Fitness check

of five Waste Stream Directives

1. Introduction

As part of the 2010 Work Programme1, the Commission has started reviewing the body of EU legislation in selected policy fields through "Fitness Checks" informing regular review and update of EU legislation by a qualitative and quantitative retrospective assessment helping to keep legislation "fit for purpose".

The goal is to identify excessive burdens, overlaps, gaps, inconsistencies or obsolete measures which may have appeared over time since the EU law at issue was first adopted and implemented. This shall help promoting better/smart EU legislation, making it more responsive to current and future challenges and improving implementation.

Pilot exercises were launched in four areas: employment & social policy, environment, transport and industrial policy. Following its first Fitness Check in the area of freshwater policy, DG ENV will now present an evaluation of certain instruments concerning specific categories of waste and the following 5 Directives were selected:

· Directive 86/278/EEC of the Council of 12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture[1] (SSD).

· Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste[2] (PPWD).

· Directive 96/59/EC of the Council of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT)[3].

· Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life vehicles[4] (ELV).

· Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directives 91/157/EEC[5] (Batteries).

Other waste stream Directives have not been selected for reasons detailed in the mandate to this report, attached as Annex 1.

Stakeholder interest in this exercise was lively. Industry organisations representing the packaging sector, car manufacturers and battery producers as well as NGOs, national and regional authorities also took active interest in informing the process.

SMEs were given specific consideration. Their European roof organisations were invited to an ex-post evaluation workshop on 4 November 2013 and they were also consulted in writing. A second specific workshop with SMEs held in Brussels in December 2013 discussed specific SME concerns expressed on EU waste legislation. Major concerns relating to the Directives being evaluated in this exercise were not expressed.

2. Background

This section sets out the context of the Fitness Check, in particular how the legislation developed along with changing waste – and resource policy objectives. It highlights the objectives of the Directives and points to their common features and differences.

a. The Five Waste Stream Directives in the overall context of waste legislation

The earliest European waste legislation dates back to 1975 with the adoption of the Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on Waste[6], the Waste Framework Directive (WFD). This Directive, revised in 1991 and re-adopted without modification on 5 April 2006 as Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council[7] was subject to a fundamental revision only in 2008. The new 2008/98/EC Waste Framework Directive[8], gave effect to the 6th Environmental Action Programme 2002-2012[9] as well as the Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste, adopted by the European Commission on 21.12.2005. The Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC is the newest piece of EU waste legislation in relation to the 5 Directives screened here. It is also the most holistic and comprehensive piece of European Waste legislation, defining key concepts, such as environmental objectives, extended producer responsibility, the five step waste hierarchy, new waste specific definitions and life-cycle thinking. It also made a contribution to simplification and streamlining of legislation by integrating the Directive on hazardous waste and the waste oil Directive. It sets the waste policy agenda for the 21st century, giving effect to European resource and climate policy by prioritizing waste prevention and recycling of waste and stipulating a European recycling society as an important long-term objective.

Since its first adoption in 1975, the Waste Framework Directive remained over decades by far the most important piece of waste legislation, more than any other Directive invoked by the CJEU[10] in its judgments on waste policy cases, fundamentally adapted to the requirements of a changing political agenda. The most significant change in this context was the shift from primarily sanitary aspects to resource conservation through resource efficiency and waste prevention. Thus it gradually developed importance beyond waste gaining profile in the context of product policy[11].

This shift beyond the area of waste finds its clearest expression in the five-step waste hierarchy setting waste prevention on top of the priority list. Waste prevention is an objective entirely outside any waste operation and yet regulated in a law on waste[12]. The Waste Framework Directive is therefore also a programmatic legal instrument setting the agenda for sustainable production and consumption. It highlights the importance of extended producer responsibility through product design. It also closes the loop between product and waste by introducing the principle of life-cycle thinking, creating a need for looking at products under the perspective of waste throughout the whole product life cycle. This approach mirrors the requirements of a circular economy in which ideally all products are designed in a way to be re-usable, repairable and fully recyclable.

Over time a supplementary corpus of law was developed in parallel to framework legislation and adapted to the specificities of important single waste streams. Some older instruments, such as the waste oil Directive 75/439 and the hazardous waste Directive 91/689/EEC were repealed and integrated into the WFD 2008/98/EC. The old PCB/PCT Directive 76/403 was revised in 1996. From this group of older Directives only the sewage sludge Directive survived without any alteration, mainly due to the fact that no consensus could be reached about the right adjustment of limit values for heavy metals in sludge and soil.

In contrast there was a relative standstill in developing waste framework legislation. This came to an end with the adoption of the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC in 2008. This modern instrument of waste legislation was conceived as a tool of simplification because it integrated the waste oil Directive and the hazardous waste Directive and it set the political waste for the objective of resource efficiency in a European “recycling society” moving towards a circular economy.

This historic process of course had inevitably the consequence that the older waste stream Directives did to some extent diverge over time from key concepts and key provisions such as extensive new definitions provided for in the updated waste framework legislation. The picture of European waste legislation has therefore become and remains today more kaleidoscopic than would appear ideal. This may be not so much rooted in the way in which each single instrument functions on its own, but more in the lack of full synchronization of waste stream legislation and framework legislation, as will be shown later.

b. Objectives of the Directives

All five Directives screened have a clearly defined environmental objective. Looking at them horizontally, however, allows categorising them into three different groups.

The PCB/PCT Directive is end-of-life legislation. PCB and PCT are highly toxic persistent organic pollutants that are to be eliminated. The Directive's objective is reached once elimination is completed. This Directive was least affected by existing framework legislation. Since this instrument is purely focused on phasing out substances and appliances containing such substances, it is a stand-alone instrument.

In contrast, The Directive on sewage sludge stands between a recycling Directive and an end-of-life Directive. It allows recovery of sludge on agricultural land under defined sanitary and environmentally sound conditions, to encourage the recycling of nutrients and organic matter through application of sludge on agricultural land. It has in parallel a common market objective[13]. The common market was an issue for sludge application in agriculture because inappropriate sludge use could raise doubts in relation to food quality in different Member States, thus potentially hamper free movement of goods.

The third group of Directives, Packaging, Batteries and ELVs, also attuned to a common market objective, are more clearly oriented towards circular economy. They make ample reference to recycling and waste prevention as well as to the five step waste hierarchy.

This categorization may help to better understand the functioning and inner harmony of the uncodified body of European waste law. PCB/PCT and sewage sludge have their main "raison d'être" in the pressure to prevent harmful effects for the environment or human health by its chemical properties. In addition to this, the Directives on Batteries, ELVs and Packaging are instruments attuned to the needs of a circular economy and they are already structured alike. Their need for a maximum of concordance with the requirements of the Waste Framework Directive is therefore much more obvious. For a better understanding of each single screened Directive a closer look to their main purpose and objectives is required.

Main purpose of each Directive

The main purpose of Directive 86/278/EEC on sewage sludge is to encourage the correct use of sewage sludge in agriculture and to regulate its use in order to prevent harmful effects on soil, vegetation, animals and humans. To this end, it prohibits the use of untreated sludge on agricultural land unless it is injected or worked into the soil. The Directive also requires that sludge be used in such a way that the nutrient requirements of plants and that the quality of the soil and of surface and groundwater is not impaired.

The Directive further imposes several requirements on the quality of sludge for use in agriculture, the monitoring of the quality of soil which is enhanced with sludge and limiting sludge application for certain purposes and during certain time periods. The main aim of these requirements is to ultimately limit heavy metal concentrations in soils.

The main purpose of Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste can be better understood with a brief look into legislative history. The first EU measures on the management of packaging waste were introduced in the 1980s with the Directive 85/339/EEC[14] on beverage containers. This Directive failed to bring about harmonisation of national policies.

Therefore Member States and economic operators requested the Commission to propose a comprehensive legislation with a general purpose to harmonise the measures taken at the Member State level for the management of packaging and packaging waste. As a result, the 94/62/EC Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (PPW Directive) was adopted in 1994 with the aim to harmonise national measures to reduce the impacts of packaging and packaging waste to the environment and to safeguard the functioning of the internal market.[15] The PPW Directive with the Single market Treaty Article as its legal base set a dual objective in order to:

· Prevent impacts on the environment for all Member States and third countries (environmental objective); to this end it has provisions on re-use of packaging, prevention and recycling of packaging waste and other forms of packaging recovery as well as substance restrictions.

· Ensure a good functioning of the Internal Market without imposing obstacles to trade and causing distortions and restriction of competition within the EU (internal market objective). This shall be achieved mainly by the Essential Requirements defined for all packaging placed on the EU market. Essential requirements set rules through parameters on the composition of packaging, its re-usability and recoverability that all packaging put on the EU market has to fulfil. They therefore standardise what is marketable in the EU.

The main purpose of Directive 96/59/EC (PCB/PCT) is to implement the international PARCOM obligation contained in PARCOM Decision 92/3.[16] This implies to make PCBs subject of an inventory and to soundly dispose of them or to decontaminate PCB equipment before the end of 2010 (Article 3).

The (PCB/PCT) Directive replaced the old Council Directive 76/403/EEC of 6 April 1976, focusing on approximation of laws on PCB disposal. This old Directive proved to be insufficient to cope with the problems of safe disposal. The old Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 on use restrictions for PCB included provisions on periodical review and transition towards a gradual ban on PCBs and PCTs.

The main purpose of Directive 2000/53/EC on end-of life vehicles is to ensure the appropriate management of the annually generated 8 to 9 million tonnes (Mt) of ELV waste in the EU.[17] This shall mainly be achieved by limiting the production of waste arising from ELVs and their toxicity, by increasing the rates of reuse, recycling and other forms of recovery of ELVs as compared to disposal and finally to ensure the appropriate treatment of waste in environmentally sound conditions. This perfectly fits into the objective of resource efficiency described in the Waste Framework Directive. It also uses the concept of extended producer responsibility by placing the responsibility primarily on vehicle manufacturers to increase the share of components that can be recycled while Member State governments are required to create the necessary framework conditions.

The main purpose of Directive 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directives 91/157/EEC[18] is the improvement of the environmental performance of batteries and accumulators and of the activities of all economic operators involved in the lifecycle of batteries and accumulators. These operators include producers, distributors, end-users and also operators involved in the treatment and recycling of waste batteries and accumulators.

To this end the Directives contains provisions on:

Ø the prohibition of hazardous materials used in batteries,

Ø information to the end users (labelling of batteries),

Ø collection targets and recycling rates and prohibition of the disposal in landfills or by incineration of waste industrial and automotive batteries,

Ø “producer responsibility” obligations.

It is already evident that this recent Directive also closely corresponds to the most pertinent concepts in the Waste Framework Directive, such as extended producer responsibility, resource conservation through setting collection and recycling targets, eco design through reduction of hazardous substances in new production. Moreover and in contrast to the other Directives, it also complements the landfill Directive 1999/31/EC by incorporating a landfill ban for industrial and automotive batteries and accumulators.

This Directive makes already reference to the thematic strategy on waste prevention and recycling developed under the 6th EAP. It is therefore the most modern and up to date piece of legislation among the 5 screened.

c. Most pertinent similarities and differences of the five Waste Stream Directives

It is one of the major advantages of a Fitness Check (i.e. a retrospective evaluation of a group of Directives in the same policy field) that it gives the opportunity to highlight relevant differences and communalities. This opens valuable insight into and understanding of systemic aspects of the policy field. Since the legislation screened here spreads over a time range of nearly 30 years, many differences can be expected, yet of varying relevance.

The legal basis

Not all Directives screened have the same legal base. The PPW Directive is based on ex-Article 100a EC (Internal Market/Maastricht). The Sewage sludge Directive is based on Art. 100 TEC (Common Market) and Art 235 TEC (a residual legal base for legislation influencing the achievement of Treaty objectives).

The Batteries Directive has, unlike the other Directives, a dual legal base, i.e. Art. 175 (1) (Environment/Nice), for the whole Directive as a general rule and Art. 95(1) (Internal Market/Nice) only for the provisions in Art. 4, 6, and 21 of the Directive. The ELV Directive is based only on Article 175 (1) (Internal market/Amsterdam). Whereas the PCB Directive is based on Art. 130s (Environment/Maastricht).

The Internal market legal base, now Art. 114 TFEU, has been chosen for the PPWD because packaging is particularly sensitive to Internal market barriers. Those shall be removed by positively defining the conditions to be met by packaging so that it can be freely marketed throughout Europe. Beyond this overall purpose, the legal base has importance for the fact that the Internal market legal base (Art. 100a/95 Amsterdam) allows Member States to only introduce new national measures based on new scientific evidence relating to the protection of the environment on grounds of a problem specific to that Member State arising after the adoption of the harmonisation measure. And such measures can only be maintained if they are not a means of discrimination. The environmental legal base instead allows Member States to maintain or to adopt more restrictive protective provisions.

Relation to waste hierarchy, extended producer responsibility, and waste prevention

The PPW Directive follows the waste hierarchy as set out in the 2008 WFD, through putting priority on waste prevention. Although the Directive predates the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC, the waste hierarchy is mentioned as an objective in Art. 1(2) PPWD in the proper order of the later WFD. Separate Articles deal in a detailed way in particular with waste prevention, recovery and recycling as well as separate waste collection. The concept of extended producer responsibility is mentioned in Art 4 (1) second indent as a "may be introduced" soft law requirement.

The ELV Directive follows the same pattern and makes reference to the waste hierarchy in its Art. 1. with following specific Articles on prevention, re-use and recovery including recycling, as well as collection and treatment. The concept of life cycle thinking is not specifically addressed in both Directives.

The Batteries Directive, mostly due to the characteristics of this waste stream, instead of referring to the waste hierarchy in general, mentions in its objectives only collection, treatment, recycling and disposal of batteries. Waste prevention is not mentioned. Life cycle thinking already finds its place in Art. 1 and 5 of the Directive. Art. 5 in particular makes reference to eco-design in obliging Member States to promote the substitution of hazardous substances in batteries, such as mercury, cadmium and lead. Easy removal through design is also encouraged. Extended producer responsibility is broadly dealt with in Art. 8.

To some extent also the Sewage sludge Directive contains an early allusion to the waste hierarchy by encouraging the use of sewage sludge for its "valuable agronomic properties".

The PCB/PCT Directive in contrast to all the other screened instruments is solely an end of life Directive. Therefore none of the concepts mentioned before play a role nor should play a role and consequently are not taken into account.

The circular economy concept

A circular economy concept with its special emphasis on product design for recycling and durability and reparability, extended producer responsibility with its own collection schemes, prevention, recycling and recovery as a dominating objective is only indirectly addressed in different intensity across the screened Directives. It does not apply to the PCB Directive. This concept was a legislative novelty that came about only with the adoption of the WFD in 2008.

Therefore, naturally, it is not fully developed in any of the five Directives evaluated here and in the absence of the mainstreaming of life cycle thinking into these waste stream Directives it is not living up to standard of the WFD.

Both the PPW Directive and the ELV Directive include an element of “ecodesign” to reduce and control hazardous substances and facilitate reuse and recovery and avoid disposal of hazardous waste. The ELV Directive also encourages the use of recycled materials in new vehicles. The Batteries Directive prohibits certain actions such as landfilling or incineration of automotive and industrial batteries and accumulators and bans certain substances, thus it tries to keep raw materials in a closed loop of recovery. It includes “ecodesign” in allowing for the easier removal of batteries and accumulators from products and encourages new recycling technologies.

3. Process

This retrospective evaluation (Fitness Check) was launched in 2012. Its objective and methodology are described in the mandate Annex (1). It has been carried out in parallel with the review of targets in the WFD, the Landfill Directive and the PPWD. Only the PPWD is subject to both exercises, although the overlap is rather limited (only as regards the recovery and recycling targets set out in Article 6). In order to ensure a maximum of consistency, a common inter-service group was established.

Taken together, the review of targets – which also undertakes a limited retrospective analysis of the three directives concerned (i.e. mainly of their targets) – and this Fitness Check provide a very comprehensive assessment of the performance of EU waste law.

Furthermore, this evaluation needs to be seen in the wider context of the Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT). The first phase was launched by the Commission in October 2013. The purpose of REFIT is to systematically review EU legislation in order to:

· see if its aims are being met efficiently and effectively

· detect unnecessary regulatory burdens, gaps and inefficiencies

· identify opportunities for simplification

· enable the Commission to propose that Council and Parliament revise or repeal legislation where appropriate.

Retrospective evaluations and Fitness Checks are an integral element of REFIT, helping to prepare a sound basis for future revision of legislation by identifying what worked in the past and identifying the obstacles in cases where legislation may not have been as effective and efficient as possible.

Studies

There has also been considerable research on the primary effects of some of the Directives screened, notably in the two reports on coherence of waste legislation in 2009 and 2011. Both studies, which did not focus on the Directive on PCB/PCT and sewage sludge, cover to a large extent the evaluation questions posed here and provide in depth insight mainly to the extent of which the waste stream Directives are formally, and with regard to their content, materially consistent with framework waste legislation and waste related strategies.

In both studies a close look was taken to the Batteries, ELV and Packaging Directive, their interdependence with other waste legislation and principles, gaps, inconsistencies, effectiveness and efficiency as well as their coherence. Therefore, prior to this Fitness Check there was already comprehensive analysis of these three Directives as well as their implementation, their perception in Members States and by stakeholders available. Both studies were accompanied by ample stakeholder consultation and the results of these have been integrated in the final ex-post evaluation study.

A further specific ex-post evaluation study was commissioned at the beginning of 2013. The final report was delivered in April 2014.

Data limitations existed for the Batteries Directive, which made it more difficult to produce a fully comprehensive and detailed analysis of all aspects concerning its effectiveness and efficiency, given the relatively short time frame over which it has been in force. The Commission's first implementation report on this Directive is yet to be published.

Literature Review

The ex-post evaluation study is based on an extensive data collection. To this end a literature review was carried out, including existing evaluation reports, academic and research papers as well as the consultant’s in-house database.

Consultation

This work was complemented by consultation of a wide array of stakeholders, targeting the main key stakeholders impacted by each of the Directives. Included were representatives from industry associations and federations, local and national authorities, NGOs producer responsibility organizations. Targeted questionnaires were sent out and face to face interviews were held to gather information from stakeholders.

A workshop was held on 4 November 2013 in Brussels with the aim of presenting the main findings of the draft evaluation report, and receiving stakeholder feed-back. Around 85 stakeholders from a wide range of sectors and public authorities were present to provide additional input. European SME organizations were invited to the workshop.

A further workshop, specifically focusing on SMEs, was held on 16 December 2013 in the context of a discussion of the WFD and its alleged burdens for SMEs. In relation to the five Directives screened no specific concerns had been expressed.

4. Focus of the Fitness Check

The aim of the Fitness Check is to identify excessive burdens, overlaps, gaps, inconsistencies or obsolete measures which may have appeared over time since the Directives' adoption. This may allow conclusions as to what extent they are still fit for purpose.

In order to make this assessment, the Five Waste Streams Directives are checked for the following four parameters, further differentiated in sub-parameters. For further details as to sub-parameters, see Annex 2.

· Effectiveness: the extent to which the Directives effectively achieve their objectives. This includes the assessment of effective transposition and implementation which lies outside the structure of the legal instrument itself but which is intrinsically linked to effectiveness.

· Efficiency: the extent to which the Directives achieve their objectives in the most cost efficient way. Cost efficiency may depend on external factors (factors outside the Directive) or on internal factors (factors inherent to the provisions of the Directive, such as e.g. reporting obligations).

· Relevance: the extent to which the Directives still address the needs of protection of the environment and human health as well as the functioning of the internal market in a way that a regulation on European level is still needed and serves a useful purpose.

· Coherence: the extent to which the Directives are consistent within the policy system they belong to, in particular, whether waste stream legislation is consistent with framework legislation and any related EU legislation as well as overarching policy commitments relating to raw materials, resource efficiency and circular economy.

These four parameters applied throughout the ex post evaluation process have led to a thorough analysis of the EU added value of the Directives screened. It allows a more objective assessment as to whether the Directives have delivered the results initially expected. In case they have not, it provides answers why and which obstacles hindered the attainment of the objectives. It also answers whether the attainment of the intended objective was proportional to the costs this may have caused for all relevant actors in the process of implementation. It finally shows to what extend there is consistency between the individual instruments, their tools and their objectives, and the overall policy development over a longer period of time.

The analysis of each Directive follows the same logic. Starting from the definition of general needs that the individual instrument was meant to respond to, it defines the general objectives of the whole policy field, describes the specific aims, the means to realise these aims and the actually achieved output of the Directives. It finally analysis the broader effects of the Directives and what impact they have in particular in relation to the objectives spelled out in the 7th EAP, notably:

· Resource depletion and green-house gas emissions as well as circular economy.

· Application of life cycle thinking from production to end of life management

· Optimising the use of finite resources in a product based economy

· Producer responsibility as an instrument to better link waste regime and product regime

· Achieving a zero waste economy in which products are designed in such a way that they can be repaired, re-used as a whole or in parts, recycled and be reintroduced in the production cycle as new raw materials.

· Achieving full control over the out-phasing of hazardous chemicals in products and waste

· Giving full effect to the waste hierarchy that only exceptionally allows final disposal

· Giving full effect to waste prevention

As discussed above, this Fitness Check is also part of a wider waste review process (target review) in which the PPWD with its recycling and recovery targets is included. Some findings from this exercise related to the PPWD and its coherence in the overall waste policy context, notably the WFD, have allowed valuable conclusions to be drawn and fed into the target review.

5. State of transposition and implementation of the five Waste Stream Directives

Before looking more closely into the findings under each heading of the evaluation criteria, an overview over the state of transposition and implementation of the Directives has to be provided, including aspects of overall policy coherence.

a. General observations

There is a difference to be made between transposition and implementation. Transposition is the formal act of translating Directives addressed to Member States into national law.

The legal transposition of the Directives has been analysed and described in depth in various conformity studies.

Implementation is much wider and concerns the totality of actual means (administrative, investment, infrastructure, process) applied in order to attain the Directives' objectives effectively. Implementation has to be effective. It is the final aim of transposition and can be checked by the Court of Justice of the European Union on a case by case basis in the context of judicial action. The Court applies thereby the "effet utile" principle testing whether Member States’ implementation activity has had the necessary practical effect. The best designed law has no useful effect, if it is not properly implemented. Implementation deficits can be manifold, reaching from a lack of waste infrastructure (disposal facilities, waste collection, recycling facilities etc.) to a lack of enforcement capacity and the absence of sufficient controls and a deterrent sanction mechanism.

Implementation is of high economic importance particularly for the product related waste stream Directives. Its harmonizing effect creates a level playing field for economic operators; therefore it is a fundament for investment into infrastructure. Bad implementation leads to competitive distortion and hinders such investment.[19]

Implementation is intrinsically linked to effectiveness and therefore frequent reference to implementation will be made when discussing the different Directives in detail.

As the further analysis will show, the five screened Directives had a considerable effect in the individual Member States on the improvement of environmental conditions. E.g.: more Batteries, packaging and ELVs were collected and recycled. This lifted environmental pressure on atmospheric and soil pollution. The sewage sludge Directive helped saving green-house gases by diverting sewage sludge from landfills. It helped also fighting eutrophication of the marine environment through by opening alternative outlets for sewage sludge and it allowed the recovery of nutrients, in particular phosphorous. The PCB/PCT Directive tries to achieve the complete elimination of PCB.

It is a recurrent issue that some Member States already had the measures in place which were targeted by European waste legislation, while other Member States did not. The effect of European legislation in both cases is the effect of creating a level playing field for all actors in the internal market as well as providing for an approximation of living conditions in environmental terms for citizens.

One of the conditions under which a European legal instrument may be adopted is the observance of the principle of subsidiarity. All Directives screened have at the time of their adoption clearly responded to a need for regulation on Community level, which was fully recognised by all stakeholders interviewed for this evaluation. The sewage sludge Directive since nearly 30 years from its adoption was never adapted, while Member States had developed their own set of much stricter conditions on national level. This raises the question why the EU didn’t act to keep the Directive up to date and whether conclusions can be drawn with regard to subsidiarity.

b. Transposition

The transposition of all five Waste Stream Directives is in principle fully completed. As a general rule, the transposition of waste Directives is systematically checked by the European Commission after expiry of the transposition date on the basis of conformity checks prepared by external consultants. Non-compliance is checked on a case by case basis. There are currently a small number of residual infringement cases open relating to insufficient transposition of Directives screened. Insufficient transposition is therefore a marginal problem.

With regard to the individual Directives:

· For packaging there are two non-conformity cases,

· For ELV there is a non-conformity case for one Member State and another Member States is under assessment for not achieving the targets,

· For batteries there are non-conformity cases for four Member States. The Directive had to be fully transposed and implemented on 26 September 2008[20]. Transposition is fully completed,

· For PCB and sewage sludge there is full conformity.

c. Implementation

The timely attainment of existing targets is checked systematically and followed up on a regular basis. At the time of writing this report, there are no major implementation problems for the PPW, ELV, Batteries and sewage sludge Directive apparent (although the first implementation report for the Batteries Directive will only be available in 2014). The sewage sludge Directive is fully implemented in all Member States. In contrast, although progress towards elimination and proper disposal of PCBs has been quite significant, the 31 December 2010 deadline for the complete decontamination or disposal has not been met by most Member States to a large extent.

This open non-compliance by the majority of Member States is aggravated by the fact that conclusive inventories of PCB equipment are missing and make it near to impossible to assess the distance to targets. Equipment containing >5dm3 PCB liquid is not properly inventoried. Where data are available a clear decrease in progress in decontamination can be observed.

Due to this implementation deficit, the Directive has not fully achieved its objectives.

6. Findings of the Fitness Check

This section sets out the detailed findings of the Fitness Check under the 4 evaluation criteria: effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, and coherence. Each section will be preceded by a short introduction summarising the overall findings.

It is not possible to view the 5 waste stream Directives like a single homogenous piece of legislation. There is certainly a common denominator, but each single instrument has in principle to be seen separately with its own specific objectives and means to reach its objectives.

6.1 Effectiveness

As further explained later on, all five Waste Stream Directives screened have undoubtedly proven to be effective instruments of European waste policy. The ELV, Packaging and Batteries Directive are instrumental to achieving the objectives of the 7th EAP, the resource efficiency roadmap and the raw materials initiative as adopted by the European Commission or endorsed by the Member States. With the exception of the PCB Directive they all have in principle achieved the objectives they had been designed for. The PCB Directive, despite its full functionality as a legal instrument, could not fully deliver on the expected results due to a persistent lack of implementation in Member States. For the other Directives screened different parameters were identified which have a more or less important influence on effectiveness of the Directive. Effectiveness was screened under the following sub headings:

- What progress has been made over time towards achieving the objectives (and, where applicable, targets) set out in the Directives in various Member States? Is the progress made in line with initial expectations?

- Which main factors (e.g. implementation by Member States, action by stakeholders, cooperation between producers and recyclers) have contributed to – respectively stood in the way of – achieving these objectives?

- Beyond these objectives, did the Directives achieve any other significant results e.g. have they helped ensure safer EU access to raw materials, reduced GHG emissions and/or spurred innovation?

a. The PPWD

The PPWD was adopted as a response to the rapidly increasing quantity of packaging waste within municipal waste and the fact that uniform requirements for packaging were getting increasingly important for the functioning of the internal market for packaged goods. The PPWD from 1994 was inspired by the German Packaging Ordinance (Verpackungsverordnung) of the year 1991. It marks the transit to a producer responsibility system for packaging making packaging more environmentally friendly and ensuring a high level of material recycling. Considerable progress has been made towards both objectives of the PPWD, to ensure a high level of environmental protection through packaging design and material recycling and to preserve the functioning of the internal market. This is shown by the following indicators:

While the total quantity of packaging waste remained almost stable between 2005 and 2011[21], recycling and recovery of packaging waste increased significantly[22].

The following graph reflects the recycling rates statistically achieved for packaging in 2011[23]:

Figure 1 Recycling rate for total packaging in 2011

As can be seen from Table 1, considerable progress in recovery and recycling was achieved between 2005 and 2011:

Table 1: Overview of the implementation of the targets of the PPW Directive[24]

Target || Waste generation || Recovery || Recycling || Implementation Status in 2011

2005 || 2011 || Change || 2005 || 2011 || Change || 2005 || 2011 || Change

Overall (Mt) || 79 || 80.2 || 1.5 % || 52.7 || 62 || 17.5% || 43.1 || 51 || 18.3% || All expect Denmark which did not meet the recycling target marginally. The majority of MS that agreed to meet the targets after 2011 have already met them.

Overall (kg/ per capita) || 160.4 || 159.4 || -0.6 % || 107.4 || 123.2 || 14.9% || 87.6 || 101.4 || 15.8%

Overall (%) || || 66.8% || 77.3% || 10.5% || 54.6% || 63.6% || 16.5%

Paper and cardboard (Mt) || 30.4 || 31.8 || 4.7% || 25.5 || 29.1 || 13.9% || 22.3 || 26.4 || 18.5% || Targets achieved in all Member States that have agreed to meet the target by 2011

Paper and cardboard (kg/ per capita) || 61.7 || 63.2 || 2.4% || 51.9 || 57.8 || 11.4% || 45.2 || 52.2 || 15.9%

Paper and cardboard (%) || || 84.1% || 91.5% || 8.8% || 73.3% || 83% || 9.7%

Glass (Mt) || 16.5 || 16.2 || -2.1% || 9.7 || 11.5 || 18.5% || 9.7 || 11.5 || 18.3% || Targets achieved in all Member States that have agreed to meet the target by 2011 except Greece

Glass (kg/ per capita) || 33.60 || 32.10 || -4.5% || 19.80 || 22.90 || 15.7% || 19.80 || 22.90 || 15.7%

Glass (%) || || 58.9% || 71.3% || 12.4% || 58.9% || 71.2% || 12.3%

Plastic (Mt) || 14.1 || 14.9 || 5.9% || 7.2 || 9.5 || 32.1% || 3.5 || 5.1 || 47% || Targets achieved in all Member States that have agreed to meet the target by 2011, except Denmark which marginally did not reach the recycling target

Plastic (kg/ per capita) || 28.7 || 29.7 || 3.5% || 14.6 || 18.8 || 28.8% || 7.10 || 10.20 || 43.7%

Plastic (%) || || 50.9% || 63.4% || 12.5% || 24.7% || 34.3% || 9.6%

Wood (Mt) || 12.7 || 12.4 || -2.8% || 7.2 || 8.4 || 16.1% || 4.7 || 4.7 || 0.2% || Targets achieved in all Member States that have agreed to meet the target by 2011

Wood (kg/ per capita) || 25.9 || 24.6 || -5.0% || 14.70 || 16.70 || 13.6% || 9.50 || 9.30 || -2.1%

Wood (%) || || 56.6% || 67.7% || 11.1% || 36.5% || 37.7% || 1.2%

Metals (Mt) || 4.9 || 4.6 || -6.0% || 3.0 || 3.4 || 11.2% || 3.0 || 3.3 || 11.3% || Targets achieved in all Member States that have agreed to meet the target by2011, except Greece

Metals (kg/ per capita) || 10.00 || 9.20 || -8.0% || 6.1 || 6.7 || 9.8% || 6.1 || 6.6 || 8.2%

Metals (%) || || 61.6% || 72.9% || 11.3% || 61.1% || 72.3% || 11.2%

Recycling targets have been an effective means spurring recycling efforts in the Member States. A large number of Member States have over-achieved all targets and only very few are lagging slightly behind. The overall recycling rates for 2008 (minimum 55% and maximum 80% recycling) have been achieved by all Member States with one exception. The overall recovery target for 2008 has been over-achieved by most Member States with the exception of five of the EU-12 that still lag slightly behind. A number of Member States, such as NL, BE, DE, CZ and IE have even achieved much higher targets which shows that the targets set by the Directive were not unrealistically high.[25] With this result, on the whole, implementation can be seen as satisfactory albeit not perfect.

It is worth noting, however, that some uncertainties exist about the exact figures reported by Member States in accordance Commission Decision 2005/270/EC[26]. Even though this Decision is relatively clear on what should be reported as ‘recycling’ (input to an effective recycling process or by default output of sorting plants in case of no significant losses[27]) some MS seem to consider the amount of waste collected for recycling as ‘recycling’). In addition, some of the packaging waste entering a recycling process may subsequently still be incinerated. Moreover, despite Eurostat guidance, when reporting relevant data to the Commission Member States use different methodologies, data sources and strategies for verification and data checks.[28] Also, where Member States export packaging waste for recycling purposes (see figure 6 below), for instance to China, it is not always clear how much of that waste is actually recycled. Finally, some Member States achieve their targets by focusing their main efforts on the collection and treatment of Institutional, Commercial and Industrial (ICI) packaging waste, which is cleaner and more homogenous than household waste. Where this is the case, no clarity exists about the actual household waste fractions recycled.

Figure 2: Overall packaging waste, recycling and export rates by Member State, 2011 (%)[29]

Where Member states failed to achieve their targets over a protracted period, this was on account of lack of infrastructure and high dependence on landfilling, administrative and instructional drawbacks and inefficient source separation of municipal waste.[30]

Effectiveness of the PPWD is largely influenced by the development of EPR schemes. They are the main driver for implementing the targets of the Directives. Such schemes have been developed in 25 Member States[31]. The effectiveness of the EPR schemes varies, however, significantly between Member States.[32]

Overall, the implementation of EPR schemes, coupled with the use of economic instruments (landfill taxes, bans, pay as you throw schemes) has been a particularly effective approach to meeting the recycling and recovery targets.[33]

Figure 3: Final consumption expenditures in EU27, 2005-2012 (2005=100) [34]

In the Directive there are also provisions on packaging prevention and progress has been made since 2005 in particular by reducing packaging weight.[35] However, the absence of clear indicators is seen as an obstacle for packaging prevention. Initiatives for prevention, on Member State and company level, could be stepped up. This could for instance be achieved by more systematically and more clearly addressing prevention through more elaborate essential requirements[36].

The PPW Directive stipulates that “Member States may encourage reuse systems of packaging, which can be reused in an environmentally sound manner, in conformity with the Treaty”. Despite the non-binding nature of this provision, most Member States have implemented a wide variety of provisions on reuse.[37] Nevertheless, the market share of reusable household packaging is decreasing.[38] This is a trend that may favour a smooth functioning of the internal market for packaging, as national reuse systems may in some cases raise questions from an internal market perspective. However, it also runs against the waste hierarchy that favours re-use and in particular preparation for re-use for the sake of resource efficiency. Examples of good practice:

Table 2: Good practices on packaging prevention[39]

Initiative || Achievements

Waste Prevention & Management Plan (Flanders) || Since 1995 the quantity of total residual waste (not concerning only packaging) has been reduced by 50%. The general of waste is stable since 2000. Landfilling is reduced to near zero and the vast majority of waste is recycled or incinerated.

Local Authority Prevention Demonstration Programme (Ireland) || The Programme identifies and supports waste prevention strategies at local level by providing funding and expert technical assistance.

Courtauld Commitment (UK) || Between 2005 and 2012, this voluntary agreement between major supermarkets and the Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP) resulted to a prevention of 2.9 million tonnes of packaging and food waste.

The PPWD has also spurred innovation. For instance, in pursuance of the resource efficiency objective multi-layer packaging was developed, using significantly less raw materials but increasing difficulties for recycling. This trade-off between a more efficient use of resource and difficulties for recycling needs to be addressed. It may be one of the reasons why a significant amount of household packaging waste is still incinerated. This runs counter to the waste hierarchy and could be addressed through more ambitious recycling targets and clearer provisions on eco-design and essential requirements. It must be noted, however, that multi-layer packaging currently only accounts for a limited share of total packaging and that a solution could also be sought in supporting innovation in recycling technologies and investment in collection infrastructure for such packaging.

The essential requirements on the composition and the reusable, recoverable and recyclable nature of packaging can be seen as an element of extended producer responsibility. Their use is supported by industry as they allow for technical solutions to reduce the amount of packaging and they are seen as the most appropriate means of safeguarding the free movement of packaging.[40]. Industry would however welcome more enforcement measures by the public authorities.

On the other hand, the existing essential requirements are formulated in a rather imprecise manner and give rise to differences of interpretation across Member States.[41] Also, only four Member States have introduced specific measures to monitor compliance with the essential requirements (UK, FR, CZ, BG).[42] A strengthening of the essential requirements could considerably enhance the Directive’s useful effect.

There are, however, doubts about the way in which the Directive’s essential requirements on biodegradable packaging are applied. There is a wide range of confusion as to what is biodegradable, bio-based and compostable. The term compostable used in the Directive refers mostly to plastics that are safe to use in industrial composting. (i.e. this is the definition in most major standards EN 13432[43], ASTM D6400[44] etc. which are intended to define industrial processing norms). These standards require most of the material to be converted into CO2 in a short period of time (at least 90% CO2 levels emitted by a decomposing reference cellulose sample within 6 months[45], and no more than 10% residue in mass within 3 months[46] for the EN 13432). This however does not correspond with the lay meaning of compost, which refers both to the process and the leftovers: a bulk of rich, organic material that on average would be around 30% of original weight and 15% of original volume for typical biowastes.[47]

Overall, the existing standards for biodegradability and/or compostability do not coincide with consumer perceptions, nor do they necessarily represent the best ecological solution. For example, the standard CO2 based definition for industrial compostability addresses the sole problem of reducing semi-eternal waste without taking into account that the material is almost totally converted into a greenhouse gas and contributing to global warming, while losing the energy recovery possibilities.

The main area requiring attention is that of biodegradable plastics. There are situations in which sorting or collection is difficult, or when the packaging can potentially contaminate plastic or bio-waste streams. [48] Examples include the use of, waste bags for the collection of bio-waste and the use of single-use or short-life bags.

As was acknowledged by stakeholders throughout the consultation process, the internal market objective has been achieved but remains a constant challenge e.g. when Member States try to exclude packaging from their territory for environmental reasons while this packaging suffices the requirements of the Directive.

This challenge is linked to re-usable packaging, such as beverage bottles. While the Directive encourages re-use systems of packaging, deposit and return systems for one way packaging may be problematic because they could in some cases conflict with the principle of free movement of goods.[49] However, measures to increase the re-use of packaging waste have been implemented in most Member States.[50] The progress in increasing recycling and recovery rates as well as measures on waste prevention have had a measurable influence on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and resource efficiency by diverting packaging from landfills and incineration.

It is obvious, however, that landfill diversion of packaging, more than 60% of which is plastic, cannot be only addressed by the Packaging Directive and its indirect effects. The consultation on the "Green Paper on a strategy for Plastic waste in the environment" has demonstrated a clear need and triggered a strong plea from plastic industry to establish a landfill ban for recyclable plastic[51] This aspect is already addressed by the parallel exercise of the target review in the 2014 legislative package on waste.

In conclusion from the foregoing, there are clear overall indications that the PPWD is a strong driver for moving closer to a circular economy with high recycling and recovery rates. EUROPEN and other stakeholders have confirmed this assessment throughout the consultation.

By and large the PPWD can be seen as a success as it has proven to be a strong lever for increased recycling and increased awareness among EU citizens of the value of waste.[52] It has also had considerable positive effects with regard to saving of green-house gases[53] and technological development of packaging performance and separate waste collection.[54] Finally it helped considerably to ease the ongoing task of ensuring the functioning of the internal market for packaging by defining standards applicable for packaging across the EU.

The Directive had significant indirect positive effects beyond its immediate objectives in terms of greenhouse gas reduction. The level of packaging recovery and recycling achieved by 2004 corresponds to about 10 million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe) and 25 MtCO2-equivalent compared to a scenario where all packaging waste would be landfilled or incinerated.[55] I It is estimated that of these reductions, 1 Mtoe and 3 MtCO2-equivalent is directly associated with the PPW Directive. More recent data on the overall reduction of CO2 emissions in the EU is not available, but the achieved CO2 reduction should be significantly higher when considering the enlargement of the EU that took place after 2004 and the overall improved performance in the treatment of packaging waste.

Effectiveness in a nutshell

Significant progress has been made over time towards achieving the Directive's objectives. All Member States have statistically reached recovery and recycling targets, resource use and packaging production have witnessed a relative decoupling, but Member States' performance in recycling still varies significantly.

The Directive has been effectively transposed and the internal market objective is well reconciled with the environmental objective. Problem areas for potential conflict in this respect are packaging re-use systems versus one way packaging systems. Future legislation may have to consider being more assertive as to which way to go. A clearer political guidance may in future be needed as to what objective should prevail in this case.

While recycling and recovery targets have generally been met, there are some uncertainties about the exact figures reported by Member States in accordance Commission Decision 2005/270/EC.

Moreover, it appears that household packaging recycling targets are mostly achieved with the more homogenous ICI packaging instead of household packaging, making it difficult to measure achievements in household packaging recycling alone.

Packaging waste prevention could be achieved more effectively if it was not only described in general and non-binding terms but if it was made obligatory and measurable. So far packaging waste prevention was mainly achieved by increasing packaging efficiency through lightweight multi-layer packaging which is not commonly recycled. Through this innovation spurred by the Directive, over the past, a relative decoupling of economic growth and packaging production was achieved by weight but not by quantity of packaging waste. In future further weight reduction of packaging will not deliver sufficient results towards the needed absolute decoupling of economic growth and packaging waste generation. More effective measures will have to be looked for.

Other factors outside the Directive have helped attaining its objectives, such as landfill bans, PAYT schemes, EPR schemes, awareness raising activities as well as the development of communication channels between producers and recyclers.

Essential requirements are a key tool to improve packaging environmental performance. Yet, they are formulated in a very general manner and judged as difficult to implement. Implementation measures are scarce and guidance given to industry is mostly lacking. The CEN standards are the only formalised instrument for industry to prove compliance. Industry is generally happy with the relatively vague way in which essential requirements are formulated and judge CEN standards as sufficient. However, in order to boost circular economy, in future particular consideration might need to be given to strengthen essential requirements as a key tool to achieve better environmental performance of packaging.

Beyond its core objectives the PPWD has achieved through recycling and recovery considerable CO2 reductions, as well as considerable reduction of primary raw materials used were achieved. It has also promoted direct and indirect health benefits through the reduction of hazardous substances in packaging and reduced air emissions.

b. The ELV Directive

The ELV Directive was adopted in response to wide spread environmentally unsound ELV treatment in the EU with ELVs found abandoned or not properly decontaminated. Before the adoption of the ELV Directive little attention was paid to the presence of hazardous substances such as heavy metals or certain chemicals in car manufacturing. The ELV Directive has proven to be an effective tool to phase out hazardous substances, as specified in its Annex II, from ELVs. [56] These hazardous substances have been almost completely removed from vehicles. In addition, Eurostat data show that Member States are on good track to reach the 2015 targets for re-use and recycling as well as for re-use and recovery, provided post shredder technology is used to the necessary extent. In 2011, 23 Member States achieved the target set for reuse and recovery from 2006, while 25 achieved the reuse and recycling target. Both targets were met ahead of time already in 2011, the targets for re-use and recovery by 4 Member States and for re-use and recycling by 11 Member States.[57] It can be seen as an indication of a good calibration of recycling targets that 4 Member States already in 2011 had achieved the 2015 re-use and recovery target. This demonstrates clearly that targets are achievable, where they were not achieved this is due to factors outside the Directive, such as a lack of political will and insufficient infrastructure.

Figure 4: Reuse, recovery and recycling rates achieved in 2006 and 2011

Despite these encouraging results, some doubts remain about the reliability and comparability of statistics across Member States, notably because of the use of different reporting systems and calculation methods.[58] For instance, the use of plastic streams obtained by post-shredder treatment in a blast furnace is counted as recycling by some Member States and “thermal recovery” by others.[59] The picture is further blurred through the number of free riders not reporting on recycling and other recovery or the quality of such operations.[60]

The number of authorized facilities has increased significantly in some Member States in recent years, in pursuance of compliance with the Directive. For instance, in Belgium 48 Authorized Treatment Facilities (ATFs) were listed in 2005, while there were 120 in 2010. In Finland over the same period, the number of ATFs increased from 60 to 235 and in the UK from 732 to 1 750.

Two major challenges remain. The collection and treatment of ELVs by illegal operators and the illegal shipment of ELVs are still important according to the various stakeholders interviewed during the course of the ex-post evaluation study. This issue is of concern as it may make it more difficult for some Member States to achieve the 2015 targets, and in addition it may impact on the environmental benefits of the Directive. The Correspondents' Guidelines No 9[61] on shipment of waste vehicles can contribute to better control of illegal exports of ELVs inter alia by clarifying the distinction between waste vehicles and used vehicles. Further cooperation and coordination between Member States may improve the follow up of deregistered and exported vehicles including issuing a certificate of destruction in case of a final deregistration of a car. So far there is no uniform practice in all Member States.

This problem to distinguish between ELVs and used cars, makes the monitoring of the Directive difficult. There is evidence for a considerable gap in a number of Member States between ELVs dismantled and ELVs deregistered. In 2008 4,1 million ELVs were revealed as of unknown whereabouts.[62] This may be attributable to "illegal exports" of ELVs falsely declared as car for re-use, or it may point to a functional problem in the Directive not properly defining second hand vehicles and ELVs.[63] Some stakeholders have called this absence of a definition of "ELV" a birth deficiency of the Directive.[64]

Figure 5: Vehicle entries and exits of the EU 27-fleet, 2008[65]

The problem was confirmed by IMPEL (European Network for Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law). To enhance effectiveness of the legislation they proposed amendments to the Directive to further distinguish used cars and ELVs.[66] The phenomenon could be explained with private exports, illegal shipments[67], disposal or long term garaging. At present the tools in the Directive do not provide for full transparency.

In addition, according to a study led by BIO Intelligence Service in 2010,[68] a high volume of ELVs is treated in non-legal or unauthorized treatment facilities in the EU.

More generally, there was agreement among stakeholders that for stepping up effectiveness of the legislation increasing co-operation among Member States was needed to ensure tracking and follow-up of de-registered and exported vehicles.

While due to the significant number of vehicles of unknown whereabouts there is some doubt as to whether the Directive has fully satisfactorily attained its objective of reducing environmental impacts, the Directive has spurred innovation. According to stakeholders, the vehicle treatment sector is now widely regarded as being more efficient, professional and sustainable as a result of the Directive. Stakeholders fully acknowledged that the ELV Directive did not cause unnecessary bureaucracy and that it is not in conflict with the goal of an internal market[69], a fear that had been expressed shortly after the adoption of the Directive.

Despite the described circumstances, stakeholders agreed that the Directive had with no doubt significant environmental benefits in saving resources through re-use, recycling and recovery, this again corresponding to savings in green-house gas emissions. The most obvious success is the reduction of hazardous substances in ELV.

The Directive has also spurred technical innovation in production of new cars[70], making them less polluted with hazardous substances, and it has also improved treatment technology significantly increasing recycling and recovery rates. The ELV dismantling sector has moreover expanded and professionalised, creating employment and economic growth.[71]

Effectiveness in a nutshell

The Directive has proven highly effective in preventing waste from vehicles, increasing re-use, recycling and recovery and ensuring that ELVs are treated in environmentally safe conditions. Four hazardous substances identified in the Directive have been almost completely removed from vehicles with the exception of lead and most Member States are on track towards reaching the 2015 targets, for re-use, recycling and recovery. This has, beyond the Directive's immediate objectives, significantly reduced greenhouse gases, saved raw materials and spurred innovation, making car manufacturing more environmentally friendly. Given that the ELV market is a global market, European green standards set by the ELV Directive have a significant influence on car manufacturing internationally. Moreover, high ambitions to recycle more non-ferrous ELV parts have led to the development of more sophisticated post-shredder technology. The Directive also had a significant in creating employment in the growing ELV dismantling sector.

Despite this success, there is a somewhat systemic problem with statistically missing ELVs, letting assume a flourishing business with illegal shipments and collection and treatment of ELVs by illegal operators, potentially jeopardising the Directive’s environmental objective. Further work may be needed in better implementing the Correspondent's guidelines on shipment of waste to better differentiate between ELVs and used cars. Further cooperation and coordination between Member States may improve the follow up of deregistered and exported vehicles including issuing a certificate of destruction in case of a final deregistration of a car.

Some doubts remain about the reliability and comparability of statistics across Member States due to different reporting systems and calculation methods, which may benefit from further harmonisation.

c. The Batteries Directive

The Batteries Directive was adopted as a response to increasing concern about the spreading of portable electronic equipment such as portable radios, handhelds, mobile phones and many more consumer electronics causing concern about the proliferation of portable batteries and their potential for contaminating the environment. The Directive also responded to concerns about battery chemistry relying on heavy metals and chemicals whose introduction in the environment should be closely controlled or which should be substituted. There is some indication that effectiveness is impacted by implementation that is not fully satisfactory. Nevertheless, the Directive had, and continues to have, significant positive environmental effects.

All Member States have introduced collection schemes, the use of hazardous substances in batteries has been limited, the collection of portable batteries has improved since 2007 and nearly all Member States have achieved the 2012 target on collection of portable batteries[72]. Landfill and incineration of industrial and automotive batteries are in principle prohibited[73] and recycling efficiency targets for portable batteries were introduced. All producers must be registered, use BAT and participate in collection schemes.

The effectiveness of the Directive is to be measured against its three objectives to restrict hazardous substances (mercury and cadmium) in Batteries, to provide for collection and recycling schemes and to ensure that consumers are properly informed to make an informed choice and to effectively participate in separate collection. Consumer's participation is one of the most critical success factors for this Directive.

The restriction of hazardous substances in Batteries has led to a constant monitoring during which, according to stakeholders, occasional violations of the limits of hazardous substances, mainly in Asian import products, were detected[74]. However, systematic data collection does not take place and it is currently not known what quantities of non-compliant batteries can currently be found on the market. Member States' inspections were reported as infrequent and unstructured.[75]

The Directive has certainly achieved very high collection rates for automotive and industrial batteries and also the collection of portable batteries improved significantly since 2007[76]. Stakeholders raised doubts whether the 2016 collection target of 45% of portable batteries was feasible.[77] 7 Member States, however, had achieved this target already in 2012 which according to stakeholders, indicates that implementation measures might need to be stepped up, such as setting up a higher density of collection sites and increasing consumer awareness.

Figure 6: Portable batteries collection rates in the EU Member States in 2012 (2011 where indicated)[78]

Low collection rates have been observed for different types of portable batteries and the collection of button cells is still a problem[79]. Consumer awareness is a key success factor for effective batteries collection and recycling.[80] This concern was shared by a great number of stakeholders and it is plausible for small portable batteries which can easily arrive in the waste bin if consumers are not sufficiently informed about the potential hazards of battery chemistry. Consumer awareness is exclusively an implementation problem.

The existence of the Battery Directive as such already caused better awareness also among EEE producers of the potential hazards of improper battery disposal and of the need to give more ample information to users of electronic equipment. A rather frequent occurrence of wrong capacity labelling had been observed. This can only be eradicated by better implementation. Wrong labelling in relation to substance restrictions was observed occasionally.

One structural problem that was found to negatively impact on implementation relates to a certain ambiguity in the Directive's definition of portable batteries. It was observed that weight–based portable batteries collection schemes favored the collection of lead-acid batteries thus leading to a statistical distortion of collection rates and disturbing the monitoring process. Lead acid batteries are put on the marked as industrial, but are often collected as portable.[81] The majority of stakeholders suggested that portable, automotive and industrial batteries should be clearly differentiated in the Batteries Directive to secure the consistency and comparability of collection rates across the EU.

Effectiveness of the Directive is also impacted by the high rates of illegal exports of WEEE containing batteries. 41% of WEEE arisings are assumed to be improperly treated or illegally shipped.[82]

The Directive had significant effects on the reduction of green-house gas emissions and it has significantly increased awareness among battery producers and importers as well as consumers.

Effectiveness in a nutshell

The Batteries Directive is the youngest of the five screened Directives and the first Commission three-annual implementation report covering the Directive will only be published in 2014. Visibly, good progress was made towards achieving its objectives of separate collection and recycling, consumer awareness and substance restrictions for heavy metals in batteries. It is now fully transposed into national law.

Consumer awareness is a crucial success factor for the implementation of the Directive, in particular for separate collection, which varies strongly across Member States.

While collection rates for automotive and industrial batteries are high, small portable batteries, despite of significant increase, are too often not collected. Member States may find it difficult to attain the 46% collection target for 2016. For some portable battery types the collection rate is below 25%. This is a serious issue deserving closer analysis.

Some statistical uncertainty can be expected due to a number of factors, such as: accounting of batteries incorporated in EEE, ambiguity in the definition of portable battery and the collection of lead acid batteries as portable in some Member State’s collection schemes. This may inflate collection rates by weight, while significant numbers of small batteries may not be properly captured and unfold a negative environmental effect. There is room for optimising portable batteries collection and statistical refinement to better reflect the real collection rates of portable batteries.

Violations have been observed on limits of hazardous substances as well as substance labelling requirements for portable batteries.

Effectiveness largely depends on appropriate compliance monitoring by national authorities, in particular on limits for hazardous substances a capacity labelling for imported batteries.

d. The PCB Directive

The PCB Directive was adopted in response to the need of adequate disposal because PCBs pose a significantly high risk for the environment and human health. Existing disposal paths, such as landfill and municipal waste incineration were increasingly seen as not an option for environmental and health reasons. It also was a logical response to the prohibition of marketing PCBs with the mid-term vision to entirely phasing them out of the environment. Unlike the other Directives screened in this exercise, the PCB Directive has a single focus on the elimination of PCBs. Effectiveness has to be measured against this sole objective. No aspect of resource efficiency, circular economy and green-house gas mitigation has any relevance in the context of this Directive. The Directive implements the International PARCOM Decision 92/3[83] to dispose of PCBs subject to an inventory by 2010 at the latest.

Although progress towards elimination and proper disposal of PCBs has been quite significant, a majority of Member States let the 2010 deadline for complete decontamination and disposal lapse and comprehensive EU wide data on historic disposal as well as inventories of PCB containing equipment are missing. The non-compliance with the Directive's 2010 deadline may generally be a bigger problem for the EU-12 and Croatia, but it is also a problem for the EU-15. For example: Spain had in 2010 not disposed of 33.000 tons. EDF France only in 2010 counted over 70.000 transformers containing PCB and organized a big clean-up operation. The Netherlands have no exact inventory of PCB equipment. The current study could not find out the true dimension of the problem. But estimates from 2005 indicate that the remaining quantity of PCB-containing oil is 350 kT, containing about 50 kT of pure PCB, with the total gross weight of the equipment at 1.1 Mt.[84]

The study to support this Fitness Check could not identify any deficiencies in the set-up of this legislation to be responsible for this Directive largely not having attained its objectives. This is, and stakeholders are unanimous, due to the lack of implementation of the Directive. To explain this implementation gap, Member States have invoked legally irrelevant practical arguments, such as economic problems, illegal handling and robbery of PCB equipment, privately owned equipment discovered after 2010, lack of incineration facilities, legal and communication problems.[85]

Without the Member States providing comprehensive data and full inventories of relevant PCB containing equipment, the progress needed to achieve the target cannot be reliably judged.

Nevertheless, the Directive had created a strong incentive for Member States to start an effective PCB disposal policy which has led to mitigating the problem but which needs to be followed up by consequent enforcement policy.

Effectiveness in a nutshell

The objective of decontamination and disposal of obsolete larger PCB equipment until 2010 has not been met by all Member States, despite significant progress in particular in the EU 15. By and large the Directive's objective has not been entirely met, due to insufficient implementation by Member States.

There are no recent and sufficient data available allowing an assessment of the level in terms of achievement of environmentally sound disposal and decontamination compared to an established inventory of sources of equipment containing PCB/PCT.

Infringement proceedings may need to be initiated.

The Directive had a tangible effect on awareness and developing expertise in the field of PCB waste.

e. The Sewage sludge Directive

Sewage sludge is a "by-product" of urban waste water treatment. With strongly increasing numbers of urban waste water treatment plants in many Member States, sludge waste quantities rose to an extent that finding a proper outlet became urgent. Predominant disposal routes such as marine dumping and eutrophication along coastal areas and also landfilling of sludge posed increasing environmental problems. As noted in the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the Commission proposal[86], the Sewage Sludge Directive was proposed to a) promote the use of sewage sludge in agriculture by stressing its agronomic values, and b) to specify the precautions necessary for its proper use against a background of expected increasing arisings from waste water treatment installations. At the time of its adoption, there was already a tradition in some Member States to recycle sewage sludge on agricultural land, because sludge is rich in nutrients, particularly phosphorus and nitrogen[87]. However, since sludge also contains hazardous substances such as heavy metals, a precautionary approach needed to be taken[88]. Sludge use in Europe needed to be based on minimum requirements to promote its agronomic use and provide for appropriate precautions. Any risk of agricultural production growing on land of a Member State not applying precautionary standards had to be avoided. There are currently no infringement procedures for bad implementation pending.

There is no doubt that the Directive has fully attained its initial objectives. The Directive has no recycling targets, the objective is rather to stimulate good environmental practice in increasing use of sewage sludge in agriculture. All Member States apply good agricultural practice when spreading sludge to agricultural land and all Member States have set heavy metal limit values often way above those of the Directive. At the same time, the Directive has never been adapted to technical and scientific progress with regard to heavy metal limits in sludge and soil.

Sewage sludge is widely used on agricultural land in Europe[89], but there is a wide variety among Member States as regards the quantity of sludge used. Some Member States have adopted stricter limit values for contaminants than those contained in the Directive. Some have also added some new contaminants. Several Member States consider sludge risky to apply to agricultural land and have even banned its use, while others use it widely and are still improving sludge management.[90]

The Directive was earmarked for revision for more than 10 years, which has proven difficult, since no solid risk assessment has to date been made. It was recently removed from the Commission work programme.

The Directive had a positive impact on stakeholder awareness and has helped improving sludge treatment technology, including the recycling of nutrients, such as phosphorous. Sludge quality has improved over the years through better control of industrial emissions with the effect that heavy metals are generally less present in sludge than in the past.

It indirectly had an impact on the avoidance of greenhouse gas emissions by diverting sludge from landfills. It may also have delivered a sizeable contribution to resource conservation where it has substituted or complemented the use of mineral fertilizers.[91]

Since most Member States are stricter with their limit values for contaminants in sludge and since the adoption of the Directive sludge quality has improved through generally higher environmental standards, it is no longer obvious that the Directive in its current form still responds to an actual need as an instrument of waste management. On the other hand, there are new challenges for example from the impact of nano materials and micro plastic on sludge quality. The Directive may, on the other hand have its justification as an instrument of soil protection.

Effectiveness in a nutshell

The Directive has been effective in ensuring that heavy metals in soil and sludge do not exceed the limit values. Insofar initial expectations have been fully met. Most Member States apply today by far stricter limit values for heavy metals in sludge and soil. These were complemented in a number of Member States by quality assurance standards, such as the safe sludge matrix in the UK, codes of practice and enhanced cooperation between governments and stakeholders.

Sludge use in agriculture is a highly contentious operation and a number of Member States have banned the use of sewage sludge in agriculture, while others use it to well over 50%. The Directive in its present form is clearly outdated.

6.2 Efficiency

The aspect of efficiency shall show whether the Directives screened have attained their objectives at reasonable costs. What is reasonable is subject to a high margin of discretion and it is therefore not surprising that in the absence of clear guidance and efficiency methodology there is no systematic information available as to what degree environmental Directives are efficient. Especially in the product related Directives (PPWD, ELV, Batteries) cost efficiency aspects play an important role because they can be adequately taken into account within the different stages of the life cycle of a product, such as the product design, separate collection and recycling technology phase.

It has to be kept in mind that environmental Directives should primarily create benefits for human health and the environment and should enable society to be living well within the limits of the planet, paraphrasing the title of the 7th EAP. Before reaping these benefits there will inevitably be costs for business and administration. For instance, substance restrictions require investment in research for substitution; landfill bans close the cheapest outlet for waste disposal in favour of more expensive ones, increasing recycling rates requires public investment in collection infrastructure as well as private investment in R&D for search of more sustainable products etc.

It has also to be born in mind that cost effectiveness cannot be reasonably seen as an absolute parameter. Cost effectiveness of environmental legal instruments can only be an indicator for the most economic legal instrument among those which have the same environmental effect. Any other interpretation would give way to a bottom race for the cheapest measure with less environmental protection.

Environmental legislation has, as demonstrated in previous sections, been a major driver for investment into new technology, in the automotive sector, the packaging industry, battery technology and waste management technology in general. This has created economic growth and employment opportunities over decades and will continue to do so. Previous studies have shown that full implementation of European waste legislation by 2020 would have a potential of creating overall around 400.000 new jobs and even more all the indirect investment effects e.g. in machine manufacturing industry, taken into account.[92]

Environmental legislation should however be designed in such a way that it strikes an optimal balance between protection of the environment, generation of economic welfare and lowest possible associated costs. The following section will demonstrate that the screened Directives are cost efficient.

- What are the costs and benefits associated with the implementation of the Directives in various Member States? If there are significant cost differences between Member States, what is causing them? Can any costs be identified that are out of proportion with the benefits achieved?

- What good practices in terms of cost-effective implementation of the Directives in MS can be identified e.g. use of economic instruments such as cost-effective producer responsibility schemes, product policies?

- Can any specific provisions in the Directives be identified that make cost-effective implementation more difficult?

- Have the Directives been kept fit for purpose through regular adaptation to technical and scientific progress?

a. The PPWD

Costs associated to the implementation of the Directive are initial setup costs[93], capital expenditure and ongoing costs for collection, recycling as well as set up costs of EPR programs. Some Member States introduced specific taxes, such as a packaging tax in DK and NL, landfill taxes in a great number of Member States, deposit and refund systems.[94]

All cost relevant measures mentioned are attuned to increasing preparation for re-use, re-use and recycling rates. Benefits from recycling are savings in raw materials and their extraction, savings in CO2 emissions, diversion from landfill and savings on landfill infrastructure. Stakeholders agreed that the treatment of packaging waste up the waste hierarchy, predominantly through recycling, was on the whole economically more advantageous than landfill of waste with its associated final loss of raw materials. It should be born in mind that efficiency of fulfilling the obligations under the PPWD is linked to recycling and recovery infrastructure for which to function economically there needs to be an economy of scale. Cost advantages through export of packaging waste outside the EU and therefore shortening the available amounts of recyclable waste in the EU can in some cases be an obstacle to an efficient implementation of the PPWD.

A wide range of EPR schemes have been introduced across MS which cause different levels of cost for consumers and producers. Their cost-benefit is influenced by factors the Directive has no bearing on, such as the actual level of sophistication of collection infrastructure, the extent to which separate collection of packaging is actually carried out, supported by citizen's involvement, population density, geographic location, enforcement regimes and local labor costs.[95] Other European law has also an influence on cost efficiency. Pursuant to Art.11 WFD, as of 2015 all Member States have to have separate collection schemes in place for paper and board, glass, metal and plastic. This can be expected to have a positive influence on the total amount of waste collected for recycling as well as on the actual higher yield of separately collected waste in the EU.

There is still potential to extend EPR to full cost coverage for collection and disposal on non -recyclable material, which is presently not done. This would create a strong incentive for prevention and design for recycling and therefore increase recycling efficiency.[96]

The Commission is currently carrying out a study on EPR to further explore how EPR could be strengthened in existing legislation particularly with a view to cost efficiency. EPR schemes differ greatly in efficiency. High costs do not necessarily correlate to efficient packaging recycling.

Cost effectiveness of the Directive depends again to a great extent on how the Directive is implemented in different Member States.[97] E.g. "pay as you throw" schemes[98] turned out to be highly effective for increased separate waste collection, but they are initially costly to implement. Member States are free to decide which measures to apply. A Directive is only binding in as far as it defines objectives and targets. In practice, however, "pay as you throw" schemes are a strong incentive for separate collection at the source and minimization of waste for final disposal. Properly applied, they save landfill capacity and therefore avoid unnecessary investment into end of pipe infrastructure.[99]

Costs of collection and recycling vary greatly between Member States, explained by the wide range of collection options (different vehicles, collection frequency, recycling containers etc.) and material processing. A crucial factor in that context is the optimizing of collection systems and sorting of collected waste. Some Member States are more advanced than others and have higher yields at lower costs, depending on the technology used but also on citizen's awareness.

Table 3: Costs of collection and recycling of household packaging waste in the UK (EUR, values based on the currency conversion in 2008: GBP 1 = EUR 1.05)

Collection system || Collection only cost of recycling || Net cost of recycling (including sorting and recycling/processing)

|| Urban || Rural || Urban || Rural

Kerbside sort || 83.31 – 137.90 || 89.22 – 162.18 || 26.10 – 78.04 || 32.05 – 102.45

Single stream co-mingled || 64.63 – 84.39 || 71.40 – 136.55 || 96.97 -108.64 || 103.74 – 160.81

An increasingly important factor for cost efficiency, not influenced by the Directive, will be the development of prices for virgin raw materials in comparison to costs of producing recycled raw materials of a similar quality. Recycled secondary raw materials were in a recent study found to be between 16% and 61% cheaper than virgin materials.

Table 4: Comparison of market prices of virgin and recycled material (2011 prices)[100]

Material || Virgin material (€/tonne) || Recycled material (€/tonne) || Price Recycled material / Virgin material (%)

Glass || 52 – 59 || 12,5 – 34 || 24% - 58%

Paper-cardboard || 717 – 776 || 115 – 136 || 16% - 18%

Aluminium || 1 719 – 1 774 || 650 – 1 080 || 38% - 61%

Steel || 394 – 630 || 160 – 180 || 41% - 29%

HDPE Plastic || 990 – 1 200 || 245 – 280 || 25% - 23%

PET Plastic || 1550 – 1 700 || 390 – 475 || 25% - 28%

This gap is expected to even widen in the future through costs savings by improved recycling technology on one hand and a further increase of raw materials prices on the other. By setting recycling targets the Directive creates an incentive for Member States to increase revenues from separately collected materials. The example of BE shows that between 2005 and 2012 material revenues could steadily increase while producer's green dot contributions could be considerably lowered.[101]

When considering efficiency, it should be born in mind that the PPWD is not only a waste management instrument, but also an instrument to ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market for packaging. By harmonizing packaging standards the free movement of packaging in the whole territory of the EU is safeguarded. In case of absence of such harmonization packaging industry would be confronted with individual Member State systems causing considerable costs and uncertainty seriously jeopardizing the free movement of goods.

Figure 5: Increased revenue from collected materials lowered the Green Dot tariffs in Belgium, 2012 (EUR million)[102]

Costs efficiency is also largely driven by other external factors such as price volatility of crude oil for plastic manufacturing, the predominant packaging material. Other factors are: technical innovation in sorting technology, the application of green public procurement to increase demand and also producer policy to green products by increasing recycling content.

Cost efficiency in recycling also differs by material and by a combination of material and process. Metal and glass recycling are relatively simple processes with a very long tradition of recycling. They undoubtedly have always been a profitable business while plastic recycling is a relatively new operation and dependent on critical separate collection due to the high contamination potential when plastic is collected co-mingled.[103] It is also more strongly influenced by volatile raw materials prices. In so far product design and separate collection are crucial success factors and strongly influencing cost efficiency.

Efficiency of the PPWD depends largely on economic instruments. They are most present in EPR schemes in which ideally the revenue from the sale of materials and the contributions to the EPR programme should cover the costs of waste packaging collection and recycling. Their efficiency differs greatly between Member States.[104]

The data obtained for producer fee schemes show huge ranges of fees per tonne of packaging material placed on the market in the Member States. Fees charged for paper range from €8.37 in Romania to €175 in Germany; fees for glass range from €4.80 in France to €260.93 in Lithuania; fees for wood range from €0.40 in Finland to €80 in Poland; fees for aluminium range from €7.26 in Romania to €573.10 in the Netherlands; fees for steel range from €3 in Finland to €282.18 in Sweden; and fees for plastic range from €20.54 in Romania to €1,296 in Germany.

Attempts to link the fees paid into producer fee schemes with the packaging recovery/recycling performance in the Member States have not shown any conclusive patterns. Some ‘cheap’ schemes demonstrate high levels of recovery/recycling (notably Belgium and Luxembourg) and some ‘expensive’ schemes demonstrate low levels of recovery/recycling (notably Estonia and Poland)[105]

Figure 6: Cost effectiveness of EPR schemes on packaging (2010 or 2011) [106]

Deposit and refund systems but also landfill taxes have a strong influence on efficiency of the PPWD. As a rule of thumb, the higher the landfill tax/incineration tax, the higher the potential profit margin for packaging recycling.[107]

Another important cost efficiency driver could be the Directive's essential requirements. This view is shared by a large number of stakeholders. Due to their currently imprecise formulation and poor enforcement they have failed to unfold their full potential of reduced costs and increased environmental benefits.[108]

Several examples of good practice in Member States relate to separate waste collection, EPR schemes and high quality recycling. Ireland established with success in 2004 a Marked Development Group to remove barriers for recycled plastic, paper and compost. The development of guidelines is under preparation. Available evidence shows that optimized separate waste collection systems have led to the highest overall recycling rates in Europe, with the caveat of statistical uncertainty.

Several industry representatives pointed out that the recycling of glass, paper and metals has been practiced for a very long time, because it is profitable. They suggest that even without the PPW Directive, these recycling activities would have continued. The same is observed for the Essential Requirement of waste minimisation. In this context, industry claims that even without the Essential Requirements, cost reduction motifs would lead to packaging minimisation. [109]

The most referred to provisions are thus the recycling targets, the Essential Requirements and the economic instruments (as translated into EPR schemes), particularly in relation to the administrative burden of proving what stakeholders consider would have been done anyway.

These remarks on provisions that raise doubts about cost-effectiveness are based on the assumption that without these provisions and its administrative burden, the markets would act in exactly the same way, reaching the same level of efficiency and environmental benefit, as with these provisions. This touches the economic theorem of the ‘invisible hand’ or the self-regulating potential of the free market, driven by cost reduction and competition.[110] Anecdotal evidence shows however that the self-regulating effect only occurs when real or perceived individual benefits can be achieved for the market players. Price fluctuations in crude oil, in paper, metals of plastics can significantly influence the attractiveness of recycling. For technically recyclable products where no market exists for the recycled materials (e.g. red coloured PET bottles) no incentive for recycling would exist. In addition, marketing strategies and the perceived as well as the imposed consumer demands could prove to be stronger than the need for packaging limitation at the minimum level of consumer acceptance.

The lack of harmonisation of policy instruments throughout the European Union and the freedom of Member States to implement diverging economic instruments may jeopardise cost efficiency. The following key problems were identified:

· Cherry-picking as to in which Member State a product is put on the market, e.g. related to unequal enforcement of the Essential Requirements;

· Statistical and target compliance problems in case of small domestic markets and large cross border shopping of inhabitants;

· Diverting statistical methods to prove compliance with recycling targets which could lead to competitive advantages.

When provisions in the PPW Directive lead to adding administrative burden to both authorities and industry for measures that would equally be taken without legal obligation, these provisions can be considered obsolete or hindering cost-effective implementation. It is however challenging to identify these measures for which cost reduction, competition and other market dynamics would, on a continuous basis and without quality loss, succeed in reaching the same results as through imposing legal targets and obligations.

It is easier to pinpoint shortcomings in the legal framework that distort the level playing field or the functioning of the internal market rather than to identify superfluous provisions. The PPW Directive differs in a substantial way from other recycling directives in its ‘new approach’ structure which identifies targets but which does not focus on policy instruments to be applied. This is especially the case for EPR and other economic instruments.

Efficiency in a nutshell

The efficiency of the PPWD Directive with its recovery and recycling targets depends to a great deal on factors outside the Directive itself. It plays a paramount role whether low end disposal options are made expensive. Recycling is more economically advantageous than lower end waste management options. Since the Directive has stimulated increased packaging recycling, it has worked towards a cost efficient waste management solution. Where low end disposal options are made cheap, e.g., through low landfill gate fees or none at all, or where financial incentives are given for incineration classified as renewable energy source, recycling will be less economically viable.

Where gate fees are high, and EPR schemes provide for waste being separately collected and where recycling yields high quality secondary raw materials such as metal, glass, paper and plastic, the Directive makes packaging waste management a cost efficient operation. Conversely, in Member States where these conditions are not met, an economic opportunity is lost. Economic instruments such as EPR schemes which are good practice, PAYT schemes and landfill taxes provide a strong economic incentive to divert packaging waste towards recycling, thus increasing the Directive’s cost efficiency. The same accounts to high end separate waste collection which achieves higher recycling yields and helps make the Directive to generate cost benefits.

EPR schemes differ greatly across Europe in terms of efficiency, but they are an essential tool to increase packaging recycling and to make it a cost efficient operation. Their cost efficient functioning is a crucial element of packaging recycling, and hence for the attainment of the Directive’s objectives.

Another crucial element with a high potential for improvement are the essential requirements, in which design for recycling could be more clearly incorporated and enforced, thus increasing recyclability of packaging and reducing costs while achieving higher yields of secondary raw materials. New technologies, such as plastic multi-layer packaging, while producing less packaging by weight, jeopardise recycling. Another risk for efficient packaging recycling stems from the use of biodegradable packaging and oxo-degradable packaging, which may both put efficient mechanical recycling at risk.

b. The ELV Directive

The automobile industry recognizes that the Directive has clearly environmental benefits through standards set for depollution, dismantling and treatment as well as the reductions of hazardous substances.[111] Also the economic benefits are recognized. Although the requirements to be met by the Directive have caused high initial costs and required significant investments from car manufacturers (removal of hazardous substances, eco-design) this is compensated through the recycling of high value materials.[112]

Economic benefits result from:[113]

· Incentives for innovation in vehicle design and ELV treatment,

· Standardized rules of ELV treatment in an internal market,

· The reduction of abandonment of vehicles and hence the cost to the public sector of having to collect, store and organize disposal. In 2001, the number of abandoned vehicles in the UK was 223 500. In 2008, this figure was 48 500,[114]

· The reduction of waste disposal costs (associated with avoided landfilling of Car Shredder Residue, the remainder of ELV mater