Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – EU policy framework on biobased, biodegradable and compostable plastics

(COM(2022) 682 final)

(2023/C 228/19)

Rapporteur:	András EDELÉNYI
Co-rapporteur:	Alessandro MOSTACCIO

Referral	European Commission, 8.2.2023
Legal basis	Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Section responsible	Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment
Adopted in section	13.4.2023
Adopted at plenary	27.4.2023
Plenary session No	578
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	134/0/4

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC):

1.1.

welcomes the timely communication on the EU policy framework on biobased, biodegradable and compostable plastics: this is a sector which is opening up options for coming closer to the goals of sustainability and circularity. If properly regulated, bioplastics can be an instrument for ‘green’ development (decrease in fossil consumption and in plastic pollution, increase in separate waste collection).

1.2.

highlights the fact that, fortunately, Europe is a pioneer in the field of bioplastics and biodegradable plastics development and, from 2007 to 2020, financed more than 130 research projects to the tune of EUR 1 bn (1). The EU is the world’s second largest producer of bioplastics and should increase its global position by focusing on products with the highest added value, i.e. products that are biobased, biodegradable and compostable (Asian production is mainly limited to compostable but non-renewable products).

1.3.

believes that we will be able to raise the bar in global competition by achieving maximum environmental benefits if the new regulatory framework is able to select the industrial applications with the highest environmental added value and if all new products that are placed on the market communicate clearly and truthfully, empowering consumers to be proactive in the shift towards the circular economy.

1.4.

encourages the Commission to draw conclusions on the basis of comparative analysis of the benefits of biobased, biodegradable and compostable plastics versus fossil-based plastics. Some overly cautious non-comparative recommendations may fail to provide research, innovation and starting investment activities with sufficient guidance. This may hinder progress and blunt the EU’s competitive edge.

1.5.

recommends that a systematic review be conducted of all measures which directly and indirectly affect the surrounding legislative and normative environment in line with the most recent scientific findings. This could mitigate confusion and safeguard users.

1.6.

calls for the cascading hierarchical priority system to be applied to the evaluation of materials, products and processes, including circularity and sustainability aspects. This is relevant for the raw materials, biomass and food chains, as well as for recycling cascades. The implementation of RED III will further establish the sequence whereby the reuse/recycling of the material (renewable material) is prioritised over reuse for energy purposes (renewable energy).

1.7.

is persuaded that the Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) is an excellent tool for assessing certain sustainability aspects of products, and so helps guide planned or ongoing research, innovation and investment activities. However, considerable further effort is needed to reduce the shortcomings inherent in the methods currently used, with a view to reducing the uncertainties involved in neglecting the biogenic carbon bonus (2) and the impact on the natural capital.

1.8.

is of the opinion that most current cost accounting and pricing methods fail to internalise and recognise the impact of additional components that are recycled back into the production loop in terms of the resulting expenditure and gains. A realistic Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme based on the LCA and tailored to the specific needs can redirect and correct the detrimental price competitiveness of biopolymer products.

1.9.

suggests that a selected set of intervention areas that should come within the remit of ‘Value-Added Europe’ (3) can help identify and release the bottlenecks holding back the fast progress needed. This is particularly relevant for data, monitoring and discussion and for supporting research and innovation.

1.10.

recommends that the Commission continue the cyclical reviews of important developments in the biopolymer ecosystem. The built-in public consultation methods and tools are a good way to involve all stakeholders, primarily by ensuring that organised civil society is involved through the various representative associations.

1.11.

encourages Member States to introduce mandatory biobased plastic content percentages for both biobased plastic and compostable plastics. It is proposed that all display material (promotion, branding, etc.) should be based on definitive standards and norms. For the certified biogenic carbon content, this is the radiocarbon C-14 method. The mass-balance method can be acceptable for expressing the biomass content of more complex, multiple or intermediary level recycling but consumers have to be notified about it.

1.12.

notes the banning regulation on single-use plastics but proposes a precision of the definitions of its scope and wording as it believes that the regulation should not exclude a number of plastic products and applications that are inherently single-use, not returnable, i.e. that cannot be re-used or mechanically recycled. In those cases, the use of BBP and/or BDCP is to be favoured.

1.13.

highlights the fact that mechanical (short-loop) recycling is often beneficial due to its relative simplicity, but it does have shortcomings: these include down-cycling by mix, thickness limits, return yields and energy needs. A complex sustainability comparison may find that it is better to use biobased polymers or different recycling pathways (i.e. organic and/or chemical). The most suitable option in that case may be the use of plastics which are both biobased and compostable. Separation techniques for thin foils still have to be developed.

1.14.

is of the opinion that biodegradable plastics certified in compliance with EU standards offer opportunities to mitigate plastics pollution by reducing the accumulation of micro- and nanoplastic waste and thus the harm that non-biodegradables do. For the time being, only a few — although very important — applications are available for controlled biodegradation in specific open, natural environments. More effort is needed to develop systemic methods that combine material properties and conditions in order to take advantage of the options for biodegradation in soil and other specific open environments.

1.15.

is convinced that industrial composting and use of compostable plastic is an excellent way to enhance the collection and utilisation of food waste. In addition to returning carbon to the soil, these techniques make it possible to dispose of and recycle food waste and packaging (or other compostable applications) together. Member States should be encouraged and assisted to implement the mandatory separated organic waste collection from 2024. Compostable plastics such as bags and other food-related applications, as well as infrastructure, organisation and awareness campaigns should be made ready for this step.

1.16.

calls for the range of applications of compostable plastics to not be limited to those listed in the Commission’s proposal on packaging and packaging waste. Experience and good practice show that compostable plastics can play a beneficial role in a number of areas, primarily related to food contact, closed loops and thin foils.

2.   Background to the opinion, glossary and state of play in the sector

2.1.   Renewable plastics definitions:

—	‘Bioplastics’ is a generic collective term that should not be used either when marketing plastics or for applications because it can be misused and/or misleading or generate negative associations. Here it means ‘biobased, biodegradable and compostable plastics’.

—	Biobased plastics (plant-based plastics, BBP): plastics made from renewable, non-fossil raw materials (4). BBPs can be biodegradable or not. Drop-in BBPs are chemically identical to their fossil-based analogues. ‘Bio-attributed’ plastics can be defined as plastics with allocated biobased content.

—

Biodegradable plastics (BDP): plastics that, at the end of their functional life, are subject to decomposition by micro-organisms, thereby producing water, biomass, mineral salts and carbon dioxide (CO2) (or methane in the event of anaerobic digestion). They can be made of both biobased or fossil feedstock.

—

Compostable plastics (CP): a subset of biodegradable plastics (for which the joint acronym is BDCP) in which the biodegradation process takes place under controlled conditions using micro-organisms to produce stabilised organic residues, water and CO2 in the presence of oxygen or methane in the absence of oxygen, both end-gases are collectable. Standardised, strictly controlled composting takes place in composting plants (organic recycling plants) according to the requirements of EN 13432 (5) that assure the use of bio-friendly additives, too. Home composting is not subject to such strict conditions, and so it cannot deliver a pre-defined end product.

—	The most advantageous combination is, naturally, if a plastic is both biobased and biodegradable, including compostable which is the case for widely used polylactic acid (PLA).

2.2.   The plastics sector

Plastics/bioplastics production — world

2021-2022 data — Global production of plastics and bioplastics  (6)

Year	Fossil plastics [Mt]	Bioplastics [Mt]	BP [%]	BBP [Mt; (%)]	BDCP [Mt; (%)]
2021	367	1,80	0,49	0,74 ; (41,2 )	1,05 ; (58,7 )
2022 (*1)	390	2,22	0,57	1,07 ; (48,2 )	1,14 ; (51,3 )
Based on: European Bioplastics, Facts and Figures: https://www.european-bioplastics.org/market/

Bioplastics currently account for ca. 1 % of the world’s total plastics production.

By 2027 however, bioplastics are expected to increase from 1,8 to 6,2 million tons.

2.2.1.   Bioplastics in the world

Asia (particularly China) is the main production hub for bioplastics (41,4 % in 2022), followed by the EU (26,5 %) and the USA (18,9 %).

By 2027, Asia’s share is set to increase to 63 %, while without support measures the EU’s share is set to decrease significantly.

2.2.2.   European demand for bioplastics

In the EU, the demand for bioplastics increased from 210 000 tonnes in 2019 to about 320 000 tonnes in 2021 (7). The annual growth rate was over 23 %. Compared to the world production of bioplastics, European demand is about 18 %. Europe plays a leading role in terms of foreign trade balance and technical innovation.

Increasing consumers’ awareness on distinction from fossil-based plastics and optimal use of bioplastics is of key importance.

2.3.   Environmental challenges for plastics

2.3.1.   Impact on the climate

The plastics value chain contributes to a limited extent to greenhouse gases (GHGs) compared to other value chains like energy, chemicals and some other materials. The total GHG emissions caused by the plastics value chain in the EU in 2018 is estimated at 208 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-eq). The majority (63 %) is caused when plastic polymers are produced. Converting these polymers into products accounts for 22 %, and plastic waste treatment at end-of-life adds another 15 %, mainly due to incineration (8).

2.3.2.   Impact on natural capital

In addition to the impact on the climate, the recycling rate of plastics is still too low. This also affects the environment and the world’s natural capital (the footprint) by using up the finite stock of natural resources and harming the world’s ecosystems, such as soil, land, air, water, living organisms, and ultimately human health and well-being. A specific issue is the accumulation of microplastic particles in fresh and sea water.

2.3.3.   Efforts to mitigate the problem

The bioplastics value chain has the potential to reduce CO2 emissions due to biogenic or sequestered CO2 if usage increases significantly and if BBP waste is recycled rather than incinerated. Making plastics from biomass and/or ensuring that plastic products can biodegrade in certain environments has a number of benefits compared to conventional plastics, but these must be recognised and taken into account. A scenario calculation (Eionet Report — ETC/WMGE 2021/3) substituting all fossil-based plastics with biobased ones in the EU resulted in total annual GHG emissions of 146 million tonnes of CO2-eq for biobased plastics, 30 % less than the 208 million tonnes of CO2-eq emissions from the fossil-based value-chain (9).

3.   General comments

3.1.

The common features of bioplastics are that they have great potential to improve and preserve a sustainable, balanced carbon cycle. Accordingly, they contribute to a net-zero impact on the climate and the natural capital. The two main groups, however, should be treated separately. Biobased plastics (BBP), sourced from plants, are enablers for a switch from a fossil-based to a biomass-based plastics economy. Biodegradable and compostable plastics (BDCP) meanwhile have unique benefits for the end-of-life management of products and for achieving the Green Deal objectives (e.g. reducing food waste, sustainable production and consumption).

It is reasonable to use plastics which are both biobased and compostable in order to reduce the net GHG balance by the amount of CO2 sequestered from the environment.

3.2.

The European Commission’s communication provides a deep and extensive analysis of the biobased, biodegradable and compostable plastics sector, reviewing the available data. The conclusions and recommendations are overly cautious on certain points, and run the risk of discouraging innovation and investment in certain key areas. The analysis should be comparative, comparing biobased, biodegradable and compostable plastics to the current fossil-based version, although in any case the substitution 1:1 of plastics with bioplastics is not a viable scenario.

3.3.

The general societal perception and acceptance of sustainable materials and products and their use is quite high, typically between 80-90 % in opinion polls. 25 % of responding consumers would be ready to pay a price premium of 20 % above that of equivalent products made of fossil-based plastics and 4 % would pay 50 % more for sustainable biopolymer goods.

3.4.

The design and implementation of a realistic strategic framework needs: — clear, unambiguous definitions and classifications of biopolymer types, their characteristics and optimum application areas; — to ensure that people know that ‘biobased’ refers only to the origin of the raw material base, while ‘biodegradable’ and ‘recyclable’ is a systemic property that depends on the material and the environment/conditions of functional end-of-life; — a systematic review and alignment of the legislative environment governing design, manufacturing, use and recirculation, i.e. full-life of plastic goods; — to realign the surrounding set of standards and connected labelling, taking into account the recent findings of research, technical developments and innovations; — to provide consumers with scientifically proven knowledge and build effective infrastructure to enable them to become part of the process of achieving commonly agreed sustainability goals, and to continue to study the health and environmental impacts of bioplastics.

3.5.

A cascading hierarchical priority system must prevail throughout the entire framework, including the reduction of plastics at and before the source. This must cover the value chain and abide by the principles of preserve, re-use, recycle and recover in order to keep components in the loop As far as possible, the entire carbon stock, flow and cycle must be controlled: this includes the concentrated carbon in raw material (coal, oil, gas); carbon which has been manufactured, processed, captured (as CO2), collected (as waste) and recycled; and dispersed carbon found in used products, the soil and the air. Recycling options include sustainability-optimised short-loop (mechanical), mid-loop (physical/chemical and/or chemical) and full-loop (biochemical) pathways, depending on how the various substances can be returned to the loop.

3.6.

The above requirements pose a new and broad spectrum of challenges for eco-design engineering. In addition to the traditional tasks of functionality, feasibility and aesthetics, eco-design engineers must now factor in raw material sourcing, durability, end-of-life forecast, circularity and optimised sustainability.

3.7.

Sustainable feedstock sourcing deserves particular attention: the 1 % share of BBP within the plastics market occupies 0,02 % of arable land. A theoretical, but not realistic, 100 % replacement of fossil-based plastics by BBP would need 4-5 % of arable land. Crops (sugar, starch, oils) currently make up two thirds of feedstock sources and non-edibles (wood, castor oil) make up the remaining third. Despite low land usage, the goal will be to move down the food and biomass cascades, i.e. shift sourcing from crops/food to by-products (e.g. straw, waste wood) and recyclable waste (organic lignocellulose, carbohydrogen and carbohydrate waste) prior to energy recovery. The same is true for new feedstock initiatives such as algae waste.

3.8.

Manufacturing technologies are mostly established and the technologies for fossil-based plastics can be applied to transformation. For the circular chain, however, further steps must be added to both ends of the linear process: feedstock production and biorefinery as well as waste collection and treatment followed by recycling or recovery. These account for more dispersed material flows. Where needed and feasible, use should be made of centralised processes for CO2 capture.

3.9.

Material research and engineering should focus on widening the spectrum of applications of new biopolymers or blends with novel combinations of physical, chemical, functional and degradability properties, with regard to both the material properties and the conditions.

3.10.

Labour aspects have not yet been analysed in depth. Estimations forecast an additional 175 000 to 215 000jobs by 2030 (footnote 16). New technologies need new skills, especially when it comes to feedstock processing, recycling and eco-design engineering. These demands will have to be addressed by development and investment plans, along with training, education, reskilling and upskilling programmes. Job satisfaction and prestige is increasing but equal attention must be paid to designing decent work conditions.

3.11.

Most of today’s mainstream accounting and pricing models use the traditional or linear ‘cradle-to-gate’ approach. In this comparison, biopolymers are at a disadvantage due to the high material costs, more fragmented access to feedstock, smaller serial productions and learning curve. In a ‘cradle-to-cradle’ paradigm which internalises the costs of sustainable recirculation, this could change completely. Properly applied modular Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) methods could offset the gap.

3.12.

Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) methods and calculations are used to evaluate the environmental footprint of used goods and materials. Considerable efforts have been made to define and quantify this impact, expressed as net GHG-emissions in CO2-equivalent. Further experience, research and modelling will be needed to develop the current Product Environment Footprint (PEF) methods as they fall short when it comes to establishing the biogenic carbon bonus and quantifying land use change impacts and the hard-to-guess natural capital impacts. A realistic and accepted LCA is a prerequisite for a credible and modular EPR system. LCA-based screening and forecasts would reduce risks by steering early research and innovation and investment decisions.

3.13.

Member States’ practices and legislation vary to a considerable degree. ‘Value-Added Europe’ (10) should therefore focus on supporting areas such as data collection and transparency, identifying and disseminating good practices, monitoring scientific, economic, financial and social progress, also identifying bottlenecks and helping remove or resolve them in order to keep the EU fairly competitive in this sector.

4.   Specific comments

4.1.   Introduction

4.1.1.

In a number of cases, mechanical recycling is not feasible, due to the packaging being contaminated by food or because it is not possible and/or convenient to mechanically recycle small and/or thin packaging. In these cases, compostable plastics are a good solution as they allow for the co-disposal and joint recycling of food waste and packaging.

4.2.   Biobased plastics

4.2.1.

The policy framework should stipulate a mandatory minimum biobased and recycled content for BBP, starting with the European Commission proposal on packaging and packaging waste (30.11.2022). This BBP content could replace or complement the minimum recycled content. Food safety requires the use of virgin or chemically recycled material in food contact applications (cutlery, cups, trays, wrapping films); only PET bottles and trays are allowed to be mechanically recycled and reprocessed into plastics for direct food contact.

4.2.2.

There are already certification schemes for biobased content, such as the TUV Austria OK biobased scheme (11) and the DIN CERTCO biobased scheme (12). There are also specific European and international standards (13), including third-party-certified mass balance-based approaches. Moreover, some Member States have set mandatory levels for both recycled and biobased content. For certification, biogenic carbon content should be defined using the C-14 radiochemical methodology. However, for multiple times recycled, non-homogeneous products and BBP containing plastics, the mass-content method could also be acceptable.

4.2.3.

Certain chain-of-custody methods enable biobased feedstocks to be used in intermediates or products where the complexity of the value chains or the level of scale does not yet allow for segregation (14).

4.2.4.

The policy framework refers to the Joint Research Centre’s ‘Plastics LCA method’ (15) which builds on the EU Product Environmental Footprint method (PEF) as the most harmonised method available. However, the PEF methodology falls short when it comes to properly accounting for biogenic carbon (even contradicting some commonly accepted standards (16) taking into account the upfront uptake of biogenic carbon in biobased products and plastics) and land-use change.

4.3.   Biodegradable and compostable plastics

The properties of biodegradability and compostability are not negative aspects leading to increased littering. There are no evidence, studies or demonstrations to prove the assumption that biodegradability may negatively influence littering. This issue can be addressed with a labelling system as has already been introduced in Italy. No material should be littered: all materials have to be collected, sorted and recycled.

4.3.1.   Biodegradable plastics

The biodegradability of plastics in the open environment is not a waste management tool. On the contrary, and in line with the European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC (17) and standard EN 13432, compostable plastics must be organically recycled with food waste or with livestock manure and slurry in composting plants in order to produce organic compost that can be used as organic fertilizer for treatment and improvement of soil. The aim is to use these materials where there are proven sustainability benefits, as is the case with food-related applications. Such use of compostable plastics may contribute both to raising the levels of organic waste collection and to reducing the contamination of organic waste caused by traditional plastic materials.

4.3.1.1.

Further intensive research should be carried out into systemic-optimised materials and conditions for controlled biodegradation in specific open, natural environments. Good examples are water-degradable plasters or soil-degradable polymer coatings of slow- or controlled-release fertilisers. However, more efforts are needed to develop degradation as this can go far in preventing and mitigating micro- and nano-plastic pollution by accumulation.

4.3.1.2.

As recognised by the European Commission’s communication, biodegradable plastics play an important role in agriculture. In this sector, biodegradable plastics are a beneficial alternative as they biodegrade in the soil without generating microplastics. They also avoid the soil erosion that would otherwise occur when using very thin (< 25 μm) traditional plastic mulch films.

4.3.2.   Industrially compostable plastics

4.3.2.1.

The EESC emphasises the key role of compostable plastics in most specific food contact packaging and non-packaging formats, in line with but not limited to the few formats mentioned by the Commission (fruit and vegetable stickers, tea bags and filter coffee pods, as well as very light plastic carrier bags). Therefore, other important compostable packaging and non-packaging formats such as cutlery, cups, trays and wrapping films (also in closed loop events, uses and areas) should be promoted and not banned by Article 22 in combination with Annex V of the proposal on packaging and packaging waste. This is not in line with the fact that, as of 31 December 2023, biowaste must be separately collected or recycled at source in all EU countries (18); compostable plastics play a pivotal role in achieving a higher rate of biowaste capture and less contamination of compost by non-biodegradable plastics. As some compostable and biobased plastics are already on the market, the most suitable option seems to be to require a minimum biobased content for compostable plastics, in line with some national legislation (as in Italy and France).

4.3.2.2.

The review of the Fertiliser Directive showed a clear imbalance in European fertilising patterns: average overuse of synthetic nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium nutrients may lead to the eutrophication of waters, whilst a lack of organic fertilisers, like manure, compost from waste, sludge, etc. may lead to a drop in soil carbon content.

4.3.2.3.

The European Commission’s communication sees the cross-contamination issue as an argument for limiting the use of compostable plastics. However, cross-contamination involves not only compostable plastics, but also other materials (such as the presence of metals in plastic streams and of non-compostable plastics in biowaste). There is also cross-contamination in plastic streams, because the different polymers should be separated before entering most of the recycling processes to avoid down-cycling. In practice, the cross-contamination of plastic streams by bioplastics is unproven: Italian data show that the presence of compostable plastics in plastic streams is below 1 %. This is due to the fact that some products can only be made of compostable plastics (single-use plastic bags, cutlery, plates) and to there being a clear labelling system for both compostable and traditional plastics, which enables consumers to distinguish between them and throw them into the appropriate recycling system (biowaste for compostable plastics vs. plastic for non-compostable ones). Therefore, there is no cross-contamination and no consumer confusion in countries that have established appropriate waste management systems for compostable plastics (19). Those countries and their legislative frameworks, waste management systems and labelling systems could be a good practice for bioplastics. The EN 13432 standard can be updated but the European Commission’s communication fails to recognise that composting plants which follow the best available practices and technologies for processes, particularly the right composting times, are able to fully treat and biodegrade compostable plastics and food waste, as shown in the interviews conducted by Biorepack in composting plants (20). Neither bioplastics nor the EN 13432 standard are responsible if some composting plants, especially in EU Member States with less efficient food waste management systems, do not follow the right composting processes and timing. Those composting plants simply need to be upgraded.

---

(1)  Circular Bio-based Europe Joint Undertaking.

(2)  Biogenic carbon absorption (sequestration) from the environment should be deducted from the carbon emissions in environmental footprint calculations, i.e. ‘credited’ to the climate impact.

(3)  The areas where the EU, together, can create added value, versus the individual Member States acting separately without coordination and common resources.

(4)  The family of biobased plastics may also include ‘bio-attributed’ plastics, which can be defined as plastics with allocated biobased content (biobased content can be determined by means of feedstock allocation).

(5)  OJ L 190, 12.7.2001, p. 21.

(*1)  Preliminary balance.

(6)  Source: World plastics production 2020, Plastics Europe, 2021. European Bioplastics, Facts and Figures (https://www.european-bioplastics.org/market/).

(7)  Plastic Consult, Bioplastics in Europe, Market update, 23.9.2022.

(8)  Eionet Report — ETC/WMGE 2021/3.

(9)  Eionet Report — ETC/WMGE 2021/3.

(10)  This is the inverse of the concept of Costs-of-non-Europe and refers to the benefits of acting in synergy rather than individually.

(11)  https://www.tuv-at.be/green-marks

(12)  https://www.dincertco.de

(13)  CEN/TS 16640; ASTM D6866.

(14)  In complex and long industrial processes using multiple feedstocks, a physical segregation (between fossil and bio or between ‘fresh’ and recycled) would require unsustainable investments. Chain-of-custody methods allow for a reliable and transparent accounting and a clear and unequivocal labelling and claiming with respect to the content of a product along the value chain.

(15)  https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC125046

(16)  ISO 22526-1, 2 and 3, EN 16760, ISO, EN 15804, ISO 14067.

(17)  European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10).

(18)  Article 22 of Directive 2008/98/EC.

(19)  See Biorepack EPR schemes for compostable plastics in Italy, https://eng.biorepack.org/

(20)  https://eng.biorepack.org/communication/news/composting-plants-talk.kl