PPWR unpacked - Part 1: People and Process

For some, the proposal is the definitive proof that the EU Commission has reached the level of the Soviet Union's Politburo. For others, the proposal is the necessary lever to completely transform consumer behaviour in the EU. At the same time, it is not only the most controversial project but for sure the most complex project currently being discussed in Brussels. In the Environment Committee of the European Parliament alone, MEPs are currently debating about almost 3,000 proposed amendments.We are talking about the proposal for an EU regulation on packaging and packaging waste (PPWR).

As part of a series of articles, we want to take a closer look at the Commission's proposal for complete new rules for packaging published on 30 November 2022, shed light on its background and find out how MEPs and Member States are discussing it, which parts have a good chance of being passed as law and what this would mean for the packaging market. Today we first look at the planned process and the people involved with the project in the European Parliament and Council.

Timetable: Ready by autumn!?

Commission and Parliament aim to complete the procedure before the European Parliament elections in May 2024. One would think that there is still a lot of time until then. The opposite is the case: if one calculates backwards and adds about 3 months for the trialogue of the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission, it becomes clear that these negotiations must begin in November 2023 at the latest. This also means that both the Council and the Parliament must have clarified their positions and amendment proposals by then. The Parliament has already presented a - in view of the complex discussions - very tight timetable and wants to position itself at the beginning of October. The lead committee, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI), will adopt its proposed amendments on 20 September. The deadline for amendments in this committee is 10 May. By then, the members of this committee must have submitted their respective amendment proposals. The rapporteur for the project, Belgian MEP Frédérique Ries of the Renew Group, will present her proposals shortly after Easter, on 11 April. Meanwhile, MEPs and their assistants meet many stakeholders. An overview of the meetings can be found here (-> Transparency).

Is a postponement imminent?

If the Parliament or the Council have not each found their positions by October, the trilogue negotiations cannot begin. In that case, it is unlikely that the regulation will be adopted before the elections in May 2024. It is true that for the European Parliament, unlike for many national parliaments, no discontinuity principle applies, i.e. procedures that have not been finalised are not automatically settled. The reason for this is that according to European law, only the Commission has the right to introduce and withdraw legislative proposals. Therefore, a newly elected Parliament takes over the ongoing procedure, but the election and the reshuffle of the European Commission delays the procedure by at least one year.

Committees fight over competences

Although the ENVI Committee has the lead in the procedure, it is not the only committee in the Parliament dealing with the proposal. In addition, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE), the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) will also deliver an opinion (so-called "associated committees"). After intensive discussion, it was decided in mid-May that the Industry Committee should share competences with the Environment Committee on bans, reuse requirements and exemptions for innovative packaging. The shared competence of several committees has an impact on the timetable, among other things, because it has to be coordinated jointly. The previous timetable of the ENVI Committee could thus be jeopardised. In addition, the co-advisory committee can put its amendment proposals, which were not taken over by the lead committee, to a vote in the plenary itself.

The special role of Italy

Looking at the rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs in Parliament, the high number of Italian MEPs is striking: for example, in the ENVI Committee, among the six shadow rapporteurs, three are from Italy, belonging to the parties of the Italian government coalition (Massimiliano Salini, who recently replaced Luisa Regimenti, Silvia Sardone and Pietro Fiocchi). In two of the three associated committees, Italian MEPs are the rapporteurs (Patrizia Toia (ITRE) and Salvatore De Meo (AGRI). Among the shadow rapporteurs in these committees, there are two more Italians (Paolo Borchia (ITRE) and Achille Variati (AGRI). In contrast, there are, for example, only two German MEPs, Delara Burkhardt (ENVI) and Angelika Niebler (ITRE), and even only one French MEP, Virginie Joron (IMCO), who are officially involved in the issue.

In the European Parliament, there is no mechanism that could prevent such a dominance of MEPs from one country. The high density of MEPs from one country can usually be attributed to the fact that the discussion on the respective topic has been going on in the Member State for a longer time and therefore the attention of the MEPs is higher. Italy traditionally has a large food industry, which is supported by a strong packaging industry. This is probably the main reason for the large proportion of Italian MEPs. It remains to be seen what impact the Italian involvement will have.

Council Presidency explores priorities of the Member States

Meanwhile, the Member States have not remained idle either: By the end of February, five working groups with experts from the Member States had met, among others on the sustainability criteria for packaging and the reduction targets (link ). A total of 11 work packages are planned. In preparation for the meeting of the EU Environment Ministers on 16 March, the focus for the Swedish Presidency is currently on finding out where the priorities of the 27 Member States lie. If you want to know what your country's position is on the proposal, please get in contact with your country's Permanent Representative office to the EU (contact?details provided by Aaron McLoughlin ).

The exchange on the questions of the legal form (directive or regulation) and the legal basis (exclusively internal market competence according to Article 114 TFEU or also environmental competence according to Article 192 TFEU) has already shown that the priorities of the Member States can be very different. In particular, the question of the legal basis is explosive: the Commission has based the Regulation, as it did the previous Directive, exclusively on internal market competence. If the Regulation or at least individual parts of it were (also) based on environmental competence, Member States could take additional measures, e.g. further packaging bans, minimum recycled content quotas, design requirements or reuse quotas. This would run counter to the aim of the regulation to return to binding and uniform packaging rules in the EU internal market.

"Too big to handle?"

There are notable voices in the European Parliament that criticise the Commission's proposal as too complex, poorly justified and altogether too comprehensive. In view of the fact that the Commission only presented the proposal last autumn, a year late, one should think about how the proposal could be sensibly streamlined so that it has any chance at all of being adopted within the tight deadline. It is still unclear to what extent the deletion of entire articles, for example, will be able to win a majority in parliament. However, MEPs are beginning to understand how many different sectors and products are affected by the proposal and how big the impact is in many areas of life. It will also be crucial which priorities the member states focus on. The next few months will be exciting.

In the next article, we will look at the content of the Commission's proposal, so in particular we will talk about the criteria for the recyclability of packaging, the minimum recycled content quotas for plastic packaging, reuse quotas and bans.