With the start of the new year, the Belgium Council Presidency has inherited the difficult task to steer the negotiations on the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) through its final Trilogue phase. The next weeks will be crucial to strike a robust and workable balance between the ambitious positions of both, Parliament and Council. Whilst negotiation mandates are well advanced on some aspects, Parliament and Council still need to find a robust and workable compromise when it comes to mandating of re-use where it is environmentally beneficial and ensuring adequate protection of packaging protected by Intellectual Property (IP) rights.
On mandatory re-use targets, the European Commission has always taken a differentiated, science-based stance. Thanks to that, they have avoided slipping into an ideological, divisive, and emotional debate on a topic that requires a cool-headed, differentiated, and nuanced approach. Following the evidence of the Impact Assessment, Commission officials have always stood by their line that, when it comes to the introduction of mandatory re-use targets, one-size-fit-all approaches will not work, and may in fact be counterproductive and hurt sustainability outcomes on the ground. In line with that, the Commission proposed a nuanced and differentiated approach on PPWR which acknowledges that, in some instances, re-using a glass bottle is the best option for planet and people, but that, in other instances, it’s not. Re-use and recycling must therefore continue to go hand in hand and evolve alongside to contribute to the desired common objective: decarbonization.
When the debate on mandatory re-use targets hit the Parliament and Council, the issue became subject to a far more emotionalized and antagonistic debate. As part of that process, simplistic messages and positions were floated that falsely suggested a one-size-fit-all approach would be a feasible course of action on re-use. However, such ideologically motivated blanket calls ignore the very different structural realities on the ground. In practice, they would lead to a narrow and oftentimes unworkable pathway forward while industry needs robust yet flexible approaches to speed up the sustainability transition.
In terms of environmental sustainability, it is important to recall that re-use systems work best in high-speed, high-volume, and low-distance environments. In the drinks sector, this has been broadly achieved for products such as beer, soft drinks, or mineral water. By contrast, the typical product journey for spirit bottles is marked by comparatively low-speed, low-volumes, and larger distances, making mandatory re-use obligations unsuitable for the sector.
In contrast to other beverages, and with an average of up to 23 individual servings per bottle, spirits bottles are marked by a much longer average active life span and a much slower movement speed. Once opened, a spirit drinks bottle can remain on the shelf for a long time, which is not the case for most other (alcoholic) beverages which often contain a single serving only which is typically consumed while the product is fresh, chilled or fizzy – which means that the consumption cycle is completed within minutes after opening.
Equally, in terms of distance, spirits drinks have their own specificities: Take, for instance, the case of a premium whiskey, distilled and bottled in Ireland to be enjoyed in the south of Spain. Under mandatory re-use obligations, the same bottle could be mandated to travel back to its place of origin at the end of its (long) lifecycle. Alternatively, it could be collected for recycling in Spain, as 78% of glass packaging on the Spanish market already is. This is, no doubt, the preferable approach in terms of sustainability.
Amidst persisting calls for one-size-fit-all approaches on re-use, we call on the co-legislators and the Belgian Presidency to keep their cool and agree robust, yet nuanced rules that will deliver and speed up the sustainability transition in practice.
Beyond the re-use debate, striking a balanced approach on IP protection and packaging minimization requirements is another case in point. Guaranteeing solid IP protection of existing and future packaging designs must not be misperceived in isolation as a potential hindrance to minimization requirements but must be understood in the broader context of the vital roles and functions that IP protection delivers in terms of competitiveness, functional safety and consumer protection. Particularly in a sector driven by premiumization such as spirits drinks, elaborate packaging, typically protected under IP rights, is an important means to guarantee product integrity and high levels of consumer protection, as the most elaborate packaging designs are often also those most difficult to copy or counterfeit. This, again, does not mean that unnecessary packaging should be placed on the market. Also with IP protected packaging, weight minimization is always key. The incremental weight reductions that our sector has achieved on iconic spirits bottles in recent years is testimony to our strong sustainability commitment. On IP and minimization, our sector’s credo clearly is: “as much packaging as necessary to ensure functional safety and consumer protection and as little as needed to protect distinguish products and brands”.
We believe that the final deal on the PPWR should ensure that such an ambitious, yet workable approach can be maintained in the future. The Council’s original position – which would foresee IP protection only for existing yet not of future packaging designs – is insufficient in this regard. This would discourage future R&D in packaging and circumvent packaging (design) solutions for distinguished products yet to be developed.
The long and intense discussions on PPWR are drawing to a close. Co-legislators now have the responsibility to keep their calm, leave some of the antagonizing noise and simplistic positions of the past months behind, and agree robust, nuanced and sustainable packaging rules that will work in practice and will stand the test of time.
Ulrich Adam, Director General*
*In his capacity as permanent representative of SPRL ADLOR Consulting
