This is because food-contact cardboard and paper packaging – outside of corrugated cardboard used in fruit and vegetable packing – typically includes a plastic barrier (now apparently exempted under the lining exemption) which makes it a multi-layer and typically difficult to recycle. Not including a barrier would expose the paper or cardboard to food-contamination and moisture, which would make the material non-recyclable. Coupled with this, non-plastic food packaging alternatives typically have higher energy usage, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and higher weight (which results in higher emissions and fuel consumption when transported).
While cardboard and paper packaging does have high recycling rates of 81.5% in the EU27 in 2020, according to Eurostat data (the latest year for which data is available, although 2021 rates have been estimated by Eurostat at 82.5%), much food-contact packaging falls in to the 18.5% not currently recycled. Coupled with this, recycling rates for cardboard and paper packaging have been falling from a peak of 85.4% in 2016 and 2017. Correlation is not causation, but this coincides with increased adoption of paper and cardboard in food-contact packaging.
When this amendment was first proposed by ENVI a number of players in the industry expressed concern both that this would leave the impression in the consumer’s mind that paper and cardboard food-contact packaging is more recyclable and sustainable than it actually is, and that it would hasten a shift to alternative materials and away from plastic. Tempering this slightly, barriers are now included in the annex under the list of indicative parameters to be considered when establishing design criteria for recycling, along with: additives, labels/sleeves, closure systems and small parts, adhesives, inks/printings, colours, material composition, coatings, products residues/ease of emptying, ease of dismantling.
Wood and wax packaging have been exempted from recyclability criteria.
Recycling definitions and chemical recycling
The new version incorporates ENVI’s proposed rewording of the regulations definition of recycling, which appears to re-add the ambiguity for pyrolysis-based chemical recycling on whether pyrolysis oil would count towards the targets that exists in current recycling definitions under EU law. This is an ambiguity the original draft had seemingly sought to remove. It also adds in requirements that material meets the definition of recycling under 2008/98/EC, which has itself created ambiguity on the legal status of pyrolysis-based chemical recycling. By tying chemical recyclers to both definitions it could potentially make it more difficult for pyrolysis oil – the dominant output of chemical recycling in Europe – to be considered as recycled material, depending on how definitions interpreted and enforced.
Regulated value chains
The new draft also adopt ENVI's proposed wording in the recital portion of the regulation around developing "regulated value chains" although there are no details around what this would mean in practice. It would also require member states to set up a system "to provide safe and equitable access to recycled materials for use in applications where the distinct quality of the recycled material is preserved or recovered in such a way that it can be recycled further and used in the same way and for a similar application, with minimal loss of quantity, quality or function," by January 2029. Again, there is no detail or clarity on what "equitable access" would mean in this context, but it has the potential to fundamentally reshape the value chain and existing pricing and contract mechanisms.
Extended producer responsibility
The changes stipulate that funds raised by Extended Producer Responsibility fees set out in the draft are earmarked to finance the cost of collection, sorting and recycling of packaging. Lack of sufficient infrastructure has consistently been one of the key challenges to reaching scale for recycled plastics commonly mentioned by players throughout the value chain. It is likely to be welcomed. Less likely to be welcomed are requirements for public disclosure of information collected under its Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) proposals, online and free of charge. The new draft would also extend EPR costs to also cover the subsequent transport and treatment of waste, in addition to waste collection and infrastructure costs that formed part of the initial draft.
Other measures
The PPWR would create a number of new labelling obligations under a harmonized system, including pictograms and minimal language, to detail recycled content and recyclability. The latest version extends many of the proposed regulations’ requirements to online platforms.
It also adds obligations on member states to reduce per capita packaging waste by 10% by 2030, 15% by 2035, and 20% by 2040, compared with 2018 levels. Lastly, the latest version would see the creation of a "Packaging Forum" consisting of stakeholders throughout the value chain across member states - including waste treatment industry representatives, manufacturers and packaging suppliers, distributers, retailers, importers, SMEs, environmental protection groups and consumer organisations – to be consulted on the preparation of delegated and implementing acts under the regulation.
The scope of the PPWR is wide-ranging, and with the trilogue period approaching – which will seek to harmonise the view of the EU Parliament, the Council, the Commission, and the industry – discussion is likely to be intense and the final form of the regulation currently unknowable. Whatever form it takes, it is likely to have major repercussions across the packaging chain and any players connected to the market will need to familiarize themselves with the proposals and ensure their voice forms part of the debate.
Mark Victory, ICIS
Photos: depositphotos.com
