In 2021 the European Union (EU) Union introduced a levy on the amount of non-recycled plastic packaging waste produced by each member state.
With each Member State (MS) approaching the levy payment differently, the approach to reducing plastic waste and creating a circular economy is complex and time intensive, however has provided valuable learnings for other countries.
As the EU continues roll out of the 2018 plastics strategy and moves towards their target of a carbon neutral and more circular economy by 2030, behind the scenes there are a complex mix of laws and levies applied differently by each Member State.
It’s impossible to argue with the intent behind the strategy as the statistics are mindboggling – with around 32 million tonnes of plastic waste generated in Europe every year and a troubling 80% of marine litter is plastic. The connected strategies included six major initiatives encompassing a total supply chain approach, and though the development process also identified that not only was significant investment was required to deliver better recyclability outcomes for the EU Member States, but the need to increase the level of recycled content in packaging is considered a critical measure of success.
Proving that there is no one size fits all approach to reach an ideal position, Member States were required to align initiatives to four broad categories:
- Plastic and Plastic Packaging Taxes (PPT)
- Regulatory bans and marking/labelling requirements for single-use plastics
- Extended Producers Responsibility fees and licence requirements for waste disposal systems
- Littering levies for the costs of cleaning up garbage
John Bigley, CEO of Zipform Packaging, has been keenly observing developments in the EU,
“When the EU announced their plastics strategy in 2018, there was a feeling that this approach would either be fully adopted in Australia or the Federal Government would feel under pressure to implement a similar approach. It hasn’t been the case so far, albeit states have introduced single use plastic bans to varying degrees, despite how far the EU has progressed their initiatives. Change has occurred relatively quickly in the EU with the exception of some smaller countries such as Portugal, whilst change has certainly been a lot slower here. There have been framework discussions, investigations and consultations, but no real tangible change has been occurred at the Federal level as yet.”
Creating a circular economy
The adoption by the European Commission in early 2020 of a circular economy action plan (CEAP) was a significant milestone for the EU Packaging Strategy, as it incorporated initiatives throughout the entire life cycle of products. Starting at product design level through to sustainable consumption, the aim was to ensure that waste is prevented, and any resources used during the process are kept in the EU economy for as long as possible.
Whilst wholly supportive of a circular economy, John Bigley said it would certainly be challenging to execute across 27 EU countries,
“The different levels of infrastructure in the recycling sector are a perfect example of the difficulty of creating a circular economy. When we consider the eight different states and territories we have in Australia, national harmonisation is a challenge even for us. It’s certainly possible to move toward a circular economy here in Australia like the EU, but it would have to be a national, collaborative approach involving all relevant stakeholders.”
Plastics waste enforcement
There is much debate around penalties for EU Member States who have been less than successful in their implementation of the plastics strategy.
As an example, with the rate for non-recycled plastic packaging waste set at €800 per tonne, Portugal is set to pay more than €200 million in 2025 and has been hit with levies totaling almost €600 million over the past three years. As a relatively small country, Portugal imports a large amount of raw materials for production which are disposed of through landfill or incineration in the post-production phase.
John Bigley believes that rather than the carrot or stick options in Australia – there is in fact a middle-ground to reduce plastic waste and packaging waste in general.
“It has been apparent that the incentives provided by the Federal Government in Australia, such as non-intervention, have not been effective in meeting packaging targets, and the example of Portugal demonstrates that financial penalties are also not necessarily the right approach either.
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes which could be implemented by the Government, put the legal obligation back onto brand owners to adhere to regulations or laws regarding the recyclability of their packaging placed onto market. This generates funding to then invest in a circular economy approach through increased or improved recycling infrastructure.”
John maintains a firm belief that any fees introduced have to work towards driving a circular economy in the EU and should not just be a tax that disappears into government coffers.
“The funds raised through fees need to go back into the packaging recycling ecosystem so that it encourages and incentivises a pipeline of sustainable packaging innovation and recycling infrastructure development to keep pace with packaging developments.”
The next five years
Many in the packaging world outside of the EU believe the plastics strategic objective – “By 2030 all plastics packaging placed on the EU market must be reusable or easily recycled” - to be overly ambitious given the 27 different approaches by each Member State.
Considering the situation in the EU, John Bigley also remains skeptical.
“As we are now well into 2025, I think there is a huge task ahead to achieve those objectives, and there may be some countries within the EU that do reach those targets, but there is still a long road ahead for next five years. Whilst some countries are more progressive than others, implementing EU-wide systems is incredibly challenging and each country has had to look at its own situation and implement taxes or fees at differing rates and timeframes.”
With the European Packaging and Packaging Waste directive formally adopted in February this year, John believes that it heralds positive progress towards the 2030 goal but sets significant challenges for packaging manufacturers and brand owners.
“There are targets already set in Europe for the end of 2025 for items such as plastic bags, plus a minimum recycling target of 65% by weight for all packaging waste, rising to 70% by the end of 2030. To ensure that consumers understand what to do with their packaging waste, aligned label and labelling guidelines will be made available across the EU during the second half of 2026. We’re keeping a close eye on these developments, especially with a view towards Australia’s own packaging reforms.”