COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the 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 - 52013SC0267 - EN











|



52013SC0267

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the 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/2013/0267 final */









COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Accompanying the 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
1.           Problem definition
1.1.        What
is precisely the problem?
The problem which
needs to be addressed is the high frequency of illegal waste shipments from the
EU to certain destinations violating the EU waste shipment regulation[1], "WSR". 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 WSR. 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. The significantly lower costs for waste treatment and disposal in
developing countries 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 thus seek
to avoid the higher costs within the EU by shipping waste illegally to cheaper,
poor quality facilities in developing countries. 
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. 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
the countries receiving illegal waste shipments.
Illegal waste
shipments also entail significant costs for Member States and operators. These
include costs for clean-up operations after waste has been illegally shipped
and dumped, as well as costs for the repatriation of the waste to the country
of origin. In addition, the current "leakage" of waste via illegal
shipments to sub-standard treatment inside or outside the EU hinders the access
to valuable raw materials. 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. Further, 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 shipments thus undermine legitimate waste treatment and disposal
industries. 
1.2.        Who is most affected?
Inspections and
enforcement of the WSR mainly concern the following actors:
·                        
Member States' authorities which undertake waste
shipment inspections at national, regional or local level.
·                        
Waste traders and shippers who comply with WSR
requirements. 
·                        
Illegal waste traders and shippers who use the
enforcement and inspection gaps in MS to circumvent the WSR at the expense of
environmental and health issues.
·                        
Citizens suffering health effects from the
dumping or mismanagement of waste.
1.3.        Why is public intervention
necessary? 
Requirements for
inspections and enforcement are formulated in the WSR in a general way (Article
50). The WSR does not contain any specific provisions
on how inspections shall be carried out. As a result, there are large
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.
exporters of illegal waste choose to send their waste through Member States
with the least controls. If enforcement in one Member State is stepped up,
illegal exporters move their exports to another Member State. Effectively
preventing illegal waste shipments can only be achieved if sufficient controls
are carried out in all Member States. 
2.           Analysis of subsidiarity 
2.1.        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, 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. 
2.2.        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.
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. Further, 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.
3.           Objectives of the EU
initiative
The main objectives of the implementation
of the proposed legal requirements on inspections of waste shipments are to
achieve the following goals.
General objective: 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; and ensuring a level playing field
across the EU for those dealing with waste.
Operational objectives: Strengthen and improve the
effectiveness of waste shipment inspections; and harmonise the criteria used in
different Member States for inspections.
4.           Policy options
The policy options analysed were subject to
stakeholder consultation 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 assessed with regard to their economic, social and environmental
impacts:
Option 1 - No action at EU level
Option 2 - Specific requirements and
criteria for waste shipment inspections introduced in EU legislation by
amending Article 50 of the WSR to address the concrete enforcement gaps
identified in the Impact Assessment: lack of
inspection planning and risk assessments; insufficient provisions on the
burden-of-prof; lack of up-stream inspections to detect illegal exports; and
lack of training for inspectors. 
Option 3 - Guidance for waste shipment
inspections at EU level to address the four specific areas where a need for
guidance was identified in the Impact Assessment:
facilitation of control of shipments by customs authorities; ensuring ESM at
treatment and recycling plants in third countries; promoting the traceability
of waste by technical means; and co-operation, coordination and monitoring. 
Option 4 – Combination of EU legislative
requirements and guidance
5.           Assessment of impacts
Option 1 - No action at EU level
The non-action option entails no changes
and 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, this option does not solve any of the problems outlined in the report.
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. 
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. This option also risks leading to
relocation of jobs outside the EU. 
Option 2 - Specific requirements and
criteria for waste shipment inspections in EU legislation
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. 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. The impact
assessment estimates the total yearly cost for increasing inspection capacities and infrastructure in the whole EU at €4,000,000. No costs would be passed on to legal
businesses or consumers, but would be placed on the illegal exporters, in line
with the polluter pays principle. 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
costs could be covered by potential revenues from fines
or penalties imposed on the illegal operators, and could also be outweighed by
the savings of avoided repatriation- and clean-up costs. 
Option 3 - Guidance for waste shipment
inspections at EU level
It is unlikely that guidance 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, but its non-binding
nature 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. 
Option 4 - Combination of EU legislative
requirements and guidance
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. 
6.           Comparison
of options
The first criterion is to identify whether
the option solves the problems identified in the Impact Assessment. 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 (combination
of EU legislative requirements and guidance) 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. 
7.           Monitoring
and evaluation
The effectiveness of
the measures proposed 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 proposed inspection planning would be
considered successful in practice if it 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. 
(3) Monitoring by
the Commission. When
monitoring the information submitted by Member States on the implementation of
the WSR, 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.
(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. 
[1]               Regulation
(EC) no 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on shipments of
waste, OJ L 190, 12.7.2006, p.1.