COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Brussels, 07.12.2001
COM(2001) 729 final
2001/0291 (COD)
Proposal for a
DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste
(presented by the Commission)
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
1.
INTRODUCTION
The Community first introduced measures on the management of packaging waste in the early
1980s. Directive 85/339/EEC1 covered the packaging of liquid beverage containers intended
for human consumption only but it was too vague to bring about the effective harmonisation
of national policies. As a consequence, diverging national legislation appeared in several
Member States.
Only some EU Member States introduced measures on packaging and packaging waste
management with a view to reducing their environmental impacts. Serious Internal Market
problems arose when cheap secondary materials from countries with recycling schemes that
provided funding for collection and recycling appeared on the markets of other Member
States where no such schemes were in place. Collection and recycling activities that relied on
cost recovery through the sale of secondary raw material were threatened by collapse.
For this reason, economic operators and Member States approached the Commission to
introduce comprehensive legislation on packaging. In 1992, the Commission came forward
with a Proposal2 for a Council Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste. This proposal
had foreseen targets of 90% for recovery and 60% for recycling for each packaging material.
Following a prolonged discussion in the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers,
Directive 94/62/EC3 was adopted.
This Directive aims to harmonise national measures in order to prevent or reduce the impact
of packaging and packaging waste on the environment and to ensure the functioning of the
Internal Market. It contains provisions on the prevention of packaging waste, on the re-use of
packaging and on the recovery and recycling of packaging waste. Member States were
required to set minimum targets for packaging waste recovery and recycling to be achieved by
30 June 2001 within a range fixed by Art. 6(1). These ranges were:
· between 50% and 65% by weight for recovery;
· between 25% and 45% by weight for recycling; and
· a minimum of 15% by weight of recycling per packaging material.
Member States which had or intended to set targets higher than the maximum targets of these
ranges were permitted to do so as long as they provided appropriate recycling and recovery
capacities and that this did not lead to distortions of the Internal Market. These measures had
to be confirmed by the Commission in co-operation with Member States4.
1
2
3
4
OJ No L 176, 6.7.1985, p.18. Directive as amended by Directive 91/629/EEC (OJ No L 377, 31.12.91,
p.48)
COM(92) 278 final, 15.07.1992
OJ No L 365, 31.12.1994, p.10 - 23
Directive 94/62/EC, Art. 6(6).
2
2.
BACKGROUND AND TIMING OF THE REVISION PROPOSAL
Legal provisions in Directive 94/62/EC
Article 6.3 (b) of the Directive stipulates that:
“No later than six months before the end of the first five-year phase referred to in paragraph 1
(a) the Council shall, acting by qualified majority and on a proposal from the Commission, fix
targets for the second five-year phase referred to in paragraph 1 (c). This process shall be
repeated every five years thereafter.”
In addition, Article 6.1(c) of the Directive states that
“no later than 10 years from the date by which this Directive must be implemented in national
law, a percentage of packaging waste will be recovered and recycled, which will have to be
determined by the Council in accordance with paragraph 3(b) with a view to substantially
increasing the targets mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b).”.
Timing of the revision
In preparing the revision of the Directive, stakeholders have underlined the need to take into
account the economic and environmental consequences of the new targets. The Commission
has responded to this by a detailed analysis of the costs and benefits of potential targets. The
main necessary information to justify the levels of the targets is now available5. There is still a
need to work on details of the analysis but this will not change the fundamental cost and
benefit patterns as used for the purpose of this revision.
This analytical work has led to a delay compared to the timetable set out in Art. 6.3 (b) of the
Directive. The date foreseen for the achievement of the revised targets of 30 June 2006 still
seems achievable but is has now become urgent to adopt new targets to give Member States
the time needed to establish national legislation and to allow industry enough planning to set
up the necessary infrastructure.
5
See section 5.
3
3.
THE EXPERIENCES IN THE MEMBER STATES6
Quantities and composition of packaging and packaging waste
According to estimates made by Argus et al7, the total amount of packaging consumption in
1997 was 58 Million tonnes. This amount can be split up as follows:
wood
6,375 kt
11.0 %
other packaging
806 kt
1.4 %
metals
4,203 kt
7.2 %
paper/cardboard
22,654 kt
39.1 %
plastics
9,463 kt
16.3 %
Packaging total:
58,001 kt
glass
14,499 kt
25.0 %
The quantities of packaging put on the market are summed up in Tables 1 and 2.
Packaging is relatively short-lived. Therefore, packaging waste corresponds roughly to the
amount of packaging put on the market8. Packaging waste represents about 17% of the
municipal solid waste by weight and 3% of the total waste stream. For some materials, such
as glass, plastics and paper/cardboard, packaging waste represents a high share of the total
material waste, about 70% for glass, 60% for plastics and 40% for paper and cardboard. The
sources of packaging waste vary from material to material. Households generate most of the
glass waste and roughly one-third of paper and cardboard waste. The rest comes from
industrial and commercial sources. Plastics are more or less evenly split between household
and non-household sources and metals originate slightly more from household than from nonhousehold sources9.
Recovery and recycling targets and rates in the Member States
The targets set in national legislation as well as the latest available recovery and recycling
rates are summed up in tables 3, 4 and 5.
6
7
8
9
For a more detailed analysis of data, see: Argus/ACR/Carl Bro 2001; PricewaterhouseCoopers 2001
Argus/ACR/Carl Bro 2001; please note that the quantities may differ slightly from those of the rest of
this section; this is due to corrections by Member States during the preparation of this document.
In several Member States, the quantity of packaging put on the market is assumed to equal packaging
waste
Rough estimations on the basis of Sofres 2000, p.92 ff.
4
Table 1: Quantities of Packaging put on the market
Quantity of
packaging
placed on the
market
in 1997
(kt)
Quantity of
packaging
placed on the
market per
capita
in 1997
(kg/hab)
Quantity of
packaging
placed on the
market
in 1998
(kt)
Quantity of
packaging
placed on the
market per
capita
in 1998
(kg/hab)
Austria
1269
159
1115
139
Belgium
1356
134
1426
141
Denmark
906
175
838
161
Finland
418
81
424
82
France
11069
189
11641
198
Germany
13731
168
13866
170
9530
167
10584
185
Luxembourg
76
178
77
178
Netherlands
2745
178
2525
164
Spain
5930
151
6350
161
Sweden
924
105
955
109
United Kingdom10
10000
172
10244
176
EU-12
57954
60045
15512
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
11
155
Source: Reports on packaging and packaging waste by national competent authorities according to
Commission Decision 97/138/EC; written communications from Member States.
10
11
The UK totals are provisional estimates that were made in 1998
Unweighted average not taking into account the difference in population between the Member States
5
Table 2: Quantities of packaging put on the market per material in the
Member States (1998)
Kt
paper and
cardboard
Metals
steel
Glass
plastics
composites /
wood / textiles
Al
Austria
510
85
230
190
40 / 60 / -
Belgium
540
137
335
218
12
19 / 142 / -
Denmark
435
55
176
172
Finland
246
33
55
90
France
4123
681
3513
1628
- / 1696 / -
Germany
5585
3670
1531
- / 1968 / 13
- / 2050 / -
1012 1098 86
Greece
Ireland
Italy
454
4023
51157
2200
1800
Luxembourg
28
5
21
9
Netherlands
1336
236
453
500
Spain
2598
360
1523
1168
Sweden
570
75
171
140
United
Kingdom13
4000
844
2200
1700
EU-12
23994
4120
14547
9146
Portugal
- / 701 / -
- / 1300 / -
n.d.
14
Source: Reports on packaging and packaging waste by national competent authorities according to
Commission Decision 97/138/EC; written communications from Member States.
12
13
14
Only beverage cartons
The UK totals are provisional estimates that were made in 1998
No calculation made as data availability varies from country to country
6
Table 3: Member State Targets 200115
%
Recovery
Targets in
17
directive
50-65
(25)
Austria
1997
Recycling
Recycling
of each
material
25-45
15
25
15
Austria
1997
Belgium
(2000)
80
50
Recycling targets for packaging materials
steel17
glass
plastics
beverage
composites
15
15
15
15
15
90
95
95
93
40
40
55
15
15
65
15
53 (recovery
75)
25
25
48
15
(recovery
45)
70
60
70
75
36
(recovery
60)
paper and
cardboard
Aluminium
15
16
15
Denmark
Finland
6118
42
France
50-65
25-45
65
45
Greece
50-65
(2005)
25-45
(2005)
15
(2005)
Ireland
50-65
(2005)
25-45
(2005)
15
(2005)
31
(2001)
25
(2001)
5
(2001)
45
(2001)
10
(2001)
Italy
50-65
(2002)
25-45
(2002)
15
(2002)
45 (recovery
50)
35
38
48
17
(recovery
37)
Luxembourg
55
45
15
Netherlands
65
(1998)
45/65
(1998)
15
(1998)
85
(2001)
80
(2001)
80
(2001)
90
(2001)
27
(2001)
25 (2001)
50 (2005)
25 (2005)
15
(2005)
50-65
25-45
(15 by
4/2000)
15
(10 by
4/2000)
40 (paper, 70
recovery) 65
(cardboard)
90
(beverage)
70 (other)
70
70
30 (70
recovery)
18
18
18
18
18
Germany
Portugal
Spain
19
15
Sweden
United
Kingdom20
15
16
17
18
19
20
56
28
18
These targets are based on a wide variety of approaches. In many cases, the definitions used do not
entirely correspond to those in the Directive.
The targets for the metals are in many countries combined targets for aluminium and steel
Greece, Ireland and Portugal can set lower targets but shall at least attain 25% for recovery, and shall
attain the other levels before 1 January 2006
Additionally, Finland has a combined reuse and recovery target of 82%
45% in regulation; 65% in packaging covenant
The mentioned targets are for businesses that meet certain threshold levels. Taking into account nonobligated companies, the national targets are correspondingly lower but fulfil the minimum targets of
the Directive.
7
60
Table 4: Total recovery and recycling rates in the Member States21
%
Recovery rate
Recovery rate
Recycling rate
Recycling rate
1997
1998
1997
1998
50-65
(25)
50-65
(25)
25-45
25-45
Austria
66
70
61
65
Belgium
>62
62
6425
Denmark
84
89
40
50
Finland
54
56
42
45
France
55
56
40
42
Germany
66
67
65
65
Italy
32
35
29
28
Luxembourg
51
56
51
56
Netherlands
55
6225
55
6225
Spain
37
37
33
34
Sweden
69
68
62
61
United Kingdom
26
33
23
28
EU 1224
>55
59
47
50
Targets in Directive22
73
23
Greece
Ireland
Portugal
Source: Reports on packaging and packaging waste by national competent authorities according
to Commission Decision 97/138/EC; written communications from Member States.
21
22
23
24
Unless otherwise indicated, recycled/recovered quantities outside the Member States have been taken
into account in the recycling/recovery rates whereas quantities recycled within a Member State but
originating from imported material have been excluded
Targets to be attained by 30 June 2001. Special conditions have been granted to Greece, Ireland and
Portugal which may set lower targets but shall at least attain 25% for recovery by 30 June 2001, and
shall attain the other levels before 1 January 2006
No data on exports and imports available
Unweighted average not taking into account the difference in population between the Member States
8
Table 5: Material specific recycling rates in the Member States (1998)
Recycling rates for packaging materials in %
Paper and
cardboard
metals
steel
Targets
25
Directive
in
Glass
Plastics
composites /
wood /
textiles
15 / 15 / 15
Al
15
15
15
15
Austria
84
38
80
27
38 / 17 / -
Belgium
83
66
66
26
53 / 39 / -
Denmark
58
40
75
7
-/0/0
Finland
57
16
62
10
France
61
45
45
8
- / 18 / -
Germany
90
83
86
60
- / 81 / -
Italy
37
7
37
11
Luxembourg
49
11
80
9
Netherlands
70
79
85
14
Spain
52
22
37
9
Sweden
68
31
84
20
United Kingdom
47
23
23
8
EU 1226
63
38
63
17
Greece
Ireland
- / 19 / -
Portugal
-/3/-
Source: Reports on packaging and packaging waste by national competent authorities according to
Commission Decision 97/138/EC; written communications from Member States.
25
26
Targets to be attained by 30 June 2001. Special conditions have been granted to Greece, Ireland and
Portugal which may set lower targets but shall at least attain 25% for recovery by 30 June 2001, and
shall attain the other levels before 1 January 2006
Unweighted average not taking into account the difference in population between the Member States
9
4.
THE PROPOSED REVISION
Scope of the revision
This proposal is limited to the establishment of recovery and recycling targets to be achieved
by 30 June 2006 and a clarification of the definitions used for this purpose. This should fulfil
the requirements laid down articles 6.3 (b) and 6.1 (c) of the existing Packaging and
Packaging Waste Directive. No proposal has been made for revising the other aspects of the
Directive, such as prevention, reuse, producer responsibility or the New Approach. A broad
revision at this time could not be based on a sound evaluation of options and would probably
lead to a considerable delay in the adoption of the revised targets. Nevertheless, these issues
are important and will need to be addressed in the near future.
These other issues will be discussed, inter alia in the Thematic Strategies on Resource
Management and Recycling announced in the 6th Environment Action Programme and,
regarding prevention and the New Approach, in the Communication/White Paper on
Integrated Product Policy. A subsequent revision of the Packaging Directive will need to
address the following issues in more detail:
Prevention of packaging and packaging waste
The first priority of packaging and packaging waste management should be to reduce the use
of packaging and the generation of packaging waste as far as possible. Community policy has,
to date, played a rather minor role in this. This should be developed, inter alia within the
Integrated Product Policy framework since waste generation cannot be isolated from the
product the waste comes from. There is also a strong link to the priorities for resource
management (e.g. prevention of waste quantities, hazardous substances, emissions etc.).
These subjects will be addressed in the Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of
Resources.
Reuse of packaging
Reuse of packaging continues to be a major option to reduce the life cycle impacts of
packaging systems. More recent information, however, also raises some questions regarding
the costs and benefits of measures to encourage reuse systems27. Due to its controversial
nature, more analysis and debate is needed.
Producer responsibility
Currently, the directive leaves the decision on the financing of packaging collection, sorting
and recycling/recovery to the Member States. Most countries have decided to introduce a
system based on partial or total financing by producers/importers. There are, however, some
important exceptions such as Denmark and the Netherlands where the financing is ensured
mostly via municipalities and waste charges and taxes. Within a broader debate about how to
increase the efficiency of recycling markets, the Thematic Strategy on Recycling shall also
discuss the appropriateness of Community wide producer responsibility rules.
27
RDC/Pira 2001; GUA/IFIP 2000.
10
The New Approach in the Packaging Directive
The Packaging Directive is the first application of the New Approach technique to legislate on
environmental characteristics of products. Recently, safeguard clauses against the harmonised
standards elaborated by CEN have been notified by two Member States and the debate as to
whether these harmonised standards should give presumption of conformity with the essential
requirements of the Directive has opened a broader discussion on the appropriateness of the
current drafting of Article 9 and Annex II. In this case, the safeguard mechanisms of the
Directive have proved their usefulness and efficiency. Again, these are questions that need
more analysis and debate. This is foreseen, inter alia, for the Communication/White Paper on
Integrated Product Policy and the Thematic Strategy on Recycling. Important elements may
also emerge from the planned Directive on Electrical and Electronic Equipment.
Content of the revision
The targets to be attained by 30 June 2006
The proposed targets are based on the practical experiences of packaging recycling in the
Member States28, the costs and the benefits of such targets29 and additional considerations
explained below.
The overall recovery target will be between 60% as minimum and 75% as a maximum.
Recovery is the sum of recycling and energy recovery. For the majority of the packaging
waste, recycling is environmentally superior and justified from a cost/benefit perspective.
Therefore, energy recovery should be seen only as an add-on to recycling of packaging waste.
If conducted in installations with adequate air pollution control equipment and a high degree
of energy use efficiency, the energy recovery of certain packaging waste fractions can
improve the environmental balance of packaging waste management. Therefore, the
Commission encourages Member States to promote such energy recovery.
However, energy recovery only can take place where appropriate facilities exist and a high
recovery target would de facto force Member States to construct incinerators. So far, the
Commission cannot justify, directly or indirectly, interfering with the decision to build
incinerators. Any additional Community target for recovery could therefore not be much
higher than the recycling target.
The overall recycling target will be between 55% as minimum and 70% as a maximum.
Already in 1998, six Member States have achieved 55% or more. The minimum target is
around 12% higher than the sum of material specific targets laid down below30. The
difference should be made up through the recycling of other materials, the feedstock recycling
of plastics and/or by exceeding the recycling targets set for specific materials.
28
29
30
Compare section 3 and the following studies: Argus/ACR/Carl Bro 2001; PricewaterhouseCoopers
2001
Compare section 5 and the following studies: Sofres 2000; RDC/Pira 2001
If for all materials just the minimum rate is recycled (i.e. based on the 1998 data: 13200 kt of
paper/board, 2100 kt of metals, 8700 kt of glass and 1800 kt of plastic; total of 25800 kt of recycled
packaging waste compared with 60000 kt of packaging put on the market), this will result in an overall
recycling rate of around 43%.
11
The material specific targets have been differentiated. There are several reasons for this.
Firstly, there are clear differences in the costs and benefits of recycling between the various
materials. 60% of glass recycling is completely different, both in costs and in benefits, from
60% of plastics recycling. Secondly, the targets should reflect the market which is organised
according to materials. Therefore, differentiated targets should lead to a greater coherence of
the Internal Market for the collection and recycling of packaging waste. Finally, clear targets
allow companies engaged in collection, sorting and recycling to plan ahead.
The specific targets are generally in line with the suggestions made in the RDC/Pira study31.
As indicated in section 5, the conclusions of this study provide important background
information but decisions on targets are also political in nature and should also take into
account other factors.
The envisaged targets are as follows:
Glass 60%: The RDC/Pira study identified an optimal recycling rate of 53 to 87%. The
choice of a value within this range was made because the cost-benefit ratio for glass is
particularly favourable for recycling. The limiting factors for recycling are not so much of a
technical or economic nature as recycling close to 100% is in principle feasible without
lowering the quality of the glass. The main constraints are rather related to the participation of
the population in collection schemes. This can be overcome by putting into place the
necessary infrastructure and by organising information campaigns. In 1998, already 8
Member States achieved this recycling rate.
An exception from this may exist for the countries which consume more green glass than they
produce. In such cases, it may become difficult to find appropriate markets for the collected
green cullet, and exports may not be justified on a cost/benefit basis. Although this sounds
reasonable, it might be better to proceed on the basis of evidence produced by those countries
during the later stages of the legislative procedure.
Paper/Board 55%: The RDC/Pira study estimates the optimum recycling rate for paper and
board to be between 60 and 74%. The reasons for choosing a value below this range is that
the environmental benefit of recycling seems to be less clear than for glass. Alternative waste
management methods such as composting and incineration with energy recovery can, for
certain fractions and under certain conditions, be comparable to recycling from an
environmental point of view. Furthermore, due to fibre degradation after each round of
recycling, virgin material needs to be added for higher quality paper grades. In 1998, 8
Member States achieved the proposed recycling rate.
A specific issue for paper and board is the different treatment of packaging and graphic paper
(e.g. newspapers) in legislation. This distinction is artificial as both are recycled using the
same process and are frequently collected together. Indications are that graphic paper can be
recycled in most cases at a lower cost, with higher environmental benefits and producing in a
higher quality of paper. In the longer term, the question should be discussed whether these
two paper types should continue to be dealt with separately. This would, however,
considerably change the scope of the directive and should be examined in more detail under
the Thematic Strategy on Recycling.
31
RDC/Pira 2001, table 31, p.93.
12
Metals 50%: The RDC/Pira Study dealt with the two main metals separately and identified
the optimal recycling rates between 60 and 75% for steel and between 25 and 31% for
aluminium. As steel currently has a clearly bigger market share than aluminium, the value of
50% for all metals was chosen. For metals, the cost-benefit ratio of recycling depends largely
on the exact material and application considered. In many cases, there are clear environmental
benefits of recycling (in particular rigid aluminium applications but also many steel
applications). Additionally, aluminium and steel can also be separated from mixed municipal
waste before waste disposal or after incineration. In 1998, three Member States achieved
higher recycling rates for metals than 50%.
Plastics 20% of mechanical/chemical recycling: The optimal recycling rate for plastics
estimated by the RDC/Pira study is between 28 and 38%. Nevertheless, a significantly lower
value was chosen as the majority of countries have not yet achieved the current recycling
target of 15%. Plastics recycling is more costly than the recycling of other materials and may
be limited by technical and economic constraints. As regards technical issues, a high degree
of purity of the material is required which, with current technology, is not always easy to
achieve. Furthermore, market outlet problems may occur as recycled material cannot be used
for all applications. It therefore seems appropriate to take a more cautious approach than for
the other materials. In 1998, four countries achieved higher recycling32 rates than 20%.
In general, the cost-benefit ratio of plastics recycling depends strongly on the material and
application. Among the materials investigated in the RDC/Pira Study, industrial PE films and
household PET bottles show a clear cost/benefit ratio in favour of mechanical recycling.
Similar benefits are assumed for some other applications such as HDPE bottles and, under
certain conditions and to a certain extent, LDPE films. Recycling of mixed plastics yields
little environmental benefit at relatively high cost.
The target is limited to mechanical and chemical recycling. In general, mechanical recycling
is environmentally superior to the other methods but not always possible due to technical
constraints. Chemical recycling is in general somewhat less desirable from an environmental
point of view but can be applied to fractions for which mechanical recycling is impossible. As
chemical recycling is usually more expensive than mechanical recycling, it is not assumed
that including chemical recycling in a specific target may endanger mechanical recycling.
Feedstock recycling33 is in general less favourable from an environmental point of view
though it can be a useful complement to mechanical and chemical recycling wherever the
other methods cannot be applied. As it is frequently a cheaper method for plastic recycling
than the other methods, the integration of feedstock recycling into the specific plastics target
would lead to the replacement of the environmentally superior methods by feedstock
recycling. Therefore, the decision has been taken to set a specific recycling target for plastic
which includes mechanical and chemical recycling but which explicitly excludes feedstock
recycling. However, feedstock recycling can contribute to the overall recycling target.
Other materials: The Commission is of the opinion that the recycling and/or recovery of
other packaging materials such as wood, textiles and composites can contribute to reducing
the overall environmental impact of packaging. For this reason such recycling and/or recovery
will contribute to the overall levels of packaging recycling and/or recovery in a Member
32
33
All forms of plastics recycling
i.e. methods based on reprocessing by changing the chemical structure of the processed material and
recycling the chemical constituents into materials other than the original material of the waste
13
State. As the information on the existing and achievable levels of recycling of these materials
is incomplete, no material specific recycling targets have been set in this proposal. Should
further information become available, it might, however, be appropriate to set such targets
during the later stages of the legislative procedure.
The new definitions of mechanical, feedstock and chemical recycling
As outlined above, the cost-benefit ratio of recycling some types of plastics justifies setting a
specific target for plastic recycling which includes mechanical and chemical recycling but
which explicitly excludes feedstock recycling. Therefore, these terms need to be defined.
Guidelines on the interpretation of the definition of packaging
The definition of packaging has led to numerous discussions and court proceedings on certain
borderline cases. In order to encourage a harmonised application of the definition of
packaging as contained in Article 3.1 of the Directive, a consensus document has been
produced by the Committee set up by Article 21 of the Packaging Directive. This document is
the result of several years of discussion and gives an indicative and non-binding interpretation
of the definition along with a non-exhaustive list of examples of packaging and nonpackaging items. Including this document in the Directive will ensure its availability and
transparency for all stakeholders.
The definition of packaging needs to be clearly distinguished from the definition of waste
which has also raised considerable debate. This debate is broader than the scope of the
packaging directive and should therefore be held within the framework legislation on waste to
avoid inconsistencies between various types of waste. Although this debate is not new, it is
understood that work on this question needs to be intensified to move towards more clarity on
this issue.
Adaptation to scientific and technical progress
To facilitate the adaptation to new technological developments, the list of issues on which the
Committee set up by Article 21 of the Directive on Packaging and Packaging waste will be
entitled to take decisions has been updated. This list now also includes the guidelines on the
interpretation of the definition of packaging (new Annex I).
The specific deadlines for Portugal, Ireland and Greece
Under Article 6 (5) of the current directive, these Member States are allowed to postpone the
attainment of the targets of Articles 6 (1a) and 6 (1b) to 31 December 2005, at the latest.
Therefore, it is proposed to grant those countries an additional deadline also for the new
targets which, however, should be reduced from 4.5 to 3 years. This shall ensure a gradual
approximation with the other Member States.
The effects for accession countries
The exact provisions and timetables applying to accession countries are a matter of
negotiation. This will certainly have to take account of the specific situation of these
countries, as this has been done for other countries within the EU 15.
14
Deletion of Annex I
Pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive, the Commission
has adopted Decision 97/129/EC34. Therefore, Annex I is no more needed.
New Comitology
The Council has laid down new procedures for the exercise of implementing powers
conferred on the Commission (decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999). These changes have
to be taken into account in the revised Directive.
5.
ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE DIRECTIVE
The approach chosen for the evaluation of costs and benefits
In determining the financial costs and benefits of packaging recycling the following three
types of costs need to be distinguished35:
– The gross costs of packaging recycling (all costs from the moment a packaging
becomes waste to the moment when, after recycling, it becomes a recycled
product)
– The financing need (the gross costs minus the revenue from the sale of secondary
raw materials): The financing need equals the funds that need to be injected into
the market in order to render recycling economical or, in other words, to make
recycling happen. This is the relevant cost from the point of view of the recycling
chain.
– The net costs for society (the financing need minus the saved disposal costs):
Depending on the material and the circumstances, recycling may be cheaper or
more expensive than disposal. This is the relevant cost from the point of view of
society.
In the RDC/Pira study, the financing need for recycling has been directly compared to the
costs of alternative waste treatment36.
Evaluating the environmental costs and benefits (externalities) of packaging recycling is
much more difficult than the financial costs and benefits. It implies valuing how much an
environmental good is worth to society. Although this exercise may appear problematic to
some, it happens automatically in every political decision on the environment37. The question
is rather whether this is done consciously and on the basis of available information or not. It
34
35
36
37
Commission Decision 97/129/EC of 28 January 1997 establishing the identification system for
packaging materials pursuant to European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC on packaging
and packaging waste; OJ No L 50, 20.2.1997, p. 28-31.
Compare Sofres 2000.
It should be noted, though, that the alternative waste treatment costs do not necessarily correspond to
the saved disposal costs as there may be fixed costs occurring independently from the quantities of
waste disposed of.
For example, every decision on an emission limit value means implicitly that the benefits of emission
reductions up to that point are deemed higher than the costs. It also means implicitly that for all values
beyond this points the benefits are not judged sufficient to justify further expenses.
15
should be born in mind, though, that what is measured is not an objective value of the
environment but rather how much citizens are willing to spend to avoid particular
environmental impacts as opposed to other options such as schooling, consumption, holidays
etc.
The technique of benefit valuation as used in this context relies to a large extent on
“contingent valuation”. This method is based on identifying the citizens’ willingness to pay
for health and environmental protection via questionnaires. For some impacts, in particular
the so-called disamenity effects (the reduction of life quality in the surrounding of waste
management installations), the technique of “hedonic pricing” is used. In this method, the
reduction of housing prices is used to determine values for the nuisance that citizens feel as a
result of the existence of the waste treatment installations.
Benefit valuation is not an exact science and many uncertainties prevail both as regards the
methods themselves and the scientific data38 needed to calculate benefit values. These
uncertainties are particularly high for impacts to soil and water. Therefore, these valuation
techniques should be seen as tools to create a better understanding of cost and benefit patterns
rather than as an exact measurement of effects.
Evaluation of optimal recycling rates
For the evaluation of the economic and environmental justification of this proposal, the most
relevant measure is the determination of optimal recycling rates on the basis of marginal
cost/benefit ratios. This means that all packaging should be recycled for which a favourable
cost/benefit ratio exists. In the context of this proposal, a study on the “Evaluation of costs
and benefits for the achievement of reuse and recycling targets for the different packaging
materials in the frame of the packaging and packaging waste directive 94/62/EC” has been
commissioned.
Due to delays in the delivery of this study, only a draft final report is available at this stage39.
This report shows the main cost and benefit patterns of the recycling of the various packaging
materials. It is understood that more details need to be worked out on some of the
assumptions and calculations. This has been done by submitting it to a public debate to allow
all experts and stakeholders to comment. This means that the final report of this study will
only be ready in 2002. In spite of this, it is felt that the fundamental patterns of the
conclusions as applied for justifying this proposal are robust and are unlikely to change.
In this study, optimal recycling targets were calculated as outlined above. The most important
local influencing factors such as population density and the type of alternative waste
management (landfill, incineration) have been taken into account. An important sensitivity
factor is also the motivation of the population. This is why the study identifies considerable
ranges of optimal recycling rates. The study only evaluates the long-term equilibrium and
ignores potential difficulties in setting up the infrastructure. This means that the initial costs
of investing in the infrastructure may exceed the short-term benefits but these costs would be
offset by future benefits.
The optimal recycling rates identified are as follows: an overall recycling rate between 50 and
68%; rates for glass between 53 to 87%; paper/board between 60 and 74%; steel between 60
and 75%; aluminium between 25 and 31%; and plastics between 28 and 38%. It should be
38
39
E.g. life cycle emissions, pollution pathways and dose-response functions
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/public_discussion.htm
16
noted that these values will be subject to further review with experts and stakeholders. They
should also be seen in conjunction with the arguments set out in section 4.
Costs and benefits of current recycling activities
There are few complete evaluations of financial costs and benefits of current recycling
activities on a macroeconomic level. The most complete study in this respect is SOFRES
200040. It contains a relatively exact empirical evaluation of the various costs for packaging
recycling of household packaging waste in four countries (France, Germany, the Netherlands
and the United Kingdom) as well as estimates for the costs of recycling of non-household
packaging waste. Based on the extrapolation of data, the total financing need for packaging
recycling in the EU15 can currently be estimated at 5-8 bn. € per annum. This represents
around 0.1% of European GDP, 5% of total environmental expenditure and 15% of total
waste management expenditure.
From a societal point of view, saved waste disposal costs should be deducted from the
additional costs of packaging recycling. Assuming an average cost of 100-150 €41 per tonne
of waste, the alternative waste disposal costs amount to around 6-9 bn. €. However, these
alternative waste disposal costs will not entirely correspond to the saved costs due to fixed
costs involved in waste disposal. Hence, all that can be said is that, on the average, the
financing need for packaging recycling is in the same order of magnitude as the saved waste
disposal costs.
A more theoretical approach to evaluating the costs of packaging recycling was taken by WRc
200042. This study has determined the minimum expenditure necessary to achieve the
minimum targets of the existing Packaging Directive, i.e. 15% recycling of each material,
25% total recycling and 50% recovery compared to a baseline of no pre-existing packaging
recycling.
The study estimates the following costs across the EU-15:
· total annualised costs of around 6.8 billion € per year (total investment costs
around 29 billion €, mainly in relation to new plants and machinery; operational
costs of 3.8 billion € per year, of which 1.5 billion € are salaries)
· income from the sales of recycled materials and energy produced at a level of 3.0
billion € per year.
The same study evaluates annualised employment related to the Directive for the EU-15 at
close to 100 000 (70 000 jobs linked to operating expenditure with a further 250 000 jobs
linked to capital expenditure)43.
40
41
42
43
Sofres 2000
Rough average of European waste management costs; estimate based on Sofres 2000; RDC/Pira 2001.
WRc 2000
With respect to these employment figures, it needs, however, to be underlined that these jobs are not
necessarily net jobs created but are part of a macroeconomic equilibrium. For more discussion of these
issues, see RPA 2001.
17
Costs and benefits linked to this proposal
Determining the exact costs and benefits linked to this proposal is a theoretical and difficult
exercise. It should also be borne in mind that the absolute costs and benefits cannot support a
decision on the level of recycling rates44.
On the basis of the additional amounts of packaging to be recycled in each country (compared
to 1998 recycling rates), the following rough calculations can be given45: The additional
financing need will be of around 700 M€. The alternative disposal costs are evaluated at
around 800 M€. Except for the fixed costs, these costs will be saved in case of recycling.
Additionally, around 350 M€ can be saved in terms of avoided environmental impacts. This
evaluation should, however, be taken with much caution as it is based on many assumptions.
Furthermore, the calculation is based on material specific targets only. Additional costs and
benefits would have to be added for the overall recycling target.
The impacts on the relative competitiveness of materials
The impacts of recycling obligations on the relative competitiveness of the materials are
determined by the additional costs which are integrated into the market price of the various
materials. This will vary from country to country. In some countries, the full financing need is
covered by contributions levied on the packaging put on the market. In other countries, all or
the rest is financed via municipal waste charges or taxes. Assuming full integration of the
additional financing need into the prices of materials put on the market, the following price
changes would occur as a result of increasing the recycling rates from current levels to the
proposed targets46: 6 €/t for paper (135 M€/24 Mt), 23 €/t for metals (94 M€/4.1 Mt), 13 €/t
for glass (198 M€/15 Mt) and 33 €/t for plastics (300 M€/9 Mt).
Internal Market aspects
Given the current situation of packaging recycling, the revision proposal should lead to a
greater coherence of the Internal Market through a further increase in recycling in those
countries who did not achieve high recycling rates so far. Those countries with already high
recycling rates will not have to increase their current recycling rates. As far as the free
circulation of packaged goods is concerned, it is not expected that the proposed revision will
have a considerable impact. This may be one of the issues to be addressed in a subsequent
revision of the Packaging Directive.
44
45
46
This should be done on the basis of marginal calculations as done in the RDC/Pira study and explained
in section 4. Explanation: For the purpose of deciding targets, it is irrelevant whether the benefits of
recycling for a particular application exceed the costs only slightly or several times. What is relevant, is
only whether the cost/benefit ratio of recycling this application is favourable or unfavourable.
The details of this calculation can be found in annex 1
The impacts will vary largely from country to country as in some countries recycling rates are already
high and no additional efforts will be needed
18
Annex 1:
Detailed calculation of the total costs and benefits of the proposal47
Table 6: Quantities of additional packaging to be recycled under
the new material specific targets (2006 compared to 1998)
Kt
Paper and
cardboard
Metals
Glass
plastics
Austria
-
10
-
-
Belgium
-
-
-
-
Denmark
-
6
-
22
Finland
-
11
-
9
France
-
34
527
195
Germany
-
-
-
-
724
220
506
162
Luxembourg
2
2
-
1
Netherlands
-
-
-
30
78
101
350
128
-
14
-
-
United
Kingdom48
320
228
814
204
EU-12
1124
626
2197
751
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
47
48
Data sources: Packaging quantities: data from national reports; cost and benefit figures derived from
RDC/Pira 2001, main report tables 17 and 18 as well as annex 10, tables 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 22,
23, 26 and 29 (rough rounding)
The UK totals are provisional estimates that were made in 1998
19
Table 7: Recycling costs and alternative disposal costs of
additional packaging to be recycled under the new material specific
targets (2006 compared to 1998)
Required
increase in Mt
Recycling cost Recycling cost
(€/t)
(M€)
Disposal cost
(€/t)
Disposal cost
(M€)
Paper
1.124
120
135
150
169
Metals
0.626
150
94
130
81
Glass
2.197
90
198
160
352
Plastics
0.751
400
300
300
225
Total
4.698
727
827
Table 8: Avoided external costs as a result of additional recycling
under the new material specific targets (2006 compared to 1998)
Required
increase in Mt
Saved external Saved external
costs (€/t)
costs (M€)
Paper
1.124
15
17
Metals
0.626
20
13
Glass
2.197
80
176
Plastics
0.751
200
150
Total
4.698
356
20
Annex 2:
Bibliography
Sofres 2000 for the European Commission: Cost-efficiency of Packaging Recovery Systems,
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/library/lib-environment/libr-environment.html.
Argus/ACR/Carl Bro 2001 for the European Commission: European Packaging Waste
Management Systems, http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/facts_en.htm.
PricewaterhouseCoopers 2001, Review of 1998 data on packaging and packaging waste
recycling and recovery.
RDC/Pira 2001 for the European Commission (draft final report): Evaluation of costs and
benefits for the achievement of reuse and recycling targets for the different packaging
materials in the frame of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive 94/62/EC,
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/public_discussion.htm.
GUA/IFIP 2000, Volkswirtschaftliche Analyse von Einweg- und Mehrwegsystemen.
WRc 2000 for European Commission, Study on Investment and Employment Related to EU
Policy on Air, Water and Waste, http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/
enveco/studies2.htm.
RPA 2001 for the European Commission, Employment Effects of Waste Management
Policies, http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/enveco/studies2.htm.
21
ANNEX 3:
THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL ON BUSINESS WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE
TO SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES (SMEs)
THE PROPOSAL
1.
Taking account of the principle of subsidiarity, why is Community legislation
necessary in this area and what are its main aims?
The proposal fulfils a requirement laid down in Directive 94/62/EC. It aims at setting
targets for the recycling of packaging waste to be achieved by 30 June 200649 as well
as at introducing the necessary definitions.
THE IMPACT ON BUSINESS
2.
Who will be affected by the proposal?
– which sectors of business
Packaging manufacturers, packers/fillers and retailers
Waste collectors, recyclers and other businesses specialising in waste management
– which sizes of business (what is the concentration of small and medium-sized
firms)
In all four sectors, a large variety of companies will be concerned, ranging from very
small to very large companies.
– are there particular geographical areas of the Community where these
businesses are found
The effect of this proposal will be stronger in countries which so far have not yet
achieved high recycling rates. These countries are more likely to be found in the
West and South of Europe than in Central and Northern Europe.
3.
What will business have to do to comply with the proposal?
Depending on national legislation, packaging manufacturers, packers/fillers and/or
retailers may have to make financial contributions to recycling systems. The degree
to which such contributions are required varies largely between Member States.
Normally, the cost of these contributions is passed on to consumers of packaging.
These financial contributions may increase as a result of higher targets. Waste
management companies and recyclers will increase their normal business activities.
There will also be a need for data provision in line with the current obligations of the
existing Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive.
49
Greece, Ireland and Portugal may postpone the attainment of these targets to 30 June 2009.
22
4.
What economic effects is the proposal likely to have?
– on employment
There will be increased employment in the waste management and recycling sectors.
It is difficult to evaluate macroeconomic impacts on employment but it may be
assumed that the net effects are negligible.
– on investment and the creation of new businesses
The increased recycling obligations will encourage investment in waste management
and recycling and may lead to the creation of new businesses.
– on the competitiveness of businesses
A study by the University of Belfast et al.50 has not found significant effects on the
competitiveness of businesses of the current Packaging Directive. There are no
reasons to assume that this will change with the new targets.
5.
Does the proposal contain measures to take account of the specific situation of
small and medium-sized firms (reduced or different requirements etc)?
no
CONSULTATION
6.
List the organisations which have been consulted about the proposal and outline
their main views.
The consultation
Stakeholders were invited to comment on a DG Environment working document
dated 1 December 1999. This document put forward two options for debating on the
revision of targets.
The first option referred to the recovery and recycling targets of the 1992 Commission
proposal for the Packaging Directive. These targets were 90% by weight for total
recovery and 60% by weight for recycling of each packaging material. The second
option contained no recovery target, a minimum overall recycling target of 60% and the
following material specific targets: 75% for glass, 65% for paper/cardboard, 55% for
metals and 20% for plastics, exclusively by mechanical recycling.
On this basis, a meeting with industrial organisations, environmental NGOs and
consumers took place on 21 December 1999. The meantime was used to prepare a
more complete analysis of environmental and economic effects of potential targets.
Stakeholders were involved in several steps of the elaboration of the RDC/Pira study.
On 12 June 2001, a hearing was held on the draft final report of this study.
50
University of Belfast et al. Study on measuring the competitiveness effects of environmental
compliance: the importance of regulation and market pressures (ENV4-CT96-0237).
23
LIST
OF ORGANISATIONS THAT TOOK PART IN THE
THIS PROPOSAL:
1999/2000
CONSULTATION ON
Industry:
ACE (Alliance for beverage cartons and the environment)
AIM (European brands association)
APME (Association of plastics manufacturers in Europe)
APPEAL (Association of European producers of packaging steel)
BCME (Beverage can makers Europe)
BDI (German industry federation)
BIR (International recycling bureau)
CEEP (European federation of enterprises with public participation and of public
economic interest)
CELCAA (European food retail association)
CEPI (Confederation of European paper industries)
CIAA (European association of food producers)
CITPA (International federation of paper and carton transformers)
Confindustria (Italian industry federation)
EAA (European aluminium association)
EFPA (European food service and packaging association)
EMCEF (European mine, chemicals and energy workers federation)
EPRO (European association of plastics recycling organisations)
ERRA (European recovery and recycling association; now ASSURRE)
EUPC (European plastics converters)
EuPET (European PET manufacturers)
EUPR (European plastics recyclers)
EURITS (European association for responsible incineration and the treatment of
special waste)
Eurocommerce (European retail, wholesale and international trade association)
EURO COOP (European association of consumer co-operatives)
24
EUROPEN (European organisation for packaging and the environment)
FEAD (European waste management association)
FEFCO (European federation of corrugated board producers)
FEVE (European packaging glass federation)
ISWA (International solid waste association)
Packaging Chain Forum (ad hoc grouping of industrial organisations with direct
interest in packaging)
PETCORE (PET recycling association)
PRO CARTON (Association of European carton manufacturers)
PRO EUROPE (Packaging recovery organisation Europe)
UNICE – Union of industrial and employers confederation of Europe
Non-governmental organisations:
BEUC (European consumers association)
Birdlife (Germany)
EEB (European Environmental Bureau)
Finnish Association for Nature Conservation
Friends of the Earth
Greenpeace
Quercus (Portugal)
The main views expressed
Industry views concurred in the need for a clear definition of the environmental objectives, an
analysis of instruments and means available to achieve them and the call to base the revision
on current data and experiences as well as an analysis of environmental, social and economic
impacts. Targets should be optimised and not necessarily maximised. Some underlined the
need for taking into account Internal Market aspects, whereas others saw more need to leave
leeway to the Member States to define their own systems according to local conditions. Many
associations were in favour of keeping recovery targets. Many organisations expressed their
concern that differentiated recycling targets per material could lead to distortions of
competition. Several associations expressed their opposition to introducing specific measures
on prevention and reuse. Several associations asked to maintain the existing recycling
definition (i.e. no differentiation between mechanical and feedstock recycling). Some
expressed their support for a clarification of the definition of packaging.
Non-governmental organisations called for high recycling targets such as: Paper 85%, glass
75%, aluminium 80% for beverage packaging and 65% for others, other metals 75%, plastics
25
30% mechanical recycling and 60% total recycling including chemical recycling. They
supported a reinforcement of the prevention concept and the introduction of Community reuse
quota. They also favoured deposit schemes and packaging taxes.
Specific views and suggestions not reflected above:
–
BIR suggested the following targets: 80% recovery, 65% recycling, glass and paper
80% each, metals 60% and plastics 40% (including chemical recycling).
–
ERRA proposed to stabilise the amount of packaging waste going to final disposal at
the level of 2001 and to abolish EU wide recycling and recovery targets.
–
EURO COOP suggested to include the producer responsibility principle in the
directive and to introduce quantified prevention targets.
–
FEAD was against a hierarchy between recycling and recovery.
–
Greenpeace called for a prevention target of minus 25% in five years and a ban on
PVC and toxic substances. No recovery target should be set. Chemical/feedstock
recycling should not be classified as recycling.
–
PRO EUROPE expressed its support to producer responsibility.
The follow-up to the 1999/2000 consultation51:
It became clear that option 1 should not be considered. Option 2 seemed to be the basis for
further consideration. As called for by industry, further analysis was undertaken, including the
RDC/Pira study on costs and benefits of potential targets. This study is now available as draft
final report. The conclusions confirm that there is a considerable difference both in costs and
environmental benefits of recycling between the various packaging materials. As a result, the
material specific targets have been maintained in this proposal. These minimum targets are
close to the optimal rates as identified by the RDC/Pira study, although in some cases lower
targets have been set to take into account particular factors related to the specific materials.
No major effect on the relative competitiveness of materials is assumed as the costs are in the
same order of magnitude for all materials.
The proposal is assumed to strengthen the Internal Market by bringing the recovery and
recycling rates closer together. It also leaves flexibility to Member States in determining how
the targets shall be achieved. Measures on prevention and reuse have not been included in this
proposal because it is felt that more analysis is needed. This will be addressed inter alia within
the planned Thematic Strategy on Recycling and the Integrated Product Policy approach. The
need to distinguish between different forms of recycling for plastics was maintained but
further developed to include chemical recycling with mechanical recycling in a specific
recycling target for plastic but to explicitly exclude feedstock recycling. The reason for this is
that feedstock recycling is environmentally inferior to mechanical and chemical recycling yet
is frequently a cheaper method for recycling plastic. The inclusion of feedstock recycling in a
specific recycling target for plastic would therefore lead to the replacement of superior
environmental methods for cheaper, less superior methods and endanger existing investments.
The guidance document on the definition of packaging has been included as suggested.
51
For a detailed justification see also sections 4 and 5.
26
The main views expressed in the 12 June 2001 hearing on the RDC/Pira 2001 study
The study is very ambitious and this may lead to ignoring local variations. It should only be
considered as one input to the decision making process along other factors. The study should
better take into account the performance improvements of incinerators and landfills as a result
of recent directives. Many industry representatives expressed the view that packaging is of
low importance compared to overall environmental challenges. Industry needs clear long-term
goals to allow appropriate investment planning. The impact of enlargement needs to be taken
into account. The study should address variations in the packaging mix over time due to new
technological developments. More consideration should be given to the output markets.
Sensitivity analysis should be made for more parameters. Clarification should be made as
regards the comparison of collection costs for recycling and disposal. There should be no
judgement on which types of packaging are better compared to others. There should be more
work on HDPE as there are differences to PET.
27
2001/0291 (COD)
Proposal for a
DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article
95 paragraph 1 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission52,
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee53,
Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty54,
Whereas:
(1)
Pursuant to Directive 94/62/EC55 the Council is required, no later than six months
before the end of a five-year phase starting from the date by which that Directive
should have been implemented in national law, to fix targets for the next five-year
phase.
(2)
It is necessary to clarify the definition of “packaging” laid down in Directive 94/62/EC
through the introduction of an annex containing interpretative guidelines. Furthermore,
development of new recycling technologies has led to the need to add new definitions.
(3)
Recycling targets for each specific waste material should be introduced on the basis of
life-cycle assessments and cost-benefit analysis, which have indicated clear
differences both in the costs and in the benefits of recycling the various packaging
materials, and which shall improve the coherence for the Internal Market for recycling
of these materials.
(4)
Recovery and recycling of packaging waste should be further increased to reduce its
environmental impact.
(5)
Certain Member States which, on account of their special circumstances, were allowed
to postpone the date fixed for achievement of the recovery and recycling targets set in
Directive 94/62/EC should be granted a further, but limited, postponement.
52
OJ C , , p. .
OJ C , , p. .
OJ C , , p. .
OJ L 365,31.12.1994,p.10-23.
53
54
55
28
(6)
In view of the enlargement of the European Union, due attention needs to be
paid to the specific situation in the future Member States, in particular in relation to
the attainment of the recycling target of Article 6(1), taking into account their current
low level of packaging consumption.
(7)
In accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality as set out
in Article 5 of the Treaty, the objectives of the proposed action, namely to harmonise
national targets for the recycling of packaging waste and to provide further
clarification on definitions, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and
can therefore, by reason of the scale of the action, be better achieved by the
Community. This Directive confines itself to the minimum required in order to
achieve those objectives and does not go beyond what is necessary for that purpose.
(8)
Since the measures necessary for the implementation of Directive 94/62/EC
are measures of general scope within the meaning of Article 2 of Council Decision
1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of
implementing powers conferred on the Commission56, they should be adopted by use
of the regulatory procedure provided for in Article 5 of that Decision.
(9)
Directive 94/62/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,
HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
Directive 94/62/EC is hereby amended as follows:
(1) Article 3 is amended as follows:
(a)
in point (1) the following subparagraph is added:
“The definition of “packaging” shall be further interpreted in accordance with the
guidelines set out in Annex I;”
(b)
the following points 9a, 9b and 9c are inserted:
“9a. ‘mechanical recycling’ shall mean the reprocessing of waste material, for the
original purpose or for other purposes excluding energy recovery or disposal,
without changing the chemical structure of the processed material;”
“9b. ‘chemical recycling’ shall mean the reprocessing, other than organic recycling,
of waste material, for the original purpose or for other purposes excluding
energy recovery or disposal, by changing the chemical structure of the waste
material and recycling the chemical constituents into the original material of
the waste .”
“9c. ‘feedstock recycling’ shall mean the reprocessing, other than organic recycling,
of waste material, for the original purpose or for other purposes excluding
energy recovery or disposal, by changing the chemical structure of the waste
56
OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23.
29
material and recycling the chemical constituents into materials other than the
original material of the waste.”
(2) Article 6 is replaced by the following:
" Article 6
1.
In order to comply with the objectives of this Directive, Member States shall take the
necessary measures to attain the following targets no later than 30 June 2006
covering the whole of their territory:
(a)
between 60% as a minimum and 75% as a maximum by weight of packaging
waste will be recovered;
(b)
between 55% as a minimum and 70% as a maximum by weight of packaging
waste will be recycled;
(c)
the following minimum recycling targets for materials contained in packaging
waste will be attained:
-
60% by weight for glass;
-
55% by weight for paper and board;
-
50% by weight for metals;
-
20% by weight for plastics, exclusively by mechanical and/or chemical
recycling.
2.
Member States shall encourage energy recovery, where preferable to material
recycling for environmental and cost-benefit reasons. This could be done by
considering a sufficient margin between national recycling and recovery targets.
3.
Member States shall, where appropriate, encourage the use of materials obtained
from recycled packaging waste for the manufacturing of packaging and other
products.
4.
Not later than 31 December 2005, the European Parliament and the Council shall,
acting by qualified majority and on a proposal from the Commission, fix targets for
the third five-year phase 2006 till 2011, based on the practical experience gained in
the Member States in the pursuit of the targets laid down in paragraph 1 and the
findings of scientific research and evaluation techniques such as life cycle
assessments and cost-benefit analysis.
This process shall be repeated every five years thereafter.
5.
The measures and targets referred to in paragraph 1 shall be published by the
Member States and shall be the subject of an information campaign for the general
public and economic operators.
6.
Greece, Ireland and Portugal may, in view of their specific situation, postpone the
attainment of the targets referred to in paragraph 1) until the date of their own choice
which shall not be later than 30 June 2009.
30
7.
(3)
Member States which have, or will, set programmes going beyond the target of
paragraph 1 (a) and which provide to this effect appropriate capacities for recycling
and recovery, are permitted to pursue those targets in the interest of a high level of
environmental protection, on condition that these measures avoid distortions of the
internal market and do not hinder compliance by other Member States with the
Directive. Member States shall inform the Commission thereof. The Commission
shall confirm these measures, after having verified, in cooperation with the Member
States, that they are consistent with the considerations above and do not constitute an
arbitrary means of discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member
States.”
Article 8 (2) is replaced by the following:
“2. To facilitate collection, reuse and recovery including recycling, packaging
shall indicate for purposes of its identification and classification by the industry
concerned the nature of the packaging material(s) used.
This shall be done on the basis of Commission Decision 97/129/EC.”
(4)
Article 19 is replaced by the following:
“The amendments necessary for adapting to scientific and technical progress the identification
system – as referred to in Article 8(2) and Article 10, last indent –, the formats relating to the
database system – as referred to in Article 12 (3) and Annex III as well as the guidelines on
the interpretation of the definition of packaging – as referred to in Annex I - shall be adopted
in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 21.”
(5)
Annex I is replaced by the text shown in the Annex to this Directive.
(6)
Article 21 is replaced by the following:
"1. The Commission shall be assisted by a committee composed of representatives of
the Member States and chaired by the representative of the Commission.
2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, the regulatory procedure laid down in
Article 5 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, in compliance with Article 7 (3) and
Article 8 thereof.
3. The period provided for in Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be no more
than three months.”
Article 2
Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
necessary to comply with this Directive by [18 months after the date of adoption] at the latest.
They shall immediately inform the Commission thereof.
When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive
or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member
States shall determine how such reference is to be made.
31
Article 3
This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in
the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Article 4
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels,
For the European Parliament
For the Council
The President
The President
32
ANNEX
“ANNEX I
GUIDELINES ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE DEFINITION OF PACKAGING
1.
The definition of packaging refers to packaging functions without prejudice to other functions which
the packaging might also perform, unless it complies with rules 6 and 7 below.
2.
An item which has a primary or secondary packaging function and which is designed and aimed, in
general, for being filled at the point of sale, is considered as packaging. Illustrative examples:
Packaging:
Paper or plastic carrier bags
Not packaging:
Cling film
Sandwich bags
Aluminium foil
3.
Packaging components are part of the packaging to which they are attached; they are not independent
packaging items. Illustrative examples:
Packaging:
Mascara brush which forms part of the container closure
Sticky labels attached to another packaging item
Labels hung directly on or attached to the product
4.
Ancillary elements integrated into packaging or a packaging component and/or performing any
function in relation to a packaging component, including strengthening or embellishment it, are part of
the packaging and not separate packaging items. Illustrative examples:
Packaging:
Staples
Tape
Plastic sleeves (e.g. around drink bottles)
5.
Disposable items sold filled or designed and aimed for being filled at the point of sale are packaging
provided they fulfil a packaging function. Illustrative examples:
Packaging:
Disposable plates,
Disposable cups, etc.
33
Not packaging:
Chips fork
6.
An item which complies with the above conditions is nonetheless not packaging if the item’s function
in relation to the product clearly outweighs its packaging function.
It also applies, however, to items which represent an integral and inseparable part of a durable product at
the time of purchase and which are necessary to contain, support or preserve that product throughout
its lifetime.
This does not apply to items integrated with a packaging component.
Illustrative examples:
Packaging:
Cases
Sweets boxes
Film overwrap around a CD case
Not packaging:
Flower pots intended to stay with the plant throughout its life
Ink cartridges
Tool boxes
7.
An item which complies with rules 1-5 is nonetheless not packaging if the item is both part of the
manufacturing process and part of the product. Illustrative examples:
Not packaging:
Tea bags
Wax layers (e.g. around cheese)
Sausage skins”
34