·Maximise the entry of end-of-life gear from the fisheries and aquaculture sector, including retrieved ALDFG, into an efficient waste management regime by setting up adequate incentives, schemes and infrastructures to collect, sort, dismantle, transport and recycle used plastic materials in a cost-effective way.

·Encourage and facilitate the retrieval of lost fishing gear, in particular by improving the availability and reliability of information on its location and compliance with legal obligations regarding this reporting and retrieval; and

·reduce single use plastic versions of drinks cups and lids, wet wipes, and food containers: 30% by 2025 and 50% by 2030;

In line with the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on Better Law-Making Better Regulation, an evaluation of the legal instrument will be envisaged to assess how the implementation of the legislation.

With regard to fishing gear, the implementation of the revised Control Regulation will improve the capacity for monitoring and analysing the extent to which fishing gear is returned or lost at sea. In line with the existing legislation, Members States take measures to accurately identify, quantify and track the number of fishing gear being deployed, monitored, set upon and recovered, including via satellite technology; and unique identifiers for fishing gear would allow for tracking and deriving estimates on effort levels. Over and above this, in accordance with the minimum requirements for Extended Producer Responsibility schemes established in the Waste Framework Directive, the producers of fishing gear would be expected to monitor fishing gear placed on the market and waste fishing gear deposited in appropriate port reception facilities and the subsequent waste treatment.

In addition, in accordance with the Waste Framework Directive (as it will be amended in 2018), Member States are obliged to reflect their waste prevention measures in their Waste Prevention Programmes, including measures to monitor and assess their implementation.

In line with the principle of subsidiarity, the exact data collection methods will depend on the internal organisation of each Member State and the nature of the implementing instruments chosen, where there is flexibility.

Monitoring will also be required with regard to measures to reduce the consumption of SUP. The measurement methodology will be established in the waste committee established under EU waste legislation. Where possible it should take advantage of existing EU production and trade databases (PRODCOM and COMEXT) managed by Eurostat and regularly updated with information provided by Member States. Synergies should also be used with regard to existing reporting mechanisms, in particular, for the measurement and reporting of consumption reduction of plastic bags under the Plastic Bags Directive.

Work on baselines and thresholds started in 2017. It is not feasible to finalise it and have it reflected in the next reports (expected in October 2018) from Member States (under the MSFD Directive). However, it will be used for the next round of monitoring programmes (2020) and inform the updated programmes of measures (2022) against marine litter.

At the same time, threshold values are to be established at Union or other levels (regional/sub-regional) for quantities of litter on beaches/water column/seafloor, for litter ingested by marine animals and for adverse effects (entanglement, other types of injury or mortality or health effects, of the species concerned due to litter). These values will be set through a collaborative and inclusive process and will facilitate evaluating effectiveness of measures against specific sources of marine litter.

The main indicator for progress towards meeting the objectives set for this policy initiative will be the beach counts of litter. Member States shall use the methodology developed by the MSFD Technical Group, and as set out in JRC Technical Reports. A revised Commission Decision was adopted in April 2017 establishing criteria and methodological standards for the determination of Good Environmental Status (GES) for marine litter. This Commission Decision requires that litter shall be monitored in the coastline in all cases and may additionally be monitored on the sea surface and the seabed.

Bans on placing on the market, product requirements and labelling requirements are compatible with a Directive and many existing EU waste directives contain such measures. They can be clearly defined to avoid any divergence in their implementation (e.g. by setting clear entry-into-force rules, harmonised labelling rules). On the other hand, a regulation – by the fact that it is addressed to economic operators and should be implementable without specific Member State transposition measures – is incompatible with the measures envisaged in the preferred option, namely consumption reduction targets, EPR and awareness raising campaigns, because they require the adoption of national and even local transposition and implementation measures to complement already existing regulatory regimes.

·Member States - for some but not all measures - to choose the most appropriate legal, administrative and economic instruments to implement them. This is in line with the subsidiarity principle. Existing legal acts concerning other waste streams but containing similar measures (awareness raising campaigns, consumption reduction targets and extended produce responsibility schemes) also envisage same level of flexibility to Member States to choose the appropriate instruments. More prescriptive instruments to implement the goals and measures would be difficult to justify based on the principle of subsidiarity. The measures targeting products that have alternatives or that justify stricter intervention measures – i.e. marketing restrictions and product and labelling requirements – would leave no room for adapted Member States measures.

·the definition of harmonised and clear objectives (e.g. binding consumption reduction targets) and measures (bans and product requirements for placing on the market, extended producer responsibility that harmonises the level of financial responsibility of producers for prevention and waste management objectives) that will ensure a level playing field across the Member States in terms of scope and ambition of action;

With regard to the nature of the legal act, a Directive is the appropriate legal instrument for the attainment of the envisaged objectives and measures. It allows:

The possibility of amending existing legislation was considered. In view of the wide variety of measures in the preferred option, it would require the amendment of several existing legal instruments, such as the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive, the Waste Framework Directive, the proposed Port Reception Facilities Directive, or the Fisheries Control Regulation. The approach to amend multiple legal acts would lead to further fragmentation of the legal framework and bring more confusion and complexity for the Member States, economic operators and consumers in terms of transposition and implementation.

·a dedicated legal instrument to address a specific waste stream (i.e. a sub-group of plastic waste) or environmental risks of a specific activity (e.g. the landfill directive that addresses one of many disposal operations - the landfilling of waste) is common in the waste legal regulatory framework (e.g. directives on batteries, packaging).

·fishing gear is already subject to a regulatory regime spread across different EU policies - fisheries, transport (PRF) and environmental policies (e.g. WFD, MFSD). None of the existing legal acts could reflect the wide variety of measures foreseen in the new instrument to effectively target the marine problem upstream.

·other instruments are too narrow in their scope to address the identified ten SUPs, such as in the case of the Packaging directive that regulates only packaging (but even then has specific targeted measures only for one SUP item, namely plastic bags);

·some existing legal instruments are general in their objectives, and their measures to tackle marine litter do not specifically target products so this would go beyond their original scope;

·Potentially duplicative, to the extent that gear retrieval is included as an obligation in the proposal for a revision of the Control Regulation under the Common Fisheries Policy

·Disproportionate, in that it makes compulsory to finance a measure which is based on voluntary participation and is currently being supported by i.a. EU financial instruments, support which will in all likelihood continue and be strengthened in the future.

Option 3c includes the obligation to fund a compulsory retrieval scheme for fishing gear under the EPR, is considered to be:

Setting a recycling target would on balance create complexities in defining such a target, administrative burden and costs of its monitoring would be considered disproportionate – in particular where setting up an EPR scheme in itself is already likely to stimulate the development of the current small market for the recycling of fishing gear materials.

Option 3b, which consists of strengthening even further the proposal for an EPR by adding a deposit scheme and a recycling target would further enhance the level of return of gear. It is however more costly to implement potentially increasing costs for the sector whilst also increasing administrative burden. In addition, in the case of fishing gear, and as opposed to land-based plastic material, the risk of losing the deposit is relatively high, potentially diminishing its impact as an incentive.

·In particular and as noted before, the revised Port Reception Facilities Directive would reduce disincentives for fishers to bring gear and other litter back to port. As stated explicitly by the Commission in its proposal for a revision of the Port Reception Facilities Directive, additional measures for reducing lost or abandoned fishing gear, were still being examined from the outset, such as Extended Producer Responsibility. Such additional measures can ensure the treatment of plastic components of fishing gear in a dedicated waste management cycle, including the potential re-use or recycling, with the advantages set out above. Without this next step however, the envisaged encouragement of fishers to return gear to shore under the measures set out under the PRF Directive may not yield maximum returns, because in a number of cases notably affecting the small scale fishing sector and smaller ports, the increased port fees may have an impact on the fishers.

Option 1, which consists of the full implementation of existing measures and proposal already on the table, will lead to progress in reducing the amount of fishing gear litter ending up in the sea.

In sum therefore, a genuine reduction in costs for fishers as compared to the baseline scenario should be expected. Finally, and in line with the Plastics Strategy’s objective of integrating and completing EU action on plastics and marine litter, the EPR would be integrated as appropriate with the management of port reception facilities, including by contributing to its costs.

Setting up an extended producer responsibility scheme for fishing gear containing plastic implies a cost which, if it were passed on to the fishing sector, would be marginal with regard to its overall turnover (≈0.16%). Experience shows that in competitive markets (for fishing gear materials, 60% of the material is imported) producers tend to absorb all or part of the EPR scheme’s costs. It is therefore unlikely that the full cost of the EPR scheme would be passed on to fishing operators. In addition, current provisions under EU funding instruments, notably the EMFF, also allow Member States to finance actions leading to the reduction of the accumulation of lost fishing gear in the marine environment. This type of financial support, if taken in addition to the EPR would allow to offset initial costs of the above EPR scheme, both for producers, for local administrations, and for fishers.

This type of positive incentive was seen by the majority of stakeholders as the most effective means of reducing the loss of gear into the sea.

This option has overall the highest potential impact on the reduction of the ALDFG contribution to marine litter. It builds on, complements and facilitates full implementation of action under option 1. It would underpin and facilitate full implementation of other instruments. In particular, it adds the specific support of a producer-financed dedicated mechanism targeting the collection and treatment of waste fishing gear as an additional incentive for the return and collection of waste fishing gear to port, which is already the object of both the Control Regulation and the revised Port Reception Facilities Directive. It can notably contribute to easing cost burdens for small scale ports and/or fishing operators by ensuring that some or all of the costs linked to increased collection and treatment of litter from fishing gear in ports, and treatment beyond the framework of the PRF Directive, is taken over by the producers of fishing gear.

The recommended option for fishing and aquaculture gear is the introduction of an Extended Producer Responsibility for producers of fishing gear containing plastic.

This combination of measures relating to each type of single use plastic item reflects the messages from the public consultation, stakeholder workshops and the conference. It is coherent with the view in the public consultation that legislative requirements to better design or to produce with materials with low life cycle impact are generally the most effective approach, followed by reduction targets. It strikes a balance between measures, recognising the effectiveness of reduction targets for drinks cups and food containers, and EPR schemes for several types of items.

-Businesses (both producers and retailers) are showing a willingness to pledge voluntary action. The preferred option will send a clear policy signal and reward early action.

-There is continuing successful experience with the use of behavioural ‘nudge’ policies that could be used to shift consumer behaviour, and lead to efficient reductions. Analysis of behavioural economics suggests that consumers face scarcity of time and attention, and already receive too much labelling and information. Instead, it suggests that a more bottom-up approach would be working more actively with different actors (this would indirectly translate into natural awareness-raising initiatives through social networks and the press). Indeed, behavioural insights suggest that social norms and myopia – among other behavioural biases – apply in this context. Bottom-up campaigns – by making visible the environmentally friendly behaviour of the progressive group - would be more appropriate to activate virtuous behaviour via social norms.

Setting EU-wide targets for different SUP would 'guide' measures to be adopted by Member States, ensuring that they are ambitious enough to achieve the desired effect. The costs to implement these targets will ultimately depend on the choice and design of the measures adopted at national level. Section 5 highlighted a wide range of complementary measures that can be used in a targeted way. In particular:

·for those items that are considered to be packaging, as defined under the Packaging Directive, the existing Extended Producer Responsibility will be extended to cover the clean-up cost.

·Extended Producer Responsibility schemes to contribute to the cost of prevention, waste management, including clean-up of litter for the items that are not packaging such as cigarette filters, sanitary applications including wet wipes, drinks cups and lids, food containers, balloons.

·reduction targets for single use plastic versions of drinks cups and lids, wet wipes, and food containers: 30% by 2025 and 50% by 2030;

·bans on the placing on the market of single use plastic versions of cotton bud sticks, balloon sticks, cutlery, straws and stirrers;

The option includes additional measures for SUP and fishing gear and fills gaps in EU level action including legislation that are only partially closed by recent efforts such as the revision of the Port Reception Facilities Directive, the revised waste legislation, the Plastic Bags Directive, and measures in the Plastics Strategy. Figure 13 shows the preferred option grouped by different items.

The option with the highest potential to deliver ambitious environmental results, while achieving positive economic impacts, limiting negative effects on employment, ensuring public acceptance, and contributing to wider resource efficiency would be sub-option 2c and sub-option 3a. Whilst estimates of marine litter volumes need to be treated with caution, the preferred measures could significantly reduce marine litter from single use plastics and fishing gear. These are the main sources of plastic marine litter in Europe, accounting for 84 per cent of European plastics entering the marine environment by count, which is the best indicator of the environmental, social and economic impacts. The measures on fishing gear will also lead to the removal of some plastics already in the seas.

The annual reduction in marine litter exceeds the current volume entering the sea, reflecting the fact that plastic already in the sea will be removed by the measures put in place.

So far, we have no knowledge of materials that both meet the operational requirements for fishing gear as well (or better than) those currently used by the sector, and at the same time do not have the potential to cause long-term harm to the environment if lost or abandoned at sea. It is thus not possible to propose such a measure, let alone estimate its cost or impact.

Most fishing gear is composed of different materials, of which plastics are an important component. Choices over which materials to use under which circumstances are usually based on characteristics such as the strength, flexibility, durability, buoyancy, price and past experiences in using certain materials or designs. In this way, fishing gear can consist of a heterogeneous compilation of materials with different characteristics. As such, fishers usually opt for the most cost-effective options. Such choices do however, not always reflect the most environmentally friendly options (such as biodegradability in seawater, recyclability of parts and/or possibility to track lost or abandoned gear).

This would be even more relevant in case EPRs for fishing gear were imposed through legislation. The compulsory inclusion of retrieval action as part of an EPR therefore is not likely to provides much added value. The decision on whether or not to launch specific retrieval schemes can be left to Member States under the subsidiarity principle.

This option would also generate job opportunities for the handling, cleaning, and dismantling of fishing gear, not to mention its actual recycling. The retrieval of marine litter in general and fishing gear in particular is already being supported financially including through measures under the EMFF. It is therefore realistic to assume that Member States would continue to make use of such funding opportunities in the future based on their specific needs and circumstances (subsidiarity).

More effective recovery of lost gear and the possibility of reducing the amount of plastic in the sea.

Without retrieval actions, the amount of litter from fishing in the sea will continue to increase because, whatever measures are taken to avoid loss of gear, some will always escape. In addition, given the long lifetime of plastic, even a modest annual input of litter will accumulate. In this option we assume that the extended producer responsibility covers the administrative costs of monitoring and the actual recovery by the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund or its successor.

Nevertheless, this option – in combination with an EPR which could stimulate its development – could provide an additional incentive for producers to undertake measures leading to the collection and reprocessing of returned gear, some of which may generate additional income. It has already and will continue to lead to innovation in the form of encouraging the production of recycled products made from fishing gear material, and provides an incentive and critical mass, which will to reduce the costs of recycling, and may also contribute to reducing the overall costs of an EPR. It also is in line with the overall objectives of the circular economy initiative, which aims at reducing landfill, and incineration and increasing re-use of resources and raw materials.

There would be no direct benefit in terms of reduced litter inflow to the sea. However, adding recycling targets can add incentives for action aimed at increasing the amount of fishing gear brought back to shore.

Administration costs would already be taken care of in option 1a, the basic EPR system

Zero. Once the litter is brought into proper waste management system, the relative costs of landfill, incineration and recycling are similar.

Apart from fishing gear in most cases not being pure and clean, other characteristics may make it more challenging to recycle. For example, most fishing nets consist of several separate parts and hence of several types of plastics and material which will not all to the same degree be fit for recycling. In addition, the value of the different types of material can differ rendering for example only the recycling of specific parts economically feasible. Case in point is the Nylon 6/polyamide retrieval from fishnets, which is currently used as base material for i.a. clothing.

This option would add over 5% to the cost of gear (or 0.2% of revenue). The reduced environmental impact of 2,500 tonnes per year provides between €3 million and €10 million in economic benefit for fishing, port and tourism industries. A successful scheme in Europe could be rolled out elsewhere, thus providing jobs for the service companies running the scheme.

Reduction of ALDFG inflow into the sea by 2,600 tonnes per year over and above the other measures

Can be assumed to reduce the amount of lost gear to the truly irrecoverable 5%.

The study in annex 7 estimates that that the set-up and administrative costs would be three times that of the simple EPR referenced under 6.3.2.1. The costs below are in addition to those in that option.

Fishers refunded for returning end of life or fished up fishing gear material (e.g. with manufacturers directly, via a port collection facility etc.)

This would also be complementary to, and add to the impact of, the strengthened provisions of the revised control regulation, which aim to strengthen marking, retrieval, and reporting of loss. In particular, it would provide an incentive for anglers to return fishing gear waste to shore, leading to higher compliance with both these instruments. Finally, it would ensure adequate disposal, and insertion into the waste stream, of fishing gear waste, adding to the potential of re-use or recycling of the plastic material and potentially reducing overall cost.

This is a scheme whereby a deposit is included in the price of the gear that is being purchases, but is then paid back to the fishermen by weight of fishing gear brought ashore as waste including complete nets, fragments of nets and other plastic fishing gear including buoys, pots etc. Whilst the revised Port Reception Facilities Directive removes disincentives for bringing waste ashore, this would provide a positive incentive to do so.

The establishment of an EPR scheme for fishing gear should, in addition, be considered in its interaction with the overall legislative framework. In particular, EPR schemes take over costs for the separate collection and treatment of waste which otherwise fall on the port facility which in turn passes these costs through to ship operators including fishers as part of the indirect fee. The establishment of EPR schemes for fishing gear would therefore reduce ports costs, and correspondingly port fees, related to the treatment of fishing gear. The costs impact would be most notably relevant in small fishing ports which currently have either no, or very small PRFs.

This option would add a maximum of about 4% to the cost of gear, under the unlikely assumption that producers would pass all costs on to users. The extra cost is 0.16% of annual revenue of the EU fishing fleet. The reduced environmental impact of 2,000 tonnes per year translates to between €2 million and €7 million in economic benefit for fishing, port and tourism industries. Note that the cumulative benefit achieved through the combination with other measures listed above would be much higher.

This assumes that the producers of plastic material incorporated in fishing and aquaculture gear have responsibility for setting up an organisation to ensure that waste is collected at port, sent to appropriate recycling facilities, incineration plants or landfill sites and reporting.

Zero over and above what is already being done

Zero. Implementation would already be covered by the Control Regulation and its proposed revision

Authorities should introduce or marking of gear, a register of gear by the authorities and sharing of information between authorities

The reduced environmental impact of approximately 5,500 tonnes per year translates to between €6 million and €20 million in economic benefit for fishing, port and tourism industries. Additional costs such as the possible increase in port fees due to implementation of the PRF Directive are difficult to estimate at this point, but would be borne by the sector in the absence of any additional and/or burden sharing mechanism.

Inspection targets for vessels greater than 100 GT and reporting of the advance waste notification made obligatory for fishing vessels longer than 45 metres.

Impact assessment for Port Reception Facilities indicates little change in litter brought ashore; although interviews with fishers indicate that current poor facilities may be a disincentive

Member States have to ensure that adequate PRF are available in their fishing ports to deal with this waste in accordance with the waste hierarchy (this includes separate collection of the waste delivered)

-€2,000.000 because the expenditure under OSPAR, KIMO and EMFF schemes to collect, monitor and count litter brought ashore would no longer be necessary or targeted differently.

* There may be additional costs in the case of smaller, particularly fishing ports which will now need facilities and may need to raise ports fees to pay for them.

The proposed revision of the Port Reception Facilities Directive will turn a number of operations currently financed under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund into "business as usual".

Recovery of gear that otherwise would have been abandoned may become possible. There is no information on how much is being retrieved at present (see section 2.2.2).

€50 million, half the 50,000 vessels in the EU fleet under 12 metres need to spend around €2,000 on winches

Removal of the current derogation applicable to vessels < 12m to carry on board the necessary equipment for the retrieval of lost gear.

More accurate reporting and improved effectiveness of recovery operations. Efficiency of these operations varies considerably. A 20% increase in efficiency would add 350 tonnes per year to operations funded under EMFF and a similar amount to the amount recovered in option 3c

Negligible marginal cost because introduced at the same time as other modifications to logbook

Two measures under consideration for simplifying the Common Fisheries Policy and improving its implementation through the Fisheries Control Regulation will address the issue of entry of fishing gear into the sea.

The reduced environmental impact of 9,000 tonnes per year translates to between €10 million and €35 million in economic benefit for fishing, port and tourism industries (see annex 7). The amounts of plastic removed are estimates based on the operations conducted in Norway. These measures are retrieving gear and other plastic lost in previous years and therefore reducing the total mass in the sea but not the annual inflow.

"Investments in facilities for waste and marine litter collection" can also be supported by the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund but as operational programmes bundle this with other activities, it is not possible to identify how much this will amount to.

This measure is described for completeness’ sake. In its current form it does not reduce marine litter inflow, but only results in taking litter out of the sea. It is also broader in that it targets all forms of fished-up litter, and not fishing gear specifically. A total of €53.07 million has been allocated by EU Member States under Article 40.1(a) of the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund for the "collection of waste by fishermen from the sea such as the removal of lost fishing gear and marine litter" in the years 2014-2020. While the operational programmes do not contain a precise enough breakdown, under the previous European Fisheries Fund a split of the budget going to the different activities is available. Assuming the same breakdown and the same efficiency as the operations, we can estimate the environmental impact in terms of litter removed (Table 14). This activity, also known as "fishing for litter", removes litter that is already in the sea ("the stock").

The main assumption is that 55.000 tonnes of plastic are used by the fishing and aquaculture sector each year. Of this, around a fifth is lost or discarded and enters the seas as marine litter. A number of measures currently underway or planned will contribute to reducing this figure over the next years.

This estimate of gear not brought ashore is a higher proportion than that derived from fishers' reports of lost gillnets. Nevertheless, a significant number of fishers who replied to the open stakeholder consultation as part of this impact assessment reported "some" loss of gear.

According to PRODCOM 27,000 tonnes of netting have been sold in the EU in 2016 and studies of floating flitter, beach litter and trawls indicates that netting represents significant fraction of plastic material from fishing and aquaculture in the sea; the rest being made up of buoys, pots, feed sacks, gloves, boxes etc. Samples in areas close to shore with high concentrations of aquaculture show significant concentrations of plastic from this source although in other regions this is not the case. For the purposes of this analysis, based on the comparison of available studies we assume an average of 50% is netting. Studies (see annex 7) conclude that best practice currently is in Iceland where 90% of the annual purchase of gear is eventually brought ashore, but over the EU as a whole, the total is only 80%.

b)Litter causes damage to fisheries through fouling of propellers, blocked intake pipes and valves, snagging of nets, silting of cod ends and contamination of catch. Efforts to estimate the cost of this to fishers range from 1% to 5% of revenue. For the whole of the EU fleet, this amounts to between €70 million and €350 million per year. Thus, removing one thousand tonnes of litter would have a value to the fishing industry of between €250,000 and €1,000,000 a year.

a)We can assume that the annual input of marine litter from land, fishing and aquaculture is up to 25,000 tonnes and that the amount of plastic in the ocean represents 10 years of this input, then preventing 1,000 tonnes from entering the sea or fishing out 1,000 tonnes is equivalent to reducing the impact of marine litter by 0.4%.

The actions underway will already have a positive impact. We will analyse the financial cost of each of these actions and the environmental benefit in terms of reduction of plastic entering the sea. From this we can estimate the economic impact.

6.3.1.Option 1 – the baseline of no action over and above those already in the pipeline

In terms of their effectiveness of reducing plastic marine litter, 2d would be the most effective. However, the cost of 2d is much higher than for 2c (because in particular of the costs associated with improving waste water treatment). For this reason, option 2d is not chosen.

-Analysis of the individual measures making up each of the sub options can be found in Annex 6, Section 2.4 ‘Model Outputs’.

-Feasibility represents the technical difficulty and hassle factor of undertaking the different measures for consumers and retailers.

-Marine litter reductions: figures expressed as a percentage of current litter from Top 10 SUP estimates which is estimated to be 15,604 tonnes per annum in total, with 86% from the Top 10.

Clarity is needed on what could be labelled as “alternative”. Material characteristics need to ensure full biodegradability in marine environments, which requires criteria on material degradation and related timeframe relative to the specific environmental conditions. At EU level, there is currently no accepted scientific standard on marine biodegradability which highlights the urgency for the Commission to ask the European Committee for Standardization to develop a separate standard for Marine biodegradability.

All scenarios involve a shift away from SUP towards alternatives. These substitutes could include alternative business models (e.g. reuse with or without deposits), innovative product design (e.g. integrating smaller parts with larger items) and use of other materials (e.g. paper). To avoid unintended consequences regarding economic, environmental and social impact, the transition towards alternatives should be outcome-oriented and have a broad potential solution space. Such an approach would be in line with the Innovation Principle, making the legislative proposal forward-looking (‘future-proofing’) and innovation-friendly.

·Scenario 2d would better address the underlying drivers, but at a higher cost (both financial and in the form of ‘hassle’ or possible subsidiarity issues). DRS or equivalent systems would entail additional cost (around 1,4 billion €) but would further reduce marine litter. As already shown in several Member States, deposit systems for beverage bottles have a direct, positive impact on collection and recycling, increasing collection rates and quality of the collected material, and reducing littering rates. Best practices for wastewater treatment works would improve infrastructure, increasing wet wipes collection. The main additional cost in 2d is the additional investment needed to disseminate best practices for urban wastewater collection (around 7.7 billion Euros per annum). This measure is difficult to justify simply to solve the wet wipe issue, but is relevant to a much wider range of pollution releases. The ongoing evaluation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD) will consider the measure of ‘best practices for WWTW’ in more detail than above, and in a wider context.

·Sub-option 2c offers a higher effectiveness than sub-option 2b in terms of reducing plastic marine litter, but with additional costs (though much smaller than the difference between 2d and 2c). The additional advantage of 2c over 2b is that the increased use of bans in 2c sends a clear signal and will work better in ensuring the proper functioning of the internal market by avoiding fragmentation between Member States (some Member States are already acting on items: cutlery, straws and stirrers). A ban that is not foreseen in 2b is also easier for Member States to implement. Monitoring the measures foreseen under option 2 c will also be easier for member States. Alternatives are available, so consumers are expected to accept a ban. Given these advantages, and the fact that increased environmental benefits outweigh the increased costs, 2c is an effective and efficient package of measures and so is the preferred sub-option.

·Scenario 2b and 2c would address the underlying drivers more adequately, as they go further to change consumer behaviour. Product design measures for drink bottles for tethered caps would have a direct impact on the leakage of caps into the environment. Reduction or ban of SUP items would have a positive impact on collection rates. In cases of items still leaking into the environment, damage would be mitigated when using alternatives, which are fully biodegradable under marine conditions. Well-functioning EPR schemes covering the full cost of littering crisp packets and sweet wrappers, together with cigarette filters, drink bottles, wet wipes sanitary towels and food containers would improve the management and infrastructure for collection and sorting, and address the market failure for this segment for which alternatives are currently limited. When combined with modulated fees, an EPR scheme could shift from SUP to reusable or single use alternatives, directly affecting the availability of plastics, and the linked consumer behaviour.

·Scenario 2a would address the drivers in a limited way. Information campaigns, voluntary actions and labelling could increase general awareness (e.g. on the litter issue, typical pathways, correct disposal), and thus consumer behaviour, including the trend for convenience. However, it is unclear what the outcome will be as there is little evidence of such awareness actually changings those people’s behaviour.

The modelling of the sub-options reflects an assessment of how adequately measures would address the underlying drivers and pathways of marine litter. In the baseline scenario, the evolution of two specific drivers towards an increase in marine litter, may outweigh the others, namely “wide availability of plastic as a cheap and convenient option for single use applications” and “consumer trend for convenience”. Hence, the impact of proposed measures on these two drivers is especially important:

Some small changes in employment are expected. Employment impacts are most positive with a switch to more labour-intensive practices (such as refillable take-away box schemes). These offset reduction in staffing at manufacturing related to decreased turnover. The nature and location of any impact will also depend on where saved money is spent by consumers, and whether alternative products are produced inside or outside Europe. However, given the uncertainty around employment impacts and the possibility of rebound effects, the overall impacts on employment are not seen as significant.

One of the key aspects that business frequently calls for is a clear policy steer. The European Commission’s Plastics Strategy has been expected for some time, and some producers have already begun anticipating and considering their options. For example, some restaurant chains are already phasing out plastic drinking straws, voluntary actions such as refill schemes are becoming more widespread, and a growing number of Member States are considering introducing deposit refund schemes for beverage containers.

Many retailers, especially in food service retail, are SMEs. They may be positively impacted where they avoid the need to purchase single use items that accompany or contain the food or drink they sell. Whilst reduced consumer spending will translate almost into reduce retail sales, there will be rebalancing as consumers spend their money on alternatives, and favour innovative responses. New business models will develop for making available multi use items to consumers and this could reduce costs, especially as options are scaled up.

Most of the 50,000 companies in the plastic converters sector in the EU (who take plastic resin, in the form of pellets, powders and flakes and turn it into products and packaging) are SMEs. The effect upon them will depend upon whether their business is dependent upon SUPs, and their ability to switch to manufacturing other plastic items. As stated above, for many SUP items the majority of production takes place outside the EU.

These elements need to be compared with convenience for consumers. However, as seen with the plastic bags Directive, the large majority of consumers will accept stringent measures in order to reduce marine litter, in particular when alternatives are available.

There are likely to be financial benefits for consumers. When consumers use their own MU items, they will need washing in order to keep them clean and usable. Therefore, there may be some additional costs from washing the items. However, as they are no longer purchasing many SUP items, the overall cost is likely to fall. For individual consumers, the impacts will vary depending on their consumption habits and their own pre-existing preferences in respect of using reusable items. For example, a nudging policy might be to expand consumer choice by making tap water an available alternative to having to buy (or at least feeling that one has no choice but to buy) bottled water.

The figures below show a) the costs for businesses of complying and the cost of washing and refill schemes (not shown are information campaign costs, that may be paid for by Member States or business) and b) the change in waste management costs (including sewerage treatment). These are partial estimates – other businesses will benefit from production of alternatives, and there will be direct savings that offset (partially or fully) some of the costs.

Waste prevention will lead to some savings of waste treatment for public authorities (where public authorities cover such costs). Reduced levels of litter also mean reduced costs of litter collection and management. Recycling costs generally fall, but are forecast to increase under some measures, such as where DRS for beverage containers is introduced. Overall, costs increase across the scenarios, and are much higher for scenario 2d because of the assumption that screens are fitted as best practice for WWTW.

For retailers engaged in a deposit refund scheme, there will be costs to operating refill schemes, or from washing items. However, these costs may be compensated through the receipt of handling fees for every used beverage container returned.

For other single use items such as wet wipes, sanitary towels, and cotton buds, that retailers sell on directly to customers (rather than use to contain the food or drink they are selling), the impacts will vary based on the difference between the wholesale price and the retail price of the non-plastic single use alternative. Where retailers sell multi-use alternatives, while the number of sales will be lower, the effect on profits will depend on the per item margin that the retailer makes versus the margin on the current single use plastic items.

There will be a cost to providing reusable items for consumption on site, but savings from not providing single use items. The balance of the costs and savings will vary for different retailers and determine whether a switch away from SUP can ‘pay for itself’ over time. However, the shift to non-plastic single use alternatives may lead to an increase in costs to retailers if these are more expensive, and if they do not to pass these costs on to consumers.

For food and drink related items (food containers, cups and cup lids, cutlery, straws and stirrers), the food service (HoReCa) industry and retailers pay for the single use plastic items that they provide to customers ‘free of charge’. Although the cost might not be evident to customers, the consumer will normally cover it in the overall price. With a shift to reusable items, a single upfront purchase by the retailer will avoid future regular costs of purchasing the single use items, and thus may lead to a saving.

Overall, producers’ turnover would fall under option 2 relative to option 1, but not significantly compared to the market size; and, much of this production takes place outside the EU.

These items are predominantly and increasingly imported from the Asia-Pacific region into Europe. For example, Huhtamaki, one of the principal food service packaging businesses in Europe, owns 14 manufacturing centres in India. An internet search for suppliers of plastic stirrers by location reveals 127 suppliers located in the EU, compared with 214,112 in China, 4,982 in Honk Kong and 1025 in Vietnam. Industry estimates on balloon sticks suggest that more than 50% come from China, but that between 50 and 75% of balloons on the EU market (total market of about €540m p.a.) are manufactured in the EU.

The majority of nonwoven wipes used in the EU are produced in the geographical region of Europe. The report includes Turkey within this region, who is a major producer of nonwoven wipes for Europe, so further analysis is needed to determine whether wet wipes production is centred within the EU or the non-EU geographical region.

Flexible packaging is produced in rolls that are used in product manufacturing plants to make crisps packets and sweet wrappers. The original flexible material is mainly produced in the EU.

Europe is a net importer of cotton buds. Countries in the Asia-Pacific region (specifically China, India, Taiwan and the Philippines) and the US are the major manufacturers of cotton buds, due to labour costs and/or the availability of cotton.

Acetate tow is produced by five main companies, based in the US, Japan and Germany. It is undetermined where cigarettes are principally produced.

Trade figures suggest that Asia accounts for about 57% of global exports of disposable plastic tableware, compared to just over 25% for the EU, with Asia the primary source of most SUP items. Table 11 provides an overview of production sources for SUP. There is less information on where the production of multi-use plastics and, especially, non-plastic alternatives will come from but there could be future opportunities for EU markets (see Annex 6). For the alternative materials for single use items, innovations and solutions could come from the bio-economy.

There is no detailed information on what proportion of the products put on the market by EU and non-EU plastics converters is composed of the items identified as most likely to be littered, and so it is difficult to see how impacts fall in or outside the EU. The sector is expanding, so the possibilities to divert from production of low-value disposable SUP products to other markets are therefore clear. Higher value products for construction, insulation, agriculture, automotive, telecommunications and electronics industries tend to be made with other types of plastic (PE, PVC, PUR, PS and others) which account for more than 70% of EU demand from plastics converters.

Half of global plastics production is located in Asia and 19% in Europe. Analysis suggests that most single use plastic items are produced outside Europe. In the context of generally buoyant and increasing demand for plastic products, producers (plastics converters) are likely to be negatively affected by any reduction in demand for single use products but they have an opportunity to redirect production to reusable and recyclable items.

Estimates of external costs are provided. These are significant with, for example, sub-option 2c having reduced costs (benefits) of €11.1 billion Euros in 2030 (these calculations use monetised estimates of disamenity from litter in particular and are only partly financial benefits).

Sub-option 2d leads to the largest reduction in plastic marine litter. Reduction estimates were first made by weight (tonnes) and then translated into items by count.

Step 7: The different measures were modelled and results presented for the four sub-options. Each of these sub-options results in different environmental, economic and social impacts, which are modelled compared to the baseline scenario.

Step 6: Modelling assumptions were made about the costs and impacts of different measures. This involved an examination of a ‘ladder’ for each product (see Annex 6). This allows for estimation of impacts throughout the economy. Important assumptions for SUP are how different measures affect littering rates, consumption rates (and the split between SUP and alternatives both multi use and non-plastic). This needs to reflect the impact of different measures on the different pathways and underlying drivers. In addition, the costs to different actors needs to be estimated for each of the different measures. These assumptions are based on literature review and past experience. Changing them would not change significantly the conclusions of the assessment.

The model is an adapted waste model. Some mass flow aspect, e.g. and in average on littering, were used for the modelling work under the Plastics Strategy. This was built upon for the different products, as waste models do not normally model down to such a specific product level as e.g. stirrers. Baseline projections reflect trend analysis and the impact of recycling and landfill target rates specified in EU legislation. Many of the waste management related impacts, including externalities, were taken from the European Environment Agency’s ‘European Reference Model on Municipal Waste Management’, which has been developed over the last 10 years, and thoroughly tested. This was complemented by further LCA studies of the different products and possible alternatives.

Step 5: The model was populated with baseline data covering baseline growth rates for consumption of the different products, recycling assumptions, littering rates etc. For the SUPs considered here, the total tonnage of items ending up as litter is 270,174 tonnes, while the tonnage of items flushed sums to 41,896 tonnes. Of this 312,070 tonnes of items, the amount then entering the marine environment is calculated to be around 15,604 tonnes of SUP in the baseline option (option 1). Less than 5% of plastic land litter ends up as plastic marine litter.

Single use plastics is analysed on a product-by-product basis. While section 5 went through the four steps related to building sub-options, section 6 examines how they were analysed.

Measures to reduce the littering of single use plastic, especially regulatory measures, will entail some compliance costs, falling both on the public and on the private sector, and perhaps being passed on to consumers, to ensure implementation and enforcement. The extent will depend on the choice and the exact design of the measures to be implemented.

Monetised estimates of the environmental impacts are provided where possible but need to be treated with caution. In particular, direct comparisons between the figures used for fishing gear and SUP should not be made given the different methodologies and assumptions used.

The focus on reducing plastic marine litter could have unintended consequences (are you switching to something that causes different problems?). Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) was undertaken to compare the environmental impacts of the alternatives to SUP, both non-plastic single use and multi-use items. The main parameters show a decrease in impacts, though for some options, there might be a minor increase in land use due to a switch to paper and wood.

Estimates are provided for the main environmental benefit, by looking at the reduction in plastic marine littering rates. Reductions in marine littering from SUP will often be associated with reductions in terrestrial littering and lead to changes in production, and improved waste prevention. This leads to changes in greenhouse gas emissions.

These measures can be grouped into three options that are not mutually exclusive.

This would include a potential ban or levy on materials susceptible to loss and/or difficult to recycle and substitution of plastic products in fisheries such as plastic feedbags in aquaculture or polystyrene fish boxes. This measure would achieve a phase-out or reduction in consumption of the use of materials that are difficult to recycle (e.g. combination cordage i.e. that made of mixed materials) or susceptible to loss and/or abrasion (e.g. dolly rope). It could be particularly appropriate for fish aggregating devices (FAD) which float and drift with currents and are difficult to locate and recover. The particular challenge of biodegradability may apply to a lesser extent as the conditions under which the material should operate and degrade are known.

·the organisation of retrieval operations. This would include maintenance of a database of lost gear and retrieval operations including their cost, duration and success rate which would guide subsequent retrieval operations.

·a deposit scheme. The producers are responsible for administering and financing a scheme whereby fishermen are paid for the return of end-of-life, damaged gear or fragments of gear. In order to reduce administrative costs, the amount returned would not distinguish between different gears or plastics but rather be determined by the weight of litter returned with the sole proviso that it be fishing gear. The deposit would be included in the price of gear. A scheme in Korea whereby fishers are paid for gear returned to port is reported to be "highly effective in terms of recovery and disposal of gear" .

·handling the waste stream. The producers are responsible for the separate collection of the material from the port and transporting it for treatment (recycling, incineration or landfilling) and related monitoring obligations under the applicable waste legislation. It would operate in a similar way to the Icelandic Recycling Fund (Úrvinnslusjóður) which is funded by a levy on imported goods or local production.

Despite EPR being, in theory, an individual obligation, in practice producers and manufacturers often exert this responsibility collectively, including in how fees are set, modulated, and passed on to users. In cases where the product market is competitive, fees are often absorbed by the producers rather than passed on wholesale to users. In collective schemes, a Producer Responsibility Organisation (PRO) is set up, either by producers or through legislation, to implement the EPR principle on behalf of all the adhering companies (the obligated industry). It then becomes responsible for meeting the recovery and recycling obligations of the individual producers.

Although no EPR schemes yet exist for plastics used in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors, within the framework of marine environmental law there are compensation schemes (i.e. Civil liability and Fund Conventions regulating compensation for oil pollution damage caused by tankers). These schemes also include subsidiary or 'top-up' liability for cases where the actual polluter is not known (such as the oil industry's IOPC Funds, 2018). EPR schemes may shift consumption away from harmful products or discourage the use and/or abandonment of plastic components of fishing gear, which are easily damaged during use, e.g. plastic dolly rope, and polystyrene floats and buoys not sealed in a protective cover.

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a policy approach under which producers are responsible for the separate collection and subsequent transportation and treatment of products at the end of their life. It allows environmental costs, including costs of waste gear recovery and recycling, to be internalised by “polluters”. Establishing an extended producer responsibility scheme could be a mechanism to support improved waste management services for fishing gear waste, including separate collection, sorting and cleaning, recycling, education and awareness, research and possibly even facilitate retrieval operations for lost fishing gear. This would be an additional measure to financially support the appropriate return, separate collection and subsequent treatment of waste fishing gear. This would reduce the cost for ports of management of waste gear returned to port and consequently would have a softening impact on any potential increases of port fees affecting the fishing sector as a result of the revised PRF Directive. In doing so, it enables full realisation of the expected positive impact of the revised PRF Directive on increasing the returning of fishing gear. It also involves fishers and fishing gear producers in taking full responsibility for the environmental impact of their gear whilst ensuring fair distribution of costs.

In addition, increases in port fees due to the need for additional waste management facilities, such as for separate collection and sorting in PRFs would result in cost increases for fishers notably in small fishing ports which currently have either no, or very small PRFs. This is already being flagged as a potential issue in the on-going negotiations on the revised PRF Directive. Nor would there be specific incentives for organising dedicated waste and recycling stream for fishing gear once returned to port, mechanisms to share best practice and increase efficiency of retrieval operations or development of more environmentally-friendly gear. Finally, current measures address the return to ports only, but do not address the overall aspects of treating waste fishing gear outside the context of port reception facilities, such as in aquaculture installations.

Actions already underway or planned as part of the baseline scenario will already reduce the amount and inflow of plastic from fishing gear in the sea. However, whilst reducing some financial disincentives for fishermen to return their damaged, end-of-life or fished up gear to ports, there would still be no incentives for actions that mean extra work for them in terms of sorting or storing waste fishing gear on board other than ad-hoc actions organised by local authorities.

The public consultation showed 47% of respondents were in favour of deposit return schemes (with brands, importers and manufacturers less enthusiastic). 77% of respondents stated they would be prepared to pay a small charge on plastic bottles, to be refunded on return, with a further 7% saying that this was already the case in their country.

·Higher reduction targets for drinks cups and lids, and food containers (50% by 2025, 80% by 2030) compared to sub-options 2b and 2c (30% by 2025, 50% by 2030).

·Reduction targets for sensitive SUP, from a public opinion perspective: sanitary towels (25% by 2030), and cigarette filters (50% by 2025, 80% by 2030).

·Deposit refund system (DRS) or equivalent measure for beverage containers. The added value may vary between Member States. A DRS for beverage containers is implemented in some Member States (resulting in increased collection rate and reduced littering), but faces opposition driven by a (sometimes real, sometimes perceived) cost argument. While there is public support for DRS (see Open Public Consultation), in countries where EPR schemes are well established, the added value of DRS systems might be limited. Discussions ongoing in several Member States show that the industry (producers of products) is generally not in favour, because it might require investments in new infrastructure in addition to their responsibility to set up and maintain existing separate collection systems that target similar and other waste.

·Best practices for waste water treatment: for wet wipes, as the pathways are the key issue and there is no easy alternative. This would require a longer time horizon and large investments, which EPR could not cover. Investing in improving the wastewater infrastructure makes sense for several reasons – i.e. to further reduce the release of the ‘classical’ organic pollutants. Better capturing wet wipes would be a positive consequence, but probably not a sufficient argument for these additional investments.

This sub-option has the highest effectiveness in terms of reducing marine litter but would be the most challenging and costly to implement. It includes the same measures as sub-option 2c (unless these became redundant, e.g. in case of a ban). The measures, which reflect differences in alternatives and feasibility across products, include:

The public consultation showed strong support (93% of respondents) for policies to phase out disposable non-biodegradable plastic tableware (such as cups, plates, cutlery and stirrers) in favour of reusable alternatives or those made with more biodegradable materials. However, about 50% of plastics converters were against such actions.

·bans for a group of single use plastic items, where there are alternatives on the market: cutlery, straws and stirrers, balloon sticks (meaning other measures related to these products are no longer needed);

·reduction targets for wet wipes, which was not included in sub-option 2b as the alternatives are less clear: 30% by 2025 and 50% by 2030;

The third sub-option would have a higher effectiveness still. It includes the same measures as the second sub-option and includes in addition:

Breaking down the reduction target to look at how Member States might achieve reductions, there was a fairly balanced split between measures. For example, in respect of single use drinks cups, 34% of respondents expressed a preference for direct measures such as restrictions or charges, 31% preferred use of incentives (such as price reductions) for consumers bringing reusable cups onto premises, and 30% felt preferred awareness raising measures.

For other products for which there are alternatives on the market, the overall balance of appropriate measures was similar, but legislative measures for substitute materials were considered slightly more pertinent in relation to caps & lids and food containers.

With regard to products where there are alternatives on the market and/or behaviour could change, the public consultation indicated support for a mix of measures, with some variations depending on category of respondent.

Respondents to the public consultation overwhelmingly favoured the use of EPR schemes to cover the costs of cleaning up litter, with 91% considering that cigarette companies should contribute financially to clearing up of cigarette butts in this way, and 6% against (20% of those in the “manufacturers” category were against). 79% believed that producers of sanitary items should contribute to cleaning up costs of sanitary towels, with 11% against. For bottles, 33% of respondents expressed support for reduction targets and 20% for design requirements. These responses were on an “either-or” basis for first preference, and it is not clear how many would opt for design measures in addition to their first preference.

In the public consultation 44% of respondents considered legislative requirements to use alternative materials as “most appropriate (effective, proportionate, economically efficient and socially acceptable)”, an option amounting effectively to a ban on plastic versions of this product. About 40% considered extended producer responsibility schemes as appropriate for such items.

Sub-option 2b implies an increasing trade-off between being ambitious in terms of expected impact (see Annex 6) and being feasible to implement, e.g. alternatives are already on the market, or Member States have sufficient control on how to tailor measures to local conditions (subsidiarity principle).

·Reduction targets for single use plastic products where there are alternatives on the market and/or behaviour could change (cutlery, straws, stirrers, drinks cups and lids, and food containers: 30% by 2025 and 50% by 2030). Member States will be obliged to introduce national reduction targets, i.e. legally binding reductions in consumption from a base year, or other measures that would obtain the same result, such as levies, deposit refund systems, nudging policies (behavioural response policies) etc., which makes this approach similar to that in the Plastic Bags Directive.

·EPR to contribute to the cost of cleaning up litter for SUP that are either frequently littered (cigarette butts, drinks bottles, crisp packets and sweet wrappers, straws, stirrers, drinks cups and lids, food containers, balloons) or flushed when they should not be and then end up in the sea (wet wipes, sanitary towels);

·A ban of plastic cotton bud sticks, where there is a very clear alternative. This also means that information campaigns etc. are dropped for this product).

The second sub-option is more effective, while becoming more challenging to implement (bringing with it more costs and burden for those affected). It includes the same measures as the first sub-option, and in addition:

The public consultation revealed scepticism about the effectiveness of awareness and labelling measures alone, with only 30% of respondents believing that these would be “very effective”, although higher levels were registered from some sectors, notably plastics converters (63%) and manufacturers (58%). Similarly, voluntary actions by business were considered “very effective” by only 29% of respondents, again with some variations, for example with fewer plastics converters and manufacturers finding them very effective (20% and 19% respectively), but more retailers and food outlets (41% and 50%) considered voluntary actions very effective.

·measures related to labelling of improperly flushed items: cotton bud sticks, wet wipes and sanitary towels (the main driver for marine litter for these items, is that they are flushed, while they should not). This labelling would inform the consumers on the potential implications in terms of marine litter of for example flushing. Labelling would also apply to balloons (informing consumers not to let fly balloons in the open air as they potentially harm nature).

The first sub-option is relatively cheap and straightforward to implement, but has a low effectiveness with regard to curbing the negative impacts arising from marine litter, especially against the baseline option. Broadly, there are two groups of measures:

·When a ban is introduced, then there is no need for labels, information campaigns etc.

·All measures in 2a are in bold because they are not in the baseline. To follow an example, for cigarette butts, in 2b EPR for the cost of litter is added, 2c is the same as 2b for this product and then 2d includes labels and a reduction target.

The table below presents in tabular form the different components of each sub-option.

-This approach presents packages of measures, but of course, this is based on aggregating analysis of individual measures on individual products and there is scope to move measures between different sub-options. The underlying analysis is presented in Annex 6 (Tables 25 to 28) and allows for an individual measure for an individual product to be identified in isolation and moved between sub-options.

-Not all products have additional measures in each sub-option. For example, sub-option 2c reflects additional effort on wet wipes, cutlery, straws and stirrers and balloon sticks. For the other products, the measures are unchanged from 2b.

-The criteria for going from sub-option 2a to 2b to 2c to 2d is that each steps involves increasing effectiveness towards the general objective of curbing the negative impacts arising from marine litter but also, in general, increasing implementation difficulty and or costs.

-It does not make sense to present sub-options with the same measure or intensity for all products. For example, presenting a sub-option of a ban for all products would not reflect the availability of alternatives or the importance of different drivers for different products. Hence, the four sub-options include different measures for different products reflecting their alternatives, pathways and drivers;

-The effectiveness is measured first by the decrease of litter and in particular marine litter. The choice between measures is based on the availability of alternatives, impact on convenience for the consumer, implementation feasibility and further reduction potential. This is relevant for the choice between reduction targets and bans.

Step 4: Four sub-options were generated. These involve choosing amongst the 80 to 90 feasible measures available and packaging them into four sub-options (a, b, c and d). Some comments on the way the sub-options are put together:

Step 3: The feasibility of the measures was considered for each product. For example, for ‘drinks bottles, caps and lids’, feasible measures would include information campaigns, voluntary agreements, product design, a deposit return systems or equivalent measure for beverage containers and EPR to cover cost of littering. However, for ‘drinks bottles, caps and lids’, best practices for WWTW would not be feasible (they would have no effect as this is not a relevant pathway). Across the different products, around 80 to 90 measures are feasible.

This is important because items with good alternatives are the best candidates for demanding measures. For items for which the market for alternatives is still developing, then there is a need for measures to promote new business models and alternative materials. Meanwhile, for items for which legislation already exists (bottles) or without substitutes (cigarette butts…) then the best measures may be more soft measures such as awareness raising and producer's responsibility to pay for clean-up. Table 6 below groups the items broadly by alternatives, but it should be noted that each has its own specificities and so this is only indicative.

-For some other products, the acceptability of the available alternatives is less clear, such as plant-derived cellulose filters for cigarettes (although the market share of these appears to be increasing).

-For other products, the preferred alternatives might be a mix of change in model, product and material. Therefore, reusable cutlery offers a clear alternative to single use and if reuse would be difficult, there should be a material substitution (e.g. untreated wood) and items should be recyclable, in line with the waste hierarchy.

-For some products, alternatives are available with lower environmental impact if the items were still littered, such as plastic cotton bud sticks moving to paper stemmed, or wood substitutes that would pose no inconvenience to consumers, while reducing the negative impact if littered.

Step 2: The availability of alternatives to Single Use Plastic items was considered, ranging from alternative business models, multi-use products, single use non-plastic alternatives, or different consumer behaviour. Annex 3 includes a non-exhaustive list of the single and multi-use alternatives available for the different products, but for example:

Reactions to the Impact Assessment Roadmap also argued that the diversity of SUPs mean that a differentiated approach is required depending on whether plastic marine litter is the result of items that can be profitably recycled, items for which more sustainable alternatives exist, or finally items for which there is no readily available alternative.

·An alternative option is requiring that SUP are not given away free at the point of sale.

·Setting targets for reduction in consumption of specific items was generally seen as an appropriate measure for EU-level action.

·Charges were seen as a preventive measure, which can influence consumer behaviour; and generate a new stream of revenue. Industry representatives highlighted, and others agreed, that a legislative approach was needed to ensure broad application and a level playing field.

·Bans are a good way of enforcing the redesign of specific low-value items but can interfere with the operation of the single market if applied at (sub) national level.

·There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of awareness raising campaigns, which are not sufficient as a standalone measure.

The Stakeholder consultation confirmed the need for a range of measures adapted to different SUP products. An EU-wide prevention target was preferred. With respect to regulatory measures, such as bans, the importance of public support was highlighted. Discussions around the limitations of potential measures highlighted in particular that:

The measures would trigger responses in the market. For example, there would be research and innovation into material and product substitution (plastics and other types) making the product more cost-effectively recyclable, biodegradable or harmless when littered.

Each measure pushes the substitution of single use products by shifting behaviour towards alternative use models, multi-use versions or a substitution of the plastic in the single use item. In this last case, plastics would be replaced by materials which biodegrade in the marine environment in a sufficiently short timeframe to avoid harm to human health and the environment, such as paper and wood which have not been treated with hazardous chemicals that can be released into the environment. Testing potentially biodegradable plastics would require an accepted scientific standard on marine biodegradability, currently lacking at EU level.

-Reduction targets for specific single use plastic products, with Member States free to choose the measures to reach the target, for instance through a charge. These may make sense when alternatives exist in some contexts, but not for all. It would allow Member States freedom in terms of the policy measures they pursue;

-Extended producers responsibility (EPR) systems – for packaging EPR is already an existing obligation but it does not cover clean-up which would be added. For non-packaging, there is no existing EPR obligation, but the new measure would make the minimum requirements of the new waste legislation mandatory. In addition, it would add the responsibility to cover clean-up costs (see also sub-option 3a to 3b);

-Labels - the mandatory labelling of specific products to inform the consumers on the potential implications in terms of marine litter of unappropriated behaviour (e.g. such as "do not litter" or "do not flush");

Step 1: A range of measures was identified that could cover some or all of the different products. These are measures either taken by some regions or Member States or at the international level and / or identified in discussions with experts and stakeholders. They are in broadly increasing order of ambition:

The analysis for single use plastics is undertaken on a product-by-product basis. Annex 6 goes through the analysis in detail, but the main steps are set out here and continue in Section 6.2.

For some products, the ladder can be climbed all the way to the top (in other words, if the product is banned, marine litter from EU sources would be completely stopped). For other products, the Impact Assessment will show that it is only possible or desirable to climb part of the way, for example, because there are no obvious suitable alternatives (such as currently for cigarettes, sanitary applications, balloons).

For each product, there is a ladder of measures with the bottom of the ladder being the current amount of litter caused by a product. The baseline scenario in all cases already leads to a first step up the ladder, leading to an impact on the level of littering of each product. The subsequent steps of the ladder are determined by the policy measures that could lead to a reduction of littering: the more ambitious the measures, the bigger the reduction in littering. Different steps of the ladder may require different legal instruments to enable them.

Measures for SUP are proposed as part of option 2 and for fishing gear as part of option 3. The approach takes into account differences in design, material and chemical composition, use and pathways for littering between products.

Finally, the implementation of the actions included in the EU Plastics Strategy and the Communication on the interface between chemical, waste and product legislation are also relevant.

·The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation voluntary Guidelines on the Marking of Fishing Gear adopted in February 2018 are expected to be endorsed in July 2018 and subsequently implemented.

oPost 2020: It is envisaged, in line with the Plastics Strategy, to make marine litter a funding priority under the new programming period.

oFull implementation of the current requirements to mark gear (Article 8) to carry retrieval equipment on board, to retrieve lost gear or to report its loss in case it cannot be retrieved (Article 48). A planned revision will introduce daily electronic reporting for all vessels and remove the exemption of small vessels from the obligation to carry retrieval equipment. However, this will increase costs for fishers without adding any positive incentive to bring more gear back to shore.

oThe Commission's proposal for a revision of the Port Reception Facilities Directive was intended to be one of several measures contributing to the Commission's Circular Economy Strategy and the Commission's Strategy on Plastic. Accordingly, the Commission's proposal for a revision of the Port Reception Facilities states that: "additional measures for reducing lost or abandoned fishing gear are examined, such as extended producer responsibility and deposit-refund schemes for commonly littered fishing gear".

oRequires port reception facilities to effectively implement the waste hierarchy in the context of management of waste from ships, including the separate collection of waste from vessels in port in view of further reuse/recycling. That separate collection obligation does not, however, require separate collection of fishing gear. Also the obligation to collect and subsequently treat waste would thus fall on the ports and their fees for ships, including notably small-scale fishers, would increase, unless compensated by other sources such as extended producer responsibility schemes. The cost increase could be considerable notably in small fishing ports which currently have either no, or very small port reception facilities.

oIntroduces a 100% indirect fee for waste from ships, as well as passively fished waste, and includes fishing vessels and recreational craft in the indirect fee regime. This reduces some of the disincentive caused by specific waste fees to bring back fished up waste and gear ashore. However, there is no compensation for the inconvenience of sorting and storing the waste on board, some of which will not be from the vessel concerned.

oThe Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive provides minimum requirements for the infrastructure for the collection and treatment of urban waste water and quality criteria for the treatment. However, this Directive is not effective with respect to the requirements on capture and treatment of storm water overflows and concerning microplastics, which are not covered by the directive. This is in particular an issue for flushed items such as plastic cotton bud sticks and sanitary applications for which the pathway into the sea is through sewage systems. The Water Framework Directive requires Member States to adopt programmes of measures to achieve good ecological status (GES) of the water bodies but it does not specifically require action against marine litter or as criteria against which GES should be assessed. Improvements in its implementation should be expected as a result of the new requirement to coordinate these programmes with those under the MSFD and Waste Framework Directive.

oUnder the MSFD, Member States had to adopt measures to address marine litter by 2016. On the basis of the information contained in the programmes of measures submitted (in 2016) by the Member States, it is not possible to calculate by how much the quantities of marine litter will be reduced. The Commission's assessment of the measures shows that the most common type of measures reported by Member States include beach clean-ups and 'fishing for litter'. These are costly downstream measures, as opposed to upstream measures to improve waste management and prevention, and that do not prevent the littering at source. Therefore, they only have a modest impact on reducing the pressure, although they do raise awareness. Targeted measures for beach litter, such as by limiting the proliferation of single-use plastics, or for the reduction of microplastics and of litter from aquaculture were largely absent in Member States' programmes of measures under the MSFD. Some Member States have taken measures to limit the use of certain plastics in view of its impact on the marine environment, but have not reported them as part of their programme of measures.

oThe Waste Framework Directive contains a requirement on Member States to revise their (a) waste prevention programmes to reflect the general objectives with respect to the prevention of (marine) litter and (b) waste management plans to provide for general measures to combat and prevent all forms of littering and to clean up all types of litter (not limited to land based litter). Member States will also be required to coordinate these plans and measures on litter with other plans and measures that they are required to adopt under international and EU water legislation to tackle litter in the aquatic environment. It is not possible to calculate by how much the quantities of marine litter will be reduced exactly as a result of this obligation, in particular, because it is a more procedural requirement with no measurable outcome.

oThe Waste Framework Directive contains new, general waste prevention objectives requiring Member States to take measures (a) aiming to halt the generation of marine litter as a contribution to UN SDG 14 to prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds; (b) to take appropriate measures to prevent and reduce litter from products that are the main sources of littering notably in the marine environment; and (c) to organise information campaigns to raise awareness about waste prevention and littering. These measures (“that shall aim to”) do not require Member States to achieve or demonstrate the attainment of the objective pursued and they leave significant flexibility with regard to the products that Member States may choose to target and the measures to do that, including through possible market restrictions. As described above this may lead to a fragmentation of the internal market.

oThe amendments to the Waste Framework Directive will set minimum requirements for EPR schemes. The requirements make it optional for Member States to require that EPR schemes contribute to waste prevention, including through prevention campaigns or clean-up of litter.

oThe revised Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive requires all Member States to introduce extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes for all packaging by 2025. However, non-packaging single-use plastic products are not covered by these schemes. Moreover, for plastic packaging single-use products this is unlikely to lead to reduced marine litter as in most Member States EPR schemes have already been in place for many years for household packaging, which represents half of the top 10 SUP items.

oThe Packaging Directive, as amended, will also establish higher recycling targets – 50% by 2025 and 55% by 2030 for plastic packaging. This would require Member States to improve their separate collection in terms of both capture and quality of the collected material and divert that waste from landfill and incineration to recycling. However, the increase in recycling rates as such does not necessarily require in depth efforts to reduce littering or/ an extension or improvement of separate collection close to water bodies where the waste loads have large seasonal variations.

oThe Packaging Directive, as amended, will re-focus the prevention objectives on re-use of packaging, however, the substantial obligation will merely require Member States to “encourage” the reuse of packaging. More ambitious and concrete measures in the Packaging Directive are envisaged only with regard to one SUP item - plastic bags. For other SUP items, due to the general nature of the prevention and reuse obligations and the flexibility for Member States to choose the measures, positive effects are much more uncertain. The review of the essential requirements for packaging for purpose to facilitate separate collection and recyclability in view of the circular economy objectives is already announced, for 2020, in the EU Plastics Strategy.

·Measures on waste management, including those of the recently revised Waste Framework Directive and Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (that will enter into force in 2020, when Member States will have to transpose these amendments):

This option covers the current regulatory framework that includes measures and policies at EU level that have been recently adopted or proposed by the Commission. This option entails an increased focus in the existing legislation on items already covered today in separate collection schemes (e.g. packaging such as beverage bottles, bags) and on fishing gear. It also includes the general expected changes in consumption for single use plastics items.

The focus is therefore on two areas that form the main sources of plastic marine litter that are either not addressed by existing legislation, or where relevant legislation does not include in its scope adequate measures:

·Plastic bags: Directive (EU) 2015/720 defines an obligation for Member States to take measures to reduce consumption of lightweight plastic carrier bags by defining a maximum consumption level (to be attained by end of 2019) and/or by requiring that such bags are provided to consumers at the point of sale free of charge (measures to be put in place by end of 2018). Member States have to report the annual consumption of lightweight plastic carrier bags as of May 2018. An overall picture of the effect of the measures in the EU is not yet available but evidence from Member States such as Ireland that is already applying such a policy, show convincing results in the reduction of the use of plastic bags (90% reduction in just over one year) and of the presence of such bags in marine litter. New measures on plastic bags await an assessment by the European Commission on the effectiveness of current measures and on whether new measures are required for the reduction of “other plastic bags” by November 2021.

·Non-plastic debris is excluded – in many cases this does not persist, in other cases, it is mostly inert materials, and with relatively low environmental damage, (though it may be relatively visible).

·Litter emanating from sea-based sources are partially covered by international obligations (in particular MARPOL Annex V) and at the EU level by the PRF Directive and its revision. There is scope for complementing that legislation, in particular, by targeting the specificities of fishing gear, which will be examined below. End-of-use recreational boats are an important source of sea-based litter – with only around 2,000 boats being dismantled of the 80,000 that annually reach the end of their lives and the remaining likely to be left abandoned will also not be covered here.

·Microplastics intentionally added to a product are excluded, as they are being assessed by ECHA through the preparation of a distinct restriction dossier under REACH. Similarly, primary micro plastics coming from other sources (tyres, textiles and plastic pellets) requires completely different policy answers and therefore are not covered in the analysis. These policy answers are detailed in the Plastics Strategy and will include a combination of standardisation, labelling, product requirements and actions along the whole value chain.

The prioritisation method aims to reflect the prevalence and environmental impact of different sources along with the existence of ongoing efforts to tackle them. Where such efforts are ongoing, there is little value-added in including them for further analysis. As such:

Voluntary recycling schemes by fisheries associations. Fishers take back to port end-of-life or broken gear and are compensated by recyclers for delivering clean, sorted plastics depending on the quality and type of material. Although in Iceland, such a scheme is running successfully - 70% of the retrieved gear can be recycled and 90% of it is sent for recycling to Lithuania – the variety and decentralised nature of EU fisheries precludes such a voluntary approach.

Sanctioning the loss and abandonment of fishing gear by reducing fishing quotas. This option would likely be counterproductive and almost impossible to control without disproportionate administrative and financial effort.

Recommendation: This would essentially reconfirm the current situation of an indicative non-binding target, as expressed in the 2015 Circular Economy Action Plan. A Recommendation by itself would therefore not bring any added value.

Internationally, this initiative is consistent with the Communication on International Ocean Governance and the commitments taken in Malta at the Our Ocean Conference. This initiative is coherent with the 2017 Strategy "Towards the Outermost Regions". Finally, the initiative is consistent with the EU's international obligations in the area of trade policy, notably by ensuring equality of treatment for products produced in the EU and imported products.

Action under the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), including the requirement to implement an ecosystem approach to fisheries management that ensures that negative impacts on the marine ecosystems are minimised. It takes advantage of provisions under the EU's Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), in particular those of the Fisheries Control Regulation addressing ALDFG, and of the EMFF Regulation encouraging the involvement of fishermen in the reduction of marine litter. It complements the Technical and IUU Regulation where they do not provide provisions specifically targeting ALDFG.

In doing so, the initiative will complement and reinforce the legal framework proposed by the Commission for the reception and management of waste from ships in ports (COM(2018)33 legislative proposal for a new Directive on port reception facilities for the delivery of waste from ships). This framework also includes requirements for providing cost recovery systems for this type of waste based on a 100% indirect fee for garbage (MARPOL Annex V).

The initiative complements existing measure at EU level that aim at tackling the problems related to ALDFG, by proposing measures that: provide additional incentives for the users of fishing gear to return gear waste to shore, enhancing compliance with the existing framework of rules; allowing for the development of schemes for the proper inclusion of fishing gear waste in waste management and recycling streams.

Similarly, the public stakeholder consultation asked which additional targeted measures would support the bringing fishing gear back ashore. Respondents favoured with 59% deposit return schemes levied on fishers and with 53% an extended producer responsibility scheme including a levy on gear.

The stakeholder consultation on the initiative yielded strong support for additional action to incentivise the return of gear to shore and ensure compliance, and which supports the proposed initiative. In the response of the stakeholders to the question about the selection of measures to help reduce lost and discarded fishing gear with the most selected options:

The initiative complements the measures against marine litter, undertaken by the Member States under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) and will support its effective implementation.

The initiative is fully consistent with the overall objectives of EU waste policy and the EU waste hierarchy according to which waste prevention should be given the highest priority. The initiative serves the objectives of the EU's Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive – environmental protection and preservation of the internal market. The initiative is also in line with the provisions of the soon to be amended Waste Framework Directive notably on the prevention objective to halt the generation of marine litter and to the requirement to take measures to combat all types of litter. While in line with all the waste acquis, the initiative goes one step further and addresses the gap in the current legislation which lacks specific provisions for the most harmful items from a marine littering perspective (besides microplastic for which separate action is already foreseen in the Plastics Strategy).

The initiative aims at preserving the internal market from fragmentation, which is – by essence – one of the key objectives of the Union.

Given its focus on more efficient resource use and a more effective and circular plastics economy/value chain with better economic and environmental performances, the initiative is fully in line with the objectives of the Circular Economy policy. The Circular Economy is an integral part of the 10 priorities of the President, in particular the one on jobs, growth and investment.

Some measures (such as product bans, design requirements etc.) would be best established at EU level, whilst for other measures (such as reduction targets for products without sufficiently available substitutes or information campaigns) Member States should have freedom to choose among specific implementation methods, in line with the subsidiarity principle. This follows the approach of the Plastic Bags Directive (EU) 2015/720 that sets a clear common direction at EU level, but gives Member States some choice on the measures, including the use of economic instruments. The Directive has led to drastic cuts in lightweight plastic bags to the approval of citizens across Europe.

·complement and reinforce existing EU legislation to effectively tackle the different drivers and pathways of marine litter in a more specific and targeted manner;

·address the transboundary nature of marine litter and ensure a level playing field among the Member States and their economic operators' efforts in tackling marine litter;

·reduce implementation costs for economic actors, in particular, by providing a harmonised, EU-wide framework for measures such as marketing bans and requirements and consumption reduction targets and by facilitating cross-border partnerships to save costs – for instance to deal with waste fishing gear;

·provide a clear and strong signal to the product markets because EU action would increase the scale and viability of the proposed actions and that would help to create a wider market for the alternative products or business models and consequent positive impacts in, growth and jobs;

·avoid disruption in the free movement of goods in the Union market, which results from scattered measures at national level targeting different products or same products, but with different measures, as for example different product bans country by country

The added value of EU action would lie in providing a framework for more specific coordinated action that is effective and efficient in achieving the common goal to prevent and reduce the impact of marine litter in the EU. Action at EU level would:

Similarly, the advantages of an indirect port fee system excluding separate charges for waste collection can be reduced in cases where the implementation of enhanced port reception facilities leads to a de facto increase in port costs, particularly in small ports and for small operators, notably in the fishing sector. Complementing the measures envisaged in the revised PRF Directive with action that minimises or eliminates the additional cost for ports and small scale operators as a result of envisaging extended producer responsibility for fishing gear containing plastic would strengthen the overall impact of EU level measures to reduce marine litter.

In some cases, there are regional or national measures which aim to incentivise in particular fishers to bring back fished up waste and gear to shore by for example waiving port fees or waste fees. This can impact the competitiveness of fishing operations on the one hand, by providing an advantage to local fishers over their neighbours or jeopardise an otherwise positive measure by making it unsustainable because it would attract waste from non-local operators, resulting in disproportionate costs for the local ports or regional organisations. EU action in support of such mechanisms across the EU would level the playing field whilst improving the overall collection rate of fishing gear waste.

A number of EU-level instruments deal with fishing gear. Complementing these instruments would be done most effectively by EU-level action ensuring a continued uniform approach. By way of example, the programmes of measures under the MSFD targeting fishing gear are being designed by Member States on an individual basis, where some of the proposed actions (e.g. EPR, recycling) would be better done on a common footing. A number of actions to tackle sea-based sources of marine litter are already taken at EU level (e.g. the Port Reception Facilities directive). The Common Fisheries Policy, whose objective is the conservation and management of marine biological resources, is implemented through EU legal instruments such as the Control Regulation. Any action to complement the existing legal framework at an EU level would maximise its added value. Conversely, action to complement the existing framework but taken at national or regional level would risk undermining the existing framework by distorting the “level playing field”.

Only 2% of respondents believed that there should be no new measures at European level and 79% believed that not taking EU measures would mean ineffective measures. Also notable is that of those calling for European level action 36% specified this should be focused on maintaining a level playing field in respect of single market and competition rules.

The public consultation revealed strong support for action at EU level: 59% regarded an approach based on new EU measures as “very effective”; 54% regarded better enforcement of existing measures would be “very effective”.

The public consultation, which is also relevant for national policy makers, has shown that action is considered desirable at all levels (Member States, the EU, local and regional authorities and the private sector, in that order, followed by individual responsibility).

Wet wipes will be required to be clearly labelled as to prevent flushing

All single use consumer plastics – items will have to become “easily recyclable” or switch to biodegradable alternatives

Ban on ultra-lightweight bags e.g. used to pack fruit, vegetables, meat and fish. Compostable (CEN 13432:2002) and bio-based (UNI CEN/TS 16640) bags of less than 50 microns are exempt

It is a problem for the internal market even if, for example, cutlery is subject to marketing restrictions in one country but not in another. This is problematic because of the increasing complexity of supply chains, harmonised production for the whole or large parts of the European market, and the incredible complexity that could arise with 28 countries adopting different legal and policy approaches to diverse and different products (with inevitably multiple cases of bordering countries having different approaches). The degree of the fragmentation of national or even regional and local approaches will depend on these factors and the extent of variation among neighbouring countries in particular.

Many of these measures have not yet entered into force or had time to have full effect on the functioning of the internal market. As science and the public opinion are advancing, other Member Sta