The environment ministers of the EU Member States are convinced of the need to reverse the worrying trend of increasing packaging waste in the EU. This was evident in the political debate on Thursday 16 March on the proposed revision of Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste (see EUROPE 13142/21).
However, there was widespread scepticism among delegations about the proposed arrangements, reflecting the fear of many delegations of a lack of flexibility, an excessive administrative burden and a challenge to what works well in the Member States.
Calling the contributions “valuable” for further work at the technical level, the Swedish Environment Minister, Romina Pourmokhtari, who chaired the EU ‘Environment ‘Council session, said she had taken note of the comments, concluding that “there is a need to strike a balance between harmonisation and flexibility”.
The Commission’s proposed regulation under the second ‘Circular Economy’ legislative package will impose a packaging waste reduction target of 15% per Member State and per capita by 2040 compared to 2018 – a target that the Netherlands would like to bring forward to 2030 – and an obligation to ensure that all packaging on the EU market is recyclable in an economically viable way by 2030 (see EUROPE 13140/16).
All countries agreed with the general objective of the proposed regulation, citing among the most important measures: reduction of waste, efficient and economical use of resources, reduction of over-packaging, labelling of packaging composition, minimum recycled content. On this last point, some countries stressed the need to ensure the availability of recycled materials on the market in order to be able to promote a secondary market for raw materials.
Italy was the most critical of the Commission’s impact assessment. Stressing that the national waste separation system has promising results for the circular economy, Italy warned against the risk of “producing uncertainty and administrative burdens without environmental benefits”. Re-use could lead to an increased use of water, the Italian minister argued, advocating for “a case-by-case examination”. In addition, reuse targets and the ban on single-use packaging are negative for hygiene in the HoReCa sector, for tourism, for the entertainment sector and for SMEs, the minister said.
A directive rather than a regulation? The legal form of the text presented is not favoured by several countries, such as Austria, Belgium and the Czech Republic, which want a directive rather than a regulation, while others, such as Bulgaria, favour a regulation.
Several delegations (e.g. Austria, Belgium, France, Luxembourg and Slovenia) stated that the sole legal basis ‘Internal Market’ (Article 114) was not adequate, and want to see a double legal basis, i.e. the addition of Article 192 (Environment) of the Treaty, as for the ‘Sustainable Batteries’ Regulation.
Delegations also deplored the multitude of delegated acts, to define sustainability criteria, and secondary legislation (implementing acts).
Many delegations argued for sufficient room for manoeuvre so that Member States do not have to touch their efficient and well-invested extended producer responsibility system.
Malta and Cyprus drew attention to the seasonal impact of tourism on their respective waste volumes – a feature that both countries want to be taken into account in the calculation method.
The European Commissioner for the Environment, Virginijus Sinkevičius, said that “the directive has not played its role”, which justifies a regulation, not to mention the fact that companies complain that the internal market is too fragmented. “If we touch the level of ambition, we will not achieve our goals”, he further warned. And he cited “a climate crisis, an energy crisis and soaring inflation rates” as all the more reason to push for “an agreement in this Parliament”. (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)