Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on 'The development of outlets for food and non-food packaging waste'
Date: 1999-12-08
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: environmental protection, packaging, packaging product, public awareness campaign, waste recycling

23.2.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 51/17

pollutant emissions for combined cycle plants, industrial
and public cogeneration plants and in emulsion and
residue gasification plants;

— joint financing of applied research projects for the develop-
ment of low-emission transport technologies and systems.

Brussels, 8 December 1999.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘The development of outlets for food and
non-food packaging waste’

(2000/C 51/04)

On 29 April 1999 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the third paragraph of Rule 23 of
its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an own-initiative Opinion on ‘The development of outlets for
food and non-food packaging waste’.

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 16 November 1999. The
rapporteur was Mr Verhaeghe.

At its 368th plenary session (meeting of 8 December 1999), the Economic and Social Committee adopted
the following opinion by 112 votes with 1 abstention.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
In presenting this own-initiative opinion, the Economic
and Social Committee is seeking to contribute to the discussion
currently under way on a number of fronts within the EU on
the recycling of waste, and packaging waste in particular. The
key element of this discussion is the forthcoming revision of
Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste. This
directive is essentially concerned with targets for the recycling
of packaging waste, which are currently fixed at 25% as a
minimum and 45% as a maximum by weight of the packaging
placed on the market. Five years after its introduction, this
directive has improved levels of non-recovered packaging
waste and the management of household waste. This achieve-
in its present form (1), the directive is
ment shows that,
undoubtedly a first step in the right direction. The present
opinion must also be viewed in the light of the debate within
the Recycling Forum set up at the start of the year (this forum

(1) We also refer to the ESC Opinion of 24 March 1993 on the
Proposal for a Council Directive on packaging and packaging
waste which gave the broadest endorsement to the directive in its
present form.

intends to submit a number of recommendations to the
Commission by the end of 1999 on ways of tackling the
difficulties faced by the EU recycling industry), as well as the
Commission’s future follow-up to these recommendations (in
the form of a communication to the Council and the European
Parliament).

1.2.
The intention is not, of course, to repeat the substantial
work carried out by the Recycling Forum, which deals mainly
with the economic, technological and legal aspects of waste
recycling, or to issue an opinion on the proposed revision of
look at another
Directive 94/62/EC, which the ESC will
time. The present own-initiative opinion asserts the ESC’s
determination to deal with the basic issues underlying the
results — the achievements as well as the shortcomings — of
the recycling sector. The depletion of natural resources and
the importance of conserving our environment make it
essential to retain an approach to recycling which is proactive,
forward-looking and geared to the need to develop outlets.
However, the Committee also feels it is essential to address the
economic considerations connected with packaging waste
recycling. Indeed, the idea of sustainable development meshes
both environmental and economic factors.

C 51/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.2.2000

1.3.
The present opinion focuses in particular on the
difficulties involved in the recycling of waste packaging of
consumer goods. Not because recycling difficulties are more
acute in the consumer goods packaging sector (1) than in other
sectors but because this particular issue is very complex and
enjoys a high profile, given the large number and wide range
of players involved (2). Moreover, the sector now has a certain
track record which makes it possible to conduct an initial
assessment.

The ESC’s special contribution to discussion of this
1.4.
issue stems from its specific role as a platform representing the
various social and economic players. It is well placed — after
more than a decade of helping to establish environmental
policies in the general area of waste management — to come
up with — via this own-initiative opinion — a convergent
approach, based on sustainability, which takes into account
the issue of packaging and packaging waste as a whole.

2. Difficulties arising in the recycling of packaging waste

Up to now,

2.1.
in addition to approaches aimed at
prevention and reuse, the preferred solution for reducing the
amount of packaging waste sent for landfill or incineration
without energy recovery has been recycling. The packaging
Directive 94/62/EC duly sets out the minimum and maximum
recycling targets to be reached in the Member States. Transpo-
sition of this directive into national legislation has given rise
to systems for selective collection and sorting of packaging
waste. This has provided a new boost for packaging waste
recycling techniques and initiatives, and resulted in a radical
change in the situation on the recycling markets.

the expansion of

2.2. While the active involvement of most European con-
sumers asked to sort their waste as part of selective collection
schemes is to be welcomed, we recognise that, over the past
few years,
these selective schemes has
generated an oversupply of recyclates. To date, demand for
products made from recyclates has not risen in the same
proportion as the supply of recycling materials obtained by
selective collection. To a greater or lesser degree this is true of
virtually all packaging materials. Some imbalances relate to

cyclical pricing factors, while others are more structural in
nature and are due to a shortfall in the development of outlets.
However, a distinction must be made between two categories
of packaging waste: those such as glass, paper, cardboard and
metal for which recycling channels have existed for decades;
and others such as plastics, where recycling is relatively new.

2.2.1.
The expansion of recycling facilities for the first
packaging category did not stem from environmental con-
cerns. It was driven solely by profits to be made whenever
demand for virgin materials or other higher-quality recyclates
(such as manufacturing offcuts) outstripped supply. Selective
collection campaigns were conducted from time to time to
meet the needs of the moment. The costs involved were
relatively low since the intention was above all to cream off
the best of the waste on offer, in other words, to confine
collection to readily available amounts. The establishment of
permanent selective collection and sorting systems driven by
environmental considerations has often meant very much
higher collection costs and resulted in recyclate supply out-
stripping demand, and its overall reclaim value dropping to a
point where — despite the savings to be made by using
recyclates rather than virgin materials — it generally no longer
covers the costs of selective collection and any sorting. Such
oversupply of recyclates may even lead to negative reclaim
values.

The growth in recycling of packaging waste in the
2.2.2.
second category, i.e. most plastic packaging waste, has been
due mainly to environmental concerns rather than to market
forces, which have played a very marginal role. As a compari-
son of the costs of selective collection and sorting with the
price of virgin raw materials shows, there is often no economic
justification at the moment for recycling second-category
packaging waste (current technologies mean that the recycling
sectors for plastic packaging waste are not always in a position
to offer a sufficient number of outlets or to pay a price
covering the costs of selective collection and sorting i.e. such
that recyclates are competitive with virgin raw materials.

(1) Including the primary, secondary and tertiary packaging of
consumer goods in so far as they serve a common purpose. In
these three packaging types are often
terms of prevention,
considered collectively. For example, an increase in the weight of
primary packaging coupled with a cut in the weight of secondary
packaging may result in less weight overall.

(2) These include: government, ordinary citizens, local authorities,
manufacturers of packaging materials and packaging, manufac-
turers and distributors of consumer goods and operators involved
both in waste collection and sorting and in recycling.

As things stand, the recycling of most packaging waste
2.3.
leads to a persistent and financially significant chain deficit.
The aggregate cost of selective collection, sorting and recycling
very often exceeds the market value of recyclates. Depending
on the types of funding used in the selective collection and
sorting systems in question, this loss is met by consumers
when they buy packaged products which are part of a

23.2.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 51/19

contributory packaging waste recycling scheme or by taxpayers
when they pay municipal waste management charges. ‘Green
dot’ (1) and other waste charges have now reached considerable
proportions and are very likely to increase over the coming
years once selective collection and sorting systems have
gathered full pace in all the Member States.

to a certain amount of confusion, which does not simplify
discussion of the issue of packaging waste recycling.

This internalisation of costs, which makes for less
2.4.
strain on the environment, is one of a range of economic tools
for environmental policy based on the polluter pays principle,
which seek to induce operators — including consumers — to
be more respectful of the environment. The Committee hopes
to see an improvement and expansion of recycling, but would
call for some degree of caution with regard to the associated
economic conditions. Beyond a certain threshold in the
amount of waste collected selectively, there is a noticeable
tendency for the costs of selective collection and sorting of
packaging waste to rise as an exponential function of the
amount of waste collected and sorted. The cost per tonne rises
as the selective collection rate expands and increasingly
marginal packaging waste is tackled. The danger lies in the
resultant potential for financial drift in the wake of (i) the rise
in selective collection and sorting costs and (ii) the production
of a high volume of recyclates which the market is not
prepared to accept without a substantial increase in additional
financial resources. The Committee feels that the rising cost of
packaging waste management is inevitable, but that increases
should be kept within acceptable proportions, in keeping with
the expected environmental benefit (2).

Although most Member States publish statistics and
2.5.
indicators relating to the recovery of packaging waste, the
amount of packaging waste sent for landfill or incineration
with no energy recovery, or the costs of the different systems
for the recovery of packaging waste or the return of reusable
to compare and combine
packaging,
these data, despite the adoption of EC arrangements for the
publication of statistics. This situation is a result of the different
definitions of packaging and packaging waste,
recovery
methods, methods used to calculate packaging waste recovery
indicators and any methods used to calculate costs. This leads

is often difficult

it

(1) With regard to ‘green dot’-type charges, the funding system is
designed to incorporate into the price of the packaged product
sold to the consumer a fee paid in advance by the product
manufacturer or the party responsible for placing the product on
the market. Examples of ‘green dot’ schemes include Germany’s
DSD, Eco Emballages in France and FOST Plus in Belgium.

(2) By environmental benefit, we mean advantages obtained through
the reduction of pollution and problems resulting in practice from
lack of environmental management.

3. The search for solutions: points of departure and

background

Environmental policies are a relatively recent develop-
3.1.
ment, as is the use of economic tools to induce operators to
be more respectful of the environment. The impact of such
moves is often difficult to predict, particularly in very innova-
tive sectors such as packaging, and in little-known sectors such
as waste processing and recycling were a few years ago. As
well as increasing recycling and other forms of packaging
waste recovery, Directive 94/62/EC has had the beneficial
effect of:

— steering the packaging sector towards technical

inno-
vations such as reducing packaging weight and incorporat-
ing recyclates;

— helping improve expertise and transparency in the waste
processing and recycling sectors (in terms of statistics,
financial and logistical considerations etc.);

— instilling awareness into the general public about the

environmental impact of (packaging) waste.

Given the new expertise and experience gained over
3.2.
the past few years,
it is useful, not to say necessary, to
adjust packaging waste recovery policy in the light of the
opportunities and errors observed. The necessary corrections
will get under way all the more quickly, the more willing the
relevant players are to embark on forward-looking, focused
dialogue (3).

Packaging is not an end in itself.

3.3.
It must not be
considered separately from the product it contains and the
associated patterns of consumption. Packaging is continually
evolving in line with the requirements of the many players
operating at the various links in the product manufacturing-
distribution-consumption chain. Packaging is a basic element
in the quality of life we enjoy as consumers today. It fulfils an
essential and varied role in terms of storage, hygiene, protec-
tion, safety, information, comfort, etc.

(3) We would also point out that, although it is generally agreed that
all recycling activities are more environmentally sound than other
methods of recovery, there is as yet no universally recognised
method of verification able to furnish conclusive proof that this
is the case.

C 51/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.2.2000

3.4.
The Committee recognises that tension exists between
developments in contemporary lifestyle and consumers’ tastes
on the one hand, and the drive for prevention-led environmen-
tal policy on the other. Ever smaller families mean smaller
food portions wrapped in more packaging. An ageing popu-
lation needs more convenience goods, which often involve
easy-to-use packaging. Paid employment outside the home is
spreading across the whole population — both male and
female; this in turn leads to more convenience food and
the like, which often requires extra packaging. Packaging
manufacturers now have to meet a new challenge, brought on
by these sociological developments, in a way which is consist-
ent with a prevention-led approach to protection of the
environment.

The environmental

3.5.
impact of packaging waste has
reached such proportions that action is essential. Protection of
the environment merits our full attention. Sustainable growth
must be a key criterion of the quest to find ways of tackling
the problem of recycling packaging waste. The approaches
selected must promote a pattern of economic growth which
respects the natural and human environment of present and
future generations. In terms of acceptability and sustainability,
this means meeting the appropriate economic, environmental
and social yardsticks. The role of packaging in the protection
of human health must not be neglected.

3.6.
The Committee would also stress the significance
of educating and training present and future consumers.
Consumers will only be able to make a positive contribution if
they are made aware of the importance of the environmental
issues posed by packaging waste and are able to make choices
which reflect their aspirations.

3.7.
The Committee stresses the need for an environmental
policy capable of ensuring in the long term not only a high
level of environmental protection but also a viable recycling
sector, which does not rely on ongoing financial support for
recyclates. From a long-term point of view, packaging waste
should be seen as a source of materials or source of energy
which could increasingly be utilised in place of certain natural
resources currently used as raw materials or fuels;
these
materials or energy will prove to be competitive when all the
environmental costs related to the use of natural resources are
taken into account in the price of these resources.

up an action plan comprising a number of mutually reinforcing
measures designed to encourage the development of recyclate
outlets (point 4.3). In tandem with the establishment of this
action plan, the Committee would also stress the need to take
economic considerations into account
in Member States’
environment policies as they relate to packaging waste and to
give priority to approaches which allow an optimum balance
to be struck between economic and environmental factors
(point 4.2).

4.2. Seeking an economic/environmental optimum in the manage-

ment of packaging and packaging waste

4.2.1.
Against the backdrop of environmental policy based
on the internalisation of environmental costs and in line with
the concept of sustainable development the Committee draws
attention to the need to carry out an analysis to determine
the economic/environmental optimum (1). Cost-effectiveness
analyses can be used to combine technologies and manage-
ment methods (prevention, reuse, recycling, energy recovery)
in such a way as to ensure maximum reduction of pollution
related to packaging use and packaging waste management, at
minimum cost.

4.2.2.
Cost-effectiveness analyses would ensure that Mem-
ber States are better equipped to evaluate and choose the
packaging-waste prevention and reduction methods they use
to attain the targets set by European legislation. The optimum
combination of methods and technology, in terms of cost-
effectiveness, essentially depends on the following factors:

— the local features specific to each state, region or even

municipality (4.2.2.1);

— economic cyclical fluctuations (4.2.2.2);

— the fact that for each packaging material a recovery method
exists which is chosen in accordance with the material’s
technical characteristics and the state of technology at the
time (4.2.2.3).

4.2.2.1.
Each Member State, each region — even each
locality — has features — including geo-demographic factors,
consumer habits, tourist activities, requirements with respect
to raw (or secondary raw) materials, fuels — which are more
is
suited to certain recovery methods than to others.
important to concentrate on such methods, while respecting
the environmental standards in place,
instead of adopting
uniform practices which make it impossible to take advantage

It

4. Some possible remedies

In order to find a structural solution to the difficulties
4.1.
arising from the lack of outlets for selectively collected and
sorted packaging materials, the Committee proposes drawing

(1) Compared to cost-benefit analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis is a
more recent method which has the advantage of not requiring the
quantification of environmental damage and the expression of
this damage in monetary terms. These elements of cost-benefit
analyses make for very uncertain findings.

23.2.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 51/21

of local opportunities. This delegation of responsibilities at
local level should be completely transparent for all parties
concerned: consumers, and those in the distribution, pro-
duction and recovery sectors. In view of this, the principle of
subsidiarity when selecting the optimum mix of methods for
attaining packaging waste recovery targets.

— greater backing for research, innovation and development
of new recovery techniques for packaging waste (4.3.2);

— identification and development of new markets for recy-

clates (4.3.3);

4.2.2.2.
Cyclical fluctuations in market values could justify
temporarily changing recovery techniques used for a particular
material — while continuing to comply with environmental
standards — in order to eliminate gluts and avoid excessive
fluctuations in market values.

4.2.2.3.
There is a technologically preferable method, given
the current state of the art, for each type of packaging material.
In this connection, a clear distinction must be made between
(i) material of non-organic (mineral) origin and (ii) material of
organic origin. The non-organic category includes glass, steel
and aluminium. Their physico-chemical features allow virtually
unlimited recycling, without material loss or risk to health.
The same cannot be said of organic materials, these being
either cellulose-based (such as paper and cardboard) or syn-
thetic-based (such as plastics, which are for the most part
derived from hydrocarbons). Using current technologies, these
materials offer limited options for recycling. They suffer loss
of quality if they are repeatedly recycled and use of their
recyclates may pose health risks. On the other hand, they have
a very high calorific value, particularly in the case of plastics
derived from hydrocarbons (1) for which energy recovery is an
alternative to recycling. Steps should be taken to promote
energy recovery of this kind in the same way as recovery
methods such as composting or biomethanisation, which are
suitable for paper and cardboard and some types of plastics.

4.3. Blueprint for action to develop outlets for waste-packaging

recyclates

The Committee proposes establishment of a blue-
4.3.1.
print for action, reflecting its desire to support and encourage
the recycling of packaging waste. The approach needs to be
based on participation of all those involved in the chain of
production, use and disposal of packaging. And it should take
account of the economic constraints faced by these players.
The blueprint should comprise:

(1) This method fits in very well with the lifecycle of plastics: they are
generated mainly from a fuel (oil); in a second phase, they are
processed into packaging material and, in a final phase, can easily
be turned back into fuel. The energy recovery of packaging waste
saves non-renewable natural resources, while making it possible to
exploit the very major development opportunities and advantages
which plastic packaging affords consumers. The strict condition
here is that the entire process be carried out in an environmentally
sound way, i.e. in compliance with appropriate environmental
standards.)

— introduction of CEN standards for recyclates (4.3.4);

— more responsibility for the various packaging waste sectors

(4.3.5);

— development of constructive dialogue with consumers/citi-

zens (4.3.6);

— continual improvement of the EU statistical monitoring

system (4.3.7).

The Committee considers that a coercive or
repressive
approach should be avoided. Instead, action should be taken
to encourage incentives — such as tax deductions or consumer
reward schemes — for companies affected by the issue of
consumer goods packaging and for consumers/citizens.

4.3.2. G r e a t e r b a c k i n g f o r

i n n o -
v a t i o n a n d f o r d e v e l o p m e n t o f n e w
r e c o v e r y
p a c k a g i n g
w a s t e

t e c h n i q u e s

r e s e a r c h ,

f o r

4.3.2.1.
It is necessary to optimise the entire packaging
process, from packaging design to the recovery of packaging
waste. All the relevant players should be involved, particularly
universities and collective organisations, so that ideas and
aspirations can be acted on and, if need be, desirable and
acceptable changes can be made to behavioural patterns. From
a socio-economic angle, new methods may generate new jobs,
provide genuine added value and help to boost the EU’s
economic growth.

4.3.2.2.
The Committee also proposes that all new technical
developments in packaging and packaging materials be subject
to a quantitative and qualitative assessment of their effect on
the environment, and that every effort be made to ensure that
their final disposal is of no risk to current or future generations.

4.3.3.

I d e n t i f i c a t i o n
n e w m a r k e t s f o r r e c y c l a t e s

a n d

d e v e l o p m e n t

o f

4.3.3.1.
The Committee calls for a pro-active policy tar-
geting the identification and development of new markets for
recyclates. It proposes:

— development of

industrial applications which provide
outlets for recyclates to be included in EU-assisted research

C 51/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.2.2000

(Fifth Framework Programme) and new application pro-
grammes;

4.3.6. D e v e l o p m e n t o f c o n s t r u c t i v e d i a l o g u e

w i t h c o n s u m e r s / c i t i z e n s

— review of unjustified regulatory criteria which prevent the
use of products made from recyclates. In the Committee’s
opinion it would be helpful to draw up an inventory —
covering all Member States — of products for which
different regulatory criteria (1) prevent the use of recyclates
without justification on health or safety grounds. Sub-
sequently, on the basis of this inventory, the potential
outlets for the recyclates should be quantified, and the
appropriate standard-setting authorities requested to adapt
the relevant standards where this is justified;

— use of products and packaging manufactured from recy-
clates by all public institutions operating at local, national
and Community level, with publication of a certificate
issued by a competent agency.

4.3.4.

I n t r o d u c t i o n
r e c y c l a t e s

o f C E N s t a n d a r d s

f o r

4.3.4.1.
The Committee stresses the need for CEN standards
guaranteeing consistent quality in products composed of
recycled materials.

4.3.5. M o r e

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r
p a c k a g i n g w a s t e s e c t o r s

t h e v a r i o u s

4.3.5.1.
For our purposes, a ‘sector’ comprises raw material
producers, manufacturers of packaging material and packag-
ing, their users, recycling firms and intermediate trade. In
conjunction with the approaches outlined above, the Com-
mittee advocates giving extensive responsibilities in packaging
matters to each of the sectors involved, following the lifecycle
approach (2) and a general overview which takes into account
economic, environmental and health-related aspects. It would
then be up to each sector, taking account of its specific
characteristics and the technical, ecological and economic
options available, to instigate proactive, acceptable prevention
and recovery methods in order to attain the objectives set out
in the directive,
thus avoiding the gluts experienced in
periods of economic downturn by local authorities and/or
organisations which have set up selective collection and sorting
systems.

(1) Several innovative recycling procedures have been abandoned due
to a lack of outlets for the resulting products, the main reason
being standards, often based on custom, which are set out in the
specifications but not necessarily justified on safety or hygiene
grounds.

(2) From the choice of materials to the methods used to prevent the

packaging becoming waste.

4.3.6.1.
Constructive dialogue with consumers/citizens is a
necessary adjunct to the approaches outlined above, since
consumers/citizens share the heavy responsibility of making
choices which future generations will not come to regret.
Clear, objective information is needed to ensure that these
choices can be made with full knowledge of the facts about all
the possible packaging waste management options: prevention,
reuse, recycling, energy recovery and the associated costs. To
this end, an ongoing awareness campaign is necessary, starting
with children, so that people are involved from an early age
and throughout their lives. Industry, public authorities and the
media still appear to have much to do in this field. It is true
that the problems surrounding packaging and packaging waste
are by no means easy to explain, but consumers/citizens are
receiving too many contradictory messages. Consumers/citi-
zens also feel that not enough attention is paid to their views
on packaging, which they often deem to be unnecessary and
sometimes misleading. Constructive dialogue is the only way
to facilitate creative remedies which meet their increasing
environmental aspirations. Once again, if this dialogue is to be
effective, transparency is essential in the following areas: the
price to pay; cost breakdown; market mechanisms; damage to
the environment (consumption of natural resources; earth, air
and water pollution) including health risks.

4.3.7. C o n t i n u a l i m p r o v e m e n t o f t h e E U s t a t -

i s t i c a l m o n i t o r i n g s y s t e m

4.3.7.1.
In order to improve the quality and comparability
of the statistics published by Member States, the Committee
recommends that the measuring methods used are indicated
that new measuring methods are
or, where appropriate,
defined. It also recommends the introduction of a databank
covering the socio-economic factors associated with the recov-
ery of packaging waste. Using tools, such as the analysis of
packaging lifecycles in conjunction with ‘value-chain’ analysis
for the different recovery methods, would also make it possible
to assess the relative value (3) of the different packaging waste
management strategies adopted by the Member States, in terms
of both economic and environmental factors. In all of these
areas, the European Environment Agency could play a very
useful part. Furthermore, in view of the fact that the interpret-
ation of definitions varies between Member States, the Com-
mittee suggests that, instead of simply making comparisons

(3) This would make it possible for a genuine benchmarking exercise
to be carried out, and the cost drivers and best practices to be
identified.

23.2.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 51/23

between Member States, progress made by each Member State
should be measured on the basis of an analysis over time of
the impact of their policy on packaging and packaging waste.

5. Conclusions

5.1.
Given the benefits ensuing from the implementation
of Directive 94/62/EC, the Committee calls for incorporation
in European legislation of a pro-active policy on packaging-
waste recycling and for ambitious recovery targets for all
categories of packaging material without exception. This is
essential given that the EU is densely populated — inevitably
giving rise to the Nimby (‘not in my back yard’) syndrome —
and is poor in terms of raw materials and energy resources. At
the same time, the Committee emphasises that sustainable
development requires the adoption of environmental policies
aiming to strike a balance between economy and environment.
Provided that the targets set in European legislation are met,
the Committee proposes that Member States be given a degree
of freedom in choosing a combination of methods (prevention,
re-use, recycling, energy recovery) which enables them to
achieve, at the lowest cost, the objective of preventing or
reducing the environmental impact of packaging or packaging
waste while complying with current environmental standards.
Such standards must act as the common ‘bottom line’.

5.2.
The Committee stresses the need to make con-
sumers/citizens aware of the packaging waste issue and to
train them, from an early age, to adopt environment-friendly
behaviour. It also calls for genuine dialogue between industry,
public authorities, the media and consumers/citizens through
collective organisations. Such dialogue should be based on

Brussels, 8 December 1999.

partnership and shared responsibility for the environment of
future generations.

Aware of

5.3.
the difficulties currently encountered in
relation to the recovery and, in particular, the recycling of
packaging waste, the Committee considers it necessary to
adopt a pro-active policy based on participation, incorporating
all those involved in the chain of production, use and disposal
of packaging, and taking account of the economic constraints
faced by these players. With this in mind, it proposes that a
blueprint be drawn up for the development of outlets for
recycled products. This should comprise:

— greater backing for innovation and for development of

new recovery techniques for packaging waste;

— identification and development of new markets for recy-

clates;

— 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.

5.4.
All of these suggestions reflect the Committee’s 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. Such
an approach would safeguard sustainable development and
would be more firmly anchored in partnership between all
those affected.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI