COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Impact Assessment for a Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste to reduce the consumption of lightweight plastic carrier bags
Date: 2013-11-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: packaging, plastics, prevention of pollution, waste recycling














EUR-Lex - 52013SC0444 - EN











|



52013SC0444

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Impact Assessment for a Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste to reduce the consumption of lightweight plastic carrier bags /* SWD/2013/0444 final */









                                                                                                                        
       Table of Contents 
Table of Contents. 2
List of Tables. 4
List of Figures. 5
Glossary of Terms. 6
Introduction. 7
1........... Procedural issues and
consultation of interested parties. 8
1.1........ Consultation and expertise. 8
2........... Problem Definition. 10
2.1........ Problems requiring action. 10
2.1.1..... Plastic carrier bags in the
EU: facts and figures. 10
2.1.2..... Impacts. 12
2.2........ Underlying drivers of the
problem.. 16
2.3........ Who is affected, in what
ways, and to what extent?. 18
2.4........ How would the problem
evolve if no action is taken. 18
2.4.1..... Construction of the baseline
scenario. 18
2.4.2..... Analysis of the baseline
scenario. 19
2.5........ Analysis of subsidiarity
and EU added valued. 22
2.6........ Objectives. 23
2.7........ Consistency of these
objectives with other EU policies. 23
3........... Description of Policy
Options. 24
3.1........ Options discarded at an
early stage. 24
3.2........ Options shortlisted for
scenario analysis. 26
3.2.1..... Option 1:
"Business-as-usual" ("baseline scenario") where no specific
EU actions are taken to reduce the use of plastic carrier bags. 26
3.2.2..... Option 2: Voluntary
commitment of a significant share of the EU retail sector not to provide
single-use plastic carrier bags. 26
3.2.3..... Option 3: Setting an EU
level prevention target for single-use plastic carrier bags combined with
economic insruments and accompanied by the possibility for Member States to
introduce market restrictions by way of derogation of article 18 of the
Packaging Directive. 27
3.2.4..... Option 4: Introducing an EU
wide ban of single-use plastic carrier bags. 29
4........... Analysis of impacts. 30
4.1........ Underlying assumptions. 30
4.2........ Types of impacts. 32
4.3........ Specific impacts per type
of measure. 34
4.3.1..... Option 1:
"Business-as-usual" ("baseline scenario") where no specific
EU actions are taken to reduce the use of plastic carrier bags. 34
4.3.2..... Option 2: Voluntary
commitment of a significant share of the EU retail sector not to provide
single-use plastic carrier bags. 35
4.3.3..... Option 3: Setting an EU
level prevention target for single-use plastic carrier bags combined with
economic instruments and accompanied by the possibility for Member States to
introduce market restrictions by way of derogation of article 18 of the
Packaging Directive. 36
4.3.4..... Option 4: EU ban on
single-use plastic carrier bags. 39
5........... Comparing the policy
options. 41
5.1........ Quantitative impacts. 41
5.2........ Other impacts and
considerations. 43
5.2.1..... Flexibility of Member States
to decide. 43
5.2.2..... Implementation. 43
5.2.3..... Possibility to generate
revenues. 43
5.2.4..... Acceptance of the measure. 44
5.2.5..... Raising awareness on
sustainable consumption. 44
5.2.6..... Other issues. 44
5.3........ Comparison of the policy
options. 45
6........... Preferred option. 46
7........... Monitoring and
evaluation. 46
7.1........ Core indicators of
progress towards meeting the objectives. 46
7.2........ Broad outline for
possible monitoring and evaluation arrangements. 47
ANNEXES. 48
Annex I: Overview
national measures to reduce the use of plastic carrier bags. 50
Annex II:
Description of types of plastic carrier bags. 64
Annex III:
Stakeholder consultation on options to reduce the use of plastic carrier bags
and options reinforce of the biodegradability requirements in the Packaging
Directive – summary of comments. 66
Annex IV: Plastic
carrier bag flows. 68
Annex V:
Methodological considerations on setting the level of a prevention target 69
Annex VI: Overview
LCA studies on the environmental impacts of different carrier bags. 70
Annex VII: Relative
contribution of different environmental impacts of a HDPE bag. 71
Annex VIII:
Employment modeling  72
Annex IX: Profits to
Manufacturers. 74
              List
of Tables
Table 1: Weight and
number of plastic carrier bags consumed in EU-27 by
type, 2010. 10
Table 2: Breakdown of EU plastic carrier bag production by weight 12
Table 3: Summary of
EU plastic carrier bag flows by number, 2010 (billions) 13
Table 4: Number of
plastic carrier bags used and littered in EU-27, 2010/2020 (billions) 19
Table 5: Tonnage
and corresponding percentual values of single-use plastic bags and multiple-use
plastic bags, made in the EU and abroad. 30
Table 6: Switches
from single-use plastic bags to other types of bags. 31
Table 7: Amount of
plastic carrier bags used in the EU, as projected in the Baseline Scenario
(Option 1) 34
Table 8: Effects of a
55% reduction in single-use plastic carrier bags used in the EU, 2015. 35
Table 9:
Environmental impacts of a 55% reduction in single-use plastic carrier bags
used in the EU, 2015. 35
Table 10:  Effects of
an EU prevention target of 35 single-use plastic carrier bags used per person,
2020. 37
Table 11:
Environmental impacts of an EU waste prevention target of 35 single-use plastic
carrier bags used per person, 2020. 37
Table 12: Effects
of a ban on single-use plastic carrier bags, 2020. 39
Table 13:
Environmental impacts of a ban on single-use plastic carrier bags, 2020. 39
Table 14:
Quantitative comparison of the main environmental impacts of the options
proposed in 2020. 41
Table 15: Quantitative
comparison of the main economic impacts of the options proposed, averaged over
years 2015-2020, relative to the baseline (business as usual). 42
Table 16:
Quantitative comparison of the main social impacts of the options proposed,
averaged over years 2015-2020, relative to the baseline (business as usual). 42
Table 17: Qualitative
comparison of environmental, economic and social impacts of policy options to
reduce use of single-use plastic carrier bags. 45
Table 18: Summary of
plastic carrier bag flows in EU, 2010 and 2020 (Mt) 68
Table 19: Main LCAs
cited. 70
Table 22: Total
number of people employed in the manufacture of single-use plastic carrier bags
in the EU (thousands). 73
Table 23: Increase in
the number of people employed in the manufacture of multiple-use bags, paper
bags and bin liners in the EU (thousands) 73
Table 24: Net change
in the number of people employed in the manufacture of all bags in the EU
(thousands) 73
Table 26: Single-use
plastic bags replacement ratio. 74
Table 25: Unit Costs
to Retailers (per 1000 bags) 75
Table 27: Profits to
EU Manufacturer from Single-use Plastic Carrier Bags (€ millions) 76
Table 28: Increase in
Profits to EU Manufacturers from Multiple-use Bags, Paper Bags and Bin Liners
(€ millions) 76
Table 29: Net Change
in Profits to EU Bag Manufacturers (€ millions) 76
              List
of Figures
Figure 1: Single and
multiple use plastic carrier bags used per person in EU Member States and EU-27
average, 2010 or latest available data. 11
Figure 2: Bag
consumption per Member State, EU-27 average, and 80% reduction target of per
capita single-use plastic bag consumption. 28
Figure 3: Relative
contribution of different environmental impacts of a HDPE bag. 71
              Glossary
of Terms
Bags for Life: Multiple-use
bags, typically made from LDPE
HDPE (High Density
Polyethylene): This is the material from which single-use plastic carrier bags
are typically manufactured. Single-use plastic carrier bags may also be
referred to as HDPE bags.
LCA: Life Cycle
Assessment.
LDPE (Low Density
Polyethylene): Plastic carrier bags made of LDPE are designed for multiple-use,
have a glossy appearance and are commonly referred to as ‘Bags for Life’.
Multiple-use Bags: This term
covers LDPE ‘Bags for Life’, PP bags and other bags made of jute, or cotton
intended for multiple-use. Paper bags are not considered to be multiple-use
bags.
PE: Polyethylene.
PP:
Polypropylene.
              Introduction
Plastic carrier bags[1] are a popular and
convenient product widely used for transporting shopping items from the store
back home. Their ever increasing consumption, and its related impacts, have given
rise to strong concerns among the public and policy makers, both within the EU
and beyond. Concerns stem in particular from the littering and accumulation of
plastic bags in the environment, as well as from inefficient resource use.  
Numerous countries and cities around the world
have taken measures to reduce the consumption of plastic carrier bags,
including bans (e.g. in Switzerland, China, South Africa, Kenya, Rwanda, Congo,
Bangladesh, Washington DC and San Francisco in the United States, several
states of Australia and India), bans on free provision (Mexico, Hong Kong) and
levies (South Korea), as well as voluntary agreements (New Zeeland, Japan, Sao
Paolo state in Brazil)[2].
At EU level concerns over the use of plastic
carrier bags have led to measures taken in a number of Member States (see Annex
I for a full overview). The approaches taken vary  both in terms of scope (e.g.
measures targeting single-use plastic carrier bags, non-biodegradable plastic
carrier bags, bags made of non-renewable materials, promotion of reusable bags)
and instruments (e.g. pricing measures, agreements with the retail sector,
communication campaigns).  
Certain Member States have opted for marketing
restrictions. Over the past years, there have been several attempts (e.g. by
France and Malta) to ban plastic carrier bags. These measures were withdrawn
due, inter alia, to the objections raised by the Commission, inter alia in the
light of the provisions in the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive
(Directive 94/62/EC[3]) in its
current form. In 2006, Italy adopted a law establishing a ban on the sale of
non-biodegradable plastic carrier bags to take effect as of 1st
January 2010, later postponed to 1st January 2011. Similarly, in
2011, Spain decided to phase out the placing on the market of single-use
non-biodegradable plastic bags leading to a total ban as of 2018.
EU Environment Ministers discussed the issue
both at the Environment Council of 14 March and 19 December 2011. On these
occasions, a large number of Member States invited the Commission to assess the
scope for action at EU level[4].
              In the EU, plastic
carrier bags are considered as packaging under Directive 94/62/EC). However,
there is no EU legislation or policy specifically targeting plastic
carrier bags
The measures taken by individual Member States
to tackle the unsustainable consumption of plastic bags lack coherence in terms
of the objectives pursued (e.g. favouring alternative bags that are not necessarily
more environmental friendly from a life-cycle perspective). This and other considerations
explain the sense of urgency to address the issue at the European level; this
was reflected both in the political discussions at the Environment Council and
the massive response to a public consultation conducted by the Commission in
the summer of 2011.
1.           Procedural
issues and consultation of interested parties
This impact assessment
(IA) aims at assessing policy options to reduce the use of single-use plastic
carrier bags at EU level.
1.1.        Consultation and expertise
Studies
A study on the
production and consumption patterns of plastic carrier bags, their related
impacts and the impacts incurred by the different policy options to reduce
their use was performed in preparation of this impact assessment. This study
was conducted by BIO Intelligence Services between 11 May and 11 September 2011[5]. An additional study
was commisioned to assess in more detail the socio-economic on the impacts of
the different policy options. It was  carried out by EUNOMIA between July and
October 2012.[6]  
Internal consultation
An Interservice Steering
Group (ISG) was created in June 2011 to follow the preparation of the IA. This
group was chaired by DG ENV, with members from the following Commission
services SG, SJ and DGs ENTR, RTD, SANCO, MARE, ENER. The ISG with
representatives of DGs ENV, ENTR, SG, SJ and SANCO met first to comment on the
outline and policy scenarios of the IA. Furthermore, the services were
consulted in writing on the progress of the first study conducted by the
consultant. A final consultation in writing was performed on the final version
of the IA.
External consultation
The
preparation of this report was preceded by a public consultation launched on 17
May 2011 via the EUROPA website. The consultation ran until 9 August 2011 and
met the minimum standards for consultation. 
15 538
responses were provided showing high public concern about the unsustainable
consumption of plastic carrier bags and high expectations for EU action to
reduce the environmental impacts of plastic carrier bag use. Opinions were
divergent on the instruments, but all options received high support with a
slight preference for a prevention target on the use of plastic carrier bags. 
A summary of the responses are available in Annex III. 
Comments from the Impact Assessment Board
A first draft
of this Impact Assessment was examined by the Impact Assessment Board and
discussed during its meeting of 2 May 2012. The Impact Assessment Board made a
number of recommendations and requested the submission of a revised version. A
second draft was therefore submitted to the Impact Assessment Board on 1
February 2013. This addressed the Board's comments in the following ways: first,
it provided additional information on the relevant policy and legislative framework
(section 2.7) and it contained more data on the scale of the problems posed by
plastic bag littering, especially on marine ecosystems (section 2.1). Member
State specific and regional data are presented where available.  Second, with
respect to the added value of action at EU level, the revised report underlined
that the very high consumption of single-use plastic bags in the EU is not only
a transnational, but also a common problem requiring a common policy
response (section 2.5).  Third, the options considered to take action were
analysed in more detail (section 3) including the option of removing plastic
bags from the scope of the Packaging Directive (section 3.1). Fourth, sections
4.3 and 5 offered a more in-depth assessment of the likely environmental,
economic and social impacts of the shortlisted options, differentiating across
the affected sectors, while acknowledging certain data limitations highlighted
in the two preparatory studies commissioned for this Impact Assessment. Finally,
the monitoring and evaluation arrangements were further clarified in section 7.

The revised draft
was given a positive opinion by the Impact Assessment Board on 15 March 2013,
with some suggestions and recommendations to refine the text further. These
suggestions were addressed as follows: the added value of EU action was further
examined in section 2.5; section 2.7 was  expanded to better place the proposal
in the current policy context; and option 3 was updated by making all former
sub-options integral parts of the measure to be implemented (section 3.2.3 and
section 6). In addition, additional information was provided on possible burden
to consumers (section 4.2) and on costs to public authorities, including in those
Member States that have already implemented plastic bag reduction measures
(sections 4.2 and 5.2.2). The report also provides some further explanation on the
attribution of comparative scores to the different options (section 5.3). Finally,
section 7 provides furher monitoring and evaluation details.
Commission interservice
consultation
Further consideration of
the policy options during the Commission's interservice consultation led to the
conclusion that it would be difficult to design and implement an EU-wide
reduction target applying to all Member States. Instead of establishing a
common EU target, it is therefore preferable to introduce in Directive 94/62/EC
the obligation for all Member States to reduce the consumption of single-use plastic
carrier bags, while allowing them to set their own national reduction targets
and to choose the measures to reach those targets. At a later stage the
establishment of an EU-wide reduction target could however be considered. 
2.           Problem Definition
2.1.        Problems requiring action
The unsustainable
consumption of plastic carrier bags has resulted in littering, and an
inefficient use of resources, which are underscored by transboundary
environmental impacts (e.g. air, water, marine and soil pollution, biodiversity
loss, depletion of resources), as well as economic (e.g. loss of raw materials
in the EU, losses for the recyclers and the tourism sector, costs of cleaning
littering) and social consequences (e.g. loss of aesthetic value of landscapes,
potential impacts on human health). 
As confirmed by the
Commission public consultation, plastic carrier bags are perceived as a symbol
of a “throw-away” society. Their waste is seen as a very visible nuisance as they are used in high volumes, often supplied free of charge or for a
low charge and discarded after having been used only once. 
2.1.1.     Plastic carrier bags
in the EU: facts and figures
In 2010 there were 98.6
billion plastic carrier bags (1.61 Mt) placed on the EU market. It is estimated
that the vast majority of these bags (89%) are single-use. This means that
every EU citizen used around 198 plastic carrier bags[7] in 2010
– which represents more than one bag per day for each European household.
Table 1: Weight and number of plastic carrier bags consumed
in EU-27 by type, 2010
   || Weight (Mt) || Number of bags (billions) || Share (% of total number) || Bags per capita 
 Single-use                       non-biodegradable || 0.73 || 85.3 || 87 || 171 
 Single-use biodegradable || 0.02 || 2.3 || 2 || 5 
 Multiple-use || 0.87 || 11.0 || 11 || 22 
 Total plastic carrier bags || 1.61 || 98.6 || 100 || 198 
As shown in figure 1,
the consumption of plastic carrier bags varies across Europe due to differences
in consumption habits, environmental awareness of consumers, as well as the
existence, effectiveness, and enforcement of specific policy measures. Per
capita consumption of single-use plastic bags ranges from 4 in the best
performing countries to 466 in the worst performing Member States.  
Figure 1:
Single and multiple use plastic carrier bags used per person in EU Member
States and EU-27 average, 2010 or latest available data[8]
The common factor
across Member States with low consumption levels of plastic bags is the fact
that plastic bags are not given away for free. Nonetheless, policy measures in
place differ from one country to another – from a levy at the point of sale
targeting consumers in Ireland, to a tax on producers
in Denmark according to the weight of the carrier bags, to voluntary agreements
to promote a reusable eco-bag in Luxembourg or to the phase-out of the
distribution of thin-walled plastic bags in France. Some Member States (i.e. Austria,
Finland and Germany) have strengthened price signals by running public or
private awareness-raising initiatives to reduce their use and to promote
reusable alternatives (as well as appropriate collection at the end of life). It is important to note that even in countries with low
consumption rates such as Austria, consumers still perceive plastic bags as a
problem, as confirmed by an opinion poll in which most Austrians expressed
support for a ban on plastic bags[9].
At the other end of the
spectrum, most Member States with high consumption levels in 2010 had no (or no
effective) measures in place to curb plastic bag consumption. For instance,
Romania and Italy have both introduced taxation measures that have proved
ineffective in tackling the problem, as is explained in more detail in section
2.4.2. 
In most EU countries,
the bulk of plastic carrier bags consumed are single-use. Data is scarce
as to the exact consumption in every country. For some countries only the
number of single-use bags is available (Ireland, Romania) or the vast majority
are considered to be single-use (Czech Republic). The available data indicates
however that consumption of single-use plastic carrier bags varies across the
EU, with some countries still predominantly relying on single-use carrier bags,
while in others consumption is dominated by reusable plastic carrier bags. 
An estimation of the EU
production of plastic carrier bags is illustrated in the table below:
Table 2: Breakdown of EU plastic carrier bag production by weight[10]
   || EU Production (Tonnes) 
 Single-use non-biodegradable || 239 250 
 Single-use biodegradable || 10 831 
 Multiple-use || 873 993 
 Total plastic bags produced (Tonnes) || 1 124 074 
As indicated in Table 5,
below, a non-negligible part of these plastic carrier bags is imported from
outside the EU. Around 30% of all plastic carrier bags
and 70% of single-use plastic carrier bags on the EU market are imported,
mainly from Asia; for the lightest single-use bags the share of imports would
be even higher. In general, imports from outside the EU tend to be thinner
single-use HDPE bags, while EU producers tend to specialise in higher-value,
thicker LDPE bags due to specific machinery required. On the other hand, woven
PP plastic bags (very thick) may be more competitively produced in Asia due to
the low costs of the labour involved.
It is estimated that
there are about 250-300 producers of plastic carrier bags in the EU, with 15
000 – 20 000 employees. A significant part of the EU
plastic carrier bag producers are family-owned SMEs[11]. 
2.1.2.     Impacts
Inefficient use of resources
The production and use of plastic carrier
bags contributes to the depletion of natural resources and the increase of
waste. Due to their short life span, they rapidly enter the waste stream in
high numbers. The inappropriate disposal and end-of-life treatment of plastic
carrier bags exacerbate this. Only a small proportion of plastic bags are
actually recycled (6,6%) in the EU. The mix of different resins that need to be
pre-sorted is a challenge that thwarts recycling. With limited separate plastic
collection, the availability of high quality material for recyclers is limited,
making the recycling of plastic bags uneconomical. 
The bulk of plastic
bags collected through municipal or private waste collection systems is instead
either used for energy recovery (39%) or landfilled (49,7% or 710 000 tons a
year). Especially in Member States with very
high overall landfill rates, plastic bags are predominantly or exclusively
landfilled. Even if energy is recovered, part of the energy embedded in the
production is lost. If plastic bags end up in landfills then those resources
are squandered and at a very fast rate. As an example,  given that the total
energy (calorific value) used to produce one HDPE bag is about 0.39 MJ, it is
estimated that the equivalent of 19 billion MJ
(5276 GWh) is landfilled every year in the EU,
representing more than the production of an averaged nuclear power plant (3161
GWh) and around 77.42 Mt of greenhouse gas
emissions[12]. 
Plastic packaging waste
is also increasingly exported for treatment outside the EU. As an example, Polyethylene
(PE), the most common polymer for plastic carrier bags, is the largest fraction
of plastic waste exported outside the EU. This results in a loss of raw
materials in the EU and a growing dependency on imported non-renewable
materials. Moreover, this practice can potentially result in even greater
impacts on the environment and human health, especially in countries with less
stringent environmental regulations.
Even though the EU
recycling market for plastic carrier bags is expected to grow in the coming
years, this will not happen at a high enough pace to counter balance the growth
in consumption and the accelerated loss of resources.
Littering
The same properties that have made plastic
bags commercially successful – low weight and resistance to degradation – have
also contributed to their proliferation in the environment. They escape waste
management streams and accumulate in natural habitats, especially in the marine
environment.
Table 3 summarises the
littering estimates for the EU. These estimates suggest that over          8
billion plastic carrier bags were littered in the EU in 2010, representing over
8% of the plastic bags consumed in the EU. Single-use plastic bags, account for
around 90% of the plastic bags used in the EU, represent the vast majority of
littered bags. 
Table
3: Summary of EU plastic carrier bag flows by number, 2010 (billions)[13]
   || Used || Littered 
 Single-use non-biodegradable || 85.3 || 5.73 
 Single-use biodegradable || 2.3 || 0.004 
 Multiple-use || 11.0 || 2.3 
 Total carrier bags || 98.6 || 8.03 
Even if the proportion
(8.03%) of plastic bags littered may appear low, the absolute numbers and their
overall impacts are significant. Once discarded in the environment, plastic
carrier bags last for hundreds of years although mostly in fragmented form,
which makes them difficult to track. Because they last so long, the cumulative
number of plastic bags littered increases over the years. Many of the impacts
of plastic littering are of a transboundary and global nature, especially in
water courses and the marine environment. 
Marine littering is a
complex phenomenon and no comprehensive overview covering all EU Member States
exist. Nonetheless, there is documented evidence available indicating large
debris accumulation in European seas – e.g. along the coasts of the eastern
Mediterranean (Greece, Cyprus)[14], [15], [16], the North Sea (200 km west of Denmark), the Celtic Sea and Bay of Biscay
(Ireland, UK, France, Spain)[17]. The presence of debris has also been recorded on the deep sea
floor in the Eastern Mediterranean[18] and
the Sicily Channel (Italy)[19].
Plastics make up most of the marine litter. A study based on samples in 27
oceanographic cruises concluded that plastics – mainly plastic bags and bottles
– accounted for more than 70% of total debris in the Baltic Sea, the North Sea,
the Celtic Sea, the Bay of Biscay and different areas in the north-western
basin of the Mediterranean Sea and the Adriatic Sea[20]. The
results of a pilot project on monitoring marine beach litter in Belgium,
Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the
United Kingdom confirm these findings. Small plastic/polystyrene pieces
(smaller than 50 cm) were found to be the most common type of marine litter
items – i.e. found in the highest numbers – on the 100-metre stretches of beach
used as reference[21].
While the precise
proportion of marine litter attributed to plastic bags is uncertain, research
and clean-up projects in different EU regions illustrate the scale of the
problem. For example, plastic carrier bags accounted for 73% of the plastic
waste collected by trawlers along the Tuscany coast[22].
Similarly, they represented more than 70% of total debris in most stations
sampled in the Gulf of Lions and around the cities of Nice and Marseille
(France)[23]. Plastic bags were
also found on UK beaches, reaching average densities of one bag every 23 metres[24]. 
The problem of plastic
bag waste in water ecosystems does not affect only countries with a marine
coastline. Estimates suggest that a considerable amount of the waste from land
reaches the sea through rivers. In other words, waste from regions in the
interior of the continent can reach the sea along the big European rivers and
pollute eco-systems along the way[25].
The impacts of
littering 
In the marine
environment plastic bags can be especially damaging, as documented in many
governmental and other reports, as well as in peer-reviewed journals (see
references in footnotes 15 to 43). Animals are injured or killed by
entanglement or ingestion of plastic bags mistaken for food. At least 267
different species are known to have suffered from entanglement or ingestion of
marine litter, including 86% of all sea turtle species,
44% of all seabird species, and 43% of all marine mammal species.[26] Over the past 25 years, 10% of all dead animals found worldwide had
been entangled in plastic bags[27]. In the North Sea, the stomachs of 94% of all birds contain
plastic, and 55% of all birds exceed the ecological quality objective level of
0.1g of plastic in the stomach[28]. Fragments of plastics were found in the stomachs of 35% of fish in
the North Pacific, with an average of two pieces of plastic ingested per fish[29]. Plastic bags have been also found in stomachs of several
endangered marine species, such as green turtles[30], [31], loggerhead turtles[32], [33], leatherback turtles[34], black
footed albatrosses[35], harbour porpoises[36], etc.
The true rate of
entanglement and ingestion of plastic debris is however difficult to assess
given that many animals that die of these causes may sink to the sea floor or
be consumed by predators. Therefore, these figures represent most likely
conservative estimates of the scale of the problem. 
Once plastic bags start
degrading, they break into small pieces and end up as micro-particles that
pollute the soil, water and the sea-bed, threatening the functioning of
ecosystems. The accumulation of plastic fragments is of particular concern as
they are difficult to remove from the environment and they have the potential
to be ingested by a much wider range of organisms, able to affect fish stocks.
The accumulation of plastic debris on the seabed can inhibit gas exchange
between the sediment layers and the overlying waters, thus depriving organisms
of adequate oxygen supply, interfering with normal ecosystem functioning and
altering the make-up of life on the sea floor[37].
Furthermore, small organisms can use plastic debris as raft to grow and travel
long distances across the ocean/sea and may settle in areas where they are
non-native, and become invasive[38]. 
Plastic bag litter also
pollutes the environment by transferring intrinsic chemical substances into
ecosystems. Plastic debris acts as a sponge for persistent organic pollutants
(POPs), such as  hydrocarbons, pesticides (DDT) and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) present in the environment. Living organisms ingest
plastic particles and pass on the toxic substances across the food chain where
their concentration increases along the way ("bio-magnification").
Small and microscopic plastic fragments resulting from the fragmentation of
plastic bags present a likely route for the transfer of these chemicals due to
their large "surface to volume" ratio, meaning that they are
available to a wide range of organisms. Adverse effects have been observed in
laboratory animals and measurable levels of such chemicals have been found in
humans, the main channel for ingestion being through the consumption of fish[39].These effects present potential impacts on
human health that have yet to be fully documented.  
Besides impacts on the marine
environment, public health and the fishing industry, littering also has
economic and social costs in terms of wider loss of tourism and the need for
litter clean-up activities. In Luxembourg, the annual costs for cleaning
littering only along the national roads and highways were estimated to around
€1 million[40]. In 2004 UK local authorities, industry and coastal communities
spent approximately €17.7 million cleaning up marine litter[41]. Costs can rise even higher if other indirect costs are also taken
into consideration. To illustrate this, it was estimated that in a worst case
scenario the cost to the Shetland community (population 22,000) could be
approx. €7.1 million per year, including the costs of cleaning as well as costs
for aquaculture, power generation, farming, fishing, harbours and lifeboat launches[42].
2.2.        Underlying drivers of the problem
Several factors have
led to the current situation of plastic carrier bags in Europe:
Market failure and low public awareness: The use of plastic carrier bags entails negative environmental
externalities (littering, greenhouse gas emissions, contamination of air, soil
and water, and impacts on ecosystems and human health) that are not reflected
in the prices paid by the end users, which normally receive these bags for
free. Customers are not encouraged to limit their use of plastic carrier bags
precisely because they receive them for free or for a very low charge, while
retailers are not encouraged to limit the hand-out of plastic bags because they
are inexpensive to provide. Free distribution prevents consumers from being
aware of the value of plastic carrier bags and the associated impacts and costs
of their use, and creates the perception that they represent an unlimited
resource. 
Implementation and enforcement failures of
the existing legislative framework governing packaging and packaging waste: The Packaging Directive requires national systems to be set up for
the collection and recovery of packaging waste. The low level of separate
collection for recycling and the prevalence of landfilling and littering problems
indicate that infrastructure set up at national level is failing to provide for
an effective collection and resource-efficient recovery of plastic carrier
bags. Consumption trends such as eating out (away from home) and a greater use
of public spaces[43], combined with the lightweight and convenience of plastic bags have
added to the difficulties of managing the challenges of plastic bags. The
collection infrastructure needs to be adapted to these societal changes.
However, this is unlikely to happen quickly enough, especially taken into
consideration the uneven development of the waste collection and treatment
infrastructure across the EU. 
The drivers of the problem are complex and
the effective implementation of the existing EU acquis will not be enough to
address the growing use and impacts of plastic carrier bags, in particular
those of single-use. New measures are needed to increase consumer awareness on
the costs and effects of unlimited consumption of single-use plastic carrier
bags, and encourage more resource efficient practices. 
2.3.        Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent?
EU citizens:
all citizens are at least indirectly affected by threats related to inadequate
management of plastic carrier bags, in terms of unsustainable resource
consumption and pollution of air, water and soil that lead to animal deaths,
loss of fish stocks, possible ingestion of contaminated fish and public health
impacts. In addition, EU citizens are suffering from the impacts of littering
while bearing the costs of collection, treatment and cleaning up of plastic
bags waste. 
Non-EU citizens: The unsustainable consumption of plastic carrier bags in Europe
affects citizens in countries outside the EU due to the cross-border nature of
pollution and littering, and especially marine littering. In addition, plastic
waste, including plastic bags, is increasingly exported outside the EU for end
of life treatment. This creates environmental impacts such as GHG emissions
associated with transport and treatment, in certain cases, in sub-standard
facilities. 
Plastics recyclers: plastic bags in the EU are predominantly veered towards energy
recovery and landfilling, and are increasingly exported for recycling outside
the EU. Plastic recyclers are affected by the loss of a potential
source of raw materials for recycling, and therefore by a loss of revenues.
Public authorities are affected by the increased costs and administrative burden
associated with plastic carrier bag consumption, in terms of cleaning littering
costs as well as enforcement of prevention measures aimed to reduce this
consumption. 
Tourism industry and local businesses: Littering incurs an aesthetic cost to society which can affect local
businesses, especially the tourism industry.
Fishing industry: The pollution of the sea results in losses in fishing stocks, which
translates into a loss of 'raw material' for the fishing industry as well as
loss of fishing time and extra costs due to damaged equipment.
2.4.        How would the problem evolve if no action is taken
A baseline scenario was constructed in order to
assess how the plastic carrier bags consumption and end-of-life is likely to
evolve without additional European initiative. The analysis has been limited to
the "foreseeable future", i.e. until 2020.
2.4.1.     Construction of the baseline scenario
The baseline scenario is based on the annual
PRODCOM[44] data on EU
production/sales of all plastic bags and sacks (PE[45] and other), which is
projected to 2020 by assuming the same average annual change over 2011-2020 as for
2003-2010. The projections for the evolution of plastic carrier bags assumed a
constant share of plastic carrier bags in the total EU production of plastic
bags and sacks. The same reasoning was applied in projecting the evolution of
the production of different types of plastic carrier bags. 
These figures were then adjusted to trade to
provide an overview of the amounts of plastic carrier bags placed on the market
in 2020. EU-27 imports and exports (extra-EU trade) of all plastic sacks and
bags for 2003-2009 were taken from PRODCOM and projected by assuming the same
average annual change over 2011-2020 as for 2003-2010. Both imports and exports
of plastic carrier bags are projected to rise over the scenario period.
Based on the amount of plastic carrier bags
placed on the market, the EU population and the average weights of different
types plastic bags, the consumption per capita was then projected to 2020. When
converting from weight to number of plastic carrier bags used per person, EU-27
population was assumed to grow in line with International Monetary Fund
projections, i.e. from 499.2 million in 2010 to 510 million in 2020.
Furthermore, average weights were estimated for single-use non-biodegradable
(8.5 g), single-use biodegradable (8.9 g) and multiple-use plastic (78.9 g)
carrier bags. These weights were assumed to remain constant over the projection
period.
The
resulting projections were adjusted where appropriate to take into account the
effect of national policies already in place. The baseline scenario takes into
consideration that certain measures taken between 2003 and 2010 might not
deliver the same effects after 2010, as well as the fact that certain recent
measures might not yet have fully produced their effects. 
2.4.2.     Analysis of the baseline scenario
At EU-27 level, the number of plastic carrier
bags placed on the market is projected to rise from 99bn in 2010 to 111bn in
2020. Over the same period, EU-27 population is also projected to rise, from
499m to 510m. The number of bags used per capita thus increases by a small
proportion, from 198 bags per capita in 2010 to 217 in 2020. The share of
single-use plastic carrier bags is expected to remain stable at 89% of the
amount of all plastic carrier bags over the projected period and thus slightly
increasing in terms of use. 
Current EU plastic bag production is shown in
Table 5. Although EU overall production of plastic carrier bags is estimated to
increase, single-use plastic carrier bags will be mostly imported from third
countries. According to PRODCOM data, EU production of overall plastic bags and
sacks remains relatively constant in terms of weight, from 3.43 Mt in 2003 to
3.37 Mt in 2010 projected to 3.39 Mt in 2020. Of these, it is assumed that
plastic carrier bags only have a constant share of 33% of the total EU
production of plastic bags and sacks. EU production of plastic carrier bags
increases slightly, from 1.12 Mt in 2010 to 1.13 Mt in 2020. As to the types of
plastic carrier bags produced in the EU, the market share of single-use bags
and reusable bags will slightly decrease, while the share of biodegradable bags
is projected to grow[46]. On the
other hand, the share of single-use plastic carrier bags imported from outside
EU is estimated to be of 70%. A detailed overview of plastic carrier bags flows
in the EU in 2010 and 2020 can be found in Annex IV. In terms of plastic
carrier bags treatment at the end of life, the rate of recycling is expected to
increase at a rate of half a percentage point per year, from 6.6% in 2010 to
9.3% in 2020. Energy recovery is expected to remain constant at 39% while
landfilling and incineration without energy recovery will decline from 49.7% to
46.9%. 
Table
4: Number of plastic carrier bags used and littered in EU-27, 2010/2020
(billions)
   || Total bags used (billions) || Bags used per person || Bags littered (billions) 
   || 2010 || 2020 || 2010 || 2020 || 2010 || 2020 
 Single-use plastic bags || 87,6 || 98,7 || 176 || 194 || 5,704 || 6,312 
             Single-use                       non-biodegradable || 85,3 || 92,2 || 171 || 181 || 5,7 || 6,3 
             Single-use             biodegradable || 2,3 || 6,5 || 5 || 13 || 0,004 || 0,012 
 Multiple-use || 11.0 || 11.8 || 22 || 23 || 2.3 || 2.3 
 Total || 98.6 || 110.5 || 198 || 217 || 8.03 || 8.61 
The share of plastic carrier bags that end up as
litter is expected to remain stable. However, the absolute numbers of plastic
carrier bags littered will grow from just over 8 billion in 2010 to 8.6 billion
in 2020. Due to the persistence of plastic, this means that the stock of
plastic carrier bag litter in the marine and land environments will add up
every year, and will accumulate in the environment. Particles will reduce in
size as weathering and disintegration takes place, increasing the surface area
and the possibility of chemical transport, and the potential for ingestion by a
wider range of biota[47].
Although in the
baseline scenario the problem is not expected to increase dramatically, if no
action is taken the situation at EU-27 level will definitely not improve either,
accumulating the negative effects year on year.
Several Member States have already taken actions
to mitigate the environmental impacts of plastic carrier bags with variable
results. The approaches vary from country to country as well as their
effectiveness; certain measures are quite successful in addressing the problem
while others have delivered only limited results. 
The most successful policy initiative has been
taken in Ireland where a direct levy of €0.15 per disposable bags, applied to
consumers at the point of sale, has resulted in a 90% reduction of disposable
bags. The success of the levy is partly owed to its progression in relation to
the rate of consumption. Following an observed increase in consumption of
disposable bags, in 2007 the levy was raised to €0.22 resulting in a further
20% reduction of use of such bags. In 2011, a maximum ceiling for the levy was
set to €0.70 to allow flexibility for further increase overtime[48].
In Belgium a combination of tax on disposable
plastic bags charged on producers (€3/kg of plastic bags) and a voluntary
agreement of the retail sector (aiming to cut disposable plastic carrier bags
by 90% by 2013, compared to 2003) has delivered a reduction of 85% in the use
of such bags in 2010[49]. 
Similarly in Luxembourg, a voluntary agreement
between the Ministry of Environment, Valorlux (producer responsibility
organisation) and CLC (retailers’ organisation) has resulted in a national
‘eco-bag’ campaign promoting the use of an easily identifiable reusable bag.
While the eco-bag was provided for free at the beginning, nowadays it can be
bought for €0.80 and it is replaced without charge if damaged. As an
accompanying measure, in 2007 the major supermarkets in Luxembourg suppressed
the provision of free single-use plastic bags. The campaign was a success
resulting in a reduction of 50 million single-use plastic carrier bags
distributed between 2004 and 2007[50]. The
voluntary agreement was prolonged for the period 2008-2012 with the aim to
maintain the rate of consumption of at least 51% of reusable bags ('eco-bags')[51]. 
However, in other Member States similar attempts
have had less success for reasons that may relate to the specific design of the
instruments. For example, in 1988 Italy introduced a manufacturing tax of 100
ITL (€0.05) for each unit of plastic bags produced and released onto the
domestic market[52]. However,
the amount of the tax appears to have been too low to provide a real
disincentive to the use of plastic bags. Moreover, the tax was abolished after
5 years. In 2010, Italy still appeared among the countries with the highest
consumption of plastic bags in the EU. In 2011, Italy opted for a more radical
approach introducing a ban on non-biodegradable plastic carrier bags. 
Similarly, in 2009 Romania introduced an eco-tax
of 0.2 RON (€0.05) per bag on shopping bags made of non-biodegradable
materials. In 2010, the eco-tax was cut to 0.1 RON (€0.025) per bag and it was
applied to bags made of non-renewable resources. Little data is available to
quantify the effectiveness of their approach; however the Romanian Association
of Solid Waste Management estimated a limited decrease in their use, of between
6 and 10%[53].
Most of the worst performing Member States have
no specific legislation, nor wide-ranging voluntary commitments by retailers,
aiming at reducing consumption of single-use plastic carrier bags (i.e. Estonia,
Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia)[54]. More worryingly, in
certain Member States with high consumption of plastic carrier bags and
potentially high risks of marine littering (e.g. Greece, Cyprus), no measures
have been taken to address this issue. 
Given the experiences illustrated above, it is
highly unlikely that individual actions will provide a consistent and overall
response to the environmental impacts of plastic bag consumption, which are
transboundary by nature and follow a continuous progression.
Annex I describes the various measures taken by
Member States in more detail.
2.5.        Analysis
of subsidiarity and EU added valued 
EU competence to take
action to reduce the use of single-use plastic carrier bags stems from the
articles of the Lisbon Treaty related to the protection of the environment. 
Under Article 191 of
the Treaty, EU policy on the environment shall contribute, among other things,
to protecting and improving the quality of the environment, protecting human
health, ensuring prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources, and
combating climate change. It shall be based on the precautionary principle and
on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental
damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should
pay.
EU action to reduce the
use of single-use plastic carrier bags is also fully in line with the
objectives of the Packaging Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging and Packaging
Waste. It aims, on the one hand, to prevent and reduce the environmental
impacts of packaging and packaging waste; and, on the other hand, to ensure the
functioning of the internal market. 
With respect to the
environmental dimension, the EU's right to act stems from the fact that the
high consumption rates of plastic bags represent both a common and a
transboundary challenge. An example of the former aspect is that efficient
resource use is not only a challenge facing individual Member States – it is
also an objective for the EU as a whole. Indeed, the discussions at the
Environment Council of March and December 2011 reflected that the consumption
of plastic carrier bags is a common concern for a large number of Member States
– a concern that led to a call on the Commission to analyse possible regulatory
measures. 
The transboundary
dimension of the plastic bags issue is in particular related to littering.
Especially single-use plastic carrier bags can travel over large distances with
currents and winds. Even in Member States with well performing waste management
infrastructure, high concentrations of marine plastic litter can be detected,
for instance 200 km west of Denmark, in the southern part of the Celtic Sea and
along the south-east coast of France[55]. Nevertheless,
littering of single-use plastic bags will exist as long as these items are
consumed, and not managed at a similar level of ambition across the continent;
as such, littering affects the EU as a whole.
Current experiences in
EU Member States point to the fact that without an EU-wide initiative on
plastic bags, effective action to tackle the problem is unlikely. As
illustrated in the baseline scenario, the actions taken at Member State level
have had variable effects. More worryingly, in certain Member States with high
consumption of plastic carrier bags and potentially high risks of marine
littering (e.g. Greece, Cyprus), no measures have been taken. Thus, the purpose
of EU wide action is to ensure that all Member States, including those that have
not taken any or sufficient action so far, take measures to address the problem
of plastic bag consumption.
The added value of EU
action would lie in providing a framework establishing a shared objective,
concepts and definitions, as well as a timeframe and monitoring and reporting
arrangements, while leaving Member States free to decide about precise
implementation methods, in line with the subsidiarity principle. Common EU
action would also facilitate the sharing of positive experiences and best
practices from those Member States that have already successfully introduced
measures reducing the use of single-use plastic bags.
2.6.        Objectives 
The
general objective of an EU policy initiative on plastic carrier bags is to 
limit negative impacts on the environment, encourage waste prevention and a
more efficient use of resources, while limiting negative socio-economic impacts.
More specifically, the objectives of the initiative
are to:
·              
limit the environmental damage caused by an
increasing consumption of plastic bags, in particular in terms of littering and
unsustainable resource use, by significantly reducing the amount of single-use
plastic carrier bags consumed per capita by 2015;
·              
tackle a common and transboundary problem in a
coordinated and coherent way across the EU.
This Impact Assessment aims at assessing
the main environmental, social and economic impacts of different policy options
to achieve a reduction of the use of single-use plastic carrier bags. Various
levels of ambition will be assessed and compared to a "baseline
scenario" (without additional action at EU level) in order to identify the
most appropriate instruments minimizing costs while maximizing benefits.
2.7.        Consistency
of these objectives with other EU policies 
The initiative is fully
consistent with the overall objectives of EU waste policy as reflected in
article 1 of the EU's Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC, i.e. to protect the
environment and human health by preventing or reducing the adverse impacts of
the generation and management of waste and by reducing overall impacts of
resource use and improving the efficiency of such use. It is also fully in line
with the EU waste hierarchy according to which waste prevention should be given
the highest priority – before any other waste management options such as
recycling, incineration and disposal. More specifically, the initiative serves
the objectives of EU's Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive – environmental
protection and preservation of the internal market – upon which it will build.   
Given its focus on more
efficient resource use, the initiative should also be seen in the context of
the "EU2020 Flagship" on resource-efficiency[56] and
the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe[57].
By reducing the use of
plastic carrier bags the initiative will also contribute to reducing the
pressure on biodiversity, especially on the marine environment, in line with
the EU Biodiversity Strategy[58] which aims to halt the loss of
biodiversity and ecosystem services in the EU by 2020. The initiative also
complements the actions against littering and, more specifically, marine litter,
undertaken under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive[59]. As
such, it is referred to in the recent Commission Staff Working Paper on Marine
Litter[60].
While the issue of plastic bag waste can be
linked to the broader debate on the planned review of EU waste policy[61], specific solutions for
plastic bags have already been identified and tested in practice, both at
Member State level and internationally. Moreover, Member States have repeatedly
requested the Commission to explore the scope for action at EU level,
particularly in response to action taken by some Member States. Also, extensive
public consultation on the issue has already been conducted by the Commission
and the response has been analysed. For these various reasons, plastic bags
will be addressed through a self-standing policy initiative. 
3.           Description of Policy
Options 
In light of the
environmental impacts of single-use plastic carrier bags referred to in the
problem definition and the LCA evidence reviewed, the options put forward will
focus on prevention measures targeting single-use plastic carrier bags (both
non-biodegradable and biodegradable).
3.1.        Options discarded at an early stage
The options below were
analysed but were not shortlisted for a detailed assessment:
Full
implementation of the Packaging Directive. Full
implementation of the Packaging Directive is not expected to bring a
significant improvement. The Directive only includes targets for recycling and
recovery. Already in 2009, most of the countries had achieved or surpassed
those targets. Even in full implementation cases, packaging continues to be
transferred to landfills, where single-use plastic carrier bags can escape and
end up as litter. Experience shows that even in countries surpassing the
obligations of the Packaging Directive littering has not been completely
eradicated. As the Directive does not contain concrete provisions on
prevention, it is unlikely that full implementation will reduce the growing
consumption of single-use plastic carrier bags. 
Remove plastic bags from the scope of
the Packaging Directive. Plastic carrier bags
are undeniably covered by the general definition of 'packaging' and the related
criteria set out in article 3.1 of the Packaging Directive. Article 3.1 of the
Directive defines packaging as "all products made of any materials of any
nature to be used for the containment, protection, handling, delivery and
presentation of goods, from raw materials to processed goods, from the producer
to the user or the consumer." This definition is accompanied by a number
of criteria, also contained in article 3.1, which, among other things, stipulate
that "items designed and intended to be filled at the point of sale and
'disposable' items sold, filled or designed and intended to be filled at the
point of sale shall be considered to be packaging provided they fulfil a
packaging function". In line with this, plastic carrier bags are one of
the illustrative examples listed in Annex I of the Directive. Although the list
of examples in Annex I is not exhaustive, Member States have an obligation to
consider items listed therein as packaging. It is worth recalling that this
item was added in Annex I of the Directive after the Court ruled that plastic
carrier bags handed to customers in shops constitute packaging within the
meaning of the directive[62].
Moreover, this option also risks undermining the environmental objectives of
common EU provisions, as this type of bags would not be regulated with regards
to other provisions in the Packaging Directive. For instance, single-use
plastic bags would no longer need to comply with the restrictions imposed on
heavy metals, nor would they be covered by the Directive's recycling targets.  Altogether,
this option would miss the objective of tackling a common problem in a
coordinated and coherent way across the EU. 
Require
Member States to organise awareness raising campaigns on the impacts of the use
of single-use plastic carrier bags. Although this option provides flexibility, it is estimated that
awareness-raising campaigns alone are not sufficient to drive a major change in
consumer habits. Nevertheless, they can be an important and necessary
instrument accompanying other measures such as voluntary agreements, pricing
measures, etc.  
Set a pricing
measure on single-use plastic carrier bags at EU level. This option would require a unanimous
endorsement of the Council of Ministers, which is highly unlikely in the
current political climate. Further challenges relate to the level of the tax
and the administrative arrangements related to its enforcement. 
Voluntary
agreement of the whole retail sector to phase out single-use plastic carrier
bags to customers. Such
an option is unlikely to meet with consensus in the short term, as retailers
have taken different approaches on the issue of plastic carrier bags. While
certain sub-sectors (e.g. food retail sector) have already achieved good
progress, others are just starting; therefore different implementation dates
might be required. It is expected that small retailers will have more
difficulties in implementing the commitment, therefore entailing a high
administrative burden in relation to the results.
3.2.        Options shortlisted for scenario analysis
3.2.1.     Option 1: "Business-as-usual"
("baseline scenario") where no specific EU actions are taken to
reduce the use of plastic carrier bags 
In this
"do-nothing" option, the current situation would continue. There
would be no additional policies and measures at EU or national level aiming to
limit the consumption of single-use plastic carrier bags. This scenario is
described in detail in section 2.4.2.
3.2.2.     Option
2: Voluntary commitment of a significant share of the EU retail sector not to
provide single-use plastic carrier bags 
This option entails a voluntary agreement by a significant share of
the EU retail sector to stop providing single-use plastic carrier bags. As is
already the case in some Member States, multiple-use plastic bags would be
charged, at least at cost recovery prices. 
Such an agreement could
take the form of a commitment by the retail sector encompassing the largest retailers
in the EU. For the purpose of such an agreement it is assumed that 46.9 billion
single-use plastic carrier bags are sold or given away by these retailers,
which would translate into a 55% reduction of single use plastic carrier bags.
Progress towards the achievement of the objective would be reported yearly. A
review of the overall achievements would be conducted at the end of 2015 and
depending on the results further voluntary or regulatory measures might be
envisaged[63]. 
A targeted voluntary
commitment encompassing the players that place the largest share of single-use
plastic carrier bags on the market will ensure cost-effectiveness, with respect
to public authorities' implementation of the measure. Of course, the resulting
reduction would be less significant than in the case of a commitment covering
the whole retail sector in the EU. On the other hand, a commitment by
the largest retailers would entail less administrative and enforcement burden. The
already established reporting and third-party independent monitoring structure would
facilitate an effective monitoring towards the objective. It would also save
time and costs in creating such a structure. 
Hence in 2011 the
Commission initiated discussions with retailers within the framework of the EU Retail
Forum on a voluntary commitment for the reduction/phase out of single-use
plastic bags. After almost one year of intensive and lengthy negotiations,
these discussions concluded without a positive outcome. While the Retail Forum's
members in principle acknowledged the existence of the problem, and despite the
support for a drastic reduction of single-use plastic bags by a substantive
number of retailers in the Forum, another significant group of large retailers did
oppose such measures. The main arguments put forward by some against the proposed
EU voluntary agreement were based on subsidiarity grounds (i.e. it should be
left to Member States to take measures), on proportionality (the measure in
their view was too cumbersome in terms of monitoring, and controlling "compliance"
would not be proportionate to the size of the problem) and on effectiveness.
Some retailers argued, for example, that after some time of implementing a charge
between €0.10 and €0.20 per bag, they had still observed an increase in the
consumption of single-use plastic bags. 
Given this situation, both
European organisations representing retailers, Eurocommerce and ERRT did not further
pursue the idea of a voluntary commitment. Similarly, a proposal for a
voluntary commitment initiated by the plastic converter industry to reduce of
the use of single-use plastic bags was not taken up by retailers.
The feasibility and
success of this option depends on the willingness of the players involved to
work on a commonly agreed framework and on any accompanying instruments set up
to support a change in consumption patterns[64]. 
3.2.3.     Option
3: Setting an EU level prevention target for single-use plastic carrier bags combined with economic instruments and accompanied by the
possibility for Member States to introduce market restrictions by way of
derogation of article 18 of the Packaging Directive
Under this option, a minimum
prevention (reduction) target for single-use plastic carrier bags would be set
at EU level, expressed in number of bags consumed per capita per year. Member
States would be free to choose the measures to reach the target although it
would be worth making an explicit recommendation to ensure that plastic carrier
bags are not provided to consumers for free. This option has three mutually
supportive elements: a prevention target; the recommended use of economic
instruments (pricing measures); and a possibility for Member States to
introduce market restrictions by way of derogation of article 18 of the
Packaging Directive. These elements are explained in more detail below.
·                   
A prevention target
A prevention target provides
for a clear objective, while leaving flexibility to Member States on the means
to be applied to attain it. This is in line with the Treaty provisions on
internal market and takes into consideration progress already achieved in some
of the Member States. Article 4 (on prevention) of the Packaging Directive
could be used to introduce such target in EU legislation. 
In terms of the
measures to achieve such target, Annex IV of the Waste Framework Directive[65] provides a list of examples of
waste prevention measures available to Member States, including prevention
programmes, awareness raising campaigns, voluntary agreements, etc. Such
measures could also be applied to single-use plastic carrier bags[66].
Stakeholders responding
to the public consultation expressed large support for waste prevention targets
set at EU level (74,1%), although they did not generally make suggestions on
how the targets should be set. 
A prevention target should
be ambitious enough to address the unsustainable rate of plastic bag
consumption in the EU, while taking account of what has proved achievable in
those Member States that have already taken action. 
Figure 2: Bag
consumption per Member State, EU-27 average, and 80% reduction target of per
capita single-use plastic bag consumption[67]
A per capita target is
deemed the most effective way to reduce the consumption of plastic bags. The
target would be set at 35 bags per person per year, based on the average
current (2010) consumption of the best 25% performing Member States (i.e.
Finland, Denmark, Luxemburg, Ireland, Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, and
France), which together have an average of 32 single-use plastic bags consumed
per capita. 35 bags used per capita per year in the EU would result in a
reduction of approximately 80% of single-use plastic bag consumption, which for
the purpose of this impact assessment will be as the preferred reduction target
(as reflected in figure 2 above). All Member States are deemed able to reach this
target as it only relates to a category of plastic carrier bags (single-use
ones) for which consumption can be reduced without significant impacts on consumers,
as re-usable alternatives are already available.
The methodological considerations
related to setting the level of a prevention target are described in more
detail in Annex V of this report.
·                   
The use of economic instruments (pricing
measures)
As outlined in section
2.4.2 above, experiences of Member States show that the common denominator of
policies that have successfully reduced plastic bag consumption is the
introduction of economic instruments. Member States that have introduced
effective pricing measures have achieved reductions in the consumption of
single-use plastic bags of or greater than 80%.
The prevention target
described above should therefore be accompanied by an explicit recommendation to
introduce a pricing instrument, building on article 15 of the Packaging
Directive, which encourages the use of economic instruments. Such pricing
instruments – the exact design of which would again be left to Member States –
could take the form of a consumer or a manufacturers/importers levy[68] (revenues would be re-directed
to the public budget), or could be implemented through an agreement with the
retail sector not to provide plastic carrier bags for free (revenues would go
to retailers). 
The effectiveness of
pricing instruments depends on a number of factors that should be considered in
their design phase: 
-         
the instrument should ideally be part of an
overall framework of measures aiming to increase resource efficiency
(alternatives to plastic carrier bags should not be provided for free either) 
-         
secure early acceptance of the public and ensure
visibility of the measure and adequate alternatives (e.g. awareness campaigns) 
-         
secure agreement of stakeholders on
implementation
-         
design systems with minimal administrative
burdens for producers and retailers (e.g. by integrating the measure into
existing structures)
-         
effective enforcement (e.g. strong penalties,
regular inspections, etc.). 
·                   
A possibility for Member States to introduce
market restrictions by way of derogation of article 18 of the Packaging
Directive
Marketing bans by
individual Member States are likely to conflict with article 18 of the
Packaging Directive in its current form and may not be justifiable under the
exception of TFEU art 114 (5). These legal problems can be addressed by
introducing a specific derogation to article 18 of the Directive allowing
Member States to introduce marketing bans on single-use plastic bags.
3.2.4.     Option 4: Introducing an EU wide ban of single-use
plastic carrier bags
Under this option, the
provision of single-use plastic carrier bags in retail service would be
prohibited. Member States would have to design and implement the appropriate
tools to enforce the ban, e.g. by setting dissuasive penalties for
non-compliance, organising spot checks and following up on complaints, ensuring
appropriate action in case of breach, etc. Multiple-use plastic bags would be
charged, at least at cost-recovery prices.
Industry stakeholders
responding to the Commission's questionnaire were particularly wary towards the
option of a ban, and stressed the need to consider the "unintended
consequences", such as a market switch to other materials which may not
deliver the desired environmental outcomes.
4.           Analysis of impacts
This section analyses the impacts of the different policy options
proposed in section 3.2, taking account of the experiences of regions and Member
States that have already introduced single-use carrier plastic bags' reduction
measures. 
The analysis is based on a qualitative and – to
the extent possible – quantitative assessment (including modelling) of the
environmental and socio-economic impacts of the proposed policy options. The
data presented here is based on the two studies commissioned by the Commission
services: the first one by Bio Intelligence Service in 2011, the second one by Eunomia
in 2012. 
4.1.        Underlying
assumptions
The impacts of the
prevention targets and measures presented here depend on their exact design, as
to be decided by each Member State, and the evolution of consumer behaviour
following their introduction. The models used are based on a number of key
assumptions:
a)     
An entry into force of the measures in 2015.
This was done for ease of comparison between the cases. 
b)     
For the resource use and CO2
impacts, it was assumed that:
*       
The production 1 kg of PE[69] plastic requires about 2 kg of
oil (including raw material and energy)[70].

*       
One single-use non-biodegradable plastic carrier
bag weighing 7.5-12.6 g entails the emission of 1.58 kg of CO2,
assuming a rate of 40% of reuse[71].
c)     
Production of plastic bags within the EU vs.
external production (imports). This is a key
assumption in analysing the socio-economic impacts of the four policy options;
68% of all single-use plastic carrier bags consumed in the EU are imported, as
shown in Table 5 below. Rounding up this figure, it is assumed that 70% of all
non-biodegradable single use plastic bags are made outside the EU. 
Table 5: Tonnage
and corresponding percentual values of single-use plastic bags and multiple-use
plastic bags, made in the EU and abroad[72]
   || EU Bag Production (Tonnes) || Imported bags (Tonnes) || EU Bag Production (%) || Imported bags (%) 
 Single-use plastic bags[73] || 250081 || 522500 || 32 || 68 
 Multiple-use plastic bags || 873993 || 238081 || 79 || 21 
d)     
Switches from single-use plastic bags to
other types of bags. Table 6 below shows the 'switching
behaviour', based on experiences made in EU Members States where single-use
plastic bag consumption has already been curbed: for every 1000 single-use
plastic bags avoided, people use on average 29 multiple-use plastic bags; 4
other multiple-use bags; 127 paper bags; and 273 plastic bin-liners. This means
that a switch to alternative bags results in an overall reduction of bags
used.   
Table 6: Switches
from single-use plastic bags to other types of bags[74]
 Other bags used || for every 1000 Single-Use Plastic Bags avoided 
 Multiple-use plastic bags || 29 
 Other multiple use bags || 4 
 Paper bags || 127 
 Plastic bin liners || 273 
 Total || 433 
Although situations
may vary from country to country, depending on regional production and
consumption trends, we assume this table to represent the general patterns for
the whole of the EU. For each policy option, the above switching rates are
assumed[75].
e)     
Retailers would charge for multiple-use
plastic bags, at least at cost-recovery prices; and would provide paper
bags free of charge.
4.2.        Types
of impacts
All options to reduce
the use of single-use plastic carrier bags share the same types of impacts; the
magnitude of these impacts will differ from one option to another
depending on the degree of ambition and effectiveness of each measure. 
The analysis that
follows is focused on nine main issues. It looks at three environmental impacts
(benefits): resource use, littering rates, and impacts on public spending on
waste management and litter collection. 
The analysis of
economic and social costs and benefits will cover six main issues:
administrative burden; impacts on EU producers; impacts on EU retailers;
impacts on consumers; impact on employment levels; and public awareness.  
Environmental
impacts
The
main environmental benefits of the proposed measures are linked to the reduced
use of resources embedded in the production of single-use plastic carrier
bags, and corresponding greenhouse gas emissions; as well as a decline in
the amount of waste arising and the number of bags littered. This, in turn,
will lower litter clean-up expenses, and expenses incurred in formal waste management
(collection, recycling and disposal)[76],
which are expected to be reduced considerably, as consumption of single-use
plastic bags diminishes. In Member States with high consumption rates, it is expected
that there will be higher cost reductions in public spending.
Economic and
social impacts
Measures to reduce the
consumption of single-use plastic carrier bags, especially regulatory measures,
are likely to entail some administrative burden, falling both on the public
and the private sector, to ensure implementation and enforcement. The extent of
the administrative burden will depend on the choice and the exact design of the
measures to be implemented[77].
The impacts on producers
are expected to be mixed. The reduction or elimination of single-use plastic
carrier bags will entail a decrease in the activity of their manufacturers. On
the other hand, producers of multiple-use plastic bags will benefit from
the changes. In the EU context, given that 70% of single-use carrier bags are
imported from outside EU, we expect limited negative impacts on European
producers. Reduced availability of single-use plastic carrier bags would in
part be offset by a switch to reusable (LDPE) plastic carrier bags, that are
mainly produced in the EU.[78]

Retailers may initially face costs to implement any of the proposed measures
(e.g. awareness raising, administrative costs, possible longer transaction times
in supermarkets, and an increase in costs of providing free alternatives such
as paper bags) but it is likely that these costs can be offset by the increased
sale of reusable alternatives and the overall reduction of consumption of single-use
carrier bags which retailers currently often provide free of charge[79]. As is the case in Denmark,
some retailers may even profit economically from measures to reduce single-use
plastic bag consumption (in such cases care should be
taken to avoid the public perception that a specific sector is profiting
significantly from such practices[80]).
Impacts on employment levels are
likely to be slightly negative; although proportionally the impacts are not
major, employment in the plastic bags producing sectors is expected to be
negatively affected in all the proposed policy options[81]. 
Consumers may face an initial increase of costs under all options, as the
recommended use of economic instruments would imply that they are asked to pay
for plastic carrier bags. However, these costs will decrease as consumers
switch to reusable alternatives, which save costs in the longer run. 
All options will increase awareness of
the environmental impacts of single-use plastic bags and resource efficiency
aspects at large, and could help promote more sustainable consumption patterns.
If designed and implemented in an optimal way, measures have the potential to
influence consumer behaviour more broadly (e.g. limit use of disposable items,
promote re-use), as well as guide manufacturers' and retailers' business models
(e.g. promoting reusable, resource efficient alternatives, provide sizes that
better suit consumer needs).
4.3.        Specific
impacts per type of measure
4.3.1.     Option 1: "Business-as-usual" ("baseline
scenario") where no specific EU actions are taken to reduce the use of
plastic carrier bags 
The business-as-usual
scenario shows a trend with a slight increase in the amount of plastic bags
consumed over the 2010-2020 period, as shown in Table 7. All other policy options
are compared to this baseline scenario.
Table
7: Amount of plastic carrier bags used in the EU, as projected in the
Baseline Scenario (Option 1)
 Impact category || 2010 || 2020 
 Plastic carrier bags (Mt) || 1.613 || 1.772 
             Single-use plastic carrier bags (Mt) || 0.73 || 0.842 
 Plastic carrier bags (billions) || 98.6 || 110.5 
             Single-use plastic carrier bags (billions) || 85.3 || 98.8 
Environmental
impacts
In the projected period, the amount of plastic bags consumed rises,
with single-use plastic bags experiencing a similar trend. If no action is
taken, consumption would keep rising beyond 2020. At EU level, the rate of
recycling of plastic bags might experience a slight increase, coupled with a
corresponding decrease in disposal rates. However, an increased recycling rate is
unlikely to offset the use of natural resources due to increased consumption,
and the effects of plastic persisting in the environment. The amount of bags
used will increase littering rates. Assessing related impacts in
quantitative terms – e.g. in terms of numbers of marine species affected – is
however difficult. 
Public expenses to deal with plastic bag
waste (formal collection and end-of-life treatment) and litter (clean-up costs)
are also expected to increase. 
Economic and social impacts
In a business-as-usual scenario, no major change is expected in terms
of impacts on administrative burden, EU producers, retailers,
employment, consumers, and public awareness: these remain
almost constant. It is worth mentioning that the projected increase in
single-use plastic bag consumption will further increase the costs faced by EU
retailers to provide such bags free of charge. 
Moreover, the increase and persistence of
plastic bags litter will increasingly affect communities dependent on fishing
and tourism, in Europe and elsewhere. 
4.3.2.     Option 2: Voluntary commitment of a significant share of
the EU retail sector not to provide single-use plastic carrier bags
Under this option, as
of 2015, the members of the EU Retail Forum would stop
distributing single-use plastic carrier bags. On the basis of the share of the market of the Forum, such a
commitment would result in a 55% reduction of the total amount of single-use
plastic carrier bags used in the EU by 2015 compared to the base year 2010 (see
Table 8 below). Based on existing experiences, switches to alternative bags are
assumed to be as reflected in Table 6 in section 4.1 above.
Table
8: Effects of
a 55% reduction in single-use plastic carrier bags used in the EU, 2015
 Impact category || Baseline || Retailers' voluntary agreement || Reduction 
 Plastic carrier bags (Mt) || 1.772 || 1.540 || 0.232 
             Single-use plastic             carrier bags (Mt) || 0.842 || 0.379 || 0.463 
 Plastic carrier bags (billions) || 110.5 || 59.1 || 51.4 
             Single-use plastic             carrier bags (billions) || 98.8 || 44.4 || 54.3 
Environmental impacts 
In terms of resource use a 55% reduction in the number of
single-use plastic carrier bags translates into a 13% reduction (0.2 Mt)
of plastic used to make plastic bags in 2020[82].
The overall number of plastic carrier bags used decreases by 46% (taking into
account the partial switch to multiple-use plastic carrier bags), leading to
oil savings of 434 kt and avoidance of 81,2 Mt of life-cycle
greenhouse-gas emissions. Environmental impacts are summarised in Table 9:
Table
9: Environmental impacts of a 55% reduction in single-use plastic
carrier bags used in the EU, 2015
 Impact category || Reduction 
 Oil (kt) || 463 || 
 Emissions (MtCO2eq) || 81.2 || 
 Bags littered (billions/2015) || 4.1 || 
Compared to the baseline, in 2015 there
would be a net decrease in the numbers of bags littered, of 4.1 billion[83]. In addition, the yearly
reduction in littered bags would translate into savings to public authorities
in terms of budget spent on littered bags collection and disposal (€ 39 million
in 2015); and in the formal collection, recycling and disposal of all types of
bags (€ 28.9 million in 2015).
Economic and social impacts[84]
The administrative burden on
public authorities and their expenditure to implement and enforce this option would
be minimal. Retailers would be able to define implementation modalities adapted
to their market circumstances. 
As expected, EU producers of multiple-use
plastic bags, paper bags and bin liners would see their annual profits go up (€
86 million in 2015). Single-use plastic bag manufacturers, however, would see reduced
profits (- € 77 million in 2015).
Retailers would experience a reduction in the costs incurred in providing carrier
bags to their costumers, translated into net savings nearing € 500 million per
year between 2015 and 2020. Costs for providing plastic carrier bags would be
drastically reduced, as retailers would forego the costs of providing
single-use plastic bags free of charge, while charging for multiple-use plastic
bags. The fraction of the retail sector switching to free paper bags would
incur higher costs, but these costs do not exceed the cost reduction from
providing 55% fewer plastic bags. 
Overall, the combined savings and
profits by public authorities, manufacturers and retailers amount to € 478
million per year, on average, between 2015 and 2020.
EU plastic bag producers would
experience a reduction in employment of 860 Full Time Equivalents. 
As mentioned in the general section on
impacts, consumers may face an initial increase of costs, although these
would decrease as consumers switch to reusable alternatives.
A voluntary initiative of retailers could contribute to raising public awareness of the
environmental impacts of the use of carrier bags, especially if accompanied by
awareness-raising campaigns. However, the fact that the commitment does not
cover the entire retail sector might result in creating uncertainty for
consumers, limit their awareness and stand in the way of a potentially more
profound change in consumption patterns.
4.3.3.     Option
3: Setting an EU level prevention target for single-use plastic carrier bags combined
with economic instruments and accompanied by the possibility for Member States
to introduce market restrictions by way of derogation of article 18 of the
Packaging Directive
Under this option, each
Member State would be required to set a limit of 35 single-use plastic carrier
bags per person, with implementation of the measure starting in 2015. This
target is estimated to deliver a reduction of 80% in the number of single-use
plastic carrier bags used in the EU; corresponding absolute reductions are shown
in Table 10:
Table
10:  Effects of an EU prevention target of 35 single-use plastic carrier
bags used per person, 2020
 Impact category || Baseline || Prevention target || Reduction 
 Plastic carrier bags (Mt) || 1.772 || 1.425 || 0.346 
             Single-use plastic carrier             bags (Mt) || 0.842 || 0.149 || 0.693 
 Plastic carrier bags (billions) || 110.5 || 33.7 || 76.8 
             Single-use plastic carrier             bags (billions) || 98.8 || 17.5 || 81.2 
Member States would be
free to determine the instruments to meet this target; differences in the
choice of instruments to reach the target will also lead to differences in economic
and social impacts. This also applies to impacts arising from market
restrictions, where it is impossible to forecast which Member States would set
them so as to derogate article 18 of the packaging directive. Consequently, it
is difficult to determine the exact quantitative impacts for individual Member
States and the other stakeholder groups. Impacts will thus be assessed in terms
of EU averages. 
Environmental
impacts
An 80% reduction in the
number of single-use plastic carrier bags in 2015 translates into a 70%
reduction in the total number of plastic carrier bags (the difference being due
to switching from single-use to multiple-use plastic bags). This amounts to a
20% decrease in tonnes of plastic used in making plastic bags[85], translating into resource use savings in terms of oil used
equal to 693 kt and a reduction of 121.4 million tonnes of CO2
equivalents. The overall environmental impacts of this option can thus be summarised
as follows:
Table
11: Environmental impacts of an EU waste prevention target of 35 single-use
plastic carrier bags used per person, 2020
 Impact category || Reduction 
 Oil (kt) || 693 
 Emissions (MtCO2eq) || 121.4 
 Bags littered (billions/2015) || 5.3 
Moreover, this option
will result in a reduction of 5.3 billion littered bags[86]. The reduction in bags littered would translate into considerable annual
savings to public administrations in terms of budget spent on collecting
and disposing of littered bags (savings of € 54.4 million in 2015); and in the
formal collection, recycling and disposal of all types of bags (savings of €
45.6 million in 2015).
Economic and social
impacts
The administrative
burden and economic costs would depend on the choice and design of the
measures to be adopted at the national level, which could include voluntary
agreements, regulatory measures, pricing instruments, awareness-raising
campaigns, etc. They would entail administrative costs linked to monitoring
(collection and reporting of data) and enforcement. If a pricing instrument is
indeed taken up by Member States, costs may, for instance, depend on how well a
levy is integrated in existing tax instruments such as VAT. Moreover, and
depending on its design, such instrument could bring additional revenues to
national budgets or to retailers. The administrative burden facing Member
States need to be put in perspective, as they already have an obligation to
report on packaging and packaging waste. 
At EU level, additional
administrative burden would result from ensuring that targets are achieved and from
dealing with Member States that do not comply. However, this additional burden
is expected to be limited compared to the already existing flow of products and
waste statistics reported by the Member States to EUROSTAT. 
Finally, it is worth
bearing in mind that pricing measures on plastic carrier bags could generate
significant revenues for government (e.g. Ireland).
EU producers of multiple use plastic bags, paper bags and bin liners would
experience a considerable rise in profits (€ 127 million in 2015). On the other
hand, single-use plastic bag  manufacturers would again see their profits
reduced (- € 120 million in 2015). However, as the 80% target would still allow
for some production of single-use plastic bags, in the meantime EU companies could
increase their investments in the production of multiple-use plastic or other
carrier bags.
Retailers would experience a reduction in the costs incurred in providing bags
to their costumers, translated into net savings nearing € 800 million per year
between 2015 and 2020. As in the previous scenario, the savings made by all
retailers by foregoing the free provision of single-use plastic bags exceed the
costs that some would incur if they chose to provide free paper bags. Moreover,
these net savings would offset the predicted small costs of adjustment and
additional administrative burden[87].
However, small shops might be more affected than larger ones because placing a
price on plastic carrier bags might discourage impulse buying by “walk-up”
customers. For larger retailers, which represent the main channel for plastic
bags distribution to consumers, 'impulse shopping' is likely to account for a
smaller share of sales. 
Overall, the combined
savings and profits by public authorities, manufacturers and retailers amount
to € 650 million per year, on average, between 2015 and 2020.
EU plastic bag
producers would experience a reduction in employment of 1340 Full Time
Equivalents, throughout the initial stages of the implementation of the policy.
After this one-off effect employment levels would stabilise.
Consumers may face an initial increase of costs, as the recommended use of
economic instruments would imply that they are asked to pay for plastic carrier
bags. However, these costs will decrease as consumers switch to reusable
alternatives, which save costs in the longer run. 
An ambitious and clear reduction target – underpinned by a pricing
mechanisms and other measures – would contribute to raising awareness about
the problem of high levels of single-use plastic bags consumption and sustainability and resource use issues in general. Nevertheless, specific
awareness campaigns would appear necessary to ensure that the objectives of
such measures are well understood by consumers. 
4.3.4.     Option 4: EU ban on single-use plastic carrier bags
As is shown in table
12, a total ban entails a 100% reduction in the number of single-use plastic
carrier bags and an 85% reduction in the total number of plastic carrier bags (taking
into account a partial switch to multiple-use plastic carrier bags).
Table 12: Effects
of a ban on single-use plastic carrier bags, 2020
 Impact category || Baseline || Ban || Reduction 
 Plastic carrier bags (Mt) || 1.772 || 1.351 || 0.421 
             Single-use plastic carrier bags             (Mt) || 0.842 || 0 || 0.842 
 Plastic carrier bags (billions) || 110.5 || 17.1 || 93.4 
             Single-use plastic carrier bags             (billions) || 98.8 || 0 || 88.9 
Environmental
impacts
Table 13 below shows the environmental
impacts of a complete prohibition of the distribution of single-use plastic
carrier bags in the EU in terms of resources use – it would result in a
reduction in oil use of 842 kt and save the release of 148 million tonnes of CO2
equivalents. A complete ban would also entail a
reduction of 6.4 billion littered bags compared to the baseline
scenario. The total lack of bags littered would translate into annual savings
to public authorities in littered bags collection and disposal (€ 64
million in 2015); and in the formal collection, recycling and disposal of all
types of bags (€ 57.3 million in 2015). 
Table
13:
Environmental impacts of a ban on single-use plastic carrier bags, 2020
 Impact category || Reduction 
 Oil (kt) || 842 
 Emissions (MtCO2eq) || 147.6 
 Bags littered (billions/2015) || 6.4 
Economic and social impacts
The ban would incur a significant administrative
burden in terms of enforcement and compliance checks. On the other hand, there would be no reporting burden for retailers. 
As expected, EU producers of
multiple use plastic bags, paper bags and bin liners would experience a
considerable rise in their profits (€ 156 million in 2015). Single-use plastic
bag  manufacturers, however, would see their profits decline considerably (-€
146 million in 2015)[88]. 
A ban will affect all single-use carrier bags producers
simultaneously, with possibly drastic consequences on production and
employment, especially for SMEs.  Such concerns have been expressed by a large
number of the industry stakeholders who responded to the Commission's public
consultation in June 2011. Nevertheless, as EU producers have a competitive advantage
in producing higher-value, thicker LDPE bags, there is scope for a shift in
production; this would however require timely investments in equipment and the training
of staff. EU manufacturers producing alternative carrier bags will benefit from
the ban, but they are also likely to face immediate demand pressure for
production of alternatives, which will require additional investments. In the
medium term, EU producers of multiple-use carrier bags could nevertheless obtain
net benefits and quickly offset initial investments.
Retailers would no longer incur any costs in providing bags to their
costumers, while charging for multiple use plastic bags, at least at cost-recovery
prices. This would translate  into net savings nearing € 890 million per year
between 2015 and 2020. The fraction of the retail sector switching to free
paper bags would incur higher costs, but these costs do not exceed the cost
reduction from providing no plastic bags.
Overall, the combined savings and
profits by public authorities, manufacturers and retailers amount to € 792
million per year, on average, between 2015 and 2020.
EU plastic bag producers would
experience a reduction in employment with a (one-off) loss of 1640 Full
Time Equivalents in 2015. On the other hand, employment
in the tourism and fishing industries may benefit from a near total reduction
of littered bags.
As with the other options, consumers
may face an initial increase of costs to replace single-use plastic bags
with reusable alternatives. However, these costs will decrease as consumers adapt
their behaviour. Nevertheless, if not accompanied by
important information campaigns, consumer perceptions of a ban may be negative
in terms of a curtailing freedom of choice. In practice, however, the
availability of alternatives to single-use plastic carrier bags would not lead
to important changes in consumption patterns. 
Even though the ban
could have positive impacts on consumer habits, a simple disappearance of
single-use plastic carrier bags may not per se increase awareness
and incentivise consumers to reduce the use of carrier bags or switch to more sustainable
alternatives. 
5.           Comparing
the policy options
5.1.        Quantitative
impacts
This Section compares
the different policy options based on a quantitative analysis.  Tables 14, 15
and 16 below summarise the quantitative impacts modelled for several
environmental, economic and social impact indicators, for each of the four
policy scenarios described in the previous sections 3 and 4. 
In terms of quantitative
impacts the following tables show that a ban on single-use plastic bags would
score best against environmental and economic indicators, followed by a
prevention target (80% reduction) and a voluntary agreement of the Retail
sector (55% reduction), with the  business-as-usual scenario having the poorest
score. The ban would lead to the largest negative effects on employment
(followed by a prevention target and a voluntary agreement, with the
business-as-usual scenario not leading to net changes in employment levels);
nevertheless, under options 2 to 4 profits made by bag producers are expected
to increase. This is due to the differences in profits made from producing single-use
and multiple-use plastic bags (for further details on modelling results, data
used, assumptions and calculations on the modelling of employment and
manufacturer's profits see Annex VIII and Annex IX) . 
Table 14: Quantitative comparison of the main environmental impacts of the options
proposed in 2020
 Environmental             Impact Indicators || Baseline (Business as Usual) || Retailers' voluntary agreement || Prevention target || Ban 
 Tonnes of total plastic carrier bags (% reduction) || 0 || 13 || 20 || 24 
             Tonnes of single-use             plastic carrier bags             (% reduction) || 0 || 55 || 82 || 100 
 Number of total plastic carrier bags (% reduction) || 0 || 47 || 70 || 85 
             Number of single-use             plastic carrier bags             (% reduction) || 0 || 55 || 80 || 100 
 Oil (kt saved) || 0 || 463 || 693 || 842 
 Emissions (MtCO2eq avoided) || 0 || 81,2 || 121,4 || 147,6 
 Littered bags' (billions/2015) reduction || 0 || 4,1 || 5,3 || 6,4 
Table
15: Quantitative comparison of the main economic impacts of the options
proposed, averaged over years 2015-2020, relative to the baseline (business as
usual).
 Economic Impact Indicators || Baseline (Business as Usual) || Retailers' voluntary agreement || Prevention target || Ban 
 Costs Reduction to Retailers (€m/year) || 0 || 412,5 || 649,8 || 791,7 
 Profits to EU Bag Manufacturers (€m/year) || 0 || 5,7 || 3,8 || 4,2 
 Cost reduction for Litter Collection (€ m/year) || 0 || 34,0 || 46,3 || 54,2 
 Cost reduction for waste management (€m/year) || 0 || 25,8 || 39,8 || 49,5 
 Total savings and benefits (€m/year)[89] || 0 || 478,0 || 739,8 || 899,5 
Table 16: Quantitative comparison of the main social impacts of the options
proposed, averaged over years 2015-2020, relative to the baseline (business as
usual).
 Social Impact Indicators || Baseline (Business as Usual) || Retailers' voluntary agreement || Prevention target || Ban 
 Net Change in Employment in EU Bag Manufacture in 2015 (Full Time Equivalents) || 0 || -860 || -1340 || -1641 
5.2.        Other
impacts and considerations
Bearing in mind the
objective of a policy initiative on single-use plastic carrier bags – to limit
negative impacts on the environment and human health, and to reduce resource
and energy use – it is important to complement the above quantitative assessment
with a – more qualitative – analysis of impacts that are much more difficult to
quantify. 
5.2.1.     Flexibility
of Member States to decide
Even though a prevention
target would prescribe an objective, it takes account of the progress already
achieved in certain Member States. Moreover, it would grant all Member States
the flexibility to decide which measures work best in their national contexts. These
conditions would neither be met in the case of an EU-wide voluntary agreement
with the retail sector, nor in the case of a ban. Furthermore, the introduction
of a minimum target would grant Member States the freedom to reach higher
levels of ambition.
5.2.2.     Implementation
Changes in institutional
arrangements needed to implement a new measure may entail administrative and
human resources' costs. 
A voluntary agreement with part of the EU
retail sector would entail lower implementation costs
for public authorities than a prevention target or a ban. Moreover, retailers would be able to
define conditions for implementation that are adapted to their market
circumstances. On the other hand, a voluntary agreement
also comes with risks related to possible free-riding and the difficulty of
imposing sanctions in case of non-compliance[90].
The administrative costs
related to a prevention target will depend on the exact measures to be adopted
by individual Member States. Public authorities are likely to face additional
costs related to monitoring (in particular to ensure compliance by retailers
with reporting obligations), but this would be a small part of the costs
already borne by Member States in the context of reporting on existing targets
for packaging and packaging waste. In the case of a prevention target monitoring
and enforcement costs are likely to be lower than in the case of a ban. 
Member States that have
already implemented measures to reduce the use of plastic bags and have already
reached the average per capita target will not face further impacts.
5.2.3.     Possibility
to generate revenues
The recommended pricing
instrument for plastic bags accompanying a prevention target for single-use
plastic bags would generate revenues, which depending on the precise design of
the instrument, could be directed towards public authorities or retailers. If revenues
flow to public authorities, they could be used to offset (part of) the necessary
administrative costs related to implementation and enforcement. Revenues could also
be used to finance environmental projects. In a business-as-usual scenario
public authorities (and/or retailers) would not be able to generate additional revenues;
a voluntary agreement and a ban would only allow for potential additional
revenues from the sale of multiple-use plastic bags, if these were sold at
higher than cost-recovery prices.
5.2.4.     Acceptance
of the measure
As the retailers in the
EU Retail Forum only cover 55% of the total EU consumption of single-use
plastic bags, if such a voluntary agreement were to happen, many smaller retail
shops would not take part. This not only risks confusing consumers as
single-use plastic bags would be available in some shops but not others, but
also raises questions in terms of a level playing field between all retailers
in the EU. Moreover, as mentioned above, there is a risk that individual
retailers covered by the Retail Forum do not accept the agreement.
On the other hand, both
retailers and consumers could perceive a ban as
excessive and disproportional, especially in light of
the positive experiences in Member States having taken less
stringent measures. 
5.2.5.     Raising
awareness on sustainable consumption
Making single-use
plastic bags more scarce and introducing a mandatory pricing measure – as would
happen in the case of a prevention target – may help raise consumer awareness of
(un)sustainable consumption patterns more broadly, i.e. beyond the consumption
of plastic bags only. This effect is likely to be much smaller in the case of a
voluntary agreement with only part of the EU retail sector, as this would confront
consumers with contradictory messages about the sustainability of plastic carrier
bags (which would be available in some places but not in others). 
5.2.6.     Other
issues
A ban and a prevention target may affect small shops more than larger ones
because it might discourage impulse buying by “walk-up” customers. For larger
retailers, which represent the main channel for plastic bags distribution to
consumers, 'impulse shopping' is likely to account for a smaller share of
sales.  
5.3.        Comparison
of the policy options
Table 17 below gives an
overall assessment of the four policy options analysed in this report by
presenting a comparative, qualitative assessment of their respective impacts. The
methodology and assumptions used to arrive at these conclusions are described
in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of this report, and explained in detail in the studies
of BIO IS (2011) and Eunomia (2012)[91].

Table
17: Qualitative
comparison of environmental, economic and social impacts of policy options to
reduce use of single-use plastic carrier bags
 Impact indicator || Baseline || Retailers' voluntary agreement || Prevention target || Ban 
 Environmental || – – || + || ++ || ++ 
 Economic ||  – – || + || ++ || ++ 
 Social (employment) || + || – || – || – 
 Flexibility to MS || – – || – – || ++ || – – 
 Implementation || 0 || ≈ || – || – – 
 Funds generation ||   ||   ||   ||   
 For public authorities || 0 || 0 || ++ || + 
 For retailers || 0 || + || ++ || + 
 Acceptance of the measure || – – || – || ++ || – 
 Awareness raising on sustainable consumption || – – || + || ++ || + 
              Legend
 Legend || Likely effect 
 ++ || Positive impact 
 + || Slightly positive 
 ≈ || Marginal/Neutral 
 0 || No change 
 – || Slightly negative impact 
 – – || Negative impact 
6.            Preferred option
The option that combines
an EU-wide prevention target with an explicit recommendation to use a pricing
measure and the possibility for Member States to apply market restrictions by
way of derogation of Article 18 (option as described in Section 3.2.3) has the highest
potential to deliver ambitious environmental results, while achieving positive economic
impacts, limiting negative effects on employment, ensuring public acceptance,
and contributing to wider awareness on sustainable consumption (see Table 17,
above, comparing the different policy options). Setting an EU-wide target would
'guide' measures to be adopted by Member States, ensuring that they are ambitious
enough to achieve the desired effect. The main risks of this option relates to
its practical implementation, i.e. the measures taken by Member States to
achieve the proposed 80% reduction target. 
Further consideration
of the policy options analysed in this impact assessment during the
Commission's inter-service consultations have however led to the conclusion
that given the current very large differences between Member States'
consumption levels of single-use plastic bags, it would be difficult at present
to design and implement an EU-wide reduction target. Instead of establishing a
common EU target, it is therefore preferable to introduce in Article 4 of
Directive 94/62/EC the obligation for all Member States to reduce the
consumption of single-use plastic carrier bags, while allowing them to set
their own national reduction targets and to choose the measures to reach those
targets. At a later stage the establishment of an EU-wide reduction target
could however be considered. 
To assist Member States
in setting effective measures to reduce plastic bag consumption, the Commission
will promote the sharing of best practices, including for the monitoring and
evaluation of the measures implemented. Monitoring of transposition and
implementation will occur in accordance with the Commission’s role as a
guardian of EU law. The costs to implement this option will largely depend on
the choice and design of the measures adopted at national level.
7.           Monitoring and evaluation
Member States would be
expected to transpose the Directive 12 months after its entry into force and to
implement measures that reduce single-use plastic bag consumption within 2
years after entry into force. They would notify the Commission of their
national legislation to reach the objective, which the Commission would then
check for conformity.
7.1.        Core indicators of progress towards meeting the
objectives
The
core indicator for progress towards meeting the objectives set for this policy
initiative is:
·                        
Single-use plastic carrier bags placed on the
market
Progress
towards meeting the objectives can be monitored by adding a sub-category to the
already existing EU production and trade databases (PRODCOM[92] and COMEXT[93]) managed by Eurostat and
regularly updated with information provided by Member States. 
7.2.        Broad outline for
possible monitoring and evaluation arrangements
Member
States are ultimately responsible for the implementation, monitoring and
enforcement of their national measures to achieve the requirements of the
policy initiative advocated in this report. Therefore, the exact data
collection methods will depend on the internal organisation of each Member
State and the nature of the implementing instruments chosen. For instance,
Member States that have set a price on individual single-use bags, and collect
it as a tax, are in a position to report the number of bags sold in great
detail[94]. Member States that implement voluntary agreements with retailers
rely on retailers for the provision of data on plastic bags sold[95]. 
As
regards monitoring of plastic bag litter, some Member States carry out systematic
litter surveys on beaches and in the countryside[96]. 
The Commission will encourage the sharing of
best practices concerning data collection from countries that have successfully
implemented such initiatives. If appropriate, specific guidelines on monitoring
and reporting can be issued by the Commission, as it has been done in the
context of other EU waste stream directives. 
However, monitoring a reduction in the
consumption of single-use plastic carrier bags combined with a pricing measure
and accompanied by the possibility for Member States to introduce market
restrictions by way of derogation of article 18 of the Packaging Directive should
be relatively straightforward, given the monitoring instruments that already
exist for the implementation of the Packaging Directive and the Waste Framework
Directive. 
It is also worth recalling that Article 29 of
the Waste Framework Directive sets an obligation for the establishment of
national waste prevention programmes by 2013. In the context of these
programmes, Member States would report on the planned steps towards
implementing their consumption of single-use plastic carrier bags and on how
the measures implemented contribute to achieving the target. The European
Environment Agency is expected to include in its annual report a review of the
progress made in completing and implementing national waste prevention
programmes. 
Furthermore, article 17 of the Packaging
Directive provides for 3-years implementation reports. In this framework,
Member States would report on the amounts of single-use plastic carrier bags
placed on the market and on how the measures they have taken contribute to
achieving a reduction of single-use plastic bag consumption. On the basis of
national implementation reports, the Commission then publishes its own report
on the implementation of the Packaging Directive and its impact on the
environment and the functioning of the internal market.
Therefore, new measures aiming to reduce the use
of single-use plastic carrier bags will not imply major changes to existing
monitoring obligations.
              ANNEXES
Annex I:  Overview national measures to reduce the use of plastic
carrier bags
   || MS || Existing or planned legislation to avoid the use of plastic carrier bags || Voluntary initiatives || Achieved or planned outcomes 
 1 || AT ||   Austria has no legislation in place to address the issue of plastic bags, nor a national recycling scheme. In January 2011, the environment minister published a five-point plan to reduce the use of plastic bags. || Based on this initiative there are voluntary agreements with supermarket chains in place, to use plastic bags containing more than 80% recycling material. Other supermarkets do not offer plastic carrier bags any more. In many cases plastic-bags for fruits and vegetables are changed into bags made from cellulose. ||   
 2 || BE || Belgian authorities have had a voluntary agreement with retailers for 15 years where customers are charged a fee that goes to Fost Plus, a plastic collection and recycling firm. However there is no national scheme for recycling plastic bags separately. There is also a federal environmental tax on single-use plastic carrier bags. The packaging tax, introduced in May 2007, sets a charge of €3/kg for the distribution of plastic carrier bags used for carrying goods purchased from retailers. Article 6(3) of a Regulation of 27 June 1996 contains the legal provisions on avoiding the use of plastic carrier bags. The regulation is not yet in force in the Walloon region. Any reduction in the use of plastic carrier bags in the Walloon region is therefore on a voluntary basis or as a result of other legislation. || The retailers' association Comeos produced a plan to reduce the use of plastic carrier bags in retail, which has been in place since 2003. Members committed to reducing “single-use” plastic bags by 20-25% by 2006 and by 60% by 2009. || In Flanders, the voluntary agreement led to an 80% reduction in disposable plastic carrier bags between 2003 and 2009. In Wallonia, the plan has led to a 60% reduction in disposable plastic bags for the period 2007-2010 compared to 2003. The 2010-2013 plan targets a 90% reduction compared to 2003 in terms of tonnage/revenue. By 2011 an 86% reduction had been achieved. 
 3 || BG || In March 2011, Bulgaria's Ministry of Environment proposed the use of economic measures to limit the use of plastic bags. A tax on PE bags with a thickness of less than 15 microns will come into effect on 10 October 2011.[97] The tax will be paid per item by those who place plastic carrier bags on the Bulgarian market and retailers will pass the fee on to customers. The proceeds of the tax will be ring-fenced for waste management projects. The tax is set to increase each year, from €0.077 initially to €0.28 in 2014. At the beginning of 2012 the Ministry of Environment and Water plans to extend the tax to bags thinner than 23 microns.[98] ||   || The tax on thin plastic carrier bags is expected to result in a reduction of 30% of carrier plastic bags consumed. 
 4 || CY || No measures in place. Proposals to make all bags biodegradable and to prohibit supermarkets from giving away free plastic carrier bags were rejected in 2008. ||   ||   
 5 || CZ || Under Czech law: a) if no charge is applied at the supermarket till for plastic carrier bags (as is the case at Tesco for example), then they are treated as packaging. For the disposal of this packaging, a charge of around €230 per tonne of plastic carrier bags must be paid by the supermarket. This measure does not discourage use of plastic carrier bags directly but it does encourage supermarkets to impose a charge. b) if a charge is applied to plastic carrier bags (e.g. at BILLA supermarkets) it is not considered packaging and there is therefore no disposal fee. From 2011, free distribution of plastic carrier bags will be banned but it will be up to retailers how much they charge. The Czech Environment Ministry considers conventional plastic carrier bags containing additives to be problematic because a relatively large amount of plastic waste recycling is carried out in the Czech Republic. Labelling is therefore now being considered. ||   ||   
 6 || DE || No specific legislation. || Supermarkets voluntarily charge for plastic bags. Most German supermarkets charge between €0.05 and €0.10 per “single-use” bag, depending on the type of bag. || The problem is regarded as having been solved by packaging legislation. 
 7 || DK || There has been a charge for plastic and paper carrier bags (with a volume of at least 5 litres) since 1993. The charge depends on the weight and material. On average it is 0.5 DKK per plastic bag (this charge is equal to 10 DKK/kg for paper bags and 22 DKK/kg (around €3) for plastic bags). It is up to individual businesses to decide whether or not they charge their customers for the bags (generally between 1.5 DKK and 3 DKK). As the cost can be absorbed in the cost of products, consumer behaviour change is not the direct target as in Ireland. ||   || The environmental authorities do not have precise data on the number of carrier bags used. However, after the introduction of charges, the total use of plastic to make carrier bags fell from just under 18 750 tonnes in 1993 to around 7 750 tonnes in 1999. By 2009, use had crept back up to around 8 950 tonnes. According to environment authority data, carrier bags have become thinner since the introduction of charges,[99] and are made out of reusable (thick) material, so that their energy value can be used when burnt in incinerators. Many municipalities, organisations and businesses encourage the use of reusable bags. Use of paper and plastic bags is estimated to have fallen by two-thirds.[100] 
 8 || EE || Under the current legislation, plastic carrier bags are considered to be part of packaging, so it is the duty of the producer (person who places the packaging on the market) to organise collection and arrange for recovery or recycling. If recovery or recycling targets are not met, the producer must pay a packaging tax for the amount it is below the target. The Estonian Green Party initiated draft legislation in 2010 to implement a new tax on plastic carrier bags. On 3 February 2011 it was still undergoing its first reading in Parliament. The draft being considered by the Estonian parliament suggested a tax of €0.20 per plastic bag over 20 cm x 30 cm in size (with handles) bought in retail. It is currently unclear what is happening with the plastic bag tax under the new government. || In retail, bags are sold for around €0.10, so are not free. In this way, the bulk use of these bags can be monitored to a certain extent. Reusable bags are promoted by media campaigns, as well as in other ways.   || A tax of €0.20 on top of the average price of €0.10 would mean that the number of plastic bags sold would decrease quickly, like in Ireland. However, an evaluation of the policy has not yet been carried out. 
 9 || EL || There is no legislation to reduce the use of plastic carrier bags. || Plastic bags are free everywhere in Greece, apart from Lidl. Since 2008, some supermarkets have made reusable shopping bags available but with limited success because thin plastic carrier bags are still distributed without charge. Some municipalities (e.g. Athens), districts (e.g. Samos) and large supermarkets have introduced biodegradable shopping bags. ||   
 10 || ES || In transposing the Waste Framework Directive in 2012, Spain envisaged the following reduction in plastic bag use compared to 2007: - 60% fewer plastic carrier bags by 2013; - 70% by 2015; - 80% fewer plastic carrier bags by 2016. From 2018, the use of plastic carrier bags would be stopped completely, except for plastic bags for meat, fish and freezer products (with a high water content), as no equivalent alternative to plastic bags has yet been found. In addition, from 1 January 2015, a message about the harmful environmental impacts of plastic carrier bags must be printed on all bags. However, this change was announced without notifying the EC, for which an EU pilot was launched. AS a result, the reduction calendar and ban has been suspended. A Royal Decree will be issued in the future with a revised timeline of single-use plastic bag reductions, prior notification to the EC. The Spanish body for standardisation and certification (AENOR) has made a standard on reusable PE carrier bags (UNE 53942 - 2009), guaranteeing their use at least 15 times. The region of Andalucía agreed a charge for the use of plastic carrier bags in June 2010, which came into force on 1 May 2011. It provides for a charge of €0.05 per plastic carrier bag in 2011, which should rise to €0.10 per plastic carrier bag in 2012. || There have also been voluntary agreements in Spain since at least 2008. The main retail associations signed up to voluntary agreements with the regional public authorities to promote the prevention and more sustainable use of carrier bags among consumers. Some large supermarket chains now charge either for plastic carrier bags (Día) or pay a small amount back (around €0.10) if the customer does not take any plastic carrier bags (Eroski Group). || One of the best examples is Pacto por la Bolsa in Catalonia, signed in 2009. Its target was a reduction of consumption of “single-use” bags by 50% by 2012. By 2010, a reduction of 40% had been achieved. 
 11 || FI || No legislation specifically targeting plastic carrier bags. || Almost all supermarkets sell durable bags, paper bags and plastic bags. Some public institutions and private companies provide free multiple-use cloth bags. ||   
 12 || FR || In 2005, France adopted a law banning the sale of non-biodegradable plastic bags by 2010 but the text was never applied since it was deemed to be in breach of certain provisions of the Packaging Directive. The 2010 budget (Loi de finances rectificative pour 2010, article 47) instead set up a tax on non-biodegradable “single-use” plastic carrier bags of €10/kg (around €0.06 per bag), which will be applied from 1 January 2014. This is set out in Article 266, as amended, of the general tax code book ‘Code des Douanes’. Biodegradable bags made from a minimum of 40% renewable resources would be exempt. || Until now, supermarket chains have had sole responsibility for reducing the number of plastic carrier bags. Since 1996, E.Leclerc has progressively replaced free thin plastic bags with biodegradable, reusable and cotton carrier bags. The supermarket chain has reduced the number of plastic carrier bags distributed to consumers from 1bn in 1995 to 50m in 2005. By 2005, 94% of its costumers owned one or more reusable bags. Other chains have followed its example and some have voluntarily started charging for plastic bags. The FCD retail federation made a commitment to reduce plastic carrier bag use in 2003 and aims to completely phase out thin plastic carrier bags by the end of 2011. Carrefour aims to completely end free provision by 2012. The island of Corsica banned plastic carrier bags in 2003. A referendum was organised that proposed three options for the replacement of conventional plastic carrier bags: large reusable plastic bags costing €1, paper bags sold for €0.08, or bio-based bags sold between €0.05 and €0.14 depending on their size. Of the 30 448 persons who voted, the majority (61%) opted for the reusable plastic bag sold for €1. || The tax is intended to reduce the use of free thin plastic carrier bags to as close to zero as possible. In past years, increased provision of reusable carrier bags has succeeded in considerably reducing the excessive provision of free thin plastic bags in France's supermarkets. The number of thin plastic carrier bags used in France decreased from 10.5bn to 1.5bn from 2002 to 2009. 
 13 || HU || It is reported that there is a tax and national recycling scheme in place. || Some supermarkets have started voluntarily charging for plastic bags. ||   
 14 || IE || A levy was introduced in March 2002 on the purchase of plastic carrier bags in supermarkets, petrol stations and shops. It began at a rate of €0.15 and was raised to €0.22 on 1 July 2007.[101] The regulations do not distinguish between biodegradable plastic bags and other plastic bags,[102] but exemptions are made for plastic bags for use with fresh fish, fresh meat and fresh poultry, if not exceeding 225 mm width, 345 mm depth, 450 mm length (including handle), as well as for fruits, nuts, sweets, ice cream, cooked items, milk products on board an aeroplane or ship, or when marked as reusable. Charges are paid into an environment fund, which is used for financing recycling centres and other environmental activities such as cleaning up illegal landfill sites. Annual revenues have risen from around €12-14m to €23.4m in 2009. Collection and associated administration costs are low, at about 3% of revenues.[103] In 2011, provision has been made in national legislation which sets a ceiling for the levy at €0.70 and enables the levy to be amended once in any financial year. ||   || The effects of the tax on the use of plastic bags in retail outlets and in the landscape were dramatic. Within five months of introduction, a 90% reduction was achieved. At the same time, €3.5m was collected. At that time, 328 bags per person per year were used. This number was reduced to 21. However there was subsequently a gradual increase in plastic bag usage, to 30 bags per person/year in 2006.  In response, the plastic bag levy was increased. This resulted in a decrease to 26 bags per person in 2008 and 18 bags per person in 2010. The aim of the increased rate was to keep the number of plastic bags per person to 21 or fewer. The share of plastic bags in litter pollution in Ireland has fallen from 5% in 2001 to 0.25% in 2010. 
 15 || IT || Italy has taken the most drastic action of any EU Member State so far, in its Law of 27 December 2006, No 296, Article 1, paragraphs 1129, 1130 and 1131. Paragraph 1129: In order to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, improve environmental protection and support the agro-industry on biomaterials, in 2007 a national pilot programme was launched for the gradual reduction of carrier bags placed on the market that are not biodegradable under the EU criteria defined in law, and the technical conditions adopted at EU level. Paragraph 1130: In accordance with paragraph 1129 (…) the programme is aimed at establishing measures to be gradually implemented at national level to achieve the ban on placing carrier bags on the market that are non-biodegradable and that do not fulfil the technical and legal biodegradability criteria adopted at EU level. The ban came into force on 1 January 2011 and does not provide for any specific penalties for infringements. It applies to all product sectors and all types of non-biodegradable carrier bags. Reusable plastic bags are exempt. Shops and supermarkets will only be able to provide customers with the plastic bags remaining in their stockrooms, giving them to customers free of charge; and only until 31 August 2011 in supermarkets and 31 December in smaller shops.[104] The Italian ban was announced without notifying the EC. On April 5, Italy gave notification of a draft law defining the scope of the ban on the marketing of non-biodegradable shopping bags. It also contains provisions related to penalties. The Commission has sent a detailed opinion to the Italian authorities. Italy has also notified the Commission of a decree in which technical details of the ban are specified. ||   || The goals are to reduce CO2 emissions, protect the environment and support the agricultural sector with the commercialisation of bio-based materials. A drastic reduction in the number of non-biodegradable plastic bags in favour of the use of reusable bags and shopping bags is expected, along with a corresponding increase in number of bags made of biomaterials from biodegradable and compostable material. 
 16 || LT || In Lithuania, there is no legislation or planned legislation to ban plastic carrier bags. || Most distributors voluntarily do not use plastic carrier bags. ||   
 17 || LU || No legislation specifically targeting plastic carrier bags. || A voluntary agreement is in place between the Environment Ministry and Valorlux (association of producers and importers of packaging material) regarding the sale of the multiple-use “Eco-sac” carrier bag. The voluntary agreement has a target of a market share for multi-use carrier bags of at least 51%. This agreement was first made with food and DIY shops. The first agreement was made in 2004, the second in 2006, and the third in 2008. It was renewed again in 2012 for a further period of five years.  It is applicable throughout the country. There is no provision for penalties. An annual inspection is carried out by a commission made up of the CLC trade association, Valorlux and the Environment Ministry). During the next five years two more sectors should be analysed in order to extend the project. The target of market share is put up to at least 57%.  There will be no advertising printed on the "Eco-Sac". Participants were invited to withdraw their "own" multiple layer bags from the markets. || The system is self-supporting, and in addition, each year two studies are undertaken, financed by the sale of multiple-use carrier bags. 2002: 71m “single-use” plastic carrier bags 2004: 55m plastic carrier bags (Introduction of eco-bags) 2007: 11m plastic carrier bags (significant fall following introduction of a voluntary charge of €0.03 per bag) 2009: 6.5m plastic carrier bags In material terms, the quantity of single-use shopping bags was reduced from 454,4 tons (2006) to 53,4 tons (2009), which is a decrease of 89 % in waste material. The consumer survey of 2009 showed that most small purchases are no longer packed in a single-use shopping bag (24.4 %). Most customers now use reusable shopping bags (46 %). 
 18 || LV || The Latvian Environment Ministry states that each year around 20 tonnes of plastic bags must be disposed of. Taxes were therefore introduced on the use of plastic carrier bags which the retailer must pay. A tax rate of 0.80 LVL/kg is applied to plastic bags weighing more than 0.003 kg (the weight of 1 000 bags exceeds 3 kg). Since 2009, there are three categories of environmental levy: €0.02, €0.14 or €0.15 per plastic carrier bag, labelling (printed) on plastic carrier bags, and penalties for breaches of the conditions. In 2010 the law was amended again to prevent the use of carrier bags without handles to avoid the environmental levy. || Supermarkets now only offer plastic carrier bags for a charge. || No information on results has been found. 
 19 || MT || Charges for plastic bags were introduced in 2005: Biodegradable: 0; Degradable: €0.14; Plastic: €0.16. ||   || A decrease of 5m plastic bags was recorded in the first five months of 2005. Better traceability and monitoring of the production of plastic carrier bags has resulted. 
 20 || NL || In the Netherlands there is no specific legislation regarding plastic carrier bags. Since 1 January 2008, packaging importers, producers and purchasers pay a packaging tax, with different tariffs for each type of material. For plastic packaging such as plastic carrier bags, the tariff is currently €0.47/kg. To encourage the use of biodegradable carrier bags, these have a tariff of €0.08/kg. Finally, plastic waste has been collected separately in all around 430 Dutch municipalities and towns since 1 January 2010. || Voluntary agreements in retail mean that supermarket customers have not received most types of plastic carrier bag for free since the mid-1990s and today pay around €0.20 per bag. In many shops there are “bag bins” where used bags can be deposited and used again by other customers. The retail sector recently announced that the smaller, translucent bags will not be offered free either. || The Dutch Environment Ministry could not give details of the overall amount of plastic carrier bags placed on the market, or in relation to possible trends since the introduction of the legislation. They simply emphasise that currently 50-70% of plastic waste in Dutch households is recovered, and the measures put in place in the Netherlands in the last 20 years have led to a reduction in the use of plastic carrier bags approaching the situation of Ireland. 
 21 || PL || Polish law does not have a specific regulation concerning plastic carrier bags. It is not planned to establish such regulations in future although a tax was considered during 2010. ||   ||   
 22 || PT || Portuguese MPs have approved a legislative proposal to promote the following replacement measures: Ÿ         Provision of biodegradable bags Ÿ         Provision of reusable bags at affordable price Ÿ         Environmental awareness of employees and consumers to promote the use of alternatives to plastic bags that are environmentally responsible; Ÿ         Promotion of environmental awareness campaigns among consumers, aimed at the separation of waste at source and the appropriate referral within the existing legal systems management; Ÿ         Adoption of one of the following economic mechanisms to encourage a reduction in the use of plastic bags:  Levying a charge for the supply of plastic bags; Applying a discount on the price of goods sold to consumers desisting entirely from taking free plastic bags ||   || The proposal sets a 90% reduction target for the supply and consumption of thin-walled plastic bags at wholesalers and supermarkets by 2017 against a 2007 baseline. There are intermediate targets of a 30%and 60% reduction by 2013 and 2015. 
 23 || RO || Government Regulation No 25/2008 (published in Gazette No 628 of 29 August 2008) entered into force on 1 January 2009. Introduction of a tax of €0.5 for each non-biodegradable plastic carrier bag placed on the market. In 2010, the tax was cut to €0.25 and applies to bags from non-renewable sources. ||   || There is no official data available to quantify the decline in use, though the Romanian association of Solid Waste Management reports that according to unofficial sources the decrease was 6-10%. 
 24 || SE || No measures planned. Responsibility currently rests with producers, who are responsible for collection and disposal. The producer pays a disposal charge which is recovered through the price of the bag. Plastic bags could (theoretically) be collected at plastic bottle collection points. || Supermarkets pass the cost of disposal on to the consumer: a plastic bag costs €0.17-0.30. Swedes like to buy €0.50 plastic bags (almost twice as expensive) which are printed with the logo of an NGO or a local sports team. That organisation then receives 50% of the proceeds. The Swedish retailer Hemköp has introduced bags made of renewable materials (sugar cane). The material can be recycled like conventional PE. || Pricing under the current regulation is intended to reduce the use of plastic bags and to support the use of multi-use fabric bags. However, no data on the results achieved has been found. 
 25 || SK || In Slovakia there is no legislation on the avoidance of plastic carrier bags and none is currently planned. || Some food stores (Billa, Hypernova and Kaufland) no longer give out plastic bags for free, but sell them. ||   
 26 || SI || In Slovenia there are proposals to introduce a tax on plastic bags that would be passed on to customers: €0.50 for bags made from at least 5% plastic; €0.40 for bags made from more than 95% biodegradable material; €0.20 for bags made from more than 95% textiles. ||   ||   
 27 || UK || In the UK there are currently no legal requirements on avoiding the use of plastic carrier bags, only voluntary agreements between the ministry responsible (Defra) and leading supermarket and department store chains. However, the 2008 Climate Change Act provides conditions to allow the introduction of a general charge for plastic carrier bags. The Welsh Assembly Government plans to introduce a compulsory charge of 0.05 GBP (around €0.06) for “single-use” plastic bags in October 2011. Originally, the plan was to introduce a charge of 0.07 GBP from April 2011. However, these plans were changed after heavy lobbying from the British Retail Consortium (BRC) and others. It will finally enter into force in June 2013. The Scottish Government and Northern Ireland Assembly Government have been running an awareness-raising campaign for several years in order to reach the target of a significant reduction in plastic bag use, and are considering options to phase out free plastic bags in supermarkets. The Northern Ireland Assembly Government is currently consulting on proposals for a charge on carrier bags; the consultation closes on 12 October 2011.[105] Several towns and cities in the UK have also started to ban plastic shopping bags. The town of Modbury banned plastic bags in 2007.[106] Chesham launched the Plastic Bags Free Chesham Campaign in 2007.[107] || A voluntary agreement between Defra and 21 large retailers had a target of a 25% reduction in the harmful environmental impact of carrier bags between May 2006 and December 2008. The amount of virgin polymer was used as an indicator and reusable bags were included. The agreement included support for reuse of carrier bags, increased recycling and a reduction in the weight of carrier bags. A second agreement followed with the target of a 50% reduction by May 2009 compared to 2006. Seven supermarket chains participated. The following agreement for 2010 (between the Scottish Government, Defra, the Welsh Assembly Government, and the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment with the British Retail Consortium (BRC) and its supermarket members) continued with the idea of further reductions, but did not set out concrete targets. The agreements were mainly aimed at simple plastic carrier bags that customers can get for free in supermarkets. There are no penalties involved. A variety of methods were used to cut use: some such as Marks and Spencer charge for bags, while others put signs in car parks reminding customers to reuse their bags. Others began giving out bags only when requested by customers. || Defra statistics show that in May 2006, 870m thin bags were used in the participating supermarkets. In May 2009, this number was 452m and in May 2010 it was 475m. This is a reduction of around 45% compared to 2006, i.e. short of the target. Defra would like to achieve a 70% reduction in the long term. Further plans, such as the introduction of a charge for thin bags, are still an option according to Defra but are not currently being pursued. The devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland could however implement their own measures on this issue, such as those planned by Wales for October 2011. According to the WRAP, the following progress was made (figures include the overall number of carrier bags, not just thin bags: 2008: -26% 2009: -48% 2010: decreasing trend stops; use of thin plastic bags increases 5% compared to May 2009. 
Annex II: Description of types of plastic carrier bags
Plastic carrier bags can be made from
by-products of oil and gas or they can be bio-based[108]. As they can come in
different shapes and formats, there is no widely accepted definition to
distinguish the different types of plastic carrier bags. However, for the
purpose of this assessment, we consider:
·                        
“single-use” plastic carrier bags as the thin-walled, lightweight plastic carrier bags distributed at
the check and used to carry goods from supermarkets and other shops[109]. They are generally made of high density polyethylene (HDPE). They
are single-use in the sense that they are usually only used for one shopping
trip although they may be used again for some other purpose such as to contain
or carry domestic waste. The most relevant parameter to distinguish between single-use and reusable
plastic bags is related to their thickness; usually a single-use carrier bag
has a thickness lower than 49 microns[110]. A
precise definition would have to be determined in the context of a given policy
proposal.
·                        
“multiple-use” or reusable plastic carrier
bags are made either from low density polyethylene
(LDPE/LLDPE), which has a glossy appearance, or polypropylene (PP), a
thermoplastic polymer that resembles canvas in appearance and is even more
durable. They are usually sold at supermarket cash registers for a higher price
than single-use ones (if ever charged) and some supermarkets will exchange them
for a new bag without charge if they become damaged. 
·                        
biodegradable plastic carrier bags are generally made of bio-based materials and are capable of undergoing
physical, chemical, thermal or biological decomposition under certain defined
conditions. Compostable polymers are biodegradable and also meet certain
conditions relating to the rate of biodegradation and impact on the
environment.
A series of LCA studies have been performed on
the sustainability of different carrier bags. The results however vary widely
due to the variety of ways in which the methodology can be applied, the
assumptions on the numbers of times bags can be reused, and the end of life options
in specific regions. Littering is often not included as a parameter in LCAs.
Therefore, it is extremely difficult to draw overall conclusions on the most
environmentally friendly option as there is not an ideal type of bag for all
impact categories.
Nevertheless, some aspects are commonly
recognised in most LCAs. In terms of littering, single-use plastic carrier bags
have the poorest score due to their lightweight and their little value.
Although not as persistent in the environment, biodegradable carrier bags will
only degrade within a reasonable time if disposed of and treated in appropriate
conditions, such as biological waste treatment facilities. Therefore, they do
not constitute a solution to the problem of littering. 
Furthermore,
there appears to be a general consensus on the fact that reuse is the key to
reducing the environmental impacts of any kind of bag. Thick polymer-based
reusable bags are considered to have a positive environmental balance, as long
as they are used four times or more.
For
a more detailed review of a number of LCA studies, please consult Annex VI.
 Type || Materials || Weight (g)[111] || Image 
 Single-use non-biodegradable || Mostly HDPE, can also be LDPE || 8.6 || Source: http://printed-bags.net/products/index.php?lg=en 
 Single-use biodegradable || Can be fully bio-based, usually a starch-polymer blend || 8.9 || Source: myzerowaste.com || Source: www.alibaba.com 
 Multiple-use || Non-woven PP, woven PP || 88.3 || Source: apaperblog.com/what-are-non-woven-bags || Source: www.momgoesgreen.com 
 LDPE || Source: http://printed-bags.net/products/index.php?lg=en 
Annex III: Stakeholder consultation on options to reduce the use of plastic
carrier bags and options reinforce of the biodegradability requirements in the
Packaging Directive – summary of comments
A
public consultation was launched on 17 June 2011 via the EUROPA website in
order to gather as comments and suggestions as from the stakeholders
concerned.The consultation ran until 9 August 2011.
Stakeholders
were consulted on the necessity and options to reduce the use of plastic
carrier bags and on options to reinforce the biodegradability requirements in
Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste.
Respondents’
profile
The
stakeholder consultation attracted a vivid interest from citizens and
stakeholders with 15538 contributions received. The respondents to the
consultation can be grouped in several categories: citizens (15 056), public
authorities (52), industry associations (151), NGOs (60), universities (35),
others (184).
Contributions
on options to reduce plastic carrier bags
A majority of
respondents (78,4%) generally supported the need for EU measures to reduce the
use of plastic carrier bags. All options put forward achieved high support 
with a preference for waste prevention targets (74.1%), followed by a ban of
plastic carrier bags ( 70.6%) and pricing measures (61.8). Options for measures
at EU level gained more support than options for measures at national level,
especially among citizens and NGOs. A series of contributions, especially from
the industry and retail sector, also pointed out the potential of voluntary
schemes involving industry and retailers to deliver effective results. NGOs
stressed the need for all players, all Member States to contribute equally to
addressing the problem. However, it was generally agreed and emphasized by
Member States public administrations' contributions that whatever measures will
be adopted need not punish the countries that have already taken prevention
actions and managed to achieve positive results.
In terms of
exemptions from the measures to reduce plastic carrier bags, most respondents
favoured exemptions for biodegradable plastic bags, followed by exemptions
reusable plastic bags and equally opinions that no such exemptions should be
granted at all. In view of possible exemption, the distinction between
single-use carrier bags and reusable ones should be further clarified. NGOs and
industry players tend to agree that the key to reducing environmental impacts
of any carrier bags is re-use. It was pointed out that many single-use plastic
carrier bags are in fact re-used for other purposes, e.g. bin liners. Industry
players and retailers also highlighted to necessity to explore the need for
further exemptions, such as for food safety reasons for example.
Generally, it
was widely agreed that associating a value to the plastic bags, will encourage
reuse and even appropriate disposal. A majority of stakeholders also agree that
the rate of pricing needs to be high enough to ensure effective results,
however certain reason that such measure should be best adopted at the level
closest to the citizens to take into account the diversity of circumstances
across the EU. 
A significant
number of respondents, mostly industry representatives, stressed the need to consider the “unintended consequences” of a
reduction in use of plastic carrier bags, such as a market switch to other
materials which may not deliver the desired environmental outcomes. 
It was also
pointed out that the addressing litter will require a combination of instruments
starting from awareness raising, use of economic instruments that give of value
to plastic bags, promotion of more resource efficient alternatives, appropriate
collection and waste management infrastructure.
Contribution
to the IA
Following
the consultation, the option of a voluntary commitment of the retail sector was
added for further assessment as indicated by a significant number of
contributions. Also in defining the policy options, specific attention was
given to finding solutions so as not to punish Member States that have already
taken prevention measures by means of setting a prevention target per capita on
the basis of an average of best performing Member States. A number of
contributions pointed out to the need to define single-use plastic carrier bags
versus reusable one. On the basis of some data on certain national and
international experiences and of discussions with producers and retailers, an
attempt was made to provide some parameters for distinction. A precise
definition would have to be further determined in the context of a given policy
proposal. The environmental performance of different
carrier bags was analysed by means of a review of exiting literature.
Generally, the contributions from stakeholders fed into the analysis of impacts,
especially with concrete data on competitiveness and employment. 
Annex IV: Plastic carrier bag flows
Table 18: Summary of plastic carrier bag flows in EU, 2010 and 2020 (Mt)[112]
   || Production || Exports || Imports || Consumption || End-of-life || Litter 
   || Recycling || Energy recovery || Landfill ||   
   || 2010 || 2020 || 2010 || 2020 || 2010 || 2020 || 2010 || 2020 || 2010 || 2020 || 2010 || 2020 || 2010 || 2020 || 2010 || 2020 
 Single-use plastic bag || 0.39 || 0.42 || 0.02 || 0.03 || 0.53 || 0.65 || 0.75 || 0.84 || 0.05 || 0.08 || 0.29 || 0.33 || 0.37 || 0.42 || 0.04 || 0.05 
 Single-use non-biodegradable || 0.38 || 0.39 || 0.02 || 0.03 || 0.51 || 0.59 || 0.73 || 0.78 || 0.05 || 0.07 || 0.28 || 0.31 || 0.36 || 0.39 || 0.04 || 0.05 
 Single-use biodegradable || 0.01 || 0.03 || 0.00 || 0.00 || 0.02 || 0.06 || 0.02 || 0.06 || 0.00 || 0.01 || 0.01 || 0.02 || 0.01 || 0.03 || 0.00 || 0.00 
 Multiple-use || 0.73 || 0.72 || 0.03 || 0.03 || 0.24 || 0.35 || 0.87 || 0.93 || 0.06 || 0.09 || 0.34 || 0.36 || 0.43 || 0.46 || 0.02 || 0.02 
   Total ||   1.12 ||   1.13 ||   0.05 ||   0.06 ||   0.76 ||   0.99 ||   1.61 ||   1.77 ||   0.11 ||   0.17 ||   0.63 ||   0.69 ||   0.80 ||   0.83 ||   0.06 ||   0.0.7 
Annex V:  Methodological considerations on setting the level of a
prevention target
A
prevention target should be ambitious enough to address the unsustainable rate
of plastic bag consumption in the EU, while taking account of what has proved
achievable in those Member States that have already taken action. Section 3.2.3
describes the most effective way to reduce the consumption of plastic bags.  In
this annex we describe the rationale used to reach that conclusion. In what
follows below, these general considerations are used to assess and compare
three basic methodologies considered to set a prevention target:
1.      Set an (identical) target in relation to the annual consumption rate
per capita in each individual Member State (e.g.
80% reduction of the current use of single-use plastic bags in each Member
State). This option would punish Member States that have already significantly
reduced the use of single-use plastic carrier bags (such as Finland and Ireland:
4 bags per c/a), while Member States with high current consumption rates (over
450 bags c/a) would still continue witnessing high absolute numbers of
single-use plastic bags consumed. 
2.      Set a weight-based reduction target
(e.g. set a maximum of kg of single-use plastic carrier bags per capita). This
option would run the risk of unintended market developments in the form of
thinner bags, which would result in an increase of the absolute number of such
bags placed on the market[113]. As thinner plastic bags are less likely to be re-used and are more
prone to being littered, an increase in their absolute numbers is contrary to
the objective pursued by this initiative. 
3.      Set a common reduction target in relation to the EU average
consumption of single-use plastic carrier bags annually consumed per capita. An effective reduction target needs to be balanced: a target set
too high, in line with the achievements of the EU's top performers (Finland and
Denmark, which both have a national per capita consumption of 4 single-use
plastic bags), would seem unrealistic for poorer performers. On the other hand,
a target set too low (i.e. aligning it to the average EU consumption, 176
single-use plastic bags; see Table 4 in section 2.4.2 above) would not be
ambitious enough to drive effective prevention measures across the EU, thus
undermining the core objective of this initiative.  
A middle ground
option would be to base the reduction target on the average current (2010)
consumption of the best 25% performing Member States (i.e. Finland, Denmark,
Luxemburg, Ireland, Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, and France), which
together have an average of 32 single-use plastic bags consumed per capita,
accounting for 18.3% of the baseline average EU consumption rate. It would thus
result in a reduction of approximately 80% of single-use plastic bag
consumption, which for the purpose of this impact assessment will be as the
preferred reduction target (as reflected in figure 2 below). An 80% reduction
rate amounts to an absolute number of 35 single-use plastic bags consumed per
capita, per annum, in all Member States. All Member States are deemed able to
reach this target as it only relates to a category of plastic carrier bags
(single-use ones) for which consumption can be reduced without significant
impacts on consumers, as more sustainable, re-usable alternatives are already
available.
Annex VI: Overview LCA studies on the environmental impacts of different
carrier bags
A
number of LCAs of plastic carrier bags are available. The results vary widely
due to the variety of ways in which the method can be applied: functional unit,
system boundaries, the country concerned, etc. Assumptions as to how many times
carrier bags are reused and the end-of-life options in a particular country
particularly affect the results. Several existing LCAs are presented in the
table below. In the rest of this section, references to these studies are
indicated using the numbers displayed in the first column.
 Table
19: Main LCAs cited
 ref || Organisation || Year || Title 
 1 || UK Environment Agency || 2011 || Life cycle assessment of supermarket carrier bags: a review of the bags available in 2006 
 2 || Boustead Consulting & Associates || 2007 || Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable plastic; Compostable, Biodegradable Plastic; and Recycled, Recyclable Paper 
 3 || James, K. and T. Grant, Centre for Design at RMIT University || 2005 || LCA of Degradable Plastic Bags 
 4 || PWC/Ecobilan || 2004 || Impact assessment of Carrefour plastic carrier bags, Carrefour, France 
The
environmental impact (excluding litter) of all types of carrier bag[114] is dominated by resource use
and production (1) (Figure 1). The electricity consumed to produce
1 000 conventional HDPE bags is 6.151 kWh (22.144 MJ) and
418.4 g of waste are generated. The production of plastic carrier bags can
also be a significant source of photochemical oxidants when the inks used
contain solvents. The fact that the production of materials is the most
impacting life-cycle phase for all bags means that for the same technical
properties, any reduction of the mass per bag and any reuse will reduce the
environmental impact. 
Annex VII: Relative contribution of different environmental impacts of a HDPE
bag
Figure 3: Relative contribution of different
environmental impacts of a HDPE bag 
Annex VIII:  Employment
modeling [115]
A. Employment intensity assumptions
Taking the figures on
production levels and employment above, we outline below the likely changes in
levels of employment related to changes in levels of EU production. Annual EU
production is taken to be 1 124 074 tonnes of plastic carrier bags.[116]  It is further
estimated that there are 15,000-20,000 workers[117] or as many as 50,000
workers if the entire supply chain is included.[118]  We make the assumption
that they are FTEs (Full Time Equivalents).[119]
Assuming a
mid-point estimate of 17,500 employees working on plastic carrier bag
production in the EU, and dividing this figure by annual production, the number
of people employed per tonne produced is 0.015.[120] This equates to one
person employed for every 64.23 tonnes of plastic carrier bags produced. We
do not distinguish between the employment intensity of LDPE and HDPE production
as there is insufficient data available to make such a distinction. In the
absence of further information we assume the same employment intensity for
bin liners, of 0.015 people employed (FTE) per tonne produced.
It has not
been possible to obtain figures for EU-wide paper bag production or employment.[121] However, a rough
estimate was obtained from using publicly available data relating to a Scottish
manufacturer of paper bags, which employs 210 staff and produces 50 million
bags per week.[122] Given an
average paper bag weight of 55.2g, this equates to 143520 tonnes of production
a year. This equates to one person for every 683 tonnes of paper bags produced.
The number of people employed per tonne of paper bags produced therefore is
assumed to be 0.0015, though it is recognised that the dependence on a
single source is less than ideal. The assumptions on employment intensity are
summarised in Table 20.  
Table 20: Employment Intensity of EU Production by Bag Type (FTE per tonne)
 Bag Type || Employment Intensity (FTE per tonne) 
 HDPE || 0.0150 
 LDPE || 0.0150 
 Paper || 0.0015 
B. Results 
The
effect on employment of the different options is shown in the table 4 below .
The assumptions relating to employment are outlined in the next sub-section,
below. 
Table
21: Total number of people employed in the manufacture of single-use
plastic carrier bags in the EU (thousands). 
   || 2012 || 2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 
 Baseline || 4.9 || 5.1 || 5.2 || 5.4 || 5.5 || 5.6 || 5.7 || 5.8 || 6.0 
 Ban || 4.9 || 5.1 || 5.2 || 0.3 || 0.4 || 0.4 || 0.4 || 0.4 || 0.4 
 Voluntary Commitment || 4.9 || 5.1 || 5.2 || 2.6 || 2.7 || 2.7 || 2.7 || 2.8 || 2.8 
 Prevention Target || 4.9 || 5.1 || 5.2 || 1.3 || 1.3 || 1.3 || 1.3 || 1.3 || 1.3 
All options result in a decrease of
employment in the manufacture of single-use plastic bags. There is,
however, an increase in the number of people employed in the manufacture of multiple-use
plastic carrier bags, paper bags, and bin liners. This increase relative to
the baseline is shown in Table 225.
Table
22: Increase in the number of people employed in the manufacture of
multiple-use bags, paper bags and bin liners in the EU (thousands)
   || 2012 || 2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 
 Baseline || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - 
 Ban || - || - || - || 3.7 || 3.7 || 3.8 || 3.8 || 3.9 || 4.0 
 Voluntary Commitment || - || - || - || 2.0 || 2.1 || 2.1 || 2.2 || 2.2 || 2.3 
 Prevention Target || - || - || - || 3.0 || 3.1 || 3.1 || 3.2 || 3.2 || 3.3 
Table 23: Net change in the number of people employed in the manufacture of all
bags in the EU (thousands)
   || 2012 || 2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 
 Baseline || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - 
 Ban || - || - || - || -1.3 || -1.4 || -1.5 || -1.5 || -1.6 || -1.6 
 Voluntary Commitment || - || - || - || -0.7 || -0.7 || -0.8 || -0.8 || -0.8 || -0.9 
 Prevention Target || - || - || - || -1.1 || -1.1 || -1.2 || -1.2 || -1.3 || -1.3 
Annex IX: Profits to Manufacturers[123]
A. Nature of switches from single use plastic bags to other
types of bags
Evidence
was sought regarding the nature of switches that consumers could be expected to
make when policies are introduced which restrict the use of Single-use plastic
bags.
Table 24: Single-use plastic bags replacement ratio
 For every 1000 single-use plastic bags avoided || Other types of bags used 
 LDPE (multiple-use plastic bags) || 29 
 Bin liners || 273 
 Other multiple use-plastic bags || 4 
 Paper bags || 127 
 For every 1000 single-use plastic bags avoided ||         433                                        other types of bags used               (of which 302 made of plastic) 
The only
source of data which provided relevant bag consumption numbers was from WRAP,
for the UK Carrier Bags Voluntary Agreement. Although based on only UK
supermarkets, this still provides some basis for understanding how many bags of
other types are used to substitute for Single-use plastic bags when analysed
alongside Household Expenditure Data. Using this evidence suggests that for
every 1000 single-use plastic carrier bags avoided, 29 LDPE bags are used, and
4 other multiple-use bags such as those made from cotton are used. This
assumption is used in analysing the impacts of the different policy scenarios proposed.
It is not
considered likely that supermarkets will switch to paper bags due to their
expense and relative lack of strength, although it is expected that other
sectors will switch to greater use of paper bags if these are not made the
subject of the policy, and this has, indeed, been the experience in Ireland.
However, the extent to which other sectors will switch to paper bags rather
than multiple-use bags is not clear. It was therefore assumed that half (50%)
of the plastic bag consumption in non-supermarket sectors will be displaced by
paper bag consumption, and half by multiple-use bags. As per the BIO IS
assumption[124], 32% of
single-use plastic carrier bag consumption occurs in non-supermarket sectors.
Therefore, at a capacity substitution rate of 79.6%[125], 127 paper bags are
assumed to be consumed for every 1000 Single-use plastic bags avoided (32%
x 50% x 79.6% x 1000 = 127).
In light of
the fact that no data could be gained to help give a sensible estimate of
switches to Single-use plastic bags-replacement bin liners used in the home, an
approach based on interpretation of figures from an LCA study was adopted. The
study included data from a 2005 WRAP study which surveyed the various forms of
‘second use’ for single-use plastic bags. It stated that of all single-use
plastic carrier bags consumed, 76% were used again, of which 53% were put to
use as bin liners.[126] Based on
this we assume that per 1000 Single-use plastic bags reduction, 403 (76% x 53%
= 40.3%) equivalent capacity bin liners will be required. The equivalent
capacity will be that stated in the EA LCA study of 29 litres,[127] so we assume a
consumption increase of approximately 273 bin liners will occur for every 1000
Single-use plastic bags avoided.
It is evident
from the examples available that reliable data on the nature of such switches
(i.e. which bags are used as replacements for single-use plastic bags) are
difficult to obtain. Typically figures are provided by retailers, and relate
only to reductions in percentage terms. 
B. Price of different types of bags
Table 25: Unit Costs to Retailers (per 1000 bags)
 Bag Type || Unit Cost (per 1000 bags)[128] 
 Single-use non-biodegradable plastic (HDPE) bag || *€        8.31 
 Multiple-use non-biodegradable plastic (LDPE) bag (Bag for Life) || *€      17.87 
 Single-use Biodegradable Plastic Bag || *€      82.87 
 Single-use Paper Bag with Handles || *€      97.58 
 Woven Polypropylene (PP) bags || **€    452.73 
 Cotton || *€ 1 111.25 
 Jute || ***€ 1 161.62 
 Notes *          Costs taken from http://www.polybags.co.uk/ **        Data taken from AEA Study for the Welsh        Government[129] ***      Costs taken from                      http://www.midpac.co.uk/jute-bags/natural-jute-bags 
C. Profits to
manufacturers modelling results 
Eunomia
2012 was not been able to establish any evidence relating to the profitability
of the bag manufacturing sector in the EU. Therefore, in the absence of any
other information, we make the assumption in the modelling that the profit to
manufacturers is approximately 10% of the price paid by retailers (or 9.09% of
the price paid by consumers in the case of bin liners, on the assumption that
retailers mark up prices by 10%). We report this profit for EU-based manufacturers
for all bag types.
Table
26: Profits to EU Manufacturer from Single-use Plastic Carrier Bags (€
millions)
   || 2012 || 2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 
 Baseline || € 124 || € 138 || € 142 || € 147 || € 152 || € 156 || € 161 || € 165 || € 170 
 Ban || € 124 || € 138 || € 142 || € 1 || € 1 || € 1 || € 1 || € 1 || € - 
 Voluntary Commitment || € 124 || € 138 || € 142 || € 70 || € 72 || € 73 || € 74 || € 75 || € 77 
 Prevention Target || € 124 || € 138 || € 142 || € 27 || € 28 || € 28 || € 29 || € 29 || € 30 
There
is, however, an increase in the profits associated with the manufacture of
alternative bags including paper bags, and also from the increase in sales of
bin liners. These increases are shown in Table 27.
Table
27: Increase in Profits to EU Manufacturers from Multiple-use Bags, Paper
Bags and Bin Liners (€ millions)
   || 2012 || 2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 
 Baseline || € - || € - || € - || € - || € - || € - || € - || € - || € - 
 Ban || € - || € - || € - || € 214 || € 219 || € 222 || € 226 || € 230 || € 234 
 Voluntary Commitment || € - || € - || € - || € 118 || € 122 || € 125 || € 128 || € 131 || € 135 
 Prevention Target || € - || € - || € - || € 175 || € 180 || € 183 || € 187 || € 190 || € 194 
There
is therefore an increase in profits to EU bag manufacturers relative to the
baseline under all scenarios, as shown in Table 28.
Table
28: Net Change in Profits to EU Bag Manufacturers (€ millions)
   || 2012 || 2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 
 Baseline || € - || € - || € - || € - || € - || € - || € - || € - || € - 
 Ban || € - || € - || € - || € 68 || € 67 || € 67 || € 66 || € 65 || € 64 
 Voluntary Commitment || € - || € - || € - || € 41 || € 41 || € 42 || € 42 || € 41 || € 41 
 Prevention Target || € - || € - || € - || € 55 || € 56 || € 55 || € 55 || € 54 || € 54 
 
[1]     A
definition of the types of plastic carrier bags considered in this assessment
is provided in Annex II.
[2]     Strange
K., 2011. Plastic bags: national policies and practices, Plastics Europe and
ACR+.
[3]     OJ L 365, 31.12.1994 p.10-23
[4]     http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/envir/119886.pdf
[5]     Bio
Intelligence Service, 2011. Assessment of impacts of options to reduce the use
of single-use plastic carrier bags. Final Report.
[6]     Eunomia,
2012. Assistance to the Commission to complement an assessment of the
socio-economic costs and benefits of options to reduce use of single-use
plastic carrier bags in the EU. Final Report.
[7]     Based
on an EU population size of around 500 million and average weights per bag of
8.5 g (single-use non-            biodegradable), 8.9 g (biodegradable) and
78.9 g (multiple-use) and an amount of 1.61Mt placed on the market.
[8]     Eunomia,
2012. p.36. For some countries, estimates of bags per person from national
authorities, industry and other sources are used. For other countries, and for
the EU-27, estimates of total weight are divided by the typical weights for
each type of bag to obtain bags per person. For the worst performing countries,
no concrete data was available, and so these figures are inferred from data
that was available (EU27 consumption and average of known MS consumption). As
expected, Member States with no available data have a higher consumption
average than those for which data is available, if the average is to match the
overall quantity consumed in the EU is to match the BIO IS EU figure. This
seems plausible on the basis that the countries with data available tend to be
those who have an interest in, or already are addressing, the issue of plastic
carrier bag (or all carrier bag) use. However, some of the MS in the lower
performing group do have legislation in place (HU, LV, PT), but there is no data
on achievements.
[9]     http://www.austriantimes.at/news/General_News/2011‐02--01/30219/Most_Austrians_want_plastic_bags_banned

[10]    Eunomia, 2012, p. 8-9. Eunomia estimates based are on Bio IS
report, stakeholder contacts and literature; Single-use biodegradable bags'
data from 2012.  Other data from 2010. 
[11]    Eunomia,
2012, p.10.The report notes that it was very difficult to obtain further
detailed information to that already provided by Bio Intelligence Service
(2011) on the exact numbers and location of carrier bag producing companies, as
they, too, depended on information from national and European trade
associations. Those consulted stated that they did not possess such information
(number of SMEs producing plastic bags, MS location, etc.) about their members.
[12]    Estimate
based on 49bn bags littered representing 19 billion MJ or 5276 GWh (kWh/MJ
conversion factor 0.28). For the calculation of the power generation of a
nuclear power plant the UK data was taken as reference - http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html
. For the calculation of CO2 emissions a conversion factor of 1.58 kg CO2
per bag was used assuming 40% secondary reuse –Source: UK Environment Agency
(2011) Life cycle assessment of supermarket carrier bags: a review of the bags
available in 2006
[13]    Figures
based on Eunomia and BIO IS analysis, which in turn is based on available data
and stakeholder estimates.
[14]    Bingel,
F., Avsar, D., Unsal, M., 1987. A note on plastic materials in trawl catches in
the north eastern Mediterranean,, Meeresforsch. 
[15] Stefatos,
A., Charalambakis, M., Papatheodorou, G. and Ferentinos, G., 1999. Marine debris on the sea floor of the Mediterranean Sea: examples
from two enclosed gulfs in Western Greece, 
[16]  Marine
Pollution Bulletin 36; Katsanevakis, S. & Katsarou, A., 2004. Influences on the distribution of marine debris on the seafloor of
shallow coastal areas in Greece (Eastern Mediterranean). Water Air Soil
Pollut. 159.
[17]    Galgani,
et al., 2000. Litter on the sea floor along European coasts. Marine
Pollution Bulletin Vol. 40, No. 6.
[18]    B. S. Galil, A. Golik, M. Turkay, 1995. Litter at the Bottom of the
Sea: A Sea Bed Survey in the Eastern Mediterranean. Marine
Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 30, No. 1.
[19]    Cannizarro,
L., Garofalo, G., Giusto, G., Rizzo, P., Levi, D., 1995. Qualitative and quantitative estimate of solid waste in the Channel
of Sicily. In: Proceedings of the second International, ed. E. Ozhan,
Conference on the Mediterranean Coastal environment, 24-27 Oct, Tarragona,
Spain.
[20]    Galgani,
F., et al., 2000. Litter on the sea floor along European Coasts. Marine
Pollution Bulletin, 40(6). 
[21]    The
six-year OSPAR Pilot Project on Monitoring Marine Beach Litter (2000–2006) was
the first region-wide attempt in Europe to develop a standard method for
monitoring marine litter on beaches in Europe and to assess presence of marine
litter on the beaches in the OSPAR region. OSPAR Commission, 2007. OSPAR Pilot
Project on Monitoring Marine Beach Litter: Final Project.
[22]    ARPA,
ARPAT, DAPHNE II, 2011. L’impatto della plastica e dei sacchetti sull’ambiente
marino.
[23]    Galgani
F., Souplet A., Cadiou, Y., 1996. Accumulation of
debris on the deep sea floor of the French Mediterranean coast. Marine
Ecological Programming series, 142.
[24]    Marine
Conservation Society (MCS), Beachwatch 2010 litter survey, 2010. Available at: http://www.mcsuk.org/downloads/pollution/beachwatch/latest2011/Methods%20&%20Results%20BW10.pdf

[25]    NOAA
Marine Debris Programme. Available at: http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/info/faqs.html#3

[26]    Derraik
J.G.B., 2002. The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a
review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44:842-852.
[27]    ICC,
2011. Tracking Trash, 25 years of Action for the Ocean.
[28]    Van
Franeker, J.A. and S.N.S. Fulmar Study Group, 2008. Fulmar Litter EcoQO
Monitoring in the North Sea - results to 2006. Wageningen IMARES Report No.
C033/08, IMARES Texel.
[29]    Boeger
C.M. et al., 2010. Plastic ingestion by planktivorous fishes in the
North Pacific Central Gyre. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60, 2275–2278.
[30]    Balazs,
G.H., 1985. Impact of ocean debris on marine turtles: Entanglement and
ingestion In: R. S. Shomura and H. O. Yoshid. Proceedings Workshop on the fate
and Impact. 27-29 November 1984; Honolulu,. 
[31]    Meylan,
A.B., 1978. The behavioural ecology of the West Caribbean green turtle in the
interesting habitat, University of Florida.
[32]    Plotkin,
P. and Amos A.F,, 1990. Effects of anthropogenic debris on sea turtles in the
north-western Gulf of Mexico. 
[33] 
Bjorndal, K. A. and Bolten A.B., 1994. Effects of marine debris on sea turtles.
[34]    Fritts,
T.H., 1982. Plastic bags in the intestinal tracts of leatherback marine
turtles.  Herpetological Review.
[35]    Sileo,
L., Sievert, P.R. and Samuel, M.D., 1990. Causes of mortality of albatross
chicks at Midway Atoll. Journal of wildlife diseases.
[36]    Walker,
W.A. and Coe, J.M., 1990. Survey of Marine Debris ingestion by odontocete
cetaceans. NOAA Technical Memorandum.
[37]    Derraik,
J.G.B.,  2002. The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a
review, Marine Pollution Bulletin.
[38]    BIO
Intelligence Service, 2011. Plastic Waste in the Environment.
[39]    Thompson,
R.C., Moore, C.J., vom Saal, F.S., Swan, S.H., 2009; Plastics, the environment
and human health: current consensus and future trends.  In: Phil. Trans. R.
Soc. B  364. Royal Society Publishing.
[40]    See
http://www.environnement.public.lu/dechets/dossiers/littering/index.html

[41]    UNEP/OSPAR,
2009. Marine litter in the North East Atlantic Region.
[42]    Hall,
K., 2000. Impacts of Marine Debris and Oil Economic & Social Costs to
Coastal Communities, Kommunenes Internasjonale Miljoorganisasjon (KIMO).
[43]    Switzerland
Federal Office for the Environment, 2011. Litter-dropping costs money: Component-specific
cleaning costs produced by litter-dropping in Switzerland, FOEN, Bern. A
summary of the publication “Littering Kostet” can be found at www.bafu.admin.ch/uw-1108-d.
[44]    PRODCOM
is a Eurostat database providing statistics on the production of manufactured
goods.
[45]    PE:
Polyethylene. 
[46]    The
share of biodegradable plastics in single-use bags is assumed to grow by around
10% per year, i.e. from 3% in 2010 to 7% in 2020. This is a conservative estimate,
given that European Bioplastics claims that bioplastics overall are growing by
around 20% per year, see  http://en.european-bioplastics.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/EuBP_image_brochure_2011.pdf 

Eunomia's estimate
further includes the total switch from non-biodegradable to biodegradable
single-use carrier bags in Italy (as of 2011) and in Bulgaria (as of 2012).
Eunomia's data is the one used in this report.
[47]    Bowmer, T. and P.J. Kershaw (Eds.), 2010. Proceedings of the
GESAMP International Workshop on plastic particles as a vector in transporting
persistent, bio-accumulating and toxic substances in the oceans, GESAMP Rep.
Stud. No. 82, GESAMP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of
Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection).
[48]    S.I.
No. 434/2011 — Waste Management (Landfill Levy) Regulations 2011.
[49]    http://www.comeos.be/menu.asp?id=8258&lng=fr

[50]    http://www.valorlux.lu/fr/op%C3%A9ration-%C3%A9co-sac

[51]    Accord
environnemental entre le Ministère de l'Environnement et l'asbl Valorlux
concernant la prévention des déchets d'emballages, 
      http://www.environnement.public.lu/dechets/dossiers/emballages/accord_volontaire_2012.pdf

[52]    Legge
475, 9 novembre 1988, Conversione in legge, con modificazioni del decreto legge
n.397, 9 settembre 1988, recanti dispozioni urgenti di smaltimenti dei rifiuti
industriali.
[53]    Kit
Strange, ACR+, 2011. Plastic bags: national policies & practices.
[54]    Details
of MS legislation, or lack thereof, can be found in more detail in Annex III.
[55]    Galgani,
F., et al., 2000. Litter on the sea floor along European coasts. 
[56]    COM
(2011) 21.
[57]    COM (2011) 571 final.
[58]    COM
(2011) 244 final.
[59]    OJ
L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19–40.
[60]    SWD
(2012) 365 final.
[61]  Review of waste policy and legislation Roadmap http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/planned_ia/docs/2014_env_005_waste_review_en.pdf

[62]  Case
C-341/01 of 29 April 2004, Plato Plastik Robert Frank GmbH v. Caropack Handelsgesellschaft
mbH, p. 59.
[63]    In the UK, a voluntary agreement
between public authorities and 7 large supermarket chains narrowly missed the
target of a 50% reduction of single-use carrier bags usage by May 2009 compared
to 2006. In 2010, participants in the UK continued to monitor bag usage, but
without setting formal targets. In 2011, in Belgium, a voluntary commitment of
the retail sector, albeit coupled with a tax of €3
per kg on producers of disposable plastic carrier bags, resulted in an 86%
reduction in the use of such bags, compared to 2003.
[64]    As
the outcome to these negotiations is the result of very recent developments, we
have decided to keep this as one of the policy options analysed for impacts.
[65]    OJ
L 312, 22.11.2008, p. 3–30. 
[66]    It is worth noting, however, that in
most Member States producers and importers are already obliged to pay a fee for
the collection and recovery of plastic bags in line with the obligations of
producer responsibility schemes for packaging waste. No evidence is available
to support an assumption that such recovery fees have contributed to the
reduction in use of plastic carrier bags. As such, a fee payable by producers
and importers only, does not seem to be sufficient to curb plastic bag
consumption either.
[67]    Eunomia,
2012. p. 39. Annex 2.0, EU consumption of Single-use plastic carrier bags.
[68]  In case of a levy, Member States could
choose whether to use the funds to reduce other taxes, e.g. on labour or
profits, or to enhance the environmental benefit by ring fencing funds for
litter clean-up activities, recycling and other environmental projects. 
[69]    Polyethylene
is used in the production of plastic bags.  These can be HDPE (High Density
Polyethylene) usually used to make Single-use plastic bags, or LDPE (Low
Density Polyethylene) usually used to make Multiple-use plastic bags.
[70]    www.designinsite.dk/htmsider/m0002.htm

[71]    UK
Environment Agency (2011) Life cycle assessment of supermarket carrier bags: a
review of the bags available in 2006.
[72]    Eunomia,
2012. p. 43. Annex 3.0 (EU Production of Plastic Carrier Bags). 
[73]    "Single-use
plastic bags", here, takes into account production and imports of both
biodegradable and non-biodegradable single-use plastic.
[74]    Eunomia,
2012. p.11. Section 3.1. Possible switches to other types of bags. See also
Annex VI for further information.
[75]    Eunomia
(2012) does not consider likely that supermarkets will switch to paper bags due
to their expense and relative lack of strength. It is expected, however, that
other sectors will switch to greater use of paper bags if these are not made
the subject of the policy. They assume that half (50%) of the plastic bag
consumption in non-supermarket sectors will be displaced by paper bag
consumption, and half by multiple-use bags. This has, indeed, been the
experience in Ireland. Relative prices per bag and per type can be found in
Annex VII.
[76]    Eunomia
(2012) was able to assess litter clean-up and formal waste management costs for
each MS. Their detailed analysis can be found on pp. 58-70 of the Final Report.

[77]  In countries
where measures to reduce single-use plastic bags have been particularly
successful, such as Ireland, charges are paid into an environment fund, which
is used for financing recycling centres and other environmental activities such
as cleaning up illegal landfill sites. Annual revenues have risen from around
€12-14m to €23.4m in 2009. Collection and associated administration costs are
low, at about 3% of revenues. The remainder of the revenues are used to support
a wide range of environmental programmes
[78]    EU
producers focus on LDPE production. Low Density
Polyethylene (LDPE) Plastic carrier bags are designed for multiple-use and are
commonly referred to as ‘Bags for Life’. Nevertheless, as retailers and
consumers are the ones ultimately responsible for choosing their alternative to
single-use plastic bags, the prospected impacts on producers should be
considered with care.  For instance in France, the
progressive switch to reusable bags initiated by major retailers turned mainly
to PP (Polypropylene) bags, which are mainly produced in China (communication with the French association of flexible packaging).
[79]    Convery,
Frank, et al., 2007. The most popular tax in Europe? Lessons from
the Irish plastic bags levy.
[80]    In Denmark, supermarkets have made plastic bags a significant source
of income. Denmark has a tax on weight of plastic bags
that is applied to producers, transferred to the retailers who choose whether
and how to further pass it to consumers. The Danish
consumer is said to pay the highest price in the world for plastic bags, e.g.
between 2- 3.50 DKK (€0.27-0.47). The share of the levy is around 0.44 DKK (0.06 EUR) per bag and the marginal revenue for retailers
is in certain cases around 1 DKK (0.13 EUR) per bag. In May 2011, Danish
discount market Fakta charged 2.50 DKK (0.34 EUR) for a conventional plastic
bag (0.04 mm, max load 15kg). In a survey made by the Danish newspaper
Politiken, thick re-usable plastic bags cost between 1.50 – 1.80 DKK (0.20-0.24
EUR) in purchase cost for the supermarket (including tax) and thin plastic bags
approximately 0.80 DKK (including tax). Assuming that Fakta purchase their bag
from the producer for 1.50 DKK, the marginal revenue is 1 DKK (0.13 EUR) per
bag. (Source: Ecorys (2011) The role of market based instruments in achieving a
resource economy).
[81]
Employment impacts in the plastic bag sector are expected to be slightly
negative even though profits for producers of bags increase. This is due to the
differences in profits made by producers from single-use and multiple-use
plastic bags. Annexes VIII and IV of this report, from Eunomia, 2012. p.13
(Section 3.2 on Impacts on Plastic Bag Producing Companies, Employment and
Profits).
[82]   Bio
Intelligence Services, 2011. p. 17.
[83]    Eunomia,
2012. This figure includes single-use, multiple use plastic bags and paper bags
littered as forecast for 2015.
[84]    All
economic and social impact forecasts are derived from Eunomia, 2012.
[85]  Bio
Intelligence Service, 2011. p. 18.
[86]    Eunomia,
2012. This figure includes single-use, multiple use
plastic bags and paper bags littered forecasted for 2015.
[87]    Ecorys,
2011. The role of market based instruments in achieving a resource economy.
[88]    Eunomia,
2012. Note that some EU producers could still produce single-use plastic bags
for exports. Profits from their activities would be in the range of €1 million
per year.
[89]  Total savings here also include the benefits incurred by the public
authorities in waste management and litter collection, presented in Table 12.
[90]  As
explained in the description of option 2 in section 4.3.2, discussions with the
EU Retail Forum have already been attempted. This option is therefore now
assumed to be very difficult to implement. 
[91]    Bio
Intelligence Service, 2011. Assessment of impacts of options to reduce the use
of single-use plastic carrier bags. Final Report.
Eunomia, 2012.
Assistance to the Commission to complement an assessment of the socio-economic
costs and benefits of options to reduce use of single-use plastic carrier bags
in the EU. Final Report
[92]    Survey
for the collection and dissemination of statistics on the production of
industrial (mainly manufactured) goods, both in value and quantity terms, with
at least an annual frequency, in the EU.
[93]    Eurostat
reference database for EU external trade, including imports and exports.
[94] This is the case in Ireland and Bulgaria. In Denmark, where there is
a tax to retailers on weight of plastic bags sold, tax revenues are used as a
proxy to number of plastic bags sold, with average weight of plastic bags as a
reference.
[95] For instance in Luxemburg, 
[96] In Ireland, for instance, these types of surveys are paid for by
the Environment Fund, resourced by the single-use plastic bag levy.
[97]    Sustainable development academy (2011) Bulgaria
to introduce eco-tax on plastic bags, available at:
www.courseforsustainability.org/blacksea/news.php?id_news=470. ENDS Europe
(2011) Sorting out the plastic bag policy chaos, 5 July 2011.
[98]    National authority communication.
[99]    BIO calculations are that average weight
may have reduced by up to one third since 2003.
[100]  The Scottish Government (2005) Proposed
Plastic Bag Levy - Extended Impact Assessment: Volume 2: Appendices Appendix 1.
International Context – Experience Elsewhere- Republic of Ireland, available
at: www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/08/1993259/33019.
[101]  For more information see
www.citizensinformation.ie/en/environment/waste_management_and_recycling/plastic_bag_environmental_levy.html.
[102]  Source:
www.environ.ie/en/Environment/Waste/PlasticBags.
[103]  Convery, F. et al. (2006)
The most popular tax in Europe? Lessons from the Irish plastic bags levy,
Science+Business Media, plasticbaglaws.org/.../study_the-most-popular-tax-in-Europe-   
2007.pdf.
[104]  Legge
finanziaria 20071.
[105]  See
www.doeni.gov.uk/consultation_document_on_proposals_for_a_charge_on_single_use_carrier_bags.pdf.
[106]  Vidal, J. (2007) “Welcome to Modbury. Just don't ask
for a plastic bag” in The Guardian, available at:
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/apr/28/plasticbags.frontpagenews.
[107]  Plastic Bags Free Chesham Campaign, see:
www.cheshamintransition.org.uk/waste-recycling/plastic-bag-free-chesham.html.
[108]  Bio-based plastics come in three main
categories: natural polymers from renewable sources such as cellulose, starch
and plant-based proteins; polymers synthesised from renewable sources, e.g.
polylactic acid (PLA); and polymers produced by bacterial
fermentation, e.g. polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs). Bio-based plastics can be
either biodegradable or non-biodegradable (e.g. PLA).
[109]  Sacks and bags
used for fresh food such as fruit and vegetables or in butcher shops are not
included in this definition of single-use plastic carrier bags. They usually do
not have handles and are placed inside other bags. They are generally excluded
from plastic carrier bag policies for reasons of practicality (lack of suitable
alternatives) or food safety (especially when used for raw meat).
[110]  Figure based on existing experience at
Member States and international level and endorsed by relevant stakeholders
such as European Plastic Converters, European Plastic Films, Eurocommerce,
European Association of Plastic Recycling and Recovery, Plastics Europe, European
Bioplastics, European Plastic Recyclers. 
[111]  Typical weights, estimated by BIO based on feedback from
stakeholders.
[112]  BIO analysis based on available data and stakeholder estimates.
Some figures were updated with Eunomia data, as their estimates were deemed
more accurate: Imports (Bio IS trends are maintained to 2020; Litter rates (Bio
IS trends are maintained)
[113]  Ecorys, 2011.  The
role of market based instruments in achieving a resource economy. This
assumption is supported by the trend observed in Denmark after the introduction
of a plastic bags tax of 22 DKK
per kg.
[114]  The bags studied were: single-use HDPE,
single-use HDPE with a pro-degradant additive, starch-polyester blend
biodegradable, paper, “bag-for-life” LDPE, durable polypropylene (PP) and
cotton. It was assumed that all HDPE bags are imported to the UK from China.
[115]
Eunomia, 2012. (p.13 Section 3.2 on Impacts on Plastic Bag Producing Companies,
Employment and Profits, and p.41, Annex 3.0).
[116] Bio Intelligence Service (2011) Assessment
of Impacts of Options to Reduce the Use of Single-use Plastic Carrier Bags,
Final Report to European Commission – DG Environment, 12 September 2011
[117] Personal communication between BIO IS and
Alber & Geiger
[118] EuPC (2006) EU duties on plastic bag imports
applauded by EuPC, press release available at http://www.europeanplasticfilms.eu/docs/antidumping.pdf
[119] This will have the effect of delivering a
higher estimate of job losses than if we assumed a mix of FTE and part-time.
[120] It is not clear whether some of these are
part time workers. In the absence of further information we simply assume
17,250 full time equivalents (FTEs).
[121] We have contacted CEPI and EuroSac but no
information was available.
[122] See http://www.smithandersonpackaging.co.uk/.
Again, in the absence of further information we assume that the 210 staff work
full time.
[123]
Eunomia, 2012. (p.13 Section 3.2 on Impacts on Plastic Bag Producing Companies,
Employment and Profits, and p.41, Annex 3.0).
[124] Bio Intelligence Service Report 2011.
[125] Environment Agency (2011), Evidence: Life Cycle Assessment of
Supermarket Carrier Bags: A Review of the Bags Available in 2006, Environment
Agency February 2011.
[126] Environment Agency (2011), Evidence: Life Cycle Assessment of
Supermarket Carrier Bags: A Review of the Bags Available in 2006, Environment
Agency February 2011. 
[127] Environment Agency (2011), Evidence: Life Cycle Assessment of
Supermarket Carrier Bags: A Review of the Bags Available in 2006, Environment
Agency February 2011.
[128]  All figures converted to Euros from GBP. Inflation has been
accounted for with historical 2009 figures using latest HM Treasury GDP
Deflator data. Converted at a £:€ exchange rate of 1:1.27650, ft.com currency
converter, 26th July 2012.
[129]  AEA Technology plc (2009), Welsh Assembly Government, Single
Use Bag Study: Final, Report for the Welsh Assembly Government August
2009.