The review of the European Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste and its impact on decision-makers in the packaging sector
Kate Trollope, editor of "European Packaging & Waste Law", emphasised the importance of the impact on professionals in the packaging sector of divergent national transpositions of the Directive and of the imposition of even more stringent measures in terms of utilisation and recycling.
The existing and potential barriers to the free circulation of packaged goods in Europe are many and varied :
  • the proliferation of reuse systems at national level in Germany, Denmark and the Canary Islands ;
  • the introduction of environmental taxes relating to packaging (e.g. Denmark and Belgium) ;
  • the toughening of the basic requirements that must be met by packaging to allow them to be marketed ;
  • the non-recognition of the CEN standards as harmonized standards and the risk of national technical standards being drafted (technical obstacles to free trade) ;
  • the exponential increase in the collection, sorting and recycling costs to be paid by decision-makers in the packaging sector by the year 2001 (to be seen in the context of the increase in recycling rates to be achieved) and aggravation of the situation in 2006.

Kate Trollope ended by saying that the adoption of the Directive has not yielded the anticipated benefits in terms of the opening-up of markets. In fact, it is quite the opposite, since not one day passes by without one or other tax on packaging or market ban being decreed.

The foreseeable imposition of stricter legislative constraints will prompt professionals in the packaging sector to reconsider their choice of packaging materials on the basis of criteria such as recyclability, reuse and prevention.
Philippe Wolper presents the steel industry’s response to these threats.

Q: Could you tell us more about steel’s current position? Will steel be able to cope with this possible increase in recycling targets?

P.W.: In 1998, the recycling rate of steel packaging in Europe reached an average rate of 51%. This applies to all steel packaging applications (beverage, food, aerosols, paint cans, closures, …) . Moreover, in all APEAL member countries, the mandatory minimum recycling rate of 15% per material has been exceeded in 1998.

Q : At what cost?

P.W.: If, by the end of the day, the revision of the Directive leads to substantially higher recycling targets than originally foreseen in the original Directive, this will undoubtedly increase overall collection & recycling costs in Europe, for all packaging materials. And this means higher Green Dot fees to be paid by packers and fillers.

Q : In this case, what would be the impact of using steel for packaging?

P.W.: The good news is that, in a growing packaging market, opting for more steel in the packaging mix will push down the average management cost of the waste stream per unit of packaging, as the cost for collecting and recycling steel is and will remain in the near future comparatively lower compared with other competing packaging materials.
Indeed, the excellent magnetic properties of steel enable sorting costs to be kept at a relatively low level. This is one amongst other reasons to justify why steel should remain a material of choice for packaging decision-makers.
Back

home