COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Accompanying the document

Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

amending Directives 2008/98/EC on waste, 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste, 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles, 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators, and 2012/19/EU on waste electrical and electronic equipment

TABLE OF CONTENT

1............ Procedural Issues. 8

1.1......... Procedural issues. 8

1.2......... External expertise and consultation of interested parties. 8

1.3......... Fitness check and ex-post evaluations. 9

1.4......... Recommendations of the Impact Assessment Board. 10

2............ Policy context, Problem definition and Subsidiarity. 12

2.1......... Ex-post evaluation. 13

2.2......... Fitness check – main lessons learnt 15

2.3......... Progress achieved & implementation of existing targets. 16

2.4......... Problem definition. 17

2.5......... What are the underlying causes of the problem?. 19

2.6......... How will the problem evolve?. 32

2.7......... Who is affected and how?. 33

2.8......... The EU's right to act and justification. 34

3............ Objectives. 35

4............ Policy Options. 38

4.1......... Option 1: Ensuring full implementation of the existing legislation. 39

4.2......... Option 2: Simplification, improved monitoring and dissemination of best practices. 39

4.3......... Option 3: Measures to upgrade the EU targets. 42

Executive Summary

A. Need for action

Although waste management continues to improve in the EU, the EU's economy currently loses a significant amount of potential secondary raw material which is found in the waste stream. In 2010, total waste production in the EU amounted to 2,5 billion tons. From this total only a limited (albeit increasing) share (36%) was recycled, with the rest being landfilled or burned of which around 4 to 500 million tons could be recycled or reused. The EU thus misses out on significant opportunities to improve resource efficiency and create a more circular economy, create growth and jobs, take cost-effective measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce its dependency on imported raw materials.

Without new initiatives to improve waste management in the EU, significant amounts of valuable resources will continue to be lost in the coming years. Without a clear perspective for the medium- to long-term, the EU risks seeing increased investments in inflexible, large-scale projects focused on the treatment of ‘residual’ waste, which may stand in the way of the potential to improve resource efficiency though reducing waste generation at source, and reusing and recycling more of the waste which is generated. The dissemination of best practices between Member States (MS) will remain limited and economic conditions will not enough incentive waste prevention, re-use or recycling leading to the persistence of large divergences in terms of waste management performances between MS. In addition, the quality of essential monitoring tools such as statistics on waste generation and management will remain sub-optimal and a number of reporting obligations will remain complex without having much added value.

B. Solutions

On the basis of an in depth analysis of what has worked and not worked in the past and after extensive stakeholder consultation, the following options (and a series of sub-options and specific measures) were retained for more detailed analysis:

Option 1 – Ensuring full implementation: No additional EU action apart from compliance promotion

Option 2 – Simplification, improved monitoring, diffusion of best practices: This includes measures aimed at:

• Aligning definitions of key concepts (e.g. ‘recycling’ and ‘reuse’) and remove obsolete requirements

• Simplifying measurement methods (only one method to measure 'household waste and similar waste' target) and reducing reporting obligations

• Creating national registries on waste collection and management and require third party verification of key data and statistics

• Introducing an early warning procedure to monitor Member States performance and require timely correcting measures when needed

• Establishing minimum conditions for the operation of producer responsibility schemes

Option 3 – Upgrade EU targets:

No new targets will be proposed under this option, existing target would be upgraded and clarified for some of them though obsolete targets would be removed.

The current performances of the most advanced Member States and the time which was needed to meet these targets was taken into account to propose realistic targets and deadlines for all MS while meeting the main objectives of the 7th EAP.

Option 3.1 – Increase the recycling/reuse target for municipal waste:

­ Low: 60% reuse/recycling target by 2030; 50% by 2025

­ High: 70% reuse/recycling target by 2030; 60% by 2025

Option 3.2 – Increase the re-use/recycling targets for packaging waste:

­ Increased material based targets between 2020 and 2030 (80% overall reuse/recycling)

­ Variant: specific separate target for nonferrous metals (‘metal split’)

Option 3.3 – Phasing out landfilling of recoverable municipal waste:

­ Ban on plastic/paper/glass/metals by 2025 (max 25% landfilling), global ban by 2030 (max 5%)

Option 3.4 – Combination of options 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 (with further sub-options 3.5-3.7)

C. Impacts of the preferred option

The preferred option is a mix of option 2 and option 3.4 in combination with an extended landfill ban (i.e. option 3.7). Compared to full implementation, this preferred option will bring several benefits in terms of:

· Administrative burden reduction in particular for SMEs, simplification and better implementation including by keeping targets ‘fits for purpose’.

· Job creation – more than 180.000 direct jobs could be created by 2030, most of them impossible to delocalize outside the EU.

· Greenhouse gas emission reduction – around 62 million of tons could be avoided annually in 2030 (443 million between 2014 and 2030) .

· Secondary raw materials will be re-injected in the economy – more than doubling what was recycled in 2011for municipal and packaging waste. Proposed measures will serve as catalyst for ensuring the implementation of all EU targets which will contribute to cover between 10% and 40% (depending of the material) of the EU total raw material demand.

· Positive effects on the competitiveness of the EU waste management and recycling sectors as well as on the EU the manufacturing sector (better EPR, reduced risks in terms of raw material access and prices).

· Marine litter levels 13% lower by 2020 and by 27,5% lower by 2030.

The proposed midterm targets will give the needed clear signal to MS and waste operators so that new strategies and investments can be adapted on time and with the required certainty. Past experience has shown that improving municipal and packaging waste management while banning landfilling will act as catalyst for the management of all other type of waste.

D. Follow up

This initiative is included in the 2013/14 Commission work program (WP 2013/40). The review of the targets responds to the legal obligation to review the waste management targets of three Directives by 2014 – the Waste Framework, the Landfill and the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directives (PPWD). The findings of a fitness check on EU waste five stream directives have been taken into account.

Introduction

This impact assessment responds to the legal obligation to review the waste management targets of three Directives – the Waste Framework Directive (WFD), the Landfill Directive and the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (PPWD)[1] - see Box 1. It accompanies a legislative proposal reviewing the targets and including measures to support their implementation. The focus of this review is related to the targets included in the 3 concerned Directives covering municipal waste, packaging waste and construction/demolition waste. Actions to improve the management of these waste – and particularly municipal waste - are considered as catalyst for improvements regarding the other waste streams.

The waste target review is part of a broader process of reviewing European waste policy, the other components being a ’fitness check’ of five Directives covering specific waste streams – including the PPWD[2] - and new initiatives following the publication of a Green paper on plastic waste.[3] As explained below, the PPWD is the only Directive covered by the fitness check and by the target review.

Waste legislation was one of the first pieces of environmental legislation put in place at EU level: the first Waste Framework Directive was adopted in 1975, with additional EU texts being adopted since then. In line with the Commission's objective to ensure the "regulatory fitness" of EU legislation[4], this target review offers an opportunity to intensify the Commission’s efforts to simplify the existing legislation and reduce regulatory burdens taking on board relevant findings from the fitness check, and taking into account of what has or has not worked.

Under the combined pressure of the expected increase of the world’s population and middle class in emerging economies, a massive extra demand strain is expected on primary resources in the coming years. This will drive up the prices of commodities, many of which Europe imports, and may impact on the EU's competitiveness and balance of trade. [5]

In order to face this challenge, in 2011 the Commission adopted two key interlinked strategies: a Communication on raw materials and a Communication on resource efficiency followed by the Roadmap for a resource-efficient Europe.[6] These strategies include clear orientations promoting the use of waste as a resource. This approach has been confirmed in the 7th Environment Action Programme adopted in November 2013 by the Parliament and the Council.[7] The target review process will be guided by the relevant 2020 waste-related objectives of the 7th EAP, namely:

Existing waste legislation based on a strict application of the waste hierarchy[8] is fully implemented in all Member States; Absolute and per capita waste generation is in decline and a comprehensive strategy to combat unnecessary food waste is developed by the Commission; High quality recycling is ensured and recycled waste is used as a major, reliable source of raw material for the Union; Energy recovery is limited to non-recyclable materials; Landfilling is limited to ‘non recoverable’ waste; A quantitative reduction headline target for marine litter is established, which is supported by source-based measures.

These objectives are to be met by 2020 though derogations already granted for 15 MS in the context of the Landfill Directive should also be taken into account – see Box 1.

In order to achieve these objectives and move towards a "lifecycle-driven circular economy, with a cascading use of resources and residual waste close to zero", the 7th EAP calls for a better application of market-based instruments - including extended producer responsibility, for removing barriers facing recycling activities in the EU internal market and for reviewing existing waste management targets. This approach is line with the objectives of the Bioeconomy Strategy aiming at using bio waste streams as resources.[9]

Improving waste management will directly contribute to improving resource efficiency which is a flagship initiative of the EU's structural economic agenda, the Europe 2020 Strategy. A better application of the waste hierarchy leads to new economic activities and creates jobs – most of them virtually impossible to outsource outside the Union. Significant GHG emission reduction could be expected from waste prevention and increased reuse and recycling, while proper waste management can directly reduce litter, especially in the marine environment since for most sea regions, up to 80% of litter is transported there from land by rivers, drainage or wind.[10]

Box 1: Main legally binding targets, review clauses and measurement methods

Article 11.2 of the Waste Framework Directive includes two legally binding targets to be achieved by 2020: a 50% ‘preparation for reuse and recycling’ target for municipal waste and a 70% ‘material recovery’ target which includes preparation for reuse, recycling and other material recovery including backfilling operations for construction and demolition waste.

Municipal waste includes waste from households and from similar waste in nature or composition from other producers. As detailed in Commission Decision 2011/753/EU, 4 calculation methods for verifying compliance with the municipal waste targets are allowed:

Method 1: Recycling/preparation for re-use for plastic, metals, paper and glass from household waste;

Method 2: Same as 1 for household and ‘similar waste’;

Method 3: Recycling/preparation for re-use of all household waste; and

Method 4: Recycling/preparation for re-use of all municipal waste.

Article 11.4 stipulates that by end 2014 at the latest, the Commission should examine the existing targets ‘with a view to, if necessary, reinforcing the targets and considering the setting of targets for other waste streams’. Pursuant to Article 9 (c) the Commission should propose by the end of 2014 waste prevention and decoupling objectives for 2020.

Box 1 (continuing)

The Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive includes an overall recovery - covering both packaging material recycling and energy recovery from packaging material - target of 60%, an overall recycling target of minimum 55% and maximum 80% and material based targets of 60% for glass, paper and board, 50% for metals, 22,5% for plastics and 15% for wood.

The targets apply to all packaging whether ‘primary’-end consumer packaging mainly collected in municipal waste, ‘secondary’ – grouping packaging or ‘tertiary’ – transport packaging. These targets had to be met by end 2008 with time derogations granted to 8 MS to the end of 2012 and to specified times between the end of 2013 and 2015 for 4 other MS. Pursuant to Article 6.5, these targets have to be reviewed in 2014.

The Landfill Directive requires Member States to reduce biodegradable waste going to landfills on the basis of biodegradable municipal waste produced in 1995. By mid-2006 biodegradable municipal waste going to landfills had to be reduced to 75 % of the 1995 level. By mid-2009 this had to be reduced to 50 % of this amount, and by mid-2016 to 35%. 14 Member States - those which relied heavily on landfilling in 1995 - New MS (except Hungary and Slovenia) plus Greece, Ireland, Portugal and the UK - were given a four year extension period. According to Article 5.2, the targets should be re-examined by mid-2014 in order to ensure a 'high level of environmental protection'. 3 categories of landfills are defined in the Directive – landfills for hazardous waste, landfills for inert waste and landfills for non hazardous/non inert waste – with related acceptance criteria. It is only permitted to landfill waste that has been subject to a 'treatment' as defined in the Directive.

1. Procedural Issues

1.1. Procedural issues

The lead DG is DG ENV. This initiative is included in the 2013/14 work program of the Commission - reference: WP 2013/40.

The preparatory work for this impact assessment started in 2012. An indicative list of issues to be tackled was developed by the Commission and the first interviews with key stakeholders started in February 2013. An online public consultation was launched in June 2013, closing in September 2013. The following DG’s participated in the 5 meetings of the Impact Assessment Steering Group: SG, ENTR, CLIMA, JRC, ESTAT.

1.2. External expertise and consultation of interested parties

Several sources of data and information were used to build this impact assessment: first the most relevant reports and evaluations were used to make a pre identification of the success and limits of the EU waste legislation – see Section 2.1 and Error! Reference source not found.. This also helped to identify the main problems related to the implementation of the existing legislation and also the remaining gaps. On this basis, a large stakeholder consultation was undertaken and in parallel an ‘ex ante’ tool was developed to project waste generation and management and their possible impacts.

Evidence base

A consortium led by Eunomia - was used to gather the evidence required to support this IA. In addition to this specific contract, a modelling tool was developed: a first model on municipal waste generation and management was developed by the EEA and then updated and expanded together with the Commission and with the support of the same consortium. Beyond this impact assessment, it is the intention to transform this tool into a permanent ‘reference modelling tool’ for the EU on waste generation and management to be hosted and regularly updated by the EEA. Unless otherwise specified, the results used in this IA come from this supporting study and from the modelling tool.[11] A summary of the main features of the model is provided in Annex 6. Building on the Eunomia and EEA modelling, additional analytical work, led by Arcadis, was carried out in order to assess the impacts on marine litter of the policy options under consideration – see Annex 7.

Stakeholder consultation

A wide range of stakeholder consultation was undertaken, including:

in-depth preliminary consultations of key stakeholders, which was used to ensure that the range of issues raised by the existing Directives, and the options for addressing them, was as broadly-based as possible; an on-line public consultation, including dedicated questionnaires for both technical experts and citizens; a specific seminar focusing on SMEs; and specific consultations on producer responsibility and on marine litter.

The results of the consultation on the Green paper on plastic were also taken into account. As local and regional authorities are key players in waste management, an ‘outlook’ opinion was solicited by the Commission from the Committee of the Regions.

More details on the stakeholder consultation process are provided in Error! Reference source not found., detailed result per stakeholder categories of the on line consultation is provided in Error! Reference source not found. as well as in the relevant parts of the impact assessment. . In summary, some elements were consistently 'scored' high by most of the stakeholders and were subsequently reflected in the analysis and policy choices including the need to:

· move beyond the recycling targets in the existing Directives while taking into account the large differences between MS in terms of waste management performances (stakeholder views on the level of the targets to be fixed is given in section 4)

· take further measures to restrict landfilling of waste and limit the incineration of waste;

· improve the credibility of statistics, improve reporting and monitoring methods, and improve and clarify existing definitions in the Directives

· simplify and make the targets more consistent

· take additional measures at EU level other than setting targets such promoting the use of economic instruments and developing EU guidance on EPR schemes

· to take measures to promote the use of economic instruments and to further harmonize and encourage optimal producer responsibility schemes (EPR)

The results of the consultations were taken into account (1) to ensure that the main issues and problems in relation with the implementation of the existing targets were properly identified; (2) to narrow the range of options to be considered in more detail in the final stages of the impact assessment; (3) to ensure that the main potential impacts for possibly concerned stakeholder were properly identified and assessed; (4) to 'test' the receptiveness of key stakeholders to some of the proposed options; and (5) to define possible targets for the cost/benefit analysis.

Additional concrete examples on how the results were taken into account will be provided in the relevant sections of this IA. Some proposals emerging from the consultation were not followed such as defining specific additional recycling targets for biowaste, wood, composite packaging or textile, introduce an overall target for prevention or re-use, fixing maximum limits for incineration – see Section 4. There was also a slight majority in favour of targets for waste prevention, but a more considered review of the potential in this regard suggested that setting targets of this nature was difficult given the low quality of data relating to specific waste streams, and the lack of comparability in the reporting of statistics on streams such as municipal waste.

The minimum standards of the Commission for consultation were met.

The positions expressed on waste management by the MS and the Parliament during the negotiation process of the 7th EAP in November 2012-June 2013 were also taken into account. In summary, although the midterm objectives of the 7th EAP relating to waste prevention and management were broadly endorsed, several MS expressed the need to take into account the large differences between MS when fixing new targets.

1.3. Fitness check and ex-post evaluations

Fitness check

As part of the review of EU waste legislation, a "fitness check" (ex post evaluation) of five 'mature' Directives covering specific waste streams has been undertaken, against four main criteria ("effectiveness", "efficiency", "coherence" and "relevance"). On top of the PPWD, the fitness check covers: (1) Directive 86/278/EEC on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture[12]; (2) Directive 96/59/EC on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT)[13]; (3) Directive 2000/53/EC on end-of life vehicles[14], and (4) Directive 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators.[15] Directives recently adopted or reviewed were excluded from the scope of the fitness check as well as Directives purely related to ‘treatment’ operations (landfilling, incineration and mining waste operation).

The fitness check and the review of waste targets were conducted in parallel and monitored by the same Commission Steering Group, thus ensuring full coordination between the two processes and a two-way flow of information. As was the case for the waste targets review the fitness check was subject to extensive stakeholder consultation. Taken together the fitness check and the target review provide a comprehensive assessment of the main legal instruments in the field of waste management.

Ex-post evaluations

As explained in section 2.1 below, several sources of data and information on what appears to have worked or not worked are available on the targets of the Waste Framework and the Landfill Directives. This includes notably an ex post evaluation carried out by the EEA in the context of a ‘pilot project’ on better implementation, a Communication of the Commission evaluating the added value and remaining challenges related to the Thematic Strategy on Waste Prevention and Recycling, additional ‘on the field’ information gathered during a recent compliance promotion exercise aiming at disseminating best practices amongst the less advanced MS and recent reports on the implementation of the waste legislation published by the EU Court of Auditors and the European Investment Bank (see section 2.1).

All these sources of information have allowed a clear picture to be gained of the main barriers preventing MS from making progress but also on the key instruments to be put in place to improve their waste management. It has also already allowed the Commission to propose ‘Roadmaps’ to the 10 MS whose performance is weakest, including a list of recommendations to improve their waste management situation. These Roadmaps were discussed during seminars in each of the 10 identified MS and additional seminars are already programmed with other less advanced MS.[16]

1.4. Recommendations of the Impact Assessment Board

A draft of this Impact Assessment was submitted to the Impact Assessment Board on 19th February 2014. In its first opinion, the Board made recommendations for improvements which were included in a revised version. This revised version was submitted to the Board on 28th February 2014. In its second (positive) opinion, the Board made additional suggestions to improve the report.

In summary, the recommendations included in the first Board opinion were taken into account as follows:

(1) Improve the problem definition and clarify the baseline

The economic rationale for waste recycling has been strengthened in the problem analysis (section 2.5.1) and the analysis of the impacts (section 5.1.1).

References to and relevant findings of the fitness check have been included in new sections (sections 1.3 and 2.2) as well as in other parts of the text when relevant. The effectiveness of the EU targets - including the given time derogation to some MS - is discussed in sections 2.1 (ex-post evaluation) and the new section 2.2 (main lessons learnt from the fitness check). The main difficulties of the few MS not meeting the current targets and more generally of the poor performing MS are summarised in introduction of section 2.5 on the causes of the problem. The problem definition has been clarified notably by renumbering the sections related to the causes of the problem. More emphasis has been given to issues related to governance on the basis of a better explanation of the measures having contributed to the success of the more advanced MS (section 2.5.1). The necessity to fix midterm targets is better explained in sections 2.5.1 and 4.4 in introduction of option3.

Additional data expressed in terms of kg of waste per inhabitant not recycled have been included in section 2.4.

(2) Clarify the proposed options

In section 4.4 additional efforts have been made to better explain how the diverging MS waste management performances has been taken into account when fixing new targets and on what basis the targets have been set. In the same section, it is explained why the targets should be set at the same level for all MS despite differences in waste generation and why these targets are considered as feasible and realistic without applying any time derogation. Subsidiarity aspects of limiting landfilling at EU level are further discussed in section 2.8. The content of Option 2 is clarified in section 4.2 by better explaining the practical measures to be taken to implement the proposed actions. The relationship and coherence between the targets and the proposed measures is further detailed in sections 4 and 6.3. Options have been renumbered following the suggestion of the Board.

(3) Improve the assessment of impacts

A more clear reference to the cost and benefits associated to each treatment technology is provided in Section 5.1 and in Error! Reference source not found. and additional explanations are provided in the high costs associated with the full implementation scenario in Section 5.2. Distributional impacts among different MS are further detailed in Section 5.2 and additional data on raw material access is provided in Section 6. Additional efforts have been made to try to quantify the impacts of the proposed measures on administrative burden – see Section 5.2. Additional explanations have been included in Section 6 on the formulation and the weight of the criteria for comparing the options and the main challenges linked with the implementation of the proposed measures have been identified in the same section as well as how they can be addressed.

(4) Better present stakeholder views

The different stakeholder views have been detailed particularly regarding the type and the level of binding targets and more details have been included on how the stakeholder views have been (or not) taken into account (Sections 1.2, 4 and Annex 3). A new Annex has been added (Annex 4) with the detailed results of the on line stakeholder consultation summarising for each question the position of the main stakeholders groups. A summary on how stakeholder views have been taken into account has been inserted in section 1.2.

In addition, the recommendations of the Board on the presentation of the report were also followed, for instance the sections on the current targets and the present situation was simplified and the options were presented in a more intelligible way for a non expert reader. Additional improvements have been included at several places of the document following the technical comments provided by the Board.

The recommendations of the second Board opinion were taken into account as follows:

(1) Clarify the problem definition and the need for new midterm targets

Additional explanations on how setting new upgraded midterm targets for 2030 will address some of the problems identified (governance, lack of public awareness, lack of use of appropriate economic instruments) were included in section 6.4.

In section 2.5.1 the relation between the economic conditions and how the targets were fixed in the past is better explained though in section 4.3 the link between the need of targets and the economic rationale is developed. The main reasons for not proposing new overall prevention targets were detailed in section 4.3.

(2) Improve the options

Additional justifications for introducing landfill bans at EU level from the subsidiarity and proportionality point of view were inserted in sections 2.8 and 4.3.

The main reasons for rejecting the option of country specific differentiated targets were better substantiated in section 4.3. This includes additional explanations on the possible effects on recycling potentials of divergent municipal waste composition between Member States.

The practical implications of imposing a landfill ban on all similar waste were detailed in section 5.2. Additional information on how the problem of illegal landfilling will be addressed is provided in section 6.4. In section 5.2 it has been clarified whether additional impact assessments would be achieved for the proposed delegation given to the Commission for defining technical requirements (National registries and third party verification).

(3) Elaborate the assessment of impacts

In section 6, the options have been compared in terms of efficiency and coherence. The feasibility of the proposed targets for all MS was further discussed in section 4.3 and 6.4. The views of the less performing Member States on waste management were better reflected in section 4.3. Additional information on the impacts on the Member States of the different scenarios was added in section 5. Additional explanations were provided on the costs and revenues from recycled materials as well as on the quality of the materials and its faculty to compete with virgin raw materials (section 2.5.1).

(4) Procedure and presentation

The differences between sub options 3 were better explained and option 3.7 was included in the summary overview in section 4.3. Additional explanations were inserted in section 5 on how the impacts of the sub options were estimated. Stakeholder views with regards to some proposed compulsory measures were detailed in section 4.2.

In addition, some factual mistakes were corrected notably for what relates to the assessment of the impacts of the proposed options on marine litter.

2. Policy context, Problem definition and Subsidiarity

This section first summarises the main lessons learnt from the most relevant reports evaluating ‘a postiori’ (‘ex-post’ evaluations) how the EU legislation has functioned so far. A massive flow of data and information is available notably on the management of municipal waste, on the main reasons for success and failure to implement the waste hierarchy and for meeting or not the EU targets. This information has been completed on one side by the recent compliance promotion exercise undertaken by the Commission and by the main conclusions from the fitness check on the PPWD. In the second part of this section, the main available statistics on waste management are summarised and compared to the EU targets.

2.1. Ex-post evaluation

Achievements and remaining challenges

In preparation of this impact assessment, several analyses have been undertaken to evaluate the added value, strength/weaknesses of the existing legislation:

1. In 2011, following a large stakeholder consultation, the Commission adopted a report evaluating ‘ex post’ whether the objectives of the Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste are met or not, including the attainment of the main EU targets.[17] The report highlighted the progress achieved in terms of landfill reduction and increased recycling at EU level and the role of EU wide quantitative targets. These targets were considered by the stakeholders involved in the review process as one of the key drivers for improving waste management in the EU.

Remaining challenges in terms of waste prevention as well as in terms of the persistence of large difference between MS were also identified. For each waste related Directive, MS performances were compared to available statistics and EU targets demonstrating that some MS will have to make additional efforts to meet the targets. Several recommendations were made including promoting measures to improve the implementation of existing targets notably by developing an ‘early warning’ procedure, to ensure a proper use of key instruments by MS such as economic instruments and to improve the use of regional funds. More ambitious targets were also recommended to move towards a ‘recycling society’ – one of the key objectives of the Thematic Strategy. The necessity to improve knowledge on waste management, notably through improved statistics, was also highlighted.

2. As one of the results of a ‘pilot project’ launched between the Commission and the EEA to improve the implementation of key Directives, in March 2013 the EEA published a report assessing ‘ex post’ the progress achieved on municipal waste management.[18] This report includes an in depth analysis of MS performances which were used in the context of this IA. In the conclusions of the report, the effectiveness of targets in driving change was made clear, but large differences between MS performance were highlighted, showing that European targets are necessary, but not sufficient, to drive improved outcomes. This is notably the case for the Landfill Directive for which the report mentioned “The Landfill Directive’s differentiated, incremental approach to target setting, including intermediate and long term targets, seems to be a valuable template for EU initiatives. It has enabled biodegradable municipal waste landfill diversion to be planned in a gradual fashion, allowing improved waste management systems to be developed”.[19]

Additional Regional and National initiatives are necessary to meet the targets and a clear correlation between the use of a combination of key instruments and MS performances was demonstrated. These instruments include appropriate waste management planning, use of economic instruments such as landfill taxes or pay-as-you-throw schemes, and mandatory separate collection of certain waste fractions. The report also insists on the need to improve the quality of statistics and reporting thereof.

3. In 2011/2012; following the publication of the report on the Thematic Strategy, the Commission took the initiative to promote compliance with waste legislation with a focus on municipal waste management. A ‘scoreboard’ classifying MS according to several criteria related to their waste management performances was established.

The quality and adequacy of the waste management plans was amongst others assessed for all MS. This assessment revealed that quantitative targets are used by the vast majority of MS and Regions as the main basis for establishing waste management strategies. Without clear quantitative waste management objectives, it is indeed difficult or even virtually impossible for these MS or Regions to deliver a consistent and solid planning of the required infrastructures. In that context, the European targets are recognised and used as the basis for the vast majority of the National or Regional waste management plans.

For the 10 weakest performing MS an in depth ‘ex-post’ analysis has been undertaken and summarised into a ‘factsheet’ including key strengths and weakness of their waste management system. Then a ‘Roadmap’ including key recommendations to improve waste management and to meet the minimum targets was issued for each MS.

These documents were discussed with the relevant national authorities in the 10 MS during ad hoc seminars. The final report[20] published in April 2013 includes recommendations to meet the EU targets notably on how to improve statistics, better use of economic instruments, development of the required infrastructures and separate collection, and improving governance. Some MS have already revised their National waste management plans and strategies in response: for example, Greece, Poland and Czech Republic where the introduction of new economic instruments - mainly landfill taxes has been announced. A systematic follow-up of these seminars is planned at Commission level as well as the extension of the exercise to at least 4 to 7 additional MS.

4. The European Court of Auditors[21] published a report in 2012 on the use of Regional funds for municipal waste management. The Court recommended the promotion of source separation of waste and the development of related infrastructures, a better application of the landfill Directive, the imposition of conditions before granting funds to the MS notably in terms of use of economic instruments such as landfill taxes and a broader application of the polluter pays principle, the setting up of reliable waste management databases by the MS, improvements to the regulatory framework including the development of prevention targets, a clarification of some key definitions and the dissemination of best practices. The report also highlights the fact that EU Structural funds have been utilised in recent years with a too heavy focus on the management of residual waste. These investments have contributed towards achieving targets to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste landfilled, but if they become the focus of activity, they risk undermining the potential for capturing the value of materials in the waste stream, and limiting the potential for mitigation of climate change through improved management of waste.

In conclusion, most of the ex-post evaluations and reports highlighted that for the vast majority of the Member States and operators active in waste management, European legislation and particularly the setting of legally binding targets, has been a key driver to change waste management practices. For a small number of front running MS, EU legislation was not considered as the only key driver as most of the policies necessary to achieve the targets were already in place (if, indeed, the targets themselves had not already been achieved) by the time they were adopted at EU level. But even for those few MS the creation of an EU wide waste market was important for instance to develop new recycling activities based on EU wide waste streams.

Quantitative waste management targets are indispensable to establish robust and action-oriented waste management plans and to foresee, sufficiently far in advance, the required infrastructure and efforts, for instance in terms of separate collection. Without practical and measurable targets, these plans remain vague and risk not acting as a driver for real change. Apart from few front runner MS, European targets remain the reference for nearly all MS to establish their waste management plans.

Time derogations were given nearly exclusively to MS that joined the European Union more recently as time was needed for these countries to set up new infrastructures and new ways of managing waste (as it was the case for the other MS). As detailed in section 2.3, time derogations were an effective tool to ensure a realistic implementation of the EU targets.

2.2. Fitness check – main lessons learnt

As noted in section 1.3 above, as part of its review of EU waste legislation, the Commission has conducted a “fitness check” of five waste stream directives including the PPWD. The (preliminary) findings[22] - based on in-depth literature review and extensive stakeholder consultation - indicate that the assessed directives are essentially ‘fit for purpose’.

Turning to the PPWD more specifically, it is worth noting that, as regards its effectiveness, the recovery and recycling targets set out in the Directive have been met by nearly all MS, with a significant increase over the past 15 years (e.g. packaging waste recovery rates increased from 53.7% in 1998 (EU15) to 77.3% in 2011 (EU27) and recycling rates from 47.3% to 63.6%). Under the coherence criterion the fitness check identifies a number of differences between definitions in the PPWD and those in the Waste Framework Directive. This concerns for instance the notions of ‘prevention’, recycling’, ‘reuse’ and ‘recovery’ (see Annex 9). Other issues identified by the fitness check concerning the PPWD include the need to repeal some obsolete requirements, the effectiveness of producer responsibility systems, the reliability of statistics, and the relation between separate collection systems and the quality of the recyclable materials.

Finally, stakeholder consultations conducted in the context of the fitness check revealed the following mainstream views for the PPWD:

There is broad consensus to maintain separate targets in the PPWD, rather than integrating targets into the WFD or splitting them according to their origin (end-consumer, commercial or industrial) There was overwhelming support for more harmonisation, the development of clear technical requirements and statistical standards, and for the PPWD to include more legally binding language on the producer responsibility principle.

These conclusions as well as other findings from the fitness check are reflected in those parts of the IA relating specifically to the PPWD.

Other general conclusions of the fitness check shows that the 5 Directives – have achieved their main objectives (as regards resource efficiency, protection of the environment and human health, harmonisation of the internal market) and targets (as regards recovery, recycling and reuse)[23], at reasonable costs. They are generally speaking consistent with each other and the broader EU waste acquis, even though some aspects of these (older) waste stream directives would benefit from an alignment to the (more recent) Waste Framework Directive (e.g. as regards the five step waste hierarchy, life-cycle thinking, extended producer responsibility provisions and certain definitions). The fitness check also concludes that the directives remain a relevant pillar of the EU's overall waste policy - with the possible exception of the Sewage Sludge Directive (dating from 1986) which is considered largely outdated - while suggesting a number of elements for their further evolution (e.g. more emphasis on prevention and re-use; addressing challenges triggered by new materials; eco-design considerations etc).

2.3. Progress achieved & implementation of existing targets

Progress has been made during recent years to improve waste management in the MS even though EU averaged data masks significant differences between MS.

Table 1 below summarised the main existing target in the European legislation and how MS are meeting or not these targets. More details are given on the attainment of each target by each MS in Annex 4. In summary, only a limited number of MS are at risk of not meeting the existing targets without additional efforts. Most of the MS have either exceeded the existing targets (sometimes by a significant margin) or are expected to meet the current targets by the date to which the target applies. Today no infringement procedure is open for non-attainment of any of the European targets covered by the present review. Nevertheless, additional information has been requested from a few Member States on the measures they intend to take to ensure that the targets will be met on time. This concerns particularly the landfill diversion target.

Generally speaking, the EU legislation has driven changes in waste management in the MS. This is particularly true for the packaging waste and the landfilling of biodegradable waste: as detailed in the fitness check and in Table 1 below, the recovery and recycling targets set out in the PPWD have been met by nearly all MS. Overall recovery and recycling rates have increased since the adoption of the Directive (e.g. packaging waste recovery rates increased from 53.7% in 1998 (EU15) to 77.3% in 2011 (EU27) and recycling rates from 47.3% to 63.6%). Similarly, 23 MS are on good track to meet the landfill diversion target and landfilling of biodegradable waste has decreased in all MS following the introduction of the landfill Directive targets in 1999 (see Error! Reference source not found. and Error! Reference source not found. in Error! Reference source not found.).

Increased recycling rates for packaging waste (of which a part is municipal waste) and diverting biodegradable waste from landfilling have both influenced municipal waste management in the right direction: municipal recycling rate in 2011 amounted to 40% - an increase of 8 percentage points compared to 2005. Waste incineration has increased from 95 kg per capita in 2005 to 111 kg in 2011 of which 89kg/inhab might be considered as ‘energy recovery’. At the same time, landfilling of municipal waste has decreased from 65% in 1995 to 49% in 2005 and 36% in 2011. In addition to the influence of the landfill diversion target, this reduction of landfilling seems also linked with social acceptance considerations: as detailed in section 2.5.1, EU citizens are less and less prepared to accept landfilling as a way to treat waste. Half of the 31 open infringement cases for bad application of the waste Directives are related to illegal landfilling or non-compliant landfills. Several petitions hare open or have been treated by the EU parliament on the same issue.

As detailed in Table 1 below, the vast majority of the MS will be able to meet the municipal waste and the construction and demolition waste targets by 2020. As the targets of the WFD were adopted in 2008 (and transposed into national legislations in 2010), it is too early to conclude on the influence of the targets on MS performances for these two specific targets. Whilst recycling rates vary from one waste stream to another, overall waste recycling in the EU has increased: in 2008, waste recycling was estimated at 36,5% (2011) – 38,5% - indicates a slight increase of 2 percentage points of the overall recycling rate. Less waste was sent to landfill: 36% in 2011 compared to 49% in 2005 and 62% in 1995.

For what relates to prevention, progress have been more limited: at EU-27 level, total annual waste generation decreased by 5% between 2006 and 2010 due to the impacts of the economic crisis, the change in the structure of the economy - shifting towards a more service-based economy but also changes in reporting methods. It is difficult to isolate the possible effect of measures taken to favour waste prevention, or the ‘dematerialising’ of some consumption - for example, music being downloaded digitally. In most MS total waste generation appears to be stabilising in the long run.

Municipal solid waste generation has now stabilised since the years 2000 around 500 kg per year and per capita in the EU-27. There is a relative decoupling with consumption - which increased by 16.3 % between 1999 and in 2007. Large differences persist between MS - from around 300 to 700 kg per capita - which seem to be due not only to different consumption levels and patterns, but also, the varying scope of wastes being reported as ‘municipal waste’ by MS – see section 2.5.2.

|| Target || Attainment of the target – summary

Municipal waste preparation for reuse and recycling || 50% by 2020 || Target can be met for all MS only if the 4 measurement methods are allowed

Construction& demolition waste ‘material’ recovery || 70% by 2020 || 2/3 of MS will meet the target in the short term. Other MS should follow before 2020

Amount of biodegradable waste sent to landfill (basis = 1995), 14 MS without time derogation || 50% by 2009, 35% by 2016, or 50% by 2013, 35% by 2020 (14 MS with time derogation) || 23 MS are on track to meet the targets. Additional efforts required for 5 MS

Overall recycling target PPWD || 55% by 2008 16 MS with time derogation until 2016 || 21 MS have met the target, the remaining MS are expected to meet the target on time

Table 1: Attainment of EU targets – summary

On the basis of the achievement of the most advanced MS, and in line with the conclusions of the fitness check, it is clear that further progress beyond the 2020 targets are feasible for recycling and reuse of household/municipal waste and for reducing waste sent to landfill, but also, before 2020, for recycling packaging waste.

2.4. Problem definition

Loss of valuable materials

Today, a significant amount of potential secondary raw material is lost to the European Union's economy due to due to the fact that waste is not managed as well as it could be. In 2010 total waste production in the EU amounted to 2,520 million tons[24], an average of 5 tons per inhabitant and per year.

Figure 1 shows that from this total only a limited share – 36% or 1,8 ton per year and per inhabitant - was effectively recycled. The largest share – 37% or 1,9 ton per year and per inhabitant was simply sent for disposal whether in landfills or on lands (16% of the total) - or in areas designated for the storage of mining waste (21% of the total). The remainder was either backfilled - 10% or 0,5 ton per year and per inhabitant, untreated 6%, incinerated 6% of which 4% with energy recovery, the remaining 5% or 0.25 ton per year and par inhabitant being disposed otherwise. In other words, around 1620 million tons of waste was lost for the EU economy; even if, under current technical conditions not all this waste could have been avoided, reused or recycled. All in all, the remaining potential for recycling/reuse could be estimated at maximum 600 million tons if mining waste is excluded as well as soils, what is energy recovered or sent to backfilling.

In 2011, municipal waste represented around 253 million tons or around 500 kg/year and per inhabitant of which 62% (or 157 million of tons, or 310 kg/year/inhabitant) was not reused or recycled.

Figure 1: Overall waste treatment, Eurostat 2010

Packaging waste amounted to 80 million tons of which 36% (or 29 millions of tons) were not reused or recycled. Construction and demolition waste amounted to 860 million tons in total of which 350 million tonnes of mineral waste – of which 19% or 64 million of tons was not recovered, the rest consisting of excavated soils. These losses of valuable materials prevent the creation of a ‘circular economy’ aimed at keeping resources within the economy and using waste as the input material for new products.

Missed opportunities for growth and jobs

Losing this material means that significant growth and competitiveness potential is not being exploited through the development of a reuse/recycling industry in the EU: in 2008 waste management and recycling industries in the EU had a turnover of €145 billion representing around 1% of the EU's GDP and generating 2 million direct jobs. European firms have also used this as a base from which to expand and take up strong positions in the growing global markets for waste management. Compared to 2008, full compliance with EU waste policy in the coming years could create an additional extra 400.000 jobs and an additional annual turnover of € 42 billion.[25] Moving towards the objectives of the Roadmap on Resource Efficiency could help to create 526.000 jobs and an additional turnover of € 55 billion.

Competitiveness and EU dependency on raw material

In addition to this midterm stimulus, increased reuse and recycling can pump resources back into the economy and ensures an at least equivalent, often cheaper and more reliable access to raw materials - some of them considered as 'critical' - which are indispensable for EU industrial competitiveness. Raw materials are considered as essential for the EU industry: at least 30 million jobs depend on access to raw materials. [26]

Materials are one of the most important input costs of European manufacturing companies making up around 30 to 40 per cent of the sectors' cost structures. [27] The EU is not self-sufficient in many resources including for critical raw materials.[28] Globally, the Union imports six times more materials and resources than it exports. For some of these materials, the import dependency is significant. [29] On average, real prices increased by more than 300% between 1998 and 2011 for resources – see Figure 2. In general, the prices of commodities are expected to rise due to the expected increase of the resource demand.

Figure 2: Overall resources price evolution 1979- 2011 [30]

Energy and GHG emissions, air pollutant emissions

Improved waste management can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions directly by cutting GHG emissions from landfills and indirectly by recycling materials which would otherwise be extracted and processed. These reductions could occur either within or outside the EU depending on where the secondary raw materials are used as input to manufacturing processes. Generally speaking, recycling material is far less energy demanding than extracting, processing and transporting virgin raw materials. For example recycling aluminium requires 5% of the energy needed to extract and process bauxite leading to major efficiency and competitiveness gains and reducing dependence on imported material. As detailed in the fitness check, the level of packaging recovery and recycling achieved by 2004 corresponds to about 10 million tonnes of oil equivalent and 25 MtCO2-equivalent compared to a scenario where all packaging waste would be landfilled or incinerated.[31]

Compared to 2004 emissions, it has been estimated that between 146 and 244 Million tons of GHG emissions could be avoided by 2020 through reinforced application of the waste hierarchy[32] representing between 19 and 31% of the 2020 EU target. Similarly, significant air pollutant emissions can be avoided: as with GHG emissions, indirect emission savings linked with increased use of recycled material would also take place, either within or outside the EU depending on where the secondary raw materials are used.

Other impacts

Improper waste management can have direct consequences at local level such as landscape deterioration due to landfilling, local water and air pollution, etc. Inappropriate behaviour related to waste management is also one of the causes of littering leading to significant costs, both direct (e.g (beach) clean-up costs and damage to fishing vessels and fishing gear, especially in the marine environment) and indirect (e.g. loss of property value and tourism potential in affected areas). In addition, the accumulation of non-biodegradable waste –plastic waste in particular - in the oceans has negative consequences on marine biodiversity and ultimately, for those who consume fish.

2.5. What are the underlying causes of the problem?

As summarised in Table 2, improper waste management is due to a combination of causes. Some of these relate to the adequacy of EU legislation, others to governance issues particularly in MS with poor performances in terms of waste management.

There are significant differences between the MS and also between regions within MS in terms of waste management practices - see Figure 3. This uneven level of performance is partly linked to the time needed for constructing the required infrastructure, developing at source separate collection systems, ensuring appropriate information and building the necessary competences from the local to the national levels. This is particularly valid for MS having joined the Union more recently but also for some other MS.

Some MS have not given enough priority to improving waste management. Generally speaking, in the less advanced MS the main difficulties are related to a combination of factors including problems of governance illustrated for instance by the absence of coordination between the National and the Regional or local authorities, the lack of public awareness including amongst the decision makers, the lack of use of appropriate economic instruments making low performing option such as landfilling cheaper. These MS have often low performing EPR systems in place making the launching of separate collection more complicated and at full costs of the public authorities. The absence of midterm targets for the European Union complicates their task as they are tempted to invest in infrastructures aiming at just meeting the current targets without forwarding vision.

Figure 3: Municipal waste management in 2011[33]

This IA focuses on the causes on which EU action can have a positive influence. For instance, issues related to governance can be partly solved through dissemination of best practices including the use of economic instruments to favour prevention, recycling and reuse: for instance landfilling often remains the least costly option which is detrimental to the creation of ‘circular economy’. As also highlighted in the fitness check for the PPWD, the existing waste legislation could be further simplified which will help to ensure proper implementation. Monitoring MS performances can be simplified and improved in a more proactive way.

And even if all existing targets are met on time by all MS, there will remain a gap between the EU aspiration of improving resource efficiency and being less dependent in terms of access to raw materials and MS waste management performances.

Nature of the problem

Table 2: Links between problem definition and causes of the problem

2.5.1. Issues related to governance

In this section the main success factors of the most advanced MS are identified and by contrast what is lacking in the less advanced MS is illustrated. This relates mainly to the use of economic instruments which are vital to meet the targets but also to a proper organisation of separate collection and an appropriate use of structural funds. Issues related to social acceptance are also discussed at the end of this section.

Economic conditions

As pointed out in several reports including in the conclusions of the fitness check, and by the Court of Auditors, key instruments and particularly economic instruments are essential to support the development of the required infrastructure: the experience of the most advanced MS has shown that appropriate economic instruments are indispensable to meet the European legally binding targets and more generally speaking, to create a sustainable recycling industry.

As illustrated in Figure 2, prices of primary raw materials - which influence the prices of secondary materials - fluctuate over time depending on the balance between supply and demand:

For some materials, for which price levels have been consistently high, the case for separate collection, sorting and recycling will remain strong regardless of these fluctuations. This is, for instance, the case for some metals, such as copper or aluminium; For other materials such as plastic bottles or paper/cardboard, these market fluctuations will directly influence the economic case for sorting/recycling operations. In some years, the sales of the recycled material will be higher than the costs of collecting and sorting the material, in other years it will not be the case; For a last category of materials, the value derived from the sale of recycled materials is not high enough to ensure that the costs of separate collection, sorting and recycling are lower than the costs of dealing with the material as part of residual waste. This is the case for instance for plastic films from the municipal waste stream, for which market prices are low, and so the proportion of the material being recycled is also low.

Existing targets in the waste legislation are not linked to these 3 categories of materials. They were fixed for priority waste streams from the environmental point of view but also on the basis of consistent and identifiable waste streams (for instance collected and treated together) and for which enough data were available. The 3 categories of material are present in all these waste streams. In addition, fixing targets on the basis of these categories would not make sense as recycled material prices are fluctuating therefore some materials are changing of category sometimes in few weeks.

The quality of the materials collected and sorted has also a direct influence on their markets and on their prices: source separation of waste provides materials of better quality and higher price. Obviously collection costs tend to increase but it is more than compensated by the sales of materials and additional savings on the collection and treatment of mixed waste. This is further detailed in section 5.1.

Obviously, weak demand and market price fluctuations present issues for potential investors in recycling activities, including public operators: public funds are usually based on annual budgets which are not adapted to market fluctuations. Partly for this reason, public authorities are often somewhat less interested in material revenues than perhaps they should be.

Market fluctuations and low prices for some recycled materials represent clear barriers for a broader development of recycling activities. In the most successful MS, key economic instruments have allowed to create more favourable economic conditions for recycling.

These key instruments include: progressive landfill/incineration taxes often followed by bans on certain type of waste, extended producer responsibility schemes (EPR) transferring the costs of separate collection, sorting and recycling to those placing products on the markets, "pay-as-you-throw" (PAYT) schemes making citizens/companies directly financially responsible for the ‘unsorted’ waste they generate and systems of subsidies/charges to favour the development of separate collection and reuse/recycling by the competent local authorities - mainly the municipalities. These conclusions are valid for all recyclable waste including packaging waste as shown in the fitness check.

Figure 4 shows for instance the relationship between landfilling rates of municipal waste and the total landfill charge including fees and taxes in the Member States. As expected, there is a direct influence of the landfill price on the landfill rates: poor performing MS have all landfill charges below 50-60 € per ton. On the contrary, MS with lowest landfill rates having all progressively increased their landfill taxes some of them having supplemented this approach by the progressive introduction of landfill material based bans. Similar correlations exist between landfill and incineration charges and recycling and composting rates.

Figure 4: Municipal waste landfilling and landfill costs [34]

Similarly there is a large variety of extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes in the MS notably in terms of waste covered by EPR schemes: most advanced MS have developed EPR systems for several types of waste streams. As illustrated in the fitness check for packaging waste, these EPR schemes are extremely important to unblock the possible barriers for the development of separate collection.

Properly managed EPR schemes can provide the required funds to help municipalities to launch separate collection and sorting operations but also to cover the recycled materials price fluctuations. EPR mechanisms where the producers essentially take one the risks associated with material price fluctuations (such that producers themselves, in supporting the scheme financially, pay lower fees when material process are high, and higher fees when material prices are low). Such approaches can help insulate public authorities from the vagaries of market price fluctuations, and for producers, they pay higher fees at times when they themselves may be beneficiaries of lower market prices for materials which they use.

The variety of EPR schemes between MS also concerns the rules applied for the control of the schemes, the level of ‘free riders’ – importers or producers not participating in the systems, relations with the municipalities, and transfer of the whole and true costs to those placing goods on the market (producers/importers).

This has led to differences in terms of cost effectiveness but also to divergent conditions imposed on those placing products on the EU market. Generally speaking, the most efficient EPR schemes are those based on a clear definition of the responsibilities of the involved actors and a permanent dialogue between these actors. [35]

As shown in the following Figure, the best performing schemes are not necessarily the most expensive. Comparisons between the schemes remain difficult as data are not always easily available, there is a lack of transparency; some schemes only cover household packaging, others only commercial and industrial packaging, others both types of packaging waste; some schemes like in the UK, France or Romania do not cover the whole collection and treatment costs of waste packaging. Other elements could also justify this differences of costs/fees paid like geographical conditions (AT) or differences in labour costs. Nevertheless, as shown in Figure 13, a margin of progress in terms of cost effectiveness of these EPR systems seems to exist: for similar levels of recycling rates there is a large variety of fees paid to the system.

Figure 5: Cost effectiveness of EPR schemes – Packaging [36]

"Pay as you thrown" (PAYT) schemes, if properly applied, have demonstrated their effectiveness: in the areas where these schemes are in place, citizens are making efforts to reduce their waste production and at the same time the participation in separate collection dramatically increases. It has a direct impact on the amount of residual waste to be treated which is significantly reduced, leading to a reduction of the waste management costs for the local competent authorities. The vast majority of the regions meeting high recycling rates -more than 70% - are applying PAYT schemes. These schemes are not used widely enough by local authorities: it has been estimated that only 3 MS have PAYT systems in place in all municipalities although PAYT schemes are not present at all in 11 MS – most of them with poor performances in terms of waste management.

In the most advanced MS, , local authorities are incentivised to launch separate collection of waste: EPR schemes are well developed, landfill prices are high enough, there are sanctions in case of lack of initiative to favour recycling/reuse or prevention – notably the application of PAYT systems - and there is a financial support for the development of the required infrastructures: By contrast, some MS have put in place very efficient systems combining penalties and financial support for municipalities: this is the case for instance in the Walloon Region of Belgium where residual waste has dramatically decreased (minus 42%) within six years of the application of a system combing subsidies and charges for municipalities in relation with the amount of residual waste produced and the application of PAYT systems.[37] These incentives are generally missing in the less advanced MS.

Experience shows that some MS are making extremely rapid progress towards meeting the EU targets by an appropriate use of economic instruments: for instance, Slovenia already performs better than several EU 15 MS, rapid progress has been seen in the Czech Republic for packaging waste and Estonia is expected to move from a situation of 75% landfilling to less than 5% landfilling in less than 7 years thanks through a clever and ambitious use of economic instruments – See Box 2.

Box 2: From 75% to less than 5% landfilling in 7 years, the case of Estonia [38]

Estonia has decided to introduce a strong waste management policy aiming in the first instance at avoiding waste landfilling. A progressive increase in the landfill taxes has been sanctioned, making alternative options such as energy recovery, recycling and MBT financially more attractive: with tax increases, the price for landfilling went from 8€/ton in 2001 to 50 €/ton today and is expected to increase to 60-70€ per ton by 2015. Additional economic instruments such as EPR and deposit-refund schemes were also applied.

This has attracted private investors, and without any public financial support, major infrastructure has been put in place to treat all municipal waste produced in Estonia. The landfill rate was at 74% in 2006, around 68% in 2010 and is expected to drop to a few percentage points in 2013 with the entry into operation of two new MBT facilities and one Waste-to-Energy facility. In the medium term, the increase in the recycling rate might imply the necessity to … import waste generated outside Estonia and/or adapt the MBT plant so that separately collected waste could be treated to increase the overall recycling rates.

This success story demonstrates on the one hand that MS having recently joined the EU can, if they implement the best practices having demonstrated their effectiveness in the past in the most advanced MS, make very rapid progress. At the same time, the absence of midterm targets at EU level is detrimental to adequate planning and dimensioning of the needed infrastructures.

Use of structural funds

Lastly, as indicated in the recent report from the European investment Bank (EIB) and in the report of the Court of Auditors[39], EU funds whether originating from the EIB or from Regional funds have been so far mainly orientated to the lower tiers of the waste hierarchy – creation of landfills or incineration capacities. Existing funding procedures do not really fit with the type and the 'smaller' size investments needed for prevention, reuse and recycling.

Issues related to collection

The necessity to improve the quality of the recycled material is another issue highlighted during the stakeholder consultation and in the fitness check. According to the WFD, there is already a general obligation/principle for MS to ensure that 4 waste streams are separately collected (plastic, metals, paper and glass). This principle is not sufficiently strict to ensure an appropriate quality of the recycled materials: experience suggests that the best performing systems are those which keep certain materials separate from others. Glass should be collected separately to avoid contamination of the other waste streams. Similarly, paper and cardboard should also be collected separately to ensure the quality and the value of the material. However, mixed collection of plastics and metals is not detrimental to the quality of the materials. Separate collection of biowaste gives excellent results in terms of organic recycling and that the highest rates of recycling appear to be achieved through door-to-door collections, where these are practical, and by deposit refund schemes for instance for beverage containers.[40] The absence of coordination between the authorities in charge of waste collection and those in charge of waste treatment is another reason for inappropriate design of the waste management strategy leading to poor quality recycling and increased costs. As detailed below (section 5.2.1 and Figure 10), collection and treatment costs are linked. It is therefore essential to ensure a full consistency between the collection and treatment strategies.

Similarly higher recycling rates of better quality seems to be met for C/D waste when minimum sorting is ensured at source at least between the mineral fraction and the other dry fractions. Some MS have imposed minimum sorting requirements for C/D waste.

Social acceptance

As illustrated in a recent report from European investment Bank[41], the lack of appropriate infrastructure might also be linked in some cases to the absence of social acceptance of projects related to waste management. In some countries where there is a significant lack of infrastructure it has been virtually impossible to designate areas for the construction of waste management facilities – See Box 3 below. Experience shows that public opposition seems to be higher against incineration or landfilling projects then for other facilities such as sorting centre for recycling/reuse or composting plants based on source separated waste streams.

Box 3: Social acceptance – some concrete examples

In several places, local people have sometimes vigorously campaigned against the creation of incinerators or landfills. For instance, in Corfu Island it has not yet been possible to open a newly-built landfill - the Lefkimi landfill – due to violent protests in 2008. This infrastructure was built with the support of EU funds – a total of €6 million. In the region of Athens and Thessaloniki, but also around Naples in Italy, similar protests took place against the possible opening or extension of landfill sites. In the UK, several projected waste infrastructure – mainly incinerators - were abandoned due to local opposition including the King's Lynn incinerator as well as infrastructure in Bradford, Merseyside and Yorkshire. These are just examples of some of the most recent local opposition against major landfill and incinerator projects.

2.5.2. Issues related to the EU waste legislation

As pointed out during the stakeholder consultation but also by the Court of Auditors, the exiting waste legislation could be further simplified and clarified while providing a midterm vision. For instance, the legislation includes the obligation for the MS to respect the waste hierarchy. However, the absence of clear and smart targets for each step of the waste hierarchy as well as clear midterm perspectives represents a significant barrier and a clear problem for appropriate planning of the required investments. In many cases, the time which elapses between the decision to build new waste management infrastructure and its actual operation is around 7 years[42], the period being longer or shorter depending on the nature, and the acceptability of the infrastructure at local level. Some of the infrastructure which is built may have a useful of time of 20 years or more. This absence of clear targets at each step of the hierarchy prevents MS from conveying a clear vision on an optimal implementation of the hierarchy.

It has also led in some MS’s to the creation of overcapacities for instance of incineration, which, in turn, appears to have lowered the fees paid for incineration, and so reduced incentives for additional initiatives to be taken to promote prevention, re-use and recycling. As shown in Figure 6, four MS have an incineration capacity exceeding 50% of their annual municipal waste generation, two of them – DK and SE – are even not producing enough municipal waste to feed existing infrastructures. This situation may be alleviated if the excess capacity is covered by waste imports from other MS and/or by feeding the existing capacities with other categories of waste such as industrial non-hazardous or commercial waste. Figure 6 shows clearly that some MS having excess capacities could progressively accept more and more waste coming from countries still heavily relying on landfilling.

Nevertheless, there are clear signals of potential overcapacities which are even more significant at local level. This is for instance the case in Rotterdam where an incineration plant was recently closed due to its underutilisation – see Box 3. Recent information from Germany indicates an overcapacity of incineration of around 25%. By contrast, as shown in Figure 6, some MS currently landfilling significant amounts of municipal waste have no incineration capacities at all.

Box 3: Closure of the Rotterdam incineration plant

The private company owning an energy-from-waste plant in Rotterdam decided to close it in 2010 due to the extent of overcapacity - around 10% according to the NL public authorities - caused by a declining availability of waste. This incinerator modernized in 1996 had a capacity of 450.000 tonnes. In 2012, the company stated, "We closed one of our incineration plants in the Rotterdam area. There is overcapacity in Germany and we hope some of our colleagues will follow suit. We hope more capacity will be taken out of the market. In the end, we could harm recycling performance. The social importance of incineration will decrease whilst recycling becomes increasingly relevant and important.”

Figure 6: Municipal waste incineration capacity per municipal solid waste generation[43]

The absence of EU midterm targets combined with longer term MS strategies could also lead to sub optimal investments: for instance several mechanical biological treatment - MBT- facilities treating mixed waste were created without source separation of waste. Some of these facilities are leading to modest recycling rates, most of the output products being landfilled due to their poor quality (contaminated materials).

Recent assessments carried out on the existing waste management plans[44] clearly shows that in some poor performing MS, investments currently planned will lead to the creation of several MBT or incineration facilities which will allow those MS to just meet the existing EU targets (on landfill diversion) but ‘blocking’ these MS into technological choices for, in some cases, 20 years (lifetime for these facilities).

This would limit the perspective of progress for these MS while leading to relatively high levels of residual waste landfilling. Recycling and re-use rates will remain modest in these countries for a long period unless one or more of the following occur:

capacity at these facilities can be sold to other countries still short of capacity – this is only possible, in principle, for facilities designated as recovery; or facilities, such as some MBT facilities, are adapted so that the biological treatment part of the facility is used for dealing with source separated organic materials; or some of the facilities are closed before the end of their amortization (and this may represent an additional cost).

As detailed in Error! Reference source not found., some definitions are either unclear or not consistent between the concerned Directives - for instance the notion of ‘recycling’ differs from the Packaging waste Directive (PPWD) to the WFD The concept of ‘municipal’ waste remains too vague and leads to divergent MS interpretations and hence widely differing levels of re-use/recycling. Significant differences exist between MS in terms of municipal waste generated per capita (between 300 and 700 kg/inhab/year).[45] Part of these differences could be explained by economic characteristics - individual consumption levels - but it seems that MS are reporting different realities under the name ‘municipal waste’.

The share of household waste in the municipal waste varies from a MS to another mainly due to difficulties experienced by MS in separating ‘household waste’ from non-household waste collected in the same way. Additional effort is needed to improve reporting on ‘municipal waste’ in order to get a sound basis for comparing MS performance and ensure that the targets on municipal waste are established on solid basis.

Calculation methods are too complex and not sufficiently harmonised to allow a proper comparison of MS performance. For instance, 4 calculation methods are permitted for assessing the municipal waste recycling target - see Box 1. MS had to report by September 2013 on the recycling/reuse rates according to the method they have chosen for the calculation of the target. A comparison between the reported recycling rates by the MS according to the method they have chosen and the recycling rates for municipal waste as reported annually to Eurostat since the mid-nineties – equal to calculation method 4 and based on OECD/Eurostat guidelines - shows that depending on the method chosen, the results could vary significantly: methods 2 and 3 are less demanding than method 4 - see Table 3.

The reported level of achievement under the WFD target can be more than 3 times what is reported to Eurostat. This is also confirmed when considering recycling performance based on typical waste composition – recycling rates of 50% could be met with method 2 although the actual recycling rate for municipal rate amounts to 25% - by using method 4.

This means in practice that the existing flexibility related to the calculation method is leading to confusion about the actual performances of the MS and their capability to re-inject recycled materials in the EU economy.

This comes on top of problems related to the quality of statistics – for instance ES, LV and Sl are using the method 4 but contrary to FI, they do not have the same recycling rates than those reported by Eurostat.

MS having reported (Jan 2014) || ||

Method chosen by MS || Reported Re-use/recycling rate [1] || Recycling rate - Eurostat [2] || Ratio [1]/[2] ||

AT || 2 || Not reported || 62% || ||

BG[46] || 3 || 31% || 6% || 5.2 ||

CY || 2 || 22,4% || 20% || 1.1 ||

CZ || 2 || 49,60% || 17% || 2.9 ||

DE || 4 || Not reported || 62% || ||

DK || || Not reported || 43% || ||

ES || 4 || 27% || 33% || 0.8 ||

FI || 4 || 35% || 35% || 1 ||

GR || 2 || Not reported || 18% || ||

HU || 2 || 39,80% || 22% || 1.8 ||

IT || 2 || 38,50% || 33% || 1.2 ||

LT || 2 || 43% || 21% || 2.0 ||

LU || 3 || 49,80% || 47% || 1.1 ||

LV || 4 || 17,8% || 11% || 1.7 ||

MT || 1 || 23% || 7% || 3.3 ||

PL || 2 || 18% (2012) || 28% || 0.6 ||

PT || 2 || Not reported || 20% || ||

SE || 2 || 62% || 50% || 1.2 ||

SI || 4 || 34,20% || 40% || 0.9 ||

SK || 2 || 13,38% || 11% || 1.2 ||

UK || 3 || 43% || 39% || 1.1 ||

Table 3: Reported recycling/reuse rates by MS and Eurostat recycling rates

The landfill diversion target - based on biodegradable waste produced in 1995 - opens the door to interpretation from the MS on what should be considered as biodegradable waste and on what was the 1995 level of landfilling of this type of waste. This increases the uncertainties around this target. Similarly the absence of a practical definition of the notion of 'treatment' makes it difficult to verify whether waste is actually treated before being landfilled.

The measurement method for C/D – construction and demolition – waste also raises questions. The WFD imposes a 70% target of ‘material recovery’ which includes recycling but also ‘backfilling’[47] which is extremely difficult to monitor in practice. Error! Reference source not found. in Error! Reference source not found. and Table 4 below illustrate the differences between the material recovery rates as reported by MS, the rates calculated by Eurostat and the relative importance of backfilling.

Backfilling represents an important share of the reported data in some MS: on the basis of the Eurostat data, 12 MS reported backfilling rate between 0% and less than 0,5%, 6 MS reported backfilling rates between 1,15 and 20% - 5 MS reported backfilling rates higher than 20%.

Member State || Material recovery rate of which backfilling

Reported by MS || Eurostat || Reported by MS || Eurostat

AT || || 91,8% || || 0%

BE || || 73,6% || || 0%

BG || 21% || 61,6% || || 0%

CY || || 0,32% || || 0,32%

CZ || 86,4% || 91,1% || 30,8% || 35,33%

DK || || 82,5% || || 0%

DE || || 95,3% || || 9,4%

EE || || 96,4% || || 9,3%

ES || || 64,8% || || 23,7%

FI || 33% || 5,5% || || 0%

FR || || 66% || || 7,6%

GR || || 0% || || 0%

HU || 60,2% || 60,7% || || 7,5%

IE || || 96,9% || || 30,14%

IT || || 96,9% || || 1,1%

LT || 65% || 73,2% || || 0%

LU || 90,8% || 98% || || ?

LV || || 90,8% || || ?

MT || || 14,2% || || 0,07%

NL || || 99,2% || || 0%

PL || 69% || 92,6% || || 22,5%

PT || || 48% || || ?

RO || || 37% || || 0%

SE || 60% || 77,6% || || 0%

SI || 78,7% || 94% || || 1,17%

SK || 45,4% || 46,7% || || ?

UK || 92,7% || 97,8% || || 22,1%

Table 4: Comparison between reported material recovery rates and Eurostat data

The articulation of the target still causes problems: for instance and as highlighted in the fitness check, there is no clear relationship between the landfill diversion target for municipal biodegradable waste, the recycling target for municipal waste and the recycling target for packaging waste which also partly covers municipal waste. As also highlighted in the fitness check, the existing legislation still includes some obsolete requirements which could be removed. For instance, this is the case in the PPWD in which a 'maximum' target was fixed for recycling in contradiction with the evolution of the recycling markets.

Moreover, even though significant efforts have been made to streamline and simplify reporting obligations, there is still room to improve and further streamline these obligations. MS are required for each Directive to produce a tri annual report to the Commission which in turn is required to produce reports on the implementation of the Directives. In practice, these reports which are mainly qualitative have a very limited added value compared to the administrative burden they involve. Error! Reference source not found. in Error! Reference source not found. summarises the demanding flow of MS reporting obligations – more details being provided in Error! Reference source not found..

Similarly, according to the WFD a permit is necessary for all undertakings managing waste (Article 23). During the stakeholder consultation, it was pointed out that in some MS, SMEs producing or managing small quantities of non-hazardous waste have to comply with this procedure which leads to additional administrative burden for a very limited added value.

The problem of littering, while covered by the general provisions on waste prevention and management (e.g. articles 9-13 and 36 of the WFD), is not explicitly addressed in EU waste legislation. It is only in the recent Commission proposal (COM (2013) 761) amending the PPWD to reduce the consumption of lightweight plastic carrier bags that the issue is referred to in its own right.

2.5.3. Issues related to monitoring

As repeatedly mentioned by stakeholders, pointed out by the Court of Auditors, and highlighted in the fitness check, another difficulty is related to the quality of waste statistics. Significant efforts have been made at European level with the creation of the Eurostat waste data centre. Nevertheless, as illustrated in Table 3 and in Table 4, additional efforts to improve statistics particularly on C/D waste are needed: differences persist between what is reported under the WFD and otherwise to Eurostat. No clear binding procedure is in place to ensure a minimum data validation either at European level - the current approach is only indicative - or at MS level. Only few MS have set an internal validation procedure.

This might lead to divergent data flows - there are some examples of MS in which the Ministry of Environment is reporting different data from the official statistical office – with differences up to 30% in the case of municipal waste generation.[48] Additional layers of uncertainty are related to the fact that some MS do not follow the guidance provided: for instance, and as shown in the fitness check, under the PPWD, MS are allowed to report as ‘recycling’ the material which is separately collected. Difficulties also emerged from the absence of common interpretation on what is or is not packaging.

However, losses between what is collected and what is effectively recycled may be significant: for example, the Court of Auditors report has indicated, loss rates of between 26% and 50% at the five facilities which were examined. In some cases, the implications of such loss rates would be that if recycling was reported on the basis of what was collected, this would amount to an over-estimate of the recycling rate of between 33% and 100%. This could encourage MS to maintain poorly designed waste collection systems and management not sufficiently focused on quality and efficiency.

The absence of anticipation of the risks of non-attainment of the targets by the MS is another significant problem. The current approach to checking whether targets are met is based on statistics reported a posteriori by MS. In most of the cases, when the assessment is completed and possibly infringement procedures launched, it is too late to take appropriate and timely correcting measures due to the time needed for instance to launch additional programs of separate collection and to build the required infrastructure.

Between the non-attainment of one of the targets of the EU legislation and the launching of an infringement procedure a period of three years is usually needed, in particular to acquire and check the relevant statistics.

2.5.4. Gap between EU objectives and existing targets

The level of the existing targets remains too low to ensure the creation of a circular economy using waste as resource and to meet the concrete objectives provided by the 7th EAP and recently endorsed by the European Council and the Parliament, the Raw Material initiative and the Resource Efficiency Roadmap as well as through one of the key Europe 2020 objectives to build a more ‘resource efficient’ economy.

Meeting the existing landfill diversion target for biodegradable municipal waste will still allow landfilling significant amount of valuable waste as this target is based on 1995 data, covers only the biodegradable waste (and not all waste) and allow for landfilling in 2020 of 35% of the amount of biodegradable waste that was generated in 1995. Meeting the existing target for packaging waste (55% recycling) will leave 45% of packaging waste not re-used or recycled although the potential remains significant as illustrated by the current performances of the most advanced MS (around 75% recycling in 2010). The four methods for meeting the 50% recycling/re-use rate for municipal waste in practice leads to not reuse/recycle between 25 and 50% of municipal waste as illustrated in section 2.5.2.

In addition and as detailed in the following section, without additional EU initiative to raise the existing targets, a significant amount of waste will still be lost to the EU economy whilst no clear medium-term signal will be given to waste management operators.

The targets should be revisited in the light of the multiple potential benefits linked with improved waste management - job creation, new economic activities, innovation in a promising sector, reduced GHG emissions, contributions to renewable energy generation, improved amenity - and the increasing challenge of raw material access for EU industry.

The current performances of the most advanced MS clearly show that a significant degree of progress is possible for all MS in the midterm. As shown in the fitness check, most MS have already met and surpassed the targets of the PPWD. The fitness check also highlighted the fact that the PPWD has had a significant impact in promoting the establishment of selective collection not only for packaging but also for other waste streams.[49]

Some MS are already today recycling more than 50% of their municipal waste – with some peaks at regional level of 70 to 85% - while 6 MS are landfilling less than 3% of their municipal waste - see Figure 3 and Figure 9. The vast majority of stakeholders have also shown an ‘appetite’ for increasing the recycling targets and building on progress already made to move closer to the vision of a resource efficient economy.

2.6. How will the problem evolve?

Without further policy action, significant amounts of valuable resources will continue to be lost in the coming years. Without a clear midterm perspective on the vision for waste management, there is a risk of investing in inflexible large-scale projects such as incineration and/or MBT facilities which may hinder longer-term ambitions to improve resource efficiency. The dissemination of best practices will remain limited, the quality of essential monitoring tools such as statistics on waste generation and management will remain sub-optimal and reporting obligations will remain complex and with limited added value.

In order to assess the impact of the existing measures for municipal waste, a ‘Business as usual scenario’ has been developed. This scenario presents an objective view of likely future waste management based upon realistic expectations for the performance and delivery of future waste management systems. A variant of this scenario has been constructed presenting the intentions of MS - understandably, in most cases the stated intention is that MS plan to achieve the targets, thus this variant is close to the full implementation scenario.

The functioning of the model is summarised in Figure 3.1 - Annex 6 which includes a summary of the key assumptions and data sources which have been used to calculate the financial and environmental impacts of the policy options considered in this IA.

As shown in Figure 7 below, the business as usual scenario implies a modification of waste collection and treatment: more waste will be recycled and reused, energy recovery will slightly increase and landfilling will decrease by nearly 40.000 tons.

Figure 7: Changes in waste treatment - Business as usual scenario

Despite these expected changes in waste management, there is a risk that some MS will fail to meet the existing targets on time: without additional actions, 9 MS will have difficulties in achieving the existing recycling target for municipal waste – see Error! Reference source not found. in Error! Reference source not found.. 5 MS are not making enough progress towards the landfill diversion target (see Error! Reference source not found.). According to the marine litter reduction model, it is estimated that a 4.4% increase of inflow of new marine litter by 2020 can be associated with this scenario.

2.7. Who is affected and how?

Several stakeholders are affected by the loss of valuable materials and improper waste management:

As explained in section 2.2, the manufacturing industry might be confronted with additional increases in raw material prices in the midterm. This risk might be attenuated by improving waste management as a significant proportion of raw materials needed for the manufacturing industry could be re-injected back into the economy at a reasonable price level. At the same time, the manufacturing industry placing goods on the market is confronted with different systems of EPR in the MS. These differences might represent an obstacle to the functioning of the internal market. In addition, as shown in Figure 5, several EPR schemes are not cost effective which might be due to the lack of transparency combined with the absence of minimum conditions (control, fair competition etc.). Several MS are envisaging now additional EPR schemes and without ensuring that they are meeting minimum conditions there is a risk of creating ineffective additional systems.

Waste operators whether large companies or SME involved in waste collection and treatment might be affected by the absence of new initiatives to ensure proper implementation of the EU waste legislation and by the lack of mid-term clear and measurable targets. As highlighted during the stakeholder consultation, improper waste management could represent a barrier for the development of new business in the collection, sorting or treatment sectors. Without a clear midterm vision on waste management, there is a risk of sub optimal investments in the sector – see Box 3 as an example.

The recycling industry has already benefited from the European targets in the past. It has been demonstrated that without clear European targets it would have been impossible to develop sustainable recycling activities. Without further efforts to simplify the EU legislation, SME’s might be confronted to administrative burden – particularly when SME’s are handling small quantities of waste.

EU citizens are first in line to improve waste management as one of the key players in the chain having to participate in separate collections schemes. Nevertheless, they do not always benefit from optimal organisation of waste collection. This has consequences in terms of general taxes to be paid which might increase due to improper waste management – for instance due to inappropriate investments, creation of overcapacities, lack of coordination between collection and treatment or investments being made too late which might ultimately lead to infringement proceedings and even fines. Also, EU citizens often pay general taxes for waste management without links to efforts to prevent and separate waste.

As consumers, they pay a contribution to EPR systems without having a clear choice and in absence of appropriate level of information on how the funds collected are used.

At local level, landfills cause multiple nuisances including noise, dust, poor air quality and negative impacts on landscape. Improper management of landfills, particularly those located near water bodies, can lead to pollution of the rivers and sea. This in turn can lead to contamination of the food chain, for instance when plastic particles ending up in the marine environment is ingested by fish, which has potential adverse impacts on public health.

Public authorities are also key players in waste management: at local level - municipalities, associations of municipalities - they organise the collection and the treatment of waste for household and similar sources whether through their own operating means or through services provided by private operators. Local authorities are also directly concerned by littering which represent additional and frequently significant costs of cleaning of the streets, beaches, forests. Without new initiatives for instance to promote best practices, there is a risk that inefficient systems persist with different effects notably on the public budgets devoted to waste management.

Others - tourism and fisheries: in some parts of the Union, improper waste management, and in particular illegal landfilling and littering, have a direct impact on the development of tourism. Beach littering has a particularly detrimental impact, with clean-up costs estimated at €413,5 million per annum – see Annex 7.

The fisheries industry is also negatively affected from marine litter causing damage to propellers and fishing gear. Costs associated with this damage are estimated to be €57.2m, equivalent to approximately 1% of the total revenues from catches that are generated by the EU fleet (landed value from 2010).

2.8. The EU's right to act and justification

The proposal is a direct response to the Europe 2020 Strategy, in particular its flagship initiative on "A Resource Efficient Europe", and is closely related to the EU's Resource Efficiency Roadmap and its Raw Materials Initiative.

The Union competence to take action on waste management derives from Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union related to the p