“Aggressive dilution”: NGO coalition rallies against Italy and Finland’s push for derogations on PPWR
13 Dec 2023 --- In the lead-up to the decision on the EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation by the EU Environment Council on December 18, Italy and Finland have proposed derogations to the reuse and waste prevention measures, triggering concerns over potential environmental repercussions.
According to the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), the “misleading lobbying arguments” by the two governments circulated in a non-paper further dilute environmental ambition and undermine reuse and waste prevention measures.
“Reuse and restriction of unnecessary packaging are the most environmentally impactful measures proposed in the packaging regulation. Undermining these measures is irresponsible and risks permitting an additional 7.3 million metric tons of packaging waste on the market by 2030,” says Jean-Pierre Schweitzer, EEB policy manager for Circular Economy.
Technical objections and environmental risks associated with derogations from specific articles and annexes have come to the forefront in the build up to PPWR revisions, causing stirs among stakeholders and environmental advocates.
According to EEB, derogations pushed by Italy and Finland risk generating 7.3 million metric tons of avoidable packaging by 2030.Calls to uphold ambitions
EU environment ministers aim to finalize a packaging and packaging waste regulation, serving as a negotiating mandate for talks with the European Parliament (EP). A November plenary vote on the regulation was criticized for being “behind the times” and an “aggressive dilution” from the single-use packaging industry.
A coalition of NGOs, including EEB, argues that the proposed derogations must be avoided. “The note shows how the derogations put forth by Italy and Finland based on collection and recycling rates are not just clearly unambitious, but also ignore the waste hierarchy, creating a conflict with the Waste Framework Directive (WFD),” they stress.
“Additionally, the deletion of reuse targets and entire rows of Annex V (restrictions of unnecessary packaging), as proposed by Italy and Finland, would create massive distortions within the Single Market, fostering divergent national regulatory approaches to packaging waste reduction.”
Fragmenting the single market?
Fundamental objections center around collection and recycling rates, with experts arguing that reuse is a stronger method. The WFD’s requirement for a better overall environmental outcome justified by life-cycle thinking is emphasized as a critical consideration.
“The derogations put forth by the EP and by Italy and Finland based on collection or recycling rates do not demonstrate that single-use packaging will have a better overall environmental outcome compared to reuse. Consequently, these are insufficient to overturn the waste hierarchy,” the coalition stresses.
“The lack of clarity underscores the inadequate consideration given to these derogations, indicating that they have not been carefully thought through beyond providing flexibility to specific single-use producers.”
Proposed deletions of reuse targets and portions of Annex V by Italy and Finland also raise concerns about potential distortions within the Single Market. The harmonized reuse targets and restrictions are essential for preventing fragmentation in the Single Market for packaging and packaged goods.
The EU Environment Council is slated to discuss the PPWR on December 18.
“The harmonized reuse targets and restrictions outlined in progress toward the attainment of the waste reduction targets set by Article 38 (waste prevention) without a proliferation of different national rules. Deleting or diluting these harmonized measures with broad derogations would force member states to adopt disparate national rules to deal with the uncontrolled growth of packaging waste and meet the targets of Article 38, leading to a fragmentation of the Single Market for packaging and packaged goods,” warns the coalition.
Disproportionate impact
Criticism is directed at poorly drafted derogations supported by the EP — particularly those based on arbitrary rates of collection and recycling.
“Economic operators may be exempted from all reuse quotas if they either achieve a recycling rate of 85% per predominant packaging material or packaging format. Additionally, an exemption from the quotas is possible if member states achieve 85% separate collection per packaging material,” they explain.
“Available data suggests that many member states have already achieved a collection rate above 85% for many of the material types used in the beverage sector (PET, aluminum cans, and glass). This means that for these member states, there will be no incentive to either improve performance or implement reuse at any scale.”
Inconsistencies and unintended consequences
The broadening of exemptions for specific materials, driven by intense lobbying, raises the specter of material substitution risks. Without a comprehensive assessment of potential impacts, exemptions for materials like cardboard in the transport sector and single-use paper-based packaging could lead to unintended consequences such as shifting from plastic to paper without due consideration of environmental impacts.
Furthermore, the objections extend beyond the environmental impact to cover substances in packaging, essential requirements, recyclability grades, empty space limitations, industrial composting and deposit return systems (DRS).
“We strongly urge member states in the Council to support the Parliament’s position on substances in packaging as well as ensuring consistency with the recent agreement on the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation, which also foresees the possibility to restrict substances in products to reduce risks to human or environmental health,” the coalition’s technical objections to the derogations states.
“DRS remains the most effective way to ensure high levels of collection. Further exemptions to the mandatory introduction of DRS would undermine the effectiveness of these systems and distort the Single Market. A derogation based on an 85% collection rate does not represent a high level of performance and is inconsistent with the Single Use Plastics Directive. DRS serves as a stepping stone to well-functioning reuse systems, and further derogations should therefore be rejected.”
Stakeholders stress the need for consistency with recent agreements and careful consideration of potential consequences.
By Radhika Sikaria
