Options to improve the biodegradability requirements in the Packaging Directive FINAL REPORT DG Environment – European Commission February 2012 Project description CLIENT: DG Environment – European Commission CONTRACT NUMBER: ENV.G.4/FRA/2008/0112 REPORT TITLE: Final Report Options to improve the biodegradability requirements PROJECT NAME: in the Packaging Directive DATE: February 2012 AUTHORS: Mr. Shailendra Mudgal Mr. Kurt Muehmel Mr. Eric Hoa Ms. Marine Grémont Mr. Eric Labouze KEY CONTACTS: Shailendra Mudgal + 33 (0) 1 53 90 11 80 [email protected] or Kurt Muehmel + 33 (0) 1 53 90 11 80 Kurt.muehmel @biois.com DISCLAIMER: The project team does not accept any liability for any direct or indirect damage resulting from the use of this report or its content. The views expressed in this report are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. The recommendations given by the authors should not be interpreted as a political or legal signal that the Commission intends to take a given action. Please cite this publication as: BIO Intelligence Service (2012), Options to improve the biodegradability requirements in the Packaging Directive, Final report. Prepared for DG Environment – European Commission Photo credit: cover @ Per Ola Wiberg 2 | Options to improve the biodegradability requirements in the Packaging Directive Acknowledgements The authors of the study would like to thank the following groups for their invaluable support. Industry associations EU – Plastics Europe, Guy Castelan EU – European Bioplastics, Marco Schnarr EU – Oxobiodegradable Plastics Association (OPA) EU – Confederation of European Paper Industries (CEPI) Packaging companies Italy – Novamont, Francesco Degli Innocenti United States – AJ Industries, Kishan Khemani Other groups Belgium – Vinçotte, Philippe Dewolfs Brazil – Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology, Telmo Ojeda France – Centre National d'Evaluation de Photoprotection, Jacques Lemaire Italy – University of Pisa, Department of Chemistry and Industrial Chemistry, Emo Chiellini. Sweden – SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden, Ignacy Jakubowicz UK – Brunel University, Jim Song Options to improve the biodegradability requirements in the Packaging Directive | 3 Table of Contents REPORT SUMMARY 11 MAIN DEFINITIONS 15 Technical terms 15 Conceptual relationship between key terms 16 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 17 CHAPTER 2: PROBLEM DEFINITION 21 2.1 Types of biodegradable packaging materials 21 2.1.1 Paper and cardboard 21 2.1.2 Wood 21 2.1.3 Plastics 22 2.2 End-of-life options 24 2.2.1 Composting 25 2.2.2 Recycling and reprocessing 26 2.2.3 Incineration (and other recovery options) 28 2.2.4 Landfill 29 2.2.5 Litter 30 2.3 The market for biodegradable packaging 32 2.3.1 Overall packaging market 32 2.3.2 Market for biodegradable plastic 34 2.3.3 Market for biodegradable paper and board packaging 36 2.3.4 Market for biodegradable wood packaging 37 2.4 Sources of confusion for the consumer 37 2.4.1 Origin of the resource / end-of-life management 37 2.4.2 Oxo-degradation 37 2.4.3 Disposal conditions 38 2.5 Underlying drivers of the problem 38 2.5.1 Lack of a clear regulatory framework and harmonised standards 38 2.5.2 Labelling 40 2.6 Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent? 43 2.6.1 Environmental Impacts 43 2.6.2 Economic impacts 49 2.6.3 Social impacts 54 4 | Options to improve the biodegradability requirements in the Packaging Directive 2.7 Baseline scenario 58 2.7.1 Overview of current and possible future requirements and standards related to biodegradable packaging products 58 2.7.2 Model Description 64 2.7.3 Packaging market projections to 2020 66 2.7.4 End-of life management to 2020 73 2.7.5 Environmental impacts 77 2.7.6 Economic impacts to 2020 82 2.7.7 Social impacts 85 CHAPTER 3: IDENTIFICATION OF POLICY OPTIONS 87 CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF POLICY OPTIONS 89 4.1 Selection of impact categories 89 4.2 Modelling of policy scenarios 91 4.3 Analysis of the impacts 92 4.3.1 Policy option P1a: Reinforce existing requirements by making a clear distinction between compostability and biodegradability 92 4.3.2 Policy option P1b: Providing for compostable packaging to be fit for biodegradation in natural conditions in the environment and in particular in the marine environment 102 4.3.3 Policy options P2: Promoting consumer visibility of biodegradable packaging by implementing a mandatory user-friendly labelling system for biodegradable and compostable packaging products 114 CHAPTER 5: COMPARING THE OPTIONS 131 5.1 Expected impacts of policy options on drivers 131 5.1.1 Impacts on packaging market projections over time 131 5.1.2 Impacts on end-of life management 132 5.2 Expected environmental, economic and social impacts of policy options 133 5.2.1 Environmental impacts 133 5.2.2 Socio-economic impacts 140 5.3 Conclusions 141 REFERENCES 147 ANNEX 1: BIOPLASTICS MANUFACTURING PROCESSES 153 ANNEX 2: ECONOMIC COST OF PACKAGING LITTERING 155 Options to improve the biodegradability requirements in the Packaging Directive | 5 List of Tables Table 1 – Examples of bioplastics and their biodegradability properties 23 Table 2 – Recycling rates per type of materials 28 Table 3 – Share of incineration and other energy recovery options in the disposal management for packaging, in 2011. 29 Table 4 – Share of landfill in the disposal management for packaging 30 Table 5 – Share of litter in the disposal management for packaging 31 Table 6 – Worldwide production capacity of bioplastics by type (in thousands tonnes, 2010) 35 Table 7 – Labels and certifications for biodegradability and compostability 41 Table 8 – Test conditions for OK Compost and OK Compost HOME labels 42 Table 9 – Energy requirements for the manufacture of different plastics 46 Table 10 – Life cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Biodegradable Plastics70 47 Table 11 – Targets set in the Packaging Directive for reduction of biodegradable municipal waste going to landfills (in % of 1995 levels) 58 Table 12 – Average energy use during the production of conventional and biodegradable plastic packaging (EU-27, in GJ) 79 Table 13 – Average CO2-eq emissions generated during the production of conventional and biodegradable plastic packaging (in tCO2-eq) 80 Table 14 – Environmental indicators associated with the end-of-life of plastic packaging (France, 2006), (*) adjusted to represent the EU energy mix 81 Table 15 – Normalisation factors used to calculate ‘inhabitant-equivalent’ 82 Table 16 – Forecast of GHG emissions generated by both conventional and biodegradable plastic packaging consumption to 2020 (EU-27) 82 Table 17 – Development of the bio-based chemicals market (2007-2017) 83 Table 18 – Indicators used in the analysis 90 Table 19 – Expected effects of policy option P1a on the distribution in waste streams by 2020 for biodegradable packaging (green for an increase compared to 2011, red for a decrease) 95 Table 20 – Expected effects on the distribution in waste streams by 2020 for biodegradable packaging (green for an increase compared to 2011, red for a decrease) 105 Table 21 – Expected effects on the distribution in waste streams by 2020 for biodegradable packaging (green for an increase compared to 2011, red for a decrease) 116 Table 22 – Summary of pros and cons of policy options to improve the biodegradability requirements in the Packaging Directive 142 Table 23 – Semi-quantitative score matrix 145 Table 24 – Qualitative comparison of environmental, economic and social impacts of policy options to improve the biodegradability requirements in the Packaging Directive 146 6 | Options to improve the biodegradability requirements in the Packaging Directive List of Figures Figure 1 – Biodegradability and compostability 16 Figure 2 – Share of packaging waste in total household waste 17 Figure 3 – EU Packaging waste production (kg/capita/year) 18 Figure 4 – Classification of bioplastics (based on European Bioplastics, 2011) 24 Figure 5 – European packaging consumption by sector (in tonnes, EU-27, 2008) 32 Figure 6 – Per capita packaging consumption in the EU-15 (in kg/capita, 1998-2008)43 33 Figure 7 – Per capita packaging consumption, in new MS (in kg/capita, 2005-2008)43 33 Figure 8 – Worldwide production capacity of biodegradable plastic packaging (tonnes) 34 Figure 9 – Life-cycle approach to biodegradable packaging 43 Figure 10 – Motives for littering based on youth panel (16-24 year-old)* 48 Figure 11 – European citizens’ opinion on bio-plastics (2005, EU-25) 57 Figure 12 – Model structure for the baseline scenario 65 Figure 13 – Projection of the consumption of non-biodegradable packaging in the EU-27 (2011-2020, ‘000 tonnes) 67 Figure 14 – Projection of the consumption of biodegradable wood, plastics and paper and board packaging in the EU-27 (2011-2020, ‘000 tonnes) 67 Figure 15 – Projection of the production of non-biodegradable glass, plastics and paper and board packaging in the EU-27 (2011-2020, ‘000 tonnes) 68 Figure 16 – Projection of the production of biodegradable plastics and paper and board packaging in the EU-27 (2011-2020, ‘000 tonnes) 68 Figure 17 – Projection of the production of biodegradable and non-biodegradable plastics, paper and board and glass packaging in the EU-27 (2011-2020, ‘000 tonnes) 69 Figure 18 – Biodegradable plastics production capacity by region (2010, 2015) 70 Figure 19 – Projection of the global production capacity of biodegradable plastics by type (in thousands tonnes per year, 2010-2015) 71 Figure 20 – Projections recycling rates for plastic,