EN   EN 
 
 
 EUROPEAN  
COMMISSION   
Strasbourg, 5.4.2022  
SWD(2022) 100 final  
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  
 
Accompanying the document  
Proposal for a  
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL  
on substances that deplete the ozone layer and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009  
{COM(2022)  151 final}  - {SEC(2022)  157 final}  - {SWD(2022)  98 final}  -
 {SWD(2022)  99 final}   
 
1 Emissions from ozone depleting substances (ODS) result both  in climate warming  and a 
‘hole’ in the ozone layer , with adverse impacts on our health, the biosphere and climate 
change, as well as  having large economic implications . Preventing such impacts is key 
for the European Green Deal  and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change  and for the 
EU’s compliance with the Montreal Protocol on substanc es that deplete the ozone 
layer . 
EU-wide legislation has prevented significant amounts of  ODS emissions for three 
decades . Today only very few ODS uses are allowed in the EU and they must be 
controlled tightly  to avoid illegal use . The focus has thus shifted from phasing out 
production and consumption of ODS to sustaining important emission reductions that 
are already locked  in by the EU Regulation .  
This assessment is the basis for reviewing Regulation (EC) 1005/2009 on substances 
that deplete the ozone layer . An evaluation1 found that it was generally  fit-for-purpose  
and a strictly controlled EU ODS policy  has avoided a recurrence of emissions.  
However, t he few remaining uses could be controlled  in a slightly more efficient, 
coherent and clear  manner . Therefore, this review is firstly about  fine-tuning the design 
of the existing measure s. Secondly,  in the light of the Green Deal , it is examined if any 
of the remaining emissions  could be reduced further at proportionate costs.   
The measures to address these issues are bundled into  three different packages.  Option  1 
includes measures resulting in cost savings or very low costs only . It focus es on 
simplifications , better coherence and clarifications  as well as a low-cost emission 
reduction measure s that will prevent emissions from metal -faced panels of insulation 
foams during renovation or demolition activities . Option  2 include s, in addition, ODS 
recovery from more types of insulation  foams and more comprehensive monitoring and 
control , associated with moderate  costs . Option 3  include s all measures  that were 
considered  feasible , including high -cost measures. Option  2 is the preferred 
combination of measures, because it achieves significantly more emission savings than 
Option 1 and is therefore more coherent with the European Green Deal . The third 
package , on the other hand, appears to be  too costly  compared to the benefits it would 
generate.   
The most effective emission reduction measure in Option 2  will make it mandatory to 
recover and destr oy ODS  from  two types of insulation foam s2 when renovating or 
taking down  old buildings . Until 2050 such action may in total save emissions that are 
equivalent to almost 180 million tonnes of carbon dioxide  (tCO2 e). For comparison, this  
is the amount reported by the Netherlands  (UNFCCC)  for all greenhouse gases in the 
year  2019 . Abatement costs were estimated  to be b elow 20€/ tCO 2e abated in countries 
where rules and infrastructure on demolition  activities are in pl ace and will be well below  
230€/tCO2e in all Member State.  Costs are therefore proportionate to  what other 
                                                           
1 SWD(2019) 407 final. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/document/download/62a6fb28 -0df8 -4abb -b3e8 -
373933f97191_en  
2 In addition to foam as metal -faced panels also some lamin ated boards depending on where they are 
installed  
 
2 
 sectors need to contribute to achiev e climate  neutrality , in the context of the EU long -
term strategy3. The option  will stimulate R&D and may result in additional jobs in the 
recycling sector. For measures increasing efficiency, coherence and clarity , business es, 
SMEs , Member States and the Commission will be saving costs. Low costs will be 
associated with more comprehensive  monitoring and control .   
In the preparation of the impact assessment stakeholders were consulted  extensively . 
They generally supported the measures in Option  2, but business were opposed to some 
of the additional measures in Option  3 due to very high estimated  costs . 
                                                           
3 https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu -action/climate -strategies -targets/2050 -long -term -strategy_en 
(europa.eu)