COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on packaging and packaging waste, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020, and repealing Directive 94/62/EC
Date: 2022-11-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EC conformity marking, circular economy, environmental standard, harmonisation of standards, packaging, recycled product, sustainable product, waste recycling

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.11.2022  SWD(2022) 385 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on packaging and packaging waste, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020, and repealing Directive 94/62/EC           {COM(2022) 677 final} - {SEC(2022) 425 final} - {SWD(2022) 384 final}  
 
 
INTRODUCTION 
Directive  94/62/EC  on  packaging  and  packaging  waste  (PPWD)  aims  to  harmonise  national 
measures,  protect  the  environment,  and  ensure  a  good  functioning  of  the  internal  market.  It 
requires Member States to ensure that packaging placed on the EU market meets a number of 
Essential  Requirements  related  to  the  manufacturing  and  labelling  of  packaging,  and  its 
reusable and recoverable nature (through material recycling, energy recovery or composting). 
Packaging is a significant economic activity: Packaging manufacturing generated in the EU a 
turnover of  EUR  355  billion  in  2018  and  the  operators  in  its  waste  management  EUR  15 
billion. It also leads to significant environmental impacts, from over-exploitation of resources 
to  pollution  of  ecosystems,  and  Green  House  Gas  emissions  equivalent  to  the  total  annual 
emissions of Hungary. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 
The aim of this initiative is to tackle three groups of interlinked problems: 
1.  growing  generation  of  packaging  waste  linked  to  an  increase  of  single-use  packaging,  a 
high level of avoidable packaging, and a bigger share in plastics within the packaging mix.  
2.  barriers to packaging circularity, especially an increased use of packaging design features 
that  inhibit  recycling  and  confusing  labelling  of  packaging  for  consumer  sorting.  Further, 
fragmented markets prevent cost-efficient waste management in an internal market. 

3.  downcycling  and  the  low  levels  of  uptake  of  recycled  content  in  packaging,  which  limits 

the EU's ability to reduce the use of virgin materials in new packaging. 

The  drivers  behind  these  problems  include  the  regulatory  failures  of  the  PPWD  due  to  a 
mixture of poor implementation and enforcement, not being up to date with the latest market 
developments  and  by  not  providing  enough  clarity  to  national  authorities  about  an 
implementation,  which  is  compliant  with  the  Directive.  Further,  its  revision  of  2018  only 
focused  on  recycling  targets,  leaving  aside  the  other  challenges  of  the  waste  sector.  Two 
specific acts, the Single-Use Plastic Directive (SUPD) from 2019 and the 2020 Own Resource 
Decision  (ORD),  which  both  have  plastic  packaging  under  their  scope,  are  not  expected  to 
solve  the  problems  mentioned  above,  not  even  just  those  linked  to  plastics.  The  regulatory 
failure  is  aggravated  by  market  failures,  such  as  environmental  externalities,  fragmented 
markets and poorly performing labelling. 
As  a  result,  packaging  waste  is  increasing:  Total  packaging  waste  generated  is  forecasted  to 
increase from 78 million tonnes in 2018 to 92 million tonnes in 2030, and 107 million tonnes 
in  2040.  The  consequences  include  increased  use  of  non-renewable  resources,  inefficient 
waste  management,  negative  climate  impacts,  littering,  overuse  of  substances  of  concern  in 
packaging, low quality recycling, and excessive landfill, incineration and export at end life. 

WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? 
The regulatory failure of the PPWD cannot be remedied simply by better enforcement of the 
current  rules.  Moreover,  the  available  data  hint  that,  neither  measures  undertaken  by  the 
Member  States  based  on  the  current  PPWD,  nor  those  based  on  the  ORD  or  SUPD  are 
sufficient to ensure that they meet all the specific targets for the recycling rates set out in the 
PPWD. The EU´s packaging market and waste management is in many respects one common 
large  market,  rather  than  27  individual  markets  and  is  characterised  by  high  levels  of  cross-
border trade between Member States.  
Setting  common  requirements  at  EU  level,  will  ensure  a  harmonised  and  well-functioning 
internal  market  across  all  Member  States  and,  therefore,  a  level  playing  field  for  packaging 
producers leading in the end to efficiency gains to the benefit of the EU citizen. As part of the 
new proposal there will be a switch from a Directive to a Regulation. This will simplify the 
existing  rules,  provide  a  clearer  framework  to  manufacturers  and  reduce  administrative 

1 

 
 
burden. At the same time the package proposed reflects subsidiarity principles as regards the 
necessity of EU action and an evident added value of that EU action. 

OBJECTIVES 
The general objective of the legislative proposal is to reduce negative environmental impacts 
of  packaging  and  packaging  waste  and  improve  the  functioning  of  the  internal  market,  thus 
boosting  efficiency  gains  in  the  sector.  The  aim  is  to  create  a  resilient  value  chain,  starting 
from  the  design  of  the  packaging  till  its  re-use  or  -integration  in  high  quality  products,  thus 
creating innovative, “green” jobs in a low carbon packaging industry. The specific objectives 
to meet this general objective are to:  

1.  Reduce the generation of packaging waste 
2.  Promote a circular economy for packaging in a cost-efficient way 
3.  Promote the uptake of recycled content in packaging 

WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? 
After  screening  the  potential  measures,  a  set  of  diverse,  complex  and  often  interrelated 
measures were grouped into three policy options: 
  Option  1  contains  the  measures  related  to  the  better  standardisation  and  clearer  Essential 

Requirements. These measures tend to be pre-requisites for measures in other groups. 

  Option 2 sets mandatory targets for waste reduction, reuse and recycled content in plastic 
packaging, requirements to ensure full recyclability by 2030 and harmonised product rules. 

  Option 3 contains higher mandatory targets and additional product requirements. 

THE PREFERRED POLICY PACKAGE 
Based on the assessment of the measures combined in the options, the overall preferred option 
is Option 2, in form of a Regulation. It contains the measures in Option 1 that are supportive 
or even pre-requisites to facilitate delivery on the mandatory targets and stricter requirements 
in a balanced approach, thus fostering achievement of the objectives and cost efficiency. 
The core measures in the intervention area `prevention and reuse` are: 
1.  a  reduction  target  of  packaging  waste  per  capita  of  19%  for  2030  compared  to  the 

baseline, equivalent to a 5% reduction from the 2018 values,  

2.  EU wide mandatory reuse or refill targets for packaging, where reuse is most effective and  
3.  the phase out of unnecessary or avoidable packaging.  
An important issue is the complementarity and coherence of the measures. Setting mandatory 
reduction targets of packaging waste per capita at Member State level is a chapeau measure in 
the intervention area of prevention and reuse, to which several measures contribute: whereas 
the EU harmonised measures are modelled to contribute to almost 60% of the necessary waste 
reduction,  the  Member  States  must  ensure  the  remainder  with  national,  internal  market 
conform actions.  
The  crucial  measure  on  recyclability  is  the  establishment  of  design  for  recycling  criteria, 
complemented by a recyclability assessment procedure.  
As regards compostability, four plastics packaging types were selected out of a bigger group 
of  packaging  eligible  for  composting  and  will  have  to  be  compostable.  All  other  plastic 
packaging has to be chemically or mechanically recyclable, in order to allow their recycling.  
Another pilar of the package are  ambitious  targets  for recycled  content in  plastic packaging. 
Out  of  the  various  enabling  measures,  the  most  important  ones  are  the  set-up  of  mandatory 
Deposit Return Systems (DRS) for certain packaging types, including minimum requirements 
for  all  DRS,  and  harmonised  labelling  of  products  and  waste  receptacles  to  facilitate 
consumers´ sorting. 

2 

 
 
The analysis concluded that measures in Option 1 alone are not sufficient to reduce packaging 
generation  i.e.,  packaging  waste  would  increase  by  another  17%  till  2030.  Moreover,  the 
recycling  rates  would  not  increase,  neither  would  high  quality  recycling  and  resource 
efficiency  be  enhanced.  Finally,  the  GHG  emissions  would  still  increase  compared  to  2018. 
On  the  other  side,  the  full  set  of  measures  in  Option  3,  alternative  or  additional  to  those  in 
Option  2,  are  much  more  difficult  to  implement,  could  risk  economic  viability,  and  would 
cause  significantly  higher  administrative  burden.  In  reverse,  the  additional  environmental 
benefits are less significant.  
However, a diligent case by case evaluation of the core measures was undertaken in order to 
detect  elements  outside  measures  in  Option  2  to  better  respect  the  subsidiarity  principle,  as 
appropriate, and to  take  into account  pertinent  stakeholder positions  and  improve  feasibility. 
Therefore, the preferred policy package is rather ´Option 2+´ than the pure Option 2. 

IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED POLICY PACKAGE  
The modelling of the preferred option suggests for 2030 a reduction of waste generation by 18 
million t compared to the baseline, and 3.1 million t compared to the 2018.  The reduction in 
GHG is around 23 million tonnes CO2e (42% of the total annual emissions of Hungary)  and 
monetised environmental externalities are reduced by EUR 6.4 billion, relative to the baseline 
projections for 2030.  
Reduced waste management costs of EUR 4.2 billion, additional costs of reuse schemes and 
DRS of EUR 4.6 billion and reduced sales and consumption of packaging of EUR 51.7 billion 
result  in  overall  economic  savings  of  EUR  47.2  billion.  In  reverse,  this  option  results  in 
additional  annual  administrative  costs  of  EUR  1.3  billion,  mainly  for  certification  of  the 
packaging recyclability and of the recycled content in plastic packaging. The complex impacts 
on employment are estimated to result in a slight net increase of “green” jobs. 
Only  the  measures  on  recycled  content  fostering  resource  efficiency  reduce  fossil  fuel 
requirements of the EU by 3.1 million t per year (almost 1/4 of the fossil fuel needed currently 
for  plastic  packaging  production).  The  overall  decrease  in  fossil  fuel  needs  of  Option  2+  is 
difficult  to  quantify  but  the  fact  that  the  GHG  savings  of  the  recycled  content  measure 
represent  22%  of  the  total  GHG  savings  indicates  an  order  of  magnitude  of  12-15  million  t 
fossil  fuel  savings.  Further,  the  measures  to  improve  recyclability  increase  the  overall 
packaging  recycling  rate  from  66.5%  in  2018 to  73%  in  2030,  whereas  landfill  is  decreased 
from 18.7% to 9.6%. This push for circularity results in significantly reduced needs of virgin 
raw materials such as wood, glass and aluminium.   
The  preferred  option  package  foresees  specific  treatment  of  SME`s  and  micro-enterprises  to 
ensure  that  the  impacts  on  them  are  proportionate.  Requirements  would  apply  in  a  non-
discriminatory  manner  to  EU  and  non-EU  companies.  The  measures  are  not  more  trade 
restrictive than necessary to fulfil their environmental objectives. 
Overall,  moving  towards  a  more  circular  economy  within  packaging  would  deliver  benefits 
such  as  empowering  consumers,  reducing  negative  impacts  on  the  environment  and  human 
health,  reducing  the  EU`s  import  dependency  for  raw  materials  and  fossil  fuel,  stimulating 
innovation  and  boosting  economic  growth,  and  finally  reducing  unnecessary  household 
expenditures. 

3