In particular, ERPA claims the system will place unnecessary burdens on paper merchants and endanger commercial confidentiality.
ERPA president Michael Kuhl said: “There are benefits to be gained from a European recovered paper identification system but any system will only success if it encompasses the operational and commercial needs and sensitivities of all parities.”
He added: “We do not disagree with the principal of bale identification but the system as published by CEPI does not take into consideration the views expressed by the large majority of the EU recovered paper merchants and suppliers.”
Scheme
Under the CEPI scheme, every member of the recovered paper chain would be required to keep track of their supplier, starting from the original source of the material and ending up at the paper pulper that ultimately uses it.
CEPI claimed that it would both identify recovered paper recycled in paper mills and make sure material met both the current and expected legal requirements of waste traceability.
However, paper merchants have claimed that the wording of the document implies that the system is compulsory rather than a recommendation as originally intended, which could lead to paper mills expecting it across the board.
ERPA also wants paper mills to take responsibility for identifying their bales only up to the point of acceptance and reception at a paper mill, so that they are not called to account months later when it is sent to the pulper.
Other concerns include commercial sensitivity over labelling bales and that bale identification should not have to include grade quality, which is often dependent upon the user and is already stated on delivery documents.
ERPA said: “Major issues have been leading to the disagreement between the recovered paper sector and the paper industry, such as the transfer of responsibility between supplier and mill for traceability at the point of reception and the marking system for bales, which would prove to be commercially sensitive.”
David Symmers, who sits on ERPA's executive committee and is chief executive of the UK's Independent Waste Paper Processors Association, said that while the changes paper merchants wanted to make were small, they were “fundamental”.
He said: “There are all sorts of problems in having a unified system of putting labels on bales. It does not take the variability of the industry in mind. In particular, the wording of the document implies that it is a requirement rather than a recommendation”.
Mills
While paper merchants voiced strong opposition across the board, some paper mills also revealed they were also not happy with the proposals, and were labelling their own bales.
One mill source told letsrecycle.com: “In principle the merchant should be proud to say I made this, this bale is great. But, I can see their concerns, it is like taking delivery notes to another level. For the mills, in practice what do you do, do you really turn the material away?”
CEPI
Ulrick Leberle, raw materials manager at CEPI, expressed surprise that ERPA had spoken out against the paper tracking system.
Speaking to letsrecycle.com today, he said: “We have discussed this identification system with ERPA for one year and we are surprised they are rejecting the document now and some of the arguments are not clear. The system is only there to ensure bales are marked under a unified system across Europe. We are still working with ERPA in the hope that they will sign the document in the future.”
Register for free to comment