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))
Date: 2002-05-29
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: approximation of laws, environmental protection, packaging, waste management, waste recycling

17.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/31

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. Sub-
sequently 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.

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.

This opinion adopts a similar approach whilst recognis-
1.3.
ing, 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 comp-
lementary view on the technical, environmental and economic
issues surrounding packaging waste management and conver-
sion of waste into secondary materials. This opinion, in its
therefore re-state the main points
own conclusions, will
endorsed by the EESC in December 1999.

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,

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
increasingly understand their responsibility to
packaging,

( 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.

C 221/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.9.2002

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.

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.

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,
is
recognised that recycling these materials may form a part (7 %)
of the overall recycling target.

though it

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

1996-2001

2001-2006

Min.

Max.

Min.

Max.

Overall recovery

50 %

65 %

60 %

75 %

Recycling

25 %

45 %

55 %

70 %

Specific materials

Glass

Paper/Board

Metals

Plastics

15 %

15 %

15 %

15 %

60 %

55 %

50 %

20 %

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

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

17.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/33

the potential health and environmental

general public and environmental organisations in particular
of
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 inciner-
ation 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.

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

Definitions of ‘mechanical’, ‘chemical’ and ‘feedstock’

3.5.
recycling are given.

An annexe

3.6.
further defines packaging materials,
responding to queries which have arisen during implemen-
tation 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, environmen-
tal 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 organis-
ations 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.

The Commission’s proposal is informed by a number
4.3.
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.

The Commission also believes that there is adequate
4.4.
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.

In this context the experience of Member States is
4.5.
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.

C 221/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.9.2002

Recycling performance

Overall

Glass

Paper

Metals

Plastics

Member States meeting 2006 proposed levels
in 1998

Member States not meeting 2006 proposed
levels in 1998

6

9

8

7

8

7

3

12

4

11

The EESC recognises that when the original Directive

4.6.
was adopted there were three groupings of Member States:

information and con-
preservation, product protection,
venience. Given the operation of the single market the EU
must act as arbiter in determining this balance.

— 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 aware-
ness.

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
recycling targets, allowing the build-up of
eco-efficient
capacity, collection schemes and consumer education. The
directive, by setting specific targets, has undoubtedly stimu-
lated 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
in an additional
argues that
4,7 million tonnes of packaging materials being recycled by
2006 as countries with less developed recycling programmes
meet the requirement.

the new targets will result

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
food safety,
consumers expect to be met by packaging:

5. Specific comments

The Committee recognises that technical issues play an
5.1.
in recycling and recovery
important and increasing part
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.

In many Member States a significant sector of the
5.3.
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 devel-
opment of chemical processes for some plastics (to stand
alongside or replace mechanical processes) favours technologi-
cally 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.

17.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/35

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 pro-
grammes, 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.

6. Conclusions

6.1.
The Committee recognises and fully supports Direc-
tive 94/62/EC as an important driving force in encouraging
national legislation to introduce systems for selective collec-
tion, 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.

5.6.
There is substantial variation between optimal recyc-
ling rates identified in the RDC/Pira report of as much as 31 %.
(around 10 %) due to varying
This is to certain extent
geographical conditions. Other important
factors include
participation, alternative waste-management methods, trans-
port 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.

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.

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 focus-
ing on prevention and recovery of packaging waste.

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;

C 221/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.9.2002

— more responsibility for the various packaging-waste sec-

tors;

— 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 develop-
ment 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:

Brussels, 29 May 2002.

— 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.

There remains some uncertainty about the collection
6.6.
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.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS