The German Industrial Association for Plastic Packaging (IK) has shared heavy criticism about the ‘numerous unfounded loopholes that still exist’ in the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR).
Following the legislation’s approval at last week’s meeting of permanent representatives, IK said it believes the EU is heading for ‘massive trade conflicts’ as a result of a clause introduced at the eleventh hour in the final text at the hands of France.
The so-called ‘mirror clause’ states that if imported plastic is to count towards meeting the PPWR’s recycling content targets, it must be collected in line with EU standards for separate collection and then processed in facilities that comply with the same pollution and emissions limits that apply to domestic producers.
As few recycling plants outside of the EU comply with its standards, the clause would effectively impose a ban on imported recycled plastics.
The measure is intended to protect European plastic recyclers from rising amounts of cheap recycled resin imported into the block and has been strongly defended by the plastic recycling industry.
The European Commission took issue with the clause since its introduction and has since withheld its support for the final PPWR text.
Now, IK is urging it to ‘disclose its concerns’.
“We are appalled that the PPWR is to be transformed into an anti-plastics regulation,” criticises IK Managing Director Dr Martin Engelmann. “The Commission’s continued silence on the changes is unacceptable. We are calling on the Commission to disclose its concerns, particularly with regard to trade barriers.”
According to media reports, the Commission’s directorate-general for trade (DG TRADE) lobbied EU governments behind closed doors to try to stall the legislation, warning of ‘potential dire trade and diplomacy issues if the law is adopted in its current form’.
DG TRADE claims that the ‘mirror clause’ would drive up packaged product prices, disrupt trade, and could unfairly discriminate against developing countries.
‘Ecological nonsense’
Engelmann also described the PPWR’s requirement of 100% reuse quotas for industrial packaging as ‘technically impossible in many cases and ecologically nonsensical and is tantamount to a ban on many types of packaging’.
IK warned again of a ‘wave of lawsuits’ over discrimination of plastic materials over paper and cardboard, for example. It argues that the PPWR does not follow the ‘same rules for all’ needed to avoid ‘ecological misdirection’.
“Food packaging made of paper and cardboard, for example, usually cannot do without a plastic coating, as uncoated fibres cannot retain moisture or grease,” said Dr Isabell Schmidt, Managing Director of Circular Economy at IK. “Compared to pure plastic packaging, however, they are significantly less recyclable and are also 40% heavier on average, which has a negative impact on energy consumption. The fact that they are excluded from many regulations leads to an undesirable development on the market and contradicts the EU’s principle of equal treatment,” she criticised.