Proposed new European packaging legislation falls short of expectations

In 2020, there was an average of 177 kilograms of packaging waste per European, compared to 154 kilograms in 2010. Almost 30 years after the first European legislation on packaging, the environmental pressure of packaging has only increased. To effectively tackle the contribution of packaging to the crises surrounding climate, biodiversity and plastic soup, policy is needed that focuses heavily on reducing packaging and makes systems with reusable packaging the norm. The use of raw materials for packaging must fall sharply in this way and the dependence on fossil raw materials must be broken. Almost 10% of European oil and gas consumption goes towards the production of plastic, of which around 40% goes towards packaging, a report by Break Free From Plastic showed. But it is not just about plastic: the careless production and consumption of single-use packaging made of paper (50% of European paper consumption is for packaging), metal, glass and wood must be adjusted just as well. The Commission's proposal for a Packaging Regulation fails to do so sufficiently. The intention behind the legislation is good. It is recognised that years of focus on recycling has not led to a trend break in our use of raw materials. Therefore, for the first time, the Commission formulates a waste prevention target (Article 38), namely -5% in 2030, -10% in 2035, rising to -15% packaging waste generated in 2040. There are two strategies to achieve this: placing less packaging on the market (removing packaging or making it lighter) or replacing single-use packaging with reusable packaging. The European Commission imposes these targets on Member States, but itself fails to draft effective rules against superfluous and unnecessarily heavy packaging. When it comes to reuse targets (Article 26), it is again striking that the intention is good. But after a draft of the regulations leaked earlier this month with significantly higher targets, the disappointment is great. The targets published today show that the Commission may have succumbed to pressure from various sides: both the reuse targets for 2030 and those for 2040 have been significantly watered down. The packaging industry reacted unnecessarily hostilely to the Commission's intentions, and we therefore call on the packaging industry to still initiate the transition towards reuse. The disposable mindset must change once and for all to sharply reduce the environmental impact of packaging. In the Q&A accompanying the PPWR, the Commission says that all measures combined will limit greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 to 43 million tonnes instead of 66 million tonnes in a business-as-usual scenario, and set the sector on the path to climate neutrality in 2050. Substantiation for the latter conclusion is lacking. Although the direction is good, the measures lack the required level of urgency. We strongly urge the European Commission, the European Council and the European Parliament to pursue policies that are in line with the agreements to limit global warming to a maximum of 1.5 degrees. Analysis of the proposal for a Packaging Regulation Within a few weeks we will release a position paper with a full analysis of the legislation. Below, we already provide a brief response to some of the main aspects of the legislation. Essential Requirements and banned applications A 2014 'fitness check' by the European Commission found that the Essential Requirements (ER) need to be formulated more concretely and be easier to enforce. The ER (also known as Annex II of the legislation still in force) aims to set limits on packaging to (among other things) prevent unnecessary use of materials. Reducing the use of packaging material is the most effective way to reduce its environmental impact. Policymakers are also obliged to prioritise this under the Waste Framework Directive. In practice, the ER has not yet had any effect because 1) the criteria are formulated so broadly that intervention is difficult, and 2) because checking places a disproportionately large burden on national environmental inspections. To be able to intervene on incorrect packaging, a product file must be requested from the manufacturer, which is followed by an exchange of information, views, warnings and promises. Such a process can easily take months to years per package. For instance, in 2019 we already established that many packages for fabric softeners, shampoo bottles and spirits are often tens to even hundreds of percent too heavy. Three years later (with repeated enforcement requests to the Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate), exactly one producer has decided to adjust the packaging. The Johnnie Walker Blue Label no longer weighs 1399 grams, but 882 grams, while the Johnnie Walker Blender's Batch sl

In 2020, there was an average of 177 kilograms of packaging waste per European, compared to 154 kilograms in 2010. Almost 30 years after the first European legislation on packaging, the environmental pressure of packaging has only increased.

To effectively tackle the contribution of packaging to the crises surrounding climate, biodiversity and plastic soup, policy is needed that focuses heavily on reducing packaging and makes systems with reusable packaging the norm. The use of raw materials for packaging must fall sharply in this way and the dependence on fossil raw materials must be broken.

Almost 10% of European oil and gas consumption goes towards the production of plastic, of which around 40% goes towards packaging, a report by Break Free From Plastic showed. But it is not just about plastic: the careless production and consumption of single-use packaging made of paper (50% of European paper consumption is for packaging), metal, glass and wood must be adjusted just as well.

The Commission's proposal for a Packaging Regulation fails to do so sufficiently. The intention behind the legislation is good. It is recognised that years of focus on recycling has not led to a trend break in our use of raw materials. Therefore, for the first time, the Commission formulates a waste prevention target (Article 38), namely -5% in 2030, -10% in 2035, rising to -15% packaging waste generated in 2040.

There are two strategies to achieve this: placing less packaging on the market (removing packaging or making it lighter) or replacing single-use packaging with reusable packaging. The European Commission imposes these targets on Member States, but itself fails to draft effective rules against superfluous and unnecessarily heavy packaging.

When it comes to reuse targets (Article 26), it is again striking that the intention is good. But after a draft of the regulations leaked earlier this month with significantly higher targets, the disappointment is great. The targets published today show that the Commission may have succumbed to pressure from various sides: both the reuse targets for 2030 and those for 2040 have been significantly watered down. The packaging industry reacted unnecessarily hostilely to the Commission's intentions, and we therefore call on the packaging industry to still initiate the transition towards reuse. The disposable mindset must change once and for all to sharply reduce the environmental impact of packaging.

In the Q&A accompanying the PPWR, the Commission says that all measures combined will limit greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 to 43 million tonnes instead of 66 million tonnes in a business-as-usual scenario, and set the sector on the path to climate neutrality in 2050. Substantiation for the latter conclusion is lacking.

Although the direction is good, the measures lack the required level of urgency. We strongly urge the European Commission, the European Council and the European Parliament to pursue policies that are in line with the agreements to limit global warming to a maximum of 1.5 degrees.

Analysis of the proposal for a Packaging Regulation

Within a few weeks we will release a position paper with a full analysis of the legislation. Below, we already provide a brief response to some of the main aspects of the legislation.

Essential Requirements and banned applications

A 'fitness check' by the European Commission from 2014 found that the Essential Requirements (ER) need to be formulated more concretely and be easier to enforce. The ER (also known as Annex II of the legislation still in force) aims to set limits on packaging to (among other things) prevent unnecessary use of materials. Reducing the use of packaging material is the most effective way to reduce its environmental impact. Policymakers are also obliged to prioritise this under the Waste Framework Directive.

In practice, the ER has not yet had any effect because 1) the criteria are formulated so broadly that intervention is difficult, and 2) because checking places a disproportionately large burden on national environmental inspections. To be able to intervene on incorrect packaging, a product file must be requested from the manufacturer, which is followed by an exchange of information, views, warnings and promises. Such a process can easily take months to years per package. For instance, in 2019 we already established that many packages for fabric softeners, shampoo bottles and spirits are often tens to even hundreds of percent too heavy. Three years later (with repeated enforcement requests to the Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate), exactly one producer has decided to adjust the packaging. The Johnnie Walker Blue Label no longer weighs 1399 grams, but 882 grams, while the Johnnie Walker Blender's Batch weighs only 355 grams.

The new proposed ER (Article 9 and Annex IV) change little in this regard. For example, producers are no longer allowed to state in their product files that 'marketing' or 'consumer preference' is the reason for using extra packaging, as is currently the case when they follow standard EN 13427. But that is quite easy to circumvent by, for example, indicating that the extra packaging is necessary for protection during transport.

More fundamental is that monitoring and enforcement of this remains a far too large and therefore impossible task for national government agencies. The legislation will therefore simply not be enforceable.

Clear rules are needed for packaging with maximum weights relative to content and tailored to the packaging material used: a glass wine bottle, for example, really does not need to weigh more than 350 grams. Such clear rules would finally make it possible for the environmental inspection to intervene decisively. The European Commission is now ignoring the simplest and biggest environmental step they can take.

There are also a few small glimmers of hope: for instance, single-use plastic packaging for fruit and vegetables under 1.5kg will be banned (unless proven useful), single-use plastic packaging for food, beverages and also, for example, mini portions of sauce in the hospitality sector will be banned, as well as the small plastic shampoo bottles found in hotels.

Reuse and refill targets

In addition to bans on the above products, reuse targets have also been set for various product groups. Switching from single-use packaging to reusable packaging directly contributes to preventing resource consumption. After all, a cup that is used multiple times prevents many single-use plastic or paper cups. That switch is therefore crucial to reducing the environmental impact of packaging.

This is also how the Commission gives substance to reuse in this proposal. Recital 62 focuses on minimum requirements for open-loop / closed-loop reuse systems. In this way, the Commission wants to prevent various packagings from entering the market that are reusable in theory, but are not actually reused by the consumer in practice. In Recital 65, the Commission also speaks about refillable (refill) packaging. The difference between reusable packaging and refill seems to be whether a product is offered in reusable packaging, or whether the product is offered at a refill station where consumers can bring their own packaging.

A version of the PPWR leaked in October showed a high level of ambition in the field of reuse (see Figures 1 and 2). The leaked document and the relatively high reuse targets caused a loud and negative response from the business community. In a joint statement, released by the 'European Packaging Value Chain' on behalf of more than 60 business federations, the business community wonders whether the Commission has used an evidence-based approach in determining the targets.

They claim that the targets are unrealistic and disproportionate. By referring to life-cycle assessments (LCAs) funded by the business community, they claim that reusable packaging is by no means always the best option for climate and environment. The paper and board industry also cites LCAs that – based on tactically chosen indicators – call reuse into question.

The targets published today show that the Commission may have succumbed to pressure from various sides: both the reuse targets for 2030 and those for 2040 have been significantly watered down. Article 26, which determines the reuse and refill targets, states that both reuse and refill count towards achieving the targets for beverage and food packaging. Due to the vague formulation, however, it is not immediately clear to what extent refill contributes to preventing single-use packaging. We want to provide more clarity on this in a subsequent analysis.

During the presentation of the proposal, Timmermans and Sinkevičius stressed that it was absolutely still a revolutionary proposal and that we must not lose sight of the overarching goal of a 15% waste reduction in 2040 compared to 2018. Although we also recognise that we have not seen such a strong European focus on prevention and reuse before, the level of targets and the speed with which they must be achieved are highly disappointing. The dot on the horizon offered by this proposal is currently so small that Europe in 2040 will still be far from sustainable management of packaging and raw materials.

Deposit on plastic bottles and metal beverage packaging

More and more countries are proving that deposit return systems are necessary to combat litter and achieve packaging reuse and high-quality recycling. The proposed Regulation says that from 2029, deposit return systems for plastic bottles and metal beverage packaging must be introduced across Europe.

The rules and minimum requirements are detailed in Article 44 and Annex X of the draft PPWR. Countries can be exempted from a deposit return system if they prove they collect separately more than 90% of plastic bottles and cans over 2026 and 2027. No European country without a deposit return system comes close to these targets.

Annex II also states that points of sale are obliged to take back the packaging and pay out the deposit. This is important for consumer convenience but also for the realisation and enforcement of the targets. Indeed, the Dutch legislation, in which no take-back obligation is formulated, has the consequence that the 90% take-back target is not yet being met and the introduction of a deposit on cans on 31 December 2022 is up in the air.

The take-back obligation is also important for the transition to refillable packaging. The proposal states in this regard that Member States should make efforts to make deposit return systems for single-use packaging equally accessible for reusable packaging.

Recyclable packaging and application of recycled material in packaging

Previous versions of European packaging legislation turned mainly around recycling targets where more and more packaging waste is collected and processed, but not necessarily put to useful use again. Especially with plastics, this is a challenge. Often, plastic packaging waste is used in all kinds of other (low-grade) products. As a result, many new fossil resources are still used to produce new plastic packaging.

The Commission's proposal tries to work on this through Article 6 concerning the recyclability of packaging and Article 7 which formulates targets for 'recycled content' for plastic packaging. According to Article 6, from 2030 packaging must be designed in such a way that it can be recycled and subsequently also replace the raw materials that were originally used. The mandatory share of recycled material is set as follows.

From 2030:

30% for contact sensitive packaging made from polyethylene terephthalate (PET) as major component;

10% for contact sensitive packaging made from plastic materials other than PET, except SUP beverage bottles;

30 % for single use plastic beverage bottles;

35 % for packaging other than those referred to in points (a), (b) and (c).

From 2040:

50 % for contact sensitive plastic packaging;

65 % for single use plastic beverage bottles;