This website carries links to the responses from the consultation paper on the proposed Council Directive 2002/0291/(COD) of 11 December 2001 concerning a proposal for a directive by the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging and Waste.

The bullet points on this web page are summarised from the documents in the attached Adobe Acrobat files below. Every attempt has been made to report views accurately, although some of the interpretation of the written material received is necessarily subjective. Whilst we have aimed to reflect both commonly expressed and alternative views, not all issues raised during the consultation process are included on this summary page.

The Sample

34 Trade Associations, 15 Local Authorities, 4 Compliance Schemes, 10 Manufacturers / Reprocessors, 2 Environmental Groups and 2 other groups.

The Views

Trade Associations:

• General support for packaging definitions.
• Vast majority support a delay to the targets until 2008.
• Overwhelming rejection of the proposals to introduce differentiated material specific targets, as it is believed that differentiated targets will introduce additional costs and material competition issues.
• All respondents recognised the importance of extracting additional packaging waste from the household waste stream and this will require additional funds. A large proportion specifically called for kerbside collection (or separation at source).
• Overwhelming support for the inclusion of a recovery target.
• It was believed that high material specific targets were likely to have a negative impact on the UK's ability to meet the overall targets.
• The targets are technically achievable but the costs will be significant.
• The greatest risks and threats are posed by uncertain international markets and high collection costs.
• Twelve trade associations supported the 'smooth interim' target scenario with three associations favouring the 'catching up' scenario.

• None considered the overall targets set by the Commission to be too low.
• They were generally in favour of recycling over recovery.
• In terms of foreseeable infrastructure necessary to increase the extraction of packaging waste from the household waste stream, there was considerable support for kerbside collection schemes and a strong interest in obtaining revenue from the PRN market.
• Noted the need for an increased partnership between compliance schemes, obligated companies and local authorities.
• Many support the inclusion of a recovery target.
• Many support the use of glass in aggregates.

• General agreement with the overall targets set by the Commission.
• Called for a delay of the target deadline from 2006 to 2008.
• Most agreed with the differential between recovery and recycling targets.
• Most want more kerbside collection.
• Most schemes support a recovery target as it provides greater flexibility for the UK.
• Most are concerned about the data on wood and would like it to be re-classified to allow it to contribute to meeting the overall recycling target.
• Most support the aggregates market and it is seen as a solution to the green glass mountain problem.
• There is general support for the smooth interim target scenario.

• Higher targets achievable

Responses from Trade Associations
Responses from Local Authorities
Responses from Manufacturers / Reprocessors
Responses from Compliance Schemes
Responses from Environmental Groups / Others