“This is a breakthrough in the battle against littered plastic bottles and cans”, says environmental NGO Recycling Netwerk Benelux.
The new coalition agreement text is very clear on the subject: “The Government will introduce a deposit-return system on beverage cans and plastic bottles” (page 105 of the coalition agreement).
The Brussels coalition of social-democrats (PS and one.brussels), Greens (Ecolo and Groen) and liberals (Défi and Open VLD) is the first regional government that has been formed after the Belgian elections of May 26th.
Plastic bottles and cans make up 40% of the litter in volume. Deposit-return systems reduce the presence of these beverage packagings in litter by 70 to 90 percent. “This decision of the Brussels government is therefore a very important one. A deposit-return system is highly effective in realising and maintaining a cleaner city”, Recycling Netwerk says.
Beverage companies and supermarkets
Earlier this month, the French government announced a deposit-return system. The proposal got the support of the French branches of the major beverage companies, including Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Nestlé and Danone, and French supermarkets including Carrefour, Aldi and Lidl. They announced their support for a deposit-return system through an open letter of their federations in the French national newspaper Journal du Dimanche.
“We invite Belgian beverage companies and supermarkets to do the same. The path towards a circular economy needs the collaboration of companies. Hence, we invite them to clearly state their support for a deposit-return system in Brussels and Belgium”, Recycling Netwerk concludes.
National governments have two years to implement the Directive’s minimum standards into national legislation. This is an ideal opportunity for ambitious Member States to go further and design a waste policy that fully respects the environment.
The European Council adopted the directive Tuesday morning, which is the final step in the procedure. The directive is expected to be published in the official journal before summer. This will start the two years’ time frame for the national governments to implement these new rules into their national legislation.
As an environmental NGO, Recycling Netwerk Benelux asks the national governments to rapidly implement the European legislation into national laws, and to go beyond the minimum legal requirements further and move further away from single-use items, made both of plastic and other materials “Europe has taken this first step in the battle against single-use plastics. All eyes now turn to the national governments to implement this in their national laws.The plastic waste on land and in our seas has degenerated into an acute emergency and requires quick and decisive action. National governments can and should move faster than the European deadlines. This can help them in many domains: a cleaner environment, less clean-up costs for their taxpayers, and an advance in the circular economy”, Recycling Netwerk says.
The European NGO Zero Waste Europe has published a guide for governments to transpose the directive. “We strongly recommend the national and regional government to follow this path”, Recycling Netwerk says.
The directive is well known for its ban on a range of single-use plastic items. But equally important articles are those that require 90% separate collection of plastic bottles in the near future, and articles that rightfully charge the bill of the clean-up costs where it belongs: the producers of plastic.
Producers of certain single-use items containing plastic, such as cigarette butts, balloons, specific food containers and drink containers, will have to pay the clean-up costs of litter, says article 8 of the directive. This measure will apply to packaging and cigarette butts from January 2023. It will come into effect for wipes and balloons at the end of 2024. This is a good measure, says environmental NGO Recycling Netwerk Benelux, as it will push companies to seriously improve prevention and support the implementation of effective collection systems. It is also fairer than the current situation, where local authorities, and thus taxpayers, pay the bill for the clean-up costs of litter.
The European Member States will have to separately collect 90% of plastic bottles from 2029 onwards. This is a very effective target to keep plastic bottles out of our nature and seas.
Practically speaking, setting the target on 90% collection implies the implementation of deposit-return systems. Deposit-return systems have proven their effectiveness in Norway and Germany. Earlier this month, Scotland decided to introduce the deposit-return system.
In the UK, the Netherlands and Belgium, the debate is ongoing but the decision to introduce it on all plastic bottles has not yet been put into firm legislation.
The Directive also states that all new plastic bottles have to contain a minimum of 30% recycled content in the year 2030. This decision will boost the market demand for recycled material and fire up the circular economy of plastics.
The following single-use plastics will be banned by 2021: straws, cotton buds, drink stirrers, cutlery and plates, beverage cups and food and beverage containers made from expanded polystyrene, and the so-called oxo-degradable plastics. These items are found very often on beaches and alternatives are readily available. It is a good thing that Europe has made a start in banning some single-use plastic products for which other alternatives are available instead of letting them continue to pollute our environment.
For certain food packaging containing plastic, like the single-use beverage cups at Starbucks and the fast-food containers at McDonalds, Member States are obliged to realise a consumption reduction. This means that those companies will have to make a switch to alternative materials and reusable packaging.
Related articles: The Guardian, European parliament votes to ban single-use plastics, 28/03/2019
With this legally binding framework, the United Nations intend to stop the plastic waste flowing to South-East Asia.
Norway launched the initiative last year in september. Environmental organisation Zero Waste Europe supported the proposal. On May 10th, more than 180 countries signed the agreement in Geneva, Switzerland, with the United States as an exception. It will take a year to come into force.
The agreement takes the form of an amendment to the Basel Convention, the only treaty which sets international rules for waste trade. Therefore it is well placed to reduce the harm caused by plastic pollution. The Norwegian amendment to the Basel convention proposed to make optimal use of three distinct categories of plastic:
In practice this will mean that the dumping of difficult to recycle plastics in Asian countries, will become more difficult. Many plastic waste streams will need to be registered and notified. According to Rolph Payet of the UN Environment Programme this means that “there is going to be a transparent and traceable system for export and import of plastic waste.” It could also very well mean that western countries will need to start processing more plastic waste in their own regions – instead of dumping it in Asian countries.
Since the 1990’s, Europe had been exporting more than 40 percent of its plastic waste to China. After importing the world’s plastic waste for decades, China decided to ban the import of plastic waste at the start of 2018. The ban concerns lots of different types of plastic, PET, PE, PVC, PS, “other” plastics, textiles and unsorted paper waste.
The Chinese ban led to a waste crisis all over the world. It has lead to waste stockpiling up in the US and Europe, illegal waste burning in Poland, and encourages the European Commission to push on with the Plastic Strategy and the Single-Use Plastics Directive.
In 2016, 46% of all plastic waste export in the world went to China. Europe exported most, 2,9 billion of metric tonnes. That’s at least 40 % of Europe’s plastic waste. The Netherlands and Belgium are among the world’s top exporters of plastic waste. In 2016, they both had a part of 4 percent of the world’s export, according to the Harvard University’s Atlas of Economic Complexity.
The Chinese ban meant that waste traders started looking for new places to easily get rid of the worthless piles of plastic waste. Countries in South-East Asia such as Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam and Malaysia became alternative destinations.. The new UN rules try to prevent the dumping of plastic waste in these countries.
In 2019, China will ban the import of even more waste products. The list of banned products is extended with hardware, ships, auto parts, waste and scrap of stainless steel, titanium and wood, the Chinese official news agency Xinhua announced in november 2018.
Considering the huge impact the former import ban had on the waste sector of Europe and the US, this ban will have vast consequences as well.
“The European governments should turn this waste crisis into an opportunity for a drastic reform of their waste policies. These policies have to take environment protection way more into account. They have to be integrated in the plans on circular economy and climate change as well”, comments Rob Buurman, director of the Dutch-Belgian NGO Recycling Netwerk Benelux.
Therefore, the national and European authorities should reform the plastics economy. Products purely made from virgin plastics should be phased out. The vast number of different types of plastics and additives needs to be significantly reduced to make recycling more effective and economically viable. The best separate collection systems such as deposit refund schemes need to be implemented. A shift from single use to refillable and reusable should be stimulated with legislation, fiscal incentives and taxations on e.g. single use plastics. In the end: we need to start using significantly fewer plastics and when we use it, we need to make sure it doesn’t become waste.
Related media:
Al Jazeera, Global waste industry rocked by China import ban, 24/09/2018
Following an appeal of environmental organisation Recycling Netwerk Benelux, the Flemish transparency watchdog (Beroepsinstantie openbaarheid van bestuur) ruled that the port of Antwerp and Flanders Investment & Trade (FIT) should disclose information on the future plant, unless they can prove that there is a legal exemption.
Related: The Guardian, Ineos may have to disclose secret details of £2.6bn Antwerp project, May 3, 2019
On February 15th, Recycling Netwerk Benelux requested copies of all information on the development of the new plastic plant in the port of Antwerp. The environmental organisation wants to gain insight in the environmental and climate problems that can be caused by the new plant. It also wants to know what fiscal and other promises the Flemish authorities made to convince Ineos to invest in Antwerp.
Flanders Investment & Trade (FIT) refused on March 4th, and The Port of Antwerp on March 8th, to give any copies to Recycling Netwerk. Recycling Netwerk appealed the decision and asked the transparency watchdog called Beroepsinstantie voor openbaarheid van bestuur, a Flemish government agency as well, to look into the matter.
The transparency watchdog ruled on April 23th that FIT and Port of Antwerp should release all documents, unless they specify for each document why it should be exempted. The text of the watchdog decision reveals that there are at least 500 documents of which it is unclear if the denial of access was legitimate.
Inappropriate arguments
Flanders Investment & Trade (FIT) even refused to show more than 1 document to the transparency watchdog. The watchdog ruled that the appeal of Recycling Netwerk is justified for all the other documents. As FIT has been working for years on this deal, it is likely that there are hundreds of documents that contain relevant information and should be considered for disclosure.
The text of the decision of the watchdog shows that used some inappropriate arguments to defend their refusal to release documents. The Flemish government agency FIT argued that “(the petrochemical) sector is under pressure, amongst other things from the viewpoint of durability (…) And because of this FIT pleads for restraint regarding requests of transparency concerning this Ineos-file.”
In other words: the government agency FIT basically argues that they do not want to be transparent because it concerns a potentially polluting industry. “From a government agency in the 21st century, in full climate crisis, we would expect precisely the opposite attitude”, comments Recycling Netwerk.
Secondly FIT argues that “considering the investment of 3 billion euro (…) they are reacting with restraint to requests for transparency.”
In other words, this government agency states: the bigger the investment, the less willing they are to be transparent about the investment.
Given the decision of the transparency watchdog, Recycling Netwerk will continue asking the port authority and FIT to release all information regarding the procedure. “The gigantic plastic plant of Ineos in Antwerp will probably have a huge impact on the environment and the climate. These decisions should be allowed to be part of a societal and political debate. We expect from these Flemish government agencies to be fully transparent on the decision process that led to the declaration of intent with Ineos. Unfortunately, up until now, FIT has used one argument after another, trying to keep all documents secret”, Recycling Netwerk Benelux concludes.
The European Parliament gives strong support to the Single-Use Plastics Directive. 560 MEPs voted in favour, 35 against and 28 abstained in the plenary session on Wednesday the 27th of March. The Directive bans a range of single-use plastic items, requires 90% separate collection of plastic bottles in the near future, and rightfully lays the bill of the cleaning-up costs where it belongs: the producers of plastic.
The European Commission took the initiative for the Directive. On October 24th, an impressive 91.5% of the Parliament backed the ambition to curb the ocean pollution. In December the Commission, Council and Parliament agreed on the terms of the Directive.
The Directive is a welcome first step in the fight against plastic pollution.
Producers of certain single-use items containing plastic, such as cigarette butts, balloons, specific food containers and drink containers will have to pay the clean-up costs of litter, says article 8 of the directive. This measure will apply to packaging and cigarette butts from January 2023. It will come into effect for wipes and balloons at the end of 2024. This is a good measure, says environmental NGO Recycling Netwerk Benelux, as it will push companies to seriously improve prevention and support the implementation of effective collection systems. It is also fairer than the current situation, where local authorities, and thus taxpayers, pay the bill for the clean-up costs of litter.
The European Member States will have to separately collect 90% of plastic bottles from 2029. This is a very effective target to keep plastic bottles out of our nature and seas. Practically speaking, this rate of collection implies the implementation of deposit-return systems. Deposit-return systems have proven their effectiveness in Norway and Germany. Until now, countries like the Netherlands and Belgium were still reluctant regarding deposit-return systems. The Directive also states that all new plastic bottles have to contain a minimum of 30% recycled content in the year 2030. This decision will boost the market demand for recycled material and fire up the circular economy of plastics.
The following single-use plastics will be banned by 2021: straws, cotton buds, drink stirrers, cutlery and plates, beverage cups and food and beverage containers made from expanded polystyrene, and the so-called oxo-degradable plastics. These items are found very often on beaches and alternatives are readily available. It is a good thing that Europe has made a start in banning some single-use plastic products for which other alternatives are available instead of letting them continue to pollute our environment.
For certain food packaging containing plastic, like the single-use beverage cups at Starbucks and the fast-food containers at McDonalds, Member States are obliged to realise a consumption reduction. This means that those companies will have to make a switch to alternative materials and reusable packaging.
These European targets are minimum requirements for the European Member States. It will be interesting to see which countries will take the lead in adopting them, as this circular economy on plastics implies a fair share of new business opportunities.
Watch the plenary session of the European Parliament live on Wednesday 27/03 at 15h00:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/nl/home.html
Related articles: The Guardian, European parliament votes to ban single-use plastics, 28/03/2019
The Plastic Pact of the Dutch government and 80 plastic producing companies will lead to more efficient recycling, but it won’t solve the plastic waste problem, the Belgian-Dutch environmental ngo Recycling Netwerk Benelux says today.
The Dutch secretary of state responsible for environment, Stientje van Veldhoven (D66, social liberals) presents a Plastic pact concluded with 80 companies on Thursday.
“Every initiative to tackle the plastic problem is welcome. But the voluntary recycling agreements in the pact will only slightly reduce the pollution caused by a plastic production that spiralled out of control”, director Rob Buurman of the Dutch-Belgian ngo says. “The Plastic Pact does not bring the much needed system change to deal with plastics in a different way”.
The target of qualitative recycling of 70% in the pact is ambitious and good. But it should be written in a law, not in a voluntary agreement that cannot be controlled by the government, Buurman says.
All targets of the Plastic Pact aim for 2025. “The Dutch government should make agreements that they can verify in the actual governing period until 2021”, Rob Buurman insists.
The Pact will not lead to less plastic litter or less plastic soup. It encourages so-called bio-based plastics, but these pollute as much as any other plastics.
“These kind of voluntary agreements are too little and too late. We’re in 2019. The Dutch government should urgently make firm legislation to make the plastic producers responsible for all clean-up costs, enlarge the deposit-return system to small plastic bottles, and introduce legally binding reduction targets for plastics, Recycling Netwerk concludes.
Rob Buurman, director Recycling Netwerk Benelux rob.buurman@recyclingnetwerk.org +31 616 40 10 40
Press contact: Tom Zoete, communication Recycling Netwerk Benelux tom.zoete@recyclingnetwerk.org +31 616 10 10 50
Recycling Netwerk is a member of the international Break Free From Plastics-movement.
Many of the 28 members forming the Alliance, including major companies like BASF, Shell, ExxonMobil and Dow, have scheduled future billion dollar investments in the expansion of plastic production.
They don’t practice what they preach, research by the Dutch-Belgian environmental NGO Recycling Netwerk reveals.
“The alliance was launched with a huge marketing effort on Wednesday. The signatories claim to invest over a billion dollars to “end plastic waste”. But an overview of pending investments in the expansion of plastic production (see list below), quickly reveals the hypocrisy of the Alliance. Without tackling the production of plastic at its source, all clean-up efforts will be in vain”, Recycling Netwerk says.
Related article:
The Guardian, Founders of plastic waste alliance ‘investing billions in new plants, 21/01/2019
It is a small step forward that the plastics industry finally recognizes the huge problem with plastics. But it’s sad they still cling to symbolic and end-of-pipe measures. Given the fact that they plan an enormous expansion of their plastic production, the Alliance seems to be nothing more than a large greenwashing operation.
Procter & Gamble, BASF, DSM, Dow, Suez, the chemical divisions of Total, Shell and ExxonMobil, and 20 other multinationals are part of the “Alliance to end plastic waste”, claiming to invest more than 1 billion dollar to fight plastic waste.
Unfortunately, this initiative does not tackle the problem at its source: the gigantic production of 400 million tonnes plastic each year, with 60 million metric tonnes produced in Europe alone.
Seeing that the signatories themselves are building new factories to produce even more plastic, in a time when the European Union and the rest of the world are trying to fight plastic pollution, makes it all the more disappointing.
Related article: Fortune, Alliance to End Plastic Waste Criticized for Including Major Plastic Producers, 21/01/2019
For years, the story by big industry has been about blaming the consumer for pollution and making grand promises on recycling. Chemical industry and food and drinks industry share this narrative and have successfully convinced many policy makers to stay away from effective legislation that would curb plastic pollution at its source.
2018 was a turning point, with public opinion demanding action to preserve nature and the oceans from plastic pollution. The ‘Alliance to end plastic waste’ seems to be a reaction of the plastic industry to this mounting pressure.
But the measures proposed by the Alliance don’t tackle the plastic waste problem at its source. Most plastics are used for the production of packaging which is often used only once: single-use plastics. Cleanups of streets, rivers and seas offer no effective solution as long as a steady stream of new plastics keeps being produced and collected in a half-hearted way.
“These kind of actions aim to save the image of plastic. But plastics don’t have a mere ‘image problem’ – the exaggerated use of it in products with a short lifespan is a problem in itself”, Recycling Netwerk director Rob Buurman states. Therefore the questions that remain are how these companies will spend the money in the Alliance to End Plastic Waste fund and if there will be external supervision. There is a real risk that this Alliance is the start of a big greenwashing campaign for plastics.
Related articles:
The Daily Mail, Founders of a new $1.5bn alliance to clean up ocean waste are among the biggest investors in new plastic plants, 21/01/2019
iNews, Multinational companies who founded alliance to tackle plastic waste ‘found investing billions in producing more plastic’, 22/01/2019
MRW, Campaign slams ‘hypocrisy’ of industry anti-plastics group, 21/01/2019
AfvalOnline, Plasticalliantie pakt bron probleem niet aan, 22/01/2019
Nachrichten Welt, Gründer der Kunststoffabfallallianz „investieren Milliarden in neue Anlagen“, 22/01/2019
Moustique, L’Alliance contre le plastique : une union entre les plus grands pollueurs de la planète, 21/01/2019
Cips, Alliance to tackle plastic waste accused of ‘greenwash’, 21/01/2019
Compelo, Six investments into plastic production by the Alliance to End Plastic Waste, 22/01/2019
Mexico Ambiental, Los fundadores de la alianza de residuos plásticos ‘invierten miles de millones en nuevas plantas’, 22/01/2019
Read01, 耗資15億美元、旨在清理海洋垃圾的新聯盟的創始人，是新塑料工廠最大投資者之一原文網址, 22/01/2019
Yahoo Finance, Alliance to End Plastic Waste Criticized for Including Major Plastic Producers, 21/01/2019
BBC World Service, World Business report, Environment Takes Centre Stage at Davos. 22/01/2019. Interview with Recycling Netwerk Director Rob Buurman starting at 07:46
Below we have listed quite a number of investments in plastic production facilities that have been made recently or are planned for the near future by signatories of the alliance. It strongly supports the idea that the launch and funding of the so-called Alliance to End Plastic Waste are actually intended to safeguard and even expand the production of plastic.
Many of the investments are linked to fracking: the process to obtain cheap shale gas, which is seen as one of the most important drivers of an increase in plastic production. Many of the planned installations aim to use the shale gas to produce ethylene gas which can then be used to create single use plastics such as polyethylene and polyethylene terephthalate.
The list almost reads like a “who’s who” of companies planning billion dollar investments in plastics production, as you can see in this scan of recent press releases, reports and press articles:
Related media:
BBC World, World Business Report
Environmental NGO Recycling Netwerk Benelux reacts on the billion-dollar initiative of the world’s biggest plastic manufacturers.
Information on the “Alliance to End Plastic Waste” leaked in the German newspaper Handelsblatt. Procter & Gamble, BASF, DSM, Dow, Suez and the chemical divisions of Total, Shell and ExxonMobil are part of the initiative that claims to invest more than 1 billion dollar to fight plastic waste.
“It is interesting to see they finally acknowledge that there is a problem with their plastics. But unfortunately, this initiative does not tackle the problem at its source: the gigantic production of almost 400 million tonnes plastic each year, with 60 million metric tonnes produced in Europe alone.”
But this week Ineos announced to invest 3 billion euro in the construction of a new plastic plant in the harbor of Antwerp. In a time when the EU is trying to fight plastic pollution and has recently adopted a new directive on single-use plastics, Ineos wants to make one of the largest plastic production investments in Europe in history. Ineos has been heavily criticized as it relies on fracking to extract shale gas for the production of ethylene gas. The extraction and use of shale gas is particularly controversial as it leads to high levels of greenhouse gas emissions and comes at a heavy cost for local ecosystems.
For years, the story of big industry has been about blaming the consumer for pollution and making big promises on recycling. Chemical industry and food and drinks industry share this narrative and have successfully convinced many policy makers to stay away from effective legislation to curb plastic pollution at the source.
Right now, 8.3 billion tonnes of plastic have been produced in the world, leading to almost 6 billion tonnes of plastic waste. Only around 9% of it has been recycled. The rest has been burned and contributes to climate change or is still polluting the environment.
Most plastics are used for the production of packagings which are often used only once. Cleanups of streets, rivers and seas will not work as long as there is a steady stream of new plastics being produced and collected in a half-hearted way.
“This kind of actions want to cure the image of plastic. But plastics don’t have an ‘image problem’ – the exaggerated use of it in products with a short lifespan is a problem in itself”, Recycling Netwerk director Rob Buurman states. Therefore the question is how these companies will spend the money in the Alliance to End Plastic Waste fund and if there will be external supervising. There is a real risk that this is the start of a big greenwashing campaign for plastics.
Related articles:
Handelsblatt, Chemieriesen bilden eine Allianz gegen Plastikmüll
Financieel Dagblad, Chemiebedrijven lanceren fonds voor aanpak plastic afval
De Standaard, Industrie hoest miljard euro op tegen plastic afval
The directive contains important measures:
– Producers of certain single-use items containing plastic, such as cigarettes, balloons, specific food containers and drink containers will have to pay the clean-up costs of litter (extended producer responsibility, in article 8 of the directive). This starts from January 2023 for packaging and cigarette buts and the end of 2024 for wipes and balloons.
This is a good measure, says environmental NGO Recycling Netwerk Benelux, as it will push companies to seriously work on better prevention and effective collection systems. It is more fair than the current situation, where local authorities and thus taxpayers pay the bill for the clean-up costs of litter.
– The EU Members States will have to separately collect 90% of plastic bottles from 2029. “This is a very effective target to keep plastic bottles out of nature and our seas. Practically speaking, this rate of collection implies the implementation of deposit-return systems, which have proven their effectiveness in Norway and Germany. Until now, countries like the Netherlands and Belgium were still reluctant regarding deposit-return systems”, says Recycling Netwerk.
– The Directive states that all new plastic bottles have to contain a minimum of 30% recycled content in the year 2030. This decision will boost the market demand for recycled material and fire up the circular economy of plastics.
– The following single-use plastics will be banned: straws, cotton buds, drink stirrers, cutlery and plates, beverage cups and food containers made from expanded polystyrene, and the so-called oxo-degradable plastics.
– For certain food packaging containing plastic, like the single-use beverage cups at Starbucks and the fast-food containers at McDonalds, Member States are obliged to
realise a consumption reduction. This means that those companies will have to make a switch to alternative materials and reusable packaging.
The negotiations are led by EU Commissioner Frans Timmermans and MEP Frédérique Ries.
These European targets are minimum requirements for the EU Member States. It will be interesting to see which countries will take the lead in adopting them, as this circular economy on plastics implies a fair share of new business opportunities.
More information: The press release of the European Commission
Related articles: Euractiv, EU nails rapid-fire deal on single-use plastics, 19/12
This directive is key in the war on plastic waste. Its impact can only be realised when the ambitions and instruments are kept fully intact during the trilogues between Commission, Parliament and Council. All eyes are on the position of the Council.
Reports on plastic pollution in our seas are quickly increasing in number. This pollution can only be stopped by means of solid legislation. The European Commission’s proposal for the Single-Use Plastics Directive (SUPD), spearheaded by European commissioner Frans Timmermans and MEP Frédérique Ries and supported by an overwhelming 91 percent of the European Parliament, is a vital first step. It should not be watered down.
The trilogues have made progress in bringing the Council’s position closer to the proposals of Commission and Parliament. However, there are still fears that the Council, led by the Austrian presidency, creates loopholes in extended producer responsibility (EPR) and refuses to timely deal with the problem of littered plastic bottles. These two instruments should not be mitigated as they are crucial measures in tackling the plastic pollution.
Currently, producers of plastic items can come up with voluntary actions on litter such as awareness campaigns and clean-up events. In both cases, the industry holds citizens accountable for litter.
This carries two consequences. First, the costs for the daily cleaning up of litter are passed on to society. For example, Antwerp, a city with 500.000 inhabitants, spends 25 millions euros of taxpayers’ money every year in the battle against litter. Secondly, as long as others pay for cleaning up, the producers take no effort to prevent litter. Internalizing societal costs will stimulate this industry to look at methods that actually prevent plastic pollution, such as designing less litter-prone products and collaborating with more effective collection systems.
Therefore the Commission and the European Parliament proposed that producers will have to “cover the costs of the collection of waste consisting of those single-use plastic products and its subsequent transport and treatment, including the costs to clean up litter and the costs of the awareness raising measures” (EPR, article 8 of the SUPD Proposal).
Extended producer responsibility is at the heart of the directive. It is a fundamental shift in the thinking on plastic pollution and the attribution of responsibility. After decades of pointing fingers at the individual consumer, rather than at the run wild system of production and consumption, it is time to turn the tables. Europe needs solutions, not more awareness campaigns.
Recent developments show that the trilogues have made good progress in bringing the Austrian Presidency closer to the proposals of Commission and Parliament on EPR. Both Parliament and the Austrian Presidency now propose that for packaging items and cigarette butts, producers will have to pay the costs for collection, clean up from litter, subsequent transport and treatment, and awareness raising.
However, there are important aspects on which the position of the Austrian Presidency diverges from that of the Commission and Parliament, such as the deadline for implementation of EPR schemes. The Commission and Parliament aim for Member States to implement the new EPR schemes by 2021. The Council wants to delay this to 2023 for tobacco filters and for existing EPR schemes, and to December 2024 for new EPR schemes. This would mean a delay in effectively addressing plastic pollution.
The Council is also causing confusion by proposing an amendment that leads to unnecessary complexities and could possibly undermine the EPR. In a new paragraph the Austrian Presidency has added, there is mention of:
“transposing (..) the provisions as set out in Article 8 (..) by means of agreements between the competent authorities and the economic sectors concerned”. (article 17, para. 13)
The danger of this amendment lies in the fact that it introduces a voluntary agreement-element into EPR. Decision-makers approach this with caution – and rightly so, seen that voluntary agreements are rarely effective. There is a fear that this amendment potentially undermines core elements of EPR, such as the obligation for producers to pay the clean up costs, because it is not made clear that these requirements cannot be replaced with voluntary agreements between Member States and the industry.
We should not forget that the industry has been resisting the inclusion of EPR in this Directive through intensive lobbying from the very beginning and thus might exploit this confusion to introduce loopholes in this legislation.
The Commission and the Parliament proposed a separate collection target of a 90% by 2025 for plastic bottles (article 9, SUPD). Beverage containers make up 40 percent of the volume of litter found on beaches and in the streets, so swift action is absolutely necessary.
But the Austrian Presidency is mitigating this aim. Up until today, it keeps suggesting a much weaker 75% separate collection target in 2025 and delays the 90% objective with five more years to 2030. The Council should acknowledge that there is no rational justification to decrease the target in percentage or to expand the timeline.
The 90% separate collection of plastic bottles can easily be achieved by 2025. The case of Lithuania proves that a return rate exceeding 90% can be achieved in less than two years time.
Politically, the European Parliament backed by an immense 91 percent also this part of the Commission proposal. There were no amendments in plenary that questioned this target.
And practically speaking, given the billions of plastic bottles sold every year, further delays would mean huge amounts of plastic would continue to pollute our seas for up till 12 more years.
The final trilogues should be used to safeguard these core elements of the Directive. It should be made undoubtedly clear that producers will pay for waste collection, waste management and clean up costs. The target of 90% separate collection is feasible, politically backed by a very large majority, and extremely necessary to curb the plastic pollution. We urge the Council to join the Commission and Parliament in their decisiveness on the target of 90% by 2025.
Carpet is a significant waste stream, creating around 1,6 million tonnes of waste every year in the European Union. Most carpets are made from finite oil-based plastics. Less than an estimated 3 % of European carpet is currently recycled.
The EU is the second largest market for carpets, after the US. Europe is also one of the largest producers, with an estimated 65% of EU demand for carpets being fulfilled by EU-based companies. Moving to a circular economy has large benefits on mitigating climate change. It has the potential to create even more jobs in this sector and reduce dependency on imported materials.
Wide variety of instruments
Commissioned by the Changing Markets Foundation, the Policy Toolkit for Carpet Circularity in EU Member States aims to ensure that by 2025 all commercial and household carpets, both broadloom and tiles, put on the market pose no health risk, and are separately collected, reusable and fully recyclable.
Aimed at national governments, the toolkit suggests a wide variety of policy instruments with Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) as a key element. EPR schemes are designed to deliver higher recycling rates in the sector. It makes producers responsible for the costs of dealing with their products at the end of life. The European institutions strongly encourage this instrument as a way to meet national targets on waste reduction and recycling.
“The various life stages of a product have to be taken into account if you want to make a viable circular economy. EPR is in fact an essential enabler for the transition to a circular model. By setting clear requirements, it stimulates the development of circularity in eco-design, business models and recycling efficiency”, explains Siu Lie Tan, Project Coordinator at NGO Recycling Netwerk Benelux.
The carpet industry can be at the forefront of circular economy
“Since Member States have clear ambitions to become circular economies, the time for talking has passed. We need to start creating economic scale now and unlock the economic potential of the circular model in a constructive and effective way”, Tan says.
“The carpet sector has a unique opportunity to be at the forefront of circular economy. Several companies have shown that they can produce fully recyclable and toxic-free carpets. Governments must play a key role in this transition by putting in place ambitious policies to ramp up the recycling efforts. This toolkit provides a blueprint for mandatory policies that will drive investments in better design, collection and recycling of carpets,” says Nusa Urbancic, Campaigns Director from The Changing Markets Foundation.
The toolkit suggests criteria for mandatory essential requirements regarding eco-design, including phasing out harmful substances, setting minimum levels for recycled content, recyclability requirements and product passports. Other policy options include a graded ‘Green Carpet Mark’ (similar to the EU energy efficiency label) to help inform consumers about the environmental performance of their carpet, and Green Public Procurement to create demand for better designed and more recyclable products.
“We’re pleased to have brought together our understanding of the issues that currently prevent greater circularity in the sector and our experience in policy design in developing this toolkit. We hope that the toolkit will represent a key step in the move to better environmental performance, from design through to end-of-life management, for all commercial and household carpets,” said Mark Hilton, Head of Sustainable Business at Eunomia.
The full Eunomia Consulting report is available on: http://www.eunomia.co.uk/reports-tools/policy-toolkit-for-carpet-circularity-in-eu-member-states/
More information about Changing Markets carpet campaign: https://changingmarkets.org/portfolio/carpet-recycling/
Further information
About the Changing Markets Foundation
The Changing Markets Foundation partners with NGOs on market-focused campaigns. Our mission is to expose irresponsible corporate practices and drive change towards a more sustainable economy.
www.changingmarkets.org / @ChangingMarkets
About Recycling Netwerk Benelux
Recycling Netwerk is an independent environmental organisation active in the Netherlands and Belgium, connecting several environmental organisations on the subject of primary materials and their impact. Our goal is to limit as much as possible the environmental damage caused, from production to waste management. Therefore, our network wants: always more and always better recycling.
The European Parliament strongly backed the Commission’s proposal to ban a range of single-use plastics and to ensure that producers will pay the clean up costs. On October 24th, an impressive 91.5% of the Parliament supported the ambition to curb the ocean pollution. The members of parliament listened to the demand of the European citizens to take effective measures against the plastic soup.
However, since the Council has joined the discussion and trilogues – the trilateral negotiation between Commission, Parliament and Council – have started, the process has taken a worrying turn. In the Council, amendments have been put forward that cause confusion and will undermine the intended environmental impact of the Single-Use Plastics Directive. The plastics and packaging industry is heavily lobbying the national governments with the aim to put some loopholes in the Directive.
As an environmental organisation, we appeal to all policy makers and governments to remember that this Single-Use Plastics Directive has been drafted to protect our environment, not businesses. Next to our environment, however, there is another compelling reason why the Directive should be kept at least as ambitious as proposed by the Commission and Parliament. The EU has made preceding environmental commitments which are close to impossible to live up to without a strong Single-Use Plastics Directive.
In this article we list a handful of the international commitments that are in danger of being compromised by a weakened Single-Use Plastics Directive. Then we give some examples of Council amendments that are undermining the strength of the Directive as proposed by the Commission and adopted by Parliament.
A strong Single-Use Plastics Directive, with EPR kept intact and the 90% separate collection target for bottles by 2025 upheld, is needed to live up to at least 5 earlier environmental agreements to which the EU has committed itself.
The Directive would become weaker, and unable to live up to these commitments, if some of the Council amendments regarding Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR, Article 8) and the separate collection target for plastic bottles (Article 9) would be adopted. These measures form the backbone of the Directive. Impairing them would impair this legislation to such an extent that it would not contribute to the above mentioned European commitments.
EPR as suggested by the Commission and Parliament obliges producers to pay the clean up costs for litter. By charging producers with the bill, this industry will be motivated to improve their efforts on litter prevention – for example by designing less litter-prone products or setting up more effective collection systems – as this will reduce the clean up costs they have to pay.
Currently, producers of plastic items are not required to take responsibility for their product ending up in litter, but can come up with voluntary actions to address their littered products. Since this voluntary arrangement has not led to the expected results in reducing the plastic soup, the Commission drafted this Directive to systematically tackle the most problematic single-use plastics.
Neither the Commission nor Parliament gave way to pressure from industry lobbyists who are heavily resisting EPR and do not want to pay for the clean up costs.
Under Austrian Presidency, however, the Council suggests delaying setting the target from 2021 to 2024. Moreover, the Council creates unnecessary confusion by tampering with EPR and its workings by proposing the following (Article 17):
“Provided that the (…) objectives as set out in (…) Article 8 (EPR) are achieved, Member States may transpose the provisions set out in (…) Article 8 (…) by means of agreements between the competent authorities and the economic sectors concerned”.
This amendment has two possible interpretations that both compromise EPR and its workings. Either the Council does not want to move away from the current situation but gives Member States the chance to maintain the voluntary arrangements as long as objectives are met. Or the Council wants to give Member States the option to replace EPR with voluntary agreements with the industry once the urgently needed results have finally been achieved by means of mandatory EPR.
It just takes one look at the plastic soup to comprehend that either continuing with or returning to letting businesses aim to curb plastic pollution voluntarily will only have further detrimental effects for our environment. It is time for the EU to act decisively and to act now. EPR is an effective instrument to systemically tackle plastic pollution. It should therefore be implemented without alterations and in the short term, to last for the long term.
A high separate collection target for plastic bottles keeps these plastic items out of the environment, as it motivates Member States to strive for the most successful collection systems. The 90% separate collection target by 2025 as suggested by Commission and Parliament is achievable both in time as in percentage: the case of Lithuania shows that a return rate exceeding 90% can be achieved in less than two years time.
Whereas Parliament added a 35% recycled content target for new bottles to strengthen the circular approach to plastic bottles, the Council seems to be only mitigating this aim. It suggests a much weaker 75% separate collection target in 2025 and delays the 90% with five more years to 2030. Given the billions of plastic bottles sold every year, that means a huge amount of plastic will continue to pollute our seas.
The Austrian Presidency should acknowledge that there is no rational justification to decrease the target in percentage or to expand the timeline and step up its environmental game. Separate collection of plastic bottles, for example by means of a deposit-return system, will guarantee high-quality recycling and a decrease in plastic pollution.
In conclusion, Europa has to adopt a strong SUP Directive as proposed by the Commission in order to reach its own environmental objectives. Watering down the SUP Directive would mean that plastic pollution levels will not decrease and, the EU will not be able to respect its international commitments.
When mandatory EPR gets replaced with voluntary agreements, Europe irrevocably gets trapped in the current situation of plastic pollution and huge costs of cleaning up for municipalities and taxpayers.
Delaying the 90% separate collection target for plastic bottles until 2030, means 5 more years of marine pollution, way beyond the deadline set by the UN Sustainable Development Goal. But confirming the 90% target, means yielding a pure and high quality stream of plastics that will facilitate qualitative recycling and make it profitable. It is a great opportunity to create a level playing field, necessary for the transition to a Circular Economy which the EU has envisioned for 2030, and creating great European business opportunities.
The SUP Directive, as drafted by the European Commission and supported by the votes of the European Parliament, corresponds to the environmental and economic ambitions the EU has committed itself to in the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement. All Member States will need to make a joint effort in order to meet these goals.
Therefore, Recycling Netwerk Benelux strongly calls upon the members of the Council for visionary decisiveness and determination to support the SUP Directive as it is – and not weaken it as to leave Europe with a sea where plastics outnumber fish.
Photo credit: edubirdie.com
The circular transition is in impact comparable to the digital revolution. It requires a change in mindset and intrinsic alteration of DNA to fully reap the benefits of the circular model. Changes – and investments – in eco-design are required to reduce complexity and the use of hazardous substances.
When using end-of-use products as a resource, ensuring transparency and traceability of substances used is a necessity to make the circular model economically viable.
This article has been published on Chemsec’s website
Not knowing what is in, means the recycler has to guess how to exactly process the material for it to become a high-quality resource – not to mention taking a blind leap regarding safety. Not knowing makes recycling a very costly and potentially dangerous endeavour.
Take the case of carpets. In Europe, each year 1.6 million tonnes of carpet waste are generated. Only 1 to 3% of which is being recycled, meaning 97 to 99% is either incinerated or landfilled.
Why? Because a separate waste stream is absent and recycling is plainly expensive due to the intransparency and untraceability of substances used and the complexity to get resources out of the product.
The quality of the recyclate decreases due to contamination. Further, its safety cannot be guaranteed when the recycler does not know what substances the producer used to make its products.
Especially with REACH constantly evolving, it becomes increasingly important to also be able to identify and remove hazardous and – certainly – banned substances.
It is not without reason that ACEA and EURIC, respectively associations of European automotive manufacturers and recycling industry, recently panicked when European Parliament proposed a restriction of the concentration limit for the flame retardant DecaBDE.
In order for circular economy to become lean and mean so it can replace the current linear model, secondary resources will need to become more attractive to manufacturers than virgin raw materials. Recyclates will need to have a better price-proposition, offer virgin rate quality and recycled products need to at least comply to REACH.
To obtain economies of scale whilst including these requirements, recyclers will need to be able to identify what can be harvested as secondary resources and how it should be harvested in bulk.
In addition, the less contamination in the incoming stream, the higher the recyclates’ quality. Mechanical recycling has its limits due to degradation caused by contamination and impurities. Luckily developments to chemically recycle move rapidly, allowing for more control over the chemical building bricks and to unlock endless recycling – without quality loss.
In circular economy resources are meant to stay in the loop forever and not for just one extra round. Investments and commitments in chemical recycling from big corporates like Unilever, Nestle, DSM and LyondellBasell illustrate where the future lies for high quality recyclates.
So, the question should not be whether it is possible to recycle. It should really be: Is it safe to recycle? And does this solution have the least environmental footprint?
However complicated this all may seem, it is not impossible to realize. Yarn manufacturer Aquafil has successfully managed to close the PA6-loop with Econyl. By performing chemical recycling on fishing nets, post-production and -consumer (carpet face) fiber, the company can reach scale in a safe recyclate of virgin rate quality. The demand for this closed loop product follows naturally; nearly all European carpet manufacturers now offer a product which features Econyl.
In a circular model, the identifying and harvesting part of secondary resources is not the sole responsibility of the recycler. When transparency and traceability is offered throughout the value chain, the recycling process will become more efficient as a result.
Intransparency will inevitably make proper processing of end-of-use products more complex and thus more costly, thereby making it hard for the resulting recyclates to compete with virgin raw materials. The easier it will become to recycle, the more probable it becomes for circular economy to take off.
The linear model aims at protecting all information and processes regarding the product within the company. Becoming circular in a linear model is a very costly endeavour, since it will require vast investments to process non-core business activities.
For instance, when keeping the product in a self-organized loop, the producer is the recycler and therefore benefits from knowledge of the ingredients. Take-back systems like the ones developed by carpet manufacturers Desso, Interface and DSM-Niaga – as well as Apple with its iPhones – are an essential part in the machinery of circular economy.
Though, one can question whether it is possible to obtain economy of scale in creating the infrastructure, needed for such private collection system. These costs will be too high for SME’s and leave the burden of reaching the tipping point from linear to circular on the shoulders of big corporations.
The most challenging aspect of the circular transition might be the need to trust the partners in the value chain. Having a recyclable product is simply not enough.
The essential difference of the circular model opposed to the linear one, is that the return of investment in the circular model is higher when the entire value chain is aligned and efficient.
Depending on each other’s expertise removes the need to invest in material and internalising knowledge which is not core business. By trusting each other’s capabilities, the entire value chain becomes more agile whilst simultaneously becoming more specialized than linear competitors. In essence, it is an altruistic system.
To obtain this way of collaboration, information on substances needs to be shared. But this does not mean you have to spill out all your company’s secrets.
Platforms for material passports like Excess Materials Exchange or even ECHA’s Unique Formula Identifier, which becomes mandatory as of January 2020, offer transparency to the one who holds the key and at the same time protects secret recipes. If well organized, the circular model can be exponentially beneficial.
Europe has been dealt a good hand for circular economy. The paradigm change has already commenced and is clearly visible in the carpet industry with companies like DSM-Niaga, Desso and Interface looking to re-write their DNA in moving towards circularity for years already.
Backed by the political circular ambitions of the European Commission, European member states and China, it is only a matter of time for the circular model to prevail.
Perhaps the egg of Columbus is yet to be found. But we’ll find it faster when looking for it together.
The European Parliament voted in favour of making producers of single-use plastics pay for the clean up costs for litter (Article 8). This will push them to start thinking seriously about prevention and better collecting schemes. It is more fair than the current situation, where the costs for clean up are a burden for the local communes, and hence the taxpayers.
Member States will have to achieve a 90% separate collection target for single-use plastic bottles by 2025 (Article 9). This target will help to reduce the amounts of plastic bottles that end up littered in the environment. The European Parliament send out a strong signal by adding a recycled content objective: by 2025, new plastic bottles should contain at least 35% recycled content. This will promote the market demand for high-quality material to recycle, and therefore stimulate producers to set up effective collection systems.
With this plenary vote, the European Parliament strengthened the Commission and ENVI ambition on consumption reduction by adding an EU wide target . By 2025, all European Member States should achieve a minimum of 25% consumption reduction of food containers and beverage cups (Article 4). Furthermore, the MEPs succeeded in adding two often littered items to the list of banned products: so-called oxo-degradable plastics and polystyrene food and beverage containers.
Loopholes
The European Parliament did rightly not endorse a series of amendments that would have weakened the Directive and its environmental impact. The amendments exempting biodegradable plastics, plastic-layered paper items were rightfully rejected. The European Parliament fortunately rejected the EPP-amendment to delay the implementation of the ban on certain single-use plastics for SMEs. This would have exempt 99% of businesses in the EU, and therefore neutralised the effect of the directive on the environment.
A few things could have been better. We are surprised that producers of carbonated drinks are granted a longer time period to live up to the product requirement for tethered caps. Caps are very often found on beaches, and sparkling drinks do make up a very large market share. Above all, there is no logical reason for this derogation. Single-use plastic plates and cutlery are exempted from the ban until 2023, also without any reason.
We hope that the trialogues in which Commission, Parliament and the Council will discuss the Directive will uphold the strengths of this Directive and continue on the path to effectively combat the plastic pollution. The first trialogue is scheduled to take place on November 6th.
Final vote of the Commission proposal
On October 10, the European Parliament Committee on Environment, Public health and Food Safety (ENVI) was the first to suggest amendments to the Commission’s draft proposal of European Single-Use Plastics Directive (SUP Directive). Today, October 23, this text will be voted on by all Members of Parliament in the plenary voting.
We think the SUP Directive is a vital addition to the recently adopted waste directives and the Plastics Strategy. Litter is strongly connected to the way products are designed, put on the market, and collected. Hence, European action is both justified and necessary. We are glad to see that the SUP Directive includes, but also moves beyond initiatives to raise awareness. The Directive aims rightly to tackle litter at its source, at the level of the product and the producer.
In safeguarding the ambition and intended environmental impact of the Directive, the following 5 subjects are key issues.
Following the reasoning that litter should be tackled at the level of the product and producer, article 8 on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a core part of the Commission’s proposal of Directive, which has been supported by ENVI.
It states that producers will cover the costs of “the collection of waste consisting of [food containers, packets and wrappers, beverage containers, beverage cups, tobacco filter products, wet wipes, balloons and lightweight plastic carrier bags] and its subsequent transport and treatment, including the costs to clean up litter and the costs of awareness raising measures”.
Currently, there is no EPR in place, so the producers don’t pay for the cleaning up of litter. This carries two important consequences. First, the costs for cleaning up litter are passed on to society, as they are paid by local authorities and thus tax payers. This externalising of costs is fundamentally unfair. Secondly, making municipalities and volunteers responsible for litter, means measures to tackle litter are mostly limited to cleaning up, which does not solve the litter problem.
True EPR means internalising negative externalities and thus charging the costs for cleaning up to the producer. In demanding so, article 8 prevents that cleaning up costs will be passed on to the community any longer. Furthermore, by charging producers with the bill, it will drive the producers to improve their efforts on litter prevention – for example by designing less litter-prone products or setting up more effective collection systems – as this will reduce the clean up costs that they will pay. EPR is therefore a very effective measure to tackle litter at the source.
This reasoning applies to all items currently discussed in light of article 8 of the Directive, whether it is packaging, such as a plastic bottle or a food container, or a non-packaging product like cigarette filters.
The industry has been trying to avoid this extended producer responsibility for years, through heavy lobbying efforts, as recently documented by French investigation program Cash Investigation and the Corporate Europe Observatory.
The plastic soup in our oceans reminds us of the urgency of the problem that we face. To tackle this litter problem, the ENVI Committee has mostly tried to uphold the ambitions of the Commission proposal. However, we also hear voices being raised asking for a longer transition period.
The European People’s Party (EPP), for example, suggests that all small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are granted a 2-year derogation for certain measures. EPP demands that SMEs should get two years extra time to comply with (a) the prohibition to place certain products on the market (b) the tethered caps-to-bottle product requirement and (c) marking requirements to inform consumers on the effects of inappropriate disposal of waste. Given the fact that 99% of businesses in the EU are SMEs, such a derogation will imply that almost all businesses are exempted from the established timeline. Especially regarding article 5, in which the Commission proposes to ban certain products from the EU market, the ambition and intended environmental impact of the Directive would almost be nullified by this proposed exemption.
Imagine 99% of all businesses still purchasing SUP items such as cotton bud sticks, cutlery, plates, straws, beverage stirrers. This will sustain not only the production of these single-use plastic items, but also the sales or even handing out for free of these products – which the Commission is aiming to ban from the EU market because they are contributing largely to the plastic soup and we have readily available alternatives. This exemption would also largely distort the level playing field on the EU market. Finally, if anything, SMEs will be able to adapt swiftly to the measures in the Directive, as they are unlikely to already have purchased plastic straws and beverage stirrers for a period of nine years.
In article 9, the EU Commission demands a 90% separate collection target of single-use plastic bottles by 2025. This target will help to reduce the amount of littered bottles in the environment in an effective way, because it invites Member States to strive for the most successful collection systems.
At Recycling Netwerk Benelux, we are happy with this target and see no ground whatsoever to water it down, not in percentage nor in the timeline set out, for the following reasons.
It is a perfectly feasible target. Indeed, several EU countries, already meet this goal of 90% separate collection of plastic bottles, because they have implemented a deposit on PET-bottles. The return rates for PET-plastic in 2014 for the Netherlands, Norway and Germany were, respectively, 95%, 95.4% and 98%. A 90% separate collection is thus easy to achieve for every Member State, simply by implementing a deposit-refund scheme.
Furthermore, this instrument realizes high collection percentages in a considerably short period of time. The country to most recently implement a deposit program was Lithuania: they did so in February 2016, and in that same year, already achieved a total return rate of 74%. By the end of 2017, they reached a return rate of 91.9%.
The Commission suggested that caps and lids remain attached to the bottle, as these caps cause a great litter problem in their own right. However, a leaked lobby letter shows that Coca-Cola, Danone, Nestle and Pepsico are resisting this cap-to-bottle measure. They are aiming for an undue delay, which is a recurrent tactic of the beverage industry to, in the end, escape such regulations at all.
There is no justification to delay this measure or doubt its environmental impact. The technology to affix plastic caps to their bottles is simple and available. It is convenient for the consumer and doesn’t harm business interests. The earlier decision to attach lids to cans, has proven that this method effectively prevents litter.
Plastic bottle caps are amongst the plastic objects most frequently found on European beaches. Measures that prevent such caps being littered, are urgent for the environment. These tethered caps are an effective way to decrease marine litter, especially in combination with article 9 which sets the 90% separate collection target for single-use plastic bottles. We believe this is a good example of creating less litter prone products by means of smart design.
The scope of the Directive as established by the Commission and supported by ENVI, encompasses single-use plastics in a very broad sense. So-called biodegradable and compostable plastics are also subject to the measures in the Directive, as well as products made only partially of plastic or that only have a plastic lining, such as Tetra Pak.
This is a good thing, as it prevents a shift from producing disposable items made from ‘classic’ plastic to single-use products made from any of these materials above. When these materials would fall outside the scope of the Directive, this is exactly what is expected to happen. This wouldn’t serve as a solution for the ocean pollution that we face for several reasons.
The objective of this Directive is to reduce marine litter and there is no biodegradable plastic that can biodegrade in all marine environments: it simply breaks down in smaller pieces, the so-called microplastics. Furthermore, any single-use item made up of or containing plastic will still be short-lived and non-reusable plastics. They will still leak into the environment and cause harm to nature and animals. Instead, the Directive should stimulate the producers and consumers to move away from single-use items and towards reusable alternatives, in line with the EU waste hierarchy and circular economy targets. And not move from one single-use product to another.
Exemptions for biodegradable or compostable plastics, or agreeing to condone single-use plastics in so-called ‘closed loop systems’ would only result in this Directive fighting marine litter with one hand – while still allowing single-use plastics to be thrown in our oceans by the other.
In general, we can say that the ENVI committee has tried to uphold the ambitions of the Commission.
Today on 23 October, their version of the Directive (a compromise text) will be voted on by all Members of Parliament in the plenary voting (live stream here from 12:00 – 14:00 hrs).
As an environmental NGO, we think that the 5 mentioned key points are crucial in order to have the desired impact with the SUP Directive: to reduce plastic litter, fight the plastic soup and assure a healthy and clean environment for the future.
The companies refuse the mandatory tethered caps, and “believe that investments should be directed into technology and infrastructure that will achieve collection of 90% of bottles and their caps by 2025”. (see the image of the lobby letter below)
As an environmental NGO, we think measures to keep the caps attached or tethered to the bottles are urgent for the environment. Plastic bottle caps are amongst the plastic objects most frequently found on European beaches.
> Read also: The Independent: Coca Cola, Pepsi and Nestle attempt to water down new plastics laws, leaked letter reveals
The caps are often found separately from the plastic bottles. They are a problem in their own right. Caps are particularly problematic as they can be entirely or partially ingested by marine animals, as been shown in the BBC documentary Drowning in Plastic.
The technology to affix plastic caps to their bottles is simple and available. Lids are also attached to cans, which helps to prevent litter. It is convenient for the consumer and doesn’t harm business interests, so the question should be asked, why these industry giants are opposing a simple and effective measure?
In the letter, the four giants paradoxically take the countries with a deposit return system (DRS) as an argument to show that caps return with the bottles. Whereas these same beverage companies oppose the introduction of a deposit return system in countries such as Belgium, France or Spain.
A recurrent tactic of the beverage industry also becomes apparent in this leaked lobby file: trying to get extra time before mandatory measures are introduced. The objective of these types of proposal is to delay, in the hope that the next officials in place will ‘forget’ the introduction of the measure.
We at Recycling Netwerk think that if the beverage companies want to be serious about their commitment to less plastic soup in the seas, they should drop these kind of lobby efforts and let the European Parliament, the European Council and the European Commission adopt the measures that are necessary to save our seas from the plastic soup.
Please find the updated version of this article here.