APEAL - Association of European Producers of Steel for Packaging
BCME - Beverage Can Makers Europe
EAA - European Aluminium Association
FEA - European Aerosol Federation
SEFEL - European Secretariat of Manufacturers of Light Metal Packaging

In addition to the comments made by the four cross-sector associations concerning the Working Document of 15 September 2000 by the Waste Unit of DG Environment of the European Commission on the Revision of Directive 94/62/EC, the five metal packaging associations (producers and can makers) wish to reinforce and add the following specific comments.

· Any revision should only focus on recovery and recycling targets as required by Article 6 and these should be realistic and not be differentiated by material or product (i.e.: beverage targets), because it could lead to discrimination and jeopardise the European Single Market.
· All national measures must not only avoid trade barriers between countries and distortion of competition inside countries, but should also conform to the principles of proportionality and equal treatment. In this respect, refill quotas are discriminatory for metal packaging. Such refill quotas and other economic instruments or measures like eco-taxes or LCA based sanctions will have, in certain countries, a negative impact and will impose unacceptable burdens for the whole packaging chain and also the consumer, without achieving any additional environmental benefit. Furthermore Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) must not be used as justification for political decision making since it has been designed as a tool for companies to use in order to manage their own internal policies and as it is but a limited snapshot in time.
· It is important to find legislative means of meeting the preoccupations for sustainability – which will benefit the whole packaging chain, the consumer and all other members of society – that create proportionate economic and social as well as environmental burdens.

In response to the proposals of targets and other issues brought forward by the Waste Unit of the DG Environment (Working Document of 15.9.2000), which is now publicly debated, we make the following comments:

· Revision of the recycling targets must:

- Be based on reliable and comparable data.

- Be realistic, be achievable and proportionate.

- Avoid differentiated material targets at EU level.

We reserve our final and more detailed position on this issue until after the proposal on recycling targets is issued.

· Prevention:

- Promotion of prevention should not lead to market barriers and discrimination between packaging materials and systems, but everyone should strive intrinsically to make significant reductions taking into account best industry standards.

- Industry has already made a significant contribution towards prevention and will continue doing so.

- Prevention targets should be avoided since they are difficult to quantify, unenforceable and can lead to barriers to trade.

- Prevention targets are also unnecessary because of the adhesion of industry to Article 9 and the Essential Requirements set out in annex II of the Directive and the application of the recently adopted CEN Standards (see § on Essential Requirements).

· Reuse:

- Reuse is one of the options after packaging use, but only for some materials (metal packaging can be reused only to a very limited extent). Its relative value should be compared with other options (particularly recycling), as each material has its own intrinsic merits depending on the production, distribution and consumption patterns. State measures affecting highly recycled containers put at risk the free movement of goods within the Single Market without environmental justification.

- Reuse is not at the same hierarchical and legal level as prevention, because it influences post-consumption impacts. The goal of reuse is not identical with that of prevention.

- Product specific targets must be avoided (i.e.: beverage targets...) in order not only to avoid distortion of competition, but also to allow the possibility of reaching an optimum cost of the recovery system.

· Return, collection and recovery systems:

- Member States will continue to build recycling infrastructure as required dependent upon national and local circumstances.

- Member States should not be obliged to establish and reinforce deposit systems (subsidiarity principle).

- Any promotional measures must not discriminate between materials and products.

· Essential Requirements:

- Should be completed by harmonised European standards (CEN) as foreseen in the Directive. The European Commission should urgently approve the publication of the recently adopted CEN Standards in the EU Official Journal as harmonised standards allowing the industry to demonstrate compliance with the essential requirements.

- Even in the absence of finally approved CEN standards, metal packaging such as beverage cans is already fulfilling the essential requirements. Market barriers such as the Danish beverage can ban for beer and carbonated soft drinks are, therefore, unjustifiable under Community law. The Commission's action versus Denmark before the European Court of Justice should be decided urgently to provide final confirmation.

December 2000