Laws are boxing us in, says Europen chief

Date: 30/01/03

By Karen Carstens

JULIAN Carroll has a message for MEP Dorette Corbey: stop trying to tie the packaging industry in knots.

He fears that if the Dutch Socialist has her way, a whole new layer of bureaucracy from Brussels could hit businesses while existing legislation is not even being properly enforced by member states.

"Use the regulations we already have, don't add another burden," says Carroll, managing director of Europen, the European Organisation for Packaging and the Environment, which represents packaging makers and users including Unilever, Nestlé and Procter & Gamble.

Carroll is referring to an amendment proposed by Corbey to a 1994 packaging directive that would introduce a 'packaging environmental indicator' (PEI). The idea behind this new mechanism would be the labelling of all packaging from 'bad to good' - for example by branding packages with one to five stars - based on a host of criteria that should compel manufacturers to go as 'green' as possible.

But Carroll argues that PEI unfairly singles out the packaging industry and that existing rules on packaging waste need to be clarified first.

"Corbey's proposal is lacking in clearly defined goals, there is no cost-benefit analysis, no indication of who would be the judge of PEI, who would be the enforcer and no indication of what would be the penalty for failure.

"We also rather suspect that these questions aren't being answered because those who are being criticised know their case is weak."

Corbey, however, says most of the technical details would still need to be worked out (see interview, opposite).

The 1994 directive sets out certain 'essential requirements' for the composition and the reuse, recovery and recycling of packaging. But all member states, bar the UK and France, have so far largely failed to monitor these requirements, Carroll says. "So why add a new element? They should use the tools at their disposal first instead of creating a new one."

MEPs are set to vote on the Corbey proposal in a second reading, after EU environment ministers present their views in a 'common position' due to be presented in late February or March.

Carroll would rather see what seems to be the Council's current tack on packaging legislation adopted by the Parliament.

The Council has proposed that the Commission conduct a broad study and present a report by 30 June 2005 on the implementation of the directive, with an examination of the benefits of such a 'packaging indicator'.

Corbey, on the other hand, wants the Commission to present its conclusions (after fleshing out the details of the PEI system) and a legislative proposal to the Parliament and Council by 1 January 2005.

MEPs also voted last year to increase a minimum EU-wide recycling target to a fixed 65 figure, going further than a more flexible revised recycling target of 55 to 70 proposed by the Commission.

Carroll says this is probably too ambitious, as the "highest possible" economically feasible limits for re-use and recycling are already being met in some member states, such as the Netherlands (61).

"We're here to talk about reducing the burden on the environment, not increasing recycling," he says, lamenting what industry often views as an obsessive focus by both the environmentalists and the policymakers towards recycling.

"In many ways, we have already moved beyond recycling," he says. "The packaging industry has made many major advances in the past decade."

One corporate giant recently recognised for reducing waste is Proctor & Gamble, which in 2002 was named the number one 'consumer non-durables company' in the Dow Jones Sustainability Group Index for the third year in a row.

In its own sustainability report for 2002, P & G said 54 of the waste it produced was recycled or reused, up from 51 the previous year.

The report also highlighted how the company has reduced the environmental impact of one of its major brands - Pampers.

A study taking each stage of the product's life cycle into account found that significant reductions in packaging weight material per nappy and the total waste generated were achieved predominantly due to material innovations.

Carroll says many companies are making similar innovations in packaging waste reduction not only for the good of the environment, but because it makes economic sense.

To Carroll, the Commission has a more realistic approach than the Parliament when it comes to this issue.

"The Commission's proposed revisions are limited only to reviewing targets and tidying up definitions in the directive, all with agreement by industry," he says. "We think the Commission is on the right track by giving industry the right incentives."

A White Paper due to be published on 'integrated product policy' (IPP), which attempts to define a comprehensive, cradle-to-grave approach to reduce waste at all levels of the production process, could be a step in the right direction.

"In a broad sense, we support this approach, although we don't want it to become yet another layer of bureaucracy," he says, adding that P & G and others, including Nestlé, Unilever and Kraft, "have already moved beyond IPP" with many of their products.

"They're taking a very holistic approach, they're looking at the whole chain, so in the end there's less waste.

"The beauty of IPP is that it would force people to look at the product and the packaging:

"If you look at the two together, you can get a much better environmental report card."

Julian Carroll, managing director of Europen, the European Organisation for Packaging and the Environment, argues against adding new regulations to the existing legislation on packaging.