Today Francesca Mariotti, Director General of Confindustria, spoke at a hearing at the Environment and Production Activities Committees of the Chamber of Deputies on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904 and repealing Directive 94/62/EC. 

On 30 November 2022, the European Commission published its proposal for a regulation reforming the regulation of packaging and packaging waste (PPWR), which is part of the European Green Deal. "second circular economy package". Although Confindustria agrees with the spirit of the proposal, aimed at greater rationalisation of the production and management of packaging and related waste with a view to promoting the circular economy, there are many critical aspects of the measure which, if approved as presented by the European Commission, risks damaging an entire system of excellence, with serious, across-the-board impacts on the entire national industrial system.

MAIN CRITICISMS

FAILURE TO RESPECT THE PRINCIPLES OF SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY

LThe EU must demonstrate that the action it intends to take has 'added value' in terms of scope and effects, compared to action by individual Member States, and that the acts are formulated in such a way as to minimise, as far as possible, obligations and burdens on national authorities, businesses and individualsi, choosing the least restrictive measure if any.

The decision to adopt the legal instrument of Regulation (directly binding) instead of a Directive, favouring re-use at the expense of recycling and the provision of a single model of Extended Producer Responsibility based on deposit instead of separate collection and recycling systems, outline a 'new European action' with an unjustified change of course by the Commission from the existing framework on waste and packaging waste which has so far never imposed a single solution on Member States to pursue the environmental goals set by the EU legislator.  The proposal, in fact, does not analyse the time, costs and burdens that would be imposed on citizens and businesses as a result of a single packaging waste management model that leaves no room for Member States to adapt and does not take into account 30 years of actions, policies and investments made in line with European directives.

LACK OF ADEQUATE IMPACT ASSESSMENTS TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL AND VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF TECHNOLOGY NEUTRALITY, WITH THE RISK OF NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND COMPETITIVENESS ON THE CONTINENT:

Concerns the aspect of the proposal concerning the alleged environmental benefit that would result from the reuse at the expense of recycling. A choice such as this, resulting from ideological approach, it also risks heavily impacting on the food safety and human health, as packaging plays a strategically important role in the shelf-life of food and for the hygiene of products themselves.

From our studi and empirical-scientific evidence of the re-use system of packaging, three aspects emerge:

1. Negative health impacts for reducing hygiene levels and combating bacterial phenomena. Single-service (disposable) items are microbiologically safer than reusable items. The probability of microbial contamination was higher for 50% with reusable products than with disposable items used in the same establishments. 15% of the reusable utensils had microbiological counts exceeding the maximum recommended level per utensil. On average, for the disposable items, the colony count was twowhile, for materials reusable, the average was 410;
2. higher water and energy consumption;
3. potential negative environmental impacts in terms of food waste.

Some numbers show that the disposable system proved to be more environmentally friendly in several categories: climate change, fine particle formation, depletion of fossil fuels, freshwater consumption and soil acidification. For example, the reuse system generated 177% more CO2 emissions, created 238% more fossil fuel depletion and consumed 267% more fresh water than the single-use system, generating the 137% more fine particulate matter.

In conclusion, therefore, the comparison between single-use and multiple-use systems shows that for the single-use system, the greatest impacts are generated during upstream production of the articles, while the main contributor to the impacts of the multiple-use system is the use phase, i.e. washing the articles. Therefore, the single-use products as well as re-usable options play an important role in the transition to a circular economy and, for this reason, should be complementary and not competing solutions.  Moreover, since preparation operations for re-use require significant water and energy consumptionit is instead possible to state that re-use is not always the most sustainable choicealso in view of the current situation that Italy and many other southern European countries are experiencing as drought warnings spread.

Confindustria hopes to identify the most balanced and most suitable choice for pursuing the general objectives of rationalising the use of packaging, in a substantial equalisation of Member States' recourse to reuse and/or recycling. By guaranteeing the necessary flexibility in the choice of one or other solution, in fact, both the main objective of the Regulation and the vocation - also infrastructural - of the individual Member State would be preserved, with a correct balancing of all interests worthy of protection.

For this reason, among the various proposals put forward by Confindustria is that of delete Article 26, which regulates the mandatory reuse and refill targets for recyclable single-use packaging. Among the critical aspects of the measure, unfortunately, there are also production bans for different types of disposable packaging and a series of discrimination between materials which, in addition to being environmentally unsustainable, would also have serious repercussions on theexport. Again, the restrictions imposed are not justified by any impact assessment and do not take into account either the properties of the materials or the effectiveness of the recycling systems already established in some Member States, such as Italy, which allow their sustainable management even when used in single-use applications.

The risk, therefore, is that of thwarting the efforts and investments made by the most virtuous industrial sectors and countries that have led to the European packaging recycling targets being met and exceeded to date.

The Commission proposal is also detrimental to the compostable bioplasticsending up penalising them rather than enhancing them by banning many applications. Maintaining this freedom of choice is the key to achieving the best results for consumers and the environment.

Finally, a further important critical issue is the identification, for certain types of single-use packaging, of the bail as a return model to be adopted by individual countries. This aspect risks penalising Member States such as Italy, which have based their system on CONAI and the supply chain consortia, and still managed to exceed all the European targets for the recycling of packaging waste, thanks to the collaboration between businesses and municipalities, reaching the targets set at EU level for 2030 nine years in advance. There is, therefore, in our opinion, no reason to set up another deposit-based system in Italy, either to flank or replace the existing oneas it would generate more costs and difficulties for citizens and businesses.

Confindustria considers it essential to ensure the respect for the principle of technological neutrality for all systems collection for recycling (including recycling). The regulation, therefore, should neither promote, nor oblige, Member States to adopt a single model such as the DRS, but should rather allow for the articulation of different national systems, enhancing the different models that already exist and are operational, provided that the objectives set at EU level are achieved or have already been achieved. (One of the proposals made by Confindustria is to provide for the possibility for a Member State to delay the establishment of the DRS by 5 years, provided that by 1 January 2029 the MS has achieved a collection rate of between 80-85%).

In conclusion, we hope for a substantial and profound review of the entire measure, to orient it towards greater balance and flexibility, which takes into account the specificities of all Member States, enhancing the vocations of each one in the wake of the circular transition.