Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on marking of packaging and on the establishment of a conformity assessment procedure for packaging` () (97/C 287/02)

On 27 January 1997, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 100A of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 15 May 1997. The rapporteur was Mrs Davison, the co-rapporteurs Mr Colombo and Mr Verhaeghe.

At its 346th Plenary Session (meeting of 28 May 1997) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 73 votes to 2 with 4 abstentions.

Summary

(i) The Committee confirms the need for a programme to minimize the impact of packaging on the environment and for an end to the proliferation of self-validated marks indicating the reusability or recyclability of packaging.

(ii) The Committee considers that a European mark to indicate reusability or recyclability should: a) build on existing widely recognized marks, and b) have international recognition.

(iii) The Committee recognizes that this may mean some delay in introducing a European mark.

(iv) However, the Committee considers it more urgent that the Member States put into place sufficient reuse, recycling and, in the right conditions, recovery facilities combined with information to consumers.

(v) The Committee also calls on the Commission to encourage faster preparation of the supporting European standards on packaging.

(vi) The Committee also recommends a streamlined conformity assessment procedure.

1. Introduction

1.1. The proposed directive aims at meeting the obligation set out in Article 8.1 of European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging and Packaging Waste (), which asked the Council to decide on the marking of packaging before 31 December 1996.

1.2. It also describes how conformity to the essential requirements contained in Annex II of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive must be assessed, and therefore introduces a conformity assessment procedure for all packaging covered by that Directive.

1.3. Marking of packaging

1.3.1. By providing agreed European graphic symbols indicating the reusable or recyclable nature of the packaging, the proposed Directive gives priority to these kinds of packaging, in agreement with the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive which:

- indicated that 'until scientific and technical progress is made with regard to recovery processes, reuse and recycling should be considered preferable in terms of environmental impact`;

- had specific targets for recycling to be attained.

1.3.2. The proposed marking for reusability or recyclability would be voluntary and would not be linked to an established system of return, collection and recycling management, since it is not always possible to ensure that such systems are available where the packaging is actually sold.

1.3.3. The proposal suggests two new symbols, set out in the Annexes, one for recyclability and the second for reusability, to avoid obstacles in terms of property rights and because already existing symbols are often used in a different way by different operators.

1.3.4. The Commission is aware of ISO work on environmental claims and the marking of the recyclable nature of packaging. When an international standard is adopted on the subject, the Commission may reconsider its proposed mark and use the ISO symbols in order to avoid international barriers to trade.

1.3.5. Once the proposed Directive comes into force, any other marks indicating the reusability or the recyclability of packaging will be prohibited throughout the European Union.

1.4. Conformity assessment procedure

1.4.1. A conformity assessment procedure is also introduced by the proposed directive, with the aim of ensuring a coherent application of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive by manufacturers and to allow the Member States to control the compliance of packaging and packaging marking with the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive. The Commission considered that the most appropriate procedure was internal production control by the manufacturer, using self validation.

1.4.2. The Commission was not in favour of using a CE mark as a conformity marking, arguing that it would be difficult for consumers to know whether a CE mark on packaging refers to the package or to the product.

2. General comments

2.1. Marking of packaging

2.1.1. The Committee recognizes that European marking of packaging promoting re-use and recycling of packaging, and prohibiting the proliferation of marks on the market, could reduce the negative impact of packaging on the environment and protect consumers.

2.1.2. However, the Committee questions whether the proposed symbols will be understandable. It also feels, now that ISO has moved further towards adoption of some form of Moebius loop (three 'flipped over, chasing` arrows) that the introduction, at some expense, of new and different EU symbols should be avoided. The importance of a uniform international symbol for EU exports, especially when considering the WTO, should not be underestimated.

2.1.3. The Committee considers that the Commission should be involved in the ISO discussions in order to speed up the adoption of an internationally suitable European mark. Consumer confusion over the current proliferation of marks and environmental claims could also be tackled via action on environmental claims.

2.1.4. The Committee respects the consumer's general opinion that something which calls itself recyclable should be recycled but notes that the proposed marking will not give any assurance about the effectiveness of recycling. The recycling of packaging does not depend only on the material itself, but mostly on local collection facilities and the national recycling industry. It should be ensured that marked packaging is genuinely recyclable - economically, ecologically and technologically. In fact, even if the recycling targets of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive are met in 2001, up to 75 % packaging may not be recycled.

2.1.5. The 1994 Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste regarded the marking of packaging as part of a programme of action. Other key requirements were that Member States set up systems which provide for 'the return and/or collection of used packaging and/or packaging waste from the consumer, other final user, or from the waste stream in order to channel it to the most appropriate waste management alternatives` and 'the re-use or recovery including recycling of the packaging and/or packaging waste collected`. The Committee repeats its recent call for efforts 'to make existing regulations (on waste) effective and operative` ().

2.1.6. The Commission and the Member States should be putting more effort into promoting re-use, recycling and energy recovery schemes, as well as accompanying consumer information campaigns.

2.1.7. A sensible choice between re-use, recycling and energy recovery depends upon effective life cycle analysis. Especially important is the energy used for transport, and the energy or water consumption needed to clean a package after use to make it reusable or recyclable.

2.1.8. Under Article 10 of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (standardization) the Commission was responsible for promoting the preparation of European standards related to: the essential requirements for packaging, the criteria and methodologies for life-cycle analysis of packaging, the methods for measuring the presence of heavy metals and other dangerous substances, the criteria for determining the amount of recycled material in packaging, the recycling methods, the marking criteria, etc. All these are essential.

2.1.9. The Committee is disappointed at the slow rate of progress of the action foreseen in the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive.

2.1.10. The Committee is aware that it will be difficult for small packages to be marked, because of space problems, even if they were efficiently produced and are perfectly recyclable or reusable.

2.1.11. The proposed information campaigns should make it clear that recyclability or reusability do not depend only on the nature of the packaging material, but also on the environmental and economic costs of this recycling or re-use. For example, it would not be a good thing if the increasing number of small households felt obliged to buy food in family sized packages, and take the risk of storing it too long, simply because of the non-recyclability of small, dirty packages.

2.2. Conformity assessment procedure

2.2.1. The Committee agrees that the manufacturer must be in a position to prove, at any time, that his packaging complies with the essential requirements as set forth in the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive. This compliance can be shown by demonstrating conformity with the CEN standards (mandated from CEN by the European Commission). In this regard, the manufacturer must maintain the relevant technical documentation at the disposal of the national authorities for inspection purposes.

2.2.2. However, the Committee is of the opinion that it is too burdensome to require that companies maintain very detailed documentation, including a declaration of conformity for each product, for a period of four years.

3. Conclusion

3.1. Although the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive calls upon the Council to decide on the marking of packaging, this does not compel the Council and the European Parliament to adopt a directive immediately. In view of the fact that waste management systems are still under development, and of the current lack of provision of recycling and re-use facilities, the Committee considers that efforts would be better spent in these areas, as well as on reducing unnecessary packaging. A little more time can then be taken to develop an understandable and internationally compatible mark for the EU.

Brussels, 28 May 1997.

The President of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

() OJ C 382, 18. 12. 1996, p. 10.

() OJ L 365, 31. 12. 1994.

() ESC Opinion on the Communication from the Commission on the review of the Community strategy for waste management (OJ C 89, 19. 3. 1997, p. 1).