COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying document to the  Proposal for a  REGULATION (EU) No …/… OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 as regards the use of phosphates and other phosphorous compounds in household laundry detergents  IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Date: 2010-11-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: free movement of goods, market approval, polishing and scouring preparations

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 4.11.2010 
SEC(2010) 1277 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying document to the 

Proposal for a 

REGULATION (EU) No …/… OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE 
COUNCIL 
amending Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 as regards the use of phosphates and other 
phosphorous compounds in household laundry detergents 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

COM(2010) 597 final 
SEC(2010) 1278 final 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties .............................................. 5 

1.1. 

Consultation and expertise ........................................................................................... 6 

1.1.1.  Consultation of other Commission services................................................................. 6 

1.1.2.  Consultation of Member States.................................................................................... 6 

1.1.3.  Consultation of Industry and NGOs............................................................................. 6 

1.1.4.  Consultation of SMEs .................................................................................................. 7 

1.2. 

Scrutiny by the Commission impact assessment board ............................................... 7 

2. 

Problem definition........................................................................................................ 8 

2.1. 

The use of phosphates in detergents and their contribution to the total phosphate load8 

2.2.  Why the presence of phosphate in detergents is an environmental concern................ 8 

2.2.1.  Contribution of detergent phosphorous to eutrophication ........................................... 8 

2.2.2.  Costs for phosphate removal in waste water treatment.............................................. 10 

2.2.3.  Failure of regional initiatives to prevent eutrophication ............................................ 12 

2.2.3.1.  EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea ................................................................................... 12 

2.2.3.2.  International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River............................ 13 

2.3. 

2.4. 

Fragmentation of the internal market and the impact of mutual recognition............. 14 

Drivers of the problem ............................................................................................... 15 

2.5.  Who is affected, how and to what extent by the current situation? ........................... 15 

2.6. 

2.7. 

How would the situation evolve if no action is taken? .............................................. 15 

The EU right to act..................................................................................................... 17 

2.7.1.  Legal basis.................................................................................................................. 17 

2.7.2.  Subsidiarity ................................................................................................................ 17 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

4.4. 

4.5. 

5. 

Objectives................................................................................................................... 18 

General Objective....................................................................................................... 18 

Specific objectives ..................................................................................................... 18 

Policy options............................................................................................................. 18 

Option-1: No action at EU level, leaving the responsibility to act to the Member 
States (baseline option) .............................................................................................. 18 

Option-2: Voluntary action by industry ..................................................................... 18 

Option-3: Total ban of phosphates in detergents ....................................................... 18 

Option-4: Restriction of phosphates in laundry detergents........................................ 19 

Option-5: Setting limit values for the content of phosphates in detergents ............... 19 

Analysis of impacts .................................................................................................... 19 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
5.1. 

5.2. 

5.3. 

Option-1: No action at EU level, leaving the responsibility to act to the Member 
States (baseline option) .............................................................................................. 19 

Option-2: Voluntary action by industry ..................................................................... 21 

Option-3: Total ban of phosphates in all detergent products ..................................... 22 

5.3.1.  Benefits of reduced eutrophication ............................................................................ 22 

5.3.2.  Benefits for Waste Water Treatment.......................................................................... 25 

5.3.3.  Costs of a ban of phosphates in detergents ................................................................ 25 

5.3.3.1.  Impacts on the phosphates industry and on producers of alternatives ....................... 25 

5.3.3.2.  Reformulation & other costs for detergent producers................................................ 26 

5.3.3.3.  Technical feasibility of STPP alternatives in detergents............................................ 27 

5.3.3.4.  Economic feasibility of STPP alternatives in detergents ........................................... 28 

5.3.3.5.  Health and environmental aspects of STTP alternatives............................................ 28 

5.4. 

Option 4: Restriction of phosphates in laundry detergents ........................................ 30 

5.4.1.  Benefits of reduced eutrophication ............................................................................ 30 

5.4.2.  Benefits for waste water treatment............................................................................. 30 

5.4.3.  Cost of a restriction on STPP in laundry detergents .................................................. 30 

5.4.3.1.  Impacts on the phosphates industry and on producers of alternatives ....................... 30 

5.4.3.2.  Reformulation and other costs for detergent producers ............................................. 30 

5.4.3.3.  Technical and economic feasibility and health and environmental considerations for 

alternatives to phosphates in laundry detergents........................................................ 31 

5.5. 

Option-5: Setting limit values for the content of phosphates in all detergents .......... 32 

5.5.1.  Feasibility................................................................................................................... 32 

5.5.2.  Cost and benefit considerations ................................................................................. 33 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 33 

Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 36 

References .................................................................................................................. 38 

Glossary of acronyms................................................................................................. 39 

ANNEX I: TABLES AND FIGURES ..................................................................................... 41 

ANNEX II: Scientific studies and models ............................................................................... 48 

1. 

2. 

Establishing the scientific knowledge on the contribution of phosphorous in 
detergents to eutrophication - Commission studies and their evaluation by the 
Scientific Committees ................................................................................................ 48 

Development of the INIA pan-European eutrophication model - Contribution of 
STPP based detergents to EU eutrophication risk...................................................... 50 

ANNEX III: SME consultation ................................................................................................ 53 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
ANNEX IV: Sensitivity analysis for Option 4......................................................................... 59 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
Introduction 

Phosphates  are  used  in  detergents  to  combat  water  hardness  in  order  to  allow  efficient 
cleaning. Sodium tripolyphosphate (STPP1) (see section 9 for a glossary of acronyms) is the 
most commonly used phosphate. In conjunction with surfactants, STPP allows detergents to 
perform efficiently in all washing conditions. 

More specifically, STPP has the following functions in detergents: 
•  efficient sequestering2 of hardness salts (and keeping them in solution); 

•  removal and prevention of encrustation on fibres; 

•  enhancement of the washing process; 

•  carrier for other detergent ingredients. 

Phosphates  from  detergents  can  contribute  to  certain  adverse  effects  in  the  aquatic 
environment. They act as nutrients which, in excess, cause an accelerated growth of algae and 
higher forms of plant life to produce an undesirable disturbance to the balance of organisms, a 
phenomenon called eutrophication. Alternative water-softening ingredients are available, but 
with various performance limitations, particularly for the more demanding cleaning tasks. 
Regulation  (EC)  No  648/2004  on  detergents3  harmonises  the  placing  on  the  market  of 
detergents, but only with respect to the labelling of detergents and the biodegradability of the 
surfactants they contain. Nevertheless, in view of concerns about eutrophication, Article 16 of 
the  Regulation  also  required  the  Commission  to  “evaluate,  submit  a  report  on  and,  where 
justified, present a legislative proposal on the use of phosphates with a view to their gradual 
phase-out  or  restriction  to  specific  applications”.  The  Commission  presented  the  report  in 
2007 and concluded that the state of knowledge concerning the contribution of phosphates in 
detergents to eutrophication was still incomplete, but was developing rapidly4. Further work 
conducted  thereafter  has  been  the  basis  for  this  impact  assessment  report,  which  analyses  a 
number of policy options to address the use of phosphates in detergents. 

1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

The Commission initiated a number of studies to establish whether restrictions on phosphates 
in  detergents  would  be  justified  in  order  to  reduce  eutrophication  in  the  EU:  WRc  20025, 
INIA  pan-European  eutrophication6,  RPA7  (see  Annex  II).  These  studies  provided  the  basis 
for the consultations mentioned below. The socio-economic impacts of possible restrictions of 
phosphates in detergents and the environmental risks of alternatives to phosphates have also 
been assessed based on information available from these reports or further direct contacts with 
stakeholders as discussed in detail in sections 5.3 and 5.4. 

1 
2 

3 

4 

5 
6 

7 

STPP: Na5P3O10, CAS No 7758-29-4, EINECS No 231-838-7. 
Sequestering: The process of involving a chemical compound or certain polymers that chemically tie up 
(sequester) other compounds or ions so they cannot be involved in chemical reactions. 
Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on detergents, OJ L104, 
8.4.2004, p.1. 
COM (2007) 234), available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/chemicals/legislation/detergents/index_en.htm. 
Phosphates and alternative detergent builders. WRc (2002), Swindon, UK. 
Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/chemicals/files/docs/ceep_study_final_report_042009_en.pdf. 
Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/chemicals/files/studies/rpa_non_surf_organ_zeolites_en.pdf. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
 
1.1. 

Consultation and expertise 

1.1.1.  Consultation of other Commission services 

DG  Enterprise  and  Industry  set  up  an  Impact  Assessment  Steering  Group  (IASG)  on 
phosphates in detergents to which the following Services were invited: DG Environment, DG 
Health  and  Consumer  Protection,  DG  Joint  Research  Centre,  DG  Agriculture,  and  the 
Secretariat General. The IASG met in December 2008, July 2009, January and March 2010 in 
order to accompany the preparation of the impact assessment. 

1.1.2.  Consultation of Member States  

The findings of the various Commission studies concerning eutrophication and STPP use in 
detergents as well as the opinions of the Commission’s Scientific Committees on them have 
been extensively discussed at meetings of the Working Group of the Competent Authorities 
responsible for the implementation of the Detergents Regulation, hereafter referred to as the 
"Detergents WG”, namely in November 2006, July and December 2007, July 2008, February 
and November 2009. 

In the meeting of December 2007, Member States' opinions were split regarding the need for 
legislative  action  at  EU  level.  It  was  agreed  that  the  Commission  would  continue  working 
together  with  Member  States  and  stakeholders  to  improve  the  knowledge  base,  by  further 
improving the INIA model in line with the recommendations of the SCHER opinion of 2007. 
In the July 2008 and February 2009 meetings, the Commission consulted on the preparation 
of the impact assessment and the update of the INIA model. In the November 2009 meeting, 
the  Commission  consulted  on  the  main  conclusions  of  the  SCHER  opinion  on  the  updated 
INIA  model  as  well  as  on  various  policy  options  to  be  analysed  in  the  Impact  Assessment. 
Members States were invited to express their positions on their preferred option concerning 
the  use  of  phosphates  in  detergents,  either  orally  in  the  meeting  or  by  sending  written 
statements to the Commission in the subsequent weeks. 
By  mid-January  2010,  24  Member  States  had  communicated  their  preferred  policy  option8. 
The majority (14) considered that an “EU ban of phosphates in laundry detergents” would be 
the most appropriate measure, where “ban” actually means a restriction to no more than 0.2 to 
0.5%  phosphorous  per  weight  of  detergent  in  line  with  existing  national  measures.  Six 
Member States favoured stricter measures: either for a “total ban of phosphates” (3) or for “an 
EU  restriction  setting  phosphates  limit  values  in  all  detergents”  (3).  Four  Member  States 
favoured milder measures: “no EU action” (2) or “EU voluntary agreement” (2). The Member 
States  with  minority  opinions  could  also  agree  with  the  option  “EU  ban  of  phosphates  in 
laundry detergents”, if such a measure were to be proposed. 

1.1.3.  Consultation of Industry and NGOs 

The meetings of the Detergents WG were also attended by the relevant industry associations. 
The  European  Phosphates  Producer  Industry  (CEEP)  opposes  restrictions  on  phosphates  in 
detergents at EU level, claiming that the sector would be adversely affected to a significant 
extent. A similar statement was submitted by the VCI – Sector Group 'Phosphorsäure Salze' 
from  Germany.  The  International  Association  for  Soaps,  Detergents  and  Maintenance 
Products (A.I.S.E.) would welcome an EU-wide ban on phosphates in laundry detergents, but 
not in formulations for dishwasher and Industrial and Institutional (I&I) detergents where the 

8 

All Member State statements are available at: 
http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/enterprise/wgdet/library?l=/phosphates_detergents&vm=detailed&s
b=Title 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
use of phosphates is still considered essential to ensure adequate cleaning performance. The 
European  Zeolites  Producers  Association  (EUZEPA)9  confirmed 
that  phosphate-free 
formulations have been developed by detergent formulators. 

The European Policy office of WWF attended some of the Detergents WG meetings without 
making  any  interventions  on  a  preferred  policy  option.  DG  Enterprise  and  Industry  also 
contacted  the  European  Consumers'  Organisation  (BEUC),  who  did,  however,  not  convey  a 
position with regard to possible restrictions on the use of phosphates in detergents. 

1.1.4.  Consultation of SMEs 

Between  July  and  September  2009,  the  Commission  consulted  small  and  medium  size 
detergent formulators via the Enterprise Europe Network on their current use of  phosphates 
and  alternatives,  and  the  impacts  of  potential  restrictions  of  phosphates  on  the  companies. 
Replies were received from 107 companies located in 11 Member States. 63% were located in 
Southern  Europe  and  most  of  those  (~70%)  produced  Industrial  and  Institutional  (I&I) 
products, while about 40% also produced laundry and dishwasher detergents. 

The  majority  of  companies  (58%)  claimed  that  replacing  phosphates  with  alternative 
substances  would  reduce  cleaning  performance,  in  particular  for  Industrial  and  Institutional 
(I&I)  products,  and  a  minority  (20%)  expected  adverse  economic  impacts  such  as  higher 
production  costs,  decreased  sales,  loss  of  market  share,  or  need  for  new  investments.  See 
Annex III for further details. 

Given the rather technical nature of the problem and the limited number of actors affected, an 
internet-based public consultation was not conducted. 

Scrutiny by the Commission impact assessment board 

1.2. 
The impact assessment board of the European Commission10 assessed a draft version of the 
impact  assessment  and  issued  its  opinion  on  16  April  2010.  The  impact  assessment  board 
made  several  comments  and,  in  the  light  of  those  suggestions,  the  final  impact  assessment 
report: 

–  clarifies the advantages of EU action in the light of the current downward trend in the use 
of phosphates in detergents and the upward trend in the connection of sewers to WWTP, 
and also that EU action is more efficient than actions of Member States in the context of 
regional cooperation.  

–  describes the expected costs and benefits and their development over time in more detail 

and ranks more clearly the options in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. 

–  gives  further  information  on  how  the  different  options  will  affect  consumers  and 
professional  users  of  detergents  and  provides  more  information  on  the  impacts  of 
restrictions  on  water  quality  in  countries  where  the  use  of  phosphates  in  detergents  is 
already restricted. 

9 
10 

Zeolites are one of the possible substitutes of phosphates in detergents. 
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/iab_en.htm. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. 

2.1. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

The  use  of  phosphates  in  detergents  and  their  contribution  to  the  total 
phosphate load 

The four main sources of phosphates in the environment are: fertilisers, metabolic waste from 
humans  and  livestock  (urine  +  faeces),  and  detergents.  Within  the  EU-25,  the  major  use  of 
phosphates  is  in  fertilisers  with  an  estimated  consumption  of  around  3.5  million  tonnes 
P2O5/year  (equivalent  to  around  1.5  million  t  of  phosphorous  (P)/year)11.  In  comparison, 
about  1.8  million  tonnes  of  phosphates-based  detergents  were  used  in  2006  in  the  EU-25 
containing  ca.  440,000  tonnes  of  P2O5,  equivalent  to  110,000  tonnes  of  phosphorous.  The 
relative importance of each source varies from Member State to Member State and from one 
water  catchment  area  to  another  but,  overall,  phosphorous  from  STPP  based  detergents 
represents  less  than  10%  of  the  phosphorous  used  in  fertilisers.  However,  all  detergent 
phosphates  are  discharged  into  waste  water,  and  therefore  potentially  contribute  to 
eutrophication,  whereas  most  fertiliser  phosphates  remain  in  agricultural  soils  and  only  a 
minor (but not fully quantifiable) fraction is washed out of the soil into surface waters. Figure 
1 illustrates the significance of various phosphorus sources to domestic wastewater in the UK. 
Human  inputs  via  urine  and  faeces  dominate  domestic  loads  of  phosphorus  to  sewer,  with 
main contributions arising from the metabolism of dairy products, meat and cereals. Laundry 
detergents  contribute  with  approximately  18%.  Including  phosphorus  from  dishwashing 
detergents increases the overall loads from detergents to 25%12. 

Figure-1: Sources of phosphorous in UK domestic waters 

Laundry
18%

Auto 
dishwashing
7%

Toothpaste
3%

Mains supply
6%

Faeces
24%

Urine
42%

2.2.  Why the presence of phosphate in detergents is an environmental concern 

2.2.1.  Contribution of detergent phosphorous to eutrophication 

There are no concerns over adverse effects on human health associated with the use of STPP 
in  detergents.  Due  to  their  physico-chemical  properties,  STPP  are  not  distributed  or 
transported  to  the  atmosphere,  therefore  no  environmental  risk  related  to  STPP  use  in 

11 

12 

EFMA  (2005):  Forecast  of  Food  Farming  and  Fertilizer  Use  in  the  European  Union  2005-2015, 
available from the European Fertilizer Manufacturers Association (www.efma.org). 
UK Water Industry 2008 report. Available at: 
http://www.sniffer.org.uk/Resources/WFD88/Layout_Default/0.aspx?backurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sn
iffer.org.uk%3a80%2fproject-
search%20%20results.aspx%3fsearchterm%3dphosphorus&selectedtab=completed. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
detergents is indicated in soil or air compartments (HERA, 200313). As already discussed, the 
prime environmental concern over the use of phosphate in detergents is that they can lead to 
an excess of nutrients in the aquatic environment which, in turn, can contribute to problems of 
eutrophication. Elevated phosphate levels tend to pose a threat to the biodiversity of surface 
waters.  The  effects  of  phosphates  on  local  ecology  can  be  dramatic,  particularly  in  smaller 
surface  water  bodies  where  there  is  less  prospect  of  dilution.  For  example,  high  phosphate 
levels in the lower river Lea in London have caused the growth of excessive duckweed which 
needs  to  be  removed  regularly  to  maintain  the  ecological  balance  (DEFRA,  2008)14. 
Similarly, releases of phosphates to lakes and rivers can result in increased plant growth and 
an over-abundance of algae. Various species of algae produce potent toxins which can poison 
fish thereby influencing the fishery production, but also pets and humans. 

Several  EU  Directives  (Table  2  in  Annex  I  contains  an  overview)  aim  to  limit  the 
concentration  of  nutrients  such  as  phosphorus  and  nitrogen  in  surface  waters  in  order  to 
counter  eutrophication,  but  there  is  no  EU  legislation  that  limits  the  use  of  phosphates  in 
detergents. Detergents are discharged to the aquatic compartment via sewage systems which 
nowadays  are  increasingly  connected  to  waste  water  treatment  plants,  following  the 
implementation  of  the  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment  Directive (UWWTD).  The  proportion 
of STPP from detergents that enter the aquatic environment (rivers, lakes, and eventually the 
maritime environment) varies considerably across the Member States depending on the degree 
of tertiary treatment of waste water. Tertiary treatment removes phosphates but is costly and 
is  not  a  legal  requirement  for  all  sewage  discharges  (in  particular  smaller  settlements  are 
exempted  and  lack  such  treatment).  Table  3  in  Annex  I  gives  a  picture  of  the  variability  of 
waste  water  treatment  in  various  EU  Member  States  and  the  phosphorous  input  into  their 
surface water depending on the treatment processes in waste water treatment plants.  

The  Commission  has  attempted  to  quantify  the  contribution  of  phosphorus  in  detergents  to 
eutrophication throughout the EU. The 2009 INIA pan-European probabilistic eutrophication 
model concluded that the combined contribution of both laundry and dishwashers detergents 
to eutrophication risks varies between the EU eco-regions, being relatively higher in Northern 
(5.3%)  or  Central  Baltic  (5.8%)  eco-regions  as  compared  to  Mediterranean  (2.3%)  and 
Atlantic eco-regions (3.2%)15. The higher values obtained for the Northern and Baltic regions 
are  in  line  with  the  well-established  higher  sensitivity  of  surface  waters  in  those  regions  to 
phosphates. 
In its opinion of November 200916, SCHER recognised the INIA model as an innovative tool 
to  estimate  the  contribution  of  detergents  to  EU  eutrophication  risk,  but  stressed  that  the 
Committee  was  unable  to  check  how  representative  the  INIA  data  are  for  pan-European 
surface waters. Therefore, SCHER was not able to comment on the predictive capacity of the 
model (for more details see Annex II). SCHER also noted that the model is not suitable for 
estimating the contributions to eutrophication at regional or local level. 

13 

14 

15 

16 

Available at: 
http://www.heraproject.com/files/13-F-04-%20HERA%20STPP%20full%20web%20wd.pdf. 
Consultation  of  options  for  controls  on  phosphates  in  domestic  laundry  cleaning  products  in  the  UK 
(DEFRA, UK, 2008), available at:   
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/water/waterquality/diffuse/non-
agri/documents/consultation2008-detergents.pdf. 
Full report available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/chemicals/files/docs/ceep_study_final_report_042009_en.pdf. 
Available at http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scher/docs/scher_o_116.pdf. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
In  some  sensitive  European  areas  deterministic  models  have  been  used  to  calculate  the 
contribution  of  phosphates  from  detergents  to  eutrophication.  Calculations  for  the  Danube 
River  Basin  (DRB)  (Water  Research  Project17)  show  that  the  replacement  of  phosphates  in 
detergents  can  contribute  significantly  to  the  reduction  of  phosphates  discharges  by  point 
sources18.  Replacement  of  phosphates  in  detergents  in  the  DRB  countries  was  estimated  to 
result in a 24% phosphorus (P) reduction from point sources and in a reduction of 12% from 
all sources.  

In summary, although it has not been possible to quantify with confidence the contribution of 
phosphates  from  detergents  to  eutrophication  at  the  EU  level,  both  probabilistic  and 
deterministic  modelling  agree  that  they  do  contribute  to  eutrophication  to  some  extent.  For 
some  sensitive  regions,  the  contribution  of  detergent  phosphates  to  eutrophication  has  been 
reliably  quantified  and  found  significant.  The  use  of  phosphates  in  detergents,  therefore 
results  in  a  negative  externality  (eutrophication)  the  costs  of  which  are  born  by  society  in 
general, rather than by detergent formulators, who have no incentive to design detergents that 
reduce the risk of eutrophication. 

2.2.2.  Costs for phosphate removal in waste water treatment 

Sewage  treatment  plants  with  a  tertiary  stage  should  be  capable  of  removing  P  down  to  a 
concentration of 1mg/l in the outflow according to the requirements of the UWWTD. This can 
require removal of more  than  90%  of the P present in inflows.  However,  only a part of the 
population is connected to municipal sewage treatment plants (as shown in Annex I, Table 3). 
EUROSTAT  reports  that  90%  of  the  EU-25  population  is  connected  to  sewage  treatment 
systems,  but  another  source  gives  a  lower  estimate  of  80%  (E-Water  2007)19.  Furthermore, 
not  all  existing  plants  are  yet  equipped  with  a  tertiary  treatment  stage,  nor  is  it  feasible  to 
connect low-density rural populations to WWTP. The European Environmental Bureau (EEB) 
concludes that the degree of connection to WWPT with a tertiary stage varies from about 90% 
in Northern Europe to about 20% in Eastern and Southern Europe. 

Although  biological  nutrient  removal  is  an  option,  the  majority  of  phosphate  removal 
processes  rely  on  chemical  precipitation,  predominantly  by  dosing  with  iron  salts  during 
tertiary  treatment.  Phosphate  elimination  thus  entails  capital  costs  (for  installing  tertiary 
treatment) and operational costs, which depend on the total quantity of phosphates eliminated. 
Source control of phosphorus would thus lead to lower concentrations of phosphates entering 
WWTP and lower capital investment and operational costs. There are quite wide variations in 
the published costs for building and operating tertiary treatment in WWPT. 

As  an  example  RPA  calculated  in  2006  that  in  the  UK  about  75,000  t/year  of  STPP 
(equivalent to 19,000 t of phosphorous) are used in detergents, but only 27% of the population 
are connected to WWTP with tertiary treatment. Removal costs are estimated at about €30 per 
kg  phosphorus  for  capital  and  operating  costs  combined.  Removal  of  27%  of  19,000  t 
phosphorous in existing tertiary treatment plants was  therefore  costing about €154 million20 
annually. According to a DEFRA report in 2008, elimination of phosphates from detergents 
could  lead  to  savings  in  operating  costs  at  existing  plants  in  the  order  of  €2.5  million  per 
annum (i.e. for the 27% of phosphorous being removed in tertiary treatment). Combining the 

17 

18 
19 

20 

Harmonised  Inventory  of  Point  and  Diffuse  Emissions  of  Nitrogen  and  Phosphorus  for  a  Trans-
boundary River Basin (available at: http://www.icpdr.org/icpdr-pages/phosphorus.htm). 
Point sources of phosphorous involve detergents, human metabolism and industry, but not fertilisers. 
E-water  (2007).  The  role  of  Detergents  in  the  phosphates  balance  of  European  surface  waters 
http://www.ewaonline.de/journal/2007_03.pdf. 
0.27 * 19.000.000 kg * € 30/kg = € 153.9 million. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
figures  from  the  RPA  and  DEFRA  reports,  (marginal) operating costs of €0.49/kg P can be 
calculated21.  The  same  DEFRA  report  also  gives  costs  in  a  range  between  €8.9  and  €16.5 
million/year  for  the  UK  if  the  total  of  19,000  tonnes  of  P  had  to  be  removed,  i.e.  less  than 
€1/kg  P.  These  would  therefore  appear  to  be  operating  costs.  Based  on  the  UK  figures, 
operational costs thus seem to be between €0.46 and €0.87/kg P. Extrapolation for the entire 
EU  for  a  complete  removal  of  110,000  t  P  from  detergents  would  lead  to  operational  costs 
between  €50  million  and  €96  million  (assuming  100%  connection  to  tertiary  treatment). 
Taking  into  account  the  present  degree  of  connection  to  tertiary  treatment  varying  between 
20%  and  90%,  the  cost  for  P  removal  in  WWTP  would  lie  somewhere  in  the  range  of  €10 
million to €86 million. 

A similar operating cost, namely €0.47/kg P, can be obtained by considering solely the costs 
for  buying  ferric  salts  for  the  chemical  treatment  of  waste  water.  Results  from  one  such 
calculation using the EFOR model22 would give a total cost for annual ferric salt consumption 
for  the  EU  of  €51.3  million  for  the  tertiary  treatment  of  waste  water  if  extrapolated  for  the 
treatment of 110,000 t P estimated to be in all detergents in the EU. For the present degree of 
connection  to  tertiary  treatment  varying  between  20%  and  90%,  the  cost  for  P  removal  in 
WWTP would lie somewhere in the range of €10 million to €45 million. 

The  European  Federation  of  National  Associations  of  Drinking  Water  Suppliers  and  Waste 
Water Services (EUREAU) has provided costs estimates for P removal in the range €1-7/kg 
P23  i.e.  2  to  7  times  higher  than  the  figures  above.  With  the  same  assumptions  regarding 
connection to WWTP plants, total costs for P removal would be in the range of €20 million to 
€693 million. 

Some interesting qualitative information concerning the tertiary treatment of phosphorus was 
provided  by  Ofwat24  indicating  that  the  price  for  chemicals  used  for  P  removal  (e.g  ferric 
salts)  may  increase  in  the  future  due  to  supply  constraints  while  a  switch  in  technology  to 
meet stringent effluent standards maybe also required. In addition P removal will significantly 
increase  the  quantity  and  change  the  composition  of  sludge  produced,  which  is  likely  to 
require  additional  investment  in  sludge  treatment  and  disposal  technologies,  possibly 
including additional incinerators. 
A  report  from  the  Swedish  University  of  Agricultural  Sciences25  in  2008  gives  some 
indication concerning the costs of nutrient reductions to the Baltic Sea as shown in Table 1 
below.  The  main  conclusion  of  that  study  is  that  restricting  phosphates  in  detergents 
phosphates would be the most cost efficient measure to take in order to reduce phosphates in 
the Baltic. 

In conclusion, phosphates from detergents in waste water lead to significant operating costs 
for  existing  tertiary  waste  water  treatment.  At  current  removal  rates  (taking  into  account 
connection rates to WWTP with tertiary treatment), operational costs are estimated between 
€10  and  €693  million  per  year.  Costs  for  full  removal  would  be  significantly  higher,  as 
investments into construction of tertiary treatment for 100% removal of phosphates from all 
wastewater  would  lead  to  very  high  capital  costs  and  higher  operational  costs.  Detergent 
phosphates  thus  constitute  a  negative  externality  not  only  with  respect  to  the  environment 

21 
22 

23 
24 
25 

€2.5 million / (0.27*19,000,000 kg) = €0.487/kg. 
A.O.Tanyi.Comparison  of  chemical  and  biological  phosphorus  removal  in  waste  water  –  a  modelling 
approach. 
Sweden 1-5 €/kg P, Hungary 7 €/kg P, Belgium 4,2 – 5 €/kg P (including sludge disposal). 
Ofwat (2007). Water Framework Directive Economic Analysis of Water Industry Costs. 
Costs of nutrient reductions to the Baltic Sea (2008). Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
where tertiary waste water treatment is not in place, but also on the running costs of tertiary 
waste water treatment plants where they exist. 

Table  1:  Calculated  marginal  costs  for  phosphorous  reductions  to  the  Baltic  Sea  from 
emission reduction at sources (€/kg P)  

P free 
detergents 

Livestock 
Reduction 

Fertiliser  
reduction 

Sewage 
treatment 
Plants 

Private 
sewers 

Denmark 

10-42 

2324-4413 

0-10024 

56-124 

234-239 

Finland 

13-48 

934-1591 

0-1095 

56-164 

234-316 

Germany 

25-123 

3950-5507 

0-9131 

56-304 

234-585 

Poland 

16-26 

456-540 

0-506 

38-130 

197-317 

Sweden 

10-91 

1092-4169 

0-3797 

56-229 

234-447 

Estonia 

16-27 

710-847 

Lithuania 

13-19 

109-163 

Latvia 

17-33 

424-596 

0-255 

0-147 

0-269 

38-126 

197-307 

38-115 

196-281 

38-135 

196-328 

Russia 

12-42 

879-1911 

0-1855 

38-202 

197-491 

Source: Costs of nutrient reductions to the Baltic Sea (2008). Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences 

Finally  it  should  be  noted  that  tertiary  waste water  treatment  is  required  only  for  centres  of 
population above 10,000 according to the UWWTD. Detergent phosphate discharges in rural 
areas would therefore continue to contribute to eutrophication even after when all WWTP are 
equipped with tertiary treatment.  

2.2.3.  Failure of regional initiatives to prevent eutrophication  

Individual  Member  States  alone  cannot  deal  with  eutrophication  resulting  from  trans-
boundary flows of phosphates into water bodies in their territories, or those shared with other 
countries.  However,  such  problems  could  potentially  be  solved  through  co-ordinated  action 
by  the  Member  States  concerned  in  the  river  basin  management  context  of  the  WFD,  or  in 
regional  co-operation  strategies.  In  fact,  regional  co-operation  to  combat  eutrophication  in 
sensitive EU areas has been in place for a number of years and is supported by the EU or the 
United  Nations.  Nevertheless,  progress  has  been  slow  and  the  negotiating  position  of  EU 
Member States vis-à-vis their non-EU counterparts is weakened by lack of common rules at 
EU level. 

2.2.3.1.  EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea 

This  strategy  has  been  established  in  a  Commission  Communication  in  2009  and  is 
complemented  by  a  more  analytical  Action  Plan26.  Certain  priority  areas  are  identified  in 
order  "to  make  the  Baltic  Sea  Region  an  environmentally  sustainable  place’.  The  first 

26 

COM 2009 (248) final). The action plan is available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/communic/baltic/action2009.pdf 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
thematic priority includes reductions of nutrient inputs to the Baltic Sea to acceptable levels, 
such as of nitrogen and phosphorus which are both significant contributors to eutrophication 
of Baltic Sea waters. Among the Flagship project to achieve this target, it is recommended to 
'remove phosphates in detergents in countries where this is not yet the case as recommended 
by  HELCOM  Baltic  Sea  Action  Plan'.  Sweden  and  Estonia  are  the  leading  countries  of  this 
initiative  with  a  deadline  for  action  of  31  December  2012.  Within  the  framework  of 
HELCOM  activities  and  recommendations,  Latvia  has  implemented  a  ban  of  phosphates  in 
laundry detergents (at 0.5% P w/w) since July 2009, while Poland has recently informed of 
their  intention  to  take  similar  legislative  action  by  imposing  a  limit  value  of  0.5%  P  in 
washing powders for consumer use (with a transition period until 2014). 

2.2.3.2.  International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River 

The  International  Commission  for  the  Protection  of  the  Danube  River  (ICPDR),  which  has 
been  established  in  1998  and  is  supported  scientifically  by  a  number  of  United  Nations 
Development Projects, has coordinated certain initiatives in order to reduce the environmental 
impact  of  eutrophication  in  the  DRB  Area.  ICPDR  adopted  in  December  2009  the  policy 
recommendation to countries of the Danube River Basin to proceed with national legislation 
and/or  further  voluntary  agreements  to  replace  phosphate-based  detergents  to  protect  the 
Danube and Black Sea from eutrophication while awaiting the outcome of the Commission’s 
evaluation of the need for measures at the EU level. 

ICPDR has informed the Commission that the Danube countries have endorsed in December 
2009  the  Danube  River  Basin  Management  Plan  (DRBMP)27  which  is  a  good  example  of 
international  and  integrated  river  basin  management  according  to  the  EU  Water  Framework 
Directive. The emission of phosphates via household detergents is significant in the DRB area 
and in case of wastewater treatment without a tertiary stage the respective P loads find a direct 
way  into  the  aquatic  environment.  P  emissions due to laundry and dishwasher detergents in 
the  DRB  are  estimated  at  9,190  t/a.  which  accounts  for  15.7%  of  total  P  emissions.  A 
limitation of phosphates is identified as the most economical and effective means combined 
with the already existing measures. In reaching these conclusions, the ICPDR had extensive 
discussions  over  the  past  two  years  with  the  detergent  producing  industries  and  developed 
strong collaboration with DG Environment of the Commission and other stakeholders.  
ICPDR28  noted  in  2008  that  the  ecological  situation  in  the  Black  Sea  has  improved 
considerably  in  the  last  decade  (reduced  eutrophication,  disappearance  of  anoxic  conditions 
etc.) not only due to nutrient removal at WWTP but also due to the replacement of phosphate-
containing  laundry  detergents  in  some  DRB  countries.  Nevertheless,  more  than  10  years  of 
cooperation has not yet succeeded in fully achieving the intended objectives. For example, the 
Black  Sea  Trans-boundary  Diagnostic  Analysis  and  the  UNDP-GEF  Black  Sea  Ecosystem 
Recovery  Project  –  Danube  impact  on  the  status  of  the  Black  Sea  (ICPDR,  2008),  have 
indicated that the Danube River Basin is still the largest pollution contributor to the Black Sea 
in  general  and  the  Western  part  of  the  Black  Sea  in  particular.  A  significant  fraction  of  the 
nutrients (58% nitrogen, 66% phosphorus) received by the Black Sea come from the Danube 
River and these loads have resulted in severe eutrophication problems. For the period 1988-
2005, the Danube, as one of the major rivers discharging into the Black Sea, was estimated to 
introduce on average about 35,000 tonnes of P into the Black Sea each year. 

27 
28 

Available at: http://www.icpdr.org/participate/danube_river_basin_management_plan 
ICPDR  (2008).  P-free  detergent:  Issues  and  current  status.  6th  Standing  Working  Group  Meeting  of 
ICPDR. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Both  of  the  above  regional  projects  have  called  on  the  Commission  to  restrict  the  use  of 
phosphates  in  detergents  as  a  complementary  measure  essential  for  the  success  of  their 
activities. 

2.3. 

Fragmentation of the internal market and the impact of mutual recognition 

Member States are concerned to a greater or lesser degree by the problem of eutrophication. 
Pending harmonisation at European level, some Member States have taken national measures 
(for details see Annex I, Table 1) restricting the use of phosphates in detergent formulations, 
which were notified and evaluated in accordance with the provisions of Directive 98/34/EC29 
to be justified and proportionate. Other Member States have relied on voluntary agreements 
with  industry  to  reduce  the  use  of  detergent  phosphate.  Those  combined  national  measures 
have resulted in a reduction in the use of phosphates from about 250,000 t P in the mid 1980s 
to about 110,000 t now. Phosphates in detergents are still unrestricted in ten Member States. 
Consequently, the  internal  market for detergents is fragmented at the moment regarding the 
phosphate content.  

In  the  future,  this  fragmentation  of  the  market  could  undermine  the  existing  national 
restrictions  if  detergent  manufacturers  choose  to  make  full  use  of  the  principle  of  mutual 
recognition. Although the principle of mutual recognition is long-established, its application 
has been rather limited due to uncertainties over its application. With the clarification brought 
by  the  entry  into  force  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  764/2008  on  mutual  recognition30,  Member 
States are obliged to accept any products (and thereby also detergents containing phosphates) 
that are lawfully placed on the market of another Member State unless they can demonstrate 
that there are specific reasons to the contrary. Member States could face significant pressure 
as they have only 20 working days (or 40 days in complex cases) to respond to manufacturers 
applying  for  mutual  recognition.  Member  States  administrations  might  be  overwhelmed  if 
many  products  lawfully  placed  on  the  market  in  other  Member  States,  but  with  different 
phosphates content, were to be placed on their markets in a short period of time.  

It  is  also  unclear  how  the  situation  would  develop  in  those  Member  States  that  rely  on 
voluntary  commitments  by  national  industry  associations  to  phase-out  phosphates  in 
detergents.  New  economic  operators  relying  on  the  rule  of  mutual  recognition  might  start 
placing  products  on  their  markets  and  they  might  not  feel  bound  by  the  existing  voluntary 
commitments. 

Detergent  formulators  adjust  the  composition  of  laundry  detergents  to  local  water  hardness 
conditions  and  washing  habits  (e.g.  higher  temperatures  and  harder  water  in  Mediterranean 
countries, compared to lower washing temperatures and softer water in Nordic countries), and 
therefore  have  no  incentive  to  use  formulations  complying  with  the  strictest  rules  on 
phosphates in all Member States. Quite on the contrary, the existence of divergent rules in the 
Member  States  concerning  phosphates  may  lead  to  higher  costs  for  companies  operating  in 
several Member States as they have to manufacture products with different builders. A.I.S.E 
has informed the Commission that additional costs arise from: 

•  Research & Development costs: Separate/ additional formulation development involving P 

and P-free platforms, associated industrial validation. 

29 
30 

Directive 98/34/EC, OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37. 
Regulation  (EC)  No  764/2008  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  9  July  2008  laying 
down  procedures  relating  to  the  application  of  certain  national  technical  rules  to  products  lawfully 
marketed in another Member States and repealing Decision No 3052/95/EC. OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p 21. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  Supply  costs:  The  cost  in  lost  economics  of  scale  of  buying  less  of  one  commodity  (P), 
costs of managing orders and stocks of P and P alternative(s), costs of managing stocks of 
extra finished products etc. 

•  Manufacturing  costs:  Cleaning  costs,  handling  because  of  promotional  campaign 

production, additional installation of manufacturing line(s), labelling etc. 

•  Administrative costs: Monitoring different national legislations for potential changes, other 

regulated chemical management costs etc. 

However,  AISE  has  not  been  able  to  quantify  these  extra  costs.  SMEs  operating  only  in 
Member States with no restrictions on phosphates have no incentives to develop phosphate-
free formulations due to the fact that other Member States have taken legislative actions. 

2.4. 

Drivers of the problem 

Both,  the  costs  caused  by  eutrophication  and  the  ones  incurred  by  waste  water  treatment 
companies for removing phosphates are borne by society at large. Detergent producers have, 
therefore,  no  economic  incentive  to  replace  phosphates  with  alternatives  in  detergent 
formulations.  

Action by individual Member States is not capable of addressing eutrophication due to trans-
boundary flows of phosphates in certain sensitive EU regions, e.g. the DRB area or the Black 
Sea. 

In the absence of harmonisation, Member States will continue to maintain or adopt national 
measures with different scopes and limitations.  

2.5.  Who is affected, how and to what extent by the current situation? 

•  Detergent formulators who without a harmonised market for phosphates in detergents have 
to comply with different rules in the Member States and face extra costs. Only detergent 
formulators in the EU are affected as imports of detergents are insignificant. 

•  National  public  administrations  in  Member  States  having  established  legislation  on 
phosphates  in  detergents  to  combat  eutrophication  might  have  increasing  difficulties  to 
enforce  their  legislation  under  their  obligations  on  mutual  recognition  of  detergents 
lawfully placed on the market in other Member States. 

•  Waste  water  treatment  plant  operators  with  tertiary  treatment  face  costs  for  removal  of 

detergent phosphates from waste water. 

•  Phosphates from detergents continue to contribute to eutrophication in several EU regions, 
which  creates  adverse  effects  in  the  environment  and  can  lead  to  negative  economic 
consequences  for  fishery  and  tourism  industries.  Neighbouring  regions  also  suffer  from 
phosphates outflows from the EU, e.g. the non-EU part of the Black Sea.  

Information as to what extent the different stakeholders are affected is presented in section 5.1 
(analysis of option 1). 

2.6. 

How would the situation evolve if no action is taken? 

As already set out in section 2.1 overall consumption of phosphates in detergents has declined 
in recent years and this trend is expected to continue, as a consequence of the combined effect 
of legislative and voluntary measures in the majority of EU Member States (see section 2.3). 
Table 1 in Annex I contains an overview of the measures taken in the Member States and the 
presence of phosphates in laundry detergents. With an average concentration of around 25% 
STPP  in  phosphate  detergents,  the  peak  consumption  (in  the  early  1980s)  was  probably  in 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
excess of 1 million tonnes of STPP/year (equivalent to 250.000 t P/year) which has now more 
than halved due to the introduction of alternatives. According to CEEP, there are currently 7 
STPP production sites in the EU (compared to 9 sites in 2008) with an overall production of 
270 000 tonnes in 2008 (compared to ~515.000 tonnes in 2007), and exports 100,000 tonnes 
in  2008  (compared  to  ~190.000  tonnes  in  2007).  This  trend  might  be  expected  to  continue 
because  several  additional  Member  States  are  preparing  to  adopt  national  legislation  (e.g. 
Poland, United Kingdom). 

The use of phosphates in the different categories of detergents products can be broken down 
as follows:  

(i) Laundry detergents 
According  to  data  from  CEEP31,  laundry  detergents  accounted  for  60%  of  the  total 
STPP  use  in  the  EU  in  2007.  However,  during  the  last  decade,  the  STTP 
consumption  for  household  laundry  products  has  significantly  decreased  as  a  result 
of legislative actions or voluntary agreements to phase out phosphates in a number of 
EU  Member  States.  A  further  reduction  of  the  use  of  phosphates  in  laundry 
detergents is triggered by the growing market share of phosphate-free liquid laundry 
detergents.  Nevertheless,  phosphate-based  laundry  detergents  are  still  common  in 
Eastern European countries.  

(ii) Dishwashing detergents 

Dishwashing  detergents  are  still  mainly  phosphate-based  and  account  for  ~30%  of 
the  STPP  use  in  the  EU  (CEEP,  2008).The  consumption  of  phosphates  for  this 
application  has  been  stable  between  2004  and  2007.  With  the  introduction  of 
phosphate-free laundry detergents, the contribution of dishwashing detergents to the 
total detergent phosphates release has risen to about 25%. 

(iii) I&I detergents 

I&I  detergents  account  for  8%  of  the  STPP  use  in  the  EU-27  (CEEP,  2008). 
According to the European Detergent Formulator Association (A.I.S.E), this specific 
use  of  phosphates  is  more  process-  rather  than  product-driven.  Therefore,  if  in  a 
given  process  STPP  is  necessary,  100%  of  the  products  used  in  this  process  are 
STPP-based and if not applicable or not necessary, no STPP are used. 

Eutrophication  will  continue  in  several  sensitive  EU  regions  with  phosphates  input  from 
trans-boundary flows, albeit with a declining trend due to the decreasing use of phosphates in 
detergents.  

Waste water treatment plant operators with tertiary treatment will continue to face costs for 
removal  of  detergent  phosphates  from  waste  water,  albeit  with  a  declining  trend  due  to  the 
decreasing use of phosphates in detergents.  

Detergent  formulators  will  face  an  increasing  fragmentation  of  the  internal  market  as 
additional  Member  States  are  planning  to  introduce  national  legislation  on  phosphates  in 
detergents.  However,  faced  with  a  greater  diversity  of  national  rules,  detergent  formulators 
operating across the EU may either decide simply to comply with the strictest rules or, on the 
other  hand,  they  may  decide  to  try  to  avoid  compliance  with  them  by  application  of  the 
Regulation on mutual recognition.  

31 
http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/enterprise/wgdet/library?l=/phosphates_detergents/ceep_assessment 

CEEP (2008). Statement available at: 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
National  public  administrations  in  Member  States  having  established  legislation  on 
phosphates  in  detergents  to  combat  eutrophication  might  have  increasing  difficulties  to 
enforce their legislation under their obligations on mutual recognition of detergents lawfully 
placed on the market in other Member States. 

2.7. 

The EU right to act 

2.7.1.  Legal basis 

The legal basis of the proposal to be accompanied by this impact assessment is Article 114 of 
the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Article 114 has the objective to 
establish an internal market while ensuring a high level of protection of human health and the 
environment. 

2.7.2. 

Subsidiarity 

Measures taken by individual Member States are an effective way to deal with eutrophication 
at a local / national level and may also be the most appropriate course of action given the fact 
that conditions, both in the environment and in the use of detergents, may well vary between 
the  Member  States.  However,  60%  of  the  EU  are  part  of  international  river  basins32  and 
therefore  action  at  local  level  may  not  be  sufficient  to  address  issues  of  trans-boundary 
importance.  Pollution  by  nutrients  may  not  be  detrimental  to  the  water  bodies  where  the 
discharges are located but may affect water bodies downstream.  

The WFD, which requires Member States to achieve good ecological and chemical status of 
surface  water  by  2015,  also  requires  Member  States  to  prepare  programmes  of  measures 
which  may  include,  where  justified,  mandatory  action,  or  voluntary  agreements  to  limit 
phosphates  in  detergents  in  order  to  tackle  the  eutrophication  problem  in  their  territories. 
According  to  the  WFD,  such  measures  have  to  be  cost-effective  and  proportionate.  In  the 
recent meeting of WFD Strategic Coordination Group (February 2010), Hungary was the only 
Member State confirming planned action to reduce phosphates in detergents within the WFD 
Programme  of  Measures.  More  specifically,  the  National  River  Basin  Management  Plan  of 
Hungary contains as complementary measure on nutrient removal actions for limitation of P 
content  by  2012  in  laundry  detergents,  and  by  2015  in  dishwasher  detergents  as  legally 
binding  restrictions.  Where  necessary,  Member  States  sharing  the  same  river  basin  can  co-
operate in the framework of the river basin management. 

As set out in section 2.2.3, in larger river basins such as the Danube, which cover territories in 
several  Member  States,  and  in  larger  lakes  or  marine  water  bodies  (such  as  the  Baltic  Sea) 
which receive inflows from many different Member States, combating eutrophication could in 
principle  be  achieved  through  the  coordinated  action  of  the  individual  Member  States. 
However the experience at regional level in the Danube River Basin and the Baltic indicates 
that  reliance  on  action  by  Member  States  only  might  not  be  fully  sufficient  despite  a  high 
level of cooperation over a number of years and action by most Member States concerned.  

The Danube River Basin and Baltic Sea initiatives both believe that legislative action at EU 
level  would  be  more  effective  in  reducing  inputs  of  phosphates  from  detergents  than  co-
ordinated action by the Member States concerned. For instance, the International Commission 
for  the  Protection  of  the  Danube  River  (ICPDR),  has  recently  informed  the  Commission 

32 

Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the 
European Parliament and the Council 'Towards Sustainable Water Management in the European Union' 
First  stage  in  the  implementation  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive  2000/60/EC  SEC(2007)  363, 
available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm  

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(December  2009)  that  "although  the  Danube  River  Basin  includes  both  EU  and  non  EU 
Member  States,  a  limitation  at  EU  level  would  provide  a  positive  incentive  to  non  EU 
countries participating in the ICPDR to take similar measures to limit the use of phosphates 
in detergents". In addition, the Environment Council in its conclusions of December 2009 on 
the  Commission  Communication  on  an  EU  Strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea,  has  invited  the 
Commission  to  present  without  delay  proposals  for  EU  legislation  with  a  view  to  banning 
phosphates in detergents. 

Thus,  Member  States  accept  that  Community  action  is  appropriate  to  achieve  the 
eutrophication objectives of the WFD as earlier discussed in section 1.1.2. 

3. 

OBJECTIVES 

3.1. 

General Objective 

The  general  objective  is  to  ensure  a  high  level  of  protection  of  the  environment  from  the 
potential adverse effects of phosphates in detergents and to ensure a well functioning internal 
market for detergents.  

3.2. 

Specific objectives 

–  To  reduce  the  adverse  environmental  effects  from  eutrophication  in  surface  waters,  in 
particular due to the cross-boundary flow of waters containing phosphates from detergents, 
thus supporting the achievement of the objectives of the WFD by 2015. 

–  To  contribute  to  a  cost-effective  solution  to  the  reduction  of  phosphate  discharges  into 

surface waters. 

–  To improve the functioning of the internal market for detergents through a reduction of the 
divergence  of  existing  rules  concerning  the  content  of  phosphates  in  detergents,  which 
create barriers to trade. 

–  To avoid possible future burdens for public administrations for developing and justifying 

national measures in the absence of harmonised Community measures. 

4. 

4.1. 

POLICY OPTIONS  

Option-1: No action at EU level, leaving the responsibility to act to the Member 
States (baseline option) 

This would mean that the status quo would continue, i.e. no EU legislation concerning the use 
of  phosphates  in  detergents  would  be  introduced.  Member  States  could  maintain  existing 
restrictions  or  take  action  as  appropriate  and  justified  under  the  circumstances  in  their 
territories, or in the context of regional cooperation.  

4.2. 

Option-2: Voluntary action by industry  

A voluntary EU-wide commitment for a phase-out and the substitution of STPP by zeolites or 
other  substances  would  be  made  by  detergents  formulators.  The  commitment  could  be 
recognised  by  the  public  authorities  and  the  results  achieved  would  have  to  be  assessed  at 
regular intervals.  

4.3. 

Option-3: Total ban of phosphates in detergents 

This option would establish a ban of phosphates in all detergents at EU level. The need for a 
review  of  phosphates  use  in  detergents  was  a  requirement  set  under  Regulation  (EC)  No 
648/2004  on  detergents  (Article  16(1)),  which  harmonises  the  placing  on  the  market  of 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
detergents by considering the biodegradability of surfactants and setting additional labelling 
rules. Restrictions or bans under this Regulation can be imposed only on grounds of the (non-) 
biodegradability of surfactants. Therefore a change of the scope of the detergents Regulation 
would be required, or alternatively a new Regulation could be drawn up, or the ban could be 
imposed in the framework of the REACH Regulation33. 

4.4. 

Option-4: Restriction of phosphates in laundry detergents  

This option would restrict the use of STTP in laundry detergents, which is the most common 
category  of  detergents  used  by  consumers,  while  allowing  further  use  in  dishwasher 
detergents  and  I&I  detergents.  With  regard  to  the  possible  legislation  to  be  used,  the  same 
comments as for option 3 apply. 

4.5. 

Option-5: Setting limit values for the content of phosphates in detergents  

The  content  of  STPP  would  be  limited  at  one  or  several  concentration  levels  in  the  various 
detergent formulations (laundry, dishwashing and I&I). With regard to the possible legislation 
to be used, the same comments as for option 3 apply. 

5. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

The  analysis  of  the  impacts  of  the  various  policy  options  has  been  conducted  taking  into 
consideration results of the scientific analysis of the contribution of phosphates in detergents 
to  eutrophication  risks  in  the  EU,  as  well  as  the  criteria  of  effectiveness  and  efficiency 
(including  practicality,  socio-economic  impacts,  and  monitorability).  Information  has  been 
mainly  derived  from  the  INIA  study  on  eutrophication  risks  associated  with  phosphates  in 
detergents and the RPA report concerning zeolites and other builders as STPP alternatives, as 
well as the remarks of the SCHER on the evaluation of these reports. The marketing data and 
estimated  costs  refer  to  the  latest  information  available  to  the  Commission  at  the  time  of 
writing  this  impact  assessment  from  discussions  with  all  stakeholders  at  meetings  of  the 
Detergents WG and through further consultation of stakeholders.  

5.1. 

Option-1: No action at EU level, leaving the responsibility to act to the Member 
States (baseline option) 

If no legislative action will be taken at EU level, the current situation and trends would remain 
unchanged. The use of phosphates in detergents would continue to decline over time, due to 
the ongoing trend of phosphate replacement by detergents manufacturers and actions taken by 
Member States. However, as mentioned in section 2.6, the trend is slow; it has taken about 25 
years to reduce phosphate use by 50%. 

Member States having already measures in place could continue to maintain them and could 
proceed with the adoption of further national measures to replace phosphate-based detergents 
where this can be justified on environmental grounds (e.g. on the basis of the objectives to be 
reached under the WFD). Member States wishing to introduce "technical regulations" falling 
under Directive 98/34/EC will have to notify the Commission and justify that these measures 
are  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  the  Directive.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  WFD 
provides  a  mechanism  whereby  Member  States  can  demonstrate  through  a  risk  analysis 
(Article 5) and the establishment of a cost-effective programme of measures (Article 11) that 
restrictions  on  phosphates  in  detergents  are  justified  and  proportionate.  Current  experiences 

33 

Title  VIII  and  Annex  XVII  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1907/2006  on  REACH  provide  for  criteria  and  a 
procedure to restrict the production, placing on the market and use of substances that pose unacceptable 
risks to human health or the environment, that need to be addressed at EU level.  

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
from  Member  States  have  indicated  that  measures  at  national  level,  such  as  restrictions  of 
STPP in detergents via legislative actions or voluntary agreement (or a combination of both) 
can  effectively  tackle  eutrophication  when  trans-boundary  flows  are  not  the  issue.  For 
instance, Italy has imposed legislative restriction of phosphates in detergents since early 80s, 
and  this  has  resulted  in  a  significant  reduction  in  the  phosphates  load  and  subsequently  an 
improvement  in  the  eutrophication  status  of  Italian  lakes  and  the  Adriatic  Sea.  Similarly, 
Switzerland  reported  improvements  in  the  water  quality  of  Lake  Geneva  after  legislative 
restrictions on phosphates in laundry detergents were introduced in 1985. 

Member  States  could  also  decide  to  act  in  a  co-ordinated  matter,  where  particular  regional 
issues  require  such  action.  However,  as  described  in  section  2.2.3,  experience  shows  that 
regional  initiatives  in  the  Baltic  Sea  and  Danube  River  Basin  have  not  yet  succeeded  in 
dealing  with  trans-boundary  flows,  and  EU  restrictions  of  phosphates  in  detergents  are 
requested  by  those  initiatives,  most  recently  in  the  2010  Council  Conclusions  on  the  Baltic 
Sea Action Plan and the Ministerial Declaration of the Danube River Protection Convention 
in February 2010. Furthermore, the absence of harmonised measures at EU level makes more 
difficult  the  task  of  EU  Member  States  in  advancing  nutrient  reduction  measures  with 
neighbouring non-EU countries for common water bodies such as the Black Sea or the Baltic 
Sea. 

Phosphates from detergents would continue to contribute to eutrophication – in particular in 
sensitive  areas  where  phosphates  input  is  a  result  of  trans-boundary  flows-  albeit  with  a 
declining  trend  due  to  the  (slow)  decrease  in  the  use  of  phosphates  in  detergents  as  set  out 
above. Waste water treatment companies would continue to face operational costs for removal 
of  phosphates  from  detergents.  The  future  development  of  these  costs  is  more  difficult  to 
forecast: on the one hand, the (slow) decreasing trend in phosphate use will reduce costs over 
time,  whereas  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  expected  that  connection  rates  to  WWTP  with  tertiary 
treatment  will  increase  in  the  coming  years  in  particular  in  EU-12  Member  States,  as  transition 
periods  for  full  compliance  with  the  UWWTD  requirements  for  wastewater  collection  and 
treatment  expire  only  by  2015/2018.  Overall  costs  will,  therefore,  likely  see  a  peak  around 
2015, and thereafter a decreasing trend. 

In addition, if no action is taken at EU level, the existence of different rules in the Member 
States  would  continue  to  constitute  a  failure  in  the  establishment  of  a  functioning  internal 
market  for  detergents.  This  causes  compliance  costs  for  companies  operating  in  several 
Member  States,  although  they  could  decide  to  produce  only  phosphate-free  detergents. 
Furthermore,  current  market  trends  show  increasing  shares  for  liquid  laundry  detergents, 
which do not contain phosphates. Fragmentation of the internal market would be an advantage 
for SMEs working only on national markets. On the other hand, Member States and industry 
would potentially face burdens related to the mutual recognition of products lawfully placed 
on the markets of other Member States, if these differ in phosphates content. 

As  mentioned  in  section  1.1.2,  “no  EU  Action”  was  favoured  by  only  two  Member  States 
during  the  meeting  of  the  Detergents  WG  in  November  2009.  They  argued  that  the 
complexity of eutrophication and the large regional differences within the EU militate against 
adopting  uniform  rules  at  EU  level.  Instead  of  STPP  restrictions  at  EU  level,  they  would 
prefer a mixture of measures such as: a better implementation of the WWTD and WFD, better 
practices in the use of phosphate fertilisers, and better information to the public.  

Conclusion: The policy option “no EU action” is effective for tackling the eutrophication risk 
at  national  level.  However,  it  does  not  seem  to  be  effective  to  address  the  problem  at  short 
term  at  regional  level,  where  co-ordinated  action  of  several  Member  States  involving 
considerable  resources  in  each  of  them  which  could  be  more  burdensome  than  single 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
Community action. Still, in the light of current market trends, the eutrophication risk would 
decline, albeit only slowly, whilst costs for P removal from wastewater might see a maximum 
at around 2015 before declining slowly. This option would not improve the functioning of the 
Internal  Market,  nor  would  it  avoid  the  potential  administrative  burdens  for  authorities  and 
industry linked to mutual recognition. 

5.2. 

Option-2: Voluntary action by industry  

In  a  number  of  EU  Member  States  voluntary  action  by  detergent  formulators  have  been 
successful in tackling the problems caused by phosphates in detergents (see Annex I, Table 
1), but there have also been failures.  

Voluntary  commitments  face  the  risk  of  free-riding  when  one  or  more  companies  do  not 
adhere  to  them.  This  can  easily  occur  when  the  number  of  actors  is  high,  and  liability  is 
collective  rather  than  individual.  Therefore,  the  effectiveness  of  any  non-statutory  controls 
such as voluntary commitments or marketing/advertising initiatives is reliant on support from 
all stakeholders. A voluntary commitment in the Czech Republic failed due to such a lack of 
support.  In  1995,  the  Czech  government  and  the  Czech  Association  of  producers  of  Soaps, 
Cleaning Agents and Detergents – CSDPA - which was set up by 5 companies representing 
90%  of  the  market  agreed  to  a  gradual  decrease  in  the  amount  of  phosphates  and  other 
substances in water34. The programme initially had some success so that the total amount of 
phosphates  in  laundry  detergents  decreased  from  9,000  tonnes  in  1995  to  5,065  tonnes  in 
2003,  at  which  point  36.6%  of  the  overall  amount  of  detergents  produced  were  phosphate 
free.  However,  this  initial  success  was  eroded  by  increasing  sales  of  phosphate-based 
detergents by non-members of the association. As of 2000, the sale of phosphate-containing 
detergents from producers other than association members started to increase from a market 
share  of  10%,  at  the  time  when  the  voluntary  agreement  was  signed,  to  50%  by  2005  (as 
illustrated in Figure 1 of Annex I). The Czech authorities attribute this change mainly to the 
entry of new companies (in particular SME producers of P-based products) into their national 
market, and also to a change in consumer behaviour.  

Sweden  concluded  an  agreement  with  industry  to  reduce  the  content  of  phosphates  in 
automatic dishwasher detergents by 40% per weight, but this was not respected in practice. A 
similar experience from a recent campaign on compact detergents was reported by Slovenia. 
In  other  Member  States  (e.g.  Ireland,  Germany),  however,  voluntary  withdrawal  of 
phosphate-based detergents from the market has proven to significantly reduce levels of STPP 
entering WWTP. 

The  European  phosphate  industry  (CEEP)  did  not  see  itself  in  a  position  to  participate  in  a 
voluntary  commitment  to  eliminate  or  reduce  phosphate  use  in  detergents.  For  CEEP,  the 
impacts for the participating companies of a "voluntary" industry phase-out of phosphates in 
detergents in Europe would be identical to those of a legal ban. 

A.I.S.E  represents  detergent  formulators  at  EU  level.  It  comprises  a  network  of  35  national 
associations  throughout  the  EU  and  some  of  the  multinational  detergent  formulators  and 
covers a total of 942 member companies active in soaps, detergents or maintenance products. 
The  estimated  total  market  value  of  A.I.S.E.’s  full  membership  (EU  27,  plus  Croatia, 
Montenegro,  Norway,  Russia,  Serbia,  Switzerland  and  Turkey)  is  around  €41.1  billion 
(A.I.S.E  annual  review,  200835).  AISE  possesses  knowledge  and  experience  in  managing 

The full text of Agreement can be found on the Ministry of the Environment of Czech republic website: 

34 
www.env.cz/AIS/web.nsf/pages/voda_ochrana  
35 

Available at: http://www.aise.eu/downloads/AISE_AR2008FINAL.pdf 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
successful  voluntary  commitments.  For  example,  in  2006-2007  A.I.S.E.  carried  out  a  two-
year  Laundry  Sustainability  Project  (LSP)  with  the  objective  to  foster  the  sustainable 
consumption of laundry detergents across Europe, placing particular focus on the countries of 
Central and Eastern Europe, where companies committed to reduce the dosage of a standard 
washing  machine  load  by  at  least  33%  in  weight  and  25%  in  volume.  According  to  data 
presented  in  A.I.S.E.'s  2007  annual  review,  the  project  was  a  success  and  attracted  interest 
from  many  local  companies  that  participated  reaching  an  average  of  80%  of  total  market 
share.  Therefore,  in  theory  such  a  sustainability  project  could  serve  as  a  template  for  a 
voluntary phase-out of phosphates in detergents in the EU. Such an expectation was, in fact, 
expressed by ICPDR in December 200836 indicating that ‘further increase in phosphates-free 
detergents is strongly expected as a result of the Project Laundry Sustainability Program in 
the identified priority (DRB) countries’.  

However, A.I.S.E informed the Commission in 2008 that it could not commit to a voluntary 
phase-out of phosphates in household laundry detergents for the following reasons: 

•  The  ability  of  a  trade  association  like  A.I.S.E  or  its  national  association  affiliates  to 
enforce  a  ban  is  extremely  limited  since  the  decision  to  market  phosphate-free  products 
lies  with  the  companies.  In  addition,  while  A.I.S.E  represents  more  than  80%  of  the 
products on the market, not all detergent manufacturers are members of A.I.S.E or one of 
its  affiliated  national  associations.  Therefore,  A.I.S.E  cannot  guarantee  that  such  a 
voluntary action would deliver the phosphates reduction levels expected, or that it would 
be implemented effectively.  

•  In addition, a voluntary ban must be implemented in compliance with anti-trust law, which 

makes it all the more complicated. 

•  Even  if  a  voluntary  action  focusing  on  phosphates  in  household  laundry  products  was  a 
workable  option,  it  is  unlikely  that  such  an  action  would  prevent  certain  Member  States 
with  the  most  pronounced  eutrophication  issues  to  develop  more  restrictive  national 
legislation. This trend has already started. So the concerns of the companies with respect 
to the Single Market would remain. 

Conclusion:  A  formalised  voluntary  commitment  at  EU  level,  agreeing  on  the  necessary 
standards,  ensuring  participation  by  all  actors  concerned  and  guaranteeing  monitoring  of 
compliance  by  all  EU  companies  could  be  feasible  and  would  in  principle  be  capable  of 
achieving  all  the  intended  objectives.  However,  the  main  actor  required  –  A.I.S.E  –  is 
unwilling to do so. Furthermore, it would be rather complicated and may create a significant 
burden  to  companies  and  associations  to  ensure  full  market  coverage,  in  particular  also  all 
small and medium-sized detergent formulators, and to the monitoring authorities.  

5.3. 

Option-3: Total ban of phosphates in all detergent products 

A  total  ban  of  phosphates  in  detergents  throughout  the  EU  is  the  option  with  the  greatest 
potential to achieve the intended objectives within a short period of time. However, technical 
feasibility, potential environmental impacts of alternatives and socio-economic impacts on the 
industry need to be examined.  

5.3.1.  Benefits of reduced eutrophication 

A benefit associated with a move to phosphate free detergents is a reduction in eutrophication 
through a reduction in the phosphate discharges into the aquatic environment by 110.000 t P 

36 

All ICPDR statements and reports at: http://www.icpdr.org 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
                                                 
annually (by contrast, most of the 1,5 million t of P used in fertiliser remains on arable land). 
However, the benefit is difficult to quantify or monetise.  

The 2009 INIA model revealed that phosphates in laundry and dishwashers detergents would 
increase  the  likelihood  of  eutrophication  in  EU  waters  between  2.3%  for  the  Mediterranean 
and 5.8% for the Central Baltic eco-regions, respectively. However, the accuracy of the INIA 
results  is  uncertain  because  it  is  not  known  whether  the  data  on  which  the  calculations  are 
based are representative. Nevertheless, SCHER concluded that detergent phosphate does not 
play a major role in eutrophication in an overall EU perspective (see Annex II for more details 
on the INIA calculations and the SCHER opinion37). Greater contributions are calculated for 
sensitive  regions  with  phosphates  input  from  trans-boundary  flows,  such  as  the  Baltic  and 
Danube River Basins (see section 2.2.1 and Annex I, Table 4).  

The  costs  of  eutrophication  are  difficult  to  monetise  because  of,  on  the  one  hand,  the 
complexity of the phenomenon and the number of different impacts it can cause, and on the 
other  hand  because  these  are  non-market  impacts  for  which  prices  cannot  be  attributed. 
Environmental  impacts  include,  for  example,  reductions  in  the  fish  population  due  to  algae 
toxicity,  which  can  lead  to  a  reduction  in  income  for  fishermen.  Other  impacts,  such  as 
reductions  in  attractiveness  as  tourism  destinations,  recreational  value  (for  instance  impacts 
on  bathing  due  to  algae  bloom  or  increase  in  jelly  fish  populations)  or  impacts  on  species 
variety (biodiversity) are more difficult to express in monetary terms.  

Available  methodologies  to  infer  values  for  non-market  impacts  are  revealed  or  stated 
preferences, which try to derive the willingness to pay (or willingness to accept) a particular 
outcome. A number of studies have been undertaken to value reductions in eutrophication, for 
instance by directly asking individuals whether they would be willing to pay a certain amount 
to finance an improvement in the situation. However, the scenarios and parameters evaluated 
in  the  studies  differ,  which  limits  comparability  of  the  results38.  Some  studies  try  to  derive 
willingness to pay (WTP) estimates per household and year, others per kilogram of nutrient 
avoided  and  yet  others  per  day  trip  to  a  particular  area.  The  size  of  the  environmental 
improvement (i.e. level of eutrophication reduction) being valued differs in each study, along 
with  the  baseline  situation.  Therefore,  even  where  the  same  unit  of  measurement  is  used, 
values cover huge ranges (from for example 29 Euros per year and household to 727 Euros 
per year and adult in two different studies). There is therefore no generally accepted value for 
the  valuation  of  the  environmental  damage  caused  by  eutrophication  or  for  the  valuation  of 
the benefit of reducing eutrophication. One of the reasons for the lack of a standard value is 
that  impacts  on  the  water  environment  are  subject  to  significant  temporal  and  spatial 
variation, i.e. the size of the impact of eutrophication will vary according to where and when 
the eutrophication occurs. In addition, results of economic valuation studies are highly context 
dependent and the estimates of willingness to pay are greatly dependent on income levels (i.e. 
a  person's  WTP  is  based  on,  among  other  things,  their  income).  This  means  that  the 
determination of a standard value that takes account of these variations is extremely difficult. 
Furthermore,  the  numbers  of  households  that  could  be  associated  to  different  situations  are 
unknown. Given these very significant uncertainties, the present impact assessment does not 
try to monetise the benefits of reduced eutrophication. 

37 
38 

EN 

Available at http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scher/docs/scher_o_116.pdf 
links: ENVALUE  database 
at 
found 
Some 
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/envalue/,  EVRI  database http://www.evri.ca/,  RED  database 
http://www.red-externalities.net/, Ecosystem Services Database or ARIES database http://esd.uvm.edu/ 

following 

can  be 

relevant 

studies 

the 

23 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  RPA  report  of  2006  contained  a  more  simplistic  analysis  of  the  benefits  of  a  move  to 
phosphate-free  detergents  in  the  EU.  According  to  this  analysis  the  greatest  benefits  of  a 
European ban of phosphates in detergents, in qualitative terms, would accrue in those Member 
States with: 

•  a high use of phosphates in detergents; 

•  a low provision of tertiary waste water treatment (resulting in significant phosphorus loads 

being discharged to rivers/lakes/seas) and  

•  existing severe problems of eutrophication. 

Estimates of per capita consumption of phosphates-based detergents (used in both laundry and 
dishwashers)  are  given  in  Table  5  of  Annex  I,  based  on  information  from  the  RPA  report. 
From  the  same  study,  approximate  estimations  of  national  populations  connected  to  tertiary 
waste water treatment are presented in Table 6 of Annex I while an indication of the extent of 
(or, in a few countries, concern over) eutrophication within each country is illustrated in Table 
7 of Annex I. 

As an indicator of which countries would have the greatest potential benefits if they were to 
become ‘phosphate-free’, a combination of the three factors (by use of a scoring system) led 
to the results summarised in the following Table 2. 

Whilst this approach is fairly simplistic, it demonstrates that the (potential) benefits associated 
with a ban of phosphates in detergents vary significantly among Member States. Obviously, 
in  countries  which  are  already  ‘phosphate-free’,  or  which  have  a  very  good  UWWTD 
implementation or have no eutrophication issues (e.g. Malta), there are generally few benefits 
to be obtained. In its statement39 of January 2010, Denmark concurs with such a conclusion: 
“In  Denmark  a  restriction  on  phosphates  in  detergents  would  not  benefit  the  aquatic 
environment to any large extent, as 90% of the sewerage is treated in WWTP with effective P 
-removal”.  However,  there  could  be  significant  benefits  in  some  Member  States  (Czech 
Republic, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary etc). 

Table 2: Qualitative benefits of Moving to Phosphate-Free Detergents 

Score 

Description 

Member States 

>10 

Maximum Benefits 

Czech Republic, Poland, Spain, Latvia, 
Lithuania, Portugal, Slovakia 

5-10 

Some Benefits 

Greece, Cyprus, Estonia, UK, Luxembourg, 
Hungary, Belgium, France 

1-5 

Few Benefits 

Denmark, Finland, Austria, Sweden, Ireland, 
Slovenia, Italy, Netherlands, Germany 

0 

No Benefits 

Malta 

39 

Available at: 
http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/enterprise/wgdet/library?l=/phosphates_detergents/detergents_phosphatespdf/_
EN_1.0_&a=d 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
In conclusion, although the benefits of a total ban of phosphates in detergents from reduced 
eutrophication can be assessed qualitatively, they cannot be satisfactorily quantified and will 
vary  strongly  across  the  EU.  In  the  light  of  current  market  trends,  the  benefits  of  avoided 
eutrophication  from  a  ban  will  decline,  albeit  only  slowly,  but  will  materialise  much  faster 
compared to option 1. 

5.3.2.  Benefits for Waste Water Treatment 

As  described  in  section  2.2.2,  removal  of  phosphates  from  detergents  has  significant  cost 
benefits for the operation of WWTP. At current treatment conditions, a ban of phosphates in 
detergents  would  save  operators  of  existing  WWTP  between  €10  million  to  €693  million 
annually in operating costs. The future development of these benefits is somewhat difficult to 
forecast: on the one hand, the (slow) decreasing trend in phosphate use in detergents (about 
50% over the past 25 years i.e. 2% per year) will reduce benefits of a ban over time, whereas, 
on the other hand, it is expected that connection rates to WWTP with tertiary treatment will increase 
in  the  coming  years  in  particular  in  EU-12  Member  States,  which  will  increase  the  benefits  in 
terms of avoided treatment costs. Overall benefits of a ban will, therefore, likely see a peak 
around 2015, and thereafter are expected to diminish over time. However, compared to option 
1, benefits will materialise much faster through the implementation of this option. 

5.3.3.  Costs of a ban of phosphates in detergents 

5.3.3.1.  Impacts on the phosphates industry and on producers of alternatives 

CEEP contends that STTP produced for use in detergents is a “commodity” product, and that 
a home market base is essential for the survival of any STPP manufacturer. Where a company 
loses  its  “home”  STPP  market,  the  resulting  reduction  in  production/sales  volumes  destroys 
competitiveness for other markets where local producers still have a “home” sales base with 
lower transport and export costs. In particular, without a home market in Europe, a European 
producer  cannot  compete  effectively  outside  Europe  with  Asian  or  South  American 
producers. CEEP reported that there are now 7 STPP producing plants in Europe which would 
be affected in the event of a ban of phosphates in detergents. CEEP estimated that a total ban 
of STPP in all detergents could be expected to lead to a total of 3 000 – 5 000 job losses in the 
EU. Closures of STPP production will have knock-on effects leading to overall plant and site 
restructuring and closures, while other phosphates based products (e.g. in the food industry) 
will  also  be  affected  as  they  use  common  intermediates  such  as  purified  phosphoric  acid. 
Without  the  use  in  detergents,  it  is  probable  that  the  production  of  phosphoric  acid  and  its 
purification would no longer be economically viable in Europe, so that the EU would finally 
become  dependent  on  imports  (in  particular  from  North  Africa  and  other  phosphates-rock 
producing areas). CEEP estimates that in 2007 around 190,000 t of STPP were exported from 
the EU leading to a contribution to the EU balance of payments at slightly over €100 million. 
The  loss  of  the  European  laundry  STPP  markets  would  thus  imply  the  loss  of  this  export 
economy. However, it has to be noted that exports had already declined to 100,000 t in 2008 
despite the absence of any legislative action on phosphates by the EU. 

Purified (industrial grade) phosphoric acid has a wide range of uses. These include food grade 
phosphates  (in  low  volumes,  but  requiring  very  high  purity)  and  a  wide  range  of  different 
phosphates  for  different  specific  applications  including  also  the  pharmaceutical  industry, 
ammonium  phosphates  (used  in  high-grade  garden  fertilisers,  fire  extinguishers,  yeast 
products,  for  example),  dicalcium  phosphates  (used  in  dental  and  other  medical  products, 
animal feeds), phosphates for the electronics industries, and in metal surface preparation prior 
to painting (e.g. car industry). According to CEEP, the termination of STTP production and 
the  ensuing  closure  of  phosphoric  acid  purification  plants  would  probably  lead  to  the 
termination  of  these  high-technology,  high-value-added  products  in  Europe.  However,  this 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
claim seems somewhat exaggerated, as downstream users could replace domestic production 
of purified phosphoric acid with imports. 
According to the report by WRc in 200640, the EU currently contributes to less than 10% of 
the world’s STPP production. Therefore, while an EU ban on STPP use would transfer STPP 
manufacturing to countries outside the EU, such as China and India, the economic loss of this 
would not be considered great in overall EU terms. 

RPA indicates in its report in 2006 that losses for phosphates producers would be offset, to a 
greater or lesser extent, by an expansion of activities of the EU producers of zeolites (as main 
alternatives  to  STPP  at  this  time).  There  are  currently  nine  EU  zeolite  manufacturers  with 
plants  in  Hungary,  Italy,  UK,  Spain  (two),  Germany,  Belgium,  Slovenia  and  Netherlands. 
However,  this  was  not  confirmed  by  the  European  zeolite  producer  association  (EUZEPA) 
who claim that in case of an EU ban of phosphates in detergents no increases (or very limited) 
in the production of zeolites, the turnover of their companies, or the creation of new job in the 
sector should be expected. According to information provided by EUZEPA in January 2010 
zeolites  are  no  longer  the  main  substitutes  for  phosphates  in  detergents.  The  trend  is  more 
towards use of various mixes of co-builders like citrates, polycarboxylates and/or polymers, 
and,  therefore,  STPP  are  not  replaced  by  equal  amounts  of  zeolites  as  alternative  builders. 
Furthermore,  the  consumption  of  powder  detergents  is  decreasing,  as  they  are  replaced  by 
liquid detergents in which no builders are necessary. 

5.3.3.2.  Reformulation & other costs for detergent producers  

It can be expected that larger detergent formulators operating in several or all Member States 
would find it relatively easy to substitute detergents containing phosphates with comparable 
alternative  formulations  as  they  normally  already  offer  phosphate-free  detergents  in  those 
Member  States  where  phosphates  have  already  been  phased  out.  There  might  still  be  some 
marginal costs associated with re-branding.  

The  situation  becomes  more  complex  for  smaller  formulators  (in  particular  SMEs)  serving 
only  their  domestic  markets  with  detergents  based  on  phosphates.  The  SME  consultation 
(details  are  presented  in  Annex  III)  yielded  information  on  product  reformulation.  SME 
detergent  formulators  informed  that  they  reformulate  their  products  on  average  every  3.5 
years  with  an  average  cost  of  about  €5,600.  The  one-off  reformulation  costs  for  replacing 
phosphates  were  estimated  to  be  on  average  at  about  €10,800.  The  large  majority  of  SMEs 
(~60%) also claimed that possible modifications to their production lines would be required in 
case  of  STPP  substitution.  Moreover,  ~25%  of  the  SMEs  informed  of  expected  adverse 
economic  impacts  to  their  companies  from  a  potential  EU  ban  of  STPP  in  all  detergent 
products such as: 10-20% economic loss (e.g. higher cost of production due to use of more 
alternatives to achieve a similar cleaning performance), decreased sales, loss of market share, 
need for new investments, loss of clients etc.  

According  to  the  report  of  RPA  in  2006,  change  in  formulation  may  well  place  SME 
formulators at a disadvantage leading to a loss of their market share to the large international 
companies  -  particularly  in  those  countries  with  limited  experience  of  zeolite  detergent 
formulation (such as Poland). However, such disadvantages might be reduced if a sufficiently 
long transition time would be foreseen before phosphates restrictions would apply. 

Membership statistics for A.I.S.E suggest that there could be a few hundred SME formulators 
across the EU-27 (> 600 in 2007) each producing several formulations. Assuming that each of 

40 

Available at: http://www.undp-drp.org/pdf/1.8_Detergents/1.8%20Detergent%20Inception%20Report_WRc-f.pdf 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the 600 SMEs would formulate on average between 4 and 22 products (estimate based on the 
information  contained  in  Annex  III)  and  average  reformulation  costs  of  ca.  €11.000,  total 
(one-off) reformulation costs would be between €26 million and €142 million. 

5.3.3.3.  Technical feasibility of STPP alternatives in detergents 

Adequate  performance  of  alternative  builders  to  phosphates  is  important  for  both  private 
consumers  and  professional  users.  A.I.S.E  considers  that  alternatives  for  phosphates  are 
available  and  are  widely  accepted  by  consumers  in  the  area  of  household  laundry  products. 
However, this is not yet the case for automatic dishwashing (ADW) products because of more 
demanding technical requirements. A report from A.I.S.E in 2009 based on a consultation of 
its members41, identifies the following alternatives to STPP in ADW products: sodium citrates 
(in  combination  with  polymers/polycarboxylates),  sodium  phosphonates,  gluconate, 
polycarboxylates;  methylglycin  diacetic  acid  (MGDA).  A  majority  of  the  respondents 
identified certain points of concern including: 

•  Limited production capacity/volumes in relation to a number of alternative substances for 
various  reasons  such  as  novelty  of  substances  demand  from  other  industries,  limited 
number of suppliers. 

•  Greater  difficulty  in  formulating  tablets  without  phosphates  due  to  limitations  related  to 

tablet production (e.g. stability, hygroscopy/water absorption). 

•  Key  product  performance  attributes/dimensions  that  are  impacted  when  replacing 
phosphates  in  ADW  such  as:  soil  suspension/dispersion,  certain  soils/stains,  spotting  and 
filming; reduced rinse aid function etc. 

Consequently,  in  order  to  achieve  complete  phosphates-free  ADW  detergents  that  will  have 
the  current  level  of  cleaning  performance,  further  innovation  and  significant  additional 
investments will still be required.  

In the I&I sector, there are, according to A.I.S.E, no satisfactory replacement substances for 
phosphate available today that would not impact either on performance, or chemical load (e.g. 
higher surfactant use), or water and energy use, or would lead to increasing use of ingredients 
with  potential  adverse  effects  on  health  or  environment,  if  they  were  to  be  used  in  higher 
quantities, e.g. nitriloacetic acid (NTA) and ethylendiammine tetra acetate (EDTA). Table 8 
in Annex I contains further details. 

Input on the technical feasibility of STPP alternatives was also provided during the 2009 SME 
consultation (details are given in Annex III). The situation was relatively balanced concerning 
the  question  as  whether  currently  it  is  technically  possible  to  replace  phosphates  in  their 
detergent formulations, with 42% of SMEs replying positively. A clear majority of the total 
replies  (58%)  indicated,  though,  that  SMEs  expect  less  efficient  washing  and  reduced 
cleaning performance as the main adverse effects of replacing phosphates.  

According to this consultation, the main alternative builders, in decreasing order of use, were: 
phosphonates, citrates, polycarboxylates, zeolites, EDTA and NTA. It seems that zeolites are 
no longer the builders most commonly used by these SMEs, in contrast to what was noted by 
RPA  in  2006  when  zeolites  dominated  the  market  of  STPP  alternatives.  This  is  consistent 
with  information  from  EUZEPA  in  2010  that  zeolites  are  no  longer  the  main  substitute  for 

41 

Available at: 
http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/enterprise/wgdet/library?l=/phosphates_detergents/detergents_2009
pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
                                                 
phosphates in detergents as the trend is more toward use of various mixes of co-builders like 
citrates, polycarboxylates and/or polymers. 

5.3.3.4.  Economic feasibility of STPP alternatives in detergents 

According  to  A.I.S.E,  as  for  any  product,  it  makes  sense  economically  that  changes  in 
supply/demand  balance  of  an  ingredient  such  as  STPP  could  encourage  suppliers  to 
commercialise  alternatives  that  may  not  have  been  seen  as  economically  viable  previously. 
An assessment of the economics of phosphates versus possible alternatives is complicated by 
the frequent and often unpredictable changes in raw materials availability such as phosphate 
rock, oil, ethylene, etc. It should be noted that switching to alternatives may not only require 
full  reformulation  but  may  also  entail  process  changes,  especially  in  the  I&I  sector,  with 
related  additional  costs.  In  that  context,  A.I.S.E  argues  that  harmonised  EU  legislation 
regulating the use of phosphates would avoid distortion of the Single Market and undue costs 
to the consumer.  

CEEP has claimed that the additional cost for the detergents industry (which will be passed to 
the  consumer)  of  manufacturing  phosphates-free  detergents  would  correspond  in  a 
conservative  estimate  to  1%  of  detergents  ingredient  costs  or  0.2%  increase  in  price  to  the 
consumer.  CEEP  has  recently  (2009)  informed  that  this  figure  refers  only  to  the  ongoing 
material costs, and does not include the “one-off” R&D, factory equipment and other change-
over  costs  of  reformulation.  Considering  that  according  to  AISE  the  total  market  value  of 
soaps, detergents and maintenance products (for both household and I&I products) for 2008 is 
estimated  to  be  €36  billion  (EU  27  +  Norway),  the  above-mentioned  0.2%  value  would 
correspond to about €72 million.  

In contrast, 60% of the SMEs that participated in the 2009 SME consultation reported that the 
price of phosphates was on average ~46% higher than the price of alternative builders in their 
products, although the situation was variable between the Member States. As a consequence, 
they claimed that the retail price of P-based products may actually be about 19% higher that 
that  of  products  based  on  STPP  alternatives.  However  given  the  problem  of  technical 
performance caused by the use of STPP alternatives in particular in ADW and I&I products as 
explained above, it seems that SMEs and their clients are ready to accept such difference of 
the retail price in the light of better performance. 

5.3.3.5.  Health and environmental aspects of STTP alternatives 

Health  and  Environmental  Risk  Assessment  (HERA)  reports  for  STPP  alternatives  have 
demonstrated  that  their  use  of  in  household  detergents  does  not  cause  significant  health  or 
environmental  risks.  Concerning  zeolites  both  the  HERA  report42  and  the  2003  SCTEE 
opinion43  concluded  that  their  use  in  detergents  does  not  pose  any  direct  health  or 
environmental risks although it would lead to an increase in the use of associated co-builders 
such  as  polycarboxylates  and  phosphonates.  In  addition,  the  2006  RPA  report  reviewed  the 
health and environmental effects of other STPP alternatives, and this report together with any 
other available scientific evidence was further evaluated by SCHER. In its opinion of 2007, 
SCHER identifies no problem for the use of citric acid, however indicated some uncertainties 
for: (a) phosphonates and EDTA for which further investigation would be required to clarify 
some  uncertainties;  (b)  polycarboxylates  and  their  co-polymers  as  particular  emphasis  was 
given  on  some  existing  uncertainties,  mainly  concerning  the  effects  of  these  ingredients  in 
aquatic  and  terrestrial  environmental  compartments.  A  summary  of  the  SCHER  opinion  on 

42 
43 

Available at: http://www.heraproject.com/files/8-F-04-%20HERA%20Zeolite%20full%20V3%20web%20wd.pdf 
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/sct/sct_opinions_en.htm 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the  RPA  and  HERA  reports  is  given  in  Annex  II.  In  2009,  the  producer  industry  has 
committed  to  further  investigations  in  order  to  clarify  the  remaining  concerns  on 
polycarboxylates.  

The main polycarboxylates producer in the EU (BASF) does not expect a significant increase 
of polycarboxylates use as a consequence of a phosphates ban in the EU due to a trend to an 
increased  use  of  liquid  laundry  detergents  which  do  not  contain  polycarboxylates  (or  other 
alternatives to STPP). A.I.S.E. confirmed this trend and noted that it is, in general, expected 
that use of liquid laundry detergents continues to grow (especially in Western Europe), which 
will reduce the consumption of polycarboxylates. In Eastern European countries there may be 
a time lag in this trend as consumers still mainly use powder laundry detergents. A phosphate-
ban might lead to a short-term increase in polycarboxylate consumption, until liquid laundry 
detergents become established in these countries.  

It should be noted also that countries with long-standing legislative restriction on phosphates 
(e.g  Italy,  Belgium)  informed  that  no  adverse  health  or  environmental  effects  from  use  of 
STPP alternatives have been observed in their territories. Table 8 of Annex I summarises the 
main functions and environmental issues of the most commonly used STPP alternatives. 

There  are  no  significant  differences  in  energy  use  between  P-containing  and  P-free  laundry 
detergents as washing temperature (the largest factor in energy use) is primarily influenced by 
the presence of other ingredients such as surfactants and enzymes. 

Conclusion: A total ban of detergent phosphate would be the most effective policy option for 
reducing the eutrophication risk throughout the EU and would in particular also address trans-
boundary  flows  of  phosphates  in  river  basins  or  marine  waters  shared  by  several  Member 
States – quantification or monetisation of the benefits of this reduced risk is not feasible. In 
the  light  of  current  market  trends,  the  benefits  of  avoided  eutrophication  from  a  ban  will 
decline, albeit only slowly, but will materialise much faster than in option 1. 

Elimination of all phosphates in detergents would reduce operational costs for WWTP under 
current  conditions  in  the  order  of  €10  million  to  €693  million  per  year.  Due  to  the  (slow) 
decreasing  trend  in  phosphate  use  and  increasing  connection  rates  to  WWTP  with  tertiary 
treatment the benefits in terms of avoided treatment costs will likely see a peak around 2015, 
and thereafter  are  expected  to diminish over time. However,  compared to option 1, benefits 
will materialise much faster through the implementation of this option. 

This option would ensure a fully harmonised internal market for detergents, thus eliminating 
any  additional  costs  for  industry  and  administrations  due  to  the  current  fragmentation  and 
avoiding potential new costs from the requirements for mutual recognition. The option would 
also be more efficient than individual action by all Member States concerned, where regional 
co-operation is required.  

A  ban  of  phosphates  in  the  entire  EU  would  cause  adverse  economic  impacts  on  SME 
formulators (the majority of which mainly formulate I&I products) leading to a loss of their 
market  share  to  the  large  international  companies.  Total  reformulation  costs  (one-off)  are 
estimated  in  a  range  of  €20  –  €142  million.  When  comparing  the  lower  estimates  of 
reformulation  costs  and  benefits  in  avoided  waste  water  treatment  costs,  net  benefits  would 
accrue after 2 years, whereas using the higher estimates would lead to net benefits within one 
year  already.  However,  currently  no  technically  feasible  alternatives  exist  for  I&I  products, 
while issues of technical performance have not been completely resolved for ADW products. 
The actual costs for replacing phosphates in ADW and I&I would therefore be much higher as 
additional  significant  investments  in  research  and  innovation  would  be  necessary.  A  ban  of 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
phosphates  despite  the  lack  of  alternatives  for  ADW  and  I&I  detergents  would  also  have 
negative consequences for consumers and professional users of detergents. 

Phosphates  producers  would  suffer  from  plant  closures  and  job  losses  of  3000-5000,  which 
would not be offset by additional production or jobs for zeolite producers. Producers of other 
alternatives might see such economic benefits, but no quantitative information is available.  

At the discussions of the November 2009 meeting of the Detergents WG, this policy option 
was  favoured  by  3  Member  States  that  have  already  restricted  the  use  of  phosphates  in 
laundry detergents and see such a measure as a step forward to further combat eutrophication 
in their waters. 

5.4. 

Option 4: Restriction of phosphates in laundry detergents 

This option is similar to option 3, but as it would affect only laundry detergents and not ADW 
or I & I detergents, the magnitudes of benefits and costs will be different.  

5.4.1.  Benefits of reduced eutrophication  

About  60%  of  STPP  in  the  EU  is  currently  used  in  laundry  detergents  according  to  CEEP. 
Their elimination will reduce the risks of eutrophication similar to option 3, albeit to a smaller 
extent. As in option 3, these benefits cannot be quantified or monetised. In the light of current 
market trends, they will decline, albeit only slowly, but will materialise much faster compared 
to option 1. 

5.4.2.  Benefits for waste water treatment  

The benefits to WWTP are accordingly 60% of those of option 3, namely between €6 million 
to  €415  million  annually  for  the  operating  costs.  Due  to  the  (slow)  decreasing  trend  in 
phosphate  use  and  increasing  connection  rates  to  WWTP  with  tertiary  treatment  the  benefits  in 
terms  of  avoided  treatment  costs  will  likely  see  a  peak  around  2015,  and  thereafter  are 
expected to diminish over time. However, compared to option 1, benefits would materialise 
much faster through the implementation of this option. 

5.4.3.  Cost of a restriction on STPP in laundry detergents  

5.4.3.1.  Impacts on the phosphates industry and on producers of alternatives 

CEEP  has  recently  contended  that  the  majority  of  EU  STPP  production  goes  into  domestic 
laundry detergents, whereas the dishwasher detergent STPP market alone does not offer the 
demand  necessary  to  absorb  excess  production  in  the  case  of  an  EU  ban  of  phosphates  in 
laundry  detergents.  In  addition,  industrial  and  food  phosphates  involve  considerably  lower 
volumes  and  different  qualities  of  product,  and  could  not  take  up  excess  detergent  STPP 
production.  Therefore,  a  laundry  detergent  phosphate  ban  would  lead  to  closures  of  some 
STPP production units, and could lead to a total of 1000 – 1650 job losses in the EU. CEEP 
also  considers  that  given  that  the  zeolite  industry  currently  faces  over-capacity,  and  the 
significant  STPP  export  markets  which  would  be  lost,  it  is  improbable  that  these  job  losses 
would  be  compensated  by  job  creation  elsewhere.  As  mentioned  in  section  5.3.3.1,  this  has 
also been confirmed by EUZEPA. 

5.4.3.2.  Reformulation and other costs for detergent producers 

From  the  consultation  of  SMEs  formulators  of  laundry  detergents  concerning  the  impact  of 
potential STPP restrictions, it emerged that replacement of phosphates in laundry detergents is 
in principle possible (feasibility of alternatives is explained in option 3) but some companies 
assert  that  the  zeolite  based  products  will  have  a  lower  performance  and  there  will  be 
problems  with  laundry  powder  in  the  clothes  after  washing.  The  problem  is  generally 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
perceived as more severe in the Mediterranean, where water is harder compared to the very 
soft  water  conditions  in  Scandinavia,  and  would  therefore  concern  more  the  SMEs  in  these 
countries.  Overall,  it  is  possible  that  a  small  number  of  SMEs  that  are  specialised  in 
phosphates-based  laundry  detergents  could  loose  their  market  share  to  the  advantage  of  the 
large multinational companies.  

The  2009  SME  consultation  revealed  that  50%  of  the  responding  SMEs  produced  laundry 
detergents  (solely  or  in  addition  to  other  types)  with  on  average  4  production  lines.  With 
similar estimation as previously given in option 3 (for a total of 600 European SMEs and an 
average reformulation cost of ~€11.000) total reformulation costs for substituting phosphates 
for SMEs producing laundry detergents will be ~€13.2 million. However, it should be noted 
that detergent manufacturers need to reformulate their products on a regular basis to maintain 
competitiveness, so that allowing sufficient time for reformulation may be a more important 
issue than cost. 

5.4.3.3.  Technical and economic feasibility and health and environmental considerations for 

alternatives to phosphates in laundry detergents 

These  factors  have  already  been  examined  as  part  of  the  analysis  of  option  3.  A.I.S.E  and 
SME's have confirmed that a replacement of phosphates in laundry detergents is technically 
feasible  without  loss  of  performance  for  private  consumers,  and  is  not  expected  to  lead  to 
higher product costs (apart from the reformulation costs mentioned in the preceding section).  

Apart from the remaining uncertainties around polycarboxylates already discussed in option 
3, no adverse effects on human health or the environment are expected.  

Conclusion: A ban of phosphates in laundry detergents would reduce the eutrophication risk 
throughout the EU and would in particular also address trans-boundary flows of phosphates in 
river basins or marine waters shared by several Member States – albeit to a somewhat lesser 
extent than option 3. A quantification  or  monetisation of the benefits of this reduced risk is 
not feasible. Benefits will decline over time in the light of market trends, albeit only slowly, 
but will materialise much faster compared to option 1. 

Elimination  of  phosphates  in  laundry  detergents  would  reduce  operational  costs  for  WWTP 
under current conditions in the order of €6 million to €415 million per year. Due to the (slow) 
decreasing  trend  in  phosphate  use  and  increasing  connection  rates  to  WWTP  with  tertiary 
treatment the benefits in terms of avoided treatment costs will likely see a peak around 2015, 
and thereafter  are  expected  to diminish over time. However,  compared to option 1, benefits 
would materialise much faster through the implementation of this option. 

Total reformulation costs (one-off) for laundry detergent formulators are estimated at ~€13.2 
millions,  but  there  would  not  be  any  significant  problems  with  regard  to  technical  or 
economic feasibility otherwise. Neither private consumers nor professional users of detergents 
will be adversely affected. When comparing the reformulation costs and benefits in avoided 
waste  water  treatment  costs,  using  the  lower  estimates  for  avoided  costs  in  waster  water 
treatment would lead to net benefits within 3 years, whereas using the higher estimates would 
lead to net benefits within one year already. Annex IV contains a sensitivity analysis for the 
comparison of costs and benefits of option 4 for various scenarios.  

A transition period of ca. 3 years in line with normal reformulation cycles would reduce costs 
for  adaptation  by  SME  formulators  of  laundry  detergents  somewhat  more,  in  particular  for 
those  located  in  new  MS  as  recently  underlined  by  Poland,  Hungary  and  others.  CEEP 
estimates  job  losses  of  ~1000-1650  in  phosphates  producing  companies,  which  would 
probably not be offset by gains for zeolites producers.  

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
This  option  would  ensure  a  fully  harmonised  internal  market  for  laundry  detergents,  thus 
eliminating  any  additional  costs  for  industry  and  administrations  due  to  the  current 
fragmentation and avoiding potential new costs from the requirements for mutual recognition. 
The  option  would  also  be  more  efficient  than  individual  action  by  all  Member  States 
concerned, where regional co-operation is required. Full harmonisation would not be achieved 
for ADW or I&I detergents. However, it should be noted that only very few Member States 
(e.g.  Sweden,  France)  have  informed  of  their  intention  to  extend  their  existing  legislative 
restrictions for phosphates in laundry detergents to I&I and ADW products in the future (with 
appropriate transition periods).  

At the discussions of the November 2009 meeting of the Detergents WG, this policy option 
was  favoured  by  14  Member  States,  as  the  most  appropriate  and  effective  policy  option.  It 
should be noted that further consultation with Member States in 2010 revealed that, in spite of 
the  availability  of  efficient  alternatives,  a  requirement  for  a  zero  content  of  phosphorus  in 
laundry detergents would be impractical for reason of technical performance (but also due to 
the  use  of  phosphonates  as  co-builders  to  zeolites).  Therefore,  for  regulatory  purposes  a 
certain limit value (expressed as elemental phosphorous) will have to be defined.  

Member  States  would  prefer  a  harmonised  limit  close  to  their  existing  national  limits.  Italy 
and the Czech Republic have imposed in their law a limit of 0.5% P w/w. Latvia and Poland 
are proposing the same limit in their draft national legislation, which is not yet adopted, whilst 
UK is envisaging a vey similar limit of 0.4% P w/w. Sweden and Norway restrict phosphates 
at 0.2% P w/w. The lower restriction level imposed by Nordic countries may be associated to 
their  “soft  water”  conditions  which  therefore  require  fewer  quantities  of  phosphonates  as 
STPP alternative builders to achieve the same cleaning performance of the product. Looking 
beyond the EU, since the early 1970s and the Clean Water act of 1972, an increasing number 
of US States - starting first with voluntary agreement - implemented either complete or partial 
bans of phosphates in laundry detergents with phosphorous content usually limited to 0.5% by 
weight. More recently, Canada has informed of their intention to impose a 0.5% w/w limit for 
P  in  laundry  detergents.  An  EU  limit  will  therefore  be  set  somewhere  in  the  range  of  0.2  – 
0.5% w/w in further consultations with the Member States. 

5.5. 

Option-5: Setting limit values for the content of phosphates in all detergents  

5.5.1.  Feasibility 

At  the  meeting  of  the  Detergents  WG  in  November  2009,  three  Member  States  favoured 
setting different limit values for P in laundry, ADW and I&I detergents as most proportionate 
risk management measure. Whereas there is a large degree of consensus that limit values for P 
in  laundry  detergents  should  be  in  the  range  0.2  –  0.5%,  there  is  much  less  consensus  on 
appropriate limits for P in ADW and I&I detergents.  

Italy has set a limit of 6% P by mass for ADW detergents. Norway has adopted a limit value 
of  3.8%  by  mass  for  ADW  detergents  and  10%  for I&I  detergents. This shows already that 
opinions on the appropriate limit values are widely diverging and practical experience is not 
yet  much  developed.  There  would,  therefore,  be  a  risk  that  a  final  compromise  at  EU  level 
would not be accepted by those Member States who have already set a lower limit in national 
legislation, which could lead to requests under Article 114 TFEU by these Member States to 
maintain  the  national  legislation  for  ADW  and  I&I  detergents.  Such  requests  trigger 
significant  work  for  the  requesting  Member  State  and  the  Commission  to  adopt  a  formal 
decision on the request within 6 months.  

A.I.S.E  favours  a  quite  different  approach  for  ADW  detergents,  namely,  a  limit  value 
equivalent to 2,5 grams P per wash. A ‘grams-per-wash’ limit will allow more flexibility for 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
further compaction of ADW detergents, which is seen as a key to enhanced sustainability via 
reduced  chemicals  use,  reduced  packaging,  and  reduced  transportation,  thus  enabling  lower 
energy consumption  and  therefore  lower CO2 emissions. The limit value corresponds to  the 
current phosphates ceiling criterion of the EU Ecolabel. A.I.S.E believes manufacturers could 
meet  such  a  requirement  by  2012.  For  I&I  detergents  A.I.S.E.  believes  continued  use  of 
phosphates  is  necessary  given  the  performance  level  required  for  those  applications  and  the 
diversity of formulations and therefore no technically acceptable limit can be proposed for the 
time being. 

5.5.2.  Cost and benefit considerations 

In general, the cost and benefit estimations as indicated in the analysis of options 3 and 4 are 
also valid for this option, as the existing limits mainly impact the deliberate use of phosphates 
in detergents: at 0.5% (or lower) P w/w in laundry detergents, practically no phosphates can 
be added to laundry detergents, as solely P from phosphonates (co-builders for zeolites) will 
already come close to this limit value. Depending on where the limit values for ADW and I&I 
products would be set (if indeed harmonised values could be proposed at this time), impacts 
on companies from the adoption of this policy option at EU level would be similar to those of 
a total ban, because extensive reformulation would be necessary. 

The  benefits  for  eutrophication  and  for  the  reduced  cost  of  waste  water  treatment  would  be 
intermediate between options 3 and 4. 

Conclusion:  This  policy  option  could  be  effective,  in  theory,  in  reducing  the  eutrophication 
risk at EU level by reducing the STTP use in all detergent formulations. However, in terms of 
practicality, it would not be easy to agree on common EU restriction levels for ADW and I&I 
detergents  that  would  be  feasible  and  technically / economically  viable.  Given  the  current 
performance limitation in ADW and I&I products, further investigation would be required in 
order  to  agree  on  technically  feasible  phosphate  levels.  Setting  limit  values  that  are  not 
accepted by all Member States could lead to high administrative burdens for submitting and 
deciding on requests for derogation under Article 114 TFEU. 

6. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS  

A  comparison  of  the  examined  policy  options  in  terms  of  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
environmental  impacts,  and  economic  cost/benefit  estimations  is  given  below  in  Table  3.

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
OPTION 

EFFECTIVENESS 

EFFICIENCY 

ENVIRONMENAL IMPACTS  COST/BENEFITS 

TABLE 3: COMPARISON OF THE EXAMINED POLICY OPTIONS 

Option-1:  

No action at EU 
level, leaving the 
responsibility to act 
to the Member States 
(baseline option) 

Option-2:  

Voluntary action by 
industry  

Option-3:  

Total ban of 
phosphates in 
detergents 

Neutral: Current trends 
would continue, 
eutrophication risk 
maybe be effectively 
tacked only at national 
level, overall use of 
phosphates in 
detergents would 
gradually decrease.  

(+)  
A formalised voluntary 
commitment at EU 
level, agreeing on the 
necessary standards, 
ensuring participation 
by all actors concerned 
could be, in theory 
feasible and effective.  

(++)  
It would be an effective 
policy option in 
reducing the 
eutrophication risk 
throughout the EU.  

Neutral: This option would 
not improve the functioning 
of the Internal Market (MS 
could still adopt diverging 
rules) nor would it reduce 
the administrative burdens 
to administrations and 
industry linked to mutual 
recognition.  

(-) 
Considering the current 
unwillingness of the 
relevant industry to organise 
such voluntary action, the 
measure does not appear to 
be feasible.  

Neutral: not sufficient to 
combat eutrophication at 
regional level, where co-
ordinated action of several 
Member States would require 
considerable resources from 
each of them, but gradual 
decrease expected in the light of 
decreasing phosphates use. 

Neutral:  total  costs  in  waste  water  treatment  plants  with  tertiary 
treatment for phosphate removal would amount to €10-693 million 
per year (only for chemical treatment), maximum expected around 
2015  due  to  increasing  connectivity  to  WWTP  but  thereafter 
gradual decrease due to slowly decreasing phosphates use. 

(+)  
In  theory,  it  could  reduce  the 
throughout 
eutrophication  risk 
the EU.  

(-)  
Administrative costs for industry and local supervising bodies for 
setting up, enforcing and monitoring voluntary commitments can 
be significant.  

(++)  

This option would improve 
the functioning of the 
Internal Market and would 
reduce the administrative 
burdens to administrations 
and industry linked to 
mutual recognition 

A single action at EU level 
would be more efficient 
than multiple actions by 

(++)  
The option would yield the 
greatest benefits in terms of 
reduced eutrophication risks. It 
would reduce cross-boundary 
flow of phosphates in river 
basins or marine waters shared 
by several Member States. 
Benefits would decrease slowly 
over time due to decreasing 
trend in phosphates use, but 
would materialise much faster 

(--)  
Total reformulation costs for SMEs are roughly estimated in a 
range of €20 – 142 million (one-off).  
Total savings in waste water treatment plants with tertiary 
treatment for phosphate removal would amount to €10 to €693 
million per year. Due to the (slow) decreasing trend in phosphate 
use and increasing connection rates to WWTP with tertiary 
treatment the benefits in terms of avoided treatment costs will 
likely see a peak around 2015, and thereafter are expected to 
diminish over time. However, compared to option 1, benefits 
would materialise much faster through the implementation of this 
option. 

EN 

34 

EN 

 
  
 
Member States. 

than in option 1. 

Option-4: Restriction 
of phosphates in 
laundry detergents  

option 

(+)  
It would be an effective 
in 
policy 
the 
reducing 
risk 
eutrophication 
the  EU 
throughout 
considering that 60% of 
STPP is used in laundry 
detergents.  

(+)  
It would ensure a fully 
harmonised internal market 
for laundry detergents, thus 
eliminating any additional 
costs for industry and 
administrations due to 
market fragmentation and 
the requirement for mutual 
recognition.  
A single action at EU level 
would be more efficient 
than multiple actions by 
Member States. 

(+) 
The option would lead to 
benefits in terms of reduced 
eutrophication risks, albeit 
somewhat lower than option 3. It 
would be effective to reduce 
cross-boundary flow of 
phosphates in river basins or 
marine waters shared by several 
Member States. 
Benefits would decrease slowly 
over time due to decreasing 
trend in phosphates use but 
would materialise much faster 
than in option 1. 

(+)  
Similar to Option 3. 

Option-5: Setting 
limit values for the 
content of 
phosphates in 
detergents  

(-)  
It would not be easy to 
agree on common EU limits 
that would be feasible, in 
particular for I&I and ADW 
detergents.  

(+)  
Impacts somewhere between 
options 3 and 4.  

When comparing the lower estimates of reformulation costs and 
benefits in avoided waste water treatment costs, net benefits would 
accrue after 2 years, whereas using the higher estimates would lead 
to net benefits within one year already. However, there are 
currently no technically feasible alternatives exist for I&I products, 
while issues of technical performance have not been completely 
resolved for ADW products. This would lead do significant costs 
for research and innovation. Consumers and professional users 
would be adversely affected. 

Job  losses  of  3000-5000  are  expected  by  P-industry,  which  will 
only be partly offset by gains in the production of alternatives.  

(++)  
Total  reformulation  costs  for  SMEs  are  roughly  estimated  in  a 
range of €13 million and SMEs.  
Total  savings  in  waste  water  treatment  plants  with  tertiary 
treatment for phosphate removal would amount to between €6 and 
€415 million. Due to the (slow) decreasing trend in phosphate use 
and  increasing  connection  rates  to WWTP with  tertiary  treatment 
the  benefits  in  terms  of  avoided  treatment  costs  will  likely  see  a 
peak  around  2015,  and  thereafter  are  expected  to  diminish  over 
time.  However,  compared  to  option  1,  benefits  would  materialise 
much faster through the implementation of this option. 
Comparing  the  reformulation  costs  and  benefits  in  avoided  waste 
water treatment costs, when using the lower estimates net benefits 
would  accrue  within  3  years,  whereas  using  the  higher  estimate 
would lead to net benefits within one year already  

Technically and economically feasible alternatives exist. 
Job  losses  of  1000-1650  are  expected  by  P-industry,  which  will 
only be partly offset by gains in the production of alternatives. 
(--) 
Impacts on companies would be somewhere between those of 
option-3 or 4 (dependent on the restriction limit) 
Significant administrative burden are expected for MS, that would 
submit requests under Article 114 of the Treaty to be authorised to 
maintain their current legislation. 

EN 

35 

EN 

 
  
 
 
In  conclusion,  option  4  (restriction  of  phosphates  in  laundry  detergents)  would  be  an 
effective  and  proportionate  measure  to  reduce  the  eutrophication  risk  throughout  the  EU.  It 
addresses  the  cross-boundary  flow  of  phosphates  from  the  main  detergent  source  in  river 
basins  or  marine  waters  shared  by  several  Member  States  more  effectively  than  Member 
States  can  do  alone  or  in  regional  agreements.  It  would  create  a  fully  harmonised  internal 
market  for  laundry  detergents.  Costs  for  industry  and  administrations  due  to  the  current 
fragmentation  and  the  requirement  for  mutual  recognition  would  be  eliminated.  This  option 
would be easily accepted by Member States and detergent formulators.  

The  measure  would  be  proportionate  as  technical  and  economically  feasible  alternatives  for 
phosphates in laundry detergents are available (contrary to ADW and I&I detergents). Neither 
consumers nor professional users would be adversely affected. Detergent formulators would 
need to spend about €13 million on reformulation as a one-off cost, which would be largely 
offset  by  reduced  costs  for  removal  of  phosphates  in  WWTP  of  the  order  of  €6  to  €415 
million  per  year.  Comparing  the  reformulation  costs  and  benefits  in  avoided  waste  water 
treatment  costs  and  using  the  lower  estimates,  net  benefits  would  accrue  within  3  years, 
whereas  using  the  higher  estimates  would  lead  to  net  benefits  within  one  year  already. 
Removal  of  phosphates  from  laundry  detergents  appears  thus  to  be  a  more  cost-efficient 
measure  for  nutrient  elimination  in  waste  water  than  waste  water  treatment.  In  addition, 
compared to option 1, benefits would materialise much faster through the implementation of 
this option. To accommodate the reformulation into their normal product development cycle, 
SMEs would need several years to adapt their whole range of products.  

The most significant negative impacts would be on phosphate producers who would loose part 
of their market with closure of some plants and expected job losses of 1000 - 1650. However, 
it has to be noted that use of phosphates in detergents has already declined significantly in the 
past and phosphates producers would have to adapt to this trend in any case. 

Option 3 would generate high benefits when only comparing direct reformulation and waste 
water treatment costs. However, there are currently no technically feasible alternatives for I&I 
products, while issues of technical performance have not been completely resolved for ADW 
products.  This  would  require  significant  additional  efforts  in  research  and  innovation.  A 
number of EU SMEs may be adversely affected. In addition, option 3 would result in 2000-
3000 additional job losses compared with option 4. Option 4 would allow reaping significant 
net benefits without raising problems regarding performance or availability. 

Option 4 was favoured by the majority of Member States, as indicated during the meeting of 
the Detergents WG in November 2009 and by written statements sent to the Commission.  

The policy option could be implemented in a number of ways: by amending Regulation (EC) 
No  648/2004  on  detergents,  by  an  ad  hoc  regulation,  or  by  imposing  restrictions  under 
Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH), although the latter would mean that the procedures 
foreseen in REACH will have to be followed, which would lead to further delays in adopting 
the envisaged restrictions. 

There would be no impact on the EU budget.  

No significant impacts on administrative burden for enterprises are expected. 

SME impacts have been described in various sections (see also Annex III B). 

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

Monitoring  the  implementation  of  a  ban  of  the  use  of  phosphates  in  detergents  should  be 
relatively straightforward, given that suitable systems have been established either under the 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
Detergents  Regulation  or  under  other  legislative  frameworks  that  impose  restrictions  of 
chemicals  (e.g.  monitoring  mechanisms  under  the  REACH  Regulation).  Monitoring 
restrictions  of  phosphates  in  detergents  will  only  be  a  marginal  addition  to  obligations  to 
monitor  an  existing  range  of  restrictions  on  chemical  substances  already  being  monitored. 
Additional efforts might be required by customs services (or other authorities in the Member 
States  in  charge  of  monitoring  imports),  but  again,  the  necessary  structures  and  practices 
should  already  be  in  place  with  regard  to  a  number  of  other  substances  which  are  already 
restricted and have to be monitored.  

Eutrophication  will  be  regularly  monitored  under  the  WFD  (at  least  every  6  months  for 
phytoplankton and every 3 years for other aquatic flora). The reports of the Member States on 
the  design  of  the  monitoring  programmes  (Art.  8  WFD)  show  that  monitoring  of 
eutrophication is largely in place.  

The  Commission  will  also  monitor  further  developments  with  regard  to  technical  and 
economic feasibility with regard to the replacement of phosphates in ADW detergents, and if 
appropriate,  consider  an  extension  of  the  restrictions  for  the  use  of  phosphates  to  ADW 
detergents. 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
8. 

REFERENCES 

1.  DEFRA (2008). Consultation on options for control of phosphates in domestic 
England. 

laundry 
(http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/water/waterquality/diffuse/non-
%20agri/documents/consultation2008-detergents.pdf) 

products 

cleaning 

in 

2.  DRMP 

(2009). 

Danube 

River 

Basin 

District  Management 

(http://www.icpdr.org/icpdr-pages/danube_rbm_plan_ready.htm) 

3.  HERA 

(2003).  Sodium  Tripolyphosphate 

(STPP)  CAS:  7758-29-4. 

(http://www.heraproject.com/RiskAssessment.cfm?SUBID=13) 

4.  HERA 

(2009). 

Polycarboxylates 

used 

in 

detergents. 

(http://www.heraproject.com/files/32-F-HERApolycarboxylates_2009-04-
08.pdf ) 

5. 

INIA  (2009).  Model  validation  using  the  WFD  Intercalibration  data,  model 
the  eutrophication  risk 
recalibration  and  Pan-European  Assessment  of 
detergents. 
of 
associated 
(http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/chemicals/files/docs/ceep_study_final_r
eport_042009_en.pdf) 

phosphates 

use 

the 

to 

in 

6.  RPA 

(2006).  Non-surfactant  Organic 

Ingredients  and  Zeolite-based 

Detergents. 
(http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/chemicals/documents/specific 
chemicals/detergents) 

7. 

8. 

SCHER (2009). Opinion on  model implementation and quantification of the 
eutrophication  risk  associated  to  the  use  of  phosphates  in  detergents. 
(http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scher/docs/scher_o_116.pdf
) 

SCHER  (2010).  Opinion  on  updated  HERA  Report  on  Polycarboxylates  in 
Detergents.(http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scher/scher_opi
nions_en.htm) 

9.  WRc  (2006).  Recommendations  for 
Regional 

Danube 

the  reduction  of  phosphorous 

in 
http://www.undp-

Detergents. 
drp.org/pdf/1.8_Detergents/1.8%20Detergent%20Inception%20Report_WRc-
f.pdf 

Project. 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
 
9. 

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS 

A.I.S.E 

International Association for Soaps, Detergents and Maintenance Products 

ADW 

BAT 

CEEP 

CSDPA 

DEFRA 

DRB 

Automatic Dishwashers 

Best Available Techniques 

European Detergent Phosphate Industry 

Czech Association of producers of Soaps, Cleaning Agents and Detergents 

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs 

Danube River Basin 

DRBMP 

Danube River Basin Management Plan 

EDTA 

EEB 

EFMA 

Ethylendiammine tetra acetate 

European Environmental Bureau 

The European Fertilizer Manufacturers Association 

EINECS 

European Inventory of Existing Chemical Substances 

EUZEPA 

European Zeolites Producers Industry  

JRC 

Joint Research Centre 

HELCOM 

Helsinki Commission 

HEDP 

HERA 

IASG 

I&I 

1-Hydroxy ethane diphosphonic acid 

Human and Environmental Risk Assessment 

Impact Assessment Steering Group  

Industrial and Institutional  

ICPDR 

International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River 

INIA 

LSP 

Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria 

Laundry Sustainability Project 

MGDA 

Methylglycin diacetic acid 

NGOs 

NTA 

P 

Non-Governmental Organisations 

Nitriloacetic acid 

Phosphorous 

P(AA-MA)  

Copolymer of acrylic acid and maleic acid 

PEC 

PNEC 

Predicted Environmental Concentration 

Predicted No Effect Concentration 

REACH 

Registration Evaluation Authorisation of Chemicals 

RPA 

SCHER 

SCTEE 

Risk & Policy Analysts 

Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks 

Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
SMEs 

STPP 

TFEU 

Small Medium Enterprises 

Sodium tripolyphosphates 

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

UNDP/GEF  United Nations Development Program/Global Environment Facility 

UWWTD 

Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive  

WFD 

WTP 

Water Framework Directive  

Willingness To Pay 

WWTP 

Waste Water Treatment Plants  

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
 
ANNEX I: TABLES AND FIGURES 

Table 1: Degree to which EU Member States were Phosphate-Free in laundry detergents in 
2009. Type of measures (combined data from RPA-2006 and other sources) 

Member State 

Population 
(~millions) 

% P-free 
Detergents  

Type of measures to reduce STPP in 
laundry detergents 

Belgium 

10.4 

Czech Republic 

10.2  

Denmark 

5.4 

Germany 

82.5  

Estonia 

Greece 

France 

Ireland 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxemburg 

Hungary 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Spain 

Finland 

Sweden 

1.3 

11.0 

59.9 

4.0 

57.8 

0.7 

2.3 

3.4 

0.4 

10.1 

0.4 

16.2 

8.1 

38.2 

10.4 

2.0 

5.4 

42.2 

5.2 

9.0 

100 

35 

80 

100 

20 

50 

100 

100 

100 

20 

National legislation  
National legislation (0.5% P w/w) 

No measures (initiative of producers for P free 
detergents)  

Voluntary agreement + legislation  

No measures 

No measures 

National law (total ban) 

Voluntary agreement  

National law (0.5% P w/w) 

No measures 

From 15→100 

Preparation of national legislation 
(0.5% P w/w) 

20 

100 

30 

20 

100 

100 

No measures 

No measures 

No measures 

No measures 

National law  

National law  

From 15→100 

Preparation of national legislation 
(0.5% P w/w) 

30 

95 

20 

40 

90 

100 

No measures  

Voluntary agreement  

No measures  

No measures  

Voluntary agreement  

National legislation (0.2% P w/w) 

Preparation of national legislation 
(0.4% P w/w) 

United Kingdom 

59.5 

From 55→100 

EU-25* 

456.0  

66 

* There are no national measures to restrict the use of phosphates in detergents in either 
Bulgaria or Romania. 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
 
Table 2: Existing EU legislation to combat eutrophication 

Directive 

Requirements for MS 

(UWWTD) 
91/271/EEC 
Directive 
concerning urban waste water treatment  

Tertiary  treatment  (which  removes  phosphates) 
is  required  at  waste  water  treatment  plants 
serving  agglomerations  of  more  than  10,000 
population  equivalents,  and  which  discharge 
into areas sensitive to eutrophication; 

Directive  91/676/EEC44  concerning  the 
protection  of  waters  against  pollution 
caused  by  nitrates  from  agricultural 
sources.  

96/61/EC45 
concerning 
Directive 
integrated  pollution  prevention  and 
control  

Directive  2000/60/EC46, 
the  Water 
Framework  Directive  (WFD),  has  led 
to  an  increased  focus  on  eutrophication 
and to a more holistic approach to water 
management47.  

required 

identify 
Member  States  are 
vulnerable zones and to establish and implement 
action  programmes  in  order  to  reduce  water 
pollution from nitrogen compounds. 

to 

Member States are required to issue permits for 
certain  industrial  installations  according  to  the 
best  available  techniques  (BAT).  Annex  III  of 
the  Directive,  the  indicative  list  of  the  main 
polluting substances to be taken into account for 
fixing emission limit values, includes substances 
which contribute to eutrophication, in particular 
nitrates and phosphates. 

Member  States  must  enact  programmes  of 
measures to ensure that water bodies throughout 
the  EU  reach  "good  status"  by  2015.  In  cases 
where  WFD  monitoring  and  assessment  shows 
significantly 
inputs 
that  phosphorus 
contributing  to  eutrophication,  Member  States 
must 
this 
problem. 

implement  measures 

to  address 

are 

44 
45 
46 
47 

Directive 91/676/EEC, OJ L375, 31.12. 1991, p.1 
Directive 96/61/EC, OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p.26 
Directive 2000/60/EC, OJ L327, 22.12.2000, p.1. 
Directives 91/271/EEC, 91/767/EEC and 96/61/EC are "basic measures" under the WFD and must be 
coordinated and, where necessary complemented to achieve the mandatory objectives. 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table  3:  Phosphorus  sources  (detergents  and  human  wastes)  from  wastewater  to  surface 
water  considering  no  treatment  (gross  loadings)  or  secondary  (Scenario  1)  and  tertiary 
(Scenario 2) treatment, respectively (UK Water Industry, 2008) 

Country 

Population 
connected to 
WWTP (%) 

Gross input (%) 

Scenario 1 

Scenario 2 

No sewage treatment 

Secondary treatment 

Tertiary treatment 

P-
Det 

Human 
Wastes 

Sum 

P-
Det 

Human 
Wastes 

Sum 

P-
Det 

Human 
Wastes 

Sum 

Austria 

Belgium-
Luxembourg 

Denmark 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Ireland 

Italy 

Netherlands 

Portugal 

Spain 

Sweden 

United 
Kingdom 

Czech 
Republic 

Hungary 

Poland 

EU-18 mean 

86 

40 

89 

81 

79 

93 

50 

70 

75 

99 

42 

89 

93 

88 

72 

57 

58 

80 

8 

7 

12 

6 

23 

7 

27 

3 

2 

7 

34 

24 

7 

26 

16 

16 

13 

15 

66 

72 

55 

47 

53 

70 

53 

53 

76 

72 

46 

48 

53 

59 

63 

58 

63 

61 

74 

79 

67 

53 

76 

77 

80 

56 

78 

79 

80 

72 

7 

6 

10 

5 

20 

6 

24 

2 

2 

6 

31 

21 

 60 

6 

57 

65 

45 

37 

46 

61 

48 

42 

67 

63 

41 

41 

42 

64 

71 

55 

42 

66 

67 

72 

44 

69 

69 

72 

62 

48 

4 

6 

5 

2 

13 

3 

21 

1 

1 

2 

28 

10 

2 

85 

24 

54 

78 

15 

79 

14 

74 

76 

76 

14 

12 

13 

56 

50 

56 

53 

70 

10 

64 

68 

66 

11 

9 

8 

31 

57 

21 

17 

29 

30 

40 

25 

46 

26 

37 

20 

15 

35 

40 

39 

44 

33 

35 

63 

26 

19 

42 

33 

61 

26 

47 

28 

65 

30 

17 

50 

50 

50 

53 

41 

Source: Wind et al. (2007). 

Note:  Wastewater  from  population  not  connected  to  WWTP  received  30%  P-reduction  by  default.  WWTP 
connection according to Eurostat (2006). 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Table 4: Summary results of the INIA model for the contribution of phosphates from detergents 
to the eutrophication risk in the tested EU eco-regions (Values are presented as 
percentages of the eutrophication risk) 

Risk contribution 

Mean 

Median 

10thPercent 

90thPercent 

Laundry (L) 

Dishwashing (D) 

L+D 

Laundry (L) 

Dishwashing (D) 

L+D 

Laundry (L) 

Dishwashing (D) 

L+D 

Laundry (L) 

Dishwashing (D) 

L+D 

3.1 

2.7 

5.8 

1.2 

1.1 

2.3 

2.0 

3.3 

5.3 

1.5 

1.6 

3.2 

Central /Baltic 

0.8 

3.1 

4.5 

Mediterranean 

0.9 

1.1 

1.7 

Northern 

1.9 

3.6 

5.7 

Atlantic 

1.6 

1.8 

3.5 

0.0 

0.6 

2.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.5 

0.3 

0.6 

1.0 

0.5 

0.6 

1.2 

9.6 

4.8 

10.4 

3.2 

1.9 

4.5 

3.2 

4.9 

8.0 

2.3 

2.5 

4.9 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 5: Annual Use of Phosphates in Detergents Per Capita (RPA, 2006) 
Score 

Description 
Very Low (<2 
kg/person) 

Low (2-4 kg/person) 

Medium (4-6 
kg/person) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Applicable Member States 
Slovenia, Luxembourg, Italy, Austria, Ireland, 
Belgium, Germany, Netherlands 
Lithuania,  Slovakia,  Estonia,  Latvia,  Hungary, 
Denmark, Sweden, Finland 
France, Greece, UK, Malta, Czech Republic 

High (>6 kg/person)  Cyprus, Portugal, Poland, Spain 

Table 6: Percentage of Population Connected to Waste Water Treatment Plants with 

Tertiary Treatment (RPA, 2006) 

Score 
1 

2 

3 

Applicable Member States 

Description 
High (>75%)  Denmark, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Netherlands 
Medium (20-
75%) 

Austria, Estonia, Cyprus, UK, Italy, Poland, France (?) 

Low (<20%) 

Luxembourg,  Belgium,  Greece,  Hungary,  Spain, 
Portugal,  Ireland,  Slovenia,  Malta,  Czech  Republic, 
Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia 

Table 7: Extent of (Concern over) Eutrophication (RPA, 2006) 
Score 
0 

Description 
No sensitive areas 

EU-15 

EU-10 
Malta 

1 

Some sensitive areas 

2 

Entire territory 
(effectively) designated 
as ‘sensitive area’ 

France, Greece, Ireland, 
Italy, Portugal, Spain, 
UK 
Austria, Belgium, 
Denmark, Sweden, 
Luxembourg, Finland, 
Netherlands, Germany 

Hungary, Slovenia, 
Cyprus 

Estonia, Latvia, 
Lithuania, Poland, 
Slovakia, Czech 
Republic 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 8: Properties of some alternatives to STPP in detergents (Sources: 2008 UK Water industry report & 

2008 Commission report on non surfactant organic ingredients48) 

Name 

Description  

Environmental issues  

Polycarboxylates  

Phosphonates  

Polymers are used as co-builder in 
detergent because of their “threshold 
effect” which means that optimal 
effectiveness is obtain at low levels. In 
hard water they precipitate and the 
dispersing effect is lost. Therefore these 
are only effective in water softened by 
addition of a zeolite or complex. agent. 

Phosphonates are mainly used in 
cleaning products as chelating agents 
and/or scale inhibitors 

Although  polycarboxylates  do  not  readily 
biodegrade,  it  is  unlikely  that  their  use  in 
detergents  would  lead  to  significant  risks 
to consumers or to the environment due to 
their 
ecotoxicity. 
However, further clarification of the risk to 
the terrestrial compartment is on-going  

toxicity 

low 

and 

is 

a  broad 

consensus 

There 
that 
phosphonates  degrade  slowly  and  may 
present  a  risk  to  the  environment  with 
concern  being  focused  on  the  potential 
aquatic  chronic  toxicity  of  HEDP  (and  its 
salts) to Daphnia. Terrestrial toxicity is low 
and  their  presence  in  sewage  sludge  does 
not present a significant risk. 

EDTA and EDTA 
tetrasodium salts 

Used as a chelating agent to complex 
water-hardness ions in water.  

salts 
and 
NTA 
Nitrilotriacetic  Acid 
(NTA) 

NTA chelates water-hardness ions less 
strongly than EDTA but has a superior 
biodegradability 

Available  data  indicate  that  EDTA  and  its 
salts  may  be  of  certain  concern  to  the 
environment  with  regard  to  their  use  in 
industrial  and  institutional  (I&I)  cleaning 
but  not  for  household  detergents  (where 
their use is limited). 

Although  NTA  appears  not  to  be  of 
concern to the environment, its presence in 
a  detergent  (as  for  EDTA)  excludes  the 
award  of  an  eco-label  due  to  its  potential 
carcinogenicity (classified as a Category 3 
Carcinogen with an R40 label)  

Sodium citrate  

Sodium silicates  

Citrates are naturally occurring 
compounds which biodegrade rapidly 
and which have water-softening 
properties similar to those of NTA. 

have good builder properties 
and stabilise the bleach system. They 
also inhibit the corrosion of stainless 
steel and aluminium by synthetic 
detergents. 

Sodium citrate is rapidly and completely 
biodegradable under aerobic and anoxic 
conditions, it is not expected to bio-
accumulate in organisms and has a low 
toxicity to aquatic organisms 
Once soluble silicates reach the aquatic 
environment, they are diluted and 
depolymerise rapidly to give molecular 
species indistinguishable from natural 
dissolved silica. The removal of silica in 
several WWTP was measured ~10%  

48 

Commission  Report  (COM_2009_0208)  on non  surfactant  organic  ingredients  available  at: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0208:FIN:en:PDF 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 1: Development of market share of Association members and free-riders in the Czech 
Republic following the voluntary agreement for the phase-out of laundry P-based detergents 
1995-2005 (UNDP, 2006). 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
 
ANNEX II: Scientific studies and models 

1. 

ESTABLISHING  THE  SCIENTIFIC  KNOWLEDGE  ON  THE  CONTRIBUTION  OF 
PHOSPHOROUS  IN  DETERGENTS  TO  EUTROPHICATION  -  COMMISSION  STUDIES  AND 
THEIR EVALUATION BY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEES  

As  one  of  its  first  activities  with  regard  to  phosphates  in  detergents,  the  Commission 
contracted a study to WRc to investigate the costs and benefits of substituting phosphorus49 in 
household detergents with other builders, and to recommend the most appropriate methods of 
reducing  phosphorus  concentrations  in  surface  waters.  The  study,  published  in  June  200250, 
concluded that:  

(i) 

a ban of phosphates in detergents, though it would result in P-load reductions 
of 40%, would not suffice alone to substantially improve eutrophication at EU 
level;  

(ii) 

zeolite A is a suitable alternative to STPP, in terms of non-adverse effects on 
humans, energy used, and sludge production. 

The  Commission’s  Scientific  Committee  on  Toxicity,  Ecotoxicity  and  the  Environment 
(SCTEE)  gave  a  first  opinion  in  March  2003  on  the  WRc  report,  identifying  a  number  of 
weaknesses,  in  particular  mentioning  that  the  report’s  conclusions  were  not  adequately 
substantiated.  Following  submission  of  additional  data  in  the  HERA  reports  on  STPP  and 
zeolites A, SCTEE adopted an updated opinion in November 2003, concluding that: “within 
the  EU  area,  the  contribution  of  phosphate-based  detergents  to  eutrophication  is  extremely 
variable  country  by  country  as  well  as  in  different  hydrographic  basins  as  a  function  of 
human  activities  and  land  use”.  Furthermore,  the  SCTEE  proposed  that  a  quantitative 
assessment of the extent of eutrophication in EU waters in relation to phosphorus load from 
different sources, and in particular in relation to STPP contribution, could be performed on 
the basis of a literature review on existing experimental and modelling information, produced 
on the evolution of the eutrophication problem and on the recovery of eutrophic water bodies.  

In  line  with  the  SCTEE  opinion,  a  further  study  was  undertaken  to  obtain  quantitative 
estimates  of  the  effects  on  eutrophication  of  switching  from  phosphate-based  to  phosphate-
free  detergents.  The  study  was  financed  by  the  industry  federation  for  detergent  phosphates 
manufacturers (CEEP - Centre Européen d’Etudes des Polyphosphates), and performed by a 
consultant, Green Planet Research, in collaboration with INIA (Spanish National Institute for 
Agriculture  and  Food  Research  and  Technology).  A  methodology  for  a  probabilistic  risk 
assessment  was  developed  by  INIA  by  September  2005,  and  was  refined  in  the  light  of 
discussions  with  a  group  of  17  experts  on  eutrophication  at  a  workshop  held  in  Madrid  in 
November  2005.  The  final  report  entitled  “Development  of  a  European  Quantitative 
Eutrophication Risk Assessment of Polyphosphates in Detergents”51 was published in October 
2006 and concluded that:  

•  additional  eutrophication  risks  related  to  detergent  phosphates  are  very  variable  in  the 
different regions of the EU as a result of factors such as the  hydrological characteristics, 
population density and agricultural intensity; 

49 
50 
51 

In environmental reports the term “phosphorous” denotes phosphorous compounds in general. 
Report available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/phosphates 
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/chemicals/legislation/detergents/index_en.htm 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  in both analysed ecoregion types, i.e. (i) Atlantic, Northern and Central European shallow 
lakes, and (ii) Mediterranean water bodies, the eutrophication risk did not increase linearly 
at higher phosphorus concentrations.  

The Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) reviewed the INIA 
report and adopted an opinion in November 200752. SCHER identified a number of key points 
which  were  not  adequately  addressed  (e.g  a  limited  and  non  representative  data  base  to 
develop  a  European  model,  limited  data  used  for  the  validation  etc.).  Overall,  SCHER 
proposed  that  prior  to  the  application  of  the  model  and  the  use  of  the  results,  the  science 
presented in the INIA report should be further developed. In line with the SCHER remarks the 
INIA model was recalibrated and validated with data from the Intercalibration Exercise of the 
Water  Framework  Directive.  The  validated  INIA  model  (“MODEL  VALIDATION  USING 
INTERCALIBRATION  DATA,  MODEL  RE-CALIBRATION,  AND  Pan-
THE  WFD 
EUROPEAN  ASSESSMENT  OF  THE  EUTROPHICATION  RISK  ASSOCIATED  TO  THE 
USE  OF  PHOSPHATES  IN  DETERGENTS)  was  submitted  in  April  2009  and  was 
subsequently  forwarded  by  the  Commission  to  SCHER  for  its  further  evaluation  and  an 
updated scientific opinion. More detailed information about the INIA reports and the SCHER 
opinions are given in section 2.  

In parallel, the Commission had asked RPA (Risk & Policy Analysts Ltd) to conduct a study 
in  order  to  fill  the  data  gaps  concerning  the  use,  properties  and  environmental  impact  for  a 
range  of  non-surfactant  organic  detergent  ingredients  including  STPP  and  zeolites  and  to 
assess the socio-economic impacts  of switching  from  phosphate-based  detergents  to  zeolite-
based detergents.  

The final RPA report was published in 2006 and found that some of the additional co-builders 
needed  for  zeolite-based  detergents,  are  also  used  in  STPP-based  detergents,  though  in 
smaller concentrations. A switch to zeolite-based detergents would therefore not necessarily 
introduce  a  greater  number  of  co-builder  substances  into  the  environment,  but  their 
concentrations  might  increase.  An  opinion  of  SCHER  on  the  RPA  report  was  published  in 
June  200753,  confirming  its  main  findings  and  concluding  that  a  move  to  zeolite-based 
detergents: (i) would not increase the health risks, (ii) would possibly increase environmental 
risks  due  to  higher  amounts  of  polycarboxylates  and  phosphonates,  which  are  potentially 
harmful for the environment, but not to a significant extent. Taking into consideration that the 
use of polycarboxylates in the EU has significantly increased in the last decade (from 50,000 
t/y in early 2000 to 80 000 t/y in 2007) linked to their application in quite larger quantities of 
phosphate-free detergents, the Commission asked SCHER to review an updated HERA report 
on  polycarboxylates54  from  2009  and  to  evaluate  the  remaining  environmental  concerns 
concerning the use of these ingredients in detergents. 
In its opinion on polycarboxylates of January 201055, SCHER notes that the updated HERA 
report on polycarboxylates in detergents includes some new studies and addresses some of the 
drawbacks  highlighted  in  the  previous  SCHER  opinion56.  However,  SCHER  considers  that 
there  are  still  some  concerns  related  to  data  gaps  and  to  inadequate  interpretation  of  the 
available information in terms of risk characterisation: 

52 
53 
54 
55 
56 

Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scher/scher_opinions_en.htm 
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scher/scher_opinions_en.htm 
Available at: http://www.heraproject.com/RiskAssessment.cfm 
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scher/scher_opinions_en.htm 
Available at/ http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scher/docs/scher_o_109.pdf 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(a) 

(b) 

for the  terrestrial compartment: the proposed PNECs cannot be accepted, due 
to  misinterpretations  of  the  studies  and  the  lack  of  information  on  soil 
microbial functions so that a PEC/PNEC ratio well above 1 could be estimated 
at  least  for  P-AA/MA,  and  thereby  a  potential environmental risk for the soil 
compartment  could  result  from  the  use  of  polycarboxylates  in  detergent 
formulations; 

for the aquatic environment: as the tonnage placed on the market has increased, 
and  as  additional  uncertainties  have  been  observed  in  the  PEC  estimation 
presented  in  the  revised  HERA  report,  current  PEC/PNEC  could  be  even 
higher,  therefore, a  potential regional risk for the aquatic environment  cannot 
be disregarded. 

Overall, SCHER considers that based on the available information, a potential environmental 
risk  has  been  identified  and  refined  risk  assessments  should  be  required  before  it  can  be 
concluded  that  these  chemicals  are  of  low  environmental  concern.  Industry  (BASF)  has 
announced that further research will be carried out in order to clarify the remaining concerns.  

10. 

DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  INIA  PAN-EUROPEAN  EUTROPHICATION  MODEL  - 
CONTRIBUTION OF STPP BASED DETERGENTS TO EU EUTROPHICATION RISK  

According to INIA, the risk for eutrophication cannot be directly defined as the likelihood for 
nutrient  enrichment,  but  as  the  likelihood  for  this  enrichment  to  provoke  undesirable 
disturbances.  Therefore,  the  definition  of  which  level  of  disturbance  is  considered  as 
undesirable  in  EU  waters  would  be  a  critical  part  of  a  risk  assessment  that  could  offer  the 
scientific basis for considering risk management measures. 

The major conclusion of the first INIA model calculations was that: “the difference between 
the  total  eutrophication  risk  and  the  risk  without  phosphate-based  detergents  is  typically 
around 2.5-10% based on the Mediterranean effect assessment, and around 0.5-3% based on 
the Atlantic, North & Central shallow effect assessment” 

SCHER recognised in its opinion of 2007 that the model developed by INIA presents a novel 
tool to assess, in a quantitative manner, the risks of eutrophication due to phosphorus release. 
SCHER  supported  the  INIA  conclusion  that  additional  eutrophication  risks  related  to 
detergent  phosphates  are  very  variable  in  different  regional  situations  as  a  result  of  varying 
regional characteristics such as hydrology, population density and agricultural intensity. 

In addition, SCHER underlined that: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

As  the  values  selected  for  some  key  factors  (e.g  P  output)  are  not  sufficiently 
representative  for  all  EU  situations,  the  final  aquatic  Total  Phosphorus  (TP) 
concentration  from  detergents  and  the  resulting  risk  for  eutrophication  maybe 
underestimated by the INIA model; 

more  model  validation  using  monitoring  data  is  required  before  the  estimations  of 
overall risk can be supported; 

considering the uncertainties and limitations identified in this opinion, more work is 
needed to accurately estimate the magnitude (and significance) of the eutrophication 
risk throughout the EU.  

In  line  with  SCHER's  recommendations,  DG  Enterprise  and  Industry  first  encouraged  an 
active  collaboration  between  INIA  and  Joint  Research  Centre.  In  a  meeting  at  Ispra  (June 
2008)  it  was  agreed  that  INIA  would  consider  the  data  obtained  within  the  inter-calibration 
process  of  the  WFD  implementation,  the  analysis  of  which  could  be  crucial  for  the  further 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
refinement of the model. In addition, the Commission established contacts between INIA and 
scientists from regional eutrophication projects such as the Baltic Sea project and the Danube 
River Basin (DRB) project.  

In  a  workshop  organised  in  Madrid  (March  2009),  with  the  participation  of  eutrophication 
experts  from  these  projects  and  DG  Joint  Research  Centre,  INIA  presented  the  outcome  of 
their  validation  and  calibration  exercise  of  the  model,  in  particular  concerning  the  effect 
assessment and risk characterisation tools. The final INIA report was submitted in April 2009 
with the following significant developments as compared to the report of 2006: 

•  Following the inclusion of the WFD Intercalibration data, the 2009 INIA model contains 
an  extensive  dataset  of  2000  points,  covering  4  eco-regions  (Northern,  Central/Baltic, 
Atlantic  and  Mediterranean),  instead  of  only  300  points  and  2  eco-regions  in  the  2006 
model.  The  statistical  analysis  confirmed  clear  differences  between  eco-regions,  with  the 
more  northerly  showing  greater  sensitivity  to  eutrophication,  whereas  the  Mediterranean 
eco-region showed an adaptation to higher natural levels of phosphorous.  

•  Following the SCHER recommendations and the suggestions from the experts, a new set of 
deterministic  scenarios  has  been  included  in  this  report  using  realistic  total  phosphorus 
(TP) concentrations. For facilitating the comparisons, the scenarios are based on a similar 
set  of  default  environmental  values,  using  European  averages.  For  each  eco-region,  the 
population  weighted  average  consumption  of  phosphate-based  detergents  is  used. 
Comparisons are presented for three concentrations, 50, 100 and 150 µg phosphorus/L for 
the Northern eco-region, and 50, 150 and 300 µg phosphorus/L for Central Baltic, Atlantic, 
and Mediterranean eco-regions. 

•  The  updated  model  apart  from  total  risk  also  estimates  the  remaining  risk  excluding 
laundry or dishwashing detergents. Table 4 in Annex I summarises the INIA results for the 
contribution of detergents to the eutrophication risk in various EU eco-regions. According 
to  the  results,  the  combined  contribution  of  both  laundry  and  dishwashers  detergents  to 
eutrophication risk varies between the EU eco-regions, being relatively higher in Northern 
(5.3%)  or  Central  Baltic  (5.8%)  as  compared  to  Mediterranean  (2.3%)  and  Atlantic  eco-
regions (3.2%).  

•  Other SCHER recommendations were also implemented in the new report such as the use 
of  triangular  distributions  as  a  simplification  in  the  probabilistic  model,  and  the 
consideration of other European eutrophication projects (such as DRB and Baltic sea). 

In May 2009, the Commission submitted a mandate to SCHER asking whether the scientific 
quality of the report has been significantly improved following the validation exercise. More 
specifically, SCHER was requested: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

to assess the new results of the INIA model, in particular, the differences between the 
total  eutrophication  risk  and  the  risk  without  various  types  of  phosphate-based 
detergents and to evaluate the statistical analysis of the whole model; 

to comment whether or not the results of the updated model indicate that the use of 
phosphates  in  detergents  contributes  significantly  to  the  eutrophication  risk  at 
European level;  

to conclude whether all relevant aspects of the eutrophication process are sufficiently 
covered by the validated INIA report, in line with the earlier remarks of the SCHER 
opinion in 2007.  

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
SCHER  adopted  an  opinion  on  the  updated  INIA  model  in  November  200957  In  summary, 
SCHER  concluded  that  overall  the  INIA  (2009)  report  has  been  considerably  improved  in 
terms of the assumptions, default values and especially in the size and geographic coverage of 
the surface water data used to develop, re-calibrate and validate the model. SCHER is of the 
opinion  that  this  modelling  approach  may  be  considered  appropriate  for  the  envisaged 
purpose. However, as a detailed evaluation of the new data taken from the Water Framework 
Directive  data  base  was  not  presented  in  the  updated  INIA  report,  SCHER  was  unable  to 
check how representative the data are for pan-European surface waters. Therefore, SCHER is 
not  able  to  comment  on  the  improved  predictive  capacity  of  the  model.  Actually,  SCHER 
concluded  that  this  possible  weakness  concerning  data  quality  (e.g.  EU  relevance)  may 
substantially influence the results of the model application. 

More specifically, SCHER expressed concerns about the following issues. 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

In  the  updated  INIA  database,  the  lake  typology  is  not  always  described  in  a 
consistent  and  transparent  manner  (e.g.  Mediterranean,  Northern  (macrophyte)).  In 
addition, when the typology information is reported, the lake selection does not seem 
representative of pan-European lake typologies. For example (i) in Nordic and Baltic 
ecoregions the majority (1341 out of 1523) are shallow or very shallow lakes and (ii) 
in the Mediterranean ecoregion most (71 out of 90) lakes are reservoirs.  

The JRC database can be considered as complementary to the first INIA database in 
terms  of  European  ecoregions  covered.  However  the  information  provided  is  not 
sufficient  for  judging  if  the  complete  database  is  representative  of  the  European 
situation as far as the ecological status (bad (G-) or good (G+) is concerned). 

In the INIA/ Green Planet report, the estimation of the P contribution from different 
sources is calculated from EU-27 data, including many countries where detergent P 
has already been banned or controlled up to very low levels. As such, the use of these 
data for the calculation led to the conclusion that at the pan-EU continental level, the 
reduction of risk due to elimination of detergent phosphorus is low. It should be clear 
that if only data are used from countries where detergent phosphorus is still used, the 
detergent  phosphorus  contribution  may  be  much  greater  leading  to  different 
estimations of risk. 

Overall, SCHER concluded that the results of the model indicate that, at the present time, at 
pan-European scale the contribution of phosphate based detergents does not play a major role 
in the eutrophication process. However, in coming to this conclusion SCHER underlines that 
it is important to be aware of all the reservations about the representativeness data used in the 
report. SCHER also commented that the model is not suitable for estimating the contributions 
to eutrophication at regional or local level. 

57 

Available at http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scher/docs/scher_o_116.pdf 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
                                                 
ANNEX III: SME consultation 

(A)  Summary  of  results  of  the  consultation  with  EU  SME  detergent  formulators  via 
Enterprise Europe Network (SME Panel on use of phosphates in detergents) 

The ENTR questionnaire which addressed to SMEs is given in section C of this Annex 

1. Profile of the companies (question-1)  

Out of the responding 107 companies, 3 were producers of posphates/zeolites and one was a 
formulator from Israel. The rest of SMEs (103) matched the profile of EU SME formulators 
of  detergents  so  the  analysis  below  is  based  on  their  replies.  They  are  distributed 
geographically in 11 EU Member States as following:  

Italy: 25, France: 21, Spain: 12, Poland: 12 Sweden: 8, Portugal: 6, Germany: 6, Estonia: 5, 
Austria:  4,  Lithuania:  2,  Slovenia:  2.  Therefore  ~63%  of  the  SMEs  are  located  in  southern 
Europe and ~37% in central/northern Member States.  

Considering  that  according  to  A.I.S.E  (European  Detergents  Formulators)  there  are  ~600 
SME detergents formulators in Europe (including no-EU countries), the number of 103 EU-
SMEs seems quite representative (~20% of the total) 

Out  of  the  103  SMEs,  the  majority  (49%)  employ  between  10-49  people,  followed  by  33% 
micro-SMEs that employ less than 10 people, while the rest (~18%) employ between 50-249 
people. 

The SME questionnaire is attached (with the questions corresponding to their number in the 
tables).  

2. Product Portfolio (question-2) 

Types  of  produced  detergents  (question-2.1):  Laundry-L,  Dishwashers-D,  Industrial  & 
Institutional-I&I  

40% produce all types of detergents (L,D and II), 16% L  and D, 9% D and I&I,  2%  L and 
I&I, 26% only I&I, 6% only L, 1% only D. 

From the figures provided by the 40% of the SMEs that formulate all types of detergents, it 
emerged that in average they produce: 

% of total SME production 

average number of product lines 

L 

25% 

D 

18% 

I&I 

35% 

L 

4 

D 

4 

I&I 

14 

Both the average % values of total production and number of product lines seem to indicate 
that I&I detergents are the main product category of those SMEs. 

Considering also that another 26% of SMEs produces only I&I detergents, it can be concluded 
that I&I is the most important detergent type (in terms of production) type for the majority of 
the European SMEs.  

Use of phosphates as main builders or formulation with alternatives (question 2.2, 2.3)  

Only  15%  of  the  SMEs  use  phosphates  as  the  only  builders  for  the  formulation  of  their 
products (question 2.2i). 60% of these SMEs are located in Southern Europe (4 in Italy and 3 
in Spain), which is reasonable considering that use of STPP is more essential under the “hard 
water” conditions in the Mediterranean area.  

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
75  SMEs  (73%  of  the  total)  also  formulate  detergents  with  alternative  builders  other  than 
phosphates  (question  2.2ii).  25  SMEs  are  using  only  alternative  builders  (question  2.2iii), 
which corresponds to a higher percentage (25%) compared to that of the companies that use 
only phosphates (15%) 

Out of the 85% of SMEs, which are not exclusively phosphate-dependent, 59 SMEs informed 
of  the  precise  alternatives  they  use  (question  2.3),  the  following  being  the  most  important 
ones  (in order of decreasing  use  expressed in number of  SMEs): phosphonates (18), citrates 
(18),  polycarboxylates  (17),  zeolites  (15),  EDTA  (10),  NTA  (9),  surface  active  agents  (6), 
silicates (3), sodium sulphate (3). 

Interestingly,  zeolites  are  not  the  most  commonly  used  builders  among  these  SME 
formulators,  probably  due  to  the  fact  that  most  of  them  were  I&I  formulators  rather  than 
producers  of  laundry  detergents.  Citrates,  polycarboxylates  and  phosphonates  are  the  most 
widely used builders. In most of the cases, those builders are used alone or in combination, 
but  not  very  often  as  co-builders  for  zeolites  (in  contrast  to  their  use  in  the  laundry 
formulations). EDTA and NTA were also significantly used.  

3. Reformulation of detergents (question 3) 

60  SMEs  gave  information  on  the  frequency  of  their  product  reformulation  which  is  on 
average every 3.5 years. Furthermore 32 SMEs informed on the cost of reformulation, which 
was calculated on average at about €5600. In very few companies provided separate figures 
for each type of detergent, and these numbers were averaged in terms of both cost and time of 
reformulation. 

4. Price of phosphates and consequences (question 4) 

58% of the SMEs informed that the price of phosphates was on average ~46% higher than the 
price  of  alternative  builders  in  their  products,  whereas  the  rest  (42%)  indicated  no  price 
difference  in  their  markets  (question  4.1).  It  should  be  noted  that  the  situation  was  variable 
within the EU, as for instance in Germany, Austria and Spain, phosphates are sold at rather 
higher-than  the  average-prices  while  in  France,  Italy  and  Poland  the  differences  are  much 
lower and quite often zero.  

76 companies provided feedback to the question as whether the difference of phosphate prices 
compared to the price of alternatives may influence the retail price (question 4.2). 55% of the 
responders  answered  positively  and  some  provided  figures  which  on  average  resulted  in  an 
18.5% higher retail price of the detergents. Furthermore, 42% of the SMEs contended that the 
recent  price  increase  for  phosphates  did  not  lead  to  an  increased  use  of  alternatives  whilst 
33% answered positively, whereas the rest had no opinion on this issue ((question 4.3). 

5. Consequences of possible phosphate restrictions 

The  situation  was  relatively  balanced  concerning  the  question  as  whether  it  is  technically 
possible for SMEs to replace phosphates in their detergent formulations (question 5.1). 89% 
of  the  SMEs  gave  their  opinion:  42%  of  these  companies  replied  YES,  with  no  clear 
differences observed between Mediterranean or Central-Northern Member States. Spain and 
France  represented  the  most  extreme  cases  (accounting  for  ~75%  of  NO  and  YES 
respectively), although the water of both countries has similar hardness. A recent STPP ban in 
France for laundry detergents may explain this national tendency. Similarly, in other countries 
with long established legislative restrictions of STPP in laundry detergents, such as Italy and 
Sweden,  YES  was  the  dominant  reply  as  expected  (56  and  60%  respectively)  whereas, 
interestingly enough, in Poland, where the softness of water may make the use of STPP not 
crucial) 70% of SMEs replied NO.  

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
An important question of this investigation was whether replacing phosphates with alternative 
substances would have an effect on the performance of the detergent product (question 5.3). A 
clear majority of the total (58%) replied YES, and a few provided further feedback as to what 
such effects would be and any economic impact for their companies (question 5.2). Even in 
countries  with  long-standing  restrictions  of  phosphates  in  laundry  detergents  (e.g  Italy, 
Germany)  there  is  a  clear  majority  of  YES.  39  SMEs  provided  feedback  about  the  adverse 
performance  effect  from  a  potential  phosphates  substitution  in  their  products,  the  large 
majority  of  which  claimed  less  efficient  washing  and  reduced  cleaning  performance.  Not 
surprisingly, almost all these SMEs produce I&I products claiming a non adequate function of 
the STPP substitutes. However, a few SMEs stressed that similar performance problems are 
observed in phosphate-free laundry or dishwashers formulations leading to corrosive products 
and reduced cleaning action (e.g spots in dishwasher etc.). 

Furthermore,  24  SMEs  informed  of  certain  expected  adverse  economic  impacts  on  their 
companies  from  a  potential  EU  ban  of  STPP  in  all  detergent  products  such  as:  10-20% 
economic loss, due to higher cost of production due to use of more alternatives to achieve a 
similar  cleaning  performance,  decreased  sales,  loss  of  market  share,  need  for  new 
investments, loss of clients etc. 

46 SMEs provided figures about the costs for reformulation for replacing phosphates in their 
products. The one-off costs for reformulation was found to be on average at ~ 10.800 euros. 
The  large  majority  of  SMEs  (~60%)  also  claimed  that  possible  modifications  to  their 
production  lines  would  be  required  in  case  of  STPP  substitution.  Finally,  50  companies 
informed  that  they  had  already  replaced  some  or  all  of  the  phosphates  in  their  products 
(question 5.5). For 48% of those SMEs, the overall cost of the STPP substitution were greater 
than anticipated, for 18% less, whereas for the rest costs were as expected.  

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
(B) Outline of the SME Test on phosphates in detergents as described in this IA report 

(1) Consultation with SMEs representatives 

See  sections  1.1.3.,  5.3.3.1,  5.3.3.2,  5.4.3.1, 
5.4.3.2. as well as Annex III. 

(2)  Preliminary  assessment  of  businesses 
likely to be affected 

See sections 1.1.3. and 2.5., as well as Annex 
III. 

(3) Measurement of the impact on SMEs 

See  sections  5.2.,  5.3.3.,  5.3.4,  Conclusions 
of 5.3 and 5.4 as well as Annex III. 

(4) Assess alternative options and mitigating 
measures 

Considering  that  (a)  the  one-off  costs  for 
replacing  phosphates  are  estimated  to  be  on 
average double to the normal cost of product 
reformulation  occurring  every  3.5  years,  (b) 
no  technically  feasible  alternative  currently 
exist for certain detergents products (such as: 
I&I  and  ADW),  it  would  be  appropriate  to 
envisage sufficiently long transition period in 
case the chosen option is Option -3; -4 or –5. 
(See  conclusions  of  sections  5.3.,  5.4.,  and 
5.5).  

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
(C)  QUESTIONNAIRE  FOR  EUROPEAN  SMEs  CONCERNING  THE  USE  OF 
PHOSPHATES IN DETERGENT FORMULATIONS 

1. Company details 

Company name: 

__________________________________________________ 

Address: 

__________________________________________________ 

Telephone/Email: 

__________________________________________________ 

No of employees: 

__________________________________________________ 

2. Product portfolio 

2.1. What kind of detergents do you produce: 

No of product lines?  % of your production? 

Laundry 

______(Y/N 

Dishwasher detergents 

______(Y/N) 

Industrial/Institutional (I&I) 

______(Y/N) 

------ 

------ 

------ 

------ 

------ 

------ 

i.  Do you use phosphates exclusively ? 

______(Y/N) 

ii.  do you also formulate detergents with alternative builders? 

______(Y/N) 

iii.  do you use only alternative builders (e.g zeolites)? 

______(Y/N) 

or 

or 

2.3. If you replied Y to 2.2. (ii), (iii), which alternative builders do you use and in which type 
of detergents? __________________________________________________ 

3. Reformulation of detergents 

Please specify by product category 

3.1  How  often  do  you  reformulate  (in 
years) 

3.2  Average  cost  of  reformulation 
(€) 

Laundry 

Dishwashers 

------ 

------ 

------ 

------ 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I&I 

------ 

------ 

4. Price comparison 

4.1.  What is the price of phosphates compared to the price of alternatives in your products? 
______ ( %) 

4.2. Does the difference influence the retail price?

______(Y/N)

If Y, please specify: ______ ( %) 

4.3. Has the recent price increase for phosphates led 
to an increased use of alternatives? 

______(Y/N)

5. Consequences of possible phosphate restriction 

5.1.  Would  it  be  technically  possible  to  replace  phosphates  in  all  of  the  detergents  that 

you produce, ______(Y/N) 

or only in certain categories? (If so, please specify) ___________________________ 

5.2. 

If Phosphate replacement is not possible, why not? ___________________________ 

5.3.  Would  replacing  phosphates  with  alternative  substances  have  an  effect  on  the 

performance of your detergents? ______(Y/N) 

if (Y) please specify: 

what are the effects on the performance? ____________________________ 

any economic consequences for your company? ____________________________ 

5.4.  What  costs  would  be  involved  for  replacing  phosphates  in  your  products?  please 

specify: 

one-off costs for reformulation? 

possible modifications to your production line(s)? 

______ (€)

______(Y/N)

5.5. 

If you have already replaced some or all of the phosphates in your products, 

were your costs greater or less than anticipated? ______ 

Any other comments? ______________ 

6. 

Any other information/data which you would like to provide to the Commission on 
this issue? 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX IV: Sensitivity analysis for Option 4 

By  offsetting  the  one-off  reformulation  costs  for  laundry  detergents  against  annual  cost 
savings  for  WWTP  operators  (under  the  assumption  that  the  connectivity  to  waste  water 
treatment  plants  would  remain  stable  over  10  years),  using  a  discount  rate  of  4%,  and 
assuming a trend to reduce phosphate consumption of 6% per year, the cumulative net savings 
in the years following the introduction of a ban on P in laundry detergents would be as set out 
in the tables below. The break-even year is highlighted in yellow background. 

Scenario 1: WWTP costs = €0,48 / kg P removed, 20% of waste water treated 

Year  

Reformulation 
cost 

WWTP cost 
savings 

Net cumulative 
effect 

1 

2 

-13,2 0 

3 

0 

4 

0 

5 

0 

6 

0 

7 

0 

8 

0 

9 

0 

10 

0 

6 

5,4 

4,8 

4,2 

3,6 

3,0 

2,4 

1,8 

1,2 

0,6 

-7,2 

-1,2 

4,2 

9,0 

13,2 

16,8 

19,8 

22,2 

24,0 

25,2 

Scenario 2: WWTP costs = €4 / kg P removed, 50% of waste water treated  

Year  

Reformulation 
cost 

1 

2 

-13,2 0 

3 

0 

4 

0 

5 

0 

6 

0 

7 

0 

8 

0 

9 

0 

10 

0 

WWTP 
savings 

cost 

132 

119 

106 

92 

79 

66 

53 

40 

27 

13,2 

Net  cumulative 
effect 

119 

251 

356 

449 

528 

594 

647 

686 

713 

726 

Scenario 3: WWTP costs = €7 / kg P removed, 90% of waste water treated  

Year  

Reformulation 
cost 

1 

2 

-13,2 0 

3 

0 

4 

0 

5 

0 

6 

0 

7 

0 

8 

0 

9 

0 

10 

0 

WWTP 
savings 

cost 

415 

373 

332 

290 

249 

207 

166 

124 

83 

41 

Net  cumulative 
effect 

401 

775 

1107 1397  1646  1854  2020  2144  2227  2269 

EN 

59 

   EN