IN RELATION TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DIRECTIVE 2019/904 (SUPD) ON THE REDUCTION OF THE IMPACT OF CERTAIN SINGLE-USE PLASTIC PRODUCTS

EC Public consultation

on the implementation and impact of the measures of Directive (EU) 2019/904
to reduce the environmental impact of certain plastic products for future updates or amendments.

Bulgarian Industrial Association’s response to the Commission’s call for evidence

The Bulgarian Industrial Association – Union of Bulgarian Business supports the intention of the EC to assess the measures applied to reduce the impact of single-use plastic products. Some of the members of BIA are obliged persons under the requirements of the directive and have repeatedly shared the difficulties in their implementation.

In the context of increasing business obligations in the last few years, the implementation of Directive (EU) 2019/904 represents a significant set of compliance requirements and financial commitments under the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR).

For businesses, this leads to an increase in the cost of staff involved in regulatory compliance, as well as for additional services in the field of environmental and waste management. Companies in the EU today have to navigate more than 15 different EPR schemes, each with its own rules, fees, scope and reporting logic. For consumers – up to higher prices to cover costs.

This fragmentation not only complicates business operations, but also limits productivity and distorts the level playing field in the internal market. Member States apply the Directive in different and often inconsistent ways, leading to distortions of competition and increasing uncertainty for businesses.

It should be emphasised that Directive 2019/904 was presented by the EC as a tool to stimulate growth and innovation, including by promoting the development of sustainable alternatives to plastic products. In practice, however, in many Member States, EPR schemes become a mechanism for raising funds from businesses (i.e. consumers), without specific measures or programmes to support research and development or to deploy innovative materials. In the implementation of the directive, in many cases, the role of municipalities is negligible, and in practice, these institutions are closest to the consumers, whose behaviour is rooted in the progress towards reducing single-use plastic products.

In order to achieve the original objectives of the Directive, it is necessary:

• The competent authorities of the EU and the Member States should carry out       a detailed analysis, based on verified and reliable information, to the extent to which the objectives for growth and innovation have been achieved, what are the problems in implementation and to direct efforts towards improvement, without changing the objectives.
• The system for monitoring placing on the market, separate collection and recycling must be based on a uniform methodology for data collection and frequent evaluations of the effectiveness of measures.
• Where progress is lacking, work together with industry and municipalities to identify mechanisms that actually stimulate innovation and support improvement. Many of the objectives of the Directive relate to behavioural attitudes and socially acceptable practices that take considerable time to change, and the Commission's expectations of change less than five years after transposition of the requirements of the Directive in all Member States are unrealistic.
• To       specify the scope of the different products – composite, with a minimum plastic content, the distinction between single-use and reusable products. In order to achieve this, the Commission should propose uniform guidelines for the interpretation of texts, methods and technical criteria for determining the content of plastic.
• The directive is now focused on bans, recycling and consumption reduction, and practical better results would be achieved with a stronger promotion of reuse.
• Businesses face difficulties in switching to new materials, which necessitates the need to fund research to support the development of sustainable products. In addition, for some sectors (e.g. tobacco products and the use of the acetate filter), there are no economically feasible and specific alternatives developed.

We believe that the European Commission should pay particular attention to:

• the differences in the implementation of EPR schemes in the Member States;
• the lack of effective and unambiguous transposition of some of the requirements of the Directive;
• the need to take into account and reduce the cumulative administrative and financial burden.

Before undertaking new objectives, additional mechanisms or revisions to the Directive, it is important to ensure that the current regulatory framework functions effectively and harmoniously. Otherwise, there is a risk that Directive 2019/904 will become yet another example of excessive and unbalanced regulation that makes it difficult, rather than supportive, for European business.

We believe that these problems can be mitigated through stronger cooperation between all stakeholders. Leveraging all available expertise and multi-stakeholder involvement makes the costs fair and the funds are used efficiently, especially since they are paid for by consumers.