Dies ist eine HTML Version eines Anhanges der Informationsfreiheitsanfrage 'Meetings with Ecoembes'.

link to page 2 link to page 2 link to page 2 link to page 3 link to page 3 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 10


 
Ref. Ares(2014)1247513 - 22/04/2014
Ref. Ares(2019)5696673 - 11/09/2019
 
 
Enterprise and Industry DG 
 
 

Daniel CALLEJA (Director-General DG ENTR) 
 
Meeting with Ecoembalajes España  
 (Brussels, 21 April 2014, 10:15h) 
 
BRIEFING NOTE 
 
 

 
Mrs. 
 (Ecoembalajes España – Ecoembes) requested to meet you to 
discuss developments on resource efficiency as well as more specifically waste 
management, packaging and recycling.  
 
 
 
 
1.  RESOURCE EFFICIENCY, WASTE MANAGEMENT, PACKAGING AND 
RECYCLING ........................................................................................................ 2
 

2.  BACKGROUND INFORMATION: RESOURCE EFFICIENCY ..................... 3 
3.  DEFENSIVES................................................................................................ 5 
4.  BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 7 
5.  CV 
.......................................................................... 10 
 
 

 
1.  Resource efficiency, waste management, packaging 
and recycling  
Line to take: 
–  Resource efficiency is one of the 7 flagship initiatives of the Europe 2020 strategy 
and thus plays an important role in delivering on the EU’s policy objectives.  
–  As reflected in the recent industrial policy communications, DG ENTR places a 
high importance on the transition towards a more resource efficient economy. 
Activities of innovative companies like Ecoembalajes are much encouraged.  
–  However, when it comes to introducing new targets on resource use, feasibility and 
impacts on the overall economy will need to be carefully assessed.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Name of main contact person: 
 
Telephone 
number: 
 
  
 
Directorate/Unit: 
  ENTR.B1 
 


2.  Background information: resource efficiency 
The Commission prepares to bring forward a circular economy communication, with 
adoption foreseen for May 2014 (DG ENV-lead – no inter-service consultation yet). It 
will serve as ‘chapeau’ document of the circular economy package to mark 
Commissioner Potočnik’s end of mandate.1  
 
We expect the communication to include a call for a non-binding target to increase 
resource efficiency of the EU economy by 30% by 2030, to be integrated into the 
Europe 2020 reporting process of Member States. It is to be measured at aggregate 
macro-level, based on raw material consumption (RMC)2 by GDP. There is no break-
down at country or sector level foreseen so far. RMC expresses the amount of globally 
and domestically induced raw material extractions associated to the EU's consumption.  
 
DG ENTR sees a great potential for businesses to benefit from increased resource 
efficiency, which is reflected in the industrial policy communications from 2012 and 
2014. A policy announcement on resource efficiency could also provide more 
predictability for investments into resource efficiency.  
 
However, such a target should not introduce unjustified burden and curb growth in 
still difficult economic times. The cumulative impact of environmental targets on EU 
industry needs to be thoroughly assessed before introducing a new target. Moreover, it 
could be difficult to place a resource efficiency indicator on top of the already existing 
targets that have a legal base in the waste legislation. We also have a number of questions 
on the robustness/usefulness of the proposed indicator. We therefore consider such a 
high-profile announcement premature and should at least require making it subject to 
further testing and confirmation (see defensives).   
 
Last year’s 7th Environment Action Programme as decided by the Parliament and 
Council actually allows for a longer timeframe: "…developing measurement and 
benchmarking methodologies by 2015 for resource efficiency of land, carbon, water and 
material use and assessing the appropriateness of the inclusion of a lead indicator and 
target in the European Semester"

 
Moreover, a potentially coercive approach of achieving an overall target goes against the 
philosophy of the European Innovation Partnership on Raw Materials, which tries to 
provide solutions in cooperation with industry to ensure that its raw material supply is 
secured. 
 
The European Resource Efficiency Platform (EREP) has endorsed the proposed 30% 
target in its plenary on 31 March 2014, calling upon the EU to set a target to at least 
double resource productivity as compared with the pre-crisis trend (i.e. increase of well 
above 30% by 2030 – see EREP flash report). VP Tajani is a member of the platform (not 
present in the meeting; 
 and cabinet member F. Benini). EREP’s 
mandate runs until the end of the current Commission, but it might be extended. The 
recommendations also include a call for indicators on landwater and biodiversity (in 
cooperation with the OECD – no objections at this stage).   
                                                 
1 Initially foreseen to include the waste review, but it now seems unlikely. A progress report on the 
Resource Efficiency Roadmap and impact analysis of a resource efficiency target are likely to be included 
– the Green SME Action Plan and green jobs communication probably not (discussion ongoing). 
2 Including: biomass, metal ores, minerals and fossil energy resources. 


In the discussions within EREP, the full spectrum of views was expressed, including 
from industry-side with some arguing for it – or even proposing a more ambitious 40% 
resource efficiency target – and others against. A consortium of trade associations 
(Cembureau, Euroalliages, Eurofer, EUROGYPSUM, Euromines, EuSalt, EXCA, IMA-
Europe, UEPG) and Cefic submitted letters to VP Tajani that strongly criticise the target.  
 
The ongoing waste review is part of fitness checks that assess inter alia the legally 
binding targets
 in the Waste Framework Directive, the Landfill Directive and the 
Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (PPWD). Annex 2 gives an overview of the 
proposed targets, which are more ambitious compared to the existing ones. The impact 
assessment board initially gave a negative opinion as the underlying analysis was not 
considered satisfactory, but turned it positive earlier this month. Discussions are ongoing 
when and in which format to adopt the review (now more likely to be a standalone 
document in the second half of the year rather than part of the circular economy 
communication).    
 
A public consultation on the waste review took place last year. Industry feedback was 
generally positive, including on further actions to increase existing targets for recycling 
and introduce certain landfill bans. They called for an alignment of definitions among 
directives (e.g. ‘prevention’, ‘recycling’, ‘reuse’, ‘recovery’) and improvement of data 
collection and reporting mechanisms in member states. On packaging waste, Extended 
Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes were highlighted as important drivers to improve 
separation in waste collection in member states. This will be addressed in the review. The 
reviewed PPWD will also step up measures to achieve an overall recovery of packaging 
material, either through recycling or energy recovery. 
 
The DG ENTR/ENV “Green Action Plan for SMEs: Enabling SMEs to turn 
environmental challenges into business opportunities” 
is scheduled for adoption 
before summer 2014 (results of the public consultation published in March 2014). It 
brings forward initiatives to improve resource efficiency within SMEs, promote green 
entrepreneurship, develop opportunities for SMEs in a greener value chain and to further 
improve internal and international market access for green SMEs.  
 
Under the European Innovation Partnership for Raw Materials, a number of actions 
are of particular relevance to resource efficiency. This includes product design for 
optimised use of (critical) raw materials and increased quality of recycling (emphasis on 
raw materials and materials efficiency in eco-design; research on product life extension 
and critical raw materials in complex products) and optimised waste flows for increased 
recycling (qualitative targets; landfill/incineration bans for certain waste; waste 
collection systems and Extended Producer Responsibility; reuse and recovery of end-of-
life products).  
 
 
 
Contact: 
, ENTR.B1 (

 
Annex:  

Flash report – EREP plenary meeting, 31 March 2014 
 
 

Overview on proposed targets in the waste review (internal draft


3. Defensives 
Why do you consider the introduction of a new resource efficiency target 
premature?  
 
I see a great potential for businesses to benefit from increased resource efficiency, 
which is reflected in the industrial policy communications from 2012 and 2014. But, it 
should not introduce unjustified burden
 and curb growth in still difficult economic 
times. 
 
The  proposed resource efficiency indicator (raw material consumption/GDP) is 
expressed in relative terms (vs. absolute – which avoids ‘capping’ growth), and takes 
imports into account, which avoids shifting production outside the EU. We had advocated 
both conditions in the discussions. However, ultimately, it will be important to get exact 
clarity on the target before assessing its impacts on industry. 
 
In this context, I would raise the following points:  
o  The proposed resource efficiency target is one more target applying to EU 
industry, which will inevitably translate into additional burden for it while it faces 
difficult challenges due to strong global competition. There is also a potential risk 
that such a target will materialise in hard legislation, which will increase furthermore 
the burden. 
o  The relationship to the existing waste targets that have as a legal base the waste 
legislation should be explained and assessed. It should be made clear why an 
additional target is necessary.  
o  An overall target, as it stands now, does not distinguish the different situations and 
aggregates in one single indicator completely different issues. Raw Material 
Consumption (RMC) is a weight-based indicator, without taking into account any 
other parameter like the impact on the environment and health. For instance, the 
extraction of one tonne of sand is not comparable to the extraction of one tonne of 
gold ore. 
o  In a related modelling exercise, the timeframe for the reference period is quite short 
(2001-2011) and includes crisis-related distortions
o  If a target was to go ahead, in order to ensure policy coherence and relevance, it 
should be linked to the recently confirmed aspirational goal for industry to reach 
20% of the EU’s GDP by 2020.  
o  Once this is clarified, detailed impacts will need to be assessed, including on the costs 
of production inputs and cumulative cost impacts if combined with other 
environmental objectives (air quality, framework 2030, etc.). DG ENV has 
commissioned a study to assess impacts of the targets, but I do not consider it 
sufficient.  
Last year’s 7th Environment Action Programme as decided by the Parliament and 
Council actually allows for a longer timeframe: "…developing measurement and 
benchmarking methodologies by 2015 for resource efficiency of land, carbon, water and 
material use and assessing the appropriateness of the inclusion of a lead indicator and 
target in the European Semester"

 
 
 


Why do we consider the preliminary assessment of impacts of a new resource 
efficiency target not sufficient?  
 
A recent study commissioned by DG Environment states that resource productivity 
improvement of around 2% to 2.5% per annum can be achieved with net positive impacts 
on EU28 GDP and that it turns negative beyond this rate.  
 
I believe indeed that there is a potential for businesses and the economy as a whole to 
benefit from a transition towards a more resource efficient economy. However, the 
impacts of introducing a new target need to be thoroughly assessed.  
 
On the above mentioned analysis, I would raise the following points:  
o  The timeframe for the main reference period used for the modelling (2001-2011) 
risks producing distorted results due to the crisis with a severe drop in 
manufacturing output and of related resource use.  
o  A thorough analysis would need to take the cumulate impact of various 
environmental objectives into account (notably air quality directive, energy and 
climate targets, waste targets). 
o  More detailed analysis of sectors that are negatively impacted would be necessary.  
o  We question the depth on the analysis of whether the 20% industry share of GDP 
could be achieved in conjunction with the new resource efficiency target.  
o  This analysis was not presented to and discussed in the European Resource 
Efficiency Platform (EREP) before it was asked to endorse the proposed target. 
o  It's not an EC 'impact assessment'.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


 
4. Background 
 
ECOEMBALAJES ESPAÑA, S.A. 
 
Ecoembalajes España, S.A. es una sociedad anónima sin ánimo de lucro, 
que se crea a finales de 1996, en previsión de la transposición de la 
Directiva Europea 94/62/CE que fija unos objetivos de recic0lado y 
valorización a alcanzar en junio de 2001, armonizando así las normas sobre 
gestión de envases y residuos de envases entre los distintos Estados 
miembros de la Unión Europea. 
 
Tiene como misión el diseño y gestión de un sistema encaminado a la 
recogida selectiva y periódica de residuos de envases y envases usados en el 
domicilio del particular o en su proximidad, para su posterior tratamiento y 
valoración. Éste es el Sistema Integral de Gestión (SIG), identificado por el 
Punto Verde. 
 
El accionariado de esta sociedad está compuesto por 57 empresas y 
asociaciones de empresas que integran a todos los sectores que participan en 
la gestión de envases: 55% fabricantes y envasadores (L´Oreal, Kraft 
Food España, Danone, Colgate Palmolive entre otros), 20% comercio y 
distribución
 (Alcampo, Carrefour, Dia, El Corte Inglés, etc), 20% 
fabricantes de materias primas
 (Anep, Recipap, Tetra pak, Ecoeacero, etc) 
y  5% recicladores (Anarpla, Acare, Cespa, Recipap, etc). 
 
Las actividades de Ecoembes se financian mediante las aportaciones de las 
empresas envasadoras acogidas al SIG. Esta aportación se calcula en 
relación a la cantidad de envases puestos en el mercado, aplicándose un 
baremo por unidad en función del peso y del tipo de material utilizado en 
cada envase.   
 
Ecoembes. Su homólogo, ECOVIDRIO, se encarga de la gestión de los 
envases de vidrio. Aunque podrían existir otros Sistemas Integrados de 
Gestión de Envases, las principales empresas envasadoras han llegado a la 
conclusión de la forma más económica de gestionar los envases y dar 
cumplimiento a lo establecido por la ley, es la existencia de un único sistema 
de gestión. 



Para realizar su labor, Ecoembes cuenta con más de 12.000 empresas 
adheridas. Dichas empresas realizan anualmente una declaración de los 
envases que han puesto en el mercado. En función del peso y el material 
utilizado, deben pagar una cantidad de dinero en concepto de “Punto 
Verde”, un símbolo que aparece en la mayor parte de los envases. 
 
 
 
Ecoembes recoge por esta vía más de 3.800 millones de euros que se 
destinan a abonar a los ayuntamientos y entidades locales el sobre coste que 
les supone recoger los envases ligero (envases de plástico, bricks y latas) y 
los envases de papel y cartón de forma selectiva. 
 
Desde 1998, Ecoembes ha firmado convenios de colaboración con los 
municipios y entidades locales de  más de 40.000 habitantes y cuenta con la 
autorización de todas las Comunidades Autónomas para poder actuar en las 
mismas. 
 
Además, Ecoembes trabaja directamente con sus empresas adheridas para 
diseñar planes de prevención encaminados a reducir el peso de los envases 
puestos en el mercado. 
 
A nivel europeo Ecoembes pertenece a Pro Europe (Packaging Recovery 
Organization Europe) encargada de la protección del punto verde y a la que 
pertenecen actualmente los sistemas integrados de 34 paises. 
 
Pertenece además a EXPRA (Extended Producer Responsable Alliance). 
Esta organización promueve y protege conjuntamente el modelo de 
Responsabilidad Extendida Productor (EPR). 
 
 
ECOEMBES EN CIFRAS 
 
- Más de 12.000 empresas adheridas. 
 
- Gestiona anualmente 1,7 millones de toneladas de envases. 
 


- Ecoembes ha recaudado más de 3.800 millones de euros en concepto de 
punto verde que se han dedicado a financiar la recogida selectiva. 
 
- Ecoembes actua en todas las Comunidades Autónomas. 
 
- Desde 1999, Ecoembes ha logrado implantar más de 30.000 medidas de 
prevención que equivalen a un ahorro de 420.000 toneladas de materias 
primas. 
 
- Desde 1996 el peso de los envases se ha reducido de media un 16%. 
 
- En España se reciclan actualmente 7 de cada 10 envases. 
 
- Se han distribuido más de 500.000 contenedores amarillos y azules para la 
recogida selectiva de los envases. 
 
- La actividad de Ecoembes genera más de 42.000 puestos de trabajo. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


 
5.  CV 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11 
Electronically signed on 10/09/2019 16:56 (UTC+02) in accordance with article 4.2 (Validity of electronic documents) of Commission Decision 2004/563