Draft Implementing Act on rules for the calculation of recycled plastic content in SUP beverage bottles

On 21 February 2025, the EU’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) on Waste, made up of Member State experts, will discuss the rules for calculating recycled content in plastics using a mass balance approach under the Single Use Plastics Directive.

This legislation is crucial in influencing market dynamics and shaping the industry for decades to come. As the first regulation on the calculation of recycled content from chemical recycling at European level, this Implementing Act will serve as a blueprint for future regulations in Europe, including PPWR and ESPR.

FEAD, the European Waste Management Association, has always supported the ‘polymer only’ allocation method for the reasons set out at the end of this document. However, if the ‘fuel excluded’ method is chosen, it is essential that some safeguards are put in place to ensure that this allocation method provides strong traceability and transparency and is consistent with the objectives of the SUPD.

While we welcome the introduction of operational controls and third-party certification in the Commission’s recent draft proposal, this proposal could be improved by providing precise definitions and ensuring that the reallocation is strictly regulated, connected with operational reality and limited to specific outputs that contribute to the circular economy, as suggested in the proposals below.

Ensuring strong definitions to enhance traceability and transparency:

• The introduction of the term ‘eligible material’ is questionable as it refers to post-consumer plastic waste and intermediate fractions from the treatment of such waste (such as pyroil), which have the status of waste until the recycling process is fully completed. Therefore, facilities treating such waste should have the appropriate waste treatment permits. We recommend that a more explicit term be used to remove any ambiguity, e.g. ‘eligible waste’. We also propose to reflect in this definition the priorisation of mechanical recycling over chemical recycling, as suggested in the Recital (24), by adding: “If, for a given plastic waste, chemical recycling has a higher environmental impact than mechanical recycling and mechanical recycling is available for equivalent quality applications, then it shall not be considered as eligible material for chemical recycling’.
• The deletion of the ‘plastic’ category of outputs as in the previous draft 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‘ has been removed and replaced with ‘non-fuel‘. We recommend keeping two distinct categories, ‘chemical building blocs’, referring to plastics, and ‘non-fuel other co-products’ to ensure traceability of the different materials and the alignment with the SUPD. ‘Non-fuel other co-products’ shall have a fair market value similar to the market value of the ‘Chemical building blocs’. Such differenciation 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.
• The definition of ‘losses’ is currently aligned with the definition of waste under the WFD. We believe that this output category should be broadened to prevent credit reallocation between materials which do not find high value applications and are therefore poorly valorised further down the value chain. For example, in the case of pyrolysis reactors where the feedstock is a mixture of virgin oil processing residues and post-consumer waste plastics, many low-value by-products may be generated (e.g char, water…), which should not be eligible to credit reallocation. Therefore, we propose to broaden the definition of ‘losses and by-products’ to include these low-value by-products. The criteria to differentiate a co-product from a by-product can be set as having a market value equal or above the one of any chemical building blocks of the chain.

Addressing shortcomings in the allocation process

• Article 7(1)(i) – This Article allows (‘may‘) operators to provide certified evidence of the specific distribution of the eligible input to the different outputs. On the contrary, it should require (‘shall‘) all operators to provide such certified evidence in order to be able to claim any recycled credit: the relative share of eligible inputs should be attributed to outputs pro rata to this certified distribution. If this certified evidence is not provided, the operator shall not benefit from any credit reallocation.
• Article 7.2(i) – Whilst chemical traceability is an important safeguard for setting limits to the mass balance accounting method, we can’t accept that the definition of chemical traceability has been removed from Article 1 and that the reference to chemical traceability in Article 7(2) is so vague. This would be endangering the credibility of all post-consumer recycled content claims over the value chain. We suggest the following formulation: ‘Attributed amounts can be attributed only to outputs for which it is possible to prove that the chemical building blocks constituting these outputs do come from the used eligible input. The attributed amount of specific output shall respect the pro rata share of the output effectively stemming from the used eligible inputs.’
• Article 7.1(ii) – The capability to carry over attributes from one period to the following one is neither needed for the proper execution of the Implementation Act nor beneficial to the traceability. Moreover, this creates another significant breach of the level playing field with mechanical recycling and will contribute to speculation and market volatility. We suggest to remove such paragraph and remind that traceability shall follow physical reality wherever possible with a strict traceability of materials over the supply chain.
• We are currently examining the effectiveness of the methodology proposed by the Commission to determine the nature of the liquid dual-use output based on the boiling point of the liquid dual-use output and the maximum acceptable boiling point of the downstream steam cracker. However, we question the applicability of this method to all liquid dual-use outputs, as many of them won’t be subsequently fed into a steam cracker. This is particularly the case for outputs that are identified as dual-use outputs after steam cracking, which typically don’t go again through further steam cracking.

Aligning with PPWR’s sustainability requirements:

• As the SUPD does not specify where the recycled content should come from, this Implementing Act is the appropriate place to define it. In addition, the current rules on recycled content under the SUPD will be repealed in favour of the recycled content rules in the PPWR from January 2030. A mirror clause has been included in the PPWR to ensure that plastic waste collected and/or recycled outside the EU must comply with the same environmental, social and quality rules as plastic waste collected and/or recycled within the EU in order to be counted as recycled content. Such a clause is essential to ensure the competitiveness of the European industry, while ensuring the same level of quality and environmental standards for the recycled plastic imported into the EU in the form of plastic recyclate or incorporated into products. Therefore, we propose to include a mirror clause in this Implementing Act to ensure alignment with the PPWR as well as to support the competitivity of the European plastic recycling industry and to ensure safety of the European consumers. Such prioritisation could be reflected in the definition of ‘eligible waste’ – see proposal above.
• We support inclusion of such a statement in Recital (24) on the priority of mechanical recycling over chemical recycling: ‘Each plastic waste stream should be processed by that recycling technology that minimizes the negative impact on the environment, taking into account the required quality of the recyclate and the economic viability of the different technologies. Taking this into account, mechanical recycling technologies are generally preferable to chemical recycling technologies, if they produce recyclates with similar characteristics for quality, and waste that can be recycled mechanically should generally not enter into chemical recycling’. We regret that such a statement is not reflected in the provisions of the Implementing Act. To this end, and in line with the PPWR, sustainability criteria for plastic recycling technologies could be included in the framework of this IA to ensure that such prioritisation as suggested in Recital 24 is legally enforced in the framework of the SUPD. Such sustainability criteria could be aligned with those defined in Article 7.9 of the PPWR.

FEAD’s position is rooted in advocating for a regulatory framework that respects the complexity and diversity of the European plastics value chain. Through these proposals, we aim to foster a level playing field that supports innovative recycling processes, maximizes the use of post-consumer plastic waste, and ensures that SUPD provisions drive meaningful progress toward a sustainable, circular economy.

In addition, we would like to recall that the ‘polymers only’ mass balance allocation method is the best compromise from a sustainable and innovative point of view, as it would

• Allow the necessary investment to develop all the different chemical recycling technologies, creating the right conditions for a neutral technology approach;
• Promote investment for research and technology development to increase the recycled/virgin ratios these plants can handle (that today is still very low)
• Create a level playing field among the different recycling technologies (also for those manufactures and recyclers who already use 100% plastic waste as feedstock)
• Fairly distribute recycled content among the different outputs (polymers, chemicals, fuels and energy), creating the circular economy market conditions for each of them (also for non-plastic output streams of a steam cracker) and stimulate and retribute investment and innovation to enhance the conversion efficiency toward plastics and building blocks
• This aligns with the Waste Framework Directive’s definition of recycling and enables the distribution of recycled content across all macro-outputs of the chemical process.

On the contrary, we reject the fuel-use exempt allocation model as it cannot be universally applied to all technologies and presents several drawbacks:

• It distorts the actual recycled content, contradicting the growing demand for transparency in the consumer market as advocated by public sentiment and government policies. This model would enable companies to claim recycled plastic credits (and content) even if a significant part of the production process is made up of other, non-plastic, hazardous or low value materials.
• Risk of greenwashing accusations, triggering public backlash against the entire recycling sector.
• The model allows manufacturers to maximize profits from existing operations designed for processing fossil fuels, limiting their capacity to accept higher amounts of recycled feedstock. The petrochemical industry unduly claims high recycled content with minimal plastic waste-derived pyrolysis oil, hindering its transition away from fossil based plastic.
• It creates an uneven playing field for manufacturers and recyclers already utilizing 100% plastic waste as feedstock, allowing claims of green premium and cost advantage.
• Foreseeable diversion of mechanical recyclable waste feedstock to chemical recycling, that needs large volumes of high-quality input materials.

FEAD is the European Waste Management Association, representing the private waste and resource management industry across Europe, including 20 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 320,000 local jobs, fuelling €5 billion of investments into the economy every year.

For more information: contact us at info@fead.be