The Dutch Socialist MEP would like to see all packaging
across the Union branded according to just how ‘green’ it really is – to promote competition among manufacturers and give supermarkets more of an
ecological choice on how to stock their shelves.
“And to have this drive for innovation you need some fixed points,” she says.
So Corbey has proposed the marking of packaging for environmental effectiveness, for example by using a one to five star rating system.
This ‘packaging environmental indicator’ (PEI) would compel manufacturers to show they
have taken “all necessary steps” to minimise their products’ environmental impact by using more recycled materials. Her proposal would also require manufacturers to slash the amount of packaging they use.
“The packaging industry has developed tremendously over the last (few) years,” Corbey says. “Nevertheless, the amount of waste is still increasing. Therefore, we must focus on prevention.”
While the 1994 packaging directive Corbey is seeking
to shake up does mention ‘prevention’, it focuses mainly on the recovery and recycling of packaging waste.
Yet Corbey feels “there is broad support for the idea, but there are differences on what is the best way forward.”
One official working on
the issue in the European Commission’s environment directorate argues that, while the Commission is not averse to Corbey’s proposed PEI system, it would be near impossible to turn into practice at present. “It’s a good idea, but it would not be very easy to define,” he says. “It’s still kind of an abstract discussion.”
Nevertheless, if it is approved by the European Parliament this spring, the scheme would come into force in 2005, after the Commission has studied all the technical options and arrived at a workable legislative proposal.
Still, the Commission seems cautious about moving forward with such a complex undertaking, which would require assessing a product’s performance at every stage of its life cycle. It has already put forward similar ideas, which industry has eyed warily, called ‘life-cycle analysis’ (LCA) and ‘integrated product policy’ (IPP).
IPP is about “how do we identify those products that are the most damaging and at what stage are they the most damaging”, explains the official, adding that a communication on IPP is due to be published this spring. Putting the PEI system in place could, however, prove far more complex. “We’re prepared to study this, but, for us, the main issue right now is to get the new (reuse and recycling) targets in place – we can come back to these bigger issues later.
“It’s a very comlex issue, but it’s in line with work we’re doing elsewhere,” he adds, citing directives approved last year on cars (End of Life Vehicles) and ‘Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment’ that take the ‘end-of-life’ perspective on such often dangerous waste materials and makes manufacturers responsible for their recycling and disposal.
PEI moves beyond the ‘end-of-life’ approach, however, and would warrant taking far more factors into account. Corbey has suggested that one way to implement her scheme would be to assess packaging manufacturers on the amount of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), the greenhouse gases emitted from production, up to and including the disposal phases. The Commission would be charged with setting acceptable limits of CFCs, she says.
Corbey dismisses criticism from industry representatives such as Julian Carroll, managing director of Europen, an umbrella group of manufacturers and users (see interview, facing page).
They say existing legislation in the 1994 packaging directive on a product’s ‘essential requirements’ is not being effectively monitored by member states, so why add more bureaucracy?
But Corbey points out she has received support from some business corners. For example, producers of bioplastics, made from lactic acid derived from milk, approve of the PEI system. “Of course they would receive a five-star rating,” she says.
Challenging industry with the PEI system could lead to “cheaper and thinner” packaging that “uses less resources,” she argues. “There would be harmonised, joint criteria, although member states could apply the criteria differently.”
But companies that make and use packaging believe Corbey’s plan could have damaging effects in other areas – including food safety.
“A lot of the packaged food that’s put on sale in our supermarkets could certainly be put in thinner-gauge packaging,” argues Europen’s Carroll. “But the net result would be that safety and freshness would suffer and products would go off more quickly.” Supermarkets would end up throwing more away, and the bill to industry could run into “millions of euro”.
Yet Corbey believes the hitherto vaguely defined ‘essential requirements’ of the packaging directive, such as keeping food fresh, would still be met.
“I’m very much in favour of the essential requirements,” she says. “The idea here is to foster and reward continuous innovation.”
The old hierarchy – reuse, recycling, energy recoveryand landfill – of preferences for waste has been proven unrealistic by numerous studies, Corbey readily admits, one point on which industry would concur.
“For example, in Finland you may drive a truck thousands of miles just to recycle a bunch of glass, creating more pollution than material you save through the recycling process. So all these things are relative. Therefore, such an indicator taking a wide range of elements into account is a good thing to work with. Recycling is very good in general, but it’s also not always the solution.”
“The ideal situation, if it really works, is that you don’t need any recycling targets anymore, but we are still a long way from there.”