Ref. Ares(2020)4498708 - 31/08/2020
Minutes of the Stakeholder Roundtable on Fiscal Initiatives in support of the Plastic
Strategy on 22 March 2018
The Commission had invited stakeholders from the European industry, trade union and
environmental associations to discuss how fiscal measures can stimulate behavioural changes
by the industry and encourage more sustainable consumer behaviour and which role the EU
budget's revenue side could play in this context.
Opening remarks
Günther H. Oettinger, Commissioner for Budget & Human
Resources
Commissioner Oettinger said that the main objective of the plastic stakeholder roundtable was
to discuss if and how the budget can contribute to environmental objectives of the EU.
Commissioner Oettinger reminded that the first objective of a possible plastic-based own
resource or national contribution was to meet the objectives of the plastic strategy, to foster
the European recycling industry and to develop innovation. He mentioned that the recent
decision of China to ban imports from plastic waste was a challenge for the EU. He also made
clear that the Commission will not penalise the European industry which already operates in a
competitive international environment.
Commissioner Oettinger also put into perspective the discussion by explaining the constraints
around the EU budget. He emphasised the need for "fresh money" to fill the "Brexit gap" and
at the same time to finance migration and counter-terrorism policies.
1st Part
How can a fiscal measure stimulate behavioural changes on
behalf of the industry and encourage more responsible
consumer behaviour?
Moderator:
Daniel Calleja Crespo
European Plastic Converters, expressed some openness to fiscal measures to the
extent that “a tax on certain products might be a solution”. He is strongly opposed to a
production tax, emphasising the legal and trade-related risks of discrimination of
certain materials, but he would support a tax on plastic waste. He also considers that
the revenues should be reinvested in plastic recycling and better collection systems.
Zero Waste Europe, thinks that the plastic tax could be a good measure to incentivise
collection and recycling of plastics. This measure, he believes, should be taken at the
EU level, rather than member states level. He also mentioned that Extended
Responsibility Schemes (‘EPR’) had no economic incentives to reduce waste (quite
the opposite) and he consequently sees plastic tax as a complementary instrument.
Business Europe is sceptical about a possible fiscal measure. Their main concern is
that a high tax may be distortive and might push production out of Europe.
The
Surfrider Foundation is in favour of a progressive, non-discriminating tax at the
EU level which would be complemented by border adjustment measures (so that
plastic producers outside the EU are subject to the same constraints as regards
environmental protection). It believes that a tax should not prevent Member States
from putting in place environmental legislation such as bans on single-use plastics.
Friends of the Earth' supports tax on plastics as would reduce use and production.
The NGO also thinks that the introduction of such tax should be accompanied by the
tariffs on imports.
Seas at Risk supports an EU-wide plastic tax as it promises to change consumers'
behaviour, as well as a single-use levy at the member states' level.
ETUC's Confederal Secretary believes that the plastic tax cannot be used to fill a
budget gap. Although ETUC seemed open as regards the introduction of a plastic tax,
it considers that such a measures must be no means be detrimental to European
companies vis-à-vis global competitors and must not be discriminatory from the point
of view of employment. ETUC is also concerned about safety at work and it considers
that a tax on plastic additives might be helpful.
Plastics Europe's objectives are to increase circularity and resource efficiency. Tax on
production may not only shift production away from Europe, but also cause the
replacement with other materials, which would not necessarily be less harmful for the
environment. They call for measures that are effective, harmonised and proportionate.
Europen is also sceptical about a plastic tax. They consider that Extended
Responsibility Schemes are a better and more efficient tool. The introduction of a tax
would be a shift in strategy and would put at risk the efforts to put in place by means
of EPRs.
Birdlife International is convinced that environmental taxation does work, and he
expressed his opinion in favour of a plastic tax at EU level. He emphasises that this
idea should be seen as complementary to levies on single-use items, not as an
alternative.
Clean Seas would like to see taxes and/or levies introduced.
Many have shared the idea that should a tax be raised, the corresponding amount should be
invested in sustainability.
Summary made by Mr. Calleja Crespo, DG Environment Director-General:
Overall agreement on the importance of circular economy, efficient use of resources
and the necessity to deal with plastic waste.
Overall agreement that dealing with plastic waste requires a holistic approach (i.e. a
combination of several measures fitting with the plastic strategy which could be
complemented by taxation)
Proportionality, non-discrimination, impact on competitiveness, impact on
environment must be taken into account.
2nd Part
What could be the role of the revenue side of the EU budget? Moderator:
Nadia Calviño
Nadia Calviño, Director-General for Budget, then brings to the roundtable the question on
how the revenue side of the budget can contribute to the environmental objectives of the EU.
Can the budget create the right environmental incentives? How could the revenue side of the
EU budget help member states to implement environmental strategy?
European Plastic Converters acknowledged the importance of the link between
revenues and expenditure. The organisation expressed a critical view from the
perspective of subsidiarity and called for a better harmonisation of the environmental
policies across the EU. As an example, too many countries continue with the practice
of landfill in Europe (i.e. instead of recycling).
Zero Waste Europe mentioned that if the plastic tax takes place, the focus should be
on prevention and re-use systems.
Business Europe highlights the importance of proper waste management, digitization
and research.
Clean Seas want to develop transparency and traceability of plastic materials and
considers that the revenues from a plastic own resource should be allocated to this
objective.
Europen thinks that packaging waste management is a regional or national matter,
and is sceptical that EU should intervene on this.
Birdlife International raised a question on the enforcement of cross-border
environmental legislation.
Plastic Recyclers expressed views in favour of plastic tax, as it may help to achieve
Paris Agreement. He put particular emphasis on collecting and sorting of plastic
waste.
Concluding remarks Günther H. Oettinger, Commissioner for Budget & Human
Resources
Commissioner Oettinger said that the Decision of proposing a plastic own resource was not
settled yet. Next steps will also depend on the opinion of the College.
He also invited stakeholders to provide if needed their written contribution to DG Budg and
DG Env.