FEAD comments to the draft Implementing Act laying down rules for the calculation of recycled plastic content under the SUPD
FEAD, the European Waste Management Association, highlights that the rules for calculating the recycled content of plastics using a mass balance approach under the Single Use Plastics Directive (SUPD) will influence market dynamics and shape the industry for decades to come. As the first European-level regulation on the calculation of recycled content from chemical recycling, this Implementing Act will serve as a blueprint for future European regulations, including the PPWR, the ESPR and the ELVR.
Firstly, we reiterate that it is essential to put safeguards in place to avoid diversion of feedstock from mechanical to chemical recycling and ensure that this allocation method provides strong traceability and transparency, consistently with the SUPD’s objectives. In particular, the document must prioritise EU recyclates and provide clear, enforceable definitions and calculation rules, while avoiding any ambiguity or loopholes that could have significant implications for the competitiveness and the reputation of the plastic recycling industry.
Create a demand for EU recyclates
FEAD is concerned by the new definition of ‘recycled plastic’ which is opening recycled content targets, as of November 2027, to recycled plastics processed outside the Union. This deadline is premature, considering that the PPWR takes over in 2030 the recycled content targets in PET bottles, with the implementation of a proper mirror clause. Until 2030, the focus should remain on material collected, processed and recycled within the Union. This is particularly important as the new customs codes for recycled plastics will only start to apply around 2027, meaning that sufficient implementation experience and data will not yet be available to properly assess trade flows and associated risks.
Additionally, we identified a potential loophole, whereas only recycled plastic ‘produced by recycling in the Union’ could take into account imported plastic flakes that would be just pelletised in the Union and considered as recycled. Therefore, we propose to include the notion of pre-processing in the Union as defined in the Regulation 2022/1616 to make sure that the entire recycling process (including sorting, shredding, washing and/or treating) takes place in the EU – hereby ensuring that EU plastic waste is valorised locally.
Proposed amendment:
‘recycled plastic’ means plastic which was post-consumer plastic waste before recycling, and which has been produced by pre-processing and recycling, as defined respectively in Article 2, point (7), of Regulation 2022/1616 and in Article 3, point (17), of Directive 2008/98/EC. The rest of the definition should be deleted.
Ensure strong definitions to enhance traceability and transparency
A clear definition of chemical recycling is needed to clarify the scope of this Implementing Act and determine which technologies are targeted by the proposed mass balance accounting methodology under Article (7). The absence of a definition of chemical recycling, despite it being the main target of this legislation, raises questions and creates conceptual ambiguities, as well as leading to considerable uncertainty in interpretation for practical implementation.
Additionally, the absence of a ‘plastic’ category of outputs raises serious transparency concerns. While this Implementing Act serves to define the methodology for calculating the recycled plastic content of single-use plastic beverage bottles, the category of output ‘plastic‘ is embedded in ‘non-fuel‘. We recommend keeping two distinct categories, ‘chemical building blocs’, referring to plastics, and ‘non-fuel’ to ensure traceability of the different materials and the alignment with the SUPD. Such differentiation is necessary to ensure transparency and provide reliable data for the 2030 revision, particularly on the evaluation of the ability of chemical recycling to achieve plastic-to-plastic loops.
Need for a clear, rigorous and implementable calculation method
Overall, we are concerned about the complexity of the calculation method, which will lead to uncertainty during implementation due to the lack of technical capacity among the Member States to assess the reported data, and the difficulty economic operators will have in finding a sufficiently skilled verifier, as required under Article 8. We encourage the Commission to use formulas, which would highly simplify the current text and providing guidance with concrete examples of calculations to ensure that both operators and verifiers, as well as public authorities, correctly apply the proposed mass balance method.
We appreciate that the method set out in Article 7 requires ‘process-specific operational data’, which forms the basis for greater traceability and transparency in the chemical recycling process. Nevertheless, given the elevated level of traceability that is stipulated, it is regrettable that provision 7.4.(e) outlines a lenient pathway for operators who do not fulfil their obligations in demonstrating compliance with the established methods. Therefore, no credit reallocation shall be permitted in subsequent steps for those economic operators unable to provide verifiable evidence of 7.4.(b) to (d).
Address shortcomings in the reallocation process
It is stipulated that the dual-use factor takes into account the proportion of material remaining on the recycling pathway when the output is liquid or gaseous. However, it is imperative to integrate the entire value chain, including the downstream sector, into the notion of reallocation and dual use. For example, when benzene is produced from the steam cracker, the yield and energy consumption of the recycling pathway from benzene to PX, then PTA and then PET must be considered to prevent misleading claims about recycled content. Otherwise, some process losses or energy recovery might be accounted for as recycled content, which would not align with the definition of recycling in the WFD. Therefore, when attributing the dual-use factor based on the proportion of material remaining on the recycling pathway, the yield of the subsequent recycling processes should be taken into consideration. Furthermore, the Commission should provide clear guidance on documenting and verifying these dual-use factors for materials remaining on the recycling pathway.
FEAD is the European Waste Management Association, representing the private waste and resource management industry across Europe, including 21 national waste management federations and 3,000 waste management companies. Private waste management companies operate in 60% of municipal waste markets in Europe and in 75% of industrial and commercial waste. This means more than 500,000 local jobs, fuelling €5 billion of investments into the economy every year. For more information, please contact: info@fead.be