Unanswered PPWR questions remain: IK

  • : Petrochemicals
  • 23/12/22

As negotiations on The Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) are progressing, Dr Martin Engelmann, director-general at plastic packaging association Industrievereinigung Kunststoffverpackungen e.V (IK), told Argus the regulation has become heavily focused on plastics, and reaching a conclusion at any cost could negatively affect the plastic packaging market.

Do you expect PPWR to be finalised before the change in EU Parliament?

That is the number one question. The discussions have been very difficult. Even for member states to find a solution was hard. The EU Council needed a break in negotiations to deal with last-minute changes. The biggest hurdle is that the Parliament has taken a very different position with regard to reuse quotas and bans by suggesting many exemptions based upon life-cycle assessment (LCA), which is completely opposite to what many member states want.

So I expect the discussions to be very, very challenging, and we will have to see who is in the stronger position. To close the deal before the elections to the European Parliament they would have to find a compromise by the end of February at the latest.

How do you expect a compromise to be found?

It is very high on the political agenda, but trying to find a conclusion at any cost is concerning as it could negatively impact the packaging market, and the plastic packaging sector in particular, because the PPWR has become more a "Plastic Packaging Waste Regulation" instead of a material-neutral approach that was originally attempted by the European Commission.

The tendency is to solve conflicts with regard to specific rules by allowing member states to go their own ways, and the Council presidency has used this method a lot to come to a solution. This approach will increase the already existing patchwork of national packaging regulations and thereby weaken the European internal market.

Industry at the very beginning was very much in favour of the PPWR, since it seemed a way to return to to harmonised packaging rules across the entire internal market. But the worry is we may end up with an increased patchwork of national packaging regulation plus a whole tonne of bureaucracy from this proposal, so the industry would get the worst of both worlds. It is very frightening.

What are the main challenges of a patchwork of European regulations?

The Europe internal market is the home market for many companies. In the past, companies did not need to worry where the packaged product appears within the region because all the packaging rules were the same for every European country. But this has changed over recent years.

There are plastic packaging bans in France in regard to fruits and vegetables for instance, and recycled content quotas in Spain coming into force in 2025, and we had a challenging labelling discussion in Italy.

If the PPWR will be decided according to the Council proposal these differences by countries will increase. For companies it makes life very difficult, because they have to check in which countries their packaging is being used, and if it complies with the specific rules of those countries.

The inclusion of reuse targets in the proposal has been highly debated. Could you outline the different positions that currently exist and the challenges?

The main problem with the Commission proposal on reuse quotas is that there is no underlying LCA that would look at a product or packaging format and then say whether certain reuse quotas would make sense overall.

Now the EU Parliament has suggested grant exemptions to reuse quotas based on LCAs, but it is a very difficult approach. Using LCA as a possibility for exemptions afterwards would allow entire sectors to completely get rid of the reuse quotas by producing an LCA that demonstrates their packaging is better in single use.

There are certain sectors where reuse quotas do not make sense, in particular the industrial and commercial packaging mentioned in Article 26 paragraphs 12 and 13. For the rest of the reuse quotas it is immensely important they are at least material neutral, which is not the case at the moment.

Regarding the recycled content quotas for plastic packaging proposed in the PPWR, are both the Commission and Parliament, as well as the member states, all in support?

Yes, the institutions are pulling in the same direction.

Parliament and Council have amended the approach to the calculation for recycled content, from ‘per unit' to ‘average per manufacturing plant by year'. But the quotas themselves remained basically unchanged, except the recycled content quota for contact sensitive packaging, which has moved down from 10pc to 7.5pc by Parliament, which has also introduced a new recycled content quota for non-PET packaging for 2040. It remains open whether the Council will accept that.

The problem for plastic packaging is that recycled content quotas in particular for content-sensitive packaging, have been set with the assumption that recycled plastics from chemical recycling will be broadly available in 2030. It is still unclear whether that will be the case. From the very beginning our industry pointed out it is unlikely there will be enough recycled material, in particular for food contact packaging, to fulfil quotas. We therefore demand more flexibility by applying the quotas.

What are the latest developments you have heard about discussions on the legal status of chemical recycling?

The discussion is still focusing around the calculation methods permitted for allocating chemically-recycled content.

The Commission has not proposed to allow mass-balance accounting by the more flexible "fuel-exempt" approach as suggested by the entire industry, but instead a "polymer-only" approach, which would allow just a limited credit-based system. The worrying thing is that the chemical industry (Cefic) and plastic industry in Europe (Plastics Europe) have already announced that investments in chemical recycling will not be achieved based on a "polymer only" calculation method, since the output would be too small.

So the quotas we get for recycled content are based on the assumption of chemical recycling capacity, but the chemical industry says they do not have a business case to invest, because the calculation methods allowed for allocating recycled content could make chemical recycling unprofitable in Europe.

The EU Technical Committee will meet to make a decision in January, which will need to be support by a majority of member states. Because the polymer-only approach is seen as a compromise between the fuel-exempt model and the very narrow proportionality approach that some non-governmental organisations are pushing for, if you ask me, there is a high chance that it will go through.

We heard that Germany is considering implementing a plastic packaging tax — have you heard any more details?

Simply, we don't know.

The government pulled this out on 13 December as an idea to easily generate €1.4bn per year. The government needs the money urgently for the 2024 budget. So a proposal is expected in the next couple of weeks, early in the new year.

The idea of a plastic packaging tax was already in the coalition agreement that was decided on two years ago. It is unknown whether it will be a levy or a tax — taxes usually generate revenue for the general budget, whereas levies typically can be reinvested into the industry that pays into the fund. Any plastic levy that will be paid for by the industry, and by the consumers in the end, is bad for the environment because it will increase and further strengthen the trend away from good-to-recycle plastic packaging towards difficult or non-recyclable laminated paper composite packaging.

So there are a lot of questions. Will it be a tax or a levy? Will it only be applied to consumer packaging? What about commercial and industrial packaging? Is it only for plastics or other packaging materials? We will follow the issue closely and our member companies are heavily involved.


Related news posts

Argus illuminates the markets by putting a lens on the areas that matter most to you. The market news and commentary we publish reveals vital insights that enable you to make stronger, well-informed decisions. Explore a selection of news stories related to this one.

24/06/24

Toyo, SCG enhance waste plastics recycling partnership

Toyo, SCG enhance waste plastics recycling partnership

Tokyo, 24 June (Argus) — Japanese engineering firm Toyo Engineering and Thai petrochemical producer SCG Chemicals plan to enhance their partnership in the chemical recycling of waste plastics, aiming to launch an upgraded demonstration plant in Thailand by early 2025. The agreement to co-operate on the future commercialisation of the chemical recycling technology of SCG subsidiary Circular Plas (CirPlas) and the development of a licensing business is a follow-up to the companies' initial deal to study the feasibility of chemical recycling in Thailand in January 2022. CirPlas is 60pc owned by SCG and has developed chemical recycling technology turning mixed plastic wastes into naphtha and then plastic resins. Toyo and SCG plan to add a new unit to the operating pilot plant in south Thailand's Rayong province. The companies are still examining the output capacity of the enhanced pilot plant and future commercial operation. They are unsure when they will start operations of the commercial venture. The circular economy has been a major topic in Japan's petrochemical industry on the back of the country's 2050 decarbonisation goal. Petrochemical producer Mitsui Chemicals in March began using pyrolysis oil , generated from waste plastics, to manufacture petrochemical products at its Osaka naphtha-fed cracker. Sumitomo Chemical plans to begin recycling polymethyl methacrylate in 2025. By Nanami Oki Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Cirrec aims for 250,000 t/yr PET tray recycling by 2025


24/06/21
24/06/21

Cirrec aims for 250,000 t/yr PET tray recycling by 2025

London, 21 June (Argus) — Netherlands-based PET tray-to-tray recycler Cirrec hopes to reach 250,000 t/yr of input capacity by 2025 with new sites in Denmark and Germany anticipated to come online in the next year. Cirrec is owned by the Faerch Group and is one of the largest PET tray-to-tray recyclers in Europe. The company is looking at further sites for expansion after 2025, including in the UK, according to recycling director Aron Damen, in a presentation made at PRSE in Amsterdam. Cirrec has an input capacity of 60,000 t/yr with a site in the Netherlands that opened in 2024. Damen said that action to beat challenges to the PET tray-to-tray recycling market included expanding knowledge in sorting centres to help identify and sort PET tray waste. PET tray waste has more variable levels of PET compared with bottle bales, Damen added. A sentiment shared with PETCORE Thermoforming technical manager Jose-Antonio Alarcon in a recent Q&A with Argus. The average PET tray bale contains 50-80pc of PET compared with a less variable 70-75pc PET for bottle bales. Issues with collection and supply can lead to a loss in terms of feedstock for tray-to-tray recyclers. If the industry wants to achieve full circularity, action needs to be taken across the value chain from consumers to recyclers and eventually end users, Damen added. "In order to achieve full circularity, the tray-to-tray industry needs to stop stealing from the bottle industry," said Damen, highlighting the need for greater sorting and variations in consumer behaviour when it came to recycling PET trays as opposed to bottles. Capacity for PET tray-to-tray recycling is largely driven by feedstock availability, which is likely to limit production in the next few years unless there is more competition on the market, which would incentivise the sale of feedstock, Damen said. By George Barsted Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

US FDA clears Nova rLLDPE for food contact


24/06/20
24/06/20

US FDA clears Nova rLLDPE for food contact

Houston, 20 June (Argus) — The US Food and Drug Administration has cleared post-consumer recycled linear-low density polyethylene (rLLDPE) from Nova Chemicals' Connersville, Indiana, recycling plant for use in food packaging. The EPA provided Canada-based Novawith a No Objection Letter (NOL), allowing the recycled plastic to be used in food contact applications. This makes Nova the fourth company to receive food contact permission for rLLDPE in the US. The company received approval for usage of its material with all food types, with acceptable conditions of use including refrigerated, frozen and hot filled food storage. Nova previously received a NOL for its rHDPE from the same facility in 2023. Nova said that high interest from converters, retailers and brand owners motivated its push into FDA-grade rLLDPE, as well as a report from consultant McKinsey that forecast rising demand for recycled plastic. By Zach Kluver Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

EU member states support mass balance approach: EC


24/06/20
24/06/20

EU member states support mass balance approach: EC

London, 20 June (Argus) — EU member states are largely in line to support the mass balance accounting fuel-use excluded definition for defining recycled content percentage, and are likely to support these definitions going forwards, according to the team leader on plastics at the European Commission, Werner Bosmans. Bosmans, speaking at the Plastics Recycling Show Europe (PRSE) in Amsterdam, said there will be a public consultation on the definition of mass balance accounting soon, probably in the summer. The definition for mass balance was approved by the EU parliament in April when ministers overturned an objection from the EU environment committee. Most EU member states are now broadly in favour of the definition with third-party verification, Bosmans added. A defined approach for mass balance accounting would help to lend transparency to policy for recyclers. Further investment in the recycling sector was needed, Bosmans said, in order to increase capacity and he said that the commission viewed "mechanical recycling as better than chemical recycling and chemical recycling as better than incineration". While there may be a focus on different types of recycling technology, Bosmans said that focus should be "not about how much of the cake is a certain technology, but the size of the cake overall", when discussing supply in Europe for recycled content. The EC reasoning for this view was that mechanical recycling caused less environmental damage than other methods, Bosmans added. Bosmans said it appeared likely that EU member states would hit 2025 targets set out in the Single Use Plastics Directive (SUPD) legislation for all PET bottles produced to contain 25pc of recycled content, and 2030 targets of 30pc recycled content for PET bottles. Bosmans also spoke of figures that plastic recycling was 13 times more likely to happen when separate collections of waste at a consumer level were implemented, highlighting the importance of collection for the value chain. By George Barsted Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Malaysia's Lotte Titan yet to produce on-spec aromatics


24/06/19
24/06/19

Malaysia's Lotte Titan yet to produce on-spec aromatics

Singapore, 19 June (Argus) — Malaysian petrochemical producer Lotte Titan has yet to produce on-specification aromatics after its aromatics unit in Pasir Gudang restarted on 10 June. The unit, which can produce up to 110,000 t/yr of benzene and 60,000 t/yr of toluene, continues to face technical issues after experiencing delays to its restart date earlier this month, with flaring being observed at the Pasir Gudang complex. The company now aims to produce on-specification aromatics products by the end of the week. The associated No.2 naphtha cracker, which also restarted on 10 June, is producing on-specification olefins, although production rates remain unstable. The No.2 cracker has a nameplate capacity of 430,000 t/yr of ethylene and 220,000 t/yr of propylene. By Joonlei Lee Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Business intelligence reports

Get concise, trustworthy and unbiased analysis of the latest trends and developments in oil and energy markets. These reports are specially created for decision makers who don’t have time to track markets day-by-day, minute-by-minute.

Learn more