Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the implementation of directive 94/62/ec on packaging and packaging waste and its impact on the environment, as well as on the functioning of the internal market [SEC(2006) 1579]
Date: 2006-12-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: application of EU law, environmental policy, packaging, prevention of pollution, waste disposal, waste management, waste recycling

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 6.12.2006 
COM(2006) 767 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT 

ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DIRECTIVE 94/62/EC ON PACKAGING AND 
PACKAGING WASTE AND ITS IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, AS WELL AS 
ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE INTERNAL MARKET 

[SEC(2006) 1579] 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
INTRODUCTION 

When  Directive  94/62/EC  on  Packaging  and  Packaging  Waste  (hereinafter  the  “Packaging 
Directive”)  was  adopted,  little  information  on  the  costs  and  benefits  of  packaging  and 
packaging  waste  management  was  available.  Such  information  started  to  be  compiled  when 
more  emphasis  was  put  on  cost-benefit  analysis  and  impact  assessment,  before  the  last 
revision of the Packaging Directive was launched. However, at this time the focus of the cost-
benefit analysis was put on the effects of the revised directive, i.e. on the effect of increasing 
recycling. This was done by calculating the costs and benefits of increasing recycling from the 
1998 recycling levels to optimal recycling rates.  

During  the  legislative  process,  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  called  upon  the 
Commission to present a more complete evaluation of the overall impacts of the directive in a 
report on the implementation of the Packaging Directive and its impact on the environment, as 
well as on the functioning of the internal market1. This report should also assess options for 
further measures on packaging prevention and address other relevant issues in the framework 
of the Sixth Environmental Action Programme.  

This  report  gives  an  ex-post  assessment  of  environmental,  economic,  social  and  internal 
market aspects of the directive and an evaluation of the need for complementary measures for 
the prevention and recycling of packaging waste and the free circulation of packaging in the 
internal market. 

The  report  also  takes  into  account  the  Communication  on  the  Thematic  Strategy  on  the 
prevention  and  recycling  of  waste2  and  the  proposal  to  revise  waste  framework  legislation3 
adopted by the Commission on 21 December 2005.  

1. 

EX-POST ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACTS OF THE PACKAGING DIRECTIVE 

In  order  to  prepare  this  report,  two  studies  were  commissioned:  one  on  the  environmental, 
economic and social impacts4 and another one on the internal market aspects of the directive5. 
Both studies were subject to intensive stakeholder consultation which is documented on the 
Commission's  website6.  Additionally,  the  European  Environment  Agency  also  prepared  a 
pilot  study  on  the  effectiveness  of  packaging  waste  management  systems  in  selected 
countries7. 

1 

2 
3 
4 

5 

6 
7 

Art.  6(8)  and  6(9)  of  Directive  94/62/EC  on  Packaging  and  Packaging  Waste,  text  of  this  clause  in 
Annex I to this Report. 
COM(2005)666 final. 
COM(2005)667 final. 
Study on the Implementation of Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging and Packaging Waste and Options to 
Strengthen  Prevention  and  Reuse  of  Packaging,  Ecolas  and  Pira  for  the  European  Commission  2005, 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/studies/packaging/050224_final_report.pdf; 
Annexes: 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/studies/packaging/050224_final_%20report_annexes.pdf; 
Information 
consultation: 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/studies/packaging/implementation_background.htm. 
Study on the Progress of the Implementation and Impact of Directive 94/62/EC on the Functioning of 
the 
2005, 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/environment/reports_studies/studies/report_packaging_direct.pdf. 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/studies/packaging/implementation_background.htm. 
Effectiveness of packaging waste management systems in selected countries: an EEA pilot study, EEA 
Report No 3/2005, http://reports.eea.eu.int/eea_report_2005_3/en. 

Internal  Market,  Perchards 

the  European  Commission 

and  FFact 

stakeholder 

for 

on 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
As far as possible, the studies include information on all 25 Member States. However, a large 
part of the tasks focused on the evaluation of the implementation of the directive in the past, 
when the ten new Member States were not yet members of the European Union. Information 
on  the  packaging  waste  management  in  the  new  Member  States  before  accession  is  scarce. 
Therefore, large parts of the analysis had to be limited to the fifteen EU Member States who 
were members before 1 May 2004 (hereinafter “EU15”). 

This  section  gives  a  summary  of  the  findings  of  these  studies  and  an  evaluation  of  these 
results  by  the  European  Commission.  A  more  detailed  explanation  is  given  in  the  annex  to 
this report. 

1.1. 

Overall impacts related to packaging 

Packaging  is  a  relatively  small  but  not  insignificant  product  and  waste  stream.  In  2002, 
around 66 million tonnes of packaging waste were generated in EU15. This is around 5% of 
total  waste  generation.  Packaging  waste  accounts  for  around  17%  of  municipal  waste  by 
weight8 and between 20% and 30% by volume9. However, weight is not the best indicator for 
the  environmental  impacts  of  packaging  waste  and  the  impacts  of  packaging  throughout  its 
life cycle. The overall environmental impacts of packaging are in the order of magnitude of 
one  to  a  few  percent  of  the  overall  economy.  For  example,  the  greenhouse  gas  emissions 
related to packaging consumption in the EU15 are estimated at around 80 million tonnes of 
CO2 equivalent per annum10. This is around 2% of total greenhouse gas emissions of EU15. 
The  share  of  packaging  for  other  environmental  impacts,  such  as  air  acidification,  fine 
particles and eutrophication is of a comparable magnitude.  

8 

9 

10 

Assuming  that  around  half  of  the  packaging  waste  originates  from  municipal  waste,  total  municipal 
waste accounts for approximately 200 Mt in EU15. 
Estimate  based  on  studies  indicating  that  the  volume  of packaging has  a  significantly higher  share of 
municipal  waste  than  its  weight.  Very  frequently,  a  figure  of  30%  by  weight  and  50%  by  volume  is 
quoted. However, as the 30% are clearly an over-estimate, also the figure for the volume was reduced. 
For  more 
http://www.merit.unimaas.nl/tep/reports/ppwd-synthesisreport.pdf; 
http://www.mindfully.org/Sustainability/EPR-Extended-Producer-Responsibility.htm. 
Bio Intelligence and O2 for the European Commission 2003, Study on external environmental effects 
91, 
related 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ipp/pdf/ext_effects_finalreport.pdf. The study estimates the per 
capita greenhouse gas emission at 216 kg CO2 per annum. 

information 

services, 

products 

cycle 

see: 

and 

life 

the 

of 

to 

p. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
1.2. 

Packaging recycling, recovery and incineration at waste incineration plants with 
energy recovery11 

Packaging recycling12 is not a new waste management option. For some packaging fractions, 
recycling  always  took  place  because  it  was  cheaper  than  disposal.  Significant  amounts  of 
packaging were recycled as a result of national legislation and programmes even  before  the 
Packaging Directive took effect. Out of the 66 million tonnes of packaging waste, around 36 
million tonnes or 54% were recycled in 2002. Compared to 1997, this is an increase of 9 
million tonnes and an increase of the recycling rate by 8%. This increase mainly took place in 
the  Member  States  where  recycling  levels  were  initially  low.  Packaging  recovery  and 
incineration at waste incineration plants with energy recovery increased from 31 million 
tonnes or 52% in 1997 to 41 million tonnes or 62% in 2002.  

In 2002, all of the 75 different targets applicable to EU15 have been achieved13. 

Recycling  and  recovery  of  packaging  waste  have  led  to  positive  environmental  effects  on 
most parameters. This includes greenhouse gas savings of around 25 million tonnes of CO2 
equivalent  (around  1  million  tonnes  as  a  direct  result  of  the  Packaging  Directive)  and 
resource savings of around 10 million tonnes of oil equivalent (around 3 million tonnes as 
a direct result of the Packaging Directive) as a result of recycling and recovery of packaging 
waste compared to a scenario where all packaging waste was sent to landfill or incineration 
without  energy  recovery,  which  corresponds  to  around  0.6%  of  total  EU15  greenhouse  gas 
emissions  in  2002,  or  between  a  third  and  a  half  of  the  total  greenhouse  gas  emissions  of 
countries like Denmark, Ireland or Sweden. Taking into account the difficulty to achieve the 
8% reduction target under the Kyoto Protocol, this is a significant contribution. Other major 
environmental  benefits  relate  to  reduced  emissions  of  particulate  matter,  decreased 
acidification  and  less  disamenity  effects  (traffic  noise,  odours,  visual  disturbances  etc. 
affecting the population living around landfills and incinerators).  

Recycling resulting from the Packaging Directive and national programmes and legislation is 
not significantly more expensive than if the same material had been sent to disposal. The total 
costs  of  packaging  waste  management14  in  2001  were  evaluated  in  three  scenarios.  In  a 
scenario  corresponding  to  the  real  recycling  and  recovery  rates  in  2001,  the  costs  were 
estimated at 6.6 to 6.8 billion €. However, even in a scenario of zero packaging recycling and 

11 

12 

13 
14 

For reasons of simplicity and readability, “recovery and incineration at waste incineration plants with 
energy recovery” is referred to in this report as “recovery” even though this also includes incineration at 
waste incineration plants with energy recovery, which is in most cases a form of disposal pursuant to 
the terminology of Directive 75/442/EEC on waste. 
In  the  following  text,  much  of  the  focus  of  the  analysis  is  on  recycling  in  the  sense  of  the  recycling 
definition of the Packaging Directive (“the reprocessing in a production process of the waste materials 
for  the  original  purpose  or  for  other  purposes  including  organic  recycling  but  excluding  energy 
recovery”). This includes in essence material recycling, some of various recycling methods sometimes 
called  chemical  or  feedstock  recycling  and  organic  recycling.  The  choice  to  focus  on  recycling  was 
made  because  of  the  assumption  that  the  main  effect  of  the  Packaging  Directive  is  an  increase  in 
recycling  rates.  The  effect  on  recovery  and  incineration  at  waste  incineration  plants  is  deemed  much 
smaller, as this rather depends on national decisions whether or not to build waste incinerators for waste 
management  in  general  rather  than  the  direct  effect  of  the  Packaging  Directive.  The  cost-benefit 
patterns  of  incineration  with  energy  recovery  are  also  considered  to  be  less  favourable  than  those  of 
recycling for most of the packaging waste fractions covered by current recycling programmes. 
For details see Annex II, table 1. 
Recycling  and  energy  recovery  plus  disposal  of  the  remaining  part  of  packaging  waste  with  mixed 
municipal or industrial waste. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
100%  disposal,  disposal  costs  would  have  been  around  6.1  billion  €.  In  a  scenario  with  the 
likely levels of packaging recycling in the absence of the Packaging Directive, the total costs 
of  packaging  waste  management  were  estimated  at  6.6  billion  €.  Taking  into  account  the 
uncertainty of any such estimates, it can be concluded that the additional costs related to the 
recycling  obligations  of  the  Packaging  Directive  are  not  higher  than  several  hundred 
million € per annum. These additional costs are likely to grow smaller as the implementation 
of EU legislation improves the environmental conditions under which disposal of waste takes 
place in the EU, for example as a result of the implementation of Directive 1999/31/EC on the 
landfill of waste15. 

The cost of reducing 1 tonne of CO2 equivalent through packaging recycling has risen from 
12  €/t  in  1997  to  23  €/t  in  2001  (compared  to  emission  trading  market  prices  ranging  from 
about  9  to  around  12.5  €/t  of  CO2  between  October  2005  and  October  200616).  Since 
packaging  recycling  has  also  other  environmental  benefits,  it  can  be  classified  with  a 
relatively  high  degree  of  certainty  among  the  most  cost-efficient  options  to  reduce  CO2 
emissions  and  other  environmental  impacts.  There  are,  however,  major  differences 
between various packaging materials and applications. Studies also indicate that an increase 
of  recycling  targets  beyond  the  current  levels  would  not  be  cost-effective17.  Geographical 
differences  between  the  Member  States  influence  the  results  on  cost-effectiveness  only  to  a 
minor extent. 

The  impact  on  certain  industry  and  private  sectors  can  however  be  larger  than  the  above 
figures might suggest as the directive implies a shift of the costs of waste management from 
the  public  (especially  local  authorities)  to  the  private  sector  (that  is  now  co-financing  the 
management of packaging waste) and internal administration costs incurred by companies are 
not included in the above estimates. 

The  direct  and  first  round  indirect  employment  rate  in  the  packaging  recovery  and 
recycling industry is estimated at 42,000 full-time job equivalents. This number needs to be 
compared  to  possible  job  losses  in  the  waste  disposal  sector  as  a  result  of  macroeconomic 
effects  (the  funds  spent  on  recycling  are  not  available  for  spending  on  other  economic 
activities – such effects will decrease as disposal costs increase). It is unclear how many jobs 
may  have  been  affected  as  a  result  of  these  effects.  Overall,  the  employment  balance  is 
likely to be neutral or slightly positive. 

The main impact of recycling  obligations of the Packaging  Directive on the internal market 
was  a  stabilisation  of  collection  and  recycling  markets.  Differences  between  the  Member 
States in financing for recycling were levelled out to some extent as all Member States have 
put in place financing mechanisms to support packaging recycling. Recently, internal market 
problems  arose  through  divergent  interpretations  of  the  voluntary  or  obligatory  nature  of 
material identification systems pursuant to Article 8 of the Packaging Directive and Decision 
97/129/EC. 

15 
16 
17 

EN 

Directive 1999/31/EC, OJ L 182 of 16.7.1999, p. 1. 
Figure as of 11 October 2006, www.pointcarbon.com.  
In 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/studies/packaging/costsbenefits.pdf. 

Commission 

RDC/Pira 

particular 

European 

the 

for 

2003 

available 

at: 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
1.3. 

Packaging prevention 

Prevention of packaging at source is far more complex than recycling. Recycling is one of the 
available  waste  management  options,  with  other  options  including  recovery  or  disposal. 
Prevention not only influences the entire life cycle of packaging from raw material extraction 
to disposal, but also the life cycle of the packaged products. Any more substantial changes in 
volumes  of  packaging  placed  on  the  market  can  only  be  achieved  through  changes  in 
production, consumption and distribution patterns. This is reflected in the limited success of 
all  prevention  measures  undertaken  so  far.  Although  there  seems  to  be  some  decoupling  of 
packaging  waste  generation  from  GDP  growth,  in  almost  all  Member  States  the  absolute 
quantity of packaging waste is increasing. Prevention measures such as enforcement systems 
for the essential requirements, packaging prevention plans and strong producer responsibility 
systems might have had some effect on the reduction of packaging generation. However, the 
overall  patterns  of  packaging  waste  generation  are  not  significantly  different  between  the 
Member States applying different prevention tools and the Member States applying none of 
these tools. 

The European Parliament has raised the issue of using a Packaging Environmental Indicator 
(PEI)  for  the  purpose  of  packaging  policy.  Such  an  indicator  is  a  conceptual  tool  that 
measures  the  environmental  impact  of  packaging  and  produces  a  simple  result  allowing  to 
improve packaging and facilitate the selection between different packaging systems. The main 
advantage of PEI is that it gives guidance on key environmental impacts to be considered in 
life  cycle  assessment  and  life  cycle  thinking  approaches.  Nevertheless,  practical  constraints 
make it difficult to use PEI in order to identify single numbers which could be used to justify 
favouring one type of packaging over another or to inform the consumer. Therefore, it seems 
appropriate to focus the potential use of PEI on giving guidance to companies using life cycle 
approaches  rather  than  trying  to  calculate  single  numbers  on  the  basis  of  this  tool.  Such 
application of PEI could be integrated into the framework of a future conformity assessment 
procedure. 

There  are  no  indications  that  the  current  levels  of  heavy  metals  and  other  hazardous 
substances  present  in  packaging  pose  any  particular  risks  to  health  and  the  environment. 
Therefore,  it  appears  unlikely  that  a  further  reduction  of  heavy  metal  limits  would  result  in 
significant health and environmental benefits. 

Prevention  targets  may  seem  appealing  due  to  their  apparent  simplicity.  However,  their 
implementation raises a number of problems which are not less complex than other measures. 
In  particular,  weight-related  targets  would  pose  in  disadvantage  heavier  but  not  necessarily 
less environmentally friendly packaging materials. Targets applied equally to every producer 
would  disfavour  those  producers  who  already  use  the  minimum  possible  amount  of 
packaging. For such producers, further reductions may lead to product spillage which is often 
likely  to  cause  significantly  more  environmental  damage  than  the  possible  environmental 
benefits related to savings on packaging. 

Landfill  bans  and  landfill  reduction  targets  have  a  similar  effect  as  recycling  targets  in 
redirecting  waste  streams.  However,  they  need  to  be  seen  in  relation  to  which  waste 
management  option  could  possibly  be  used  subsequently 
the  greatest 
environmental  benefit.  Recycling  targets  cannot  be  simply  replaced  by  landfill  bans  and 
landfill reduction targets if this would result in an increase of incineration at the detriment of 
recycling and the overall environmental benefits of the Directive. 

to  achieve 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
2. 

THE IMPACT ON THE INTERNAL MARKET 

The Directive has brought about a significant convergence between Member States’ recycling 
rates, and the notification procedure has allowed to solve many internal market issues before 
they  became  a  real  problem.  However,  despite  the  directive’s  aim  to  contribute  to  the 
functioning of the internal market and to reduce trade barriers, these goals have not yet been 
fully  achieved  for  all  types  of  packaging.  Past  experience  and  ongoing  cases  show  that 
unilateral  measures  adopted  in  different  Member  States  still  pose  problems  by  requiring 
market  operators  to  adapt  their  packaging  to  the  requirements  of  each  individual  Member 
State which makes it more difficult for them to benefit from business opportunities within the 
internal  market  by  selling  the  same  product  in  the  same  packaging  in  different  markets.  In 
particular, the infringement procedures in the beverage sector show that national measures can 
lead to distortions of competition and in some cases partitioning of the internal market, which 
contradicts the objectives of the directive. The beverage packaging sector has signalled such 
impacts from mandatory deposit systems for non-refillable containers (e.g. in Germany). The 
German  case  also  highlights  that  the  phase  of  a  changeover  from  one  deposit  system  to 
another  is  critical  for  market  operators,  since  legal  and  factual  insecurities  can  lead  to 
instabilities  in  the  market.  Besides,  the  use  of  taxation  to  drive  packaging  policy  can 
potentially  disrupt  the  internal  market  if  the  taxes  are  applied  in  a  way  that  protects  local 
producers. 

The Commission is committed to react on any measures that risk disrupting the functioning of 
the internal market and are not environmentally justified, and will further evaluate the need to 
clarify  or  amend  the  provisions  of  Articles  5  and  7  of  the  Packaging  Directive  in  order  to 
facilitate the free circulation of goods within the internal market. 

The Commission also considers that a proper enforcement of the essential requirements will 
further contribute to create a level playing field. Lack of progress on essential requirements 
represents a major problem in the implementation process of the Directive with respect to the 
internal market. All Member States have duly transposed the essential requirements, but only 
three  Member  States  (the  UK,  France  and  the  Czech  Republic)  have  put  an  enforcement 
mechanism in place. The enforcement of essential requirements will bring additional benefits 
in  terms  of  prevention,  recycling  and  reduction  of  hazardous  substances  in  packaging. 
Evidence shows that countries monitoring compliance with the essential requirements (France 
and  the  UK)  have  achieved  similar  levels  of  decoupling  of  growth  in  packaging  use  from 
GDP as the countries which have implemented packaging prevention plans (e.g. Belgium and 
Spain). 

For  these  reasons,  the  Commission  reiterates  its  commitment  to  promote  a  proper 
implementation  of  the  essential  requirements  in  relation  to  both  Article  9  and  18  of  the 
directive.  Besides,  Member  States  could  use  the  enforcement  of  essential  requirements  as  a 
priority in setting their waste prevention programmes. 

Finally,  despite  the  progress  achieved  so  far,  the  remaining  uncertainties  regarding  some  of 
the  definitions  of  packaging  and  the  reporting  procedures  need  to  be  clarified,  also  with 
respect  to  ensuring  a  level  playing  field  for  all  economic  operators.  The  Commission  will 
continue to work in partnership with the Member States to address these issues. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
3. 

PACKAGING REUSE 

Reuse  systems  for  packaging  operate  very  successfully  for  transport  packaging.  However, 
most of the debate on packaging reuse in the European Union focuses on consumer beverage 
packaging (roughly 20% of total packaging by weight18). The question of whether and by how 
much reusable consumer beverage packaging is preferable to one-way packaging is subject to 
lively debates. Many life cycle assessment studies have been conducted on this subject. There 
is a reasonably strong agreement on the fundamental patterns of the results but the absolute 
values differ to some extent. Most studies found reusable packaging to be better in situations 
with  generally  low  transport  distances  and  high  return  rates,  and  one-way  packaging  to  be 
better in situations with generally high transport distances and low return rates. 

Given  this  background,  it  seems  currently  neither  possible  nor  appropriate  to  propose 
harmonised measures to encourage reusable consumer beverage packaging at the Community 
level.  

However,  there  is  evidence  that  the  beverage  sector  of  the  internal  market  is  becoming 
increasingly partitioned as a consequence of unilateral measures taken at Member State level 
to promote environmental concerns related to packaging. For example, refill systems can be 
more difficult to apply over long distances and can lead to additional costs for importers that 
have to adapt their packaging to the specifications of each individual Member States’ market. 
In  general,  appropriately  designed  national  measures  encouraging  reusable  packaging  have 
environmental  benefits.  On  the  other  hand,  such  measures  can  have  impacts  on  the  internal 
market. Finding a right balance between the involved economic and environmental interests 
remains one of the main tasks in this sector. Therefore, with respect to beverage packaging, 
the Commission will further evaluate the need to clarify or amend the provisions of Articles 5 
and 7 of the Packaging Directive in order to facilitate its free circulation within the internal 
market. 

4. 

NEED FOR COMPLEMENTARY MEASURES 

The  Packaging  Directive  has  contributed  to  reducing  the  environmental  impact  of  natural 
resources’  use  through  packaging  prevention,  reuse  and  recycling.  It  also  created  a  more 
stable economic framework for separate collection of packaging waste and its recycling and 
recovery.  In  this  way,  it  has  created  business  opportunities  and  a  number  of  new  jobs.  Any 
future  plans  to  review  the  directive  should  aim  at  preserving  and  increasing  those  benefits 
while  improving  the  efficiency  of  packaging  and  packaging  waste  management  through 
simplification, streamlining in line with the ‘better regulation’ initiatives by the Commission 
and  the  Council  Presidencies  and  preventing  the  possible  negative  impacts  on  the  internal 
market.  

4.1. 

Prevention and reuse 

As  shown  by  the  ex-post  assessment  of  the  directive,  the  scope  for  measures  on  prevention 
and  reuse  in  isolation  from  the  packaged  product  is  relatively  limited.  Any  measure  that  is 
effective  on  prevention  or  reuse  will  also  have  impacts  on  packaged  goods  and  their 
production,  distribution  and  consumption  patterns  as  well  as  on  trade  within  the  internal 

18 

Estimate on the basis of GVM data for Germany, personal communication. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
market. The studies used for the preparation of this report do not show a clear preference for 
one of the options to encourage prevention and reuse of packaging. 

Therefore, a flexible approach to preventing packaging waste should be taken at the European 
level that encourages Member States to take action while leaving them the choice of the most 
appropriate  instruments  and  measures.  The  proposal  to  incorporate  in  the  waste  framework 
legislation an obligation for Member States to develop waste prevention programmes tabled 
by the Commission in the context of the Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of 
waste  provides  such  a  flexible  instrument.  The  Commission  is  ready  to  support  Member 
States in drafting their national prevention plans.  

In order to achieve good implementation of the Packaging Directive and with a view to the 
improved  functioning  of  the  internal  market,  it  is  important  that  all  actors  contribute  to  the 
efficient functioning of the system of notification provided by Article 16 of the directive.  

4.2. 

Recycling and recovery targets 

Article 6(8) of the Packaging Directive calls for this report to be accompanied, as appropriate, 
by  proposals  for  a  revision  of  the  provisions  related  to  prevention  and  reuse  of  packaging. 
Article 6(5) provides that “not later than 31 December 2007, the European Parliament and the 
Council shall […] fix targets for the third five-year phase 2009 until 2014 […]”. 
The targets contained in Article 6 of the Packaging Directive have recently been revised19. A 
new set of targets for recovery and recycling has been adopted and is to be attained by the end 
of 2008. At the same time, due to the specific situation in the Member States which joined the 
European  Union  on  1  May  2004,  Directive  2005/20/EC20  postpones  the  attainment  of  the 
"2008 targets" until 2012 for seven Member States, and until 2013, 2014, and 2015 for one 
Member State in each of these years.  

The assessment contained in this report is based on the data and information collected around 
the years 2001 – 2002. The latest report on the implementation of waste directives (including 
the Packaging Directive) covers a period between 2001 and 2003, while the subsequent report 
for  years  2004  –  2006  will  be  available  in  2008  at  the  earliest.  This  report  could  possibly 
provide information needed to reassess the levels of 2008 targets. Member States still have to 
make a lot of progress to implement the existing targets. Only once the situation as regards 
packaging waste management in the New Member States becomes clearer and the data for the 
subsequent  reporting  periods  are  available  to  the  Commission,  will  it  become  possible  to 
assess the environmental, economic and social impacts of a potential new set of targets.  

Therefore, it appears premature to propose new recycling and recovery targets at a stage when 
the previous set of targets has only recently been transposed into national legislation and the 
latest  implementation  deadline  for  those  targets  is  as  late  as  201521.  There  are  also  no 
indications  that  the  cost  and  benefit  patterns  for  different  levels  of  packaging  recycling  and 
recovery  have  changed  significantly  since  the  new  targets  agreed  in  2004  were  set.  It  is 
therefore  considered  that  the  levels  of  the  targets  decided  in  Directive  2004/12/EC  should 
remain valid well beyond 2008.  

19 
20 
21 

Directive 2004/12/EC, OJ L 47 of 18.2.2004, p. 26. 
Directive 2005/20/EC, OJ L 70 of 16.3.2005, p. 17. 
Directive 2005/20/EC, OJ L 70 of 16.3.2005, p. 17. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The ex-post assessment of the impact of the Packaging Directive on the environment shows 
an  increase  of  packaging  recovery  and  incineration  at  waste  incineration  plants  with  energy 
recovery by 9% and an increase of packaging recycling by 8% between 1997 and 2002. At the 
same  time,  all  the  targets  established  in  the  directive  were  met  in  2002.  Recycling  of 
packaging had positive environmental effects, including greenhouse gas savings and resource 
savings.  Other  environmental  benefits  include  reduced  emissions  of  particulates,  decreased 
acidification,  less  traffic  noise,  odours,  visual  disturbance  etc.  These  are  noticeable  and 
significant benefits of the industry’s efforts to implement the requirements of the Packaging 
Directive. The data demonstrate that the additional costs related to the recycling obligations of 
the Packaging Directive as compared to other waste management options (e.g. disposal) are 
not significantly higher and show a decreasing trend. The costs for packaging recycling are in 
the same order of magnitude as the most cost-efficient alternatives to reduce CO2 emissions 
and other environmental impacts. 

The Commission considers that the recycling and recovery targets contained in the Packaging 
Directive are currently optimal and should remain stable to enable all the Member States to 
catch-up  with  these  targets.  A  substantial  progress  on  prevention  can  only  be  achieved 
through the application of measures tailored to specific conditions in which packaged goods 
are  marketed  such  as,  for  instance,  consumption  and  distribution  patterns.  Incorporating  in 
waste  framework  legislation  an  obligation  for  Member  States  to  develop  waste  prevention 
programmes as proposed by the Commission in the context of the Thematic Strategy on the 
prevention  and  recycling  of  waste  constitutes  an  appropriate  instrument  to  promote  waste 
prevention in general as well as prevention of packaging waste in particular. 

In the longer term, recycling of packaging waste must be seen in the general framework of EU 
waste recycling policy as defined in the Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of 
waste.  The  Commission  intends  to  include  an  assessment  of  the  progress  made  by  the 
Member  States  in  preventing,  recycling  and  recovering  waste  in  the  2010  review  of  the 
Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste. This assessment shall build, inter 
alia, on an update of the assessment of the impacts of the Packaging Directive and take into 
account  the  progress  of  the  Member  States  towards  the  increased  recycling  rates  set  by  the 
European Parliament and the Council in the 2004 review of the Directive. 

There  is  evidence  (particularly  in  the  beverage  sector)  that  the  Directive  has  not  yet  fully 
achieved  its  internal  market  objective.  This  is  partly  due  to  incorrect  implementation  of  the 
provisions  of  the  Packaging  Directive,  but  also  due  to  the  increasing  number  of  unilateral 
measures leading to a partitioned market. Therefore, the Commission will further evaluate the 
need for action that could be taken on the EU level to avoid constraints as regards the internal 
market  in  the  future.  Progress  towards  the  proper  enforcement  of  the  essential  requirements 
and  harmonized  definitions  and  reporting  procedures  across  Member  States  will  further 
contribute to the creation of a level playing field for all economic operators. 

EN 

10 

   EN