Select Committee on European Legislation Eleventh Report


MARKING OF PACKAGING

9. We consider that the following raises questions of political importance, but make no recommendation for its further consideration at this stage:-

DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY

(17740) 12345/96 COM(96)191 Draft Directive on marking of packaging and on the establishment of a conformity assessment procedure for packaging.
Legal base: Article 100a; co-decision; qualified majority voting.

Introduction

    9.1  The Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive[36] requires further legislation on the marking of packaging within two years of the entry into force of the Directive. Marking was part of the original proposal but was taken out because of the complexity of the problem, including the question of who owned the legal rights to the symbols proposed.

The document

    9.2  This draft Directive has two primary purposes:

        To harmonise marking on packaging

      Several different markings are being used for similar purposes and the same marking for different purposes. They indicate:

      --   what material has been used in the packaging;

      --   the recoverable or recyclable nature of the packaging;

      --   that the packaging is made of recycled material; and

      --   that it is subject to a specific system of return and management.

    9.3  Numbering systems, abbreviation systems and symbols are used in a total mix that makes it impossible for the consumer to be sure what the marking indicates. The Commission claims that is generally agreed that harmonisation of markings is urgent, at the European level as a minimum, in order to remove confusion among consumers and to prevent technical barriers to trade.

    9.4  The marking will enable consumers to choose which packagings are more environmentally friendly than others. The Commission proposes the use of two symbols to indicate whether the packaging is reusable or recyclable. These are reproduced below.

    9.5  Four important aspects of the proposal are that:

      --   the use of symbols would be voluntary;

      --   Member States would have a three year implementation period;

      --   they would be required to prohibit the use of any other marks; and

      --   would be without prejudice to the later application of standards adopted at a higher international level.

    9.6  The draft says that discussions are continuing within the International Standards Organisation (ISO), but that conclusions are not expected before 1999. Article 4 allows for the annexes to be adapted when ISO standards indicating the nature of packaging have been agreed. It is not clear whether it will be permissible to use both ISO and EC symbols.

        To provide a conformity assessment procedure  

    9.7  Although the Packaging Directive contains certain essential requirements to which packaging must conform, it omits any description of how conformity to these requirements is to be assessed. Under the proposed procedure, the manufacturer must draw up a written declaration and keep a file on the technical specifications of the product and details of any tests. These are to be held for a minimum of four years for inspection by national authorities.

    9.8  The proposed Directive requires an identification system, based on numbers and abbreviations to indicate the nature of the packaging material used. This system is to assist the regulatory authorities, and would be decided upon by the Commission.

    9.9  No marking is proposed for marking packaging which is subject to an established system of return and management. The Commission thought it would be impossible to ensure that packaging produced in one Member State could be returned in another where it was marketed.

    9.10  In its Impact Assessment the Commission records that, when consulted, associations of packaging and packaging material manufacturers generally wanted to keep the existing symbols and abbreviations. However, they supported a common procedure for conformity assessment.

The Government's view

    9.11  In his Explanatory Memorandum (dated 9 January) the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Small Business, Industry and Energy, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr Page) comments:

  Marking

        "The UK was not convinced about the need for EC marking requirements. However, the proposal is voluntary and will contribute to the harmonisation of EU packaging marking without prejudice to internationally agreed markings. In terms of marking it is likely that any costs to industry resulting from this proposed Directive will be substantially reduced by the three year implementation period, which will allow industry to insert design changes within their normal cycle. The symbols which have been selected are not widely used within the UK, where the Mobius Loop is probably the most widely recognised symbol.

        "The Mobius Loop consists of three arrows, running to the left, which are arranged in a triangular formation. The symbol is generally used to indicate the 'recyclable' nature of the product, and is widely used in the packaging industry. A change, or withdrawal of existing marks, could result in a drop in consumer participation in recycling schemes. It is recognised that both Government and industry will need to consider how best to re-educate the consumer.

        "The UK notes that its concerns over the implications of the marking proposals for trade with non-EC countries, and in particular the applicability of the World Trade Organisation Barriers to Trade Agreement, have been taken account of in Article 4, para 2.

        "Consideration will need to be given to the proposed implementation period, and whether it is sufficient to avoid unnecessary burdens on UK industry.

  Conformity assessment procedure

        "Harmonisation in the assessment procedure is necessary to ensure other Member States are meeting the same essential requirements. Without it there is a risk of trade barriers. The UK has some concerns about the text of Annex 3, para 3, relating to the technical documentation of the conformity assessment, which is more suited to industrial products, such as machinery, as opposed to packaging. It is also unclear whether the documentation required under this procedure relates to single packaging items or generic packaging products. The latter would be less costly and is preferred."

    9.12  On the financial implications, the Minister says in relation to:

  Marking

        "Our Compliance Cost Assessment (CCA) took account of the voluntary nature of the proposals, with the conclusion that there are no costs associated with putting the symbols on packaging. Where costs do arise they will be minimal and result from the need to remove any other existing marks. Since design changes tend to take place on average every two years, the three year implementation period should allow industry time to remove the symbol in line with the normal design change period.

  Conformity assessment procedure

        "The assessment of costs for the mandatory application of the conformity assessment procedure is based on the estimate that it will take an average of two man hours to gather the documentation required for each packaging item. The average figure was derived following consultation with industry. Two sets of industry cost figures have been estimated, one on the basis that the assessment procedure will apply to every single packaging item, and the other on the basis of the requirement being set [at] a generic packaging product level.

        "If the procedure is applied to every single packaging item the non-recurring costs to industry are £30 million, with recurring costs of £15 million. Alternatively, if the assessment is applied at a generic packaging product level, the non-recurring costs are estimated to be £2 million, with recurring costs of £1 million. The recurring costs may reduce over time as industry develops systems to cope with the procedure."

    9.13  At the time of writing the Minister was not certain whether the Dutch Presidency would wish to proceed with this Directive. We understand that they have since indicated that they do not wish to do so, calculating that agreement on it is not likely to be achievable in the near future. Furthermore, the following three Presidencies are also unlikely to be interested.

Conclusion

    9.14  The Commission contends that harmonisation is needed urgently but there is a balance to be struck between competition, costs and clarity: that is, between fairness, the cost to business and the understanding and support of the consumer.

    9.15  The effects of the proposal will be evident to every household, so it is important that it leaves no room for doubt over how it is to be implemented. If new symbols are to be agreed, we see little sense from the consumer's point of view in introducing them just before ISO comes to a decision on its symbols, if these are not certain to be identical. Whilst many industries may operate only within Europe, many others at least aspire to market their products more widely and, we assume, will opt for the ISO marking if only one is to be used. The problem is the uncertainty over when the ISO will reach agreement.

    9.16  There are still important points that need clarification in this proposal and we do not clear the document at this stage.

MARKING

REUSABLE PACKAGING




RECYCLABLE PACKAGING




36  Directive 94/62/EC, Article 8, paragraph 1; OJ No. C 263, 12.10.92, p.1. Back


 


© Parliamentary copyright 1997
Prepared 7 February 1997