COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document 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: environmental standard, packaging, plastics, prevention of pollution, waste recycling













EUR-Lex - 52013SC0443 - EN











|



52013SC0443

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document 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/2013/0443 final */









COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Accompanying the document
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
1.           Problem definition
Plastic carrier
bags[1] are a popular and convenient product widely used for transporting
items from the store back home. It was estimated that in 2010 every EU citizen
used 198 such bags, 89% of which are single-use. In a
business as usual scenario their consumption is expected to increase further. The properties that have made plastic bags commercially successful –
low weight and resistance to degradation – are also contributing to their environmental
impacts. In 2010, more than 8 billion plastic bags were
littered in the EU. Moreover, municipal or private
waste collection systems in the EU send a very significant part (49,7% or 710
000 tons a year) of plastic bags collected to landfills, which is clearly
sub-optimal from a resource efficiency perspective. Very high consumption of single-use plastic carrier bags, their
inapropriate end-of-life treatment, and their resistance to degradation are
damaging our environment including marine ecosystems. 
In the EU, plastic carrier bags are
considered as packaging under the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive
(Directive 94/62/EC[2]). However, there is no EU legislation or policy specifically targeting
plastic carrier bags. Some Member States have already developed policies to
reduce the use of plastic carrier bags by means of pricing measures, agreements
with the retail sector or awareness campaigns, with variable results. Following
attempts by some Member States to ban plastic bags, the Environment Council of
14 March 2011 discussed the issue and invited the Commission to analyse
possible EU action against the use of plastic bags. 
2.           Analysis of subsidiarity
and EU added valued 
High consumption rates of plastic bags pose
both a common and a transboundary challenge for the EU. It is unlikely that all
Member States will tackle the issue effectively without EU intervention. The
added value of EU action would lie in providing a framework establishing a shared
objective, concepts and definitions, and a timeframe, while leaving Member
States free to decide about precise implementation methods, in line with the
subsidiarity principle.
EU action is fully in line with the two objectives
of the Packaging Directive: to prevent and reduce the environmental impacts of
packaging and packaging waste, and to ensure the coherence in addressing a
common and transboundary problem. 
3.           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 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.
The Impact Assessment evaluates the main
environmental, social and economic impacts of potential policy options aimed at
reducing the use of single-use plastic carrier bags. Various levels of ambition
are assessed and compared to a baseline scenario, in order to identify the
instruments that minimise costs, while maximising benefits.
4.           Policy options
The options put forward in the analysis focus
on prevention measures targeting single-use plastic carrier bags. 
Option 1 (the "baseline
scenario") takes a "do-nothing" approach in which the status-quo
would be maintained. There would be no additional policies and measures aiming
to limit the consumption of single-use plastic carrier bags at EU or national
level.
Option 2 ("Voluntary commitment of a
significant share of the EU retail sector not to provide single-use plastic
carrier bags") entails a voluntary agreement by a significant share of the
EU retail sector to stop providing single-use plastic carrier bags. For the
purpose of the Impact Assessment, such an agreement would translate into a
reduction of 55% single-use plastic carrier bags.
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"). This option is composed of three mutually supportive
elements: a prevention target; a pricing measure; and a possibility for Member
States to introduce market restrictions by way of derogation of article 18 of
the Packaging Directive. The prevention (reduction) target would be set for
single-use plastic carrier bags at EU level, and would result in a reduction of
80% of the EU average consumption of single-use plastic bags. 
Option 4 ("Introducing an EU level ban
of single-use plastic carrier bags"), the provision of single-use plastic
carrier bags in retail service would be prohibited – a reduction of 100% of
single-use plastic bags consumed in the EU. 
5.           Analysis of impacts
The assessment focuses on the additional
impacts that options 2-4 have compared to the baseline scenario. 
All options to reduce the use of single-use
plastic carrier bags share the same types of impacts; only the magnitude of
these impacts differ from one option to another. 
·                        
Environmental impacts
The main environmental benefits are linked to
the decline in the amount of waste and the number of bags
littered, which translates into lower litter clean-up expenses
and expenses incurred in formal waste management (collection, recycling and
disposal). These costs are expected to be reduced considerably as consumption
of single-use plastic bags diminishes. Lower consumption of single-use plastic
bags would also result in more efficient resource use and lower greenhouse
gas emissions. 
·                        
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 to ensure implementation and enforcement, for both the public
and private sectors. The administrative burden will depend on the final design
of the implementation measures chosen by Member States.
The net impacts on producers are expected to be positive.
Although the measures proposed entail a decrease in the activity of single-use
plastic bag manufacturers, producers of multiple-use plastic bags will benefit
from the changes. In the EU, 70% of single-use carrier bags are imported,
limiting the negative impacts on European producers. Reduced availability of
single-use plastic carrier bags would in part be offset by a switch to reusable
plastic carrier bags, mainly produced in the EU. 
The net impacts on retailers are also expected to be positive,
although they may face initial costs to implement any of the proposed measures
(e.g. awareness raising, administrative costs, an increase in costs of
providing other free alternatives). These costs could be offset by the
increased sale of reusable alternatives and the overall reduction of
consumption of single-use carrier bags currently often provided free of charge.
Some retailers may even profit economically from measures to reduce single-use
plastic bag consumption. 
Impacts on employment levels are likely to be slightly negative in
all the proposed policy options. 
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, and help promote more sustainable consumption patterns. All measures
have the potential to influence consumer behaviour more broadly, and guide
manufacturers' and retailers' business models.
6.           Comparing the policy
options
The four policy options have been assessed quantitatively
and qualitatively. The quantitative analysis focuses on three environmental
impacts (resource use; littering rates; and impacts on public spending on waste
management and litter collection) and on six economic and social impacts (administrative
burden; impacts on EU producers; impacts on EU retailers; impacts on consumers;
impact on employment levels; and public awareness). 
Table
1:
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 + economic instrument || 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' reduction                (billion/2015) || 0 || 4,1 || 5,3 || 6,4 
Table 2:
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                (€m/year) || Baseline (business as usual) || Retailers' voluntary agreement || Prevention target + economic instrument || Ban 
 Costs Reduction to Retailers || 0 || 412,5 || 649,8 || 791,7 
 Profits to EU Bag Manufacturers || 0 || 5,7 || 3,8 || 4,2 
 Cost reduction for Litter Collection || 0 || 34,0 || 46,3 || 54,2 
 Cost reduction for waste                management || 0 || 25,8 || 39,8 || 49,5 
 Total savings and benefits || 0 || 478,0 || 739,8 || 899,5 
Table 3:
Quantitative comparison of the main social impacts of the options proposed,
relative to the baseline (business as usual).
 Social Impact Indicators || Baseline (business as usual) || Retailers' voluntary agreement || Prevention target + economic instrument || Ban 
 Net Change in Employment in EU Bag Manufacture in 2015 (Full Time Equivalents) || 0 || -860 || -1340 || -1641 
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 with 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.
Six other issues (more difficult to quantify)
complement the analysis in a qualitative way:
Flexibility of Member States to decide on
specific policy measures. A prevention target would prescribe an objective, but
would grant all Member States the flexibility to decide which measures work best
in their national contexts, a condition that would not be met in the case of an
EU-wide voluntary agreement with the retail sector nor in the case of a ban. 
Implementation costs. Changes in
institutional arrangements needed to implement any new measure may entail
administrative and human resource 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. 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.
The administrative costs related to a prevention target accompanied
by a pricing instrument 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 need face further impacts.
–                        
Possibility to generate revenues. The economic instruments recommended to
accompany a prevention target for single-use plastic bags would generate
revenues that could be directed towards public authorities or retailers. If
revenues flow to public authorities, they could be used to offset (part of) the
administrative costs related to implementation and enforcement. 
–                        
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 materialize, many smaller retail shops would not
take part. This not only risks confusing consumers as availability of single-use
plastic bags would vary across shops, but also raises questions in terms of a
level playing field between all retailers in the EU. Moreover, there is a risk
that individual retailers covered by the Retail Forum do not accept the
agreement.
–                        
Raising awareness on sustainable
consumption. Making
single-use plastic bags more scarce and introducing economic instruments may
help raise consumer awareness of (un)sustainable consumption patterns, beyond
the consumption of plastic bags only. This effect is less likely in the case of
a voluntary agreement with only part of the EU retail sector. 
–                        
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. 
7.           Preferred option
An EU-wide prevention target with an
explicit recommendation to use economic instruments and the possibility for
Member States to apply market restrictions by way of derogation of Article 18
(option 3 as described in Section 3.2.3 of the full Impact Assessment report)
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.

However, further consideration of the
policy options analysed in this impact assessment during the Commission's
inter-service consultations have led to the conclusion that it would be
difficult at present to design and implement an EU-wide reduction target, given
the current very large differences between Member States' consumption levels of
single-use plastic bags. 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. 
8.           Monitoring and evaluation
Member States will 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 of the entry into
force. They would notify the Commission of their national legislation to reach
the objective, which the Commission would then check for conformity.
The core indicator for progress towards
meeting the objectives set for this policy initiative would be "Single-use
plastic carrier bags placed on the market".
Monitoring a reduction in the consumption
of 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 should
be relatively straightforward, given the monitoring instruments that already
exist for the implementation of the Packaging Directive and the Waste Framework
Directive.
Member States are
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. New measures aiming to reduce the use of
single-use plastic carrier bags will not imply major changes to existing
monitoring obligations, as these are already covered by those set in the Waste
Framework Directive and the Packaging Directive.
The Commission will encourage the sharing
of best data collection practices from countries that have successfully
implemented such initiatives, as it has done in the context of other waste
stream Directives.
[1]               A
definition of plastic carrier bags is provided in Annex II of the full Impact
Assessment (Commission Staff Working Paper COM(2013) XXX final).
[2]               Official
Journal L 365, 31.12.1994 p.10-23.