TED Case Studies
EC Packaging Law
Go to All TED
Cases
CASE NUMBER: 23
CASE MNEMONIC: ECPACK
CASE NAME: EC Packaging Law
A. IDENTIFICATION
1. The Issue
In 1991 the Federal Republic of Germany (now Germany) passed
and began implementation of its controversial packaging law. The
EC has been developing its own directive and in February, 1992
the Commission submitted a fifth version of the proposal for a
new EC packaging directive to the individual governments. The
adoption of an EC packaging directive, essentially an eco-
labelling issue, is important because it addresses the concerns
of those within the EC who are opposed to the German packaging
law, as well as to develop harmonized standards on packaging
which are important for the single market goals of the Community.
2. Description
Some argue that if member states follow Germany's lead and
develop and implement legislation independent from the EC, it
will detract from single market unity and may lead to trade
barriers diguised as eco-labelling regulations (see GERMPACK
case). The importance of harmonization is reflected in the
opening pages of the February, 1992 draft proposal which
maintains:
Whereas the current differences in national provisions
concerning packaging and packaging waste are liable to
distort competition, affect the free movement of goods,
thereby having a direct effect on the establishment and
functioning of the internal market, and give rise to
differences in the level of protection of the environment;
whereas it appears necessary to achieve approximation of
laws in this field and to:
-introduce harmonized measures
-set harmonized essential requirements and
standards, and
-establish criteria to which national
measures have to comply.
As in Germany, waste disposal is a significant issue in the
EC as a whole because landfills in some member states are nearing
saturation points without adequate space for new landfills.
Unless addressed, the waste problem will be further exacerbated
as the EC becomes a single market because the goals of increased
productivity will likely produce more waste. Even though some
states have more vacant landfills than others, EC waste
management strategy emphasizes that waste should be disposed of
at the closest "suitable" site to prevent damaging the
environment by transporting waste and to avoid waste being
shipped to the poorer Member States where disposal is less
expensive.
The Commission proposal declares that within ten years of
the directive entering into force, 90 percent (by weight) of EC
waste will be "removed from the waste stream for the purpose of
recovery," with 60 percent of this material to be recycled. In
comparison, the German law designates 50 percent collection rates
for packaging material, with 30-70 percent of the materials
collected to be recycled or reused by January 1, 1993. The
quotas will increase to an 80 percent collection requirement with
80-90 percent recycling or reuse as of July 1, 1995. The EC
proposal gives those most affected a longer time period to meet
the requirements and would allow the member states to implement
their own methods for achieving the goals. In contrast with the
German law, the Commission proposal allows incineration. This is
one of the major issues which would need to be reconciled before
adoption of an EC proposal.
The Commission proposal is also seeking to address the
disputed German packaging law by adding the word "maintain" to
Article XIV of the draft:
Member states shall not maintain, introduce or promote
measures or voluntary agreements which may give rise to
distortion or restriction of competition or to
obstacles to the marketing and trade of packaging or
packed products.
If the draft proposal is accepted, the addition of
"maintain" to Article XIV will give the Commission support if it
decides to undertake legal proceedings against Germany. Those
opposed to both the EC and German packaging laws point out that
recycling is not always the best method of addressing waste
disposal. The packaging and retail companies contend that when
the total environmental impact is considered, for instance, "even
though a beverage carton cannot easily be recycled it still
compares favorably with a returnable glass bottle once the total
effect of manufacturing, storage and distribution is taken into
account" (see DANISH case).
Within 5 years of implementation countries must recover for
energy 50-65 percent of packaging material by weight and 15
percent of all material by weight. Ireland, Portugal and Greece
will be given an additional 5 years to comply. This may produce
differing effects: for example, French recycling efforts have
been subsidized by imports of German waste (mostly paper). These
waste totals will now be reduced. Netherlands, Denmark and
Germany's markets will be examined for the impacts of higher
standards on market competition, but one irony in the measure is
that the Netherlands would need to reduce its glass bottling
recycling ratio from 73 to 45 percent to meet the requirements.
3. Related Cases
GERMPACK case
ITALYBAG case
ECCAR case
Keyword Clusters
(1): SIC = PLASTic
(2): Bio-geography = TEMPerate
(3): Environmental Problem = Waste Land [WASL]
4. Draft Author: Michelle Dearing
B. LEGAL Clusters
5. Discourse and Status: AGReement and INPROgress
The members of EC are considering a plan that would be
phased in over a ten year period.
6. Forum and Scope: EURCOM and REGION
7. Decision Breadth: 12 (EURCOM members)
8. Legal Standing: TREATY
C. GEOGRAPHIC Clusters
9. Geographic Locations
a. Geographic Domain : EUROPE
b. Geographic Site : WEUR
c. Geographic Impact : EURCOM
10. Sub-National Factors: YES
Although the legislation is not per se predicated on a sub-
national factor, the difference in waste legislation at the
community, national and local levels has already arisen in member
states Italy and the Netherlands (see ITALYBAG and DUTCHWD
cases).
11. Type of Habitat: TEMPerate
D. TRADE Clusters
12. Type of Measure: Regulatory Standard [REGSTD]
The requirement that the products be recyclable will change
the way the product is produced and prohibit certain products
from being used.
13. Direct vs. Indirect Impacts: INDirect
14. Relation of Measure to Environmental Impact
a. Directly Related : YES PLASTic
b. Indirectly Related : YES CHEMical
c. Not Related : NO
d. Process Related : YES Waste Land [WASL]
The recycling requirement affects the process of recycling
products and which packaging items can be allowed to be sold.
15. Trade Product Identification: PLASTic
The legislation applies to sales, grouping, and transport
categories of packaging.
(1) Sales Packaging or Primary Packaging: Packaging
which constitutes a sales unit to the final user or
consumer at the point of purchase.
(2) Grouping Packaging or Secondary Packaging:
Packaging which constitutes at the point of purchase a
grouping of a certain number of sales units; removal of
the packaging from the product will not affect the
product's characteristics.
(3) Transport Packaging or Tertiary Packaging: Any
packaging conceived to facilitate the handling and
transport of a number of sales units or grouped
packagings in order to prevent physical handling and
damage from transport.
16. Economic Data
The EC's annual waste output (including packaging) is
estimated at 2.2 billion tons. The amount of the EC's packaging
waste is estimated at 50 million tons with 9 million tons being
recycled to a different extent in the Member States.
17. Impact of Measure on Trade Competitiveness: LOW
This would add some cost to production, probably no more
than 5 percent.
18. Industry Sector: PLASTic
19. Exporter and Importer: MANY and EURCOM
Most exported plastic to Europe comes from American and East
Asian producers.
E. ENVIRONMENT Clusters
20. Environmental Problem Type: Waste Land [WASL]
The problem is related to the limited remaining capacity in
Europe's landfills.
21. Name, Type, and Diversity of Species
Name: MANY
Type: MANY
Diversity: 1.7 species per 1,000 square km [NAMER]
22. Resource Impact and Effect: HIGH and SCALE
Landfill levels are very high in Europe.
23. Urgency and Lifetime: LONG and 100s of years
24. Substitutes: Bio-degradable [BIODG] products
Either the use of packaging that is more bio-degradable or
that is more re-useable would be acceptable substitutes.
VI. OTHER Factors
25. Culture: NO
26. Trans-Border: NO
27. Human Rights: NO
28. Relevant Literature:
Carritt, Tony. "New Packaging Draft Seen Forcing Changes in
Germany." Reuter (March 16, 1992).
"The Commission Adopts a Community Strategy for Waste
Management." Information Memo 52: 1-6.
"Commission Seen Asking Bonn to Suspend Packaging Law."
Reuter 0469 (25 November 1991).
"Divided EU Agrees on Packaging Directive, Joint Ratification of
Climate Change Treaty." International Environmental
Reporter 17/1 (BNA, January 12, 1994): 4-5.
European Community. Draft Proposal for a Council Directive on
Packaging and Packaging Waste 21 (XI/369/91, DGXI-A4,
February 1992, Final Draft).
"How to Throw Things Away." Economist (April 13, 1991): 17-22.
"Packaging Mess." Financial Times 16 (June 1992).
Thornhill, John. "Repackaged, Recycled, Restricted." Financial
Times (December 6, 1991).
Vial, Catherine. "From the European Economic Community To the
European Environmental Community." Business America 24
(February 1992): 34-35.
References
Go to Super
Page
1/11/97