{{else if Image}}
{{else if Image}}
{{/if}}
{{/if}}
EU Plastic Levy: Incentives Miss the Mark, Controls Insufficient
The EU levy on non-recycled plastic packaging was intended to promote environmental goals, but a report shows that revenues have been overestimated, controls are inadequate, and unclear data are hindering implementation. Experts warn of misplaced incentives. How can the EU counteract this?
In 2021, the EU introduced a levy on non-recycled plastic packaging in order to diversify its sources of revenue and to encourage member states to reduce plastic waste, which should also help to achieve the EU's environmental goals.
However, a recent special report by the European Court of Auditors reveals significant shortcomings: On the one hand, the revenues from the levy were significantly overestimated; on the other hand, there is a lack of sufficient controls in the member states to effectively ensure the implementation of the measures. In the first year of introduction, the revenues from the plastic tax were underestimated by 1.1 billion euros, so that the EU budget had to be balanced by additional contributions from the member states based on gross national income.
Dr Alexander Kronimus, Managing Director of PlasticsEurope Deutschland, is critical of the EU tax on non-recycled plastic packaging in general. Not only the calculation method must be questioned, but also whether a tax that applies to only one packaging material will contribute at all to the reduction of single-use packaging. ‘The own resource creates disincentives that could, for example, lead to plastics being replaced by fibre-composite materials that are difficult to recycle,’ says Kronimus. The incentives mentioned in the own resources decision to promote recycling and support the circular economy would not be created by the own resource.
Legal Uncertainty and Lack of Data
The introduction did not go smoothly in other areas either, as many member states were insufficiently prepared and legal requirements were implemented late. Inconsistent definitions of plastic and late changes in the regulations led to legal uncertainties that hindered harmonised implementation.
Two methods are provided for estimating the quantities of plastic waste generated in the member states. The first is based on the placing on the market approach and relies mainly on data from plastic packaging manufacturers. The second is based on waste analysis. Based on the results of the two methods, the member states provide a single estimate of the quantities of waste generated. The packaging manufacturers are responsible for the data quality of the first method.
However, according to the ECA, data on plastic packaging waste generated and recycled was often unreliable and difficult to compare because Member States used different methods to collect data and did not sufficiently harmonise the results.
‘The compliance audits commissioned by the European Commission have shown that in numerous member states, parts of the provisions relevant for calculating the plastic own resources have not been implemented correctly,’ Kronimus confirms. This has led to different calculation methods being used by member states in the internal market. The desired incentive effect of the circular economy is further undermined as a result.
Risk of Environmental Crime
In its report, the European Court of Auditors also stated that due to a lack of controls on recycling processes, there was a risk that plastic packaging waste declared as recycled was not actually recycled in all cases. ‘The Member States were unable to ensure that the conditions for recycling plastic packaging waste exported from the EU were broadly in line with recycling processes in the EU,’ the report states.
Furthermore, as most member states make use of the derogation regarding the calculation point, the waste is not measured when it enters the recycling process, but only when it leaves the sorting process. Therefore, there is only limited assurance that the waste reported as received by the recyclers is actually treated.
If the plastic waste accepted by the recycling companies is not processed as required by the Waste Framework Directive and is instead illegally shipped or disposed of, this constitutes an environmental offence according to the Court of Auditors.
‘The European plastics industry depends on the state taking consistent action against environmental crime in order to remain internationally competitive as it transforms itself into a climate-neutral circular economy,’ emphasises Kronimus, adding: ’Companies in Germany and Europe must be able to rely on recyclates being correctly declared, for example. Companies should therefore do more at the European level to ensure that existing laws are complied with and enforced.’
Author: Alexander Stark, Freelance Journalist
