COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER IMPACT ASSESSMENT_Accompanying document to a legislative proposal and additional non-legislative measures strengthening the inspections and enforcement of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste
Date: 2013-07-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: administrative formalities, environmental monitoring, environmental protection, export of waste, hazardous waste, intra-EU trade, waste management













EUR-Lex - 52013SC0268 - EN











|



52013SC0268

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER IMPACT ASSESSMENT_Accompanying document to a legislative proposal and additional non-legislative measures strengthening the inspections and enforcement of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste /* SWD/2013/0268 final */









This report commits only the
Commission's services involved in its preparation and does not prejudge the
final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission.
INTRODUCTION
Inspections at sea-ports, on roads and in companies
have shown that around 25% of shipments containing waste in the EU do not
comply with the EU waste shipment regulation, "WSR" (see Annex I
for further details). Numerous reports of NGOs, media and studies published during
2007-2011 have shown that large amounts of waste originating in the EU are
illegally exported to developing countries in Africa and Asia (see Annex II
for more information). The problem of illegal waste shipments was brought to
light by the ship Probo Koala's dumping incident in Ivory Coast in 2006, in
which the dumping of hazardous waste led to the deaths of 17 people and the
poisoning of several hundred others. 
Requirements for inspections and
enforcement are formulated in the WSR in a general way (Article 50). As a
result, there are huge differences between Member States: some have developed
thorough, well-functioning inspection systems targeting either waste shipments
in ports or at the sites of waste producers and collectors, while others have
significant problems with enforcement and lack adequate structures and
resources to control waste streams and carry out inspections. This situation leads
to "port hopping", i.e. waste exporters choose to send their waste
through Member States with the least controls. If enforcement in one Member
State increases, the exporters move their exports to another Member State. The
objective to prevent illegal waste shipments could therefore only be achieved if
sufficient controls are carried out in all Member States.[1] 
This Impact Assessment report examines options to strengthen the inspections and enforcement of
the WSR in order to effectively prevent illegal waste shipments.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1........... Procedural issues and
consultation of interested parties.................................................... 5
1.1........ Procedural issues............................................................................................................ 5
1.2........ External expertise and
consultation of interested parties.................................................... 5
2........... Policy context, Problem
definition and Subsidiarity........................................................... 6
2.1........ Policy context................................................................................................................. 6
2.2........ Problem definition........................................................................................................... 9
2.2.1..... Frequency of illegal shipments......................................................................................... 9
2.2.2..... Main shipment routes.................................................................................................... 10
2.2.3..... Environmental and health impacts.................................................................................. 11
2.2.4..... Economic costs and benefits......................................................................................... 12
2.3........ What are the underlying causes of
the problem?............................................................. 14
2.3.1..... Differences in costs for waste
treatment and disposal between the EU and third countries 14
2.3.2..... Organised crime in the waste
sector.............................................................................. 14
2.3.3..... The current gaps in enforcement in
some Member States............................................... 15
2.3.4..... Existing guidelines are not complete............................................................................... 18
2.4........ How will the problem evolve?....................................................................................... 19
2.4.1..... Increase in frequency of illegal
waste shipments............................................................. 19
2.4.2..... Effectiveness of Member States'
inspection systems....................................................... 19
2.5........ Who is affected and how?............................................................................................. 19
2.6........ The EU's right to act and
justification............................................................................. 20
2.7........ Summary...................................................................................................................... 21
3........... Objectives.................................................................................................................... 22
4........... Policy Options.............................................................................................................. 23
4.1........ Option 1 - No action at EU level................................................................................... 23
4.2........ Option 2 - Specific requirements
and criteria for waste shipment inspections in EU legislation   23
4.3........ Option 3 - Guidance for waste
shipment inspections at EU level..................................... 26
4.4........ Option 4 – Combination of EU
legislative requirements and guidance............................. 27
4.5........ Discarded options......................................................................................................... 27
5........... Analysis of impacts....................................................................................................... 28
6........... Comparing the options.................................................................................................. 36
7........... Monitoring and evaluation............................................................................................. 39
Annexes
Abbreviations 
1.           Procedural
issues and consultation of interested parties
1.1.        Procedural issues
The impact assessment process was steered
by the inter-service group on waste shipments which acted
as an Impact Assessment Steering Group. This group was created on 11 November
2010, chaired by DG ENV and with members from the Secretariat-General, the
Legal Service and Directorate-Generals ESTAT, MOVE, ENTR, SANCO, HOME, JUST,
TAXUD, DEVCO and TRADE. Meetings on the draft Impact Assessment report were
held with the inter-service group on 11 April, 27 April and 24 May 2011. The
Impact Assessment Board gave its first opinion on the draft Impact Assessment
report on 8 July 2011 and after resubmission, a second opinion on 30 March 2012.

This report has been revised to take into
account the Board's opinions in the following ways: the problems and experience
with implementation, compliance and enforcement of the EU waste shipment
regulation (WSR) have been further explained (section 2); the policy context
and baseline scenario have been developed (section 2); the rationale for the measures
considered under the policy options have been further explained and the
contents of the options more extensively described, including examples from
Member States' best practices (sections 2-4); the assessment of impacts,
including costs and benefits, have been extended (sections 5-6) and the
monitoring and evaluation arrangements have been clarified (section 7). This
revised report also takes into account new studies and reports from the
Commission, Europol and IMPEL.
1.2.        External
expertise and consultation of interested parties
Public consultation
The preparation of this impact assessment
has been preceded by a public consultation in line with the minimum standards
for consultation. The public consultation was open to all stakeholders for
eleven weeks, accessible via the single access point on the Internet[2] and followed up with the
publication on the Internet of the responses.[3]
65 contributions were received from 18 Member State
authorities, one EEA country authority, 25 industry organisations, five private
companies, two public organisations, three NGOs and 11 individuals. Moreover, the
EU "network for the implementation and enforcement
of environmental law, trans-frontier shipments of waste-cluster" (IMPEL-tfs, see Annex III for details), authorities in Member
States and various groups of stakeholders were closely involved in the
preparation of the studies that were conducted to support this Impact Assessment.
The Commission's studies
The Directorate-General for the Environment
(DG ENV) conducted two studies examining the
feasibility and impact of EU legislation to strengthen the enforcement of the WSR.[4] The first study identified a large number
of possible criteria and requirements for determining how to ensure a
sufficient frequency and quality of waste shipment inspections. The study
listed in total 174 criteria and requirements for waste shipment inspections
concerning: the capacity of competent authorities; enforcement strategy and
risk profiling; waste inspection planning and programming; preparation,
carrying out and follow-up of waste shipment inspections; training and
competence requirements; and co-operation between authorities.[5] The follow-up study contained a detailed assessment of the
environmental, economic and social impacts of the criteria considered as the
most appropriate. The
Impact Assessment builds also on a large number of studies and reports that
were commissioned to external contractors to support waste policy
implementation (see Annex II for further details).
2.           Policy
context, Problem definition and Subsidiarity
2.1.        Policy
context
Comprehensive EU legislation (regulations,
directives and decisions) has been adopted in order to ensure that waste in the
EU is managed in an environmentally sound manner. As can be seen from Table
1 below, there are several pieces of legislation covering a framework,
different waste treatment options and specific waste streams: the Waste Framework
Directive 2008/98/EC ("WFD"); the Waste Shipment Regulation 1013/2006
("WSR"); the Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC; the Industrial Emissions Directive
2010/75/EC; the Mining Directive 2006/21/EC; and a number of directives
governing waste from e.g. packaging, electrical and electronic equipment ("WEEE")
and end-of-life vehicles ("ELVs"). 
The WFD lays down a "waste
hierarchy" with prevention as the preferred option and then in descending
order, preparing for reuse, recycling, recovery and disposal. This legislation
contains standards and targets to be achieved by waste management in the EU. Its
aim is to move the EU towards a recycling society with increasing amounts of
waste going to recycling and less to landfills. The directives dealing with specific waste streams ensure the
efficient and environmentally sound management of specific categories of waste
and share the same basic design in terms of substance restrictions, extended
producer responsibility as well as collection and recycling targets. 
Table 1: Overview of EU waste legislation
The WSR fulfils a vital role in this
legislative system by ensuring that the requirements, standards and targets of EU
waste legislation are not circumvented by operators who wish to send EU's waste
to low-standard, polluting and hazardous facilities in developing countries. The WSR controls shipments of waste both within the EU and between
the EU and third countries. The WSR prohibits all exports of hazardous waste to
countries outside the OECD and all waste for disposal outside the EU/EFTA
(Articles 34 and 36 of the WSR). The WSR's ban on exports of hazardous waste outside
the OECD implements the UN Basel Convention's export ban from 1995. In
addition, the WSR contains rules for different types of shipments requiring
either prior written notification and consent or fulfilment of general
information requirements (Titles II-IV of the WSR). Specific obligations are
laid down concerning a duty to take back waste shipments which are found to be
illegal or which cannot be completed as envisaged (Articles 22-25 of the WSR). The
WSR allows non-hazardous waste to be exported for recovery operations outside
the OECD but requires national authorities to verify that it will be treated in
an environmentally sound manner that is in a way which is broadly equivalent to
rules applied in the EU.[6]

The WSR contains a general provision on enforcement in
its Article 50. This provision stipulates that Member States shall provide for
inspections of establishments and undertakings in accordance with the
inspection requirements in the Waste Framework Directive, and that Member
States may check transports by road, in ports etc. or at a later stage when the
waste has already arrived at a recovery or disposal facility. Controls are
otherwise left to Member States' discretion. There are no specific provisions
on how the inspections shall be carried out. The regulation only refers to that
"Checks on shipments shall include the inspection of documents, the
confirmation of identity and, where appropriate, physical checking of the
waste." 
In practice, the above export bans under
the WSR are often circumvented by illegal exports. Exports of hazardous waste are
often labelled as second-hand goods and waste for disposal as waste going to recovery.
The authorities at many of the EU's exit points do not make the necessary
inspections to check this. Furthermore, the required environmentally sound
management of waste and destinations outside the EU are often not verified in
spite of the requirements in the WSR. 
In 2001, the European Parliament and
Council adopted a Recommendation on minimum criteria for environmental
inspections in the Member States (2001/331/EC)[7] containing non-binding criteria for the
planning, carrying out, following up and reporting on environmental
inspections. Its objective is to strengthen compliance with EU environmental
law and to contribute to its more consistent implementation and enforcement in
all Member States. This recommendation covers
inspections of facilities, including waste management facilities, but not waste
shipments. The Commission's 2007 Communication on the review of the Recommendation
on minimum criteria highlighted that indeed "the recommendation does not contain criteria for the inspection of
waste shipments." [8] 
For this reason, the Communication concluded
that "in addition to the general criteria
for environmental inspections set out in the recommendation, specific legally
binding requirements for the inspection of certain installations or activities
should be included in sectoral pieces of legislation. Legally binding
requirements are necessary to ensure that a higher political priority is given
to inspections and that environmental legislation is better enforced throughout
the Community. Defining the inspection requirements in each legislative act has
the advantage that the requirements can be adapted to the specific nature and
risks of the installations or activities covered and can be more precise and
better targeted than general criteria. These sectoral inspection requirements
can be complementary to the Recommendation or they can concern installations or
activities that are not covered by the Recommendation." The Communication stated that "The Commission is considering
proposing specific legally binding rules for inspections of waste shipments.
Unlike inspections of installations, inspections of waste shipments are carried
out in different spots, such as sea ports, roads or border crossings and they
usually involve many different authorities, such as customs, police and
environmental authorities. Specific criteria should be defined to ensure
sufficient quality and frequency of inspections and provide for appropriate
training and co-operation among authorities."
Council conclusions of 3 June 2010 invited
the Commission to consider strengthening EU requirements on inspections and
spot checks carried out under the WSR, in order to fight illegal waste
shipments. The Commission was also invited to suggest the development of
additional measures to support Member States in enforcing the WSR.
While the mismanagement of waste could lead to disastrous
consequences which need to be prevented the issue also has a resource angle. The
EU's waste policy and legislation also contributes to boosting
resource efficiency and securing important supplies of raw materials. In
2011-2012, the Commission therefore proposed to improve the prevention of illegal
waste shipments in its Roadmap to Resource Efficiency[9] and the Raw
Materials Strategy Initiative[10]. 
2.2.        Problem
definition
The problem which needs to be addressed is
the high frequency of illegal waste shipments from the EU to certain
destinations violating the WSR. An illegal shipment is defined in Article 2(35)
of the WSR by listing the specific situations in which it would contravene WSR,
for example:
a) hazardous waste is sent from the
EU to a non-OECD country;
b) any type of waste is sent from
the EU for disposal in a non-EU or non-EFTA country;
c) waste is sent without being
notified in advance in accordance with the WSR; and
d) waste is sent without the consent
of the competent authorities pursuant to the WSR. 
This problem results in severe, negative implications for the environment and health, high
costs for Member States and industry, an uneven playing field for waste
management industry, loss of raw materials and an inefficient use of resources.
See an overview of the problem in Table 2 below.
2.2.1.     Frequency
of illegal shipments
Information about precise numbers of
illegal waste shipments is not possible to obtain precisely due to their
illegal nature. The significant problems to compile reliable data on waste
shipments also result from insufficient reporting by national authorities and
the lack of harmonisation with custom codes.[11]

Nevertheless, very high rates of
non-compliance with WSR due to illegal waste shipments are clearly shown by the
IMPEL-tfs joint inspections. These were organised by IMPEL with the support of
the Commission. 22 Member States checked and reported on transports
by road and in ports (over 20,000 transport inspections and over a hundred
company inspections) during the period October 2008-November 2010.[12] They showed that the frequency
of illegal shipments varies significantly between Member States: non-compliance
rates vary between 14-100% of the inspected waste shipments (see Annex I).
95 cases of illegal exports were found during 120 company inspections. Taking
into account the total number of inspected waste shipments from and within the
EU during the period (3,454) and the number of violations (863), the overall
non-compliance rate can be estimated to be 25%. 
Under the WSR, Member States shall report
on cases concerning illegal waste shipments, (Article 51(2) and Annex IX). The
most recent Commission report on WSR implementation covers the period 2007-2009[13]. In this report, most Member
States state that there had been cases of illegal shipments of waste during the
period concerned. While some Member States reported a large number of cases,
others reported only a few or none. The countries reporting the highest numbers
of cases were Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, United Kingdom and Austria
(representing more than 70% of the reported cases for the period 2007-2009). 
For 2009, Member States reported around 400
cases of illegal shipments of waste (with some of the cases probably having
been reported in duplicate, once by the country of destination and once by the
country of dispatch). For 2009, about half of the illegal shipments reported by
Member States were shipments between Member States while the other half
involved shipments into or out of the EU. The most common reasons for
illegality were that the shipment of waste was effected without notification to
the relevant competent authorities or contrary to a prohibition on shipments
under the WSR.
Moreover, a 2009 report by the European
Environment Agency on waste concluded that the reported cases represent a
fraction of the actual number and that the number of illegal shipments is
considerable.[14]
Finally, in 2011 a study estimated the
tonnage of illegal shipments based on available information about the total
amount of waste shipments within and out of the EU.[15] The study concluded that if
only 1% of all waste shipments would be illegal, the total tonnage of illegal
waste shipments would amount to 2,8 million tonnes per year:
Registered
annual export of waste: 75 million tonnes total (40 million tonnes export
outside the EU)
+ Registered additional annual export of hazardous waste: 6 million tonnes
+ Registered annual export based on relevant customs classification codes: 200
million tonnes (45 million exports outside the EU) 
= In total, 281 million tonnes of waste shipments per year of which 2,8 million
tonnes would be illegal (1%).
More information on the specific waste
streams WEEE and ELVs can be found in Annex V.
2.2.2.     Main
shipment routes
Illegal waste shipments appear to a large
extent to stem from uncontrolled collection, storage and sorting facilities in
Member States, where illegal operators get hold of the waste in order to
illegally ship it to developing countries. A 2011 Europol study concludes that
intermediate storage sites are often used to disguise the ultimate destinations
of waste and to frustrate law enforcement efforts to identify source companies.
The ports in north-west EU (Antwerp, Hamburg, Le Havre and Rotterdam) play an
important role in the export of waste (e-waste, end-of-life vehicles, plastics,
paper and various types of hazardous waste) to third countries in Africa and
Asia. Due to the fact that many of these ports have large tonnages of waste (both
lawfully and illegally) shipped out of the EU, they have relatively more
frequent controls and for this reason probably detect more illegal waste
shipments. So-called 'port hopping'[16]
frequently steers waste over to ports with less controls. Italy has also become
a transit point for e-waste to Africa and Asia.[17] 
In terms of destinations, a large part of
illegal waste shipments from the EU detected during the IMPEL-tfs enforcement
actions were destined to African and Asian countries. Ghana, Nigeria and other
West-African countries appear to be the most common destinations in Africa. In
Asia, illegal waste shipments seem often to go through the port of Hong Kong
into China or other Asian countries.[18]

Problems relating to illegal waste
shipments have also arisen between Member States. The 2011 Europol study
concludes that hazardous waste is often shipped from southern to south-east
Europe (e.g. from Italy to Romania and Hungary).
2.2.3.     Environmental
and health impacts 
The dumping or substandard treatment of
waste following an illegal shipment usually has severe implications for the
environment and health. Inadequately disposed or untreated waste may cause
serious environmental and health problems for populations surrounding the
disposal area. Leaks from the discarded waste also harm soils and water
streams, and produce air pollution, through emissions of e.g. heavy metals and
persistent organic pollutants. If recycling standards and capacity are not
adequate in the country of destination, potential environmental and health hazards
are simply being exported to other parts of the world.[19] In addition to
the long-term health risks for citizens and
workers, this also contributes to global
warming and ozone depletion The extent of these impacts is closely linked with
the usage of proper or improper waste treatment techniques. The already toxic
nature of hazardous substances can often become an augmented risk due to a lack
of personal protection equipment or pollution control measures used in waste
treatment in those countries receiving illegal waste shipments. Two examples
illustrate these impacts:
- Example 1: the Probo Koala-case
The Probo Koala case is an illustrative
example of harm that may be caused by the inappropriate discharge of hazardous
waste. In September 2006, the Probo Koala discharged toxic waste in Ivory
Coast. Estimations of the health impacts caused vary, but some newspapers
indicated that it caused the death of 17 persons, while intoxicating thousands.
Court proceedings have taken place in several countries, including in the
Netherlands where in 2009, the national court found the company liable for
infringements of the WSR. [20]
- Example 2: WEEE burning in Delhi, India
WEEE is often shipped illegally from the EU
to developing countries (see Annex V for more details). A study completed by
EMPA[21]
on open-air WEEE burning in Delhi, India, indicated the possibility for a
higher-than-average risk of cancer and immune toxicological problems due to
increased levels of chlorinated dioxins and furans in the air. Inhalation by
children and food preparation near the burning sites were cited as the most
problematic forms of contamination which could lead to long-term health risks.
2.2.4.     Economic
costs and benefits 
Effective enforcement and inspections of
waste shipments would not only prevent the serious environmental and health
impacts stemming from illegal waste shipments, but also save high costs and result
in direct economic benefits for Member States and industry. Financial benefits stemming
from better enforcement include avoided clean-up costs (example 1 below) and
repatriation costs (example 2 below). A recent study shows that stricter
enforcement in the port of Rotterdam resulted in increased quality and quantity
of waste recycled due to that waste was routed via legal channels to facilities
with better treatment techniques (example 3 below). It led to creation of 22 jobs
– in customs, inspections and waste treatment plants.[22] The same study compares two
scenarios for the period 2008-2020 – one involving no progress in waste
management and the other involving full implementation of eight pieces of EU
waste legislation, including the WSR - and concludes that full implementation
would mean cost savings of €72 billion/year across the EU. Other benefits
include 72% increase in material and 113% in energy recovery. Improved
enforcement throughout the EU would also create a level playing field for
economic operators and eliminate current internal market distortions (example 4
below). 
- Example 1: Clean-up costs
The subsequent clean-up of waste that has
been illegally shipped and dumped is an economic burden, especially for
developing countries with inadequate waste facilities. The clean-up of
contaminated sites, including illegal and poorly managed landfills, can entail
significant costs. For example, in the Probo Koala-case clean-up costs in Ivory
Coast where waste was shipped and dumped was paid by the operator at €152
million. A settlement of €33 million to 31,000 citizens of Ivory Coast for
health concerns was also paid by the operator.
An example from within the EU is the
financial impacts of the waste-crisis in Naples as a result of long-term waste
management below the standards set by EU waste legislation. The clean-up costs
were estimated to €400,000 per day since 2007 (for e.g. sending waste for
incineration to Germany), €2 million for staff in charge of waste management,
€36,000 daily spending since 2007 on leachate waste disposal due to inadequate
draining systems at landfill and treatment sites, and required annual spending
of €1.2 million to protect the natural diversity of surrounding areas from the
impacts of waste dumping.[23]
- Example 2: Repatriation costs
If waste has been illegally shipped, the
WSR requires repatriation of the waste. This repatriation or
"take-back" has primarily to be paid by those arranging for the
shipment. In cases where such persons are not available or insolvent, the country
of origin has to pay the bill. This can be very costly. Repatriation costs are
made up of shipment fees, container rental and required treatment activities
following on the return of the waste to its country of origin. An example is a
case of repatriation of hazardous waste destined for Nigeria via the United
States back to the port of Rotterdam costing €1.2 million.[24]
- Example 3: Loss of valuable resources
There are several strong reasons for Member
States to ensure that inspections of waste shipments are carried out properly
and that illegal shipments contravening the WSR are prevented. If waste is recycled
according to EU environmental requirements instead of being illegally exported,
this would reduce the necessity of using virgin
materials and preserve the environment at the same time as reducing energy
consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Illegal waste shipments to
destinations where waste is subject to ineffective, substandard recycling lead
to a significant loss of resources.
The current "leakage" of waste via illegal shipments to
sub-standard treatment inside or outside the EU also hinders the access to
valuable raw materials. Access to resources has become
a major strategic economic concern. Europe has the world's highest net imports
of resources per person, and its open economy relies heavily on imported raw
materials.[25]
The competitiveness of European industry requires
efficient and secure access to raw materials, as further developed by the
Commission's Communication on Commodity Markets and Raw Materials of 2 February
2011[26].
Higher quantities of waste routed through legal
channels for recovery and treatment, would lead to optimised processes and
better sorting techniques and consequently better quality of waste and,
ultimately increased access to high quality raw materials. 
- Example 4: Distortions of the internal
market; lack of a level playing field for industry
The WSR ensures the proper functioning of
the internal market through specific provisions (Article 12 of the WSR).
However, the proper functioning of the internal market also requires that
inspections and enforcement of the WSR are carried out effectively throughout
the EU. The current lack of a level playing field due to wide disparities in
enforcement practices put law-abiding businesses at an economic disadvantage. The
high rates of illegal waste shipments undermine the legitimate waste treatment
and disposal industries. If the WSR was applied properly throughout the EU,
this would reinforce confidence and trust in the waste shipment system among
economic operators. Companies in the recycling and waste management sector
would find incentives to invest and create new jobs. The relocation of jobs in
waste management outside the EU could be avoided.
The EU's recycling and waste management industry
is a dynamic sector with a huge potential. It has a turnover of €95 billion,
provides between 1,2 and 1,5 million jobs and represents around 1% of GDP. A
recent study shows that full compliance with eight pieces of EU waste
legislation, including the WSR, by 2020 would increase the turnover of waste
management and recycling industries by €42 billion/year and create over 400,000
new jobs.[27]

2.3.        What
are the underlying causes of the problem?
The following drivers of illegal waste
shipments have been identified:
2.3.1.     Differences
in costs for waste treatment and disposal between the EU and third countries 
The significantly lower costs in developing
countries for waste treatment and disposal are an important economic driver for
illegal waste shipments. These lower costs are mainly a result of less
stringent environmental and health regulation than in the EU. Illegal traders
seek to avoid the higher costs within the EU by shipping waste illegally to
cheaper, poor quality facilities in developing countries. This is illustrated
by concrete examples in several Member States where closure of landfills have
resulted in illegal exports and dumping, e.g. Estonia and the United Kingdom.
A recent estimate suggested that it was
four times more expensive to incinerate waste in the Netherlands than it was to
ship it to China.[28]
Another estimate suggested it might be 400 times cheaper simply to dump
hazardous waste rather than dispose of it legally in the EU.[29] In addition, precious metals
such as gold, silver, platinum or rhodium can be recovered from WEEE at lower
prices in third countries.
2.3.2.     Organised
crime in the waste sector
Organised environmental crime is particularly
serious and wide-spread with regard to waste. According to Europol, illegal
waste shipments "are driven by an exceptional low risk-high profit
margin" and are organised by sophisticated networks of criminals with a
clear division of roles (e.g. collection, transportation, recovery or legal
expertise). The Europol report[30]
states that "illicit waste trafficking is often facilitated through
cooperation with legitimate businesses, including those in the financial
services, import/export and metal recycling sectors, and with specialists
engaged in document forgery to acquire permits". Permits are also obtained
by means of corruptive influence on issuing bodies. Europol has found evidence
of corruption in both public and private sectors. The conclusion is drawn that
while mafia-type structures have sufficient resources to participate in large
scale illegal waste management, there is evidence that lower level groups are engaged
in illegal shipments of hazardous waste. 
2.3.3.     The
current gaps in enforcement in some Member States
Political priorities towards resources and
organisation of inspections vary significantly between Member States. Some
Member States have introduced measures in order to solve the problem of illegal
waste shipments while others have not. Evidence shows that if the enforcement
pressure in one port increases, companies move their export activities quickly
to an adjacent port in another Member States. Thus, the weakest link in the EU
– Member States with the least controls – determines the success of the whole
system. The gaps in enforcement in some Member States relate to the following
key instruments. 
- Lack of inspection planning and risk
assessments
There are large differences in performance
of inspection planning in Member States. Most of the
Member States have no regular or consistent planning of waste shipment
inspections. In total, only nine Member States appear
to have some type of regular and consistent planning for waste shipment
inspections.[31]
The studies carried out for the Commission
and recent report by the IMPEL-tfs[32]
show that planning of waste shipment inspections is crucial to effectively
prevent illegal waste shipments. Targeting inspections based on prior planning
allows to focus the inspections on routes, times and vehicles that are most
frequently involved in illegal shipping. This results in higher detection rates.
Risk-based, regular inspection planning also puts the authorities in better
position to establish the adequate capacity needed for effective inspections.
Best-practice
examples: inspection planning 
As stated
above, nine Member States have reported on having regular and consistent
inspection planning for waste shipment inspections: Austria, Belgium, the Czech
Republic, Germany (at Länder level), Denmark, Finland, France, the Netherlands
and the UK. In these Member States, inspection planning has helped to establish
the structures needed in order to effectively target and detect illegal waste
shipments.
With regard
to inspection planning it can also be noted that some EU legislation contain detailed
inspection requirements. The Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU[33] contains such provisions in
the directive itself. The Mining Waste Directive 2006/21/EC delegates powers to
the Commission to adopt such provisions[34].
See Annex IV for further details.
- Insufficient provisions on the
burden-of-proof 
Member States have diverse provisions as
regards the burden of proof they place on operators wishing to ship items while
declaring that these are not "waste" but "products" and
therefore outside the scope of the WSR, or that the waste to be shipped will go
to environmentally sound facilities in third countries. This creates an uneven
playing field across the EU and leads to port-hopping (see Section 2.2.2
above). Reversing the burden-of-proof from the inspection authorities to an exporter is a means of enforcement, where the
exporter alleging that items to be shipped are not waste and thus not needing
any inspection, has to prove that they are not waste if the authorities have
suspicions to the contrary. 
The recast Directive on waste electrical
and electronical equipment (WEEE) adopted on 7 June 2012[35] and the EU waste shipment
correspondents guideline on shipments of end-of-.life
vehicles (ELVs) already contain such provisions
reversing the burden-of-proof. The new WEEE Directive includes specific provisions to this effect and an
annex on inspections of waste shipments. The
exporter has to test the items for functionality and provide the necessary
documents to the authorities before export takes place. The EU guidance document on inspections of shipments of ELVs has been
agreed by the Commission and all Member States. While many other waste
categories than WEEE and ELVs are subject to high rates of illegal shipments,
including paper (poorly sorted), metal, plastic and municipal waste, as shown
by the IMPEL-tfs enforcement actions in Annex I, there is a lack of
inspection requirements or guidance concerning these waste streams. 
Best-practice
examples: burden-of-proof
In the WEEE
directive (Annex VI) the evidence to be requested from
the exporter could be, for example, a copy of the invoice and contract relating
to the sale and/or transfer of ownership of the product which states that the
equipment is destined for direct re-use and fully functional; evidence of
evaluation or testing in the form of a copy of the records (certificate of
testing, proof of functionality) on every item within the consignment and a
protocol containing all record information; a declaration made by the holder
who arranges the transport of the items that none of them is waste; appropriate
protection against damage during transportation, loading and unloading in particular
through sufficient packaging or appropriate stacking of the load. Member States
could also require certain, prescribed steps for testing and record keeping for
"products".
In the absence of a proof that an object is a "product"
and not "waste" through the appropriate documentation required and of
appropriate protection against damage during transportation, loading and
unloading in particular through sufficient packaging and appropriate stacking
of the load, Member State authorities shall consider that an item is
"waste" and presume that the load comprises an illegal shipment.
Article 15 of the Batteries Directive (2006/66/EC) provides that
exports of waste batteries may only count towards the
fulfillment of the obligations and efficiencies laid down in Annex III to this
Directive (containing the recycling targets) if there is sound evidence that
the recycling operation takes place under conditions equivalent to the
requirements of the EU Directive. Member States must
thus require sound evidence that the recycling takes place under conditions
equivalent to those set out in Batteries Directive, including recycling
efficiencies. In accordance with Article 15(3) of the
Batteries Directive, rules and criteria to assess whether recycling operations
outside the EU take place under conditions equivalent to the requirements of
the EU Directive may be laid down through a comitology procedure. 
- Lack of "up-stream"
inspections to detect planned illegal exports 
A large proportion of the illegal export
market is made up of numerous individual, rather small operators which often
collect and store waste at facilities in the country before illegally exporting
it to third countries. The WSR provides in Article
50(2) that "Member States shall by way of measures for the enforcement of
this regulation, provide, inter alia, for inspections of establishments
and undertakings, in accordance with Article 13 of the EU waste framework
directive 2006/12/EC" (now: Article 34 of Directive 2008/98/EU). 
Specific inspections of "up-stream
facilities", i.e. waste producers, collection points, interim storage,
recovery and disposal operators, are useful with a view to identify and
eliminate future illegal waste exports further down the chain. It appears that those "up-stream" inspections are not
generally carried out throughout the EU. If controls
are not well-performed at an early stage, it creates a burden to be borne by
Member States performing inspections at a later stage, i.e. during the transit
or at the destination point. Several Member States are transiting countries for
waste, thus they are very much dependant on inspections performed by Member
States from which the waste was produced or through which the waste first
transited for ensuring these shipments are legal or not.
Best-practice
examples: "Up-stream" inspections 
In some
Member States, e.g. the UK, successful inspections have been carried out
"up-stream" at facilities in order to prevent illegal waste
shipments. Through intelligence gathering by UK authorities specific high-risk
waste streams subject to illegal shipments were identified. For the relevant
waste categories, the UK successfully carried out operations during 2011 and
previous years targeting suspected up-stream small and dispersed sources of
illegal exports from the UK to third countries (e.g. certain tyre fitters and
WEEE collectors, storing and afterwards illegally exporting the waste to third
countries in order to avoid the recycling costs in the EU). The UK's system of controls
"up-stream" has shown to be a successful instrument in order to prevent
illegal waste shipments from the UK.[36]
- Lack of training for inspectors 
Dealing with waste inspections requires
solid knowledge and experience due to legal and
technical complexity and the fact that several authorities are involved:
customs, police and environmental. The ‘Study on
inspection requirements for WS Inspections’ as well as the IMPEL Threat
Assessment report[37]
concluded that there is a lack of focused, targeted
training for authorities on waste shipment inspections. Such training should relate to issues that have been identified as
specifically complex or where otherwise training is needed in order to follow
legal, technical and scientific developments. One example is the classification
of waste vs. non-waste and hazardous waste vs. non-hazardous waste in
connection with shipments. The need for training was
also confirmed by awareness-raising events and a high-level inspectors'
meeting.[38]
EU waste legislation does not currently specify requirements for
training of Member State officials.
2.3.4.     Existing guidelines are not complete 
Guidance concerning waste shipments and
inspections already exists at EU level. The Commission has published nine
specific guidance documents agreed by Member States as well as a set of frequently
asked questions and answers on waste shipments.[39] Specific guidance as regards
inspections of shipments of WEEE was published in 2007. The Commission decided
in 2008 to propose the main parts of this guidance document to become binding
EU legislation in the WEEE recast directive. A similar guidance document
concerning inspections of shipments of ELVs was agreed by Member States during
2011. 
Tools and guidance on waste shipments and
inspection planning have also been developed within the IMPEL network.[40] For example, a guidance
document with a harmonised planning format was developed following the
IMPEL-tfs joint enforcement actions.[41]
A manual for preventing illegal shipments, including tools, guidance and format
for the planning of inspections has been published.[42] To support the inspectors,
IMPEL-tfs has developed several specific tools. This includes, for example,
manuals which explain different inspection and detection methods; waste watches
to identify and classify waste streams; a methodology for threat assessments
which will facilitate competent authorities in setting enforcement priorities,
tools to increase the awareness of persons who are subject to the controls of
the TFS legislation, such as brochures. Where illegal movements of waste are
detected, IMPEL-tfs has drafted a guidance manual on the return of these
shipments back to the country of dispatch. 
At international level, the United Nation's
Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste
was adopted 1989 and is in force since 1992. A number of guidance documents
have been published by the convention's secretariat, for example concerning
environmentally sound management (ESM).[43]

Despite the above guidance documents, a
number of gaps have been identified by stakeholders and national authorities
(stakeholder consultation of 2011):
·                        
Facilitation of control of shipments by custom
authorities, in particular as regards the identification and differentiation of
used goods and waste.
·                        
Verification of environmentally sound management
at treatment and recycling plants in third countries.
·                        
Promotion of the traceability of waste by
technical means.
·                        
Co-operation and co-ordination of waste shipment
inspections and monitoring at EU level.
2.4.        How
will the problem evolve?
2.4.1.     Increase
in frequency of illegal waste shipments
The overall trend in waste generation, including hazardous waste, is
upwards (albeit most recent figures show a decline that is probably connected
to the economic downturn in Europe).[44]
The more waste that is produced, the higher is the risk that more waste will be
shipped illegally through for example, wrongful labelling of paper and plastic
waste.
The 2009 EEA report[45]
showed that the total amounts of shipped hazardous and non-hazardous waste have
increased significantly in the EU. According to the most recent reports
received from Member States, the total amount of all notified waste shipped out
of the EU in 2009 was about 11,4 million tonnes, of which about 7,2 million
tonnes was hazardous waste.[46]
Shipments of notified waste out of Member States have steadily increased. From
2001 to 2009, the increase in the amount of all notified waste shipped out of
Member States was 80%. For shipments of hazardous waste alone, an increasing
trend is observed until 2007. From 2001 to 2007, the increase in the amount of
hazardous waste shipped out of Member States was 150%. Since 2007, the
quantities of hazardous waste shipped out of Member States have slightly
decreased (9% drop from 2007 to 2009).
Europol has also identified an increase in
the volume of illegal waste shipments across borders. According to Europol,
illegal waste shipments have become "one of the fastest growing areas of
organised crime" (Europol report, p. 30, press release 30 August 2011).
It is probable that waste will continue to
be treated at lower costs in third countries and if so, economic incentives to
circumvent the WSR and ship waste illegally, in particular to third countries, would
remain. The rates of illegal waste shipments would even increase as the total
waste amounts in the EU increase and more waste is diverted from disposal to
recycling and recovery. 
2.4.2.     Effectiveness
of Member States' inspection systems
The evolution of the problem of illegal
waste shipments also depends on the effectiveness of Member States' inspection
systems. As already discussed, enforcement of the WSR is currently a low
priority in many Member States. This situation is due to geographical location,
size and number of ports, specific waste streams, waste routes (i.e. whether
the waste originates in the country or if the country is the last stop in the
EU before being shipped away), political agendas and priorities.
2.5.        Who
is affected and how?
Better enforcement of the WSR concerns
several actors:
·                        
Member States' authorities which undertake waste
shipment inspections at national, regional or local level.
·                        
Legal waste traders and shippers who comply with
WSR requirements. 
·                        
Illegal waste shippers and other criminals, who
use the enforcement and inspection gaps in MS to circumvent the WSR at the
expense of environmental and health issues.
·                        
Recyclers and recovery operators who collect and
monitor the amounts of waste collected for recycling and recovery.
·                        
Citizens and operators within and outside the EU
who either suffer health effects from treatment of illegal WEEE or profit from
the illegal trade.
2.6.        The
EU's right to act and justification
Treaty base
The EU has the right to act based on
Article 191 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Current EU
legislation, including Article 50 of the WSR, contains certain provisions on
enforcement aiming to ensure that effective inspection
systems are put in place in Member States. However, several studies (such as
the ‘Study on inspection requirements for WS Inspections’)[47] and the projects and
co-ordinated inspections carried out by IMPEL-tfs have shown that enforcement
of the WSR is patchy and significant levels of different types of illegal waste
are continuing to be exported from the EU. A major problem seems to be that the
WSR currently lacks specific criteria related to the planning of inspections,
burden-of-proof, up-stream inspections and training. In other parts of EU waste
legislation as well as EU environmental legislation more detailed provisions on
inspections have been adopted (see Annex IV).
The ’necessity test’
Waste shipments are by nature international
and require the implementation and enforcement of regulations in the same way
by all Member States to ensure a level playing field and limit unlawful shipments
of waste which hamper EU and international trade and create a danger for human
health and the environment. Therefore, EU action appears necessary.
Inspection requirements are not detailed in
the current legislation (Article 50 of the WSR), leading to poor and uneven
implementation and enforcement throughout the EU. The policy objectives of the
WSR cannot therefore currently be achieved.
As underlined in the ‘Study on inspection
requirements for waste shipment inspections’[48],
Member States have a strong interest in the effective enforcement of the WSR in
other Member States. Indeed, waste shipped to third countries is often
initially moved within the EU. Thus, poor enforcement in certain Member States
leads to further work by inspection authorities in other Member States.
Furthermore, companies trying to avoid Member States where the WSR is well
implemented may transport waste to Member States where the WSR is less
implemented, reducing their chances of being caught. In order to address these
problems, action at the EU level is essential, as the EU as a whole needs to
reduce the impacts of its waste in third countries but its action is limited by
the weakest link in the inspection chain. Therefore, harmonised inspection
procedures appear necessary in the EU.
IMPEL is very active in organising
co-ordinated inspections and joint enforcement actions in many Member States
and provides guidance and documents to improve the enforcement and
implementation of the WSR. The IMPEL network identified important disparities
between Member States in terms of enforcement of the WSR, but has a limited
supporting capacity. 
The IMPEL network has no powers to make
compulsory any guidance or participation in enforcement actions and the
participation of Member States in the programmes organised by IMPEL-tfs is
voluntary. A limitation of the effectiveness of IMPEL’s actions is that several
Member States do not participate at all or only rarely in IMPEL’s actions and
projects relating to waste shipments.
2.7.        Summary 
This Section has explained the problem of
illegal waste shipments, what the illegal activities consist of (section 2.2)
and how frequently they occur (section 2.2.1). It has also presented the main
shipment routes, the impacts which illegal shipments have on the environment
and health, the cost savings and economic benefits that could be made if these
illegal operations are effectively prevented, the specific causes of the
problem and how it might evolve in the future (sections 2.2-2.4). These impacts,
costs, gaps and market failures resulting from illegal waste shipments as well
as existing solutions at national level are summarised in Table 2 below.

Table 2 
3.           Objectives
The main objectives of the implementation
of the proposed legal requirements on inspections of waste shipments are to
achieve the following goals:
General objectives
·                        
The protection of the environment and health by
reducing illegal waste shipments.
Specific objectives
·                        
Improving the implementation and enforcement of the
EU waste shipment regulation, thus contributing to the fulfilment of the
Commission’s task in Article 17(1) of the EU Treaty.
·                        
Cutting costs in Member States, related e.g. to
clean-up and repatriation of waste.
·                        
Increasing access to raw materials and
contributing to resource efficiency.
·                        
Ensuring a level playing field across the EU for
those dealing with waste.
Operational objectives
·                        
Strengthen and improve the effectiveness of
waste shipment inspections. 
·                        
Harmonise the criteria used in different Member
States for inspections.
4.           Policy
Options
The policy options analysed in this section aim at addressing the problems
described in section 2.1. Options were subject to stakeholder and public
consultations and were extensively commented on during this process. They range from possible amendments
of EU legislation to non-legislative measures. They are
not mutually exclusive and can be combined in order to strengthen enforcement
of the WSR. Four main policy options have been identified and will be assessed
with regard to their economic, social and environmental
impacts. Discarded options are discussed in section 4.5.
4.1.        Option
1 - No action at EU level
In this scenario, the current WSR would
remain in place without any changes. No new EU legislation would be proposed
and no additional guidance would be developed. The current, general provisions
on enforcement of the regulation in the WSR remain (Article 50, see section 2.1).

In the EU, the generation of both hazardous
and non-hazardous waste is expected to further increase (see section 2.4.1). So
far this increase has gone hand in hand with increasing waste shipments,
including illegal shipments, and this trend is expected to continue in the
future. According to the latest available data, in 2009 about 74 million tonnes
of hazardous waste were generated in the EU-27, representing a 28% increase
since 2000. Non-hazardous waste generation is expected to follow a similar trend.
For example, the generation of packaging waste in the EU is growing (stabilisation
during 2006-2009 and then a continued increase in 2010).[49] 
As waste is treated at lower costs in third
countries and will probably continue to do so, economic incentives to
circumvent the WSR by exporting waste illegally remain strong. The currently high
rates of illegal waste shipments are therefore expected to increase parallel to
the expected increase in the EU's waste generation (see sections 2.2.1 and
2.4.1). 
4.2.        Option
2 - Specific requirements and criteria for waste shipment inspections in EU
legislation
This option involves the introduction of
new EU legislative requirements supplementing the existing provisions of the
WSR. This could be done by amending Article 50 of the WSR to include more specific
requirements needed to effectively prevent illegal waste shipments. Such an
amendment would have to address the concrete enforcement gaps identified in section
2.2: (1) lack of inspection planning and risk assessments; (2) insufficient
provisions on the burden-of-proof; (3) lack of up-stream inspections to detect
illegal exports; and (4) lack of training for inspectors. The necessary
measures are currently in place in some Member States and have shown to be
effective and proportionate to address the problem of illegal waste shipments. These
best practice examples (described in section 2.2) can be used as a basis for
the actions under option 2. 
1. Establishing inspection plans
This is the most important of the proposed
measures under option 2.
- How does it work in practice? 
Based on the existing national inspection
plans in nine Member States, some basic requirements can be developed for
drawing up inspection plans. Member States should: 
(1)                   
Carry out a risk assessment. Effective waste shipment inspections require that competent
authorities focus on certain, high-risk waste streams and important sources of
illegal waste shipments. The inspection planning therefore needs to contain a control-
and enforcement strategy based on thorough risk assessments. Risk assessments should
take into account, inter alia, police investigations and
intelligence-based data.
(2)                   
Set the objectives which the inspecting authorities want to achieve with inspections.
(3)                   
Draw up a control- and enforcement strategy which the inspecting authorities have adopted for performing their
inspection activities based on risk assessments and analyses of criminal
activity. The strategy should aim to ensure sufficient capacity (staff and
resources) of the competent authorities and explicitly state the basis for
capacity determination.
(4)                   
Describe the conditions for the inspection
activities. These should cover policy,
environmental, legal, organizational, financial, human resources and other
relevant conditions under which the inspecting authority has to perform its
inspection activities.
(5)                   
Set priorities for inspection activities. These should include a description of how these priorities have been
selected taking into account the objectives, control- and enforcement strategy
and conditions.
(6)                   
Cover all relevant aspects of shipment
controls. Up-stream as well as down-stream
inspections must be covered by the plan. The tasks assigned to each authority
involved must be clearly defined. 
(7)                   
Cover the whole of the Member State’s
territory either by a plan established at national
level or by several plans established at regional or local levels. For instance
in Germany, each federal region (Land) is in charge of establishing its own
inspection plan. 
(8)                   
Communicate the plan to the general public
and to the Commission. To make the plan available
to the public requires only its publication on the Internet, on the Ministry of
the Environment’s website for instance. Stakeholders have commented that the
availability of the plan to the public could hamper police authority. In order
to address this problem, the inspection plan could be separated from the
more detailed programming and scheduling of specific inspections to be carried
out during the planning period. The inspection plan could be seen as a
strategic plan and would not in this case contain operational information. For
example, it would not include names of traders, companies, facilities or the
planned type/dates of inspections.
(9)                   
Ensure that the plans are effectively put
into practice, for example, the plans have to take
into account the risk assessment and be used by the authorities carrying out
the inspections.
(10)               
Review the plan on a regular basis. This could possibly involve different stages: in itinere and ex-post,
in order to define precisely how far elements of the plan have been implemented
and what its strengths and weaknesses are. The plans should be flexible and
quickly adapted to any change of context. The period for review of the
inspection plan should be specified, possibly on an annual basis.
2. Shifting "burden of proof" regarding
the distinction between "waste" and "product" and the environmentally
sound management (ESM) in third countries on to suspected illegal exporters 
This is also a key element to effectively
prevent illegal waste shipments. The reversal of burden-of-proof should only be
applied in cases where the authorities have reasonable grounds to suspect that
the shipment is illegal. 
- How does it work in practice?
Suspected illegal exporters would be required
to provide evidence that:
·                        
The item is not waste as defined by the EU waste
framework directive, but a product, e.g. "used", "repairable",
"operational" or similar. 
·                        
Waste shipped will be treated in third countries
under environmental protection standards that are broadly equivalent to EU
legislation (see section 2.1 about the WSR's requirements).
3. Introducing a requirement for controls
of “up-stream facilities”. 
Such controls are successfully carried out
in some Member States and would be an important complementary measure to the
other proposed measures.
- How does it work in practice?
The WSR contains a reference in Article
50(2) to that "Member States shall by way of measures for the
enforcement of this regulation, provide, inter alia, for inspections of
establishments and undertakings, in accordance with Article 13 of the EU waste
framework directive 2006/12/EC" (now: Article 34 of Directive
2008/98/EU). Specific requirements for such "up-stream facilities",
i.e. waste producers, collection points, interim storage, recovery and disposal
operators, could be laid down with a view to identify and eliminate future
illegal waste exports further down the chain.
4. Introducing provisions on training of
environmental inspectors, police and customs 
This is also an important complementary
measure to the other proposed measures.
- How does it work in practice?
·                        
Inspectors carrying out controls of waste
shipments take part in specific, targeted training on waste-related issues (such
as classification of waste vs. non-waste and hazardous waste vs. non-hazardous
waste).
·                        
Training programmes for waste shipment
inspections are established regularly and updated by national authorities
taking into account an assessment of the training needs.
·                        
The specific requirements are determined by
Member States and either incorporated in the waste shipment inspection plans to
be drawn up by Member States (see sub-option above) or as a separate, specific
provision in the legislation.
- Identical application to all waste
types and destinations
All the measures in Option 2 would apply identically
to all types of waste, hazardous and non-hazardous, and for shipments to all possible
destinations, within the EU/OECD and outside the EU/OECD. 
4.3.        Option
3 - Guidance for waste shipment inspections at EU level
The following four main areas were
identified by stakeholders and national authorities for guidance (stakeholder
consultation of 2011, see section 2 above):
1..Facilitation of control of shipments
by customs authorities, in particular as regards the identification and
differentiation of used goods and waste 
Guidance should cover the following issues:

a)         Linking waste codes (as
contained in the annexes to the WSR) to customs nomenclature (CN) codes.
b)         How waste can be
differentiated from used goods.
c)         Where appropriate,
differentiation of used goods from new goods to allow customs better identify
high risk consignments.[50]
2. Ensuring ESM at treatment and
recycling plants in third countries
Guidance on this issue should include:
a) Possible systems for verification of ESM
in countries where green waste is received; and
b) instructions on how operators should
fill in Annex VII when shipping green waste and how this document should be
circulated. 
3. Promoting the traceability of waste
by technical means
National authorities should be able to
follow where waste finally ends up for either disposal or recovery and in a
position to verify that waste is managed according to acceptable environmental
standards. Different technical ways to track waste being shipped should be
promoted and applied by national authorities. Guidance could be considered in
order to facilitate for national authorities.
4. Co-operation and co-ordination of
waste shipment inspections and monitoring at EU level
All Member States should co-operate and
co-ordinate activities, where such co-ordination engages not just waste
enforcers but also customs and police. Co-ordination is currently hampered by
the fact that some authorities are more active in combating illegal shipments
than others. As waste shipments are only as strong as their weakest link, the
participation of all relevant authorities from all Member States is necessary.
How to improve co-operation and co-ordination of waste shipment inspections and
monitoring, including also other waste related activities should be examined. 
The above four topics for guidance are
outside the specific scope of the proposed legislative measures (option 2) but would
be supplementary measures to prevent illegal waste shipments. During the
consultation process, it was considered appropriate to give guidance on these
topics to strengthen inspections and enforcement of the WSR. Such guidance
would enhance legal clarity and support authorities and economic operators when
applying the relevant provisions.
4.4.        Option
4 – Combination of EU legislative requirements and guidance
While the vast majority of stakeholders
were in favour of binding EU legislation on inspections and controls of waste
shipments, many also considered it useful to adopt guidance in certain areas
e.g. in order to facilitate the identification and differentiation of used
goods and waste by customs. 
A combination of guidelines and binding EU
legislation is therefore examined as a fourth option. This also corresponds to
the approach of EU legislation in other similar areas (section 2 above and
Annex IV). This option will thus include the specific legislative requirements
in Option 2 and in addition, the items for guidance described in Option 3.
4.5.        Discarded options
It has been examined whether it would be
appropriate to include specific technical requirements in EU legislation, in
particular that waste shipments shall contain a tracking device, such as a
microchip following the shipment to its destination ("electronic
tagging"). An obligation to trace shipments is already addressed by the
WSR in that an exporter has a duty to ensure environmentally sound management (ESM)
throughout a shipment. Credible and reliable information on destinations
applying appropriate treatment standards are essential in order to verify
compliance with the WSR. Tools that support such information transfer and
traceability would thus entail environmental benefits. During the stakeholder
consultation, 25% of the respondents found a need for such measures while 49%
did not find any need for such measures at EU level. 
Several obstacles to legislate at EU level
on such issues were clearly expressed. Firstly, a tracking device for waste
shipments would fail to seize the actual illegal/criminal shipments as such
activities do in most cases not take place under the label ‘waste’. This
measure would thus not address the most frequent types of illegal shipments
where waste is disguised as 'products'. Further, it was found that the
requirement of a tracking device on each shipment would be expensive and liable
to place additional burdens on the largely compliant but be ignored by the
minority who flout the existing rules. The use of a tracking device would also
be unworkable under certain national legislations where a conflict would arise
with legislation covering surveillance issues. In view of these obstacles, the
option of specific technical requirements in EU legislation, e.g. that waste
shipments shall contain a tracking device, such as a microchip was discarded.
5.           Analysis
of impacts
The analysis of impacts is based on the
following assessment criteria: "How does the option solve the
problem", "Costs" and "Benefits".
Option 1 - No action at EU level
The non-action option entails no changes.
This option would not increase the burden borne by any of the actors involved
in the waste shipment activities. Additionally, the non-action option leaves
Member States free to arrange for inspections of waste shipments in their own
way in order to address the specific national situation. 
On the other hand, the non-action option
does not solve any of the problems outlined above. The lack of precise EU-wide
rules regarding inspections gives way to different interpretations and to an
uneven implementation among Member States. 
The current ineffectiveness and specific
insufficiencies of waste shipment inspections in many Member States risk
leading to increased rates of illegal waste shipments as set out above in section
2. The analysis made of current EU legislative provisions suggest that these
provisions are not sufficient and need to be strengthened. Without any measure taken at EU level, it is unlikely that enforcement
and inspections will improve in Member States. The high frequency of illegal
waste shipments is thus likely to increase parallel to
the expected increase in the EU's waste generation (see sections 2.2.1 and 2.4.1).
The leakage of waste by illegal shipments
to substandard treatment facilities or mere dumping outside the EU undermines
the further development of environmentally sound recycling and recovery
operations within the EU. The available processes and sorting techniques in the
EU are currently not used to their full potential. This affects access to high quality
waste and recycled materials (see section 2.2.3). A
large potential currently exists for an increase of high standard recycling and
recovery within the EU. 
Difficulties arising relative to waste
shipment inspections are also linked to waste shipments’ multi-national aspect.
Indeed, shipments originating in certain countries are transferred through
other countries before reaching their final destination. A common level of
implementation of the WSR is therefore needed to avoid an uneven distribution
of risks and costs. 
The current problems of severe, negative
implications for the environment and human health, high costs for Member States
(clean-up of illegally shipped waste) and industry (lack of a level playing
field) would remain. Access to raw materials would not improve and the current
inefficient use of resources would remain. 
Lastly, illegal shipments that are not
detected in the EU can be detected by inspections in the destination country.
In these cases, shipments may be sent back, thus inducing high financial
burdens on enterprises but also on Member States which can be responsible in
cases as set out by Articles 22 to 25 of the WSR (the requirements and criteria
for taking back waste illegally shipped). Additionally, if third countries
strengthened their enforcement regimes, illegal shipments would be discovered
more often. Consequently, given that more shipments are returned, commercial
relations could be hampered by letting many shipments leave the EU illegally. No
information is, however, currently available as to whether any of the EU's
waste destination countries plan to strengthen their inspections and
enforcement as regards their illegal waste imports.
This option risks leading to relocation of
jobs outside the EU (see Section 2.2.4). 
The vast majority of stakeholders (89%)
discarded this option during the consultation. 
Option 2 - Specific requirements and
criteria for waste shipment inspections in EU legislation
Costs for Member States
Member States whose inspection systems for
waste shipments are already effective will incur little costs. In fact, their
costs would be lower if adequate inspections are conducted at source in other Member
States since illegal waste shipments often originate in one Member States and
are exported through another (see section 2). This would release the pressure
on the traditional points of exit of illegal waste shipments from the EU.
Member States lacking adequate inspection capacities
and infrastructure would need to hire new inspectors and establish the
necessary capacity to comply with new legal requirements. This would in
particular apply to "inspection planning" and "upstream-inspections"
as these would require the establishment of adequate inspection capacity,
including the hiring of additional inspectors and adequate investments in soft-
and hardware. Training would require the preparation and organisation of
training events.
It is not possible to estimate how the
costs for additional inspections would be shared between Member States since
they would need to determine their own frequency of inspections based on their
inspection plans and risk assessments, and will vary from country to country. The
inspection frequencies need to be flexible over time since the risks identified
may change.
A recent study of the Commission estimated
the costs of increasing Member States' inspection capacities and infrastructure
in the following way:[51] 
(1) Costs for hiring
additional inspectors 
The precise amount
would depend on the Member State and experience of the inspector. The study
estimates this yearly cost to €40,000-€80,000, i.e. on
average €60,000 per inspector and year. Assuming that on average at least two
additional inspectors per Member State would be necessary, this would make the
total average cost per Member State: 2x€60,000 per year = €120,000 per year/Member
State. Total yearly cost for the EU27: €3,240,000.
(2) Costs for preparing and executing inspections

The study assumes this cost at €800–€1,600
for each inspection day, i.e. on average €1,200 per inspection day. Additional
costs for travel of inspectors and laboratory analysis: €200 per inspection day.
During the recent IMPEL-tfs joint enforcement actions around 25 inspections
were carried out per day on average in all of the participating Member States (around
10,000 inspections per year).[52]
This would make the total cost: €1,400/25=€56 per inspection. As a 'what if'
scenario, IMPEL's inspections of in total around 10,000 inspections in a year
across the EU could form the bulk of the current baseline number of
inspections. If this number were to double, as one potential scenario, and thus
assuming 20,000 inspections per year throughout the EU, then the yearly costs for
carrying out the additional waste shipment inspections in EU27 would be: 10,000
x €56= €560,000.
(3) One-time investment costs for soft- and
hardware: €10,000 for one inspectorate/body.
Based on the above estimates, the total
yearly cost for increasing inspection capacities and
infrastructure (cost for hiring additional inspectors
and preparing and executing inspections) and the one-time investment costs
(soft- and hardware) in the whole EU could be estimated at €4,000,000.
The costs for national authorities to
organise additional inspections and hire inspectors would not in any event be
passed on to legal businesses or consumers. The regulated activities – exports
of waste – would not have any links with consumers. Instead the costs could be
placed on the illegal exporters, in line with the so-called polluter pays
principle. Costs for additional inspections and inspectors could be covered by potential
revenues from fines or penalties imposed on the illegal operators. The WSR
requires that Member States provide for penalties that are effective,
proportionate and dissuasive (Article 50, para.1). The costs for additional
inspections and inspectors could be balanced by fines and penalties in a
dimension of €1,000-€100,000 (broad variety between Member States and type of
violation) per illegal shipment identified. Thus, the additional inspections
required by new EU legislation could be financed, directly or indirectly, by
revenues from the fines and penalties collected, which would make the burden
lighter for national authorities. The additional
inspections would break even if less than one per cent of all the yearly additional inspections (10,000) would result in
average fines (80 cases with fines of €50,000). 
As regards training, this entails certain costs which depend on Member States risk assessments
and the organisation of the training. These costs could therefore not be
specifically estimated.
A reversal of burden-of-proof from
authorities to suspected illegal operators entails no additional costs for
authorities. On the contrary, the authorities would save the current costs they
incur for demonstrating that an item is "waste" or that it will be
shipped to a lawful facility outside the EU. The reversal of burden of proof is
already part of the recently adopted recast WEEE Directive (see section 2.3.3) but
the effects of the implementation of those specific provisions have not yet been
assessed since transposition by Member States will only be due in 14 February
2014. 
Costs for economic operators
There are no additional costs for economic
operators, apart from the suspected illegal operators on which the burden of
proof in specific cases would be reversed. The proportionality of a provision
reversing the burden of proof to illegal operators will be ensured by strictly
limiting its application to cases where the competent authority has
"reasonable grounds" to suspect an illegal shipment. In addition, the
information concerned (i.e. whether or not an item is "waste" or
destined for lawful recovery operations outside the EU) is more easily
accessible to exporters than to authorities. Exporters have an obligation to
know what they intend to export and to which destination; authorities do not have
this information unless provided by the exporter or following potentially
resource-intensive investigations in third countries. 
Economic benefits 
The above costs for additional inspections
and inspectors could also be outweighed by cost savings in terms of reduced
repatriation- and clean-up costs. If 4 large repatriation cases or one serious
case of clean-up costs could be avoided during one year in the whole EU, the
additional inspections would lead to overall economic benefits for Member
States. Further details are given above in Section 2 regarding repatriation
cases (€1.2 million for waste destined for Nigeria sent
back to the port of Rotterdam) or clean-up costs in the cases of the Ivory
Coast (€152 million) or Naples (over €400,000/day). 
A standardised, EU-wide enforcement of the
WSR would contribute to creating a level playing field for the EU's recycling
and waste management industry. As a result the market conditions for the sales
and purchase of waste as a resource could be improved thus promoting innovation,
growth and jobs in the EU. The waste management and recycling industry in the
EU would benefit from this situation. Access to high-quality raw materials
would be improved.
Inspections of waste will be implemented at
an early stage, ensuring that Member States which are transit countries for
waste streams are faced with less illegal waste coming from other Member
States. 
A recent study has estimated that full
implementation of eight pieces of EU waste legislation by 2020, including the
WSR, would mean cost savings of €72 billion/year and a turnover increase for
the waste management and recycling sector at €42 billion/year.[53]
Employment impacts
Implementing the WSR better could increase
jobs in the EU as more waste is expected to need treatment if not shipped
abroad illegally. The EU waste industry would become more specialised towards
sorting and/or treating specific types of waste. This would prevent the relocation
of jobs outside the EU and further increase the number of jobs within the EU,
both for unqualified workers and qualified workers, as the techniques for
treating hazardous waste are rather complex. The precise effect on the waste
sector will depend on the waste quantities being treated within the EU and
could therefore not be assessed in more detail.
As an example, WSR enforcement in Rotterdam
port alone brought 22 additional jobs (see section 2.2.4).
Proportionality with regard to legally
shipped waste
Several Member States, for example the
Netherlands and the UK, already have existing systems that function well and
include many of the criteria identified by this report as necessary, including
inspection planning, training, "burden-of-proof" rules and controls
of "upstream facilities". National authorities in those Member States
have not reported that these existing systems result in any disproportionate
burden or costs for traders which ship waste legally. 
Internal market implications
The internal market will not be negatively
affected by measures to combat illegal waste shipments but, on the contrary,
enjoy a number of benefits. The WSR harmonises the requirements for
notification and information on waste shipments and contains safeguards for the
internal market which will all remain in place (Article 12). However, the WSR's
current lack of harmonised inspection planning, controls of up-stream facilities,
"burden-of-proof" rules and training results in distortions of the
internal market. Some Member States inspect waste shipments rigorously and
others do not. The internal market would therefore benefit from a level playing
field created for waste shipment inspections (see Section 2.1 above). 
Stakeholder consultation
The stakeholder consultation showed broad
support for new EU legislation strengthening the inspection requirements (89%
of respondents). Of these stakeholders 12 were Member State authorities, one
EEA country authority, 25 industry organisations, two public organisations,
three NGOs, five companies and ten individuals. Six Member State authorities
and one individual were against EU legislative requirements. Those favouring EU
legislative requirements found the criteria and requirements proposed by the
studies as either fully (38%) or partly (51%) appropriate for legislation. 85%
of the respondents wanted minimum requirements for exporters to produce
evidence that an item to be shipped from a Member States is not waste. 81%
wished to have minimum requirements for exporters to show that waste to be
shipped to a third country will be treated there in compliance with EU
legislation and under environmental protection standards that are equivalent to
EU legislation. The stakeholder consultation also showed
that 61% of respondents wish to see strengthened controls of
"up-stream" facilities where the waste is produced, collected or
managed.
Form of legislative measures
Criteria and requirements for waste
shipment inspections could be implemented through a legally binding instrument
such as a directive or regulation. 
If the criteria for waste shipment
inspections were implemented through a directive, it would leave a margin of
interpretation to the national authorities to adapt the criteria to their
national context. However, in this case issues of interpretation between the
Member States could arise and the uniformity of application of the criteria
could be undermined. On the other hand, the use of a Directive would provide
Member States with a delay (normally 2 years depending on the complexity of the
transposition) allowing them to prepare for the implementation of the criteria.
The criteria could also be set by means of
a regulation. Contrary to a directive, the provisions of a regulation are
self-executing and do not require any transposition although implementation
measures are generally necessary. If this solution was preferred, it should be
ensured that the criteria are robust enough and self-standing in order to be
applied directly by Member States authorities. 
One possibility to introduce inspection
requirements is to amend Article 50 of the WSR. Such requirements could cover
waste shipment inspections plans, controls of "up-stream" facilities,
training requirements and burden-of-proof provisions. An amendment of Article
50 could be combined with a possibility for the Commission to adopt delegated
acts on certain of the elements that are technically or scientifically related
and therefore may need future adjustment e.g. taking into account technical and
scientific progress.
There could be several advantages of
amending the existing WSR rather than creating a new Directive or Regulation.
For example, this would avoid a "piecemeal approach" with several,
different acts cross-referring to each other and ensure coherency with existing
substantive provisions of the WSR.
Environmental impacts 
The severe, negative impacts on human
health and the environment resulting from illegal shipments, both outside and
inside the EU would be reduced significantly. 
Option 3 - Guidance for waste shipment
inspections at EU level
Guidance documents can provide useful
support to national authorities and stakeholders on key issues relating to the
implementation and enforcement. However, the non-binding nature of guidelines
leaves full freedom to Member States to follow, partly follow or not follow at
all the guidelines. The flexibility of Member States is thus left at the
maximum.
Therefore, it is unlikely that this option alone
could contribute to improvements of waste shipment inspections in all Member
States. An abundance of guidance on waste shipments and
inspections already exists at EU level (published by the Commission or the
IMPEL network) and at international level (published by the United Nation's
Basel Convention secretariat). Nevertheless, very large disparities remain
between Member States. The non-binding nature of
guidelines currently represents a major challenge to achieve the objective of
better enforcement of the WSR. If guidance is not followed by some Member
States, “port hopping” continues. In spite of the guidelines and tools
available at EU level for waste shipment inspection planning, there is a lack of regular planning of waste shipment inspections in many
Member States. Only nine Member States have reported on having regular and
consistent inspection planning for waste shipment inspections (see section
2.3.3). 
Nevertheless, four main areas have been
identified as relevant for guidance to clarify the legal provisions designed to
prevent illegal shipments and support authorities and economic operators when
applying the relevant WSR provisions (section 4.3). The impacts of developing,
implementing and applying such guidance are therefore assessed below.
Economic impacts
The
development of guidance
does not require
significant budget and the administrative burden could be regarded as limited.
The majority of the start-up costs for developing guidance falls at EU level
(both in terms of one-off costs and time spent), and also on the lead Member
States coordinating the guidance document and for all Member States
contributing to the guidance.
Guidance
on topics 1 to 3 would not entail additional costs for authorities or economic
operators since it only offers tools to help them apply legal obligations. The
guidance on topic 4 could mean that authorities decide to increase their
efforts to co-ordinate inspections and co-operate with other authorities. Such
co-ordination and co-operation has already taken place at European level within
IMPEL-tfs in the form of its on-going project on the organisation of
enforcement actions for waste shipments. The costs of such co-ordination and
co-operation have been specified in the terms of reference for this project.[54] In summary, the project
costs/resources required were estimated to amount to €125,620
(total over 2012,
2013 and 2014).
Environmental and social impacts
This option has no impact on employment
apart from the additional human resources needed for authorities to develop and
implement the guidance.
Stakeholder consultation
Guidelines as sole option were discarded by
a vast majority of stakeholders during the consultation (89% of respondents
favoured binding EU legislation on inspections). They nevertheless considered
it useful to adopt guidance in specific areas e.g. for customs in order to
facilitate the identification and differentiation of used goods and waste (90% of
respondents in favour). 79% considered there is scope
for further improving coordination of waste shipment enforcement activities at
EU level.
Option 4 - Combination of EU legislative
requirements and guidance
Impacts
This option will have the same costs and
benefits of options 2 and 3 together. This means that the additional costs,
cost savings and economic benefits of binding legislation would be the same as
in in option 2, with very small additional costs for guidance as in option 3.
In view of the net costs and benefits of options 2 and 3, these options could
be considered as mutually reinforcing. 
Stakeholder consultation
The vast majority of stakeholders were in
favour of binding EU legislation (89%), many also considered it useful to adopt
guidance in certain areas e.g. for customs in order to facilitate the
identification and differentiation of used goods and waste (90%), coordination of waste shipment enforcement activities at EU
level (79%), and additional measures at EU level in general (85%).
6.           Comparing
the options
The comparative table below lists the
conclusions of the impact assessment. The first criterion is to identify
whether the option solves the problems identified in the Impact Assessment
(Section 2.2). The second criterion is to assess the net costs, i.e. the
estimated difference between economic costs and benefits. In applying these
criteria, Option 4 would be the only option which solves all the problems
identified in the Impact Assessment and has also the lowest net costs. This
option has also the most positive economic, social and environmental impacts. Within
Option 2, inspection planning is the most important of the proposed measures as
the foremost contributor to solving the problem. The second most important is
reversal of burden of proof, and then in descending order, controls of upstream
facilities and training for authorities.
Main options
   || Option 1 Baseline scenario/no action at EU level || Option 2 Binding EU legislative requirements || Option 3 Guidance || Option 4 Combination EU legislative requirements and guidance 
 How does the option solve the problem? || No improvement. Illegal shipments remain or even increase. || Solves the problems to a large extent. Harmonises the requirements necessary to prevent illegal waste shipments and ensures an even level of enforcement throughout the EU. || Partly addresses the problems. Supports and facilitates the implementation of legally binding instruments, but cannot guarantee Member States' prioritisation and establishment of effective inspection systems. || Solves the problems to the largest extent possible. Both the legislative requirements in Option 2 and guidance on issues identified in Option 3 are needed. Combines harmonisation of binding minimum requirements and flexibility where needed through non-binding guidance. 
 Implementation costs || 0 No implementation costs. MS free to choose way of inspections. || - Small or no costs for MS with already effective enforcement. Costs for MS lacking adequate inspection systems, e.g. for staff, infrastructure and inspections. These costs for hiring new inspectors and carrying out the additional inspections would be around €4 million/year for the whole EU. However, these costs could be outweighed by the benefits (see below) or financed by collected fines. The additional inspections required would break even if less than 1% of all the yearly inspections would result in average fines. || + + Low implementation costs. Flexibility for MS to apply the non-binding guidance.   || - Additional costs of binding legislation, but flexible non-binding support on other issues where this is needed. Same costs as in Option 2. 
 Cost savings || --- No costs due to administrative changes. However, costs for clean-up, repatriation etc after illegal shipments. Indirect costs for MS where waste transits, which have to step up implementation efforts and increase costs due to the low enforcement in other MS “up-stream”. || + + + Significant cost savings for clean-up, repatriation etc after illegal shipments. Indirect cost savings for MS where waste transits due to decreased pressure of illegal waste shipments. These cost savings outweigh the above costs for hiring new inspectors and carrying out additional inspections if three large repatriation cases or one serious case of clean-up costs could be avoided during one year in the whole EU. || +/- Guidance can save costs for authorities and economic operators. However, if guidance is not followed by all Member States, “port hopping” continues i.e. illegal shipments will go through ports and Member States where the level of enforcement is lower. Incentives to ship waste illegally and severe negative impacts remain, including costs for clean-up, repatriation etc after illegal shipments. || + + + Significant cost savings for clean-up, repatriation etc after illegal shipments. Indirect cost savings for MS where waste transits due to decreased pressure of illegal waste shipments. Guidance can save costs for authorities and economic operators. 
 Economic impacts: Level playing field for entreprises/Acccess to raw materials || 0 Inconsistent enforcement leads to uneven playing field. Differentiated burdens for companies. Barriers to access to raw materials. || + + + Harmonisation of inspection requirements create a level playing field, improving conditions for innovation, growth and jobs. Improved access to raw materials. || +/- Industry benefits from guidance on the key issues identified in the IA report. However, on other key issues (inspection planning etc) where EU legislation is needed no harmonising effect is achieved. || + + + Industry benefits from harmonisation on certain issues, while receiving support on others. Increased clarity and support via guidelines. 
 Social impacts: Jobs in the EU || 0 Does not increase jobs. Possible relocation outside EU. || + + New jobs due to increased demand from waste treatment facilities within the EU and the hiring of additional inspectors. || - Unlikely to create additional jobs. || + + Could create new jobs and avoid relocation of jobs due to increased waste treatment within the EU. Same job creation as in Option 2. 
 Environmental impacts: Pollution of soil, air, water etc. and climate change || 0 Incentives to ship waste illegally. Severe negative impacts remain. || + + + Enforcement of the WSR would become a priority for all MS leading to less illegal shipments and reduced negative impacts. || + If guidance is not followed by all Member States, incentives to ship waste illegally and severe negative impacts remain. || + + + + Enforcement of the WSR would become a priority for all MS leading to less illegal shipments and reduced negative impacts. Increased clarity and support via guidelines. 
 Health conditions || 0 See above. || + + + See above. || + See above. || + + + + See above 
 Resource-efficiency || 0 Large amounts of waste continue to be shipped and treated in an ineffective, sub-standard way. || + + + Higher quantity of waste routed via legal channels lead to optimised processes, better sorting techniques and better waste quality. || + If guidance is not followed by all Member States, large amounts of waste continue to be shipped and treated in an ineffective, sub-standard way. || + + + + Higher quantity of waste routed via legal channels lead to optimised processes, better sorting techniques and better waste quality. 
6.1 IDENTIFYING THE PREFERRED OPTIONS PACKAGE AND
ITS IMPACTS
On the basis of the qualitative assessment
of the options 1-4 conducted in section 6, option 4 (which is a combination of
option 2 and 3) is the most appropriate.
7.           Monitoring
and evaluation
Indicators of progress towards meeting
the objectives
This impact assessment report has described
the problem of high numbers of illegal waste shipments contravening the WSR and
the negative environmental and health implications thereof. The report has
presented which legislative and non-legislative measures would be needed in
order to address this problem. The general conclusion has been drawn that
although the formal requirements of the WSR function well in practice, the wide
disparity in enforcement of the WSR needs to be addressed by effective
measures. The effectiveness of these measures to solve the problem of illegal
waste shipments should be monitored and evaluated in the following way:
(1) Establishment of adequate
infrastructures, capacities and enforcement systems
The causes of the problem, i.e. disparities
in Member States' approaches, political priorities, resources and organisation
of inspections could, as proposed by this report, be solved by establishing
clear criteria for inspection planning in EU legislation. The inspection
planning would be considered successful in practice if it is carried out as
foreseen by the detailed provisions, and results in the establishment of
adequate infrastructures and capacities, well-functioning enforcement systems and
improved inspections for waste shipments in the Member States. 
(2) Reduction of illegal waste shipments
The effectiveness of the proposed measures could
be measured by statistics showing reduced rates of illegal waste shipments. The
IMPEL-tfs joint enforcement actions have been useful in order to estimate the
rates of illegal waste shipments. During future actions such rates could be
monitored, i.e. the percentage rates of detected illegal waste shipments in
relation to total transports involving waste, in order to assess the impacts of
legislative measures in terms of reducing illegal waste shipments. 
(3) Monitoring by the Commission
The Commission examines the reports which Member
States are required to submit annually on the implementation of the WSR (Article
51 and Annex IX WSR) on a regular basis. These reports include specific details
concerning illegal shipments detected by national authorities. For example, they
shall for each detected illegal shipment contain information on waste
identification, quantity, country of destination, identification of the reason
for illegality, the person responsible for the illegality and measures taken
including possible penalties. When monitoring the information submitted by
Member States, the Commission could assess and evaluate the impacts of
legislative measures on inspections and illegal shipments, and take this into
account as appropriate when drawing up its tri-annual report on the
implementation of the WSR.
(4) On-the-spot projects 
A further measurement tool would be to
evaluate the specific non-compliant cases detected by inspections in terms of
cost savings made, i.e. avoidance of repatriation, clean up etc. as well as the
environmental improvements on-the-spot, i.e. at destinations currently
receiving illegal waste shipments. This could in practice be carried out
through projects with developing countries, such as those which have been put
into place already by IMPEL-tfs and via the Basel Convention network.
(5) Estimates based on increased
recycling rates
The rates of recycling of waste are being
monitored within the EU as a result of EU and national legislation. Increases
of the recycling rates could be used to indicate the success of the proposed requirements
due to waste being recycled rather than illegal exported and dumped. 
Annex I:
Results of co-ordinated inspections in Member States 2003-2011 (IMPEL-tfs)
Seaport projects 
The outcomes of the first enforcement
project (IMPEL-tfs Seaport I), carried out in 2003 and 2004 showed the need to
enlarge the network for an improved and effective enforcement of waste shipment
regulations; about 20% of all inspected waste shipments were found to be
illegal, http://impel.eu/projects/seaport-project-i.

The second enforcement project (IMPEL-tfs
Seaport 2), was carried out from September 2004 till May 2006. During this
project even higher numbers of illegal shipments were detected; 51% of the
shipments containing waste were illegal, http://impel.eu/projects/seaport-project-ii.

Inspections 2009-2010 ("Enforcement
actions")
In co-operation with
IMPEL-tfs and with the support of the Commission, 22 Member States carried out and
reported over 20,000 transport inspections and over a hundred company
inspections from October 2008 till October 2010. Inspectors found illegal
shipments in around 24 % of the cases in the EU involving waste shipments. Illegal waste exports not respecting the export bans and
notification requirements in the WSR made up over a third of all waste
transports (failure to respect export bans in Article 34 and 36 WSR or
notification requirements). Among the most frequent other violations were
failure to fill in the information form used to ensure environmentally sound
management at the destination (Article 18, 49 and Annex VII).An evaluation was made with regard to the
frequency of certain waste types involved in violations of the WSR. These were the
following waste types (in descending order):
Paper
and cardboard
Metal
Plastic
WEEE
Municipal
waste
ELVs/vehicle
parts
Textile
waste
Wood
Bio-degradable/green
waste
Organic
chemicals / solvents
Construction and demolition
Reported numbers of inspected transports
and violation rate from October 2008-November 2010 
The non-compliance rates vary significantly
between Member States (14.8-100%), see Table below. However, it has to be noted
that also differences between Member States as regards reporting methods and
types of inspection activities used, such as random or targeted inspections,
may play a role in these percentages.
 Participant || Total inspections || Admin. Inspections || Physical inspections || Waste Inspections || % of transp. containing waste || violations || % 
 Austria || 2,453 || 2,453 || 2,283 || 179 || 7.8 || 33 || 18.4 
 Belgium || 1,242 || 1,106 || 1,190 || 293 || 24.6 || 108 || 36.9 
 Bulgaria || 13 1) || 13 1) || 13 1) || 13 1) || 100.0 || 13 1) || 100.0 
 Croatia || 61 || 60 || 61 || 60 || 98.4 || 5 || 8.3 
 Cyprus || 13 || 13 || 13 || 13 || 100.0 || 7 || 53.8 
 Czech Republic || 1,751 || 1,751 || 1,751 || 19 || 1.1 || 9 || 47.4 
 Denmark || 467 || 355 || 438 || 110 || 25.1 || 34 || 30.9 
 Estonia || 205 || 175 || 205 || 7 || 3.4 || 4 || 57.1 
 Finland || 353 || 346 || 323 || 20 || 6.2 || 7 || 35.0 
 France || 26 || 26 || 24 || 26 || 100.0 2) || 13 || 50.0 
 Germany 3) || 3,722 || 3,697 || 3,722 || 669 || 18.0 || 105 || 15.7 
 Hungary || 639 || 639 || 216 || 13 || 6.0 || 9 || 69.2 
 Ireland || 829 || 340 || 542 || 656 || 79.1 2) || 181 || 27.6 
 Lithuania || 180 || 180 || 180 || 1 || 0.6 || 1 || 100.0 
 The Netherlands || 1,366 || 918 || 1,213 || 446 || 36.8 || 91 || 20.4 
 Norway || 125 || 125 || 125 || 125 || 100.0 || 51 || 40.8 
 Poland || 4,264 || 4,264 || 3,391 || 196 || 5.8 || 29 || 14.8 
 Portugal || 5,541 || 4,555 || 3,734 || 272 || 7.3 || 47 || 17.3 
 Romania || Joint transport inspections were reported by Hungary 
 Serbia || 308 || 308 || 308 || 303 || 98.4 || 6 || 2.0 
 Slovakia || 595 || 595 || 595 || 6 || 1.0 || 2 || 33.3 
 Slovenia || 909 || 880 || 249 || 49 || 19.7 || 8 || 16.3 
 Spain || Joint transport inspections were reported by Portugal 
 Sweden || 216 || 184 || 216 || 13 || 6.0 || 11 || 84.6 
 Switzerland || 69 || 69 || 69 || 69 || 100.0 || 3 || 4.3 
 Turkey || 6 || 6 || 6 || 6 || 100.0 || 0 || 0.0 
 UK / England and Wales || 24 || 24 || 19 || 24 || 100.0 2) || 22 || 91.7 
 UK / Northern Ireland || 1,157 || 1,099 || 754 || 308 || 40.8 || 33 || 10.7 
 UK / Scotland || 171 || 171 || 30 || 1 || 3.3 || 1 || 100.0 
   Overall total (transports)     ||     26,705 ||     24,352 ||     21,670     ||     3,897   ||     18.0 ||     833 ||     21.4     
 Overall EU transports   EU company inspections   Overall total EU       || 26,251 ||   || 21,101 || 3,334     120 3,454 ||   || 768 95 863 || 23,0 79,1   24,9 
·                         
A detailed report is
available on: http://impel.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/IMPEL-TFS-EA-II-Project-_Final-report-adopted-v1-4.pdf,
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/113&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en.

Annex II: Studies and reports (2007-2012)
The Commission
1.
The organisation of information exchanges and awareness-raising events concerning
the application of the EU waste shipoment regulation in Member States, final
reports 30 November 2008 and 13 December 2009, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/reports.htm.

Awareness-raising events and information
exchanges concerning the WSR were organised by the Commission in most Member
States during 2007-2009. National authorities and stakeholders participated at
these events. The final report, approved by the national authorities, concluded
that major deficits and problems were experienced with regard to the
enforcement of the WSR. In many Member States few and insufficient controls
were carried out. The report also concluded that the enforcement situation is
diverse with considerable differences between Member States. On this basis, the
report recommended new EU requirements, criteria and increased guidance at EU
level concerning waste shipment inspections. These reports also showed that
other parts of the regulation function well in practice and that therefore no
reason exists to amend the regulation to decrease administrative burden.
The specific gaps in enforcement identified
during the awareness-raising events and information exchanges were, inter
alia, inadequate inspections of waste shipments 'in situ', e.g. random
on-the-spot checks without opening of containers; in-sufficient frequency of
'in situ' inspections; lack of clear criteria for inspections. Specific needs
to ensure adequate controls of waste producers and collectors
"up-stream" and an intelligence-led approach to prevent illegal
shipments further down the chain were highlighted at the High Level Inspectors' meeting.
2. Feasibility
of a waste implementation agency, final report 7
December 2009, Milieu,AmbienDura, FFact.
3. Inspection requirements for waste
shipments, final report 12 August 2009
4. Environmental, social and economic
impact assessment of possible requirements and criteria for waste shipment
inspections, controls and on-the-spot-checks, final report 4 June 2010,
Biointelligence SA, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/reports.htm
The Directorate-General for the Environment
(DG ENV) conducted two studies examining the
feasibility and impact of EU legislation to strengthen the enforcement of the WSR. The first study identified a large number of possible criteria and requirements for determining
how to undertake a sufficient frequency and quality of waste shipment
inspections. IMPEL-tfs (see Annex III), authorities in Member States and
other stakeholders were closely involved in the preparation of the study. The
study listed in total 174 criteria concerning capacity of competent
authorities; enforcement strategy and risk profiling; waste inspection planning
and programming; preparation, carrying out and follow-up of waste shipment
inspections; training and competence requirements; and co-operation between
authorities. The follow-up study contained a detailed assessment of the
environmental, economic and social impacts of the criteria considered as
amongst the most appropriate. The study concluded: "implementing the
criteria will ensure that improved inspections are undertaken, reducing the
illegal shipments through both increased detection and prosecution and the
deterrent effect that increased prosecution is expected to have on illegal
shippers. The choice of a legally-binding instrument seems adequate for many of
the proposed criteria, as such a tool will ensure that all countries have to
abide by the same rules and will implement the criteria in a harmonised
way." IMPEL-tfs representatives provided written and oral contributions to
the studies. During the first study, a specific workshop was organised at the
IMPEL-tfs annual conference in Östersund, Sweden in March 2009. The workshop
allowed for an in-depth discussion on key issues, such as how to meet criteria,
drawing together experience from several Member States. The Commission
presented at the IMPEL-tfs conference on 2-3 June 2010 in Basel, Switzerland
the specific criteria and possible requirements for waste shipment inspections
as identified by the studies. 
5. Implementation of EU waste legislation
for green growth, 29 November 2011, BioIntelligence Service,            http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/pdf/study%2012%20FINAL%20REPORT.pdf.

6. Assessment and guidance for the
implementation of EU waste legislation in Member States, Report on Article
49-50 WSR, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/reports.htm.
7. Support to Implementation of the WSR
requirements in the customs nomenclature and tariff, 23 December 2010, Arcadis, BioIntelligence.
8. Study on the role of customs in the
enforcement of EU legislation governing the environment, 31 March 2011 
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/common/publications/studies/customs_envirnt_en.pdf.

National authorities
Final
report of study carried out by the German authorities, April 2010: www.umweltsbundesamt.de/uba-info-presse-e/2010-012

Institutions and organisations
1. European Environment Agency (EEA), Waste
without borders in the EU? Transboundary shipments of waste 2009, No 1/2009,
the “2009 EEA report”.
2. EEA, 'The European Environment – State
and Outlook 2010, update 2012', Materials, resources and waste
3. Europol, "EU organised crime threat
assessment", https://www.europol.europa.eu/.
4. Greenpeace, “Poisoning the Poor,
Electronic Waste in Ghana, August 2008, and “Toxic ships, the Italian Hub, the
Mediterranean and Africa, June 2010.
5. IMPEL, Doing the right things for waste
shipment inspections, Step-by-step guidance book for Waste Shipment
Inspections, 2012
6. IMPEL, Practicability and enforceability
of the Waste Shipment regulation, Final Report, December 2011
7. OECD, Illegal
Trade in Environmentally Sensitive Goods, OECD Trade Policy Studies, 2012
Media
reports
Deutsche Umwelthilfe (2007) Hamburg – Gate
to the world for illegal waste exports? Part 1, How Hanseatic City of Hamburg
tries to get rid of its liability. 
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Sky-Probe-Reveals-Recycling-Scandal-As-Broken-TVs-Are-Shipped-Over-To-West-Africa/Article/200902315224628?lpos=UK_News_News_Your_Way_Region_0&lid=NewsYourWay_ARTICLE_15224628_Sky_Probe_Reveals_Recycling_Scandal_As_Broken_TVs_Are_Shipped_Over_To_West_Africa.
http://www.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=37&listcatid=217&listitemid=51995&section=waste_management;
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/06/60minutes/main4579229.shtml).

"Smuggling Europe’s Waste to Poorer
Countries", New York Times, 26 September 2009; http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/science/earth/27waste.html?_r=2&hp

"From toxic waste to toxic assets, the
same people always get dumped on", The Guardian, 21 September 2009;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/sep/21/global-fly-tipping-toxic-waste

Annex III: IMPEL
The European Union Network for the
Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law (IMPEL) is an international
non-profit association of the environmental authorities of the European Union
Member States, acceding and candidate countries of the EU and EEA countries, http://impel.eu/.
The association is registered in Belgium
and both its legal seat and its secretariat are in Brussels, Belgium. Currently
IMPEL has 43 members from 32 countries including all EU Member States, Croatia,
the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Iceland and Norway. According to the IMPEL Statute, any local, regional or national
environmental authority having legal status, and based in a Member State, an
acceding or candidate country, or an EEA country, can apply for membership.
IMPEL was set up in 1992 as an informal
Network of European regulators and authorities concerned with the
implementation and enforcement of environmental law. The Network’s objective is
to create the necessary impetus in the European Community to make progress on
ensuring a more effective application of environmental legislation. The core of
the IMPEL activities concerns awareness raising, capacity building, exchange of
information and experiences on implementation, international enforcement
collaboration as well as promoting and supporting the practicability and
enforceability of European environmental legislation. The Association
undertakes its activities primarily within a project structure.
IMPEL has developed into a considerable,
widely known organisation, being mentioned in a number of EU legislative and
policy documents, e.g. the Decision No 1600/2002/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 22 July 2002 laying down the Sixth
Community Environment Action Programme 6th EU Environment Action Programme,
the
Recommendation 2001/331/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4
April 2001 providing for minimum criteria for environmental inspections in the
Member States (RMCEI), the
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on
implementing European Community Environmental Law and the
European Commission Impact Assessment Guidelines.
The IMPEL-tfs cluster
IMPEL has three clusters: Cluster Permitting, inspection and enforcement,
Cluster Transfrontier Shipment of Waste and Cluster Better Regulation. These are informal
fora for discussions on draft project proposals. Clusters also review ongoing
projects and assess draft project reports. The Clusters inform and advise the
General Assembly on these matters. Participation in the Clusters is open to
experts, employed by Environmental Authorities. A Cluster is chaired by a
National IMPEL Coordinator, a National IMPEL Representative or a representative
of an IMPEL Member.
The IMPEL-tfs (transfrontier shipments
cluster) has as its scope the practical implementation and enforcement of
international and European waste shipment rules, http://impel.eu/cluster-2.
This is done by awareness raising, capacity building, facilitating inter-agency
and cross-border collaboration and operational enforcement activities. Members
of the cluster represent environmental authorities, but also customs and police
services and other authorities that play a role in the enforcement of the
transfrontier waste shipments. 
The core of the cluster is the enforcement
projects, which aim to prevent and detect illegal movements of waste. It
started with the Seaport I and Seaport
II project and the Verification of waste projects I and II and are now being continued in the Enforcement
Actions projects I and II.
The main objectives of this projects are to work towards an adequate level of
inspections in all Member States and at all exit points of the EU, to introduce
complete measures in order to prevent and detect illegal waste shipments and to
deter illegal waste exporters, to verify waste destination and the treatment at
destination within or outside Europe, to set up training and exchange
programmes for inspectors, and to maintain and improve the network and
collaboration of front line inspectors and other competent authorities and enforcement
partners by exchange of information and knowledge.
The
cluster also conducts waste specific projects, such as the End-of-life vehicles project and the E-waste
project.
To support the inspectors, IMPEL TFS has
developed several tools, for example manuals which explain different
inspection and detection methods; waste watches to identify and classify waste
streams; a methodology for threat assessments which will facilitate
competent authorities in setting enforcement priorities; and tools to increase
the awareness of persons who are subject to the controls of the TFS
legislation, such as brochures (example 1, example 2 and example 3). Where illegal movements of
waste are detected, IMPEL TFS has drafted a guidance manual on the return of these
shipments back to the country of dispatch.
IMPEL-tfs also facilitate exchange
programmes for inspectors. These programmes enable inspectors from one
country to attend an inspection in another country.
More information, http://impel.eu/about/organisation.
 
Annex IV: EU waste legislation containing provisions on inspections 
and monitoring of their application
The EU Waste Framework Directive contains provisions on inspections in Article 34(1-3).[55] Establishments and
undertakings which carry out waste treatment operations, establishments or
undertakings which collect or transport waste on a professional basis, brokers
and dealers, and establishments or undertakings which produce hazardous waste
shall be subject to appropriate periodic inspections by the competent
authorities, Article 34(1). The relevant waste management operations, sites and
facilities for which inspections are needed in order to verify compliance with
the directive can be divided in two categories: (i) facilities and sites
which have obtained permits and thus need to be inspected in order to verify
compliance with the conditions laid down by those permits; and (ii)
facilities and sites without any permits and therefore infringing Article 23
and/or the prohibition of illegal dumping in Article 36, unless derogations
have been granted under Articles 24-25. Individual sites could also be in
violation of the EU landfill directive, see below. 
Article 34(2) of the waste framework
directive provides that inspections concerning collection and transport
operations shall cover the origin, nature, quantity and destination of the
waste collected and transported. According to Article 34(3), Member States may
take account of registrations obtained during the Community Eco-Management and
Audit Scheme (EMAS), in particular regarding the frequency and intensity of
inspections. In connection with the inspections an important role is played by
the directive's permitting requirements (Articles 23-25), the contents and
detail of permits issued and the classification of waste according to the
European list of wastes in Commission decision 2000/532/EC.[56]
The EU Landfill Directive and the decision on waste acceptance criteria[57] impose strict requirements on,
inter alia, the design, construction, operation, acceptance of waste in
landfills and after-care of designated landfills. Certain waste (liquid, explosive,
tyres, and waste that does not fulfil the waste acceptance criteria) are banned
from landfills. All landfills must be classified as for inert waste, hazardous
or non-hazardous waste. The directive also requires the pre-treatment of waste
going to landfills and the reduction of biodegradable waste disposed of in
landfills. The directive and the decision include specific provisions (Articles
8, 11-13 of the directive and Articles 2-3 and the Annex to the decision),
concerning inspections and monitoring of designated landfills in order to
ensure their compliance with EU requirements.
The WEEE directive[58] 2012/19/EU contains detailed provisions in
Article 23 and Annex VI on what inspections and monitoring shall cover,
including both shipments and facilities.
Other EU environmental legislation with provisions concerning inspections and monitoring of their
application
Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial
emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control, recast) – Articles 23
Seveso II Directive - Article 18
Directive 2009/31/EC on carbon capture and
storage - Article 15
Regulation 1005/2009 on ozone depleting
substances – Article 28
Directive 2010/63 on protection of
laboratory animals for scientific purposes – Articles 34-35 
Annex V: Estimates on illegal waste exports
WEEE (waste electrical and electronic
equipment)
As regards WEEE, the impact assessment
accompanying the recast proposal estimates that 25,000 tonnes of WEEE is
legally shipped out of the EU, based on trade data, which is significantly lower
than the assumed total export. No estimation of illegally shipped amounts is
made in the IA. The evidence and working assumptions made in the study would
account for 58% of the WEEE arising[59],
leaving 42% unaccounted for. The WEEE Directive impact assessment also suggests
that according to various pieces of evidence, very large volumes of WEEE are
shipped out of the EU illegally for sub-standard treatment in developing
countries. These are often disguised as export of used equipments. Several
investigations were able to detect such illegal shipments; however, due to the
illegal nature of such shipments no data is available on overall volumes. Also,
a UNU study mentions reports about shipments of WEEE disguised as goods from
the port of Hamburg[60]
and findings that 28% of businesses (collectors and exporters) were found to be
exporting WEEE illegally from the Netherlands[61].
A study in the United Kingdom showed that about 10% of WEEE transports were
shipped illegally to non-OECD countries. The study
states that it is not possible to estimate the amounts of WEEE illegally
shipped out of the EU, but in a worst-case scenario, WEEE separately collected, improperly treated in or out of the EU could
be assumed to represent around 41% of the WEEE arising or 3.4 million tonnes.
ELVs (end-of-life vehicles)
Regarding ELVs, a report by the European
Parliament examines the implementation of the ELV Directive in Europe[62] and also gives insights into
the illegal exports of waste vehicles. The report states that the export of second-hand
cars before they reach their end of life is an important (and possibly growing)
feature of the European car market. Additionally, the legitimate second-hand
trade masks some illegal activities, such as the export of wrecked or stolen
cars. The study analyses several Member States. Details about illegal exports
are mentioned for Belgium for instance. Belgium has a significant export market
for second-hand vehicles. The major destinations for these exports are West
Africa, the Middle East and some Member States. However, many of these exports
are illegal, as many scrapped cars (wrecks) are exported under the guise of
second-hand cars. The report states that although it is difficult to provide
firm evidence of such activities, it has been reported that the legitimate
second-hand trade masks some illegal activities, such as the export of ELVs for
recycling outside Europe. This practice is illegal, as ELVs should be
classified as hazardous waste and handled accordingly. It is also suggested
that many stolen cars are moved across national frontiers and replated, in
order to better avoid detection
Abbreviations
CN=Customs combined
nomenclature established by Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, based on the International
Convention on the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System.
EEA=European
Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark. EEA may also refer to the 'European
Economic Area' comprising EU-27, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. 
EFTA=European
Free Trade Association comprising Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and
Switzerland.
ELV=End-of life
vehicle, see Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 18 September 2000 on end-of life vehicles, published in OJ L 269,
21.10.2000, p. 34.
ESM=Environmentally
sound management of waste
IMPEL-tfs=European
Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law -
Transfrontier Shipment of Waste
TFEU=Treaty
on the Functioning of the European Union
WEEE=Directive
2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on
waste electrical and electronic equipment, published in OJ L 197, 24.7.2012, p.
38. 
WSR=Regulation
(EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006
on shipments of waste, published in OJ L 190, 12.7.2006, p. 1. 
[1]               Practicability and Enforceability of the Waste
Shipment Regulation, IMPEL, Final Report, December 2011 
[2]               "Your Voice in
Europe" website: http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/consultations/index_en.htm.
[3]               http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/news.htm.
[4]               Study
'Environmental, social and economic impact assessment of possible requirements
and criteria for waste shipment inspections, controls and on-the-spot-checks', final
report 4 June 2010, Biointelligence SA http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/reports.htm.
[5]               Study "Inspection
requirements for waste shipments', final report 12 August 2009, Biointelligence
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/reports.htm.
[6]               Articles 18, 49 and Annex VII
of the WSR. See also Commission Regulation (EC) No 674/2012
of 23 July 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 1418/2007 concerning the
export for recovery of certain waste to certain non-OECD countries
[7]               OJ L 118, 27.4.2001, p. 41.
[8]               Communication 2007/707/EC on
the review of the recommendation on minimum criteria.
[9]               Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe, 20 September
2011, COM(2011)571final 
[10]             Tackling the Challenges in Commodity Markets and on Raw
Materials, 2 February 2011, COM(2011)25final
[11]             Illegal Trade in Environmentally Sensitive Goods, OECD
Trade Policy Studies, 2012
[12]             IMPEL's detailed report from the joint inspections is available
on: http://impel.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/IMPEL-TFS-EA-II-Project-_Final-report-adopted-v1-4.pdf.

[13]             Report of 7 August 2012, published on http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/reports.htm.

[14]             Waste without borders in the
EU? Transboundary shipments of waste, EEA report, 1/2009, page 11-12. 
[15]             Assessment and guidance for the implementation of EU
waste legislation in Member States, BiPRO, 16 November 2011, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/reports.htm.

[16]             "Port hopping" means that the waste exporter
chooses to export from the Member State with the least controls, which
undermines the enforcement of EU waste legislation.
[17]             Europol's "EU organised crime assessment", 28
April 2011, p. 30. https://www.europol.europa.eu/. 
[18]             Study on the role of customs in the enforcement of EU
legislation governing the environment, http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/common/publications/studies/customs_envirnt_en.pdf.

[19]             Study "Feasibility of a
waste implementation agency", final report 7 December 2009, Milieu,
AmbienDura, FFact. 
[20]             See for further details, study
'Environmental, social and economic impact assessment of possible requirements
and criteria for waste shipment inspections, controls and on-the-spot-checks', final
report 4 June 2010, Biointelligence SA http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/reports.htm,
and Le Monde (2009) L’affréteur du Probo Koala aurait proposé un accord aux
victimes ivoiriennes, 16/09/2009, available at :
http://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2009/09/16/l-affreteur-du-probo-koala-aurait-propose-un-accord-aux-victimes-ivoiriennes_1241483_3212.html.
[21]             Swiss federal laboratories for
material science and technology (EMPA), http://www.empa.ch/plugin/template/empa/*/59242/---/l=2.
[22]             Study
"Implementation of EU waste legislation for green growth, BioIntelligence Service, 2011, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/pdf/study%2012%20FINAL%20REPORT.pdf.
[23]             Ibid.
[24]             Ibid.
[25]             European
Environment Agency, "State and Outlook 2010", 2011.
[26]             Tackling
the Challenges in Commodity Markets and on Raw Materials, 2 February 2011,
COM(2011)25final. 
[27]             Study
"Implementation of EU waste legislation for green growth, BioIntelligence Service, 2011, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/pdf/study%2012%20FINAL%20REPORT.pdf.

[28]             Article "Smuggling
Europe’s Waste to Poorer Countries", New York Times, 26 September
2009; available online at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/science/earth/27waste.html?_r=2&hp

[29]             "From toxic waste to toxic
assets, the same people always get dumped on", The Guardian, 21 September 2009; available online at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/sep/21/global-fly-tipping-toxic-waste

[30]             See footnote 17 above.
[31]             Assessment and guidance for the implementation of EU
waste legislation in Member States, BiPRO, 16 November 2011, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/reports.htm.

[32]             IMPEL-tfs document, "Doing the right things for
waste shipment inspections (DTRT-TFS)", Step-by-step guidance book for
waste shipment inspections, 2012.
[33]             Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions
(integrated pollution prevention and control), OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 17, see
Article 23.
[34]             Directive 2006/21/EC on the management of waste from
extractive industries, OJ L 102, 11.4.2006), see Article 17 and 22(1)(d). 
[35]             OJ L 197, 24.7.2012, p. 38. 
[36]             http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/news/126796.aspx,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jul/08/recycling-electronic-waste-crime
[37]             Environment Agency England and
Wales, Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science, University College London (2006)
IMPEL-TFS Threat Assessment Project: The illegal shipment of waste among IMPEL
Member States.
[38]             The organisation of awareness-raising events on the
application of EU legislation, Final report by BiPRO, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/pdf/report_131209.pdf.

[39]             http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/index.htm.

[40]             http://impel.eu/cluster-1#achievements.

[41]             http://impel.eu/projects/enforcement-actions-ii.

[42]             http://impel.eu/cluster-2 
[43]             http://www.basel.int/ 
[44]             The EEA, 'The European Environment – State and Outlook
2010, update 2012', Materials, resources and waste, p. 4.
[45]             See footnote 14 above.
[46]             See footnote 13 above.
[47]             See footnotes 4-5 above.
[48]             Ibid.
[49]             The EEA, 'Movements of waste across the EU's internal
and external borders', No 7/2012.
[50]             Study carried out for DG TAXUD on "Support to
Implementation of the WSR requirements in the customs nomenclature and
tariff", 23 December 2010, Arcadis, BioIntelligence. 
[51]             Assessment and guidance for the implementation of EU
waste legislation in Member States, BiPRO, 16 November 2011, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/reports.htm.

[52]             See Section 2.2.1.
[53]             Study
"Implementation of EU waste legislation for green growth, BioIntelligence Service, 2011, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/pdf/study%2012%20FINAL%20REPORT.pdf.

[54]             http://impel.eu/projects/impel-tfs-enforcement-actions-iii/

[55]             Directive 2008/98 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and
repealing certain directives, OJ L 312, 22.11.2008.
[56]             Commission Decision of 3 May
2000 replacing Decision 94/3/EC establishing a list of wastes pursuant to
Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and Council Decision
94/904/EC establishing a list of hazardous waste pursuant to Article 1(4) of
Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous (2000/532/EC). A study on the review of this list has been performed by Ökopol
GmbH and ARGUS GmbH, and the Commission is currently further discussing
technical issues so as to prepare a decision on the necessary amendments to the
List of Waste. 
[57]             Council Directive 1999/31/EC of
26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p. 1, Council
decision of 19 December 2002 establishing criteria and procedures for the
acceptance of waste at landfills pursuant to Article 16 of and Annex II to
Directive 1999/31/EC.
[58]             See footnote 38 above.
[59]             58% represents 33% reported, 2%
reused, 10% probably treated in line with the Directive and an unsorted
fraction of 13%.
[60]             Deutsche Umwelthilfe (2007)
Hamburg – Gate to the world for illegal waste exports? Part 1, How Hanseatic
City of Hamburg tries to get rid of its liability.
[61]             J.Vanhouten, VROM Netherland
Environmental Inspectorate (2007) Let’s join our forces to stop waste dumping!
[62]             ELV Directive, An assessment of
the current state of implementation by Member States (European Parliament
(2006) IP/A/ENVI/FWC/2006-172/Lot 1/C1/SC2).