“Packaging lobbyists have won,” says EPN after EU Parliament and Council revamp PPWR agreement

06 Mar 2024 --- After months of negotiations and lobbying, the European Council presidency and representatives from the European Parliament (EP) have reached a provisional political agreement on revising the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR). While hailed as a step forward in promoting a circular economy, the deal has also sparked controversy regarding its impact on paper-based packaging.

The agreement, pending formal adoption by both institutions, was revamped to include requirements to ensure that packaging is recyclable and free from PFAS, as well as harmonized labeling standards to enhance consumer information. Additionally, the regulation aims to minimize packaging waste with reduction targets set at 5% by 2030, 10% by 2035 and 15% by 2040. Negotiators also restricted certain types of single-use packaging and promoted recycled content in plastic packaging.

The agreement introduces new mandatory reuse targets for 2030, along with suggested targets for 2040. These targets are tailored to different types of packaging utilized by operators, including beverages (excluding wine, aromatized wines, milk and other highly perishable beverages), transportation and sales packaging (excluding packaging for dangerous goods or large-scale equipment and flexible packaging directly in contact with food), as well as grouped packaging. Notably, cardboard packaging is largely exempt from these obligations.

Final distributors of beverages and takeaway food in the foodservice sector would be obliged to offer consumers the option of bringing their own container. They would also be required to endeavor to offer 10% of products in a reusable packaging format by 2030.

In addition, at the EP’s request, member states are required to incentivize restaurants, canteens, bars, cafés and catering services to serve tap water, (where available, for free or for a low service fee) in a reusable or refillable format.

However, environmental organizations and civil societies have expressed regrets that the initial proposal of the European Commission, published in November 2022, was watered down by a plethora of exemptions and derogations adopted under the pressure of lobbyists.

Sergio Baffoni, a campaigner at the Environmental Paper Network (EPN), warns that the updated proposal “will increase waste” by shifting materials from plastic to paper without addressing the underlying issue of single-use packaging.

Cardboard packaging is largely exempt from reuse obligations agreed upon by the EP and council.“Hijacked political process”
The controversy surrounding the regulation intensified with accusations of undue influence by packaging lobbyists, particularly concerning the last-minute removal of restrictions on paper packaging from dine-in food packaging. Baffoni denounced the influence of industry lobbyists, accusing them of distorting a regulation intended to reduce single-use packaging.

“The throwaway packaging industry has hijacked the political process. The fast food and paper packaging industry managed to distort and empty a regulation born to reduce single-use packaging. The regulation now promotes single-use paper packaging, often lined with plastic, at the cost of global forests and the climate.” 

“Industry lobbyists are celebrating, but consumers will continue to be hounded by increasing amounts of waste in their homes — there may be less plastic, but there will be far more paper — and far fewer forests,” says Baffoni.

Mateus Carvalho, the paper packaging campaigner at EPN, explains to Packaging Insights that PPWR has witnessed “unprecedented pressures of lobbying” by throwaway packaging lobbyists, who have had a much higher number of meetings with MEPs, the Commission and Council than NGOs specialized in zero waste, plastics or forests. 

“In particular, the Italian paper packaging manufacturer SEDA has been heavily involved through the European Paper Packaging Alliance (EPPA), whose president is also the president of SEDA, and who met with EP rapporteur Frédérique Ries. The influence of SEDA is also noticeable by the common Italian political positions throughout the political spectrum who have voted to water down the regulation in the EP.” 

Carvalho says one of the main lobbying pressures used by Italian MEPs is the argument that since the country has high levels of recycling, it should be excluded from the reuse targets on article 26 (a derogation introduced by MEP Patrizia Toia, who was back in November approved in plenary).

“As NGOs and the scientific community have warned, the argument that recycling alone is enough is fallacious. Among the reasons is the fact that paper can only be recycled a minimal number of times. On average, it is only recycled three times and is usually downcycled,” he shares.

Speaking to Packaging Insights on the matter, the director general of EPPA Matti Rantanen says: “EPPA, on behalf of all its members, transparently and ethically advocates for renewable and recyclable paper packaging supported by a range of scientific studies, not least the recent report of the European Commission’s independent Joint Research Centre, which found that ‘when considering life cycle datasets for carton board with low environmental impacts, the performance of single-use packaging was clearly better’ than reusable alternatives.”  

“This validates the conclusions of existing independently peer-reviewed and ISO-compliant life cycle analyses commissioned by EPPA.”

National governments need to “step up”?
Environmental network Zero Waste Europe (ZWE) expressed its “deep concern” with the exemptions to the benefit of paper-based and composite packaging applications — notably, the exclusion of paper-based packaging from the market restrictions measures and the exemption of cardboard packaging from the reuse targets. Negotiators restricted certain types of single-use packaging and promoted recycled content in plastic packaging.

Additionally, ZWE says the complete deletion of the reuse targets for the takeaway sector is another win for the paper industry lobbyists since this sector has largely shifted to single-use paper-based packaging, especially after the adoption of the Single-use Plastics Directive.

Larissa Copello, packaging and reuse policy officer at ZWE, adds: “It’s unsettling how the paper-based packaging lobbyists managed to get a ‘free-ride’ in the PPWR by escaping from market restrictions and some of the reuse targets at the expense of the environment and the public interest. When it comes time to implementing the PPWR, we hope it won’t lead to regrettable material substitution and instead encourage real packaging waste reduction through well-designed reuse systems.”

Meanwhile, EPN names McDonald’s as one of the responsible lobbyists. Packaging Insights contacted the fast food giant for a comment but did not receive a response by publication. 

“McDonald’s is part of EPPA, 360º Food Service (responsible for the lobbying stunt of leaving paper hangers saying ‘Save our takeaway’ in MEPs office doors) and Sustainable Packaging. Besides the traditional lobbying, they distorted the public discussion when they paid for the ‘No Silver Bullet’ report, developed by Kearney, which posed as a life cycle assessment though it didn’t meet several basic criteria to be seen as a scientific report,” Carvalho details.

“This was the conclusion of several LCA experts who clarified how this and other paid reports compared in several metrics. For example, this report was neither peer-reviewed nor independent, nor did it disclaim the data inventory used. This allowed ‘traditional’ lobbyists to state that single-use paper packaging had a lower environmental footprint than reusable packaging, which studies demonstrate is untrue.”

“In addition, McDonald’s also had the ‘I Am Beautiful’ campaign in Germany, in which they attempted to portray paper packaging as beautiful for allegedly being more sustainable when it is not the case. Reusable packaging has a lower environmental impact, regardless of material. This helps distort public opinion and political views on the topic.”

The PPWR now returns to the EP and the Council for final approval. Campaigners are calling for national governments to step up “where the European institutions have fallen short.” 

By Radhika Sikaria