PPWR unpacked 21 - Criticism of unrealistic reuse quotas grows

Everyone knows from personal experience how difficult it can be to admit a mistake. In the political arena, there is also the fact that everyone involved is in the public eye and has to come out with a straight face. Taken together, this makes it difficult at present to initiate the much-needed correction of the unrealistic 100% reuse rates for many types of industrial and commercial packaging. However, there are a growing number of political initiatives pushing for a solution.

There is growing criticism of the restructuring of the reuse quotas for industrial and commercial packaging in the PPWR, which would - probably unintentionally - lead to a complete ban on many packaging formats in domestic B2B transport from 2030. Slowly but surely, businesses across the EU are beginning to understand the implications of the changes (for background, see part 19 of this series). German industry associations, for example, have sent a joint letter to their MEPs warning that a complete ban on single-use packaging in domestic trade would jeopardise all supply chains because in many cases there are no reusable solutions or they make neither environmental nor economic sense. Industry therefore proposes that the reuse requirements for industrial and commercial transport and sales packaging in Article 26(1-3) be deleted and that the Commission be instructed to submit a new proposal based on scientific analysis and an impact assessment, and that special quotas for transport between companies within an EU Member State be waived.

An example of the ill-considered consequences: Pallet wrapping and strapping, which secure the transport of almost all goods stacked on pallets, would have to be completely (100%) reused for the "same purpose" from 2030 when used within a Member State or between company sites (Article 26(2) and (3)). It is not technically possible to reuse these pallet wrappings, whatever the material. They are therefore recycled in practice and provide an important basis for meeting current recycling targets and future recycled content quotas for plastic packaging.

The same problem arises for other affected packaging formats such as all pails and canisters, e.g. in DIY stores. Other affected packaging such as IBCs, foldable plastic boxes and plastic crates are already reused several times. For them, the new regulation will simply mean a lot more red tape. The environmental benefit is counteracted by the fact that the compromise proposal excludes cardboard boxes from the reuse quotas.

Meanwhile, there have been the first political reactions to the criticism: on 24 April, the Parliament will debate an amendment by Andreas Glück (RENEW) proposing to delete at least the 100% reusable quotas in Article 26(2) and (3). At the same time, other MEPs have written to the Commission asking it to use the exemption option (see below) by the end of this year to at least exempt pallet wrapping and straps from the 100% reusable quotas. MEPs are also calling for a narrow interpretation of "sales packaging used for transporting products". Some Member States are also pushing for a solution in discussions with the Commission, so the next few months will be very exciting. The Commission itself is open to the proposals, which is not surprising as it had proposed something different.

In particular, the discussion will focus on whether it is sufficient to rely on the Commission to grant exemptions from the re-use quota through a delegated act, or whether the text of the PPWR needs to be corrected. Given the ongoing wrangling over the implementing act on the method for calculating the use of recycled materials under Article 6(5) of the SUPD (the deadline was back on 1 January 2022!), industry has little or no confidence that the Commission will exempt packaging formats in due course, especially as this is an optional (not mandatory) and open-ended competence. Don't forget: With the PPWR, the Commission has been handed a huge workload of up to 47 pieces of binding secondary legislation. It is also doubtful whether the Commission will push through exemptions that are diametrically opposed to the formal will of the legislator in the PPR. In addition, there is the legal problem that the EU legislator does not have the competence to adopt prohibitions of economic activities based on the internal market competence (Article 114 TFEU), which is the exclusive competence of the PPWR, including indirect bans through 100% reuse quotas as in Article 26(2) and (3).

To be continued...