-the number of investigative and coordinating actions carried out by OLAF on illegal shipment of waste, as well as the number of recommendations issued by OLAF upon which Member States have acted.

-the number of non-OECD countries which are included on the EU list of countries authorised to import waste from the EU, and the amount of waste exported to these countries.

The effectiveness of any waste export restriction outside the OECD, outside the EU or to the OECD

The contribution of the WSR to the transition towards a circular economy in the EU

Finally, the Regulation would be reviewed within ten years after its entry into force to ensure that its objectives are being met and its impact is ensured and justified.This review would take into consideration in particular the indicators in Table 10 below.

Additionally, compliance and enforcement issues would be monitored and discussed in the context of the new Waste Shipment Enforcement Group, which could also identify further actions and measures to be undertaken at the EU level to increase the effectiveness of the Regulation in the future.

Furthermore, the new provision concerning the review of Member States’ inspection plans by the Commission would also be an important source of information for monitoring the implementation and enforcement of the Regulation.

In this respect, it is noted that a key measure to improve the efficiency of the implementation of this Regulation is the establishment of an EU wide system to interchange documents and information electronically (electronic data interchange or “EDI”). This should allow for all involved actors to have better access to many data that are of relevance for the implementation of Regulation. Notably competent authorities will have a much more comprehensive and consistent data set to monitor waste streams, both within and outside the EU, and also monitoring of waste flows within, and to and from the EU will improve. In the end the EDI system should ensure that structured data are interchanged, which means extractions can be consistently done by Member State competent authorities and the Commission. This should improve the quality of reporting considerably and hence allow to better monitor how successfully the Regulation is being implemented.

In terms of monitoring, potential problems with compliance and enforcement would be monitored through the Member States’ regular implementation reports and progress reports drawn up by the Commission based on these Member States’ reports.

The new Regulation should result in an increase in waste materials reused and recycled in the EU, an improvement in standards and practices for waste management in countries importing waste from the EU and a reduction of illegal waste shipments both in the EU and outside the EU. It should also contribute to building robust and dynamic markets for secondary materials and increasing the transition to a circular economy in the EU and third countries.

2b) Mandate for implementing or delegated acts, to set out criteria to differentiate used goods and waste, for specific waste streams

Expected resources saved on a yearly basis for the submission and handling of notification requests electronically for competent authorities and companies respectively

1k) Ensure that the EU criteria on end-of-waste are better respected for decisions regarding the shipment of waste/non-waste between EU Member States

1c) Clarify the scope of the Regulation with respect to waste covered by other legislation

A number of measures would lead to simplification and reduced costs (though these can be hard to quantify).

Finally, as regards the overall social impact, the measures linked to the export of waste, as well as those against illegal shipments of waste, should reduce the negative impact on human health (e.g. respiratory problems, injuries etc.) and labour conditions (e.g. no social benefits, low wages, etc.) stemming from the unsustainable management of waste, bringing overall societal benefits both abroad and in the EU. The treatment of waste in the EU, which used to be exported, should lead to the creation in the EU of between 9000 to 23000 jobs in the recycling and re-use sectors. Additional jobs in these areas are likely to be generated as a result of the measures designed to ensure a better functioning of the WSR for shipments of waste in the EU for recycling and reuse.

This preferred option is expected to result in an overall important positive environmental impact. The measures designed to facilitate the shipment of waste for re-use and recycling in the EU will lead to higher amount of waste treated in better environmental conditions and higher amounts of secondary materials available in the EU, which would replace virgin materials as feedstock for a number of industries based in the EU. The proposed measures relating to the export of waste would have positive environmental impacts as it would better guarantee that shipments of waste to third countries are managed in an environmentally sound manner. It would also potentially lead to between 2.4 and 6 million tonnes of waste retained in the EU each year, which would be treated according to EU standards and processed into secondary materials in the EU. While it is not possible to perform a monetised impact of the entirety of these environmental gains, the benefits linked to a better treatment of residual waste in the EU and of avoiding shipping this waste to third countries would range from 266 million euro to 666 million euro/year. The overall gains are likely to be even higher. By contributing to improving the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the enforcement regime, the measures relating to illegal shipments would help prevent and reduce the serious environmental impacts stemming from illegal waste shipments, bringing overall environmental benefits.

SMEs will greatly benefit from the measures designed to facilitate shipments of waste within the EU, as the obstacles and burdens linked to the shortcomings of the current procedures represent proportionally a heavier burden for them that for larger companies. The measures on the export of waste will affect SMEs involved in export-related business activities. They will have to incur new costs to perform audits in facilities where they are shipping their waste (as foreseen in measure 2a). These costs remain however limited and could be pooled with other SMEs, notably through Producer Responsibility Organisations. They might also get lower revenues when selling their waste in the EU rather than exporting them, due to other measures on the export of waste (notably measure 2c). This could be problematic for some SMEs which rely extensively on export to non-OECD countries, but it is expected that such trade is mostly operated by large companies, so that the overall impact on SMEs will remain limited. Finally, the perspective that more waste will remain in the EU, together with new targets and obligations under EU law to ensure their recycling, will also represent a more solid basis for SMEs to develop innovative projects and technologies for recycling waste whose treatment pose particular challenges, such as plastic and textile waste.

In terms of overall economic impact, this preferred option should result in important savings for business operators shipping waste and competent authorities dealing with the procedures for authorising and monitoring these shipments, notably thanks to the establishment of the EDI system which is expected to represent savings in the order of 1.4 million euro/year. Other measures to modernise and simplify the WSR will bring additional savings. The other important economic impacts will stem from the measures linked to the export of waste, which should represent an overall economic gain for the EU economy ranging from 200 to 500 million euro/year, depending on the amount of waste which is retained in the EU, and based on 2019 data. For economic operators based in the EU, the impacts of these measures will differ significantly depending on their position in the value chain and the types of waste concerned, with some of those involved in exporting these waste likely to see the costs for exporting such waste increasing or turning to other purchasers in the EU, where they might get lower prices for their waste. Companies exporting waste would also have to set up auditing schemes, which would represent new but moderate costs (in the order of 5000 to 15000 euro/year after the setting up of the schemes). On the other hand, the economic actors recycling or processing waste in the EU should be able to use more waste as feedstock, which they should be able to purchase at a lower price compared to the baseline. The measure on illegal shipments should benefit to legal operators as they will help tackling illegal activities which represent a direct competition to their business.

The graphic in Figure 10 below provides a schematic overview of the preferred option, and the measures that it contains. A more detailed description of how the preferred the option achieves the objective of the review of the WSR is presented in Annex 14.

·With respect to the third objective, option 4 provides a series of measures to improve enforcement of the WSR. They are needed to step up the abilities of the Member States and the Commission to reduce illegal shipments of waste. These measures do not involve any fundamentally new tasks and additional related costs for operators and Member States. A more effective enforcement regime would help to prevent or reduce the volume of illegal shipments and, with it, significant cost savings for clean-up and repatriation as well as indirect cost savings for Member States where waste transits. Better enforcement should also lead to a reduction of loss of tax revenues. Furthermore, beyond the proposed measures, the Commission will continue to support the Member States’ efforts to better implement and enforce the WSR via a wide array of tools. Many initiatives have been already taken at EU level against waste trafficking, which is one of the priorities of the EU overall policy on organised crime . The EU is also providing financial support to operational projects targeting waste trafficking . In addition, the Commission is also assisting Member States in this area through the Environmental Compliance and Governance Forum , the TAIEX-EIR PEER 2 PEER programme and the EU Environmental Law Training Package .

oenter into force only three years after the changes in the Regulation become effective, leaving a period of transition for all actors involved to get prepared for the new rules. This transition period would allow to mobilise funding to build capacity for processing additional waste in the EU, notably for plastic and textile recycling. This will be supported by public investments at EU and national levels, stemming from the Recovery and Resilience Plans, as well as from the EU Structural Funds. This transition period will also leave time for operators currently shipping their waste outside the EU to adapt to the new regulatory framework and, if necessary, change their supply chain to ensure that they are in line with the new EU rules on waste shipments and become more sustainable. The implementation of the Green Deal and Circular Economy Action Plan should also translate in new measures on waste reduction, better separate collection of waste, uptake of recycled content and higher levels of re-use and high quality recycling, which will help consolidating economic actors of the circular economy in the EU.

onot result in a blanket ban but would set up a mechanism where importing countries have the opportunity to import waste from the EU if they demonstrate they are able to deal with the waste in a sustainable manner, and

oapply a different regime between countries of destination, with more scrutiny over countries where the waste management practices and practices are deemed to be less sustainable than in the EU (non-OECD countries),

·With respect to the second objective, option 4 will lead to important changes in the EU approaches and regulatory framework applying to the export of waste outside the EU. This is needed in view of the failure of the current WSR to achieve the objective to ensure ESM of waste exported from the EU, especially to developing countries. One important feature of option 4 is that it will require both economic operators and public authorities to take concrete actions to verify that waste exported from the EU is treated in a sustainable manner in the countries of destination. This will ensure that guarantees are provided both at country (through measures 2c and 2e) and at facility levels (through measure 2a) on the sustainable treatment of waste in the countries of destination. As detailed in sections 7.1 and 8.2, these measures should generate important environmental benefits. They will also have economic impacts. For some economic operators, notably those processing/recycling waste in the EU into secondary materials, this would potentially lead to higher quantities of feedstock available at a lower price, so this would overall have a positive impact. For those economic actors shipping waste outside the EU, the impact will depend on whether evidence is made available that the exported waste in the destination countries are treated in an environmentally sound manner. It is likely that, as a result, the export to some countries might become more difficult, which would impact negatively the companies exporting waste to these countries. They could face a decrease in the prices for the waste that they used to sell abroad, which would undermine their profitability. The costs resulting from this situation are however expected to be limited and are outweighed by the overall environmental benefits of the measures. Finally, it is also important to note that proportionality is also ensured through the fact that the measures in option 4 would:

·With respect to objective 1 on intra-EU shipments of waste, all measures under option 4 are necessary to achieve a better integration of the EU internal market for waste, steering these shipments to recycling. They will represent important changes for the procedures currently applicable to shipments, which will have an effect both on economic operators and public administrations. As detailed in sections 7.1 and 8.2, these measures will generate important gains for both of them, through reduced administrative burden, reduction of delays and more efficient processing of information. They will also contribute to support the transition to a circular economy in the EU, therefore benefiting the protection of the environment. These gains will largely outweigh the costs linked to the establishment of the new measures, notably the EDI regime. In addition, the obligation to digitalise the notification procedure for intra-EU shipments of waste via the EDI system will only become effective two years after the entry into force of the revised WSR, and preparatory work with Member States and stakeholders is already ongoing to get ready for this new regime.

Option 4 is also proportionate to the aims that this review seeks to achieve:

The preferred option is Option 4. The blend of the targeted and structural changes chosen would result in a balanced approach in terms of effectiveness (achievement of the objectives) and efficiency (cost-effectiveness) as illustrated in Section 7.2. It aims to ensure that this Regulation can facilitate intra EU shipments in line with the circular economy objectives, support the EU’s objective to stop exporting its waste challenges to third countries and contribute to better address illegal shipments of waste, without risking excessive costs or disruption. It responds both to (i) the need for new, effective measures to achieve the three objectives, and (ii) the importance attached to them being implementable while not creating excessive burden or undesirable impacts.

The assessment shows that actions taken under targeted or structural changes alone would not reach the maximum effectiveness. Compare to these options,, the option to combine measures in a mix of “far reaching changes”, would result in a higher effectiveness, in an efficient and proportionate manner. Option 4 connects essential operational changes under Option 2 with the systemic ones, as presented under Option 3, by providing a package of the most efficient measures coherent with the overarching objectives of the European Green Deal – green and digital transition. The implementation of the measures to facilitate the intra EU trade of waste while preserving the environment provide a proportionate yet effective response to many of the challenges linked with the current regime, with a shift to an information exchange via electronic means and streamlined procedural framework, resulting a significant reduction of administrative burden for national governments, authorities and economic operators (Objective 1). The export related measures would deliver the most environmental benefits, while remaining proportionate to the objective they aim to achive (Objective 2). Option 4 best addresses the problems described higher in this report. The package of enforcement related measures under the Option 4, provides a balanced approach and a basis for intervention at the EU, regional and national level necessary to reach efficiency, effectiveness and coherence in addressing the illegal shipment inside and outside the EU (Objective 3). Therefore, the integrated approach based on the separate elements of the structural and targeted changes would allow reaching highest positive impacts in a proportionate manner that would be impossible to achieve under the baseline option.

Compared to Option 2, this option promises larger economic, environmental and social benefits. The implementation of the measures 1d, 1e, and 1f directly address the stakeholders’ concerns regarding the costs associated with the delays of intra-EU shipments and would significantly minimize administrative burden for national governments, authorities and economic operators (Objective 1). The introduction of measures 2c, 2d and 2e would set up a procedural framework at the EU level to guarantee that waste exported outside the EU is managed in an environmentally sound manner. It is considered as a proportionate and systemic response to the Objective 2. Based on the assessment of individual measures, certain changes would not be sufficient and coherent enough to achieve the necessary effect at the level of Member States. This is in particular so for the proposed measures 3e and 3g to better address illegal shipments of waste (Objective 3).

Compared to the baseline, the targeted changes are more effective and coherent in achieving specific objectives, in particular to reduce administrative burden (1.1.) and increase waste shipment for treatment higher up the waste hierarchy (1.2.). However, as the rating indicates, the foreseen measures alone would not be able to result in maximum benefits, mostly due to the lack in efficiency and inter-coherence. Compared to the structural changes, this option is of rather limited scope to ensure that waste shipped across borders is managed in an environmentally sound manner (Objective 2). Although indispensable, implementation of Option 2 would only deliver moderate environmental and social impacts, as the measures mostly fragmentally target certain problem areas, e.g. by setting out criteria to differentiate between used goods and waste (2b) or by specifying the obligations for exporters (2a), and hereby lack a proportionate response to the problems. In this regard, the largest benefits are identified for the measures 3a-d and 3f, dedicated to better address illegal shipments of waste within and outside the EU (Objective 3).

The options are composed of a selection of the measures above as explained in detail in section 6.3 of the impact assessment report. The overall rating for each policy option is the average of the overall ratings of all the measures it contains (these are listed in the left-hand column for ease of reference). The rating for each option’s criteria was calculated by taking the average of the ratings of the measures that are included in that option. For example the rating relating to the economic impact of option 3 is the average of the rating for this impact of measures 1d, 1e, 1f, 1j, 1k, 1l, 2c, 2d, 2e, 3e, and 3g. The overall rating of each option corresponds to the sum of the ratings for each impact plus efficiency, and is presented in the right-hand column. This presentation provides an insight on the trade-offs for each option. Option 2 has economic, environmental and social impacts rated 1.38, 1.19 and 0.85 respectively and an efficiency impact of 0.69. Option 3 has higher economic impact with a rating of 1.68 but lower environmental and social impacts both rated at 0.82 with an efficiency rating of 0.86, which adds up to an overall rating of 4.18 – very close to the one of option 2. The table also clearly shows that the combination of measures included in option 4 results in the best rated environmental and social impacts with ratings of 1.27 and 1.00 respectively, a balanced economic impact rated at 1.53, and provides the most efficient way forward with an efficiency rating of 0.90. Option 4 has an overall highest rating of 4.70 compared to 4.18 for Option 3 and 4.12 for Option 2.

Table 9 provides an overview of how the different options compare based on the individual assessment of measures as provided in Annex 12.

The overall effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and proportionality of the policy option 4 is reflected in the rating for this option (4.70), based on the assessment of each of its measures, contained in Annex 12, which shows that it is well above other policy options.

Similarly as for the other objectives, option 4 is more comprehensive and effective in achieving the third objective of the review of the WSR. Option 4 includes all measures from option 2 (except guidance documents, in view of their non-legally binding nature and limited expected effect) which would reinforce the existing framework on inspection, penalties and allow the Commission to support transnational investigations in the EU. In addition, option 4 incorporates the measures under option 3 designed to better track green-listed waste and set up a formal group designed to reinforce cooperation at EU level on enforcement against illegal waste shipment. Option 4 therefore addresses the main challenges linked to illegal shipments of waste, which can be dealt with through regulatory changes of the WSR. It is also consistent with the EU policies and legislation on environmental crime, notably the Environmental Crime Directive and the recently adopted strategy against organised crime. Stakeholders have overall expressed support for reinforcing the framework on enforcement in the WSR.

Comparison with regard to the third objective of the review (Better address illegal shipments of waste within and outside the EU)

Compared to the other options, option 4 would represent a more effective way to achieve the second objective of the review. Option 4 is the only option which provides a comprehensive set of measures, commensurate with the seriousness and magnitude of the problems that this objective seeks to address. Option 4 is more effective than option 2, which only complements existing provisions of the WSR with (i) obligations for exporters to ensure that their waste are dealt with in an environmentally sound manner through audit systems and (ii) with the possibility for the Commission to set out criteria to distinguish between used goods and waste. While this is necessary, this is not enough, which is the reason why option 4 also includes a new framework to ensure that public authorities are also involved in the verification and monitoring of the sustainability of export of green-listed waste. This is done through the new regime requiring importing non-OECD countries to inform the Commission that they wish to import waste from the EU and demonstrate that they can deal with it sustainably, as well as the specific procedure to monitor export of waste to OECD countries. These measures are contained in option 3, but again in isolation from other measures, which weakens their effectiveness. Option 4 is also efficient as it only imposes limited new costs to exporting companies exporting their waste outside the EU through new obligations for audits. It will change procedures for the export of waste, especially outside the EU, which will trigger some economic consequences for the waste sector in the EU. This impact is however proportionate, as export will remain possible, as long as there is evidence of the sustainability. Also, a 2 years transition period before these new rules would enter into force, is foreseen, leaving sufficient time for Member States, third countries and exporting companies to transition to the new system.

Comparison with regard to the second objective of the review (Guarantee that waste exported outside the EU is managed in an environmentally sound manner)

The fact that option 4 would combine the establishment of a new mandatory electronic system (electronic data interchange (EDI)) for the notification procedure with a range of measures designed to simplify, modernise and harmonise the rules governing intra-EU shipments of waste, as well as align them with the waste hierarchy, means that it would be far more effective than the two other options in achieving the first objective of this review. At the same time, this option would not contain any guidance measures, which are not sufficiently effective, and would also not try to pursue full harmonisation or mutual recognition on issues where this is not warranted in light of the limited gain that this would bring or of the likely opposition by Member States or stakeholders. This option would therefore also be proportionate to the aims that it seeks to achieve.

Comparison with regard to the first objective of the review (Facilitate shipments of waste within the EU, in particular to align it with the circular economy objectives)

Option 4 (“far-reaching changes”), which combines measures from options 2 and 3, represents the most comprehensive option. It is more effective than the two other options as it contains a consistent set of measures, which both improve the implementation of the WSR and set out new solutions to tackle important challenges that the current WSR cannot address in its current form. This allows to deal with all important problems and concerns raised by stakeholders and identified in the evaluation. The measures under this option are coherent between themselves and also with other legislation, including on an international level.

Overall, while a focus on new solutions and approaches could be effective in achieving some of the objectives of the review of the WSR, it would remain insufficient to tackle all issues identified, especially those that require adjustments and improvements of the provisions in the WSR, such as streamlining existing procedures, address the environmentally sound management of waste in third countries at the level of individual shipments and treatment facilities, or improve the provisions on enforcement. Many of those detailed issues were raised as concerns by a broad range of stakeholders. In addition, some of the proposed measures would not be proportionate to the aims that it seeks to achieve (the generalisation of the notification procedure to the export of green-listed waste outside the OECD especially). Its overall impact to address the problems identified in the evaluation of the WSR would therefore be limited compared to option4 4. This is reflected in the overall scoring of this option (4.18), based on the assessment of each of its measures, contained in Annex 12, which shows that it is well below policy option 4.

Policy option 3 (“structural changes”) provides for the introduction of measures, tools and procedures which are new compared to the current WSR. The underlying approach under this option is that the problems identified in the evaluation can only be overcome through a change of approach, both for intra-EU shipments of waste and the export of waste outside the EU. For intra-EU shipments of waste, an important new approach under this option is the shift to electronic systems to handle the notification procedures (through the EDI). This shift would ensure that burdens and delays are significantly reduced for both private and public actors in shipments of waste. It would moreover allow for a better monitoring of all waste flows as it can incorporate also the general information requirements for green-listed waste electronically and grant quicker access to all enforcement agents that are concerned with waste shipments. This option further includes the harmonisation of contamination levels for the classification of some waste and the mutual recognition of decisions taken by Member States on other classification issues (notably to determine if a commodity should be considered as ceasing to be qualified as waste). All this represents an effective way to ensure a smoother functioning and integration of the internal market for waste. This will however not necessarily lead to more recycling in the EU, as a majority of shipments of waste within the EU currently does not go for recycling. For the export of waste outside the EU, this option establishes a new framework (to be implemented by public authorities) to ensure that green-listed waste exported outside the OECD are managed in an environmentally sound manner, either through the application of the notification procedure for this waste, or the obligation for importing countries to demonstrate that they are able to deal with them sustainably. The application of the notification procedure for the export of all green-listed waste outside the OECD would represent an important burden for operators and public authorities, and not be linked explicitly to the objective to ensure the environmentally sound management of the waste in the countries of destination. It does not appear proportionate and cost-efficient to achieve this aim. On the other hand, the establishment of a new framework requesting non-OECD countries to demonstrate that they are able to deal with green-listed wastes sustainably would be better suited and cost-efficient to attain this objective. With regard to illegal shipments of waste, this option would lead to a better monitoring of shipments of green-listed waste through better traceability (also via EDI) and better coordination between EU Member States thanks to the creation of a dedicated official group at EU level for this purpose. This would address some of the challenges linked to illegal waste shipments, but not improve the shortcomings due to insufficient detection and non-deterrent penalties.

Overall, this option would represent an improvement of the current WSR but is not sufficiently effective in tackling serious problems which are linked to the general approach pursued in the WSR. This option would therefore have a limited impacts, compared to option 4. This is reflected in the overall scoring of this option (4.12), based on the assessment of each of its measures contained in Annex 12, which shows that it is well below policy option 4.

Policy option 2 (“targeted changes”) provides a package of measures that can effectively and somehow efficiently address some of the problems which hamper the good functioning of the WSR. The measures under this option are coherent between themselves and also with other legislation, for example by clarifying the scope of the WSR. With respect to intra-EU shipments of waste, this option would help meeting the objective of this review by improving the functioning of the notification procedure (notably through a more consistent and frequent use of pre-consented facilities) and steer shipments of waste in the EU for recycling. For export outside the EU, it will put clear responsibilities on the EU exporting companies to show, via audit schemes, that they comply with the requirements that exported waste should be dealt with in an environmentally sound manner in the countries of destination. It would also provide better tools at the EU level to investigate illegal waste shipments, through the recognition of a formal role for the Commission (through its anti-fraud office OLAF) in this area. Many stakeholders have indicated the importance that addressing many of these issues bear for them. However, important problems identified in the evaluation, and repeatedly raised by stakeholders, would not be addressed through this option. Most prominently, this option does not address the pressing need to modernize the Regulation and reduce the burdens and delays caused by the paper-based systems in use in many Member States for the notification procedure for intra-EU shipments of waste. This option is also not effective in addressing the lack of clear procedures and criteria which the Commission and third countries should follow to ensure the sustainable management of green-listed exported non-OECD countries. In that respect, the EU policy would continue to rely on Commission Regulation 1418/2007, which does not function well. This option would further not result in better coordination on enforcement between Member States against illegal shipments of waste. Finally, this option foresees that guidance could be adopted to avoid differences in interpretations of some provisions in the WSR between Member States, but experience shows that such soft law instruments are often not sufficient.

The comparison of the policy options peformed in this section is based on the assessment of the impacts of the proposed measures contained in section 7.1, taking into account the different combination of measures under each option, and is made against the standard assessment criteria defined in the Better Regulation guidelines (effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and proportionality). To facilitate such comparison, the impacts of each measure have also been calculated with a rating on a scale of 0-2, as presented in Annex 12. This allows to allocate an overall rating for each policy option, which represents the sum of the average of the scores per impact of the measures contained in these options. An overview of the ratings per options is also presented in Annex 12 in more detail.

Member States authorities generally were in favour of increasing cooperation at EU and international levels against illegal waste shipments, with some of them indicating that the creation of a new group on this issue at EU level should build on, and not overlap with, existing structures, notably IMPEL.

No specific environmental impacts relating to this measure are foreseen, in addition to the general environmental impacts described above.

No specific economic impacts relating to this measure are foreseen, in addition to the general environmental impacts described above.

3g) Creation of a dedicated group at the EU level with the task to facilitate and improve cooperation on enforcement of the WSR

No specific environmental impacts relating to this measure are foreseen, in addition to the general environmental impacts described above.

It is estimated that introducing a provision laying down requirements on national cooperation between the relevant enforcement authorities within the Member States will likely have some resource implications, in particular in Member States where effective mechanisms for such structured cooperation are currently lacking. On the other hand, it is expected that the overall economic benefits resulting from better and more efficient cooperation and coordination between the relevant national authorities will by far outweigh these possible additional costs.

The measure should help to better track the shipment of green-listed waste and make illegal traders accountable for their activities. As the illegal shipment of green-listed waste is one of the most serious challenges currently faced by enforcement authorities, the measure would contribute to tackle this problem, and address the environmental damages associated with these shipments.

The registration of traders, brokers and other intermediary actors involved in waste shipments in all EU Member States where they perform their activities linked to the shipment of waste will generate a limited new additional administrative burden for those which are not yet registered in these countries, but again would render enforcement efforts and, where relevant, prosecution more efficient.

The digitalisation of the form in Annex VII of the WSR that needs to be completed for the shipment of green-listed waste should make it easier for economic operators to fill it in and present to competent authorities. A few minor additional elements of information would increase the efficiency of enforcement efforts considerably.

It is expected that higher and more efficient penalties would prevent the perpetration of illegal shipments and their associated negative impact for the environment.

This measure should lead to a better targeting of penalties toward serious infringements to the WSR, which would be subject to higher sanctions, compared to infringements of lesser importance. This would help enforcement authorities, as part of their risk-based approach, to focus on the more prevalent forms of criminality linked to illegal shipments, which should overall have a positive economic impact for the waste sector. The incorporation of the economic value linked to the type of infringement for the calculation of the penalties should have a more deterrent impact on the illegal operators involved in waste shipments.

No specific environmental impacts relating to this measure are foreseen, in addition to the general environmental impacts described above.

Empowering the Commission (through OLAF) to carry out investigative and coordinating actions in respect of illegal waste shipments (both intra-EU and extra-EU) would strengthen the overall enforcement capacity and instruments at disposal of the EU and its Member States and could lead to more efficient use of scarce resources for enforcement. Furthermore, entrusting OLAF, an existing EU body with relevant investigative and coordinating experience and toolbox, with improving enforcement of the Regulation would also be proportionate and limit any possible financial impact of such measure as compared with the establishment of a new enforcement body at EU level. It is estimated that OLAF would be able to absorb new waste shipment cases in the first year of the application of the new Regulation. In the subsequent years, OLAF would need 1-3 FTEs, depending on the real increase of case numbers.

3c) Empower the Commission (through OLAF) to carry out transnational investigative and coordinating actions against waste trafficking in the EU

The measure would have only limited environmental impacts since a guidance on inspections and enforcement practices cannot prescribe legally binding provisions.

Increased legal clarity results in less disputes and thus reduction of costs due to delays during shipments, but only limited effect is expected from this measure.

No specific environmental impacts relating to this measure are foreseen in addition to the general environmental impacts described above.

Requiring Member States to make available their inspection plans to the Commission represents a limited burden for the Member States. The assessment of the plans by the Commission should lead to identification of best practices and allow for better targeting of inspection activities.

Specific impacts linked to each measure listed under Objective 3 are described further below.

During the consultations, many economic actors involved in waste collection and transport, but also treatment, stressed that for them a robust enforcement of the WSR is key to ensure a safe transition to a circular economy. Member States competent authorities agreed to that, but also pointed to the challenges they face at the moment, to perform enforcement actions as regards waste shipments. Most stakeholders, both private and public, expressed their support for strengthening the WSR’s provisions and improve coordination and cooperation on enforcement.

By contributing to improving the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the enforcement regime, the measures would help prevent and reduce the negative human health impacts (e.g. respiratory problems, injuries etc.) and negative impacts on labour (e.g. child and woman workers, no social benefits, low wages, etc.) stemming from illegal waste shipments, bringing overall societal benefits. Furthermore, better enforcement will have the positive effect of bringing overall societal benefits by reducing criminal activities, including organised crime activities which operate through informal and clandestine channels.

The most problematic illegal waste shipments are those concerning hazardous waste and waste which is illegally sent for dumping or sub-standard treatment. The dumping or substandard treatment of waste often has severe impacts on the environment (e.g. air, soil, groundwater contamination, effects on animals and plants, indirect impact on climate change etc.). By contributing to improving the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the enforcement regime, the measures would help prevent and reduce the serious environmental impacts stemming from illegal waste shipments, bringing overall environmental benefits.

The measures should also result in benefits for public authorities, first directly through a better cooperation and synergies between other EU Member States authorities in tackling transnational criminal activities. The measures could also reduce enforcement actions linked to clean-up operations or repatriation activities, which are very costly and happen to remediate illegal activities. Repatriation costs of a single container within the EU are typically above €5000, and the costs can be up to €20,000 to bring back a container from Asia to Europe. Where a multi-container consignment needs to be repatriated, costs quickly mount up, as do the complexities of the repatriation.

The measures would have a positive economic impact for the legitimate actors in the waste sector reducing their loss of income linked to unfair competition from the illegal sector, notably ensuring that they are supplied with waste instead of illegal actors, and overall provide a better level playing field for their activities.

In general, each of the measures under objective 3 would contribute to improving the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the enforcement regime and inspection practices of the WSR and help better addressing waste crime, which is recognised in the 2021 EU SOCTA as being one of the most serious criminal threats facing the EU. These measures are mostly assessed qualitatively on how they can contribute to reduce illegal activities and unfair competition for legal operators in the waste sector.

7.1.3 Objective 3: Better address illegal shipments of waste within the EU as well as illegal exports to third countries.

Industry actors from the waste management sector generally consider that OECD countries have waste treatment standards which are comparable to those in the EU and do not think additional rules on such exportsare needed. Several Member States’ competent authorities have highlighted their experiences with waste exported to some OECD countries outside the EU, which create environmental challenges in these countries. These authorities have expressed their support to also strengthen the rules and controls for exports to OECD countries. This view was also shared by NGOs and some EU based recycling industries.

The social impacts will be limited but would be positive as the measure would contribute to averting the detrimental effects of export of waste in a given country, and its possible associated negative impact on public health for the workers or populations affected by the treatment of this waste.

Overall, the quality of waste management systems in OECD countries is assumed to be of higher quality than outside the OECD. It is however clear that still differences exist in some of the OECD countries, as compared with EU waste management standards, notably in some of the OECD countries among the top ten countries that currently receive waste from the EU. The export of waste to OECD countries has increased considerably in the last years and is likely to increase further in the future, notably as a follow-up to decisions adopted in the Basel Convention on plastic waste and to the potential adoption by the EU of other measures presented in this report with regard to export outside the OECD. Additional countries have recently become members of the OECD and others are likely to join the organisation in the coming years. In this context, it is important the EU is able to prevent environmental challenges that could be created by the export of waste to OECD countries, notably in case of important waste flows or if they increase suddenly.

The environmental impacts of this measure are expected to be positive as it would provide a means for the Commission to avoid a situation whereby the export of waste from the EU is causing particular environmental difficulties in one OECD country. This would provide a legal basis for the Commission to start an official process towards the competent authorities of this country, which could ultimately lead to a suspension of the export of the problematic waste in question and thereby to the end of the environmental difficulties linked to this export.

As indicated above, the measure would not have any direct substantial economic impact. If export restrictions are adopted on the basis of this measure, they would lead economic operators in the EU to divert their export of waste to other destinations, either in the EU or outside the EU. The impact will depend on the volume and prices of the waste concerned, and would have to be assessed on a case by case basis.

This measure is a safeguard, which would allow the Commission to monitor exports of green-listed waste to OECD countries, which are not subject to any specific control procedure involving public authorities, and to trigger a specific procedure in case it appears that such exports are causing environmental damages in a given OECD country. The adoption of this measure should not lead to any immediate considerable impact: it is setting out a procedure which, if used, could ultimately lead a reduction of export of certain waste streams to one or more specific OECD countries. This individual decisions would then have tangible economic, environmental and social impacts which would need to be assessed in the process leading to their adoption.

2e) Set up a specific procedure to monitor export of waste to OECD countries and mitigate environmental problems that might be caused by such exports

The measure was proposed by one Member State as a way to better monitor the export of green-listed outside the OECD, through the use of a well-known procedure, which already applies for notified waste. However, most private and public stakeholders are not supportive of increasing the amount of notifications and the burdens linked with it.

In addition to the social impacts explained in measure 2c, it is estimated that this measure could lead to the additional creation of around 9 000 jobs in the EU waste treatment and industrial sector processing waste (notably ferrous and non-ferrous industry).

·Overall, the environmental benefits linked to (i) a better treatment of rejects and to (ii) avoiding emissions linked to transporting the waste would be between 266 million euro in 2019 and 275 million euro in 2030. As in the case of measure 2c, these values represent minimum amounts of the overall environmental gains linked to this measure, as many others could not be quantified and should be considered as well.

The calculations for the environmental benefits of measure 2c under a retention scenario of 20% are valid for this measure as follows:

This measure could provide more controls on and better monitoring of exported wastes, which could result in better guarantee of ESM in the country of destination. Requiring a more transparent transport and management evidence trail, this measure brings to some extent the environmental impacts as explained in the measure 2c above, relating to the amounts of waste retained in the EU for treatment. This includes avoided environmental externalities relating to transport and substandard treatment of the waste with regard to different percentages of retention of EU waste that would normally have been exported to non-OECD third countries.

This measure would result in considerable administrative costs for the competent authorities in the EU Member States, which would have to process a considerable quantity of new notifications. The administrative burden linked to this would also be important for companies exporting waste outside the EU, which would have to constitute the notification file, submit to all relevant authorities and await that all consents are provided, to be able to proceed with the export of the waste concerned. Finally, this would also have costs for the competent authorities in the countries of destination, which would need to also process the notifications. A number of third countries might not be legally able to issue consents for green-listed waste, as this is not required under the Basel Convention and might not be possible under their domestic legal regime.

The EU steel industry would see its financial contribution to the Emission Trading System decrease by around 36 million euro/year.

As explained under measure 2c, assuming a 20% retention scenario, this measure brings economic benefits of around 200 million euro in 2019 and 1.6 billion euro in 2030. The same economic impact as for measure 2c (for the 20% waste retention scenario) would be expected.

The reduction of the export of waste under this measure would likely be more modest than for other measures. It could still be assumed that it could reach up to 20% of the level of export outside the OECD, or 2.4 million tonnes, with a value on export of 536 million euro in 2019. Taking projections until 2030, the amount would be around 2.3 million tonnes with a value of 835 million euro.

2d) Require that the export of green-listed waste outside the OECD is subject to the notification procedure

All stakeholders agreeds during the consultations, that the current regime under Article 37 of the WSR and Commission Regulation 1418/2007 does not function well. Diverging views were expressed on the extent to which exports of green-listed waste should be controlled or limited. Industry mainly active in the collection and sorting of waste was more reluctant to limit exports of green-listed waste, than those industry actors active in final recycling of this waste in the EU. Companies involved in the collection and sorting of waste in the EU warned against the detrimental impact of a regime which would abruptly put an end to the export of waste which are pre-treated in the EU: according to them, this would have no or limited environmental added-value and undermine the economic business model and stability of the EU waste management sector, as it would impact the profitability of the companies collecting and sorting waste in the EU. Member States competent authorities expressed their support in principle for a reform of the current rules, which would provide better tools to verify that exported waste are management sustainably in the countries of destination. NGOs felt that exports of waste should be limited severely, or completely banned (for plastic waste for example) and that, for waste which is exported outside the EU, a robust verification of ESM of the concerned waste at destination is absolutely necessary.

It should be noted that the measure would also have an impact on the companies transporting waste outside the EU. As it is expected that a large share of the waste retained in the EU would however be shipped inside the EU, the negative impact on employment linked to a reduction of export would likely be compensated by an increase in employment in the transport sector linked to the shipments of waste across the EU. This aspect is therefore not analysed further in the report.

There will be positive social impacts also in the EU, in terms of potential job creation in the recycling industry, linked to the treatment of waste retained in the EU. Applying the methodology detailed in section 7.1 and Annex 5, it is expected that the measure could lead to the creation of between 9 000 and 23 000 jobs in the EU waste treatment and industrial sector processing waste (notably ferrous and non-ferrous industry).

The social impacts in third countries will be positive as the measure would contribute to averting the detrimental effects of export of waste in a given country, and its possible associated negative impact on public health for the workers or populations affected by the treatment of this waste. On the other hand the livelihood of people in receiving third countries could be negatively affected.

·In the short term, this measure could cause a reduced amount of waste being imported to third countries from the EU. This could lead local industries in destination countries to switch from waste to virgin materials as feedstock, thus increasing its environmental footprint. However, this risk seems to be limited as the measure does not set a full ban on shipments to third countries, but allows countries to continuously deal with the waste in a sustainable manner. In the medium term, domestic waste could replace imported waste. The reliance on the import of waste by the recycling industry in some countries actually often impedes the establishment of a proper system for the collection and treatment of domestic waste. Hence this measure is expected to have a positive environmental impact relating to the improvement of the sustainable management of domestic waste. For example, India develops at the moment a new legislation on the recycling of end-of-life vehicles. India is one of the world’s largest importers of steel scrap. With the new legislation on end-of-life vehicles, India could in the future, rather than import steel scrap, source a considerable amount of steel waste from its domestic market, as steel is the largest component recovered from waste vehicles.

·The total environmental benefits linked to a combination of (i) a better treatment of rejects and to (ii) avoiding emissions linked to transporting the waste under a scenario where 20% of waste exported outside the OECD would be retained in the EU amount between 266 million euro in 2019 and 275 million euro in 2030. Taking the scenario that this measure could result in 50% of waste retained in the EU, theses environmental benefits would range between 666 million euro in 2019 and 687 million euro in 2030. These values represent minimum amounts of the overall environmental gains linked to this measure, as many others could not be quantified and should be taken into consideration as well. Notably, in receiving countries, this measure could also create an incentive to improve waste management infrastructure and related technologies and skills, in order to demonstrate that they can deal with the waste in a sustainable manner.

·The environmental benefits expected in avoiding transport related externalities for the period 2019-2030 are expected to amount to a total value of around 2.6 billion euro under a 20% retention scenario, which equals to around 215 million euro savings per year. Under a 50% retention scenario value would amount to 537 million euro per year.

·The treatment of rejects from the waste retained in the EU, compared to their treatment in a third country outside the OECD, would save 0.2 million tonnes of GHG emissions per year (under a 20% retention scenario) or 0.5 million tonnes (under a 50% retention scenario), for the period 2019-2030. The savings are particularly important for paper/cardboard, textile and plastic waste. In monetary terms, this represents savings of 674 million euro for the whole period of 2019-2030 in a 20% retention scenario or 56 million euro per year. Under a 50% retention scenario, the total amount for the same period would be around 1.7 billion euro or 140 million euro per year.

· As it is however also expected that the use of such waste materials, particularly, scrap of ferrous and non-ferrous metals, can lead to reductions of CO2 emissions in the countries where it is currently exported and processed into secondary materials, these figures have not been used for the quantification of the environmental impacts presented below. In the short-term, however, this measure might lead to oversupply of some types of waste streams that the recycling industry in the EU is not able to absorb. This is likely to be limited, notably as the measure would enter into force three years after the adoption of the Regulation to leave time to the recycling industry to adapt to the new situation.

·Overall, it would reduce the negative externalities linked to the mismanagement of waste in non-OECD countries and result in positive environmental impacts in the EU as higher amounts of waste would be recycled in the EU, processed into secondary raw materials and enter the circular economy. For example the use of steel scrap retained in the EU under this measure is expected to lead to a reduction of between 1 and 2.9 million tonnes/year of CO2 for the steel industry in the EU. This demonstrates that the life cycle environmental impacts of metal production from waste sources are significantly lower than those for primary production. Assessment shows that 1 tonne of aluminium recycling saves 93% of the virgin aluminium impact equal to 7.65 t CO2-eq. per t of aluminium scrap recycled. This shows that the life cycle environmental impacts of metal production from waste sources are significantly lower than those for primary production. By diverting the currently exported scrap materials into the production of aluminium, the EU could reduce considerable amounts of CO2-eq. in tonnes. Under 50% waste retention scenario, it would lead minimum to savings ranging between 2-0.9 million t of CO2-eq./year in 2019-2030. Under 20% waste retention scenario, these estimates would be 0.8-0.4 million t. Accordingly, copper recycling saves 65% of the virgin impact equal to 0.81 tonnes CO2-eq. per tonne of recycled copper scrap. Under the 20% retention scenario, the use of copper scrap which would stay in the EU could lead to annual savings of 180 000 tonnes of CO2-eq based on 2019 data. Similar benefits can also be calculated for other waste materials, like plastic waste, for which recycling and further use of recycled content generates less CO2 emissions than the primary production based the extraction of fossil fuels. Recent assessments show that 1 tonne of recycled plastics in the EU saves 997 kg of CO2-eq. Based on that, recycling within the EU of 50% of the currently exported plastic waste outside the OECD would potentially reduce the emissions by 0.5 million t CO2-eq/year for the period 2019-2030. Alternatively, under a 20% waste retention scenario these estimates would be around 0.2 million t of CO2-eq./year for the same period.

II.not be exported outside the OECD any longer but stay in the EU or be re-routed to an OECD country, where waste management standards are generally higher than outside the OECD.

I.continue to be exported to a non-OECD country, which has demonstrated its capacity and ability to manage this waste in an environmentally sound manner;

·The measure would ensure a better treatment of waste which are currently exported outside the OECD, because such waste would either:

Based on the methodology explained in section 7.1 and detailed in Annex 5 (point 3(c)), the environmental impacts of this measure are expected to be the following:

In addition to the economic impact linked to the treatment and valorisation of waste retained in the EU, this measure should also provide legal clarity to exporting companies from the EU and to competent authorities in the EU Member States on the regime and conditions applying to export of green-listed waste to a given country. This should reduce the number of delays in shipments linked to possible communication problems and the disputes linked to the refusal of a third country to import waste from the EU. These refusals and the implementation of the take-back procedures of waste into the EU often generate considerable difficulties and important costs for EU Member States.

It should also be noted that, for some industries, it is expected that the measure will provide additional economic gains, due to a decrease of their financial contribution to the Emission Trading System, linked to a reduction of their emissions of greenhouse gases. For example, it can be estimated that for the steel industry, these economic gains could potentially amount to between 36 million and 116 million/year.

It is also important to stress that the measures foreseen under this measure would become effective only three years after the entry into force of the new regulation, which would leave time for a transitional period during which the relevant industries might also get prepared for these changes.

For the textile sector, the volume that is currently recycled in the EU is limited. Overall, it is estimated that the amount of textile waste that will stay in the EU under the measure 2c would be around 0.3-0.4 million tonnes annually - taking 20% waste retention scenario or around 0.7- 1 million tonnes if 50% of currently exported waste waste was retained within the EU. Some of this waste might not find its way to recycling in the EU immediately and would probably be sent to energy for recovery plants. This would still be more sustainable than shipping them to some third countries where no information would be available on their treatment and where they would run a serious risks of being burnt or landfilled in unsustainable conditions. And in the medium term, the EU textile waste treatment industry would certainly be able to absorb much more waste than today.

With regard to the plastics recycling industry, which is a relatively new sector, the situation is a bit different but the surplus of waste staying in the EU linked to this option should also be manageable. Under this option, by 2030 between 0.2 and 0.5 million tonnes of plastic waste should annually be retained in the EU, which used to be exported. This should be manageable by the EU plastic industry, which has an installed capacity of 8.5 million tonnes.

The yearly volume which would stay in the EU as a result of this measure would, under the 50% waste retention scenario, amount to between 1.5 and 2 million tonnes of ferrous metals, 0.2 to 0.6 million tonnes of non-ferrous metals, with the highest amount of paper and cardboard waste equal to between 2.3 and 2.5 million tonnes. Under the 20% waste retention scenario for the same period, that would result in 0.8-0.6 million tonnes of ferrous metals, 0.2-0.1 million tonnes of non-ferrous metals, almost 1 million tonnes of paper and cardboard waste. These figures represent a relatively limited quantity overall compared to the current capacity of the steel, paper and non-ferrous metal industries, and in view of its planned increase in the future.

It is likely that the paper, ferrous, non-ferrous metal industries would be able to process the additional waste staying in the EU as a result of this option without particular challenges. As indicated above, these industries are already processing in the EU important and quantities of waste (90 million tonnes of steel comes from scrap, which is also the case for 49 million tonnes of paper, 4 million tonnes of aluminium, 2 million tonnes of copper ), which have increased steadily in the last years.

Sorting companies are expected to sell waste in the EU market at lower prices than when such waste is exported, while companies purchasing this waste from sorting companies and recycling them would benefit from additional feedstock at lower prices, which would allow them to offer cheaper secondary raw materials and improve their competitiveness. SMEs active in the collection and sorting of waste could therefore be negatively impacted, insofar as they are dealing with waste which are currently exported at a higher price than the price that would be obtained on the EU market. An important share of SMEs working in the waste management sector are however not directly involved in the export operations outside the EU, so that it can be expected that this impact would remain limited. In addition, the retention of waste in the EU may have the side effect of generating new opportunities for economic operators, including SMEs, especially those involved in innovative technologies for recycling waste streams which pose particular challenges (such as plastics and textile).

Tables 7 and 8 below present this difference in the 2019-2030 time period for the different waste streams concerned. This is a proxy for the economic impact of the proposed measure for the EU economy. These tables show that the overall impact for the EU economy of this measure would represent a net benefit varying between 200 and 510 million euro (for 2019) and of between 1611 and 4044 million euro (for 2030). The impact differs greatly depending on the types of waste. This depends on the prices of secondary materials that would be sold in the EU.

·the net value generated by treating this waste in the EU (so the gain in value), which is calculated from (i) the revenues generated in the EU from the sale of the secondary materials resulting from this treatment minus (based on market prices as detailed in tables E.12 and E.13 in Annex 5) (ii) the costs for treating this waste in the EU. The net value also factors in (iii) the difference in the costs of transport between shipping to a third country and transporting within the EU to a recycling facility. The value of energy produced with the recycling rejects (iv) is also considered to calculate this net value.

·the value of the waste which would have been exported under the baseline scenario but, under the proposed measure, would stay and be processed in the EU (so the loss in export value, taken from the value of waste declared upon export as detailed in tables E.10 and E.11 in Annex 5), and

Based on the methodology explained in Annex 5 (point 3(b)(2)), the economic impact of this measure compared to the baseline, has been calculated as the difference between:

For 2019, this means that 2.4 - 6 million tonnes are retained in the EU, which were exported for a value ranging between 536 and 1341 million euro in 2019. Based on the projections of the volumes exported until 2030, the volume retained in the EU would be between 2.3 and 5.7 million tonnes and the value between 835 and 2088 million euro.

Given this uncertainty, the impacts for this measure were calculated with the hypothesis that between 20% and 50% of the volume of the current exports of waste to non-OECD countries are retained in the EU. The tables 3-6 below provide the projections of volumes and value of 20% and 50% of waste being retained in the EU.

The extent of the reduction of the volume of exported waste under this measure would depend on several factors, notably the number of non-OECD countries authorised to import waste and the amount of waste that they could treat. In theory, the amounts of waste retained in the EU could correspond, as a maximum, to the overall waste currently exported outside the OECD. It is likely though that a number of non-OECD countries would be interested in continuing to receive waste from the EU and be able to demonstrate that they can deal with them in a sustainable manner. Some of the waste currently exported outside the OECD would also be re-directed to OECD countries.

2c) Establish a new framework for the export of green-listed waste from the EU to a non-OECD country, according to which such export is only authorised to those countries that notify the EU of their willingness to import green-listed waste and demonstrate their ability to treat it sustainably, in accordance with criteria set out in the WSR

Similar as for intraEU shipments, many economic operators highlighted during the consultation the challenges with diverging interpretations on the waste status of the material they wish to export and aksed for clarification as regards the issue of used goods versus waste as regards shipments of waste. NGOs pointed at the large amounts of waste that end up in vulnerable countries outside the EU, that are exported under the guise of being “used” and not waste, and referred to the absence of clear criteria to make a distinction between used and waste for many products.

The social impacts of this measure are expected to be positive as it would reduce the adverse effects linked to goods that are wrongfully declared as used (non-waste), but being dumped or mismanaged as waste in third countries. This would positively affect in the first place local populations living nearby dumpsite areas and waste pickers working there.

In addition, the measure would provide reassurance that the export of used goods consists of commodities which are of better quality than waste. This should benefit economic operators exporting and importing these products, as well as customers in third countries buying these second-hand goods.

The environmental impact of the measure could be substantial for some waste streams, for which the unclear distinction between used goods and waste is an important factor contributing to their unauthorised export outside the EU. This is the case for some commodities containing hazardous substances (vehicles/ELVs, e-equipment/e-waste, batteries, etc.), whose export outside the OECD is banned. Once they arrive at destination, often in vulnerable countries with little or no proper waste management system, these wastes are usually treated under unsound conditions, with their valuable components sub optimally recovered (often through open burning) and the rest of it discharged in the open environment. The measure would contribute to stopping the export of these waste and contribute to putting an end to these severe environmental and public health damage.

The measure is expected to contribute to increasing the treatment of waste in the EU, but cannot be quantified precisely and is expected to be rather limited. Clearer rules to distinguish used goods from waste should lead to better enforcement of the WSR and avoid that waste are illegally exported outside the EU. For example there are currently about 1 million used vehicles which are exported outside the EU and, among them, a certain share are “end-of-life vehicles” (ELVs) whose export outside the OECD is banned but takes place nevertheless, as there are no legally-binding and easy-to-enforce criteria to distinguish between ELVs and used vehicles. Defining such criteria in EU law would help to ensure that these ELVs are not exported outside the EU, but stay in the EU and be recycled there. This would have consequences for vehicles dismantlers and shredders in the EU and increase the production of metal scrap (derived from these ELVs) in the EU. It is important to stress that, in order to produce the desired results, this measure should be accompanied by adequate enforcement activities (i.e. clearer criteria will help enforcement authorities to implement the WSR, but there will still be a need for these authorities to devote sufficient time and resources to inspecting the waste in question).

2b) Task the Commission, via implementing or delegated acts, to set out criteria to differentiate between used goods and waste, for specific waste streams for which export to third countries raises particular challenges

As indicated above, the Commission consulted, as part of this impact assessment, European companies exporting waste outside the EU, which are planning to put in place auditing schemes for facilities located in third countries which treat waste from the EU. They have expressed support for an auditing mechanism that would be harmonised throughout the Union. They further referred to positive feedback from other companies in the sector that have shown interest in the experiences of the development of these corporate auditing schemes as a manner of demonstrating ESM of their exported waste at destination.

The social impacts for this measure is expected to be positive as it would reduce the adverse effects of mismanaging of waste in third countries. This would affect in the first place positively the health of workers active in the waste management sector and of local populations living nearby the areas where waste is treated.

The measure would have positive environmental impacts as it would guarantee that shipments of waste to third countries properly meet the criteria for environmentally sound management. This would represent an added-value compared to the current provisions of the WSR, which contain general obligations to this end, but do neither provide concrete criteria to check exports against, nor other tools to help companies and competent authorities meeting these obligations. The definition of criteria for the definition of such environmental sound management practices, and the implementation of comprehensive audit schemes by the companies exporting waste from the EU to ensure that they are fulfilled, should allow to check if the reality on the ground corresponds to the general aims of the WSR in that respect. If properly implemented, this measure would ensure that companies based in the EU stop exporting waste to facilities which are not managing it sustainably and avoid the related damages for the environment and public health.

For the competent authorities in the Member States, this measure would require to set up new procedures and adequate resources to check that exporting companies under their jurisdiction have adequately carried out the required audit schemes.

For companies located in third countries which transport and process waste imported from the EU, the effect would be positive for those performing their activities in an environmentally sound manner, as the audit would consolidate their activities and competitiveness, even though it could also incur some costs for upgrading their infrastructure and standards in the short term. The impact would be negative for those companies which are not able to comply with the criteria for environmentally sound management of waste laid out in the auditing schemes as they would lose customers from the EU.

To mitigate this risk, a transition period of three years after entry into force the new Regulation is foreseen before the proposed measure comes into force. This would allow companies sufficient time to prepare for the implementation of these new obligations. This includes companies located in outermost regions.

For some companies which are currently not exercising any monitoring on their export, the obligation resulting from this new measure could lead to a complete disruption of their supply chains if they find out during the audit that their supply chain is not sustainable enough. This could force them to either chose new commercial partners in third countries or stop exporting their waste altogether.

These costs could be lower for companies which rely on Producer Responsibility Organisations to perform the audits or which acquire audit reports performed on behalf of other exporting companies, as indicated above. It should also be noted that the creation of such obligation would also ensure a level playing field for all companies, which would avoid a situation where different companies set up their own auditing schemes, on a voluntary basis, based on different criteria and methodologies.

Based on the elements presented above, it can be estimated that the measure would first incur a one-off cost for companies to organise themselves in setting up the audit schemes in question. This cost would mostly consist of time spent by the relevant staff of the company to identify and take the structural actions needed to implement this measure (such as contracting the independent audit company which will perform the audit of the facility/ies concerned). It can be estimated that this cost will represent several thousand euros but will not exceed 30 000 euros. It can also be estimated that the maintenance of these schemes would require a yearly recurring cost of around 5000 euro. In addition to these fixed costs, the costs of the audits themselves can be estimated at between 1000 and 2000 euro per audit of individual facilities.

As part of this impact assessment, the Commission consulted European companies that are planning to put in place auditing schemes for facilities located in third countries which treat waste from the EU.

·Finally, the proposed measure foresees that exporting companies which have commissioned an audit to a given facility in accordance with the proposed measures should make their audit report available under fair commercial conditions to other exporting companies intending to export waste to the same facility. This should generally lower the costs of this measure for the exporting companies concerned. It should also be noted that some companies (especially SMEs) might also entrust Producer Responsibility Organisations to commission audits for their members, thereby pooling resources and decreasing costs of these audits.

·The costs of the proposed measure would also depend on the types and volumes of waste shipped, the countries of destination, the size of the facility, the complexity of the value chain, the nature of the waste treatment operations;

·Some companies already have mechanisms in place to ensure the traceability of their shipments of waste, so that the new auditing schemes would build on these mechanisms and the costs linked to the new measure would be limited to cover the new requirements laid out in the measure. The costs would be higher for companies which have so far not developed any particularly thorough traceability scheme for their supply chains;

For companies exporting waste from the EU, the costs linked to this proposed measure will depend on a number of factors:

2a) Specify obligations for exporters and public authorities to ensure and verify that waste exported to third countries is managed in an environmentally sound manner

2.additional employment possibilities within the EU as a result of increased volumes of waste retained within the EU.

1.changes affecting employment sector, impacts on standards of living for people in the third countries which used to import the EU waste and impacts on public health of waste workers and communities leaving close to areas where waste are treated or or disposed in third countries;

Where relevant possible social impacts in third countries are assessed, as a result of changes in flows of EU waste to those countries. In this regard, two major social impacts are assumed associated with the measures foreseen:

·a qualitative assessment of a number of environmental impacts, where sufficiently reliable data was not available to quantify them.

·a quantified assessment of the environmental impact linked to (i) the treatment of residual waste and (ii) transport externalities. This quantified assessment is expressed in differences in emissions of GHGs and overall environmental externalities (i.e. monetized environmental emissions).

It is not possible to perform a quantified assessment of all these environmental impacts, due to a lack of data. Therefore, this impact assessment provides:

·Less environmental emissions linked to the shipping of waste to third countries (expressed as GHGs and overall environmental externalities).

·Higher amounts of waste recycled in the EU, leading to replacement of virgin material by secondary materials in EU production processes, with associated environmental gains linked to reduction of (i) GHG and other environmental emissions, (ii) energy savings both from recycling materials and producing energy from the non-recyclable fractions and (iii) avoided extraction of virgin resources;

·The treatment of waste (in the EU or in third countries authorised to import waste) in conditions which are subject to high environmental requirements, thereby avoiding the environmental externalities linked to the treatment of exported waste under the baseline scenario. However, this impact will depend on the volume and type of waste retained in the EU and on the time horizon considered. In the short term, a large surplus of waste staying in the EU might not be absorbed by the EU recycling industry, due to a lack of capacity, and could be diverted to other forms of treatment, like incineration or landfilling;

The assessment of the environmental impacts of the measures affecting the export of waste depends on a number of factors, which are common for all these measures and are therefore presented together here. Overall, the different measures would result in positive impact for the environment, as they would lead to:

In the textile sector, the EU currently extensively relies on export of textile waste as more almost half of this waste by volume is destined to third countries due to the limited volume of it recycled in the EU . The EU second-hand market represents an important outlet for used textile, including materials which are prepared for reuse and placed back on the market. There is limited information the current capacity for treating textile waste in the EU. This is largely because there is no requirement at the EU level for reporting on the separate collection and treatment of all post-consumer textiles. Important changes are expected in the sector starting with the introduction of the new obligation for Member States to set up separate collection for textile waste from 2025. New measures to improve the treatment of textile waste are expected to be put in place, in line with the Green Deal and the Circular Economy Action Plan, with the upcoming adoption of the first comprehensive EU Textile Strategy later in 2021, which aims at putting the textile sector and its entire value chain on a more sustainable and circular path. There are also important research and investment projects to improve textile waste treatment, notably on textile material recycling and integration into new products. The study on investment needs in the waste sector mentioned above indicates that investments amounting to 300 million euros would be needed by 2027 and a further 300 million euros by 2035 to treat the additionally collected textile waste. Different initiatives are taken to boost the recycling capacity. EURATEX intends to establish 5 EU recycling hubs near textile and apparel districts to make raw materials by collecting, sorting, processing and recycling post-production and post-consumption textile wastes. Chemical recycling potential is being trialled mainly in the Nordic countries, in particular regarding the environmental perspectives for mixed textile recycling. Siptex is a large scale sorting and recycling facility that uses infrared light to sort textiles by fibre composition and colour. Therefore, regardless certain short-term challenges, including possible termporary diversion of textile waste into energy for recovery plants, in the medium term, the EU textile waste treatment industry would be able to process textile higher up the waste hierarchy.

Compared to these traditional industrial sectors, the plastics recycling industry is a relatively new sector, which is expected to grow steadily in the coming years. In 2019, 9.4 million tonnes of plastic waste were collected for recycling in the EU, out of which around 2 million tonnes were exported outside the EU. This suggests that around 7.5 million tonnes of waste were recycled in the EU. The study on investment needs in the waste sector mentioned above, estimates that an additional capacity of around 3 million tonnes would need to be established at the EU level to recycle all waste generated on its territory and stop exporting it. These figures include the UK, which exported 0.5 million tonnes of plastic waste in 2019 and was, together with Germany, the top exporter of plastic waste among EU Member States. Therefore, the figure of 3 million tonnes of additional capacity needed to treat all plastic waste produced in the EU should be lower for EU27. The same study indicates that stakeholders suggest that the tendency to export plastic waste prevents the expansion of domestic capacity, as new recycling facilities would face uncertainty about having enough plastic waste to process. However, since 2016, exports of plastic waste outside the EU have gone down considerably. According to more recent data, plastics recycling in Europe represents 8.5 million tonnes of installed recycling capacity, with a turnover of 3 billion EUR, 600 companies and 20000 employees . In a 2019 report , the Bureau of International Recycling observes new trends as large European waste collectors have been taking over many recycling companies in order to process their own collected plastic waste. In addition, these companies have been looking to collaborate with the plastics industry to bring new circular products into the market. Meanwhile, the European recycling companies have been investing heavily in washing and extrusion lines. Higher recycling targets set under EU law (notably for packaging) at the 2025 and 2030 horizons, as well as other regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives to boost the use of recycled plastics in different economic sectors, are likely to continue supporting the EU plastics recycling industry. Higher retention of plastic waste inside the EU would further incentivise these changes.

The EU aluminum industry produces currently about 4 million tonnes of aluminium through the processing of scrap. This represents twice the volume of aluminium produced from raw materials sourced in the EU. It is also important to note that the EU industry also relies heavily on the import of raw materials (bauxite) for its production: the EU is a net importer of raw materials with 4.6 million tonnes, originating mostly from Russia, the Middle East or Africa. According to the information provided by the European Aluminium industry, current recycling capacity in Europe is 12 million tonnes. The recycling of aluminium lowers by 95% the use of the energy needed for primary production and, just as for the steel industry, is part of the strategy for the future of this industry in the EU. In 2018, the EU28 industry used approximately 2 million tonnes of scrap for its production of copper. This represents around 50% of the feedstock used, the rest being supplied by domestic mining and import of primary copper. This is higher than share of copper scrap used for the overall production at the global level, which is of 32%.

With respect to non-ferrous metals, this report focuses on scrap from aluminium and copper, which represent the highest share of non-ferrous metal scrap exported outside the EU. There are about 220 aluminium recycling plants in Europe, many of which are SMEs and family-owned businesses. There are also large companies, such as Norsk Hydro, Hindalco’s subsidiary Novelis, AMAG Austria Metall, and TRIMET Aluminium, operating aluminium recycling facilities . Meanwhile, Europe’s copper industry comprises three sectors: miners, producers and semi-fabricators. There are around 500 companies with an estimated turnover of about 45 billion euro and around 50 000 people employed .

The pulp and paper industry has a turnover of 90 billion EUR and provides more than 180 000 jobs in Europe directly . This industry has steadily increased its uptake of paper waste (“paper for recycling”) for the production of paper in the EU, so that 49 million tonnes of “paper for recycling” were used by the industry in 2019, representing 55% of the overall paper and board production. A study on investment needs in the waste sector published in 2019 identified paper and cardboard among waste materials where the recycling capacity is sufficient to meet the municipal and packaging waste targets, as recovered paper materials can directly substitute for primary materials in existing production facilities. Additionally, the paper industry plans investments in 2021-2023 for increasing their production from “paper for recycling” in the EU for an amount of 2 million tonnes. This is driven by the expansion of the paper/cardboard packaging sector (to replace plastic packaging), which uses more recycled materials than the traditional “paper for publication” sector.

Ferrous metal scrap is the largest category of waste exported outside the EU. At the same time, the European steel industry is the second largest producer of steel in the world after China. It has 500 production sites located in 23 EU countries. Their output is over 177 million tonnes of steel a year, accounting for 11% of global output , providing over 320,000 direct jobs and 1.5 million indirect jobs . The European steel industry has been using around 80 to 90 million tonnes of steel scrap/year in the last 5 years, the large majority of which is processed in electric arc furnaces into new steel products. The use of scrap is a key factor for the transition of the steel sector to a decarbonised and circular economy, as steel scrap replaces iron ore and coal and are used in electric arc furnaces which produce far less CO2 emissions than blast furnaces.The proportion of steel scrap used in relation to crude steel production in the EU is 56%. The use of steel scrap also represents economic savings as it lowers the costs linked to CO2 emissions paid under the EU emissions trading system (ETS) by the steel industry. The uptake of additional steel scrap is an integral part of the EU steel industry strategy.

When assessing possible measures linked to the export of waste, it is important to take the relevant international legal framework into account, i.e. the Basel Convention, the OECD Decision and the GATT agreement under the World Trade Organisation (WTO). More information on this point is presented in Annex 11.

Projecting future levels of export is challenging, because it depends on a large number of factors which cannot be predicted accurately with a ten years horizon. The value and tonnage of waste exported was projected with linear regression from the Comext data of for the period 2004-2019. The value of the waste retained in the EU was calculated based on the projected quantities factored with the current prices of secondary materials (or high quality waste) across the entire timeline. The impact of each measures is first calculated on the basis of the actual figures for export for 2019 and then on the basis of the projected amounts until 2030.

The proposed measures on the export of waste have an impact on the amount of the waste currently exported. To assess this impact, the report estimates the volume and value of waste that would stay and be processed in the EU compared to what would be exported from the EU in the baseline scenario. This is done for a selected number of wastes representing the largest proportion of recoverable and recyclable wastes, i.e. plastics, glass, paper and cardboard, textiles, non-ferrous metals and ferrous metals. The model then factors in the value of the currently exported waste as declared in Comext, the costs of treating this waste in the EU, the expected revenues from the sale of the resulting secondary materials, the differences in transport costs and the value of energy produced in the EU by incinerating recycling rejects of paper and cardboard, plastics and textiles (see Annex 5 for more details on these calculations). These calculations allow to present overall values for the differences between the value created by the export of waste outside the EU and the value created by the treatment of the corresponding waste in the EU.

The proposed measures support both specific objectives that were identified for the general objective 2: “stop the export of the waste from the EU where it will not be managed in an environmentally sound manner”, and “improve waste management in third countries”.

Many economic operators expressed their support for a mechanism that obliges competent authorities to mutually recognize each other’s classification of a given waste. Member States competent authorities on the other hand were rather clear in their support for the current provisions and mechanisms in Article 28 of the WSR and their reluctance to be obliged to mutually recognize national decisions on classification of a given waste in other Member States.

Limited delivery of environmental benefits is expected, as unilateral nationally developed criteria are not able to ensure the highest environmental protection standards on an EU level. Although setting a principle of mutual recognition would provide legal clarity for the waste shipment purposes, the long-term effectiveness of this measure would be questionable as it would not be able to prevent the undesirable flow of improperly classified hazardous waste to the areas where the lowest standards might be applied.

With a short term increase in legal clarity, less disputes on classification could be expected and thus reduction of costs due to delays in shipment. On the other hand the extent to which legal clarity would be increased is to be seen, as over time Member States’ specific positions on the classification of certain waste as hazardous or not, may change and uncertainties would still remain. Further, an uneven level playing field may appear as the classification of certain waste as hazardous or non-hazardous may be based on local terms, including economic, which could cause a disadvantage for businesses in other Member States.

1l) Establish mutual recognition of national decisions in relation to the hazardousness nature of wastes for the purpose of waste shipments

Similar as for measure 1i, many economic operators highlighted during the consultation the challenges with diverging interpretations on the waste status of the material they wish to ship and aksed for clarification as regards the issue of end-of-waste and by products as regards shipments of waste. Member States competent authorities on the other hand were rather clear in their support for the current provisions and mechanisms in Article 28 of the WSR and their reluctance to be obliged to mutually recognize national decisions on end-of-waste in other Member States.

Limited delivery of environmental benefits is expected, as unilateral nationally developed end-of-waste criteria are not necessarily sufficient to ensure the highest environmental protection standards on EU level. Although setting a principle of mutual recognition would provide a legal clarity for the waste shipment purposes, the long-term effectiveness of this measure would be questionable as the WSR is not able to address the specifics of all waste streams and materials in detail.

With a short term increase in legal clarity, less disputes on classification could be expected and thus reduction of costs due to delays in shipment. On the other hand the level playing field may be unbalanced as the Member States that act fastest on developing their detailed national end-of-waste criteria would determine the classification of certain materials as end-of-waste for all other Member States on their own terms, including economic, which could cause a disadvantage for businesses in other Member States.

During the stakeholder workshop, 69% of stakeholders favoured the use of legally binding instruments (such as delegated acts by the Commission) over guidance documents or other means on such issues. Regulatory changes would ensure higher probability they will be implemented properly.

With clear thresholds to assess contamination levels in waste, the sorting quality would improve as well as the quality of recyclates for the supply chain. It would allow choosing the most optimal treatment method for the contaminated waste, leaving a lower amount of residue. Clear threshold levels would ensure a more accurate application of procedural requirements and would minimize the risks of environmental damage related to storage, transportation and handling of waste and the illegal shipment.

As mentioned above, there is less agreement on what the level of the threshold should be. It is therefore not possible to propose a threshold level to be included in the WSR without additional preparatory and consultation work. Therefore, the development of thresholds through implementing acts or through guidance on the matter are considered to be most effective approaches to harmonising this matter across the EU. The advantage of providing this delegation explicitly in the WSR is that the Commission would then be clearly mandated to further investigate for which specific waste stream it is relevant and needed to set a threshold to determine contamination to an extent that it renders the waste to no longer be green-listed.

The increased clarity on the acceptable levels of contamination will reduce the disputes on whether waste should be subject to the notification procedure or not.

1j) Task the Commission to set thresholds for contamination of wastes through delegated/implementing acts to determine if they should be subject to the notification procedure or not

Many economic operators highlighted during the consultation the challenges with diverging interpretations on the waste status of the material they wish to ship and aksed for clarification as regards the issue of end-of-waste and by products as regards shipments of waste. Member States competent authorities on the other hand were rather clear in their support for the current provisions and mechanisms in Article 28 of the WSR.

Article 28 serves as an “inspection” mechanism which main task is to foresee negative environmental implications and suspend the shipment through imposing stricter provisions in favour of classifying the suspicious/questionable commodities to be shipped as “waste”. As it was revealed in the study on waste markets in the EU, there is a large discrepancy between the environmental performances between the Member States, which also justifies the strict waste shipment procedure. Better legal clarity in Article 28 on application of the stringent provisions of WSR in conjunction with the Article 6 of WFD would eliminate ambiguities between national authorities and would allow preventing environmental and health safety risks linked with further use of shipped materials in the manufacturing process of new products, notably in the cases when one of the Member States concerned applies no EoW criteria but those already established at the EU level. Emphasizing the interconnection of Article 28 of WSR and Article 6 of WFD would lead to a more accurate application of the EU rules on EoW, which would accelerate the formation of sustainable market of secondary materials.

Cross-reference with Article 6 of WFD would help to clarify whether an item in question is waste or not through fulfilment of essential conditions determining the end-of-waste status.

This measure is expected to positively affect the economy,