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
|
