Quite a few in our community make a bit of cash on the side by selling our creations, and it’s not uncommon to find that a project which catches your eye can be picked up as a kit for a few of your preferred currency units. But there’s a problem facing such tiny producers in the form of regulations intended for large businesses which are beyond their ability to comply with. [Alain Pannetrat] writes for the Lectronz marketplace about one of them, the new European Union packaging waste regulations.
At face value it sounds like a good idea, that suppliers should be responsible in some way for the disposal of their packaging. It discourages excessive packaging and encourages recycling, indeed the EU even describe the scheme as boosting business. The problem is that its administration is left to individual member states, and someone selling across the whole bloc would have to join multiple schemes. The hefty price is nothing to a large enterprise, but impossible for a tiny one. He makes a very good point, that it’s difficult to claim to champion innovation, while also imposing something like this on grass-roots innovators. Going by the experiences of our acquaintances in this space an extra burden on top of that presented by the current unstable tariff and customs situation involved in selling to the USA would likely be the straw which broke the camel’s back.
In practice we suspect that many are simply doing the same as they have with compliance marking and waste electronic equipment regulations, simply not bothering and hoping they fly under the radar and never get caught. We hope we won’t end up reporting on any future crackdown, the landscape has definitely changed since we tried our hand in this business.
Why even have a union if there’s not going to be just one big standard
And just one government and economy.
But in the case of the sales, can´t the marketplace register with the necessary countries , on behalf of its customers ?
or
Can´t the sellers provide a return postage, so that the customer sends back the packing materials , so that no “packing waste” would be generated in the destination countries ?
There needs to be a registration for each seller and each country where the seller sells. Even if the marketplace takes care of the registration for the seller, it’s a huge amount of money that no maker is probably willing to pay, as described in the article.
The return postage approach seems interesting but the regulation is not clear about it. The regulations suggest that you are a producer of waste in the country you ship to, even if you use reusable packaging. So it’s not clear here.
Because one shoe doesn’t fit all feet. The idea of each member state creating their own rules based on common regulations was to give enough space to optimize for each case. Forcing everyone to follow the exact same rule creates conflicts and inefficiency.
Example:
https://www.brusselstimes.com/714856/re-use-or-recycle-understanding-nuance-in-the-glass-bottle-debate
Some countries have given up on re-usable glass containers because it costs so much to collect, transport and wash, then transport them back to their origin. Instead, they’re recycling the glass as raw material. They’ve also switched to cans and plastic bottles for most products, and made the glass bottles thinner to reduce material and transport costs, which makes them non-reusable.
Now the EU threatens to force them to re-install glass bottle re-use systems that they already removed 10-20 years ago. They’re also setting up regulations that force glass containers to use less glass, which conflicts with the re-use mandate, so the EU is making contradicting demands that work for nobody.
What works for a beer bottle made and sold in Belgium doesn’t work for a bottle of spirits made in Ireland and consumed in Spain.
It’s not one big government, although it sometimes behaves like one.
The costs of bad policy far outweigh the direct cost of government. They have crushed the potential prosperity of the EU and England, destroyed Russia, seriously bent Canada and the US. And it keeps the 3rd World the 3rd World. These new rules sound like bad policy.
I’ve run into this. They need a simple inexpensive scheme for micro businesses, eBay are saying people in the EU won’t any longer see my small-run PCBs if I don’t enter EPR numbers. For now I’m still getting EU orders. Also people in the EU now have to contend with 3 euro import taxes on each line of an aliexpress component order, where the individual items might be 1 euro. It harms this hobby greatly…
Edible Packaging, two problems solved.
“You beat me to the punch.” I was just about to suggest starch-based packaging. Me, I only eat starch packing peanuts to gross out my friends, but fortunately dissolving in water is possible. Then the only problem is what happens after it gets delivered to your front porch, since as we all know, it never rains in Europe. -:). Hmm, maybe packaging that also works as pet food?
They have been banned most places because critters can infest them and travel for free.
https://futurism.com/future-society/plastic-waste-edible-cookies
Edible cookies out of plastic waste.
Send product which is packed in a glass jar and tell customer to re-use this jar as a chair.
Just make sure it doesn’t go pop.
I once received a scuba diver’s watch in a jar full of water. It came that way from the factory .
Glass is recyclable.
Please no
I can’t bear to see first world countries get praised to ship their packaging waste to third world countries!
Even better, fermentable and distillable packaging. Include the right kind of yeast as a bonus.
Why would you want your new Pi hat to be delivered wrapped in womens filthy panties? That’s just wrong and gross.
For those within Europe there may be relief on the horizon in the form of a micro and small business exemption planned for a vote in October…but that’s potentially 1/4 of a year with no shipments (assuming a positive vote and almost immediate effective date) which is still a serious burden on a small business. But this exemption will only apply to those in the EU (or possibly EEA); all others will still be on the hook.
So it’s yet another well thought out plan like the ‘small packets’ fee. One hand not speaking with the other.
As others have suggested, it’s not packaging, it’s…. accommodation for the homeless. Fuel for the wood burner. Heck when my parents got solar in the UK the subsidy was on the condition the house met some energy efficiency standards. It basically failed due to being a large victorian semi – then my dad asked about the eaves being filled with fabrics and ‘packaging’. The inspector had a look and put a nice tick in the sufficient insulation box and gave it approval!
The small packet fee has successfully reduced the import of TEMU waste into the EU by 70-80%. It’s one of the more successful moves so far.
Who benefits?
All other EU producers.
All market in EU was really ovewhelmed by TEMU.
Most people choose TEMU as primary source nearly for everything nowadays.
Of course, the PRC suppliers will ignore such regulations.
Silly, mentally-deficient administrators are a danger to civil society. Keep this up and you’ll see the wacko neo-libertarians get elected.
The elephant in the room about recycling and such is that there’s absolutely no stomach for forcing non-Europeans to do it. As it is, recycling remains a strange German religious rite. Like self-flagellation.
Even in an eco-conscious, virtue-signalling country like Norway (of course not part of the EU), good luck trying to find a public recycling bin in Oslo. They understand that it’s just for show and not really a viable economic activity.
I don’t think we have anything like this in my part of the world.
The suggested remedy is a small business exception.
That’s cool. Here’s a second idea…
If your packaging is made of post-consumer recycled materials then it is exempt. For a business of any size.
I mean sure… that doesn’t do anything to get the packaging recycled again. But… it guarantees it was recycled once. Which also might help guarantee that it at least IS a recyclable material.
And… it makes a market for post-consumer recyclables. That demand should help more stuff get recycled in general.
I’d like to think that re-use would constitute recycling in such a context, though probably impossible to prove. I know I’ve never shipped anything in new packaging materials when playing microbusiness. (I’m assuming 10-12 units sold before hitting market saturation would constitute micro). Re-use helps in the effort to keep the negative profitability under control.
The EU is a lobby circus where big companies propose legislation that is hard or impossible to comply with for small to medium business, thereby eliminating competition. This is just one of the examples.
Same as the DMA, The EU just wants to be seen to do things. The laws don’t have to make sense or do what they’re supposed to do.
Another approach:
It’s an opportunity for a packaging manufacturer to sign up to all the required national registrations and to develop packaging products that meet all requirements. This includes deposits or other arrangements for post-delivery handling or whatever.
If a small or micro-business buys and uses such certified-compliant packaging, then they’re deemed to be in compliance for all the EU destinations they ship to. Problem solved.
Perhaps Lectronz themselves, as a marketplace provider for such microbuilders, could as a value-add, offer compliant packaging materials to their sellers.
This right here
I figured there would be some packaging company that stands to benefit. Probably a company who has some pretty close ties to politicians and the like who are behind such a law. Same shit different asshole everywhere you go. But I guess as long as they don’t use the law to give an unfair advantage to other packaging companies……….
We should be going for that future where we just toss shit on the ground and the friendly robots do the rest.
Yes, this issue is ripe for outsourcing to a 3rd party both fulfillment and recycling to stay legal (and maintain negative profitability). An anecdote: Back in 2000, before China Inc. killed the U.S. domestic electronics industry, my grad school advisor Fred Martin developed and sold a 68HC11 embedded development system called the Handyboard, mostly as kits. Once his business graduated from micro to mini, it made sense to outsource fulfillment, but to his surprise, he found that he could no longer offer his customers a discount on kits because of fees the fulfillment center charged for kitting services. From then on he only sold assembled PCBs, denying hobbyists the joy of soldering.
As engineers it’s our duty to find ways to work round this nonsense so we can just get on with business in spite of the moronic rules. Just ship stuff as personal gifts. Nobody’s gonna come knocking at your door.
I just said the same, they ignore us, so we should ignore their useless regulatons.
As there are a lot of companies delivering stuff (mainly food), they can be used to deliver electronics too. You keep the parts and return the packaging that will be reused. Instead of using paper/cardboard, you may use a small safe with the opening code set by the seller and communicated only to the buyer.
The delivery dude has a delivery vehicle, so he won’t have to carry it by hand all the time.
Yep, the WEEE and the Stiftung EAR all over again. I hate it here, not that it is better anywhere else, but yeah. You better get welfare and do FOSS projects all day before you start a business over here.
And before anyone starts with the US, at least i won’t get shot over here for using the “wrong” toilet as a trans person. Hooray, a basic blanket of civilization as a location benefit. -.-
big companies loves that kind of red tape, they probably suggested or paid for it. It’ll keep the small annoying upcomers busy and for big companies red tape is not a big issue, they handle lots of that all ready
Yup. A friend and I were noting the difference between maintaining PC and Mac software. Microsoft kept their OS pretty stable over the years, but Apple kept changing things, impacting my friend’s small business. When he complained about this to Wolfram, Stephen said, “works fine for me, I just throw 100 of my engineers at the problem.”
What if I ship my product in eatable package? Then it isn’t a waste.
BTW this regulation is a nightmare, it kills the small companies/startups.
The moment you ship it it ceases to be edible. Would you eat something that has been handled by who knows how many workers, bumped around with other packages in the backs of trucks, planes and on conveyor belts?
Yes, all vegetables delivered like this way. Occasionally the harvesters clean themselves once in a week and pulling out their fingers from their butt just before start picking. Then they put the product into a bin, they put the bins into a truck delivering to the market w/o cleaning.
Edible packaging is for food and it has many, many problems. For instance, if you eat it it won’t just disappear, it will turn into methane (among other things). It also has to be water-soluble to be able to digest it but then moisture will degrade. Once again: edible packaging is for food only and it has to meet food standards (since people eat it).
Haven’t you all figured it out: They are trying to kill small business, the EU €3 per package from China is another step in that direction. For those who think that this has something to do with the environment: when was the last time that you bought milk in a glass bottle not to mention the ludicrous plastic bag laws.
Why they would try to kill small business? It makes no sense.
The EU €3 per package from China is another step to regulate enormous flow of €1 packages containing goods that are frequently bout just because it’s so cheap.
Then why isn’t the same fee imposed on resellers?
I wonder what would happen if I declare the packaging as the valuable product and the contents as a “free gift” 🤔
add packaging and envelop as ordered items, all 3 are ordered item, without packaging, cost 0.01c
no packaging no problem
I mean just ignoring stupid ass laws and continuing on about your day is the best solution, because they clearly ignore us with such stupid legislation.
member states no, we are countries, and if you are selling across countries, you are no small business lol, we have a wide array of languages and different cultures, sure, it’s a union, but thinking a company capable of selling in more than one of the countries in the union is small must be a joke
99% of enterprises in the EU are small businesses. “In the European Union, a small business is officially defined as a company that has fewer than 50 employees and an annual turnover or balance sheet total of no more than €10 million.” Think before you comment.
Really? So one person “businesses” like Etsy or Ebay vendors, or Bricklink vendors, or folks who make hobby quantity PCBs or kits don’t exist? Be sure to let Big Clive know he’s not a small business.