A Final Plea to MEPs: Recycling needs to be at the heart of the EU’s circular economy [Promoted content]

Science, not ideology, should be at the forefront of our policies. This is especially true if we aspire to fortify Europe’s strategic autonomy and realise a truly circular economy. Yet, when it comes to the EU’s ‘Green New Deal’, science too often takes a back seat.

Matti Rantanen is Director General of the European Paper Packaging Alliance (EPPA).

Take for example the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation, which MEPs will put to a crucial vote next week. One might expect a major focus to be on enhancing the EU’s world-leading recycling infrastructure, but in fact the proposals would decimate the sector, all while damaging Europe’s environment and economy.

This alarming prospect stems from an inaccurate perception of reusable packaging as inherently more sustainable, even when it is made from energy-intensive and hard-to-recycle rigid plastic. 

Will plastic beat paper?

The fact is that single-use paper packaging is more recyclable, more renewable and more environmentally performant than most reusable alternatives. 

On recyclability, the most recent Eurostat data shows that 82.5% of paper packaging in the EU is recycled, and many member states long ago exceeded the EU’s 2030 target of 85%. 

In contrast, reusable packaging generally depends on rigid plastics, flagged by Eurostat as one of the least recyclable materials, with a dismal 39% recycling rate. 

Is it a good idea to replace a certified renewable and recyclable product with one that is neither? For an answer we can just look to France, where this year, authorities introduced a ban on paper packaging in quick service restaurants. 

Since then, restaurants across France have been frantically experimenting with reusable systems. After eight months, one prominent voice of the French hospitality industry highlighted the logistical difficulties, calling the law an “unfortunate disaster” and highlighting in particular increased costs, theft and waste. In his analysis, in a mid-size restaurant, 20kg of sorted and recycled paperboard is being replaced with 13kg of non-renewable ‘reusable’ alternatives which are discarded or stolen and never recycled, even as the restaurant spends more on energy and staff to manage the intensive washing requirements. Can this really be the sustainable choice? 

Recognising these challenges, voices are reaching out in France for a rethink. Meanwhile South Korea is reversing its ban on paper cups in restaurants, having realised compliance is punitively expensive.

Back to basics

The fundamental issue in the European debate seems to be that many of the advocates of reusable targets base their argument on a distorted interpretation of the Waste Framework Directive. While the directive does establish a hierarchy favouring reuse over recycling, it also explicitly states that life-cycle analysis should be used to stress test assumptions and dictate exceptions pending a constitutional principle: if a recyclable product shows better environmental performance than a reusable one, it should take precedence over reusable solutions. 

Beyond proven recyclability, single-use paper packaging delivers excellent environmental results in terms of energy and freshwater consumption. According to life cycle assessments by Ramboll, providing food in paper packaging in quick-service restaurants causes 2.8 times less CO2 emissions and consumes 3.4 times less freshwater than reusable systems. For takeaway, CO2 emissions drop by 91% and water consumption by 64%. This is due to the very energy intensive washing and drying processes, as well as energy and water used in manufacture and transport, and the high breakage / wear rates in practice. Additionally, making reusables mandatory will contribute to increased food waste and jeopardise food hygiene — two critical concerns in an era of food insecurity. 

Destroying a positive feedback loop

European paper packaging is sourced from sustainably managed European forests. It is a lightweight, affordable, hygienic option that is recycled at high rates. 

From sourcing to manufacturing to point of sale and recycling, the supply chain for these products is efficient and is on average 20 times cheaper than reusable alternatives, meaning it is very susceptible to external shocks. The latest draft of the PPWR would be a shock to the system unlike any it has seen before. And for what?

Thanks to recycling, there is a thriving market in Europe for secondary raw materials in the fibre-based industry. In 2020, close to 60 million tons of ‘Paper for Recycling’ collected were transformed into equally high-quality new paper and board products.

Rather than ending a system that works, the EU should focus on what we know will bring rates of paper recycling even higher: better infrastructure including increased segregation through separate collection of municipal waste. Clearly, this is possible. Thanks to recent changes in Italy, a prominent restaurant chain now indicates that over 90% of its packaging is recycled.

MEPs must stand behind recyclable packaging and prevent it is banned

As MEPs prepare for a critical plenary vote next week, they must not “throw the baby out with the bathwater”. In Europe’s circular economy, there is a place for reusables and a place for recyclables. But transition phases and incremental targets will not mask the fact that the version of the PPWR due to be voted on will wreck the EU’s recycling infrastructure and lead to a flood of degraded, impossible-to-recycle plastic onto European markets. 

MEPs who voted in support of the Single Use Plastics Directive can take credit for replacing plastic cutlery and plates with certified renewable, paper-based alternatives. Are they really now about to support a PPWR that does the opposite?