Hi everybody, this is Dave Vellante. We're here at wikibon.org headquarters in Marlboro, Massachusetts, inside the cube where we bring in guests, all the smartest people and extract knowledge and share that with you. We're here today with Ash Uthosh of Activio. He's the CEO, welcome Ash. Thank you Dave.  You know that how the technology works. You've been a VC. You've run a number of companies, deal maker, interesting combination, and your latest baby is a new company based in Waltham, Massachusetts, Activio. Tell us a little bit about what Activio does. Thanks Dave. So about three years ago when we first put Activio together, it started out with a very simple premise where we saw that organizations and people spent about five times or even more on making and managing copies of data than the production data itself. It was very interesting to see that you ended up with the tail becoming much bigger than the dog itself. And we looked at two big trends that helped us change that whole ratio. One was a virtualization or adoption of virtualization across the board. Second was the movement of data predominately from disk to desk, as opposed to disk to other kinds of media. Taking those two, we tried to put together an economic model that said, is it possible for us to bring virtualization into data management? And that's what Activio is all about. So this week we announced a new class of storage called Protection and Availability Storage, which is purpose built for optimizing management to copies of storage and sits alongside your production systems completely independent of what's happening on the production side itself. So in the last 10 years or so, we've just seen an explosion, not only of data, but in copies of data. And that's certainly part of this, but there's replication software, there's snapshot software, there's backup software, and these are all siloed point products largely. Now some large companies have purchased smaller companies and sort of creating this marketing umbrella, but from a customer perspective, I've got to manage these individual points. And so talk a little bit about why we have so many copies and you mentioned you've got this sort of virtualization approach to managing data. Talk a little bit more about how you're solving that problem, why we're there and how you're solving that problem. I think it's a slight twist to the old ad age. We talk about the only constant in businesses change. Turns out there's a small twist to that. I think the only constant is a faster velocity of change. And so people and businesses have now a much bigger requirement to go back and manage this change much more faster than they were used to do before. And that requires a whole new way of how you craft your IT infrastructure, the whole new way of looking at how you run your operations and virtualization absolutely becomes a foundation of making that happen. And the biggest barrier to that was the ability to come back and leverage information so that you can really run your business as fast as possible. And what happened in the process was you had your core set of data that was literally being copied for different kinds of reasons. Sometimes for data protection and therefore you had a separate tool for that. Sometimes because you want to run some business in analytics, a separate tool for that. Sometimes for disaster recovery, a separate tool for that. So all these tools were a result of the business requiring more and more information out of the data itself. And over time you got to the point where you have a plethora of these tools.  In fact, I think we talk about the classic case of a hazing program for an IT organization being a backup administrator. The new guy comes in, you go do backup. It's a thankless job. It's one of those jobs and you never get credit for doing a great job but you certainly get fired if you make one mistake. And so we decided to go back and address this underbelly of the storage industry, bring in virtualization and bring in a notion of the consumerization of this whole thing so that you truly love to go back and manage these copies of data and bring about a new paradigm of how you can really make your business much more agile at a completely different price point. So we have DAS, we have NAS, now we have PAS, Protection Availability Storage. So it's not just backup, right? Talk a little bit about the use cases. It's very simple. I think when you make copy, it turns out that people make something like a backup software. Makes a copy every night, keeps it around for a few months. Something like Snapshot makes a copy every couple of hours, keeps it around for a few, maybe days. You have this very simple notion of how all these tools that are making copies of data follow a same set of fundamental data management primitives. They all copy, they store, they move, they restore. The only problem is they do them in individual silos.  So now you come back and say, you captured the data once, you reuse it many times, whether it is recovering a file from yesterday because you lost one, or because your test and dev organization requires 14 copies of the database from two weeks ago, or you want the disaster recovery from a compliance perspective, we test it so often. The notion of having a virtualized platform for keeping copies that can instantly recreate these copies, just like your storage system does when you're accessing a file. Think about pass as a storage system that accesses history. So you have a notion of time added to this entire set of data that's kept up there. And most importantly, that data is now managed optimally, both in terms of capacity and the network. So you get a huge financial impact from a CAPEX, a completely different OPEX profile. But more importantly, what you do with the data, which is what most organizations want to come back and do, is just incredible in terms of the agility that brings about as a result of this virtualization. So as you write about the hazing program for IT professionals, data protection and generally in backup specifically has always been one of the biggest pain points for IT professionals. And a lot of the organizations we work with in the Wikibon community have very limited backup choices. They'll maybe do a daily incremental in a weekly full. And then for the mission critical applications, they might have some kind of replication software. And that's it. It's sort of a one size fits all. Can your system help break that mold? Absolutely. So talk a little bit about that. Absolutely. I mean, it's very interesting. We have one user about almost nine months ago who had been delaying the purchase of one of those tools because he was waiting for the management to come back with the definition of what the RPO and RTO was going to look like. Because based on that RPO and RTO, he was going to select a tool. And what, a complete refreshing change when we came back and said, here's a storage system that allows you to basically virtualize how you want to capture and how you want to restore. And you really don't worry about your RPOs and RTOs anymore. It reminds me of the pre-virtualization of the server days when you said, well, I got to run this application. I had to figure out which vendor I need to run this server on. You don't think about it anymore. It doesn't take you three and a half weeks to bring up an application anymore. It takes you literally 20 seconds. Click of a VMware virtualized environment or a virtualized server environment. And that's the same thing you're talking about here. You're not having the business. Go back and set a policy that drives down a choice of the product anymore. It's, you're converting IT into a service where it's a platform that allows the business to go back and pick the appropriate knobs and completely optimize how infrastructure is managed underneath. Now to be clear, you're not pushing or selling the production capacity, right? You're selling the backup, the business continuity, the disaster recovery, all those copies, right? So the production capacity is going to be what? It is any vendor. I mean, I think we're trying to very clearly isolate between two kinds of data in the organization. There's production data where your business runs. That's your golden copy of data. And then there's copies of this production data. And we are trying to optimize all these copies through a separate storage system. This production storage system could be all the favorite vendors you can pick your storage from. All of the favorite vendors that you pick on a daily basis. The important part is today you have this choice of production storage vendor.  And we are trying to decouple how you manage your data from where you stored it and have the SLA or your business requirements drive the class of storage and the kind of storage you want to use by having a data management engine that's virtualized. So your target can pretty much be any storage, any of the popular storage. Our target could be any of the storage vendors, any of the storage that's available, in fact, even a cloud storage, if you want to go back and use. The notion is, the way you manage your data should be dictated by the application and the SLA. Your choice of storage should be completely yours, based on this SLA. And then it could be the favorite vendor you have, it could be some other new vendor, but you have a completely different way of thinking about how you go back and choose this kind of storage. So one of the things you hear about, especially a backup land, you talked about disk to disk, deduplication was a huge trend, still is, but really took the world by storm and we all know the story of data domain and others. You guys provide deduplication capabilities, correct? That's right. And so there's a storage efficiency play, that you've got to do that, if you're really replacing copies. Talk a little bit about what customers are doing with the software. Are they able to actually replace a lot of this replication software and backup software? Are they sort of running that in parallel? Yeah. So there are two dimensions to optimization. One is within a bucket, make sure you optimize what's in the bucket itself. Then there's optimization of the fact that this unique set of stuff is across several of these buckets, several of these pipelines. And so we're taking a combination of, yep, we've got to go back and make sure we optimize within a bucket, but more importantly, collapse all these silos. So Actifio's virtual data pipeline is more about taking those individual silos, flipping them over and creating a pipeline of how data lives through its lifecycle. At the same time, you're having all the traditional optimization way of deduplication, compression, and what we call dedupe async, a whole new class of replication that is just dramatically an improvement over how data is replicated today. So you have a lot of the traditional tools that are put into a pipeline, and you have people who come back and start with a simple problem. It might be something as simple as, you know, I have about 12 terabytes of data and it's taking me well more than 24 hours to back it up. And somebody suggests, maybe you switched to a backup to this device. The reality is the real dog of the problem is the backup software. The notion of copying data so that you can put it into a tape was the reason why you had backup software. And now you remove the tape with something that acts like a tape and maybe it's a little faster, but when you want to restore it, it's going back to the backup software.  We are trying to come back and say, well, if you're moving from disk to disk, there's a much better opportunity to move the data in a raw format, put it back in the raw format and use a storage device to make it happen. And therefore you can start with something as simple as, I want to solve the backup in no problem, I want to do DR, or maybe, you know, I just wanted to do business continuity, or in some of the larger organizations, we've seen people come back and said, well, I got two petabytes of SAP data, and turns out I only have 111 petabytes of production database and 18 copies, two of them for backup and restore just in case, and 16 of them because my developers want a copy. In that, that's a scenario where we free up one and a half petabytes of storage because you have 111 terabytes of this production data and about 150, 160 terabytes of the copies, which are then virtualized to create these 18 copies any time you want. It's a completely different way of looking at how you go back and use storage, but more importantly, how you manage the data when and where you need it. There's not just virtualization and capacity, it's also virtualizing where you want the data to be accessed, what format you want it to be accessed in, so that the whole notion of the intelligence and software and box being dumb, you combine all of that into a box that is much more smarter. It's an object-oriented file system that allows you to get the context of this data for the first time. So that brings me to my next question, which is you're absolutely right. There's this heterogeneous siloed mess out there of different point products and customers want Nirvana, which is essentially the scenario that you're putting forth. How do they get from point A to point B and what do they have to do to adopt the product? I mean, you mentioned object-oriented file systems. Sometimes that scares people away to talk a little bit about how a customer goes from where they are today to what you're proposing. Yeah, and the beauty of Actifio from a philosophy perspective is to drive home the notion of simplicity. In fact, our tagline is radically simple. I mean, it's the notion that we want to make IT as simple as it can get and bring a notion of consumerization. So certainly we don't want our customers to start thinking about what's inside this box. We want them to think about the fact that it's a beautiful controller that shows up, connects to the power, connects to the network, and you set a discovery process of all the applications you have up there and assign SLAs. And that's all we want them to know. We want them to know two concepts. What apps they want to protect and what's the SLA they want assigned to this application. Now the question is where do you start? And you have multiple entry points. You have the ability to come back and say, you know, I've been looking for a DR solution and my vendor tells me I've got to buy another box of the exact same kind, some replication software, some brand optimization, or I just bring in an Actifio controller on both sides and it does take care of all this stuff. And by the way, it also happens to do backup. Also happens to do business continuity. Also happens to do, this is the power of virtualization. The things you can do when you take a function out of a sheet metal and make it into a file, you start making it do a lot more things. Or there are some situations, like I said, somebody wants to use a budget for this quarter because they have a terrible test end of problem. It's taking them an enormous amount of time to make copies of the data for their developers. You bring in an Actifio controller, exactly the same thing. It captures it and then reuses it for whichever specific application you want to apply it to. It turns out you can reuse it for other things too. But those are all part of the entire platform itself. So you mentioned consumerization of IT, bringing that trend to your ethos, really. Something we've talked about here at Wikibon, Silicon Angle and on theCUBE numerous times, what do you think is doing a good job in the industry? Do you think anybody is doing a good job of bringing that Apple iPhone-like consumerization mentality to enterprise products? Or do you feel like you're one of the first? I think from a data management perspective, we clearly are the first. I mean, I was an investor before I started this project and I looked at the landscape for a long time to look at where the pain points are and where the IT industry is. And I think in many cases, the incumbents absolutely have a desire to keep the complexity because that's part of the entire process and the business model itself. But more importantly, even if they had wonderful notions, it is very hard to come back and take a clean approach to say, I got 16 products. In fact, sometimes they may be from 16 companies and I'm gonna have to pull them together to do something. I mean, I worked in large companies where it's hard enough to get within an organization to get something done, let alone across an organization. So I think there are a few companies you will see especially early stage ones. Some of the notions that companies like Ecologic started off pretty early on. Some of the stuff that XIV has done in terms of user interface perspective. And they were the first baby steps. I think we took a big giant leap in going back and addressing one of the biggest pain points, the largest footprint in terms of data, and one that's considered an absolute unrebelly that nobody wants to mention. So I think we're setting a tone in terms of bringing about this consumerization and virtualization, at least as far as the storage part of the IT industry is concerned. Let's talk about some of the basics of Actifio, the company, so you were founded in 2008, is that correct? 2009. Okay, officially in 2009 you raised, I believe, 24 million? That's 24 million. And what's your head count today? I've got about 74 people now. And you're not going to tell me revenues, I presume, I remember we're on theCUBE if you want to, that's fine. But maybe you could talk about customers. I mean, we'll be talking a handful, dozens. We're just short of 100 customers. Typical range has been users across all kinds of verticals, starting about 10 to 20 terabytes of data. So you're talking about mid-size, lower end of the mid-range, to the enterprise class of customers. And the pain in terms of managing 10, 15 terabytes of data starts to become very palpable when you find that it takes two and a half weeks to recover your data or I'm a graphics artist in a marketing company and it's going to take me longer to get my old file that I accidentally deleted than for me to just recreate that entire file. That's when you know I've got to go back and change my IT. When your IT starts to become a bottleneck for business, that's when you bring virtualization, that's when you bring Actifio. So I wanted to shift gears a little bit and pick your brain. You've been in the business for a while now and you're a very experienced entrepreneur and executive. There's an interesting dynamic going on. And now you're very much tied to the virtualization trend and the disk to disk trend as the other piece, but VMware specifically is owned by EMC, which is a very strange situation. I mean, it's almost somewhat unnatural. And they're a storage company. So how do you, as a small company, feel about sort of a large company like EMC and VMware and maybe some of these other large companies like a NetApp or an IBM or an HP, sort of in that little collaboration, we've called it a cartel even, in quotes. How does a small company get access to SDKs and all the API knowledge that it needs to compete? How do you do that? I think we are living in a very, very wonderful world.  The good part is that as an IT and as a business owner, my ability to come back and drive my business has very little to do with who you are and what your size is. Is it about relevance to me? I mean, that's what every organization has come back with. And you've seen that. I mean, VMware was a two-person company at some point, but they weren't relevant. And so is Actifio. So I doubt it's a two-person company and it's the question of am I adding relevance to your business? Am I making sense to your business? There are some attributes to being big, but absolutely I think you start seeing that as you get to the consumerization part, the notion of just sheer size is not gonna help out for too long. It's about innovation. It's about making sure that you're really able to make relevant sense for the business. And we've seen companies that were large. NCR was large, one of the largest. So was AT&T, because all there's left is a brand. So I think just the large size itself doesn't matter. If you're not relevant to the business, then it doesn't matter who you are, what size you are. But if you are relevant, we expect absolute market success. Can large companies innovate? Some can in pockets. Majority, it's very hard. I think majority have a foundation of a business model and a product set that they've built on which made them successful, made them big. And I think I'm a big fan of Clayton Christensen in terms of innovators dilemma. And it's a problem most companies have a tough time getting out of. You're successful, you write on a model that you think is what's built the company. And it becomes harder and harder as you grow so large that you're unable to move. A lot of that answer depends on how you define innovation, I guess. And I think our definition would, at least encapsulates massive disruption. I mean, I would certainly put, for instance, a data domain in that category. That feels like disruption to me. And I think it's hard to actually come up with the examples of large company innovations as under that definition. Absolutely, I think you said it right. I mean, innovation comes in various forms. I think one of the best examples, we just celebrated a hundred years of IBM. And that's a company that has completely changed the business model. And they do tremendous amount of innovation but not in the sense that we think of as a startup company. You see that across companies like Dell who go back and change their business models constantly. So I think for a larger company, the notion of innovation is probably relatively different from what a smaller company thinks about in terms of product. But in general, when process becomes a foundation of you're building a company and the spark of innovation that comes from people becomes much smaller part of the entire picture. Inevitably you just have to keep innovating the process. And nothing to do with the technology, nothing to do with the product itself. All right, Ash, well thanks for coming on theCUBE. Actifio, clearly disruptive, doing a lot of innovation. A company to watch. Love to see the East Coast startup innovation going on and appreciate you taking time out to join us. Thank you very much, Jay. Thank you. All right, thanks for watching everybody. And check out more videos on siliconangle.tv and check out wikibond.org, siliconangle.com. If you got questions, hopefully we've got answers. Thanks for watching.


The attendees are in listen only mode. So good morning everybody and welcome. Welcome to this discussion on building a circular and climate neutral economy and to hear from a range of very interesting stakeholders and policymakers on their reaction and thinking about the November circular economy package. My name is Martin Porter. I'm Executive Chair of CISL in Brussels and it's my pleasure to moderate this discussion and guide us through the next hour and a half, which I hope you will all find extremely interesting, not least because we have an excellent lineup of speakers and participants and indeed a very wide range of people participating in the audience. If we can go to the next slide and I will briefly run through the agenda, you can see from this that we have an excellent lineup of speakers from all of the major EU institutions and then obviously also from different businesses and other stakeholder perspectives. So I hope that we will both cover all of the relevant and most pertinent and interesting dimensions of this discussion. And my job will also be to ensure that where we have questions from yourselves, that we're able to put those to some of the participants and with my colleagues, I will do my best to make sure that through the chat, any questions that come up, we try and answer those and where we can't, obviously we will do our best to ensure we can come back to you and give you responses after the discussion. So with that, my thanks obviously to all of the speakers and participants for joining and just by way of brief context and background, let me just refresh our minds on the topic, but also give you a little bit of background on ourselves and the organization that we are. So CLG Europe's Materials and Products Task Force was launched in 2021, as you can see at COP26 and brings together a leading group of businesses from a range of business sectors, all of whom are committed to driving forward this agenda and giving input and experience to policymakers and others on how best to do that. They are obviously committed to doing this on a Europe-wide basis and are collaborating with the support of CSL and indeed in the context also of the corporate leaders group Europe, the wider group of companies who are committed to doing as much as they can on the climate agenda in a similar way. So this task force has been active now since 2021 and has been working to support this agenda and has produced a number of reports and materials in advance of key events, notably obviously at the last COP and in the last year has produced reports such as that on the Digital Product Passport, materials which hopefully you've either seen already or which we can provide you afterwards. The aim of this group is obviously to engage with policymakers and this is an event which brings some of them together with those policymakers and other stakeholders as you see from the agenda. And to have a public discussion about the proposals that are on the table already and to see how best to put them into practice. So with that as introduction, I'm delighted to say that we have as a first piece of our meeting today, a word video presentation from Commissioner Sinkavikius, apologies for my pronunciation. And I would like to ask my colleagues if we can play that before we get into our discussion. So hopefully the technology will now enable us to see that video. Very good. So thank you very much indeed, Commissioner. I think that sets the scene extremely well for our discussion here today. And obviously enables us to think about all of the issues that were mentioned. And we can immediately now, I think look at the follow-up work and the discussions that are necessary as the commissioner indicated with three people who are actually handling this on a day-to-day basis at the very heart of each of the main EU institutions. So I'm very happy that I have with me now, I hope we'll soon see them on video. The head of unit dealing with Waste and Resources in the European Commission, Mattia Pellegrini. I hope that we will also see Serpa Peticaínen or at least hear from her. I understand that she may not have the video but Serpa also welcome to you as well as Mattia. And Marta, Marta Lima Basto from the Ministry of Economic and Maritime Affairs in Portugal. So Marta, welcome to you. It's great to have you all here with us and indeed from each, as I said, the three main institutions, you have a different perspective on this. And we will begin by hearing from Mattia who is working very closely obviously with the commissioner in delivering on that agenda. So Mattia, he's already said a number of things about your work and your agenda, but please follow up and give us more details and set out what you're now working on and looking for indeed from the stakeholders who are involved in this discussion here with you today. The floor is yours. Yeah, good morning everybody and thank you very much for the invitation. Indeed, I mean, we are working at the moment on many legislation and all this legislation are around the circular economy and the contribution indeed that circular economy can also give to climate change because indeed one of the ways to decarbonize is actually to make sure that products are not done in a linear way, but rather in a circular way because that's, I mean, when you look at the CO2 emissions, there are clear benefits. As you know, that type of logic of designing circular products started with the batteries regulation, which was the first time that the commission has actually regulated the entire lifecycle of a product, of a very important product that indeed if it's not circular, I mean, we're talking about a lot of the use of batteries in order to decarbonize, but indeed if they're not designed in a circular way and then you may really have negative impacts on the production stage of the battery. So that's the reason why the commission has set out a number of sustainability requirements, by the way also carbon threshold with the batteries regulation and that was the first one done in December 2020, which now after two years of intense negotiation has come to an agreement by the co-legislator and they should be published in the coming months at the latest before December break. I mean, now it's a matter of correcting the text. And then after that, the commission has come up as, you know, with the first circular economy package and which was in particular about the sustainable product regulation. So really how we design products in a sustainable way, by the way you were mentioning Martin, that you have done work on the digital product passport, as you know, this is also one of the component, both of the batteries regulation and of the sustainable product regulation. You have a batteries passport foreseen in the batteries regulation and a product passport foreseen in the sustainable product regulation, which is a transformation of the old daily design legislation into a type of legislation which takes into account not only energy efficiency but the full sustainability of a product. And more recently, indeed, which was, I think, is the main topic of today's discussion, we came out with the second circular economy package where we have focused on packaging, packaging waste. And indeed, this has been a really transformative approach because indeed, not only because again, we have, by the way, what you have noticed probably is that constantly we have reviewed where they were existing directive and transformed them into regulation. It's a very important point because that means that when we're talking about sustainability requirements, they will apply directly to economic operators. So that is the big change also with this approach of regulation and indeed it will be really important that companies then comply with these sustainability requirements. But I think in packaging, we have taken even an additional step, which was, and I think the commission referred to that is that for the first time, we have regulated what are called the two higher level of the waste energy. So the prevention of waste and from packaging and also the reuse. So as you have seen, we have set out for the first time a mandatory reuse targets for certain sectors, but that is also a big novelty compared to really the approach until now. And of course, then we have also mandated the important things like recyclability of packaging by 2030, so there will be a system by which if the packaging does not comply with a certain performance class, then it will be out of the market in 2030. So that's at the moment, just to give you an idea, one third of the packaging is considered, I mean, according to different studies, is considered to be designed in a way which cannot be recycled at the end of the process. So with that measure, we will fix that problem. And also then there is a problem of non performance of a specific one sector which is the plastic sector in terms of packaging, in the sense that recycling rates are very low. So in order to boost the recycling rates only for plastic packaging, the commission has put forward a mandatory recycle content. It's an increased level, but indeed, and as you have seen, we have divided in two types of packaging, the packaging which is in contact with food or sensitive in general, and the packaging, of course, which is non-sensitive. And of course, for the non-sensitive packaging, you can add much higher targets in terms of recycle content. And also what is important, maybe as a final point, we have a lot of measures about labeling because indeed also labels can, again, I mean, if we want to improve the recycling operation or reuse operation, you need the labels which can guide the consumers. So there will be at least three sort of labels, one on sorting instructions, one on reuse and one on recycle content. So that they will allow and they will guide the consumers. So for example, when you sort at home, the idea is that you will have the same pictograms in the receptables, so in your bin or bags and the same pictogram in the packaging. So you will not make any mistakes and because as you know, especially for complex packaging, sometimes you wonder yourself as a consumer which bin should I put it on. So that will increase both the collection rate and the purity level because there's also an issue of purity of contamination. So that's, again, we need to higher recycle rates. Higher recycle rates means less primary raw materials and that means less CO2 impacts. By the way, the last point I wanted to make, if you look at our impact assessment, especially on recycle content for plastics, as you know, plastic is made out of petrol. So we have estimated that with our targets on recycle content for plastics, how much imports of fuel can be of petrol can be avoided. So that's not only you have a CO2 positive impacts, but also the current context of energy dependency and diversification of sources and more strategic autonomy. We'll also bring that element in relation to the imports of oil which are needed for the production of primary plastics. I mean, there is many other things in the proposal is a very big one, and I think I don't want to take it too long, but of course, if there are any questions or reactions, then I'm happy to take it. Wonderful. Thank you very much, Mathieu. Well, your last point, let me sort of follow up and reiterate that for those of you who are in our audience, please feel free to use the chat function in order to put questions and we will do our best to collate those and put them to Mathieu, to Marta, to Sirpa at the end of their initial contributions. And as I said, if we don't get a chance to do that now, we'll do it afterwards as best we can. There's a huge amount that we can get into there, Mathieu. And I guess the best way of starting that is to maybe turn to Sirpa and to see what her initial reaction and maybe what she anticipates and is the reaction of European Parliament more broadly on this agenda. So Sirpa, welcome. I hope you can hear me and it's always a pleasure to have you with us. So if you can hear me, the floor is now yours. Thank you. Oh, you can't. Thank you very much, Sirpa. Welcome. And I hope that you can hear me as well. Always a pleasure to work with you, Martin, and very happy to be here in this session. Okay, about these reactions, I think that there's a lot of good and actually this kind of a paradigm changing in this proposed regulation. One is, of course, this hierarchy that was first time put in place in batteries, as we heard from Mathieu. But also now it is extended, it's the extended producer liability that puts the renewability at the first place. And of course, this is something that has raised worries and reactions already. So the parliament needs to be very tough on this. Then when it comes to choose when to reuse and whether there should be a compulsory recycled content or not, what I'm actually looking forward very much and that is under the environment, the energy environment also, is the indicator settings. And that would need to be the whole lifecycle analysis so that we can actually see where and how the reuse can be extended, how to prefer certain materials, plastics, are good in some places, good in some places, then maybe even class as a container if you can create a longer-term and metals, longer-term uses, but to really get the sort of a sort of materials right, this is what is needed. And hopefully this kind of a PEP, LCA, could be clear and could be fortified in the parliament. Then what I'm lacking here and what I'm missing is the whole target and I, this is not true to blame the commissioner because I know how hard this discussion is both in the parliament and not to talk about the council and the commission itself. But what we really would need to have is this kind of a complete indicator set plus then, not only indicative, but the science-based targets or a reduction of the resources. As we all know, we are talking about 10 goals improvement in resource services. And what I'm very afraid be it packing or other sectors is that we take the sidetracks and end up in insubstitutions that are better than but not effective and actually not helpful of getting to higher targets but preventable on that. And I could have a long list of examples of packing in other areas, what that can mean. But to avoid this, I think that this ambition and it should be clearly stated out and it should be binding. Then about the whole measuring system is still, as I mentioned, lacking behind that that has, of course, the connections with other regulations like taxonomy, sustainable finance in general, about our budgets and about them, of course, your stuff and how we measure the resource efficiency in our members. Then about measuring, and this is quite clearly in the base framework directive but also here, I think that we clearly should have all points of measurements to really get the information about how effective the system is. And that was very unfortunate the last time when we had the base framework directive in the file and we were not able to do it. First, you would need to of course measure the collected materials. Then second point, you should measure the amount that goes to reuse and then on the other hand, on recycling facilities. Then you would need to get the measurement what comes out of the recycling facilities. And there, as I've learned, there's quite a lot of loss nowadays. So the actually recycling processes are not effective and we should go there on the root causes and quite often that these materials and the collection systems that cause the problems. And the fourth point should be then actually what is on real use when after the material is re-processed. For example, in Finnish case, we do collect plastics pretty well. We do re-process it pretty well, but actually what gets out only about how it's used and the rest is incinerated. And we actually shouldn't that couldn't tolerate that kind of a lapse and about the effective reuse of the plastics so that means in real packing is close to 4% in Europe at the moment, not to be on the fifth. Then to pick up a couple of words of warning also what I hope that both the base regulation and here could be clarified is the chemical recycling. It should be last result and I'm very happy that the re-use is preferred and the mechanical recycling thereafter. But as we know, there's really ineffective close to fossil fuel industry basically turning turning the maturity of the material to be a fuel or to be incinerated. And these should not be categorized so understood as chemical recycling. It should be something that we yet does not to exist but we know that the system sound the pipeline already so that means that the regain of the molecules, the plastic molecules are above 70. So it is really effective and really clean and reusable and that then would sort of a set the bar and the stage right for the for the future. Then again, what a warning about bio materials are not always better. And this is in singular use something I sort of arrest my case because without this kind of a proper path LCA one can't tell is it better to have singular use plastics or reusable metal forks and knives in fast food systems or wooden utilities utilities on use. And there I'm afraid we are just sort of lobbying a bit like in buildings to prefer one or the other route to over the others and that might not always be the case if you cut the forest in China to produce forks and knives no one basically uses because they are packed on the back of three and quite often you need only four core you need only small spoon if that is a reasonable use of the resources. So there's a lot of stuff left on on detail to look close to conclude. I'm just wishing and hoping that the commission could still come up with the base more clear and then the as above mentioned targets and the measurement and the science-based approach on here to give the regulation as a last remaining gift to the parliament out of this very good work this commission has been doing. Thank you. Thank you, Sipa very much. I think that's a great set of points that you raise and obviously I hope I'll come back to Matia certainly with some of those ranging from the importance of measurement and metrics which goes to the heart of this obviously alignment with other policies and regulation some specific points for example about chemical recycling which we might turn to and the link of the end maybe to even broader issues like trade and I dare say even in industry strategy and plans given what is gonna be published today by the European Commission indeed. With that and I don't wanna preempt obviously what Marta is going to say Marta welcome and look forward to hearing what your perspective is on this obviously working at a national level but in the context of the European Union as a whole and the Council work that you're engaged in. So look forward to hearing from you and then we'll come back to some questions. I've got some online as well which I'll turn to but Marta over to you, the floor is yours. Thank you, Martin. Let me start by greeting the other participants in this event and thanking the CLG Europe Task Force on climate neutral and circular materials and products for hosting the event and inviting the Directorate General for Economic Activities from Portugal. For the sake of clarity let me tell you that this Directorate General is a public organization within the Ministry of Economy and Maritime Affairs and we are involved among many other competencies in the formulation of public policies within the framework of circular economy particularly with regard to waste management and extended producer responsibility but we do this obviously in coordination with the Ministry of Environment who have the lead of many of these negotiations within the European Council. We all have in mind that circular economy is an approach that aims to keep resources in a productive circuit for longer and consequently including measures and actions that extend the lifetime of materials to the limit if possible and enhancing their value. The transition, it's not easy from a linear economy to a circular model. It involves more than simply recycling. We do it as much as possible but there are other areas where we can connect on. The eco design of products including the phasing out and the elimination of hazardous substances and we are negotiating that in the European Council as it was already said by the Commission. We have strategies to promote reuse, re-manufacturing and repair of products, restrictions on the single use of products combating premature obsoles and limiting the destruction of unsold durable goods. Also strategies that stimulate new consumption patterns and we cannot left out the empowering consumers by providing reliable information to enable them to make the smart choice or the sustainable choice when each and every one of us is shopping. So the second European circular economy action plan and the proposals that are within it focus actions on those resource intensive sectors where the potential for circularity is higher. Without any doubt, both the packaging and plastic sectors are two of these such cases. And I'll be focusing on the packaging and packaging waste. We are obviously committed to contribute for the minimization of unnecessary packaging on the market to ensure that consumers can opt for usable packaging as well as to work on levels with clear information to support effective recycling. The key actions that are foreseen in this proposal are focused on preventing packaging waste, increasing reuse, refilling and making all packaging recyclable. The proposal in itself addresses three major constraints identified already in the impact assessments of the increase in the generation of packaging waste that's entwited by new consumption habits. We've heard it here before that as much as we recycle the consumption, it's much higher so it's not enough. Then barriers to use, to reuse and recycling mainly due to the non-use of eco design rules when conceiving the packaging and low quality of secondary raw materials mainly plastic materials due to the need for greater investment in technology. The measures advocated in this proposal are expected to contribute to a more efficient use of raw materials and thereby to promote the competitiveness and resilience of enterprises while also enabling citizens to reduce consumption costs which sometimes is debatable by preferring reusable over single use packaging which results in an extension on packaging lifetime. In a prevention and circular perspective the proposal includes besides measures and targets also ambitious requirements with the view to the elimination of over-packaging improve recyclability, minimize the complexity of a packaging composition, increase incorporation of secondary raw materials in phase out of hazardous substances to promote reuse all this without compromising the food safety and quality of standards. We in Portugal, our collective system that is licensed for the management of packaging waste already includes some of the concerns addressed by the proposal in particular by means of using eco modulation of financial benefits that rewards or penalizes fillers or packers depending on whether or not they implement business strategies to prevent the generation of packaging waste in facility recycling at the end of its life cycle. We've had a study on reuse carried out in 2022 by three Portuguese associations in the mineral water, beer and non-alcoholic drinking sectors. It was supposed to be to study a self-regulation model for this but as the commission was coming up with this proposal, the model waited for the targets that are going to be set at the end of this negotiation. But for example, in the water sub-sector the amount of reusable packaging placed on the market is relatively low, not to say very low and is essentially limited to the hotels, restaurants and catering sectors. Also in the juices and soft drinks it's even lower. All reusable packaging is also distributed through these channels and the beer and cider sub-sector is has the highest supply of reusable packaging with 45% in equivalent consumption units. The case of natural and spring waters is one of those that raises some concerns and the reuse of packaging is quite a challenge given that the natural and spring water filling units have to be located very close to the respective collection points and it's not easy to do that since transport in bulk of these water is not allowed and jeopardizes its properties. And the same happens with some wines especially those in recognized regions. So some of the targets in this proposal are a challenge and are not yet clear how we're going to do it and we have some difficulty in assessing the scope for the water in wines covered for example, nevertheless and more from the perspective of reuse in the targets for 2030 and 2040 will certainly require investment from the companies. The implementation and operation of a packaging reuse system implies several changes in the facilities of the producers and the logistics and transport networks. Carrying out these changes is time-consuming, it's expensive and although we are all committed to the targets, we also have to think the impact it has on companies. The involvement of the sales channels with increased circulation of reusable packaging it will be necessary to allocate space at points of sale and distributors for storage and of use packaging and space allocation is not always abundant as we know. It's one of the main barriers to the rise of reusable packaging and has a costing in itself. At the end of the value chain, these costs will be passed on to the consumer and it's essential to ensure that these investments are cost efficient and proportionate to the environmental contribution and finally to mention consumer involvement, consumer participation is also one of the critical success factors for all these policies. We, well, the commission is proposing to harmonize marking and labeling of packaging in line in what the containers for selective disposable and we'll see how this works. We've had for the last years, major campaigns to educate the consumer to separate everything, the glass from the paper from the plastic to put them in certain containers. It's yellow or it's blue or it's green. It depends on the member state. Yes, harmonize would be good, but it takes another extra effort to re-educate the consumer to do it. So these are some of the concerns we have. I hope it has been useful and thank you for listening. Thank you very much. Well, I mean, you raise a number of topics there which I'm sure are gonna be part of the council discussions and no doubt in the parliament as well. Maybe if it's okay, Matia, I'll come back to you with some of those points and a couple of questions that we've had in the chat and then I'll let yourself, Sierpa and Marta, address the questions together. But I mean, she raises some practical challenges that the businesses and others face and one of those in particular, I guess is an investment challenge. How do we incentivize the investment by companies in this and then the role of the consumer? So there are three broad areas, I guess, which would be interesting for you to react to. And maybe some specific questions, if you can bear these in mind. We've got a question of how the reuse and refill targets will work, particularly with an emphasis on effective reverse logistics. So that's one question we have. That's from a retail perspective, I think in particular. Secondly, on chemical recycling, is it being considered as an option for hard to recycle plastics? And thirdly, a question essentially from the hotel restaurant catering perspective, the banning of single use packaging and the targets associated, how are the difficulties associated with that for that sector being considered and mitigated? You don't have to answer all those questions if one or other of you can address them, that would be great. But first of all, Mattia, maybe you're reacting to what Marta said and maybe some of what Seopra said first off, and then I'll come to Seopra and Marta again. Yeah, so indeed, Martin, so thank you very much, both for the, I mean, summing up what Marta and Mrs. Pettigar and said, I mean, and indeed also for the specific question, which are linked by the way to the points made by the member of parliament and also by the representative of Portugal. So as you said yourself, I would like to start with that. This is the beginning of, if I can put it like in a football game, it's the beginning of a match in the sense that now you have 90 minutes to play because the commission proposal is only when the football match starts. And as you said, then there is the co-decision process which has already started, especially in the council, there has been already a number of working parties meetings and the parliament has now just appointed the rapporteur, Mrs. Ries, in the Envy Committee, which is also familiar with the, I mean, both Mrs. Pettigar and was indeed the rapporteur for the first park in 2018, back in 2018. So she's very familiar with our legislation, but also Mrs. Ries, she's familiar because she was the rapporteur for the SOP directive. So she knows partially, I mean, SOP was much smaller compared in terms of single-use packaging compared to the overall packaging proposal we have now, but indeed it's also good that a number of members of parliament which are familiar with packaging are also now addressed, I mean, still there and engaging in this issue. And indeed, I will start with the first point, which is the logistics, which was raised by Mrs. Pettigar and it was raised now by you in summing up the question and also understanding the chat. And the economic cost, as you said, indeed, the commission has assessed that. Our supporting studies have now been published on our impact assessment, which take over also the reuse part. And indeed, that's the reason why, for example, as you have seen on reuse, there is an exemption based on turnover, number of square meters in order to at least exempt small and medium enterprises.  You may find a better exemption and I think the decision process is there to see if maybe it needs to be improved, but indeed we're fully aware that one thing is to implement a reuse system for McDonald's, just to give an example, or Starbucks and other things is to implement a reuse system for the corner shop down on my road, where indeed it may imply the complete redesign of the shop, I mean, for example, for a small restaurant. So that's, I think, the first point. So we have foreseen an exemption for small and medium enterprises. And then the second point, indeed, we have seen that the only way to reduce cost, and that is very important because there is a lot of focus also, Marta was focusing a lot on the targets. But if you look at our proposal, it's not only about the targets. So there is the targets for reuse and there is also specifically for dining in and these things, there is even a ban of single use. But I think all of that, especially for the takeaway, for example, from the Orega sector, there we insisted a lot that this will also depend the success model and also the delivery of the cost on having in place what we call a reuse system. So for example, the commission has now foreseen the empowerment to come up and harmonize the standards and the formats of the products because indeed, you can imagine, and this links also to the question of Mrs. Pidekainen and also of the chat about the life cycle assessment. Indeed, not only has Mrs. Pidekainen makes sense to do a life cycle assessment, but we're even obliged under the West Railroad Directive to in order to impose reuse to do a life cycle assessment covering and to compare recycling with reuse. And indeed, if you have imagined the beer bottles, if you have like here in Belgium, many different formats, basically every single producer in Belgium has a different shape of bottle and a different color, of course then the reverse logistic will be impossible because then you will have to basically have a return back to each producer. So of course, why Germany was a success model because in Germany you have mainly three formats of beers. And then of course, what has happened is that I was visiting one beer producers in Germany, two thirds of the beer that they were reused there, rewashed in order to be reused, but beers of the competitors, simply just with different, you take out the label. So that is an important point. It is true that it may have, especially if you don't have harmonized formats, may have a very high cost and not necessarily positive environmental impacts, but if you create the so-called thermal condition, then we believe that they may be environmental benefits. Then indeed the question on consumer indeed, that is essential because indeed, I was yesterday actually at the breakfast meetings organized by the US ambassador with I don't know how many members of parliament, so I again understood how important is this proposal. And indeed, there are now, as you know, in the French system from 1st of January, 2023, it's obligatory to have reused in the RECA sector. It's a national law and indeed it appears from what it was shown yesterday that indeed there are interesting primary data with some of them they show high consumption of water, a shift from paper to plastics. So all these things of course are not in our impact assessment because at that time we have used what we call secondary data. We didn't have primary data because this is only taking place now. Of course, now the commission and I understand there is a number of studies ongoing is ready to look into that. But I also would like to stress that as you have seen for the RECA sector in particular, the reuse target on the takeaway is rather a low one because indeed we understand that I mean, you will need time to create that. Then there was a specific point on and I will come at the end of your point also Martin Cochran, I will touch first at the last point on chemical recycling. So again, these were been hearing a lot that we should be more open and recognize upfront chemical recycling. There, I mean my reply is that, you know, we cannot do it upfront because we need to set up a first, so we need to step. The first one is to set and to agree with the co-legislator on rules on recycle content. So as you know, we now have targets as explained for three different categories, sensitive packaging, non-sensitive and beverage bottles. Once there is the final proposal, the commission will come up with an harmonized methodology and how you measure recycle content, for example, in a bottle. And once you know the monies methodology, then of course, we will also in these harmonize methodology say how you can, what you can count in your, whether you can count only mechanical recycling or also chemical recycling. Of course, I think it is clear, I mean, although we'll have to be done at the later stage, that when mechanical recycling is leading back to another polymer that can be used as a, Mr. Spidey was saying, in again in the product or in packaging, of course, that is a typical recycling operation, but as you know, chemical recycling also results in fuel, in energy. So that's, of course, that part which is full cannot be counted because it's not, I mean, it's waste of energy, it's not a recycling operation, but all of that will have to be discussed in secondary legislation. But indeed, with this recycle content target, and especially for flexible packaging, because I didn't understand the question why it was on-art packaging. Normally, every cycle will be even more needed for the type of plastics, which currently cannot be dealt by mechanical recycling. So that's a complementary tool, but also the last point that we make on chemical recycling, we have the latest GRC study, which clearly shows that when you compare mechanical recycling to chemical recycling, I think even the producers or the industry investing in chemical recycling will recognize that indeed in terms of CO2 emission, which was also the title link to packaging of this, I mean, proposal or this event, the webinar, indeed, we should not forget that there is no comparison in the sense that the mechanical recycling is really outperforming, I mean, it's really the best technology, but indeed, it cannot work for all type of plastics, so indeed, you will have to look in a complementary way. And the last point on consumer indeed, as you said, Martin, as also some of the speakers said, it is essential. That's the reason why we're thinking about the labels. I also want to reassure you, Marta, we are not thinking about, at least, we never thought about harmonizing colors. We know that there are different colors, but even you can preserve still different colors of the beans and the plastic bags, but you can still have a pictogram, which is the same everywhere in Europe, which then will be easy for packaging companies placing their products in Europe, because they will only have one pictogram to put whatever in Portugal, or in Italy, or in Ireland, or in another country, and the same one in the bean or in the bags, independently of the colors. Indeed, it is true that there was a certain point at a political level, even reference to the possibility to have an harmonized color system, but this is not our final proposal. The final proposal is about an harmonized pictogram systems, which are proved to be very effective, and I will conclude with that about educating consumer, because the Nordic countries, they have done it, it's called the Nordic pictogram. It started in Denmark, and then it was moved to Sweden, Finland, and Norway, and it has proved that they have increased enormously the collection rates. So they have the same pictograms in these four markets, they didn't change their system of the color schemes, but indeed, by having the same pictograms, and it was working, even the design of the pictograms together with industry and all these things. So that's, I think, is an important point that I wanted to make, and indeed the same applies to the label for reuse, and the same applies to the label for recycled content. Of course, consumer, for us, the best way to eradicate consumer will be via this label. Of course, then we will also have to ensure that there are a communication campaign. I think this proposal, in any case, needs to be accompanied at a certain stage by the communication campaign, but indeed it's a proposal, which is here. I mean, I can tell you that out of the proposal of the GMBARM, we looked at the numbers, and it was from the SAP directive that the GMBARM did not have in our own website so many clicks on the web page of this proposal. I think 80,000, 90,000 people have downloaded within an hour or two from the publication in November, the proposal. So clearly, there is even citizens that are interested in that. So I think, indeed, consumer education will play a important role. Fantastic, thank you very much. Very detailed and comprehensive answers, which means to follow your football analogy just for this meeting. We're close to the end of the first half, but I'm gonna allow some extra time just to ensure that we are able to hear from Sirpa and Marta again, because I think they may want to just react to some of what you've said, as well as offer some opinion. So with your permission, we'll go on just for a little bit longer before we turn to the second half. First of all, to Sirpa, assuming you're still there, I can't see you, but hopefully you can hear us. And then to Marta, but a couple of minutes or so of reaction to that, Sirpa, if you'd like. If not, I'm gonna pass straight to Marta, who definitely is still here.  Okay, thank you. I just think that the world comes now to a question of balance between the commitment we all have with the final objective of reducing waste and being more sustainable. And you were bleeding by example, even, to other parts of the world that need to make an effort like we are doing. It's a question of balance between these commitments, these targets, and the burden we impose on companies to change their strategies, to adapt to new packaging, to new logistics, to new spaces. And I'm glad to hear the commission on the SMEs concern because as you know, 99% of our companies are SMEs and it's more difficult on them than on the big companies, naturally. And when we try to harmonize things, we have to think of the pros and cons of everything. You can harmonize the packaging, but then you cannot hamper the need for companies to innovate and to distinguish themselves, sometimes through packaging or the materials they use or colors or whatever. So I think it all comes down to this on the we ourselves here in Portugal have to balance what we are positioned in the council between the Ministry of Economy and the Ministry of Environment. And I think it's the same in every member state. We have our concerns, the companies have their concerns and it all comes down to the costs that these changes impose on them and also on consumer here in Portugal, the Ministry of Economy also has a consumer policy. And I think that empowering consumers and information is essential for this change because it's in our hands, all of us when we make the choice. And sometimes we see studies that consumers are willing to pay more for a sustainable product, not always true. So we try to educate consumers, make the smart choice. Thank you. Thank you very much, Marta. And I think, Serpa, if you're unmuted, do you want to offer us some last thoughts on this before we pass to the next half? Yes, very happily. I'm sorry about the previous, I forgot to unmute myself. I think that this is excellent discussion, firstly. Secondly, I understand very well the Martha's point on costs. But what I would like to underline on here is that we should have always in our impact assessment of legislation the cost of nonaction. And we all know that if we do not act now, especially the circular economy, so big part of it, then the costs are going to be via climate change and other factors, at least 10-fold, the COVID-19 costs roughly after 10 of it, 15 years from now. So this is just not the question whether we do it or not, but how to do it. Then it's just two notions, and this is indeed the product passport. That is a story of itself, that I hope that maybe we could organize a separate session because there are various ways how to organize it concretely. And the model that has been proposed by the commission is pretty open. And what I'm afraid is that we might create systems that are not interoperable in the future. And so we might want to choose a bit tighter view on here. And last but not least, and this is the competitive side at the European's ability to kick off the chase somewhere else. And this is the economic side directive. We tried to make some improvements here in the parliament. It is essential, it's vital that the packing is part of it, like the whole circular economy principles, so that you cannot introduce or import goods that are not upgradable, that are not repairable, that are not reusable, and that are not recyclable on the highest value of the material. And by that way, if Europe is involving this in the global markets, we all know that the industries in China and the USA will change too. They will not leave our markets because of these requirements. And that itself then speeds up the global change. So we are even in a much bigger role of importers than we tend to think in everyday politics. Thank you so much. Very good, thank you. That's an excellent final point on the global dimension of this and trade-related issues too. With that, I'm going to thank you, Serta and Atia. I understand both of you need to leave now. I hope Marta can remain as indicated and maybe offer some perspective at the end of our next session. But thank you very much. Matia and Serta for your contributions. Wonderful as ever to see you and to have you involved in this. And we look forward to remaining in touch. I'm sure many of the participants as well as ourselves will be in contact with you frequently over coming months as this discussion continues. So thank you and have a good rest of day. We'll continue to be in touch with you as I say. Good to see you again. So let's pass over. I'm going to keep using Matia's analogy of the football match to the second half. Here we're going to hear from businesses who are at the sort of cutting edge of this in real life, in practice. And hear what their perspectives are before we also hear from a couple of NGOs who are also working on this issue. So with that, let me pass over first of all to Katerina and then we'll pass to Ramon. Katerina, as you can see, works for Rockwell. I'm sure she will introduce Rockwell if you're not familiar. And Ramon for Ball Corporation. Likewise, he will no doubt introduce Ball too. So welcome to you both. Delighted to have you here as well. And really looking forward to hearing your perspectives on this too. So over to you first of all, Katerina. Hi, so good morning everyone. And thanks for giving me the chance to join this very interesting exchange today. Yes, I'm here on behalf of Rockwell, which is the world leader in the production of Stonewood product, insulation building, industrial, or the cultural products, just to mention some. So, okay, let me start from giving you some data to put things in perspective. The built environment requires a vast amount of natural resources and accounts for about 50% of all the extracted grow materials. And the construction sector alone is responsible for over 36% of the EU total waste generation. And that is why the EU Green Deal and the circular economy action plan originally rightly identified importance of recovery targets for construction and demolition waste. In particular, the commission made a commitment and I'm quoting a special attention to insulation material which generates the growing waste stream. And this approach, of course, is even more important when we think about the ambitious renovation wave that we are aiming at to avoid that this is gonna become a waste wave instead. So, however, even if that was declared at the beginning, we are still waiting recovery target for construction sector the way they are meant to be introduced by the packaging and packaging waste regulation. So allow me to comment the circular economy package and the packaging and packaging waste regulation during a parallel from a construction product perspective. So in Rockwell we are, or we have a strong drive on circularity. And this is naturally due to the fact that we are very durable. We have a durable product. We stay in use and performance don't change over time, even over 55 years. Our product are recyclable over and over again. And we even have our own take back scheme called Rockcycle which is active in 19 countries at the moment. And moreover, we can also include other secondary raw material and by product from other industrial through industrial symbiosis. And I'm talking about more than 65,000 tons per year. So the introduction, this introduction was not just to make a self appraisal, but just to say that in principle we are happy and satisfied and ready to contribute to the circular agenda, but unfortunately the regulation that we need to help us doing that are not. So, and if I should just frame what are the issue that we are mainly facing, I would say that the first thing is that we are lacking common definition and common assessment. So in other words, we are lacking a level of playing field and we are boosting greenwashing because when you are lacking assessment and definition then you give the space to creativity. So for example, we are lacking a clear definition or recycled content. I mean, we have one coming from the eyes obviously, the one we are probably all referred to but that it's kind of controversial and subjected to different interpretation. Is my product in or out? For us it should be in because of course, by product is for example, another way to reduce the use of virgin material but that it's still to be decided on a final common agreed framework. Yourability, we are lacking a definition of your ability and assessment method. And I heard Mr. Pellegrini very happily talking about reuse and we are obviously on the same side but how can you reuse for example, a construction product if you cannot determine your ability of that construction product? Is that safe towards consumer to tell them just reuse it without knowing whether the performance is still there? And then of course, we are also lacking a definition on what is a construction product that can be recycled and what is recyclability when we're talking about construction products. So with these regards, for example, the packaging and packaging waste regulation introducing the recyclability definition is for sure a step forward and even more than the packaging shall be considered recyclable if it can be recycled at scale because it means that there is an intention to prove that this recyclability is gonna happen in real life. We believe that the regulation could have been better in recognizing that not all the recycling process yield to the same quality of raw material or it can be done to the fact that can be done over and over again. Close loop recycling is key measure to guarantee that more packaging products placed on the market are made of recycled material in a continuous loop and keeping the same quality at the end of the day. While there is not also mentioning on downcycling in the packaging and packaging waste regulation which we believe there should be somehow distinction. And then getting to my last point, I think that the scream that we are trying to do here or to pass or the message that we are trying to pass here is that we need a more conducive regulation together with targets, conducive regulation to enable harmonized extended producer responsibility. For example, like the one we have seen now in the proposal of the regulation to facilitate the transport of waste when these waste is meant to be recycled and maybe we should stop talking about waste if there is a resource is in fact a secondary raw material and targets increase the cost of landfill then on landfill for recyclable products. We see that the cost of landfill in many countries is so extremely cheap that it's not incentivating at all any kind of recycling practices. As I said, targets are minimal recycled content, material based, otherwise there is gonna be a distortion because you cannot ask the same target of different products with different nature. So to conclude conscious about the time the packaging and packaging waste regulation introduced fundamental element that are for sure bringing the circular discussion on the right direction. So we appreciate and also has packaging users let's say definition, mechanism, clear targets. But let me also say that we hope that the construction sector won't be left behind or even worse fall between the two chairs of the CPR and the waste regulation because that is very much the risk that we are not gonna be regulated anywhere. And again, as I said, we account for an enormous amount of waste in the EU. Maybe green claims can start fixing the issue we have on greenwashing, which is getting bigger and leading to market and fair competition and ultimately it's against consumer protection and interest. So that's our thanks for your attention. Okay, that's great. Well, that raises both obviously the possibility opportunity and the need for more circular economic measures, but also very clearly some of the challenges and alignment issues between different pieces of legislation. I hope we'll come back to Martha who may comment on that, but also our colleagues from the NGOs who will join us and maybe they'll have a view as well. But conscious of time, I'm keen to pass straight to Ramon and to hear from you and to keep the game in motion, so to speak. I keep that football analogy alive. Ramon, the board is yours. Hi everybody, I'm Ramon Arratia. I work for Ball Corporation. We are a producer of aluminum packaging, cans, cups, et cetera, and reusable bottles. And I'd just like to piggyback on what Catalina was saying because it's really important that it's about definitions and defining the elements in the full circle. From, you know, we've focused a lot on collection, which is of course is what it starts, but you need to also start defining on sorting and you need to find on how each of the parts and the design of the products, each of the parts can be dismantled and that means about design of the product, but also around how the materials come back in which quality they come back. So there are a lot of different grays of recycling, downcycling, and there are really little standards. So I'd like to piggyback on those. Now, I think that new EUPPWR, they have a lot of positive things and it will definitely make Europe less dependent on primary resources, but also I would be contributing to the climate targets. And this is the two things that need to be tackled. Now, we see a few issues in the implementation approach in the detail, which more or less could be relatively sorted. So commenting on our sectors on the deposit return systems, if we look at the positives, we're seeing, you know, we're very excited to see a proposal that there is a mandatory DRS and so happy to see our packaging aluminum cans included. We've been advocating this for a long time and only with regulation and harmonization, you can achieve the 85 recycle content that is our target by 2030. This is not for one product. This is for the whole portfolio, the whole production and you can imagine how much dependence on imports you would cut if you have that policy and the same thing for climate. Now, we are very disappointed to see that single use glass bottles were of the hook, wine and spirits, the whole sector, you know, pretty much on the hook and glass has the worst carbon footprint of all beverage containers. So we don't see that, you know, we are really looking at the full LCA and sometimes we forget climate when we talk about packaging legislation. So I think we need to go back to what Sirpa was talking about, the PEP and what Mattia was talking about looking at the LCA and really understand, you know, and making decisions based on the overall facts. So we think that instead for the EU from a climate and waste prevention perspective would be, you know, having a 90% separate collection for recycling target for all drinks packaging would be great. And we see harmonized rules for all 27 members around implementing a deposit return, the skins that would be really interesting. Now, obviously we understand that, you know, sometimes there are voices and they're very powerful interests in some sectors. So we see that even setting a 90% collection goal for all beverage packaging, whether it is in DRS or EPR, I think that could be, you know, sort of a minimum. In reuse, great news. I think you really need intervention to create the scale. But sometimes, you know, it should focus on where it makes environmental and economic sense. The first thing is there is lack of environmental data. The reuse have been sort of, the strategy have been set more on sort of hinges and gut feeling and read little evidence on where do we need to intervene, which sectors we need to intervene. We've just picked the sectors. We are doing well on this, let's do so a bit more. Rather than thinking about where are those sectors, especially those without the recycling path because their reuse falls disproportionately on beverage because beverage is already good at that. So we think that beverage is gonna be already covered by DRS, we're gonna see, for example, in aluminum over 90% recycling collection targets, which will deliver 85%. And there are any other sectors as well, mostly on the food side. When it reduces the frankly, the only option. So we really think that we need to make decisions based on facts, Mattia mentioned Germany and the good case for reuse and beverage. Today in Germany, there are more than 1500 different bottles. 50% of the market share is an individual refillable bottles. So this idea of the pool bottle that is shared by different brands is not the full market. And that's why we need to look at the detail. Very good, thank you. Well, I think a number of themes keep coming up here, notably measurements and how we actually talk about the same data and compare like with like over a life cycle. Maybe we'll come back to that. One question we've had, which I'll leave with you. Maybe if we have time, you can consider, even if it's not an EU lead responsibility tax, would taxing virgin raw materials help this in terms of an upstream incentive to keep the value of the materials in the cycle as long as possible. So we'll come back to that if we get a time at the end. But I am very keen to make sure we get Joana and Larissa involved. And I hope that they are both online and can join us now and that we'll be able to hear hopefully first from Joana and then from Larissa. I won't do anything more than just welcome you and give you the floor immediately since time is obviously running away with us. Really look forward to hearing from you. Thank you for joining and yeah, the floor is yours. Joana. Thank you very much, Martin. Thank you very much for the invitation to speak. And I will, in order to be complimentary to I think what Larissa, my colleague Larissa Capello from the research will cover, I will not dwell too much on the packaging, packaging waste regulation, but I will just summarize quickly that in our opinion, it is a good first step yet it could have done better. And I wouldn't do my role of being an NGO very well if I didn't challenge the way in which things are developing. So we see a lot of creative energy and a lot of detail being developed on what concerns recycling, recyclability, recycled content. It all makes sense. In a circular economy, recycling is basically the norm. So it's good that we get these details right and it's good that we get collection rates up. It's good that we foster product design that enables recyclability. And it's also important that we incorporate recycled content. Now in the wider scheme of things, recycling makes sense and should be the norm if volumes remain stable. If the volumes of the materials that we put on the market continue growing, then even if we have 100% recycled content, we will still be overshooting what the planet can carry. And so in that respect, we think that for example in key legislation such as the packaging and packaging waste regulation, there could have been and should have been a bigger focus on waste reduction measures and reuse. We see some effort with regards to tackling single use packaging, particularly in certain sectors, it could have gone a step further. This because in the wider scheme of things, there is today too much material in circulation and the EU consumes a very big amount of it. The material footprint of the EU in 2019 was of 18.9 tons per person per year. This is the second biggest rate after North America. And so material footprint essentially accounts for all resources used from fossil resources to biomass to metal ores and non-metallic minerals that are consumed to meet the product and the product and consumption patterns of European citizens. This is what the rate is huge and needs to be reversed. And so the circular economy in general is a tool to be considered to decouple resource use and raw material use from meeting human needs. And as a result, circularity in order to implement circularity, we need to keep this footprint that we have on the planet much more closer to how we are designing policies and what measures we are putting into place. And so I would also like to make the relationship between material productivity, which has ever since 2000, it has declined and has been stable ever since then. And this is particularly relevant with regards to sectors such as packaging. The fact that for most single use packaging, the value of the material is lost to the economy after it is being thrown away after roughly 20 minutes is not a good trend. It's something that we need to think about much more and it's something that we need to reverse using the circular economy agenda, but also getting companies to think about how to decouple resource use from meeting what consumers or citizens need. And so in that vein of thought, the idea being that sometimes it will require to dematerialize. Sometimes it will require to redefine ownership. Sometimes it will require to think about things in a larger and bigger perspective and not just focus on individual production sectors. And so this is to kind of call also upon what companies and industry to think about the market signals that they are giving. If the only value that is measured is economic growth or monetary value, then we are not actually helping to rethink the entire system and to ensure it that our companies are fit for the future and for the circular economy. So what other measures of value can we create so that we are ensuring that instead of relying only on extraction and production and then ensuring that consumption is continuous at the same rate, how are we ensuring that, for example, someone who would completely redefine ownership would still be considered a valued and valuable economic actor. So what can companies do in that respect? So I think overall the message is that, yes, in terms of material footprint, we are not doing very well. We are in Europe, we represent 6% of the world population, but we're consuming 17%. That's something that Europe needs to be looking into. And for example, the ESPR in our opinion, the Eco-Design Regulation should have as a main KPI the fact of driving down material consumption considerably. But this obviously is also something that should be extrapolated to many other sectors and to the economy-wide to ensure that as we move along, we stop overshooting what the planets can carry. That would be my message today and I will leave it to... Yeah, well, I think it picks up on a theme we've had already, which is the importance of measurement. And in your case, mentioning the material footprint is a starting point for that, which remains a challenge. Obviously, that's a complex issue, but thank you, that was extremely helpful. And I'm going to pass straight to Larissa, give you the chance to offer your views as well. Thank you very much, Martin. I thank you very much for your invitation. So just a short introduction about myself and the organisation. So, yeah, my name is Larissa. I am a policy campaigner at Zero Waste Europe and we are a Brussels-based NGO and network of organisations working across Europe on policy, EU policy, national policy as well and local strategies to address waste at source. Well, a general impression on the proposal. So it's, as Johanna already mentioned as well, it has a good aim, a good direction. It's focused on the waste hierarchy, putting some waste reduction measures, establishing reuse targets, proposing some bans for some problematic and unnecessary packaging types, established good criteria for depositant schemes as well for reuse. But of course, it would need more ambition if they use really serious in achieving objective of 100% reuse by recycled packaging by 2030. And also the devil are in the details of the articles and the requirements in there. So I think, first thing I would like to raise is actually one of the, I say, the big elephant in the room that nobody mentions about packaging, it's about chemicals. So chemicals are really not addressed in the legislation. There are many studies that are showing that in Europe alone over 8,000 chemicals can potentially be used in food packaging and many of those linked to cancer and other serious diseases. Paper and plastic are the most used for food content materials applications in Europe. So if you're really talking about packaging, we need to talk about same ability and safety together that needs to go in hand in hand. We cannot talk about same ability separate from safety of packaging. So this needs really needs to be addressed in the regulation and improved. Another point I'd like to address is about depositant schemes and glass packaging. So I'd mentioned both here together as also mentioned by Hamon. Single use glass packaging is clearly off the hook from this proposal. So single use glass packaging, it has been proven to have the great environment impact compared to all single use materials because it has a high energy consuming process. However, it also has the biggest potential for reusability. So reusable glass packaging for instance glass bottles can be used from 30 times on average if inserted in a reuse system. And also in terms of recyclability, if it's inserted in the depositant scheme in a closed loop system, it can also be recycled almost indefinitely. So why single use glass is out of depositant schemes? Why spirits are not included in the reuse targets? So all of this makes a lot of questions regarding, yeah, single use glass is not being addressed. Why it should be because of its high impact. When it comes to DRS, it's crucial that the depositant teams, they are implemented to accommodate both single use and reusable packaging. It's not in there in the criteria of the proposal and it's not only important for the achievement, achieving both recycling and reuse targets, but also for the convenience of consumers. We already have technologies of reverse revending machines for depositant schemes where you can have both single use and reusable bottles being returned in Germany and as well in other Scandinavian countries. Another point I'd like to make is regarding the definition of systems for reuse. So it's great that the proposal differentiates well what is a system for reuse because actually sustainable packaging cannot exist without a sustainable system. So the reasonable package needs to be inserted in a system. It's great that the proposal refers this system, but it's missing a crucial element that makes the system efficient, which is incentive to return the packaging. If there's no incentive to return the packaging, there's no return rates and the systems cannot be run effectively and smoothly. That's, I'm not sure if you have seen the example of pilot systems being implemented in France, for instance, for McDonald's, et cetera, where with really poor return rates is because there's no incentive to return this package. Consumers are bringing it at home because actually when they go to the fast food, like McDonald's, they are used to take the packaging home anyway. So there is a new change of habits and it needs to put this kind of new rules, which for instance, incentive to return the packaging, like a deposit, for instance. That will ensure the systems, it's well-implementant and effective. Just briefly now, I'm afraid, since we're running into extra time again and I need to just give one person, I'm gonna bring Marta back in at the very end just to give her a chance to reflect, but just briefly, if you may. Okay, I will just finish on reuse as well regarding the reuse targets being mixed with refueled targets and they should not be mixed. So the proposal defined refuel and reuse separately because they are different mechanisms and the targets cannot be achieved, cannot be mixed because there's one way you achieve refuel and one way you achieve reuse and there's different ways to calculate. Mixing both will lead to a huge margin of error and will lead to a not-review stated for reuse targets. So since I'm not having more time, I'll end up here, thank you. No, that's very good. You've covered a lot of ground in a short space of time. Thank you very much indeed. By all means, stay with us. I'm gonna allow us a few minutes of overtime, so to speak. Marta, if you're there, I promise to offer you a chance just to reflect on what you've heard and obviously how that relates to the discussions in the council in particular that you're engaged with. If you're still with us, you can join us now and give your reaction. I mean, it's obviously a wide-ranging discussion we've had, but we've gone from very broad issues like material footprint down to some very specific practical questions and concerns from companies. And as you've just heard from Yana and Larissa in practice. So very briefly on your side, any other reflections before we bring this to a close? Yeah, thank you for the opportunity. Very interesting to hear the participants in the second panel going back to what Katerina said and Larissa also on greenwashing and deposit schemes. It brings us back to the consumer issue. On greenwashing, of course, if we have clear rules and definitions, it leaves less space for those bad practices. And we know imagination has no limits. So when you leave a bridge, someone can invent something. Here in Portugal, we just initiated a campaign last week against greenwashing to create awareness in the consumer. It's done in cooperation with the Consumer Association and it's linked also to the ECO level. And also on deposit schemes, we had a pilot project here in Portugal for bottles and metal containers. And it's really important to act on these issues and show this proposal will have an impact on both of them. And we will stand on opposition in the council negotiations. Like I said before, it's always a question of balance because we are committed to the same final goal that's clear to everyone. Thank you. Thank you. Well, that's probably a very good way to conclude actually. The range of points that have been raised and obviously that need to be addressed, discussed further and to conclude on, shouldn't I guess cloud the picture that actually there is a large amount of consensus on the strategic goal here and some of the merits of that goal. Namely, obviously addressing some of the shorter term needs that we have facing our economy and society in the context of many challenges right here right now, but also the longer term environmental challenges. And the circular economy is one of these areas that combines these things together. If we get it right, obviously, and I think everyone is committed to the same goal here, it solves many of these problems at the same time, but that's complicated. And these issues obviously deserve the sort of discussion we're having today. And we're very pleased to have had obviously the range of policymakers, businesses, civil society voices that we have with us here today. I found it extremely interesting myself. I hope everyone who's joined us has likewise found that interesting and useful. And I'm sure we will keep doing this. The task force itself is committed to doing that. Obviously, as the CISL, we're going to enable that to continue to be the case. And we look forward to your feedback on any of the questions. If you've got more, please, as you can see here, Tamid is happy to answer those and we'll get in touch with other speakers and participants where we can help. And obviously we'll remain in contact with you all and look forward to another session like this. I apologize if it's overrun and that's caused you any issues with your future meetings, but like all good football matches, sometimes the best things happen in extra time anyway. So hopefully the last seven minutes have also been good too. And yeah, with Marta, obviously, you're involved in a football match now, as you know. So good luck. And maybe a score draw is a good way to finish though, rather than one winner or a loser. So anyway, enough football analogies. Thank you again to everybody, all our speakers, everyone who's joined online, all my colleagues who do all the hard work putting this together, of which there is an enormous amount as you all know. And I wish you a good rest of day and look forward to seeing you again sometime soon. Thank you and goodbye. Thank you.


well be judicial knowledge because I do not think that what is stated is controversial, as a matter of fact. I think that what is stated is correct and therefore in that sense it is judicial knowledge. I do not think that every member of the judiciary would share that view. It goes back to how confident you feel about stating things to juries with no evidential base. So judicial knowledge is not shared by all judges? Well it ought to be shared by all judges, but it depends. There comes a point where say a principle of mathematics becomes something that requires expert evidence and exactly where that line is drawn. You may know that there is a railway line between Edinburgh and Glasgow, but you might not necessarily know the composition of the points at Winshborough. It is a matter of degree as to what is or is not within the knowledge of the people. I knew I did not want to ask that question. I am going to thank you very much. I have to go on because we have much more to do. I thank you very much for a very intriguing evidence session. Some of it is quite pithy, because I am allowed to use that word now to define it for us, Lord Calaway. Thank you very much and I will just suspend for a couple of minutes to allow the witnesses to leave. It is consideration of four negative instruments. The first is the sheriff appeal court fees order 2015, SSI 2015, a bleed 379, et cetera. Those persons would exempt from paying fees and specific fees exemptions relating to particular proceedings. The DPLR committee did not draw any concerns on the instrument to our attention due to any comments. Our members are content to make no recommendation in relation to this instrument. The second negative instrument being considered as a civil legal aid Scotland miscellaneous amendments regulations 2015, SSI 2015, stroke 380. That adapts the framework and arrangements in existing legal aid regulations to accommodate the changes coming into force in January 2016 relating to civil proceedings in the new sheriff appeal court. Again, the DPLR committee did not draw any concerns on the instrument to our attention. You will see from your papers that a couple of written submissions on this instrument and a late submission of the faculty of advocates have been tabled. Do you have any comments on the instrument? To refer to my register of interests and members of the faculty of advocates, I find it a wee bit concerning, but I do not understand the full timescale. The faculty's point is that the regulation that is now before us for consideration is not the regulation that they saw previously. I think that the Government's comment on the matter is dated at the beginning of November. My understanding of the timetable is that this is all very unfortunate. Well, I think that it is very unfortunate for the faculty as well who could pay more attention to what we are doing. It is not that they are without sufficient legal brains around to come back to the committee sooner rather than later. I am moving on. Are members content? No, it is on the record now, and I think that they are content just to leave it at that. Thank you. Are members content? We have no recommendation in relation to the instrument, right? The third negative instrument is the Scottish Tribunal's eligibility for appointment regulations 2015 SSI 2015 stroke 3 at 1. That creates eligibility criteria for ordinary and legal members of the first-year tribunal and legal members of the upper tribunal. Again, the DPLR committee did not draw any concerns on the instrument to our attention. Do you have any comments? Are you content to make no recommendation? The fourth and final negative instrument is the Act of Sederent, Trees of Solicitors and the Sheriff's Appeal Court 2015 SSI 2015 stroke 3 at 7. That regulates the taxation of accounts of expenses between parties in relation to proceedings in the Sheriff's Appeal Court. Again, the DPLR committee did not draw any concerns on the instrument to our attention. Do you have any comments? Are you alive? Are members content to make no recommendation in relation to the instrument? No recommendation. Thank you. We now move into private session.