European Parliament PPWR plenary vote divides industry, naming successes and “missed opportunities”

23 Nov 2023 --- The European Parliament’s latest round of voting yesterday afternoon on the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) reflects a stance “behind the times,” according to Zero Waste Europe (ZWE). The mandate was approved by MEPs with 426 votes in favor, 125 against and 74 abstentions.

While UNESDA Soft Drinks Europe and the European Paper Packaging Alliance (EPPA) welcome the plenary vote, Plastics Europe asserts it is a “missed opportunity” to incentivize investments in circular plastic packaging.

The removed packaging formats include disposable plates and cups from dine-in restaurants, single-use packaging for fruit and vegetables, and single-use sauce and sugar tubs and sachets.

Though waste prevention targets were preserved at 5% by 2030, 10% by 2035 and 15% by 2040, the “watered-down” text excludes crucial mechanisms needed to reach those targets. “The position included reuse targets with derogations, reflecting an outdated stance that goes against the waste hierarchy,” asserts ZWE.

The removed packaging formats include single-use packaging for fruit and vegetables.The European Parliament voted against introducing a credit-based system for recycled content targets, which would have reduced transparency, notes the European network. However, ZWE says that while bio-based plastics “seemed to have been removed” from the recycled content targets, the final vote “lacks clarity.”

Threatening circularity investments
Plastics Europe tells Packaging Insights that accelerating the transition of the European plastics system to circularity and net zero requires a policy and regulatory framework that drives the demand for circular feedstocks, boosts investments in recycling technologies and stimulates the development of recyclable products. 

According to Virginia Janssens, managing director at Plastics Europe, the PPWR is one of the most important elements of the plastics transition enabling framework. “So, although Plastics Europe welcomes a number of decisions taken by the European Parliament, we believe the plenary vote was a missed opportunity to strengthen this critical regulation and create the incentives for the huge investments needed to make plastics packaging circular,” she stresses.

Creating the right market pull and regulatory conditions for circularity are “essential” for incentivizing the EU plastics system to significantly increase its drive toward mechanical and chemical recycling, says Plastics Europe. These conditions are “vital” for improving the quantity and quality of recycled plastics, reducing the reliance on fossil-based raw material input and accelerating the circularity of all parts of the plastics packaging system.

Janssen says that it is “unfortunate” that the decision by the Environment committee to reduce the recycled content targets for contact-sensitive packaging has not been reversed in plenary. “This is a missed opportunity to use the PPWR to boost the development of the market for recycled plastic packaging in Europe.”

“We are also disappointed that MEPs have failed to sufficiently clarify the role of bio-based plastics and recycled content as separate but complementary solutions that contribute to the plastics industry’s sustainability journey and have failed to mandate that packaging, which we will redesign to make fully recyclable is sorted prior to incineration and landfill,” elaborates Janssen.

Ensuring safe food supplyThe “lack of a proper” safeguard clause might disrupt the supplies of packaging and packaged goods, finds FPE.
Guido Aufdemkamp, executive director of Flexible Packaging Europe (FPE), says that the plenary vote represents an “important and long-awaited step forward in the legislative process, which gets us closer to finalizing a text that will change the future of the way we package products for decades to come.”

FPE, representing flexible packaging suppliers across materials, welcomes the improvements on several points of the commission’s original proposal. For example, clearer deadlines for recyclability requirements will allow the industry to properly adapt packaging designs and scale up collection and recycling infrastructures. 

Furthermore, exemptions from specific reuse targets for fundamental flexible transport packaging used in direct contact with food were necessary, says FPE, to ensure the safe movement of food around the EU by reducing food waste, emissions, and avoiding contamination and enabling reuse of rigid containers.

Calling for a strong single market
Parts of the parliament’s PPWR text remain challenging, says FPE, including the new ban on Grade D recyclability performance, which hinders innovation and could significantly impact different packaging formats. 

Also, the “lack of a proper” safeguard clauses to avoid the risks of a potential lack of availability of recycled plastics or adverse effects on human or animal health, security of food supply or the environment might disrupt the supplies of packaging and packaged goods, especially for food, finds FPE.

The flexible packaging network says that the decision of the European Parliament to weaken a full harmonization of the PPWR, particularly by granting freedom to member states to adopt more stringent national measures is “equally concerning. “The industry needs a strong single market and homogeneous legislation across the EU to operate. It is now up to the Council to make sure that these remaining issues are properly addressed during interinstitutional negotiations,” asserts FPE.

Hodac asserts that the roll-out of DRS across Europe will help boost the collection of beverage packaging. A success for DRS
FoodDrinkEurope’s director general Dirk Jacobs, says that with the vote, MEPs have made positive steps toward enabling food and drink businesses to embrace the big ambition toward packaging circularity. “There is more work to be done, but the time is now for the Council to rally behind the parliament’s general approach and drive sustainable change forward.”

Meanwhile, UNESDA commends the positive efforts of MEPs in fostering a circular economy by creating some essential enablers through the adoption of draft amendments.

Nicholas Hodac, director general of the soft drinks trade association, comments: “We very much appreciate MEPs’ efforts in promoting circularity of beverage packaging by enabling closed-loop recycling, mandating the setting-up of deposit return systems (DRS) and acknowledging the complementarity of reuse and recycling as well as the role of systems enabling refill. These are critical enablers to turn the theory of circular packaging into practice.’’

He asserts that the roll-out of DRS across Europe will help boost the collection of beverage packaging and will support its recycling in a closed-loop, further enabled by the creation of a mechanism of priority access to certain feedstock for recycling through the PPWR.

Regarding reuse, Hodac states: “While we still have concerns regarding the increased targets without further impact assessment, we are pleased with MEPs’ support for systems enabling refill and the creation of mechanisms that will enable the complementarity of reuse and recycling. This will ensure reusable packaging is introduced where and when it makes the most sense from an environmental perspective.’’

Those mechanisms also recognize the impressive environmental credentials of well-established waste management systems, such as DRS, around Europe.

Member states are expected to adopt their position on the proposed PPWR by the end of the year and UNESDA looks forward to a continued collaboration with decision-makers to build upon these positive developments and ensure that the PPWR will set the industry on the right path toward full circularity of beverage packaging.

Matti Rantanen, director general of EPPA, tells Packaging Insights: “As we approach the European Council’s vote, we call on member states to mirror the constructive approach of the European Parliament and to adopt a science-based and balanced strategy for packaging waste reduction — one that is firmly rooted in real-world data, the latest scientific evidence and the best environmental outcomes.”

By Natalie Schwertheim