OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Allianz Verpackung und Umwelt e.V.

AVU

The AVU, in dialogue with its members, policy makers and other relevant stakeholders, aims to achieve the following objectives: Producers, bottlers, traders, waste disposal companies and recyclers assume responsibility for an environmentally sound and resource-protective use and recycling of packaging in a competitive framework. Consumers are enabled with information and the provision of suitable collecting systems to make their own contribution to environment and resource protection with packaging. The political and economic framework conditions of packaging recycling should be designed in such a way that consumers are not additionally financially burdened. This also implies that all the obligated parties make their financial contribution in a transparent and legally sound environment.

Lobbying Activity

Response to Circular Economy Act

3 Nov 2025

Siehe Anhang
Read full response

Response to EU rules for the calculation and reporting of recycled content in single-use plastic bottles

17 Jul 2025

Zukunftsfähige Kreislaufwirtschaft mechanisch und chemisch Die Kreislaufführung von Verpackungen leistet einen wichtigen Beitrag zum Ressourcen- und Klimaschutz. Sie reduziert den Bedarf an fossilen Rohstoffen und spart so CO-Emissionen ein. Da Verpackungen in Haushalten, Handel und Industrie in großen Mengen anfallen, ist ihre Rückführung in den Stoffkreislauf ein zentrales Handlungsfeld für eine funktionierende Kreislaufwirtschaft. Das mechanische Recycling ist und bleibt die tragende Säule der Verpackungsverwertung. Im Bereich Kunststoff können chemische Recyclingverfahren eine sinnvolle Ergänzung darstellen insbesondere dort, wo mechanische Verfahren aufgrund komplexer Materialstrukturen technisch oder im Hinblick auf Outputqualität und Kosten an Grenzen stoßen. Für eine sinnvolle und nachhaltige Integration des chemischen Recyclings in die bestehende Recyclingstruktur sind jedoch klare Rahmenbedingungen erforderlich: - Einsatzbereich des chemischen Recyclings klar definieren: Chemische Recyclingverfahren dürfen nur für Kunststoffabfälle eingesetzt werden, die mechanisch nicht hochwertig recycelbar sind. Design-for-Recycling Kriterien müssen weiterhin klar auf die mechanische Verwertung ausgerichtet sein. - Massebilanzierung: Keine Rezyklat-Zuschreibung aus der Treibstoffproduktion Massebilanzierungsverfahren dürfen keine Anrechnung von Alt-Kunststoffen, die zu Treibstoffen verarbeitet werden, als Rezyklatanteil in Verpackungen oder anderen Produkten ermöglichen. Da die Teibstoffproduktion kein Recycling darstellt, muss eine solche Anrechnung unzulässig bleiben. Der sogenannte fuel exempt-Ansatz kann hier ein sinnvoller Weg sein. - Transparenz gegenüber Verbraucherinnen und Verbrauchern: Damit Vertrauen in neue Recyclingpfade entsteht, müssen die eingesetzten Verfahren und Mengen korrekt kommuniziert werden. Die Anrechnung chemischer Rezyklate im Rahmen eines Massebilanzverfahrens muss für Konsumentinnen und Konsumenten transparent ausgewiesen und nachvollziehbar sein. - Betrugssichere Zertifizierung bei Importen Importe von fälschlich als chemisch recycelt deklarierten Kunststoffen müssen durch Zertifizierungs- und Kontrollmechanismen effektiv verhindert werden. - Keine Beweislast für Duale Systeme Eine Abgrenzung zwischen mechanisch recycelbaren und mechanisch nicht recycelbaren Verpackungen darf nicht zu einer Prüf- und Beweispflicht für die Dualen Systeme führen. Für die Einordnung könnten die künftigen europäischen Nachhaltigkeitskriterien für Kunststoffrecyclingtechnologien genutzt werden, die im Rahmen der EU-Verpackungsverordnung PPWR bis Ende 2026 zu entwickeln sind.
Read full response

Meeting with Oliver Schenk (Member of the European Parliament)

4 Feb 2025 · Circular Economy in der Europäischen Union

Meeting with Oliver Schenk (Member of the European Parliament)

4 Feb 2025 · EU-Verpackungsverordnung

Meeting with Andreas Glück (Member of the European Parliament)

27 Nov 2024 · PPWR

Meeting with Joachim Streit (Member of the European Parliament)

21 Nov 2024 · EU legislation in the field of waste management

Meeting with Delara Burkhardt (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

2 May 2023 · Packaging Waste

Response to Review of the requirements for packaging and feasibility of measures to prevent packaging waste

21 Apr 2023

AGVU Position on the draft PPWR Despite being a very positive and constructive step towards the EU circular packaging economy, the EU Commissions proposal also contains problematic aspects: key decisions will be moved to the level of delegated and implementing acts. This not only effectively bypasses the European Parliament but is also very problematic for the industry due to the lack of deadlines for the submission of these acts. Moreo-ver, a transparent process for the elaboration of all delegated acts should be established involving ex-perts from all stakeholders in the packaging value chain. Furthermore, scientific evidence of the environmental benefits is still lacking for some of the proposed measures (reuse quotas, packaging bans etc.). Such significant decisions ought to be made on the basis of comparative life cycle assessments. The AGVU recommends amendments in the following areas: The use of recycled material (Art. 7) It is not currently possible to meet the planned recycling quotas for non-PET contact-sensitive ma-terials, because no corresponding recycling processes are permitted. This Article should be amended to ensure that the quota for non-PET contact-sensitive materials would only enter into force if the corresponding recycling processes have been approved by a certain date. The conditions under which the EU Commission could amend the recycled material quotas in the event of a lack of availability of recycled materials should be specifically defined (Art. 7.10.). For the EU Commission to be able to establish recycling quotas for other materials (Art. 7.11), the text of the regulation should specify the necessary conditions, such as the identification of an inadequate market function. Art. 7.1 pertains to the calculation of the recyclate content with reference to each individual pack-aging item. Any product-based calculation reduces the prospects for efficiency in the procurement and use of recyclates. Manufacturers should be permitted to calculate the recycled content as an average of the total quantity of products within the scope of one of the Art. 7 quotas. Packaging minimisation (Art. 9) The envisaged mandatory requirement for manufacturers to provide proof of conformity for each individual item of packaging is problematic. The effort required to furnish legally secure proof and documentation that packaging cannot be smaller or lighter than it actually is, seems disproportion-ate, especially for SMEs. Standard documentation of packaging minimisation should be replaced by the empowerment of competent authorities to request evidence from companies on a random basis or in cases of reasonable doubt. Packaging format prohibitions (Art. 22) Bans on certain packaging formats require affect producers as well as consumers and need to be justified accordingly. The lack of transparency regarding the selection criteria of the packaging to be banned is problematic per se furthermore, no scientifically substantiated reference to ecologi-cal benefits is made. The same is applicable to the ban on non-compostable single-serve coffee or tea system units (Art. 8.1.). Up to 140 million functional coffee and tea machines in the EU cannot work with compostable single-serving units and would become obsolete. Instead, there could be a requirement for the units to be recyclable by a certain date. In general, the AGVU recommends the complete removal of packaging bans from the text of the regulation. Reusability (Art. 23-26) Reusable systems do not always translate into ecological benefits compared with single-use sys-tems. Therefore, reuse quotas should be based on appropriate environmental impact assessments, such as LCA (Life Cycle Assessment). Some of the proposed targets for reusable packaging, particularly for transport packaging, are hard-ly achievable (such as Art. 26, para. 12.) and should be significantly lowered.
Read full response

Meeting with Andreas Glück (Member of the European Parliament)

7 Mar 2023 · PPWR