ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Four problems are addressed:

1.Road transport is responsible for 17% of the EU's CO2 emissions and the uptake of low- and zero-emission vehicles is insufficient to meet the 2030 climate and energy targets

2.The quality of EU roads is degrading, due to falling infrastructure investments and deferred maintenance schedules not taking long term economic impacts into account

3.Some Member States introduced time-based charges (vignettes), which discriminate against occasional, foreign drivers

4.Air pollution and congestion generated by road vehicles represent significant costs to society

All of these problems could be addressed through fair and efficient road pricing. However, the application of tolls in the EU is incomplete and fragmented, hardly reflecting the real cost of road use.
After 6 years of operation the following problems in the ESAs' framework have been identified: 1) Constraints on the ESAs to fulfil their existing mandates in full. This problem is concerned with current constraints on the ESAs to meet their mandates in full and deliver the right output in terms of regulatory tasks, and supervisory convergence actions in particular, and how these constraints may put even more pressure on the ESAs as the process of financial integration continues. The problem drivers stem from inadequacies in how their powers have been framed, how the decision making operates (governance) and how they are resourced for these tasks. 2) Inadequate scope of existing mandates going forward. This problem is concerned with inadequacies in the scope of their mandates in relation to efforts to further integrate markets. This problem is mainly driven by the absence of certain powers and tasks pertaining to large EU-wide cross-border firms, products or market infrastructures, as well as to third-country instruments and aspects. Inadequate governance and funding contributes to this problem by further hampering an effective exercise of wider powers.
Why? What is the problem being addressed?

Balancing mechanisms are not a solely technical issue ensuring system stability but have significant commercial implications and in turn implications for competition. When TSOs intervene to balance out demand and supply, they often face insufficient competition for balancing services due to few available suppliers to secure the balance. The lack of competition results from the manner in which balancing energy prices are set and insufficient use of cross-border transmission capacity (i.e. fragmented national balancing markets). Until today, large disparities exist in balancing energy prices in Europe and efficient rules that allow an efficient use of the cross-border transmission capacity for balancing are missing. The current methods used to activate balancing energy are not exploiting the full potential of the grid and leaves available capacities unused. Current balancing energy prices do not always reflect scarcity and reward flexibility.

Increasing amounts of renewable electricity, in particular from wind generation, and other changes to achieve a low carbon economy requires that the electricity system is able to integrate more volatile and more distributed production sources. The proposed implementing act is expected to safeguard a balance between electricity supply and demand at the lowest possible cost to customers so as to complete the integration of the internal electricity market.

What is the value added of action at the EU level?

The proposed measures will addresses the inefficient use of the European electricity transmission network by means of improving coordination, harmonisation and transparency of balancing markets, maximising the usage of available cross-border transmission capacity for balancing purposes and enhancing, at the same time, the system security and the integration of electricity markets to promote competition. Furthermore, a minimum degree of harmonisation will be achieved to complete the integration of the internal electricity market leaving the implementation of the rules therein to TSOs and NRAs.

What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a preferred choice or not? Why?
EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 19.12.2017

SWD(2017) 459 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Accompanying the document

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND TO THE COUNCIL

on the implementation of Article 45 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on information measures relating to the common agricultural policy

{COM(2017) 777 final}
on the implementation of EU waste legislation, including the Early Warning report for compliance with Article 11(2)a of Directive 2008/98/EC

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

This document corrects document SWD(2018) 426 final of 24.09.2018 Corrections to the list of possible actions. The text shall read as follows:

1.Introduction

This early warning report is part of the Commission's overall implementation report and aims to assist Member States at risk of failing to meet the 2020 target of 50 % preparation for re-use/recycling of municipal waste set out in Article 11(2)(a) of Directive 2008/98/EC. It builds on previous support provided by the Commission to help Member States comply with EU law in the area of municipal waste management. This resulted in country-specific roadmaps being drawn up for the relevant Member States.

The assessment underpinning the early warning report is based on a collaborative and transparent process involving the Member States concerned and an in-depth analysis of their most recent policy developments. This also involved extensive consultation with the authorities in charge of waste management.

The possible actions identified during this process are based on the existing best practices and aim to help Member States in meeting the 2020 municipal waste preparation for re-use/recycling; they therefore focus on policy measures that can be taken forward in the short term. These actions should be seen as complementary to those recommended in the roadmaps that were drawn up as part of the preceding compliance promotion activities and to the recommendations made in the Environmental Implementation Review.

2.Key findings of the 'Early Warning report for Poland'

In 2016, Poland’s municipal waste recycling rate (including composting) reported to Eurostat was 44 %, while the landfilling rate was 37 %. However, for compliance with the target Poland chose to report the recycling rate of four fractions of municipal waste — paper, plastic, metal and glass – which was 27 % in 2015. Based on an analysis of existing and firmly planned policies in the area of waste management, and on Poland’s performance to date, Poland is considered at risk of missing the 2020 target of 50 % preparation for re-use/recycling for municipal waste.

The assessment that underpins the early warning report concludes that

·the separate collection of recyclables is not yet being carried out effectively;

·economic incentives for households to separate waste are lacking;

·the extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes in Poland do not operate efficiently; and

·some reservations on the quality of waste data undermine the reliability of the high recycling rates reported to Eurostat.

The table below lists possible actions to support Poland's efforts to improve its performance in waste management.
What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a preferred choice or not? Why?

Two non-legislative options were considered. Policy option 1 supposes that when EUnetHTA Joint Action 3 ends in 2020 the EU funding for the scientific and technical cooperation is discontinued. The cooperation would be voluntary, relying on national resources and is expected to remain sporadic. Policy option 2 provides for a voluntary cooperation model, implemented through EU-funded projects other than Joint Actions. It is dependent on the willingness of HTA bodies to participate, with no guarantee for the implementation of joint outputs. Additionally, three legislative policy options were considered. Policy option 3 provides for a permanent cooperation mechanism allowing for the harmonisation of common HTA tools, procedures, methodology and joint Early Dialogues with health technology developers. Policy option 4 builds on option 3, to which joint clinical assessments (i.e. joint REA) are added. This policy option could be applied through an 'opt-in' system (option 4.1) or to all Member States with no possibilities to opt-in later or stay out (option 4.2). Policy option 5 which extends option 4 by including the joint full HTA (i.e. REA plus an economic assessment and other non-clinical domains) was not considered feasible and was discarded at the start of the process. The preferred option is a revised Option 4.2 which integrates elements from other policy options (i.e. 2 and 4.1) and also some adjustments (i.e. progressive implementation of the product scope, inclusion of transitional arrangements for Member States and specific approach for medical technologies). The preferred governance option includes a central secretariat to be hosted by the European Commission.

Most Member States' public administrations support options 3-4, favouring a stepwise approach/transitional regime. Payers expressed concerns about mandatory use of economic assessments. Patients are strong supporters of option 5, or at least option 4. Healthcare professionals and academia advocate for options 4-5, and together with patients' representatives support a legal framework to secure their participation in the HTA process. The pharmaceutical industry supports option 4 advocating for a legal framework to guarantee uptake of joint clinical assessments by Member States. The medical technologies industry expressed concerns regarding a "one size fits all" solution and a legally mandated joint clinical assessment (REA) at the time for market launch.

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)?
Three policy options were considered: Option 1 ‘No policy change’ – The first option is the status quo, or no policy change (i.e. the existing regulatory framework would continue to apply). It is used as a benchmark against which the alternative options will be compared; Option 2 ‘Amending the current management framework’ – Under this option the current management tools, namely the national management plans, would be reviewed to include the CFP objectives. The main aspects to be considered in the review would be: amendments to the current scope (in terms of fish stocks, fisheries and area covered); new conservation objectives such as MSY; quantifiable targets and timeframes; and new safeguards; and Option 3 ‘Adopting a multi-annual plan at EU level’ – This option would aim at ensuring that EU fishing fleets targeting demersal stocks in the western Mediterranean are regulated by a single and integrated regulatory framework at the EU level. The preferred option is Option 3: a multi-annual plan at EU level, as it performs best on all the environmental and socio-economic objectives. It is also more coherent with the reformed CFP, streamlined (one main regulatory framework), more stable (it considers the long-term perspective) and more transparent (as the three Member States concerned would jointly adapt current fishing mortalities to sustainable levels through a Council Regulation) than options 1 and 2.
The instruments considered for the initiative are a Council Recommendation, a Directive and an increased focus on social protection in the context of existing instruments, notably the European Semester and Social Open Method of Coordination (OMC). The preferred instrument is a Council Recommendation as it is regarded as the most effective and proportionate instrument at this point in time. The key added value of a Recommendation at this stage is to create momentum supporting and complementing national debates and reforms, guiding Member States' efforts towards upwards convergence. Given the evolving nature of the problem, the ongoing reforms in some Member States and statistical limitations, a Council Recommendation is a more proportionate approach than a Directive. Although a Directive could be more effective from a strictly economic point of view in reaching the objectives of this initiative, consultations imply that it is doubtful that it would gather support from all Member States, making it the less effective instrument overall. Alongside the baseline scenario (package A), two alternative policy packages are assessed, each combining measures addressing three specific objectives of the initiative. Package B aims at i) extending formal coverage on a mandatory basis for the non-standard workers and on a voluntary basis for the self-employed, ii) adjusting time thresholds of social protection schemes and ensuring preservation, transferability and aggregation of entitlements in case individuals change job or employment status, iii) ensuring that generic and personalised information about social protection entitlements and obligations is available to the mentioned groups. Package C aims at i) extending formal coverage on a mandatory basis for the non-standard workers and for the self-employed, ii) adjusting time thresholds of social protection schemes and introducing personal accounts tying social protection entitlements to the individuals and not to conracts, iii) ensuring that generic and personalised information about socal protection entithlements and obligations is avaialble to the mentioned groups. The preferred option (package B) leaves more flexibility in tailoring choices of formal coverage to the self-employed, given the special characteristics of and heterogeneity of this group. Moreover there is a lack of clear consensus among stakeholders, and in particular among representatives of the self-employed, on the approach to formal coverage of the self-employed. Package B represents therefore a good compromise between the different views expressed throughout the consultation process and the EU political objectives set out for this initiative.
Executive Summary Sheet

Impact assessment on a Proposal for a Regulation on electronic communication of freight transport information and documentation

A. Need for action

Why? What is the problem being addressed?

A low and varying degree of acceptance by Member States’ authorities of information or documents communicated electronically by businesses, when provided as evidence of compliance with regulatory conditions for the transport of goods, makes the majority of economic operators to prefer using paper documents. This results in lost economic potential, due to inefficiencies.

What is this initiative expected to achieve?

To enable wider use of digital technologies for fulfilling regulatory information requirements in current legislation applicable to the transport of goods in the EU, in all transport modes. Administrative burden for logistics operators will be reduced, and multimodal transport facilitated. Overall net benefits are projected at about EUR 27 billion over 2018-2040*.

What is the value added of action at the EU level?

Unilateral initiatives by Member States may increase the level of digitalisation of regulatory information exchange, but their effect will be limited in the absence of similar action across the borders. Unilateral initiatives may also fragment further the current legal and technical framework, and increase complexity for EU businesses.

B. Solutions

What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a preferred choice or not? Why?

Four policy options have been considered, which differ on the material scope of the intervention, namely the range of freight transport documents and regulatory information covered by the obligation of acceptance by authorities, and on the regulatory strength of the different measures. Two policy options, options 3 and 4, proved most effective in achieving the policy objectives. These options include a wide scope of regulatory information and relatively more, and better specified, binding requirements related to the acceptance of electronic information. The preferred option is option 3, which takes account of stakeholders’ preference for avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach.

Who supports which option?

A majority of stakeholders support a wider scope of regulatory intervention in terms of both: (a) the documentation/information covered by the obligation of acceptance for authorities; and (b) the degree of specification of binding requirements to ensure interoperability of IT solutions used. However, stakeholders in the rail and aviation sectors do not favour new technical standards or one-size-fits-all solutions, as proposed in option 4.

C. Impacts of the preferred option

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)?
Impact assessment on Commission proposal for an amendment to the Motor Insurance Directive

Why? What is the problem being addressed?
Whereas Directive 2008/118/EC is seen by Member States and Economic operators as an enormous improvement on its predecessor Directive 92/12/EEC several areas for improvement were identified:

·lack of synchronisation of excise and customs procedures

·duty paid business-to-business procedures (100,000 per year) are still paper-based

·some provisions lead to different procedures being used in Member States and consequently to complexity for Economic Operators
The European Commission has adopted its proposals for the multiannual financial framework for 2021-2027. In order to bridge the current digital investment gap, the Commission proposed a Digital Europe Programme to shape and support the digital transformation of Europe’s society and economy.

Public intervention at EU level plays a key role as first mover in acquiring "common goods" and capacities and in facilitating their use to address societal challenges and drive innovation and competitiveness. Intervention is justified in areas where the necessary funding is so significant that no Member State can act - in a timely way - alone, in areas where there is a need to aggregate resources scattered throughout Europe, and in areas where interoperability is key to the deployment of pan-European services.

In Europe, an upstream investment gap is evident from the mismatch between the growing demand for latest technology and the supply. Improving digital capacities requires investments to acquire the relevant technologies, ensure their best use in an interoperable way across the EU, and develop the advanced digital skills necessary for their wide uptake. This complements existing EU programmes covering important aspects related to digital notably in research and innovation (Horizon Europe) and in physical connectivity (CEF2).

The need to step up investments in digital capacities and in their broader use is widely supported by stakeholders and experts as well as at the highest political level.

The general objective of the programme is to support the digital transformation of the European society and economy, and bring its benefits to European citizens and businesses. The programme will reinforce Europe's capacities in key digital technology areas and widen their diffusion and uptake in areas of public interest and the private sector.

The programme will have five Specific Objectives, namely on (i) high performance computing, (ii) artificial intelligence, (iii) cybersecurity and trust, (iv) advanced digital skills and (v) deployment, best use of digital capacity and interoperability. These objectives are mirrored in the programme structure of five interdependent pillars.

The Programme will be implemented directly as provided for by the Financial Regulation or indirectly with the appropriate entities or bodies. A set of indicators will be drawn from the existing Digital Economy and Society Index, a reference instrument to measure the progress of digitisation in the EU. Moreover, new indicators will be developed in order to have detailed feedback on the impact of DEP.

This impact assessment accompanies the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and Council on the Digital Europe Programme.
on the implementation of EU waste legislation, including the early warning report for the Member States at risk of meeting the preparation for re-use/recycling target on municipal waste

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

1.Introduction

This early warning report is part of the Commission's overall implementation report and aims to assist Member States at risk of failing to meet the 2020 target of 50 % preparation for re-use/recycling of municipal waste set out in Article 11(2)(a) of Directive 2008/98/EC. It builds on previous support provided by the Commission to help Member States comply with EU law in the area of municipal waste management. This resulted in country-specific roadmaps being drawn up for the relevant Member States.

The assessment underpinning the early warning report is based on a collaborative and transparent process involving the Member States concerned and an in-depth analysis of their most recent policy developments. This also involved extensive consultation with the authorities in charge of waste management.

The possible actions identified during this process are based on the existing best practices and aim to help Member States in meeting the 2020 municipal waste preparation for re-use/recycling target; they therefore focus on policy measures that can be taken forward in the short term. These actions should be seen as complementary to those recommended in the roadmaps that were drawn up as part of the preceding compliance promotion activities and to the recommendations made in the Environmental Implementation Review.

2.Key findings

In 2016, Cyprus’ municipal waste recycling rate (including composting) reported to Eurostat was 17 % while the landfilling rate was 75 %. Based on an analysis of existing and firmly planned policies in the area of waste management, Cyprus is considered at risk of missing the 2020 target of 50 % preparation for re-use/recycling of municipal waste.

The assessment that underpins the early warning report concludes that Cyprus’ continued difficulties in implementing EU waste law are mainly due to:

·the lack of infrastructure and collection systems for recyclables and for diverting biodegradable waste away from landfills;

·the lack of coordination between different administrative levels and insufficient capacity at the local level; and

·the lack of incentives (including the absence of economic instruments) to prevent waste and improve recycling.

Moreover, the extended producer responsibility (EPR) scheme for packaging in Cyprus is not effective and the monitoring and enforcement of its activity is insufficient.

The table below lists possible actions to support Cyprus’ efforts to improve its waste management.