Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste
Date: 2004-02-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: approximation of laws, environmental protection, exchange of information, packaging, waste management, waste recycling

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 24.02.2004 
COM(2004) 127 final 

2004/0045 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 

amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1. 

Background 

On 31 December 1994, Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste1 (hereinafter 
“original  packaging  directive”)  entered  into  force.  On  7  December  2001  the  Commission 
submitted  a  proposal  for  a  Directive  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council2 
amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste for adoption by co-decision 
procedure  as  laid  down  in  Article  251  of  the  EC  Treaty  (hereinafter  “revised  packaging 
directive”).  Inter  alia,  the  revised  packaging  directive  sets  increased  recovery  and  recycling 
targets to be achieved by 31 December 20083. 

At  the  time  when  the  proposal  for  the  revised  packaging  directive  was  submitted  to  the 
European  Parliament  and  the  Council,  accession  negotiations  with  ten  new  Member  States 
were ongoing. These new Member States shall now accede to the European Union by virtue 
of  the  Accession  Treaty  of  16  April  2003  (hereinafter  “acceding  States”).  Recital  6  of  the 
proposal  for  a  revised  packaging  directive  stated  that  “in  view  of  the  enlargement  of  the 
European Union, due attention needs to be paid to the specific situation in the future Member 
States, in particular in relation to the attainment of the recycling target of Article 6(1), taking 
into  account  their  current  low  level  of  packaging  consumption”.  However,  at  that  time  the 
transition  periods  for  the  original  directive  were  not  yet  finalised  for  all  acceding  States. 
Furthermore, information on the conditions for further increasing the recovery and recycling 
targets in the acceding States was insufficient. Therefore, the proposal for a revised packaging 
directive did not contain specific proposals for the acceding States. 

The  accession  negotiations  were  concluded  in  December  2002.  These  negotiations  included 
only legislation adopted by 1 November 2002. Article 2 of the Act of Accession (AA) states 
that “from the date of accession the provisions of the original Treaties and the acts adopted by 
the institutions before accession shall be binding on the new Member States and shall apply in 
those States under the conditions laid down in these Treaties and in this Act.” This means that 
all acts adopted by the institutions before the date of accession are binding upon the acceding 
States from the date of accession, although these acts have neither been subject to negotiation 
nor have the new Member States participated in their adoption. In order to avoid difficulties in 
applying legislation adopted after 1 November 2002, a number of mechanisms for information 
and consultation of acceding States during the period preceding accession were agreed at the 
European Council in Copenhagen on 12-13 December 20024.  

In accordance with this information and consultation procedure, eight of the acceding States 
requested consultation on the proposal to revise the packaging directive. In the meeting of the 
Interim  Committee  on  27  February  2003,  all  acceding  States  but  Cyprus  informed  the 

1 
2 
3 

4 

OJ L 365/10, 31 December 1994. 
COM(2001)729 final (2001/0291 (COD)) 
This  deadline  is  based  on  Common  Position  (EC)  No  18/2003,  OJ  C  107  E/17,  6  May  2003.  No 
amendment  on  this  deadline  was  adopted  by  the  European  Parliament  in  second  reading.  Greece, 
Ireland and Portugal may postpone this deadline until a date that still needs to be agreed in conciliation. 
Certain provisions of the Accession Treaty; information and consultation procedure for the adoption of 
certain decisions and other measures to be taken during the period preceding accession, attached to the 
Final Act of the Accession Treaty. 

2 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
Community  that  they  would  need  a  further  transitional  period.  The  Committee  agreed  that 
these  elements  would  be  dealt  with  under  the  institutional  framework  of  the  Union  and 
considered  accordingly.  It  took  note  that  the  Commission  intended  to  hold  bilateral 
consultations  on  a  technical  level  (hereinafter  “technical  consultations”)  with  the  acceding 
States on their request. Such consultations were held with all ten acceding States during the 
period from 11 March to 14 April 2003.  

On the basis of these consultations, the Commission came to the conclusion that the acceding 
States should benefit from a later deadline to implement the targets of the revised packaging 
directive  because  they  have  only  recently  started  to  build  up  their  packaging  recycling  and 
recovery systems. Achieving the targets at the same time as the 12 Member States with the 
earlier implementation deadline of the revision proposal would cause undue costs. To address 
the  problem,  the  Commission  has  considered  various  possible  solutions,  including  the 
practicality of amending its proposal5 in second reading and options envisaged in the Treaty 
of  Accession.  The  Commission  concluded,  however,  that  the  most  sensible  way  to  proceed 
was to submit an amending proposal, under article 95 of the Treaty.  

The present proposal is intended to address this problem and to set a deadline by which the 
new targets under the revised packaging directive must be achieved in the acceding States.  

1.2. 

Timing of this proposal 

This  proposal  should  be  seen  in  the  context  of  the  requirement  for  all  Member  States, 
including the ten acceding States, to transpose the revised packaging directive 18 months after 
its entry into force. Therefore, ideally this proposal should be adopted in due time before the 
expiry of this deadline to allow the acceding States to transpose both the revised packaging 
directive and this proposal at the same time. The timing of this proposal would allow a first 
debate in the European Parliament and the Council during the first half of 2004. This timing 
would also make it likely that decisions would only be taken once the acceding States have 
joined the European Union and can exercise their voting right in the institutions. 

5 

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

3 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
2. 

THE POSITION OF THE ACCEDING STATES 

2.1. 

Background information 

Table  1:  Transition  periods  under  the  Accession  Treaty  for  the  following  targets  of 
Directive 94/62/EC (deadline 30 June 2001): Overall recovery 50-65%, overall recycling 
25-45%, recycling per material 15% as a minimum. 

Country 
Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

Estonia 
Hungary 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Malta 

Poland 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Transition period under the Accession Treaty 
Overall recovery and recycling: 2005 
Plastics: 2004 
Paper/Cardboard: 2005 
Overall recovery: 2005 
Plastics: 2005 
None 
Overall recovery: 2005 
Glass: 2004 
Plastics: 2005 
Overall recovery: 2007 
Plastics: 2007 
Overall recovery: 2006 
Overall recycling: 2004 
Metals: 2004 
Plastics: 2004 
Overall recovery: 2009 
Overall recycling: 2005 
Plastics: 2009 
Overall recovery: 2007 
Plastics: 2005 
Metals: 2005 
Overall recovery: 2007 
Metals: 2007 
Overall recovery: 2007 
Plastics: 2007 

4 

 
 
  
 
Table 2: Per capita packaging consumption and share of the different materials in the 
ten acceding States (per year) 

Per capita 
packaging 
consumption  
[kg] 
179 

130 

85 

71 

49 

61 

159 

101 

122 

63 

169 

Glass [% of 
total 
packaging] 

15 

25 

21 

25 

26 

34 

16 

28 

12 

21  

24 

Paper/ 
board [% of 
total 
packaging] 
37 

45 

44 

44 

57 

31 

44 

39 

31 

50 

41 

Metals [% of 
total 
packaging] 

Plastics [% 
of total 
packaging] 

Wood[% of 
total 
packaging] 

10 

8 

8 

12 

5 

4 

6 

5 

8 

9 

7 

30 

16 

17 

19 

12 

23 

26 

15 

19 

15 

16 

8 

6 

10 

N.A. 

N.A. 

5 

N.A 

13 

23 

6. 

12 

CY 2003 

CZ 1999 

EE 2001 

HU 1999 

LT 2001 

LV 2002 

MT 2002 

PL 2003 

SI 2001 

SK 2002 

EU15 
average 

[1999] 

Table 3: Planned recycling rates according to the implementation plans of the ten new 
member  states  and  the  documents  received  from  these  countries  in  the  course  of  the 
technical consultation 

% 
CY 

CZ 

EE 

2002 
6.6 

2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015 
11.6  16.4  27.1 

55§ 

31 

25 

35 

25 

40 

25 

45 

25 

HU   34.2  36.4  39.5  46.2 

LT 

LV 

MT 

15 

31 

2 

20 

33 

18 

29 

36 

21 

33 

39 

25 

47 

30 

43 

42 

29 

49 

35 

50 

35 

49.0

52 

40 

45 

35 

46 

41 

47 

45 

53 

45 

52 

49 

48 

54 

50 

50 

51 

55 

55 
55§ 
55§ 

51 

53 

54 

55 

52 

55 

PL 

19.3  21.6  24.9  29.1  33.1 36.6 38.3 40.6 43.1 46.0 49.0  52.1  55.3

SI 

SK 

30 

21 

34 

23 

38 

25 

39 

29 

40 

33 

40 

37 

43 

41 

46 

49 

47 

52 

55 

55 

All the data are based on the submissions of the country in the framework of the technical consultation on the 
revision of the packaging directive. 

§: Country indicated that an implementation date of 2012 is considered to be realistic. 

5 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2. 

The detailed positions of the acceding States 

Following  the  meeting  of  the  Interim  Committee  of  27  February  2003,  bilateral  technical 
consultations were held over the period between 11 March to 14 April with all ten acceding 
States.  Additionally,  position  papers  have  been  received  from  all  ten  acceding  States.  The 
positions below reflect these technical consultations and position papers. The deadlines refer 
to the targets of Common Position (EC) No 18/20036, which have also been supported by the 
European Parliament in its vote in Second Reading on 2 July 2003. 

Cyprus  indicated  that  its  low  quantities  of  packaging  waste  (130,000  tonnes  per  year) 
prevented economies of scale. Own recycling plants are often not economic and the collected 
material  must  be  shipped  abroad  for  recycling.  This  creates  additional  costs.  Moreover,  the 
large number of small packaging producers makes the enforcement of producer responsibility 
more complex. However, Cyprus believes the new targets will be fully achieved by 2012.  

The Czech Republic underlined the need to develop recycling capacity at a similar speed as 
the  other  acceding  States  to  avoid  distortions  of  competition  between  the  new  countries. 
Attaining  the  new  targets  by  2008  would  entail  high  economic  costs.  Particular  difficulties 
with  respect  to  the  wood  and  metal  targets  were  mentioned.  The  Czech  Republic  indicated, 
however, that it is able to reach the new targets by 2012. 

Estonia  is  the  only  acceding  State  without  a  transition  period  for  the  original  packaging 
directive. The reason is that Estonia planned to use energy recovery to fulfil the targets to a 
much higher degree than other acceding States. However, the targets of the revised directive 
will  require  a  substantial  increase  of  recycling.  This  will  necessitate  additional  investments 
and a reconsideration of the current strategy for packaging waste recovery. Therefore, Estonia 
indicated that it needs additional time to achieve the new targets. Estonia considers a deadline 
of  2012  to  be  realistic.  Instead  of  a  15%  recycling  target  for  wood,  it  would  prefer  a  15% 
recovery target for this material. 

Hungary  requires  additional  time  to  meet  the  new  targets  of  the  revised  Directive  due  to  a 
relatively low packaging consumption, the presence of extensive rural areas and a shortage of 
recycling capacities (namely in the glass sector). However, Hungary has indicated it will be 
able to reach the new targets by 2012. 

Latvia  underlined  its  low  packaging  consumption  of  61  kg  per  inhabitant  and  its  specific 
geographic conditions. Large parts of the country are very sparsely populated (37 inhabitants 
per  km2)  and  both  road  and  waste  collection  infrastructure  is  still  poor  in  these  areas.  Less 
than  40%  of  all  roads  are  paved.  Achieving  the  new  recycling  rates  will  create  increasing 
marginal costs and require collection and recycling not only in the urban centres but also in 
the less populated areas. Although no concrete cost figures are available, costs are considered 
to be high compared to current price and income levels. Latvia considers that it will need the 
same  time  to  build  up  its  recycling  system  to  the  levels  of  the  new  targets  as  the  existing 
Member  States.  For  these  reasons,  it  believes  that  an  additional  delay  until  2015  will  be 
needed. 

Lithuania  referred  to  its  low  population  density  (53  inhabitants  per  km2)  and  packaging 
consumption (below 50 kg per inhabitant). It will need to make significant investments into 
modern waste treatment facilities. The share of industrial packaging waste is particularly low 

6 

OJ C 107E of 6 May 2003, p.17 

6 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
(only 4% of total packaging waste). Lithuania argued it will need a similar time to build up its 
collection and recycling infrastructure as the existing Member States had. However, 2012 is 
considered to be a realistic deadline. 

Malta  referred  to  its  particular  situation,  including  its  geophysical  circumstances  and 
structural disadvantages, the highest population density in Europe (1,200 inhabitants per km2) 
as well as the impact of tourism. Own recycling installations are in many cases uneconomic 
due  to  a  lack  of  economies  of  scale.  Therefore,  a  large  part  of  the  packaging  waste  for 
recycling needs to be shipped to the continent. This creates additional costs. Furthermore, its 
existing re-use system for soft drinks (transition period until 2007) has as a consequence that 
there  is  little  waste  from  plastic  bottles.  As  this  is  the  most  recyclable  fraction  of  plastics 
packaging  waste,  achieving  the  22.5%  target  for  this  material  will  be  particularly  difficult. 
Malta considers that it can achieve the new targets by 2013, with the exception of the plastics 
recycling target, for which an additional delay until 2016 would be required. 

Poland  underlined  the  high  costs  of  setting  up  the  necessary  infrastructure  and  the  need  to 
evaluate  the  currently  insufficient  experiences  with  its  packaging  recovery  organisation.  It 
considers  that  only  a  deadline  of  2014  would  be  realistic  to  achieve  the  new  targets.  The 
current cost of the Polish system is estimated at around 0.14 € per capita while similar costs 
are 2.9 € in the United Kingdom and 22.6 € in Germany7. Poland calculates that for the new 
targets,  its  recycling  and  recovery  costs  will  increase  by  a  factor  20  at  least  to  achieve  the 
targets for 2007 and then by a factor of 6 to 8 to achieve the new targets. To achieve these 
targets, Poland estimates that the investment costs for 2003 will be 17 M€, for 2004 to 2006 
51 M€, for 2007 to 2010 68 M€ and for 2010 to 2014 51 M€. 36% of these investments would 
be used to modernise recycling installations, 30% to expand sorting installations and 34% for 
separate collection. 

Slovakia  estimated  that  the  cumulative  cost  of  attaining  the  new  targets  by  2012  would  be 
around 68 Million € (investment and operational costs). It would seem very difficult from a 
practical point of view to set up the necessary collection and recycling infrastructure by 2008. 
If  at  all  possible,  this  would  create  significantly  higher  costs  than  for  2012  due  to  the 
investment  cost  concentrated  in  a  shorter  period  without  benefiting  from  the  revenues.  A 
deadline of 2012 for the new targets is however considered to be realistic. 

Slovenia  underlined  that  the  experiences  with  its  new  packaging  recovery  scheme  are  still 
incomplete. However, a deadline of 2012 is considered to be realistic. 

3. 

THE PROPOSED REVISION 

Scope and content of the revision 

This  proposal  is  limited  to  setting  a  deadline  of  31  December  2012  for  acceding  States  to 
achieve the recovery and recycling targets under the revised packaging directive.  

Reasoning for the proposed deadline 

The  choice  of  31  December  2012  as  a  deadline  reflects  a  balance  between  the  following 
considerations.  

7 

This seems to refer to the financing need, i.e. this does not take into account saved disposal costs. 

7 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
A too ambitious deadline would have created significant start-up costs for the acceding States 
and it is questionable whether achieving the new targets by 2008 as for most existing Member 
States  would  have  been  feasible  at  all.  Furthermore,  many  acceding  States  have  transition 
periods for achieving the original packaging directive which are very close to 2008 or, in the 
case of Malta, even exceeding this date. 

On  the  other  hand,  choosing  a  very  late  deadline  would  jeopardise  the  purpose  of  the 
Directive,  i.e.  to  reduce  Internal  Market  disparities  by  agreeing  on  a  common  approach 
towards  packaging  and  packaging  waste  management,  including  recovery  and  recycling. 
Countries  that  already  put  much  effort  in  a  sound  packaging  waste  management  have  an 
interest in fair competition conditions between their companies and those in Member States 
where  it  took  longer  to  establish  packaging  recovery  systems.  Furthermore,  it  will  be 
important  to  move  towards  a  co-ordinated  approach  towards  increasing  the  recycling  and 
recovery  efforts  in  the  acceding  States  to  give  clear  signals  and  a  reliable  planning  for  the 
creation of infrastructure and recycling industries in the new countries. As many of the new 
countries  are  relatively  small,  the  use  of  recycling  capacities  in  other  Member  States  is 
expected to be rather the rule than the exception. 

Unlike the accession negotiations, it is considered that the deadline should no more be set on 
a country by country basis. The integration of the new countries in the Internal Market will 
have  made  substantial  progress  by  the  time  the  new  targets  apply.  Although  differences 
between  the  new  countries  certainly  exist,  geographical  and  political  or  historical  factors 
cannot  give  a  reason  for  a  substantially  slower  introduction  of  packaging  recycling  and 
recovery  in  some  countries  than  in  others  (for  a  more  detailed  explanation  on  geographical 
conditions see below). In this context, it is undisputed that setting up and operating efficient 
recycling and recovery systems is linked to costs. However, these costs occur in all countries 
and  they  also  need  to  be  seen  together  with  the  environmental  benefits  and  the  saved 
alternative disposal costs in the countries themselves. 

The deadline of 31 December 2012 was chosen to reflect a balance between all these factors. 
This  should  take  into  account  the  views  of  the  new  countries,  strive  for  a  high  level  of 
environmental  protection  as  foreseen  in  the  Treaty  and  take  into  account  the  interest  of  the 
existing Member States. This date should also take into account the deadlines set for Greece, 
Ireland and Portugal. 

Specific geographic conditions 

Some acceding States refer to their specific geographic conditions, in particular to their low 
population density or their situation as an island.  

It  is  recognised  that  it  may  be  very  costly  to  set  up  and  operate  collection  systems  in  very 
sparsely populated areas. It should, however, be noted that the Directive applies to the entire 
territory of a country and does not require collection in these areas. Although covering a large 
part of the territory of these countries, only a small part of the population lives in these areas. 
Normally,  more  than  60%  of  the  population  of  all  countries  concerned  live  in  cities  and 
another big part of the population will live in rural areas close to the cities. Consequently, the 
share of packaging consumed and discarded in very sparsely populated areas is expected to be 
small  compared  to  the  overall  packaging  consumption  and  packaging  waste  generation  in 
these countries.  

It  is  also  recognised  that  island  countries  may  face  additional  costs  to  load  to  and  unload 
collected  packaging  waste  from  ships,  if  this  waste  is  sent  for  treatment  to  recycling 

8 

 
 
  
 
installations. The Commission does, however, not dispose of figures that would indicate that 
these  costs  could  alter  the  balance  of  costs  and  benefits  for  recycling  significantly.  On  the 
contrary, ship transport seems to be economically competitive in many international recycling 
markets (in particular for metals or plastics). 

4. 

ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE DIRECTIVE 

The impacts of increasing the recycling targets 

Due  to  the  urgency  of  the  present  proposal,  the  economic,  environmental  and  social 
implications  of  increasing  the  recycling  targets  in  the  acceding  States  to  the  levels  of  the 
revised packaging directive were evaluated on the basis of existing information, in particular 
the cost-benefit study by RDC/Pira for the European Commission8 and a study by ECOTEC 
for the European Commission on the benefits of compliance of candidate countries with the 
environmental acquis9.  

As the RDC/Pira study was limited to the 15 existing Member States, its results needed to be 
extrapolated  to  the  new  countries.  However,  there  are  no  reasons  to  assume  that  the  main 
patterns of this study would not be valid also for the new countries. This view is in particular 
based on the following considerations. 

The  RDC/Pira  study  indicated  that  costs  and  benefits  of  packaging  recycling  depend  in  the 
first place on the material (e.g. PET; paper) and application (e.g. bottle; carton box). In other 
words,  if  recycling  of  a  particular  material  or  application  is  clearly  favourable  from  a  cost-
benefit  perspective  in  one  country,  the  same  is  true  in  all  other  countries  considered  in  that 
study. Local factors play a smaller role, mainly on applications where the cost-benefit balance 
is  not  very  clear.  For  the  existing  Member  States,  the  country  with  the  results  most 
unfavourable  to  recycling  is  Ireland  with  an  estimated  optimal  packaging  recycling  rate 
between  40  and  54%.  This  compares  to  the  country  with  the  most  favourable  conditions, 
Denmark, with an optimal rate between 53 and 68%.  

The  main  factor  influencing  the  results  seems  to  be  the  alternative  waste  treatment  method 
(incineration or landfill). Population density also seems to play a role. However, the effect of 
population density on the optimal recycling rate can point in both directions, i.e. depending on 
the  material/application  and  on  alternative  waste  management  method  the  optimal  recycling 
rate can be both higher and lower in urban compared to rural areas. It should also be noted 
that  collection  results  for  household  packaging  waste  are  often  better  in  rural  compared  to 
urban areas. 

Normally,  the  new  countries  have  a  lower  level  of  packaging  consumption.  The  average 
packaging consumption in acceding States is 87 kg per capita. This compares to 169 kg per 
capita in the existing Member States. It seems therefore likely that the new countries will face 
somewhat  higher  unit  costs  for  setting  up  their  collection  systems.  It  is  also  possible  that 

8 

9 

RDC/Pira 2001 for the European Commission: Evaluation of costs and benefits for the achievement of 
reuse and recycling targets for the different packaging materials in the frame of the Packaging and 
Packaging Waste Directive 94/62/EC, 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/studies/packaging/costsbenefits.pdf  
ECOTEC  2001  for  the  European  Commission:  The  Benefits  of  Compliance  with  the  Environmental 
Acquis for the Candidate Countries, http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/enlarg/benefit_en.htm 

9 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
transport costs may be higher than for the existing Member States. However, all these effects 
are likely to be limited and may be partly compensated by lower labour costs. 

The composition of packaging waste is not significantly different from the existing Member 
States.  Therefore,  there  is  no  reason  to  assume  specific  difficulties  for  particular  materials, 
apart from the generally lower level of packaging consumption. 

The environmental impacts of the packaging life cycle are usually dominated by the energy 
use  for  the  production  and  recycling  or  disposal  of  the  material.  As  the  production  and 
recycling methods are unlikely to differ significantly, the environmental patterns are therefore 
likely  to  be  similar  to  those  in  the  existing  Member  States.  There  may  be  differences  as  a 
result  of  higher  transport  distances.  However,  transport  impacts  are  normally  a  dimension 
smaller  than  the  impacts  related  to  material  production  and  recycling  or  disposal.  The 
reduction  of  waste  going  to  landfill  may  be  particularly  important  for  the  acceding  States. 
Landfilling is still the main alternative disposal method and environmental standards often do 
not yet comply with Community legislation. It is also possible that the monetary valuation of 
the  environmental  impacts  would  need  to  be  corrected  as  a  result  of  lower  incomes  and  a 
different  willingness-to-pay  for  environmental  benefits.  However,  there  is  little  scientific 
evidence  on  the  monetary  valuation  of  environmental  benefits  in  acceding  States. 
Furthermore,  the  use  of  different  valuation  factors  would  create  further  methodological 
problems. 

According to a calculation based on the RDC/Pira study, all recycling activities necessary to 
achieve  the  new  targets  for  glass,  paper  and  board,  plastics  and  metals  would  result  in 
environmental benefits in the rough order of magnitude of around 150 to 200 M€. It is also 
possible  to  make  a  rough  calculation  of  the  monetary  value  of  the  additional  environmental 
benefits  resulting  from  increased  targets  compared  to  current  recycling  levels.  Taking  the 
same approach in calculating the external environmental benefits as for the revision proposal 
COM(2001)729  and  assuming  an  increase  in  glass  recycling  from  20  to  60%,  in  paper 
recycling from 35% to 60%, in plastics recycling from 10 to 22.5% and in metals recycling 
from 10 to 50%, the new targets would result in additional environmental benefits of around 
100 M€.  

Table 4: Avoided external costs as a result of additional packaging to be recycled under 
the material specific targets compared to current recycling levels (estimated at 20% for 
glass, 35% for paper, 10% for plastics, 10% for metals10) 

Sum  of 
acceding 
States 

Paper 

Metals 

Glass 

Plastics 

Total 

all 

Required 
increase in Mt 

Saved external 
costs (€/t) 

Saved external 
costs (M€) 

730 

190 

750 

150 

1820 

15 

20 

80 

200 

11 

4 

60 

30 

105 

10 

Wood is disregarded in this calculation as insufficient cost-benefit data are available. 

10 

 
 
  
 
 
                                                 
The  ECOTEC  study  has  calculated  total  annual  benefits  from  the  implementation  of  the 
original  packaging  directive  for all  candidate  countries  together  in  a  range  from  156  to  910 
million €. This relates in particular to the avoided environmental damage related to replacing 
primary materials through recycled materials. The largest environmental benefits are expected 
for Hungary (10-107 M€), Poland (35-191 M€) and the Czech Republic (22-148 M€).  

The economic impacts may differ due to lower levels of income and lower labour costs. Both 
factors  will  however,  to  a  certain  degree,  compensate  each  other.  In  the  existing  Member 
States, the financing need for recycling is often lower than the saved alternative disposal costs 
for  treating  the  material  in  landfills  or  incinerators.  This  may  be  different  in  the  acceding 
States  due  to  their  currently  very  low  landfill  costs.  This  is  however  also  linked  to  the  low 
environmental  standards  applied.  It  is  likely  that  landfill  costs  will  increase  significantly  as 
acceding  States  will  have  to  apply  the  ‘acquis’  upon  accession  and  there  are  only  few 
transition provisions (for Estonia, Poland and Latvia). Diverting packaging waste to recycling 
may also reduce costs for building additional capacities to replace old landfills which are full 
or do not comply with Community standards. 

Taking the same approach and cost factors in calculating the recycling costs and alternative 
disposal costs as for the revision proposal COM(2001)729 and assuming an increase in glass 
recycling from 20 to 60%, in paper recycling from 35% to 60%, in plastics recycling from 10 
to  22.5%  and  in  metals  recycling  from  10  to  50%,  the  new  targets  would  result  in  an 
additional financing need for recycling of around 250 M€. The alternative disposal costs are 
evaluated at around 300 M€. Except for the fixed costs, these costs will be saved in case of 
recycling. 

Table  5:  Recycling  costs  and  alternative  disposal  costs  of  additional  packaging  to  be 
recycled  under  the  material  specific  targets  compared  to  current  recycling  levels 
(estimated at 20% for glass, 35% for paper, 10% for plastics, 10% for metals11) 

all 

Sum  of 
acceding 
States 

Required 
increase in 
1000 t 

Recycling cost 
(€/t) 

Recycling cost 
(M€) 

Disposal cost 
(€/t) 

Disposal cost 
(M€) 

Paper 

Metals 

Glass 

Plastics 

Total 

730 

190 

750 

150 

1820 

120 

150 

90 

400 

88 

29 

68 

60 

245 

150 

130 

160 

300 

110 

25 

120 

45 

300 

The social impacts may differ as a result of the lower income levels in the acceding States. 
This may mean that a higher share of the available income needs to be spent for packaging 
recycling.  Social  groups  with  lower  income  may  be  more  concerned  than  higher  income 
groups.  However,  this  will  be  partly  compensated  by  the  lower  packaging  consumption  of 
people  with  lower  income.  The  implementation  of  the  new  targets  will  create  a  significant 
number  of  jobs,  including  less  qualified  employment.  On  a  macroeconomic  level,  this  is 
however likely to be compensated to a large extent by reduced employment in other areas as 
less income will be available for other products and services. 

11 

Wood is disregarded in this calculation as insufficient cost-benefit data are available. 

11 

 
 
  
 
 
 
                                                 
The impacts of postponing the implementation deadline 

The environmental, economic and social impacts described above will occur in any case as a 
result of the targets of the revised packaging directive. This directive will only affect the date 
by  which  the  new  targets  need  to  be  implemented  in  the  acceding  States.  By  setting  a  later 
date,  the directive  is  expected to  reduce costs of setting up the necessary collection, sorting 
and treatment infrastructure. No information is available on the exact levels of these costs. It 
is also expected that during the additional transition period the environmental benefits will be 
slightly reduced compared to an earlier implementation date.  

Conclusion 

The environmental, economic and social impacts of achieving the new targets in the acceding 
States  are  expected  to  be  similar  to  those  in  the  existing  Member  States.  On  the  basis  of 
extrapolations  of  recycling  and  disposal  costs  as  well  as  monetary  evaluations  of 
environmental benefits, the additional recycling costs compared to current recycling levels is 
estimated at around 250 M€. This compares  to around 300 M€ which can be at least partly 
saved in case of recycling and roughly 100 M€ in environmental benefits. Nevertheless, there 
may  be  differences  in  costs  and  in  the  factors  used  for  monetary  evaluation  compared  to 
EU15. Therefore, these figures, in particular those for the valuation of environmental benefits 
should be taken with a significant degree of caution. Compared to the deadlines in the revised 
packaging  directive,  this  Directive  is  likely  to  reduce  the  costs  for  setting  up  the  necessary 
collection, sorting and treatment infrastructure by postponing the implementation date for the 
acceding States from 2008 to 2012. 

12 

 
 
  
 
2004/0045 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 

amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste 

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 
95 paragraph 1 thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission12, 

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee13, 

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty14, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

In view of the enlargement of the European Union, due attention needs to be paid to 
the  specific  situation  in  the  future  Member  States,  in  particular  in  relation  to  the 
attainment  of  the  recycling  and  recovery  targets  set  out  in  Article  6(1)  of  European 
Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC15. 

(2)  Member States acceding to the European Union by virtue of the Accession Treaty of 
16 April 2003 require additional time to adapt their recycling and recovery systems to 
the targets of Directive 94/62/EC. 

(3) 

Since the objectives of the action to be taken, namely to harmonise national targets for 
the recycling and recovery of packaging waste, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the 
Member  States  and  can  therefore,  by  reason  of  the  scale  of  the  action,  be  better 
achieved at Community level, the Community may adopt measures, in accordance with 
the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty. In accordance with the 
principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond 
what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.  

(4) 

In view of the further enlargement of the European Union, due attention also needs to 
be paid to the specific situation in countries for which accession is planned at a later 
stage.  

(5) 

Directive 94/62/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,  

12 
13 
14 
15 

OJ C […] […], p. […] 
OJ C […] […], p. […] 
OJ C […] […], p. […] 
OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10. Directive as amended by Directive ../../EC (OJ L …, ….., p. ..) 

13 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: 

Article 1 

The following paragraph shall be added at the end of article 6 of Directive 94/62/EC: 

“11. Member States acceding to the European Union by virtue of the Accession Treaty of 16 
April 2003 may postpone the attainment of the targets referred to in paragraph 1(b), (d) and 
(e) until a date of their own choosing which shall not be later than 31 December 2012.” 

Article 2 

1. 

Member  States  shall  bring  into  force  the  laws,  regulations  and  administrative 
provisions  necessary  to  comply  with  this  Directive  by  [18  months  after  the  date  of 
adoption] at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text 
of  those  provisions  and  a  correlation  table  between  those  provisions  and  this 
Directive.  

When  Member  States  adopt  those  provisions,  they  shall  contain  a  reference  to  this 
Directive  or  be  accompanied  by  such  a  reference  on  the  occasion  of  their  official 
publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made. 

2. 

Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions 
of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive 

This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in 
the Official Journal of the European Union. 

Article 3 

Article 4 

This Directive is addressed to the Member States. 

Done at Brussels,  

For the European Parliament 
The President 

For the Council 
The President 

14 

 
 
  
 
THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL ON BUSINESS WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE 
TO SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES (SMEs) 

THE PROPOSAL 

1. 

Taking  account  of  the  principle  of  subsidiarity,  why  is  Community  legislation 
necessary in this area and what are its main aims? 

This proposal is necessary because in its absence the new Member States would face 
difficulties in attaining the targets under the revised Directive 94/62/EC. 

THE IMPACT ON BUSINESS 

2. 

Who will be affected by the proposal? 

–  which sectors of business 

Packaging manufacturers, packers/fillers and retailers 

Waste collectors, recyclers and other businesses specialising in waste management 

–  which sizes of business (what is the concentration of small and medium-sized 

firms) 

In all four sectors, a large variety of companies will be concerned, ranging from very 
small to very large companies.  

–  are  there  particular  geographical  areas  of  the  Community  where  these 

businesses are found 

This proposal will in particular affect businesses in acceding States.  

3. 

What will business have to do to comply with the proposal? 

Compared to the deadlines of the revised packaging directive, this proposal is likely 
to  reduce  the  level  of  financial  contributions  to  the  recycling  systems  during  the 
additional  transition  period  granted.  This  will  reduce  costs  for  packers/fillers  and 
retailers and delay the increase of business volume expected for waste management 
companies. 

More  in  general,  the  packaging  directive  affects  businesses  in  the  following  way. 
Depending  on  national  legislation,  packaging  manufacturers,  packers/fillers  and/or 
retailers may have to make financial contributions to recycling systems. The degree 
to  which  such  contributions  are  required  varies  between  the  Member  States. 
Normally,  the  cost  of  these  contributions  is  passed  on  to  consumers  of  packaging. 
Alternatively, businesses may be required to organise the take back and recycling of 
packaging  waste  from  their  own  products.  Waste  management  companies  and 
recyclers will increase their normal business activities.  

15 

 
 
  
 
4. 

What economic effects is the proposal likely to have? 

–  on employment 

Compared  to  the  deadlines  set  in  the  revised  packaging  directive,  there  will  be  a 
slower increase in employment in the waste management and recycling sectors. It is 
difficult to evaluate macroeconomic impacts on employment but it may be assumed 
that the overall effects of this proposal, as of the packaging directive in general, are 
small. 

–  on investment and the creation of new businesses 

Compared  to  the  deadlines  set  in  the  revised  packaging  directive,  the  increased 
recycling  obligations  will  only  at  a  later  stage  encourage  investment  in  waste 
management  and  recycling.  This  also  applies  to  the  possible  creation  of  new 
businesses. 

–  on the competitiveness of businesses 

A study by the University of Belfast et al.16 has not found significant effects on the 
competitiveness  of  businesses  of  the  original  packaging  directive.  There  are  no 
reasons  to  assume  that  this  proposal  will  have  a  significant  impact  on  the 
competitiveness of businesses.  

5. 

Does the proposal contain measures to take account of the specific situation of 
small and medium-sized firms (reduced or different requirements etc)? 

no 

CONSULTATION 

Due  to  the  need  to  come  forward  with  this  proposal  rapidly,  no  stakeholder 
consultation  could  be  held.  However,  the  more  ambitious  deadlines  of  the  revised 
packaging  directive  would  have  in  all  likelihood  resulted  in  significant  costs  and 
implementation problems for many businesses. 

6. 

List the organisations which have been consulted about the proposal and outline 
their main views. 

--- 

16 

University  of  Belfast  et  al.  Study  on  measuring  the  competitiveness  effects  of  environmental 
compliance: the importance of regulation and market pressures (ENV4-CT96-0237). 

16