PETpla.net Insider 01+02 / 2014

MATERIAL / RECYCLING 16 PET planet insider Vol. 15 No. 01+02/14 www.petpla.net industry positively begging the legisla- tors in Brussels for a restrictive, pain- ful but nevertheless urgently required European set of laws. David Swift of PCI delivered the statistical facts and figures: PET resin consumption in 2013 rises up to 18.85million tonnes with an optimis- tic forecast of 24 million tonnes for the year 2017. As David Swift stated: ”Despite increased consumption, the supply of PET is rising faster than demand. The PET market is out of balance. Plants are closed, 2 million tonnes capacities are at a stand still. Chinese investment continues and is a threat”. RPET, or recycled PET, plays a controversial double role in David Swift‘s scenario of supply and demand. RPET is a substitute for new material, thus depressing prices, and reducing the volume of PET in new production. The reverse side of the coin is that RPET – if manufactured in sufficient and reliable quantities – makes a good case politically, giving the industry a sustainable stance and creating the required climate for investments. But David Swift also has a regret: ”Collection is critical. Often we have no national, let alone international, harmonisation.” His recommenda- tion, which it is not difficult to agree with: “We should benchmark, should learn from the best: from Belgium for instance, from Switzerland (despite the high cost), from Estonia (lower cost) … Total collection rate is impor- tant. Incremental cost is as impor- tant”. European reglatory framework Block 2 was dedicated to the “European Regulatory Framework” and it rapidly became clear that this theme block was something that was particularly close to the heart of the organiser, PETcore Europe. One of PETcore Europe’s key aspirations – and they represent those four lead- ing industry sector associations plus several individual companies – is to ensure their voice is heard in the European corridors of power, espe- cially where legislation is concerned. Their particular concern is the ”Euro- pean Union Legislation on Packaging and Packaging Waste“. If PET Network Day was proof of PETcore Europe’s serious intent, it was also a sobering reminder that the paths to meaningful European regulations and binding legislation are tortuous and difficult, often impenetra- ble, sometimes a complete mystery, hampered by politicking and delay- ing tactics. Standing in the way are national interests, the interests of the industries affected and their work- forces, ideological prejudices and political ego. Recycling is necessary and recy- cling causes distress. No-one in Brus- sels had or has the slightest doubt about that. Certainly not the eloquent Reinhard Büscher – on loan from German politics to Brussels, a veteran of the Bangemann era, also Head of Unit, Chemicals Industry DG Enter- prise and Industry, European Commis- sion since 2013 - who gave a stimu- lating presentation entitled ”Resource efficiency & circular economy“. In it, he sketched out to the PET experts assembled in the auditorium the liabili- ties and interrelationships of the PET market in a way that was frank and jargon-free, the impact of recycling, the complexity of waste and recycling: the need for a common purpose. “It is a shame“, said Reinhard Büscher – almost as an aside - and to no-one’s surprise, ”it is a shame: PET in land- fills and in the Atlantic. Plastics are too precious to be thrown away“. With this parting thought, concilia- tory in tone, Reinhard Büscher made reference to the legislators who were due to speak next. These legisla- tors will ultimately be responsible for drafting any legislation and Reinhard Büscher, in conclusion, urged them not to yield to counsels of despair. He called upon Pelle C. Geertsen – Head of Office and Anna Rosbach, MEP, European Parliament to take the podium. “Green Paper status and waste review“ – was the title of Pelle C. Geetsen’s presentation dealing with the European Commission strategy on Plastic Waste in the Environment. Pelle C. Geertsen, an experienced Brussels veteran, has worked in Euro- pean Politics in various forms and functions in the last 16 years, includ- ing voter engagement and a number of election campaigns. His 2013 bal- ance sheet was less than inspiring, and did little to reassure the audi- ence, as he reported on the Commis- sion’s “Green Paper“, and its passage through the institutions. The draft of the European Commission “Green Paper“ is usually followed by “own- initiative reports“ from the European Parliament, presented by “rappor- teurs“ and ”shadow rapporteurs“. At this stage, there are compromises, deals between the parties, delays, applications for adjournments, fol- lowed by more meetings, committees, shadow meetings, new time tables. Feedback needs to be incorporated, account needs to be taken of the 171 amendments to the reports, followed by more compromises until at last the proposals reach the plenary ses- sions. This is not the end of the story. Proposals are re-drafted, more reports are called for, objections have to be considered, and other interventions acknowledged. And what, the PET Network was moved to ask, is the end result of all this bureaucratic waffle? What is being discussed? Rather a lot it would seem:  Hazardous substances in plastics and impact on recycling targets  Bio-plastics and degradable plas- tics  Binding targets for recovery and harmonisation of waste collection Important topics, all of them, without a doubt. Dr. Eric Barthelemy – Scientific Officer at the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) – discusses a further challenge in relation to this at a higher European level. He has been asked to talk about “Recycling for food con- tact“ and about – as he says, not nec- essarily reflecting the EFSA’s official position - ”the complexity of European legislation between serious justified intent and the eventual enshrining in law“. He then goes on to mention a further hurdle in legislating: the European elections in 2014 may not be relevant as far as the PET issue is concerned, but they will almost cer- tainly delay things and slow down the legislative process. Dr. Barthelemy has significant experience on the evaluation of sub- stances (plastics, active and intel- ligent materials, biocides), recycling processes and Food Contact Material (FCM)) treatment (cleaning, ionisa-