Industry should push the EC for a comprehensive approach to solid waste management

by Virginia Stefan

Waste management means more than just packaging

For nearly a decade, legislators, environmentalists and industry have been trying to determine the environmental expectations of their constituents and customers. Do they want recycled paper and packaging? Will they demand chlorine-free bleaching? Are they concerned about waste disposal in their communities?
Not surprisingly, the overriding factors that have continued to shape the views of the general population are cost and comfort. Consumers are in favor of recycled products as long as they function well and don't cost more. Similarly, they do not want to pay through the nose for waste disposal and find landfills in their backyards.
That's why the EU Packaging Directive has been a hit with many environmental groups which claim to have their finger on the pulse of public opinion.

Defining the ultimate goal

But the Directive falls short of being environmentally friendly on many accounts. First and foremost, it has applied generalized goals for all of the EU member states without taking into consideration the different industrial, cultural and environmental situations in each country. But it is also too specific. "The bottom line ought to be how much we can reduce waste disposal," Julian Carroll, managing director of the European Organization for Packaging and the Environment (Europen), commented recently.
He is right. Waste management is not just about recovery of packaging materials. It should encompass all materials that are part of the solid waste stream, whether or not they are packaging. And it should also take a comprehensive approach. Recovery and recycling are certainly not the only options; source reduction, energy recovery and other methods also have a role to play in solid waste management.
In the USA, the implementation of recycling laws ran rampant in the early 1990s. These laws were developed and implemented on a state-by-state (and sometimes county-by-county) basis, allowing for the development of targets that were hopefully realistic for the respective communities. The dialogue began with administrators and legislators at all levels of government, but very quickly industry became a loud and accepted voice in that dialogue.
There is no doubt that the legislation gave a kick-start to recycling in industries such as pulp and paper, but these industries were able to participate in shaping a structure that most would agree has turned out to be effective. Their participation also helped to push forward the idea that a comprehensive approach to waste management needed to be found - one that considered all sources of waste and all options for waste managment. The volumes of paper used by businesses and consumers in the USA certainly put its paper industry at the forefront of the debate, but its pro-active approach ensured that they were part of the decision-making and were not singled out.
This was not the case with the EU Packaging Directive. The 1994 Europe-wide law - a politically-driven piece of legislation that was inspired by the German Packaging Ordinance and was created primarily to show that the Commission could do something rather than do something effective - focuses solely on packaging, while lumping together all EU member countries under the same regulatory umbrella. And its complex concept of producer responsibility is subject to endless definitions.
Already the problems have begun. In June, the European Commission decided to take action against Greece, Ireland and Luxembourg for failing to adopt national legislation as required by the Directive. But the Directive's type of narrow approach to problem-solving frequently leads to even bigger problems. Does anyone remember the impact that the German "Green Dot" packaging legislation had on wastepaper markets back in 1994? It is easy to imagine the Directive heading down the same path, with more problems than solutions being the end result, at least in the short term.

Where do we go from here?

Why was packaging singled out as the target of the EU Directive? Part of the reason may be its high public profile. A 1990 public opinion study conducted by the WWF (World Wildlife Fund) showed that 42.8% of respondents believed packaging made up more than 50% of the waste stream, and an additional 42.5% thought its contribution was in the 25-50% range.
In fact, the $500 billion worldwide packaging market makes up only a very small percentage of the solid waste stream in most countries.
With this fact in mind, perhaps there is still a chance for a sensible solid waste management policy in Europe. When the Directive was being developed in the early part of the decade, the various packaging materials associations, along with some major packaging end users, formed the Packaging Chain Forum. The group did a very good job of representing packaging producers, but essentially its role was a reactive one. If the packaging industry had stressed the waste reduction issue earlier, the group could perhaps have contributed much more.
But soon the Directive's targets will come up for review, and this would be a good moment for industry to begin new dialogue. Because it is industry which is the most affected by the Directive, it is industry that will need to press for a sensible, comprehensive approach to waste management that is also flexible enough to consider the differing make-ups of each EU member state.
This will require a fair and accurate assessment of the environmental implications of the various waste management options. For its own sake, European industry needs to lead this charge to ensure that the burdens of environmental management are placed equally on all players and not just some.
As waste disposal becomes a more visible issue, legislators will continue looking for solutions. There is nothing to prevent another sector of the waste stream being targeted next time around. Industries like paper should look ahead and act accordingly.