European legislators are under pressure in Brussels to finalize the text for the EU’s new Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) before the end of the current legislature in April 2024. The timeline is looking tight, and to meet this goal, an agreement will need to be reached between the European Commission, European Parliament, and the Council of the European Union by the end of their last negotiation session (known as a “trilogue”) scheduled for March 4, 2024. The first trilogue meeting took place in early February 2024 and resulted in a diverse set of sticking points to be addressed during the remaining negotiations.
Once agreed upon, the text from the final trilogue will need to be confirmed by the involved committees during their last meeting in April and also within the Parliament’s last scheduled plenary session at the end of April. The EU’s general parliamentary elections are scheduled in June, and there is a fear that changes in Parliament members following the elections may jeopardize reaching a final agreement.
From setting reduction targets and banning specific chemicals to bolstering reuse systems, the PPWR’s scope is broad and has attracted record levels of criticized lobbying from private sector stakeholders (FPF reported). These PPWR discussions are being described by many as increasingly political with individual EU member states and small groups of voting political parties refusing agreement on some aspects without first getting concessions on others. There are even recent reports of some member states, including Italy and Germany, considering an alliance to entirely block further progress in developing the new regulation.
Trilogue Steering Note
In a steering note released just after the February 16th trilogue meeting, the Belgian presidency of the Council of the European Union developed 18 sets of wide-ranging compromise options for negotiators to consider ahead of the final trilogue meeting on March 4th. It also references a separate updated version of the four-column draft document containing proposed texts from the three institutions and consensus text when possible. However, FPF did not have access to this document when developing this article. Notably, the steering note urged negotiators to address the topics of:
- Restricting PFAS: The steering note proposes not allowing the presence of PFAS in packaging above set limits of 25 ppb for single PFAS, 250 ppb for a group of PFAS measured as a targeted sum, and 50 ppm for the sum of all PFAS (including polymeric ones). This proposal is in line with the wording and limits proposed in the parallel ongoing process under EU REACH to restrict PFAS across many applications (FPF reported).
- Specific reduction measures for plastic waste: The steering note recommends negotiators support the inclusion of a new provision (Article 38(1b)) to “reduce the plastic packaging waste generated per capita, as compared to the plastic packaging waste generated per capita in 2018” with targets and timelines to be set by negotiators.
- Reuse obligations: Previous draft text shows clear disagreement with proposed reuse targets for food and beverage articles. While increasing reuse targets up to 80% by 2040 are supported by the European Commission and the Council, the European Parliament proposed to remove all such requirements entirely. The steering note states that “it is highly likely that we will have to find a horizontal derogation clause allowing certain economic operators to be exempted from the re-use and recharging obligations.”
Other proposed compromise options within the steering note cover the topics of home composting, interoperability of deposit return schemes, and restriction of certain packaging formats. As this process is moving quickly behind closed doors, proposal text in these draft versions may have even already been internally changed or informally agreed upon.
Stakeholder Views
As expected, there is a mixed set of views from external stakeholders engaging in the PPWR drafting process. Packaging and chemicals manufacturers especially have increasingly shared critical views of what they see as the development of a misaligned regulation, though for different reasons.
The Permanent Material Alliance representing the steel, aluminum, and glass packaging industries expressed concerns that the proposed overall packaging waste reduction targets, which are based on weight, would unintentionally shift the market away from the heavier but inert and more recyclable materials like glass and metal towards lighter materials such as plastics and paper (a concept known as lightweighting). The proposal in the recent steering note to support placing specific targets on plastic packaging might begin to address this point. Though the idea is being met with criticism from plastics manufacturers represented by Plastics Europe who call for a more material-neutral approach within the regulation.
The Confederation of European Paper Industries (CEPI) expressed concern about proposed requirements for closed-loop recycling of materials, which they argue is not sensible for paper and board given the various paper waste streams that exist across Europe. The European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) is critical of recently reduced targets within the draft text for recycled content, of a lack of clarity surrounding bio-based feedstock, and of the proposal to address chemical safety directly within the PPWR.
Opposingly, a group of over 40 environmental civil society organizations published a letter ahead of the first trilogue meeting calling on negotiators to strongly address the presence of hazardous chemical substances in all packaging materials within the PPWR including addressing the safety of recycling and recycled materials.
First proposed in November 2022 (FPF reported), the new regulation is intended to replace the current Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste and include a wide range of new targets and requirements to reduce the impacts of packaging. Since that first draft, the Food Packaging Forum has reported in detail on various legislative steps to the development the regulation. This includes the public consultation on the initially proposed text with FPF’s submitted comments (FPF reported), initial negotiations within the European Parliament to revise the Commission’s proposal (FPF reported), and the Council of the European Union adopting its position (FPF reported).
References
European Commission (November 30, 2022). “Proposal for a revision of EU legislation on Packaging and Packaging Waste.”
Belgian Presidency of the EU (February 19, 2024). “Steering Note: Working Party on Environment – 16 and 20 February 2024 – Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation.” (pdf)
Read More
Eva Riebling (February 16, 2024). “Media reports: Deal to block PPWR agreed by Germany’s finance minister and Italy.” EUWID
Plastics Europe. “Plastics packaging value chain calls to keep PPWR a material-neutral framework that supports the EU industry sustainability transition.”
CEPI (October 24, 2023). “Press release: Legislating on packaging and waste, the EU Parliament still needs to take into account what has already been achieved in the paper and board sector.”
FEVE (December 19, 2023). “PPWR: Permanent Material Alliance disappointed by Member States lack of ambition on recyclability.”
ECOS (February 1, 2024). “Joint letter – Restrict hazardous substances in the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation.”
