FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NAIROBI, KENYA — On 2 March, the UN Environmental Assembly (UNEA) adopted a resolution “End plastic pollution: Towards an international legally binding instrument ​”, which foresees that a Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee will be convened to “develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution”. 

“Following Rwanda and Norway, EU member states have been some of the first to throw their weight behind a legally binding agreement on plastics. Despite having world-leading policy initiatives such as the Strategy for Plastics in the Circular Economy, the EU has made it clear that domestic policies on plastic pollution won’t matter if there isn’t global coordination. Over the past days many delegations have participated online with limited access to informal discussions, and the EU’s role throughout these negotiations has been paramount in driving the ambition of the mandate. We hope to see a similar level and form of engagement throughout the negotiations that will decide the design elements of the treaty itself,” said Tom Gammage, Ocean campaigner at the Environmental Investigation Agency, on behalf of the Rethink Plastic alliance.

Giulia Carlini, Senior attorney with the Center for International Environmental Law, said on behalf of the Rethink Plastic alliance: “The resolution adopted this week is the result of a decade of work, yet it is also just the beginning of the negotiation process to secure an ambitious legally binding treaty to address the plastic crisis at a global scale. ​​This is a turning point in the fight against plastic pollution, but only if countries live up to the challenge. We look at the EU and we hope policymakers will keep their promises and act in line with the leadership role the EU has played during the negotiations to move towards ending plastic pollution at source, focusing on reducing production and redesigning products for non-toxicity, reusability and durability”. 

“The EU should also weigh in to ensure that any future negotiation process is inclusive and right-based and that civil society organisations are given the space and means to contribute meaningfully “ she added. 

Similarly, the 5th session of the UN Environmental Assembly (UNEA) also adopted a resolution on “Sound Management of Chemicals and Waste” which includes a request to update the state of the science report on Endocrine Disruptors Chemicals (EDCs) by 2024. EDCs disrupt the hormone system in humans and animals. They have very serious effects even at low doses, ranging from infertility to cancer, and can disrupt human brain development.

“World leaders are finally supporting what civil society has been saying for years. It’s critical to have more data on the impacts of EDC on human health and the environment. Yet, this shouldn’t delay the much-needed transition towards a toxic-free world. We hope the European Commission will step up and deliver on its commitments on EDCs by developing a legally binding hazard identification that applies across legislation and includes provisions that will ban EDCs from products and packaging. The upcoming REACH revision is a golden ticket to speed up action to minimize our exposure to Endocrine Disruptors, in line with the EU Chemicals Strategy.” said Giulia Carlini, Senior attorney with the Center for International Environmental Law, on behalf of the Rethink Plastic alliance.

Media contacts: 

Rossella Recupero, Communications Associate, Center for International Environmental Law, [email protected], +39 340 47 39 827 

Bethany Spendlove Keeley, Europe Communications Officer, Break Free From Plastic, [email protected], +49 176 5958 794

The Circular Plastic Alliance, a group of 300 organisations including some of the worst plastic polluters, has been given unprecedented treatment in the development of new standards for ‘plastics recycling and recycled plastics’.

– Standard-setting rules in Europe establish that all types of interested parties must be represented in the process, including the voices of environmentalists, consumers, workers, and SMEs.
– In a letter sent today, ECOS, Zero Waste Europe and the Rethink Plastic alliance ask the European Commission to stop the process and go back to the drawing board. 

ECOS, Zero Waste Europe and the Rethink Plastic alliance campaigners have sent a letter [1] to Commissioners Thierry Breton and Virginijus Sinkevicius asking them to stop the development of a Standardisation Request on ‘plastics recycling and recycled plastics’. This is the first stage for new standards on the matter. Campaigners question the opaque role of the industrial Circular Plastics Alliance (CPA) in the preparation phase of the draft Standardisation Request. This is one of the first steps in the development of any new Commission harmonised standards, in which the Commission mandates European Standardisation Organisations CEN and CENELEC, in charge of doing the work. The CPA has been intensively consulted by the European Commission as EU officials consider this Alliance ‘a relevant stakeholder initiative’ in the drafting and preparation of the draft Standardisation Request, NGOs state. Civil society organisations and European Standardisation Organisations were consulted only at a later stage.The document circulated by the Commission for consultation was titled ‘SR CPA Decision’. This is a telling example of the preferential treatment industry is being given in the process, NGOs say. The Standards Vademecum [2], which sets the rules and processes for standards-making in Europe, states clearly that consultations must be held in parallel with all relevant parties, including civil society organisations. Giving preference to industry goes against the rules.The Circular Plastics Alliance is composed of 300 organisations, including some of the world’s top plastic polluters [3] [4], such as The Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo, Unilever, Nestlé, Procter & Gamble, Mondelēz International, Danone, and Mars, Inc. Many of the CPA organisations are not even listed in the European Transparency Register.The new standards on ‘plastics recycling and recycled plastics’ will set technical rules and criteria on aspects such as:plastic packaging recyclability,design-for-recycling guidelines for various products (from plastic packaging to construction and automotive products, as well as electronic and electrical equipment),quality requirements for application of plastic recyclates [5] in products.

The full letter can be read here.

Fanny Rateau, Programme Manager, ECOS – Environmental Coalition on Standards: ‘The European Commission has outsourced to companies essential decisions on how standards intervene in curbing plastic pollution – decisions that will tip the scales as to whether or not EU laws on plastics are effective.The Commission seems to have ‘forgotten’ that they ought to be the author of standardisation requests. A consultation process follows to ensure that all stakeholders, including civil society, get a say, on an equal footing. The Commission must now correct this and go back to the drawing board’.   Janek Vähk, Climate, Energy and Air Pollution Programme Coordinator, Zero Waste Europe: ‘The lack of proper consultation from a broad spectrum of stakeholders means that the environmental ambition of the draft proposal is exceptionally low. This is a missed opportunity to support the European Green Deal and bring circular thinking to the plastics sector’.

Notes to editors:    [1] ECOS, ZWE and RPa letter to European Commission: Request to cease development of Standardisation Request on ‘plastics recycling and recycled plastics’  – https://ecostandard.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/20220201_ECOS-RPa-ZWE-letter_SReq-process-issues_Plastics-recycling.pdf [2] Vademecum on European standardisation – https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/european-standards/vademecum-european-standardisation_en [3] Break Free From Plastic – Branded: Brand Audit Report 2021 https://www.breakfreefromplastic.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/BRAND-AUDIT-REPORT-2021.pdf [4] Circular Plastics Alliance, list of members –  https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/48014[5] The term recyclate is used to describe a raw material transported to a waste recycling facility or a material recovering plant for processing into a newly formed material or product  (source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/recyclate)

Contact points at ECOS: Fanny Rateau, Programme Manager at ECOS – [email protected] Ivo Cabral, Press Manager at ECOS – [email protected]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Brussels, 08 December, 2021

In a bid to become a global leader on reducing methane emissions, the European Commission plans to table its proposal for a Methane Regulation this 14 December – but it’s expected that it will not include full coverage of supply chains, nor inclusion of petrochemicals, as the European Parliament had asked for. With 75-90% of all EU methane emissions occurring from imported fossil fuels, these leading emitters and their supply chain need to be included if the regulation is to be robust, environmental NGOs urge.

Plastics, which are produced from petrochemicals such as crude oil and gas, remain one of the most greenhouse gas-intensive industrial processes, making them key drivers of climate change and pollution.

The Rethink Plastic alliance and Break Free From Plastic movement highlight that continued reliance on fossil fuels to produce plastic in Europe, including fracked gas produced in the United States, threatens to undermine emissions reductions objectives while exacerbating plastic pollution. The primary known users of such US fracked gas in Europe are global chemicals companies Borealis and INEOS, who seek to build the first new plastics plant in Europe in 20 years. 

“A new facility that relies on fracked gas to produce the key building block of plastics is a direct contribution to global warming and inconsistent with Europe’s attempts to tackle the plastic pollution crisis,” said Delphine Lévi Alvarès, European Coordinator for the Break Free From Plastic movement and the Rethink Plastic alliance. “We remind the European Commission that living up to their climate and zero pollution commitments means it is critical that the Methane Regulation and relevant policy developments include coverage of the full supply chain emissions and petrochemicals.”

“In the midst of a mounting climate emergency, the transatlantic trade in petrochemicals is not the kind of economic cooperation the world needs. It not only harms people and the environment on both sides of the Atlantic but also threatens to undermine emissions reductions objectives and exacerbate plastic pollution,” added Steven Feit, Senior Attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). 

“European policymakers shouldn’t be allowed to keep harming communities and the environment to feed Europe’s plastic addiction. Climate leadership and responsibility also means to stop hiding behind the anonymity of imported feedstocks as a source to fuel its plastic industry while banning fracking within their own borders,” he added.

“The failure to extend the measures in the upcoming EU Methane Regulation to imports and petrochemicals means the EU Commission is walking away from its collective commitment in the Global Methane Pledge before the ink is even dry, signalling to the rest of the world that it is okay to pledge and pontificate on the podium and then dally and dither at home. We call on Executive Vice-President Timmermans and Commissioner Simson to recognise the EU’s role as a major driver of global methane emissions, and to propose meaningful measures on imports and petrochemicals ” said Tim Grabiel, Senior Attorney at the Environmental Investigation Agency.

ENDS

Note:  

For more info see CIEL report: The Transatlantic Petrochemical Trade is Undermining Europe’s Climate & Plastics Policies, 3 December 2021.

Press contact:

Niamh Cullen, Rethink Plastic alliance – [email protected] 

Bethany Spendlove Keeley – [email protected]

One additional year without a restriction on microplastics could see levels of pollution equivalent to 1.6 billion plastic bottles released into the environment.

An EU proposal to restrict intentionally added microplastics used in products has been delayed yet again – and the wait could lead to increasingly uncontrollable rates of plastic pollution, data from ClientEarth and the EEB (European Environmental Bureau) has shown. The NGOs insist that the proposal must no longer be delayed.

Microplastics are plastics less than 5mm in size which are often added to products like cosmetics, detergents, paints, pesticides and sports fields. They are nearly impossible to remove once released into the environment and can harm biodiversity due to their physical properties. They may also carry multiple contaminants and hazardous chemicals. Microplastics seep into the air we breathe, the food we eat and the water we drink. 

The EU’s intention to restrict intentionally-added microplastics dates back to 2017, when the European Commission requested the European Chemicals Agency to prepare a restriction proposal – but it has so far failed to come into fruition. The ambition was reaffirmed this year including in the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability. Following the response of Commissioner Breton to an EU parliamentary question in August, there were expectations that a restriction would be proposed by the Commission before the end of 2021, under usual procedure timings. The REACH Regulation creates the obligation for the Commission to submit a draft proposal three months after ECHA’s opinion – which in this case was published last February. ClientEarth showed in a previous report that these delays happen far too often.

However, the European Commission has confirmed that the proposal will be postponed until next year. One additional year of delay could see emissions of around 42,630 tonnes’ worth of microplastics emitted into the environment, equivalent to 1.6 billion plastic bottles. Since 2017, when the Commission first signalled its intention to restrict intentionally-added microplastics, 169,441 tonnes worth of microplastics – or 6.4 billion plastic bottles’ worth – are estimated to have already been released in the environment.

“The EU is breaking the rules by delaying the presentation of a proposal, which is astounding given the ever-increasing volume of microplastics flooding into the environment and the existence of safer alternatives,” said Hélène Duguy, chemicals lawyer at ClientEarth. “EU institutions have kept us in the dark as to why these delays are happening while companies are given an extended permit to pollute. The Commission keeps on mentioning the restriction in speeches, but has delivered nothing yet. Meanwhile, microplastics are wreaking havoc on our environment.”  

Among the controversial elements of this file, the continual use of granules made of end-of-life tyres in sports pitches – which are the biggest source of microplastic pollution by far – has been decried by NGOs. Tyres release microplastics that contain toxic chemicals and may cause widespread environmental pollution. The tyre industry is asking regulators to be lenient and is opposing a complete ban. NGOs argue that this will lead to continued microplastics emissions into the environment.

“Even if the restriction is adopted by 2022, the use of microplastics on sport pitches will emit an estimated 128,000 tonnes of microplastics in the environment by 2030; in the best case scenario, they will be banned in 6 years”. added Elise Vitali, Chemicals Policy Officer at the European Environmental Bureau.“Only an ambitious restriction, without unjustified exemptions and delays, could ever be considered in line with the EU Green Deal’s ambition. Political decisions will have to be taken by the Commission and Member States, including to restrict non critical uses. The plastic crisis is well established and authorities need to act accordingly. Microplastics have become a macro problem.”

In parallel, the European Commission has recently set out its ambition to tackle not just intentionally-added microplastics but also unintentional ones – known by the alias of secondary microplastics.

Duguy added: “How can we trust the Commission’s ambition to deal with secondary microplastics – a much larger source of pollution – when it fails to act on the lower hanging fruit?”

ENDS 

Notes to editors

• ClientEarth and the EEB’s detailed analysis on microplastics emissions can be found here. 

• Microplastics emissions estimates are an update from our most recently published figures. ClientEarth and EEB calculated the amount of microplastics released into the environment based on ECHA’s estimations (see Annex XV dossier). The yearly estimates were derived by category and extrapolated to the proposed transition periods. 

• It is estimated that 92% of the 5.25 trillion of plastic particles present globally are microplastics. Intentional microplastics also contribute to this problem. No part of the world is unaffected: research has found for example, that the Arctic is “pervasively” polluted by microplastic fibres that most likely come from the washing of synthetic clothes by people in Europe and North America.

• The numbers of plastic bottles per year are calculated according to microplastics emissions estimates translated into weight of an average 500ml PET plastic bottle (see here)

The European Commission’s proposal strengthens current rules on EU plastic waste exports, but environmental NGOs note significant loopholes and need for clarification.

Today the European Commission tabled its long anticipated proposal of the EU Waste Shipment Regulation, with an aim “to ensure that the EU does not export its waste challenges to third countries”. However despite some interesting provisions, current suggestions fail to adequately address the scale and impact of waste trade. 

The proposal follows a call for a plastic waste export ban from 36 MEPs and 89 organisations signatory to the BFFP EU Plastic Waste Trade Manifesto, and Commissioner Sinkevicius’ citing the EU’s desire to enact ambitious rules on waste during a Rethink Plastic alliance waste trade event held in September.

Long criticised for its practice regarding waste shipments, notably plastic, the EU has been urged many times to take ambitious action to end this crisis causing significant health, environmental and social harm for receiving countries.

The current proposal is a step above current measures in place. However, the safest, most effective and circular solution, expert NGOs stress, is to mirror the growing movement of receiving countries in prohibiting plastic waste trade, and for the EU to take responsibility for the high levels of waste it generates by banning all extra-EU plastic waste exports. 

The choice to only currently restrict certain plastic exports to non-OECD as well as the lack of clarity over certain measures proposed, including the potential for exemptions on plastic waste exports, independent audit requirements and the current resistance of the EU in fully transposing the Basel Convention only further weakens the proposed rules.

“The Basel Convention calls for all countries to be self-sufficient in waste management,” said Jim Puckett, Executive Director of the Basel Action Network. “Certainly, the EU, which is very well resourced compared to the rest of the world, should be among the first group of nations to achieve full waste self-sufficiency and stop playing the global waste trade shell game. They must adopt a no-exceptions ban on waste trade period.” 

NGOs also stress the significant potential for illegal plastic waste trade practices to continue under current proposed measures, which do not fully address the current legislative or implementation weaknesses in that regard. 

“This proposal gets some things very right and some things very wrong,” said Tim Grabiel, Senior Lawyer at the Environmental Investigation Agency. “While we commend the Commission for continuing to take action to limit plastic waste exports to non-OECD countries and enhance independent monitoring, the lack of consent procedures on plastic waste movements within the EU will create new dumping grounds and exacerbate illegal trade.”

“The Commission’s proposal is a step in the right direction and, if strengthened, could lead to the most ambitious legislative piece on plastic waste trade in the world.” added Pierre Condamine, Waste Trade Policy Officer at Zero Waste Europe. “It is now in the hands of the European Parliament and EU countries to increase the ambition of the proposal and make it fit for the challenge it seeks to address.”

For further information, contact: 

Niamh Cullen, Communications Coordinator at the Rethink Plastic alliance: [email protected], Phone: +32 497 83 23 24 

Notes: 

1. A recent report from the Environmental Investigation Agency, published global export data since records began demonstrating how shipping plastic waste around the globe enables the ever-expanding production of virgin (new) plastics and its unchecked consumption, exacerbating rates of plastic waste mismanagement in the process.
2. Additionally, it shared how illegal trade in plastic waste has surged since 2018 as criminal groups have sought to exploit the massive market disruption prompted by China’s decision to ban plastic waste imports. Countries in South-East Asia, South Asia and Eastern Europe have borne the brunt of this growing criminal activity as plastic waste shipments from Europe and North America have been diverted as a result, at times by misdeclaring plastic waste under legal plastic waste trade codes that for the most part are never inspected.
3. Some of the main loopholes and insufficiencies identified in the proposal are : 

• Plastic waste will still be allowed to be exported outside of the EU. The current proposed system is insufficient in this regard as it also leaves the possibility of illegal practices undertaken through legal trade routes, the independent audit requirements currently listed require more clarification and as a whole extra-EU exports allow the EU to still consume more plastic than it can effectively treat;
• The prohibitions currently outlined should also apply to OECD countries in order to avoid countries, like Turkey, to become an even more popular  destination and become overwhelmed with EU plastic waste
• Regarding intra-EU shipments, we do not see a full implementation of the Basel Convention which still leaves the possibility to export potentially hazardous plastic for incineration with energy recovery; 

• The proposal does not include the transposition of the Basel Convention plastic waste amendments’ consent procedures or independent audit requirements for intra-EU trade, which would allow for increased transparency and control of the trading system.

ECOS and Rethink Plastic alliance campaigners send a letter to European Commission and consultancy firm Eunomia asking for limits to ‘artificial’ mass balance accounting method to be used to count recycled plastic content in beverage bottles.

New requirements for minimum recycled content rates in plastic products will enter into force in the coming years as part of the EU Single Use Plastic (SUP) Directive 2019/904.

PET bottles, for example, will have recycled content thresholds. As of 2025, all PET beverage bottles allowed on the EU market will need to have a minimum amount of 25% recycled content. By 2030, the bar will rise to 30%.

However, the devil is in the detail, and that will determine whether such requirements will result in a true breakthrough. Methods to calculate the rate of recycled content will be essential for that. In fact, the European Commission has been looking into ways of calculating, verifying and reporting recycled content from beverage bottles for over 20 years now.

In support of the Commission, the consulting firm Eunomia has been undertaking the technical preparatory work supporting the requirements set in the SUP Directive.

The latest proposal by Eunomia has raised important concerns. At a workshop held on 12 October, consultants suggested that companies would be free to allocate their recycled plastic content inputs to any production outputs from chemical recycling processes, such as bottles. Only fuels are left out of this system.

The ‘mass balance’ approach is an accounting method that would allow companies to claim artificially swollen rates of recycled content to products of their choosing – especially those for which the EU will require minimum levels of recycled content.

On 26 October, ECOS and the Rethink Plastic alliance sent a letter to European Commission’s DG ENV, the Joint Research Centre, and consultancy firm Eunomia, expressing their concerns about the dangers of an unlimited use of the ‘mass balance’ approach.

Campaigners point out that recycled plastic calculation and associated claims should be based on proportional allocations, should discount process efficiency losses and consider only recycled materials that have passed through the hands of consumers (technically called ‘post-consumer plastic waste’).

The full letter can be read here.

Notes to editors:

How does the ‘mass balance’ method work?

The ‘mass balance’ method can be explained through an analogy with a cookie factory. A producer mixes a large volume of regular sugar with a small amount of ‘sustainably produced sugar’ to make a number of different products: cakes, cookies, bread, croissants… In truth, only around 5% of the sugar used in the cookies is ‘sustainable’. However, using this methodology, the producer can then artificially claim all the sugar is in the cookies is of the ‘good’ type – selling them as containing ‘100% sustainable sugar’!

A second major problem comes from the inclusion of pre-consumer plastic waste in the accounting method for recycled content. This has a perverse effect as it gives incentives to wasteful and inefficient production processes, since waste plastics can then be considered as recycled even if they never reached consumers. Instead, the EU methodology should target recyclates from post-consumer plastic waste only, in line with the EU circular economy policies.

Setting this methodology right today is all the more important since the European Commission will use it as a base for setting new European recycled content requirements in other sectors, such as packaging, construction products, vehicles and batteries.

For more information, please access our recent report for further details and recommendations: ‘Determining recycled content with the ‘mass balance approach’”. https://ecostandard.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/2021_zwe_joint-paper_recycling_content_mass_balance_approach.pdf

A set of infographics summarising our recommendations for the accounting of recycled plastic content can be seen here. https://ecostandard.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/ECOS-ZWE-Mass-balance-approach-booklet-2021.pdf

Fanny Rateau, Programme Manager at ECOS – Environmental Coalition on Standards

‘The EU stood up for the environment when introducing requirements for minimum plastic content in the Single Use Plastics Directive. It would be a pity if it resulted in a greenwashing exercise, with companies being allowed to cook their books thanks to a clear loophole in the small print of an implementing act. Fighting the environmental crisis will require real action – creative accounting will not help’.

Press contacts:

Fanny Rateau, Programme Manager at ECOS – [email protected] [KK1] 

Ivo Cabral, Press & Communications Manager at ECOS – [email protected]

The pellet pollution reaches the Balearic Islands, affecting areas of special importance such as areas of high biodiversity and ecosystems of great ecological value in the Balearic Islands.

The documentary has been shared with the Minister for Ecological Transition, Teresa Ribera, requesting support to demand European legislation to limit pellet pollution.

Plastic pellets, also known as nurdles or mermaid tears, are small spheres (typically less than 5 mm) that are used as raw material in the manufacture of plastic articles. Due to a lack of regulation in the value chain and bad practices, pellets are “lost” in the different stages of the plastic production and distribution chain (production, transport, recycling…) At European level, pellets are the second primary source of microplastic pollution.

This pollution can be the result of one-off incidents such as recently off the coast of Sri Lanka, or of chronic, recurrent and continuous pollution, as is the case in Tarragona, where it is estimated that in 2019 there were up to 120 million pellets on the beach of La Pineda near the Tarragona petrochemical complex.

This year, Surfrider Foundation Europe and Good Karma Projects conducted a 10-day scientific expedition between Tarragona and the Balearic Islands, confirming that pellet pollution in the Mediterranean is widespread and alarming, and that solutions need to be found. The documentary was published on 10 September on Surfrider Spain’s YouTube platform.

As the documentary shows, during the expedition, pellet densities of up to 6250 pellets per m2 were found on the Cavalleria beach (Menorca, Biosphere Reserve). It is important to highlight the impact of this plastic pollution on fauna and flora, as well as on human health.

The European Commission is currently studying the possibility of adopting legislation to regulate the activities of the entire plastic pellet supply chain. This is why Surfrider Spain and Good Karma Projects have written a letter to Spain’s Minister for Ecological Transition, Teresa Ribera, asking the European Commission for a binding regulatory framework to reduce pellet pollution.

Further info:

Surfrider Foundation Europe is an NGO founded in 1990 in Biarritz, dedicated to the protection of the oceans. It works mainly in 3 thematic areas (marine litter, coastal development or climate change and water quality) through 4 axes (education, science, volunteering and political advocacy). The state delegation (Surfrider Spain) works to transfer the social mission of the organisation to the state level.

Good Karma Projects is a non-profit organisation focused on developing educational and environmental awareness projects to promote respect and care for the environment.

The organisation was founded in 2017, in Tarragona, by two young engineers passionate about surfing and nature, with the aim of creating a community in continuous growth that can become the benchmark for the formation of small nuclei of environmental awareness and action..

What: Plastic Waste Trade Action calling for full ban of EU plastic waste trade exports outside of its borders

Where: Between the Berlaymont and Justus Lipsius buildings at Schuman square, Brussels 1000

When: 29 September, 9:00-18:00 CET

Who:

• Break Free From Plastic; Rethink Plastic alliance; Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA); European Environmental Bureau (EEB), Zero Waste Europe (full day)
• European Commissioner for Environment, Oceans and Fisheries Virginijus Sinkevičius (17:15 – 17:45)
• MEPs (time TBC)

Why and Context:
The 3 metre plastic waste dragon is coming back to the European quarter this September, and 36 MEPs and 61 organisations across the world agree that now is the time to slay it. 

Irresponsibly managed waste has no place in a circular economy. In 1950, the world produced 1.5 million tonnes of plastic. In 2019, the European Union (EU) shipped more than 1.7 million tonnes of plastic to third countries in the form of waste, mostly to Turkey, Malaysia and China. Not only does this demonstrate the EU’s longstanding inability to properly handle the incredibly high levels of plastic consumption and subsequent waste it produces but also the scale of negative impacts this has on receiving communities, and the planet. Not previously in the public eye, attention on this issue is finally gaining in traction across the globe.

Over the last 30 years more than a quarter of a billion tonnes of plastic waste has been legally traded around the world, with the European Union consistently being one of the largest plastic waste exporters in the world. Out of the top 10 plastic waste exporting countries in 2020, six were European Union Member States (Germany, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Italy and Slovenia).

That’s why the Break Free From Plastic (BFFP) movement, the Rethink Plastic alliance (RPa), Zero Waste Europe (ZWE), the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), European Environmental Bureau, MEPs and supporting organisations agree the EU must address and resolve this issue, by enabling a ban on plastic waste exports outside of its borders, and ensuring that intra-EU management of plastic waste is fully in line with a genuine circular economy and current international agreements.

In October 2021, the European Commission will table a new proposal for the EU Waste Shipment Regulation, with the intent of better framing EU waste shipments through:

• restrictions on EU waste shipments of waste outside of the Union.
• measures to avoid potential environment-and-health-related adverse effects on the environment and public health caused by EU shipments of waste; and
• a better inspection and enforcement system to tackle illegal waste shipments;

At this crucial juncture,  BFFP, RPa and its members will hold a full day street action, report launch and exhibition event in front of the Berlaymont building in Brussels, to urge the European Commission to propose a ban on plastic waste exports as part of an ambitious revised Waste Shipment Regulation.

Confirmed attendees include the European Commissioner for Environment, Oceans and Fisheries, Virginijus Sinkevičius, MEPs and leading environmental NGOs, who will be present for a formal handover of Plastic Waste Trade Manifesto signatures to the European Commission around 17:15 CET.

This is a key opportunity for the media to cover one of the most pressing environmental justice issues of our generation; as such, we will dedicate a portion of the day to interviews with organisation representatives and key decision-makers alike. 


For more information and to confirm attendance/interviews, please contact:
Niamh Cullen, Communications Coordinator, Rethink Plastic alliance
[email protected] 

Berta Corredor, Press Officer, Zero Waste Europe, [email protected] 

For more information see https://www.breakfreefromplastic.org/the-plastic-waste-trade-manifesto/.

For visuals from this event, visit our Flickr channel.

A new report from the Ecologic Institute, commissioned by the Rethink Plastic alliance and the Break Free From Plastic movement outlines why extended producer responsibility and “ecomodulation”- the incentivising of environmentally friendly products – can be a key opportunity for waste prevention across Europe. 

The European Commission committed to ensure only sustainable products are allowed on the EU market and is expected to propose a number of legislative measures in the Sustainable Products Initiative Policy by the end of the year.  

Extended producer responsibility, or EPR, is one such measure to make this a reality. Based on the ‘polluter pays principle’,   EPR schemes can ensure, if properly designed and implemented that the overall responsibility of a product’s entire lifecycle, from design to disposal, is shifted from taxpayer to producer. 

Ecomodulation, or charging differentiated fees based on the sustainability of a product, can incentivise producers to redesign their products and packaging and in turn, foster waste prevention and support the achievement of a toxic-free circular economy. 

The report offers a number of recommendations to make EPR ecomodulation an effective tool to make long lasting, reusable, toxic-free and recyclable products and packaging the norm ,  including:

1. Harmonising product standards and ecomodulation criteria between European countries, and in line with the waste hierarchy
2. Bridging fee incentives criteria under EPR  with eco-design criteria
3. Expanding  the scope and cost coverage of EPR to include waste prevention measures
4. Earmarking revenues for social economy actors such as reuse operators and research and development on circular designs and reuse systems. 
5. Increasing data availability, transparency and access to information to consumers  

Blaine Camilleri, Policy Officer at the European Environmental Bureau on behalf of the Rethink Plastic alliance commented:

“Redesigning products and packaging addresses the issue of waste at the most upstream source, and places responsibility there. The eco-modulation of EPR fees is an effective way of incentivising the re-design of products by making them more sustainable and circular, and shifting the focus of waste prevention to the design phase. EPR fees should reflect the true environmental costs of products and serve as a price signal for consumers to opt for sustainability when making their consumption choices.”