on Amendments proposed by the EP Environment
Committee to the proposal for a directive amending
Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste
On
the 26th of March 2002, the Rapporteur for the revision
of Directive 94/62, Mrs Dorette Corbey, made public
her draft report for the Environment Committee of
the European Parliament. On the 8th of May 2002, members
of the Environment Committee proposed 105 additional
amendments. APEAL's position regarding some of the
most relevant proposed amendments is detailed below
:
1)
Comments on the scope of amendments proposed by Mrs
Corbey :
We
do consider that the packaging directive has failed
to satisfy expectations in terms of harmonisation
of packaging waste management. Therefore, we understand
the need for a broader revision of Directive 94/62.
However, we agree with the European Commission that
more studies and consultations are needed in order
to identify the best ways to achieve the two goals
of this directive.
Furthermore,
it would not be appropriate to regulate issues such
as prevention and producer responsibility while the
Integrated Product Policy ("IPP") is only
at the stage of the green paper and the 6th Environmental
Action Programme ("6th EAP") is currently
subject to conciliation procedure. Producer responsibility
shall be better defined and orientated under the IPP.
This is also true for prevention policy which is already
widely mentioned under the proposal for a 6th EAP.
Consequently, in order to improve the homogeneity
of EU environmental legislation, it is essential that
the introduction of prevention and producer responsibility
in legislation relating to specific waste streams
takes place after the decision making process for
the 6th EAP and IPP has been completed.
Accordingly,
APEAL strongly supports Amendment n° 27
proposed by Mrs Angelika Niebler which reads
"(6a) This directive limits itself to setting
targets for the recovery and recycling of waste to
be met by 30 June 2006 and to a definition of the
terms used for this purpose. The time is not yet ripe
for amendments to Directive 94/62/EC to extend its
scope, since they require further deliberation. In
particular, no decisions are being made at present
regarding issues such as integrated product policy,
environmental impact evaluation using the life-cycle
analysis (LCA) method and any other proposals regarding
recycling and the efficient use of resources."
2) Position on proposed amendments
:
·
Amendments n° 1 and n° 10 : Material specific
targets
We
welcome the proposal to delete material specific targets
since such targets would not result in any additional
environmental benefit and are not necessary to reach
environmental goals under Directive 94/62. We are
convinced that harmonised material specific targets
would affect competition among materials and would
disturb several national waste management systems.
Accordingly, we also support amendments n°
69 and n° 70 respectively proposed by MM David
Bowe and Chris Davies.
·
Amendment n° 5 : Non-discriminatory waste management
systems and shared responsibility to minimise the
environmental impact throughout the life cycle
Although
we do not see any danger in such an article in the
recitals, we have difficulties in seeing the
use of such amendment. Indeed, the principles
mentioned in the first and second sentences of this
amendment (referring to equal treatment of different
products under waste management systems) are already
applicable under Directive 94/62 and EC law. The insertion
of a vague amendment within the recitals of the Directive
will not solve ongoing interpretation conflicts in
this area.
·
Amendment n° 6 : Guidelines for data reporting
We
agree with Mrs Corbey that there is a need for clear
guidelines for data providers. Of course, such guidelines
shall be defined at a later stage following due consultation
of interested parties and a thorough analysis by European
institutions. Accordingly, APEAL could support
proposed Amendment n° 6.
· Amendment n° 7 : Definition of the "environmental
impact"
Under
Mrs Corbey's proposal, the notion of environmental
impact shall only include "consequences for the
environment measured in terms of the emissions of
greenhouse gases, the use of natural resources, the
amount of waste for final disposal".
APEAL
considers that this definition is arbitrary and too
limited. Indeed, the environmental impact
of a specific product is the result of a variety of
different factors affecting the environment. A selection
of three factors out of those many factors shall reflect
a scientific and political consensus. The selection
proposed in Amendment n° 7 does not reflect any
such consensus.
·
Amendment n° 9 : Measures encouraging reuse
The
existing EU environmental legislation does
not establish any hierarchy between reuse and recycling.
Indeed, under the 1996 EU Strategy on waste, the management
policy should firstly consist in prevention of waste,
secondly in recycling and reuse, and thirdly in optimum
final disposal. This classification of objectives
is clearly reflected in Article 1.2 of the Directive.
Unfortunately, due to the ambiguous drafting of Article
5 of Directive 94/62, several Member States have adopted
measures encouraging reuse without any objective environmental
justification (Measures such as the Danish can ban,
deposit return fees imposed on water bottled at source
in Germany, a deposit return fee being currently put
into place in Denmark, … ).
We
do not think that the wording proposed by Mrs Corbey
would improve the situation and prevent future litigation.
On the other hand, APEAL firmly supports Amendment
n° 49 proposed by Mrs Ayuso González.
The latter amendment reads as follows :
"1b.
Article 5 is replaced by the following : Member
States may encourage reuse and/or recycling systems
of packaging, which can be reused and/or recycled
in an environmentally sound manner, in conformity
with the Treaty."
Alternatively,
APEAL would support amendments n° 44 and
n° 46 respectively proposed by Mr
David Bowe and by Mrs Marialiese
Flemming who also suggest a more balanced
wording for Article 5 of Directive 94/62.
·
Amendments n° 8, 14, 17 and 18 : Prevention and
producer responsibility
As
expressed in previous position papers, APEAL considers
that prevention is achieved through efforts by producers
in terms of light weighing and reduction in CO2 in
addition to compliance with CEN standard EN 13428
: 2000. We do not think that measures proposed in
Amendment n° 8 will promote the
implementation of the CEN standards. On the contrary,
some of those measures may support in the medium term
Member States already opposed to new approach aspects
of Directive 94/62.
Amendment
n° 14 proposes to oblige producers to
use life cycle assessment tools in order to bring
evidence that each packaging is "the environmentally
best option". Amendment 14 should be rejected
for the following reasons :
-
The burden on economic players created by a system
based on this principle will be out of proportion
in comparison to the alleged environmental benefit
;
-
Such a system could allow different assessments in
different Member States for similar products. Therefore
it could result in less harmonisation and would hinder
the integration of the internal market for packaging
and packaging waste pursued by Directive 94/62 ;
-
There is no generalised agreement on life-cycle analysis
("LCA") interpretation. Comparison between
types of packaging in environmental terms is not only
difficult but is also dependent on arbitrary value
judgements. LCA is a decision supporting tool, not
a tool capable of determining legal compliance.
Proposed
Amendments n° 17 and n° 18 are suggesting
to insert in the Directive guidelines on LCA's. Those
amendments should fall under the same criticism as
Amendments n° 7 and n° 14.
On
the basis of the arguments mentioned above, APEAL
is strongly opposed to
the insertion in the current context of Amendments
n° 8, 14, 17 and 18 in Directive 94/62 on Packaging
and Packaging Waste.
