging, particularly taking account of the economic constraints faced by these players. The Committee restates its view that a blueprint for the development of outlets for recycled products should comprise:

- greater backing for innovation and for development of new recovery techniques for packaging waste;

- identification and development of new markets for recyclates;

- introduction of CEN standards for recyclates;

- more responsibility for the various packaging-waste sectors;

- constructive dialogue with consumers/citizens;

- continual improvement of the EU statistical monitoring system.

6.4. The Committee notes with some concern that the present revision proposal does not contribute to the discussion on packaging minimisation, re-use and the responsibilities of packaging producers. Delay in the collection of comparative data and scheme evaluation should not prevent the development of new proposals and the Committee will consider initiating an own-initiative opinion on these matters. In particular we call for action on obtaining information about preventative measures being undertaken by Member States as required in Directive 94/62/EC, action on complex packaging materials that are difficult to recycle, review of the case for the introduction of economic incentives for re-use and recycling and greater support for voluntary measures.

6.5. The Committee urges that the extensive work currently being undertaken on determining the economic/environmental optimum in recycling and recovery of packaging materials is continued and extended. In particular it asks that such work exploring cost-effectiveness takes account of:

- escalating marginal costs for collecting and recycling increasingly higher percentages of the specified materials;

- environmental factors which prove difficult to financially quantify such as the cost of dealing with the negative aesthetic impact of litter;

- problems which may arise due to the use of composite materials or labelling containing heavy metals or other substances inimical to recycling processes.

6.6. There remains some uncertainty about the collection and interpretation of data on packaging production and waste in Member States, with variation being apparent. Clearer common guidelines should be established by the Commission and steps taken to ensure consistent implementation in the EU. Trade between and beyond Member States in recyclable materials is also one of the pertinent issues here.

6.7. Finally, the Committee notes that enlargement will see the Single Market extended to countries which will be aspiring to levels of economic performance which are linked, in existing Member States, with high levels of packaging waste. Accession States have considerable experience of approaching recycling and re-use issues in a creative way and it would be a highly positive outcome if these skills could be retained and used throughout the Union to follow a more sustainable path on packaging in general.

Brussels, 29 May 2002.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke Frerichs

(1) EESC's opinion CES 345/93, OJ C 129, 10.5.1993.

(2) EESC's opinion CES 1119/99, OJ C 51, 23.2.2000, pp. 17-23.