COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Ex-post evaluation of Five Waste Stream Directives Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council reviewing the targets in Directives 2008/98/EC on waste, 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, and 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste, amending Directives 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles, 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators, and 2012/19/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment
Date: 2014-07-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: amendment of a law, electricity storage device, electronic waste, packaging, pollution control measures, public health, unauthorised dumping, vehicle, waste disposal













EUR-Lex - 52014SC0209 - EN











|



52014SC0209

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Ex-post evaluation of Five Waste Stream Directives Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council reviewing the targets in Directives 2008/98/EC on waste, 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, and 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste, amending Directives 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles, 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators, and 2012/19/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment /* SWD/2014/0209 final */









Fitness check 
of five Waste Stream Directives
1.         Introduction
As
part of the 2010 Work Programme1, the Commission has started
reviewing the body of EU legislation
in selected policy fields through "Fitness Checks" informing regular
review and update of EU legislation by a qualitative and quantitative retrospective
assessment helping to keep legislation "fit for purpose". 
The goal is to identify excessive burdens, overlaps,
gaps, inconsistencies or obsolete measures which may have appeared over time since
the EU law at issue was first adopted and implemented.
This shall help promoting better/smart EU legislation, making it more responsive to current and future
challenges and improving implementation.
Pilot exercises were launched in four areas: employment &
social policy, environment, transport and industrial policy. Following its
first Fitness Check in the area of freshwater policy, DG ENV will now present
an evaluation of certain instruments concerning specific categories of waste
and the following 5 Directives were selected:
·        
Directive 86/278/EEC of the Council of 12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the
soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture[1] (SSD). 
·        
Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste[2] (PPWD).
·        
Directive 96/59/EC of the Council of 16 September 1996 on the
disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT)[3].
·        
Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 18 September 2000 on end-of life vehicles[4] (ELV). 
·        
Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and
accumulators and repealing Directives 91/157/EEC[5] (Batteries). 
Other waste stream Directives have not been selected for reasons
detailed in the mandate to this report, attached as Annex 1.
Stakeholder interest in this exercise was lively. Industry
organisations representing the packaging sector, car manufacturers and battery
producers as well as NGOs, national and regional authorities also took active
interest in informing the process. 
SMEs were given specific consideration. Their European roof
organisations were invited to an ex-post evaluation workshop on 4 November 2013
and they were also consulted in writing. A second specific workshop with SMEs
held in Brussels in December 2013 discussed specific SME concerns expressed on
EU waste legislation. Major concerns relating to the Directives being evaluated
in this exercise were not expressed. 
2.         Background
This section
sets out the context of the Fitness Check, in particular how the legislation
developed along with changing waste – and resource policy objectives. It
highlights the objectives of the Directives and points to their common features
and differences.
a.         The
Five Waste Stream Directives in the overall context of waste legislation
The
earliest European waste legislation dates back to 1975 with the adoption of the
Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on Waste[6],
the Waste Framework Directive (WFD). This Directive, revised in 1991 and
re-adopted without modification on 5 April 2006 as Directive 2006/12/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council[7] was subject to a
fundamental revision only in 2008. The new 2008/98/EC Waste Framework Directive[8],
gave effect to the 6th Environmental Action Programme 2002-2012[9]
as well as the Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste,
adopted by the European Commission on 21.12.2005. The Waste Framework
Directive 2008/98/EC is the newest piece of EU waste legislation in relation to
the 5 Directives screened here. It is also the most holistic and comprehensive
piece of European Waste legislation, defining key
concepts, such as environmental objectives, extended producer responsibility,
the five step waste hierarchy, new waste specific definitions and life-cycle
thinking. It also made a contribution to simplification and streamlining
of legislation by integrating the Directive on hazardous waste and the waste
oil Directive. It sets the waste policy agenda for the 21st
century, giving effect to European resource and climate policy by
prioritizing waste prevention and recycling of waste and stipulating a European
recycling society as an important long-term objective. 
Since its first adoption in 1975, the Waste Framework Directive
remained over decades by far the most important piece of waste legislation,
more than any other Directive invoked by the CJEU[10]
in its judgments on waste policy cases, fundamentally adapted to the
requirements of a changing political agenda. The most significant change in
this context was the shift from primarily sanitary aspects to resource
conservation through resource efficiency and waste prevention. Thus it gradually
developed importance beyond waste gaining profile in the context of product
policy[11]. 
This shift beyond the area of waste finds its clearest expression
in the five-step waste hierarchy setting waste prevention on top of the
priority list. Waste prevention is an objective entirely outside any waste
operation and yet regulated in a law on waste[12].
The Waste Framework Directive is therefore also a programmatic legal instrument
setting the agenda for sustainable production and consumption. It highlights the
importance of extended producer responsibility through product design. It also
closes the loop between product and waste by introducing the principle of
life-cycle thinking, creating a need for looking at products under the
perspective of waste throughout the whole product life cycle. This approach
mirrors the requirements of a circular economy in which ideally all
products are designed in a way to be re-usable, repairable and fully
recyclable. 
Over time a supplementary corpus of law was developed in parallel
to framework legislation and adapted to the specificities of important single
waste streams. Some older instruments, such as the waste oil Directive 75/439
and the hazardous waste Directive 91/689/EEC were repealed and integrated into
the WFD 2008/98/EC. The old PCB/PCT Directive 76/403 was revised in 1996. From
this group of older Directives only the sewage sludge Directive survived
without any alteration, mainly due to the fact that no consensus could be
reached about the right adjustment of limit values for heavy metals in sludge
and soil.
In contrast there was a relative standstill in developing waste
framework legislation. This came to an end with the adoption of the Waste
Framework Directive 2008/98/EC in 2008. This modern instrument of waste legislation
was conceived as a tool of simplification because it integrated the
waste oil Directive and the hazardous waste Directive and it set the
political waste for the objective of resource efficiency in a European
“recycling society” moving towards a circular economy. 
This historic process of course had inevitably the consequence
that the older waste stream Directives did to some extent diverge over time
from key concepts and key provisions such as extensive new definitions provided
for in the updated waste framework legislation. The picture of European waste
legislation has therefore become and remains today more kaleidoscopic than
would appear ideal. This may be  not so much rooted in the way in which each
single instrument functions on its own, but more in the lack of full synchronization
of waste stream legislation and framework legislation, as will be shown later. 
b.         Objectives
of the Directives
All five
Directives screened have a clearly defined environmental objective. Looking at
them horizontally, however, allows categorising them into three different
groups.
The
PCB/PCT Directive is end-of-life legislation. PCB
and PCT are highly toxic persistent organic pollutants that are to be
eliminated. The Directive's objective is reached once elimination is completed.
This Directive was least affected by existing framework legislation. Since this
instrument is purely focused on phasing out substances and appliances
containing such substances, it is a stand-alone instrument. 
In
contrast, The Directive on sewage sludge stands between a recycling
Directive and an end-of-life Directive. It allows recovery of sludge on
agricultural land under defined sanitary and environmentally sound conditions,
to encourage the recycling of nutrients and organic matter through application
of sludge on agricultural land. It has in parallel a common market objective[13].
The common market was an issue for sludge application in agriculture because
inappropriate sludge use could raise doubts in relation to food quality in
different Member States, thus potentially hamper free movement of goods.
The
third group of Directives, Packaging, Batteries and ELVs, also attuned
to a common market objective, are more clearly oriented towards circular
economy. They make ample reference to recycling and waste prevention as
well as to the five step waste hierarchy. 
This
categorization may help to better understand the functioning and inner harmony
of the uncodified body of European waste law. PCB/PCT and sewage sludge have
their main "raison d'être" in the pressure to prevent harmful effects
for the environment or human health by its chemical properties. In addition to
this, the Directives on Batteries, ELVs and Packaging are instruments attuned
to the needs of a circular economy and they are already structured alike. Their
need for a maximum of concordance with the requirements of the Waste Framework
Directive is therefore much more obvious. For a better understanding of each
single screened Directive a closer look to their main purpose and objectives is
required. 
Main
purpose of each Directive
The
main purpose of Directive 86/278/EEC on sewage
sludge is to encourage the correct use
of sewage sludge in agriculture and to regulate its use in order to prevent
harmful effects on soil, vegetation, animals and humans. To this end, it
prohibits the use of untreated sludge on agricultural land unless it is
injected or worked into the soil. The Directive also requires that sludge be
used in such a way that the nutrient requirements of plants and that the
quality of the soil and of surface and groundwater is not impaired.
The
Directive further imposes several requirements on the quality of sludge for use
in agriculture, the monitoring of the quality of soil which is enhanced with
sludge and limiting sludge application for certain purposes and during certain
time periods. The main aim of these requirements is to ultimately limit heavy
metal concentrations in soils. 
The
main purpose of Directive 94/62/EC on
packaging and packaging waste can be better understood with a
brief look into legislative history. The first EU measures on the management of
packaging waste were introduced in the 1980s with the Directive 85/339/EEC[14]
on beverage containers. This Directive failed to bring about harmonisation of
national policies. 
Therefore
 Member States and economic operators requested the Commission to propose a
comprehensive legislation with a general purpose to harmonise the measures
taken at the Member State level for the management of packaging and packaging
waste. As a result, the 94/62/EC Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (PPW
Directive) was adopted in 1994 with the aim to harmonise national measures to
reduce the impacts of packaging and packaging waste to the environment and to
safeguard the functioning of the internal market.[15]
The PPW Directive with the Single market Treaty Article as its legal base
set a dual objective in order to:
·       
Prevent
impacts on the environment for all Member States and third
countries (environmental objective); to this end it has provisions on re-use of
packaging, prevention and recycling of packaging waste and other forms of
packaging recovery as well as substance restrictions.
·       
Ensure
a good functioning of the Internal Market without
imposing obstacles to trade and causing distortions and restriction of
competition within the EU (internal market objective). This shall be achieved
mainly by the Essential Requirements defined for all packaging placed on
the EU market. Essential requirements set rules through parameters on the composition
of packaging, its re-usability and recoverability that all packaging put on the
EU market has to fulfil. They therefore standardise what is marketable in the
EU. 
The main purpose of
Directive 96/59/EC (PCB/PCT) is to implement the international PARCOM
obligation contained in PARCOM Decision 92/3.[16]
This implies to make PCBs subject of an inventory and to soundly dispose of
them or to decontaminate PCB equipment before the end of 2010 (Article 3). 
The (PCB/PCT) Directive replaced
the old Council Directive 76/403/EEC of 6 April 1976, focusing on
approximation of laws on PCB disposal. This old Directive proved to be
insufficient to cope with the problems of safe disposal. The old Council
Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 on use restrictions for PCB included
provisions on periodical review and transition towards a gradual ban on PCBs
and PCTs. 
The
main purpose of Directive 2000/53/EC on
end-of life vehicles is
to ensure the appropriate  management of the annually generated 8 to  9 million
tonnes (Mt) of ELV waste in the EU.[17] This shall
mainly be achieved by limiting the production of waste arising from ELVs and
their toxicity, by increasing the rates of reuse, recycling and other forms of
recovery of ELVs as compared to disposal and finally to ensure the appropriate
treatment of waste in environmentally sound conditions. This perfectly fits
into the objective of resource efficiency described in the Waste Framework
Directive. It also uses the concept of extended producer responsibility by placing
the responsibility primarily on vehicle manufacturers to increase the share of
components that can be recycled while Member State governments are required to
create the necessary framework conditions. 
The main purpose of Directive 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste
batteries and accumulators and repealing Directives
91/157/EEC[18] is the improvement of the environmental performance of batteries
and accumulators and of the activities of all economic operators involved in
the lifecycle of batteries and accumulators. These operators include producers,
distributors, end-users and also operators involved in the treatment and
recycling of waste batteries and accumulators. 
To this end the Directives
contains provisions on:
Ø  the prohibition
of hazardous materials used in batteries, 
Ø  information
to the end users (labelling of batteries), 
Ø  collection
targets and recycling rates and prohibition of the disposal in landfills or by
incineration of waste industrial and automotive batteries,
Ø  “producer
responsibility” obligations.
It is already evident that
this recent Directive also closely corresponds to the most pertinent concepts
in the Waste Framework Directive, such as extended producer responsibility,
resource conservation through setting collection and recycling targets, eco
design through reduction of hazardous substances in new production. Moreover
and in contrast to the other Directives, it also complements the landfill
Directive 1999/31/EC by incorporating a landfill ban for industrial and
automotive batteries and accumulators. 
This Directive makes already
reference to the thematic strategy on waste prevention and recycling developed
under the 6th EAP. It is therefore the most modern and up to date
piece of legislation among the 5 screened. 
c.         Most
pertinent similarities and differences of the five Waste Stream Directives
It is
one of the major advantages of a Fitness Check (i.e. a retrospective evaluation
of a group of Directives in the same policy field) that it gives the
opportunity to highlight relevant differences and communalities. This opens
valuable insight into and understanding of systemic aspects of the policy
field. Since the legislation screened here spreads over a time range of nearly
30 years, many differences can be expected, yet of varying relevance.
The
legal basis
Not
all Directives screened have the same legal base. The PPW Directive is
based on ex-Article 100a EC (Internal Market/Maastricht). The Sewage sludge
Directive is based on Art. 100 TEC (Common Market) and Art 235 TEC (a residual
legal base for legislation influencing the achievement of Treaty objectives).
The
Batteries Directive has, unlike the other Directives, a dual legal base,
i.e. Art. 175 (1) (Environment/Nice), for the whole Directive as a general rule
and Art. 95(1) (Internal Market/Nice) only for the provisions in Art. 4, 6, and
21 of the Directive. The ELV Directive is based only on Article 175 (1)
(Internal market/Amsterdam). Whereas the PCB Directive is based on Art. 130s
(Environment/Maastricht).
The
Internal market legal base, now Art. 114 TFEU, has been chosen for the PPWD
because packaging is particularly sensitive to Internal market barriers. Those
shall be removed by positively defining the conditions to be met by packaging
so that it can be freely marketed throughout Europe. Beyond this overall
purpose, the legal base has importance for the fact that the Internal market
legal base (Art. 100a/95 Amsterdam) allows Member States to only introduce
new national measures based on new scientific evidence
relating to the protection of the environment on grounds of a problem specific
to that Member State arising after the adoption of the harmonisation measure. And such measures can only be maintained if they are not
a means of discrimination. The environmental legal base instead allows Member
States to maintain or to adopt more restrictive protective provisions. 
Relation
to waste hierarchy, extended producer responsibility, and waste prevention
The PPW Directive follows the waste
hierarchy as set out in the 2008 WFD, through putting priority on waste
prevention. Although the Directive predates the Waste Framework Directive
2008/98/EC, the waste hierarchy is mentioned as an objective in Art. 1(2) PPWD
in the proper order of the later WFD.  Separate Articles deal in a detailed way
in particular with waste prevention, recovery and recycling as well as separate
waste collection. The concept of extended producer responsibility is mentioned
in Art 4 (1) second indent as a "may be introduced" soft law
requirement. 
The ELV Directive follows the same
pattern and makes reference to the waste hierarchy in its Art. 1. with
following specific Articles on prevention, re-use and recovery including
recycling, as well as collection and treatment. The concept of life cycle
thinking is not specifically addressed in both Directives. 
The Batteries Directive, mostly due to the characteristics
of this waste stream, instead of referring to the waste hierarchy in general,
mentions in its objectives only collection, treatment, recycling and disposal
of batteries. Waste prevention is not mentioned. Life cycle thinking
already finds its place in Art. 1 and 5 of the Directive. Art. 5 in particular
makes reference to eco-design in obliging Member States to promote the
substitution of hazardous substances in batteries, such as mercury, cadmium and
lead. Easy removal through design is also encouraged. Extended producer
responsibility is broadly dealt with in Art. 8. 
To some extent also the Sewage sludge Directive contains an
early allusion to the waste hierarchy by encouraging the use of sewage sludge
for its "valuable agronomic properties". 
The PCB/PCT Directive in contrast to all the other screened
instruments is solely an end of life Directive. Therefore none of the concepts
mentioned before play a role nor should play a role and consequently are not
taken into account. 
The circular economy concept
A circular economy concept
with its special emphasis on product design for recycling and durability and
reparability, extended producer responsibility with its own collection schemes,
prevention, recycling and recovery as a dominating objective is only
indirectly addressed in different intensity across the screened Directives.
It does not apply to the PCB Directive. This concept was a legislative novelty
that came about only with the adoption of the WFD in 2008. 
Therefore, naturally, it is not fully developed in any of the five
Directives evaluated here and in the absence of the mainstreaming of life cycle
thinking into these waste stream Directives it is not living up to standard of
the WFD. 
Both the PPW Directive and the ELV Directive include
an element of “ecodesign” to reduce and control hazardous substances and
facilitate reuse and recovery and avoid disposal of hazardous waste. The ELV
Directive also encourages the use of recycled materials in new vehicles. The
Batteries Directive prohibits certain actions such as landfilling or
incineration of automotive and industrial batteries and accumulators and bans
certain substances, thus it tries to keep raw materials in a closed loop of
recovery. It includes “ecodesign” in allowing for the easier removal of
batteries and accumulators from products and encourages new recycling
technologies. 
3.         Process 
This retrospective evaluation (Fitness Check) was launched in
2012. Its objective and methodology are described in the mandate Annex (1).
It has been carried out in parallel with the review of targets in the WFD, the Landfill
Directive and the PPWD. Only the PPWD is subject to both exercises, although
the overlap is rather limited (only as regards the recovery and recycling
targets set out in Article 6). In order to ensure a maximum of consistency, a
common inter-service group was established.
Taken together, the review of targets – which also undertakes a limited
retrospective analysis of the three directives concerned (i.e. mainly of their
targets) – and this Fitness Check provide a very comprehensive assessment of
the performance of EU waste law. 
Furthermore, this evaluation needs
to be seen in the wider context of the Regulatory Fitness and
Performance Programme (REFIT). The first phase was
launched by the Commission in October 2013. The purpose
of REFIT is to systematically review EU legislation in
order to:
·       
see if its aims are being met efficiently and
effectively
·       
detect unnecessary regulatory burdens, gaps and
inefficiencies
·       
identify opportunities for simplification
·       
enable the Commission to propose that Council
and Parliament revise or repeal legislation where appropriate.
Retrospective evaluations and Fitness Checks are an integral element
of REFIT, helping to prepare a
sound basis for future revision of legislation by identifying what worked in
the past and identifying the obstacles in cases where legislation may not have
been as effective and efficient as possible. 
Studies
There
has also been considerable research on the primary effects of some of the
Directives screened, notably in the two reports on coherence of waste
legislation in 2009 and 2011. Both studies, which did not focus
on the Directive on PCB/PCT and sewage sludge, cover to a large extent the
evaluation questions posed here and provide in depth insight mainly to the
extent of which the waste stream Directives are formally, and with regard to
their content, materially consistent with framework waste legislation and waste
related strategies. 
In
both studies a close look was taken to the Batteries, ELV and Packaging
Directive, their interdependence with other waste legislation and principles,
gaps, inconsistencies, effectiveness and efficiency as well as their coherence.
Therefore, prior to this Fitness Check there was already comprehensive analysis
of these three Directives as well as their implementation, their perception in
Members States and by stakeholders available. Both studies were accompanied by
ample stakeholder consultation and the results of these have been integrated in
the final ex-post evaluation study.
A further specific ex-post evaluation study was commissioned at
the beginning of 2013. The final report was delivered in April 2014. 
Data limitations existed for the Batteries Directive, which made
it more difficult to produce a fully comprehensive and detailed analysis of all
aspects concerning its effectiveness and efficiency, given the relatively short
time frame over which it has been in force. The Commission's first
implementation report on this Directive is yet to be published.
Literature Review
The ex-post evaluation study is based on an extensive data
collection. To this end a literature review was carried out, including existing
evaluation reports, academic and research papers as well as the consultant’s
in-house database. 
Consultation
This work was complemented by consultation of a wide array of
stakeholders, targeting the main key stakeholders impacted by each of the
Directives. Included were representatives from industry associations and
federations, local and national authorities, NGOs producer responsibility
organizations. Targeted questionnaires were sent out and face to face
interviews were held to gather information from stakeholders. 
A workshop was held on 4 November 2013 in Brussels with the aim of
presenting the main findings of the draft evaluation report, and receiving
stakeholder feed-back. Around 85 stakeholders from a wide range of sectors and
public authorities were present to provide additional input. European SME
organizations were invited to the workshop. 
A further workshop, specifically focusing on SMEs, was held
on 16 December 2013 in the context of a discussion of the WFD and its
alleged burdens for SMEs. In relation to the five Directives screened no
specific concerns had been expressed. 
4.         Focus of the Fitness Check 
The
aim of the Fitness Check is to identify excessive burdens, overlaps, gaps,
inconsistencies or obsolete measures which may have appeared over time since
the Directives' adoption. This may allow conclusions as to what extent they are
still fit for purpose. 
In
order to make this assessment, the Five Waste Streams Directives are checked
for the following four parameters, further differentiated in sub-parameters.
For further details as to sub-parameters, see Annex 2.
·        
Effectiveness: the
extent to which the Directives effectively achieve their objectives. This
includes the assessment of effective transposition and implementation which
lies outside the structure of the legal instrument itself but which is
intrinsically linked to effectiveness. 
·        
Efficiency:
the
extent to which the Directives achieve their objectives in the most cost
efficient way. Cost efficiency may depend on external factors (factors outside
the Directive) or on internal factors (factors inherent to the provisions of
the Directive, such as e.g. reporting obligations).
·        
Relevance:
the
extent to which the Directives still address the needs of protection of the
environment and human health as well as the functioning of the internal market
in a way that a regulation on European level is still needed and serves a
useful purpose.
·        
Coherence: the
extent to which the Directives are consistent within the policy system they
belong to, in particular, whether waste stream legislation is consistent with
framework legislation and any related EU legislation as well as overarching
policy commitments relating to raw materials, resource efficiency and circular
economy. 
These
four parameters applied throughout the ex post evaluation process have led to a
thorough analysis of the EU added value of the Directives screened. It allows a
more objective assessment as to whether the Directives have delivered the
results initially expected. In case they have not, it provides answers why and
which obstacles hindered the attainment of the objectives. It also answers
whether the attainment of the intended objective was proportional to the costs
this may have caused for all relevant actors in the process of implementation.
It finally shows to what extend there is consistency between the individual
instruments, their tools and their objectives, and the overall policy
development over a longer period of time.  
The
analysis of each Directive follows the same logic. Starting from the
definition of general needs that the individual instrument was meant to respond
to, it defines the general objectives of the whole policy field, describes the
specific aims, the means to realise these aims and the actually achieved output
of the Directives. It finally analysis the broader effects of the Directives
and what impact they have in particular in relation to the objectives
spelled out in the 7th EAP, notably:
·        
Resource
depletion and green-house gas emissions as well as circular economy.
·        
Application
of life cycle thinking from production to end of life management
·        
Optimising
the use of finite resources in a product based economy
·        
Producer
responsibility as an instrument to better link waste regime and product regime
·        
Achieving
a zero waste economy in which products are designed in such a way that they can
be repaired, re-used as a whole or in parts, recycled and be reintroduced in
the production cycle as new raw materials. 
·        
Achieving
full control over the out-phasing of hazardous chemicals in products and waste
·        
Giving
full effect to the waste hierarchy that only exceptionally allows final
disposal
·        
Giving
full effect to waste prevention
As
discussed above, this Fitness Check is also part of a wider waste review
process (target review) in which the PPWD with its recycling and recovery
targets is included. Some findings from this exercise related to the PPWD and
its coherence in the overall waste policy context, notably the WFD, have allowed
valuable conclusions to be drawn and fed into the target review. 
5.         State of transposition and implementation of
the five Waste Stream Directives
Before
looking more closely into the findings under each heading of the evaluation
criteria, an overview over the state of transposition and implementation of the
Directives has to be provided, including aspects of overall policy coherence.
a.         General
observations
There
is a difference to be made between transposition and implementation.
Transposition is the formal act of translating Directives addressed to Member
States into national law. 
The
legal transposition of the Directives has been analysed and described in depth
in various conformity studies.
Implementation is
much wider and concerns the totality of actual means (administrative, investment,
infrastructure, process) applied in order to attain the Directives' objectives
effectively. Implementation has
to be effective. It is the final aim of transposition and can be checked by the
Court of Justice of the European Union on a case by case basis in the context
of judicial action. The Court applies thereby the "effet utile"
principle testing whether Member States’ implementation activity has had the
necessary practical effect. The best designed law has no useful effect, if it
is not properly implemented. Implementation deficits can be manifold,
reaching from a lack of waste infrastructure (disposal facilities, waste
collection, recycling facilities etc.) to a lack of enforcement capacity and
the absence of sufficient controls and a deterrent sanction mechanism.
Implementation
is of high economic importance particularly for the product related waste
stream Directives. Its harmonizing effect creates a level playing field for
economic operators; therefore it is a fundament for investment into infrastructure.
Bad implementation leads to competitive distortion and hinders such investment.[19]

Implementation
is intrinsically linked to effectiveness and therefore frequent reference to
implementation will be made when discussing the different Directives in detail.
As
the further analysis will show, the five screened Directives had a considerable
effect in the individual Member States on the improvement of environmental
conditions. E.g.: more Batteries, packaging and ELVs were collected and
recycled. This lifted environmental pressure on atmospheric and soil pollution.
The sewage sludge Directive helped saving green-house gases by diverting sewage
sludge from landfills. It helped also fighting eutrophication of the marine
environment through by opening alternative outlets for sewage sludge and it
allowed the recovery of nutrients, in particular phosphorous. The PCB/PCT
Directive tries to achieve the complete elimination of PCB. 
It is
a recurrent issue that some Member States already had the measures in place
which were targeted by European waste legislation, while other Member States
did not. The effect of European legislation in both cases is the effect of creating
a level playing field for all actors in the internal market as well as
providing for an approximation of living conditions in environmental
terms for citizens. 
One
of the conditions under which a European legal instrument may be adopted is the
observance of the principle of subsidiarity. All Directives screened have at
the time of their adoption clearly responded to a need for regulation on
Community level, which was fully recognised by all stakeholders interviewed for
this evaluation. The sewage sludge Directive since nearly 30 years from its
adoption was never adapted, while Member States had developed their own set of
much stricter conditions on national level. This raises the question why the EU
didn’t act to keep the Directive up to date and whether conclusions can be
drawn with regard to subsidiarity.
b.         Transposition
The
transposition of all five Waste Stream Directives is in principle fully
completed. As a general rule, the transposition of waste Directives is
systematically checked by the European Commission after expiry of the
transposition date on the basis of conformity checks prepared by external
consultants. Non-compliance is checked on a case by case basis. There are
currently a small number of residual infringement cases open relating to
insufficient transposition of Directives screened. Insufficient transposition
is therefore a marginal problem.
With
regard to the individual Directives: 
·       
For
packaging there are two non-conformity cases,
·       
For
ELV there
is a non-conformity case for one Member State and another Member States is
under assessment for not achieving the targets,
·       
For
batteries there are non-conformity cases for four Member States. The Directive
had to be fully transposed and implemented on 26 September 2008[20].
Transposition is fully completed,
·       
For
PCB and sewage sludge there is full conformity.
c.         Implementation

The timely
attainment of existing targets is checked systematically and followed up on a
regular basis. At the time of writing this report, there are no
major implementation problems for the PPW, ELV, Batteries and sewage sludge
Directive apparent (although the first implementation report for the Batteries
Directive will only be available in 2014).  The sewage sludge Directive is
fully implemented in all Member States. In contrast, although
progress towards elimination and proper disposal of PCBs has been
quite significant, the 31 December 2010 deadline
for the complete decontamination or disposal has not been met by most Member
States to a large extent. 
This
open non-compliance by the majority of Member States is aggravated by the fact
that conclusive inventories of PCB equipment are missing and make it near to
impossible to assess the distance to targets. Equipment containing >5dm3 PCB
liquid is not properly inventoried. Where data are available a clear decrease
in progress in decontamination can be observed. 
Due
to this implementation deficit, the Directive has not fully achieved its
objectives. 
6.         Findings of the Fitness Check
This
section sets out the detailed findings of the Fitness Check under the 4
evaluation criteria: effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, and coherence.
Each section will be preceded by a short introduction summarising the overall
findings.
It is
not possible to view the 5 waste stream Directives like a single homogenous
piece of legislation. There is certainly a common denominator, but each single
instrument has in principle to be seen separately with its own specific
objectives and means to reach its objectives. 
6.1       Effectiveness
As further explained later on, all five
Waste Stream Directives screened have undoubtedly proven to be effective
instruments of European waste policy. The ELV, Packaging and Batteries
Directive are instrumental to achieving the objectives of the 7th
EAP, the resource efficiency roadmap and the raw materials initiative as
adopted by the European Commission or endorsed by the Member States. With the
exception of the PCB Directive they all have in principle achieved the
objectives they had been designed for. The PCB Directive, despite its full
functionality as a legal instrument, could not fully deliver on the expected
results due to a persistent lack of implementation in Member States. For
the other Directives screened different parameters were identified which have a
more or less important influence on effectiveness of the Directive.
Effectiveness was screened under the following sub headings:
-           What progress has been
made over time towards achieving the objectives (and, where applicable,
targets) set out in the Directives in various Member States? Is the progress
made in line with initial expectations? 
-           Which main
factors (e.g. implementation by Member States, action by stakeholders,
cooperation between producers and recyclers) have contributed to – respectively
stood in the way of – achieving these objectives? 
-           Beyond these objectives,
did the Directives achieve any other significant results e.g. have they helped
ensure safer EU access to raw materials, reduced GHG emissions and/or spurred
innovation?
a.         The PPWD
The PPWD was adopted as a response to the rapidly increasing
quantity of packaging waste within municipal waste and the fact that uniform
requirements for packaging were getting increasingly important for the
functioning of the internal market for packaged goods. The PPWD from 1994 was
inspired by the German Packaging Ordinance (Verpackungsverordnung) of the year
1991. It marks the transit to a producer responsibility system for packaging
making packaging more environmentally friendly and ensuring a high level of
material recycling.  Considerable progress has been made towards both
objectives of the PPWD, to ensure a high level of environmental protection through
packaging design and material recycling and to preserve the functioning
of the internal market. This is shown by the following indicators:
While the total quantity of packaging waste remained almost stable
between 2005 and 2011[21], recycling
and recovery of packaging waste increased significantly[22].

The
following graph reflects the recycling rates statistically achieved for
packaging in 2011[23]: 
Figure
1         Recycling rate for total packaging in 2011
As can be seen from Table 1, considerable progress in recovery and
recycling was achieved between 2005 and 2011:
Table 1: Overview of the implementation
of the targets of the PPW Directive[24]
 Target || Waste generation || Recovery || Recycling || Implementation Status in 2011 
 2005 || 2011 || Change || 2005 || 2011 || Change || 2005 || 2011 || Change 
 Overall (Mt) || 79 || 80.2 || 1.5 % || 52.7 || 62 || 17.5% || 43.1 || 51 || 18.3% || All expect Denmark which did not meet the recycling target marginally. The majority of MS that agreed to meet the targets after 2011 have already met them. 
 Overall (kg/ per capita) || 160.4 || 159.4 || -0.6 % || 107.4 || 123.2 || 14.9% || 87.6 || 101.4 || 15.8% 
 Overall (%) ||   || 66.8% || 77.3% || 10.5% || 54.6% || 63.6% || 16.5% 
 Paper and cardboard (Mt) || 30.4 || 31.8 || 4.7% || 25.5 || 29.1 || 13.9% || 22.3 || 26.4 || 18.5% || Targets achieved in all Member States that have agreed to meet the target by 2011 
 Paper and cardboard (kg/ per capita) || 61.7 || 63.2 || 2.4% || 51.9 || 57.8 || 11.4% || 45.2 || 52.2 || 15.9% 
 Paper and cardboard (%) ||   || 84.1% || 91.5% || 8.8% || 73.3% || 83% || 9.7% 
 Glass (Mt) || 16.5 || 16.2 || -2.1% || 9.7 || 11.5 || 18.5% || 9.7 || 11.5 || 18.3% || Targets achieved in all Member States that have agreed to meet the target by 2011 except Greece 
 Glass (kg/ per capita) || 33.60 || 32.10 || -4.5% || 19.80 || 22.90 || 15.7% || 19.80 || 22.90 || 15.7% 
 Glass (%) ||   || 58.9% || 71.3% || 12.4% || 58.9% || 71.2% || 12.3% 
 Plastic (Mt) || 14.1 || 14.9 || 5.9% || 7.2 || 9.5 || 32.1% || 3.5 || 5.1 || 47% || Targets achieved in all Member States that have agreed to meet the target by 2011, except Denmark which marginally did not reach the recycling target 
 Plastic (kg/ per capita) || 28.7 || 29.7 || 3.5% || 14.6 || 18.8 || 28.8% || 7.10 || 10.20 || 43.7% 
 Plastic (%) ||   || 50.9% || 63.4% || 12.5% || 24.7% || 34.3% || 9.6% 
 Wood (Mt) || 12.7 || 12.4 || -2.8% || 7.2 || 8.4 || 16.1% || 4.7 || 4.7 || 0.2% || Targets achieved in all Member States that have agreed to meet the target by 2011 
 Wood (kg/ per capita) || 25.9 || 24.6 || -5.0% || 14.70 || 16.70 || 13.6% || 9.50 || 9.30 || -2.1% 
 Wood (%) ||   || 56.6% || 67.7% || 11.1% || 36.5% || 37.7% || 1.2% 
 Metals (Mt) || 4.9 || 4.6 || -6.0% || 3.0 || 3.4 || 11.2% || 3.0 || 3.3 || 11.3% || Targets achieved in all Member States that have agreed to meet the target by2011, except Greece 
 Metals (kg/ per capita) || 10.00 || 9.20 || -8.0% || 6.1 || 6.7 || 9.8% || 6.1 || 6.6 || 8.2% 
 Metals (%) ||   || 61.6% || 72.9% || 11.3% || 61.1% || 72.3% || 11.2% 
Recycling targets have been an effective means spurring recycling efforts in the Member States. A
large number of Member States have over-achieved all targets and only very few
are lagging slightly behind. The overall recycling rates for
2008 (minimum 55% and maximum 80% recycling) have been achieved by all Member
States with one exception. The overall recovery target for 2008 has been
over-achieved by most Member States with the exception of five of the EU-12 that
still lag slightly behind. A number of Member States,
such as NL, BE, DE, CZ and IE have even achieved much higher targets which shows that the targets set by the Directive were not
unrealistically high.[25] With
this result, on the whole, implementation can be seen as satisfactory albeit not
perfect. 
It is worth noting, however, that some uncertainties exist about
the exact figures reported by Member States in accordance Commission Decision
2005/270/EC[26]. Even though
this Decision is relatively clear on what should be reported as ‘recycling’
(input to an effective recycling process or by default output of sorting plants
in case of no significant losses[27]) some MS
seem to consider the amount of waste collected for recycling as
‘recycling’). In addition, some of the packaging waste entering a recycling
process may subsequently still be incinerated. Moreover, despite Eurostat
guidance, when reporting relevant data to the Commission Member States use
different methodologies, data sources and strategies for verification and data
checks.[28] Also, where
Member States export packaging waste for recycling purposes (see figure 6
below), for instance to China, it is not always clear how much of that waste is
actually recycled. Finally, some Member States achieve their targets by focusing
their main efforts on the collection and treatment of Institutional, Commercial
and Industrial (ICI) packaging waste, which is cleaner and more homogenous than
household waste. Where this is the case, no clarity exists about the actual household
waste fractions recycled.
Figure 2: Overall packaging waste, recycling and export rates by Member State, 2011 (%)[29]
Where Member states failed to achieve their targets over a
protracted period, this was on account of lack of
infrastructure and high dependence on landfilling, administrative and
instructional drawbacks and inefficient source separation of municipal waste.[30]
Effectiveness of the PPWD is largely influenced by the development
of EPR schemes. They are the main driver for implementing the targets of the
Directives. Such schemes have been developed in 25 Member States[31]. The effectiveness of the EPR schemes varies, however,
significantly between Member States.[32]  
Overall, the implementation of EPR schemes, coupled with the
use of economic instruments (landfill taxes, bans, pay as you throw
schemes) has been a particularly effective approach to meeting the
recycling and recovery targets.[33]
Figure 3:
Final consumption expenditures in EU27, 2005-2012 (2005=100) [34]
In the Directive there are also provisions on packaging prevention and progress has been made since 2005 in particular by reducing
packaging weight.[35] However, the absence of clear indicators is seen as an obstacle
for packaging prevention. Initiatives for prevention, on Member State and company level, could be stepped up. This could for instance be achieved by
more systematically and more clearly addressing prevention through more elaborate
essential requirements[36]. 
The PPW Directive stipulates that “Member States may encourage
reuse systems of packaging, which can be reused in an environmentally sound
manner, in conformity with the Treaty”. Despite the non-binding nature of this
provision, most Member States have implemented a wide variety of provisions on
reuse.[37] Nevertheless,
the market share of reusable household packaging is decreasing.[38]
This is a trend that may favour a smooth functioning of the internal market for
packaging, as national reuse systems may in some cases raise questions from an
internal market perspective. However, it also runs against the waste
hierarchy that favours re-use and in particular preparation for re-use for the
sake of resource efficiency. Examples of good practice:
Table 2: Good practices on packaging prevention[39]
 Initiative || Achievements 
 Waste Prevention & Management Plan (Flanders) || Since 1995 the quantity of total residual waste (not concerning only packaging) has been reduced by 50%. The general of waste is stable since 2000. Landfilling is reduced to near zero and the vast majority of waste is recycled or incinerated. 
 Local Authority Prevention Demonstration Programme (Ireland) || The Programme identifies and supports waste prevention strategies at local level by providing funding and expert technical assistance. 
 Courtauld Commitment (UK) || Between 2005 and 2012, this voluntary agreement between major supermarkets and the Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP) resulted to a prevention of 2.9 million tonnes of packaging and food waste. 
The PPWD has also spurred innovation. For instance, in
pursuance of the resource efficiency objective multi-layer packaging was
developed, using significantly less raw materials but increasing difficulties
for recycling. This trade-off between a more efficient use of resource and
difficulties for recycling needs to be addressed. It may be one of the reasons
why a significant amount of household packaging waste is still incinerated. This
runs counter to the waste hierarchy and could be addressed through more
ambitious recycling targets and clearer provisions on eco-design and essential
requirements. It must be noted, however, that multi-layer packaging currently
only accounts for a limited share of total packaging and that a solution could also
be sought in supporting innovation in recycling technologies and investment in
collection infrastructure for such packaging.
The essential requirements on the
composition and the reusable, recoverable and recyclable nature of packaging can
be seen as an element of extended producer responsibility. Their use is
supported by industry as they allow for technical solutions to reduce the
amount of packaging and they are seen as the most appropriate means of
safeguarding the free movement of packaging.[40]. Industry
would however welcome more enforcement measures by the public authorities. 
On the other hand, the existing
essential requirements are formulated in a rather imprecise manner and give
rise to differences of interpretation across Member States.[41]
Also, only four Member States have introduced specific measures to monitor
compliance with the essential requirements (UK, FR, CZ, BG).[42] A strengthening
of the essential requirements could considerably enhance the Directive’s useful
effect. 
There are, however, doubts about the way in
which the Directive’s essential requirements on biodegradable packaging are
applied. There is a wide range of
confusion as to what is biodegradable, bio-based and compostable. The term
compostable used in the Directive refers mostly to plastics that are safe to
use in industrial composting. (i.e.
this is the definition in most major standards EN 13432[43], ASTM D6400[44]
etc. which are intended to define industrial processing norms). These standards
require most of the material to be converted into CO2 in a short period of time
(at least 90% CO2 levels emitted by a decomposing reference cellulose sample within 6 months[45],
and no more than 10% residue in
mass within 3 months[46] for the EN 13432). This however does not correspond with the lay meaning of
compost, which refers both to
the process and the leftovers:
a bulk of rich, organic material that on average would be around 30% of original weight and
15% of original volume for typical biowastes.[47] 
Overall, the existing standards for biodegradability and/or
compostability do not coincide with consumer perceptions, nor do they
necessarily represent the best ecological solution. For example, the standard
CO2 based definition for industrial compostability addresses the sole problem of reducing semi-eternal waste without taking
into account that the material is almost totally converted into a greenhouse
gas and contributing to global warming, while losing the energy recovery
possibilities.
The main area requiring attention is that of biodegradable plastics.
There are situations in which sorting or collection is difficult, or when the
packaging can potentially contaminate plastic or bio-waste streams. [48]
Examples include the use of, waste bags for the collection of bio-waste and the
use of single-use or short-life bags.
As was acknowledged by stakeholders throughout the consultation
process, the internal market objective has
been achieved but remains a constant challenge e.g. when Member States try to
exclude packaging from their territory for environmental reasons while this
packaging suffices the requirements of the Directive. 
This challenge is linked to re-usable packaging, such as beverage
bottles. While the Directive encourages re-use systems of packaging, deposit
and return systems for one way packaging may be problematic because they could in
some cases conflict with the principle of free movement of goods.[49]
However, measures to increase the re-use of packaging waste have been
implemented in most Member States.[50] The progress
in increasing recycling and recovery rates as well as measures on waste
prevention have had a measurable influence on the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions and resource efficiency by diverting packaging from landfills and
incineration. 
It is obvious, however, that landfill diversion of packaging, more
than 60% of which is plastic, cannot be only addressed by the Packaging
Directive and its indirect effects. The consultation on the "Green
Paper on a strategy for Plastic waste in the environment" has
demonstrated a clear need and triggered a strong plea from plastic industry to
establish a landfill ban for recyclable plastic[51]
This aspect is already addressed by the parallel exercise of the target review
in the 2014 legislative package on waste. 
In
conclusion from the foregoing, there are clear overall indications that
the PPWD is a strong driver for moving closer to a circular economy with
high recycling and recovery rates. EUROPEN and other stakeholders have
confirmed this assessment throughout the consultation. 
By
and large the PPWD can be seen as a success as it
has proven to be a strong lever for increased recycling and increased awareness
among EU citizens of the value of waste.[52] It has also
had considerable positive effects with regard to saving of green-house gases[53]
and technological development of packaging performance and separate
waste collection.[54] Finally
it helped considerably to ease the ongoing task of ensuring the
functioning of the internal market for packaging by defining standards
applicable for packaging across the EU.
The
Directive had significant indirect positive effects beyond its immediate
objectives in terms of greenhouse gas reduction. The level of
packaging recovery and recycling achieved by 2004 corresponds to about
10 million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe) and 25 MtCO2-equivalent
compared to a scenario where all packaging waste would be landfilled or
incinerated.[55] I It is estimated that of these reductions,
1 Mtoe and 3 MtCO2-equivalent is directly associated with the PPW
Directive. More recent data on the overall reduction of CO2 emissions in the EU
is not available, but the achieved CO2 reduction should be significantly higher
when considering the enlargement of the EU that took place after 2004 and the
overall improved performance in the treatment of packaging waste.
Effectiveness in
a nutshell 
Significant progress
has been made over time towards achieving the Directive's objectives. All
Member States have statistically reached recovery and recycling targets, resource
use and packaging production have witnessed a relative decoupling, but Member States'
performance in recycling still varies significantly. 
The Directive has
been effectively transposed and the internal market objective
is well reconciled with the environmental objective. Problem areas for
potential conflict in this respect are packaging re-use systems versus one way
packaging systems. Future legislation may have to consider being more
assertive as to which way to go. A clearer political guidance may in future be
needed as to what objective should prevail in this case. 
While recycling and
recovery targets have generally been met, there are some
uncertainties about the exact figures reported by Member States in accordance
Commission Decision 2005/270/EC.
Moreover, it appears
that household packaging recycling targets are mostly achieved with the more
homogenous ICI packaging instead of household packaging, making it
difficult to measure achievements in household packaging recycling alone.
Packaging waste
prevention could be achieved more effectively if it was not only described
in general and non-binding terms but if it was made obligatory and
measurable. So far packaging waste prevention was mainly achieved by
increasing packaging efficiency through lightweight multi-layer packaging which
is not commonly recycled. Through this innovation spurred by the Directive, over
the past, a relative decoupling of economic growth and packaging production
was achieved by weight but not by quantity of packaging waste. In future
further weight reduction of packaging will not deliver sufficient results
towards the needed absolute decoupling of economic growth and packaging waste
generation. More effective measures will have to be looked for.
Other factors outside
the Directive have helped attaining its objectives,
such as landfill bans, PAYT schemes, EPR schemes, awareness raising activities
as well as the development of communication channels between producers and
recyclers. 
Essential
requirements are a key tool to improve packaging
environmental performance. Yet, they are formulated in a very general manner
and judged as difficult to implement. Implementation measures are scarce and
guidance given to industry is mostly lacking. The CEN standards are the only
formalised instrument for industry to prove compliance. Industry is generally
happy with the relatively vague way in which essential requirements are
formulated and judge CEN standards as sufficient. However, in order to boost
circular economy, in future particular consideration might need to be given to
strengthen essential requirements as a key tool to achieve better environmental
performance of packaging. 
Beyond its core
objectives the PPWD has achieved through recycling
and recovery considerable CO2 reductions, as well as considerable reduction of primary
raw materials used were achieved. It has also promoted direct and indirect
health benefits through the reduction of hazardous substances in packaging and
reduced air emissions. 
b.         The ELV Directive
The ELV Directive was adopted in response to wide spread
environmentally unsound ELV treatment in the EU with ELVs found abandoned or
not properly decontaminated. Before the adoption of the ELV Directive little
attention was paid to the presence of hazardous substances such as heavy metals
or certain chemicals in car manufacturing. The ELV Directive has proven to be
an effective tool to phase out hazardous substances, as specified
in its Annex II, from ELVs. [56]
These hazardous substances have been almost completely removed from vehicles.
In addition, Eurostat data show that Member States are on good track to reach
the 2015 targets for re-use and recycling as well as for re-use and
recovery, provided post shredder technology is used to the necessary extent.
In 2011, 23 Member States achieved the target set for reuse and
recovery from 2006, while 25 achieved the reuse and recycling target. Both
targets were met ahead of time already in 2011, the targets for re-use and
recovery by 4 Member States and for re-use and recycling by 11 Member States.[57]
It
can be seen as an indication of a good calibration of recycling targets that 4
Member States already in 2011 had achieved the 2015 re-use and recovery target.
This demonstrates clearly that targets are achievable, where they were
not achieved this is due to factors outside the Directive, such as a lack of
political will and insufficient infrastructure.
Figure 4:
Reuse, recovery and recycling rates achieved in 2006 and 2011
Despite
these encouraging results, some doubts remain about the reliability and
comparability of statistics across Member States, notably because of the
use of different reporting systems and calculation methods.[58]
For instance, the use of plastic streams obtained by post-shredder treatment
in a blast furnace is counted as recycling by some Member States and “thermal
recovery” by others.[59] The picture is
further blurred through the number of free riders not reporting on recycling
and other recovery or the quality of such operations.[60]
The number of authorized facilities has increased significantly
in some Member States in recent years, in pursuance of compliance with the
Directive. For instance, in Belgium 48 Authorized Treatment Facilities (ATFs)
were listed in 2005, while there were 120 in 2010. In Finland over the same period, the number of ATFs increased from 60 to 235 and in the UK from 732 to 1 750. 
Two
major challenges remain. The collection and
treatment of ELVs by illegal operators and the illegal shipment of ELVs are
still important according to the various stakeholders interviewed during the
course of the ex-post evaluation study. This issue is of concern as it may make
it more difficult for some Member States to achieve the 2015 targets, and in
addition it may impact on the environmental benefits of the Directive. The
Correspondents' Guidelines No 9[61] on shipment of waste vehicles can contribute to
better control of illegal exports of ELVs inter alia by clarifying the
distinction between waste vehicles and used vehicles. Further
cooperation and coordination between Member States may improve the follow up of
deregistered and exported vehicles including issuing a certificate of
destruction in case of a final deregistration of a car. So far there is no
uniform practice in all Member States.
This problem to distinguish between ELVs and used cars, makes the monitoring of the Directive difficult. There
is evidence for a considerable gap in a number of Member States between ELVs
dismantled and ELVs deregistered. In 2008 4,1 million ELVs were revealed as
of unknown whereabouts.[62] This may be attributable
to "illegal exports" of ELVs falsely declared as car for re-use, or
it may point to a functional problem in the Directive not properly defining
second hand vehicles and ELVs.[63] Some stakeholders have called this absence of a definition of "ELV"
a birth deficiency of the Directive.[64] 
Figure 5: Vehicle entries and exits of the EU
27-fleet, 2008[65]
The problem was confirmed by IMPEL (European Network for
Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law). To enhance
effectiveness of the legislation they proposed amendments to the Directive
to further distinguish used cars and ELVs.[66]
The phenomenon could be explained with private exports, illegal shipments[67],
disposal or long term garaging. At present the tools in the Directive do not
provide for full transparency. 
In addition, according to a study led by BIO Intelligence Service
in 2010,[68] a high
volume of ELVs is treated in non-legal or unauthorized treatment facilities in
the EU. 
More generally, there was agreement among stakeholders that for
stepping up effectiveness of the legislation increasing co-operation among
Member States was needed to ensure tracking and follow-up of de-registered and
exported vehicles. 
While due to the significant number of vehicles of unknown
whereabouts there is some doubt as to whether the Directive has fully satisfactorily
attained its objective of reducing environmental impacts, the Directive has
spurred innovation. According to stakeholders, the vehicle treatment
sector is now widely regarded as being more efficient, professional and
sustainable as a result of the Directive. Stakeholders fully acknowledged
that the ELV Directive did not cause unnecessary bureaucracy and that it is not
in conflict with the goal of an internal market[69],
a fear that had been expressed shortly after the adoption of the Directive.
Despite
the described circumstances, stakeholders agreed that the Directive had with no
doubt significant environmental benefits in saving resources through re-use,
recycling and recovery, this again corresponding to savings in green-house
gas emissions. The most obvious success is the reduction of hazardous
substances in ELV. 
The
Directive has also spurred technical innovation in production of new cars[70],
making them less polluted with hazardous substances, and it has also improved
treatment technology significantly increasing recycling and recovery rates.
The ELV dismantling sector has moreover expanded and professionalised, creating
employment and economic growth.[71] 
Effectiveness in
a nutshell
The Directive
has proven highly effective in preventing waste from vehicles, increasing
re-use, recycling and recovery and ensuring that ELVs are treated in
environmentally safe conditions. Four hazardous substances identified in the
Directive have been almost completely removed from vehicles with the
exception of lead and most Member States are on track towards reaching the 2015
targets, for re-use, recycling and recovery. This has, beyond the Directive's
immediate objectives, significantly reduced greenhouse gases, saved raw
materials and spurred innovation, making car manufacturing more environmentally
friendly. Given that the ELV market is a global market, European green
standards set by the ELV Directive have a significant influence on car
manufacturing internationally. Moreover, high ambitions to recycle more
non-ferrous ELV parts have led to the development of more sophisticated
post-shredder technology. The Directive also had a significant in creating
employment in the growing ELV dismantling sector. 
Despite this
success, there is a somewhat systemic problem with statistically missing
ELVs, letting assume a flourishing business with illegal shipments and
collection and treatment of ELVs by illegal operators, potentially jeopardising
the Directive’s environmental objective. Further work may be needed in better
implementing the Correspondent's guidelines on shipment of waste to better
differentiate between ELVs and used cars. Further cooperation and coordination
between Member States may improve the follow up of deregistered and exported
vehicles including issuing a certificate of destruction in case of a final
deregistration of a car. 
Some doubts
remain about the reliability and comparability of statistics across Member
States due to different reporting systems and calculation methods, which may
benefit from further harmonisation. 
c.         The Batteries Directive
The
Batteries Directive was adopted as a response to increasing concern about the
spreading of portable electronic equipment such as portable radios, handhelds,
mobile phones and many more consumer electronics causing concern about the
proliferation of portable batteries and their potential for contaminating the
environment. The Directive also responded to concerns about battery chemistry
relying on heavy metals and chemicals whose introduction in the environment
should be closely controlled or which should be substituted. There is some
indication that effectiveness is impacted by implementation that is not
fully satisfactory. Nevertheless, the Directive had, and continues to have,
significant positive environmental effects.
All
Member States have introduced collection schemes, the use of hazardous
substances in batteries has been limited, the collection of portable
batteries has improved since 2007 and nearly all Member States have
achieved the 2012 target on collection of portable batteries[72].
Landfill and incineration of industrial and automotive batteries are in
principle prohibited[73] and recycling efficiency
targets for portable batteries were introduced. All producers must be
registered, use BAT and participate in collection schemes. 
The effectiveness of the Directive is to be measured against its
three objectives to restrict hazardous substances (mercury and cadmium) in
Batteries, to provide for collection and recycling schemes and to
ensure that consumers are properly informed to make an informed choice
and to effectively participate in separate collection. Consumer's participation
is one of the most critical success factors for this Directive. 
The restriction of hazardous substances in Batteries has
led to a constant monitoring during which, according to stakeholders,
occasional violations of the limits of hazardous substances, mainly in Asian
import products, were detected[74]. However,
systematic data collection does not take place and it is currently not known
what quantities of non-compliant batteries can currently be found on the
market. Member States' inspections were reported as infrequent and
unstructured.[75] 
The Directive has certainly achieved very high
collection rates for automotive and industrial batteries and also the
collection of portable batteries improved significantly since 2007[76].
Stakeholders raised doubts whether the 2016 collection target of 45% of
portable batteries was feasible.[77] 7 Member
States, however, had achieved this target already in 2012 which according to
stakeholders, indicates that implementation measures might need to be
stepped up, such as setting up a higher density of collection sites and
increasing consumer awareness. 
Figure 6: Portable batteries collection rates in the
EU Member States in 2012 (2011 where indicated)[78]
Low collection rates have been observed for different types of
portable batteries and the collection of button cells is still a problem[79]. Consumer awareness is a
key success factor for effective batteries collection and recycling.[80]
This concern was shared by a great number of stakeholders and it is plausible
for small portable batteries which can easily arrive in the waste bin if
consumers are not sufficiently informed about the potential hazards of battery
chemistry. Consumer awareness is exclusively an implementation problem.
The existence of the Battery Directive as such already
caused better awareness also among EEE producers of the potential hazards
of improper battery disposal and of the need to give more ample information to
users of electronic equipment. A rather frequent occurrence of wrong
capacity labelling had been observed. This can only be eradicated by better
implementation. Wrong labelling in relation to substance restrictions was
observed occasionally. 
One
structural problem that was
found to negatively impact on implementation relates to a certain ambiguity in
the Directive's definition of portable batteries. It was observed that weight–based
portable batteries collection schemes favored the collection of
lead-acid batteries thus leading to a statistical distortion of collection
rates and disturbing the monitoring process. Lead acid batteries are put on the
marked as industrial, but are often collected as portable.[81]
The majority of stakeholders suggested that portable, automotive and industrial batteries should be
clearly differentiated in the Batteries Directive to secure the consistency and
comparability of collection rates across the EU.
Effectiveness of the Directive is also impacted by the high rates
of illegal exports of WEEE containing batteries. 41% of WEEE arisings are
assumed to be improperly treated or illegally shipped.[82]

The
Directive had significant effects on the reduction of green-house gas emissions
and it has significantly increased awareness among battery producers and
importers as well as consumers.
Effectiveness in
a nutshell
The Batteries
Directive is the youngest of the five screened Directives and the first Commission
three-annual implementation report covering the Directive will only be
published in 2014. Visibly, good progress was made towards achieving its
objectives of separate collection and recycling, consumer awareness and
substance restrictions for heavy metals in batteries. It is now fully
transposed into national law.
Consumer
awareness is a crucial success factor for the implementation of the Directive,
in particular for separate collection, which varies strongly across Member
States.
While collection
rates for automotive and industrial batteries are high, small portable
batteries, despite of significant increase, are too often not collected.
Member States may find it difficult to attain the 46% collection target for
2016. For some portable battery types the collection rate is below 25%. This
is a serious issue deserving closer analysis. 
Some statistical
uncertainty can be expected due to a number of factors, such as: accounting of
batteries incorporated in EEE, ambiguity in the definition of portable battery
and the collection of lead acid batteries as portable in some Member State’s
collection schemes. This may inflate collection rates by weight, while significant
numbers of small batteries may not be properly captured and unfold a negative
environmental effect. There is room for optimising portable batteries
collection and statistical refinement to better reflect the real collection
rates of portable batteries. 
Violations have
been observed on limits of hazardous substances as well as substance labelling
requirements for portable batteries.
Effectiveness
largely depends on appropriate compliance monitoring by national authorities,
in particular on limits for hazardous substances a capacity labelling for
imported batteries.
d.         The PCB Directive
The PCB
Directive was adopted in response to the need of adequate disposal because PCBs
pose a significantly high risk for the environment and human health. Existing
disposal paths, such as landfill and municipal waste incineration were
increasingly seen as not an option for environmental and health reasons. It
also was a logical response to the prohibition of marketing PCBs with the
mid-term vision to entirely phasing them out of the environment. Unlike the
other Directives screened in this exercise, the PCB Directive has a single
focus on the elimination of PCBs. Effectiveness has to be measured against this
sole objective. No aspect of resource efficiency, circular economy and
green-house gas mitigation has any relevance in the context of this Directive.
The Directive implements the International PARCOM Decision 92/3[83]
to dispose of PCBs subject to an inventory by 2010 at the latest. 
Although progress towards elimination and proper disposal of PCBs
has been quite significant, a majority of Member
States let the 2010 deadline for complete decontamination and disposal lapse
and comprehensive EU wide data on historic disposal as well as inventories of
PCB containing equipment are missing. The non-compliance with the Directive's
2010 deadline may generally be a bigger problem for the EU-12 and Croatia, but it is also a problem for the EU-15. For example: Spain had in 2010 not
disposed of 33.000 tons. EDF France only in 2010 counted over 70.000
transformers containing PCB and organized a big clean-up operation. The Netherlands have no exact inventory of PCB equipment. The current study could not find out
the true dimension of the problem. But estimates from 2005 indicate that the
remaining quantity of PCB-containing oil is 350 kT, containing about
50 kT of pure PCB, with the total gross weight of the equipment at 1.1 Mt.[84] 
The study to support this Fitness Check could not identify any
deficiencies in the set-up of this legislation to be responsible for this
Directive largely not having attained its objectives. This is, and
stakeholders are unanimous, due to the lack of implementation of the
Directive. To explain this implementation gap, Member States
have invoked legally irrelevant practical arguments, such as economic problems,
illegal handling and robbery of PCB equipment, privately owned equipment
discovered after 2010, lack of incineration facilities, legal and communication
problems.[85]
Without the Member States providing comprehensive data and full
inventories of relevant PCB containing equipment, the progress needed to achieve
the target cannot be reliably judged. 
Nevertheless,
the Directive had created a strong incentive for Member States to start an
effective PCB disposal policy which has led to mitigating the problem but which
needs to be followed up by consequent enforcement policy. 
Effectiveness in
a nutshell
The objective
of decontamination and disposal of obsolete larger PCB equipment until 2010 has
not been met by all Member States, despite significant progress in
particular in the EU 15. By and large the Directive's objective has not been
entirely met, due to insufficient implementation by Member States.
There are no
recent and sufficient data available allowing an assessment of the level in
terms of achievement of environmentally sound disposal and decontamination compared
to an established inventory of sources of equipment containing PCB/PCT. 
Infringement
proceedings may need to be initiated.
The Directive
had a tangible effect on awareness and developing expertise in the field of PCB
waste.
e.         The Sewage sludge Directive
Sewage
sludge is a "by-product" of urban waste water treatment. With
strongly increasing numbers of urban waste water treatment plants in many
Member States, sludge waste quantities rose to an extent that finding a proper
outlet became urgent. Predominant disposal routes such as marine dumping and
eutrophication along coastal areas and also landfilling of sludge posed
increasing environmental problems. As noted in the Explanatory Memorandum
accompanying the Commission proposal[86], the Sewage Sludge
Directive was proposed to a) promote the use of sewage sludge in agriculture by
stressing its agronomic values, and b) to specify the precautions necessary for
its proper use against a background of expected increasing arisings from waste
water treatment installations. At the time of its adoption, there was already a
tradition in some Member States to recycle sewage sludge on agricultural land,
because sludge is rich in nutrients, particularly phosphorus and nitrogen[87].
However, since sludge also contains hazardous substances such as heavy metals,
a precautionary approach needed to be taken[88].
Sludge use in Europe needed to be based on minimum requirements to promote its
agronomic use and provide for appropriate precautions. Any risk of agricultural
production growing on land of a Member State not applying precautionary
standards had to be avoided. There are currently no infringement procedures for
bad implementation pending.
There is no doubt that the Directive has fully attained its
initial objectives. The Directive has no recycling targets, the objective
is rather to stimulate good environmental practice in increasing use of sewage
sludge in agriculture. All Member States apply good agricultural practice
when spreading sludge to agricultural land and all Member States have set heavy
metal limit values often way above those of the Directive. At the same time,
the Directive has never been adapted to technical and scientific progress with
regard to heavy metal limits in sludge and soil. 
Sewage
sludge is widely used on agricultural land in Europe[89],
but there is a wide variety among Member States as regards the
quantity of sludge used. Some Member States have adopted
stricter limit values for contaminants than those contained in the Directive.
Some have also added some new contaminants. Several Member States consider
sludge risky to apply to agricultural land and have even banned its use,
while others use it widely and are still improving sludge management.[90]

The
Directive was earmarked for revision for more than 10 years, which has proven
difficult, since no solid risk assessment has to date been made. It was
recently removed from the Commission work programme. 
The
Directive had a positive impact on stakeholder awareness and has helped
improving sludge treatment technology, including the recycling of nutrients,
such as phosphorous. Sludge quality has improved over the years through better
control of industrial emissions with the effect that heavy metals are generally
less present in sludge than in the past.
It
indirectly had an impact on the avoidance of greenhouse gas emissions by
diverting sludge from landfills. It may also have delivered a sizeable
contribution to resource conservation where it has substituted or complemented
the use of mineral fertilizers.[91] 
Since
most Member States are stricter with their limit values for contaminants in
sludge and since the adoption of the Directive sludge quality has improved
through generally higher environmental standards, it is no longer obvious that
the Directive in its current form still responds to an actual need as an
instrument of waste management. On the other hand, there are new challenges for
example from the impact of nano materials and micro plastic on sludge quality.
The Directive may, on the other hand have its justification as an instrument of
soil protection. 
Effectiveness in
a nutshell
The Directive
has been effective in ensuring that heavy metals in soil and sludge do not
exceed the limit values. Insofar initial expectations have been fully met. Most
Member States apply today by far stricter limit values for heavy metals in
sludge and soil. These were complemented in a number of Member States by
quality assurance standards, such as the safe sludge matrix in the UK, codes of practice and enhanced cooperation between governments and stakeholders. 
Sludge use in
agriculture is a highly contentious operation and a number of Member States
have banned the use of sewage sludge in agriculture, while others use it to
well over 50%. The Directive in its present form is clearly
outdated.
6.2       Efficiency
The
aspect of efficiency shall show whether the Directives screened have attained
their objectives at reasonable costs. What is reasonable is subject to a high
margin of discretion and it is therefore not surprising that in the absence of
clear guidance and efficiency methodology there is no systematic information
available as to what degree environmental Directives are efficient. Especially
in the product related Directives (PPWD, ELV, Batteries) cost efficiency
aspects play an important role because they can be adequately taken into
account within the different stages of the life cycle of a product, such as the
product design, separate collection and recycling technology phase. 
It
has to be kept in mind that environmental Directives should primarily create
benefits for human health and the environment and should enable society to be
living well within the limits of the planet, paraphrasing the title of the 7th
EAP. Before reaping these benefits there will inevitably be costs for
business and administration. For instance, substance restrictions require
investment in research for substitution; landfill bans close the cheapest
outlet for waste disposal in favour of more expensive ones, increasing
recycling rates requires public investment in collection infrastructure as well
as private investment in R&D for search of more sustainable products etc. 
It
has also to be born in mind that cost effectiveness cannot be reasonably seen
as an absolute parameter. Cost effectiveness of environmental legal instruments
can only be an indicator for the most economic legal instrument among those
which have the same environmental effect. Any other interpretation would give
way to a bottom race for the cheapest measure with less environmental
protection.
Environmental
legislation has, as demonstrated in previous sections, been a major driver for
investment into new technology, in the automotive sector, the
packaging industry, battery technology and waste management technology in
general. This has created economic growth and employment opportunities
over decades and will continue to do so. Previous studies have shown that full
implementation of European waste legislation by 2020 would have a potential of
creating overall around 400.000 new jobs and even more all the indirect
investment effects e.g. in machine manufacturing industry, taken into account.[92]

Environmental
legislation should however be designed in such a way that it strikes an optimal
balance between protection of the environment, generation of economic welfare
and lowest possible associated costs. The following section will demonstrate
that the screened Directives are cost efficient. 
-           What are the costs and
benefits associated with the implementation of the Directives in various Member
States? If there are significant cost differences between Member States, what
is causing them? Can any costs be identified that are out of proportion with
the benefits achieved? 
-           What good
practices in terms of cost-effective implementation of the Directives in MS can
be identified e.g. use of economic instruments such as cost-effective producer
responsibility schemes, product policies?  
-           Can any specific
provisions in the Directives be identified that make cost-effective
implementation more difficult?
-           Have the
Directives been kept fit for purpose through regular adaptation to technical
and scientific progress? 
a.         The PPWD
Costs associated to the implementation of the Directive are
initial setup costs[93], capital
expenditure and ongoing costs for collection, recycling as well as set up costs
of EPR programs. Some Member States introduced specific taxes, such as a
packaging tax in DK and NL, landfill taxes in a great number of Member States, deposit and refund systems.[94] 
All cost relevant measures mentioned are attuned to increasing preparation
for re-use, re-use and recycling rates. Benefits from recycling are savings
in raw materials and their extraction, savings in CO2 emissions,
diversion from landfill and savings on landfill infrastructure. Stakeholders
agreed that the treatment of packaging waste up the waste hierarchy,
predominantly through recycling, was on the whole economically more
advantageous than landfill of waste with its associated final loss of raw
materials. It should be born in mind that efficiency of fulfilling
the obligations under the PPWD is linked to recycling and recovery
infrastructure for which to function economically there needs to be an economy
of scale. Cost advantages through export of packaging waste outside the EU
and therefore shortening the available amounts of recyclable waste in the EU
can in some cases be an obstacle to an efficient implementation of the PPWD. 
A wide range of EPR schemes have been introduced across MS which
cause different levels of cost for consumers and producers. Their cost-benefit
is influenced by factors the Directive has no bearing on, such as the actual
level of sophistication of collection infrastructure, the extent to which
separate collection of packaging is actually carried out, supported by
citizen's involvement, population density, geographic location, enforcement
regimes and local labor costs.[95] Other
European law has also an influence on cost efficiency. Pursuant to Art.11 WFD,
as of 2015 all Member States have to have separate collection schemes in
place for paper and board, glass, metal and plastic. This can be expected
to have a positive influence on the total amount of waste collected for
recycling as well as on the actual higher yield of separately collected waste
in the EU. 
There is still potential to extend EPR to full cost coverage for
collection and disposal on non -recyclable material, which is presently not
done. This would create a strong incentive for prevention and design for
recycling and therefore increase recycling efficiency.[96]

The Commission is currently carrying out a study on EPR to further
explore how EPR could be strengthened in existing legislation particularly with
a view to cost efficiency. EPR schemes differ greatly in efficiency. High costs
do not necessarily correlate to efficient packaging recycling.
Cost effectiveness of the Directive depends again to a great
extent on how the Directive is implemented in different Member States.[97]
E.g. "pay as you throw" schemes[98]
turned out to be highly effective for increased separate waste collection, but
they are initially costly to implement. Member States are free to decide which
measures to apply. A Directive is only binding in as far as it defines
objectives and targets. In practice, however, "pay as you throw"
schemes are a strong incentive for separate collection at the source and
minimization of waste for final disposal. Properly applied, they save
landfill capacity and therefore avoid unnecessary investment into end of
pipe infrastructure.[99]
Costs of collection and recycling vary greatly between Member States,
explained by the wide range of
collection options (different vehicles, collection frequency, recycling
containers etc.) and material processing. A crucial factor in that context is
the optimizing of collection systems and sorting of collected waste.
Some Member States are more advanced than others and have higher yields at
lower costs, depending on the technology used but also on citizen's
awareness. 
Table 3: Costs
of collection and recycling of household packaging waste in the UK (EUR, values based on the currency conversion in 2008: GBP 1 = EUR 1.05) 
 Collection system || Collection only cost of recycling || Net cost of recycling (including sorting and recycling/processing) 
   || Urban || Rural || Urban || Rural 
 Kerbside sort || 83.31 – 137.90 || 89.22 – 162.18 || 26.10 – 78.04 || 32.05 – 102.45 
 Single stream co-mingled || 64.63 – 84.39 || 71.40 – 136.55 || 96.97 -108.64 || 103.74 – 160.81 
An increasingly important factor for cost efficiency, not
influenced by the Directive, will be the development of prices for virgin
raw materials in comparison to costs of producing recycled raw materials of a
similar quality. Recycled secondary raw materials were in a recent study
found to be between 16% and 61% cheaper than virgin materials. 
Table 4: Comparison of market prices of virgin and recycled
material (2011 prices)[100]
 Material || Virgin material (€/tonne) || Recycled material (€/tonne) || Price Recycled material / Virgin material (%) 
 Glass || 52 – 59 || 12,5 – 34 || 24% - 58% 
 Paper-cardboard || 717 – 776 || 115 – 136 || 16% - 18% 
 Aluminium || 1 719 – 1 774 || 650 – 1 080 || 38% - 61% 
 Steel || 394 – 630 || 160 – 180 || 41% - 29% 
 HDPE Plastic || 990 – 1 200 || 245 – 280 || 25% - 23% 
 PET Plastic || 1550 – 1 700 || 390 – 475 || 25% - 28% 
This gap is expected to even widen in the future through costs
savings by improved recycling technology on one hand and a further increase of
raw materials prices on the other. By setting recycling targets the
Directive creates an incentive for Member States to increase revenues from
separately collected materials. The example of BE shows that between
2005 and 2012 material revenues could steadily increase while producer's
green dot contributions could be considerably lowered.[101]

When considering efficiency, it should be born in mind that the
PPWD is not only a waste management instrument, but also an instrument to
ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market for packaging. By
harmonizing packaging standards the free movement of packaging in the whole
territory of the EU is safeguarded. In case of absence of such harmonization
packaging industry would be confronted with individual Member State systems causing considerable costs and uncertainty seriously jeopardizing the free
movement of goods. 
Figure 5:
Increased revenue from collected materials lowered the Green Dot tariffs in Belgium, 2012 (EUR million)[102]
Costs efficiency is also largely driven by other external
factors such as price volatility of crude oil for plastic manufacturing,
the predominant packaging material. Other factors are: technical innovation in
sorting technology, the application of green public procurement to
increase demand and also producer policy to green products by increasing
recycling content. 
Cost efficiency in recycling also differs by material and by a combination of material and process. Metal and glass
recycling are relatively simple processes with a very long tradition of
recycling. They undoubtedly have always been a profitable business while
plastic recycling is a relatively new operation and dependent on critical
separate collection due to the high contamination potential when plastic is
collected co-mingled.[103] It is also
more strongly influenced by volatile raw materials prices. In so far product
design and separate collection are crucial success factors and strongly
influencing cost efficiency.
Efficiency of the PPWD depends largely on economic instruments. They are most present in EPR schemes in which ideally the revenue
from the sale of materials and the contributions to the EPR programme
should cover the costs of waste packaging collection and recycling. Their
efficiency differs greatly between Member States.[104]
The
data obtained for producer fee schemes show huge ranges of fees per tonne of
packaging material placed on the market in the Member States. Fees
charged for paper range from €8.37 in Romania to €175 in Germany;
fees for glass range from €4.80 in France to €260.93 in Lithuania;
fees for wood range from €0.40 in Finland to €80 in Poland;
fees for aluminium range from €7.26 in Romania to
€573.10 in the
Netherlands;
fees for steel range from €3 in Finland to €282.18 in Sweden; and
fees for plastic range from €20.54 in Romania to €1,296 in Germany.
Attempts
to link the fees paid into producer fee schemes with the packaging recovery/recycling
performance in the Member States have not shown
any conclusive patterns. Some ‘cheap’ schemes
demonstrate high levels of recovery/recycling (notably Belgium and Luxembourg) and
some ‘expensive’ schemes demonstrate low levels of recovery/recycling (notably Estonia and Poland)[105]
Figure 6: Cost effectiveness of EPR
schemes on packaging (2010 or 2011) [106]
Deposit and refund systems but also landfill taxes have a strong influence on efficiency of the PPWD. As a rule of
thumb, the higher the landfill tax/incineration tax, the higher the
potential profit margin for packaging recycling.[107]

Another important cost efficiency driver could be the Directive's
essential requirements. This view is shared by a large number of
stakeholders. Due to their currently imprecise formulation and poor
enforcement they have failed to unfold their full potential of reduced
costs and increased environmental benefits.[108] 
Several examples of good practice in Member States
relate to separate waste collection, EPR schemes and high quality
recycling. Ireland established with success in 2004 a Marked Development
Group to remove barriers for recycled plastic, paper and compost. The
development of guidelines is under preparation. Available evidence shows that
optimized separate waste collection systems have led to the highest overall
recycling rates in Europe, with the caveat of statistical uncertainty.
Several industry representatives pointed out that the recycling of
glass, paper and metals has been practiced for a very long time, because it is
profitable. They suggest that even without the PPW Directive, these recycling
activities would have continued. The same is observed for the Essential
Requirement of waste minimisation. In this context, industry claims that even
without the Essential Requirements, cost reduction motifs would lead to
packaging minimisation. [109]
The
most referred to provisions are thus the recycling targets, the Essential
Requirements and the economic instruments (as translated into EPR schemes),
particularly in relation to the administrative burden of proving what
stakeholders consider would have been done anyway.
These remarks on provisions that raise doubts about cost-effectiveness
are based on the assumption that without these provisions and its
administrative burden, the markets would act in exactly the same way, reaching
the same level of efficiency and environmental benefit, as with these
provisions. This touches the economic theorem of the ‘invisible hand’ or the
self-regulating potential of the free market, driven by cost reduction and
competition.[110] Anecdotal evidence
shows however that the self-regulating effect only occurs when real or
perceived individual benefits can be achieved for the market players. Price
fluctuations in crude oil, in paper, metals of plastics can significantly
influence the attractiveness of recycling. For technically recyclable products
where no market exists for the recycled materials (e.g. red coloured PET
bottles) no incentive for recycling would exist. In addition, marketing
strategies and the perceived as well as the imposed consumer demands could
prove to be stronger than the need for packaging limitation at the minimum
level of consumer acceptance.
The lack of harmonisation of policy instruments throughout the
European Union and the freedom of Member States to implement diverging economic
instruments may jeopardise cost efficiency.  The
following key problems were identified: 
·       
Cherry-picking as to in which Member State a product is put on the market, e.g. related to unequal enforcement of the
Essential Requirements;
·       
Statistical and target compliance
problems in case of small domestic markets and large cross border shopping of
inhabitants;
·       
Diverting statistical methods to prove
compliance with recycling targets which could lead to competitive advantages.
When provisions in the PPW Directive lead to adding administrative
burden to both authorities and industry for measures that would equally be
taken without legal obligation, these provisions can be considered obsolete or
hindering cost-effective implementation. It is however challenging to identify
these measures for which cost reduction, competition and other market dynamics
would, on a continuous basis and without quality loss, succeed in reaching the
same results as through imposing legal targets and obligations. 
It is easier to pinpoint shortcomings in the legal framework that
distort the level playing field or the functioning of the internal market
rather than to identify superfluous provisions. The PPW Directive differs in a
substantial way from other recycling directives in its ‘new approach’ structure
which identifies targets but which does not focus on policy instruments to
be applied. This is especially the case for EPR and other economic
instruments.
Efficiency in a
nutshell
The efficiency
of the PPWD Directive with its recovery and recycling targets depends to a
great deal on factors outside the Directive itself. It plays a paramount
role whether low end disposal options are made expensive. Recycling is more
economically advantageous than lower end waste management options. Since the
Directive has stimulated increased packaging recycling, it has worked towards a
cost efficient waste management solution. Where low end disposal options are
made cheap, e.g., through low landfill gate fees or none at all, or where
financial incentives are given for incineration classified as renewable energy
source, recycling will be less economically viable. 
Where gate fees
are high, and EPR schemes provide for waste being separately collected and
where recycling yields high quality secondary raw materials such as metal,
glass, paper and plastic, the Directive makes packaging waste management a
cost efficient operation. Conversely, in Member States where these
conditions are not met, an economic opportunity is lost.  Economic instruments
such as EPR schemes which are good practice, PAYT schemes and landfill taxes
provide a strong economic incentive to divert packaging waste towards
recycling, thus increasing the Directive’s cost efficiency. The same accounts
to high end separate waste collection which achieves higher recycling yields
and helps make the Directive to generate cost benefits. 
EPR schemes
differ greatly across Europe in terms of efficiency, but they are
an essential tool to increase packaging recycling and to make it a cost
efficient operation. Their cost efficient functioning is a crucial element of
packaging recycling, and hence for the attainment of the Directive’s
objectives. 
Another crucial element
with a high potential for improvement are the essential requirements, in
which design for recycling could be more clearly incorporated and enforced,
thus increasing recyclability of packaging and reducing costs while
achieving higher yields of secondary raw materials. New technologies, such
as plastic multi-layer packaging, while producing less packaging by weight, jeopardise
recycling. Another risk for efficient packaging recycling stems from the use of
biodegradable packaging and oxo-degradable packaging, which may both put
efficient mechanical recycling at risk. 
b.         The ELV Directive 
The automobile industry recognizes that the Directive has clearly
environmental benefits through standards set for depollution, dismantling and
treatment as well as the reductions of hazardous substances.[111]
Also the economic benefits are recognized. Although the requirements to be met
by the Directive have caused high initial costs and required significant
investments from car manufacturers (removal of hazardous substances,
eco-design) this is compensated through the recycling of high value
materials.[112] 
Economic benefits result from:[113]

·       
Incentives for innovation in vehicle design and ELV treatment,
·       
Standardized rules of ELV treatment in an internal market,
·       
The reduction of abandonment of vehicles and hence the cost to the
public sector of having to collect, store and organize disposal. In 2001, the
number of abandoned vehicles in the UK was 223 500. In 2008, this figure
was 48 500,[114] 
·       
The reduction of waste disposal costs (associated with avoided
landfilling of Car Shredder Residue, the remainder of ELV material). [115]
In 2006, the UK Regulatory Impact Assessment estimated that the
Directive would yield annualized benefits valued at GBP 21 million (EUR 30
million) between 2007 and 2025.[116] 
The
need to achieve the 2015 re-use and recovery and re-use and recycling target[117]
will, according to industry stakeholder, open new opportunities for investment
into environmental technology and increased efficiency of the Directive. However,
it will require significant investment into post shredder technology.[118] This should, in turn,
reduce the amount of waste to be landfilled, thus reducing landfill costs. As a
result of improved economies of scale, the technology is expected to be cost
efficient. 
Despite
high targets, cost efficiency has been achieved, but concern has been raised
that a possible increase of the targets could eventually put the current cost
benefit balance at risk.[119]
Risk
for cost-effectiveness of the Directive has been
seen mostly in external factors, such as the market for spare parts and
metal. Any volatility of these external factors may make ELV treatment less
profitable. Cost efficiency can furthermore be heavily affected by the size of
the country. ELV recyclers do not achieve economies of scale in small countries
and would find it difficult to invest in heavy post shredder technology
themselves. For example, in small countries like Malta, a more cost efficient
option (making use of the single market in which waste for recovery can be
traded as a commodity), could be to ship ELV waste for recovery to other Member
States where the conditions allow for an economy of scale.
Other risks for the fragile cost-benefit balance
stem from a high variability of various country interpretations and
implementation of the Directive, which creates uncertainty for the industry.[120]
Critics of the Directive also mention the reporting
burdens for Member States. Reporting to the Commission every three years gives
too little flexibility. Data useful at an earlier stage may be irrelevant after
three years. In addition, with these reports, the Commission is not only
relying on the trustworthiness of Member States but also on the facilities that
provide the facts and figures. If these facilities do not communicate
information on time, the Commission cannot assess the Directive and make the
necessary adjustments.[121] Such shortcomings may,
however, be unavoidable.
Fulfilling
Annex II[122] requirements
as well as reporting obligations was identified as burdensome and cost
generating by some stakeholders. Annex II has been reviewed 6 times since
the Directive was adopted which has inevitably led to certain costs of
adaptation. On the other hand, the Directive has been kept up to date thanks
to regular review of the technical Annex II adapting the Directive to material
exemptions for Lead, Cadmium, Mercury and ChromeVI.[123] 

France has
called for an agreement on a common methodology at the
EU level on how to calculate the performance of Post-shredder technologies as
they greatly influence the achievement of the targets. 
Efficiency in a
nutshell
The ELV
Directive is an efficient tool providing multiple environmental benefits at
costs that are clearly outweighed by the Directive's environmental and economic
benefits.
Costs for car
industry for complying with the Directive were significant for removing
hazardous substances from vehicles and for recyclers developing the technology
necessary to meet the ambitious recycling targets. In parallel the need for
recyclability stimulated R&D to enable achievement of high recycling rates.
Car manufacturers acknowledge that the Directive contributed to making car
manufacturing in the EU (and even beyond) a more efficient, innovative and more
sustainable industry. 
Good practice
varies from one country to another depending on the context. Good practice applied
in a number of countries (Germany, Spain, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland,  Portugal, Slovakia and the UK) is the payment of premiums for bringing back an
ELV to increase the amount of ELV collected.
Strict
environmental legislation such as landfill bans and landfill taxes are essential
elements for an efficient ELV Directive. 
ELV recycling
now concentrates on increasing the recycling efficiency for non-ferrous ELV
parts, such as plastic. New post shredder technology was developed
to recycle also higher quantities of the non-ferrous shredder light fraction. 
A further
innovative technological boost can be expected through the increased use of
advanced non-ferrous materials which at present are difficult to recycle. 
Claims about less
cost-effective provisions have been made in relation to the frequency of revisions
of Annex II and as regards Member States implementation reports. Administrative
burdens are experienced by manufacturers who have to prove frequently that no
alternatives exist to the remaining hazardous substances used in vehicles, and
by Member States who are required by the Directive to report from April to
April, instead on a calendar year basis.
c.         The
Batteries Directive
The
Directive is seen by stakeholders as an efficient tool to protect the
environment at reasonable costs. 
Depending
on the individual battery chemistry, recycling is profitable as long as metal
prices are high. When battery chemistry is not based on metals, recycling is
not likely to be profitable.
Profitability
and therefore cost efficiency depends more than in other Directives much on
external factors. Country size and number of batteries placed on the
market (economy of scale), structure of the collection scheme and consumer
awareness strongly influence efficiency and are outside the control of the
Directive. EPR schemes vary widely in terms of cost efficiency and
effectiveness between Member States including EEA.[124]
Figure 7: Cost effectiveness of EPR schemes on batteries (2010 or 2011)
Implementation impacts greatly on costs. During the consultation no relevant provisions in the
Directive could be identified that make cost effective implementation
difficult. One question outside the control of the Directive concerns competing
collections schemes. Stakeholders indicated that such competition could lower
the costs but also incentivize a "cherry picking" behavior by
concentrating collection on profitable batteries automotive and industrial batteries
and leaving less profitable ones such as e.g.
alkaline manganese, zinc carbon and non-cobalt lithium batteries aside.[125] In the case of the last mentioned portable batteries the value of
recovered materials does not cover the costs of collection, sorting,
transportation and recycling. These are covered by producers through collection
scheme fees and transferred to consumers through increased prices. Lower costs through competing collection schemes
are not necessarily more cost effective, if they impact on environmental
protection and lead to a race to the bottom when it comes to choosing disposal
and recovery options[126]. 
Efficiency in a
nutshell
The
environmental benefits of the Directive outweigh the costs of its
implementation. This accounts for substance labelling and the restriction on
heavy metals. Spending on public awareness through collection and compliance
schemes is a cost, but it considerably increases efficiency in collection. 
Collection costs
differ greatly across Member States and collection of some battery types is
more cost efficient than of other. This could pose a future threat to the cost
efficient operation of NiCd recycling plants. Double charging for WEEE
collection and batteries incorporated in WEEE creates unnecessary costs for
producers and consumers. Recycling costs depend on battery type and not all
recycling can be profitable, in particular in case of portable batteries.
Portable battery recycling remains an ongoing challenge for economic reasons
Waste battery
collection mechanisms vary greatly across Member States, however competitive
collection schemes seem to result in lower costs. Fees and penalties are
used as a financial incentive for battery producers to collect batteries, but
their success is yet to be fully established. Setting of minimum requirements
on frequency and spending for consumer awareness leads to better awareness.
The Batteries
Directive has been kept fit for purpose through regularly updated amendments
since it came into force in 2006.
d.         The
Directive on PCB/PCT
PCBs
are highly toxic and mutagenic. Exposure of humans and animals to PCB in the
past has resulted in health problems and fatalities. Therefore in this context,
the safe disposal of PCB wastes also has economic benefits through avoided
health care and environmental clean-up costs.
Costs
for PCB disposal are relatively high, but compared to the long term health
hazards PCB disposal addresses, they may be considered relatively low, but in
any case unavoidable. PCB is hazardous waste and is usually destroyed under
high temperature in hazardous waste installations. It is virtually impossible
to differentiate and attribute the investment costs relative to PCB disposal
only as such installations deal with a range of chemicals. PCB disposal doesn’t
make hazardous waste disposal infrastructure more costly. Proper elimination of
PCB inevitably causes very high costs, with figures ranging from 50-1500 €/ton
depending on factors such as concentration and source[127].
Other but minor cost factors are government costs for reporting and
establishing an inventory and keeping it up to date. Finally there are
inspection costs, which are generally high because they are personnel
intensive. 
The
Directive itself has no influence on these cost factors, as they solely depend on the implementation of the Directive
under the responsibility of the Member States. Once the decision of destruction
is taken on Member State level the follow up costs are rather uniform.
Since
there is also no reasonable alternative to PCB destruction, there is no room
for balancing costs and benefits. 
No
provisions in the Directive have been identified that can be held responsible for
unnecessarily augmenting costs. 
Efficiency in a
nutshell
The PCB
Directive causes high operative costs, but it is still efficient, since
these costs are outweighed by the environmental and health benefits from
elimination of PCBs. Elimination costs are relatively high by nature and no
other more cost efficient way of elimination than the one described by the
Directive could be identified. No provisions could be found that make cost
efficient implementation more difficult.
Good practices
can be seen in subsidies for decontamination of transformers,
adequate training and major enforcement actions, which have taken place in a
number of Member States such as the Netherlands and Sweden, where owners of the
equipment rather than the government are responsible for disposing of PCBs as
required by the Directive.
Costs are higher
in Member States where there are no appropriate incineration facilities. 
Given the
Directive's purpose to implement the ban on / restriction of the use of PCBs,
no relevant adaptation of the Directive related to technical and scientific
progress has occurred
e.         The
Sewage Sludge Directive
The
Directive dating from 1986 may at the time of its adoption have been a cost
effective instrument because it provided for simple rules to define minimum
requirements for the land spreading of sludge. This was in the first instance
the cheapest possible way to get rid of sewage sludge and already only for that
reason cost effective. The objective back then, and still valid today, was to
ensure a proper recovery of nutrients and organic matter contained in sewage
sludge, while minimizing potential negative drawbacks due to contaminants and
pathogens.
Figure
8: Sludge treatment and disposal costs (EUR/tDS (tonnes of dry solid))[128]
Despite
the burdens of regularly testing the level of contaminants in sludge and soil,
such testing is still considered by many Member States and stakeholders as the
most cost effective solution of handling sewage sludge from urban waste water
treatment. In the meantime, all Member States have adopted legislation on land
spreading of sewage sludge with precautionary levels for sludge and/or soil
stricter than the Directive required. The main costs related to the application
of sludge on agricultural land stem from the treatment of sludge (by wastewater
facilities) in order to meet the sludge quality standards set by the Directive.[129]
Cost savings result from the substitution of commercial fertilizers by sewage
sludge. [130]
Finally,
estimates indicate that 45% of the EU-15 total of 9 Mt (dry matter) of sewage
sludge is used in agriculture. If this route were lost, to be replaced by
incineration, the cost would be of the order of EUR 650 million per
year. [131]
The ex-post evaluation study highlighted that in future even
stricter standards, such as pathogen removal, not even foreseen in the
Directive, would need to be applied and that this may inevitably increase the
costs for the agricultural outlet so that water utility companies might
reassess the financial viability of land spreading[132].

Efficiency in a
nutshell
Where Member
States apply sewage sludge in agriculture, they have set their own even higher
precautionary levels of sludge contaminants such as heavy metals. In these
cases costs are obviously seen as outweighed by economic benefits, compensating
for saving chemical fertiliser and disposal costs. 
There are no
specific provisions in the Directive that make cost-effective implementation
more difficult,
Main cost
factors are sludge conditioning costs differing between Member States’ own
standards. 
The attempted review
of the Sewage Sludge Directive in 2010 revealed many uncertainties and
inconclusive results and so far no major revisions or amendments have been
proposed. 
6.3       Relevance
The available evidence clearly shows that all five Directives
screened are important elements of European waste policy. They are the
operational instruments to give effect to the broader environmental policy objectives
as laid down in Art. 191TFEU. They are the crucial elements to achieving
sustainable resource use through a circular economy approach and key tools for
the protection of human health and the environment. Moreover, three of them,
the ELV, Packaging and Batteries Directive also are instrumental to achieving
the objectives of the 7th EAP, the resource efficiency
roadmap and the raw materials initiative as adopted by the European Commission and
endorsed by the Member States. The Raw Materials Initiative is one of the most
important priorities to be pursued in short term and mid-term. The ELV, Batteries
and Packaging Directive will be of particular relevance to attain the
objectives of this initiative. Most of them have an important role to play for
the functioning of the internal market, particularly evident in the case of
ELV, Batteries and Packaging Directive. All Directives responded from the
beginning to a need for more and better recyclability, higher rates of
collection and recycling and recovery in general, and also to decreasing use of
hazardous substances. In that sense they were already at the time of their
adoption systemic elements of a circular economy concept. 
-           Do
the issues addressed by the Directives still match current needs and do they
continue to require action at EU level?
-           Are factors influencing
end-of-life impacts (such as eco-design) sufficiently integrated into the
Directives?
-           Are the EU waste
stream Directives consistent with Community policies on resource efficiency and
raw materials and do they cover all relevant waste streams or are there gaps in
the present EU waste legislation?
-           Are there any gaps where
further EU waste legislation is required to achieve the objectives set out in
the Resource Efficiency Roadmap?
a.         The Packaging Waste
Directive
The PPWD addressed a total quantity of generated packaging waste of
80.2 Mt in 2011[133]. The trend
from 2005 to 2011 was a relative stability with paper and wood slightly rising.
In the same time period overall recycling and recovery of packaging across all
materials increased from 54,6% to 63% for recycling and from 66,8% to 77,3% for
recovery. The ultimate goal of saving scarce natural resources requires finally
a decoupling of economic growth and waste production. The PPWD has certainly contributed
towards achieving this objective. Redesigning packaging to use less resources
and increasing recycling and other recovery have led to a significant reduction
of packaging disposal while more packaging was put on the market. 
Figure 9: Recycling and recycling
rates of packaging material EU-27 2005-2011 (% of waste generation)[134]
Therefore the PPWD has continuing relevance in a still
increasing packaging market to break the link between an increasing GDP and
growing packaging waste quantities.         
EU-15 Old Member
States                         EU-12 ‘New’ Member States
Figure 10:      Source: EUROPEN 2014
There is evidence that, particularly as a result of inadequate
separate collection, the quality of material collected for recycling often
still leaves to be desired. A significant share of recycling is achieved
today through clean and homogenous ICI packaging waste and further increase of
recycling rates would require increased recycling of mixed household
packaging waste, consisting of small and often contaminated items.[135]
So far legislation has only looked into quantitative aspects of recycling. There
may be reasons to further consider qualitative aspects, in order to avoid
that increased recycling rates will be fulfilled by increased
"downcycling" of contaminated small scale mixed household packaging
waste.[136] This is
particularly evident in the case of plastic packaging recycling. In
future recycling markets are expected to constantly grow.[137]
This will require sufficient input material. Optimizing separate collection
is therefore of key importance. Furthermore, some new packaging materials,
such as multi-layer packaging, can be more difficult to recycle and pose new
challenges to recyclability. In relation to continuing relevance stakeholders
shared the view that more consideration should be given to recyclability,
to separate collection covering all households and better sorting technology. 
Stakeholders agreed that continued action on EU level is required. The Directive`s essential requirements would be the place
where rules could be set for packaging design, for instance, to provide for
single polymers or a limited number of compatible polymers in plastic
packaging to significantly increase plastic recyclability and decrease
incineration of plastic. Also, further attention may need to be paid to the use
of hazardous substances in packaging[138]
while taking account of existing EU legislation. Further strengthening of
recycling targets together with stricter requirements for separate collection
and packaging design can only be incentivized across all Member States by
regulation on EU level.
The potential role the Directive can play in stepping up action to
combat littering should also be examined, especially as regards plastic
packaging. Plastic packaging is among the most prominent items responsible
for plastic marine pollution.[139] Through its
focus on prevention, recycling, and other recovery of plastic packaging waste
the Directive could be an important driver for marine pollution prevention.[140]

Essential Requirements are the specific tool in the PPWD to
address design for recycling. They have however been criticized as vague
and difficult to enforce as well as being badly enforced in practice. Moreover,
they may also require some trade-offs to be made. For instance, while packaging
shall be manufactured that the packaging volume and weight be limited to a
minimum, packaging shall also be designed in such a way as to permit its
recycling. Light weight can often only be achieved through multi-layer
technology and such complex material is difficult to recycle, Moreover, the
Essential Requirements put recycling and other recovery on equal footing. This
is not satisfactory since the waste hierarchy gives clear preference for
recycling. Since design for recycling is a key factor for waste prevention
further steps could be taken towards the improvement of this instrument.
EUROPEN believes that essential requirements should stay as they are, but they
should be better enforced. Stakeholder views on the role of the PPWD in eco
design were split, ranging from an approach of leaving it to packaging industry
to gradually improve design (EUROPEN) to a strictly regulatory approach (OVAM).
Standards defined for biodegradability of packaging have not been
very helpful and have caused much confusion by not sufficiently clearly
differentiating between biodegradability and compostability, as demonstrated by
the requirements for biodegradable packaging in Annex II, 3d of the Directive.
Packaging is included in the parameters identified by the
Ecodesign Directive[141] but the
Directive focuses on energy-related appliances (except vehicles) and other
energy-using products (e.g. insulation). The promotion of eco-design in the WFD
as an example of prevention measures is vague. The PPWD could contribute more
to resource efficiency if the essential requirements were formulated more
precisely and coherently with the waste hierarchy. 
The Directive is largely consistent with EU policies on
resource efficiency and raw materials. It does, however, not give strong
enough priority to recycling over energy recovery and therefore there is room
for increasing consistency. The Resource Efficiency Roadmap requires waste to
be treated as a resource and calls for an absolute decline of waste generated
per capita by 2020 and for transforming waste recycling to an economically
more attractive option.[142] The PPW Directive responds to these requirements by setting targets
per material and promoting the decoupling of economic growth and
packaging generation.[143] A relative decoupling (only) has been achieved between
packaging market growth and waste production while waste arisings remained
rather constant. This was possible through a relatively strong increase in
recycling and recovery, a view that the packaging industry fully shared
during the consultation. Although this can be concluded from statistical
evidence, some caution should be applied as to what has really been recycled.
Figures may be misleading to some extent since the statistics count already as
recycled what has been collected for recycling as already mentioned
under "effectiveness". According to stakeholders from German public
waste utilities only part of what was collected for recycling in the context of
the green dot system is actually recycled. Despite the progress made to respond
to the need to resources scarcity, the Directive could be considerably improved
through more clearly formulating the Essential Requirements and more clearly
integrating ecodesign principles, in order to provide adequate incentives to
address resource efficiency during the design phase as well as on other stages
of the life cycle of products.[144]  It must also be born in mind that too strong a focus on recycling
risks undermining prevention and reuse, which are even more important from a
resource efficiency perspective. 
To achieve better resource use, stakeholders highlighted in
particular the need for more investment into infrastructure for separate
collection, sorting and treatment as well as full enforcement of legislation.
This should be accompanied by measures to increase recyclability, to be
achieved through better packaging design using the Directive's essential
requirements. 
Stakeholders also pointed to a potential trade-off between
resource efficiency and technological development creating light weight
packaging. Such packaging uses less material but it makes recycling more
difficult. This trade off should also be balanced by improved design which
could be achieved through further European regulation.
Relevance in a
nutshell
The PPW
Directive has remained largely relevant over time and the issues it addresses
continue to justify action at EU level: it contributes
to the functioning of the internal market and to the achievement of
environmental objectives by promoting preventive measures, reuse systems and
recycling and recovery. Member States achieve higher recycling and recovery
rates and thus recovery has to deal with increasingly less suitable waste
fractions. 
Implementation
of the PPW
Directive would benefit from improved separate collection and a higher quality
of recycled materials, as the market of recycled materials is
growing, quality standards may be needed in order to avoid contamination and
downcycling. 
Overall, factors
that influence the end of life impacts are not integrated sufficiently in the
PPW Directive. Ecodesign principles are only defined in a broad
and general way through Essential Requirements and they are difficult to
implement and to enforce. Consideration may be given to strengthen ecodesign
requirements through more concrete Essential Requirements.  
The recycling, prevention and reuse of packaging and/or packaging
waste have led to significant savings or natural resources through the
relative decoupling that has been achieved. Thus it has contributed to the objectives
of the Resource Efficiency Roadmap and Raw Materials Initiative by promoting
the decoupling of economic growth and packaging waste generation. Yet,
material savings have also created obstacles for recycling through the design
of certain types of multi-layer packaging. A more direct uptake of
life-cycle principles in the PPW Directive may allow a more complete
exploitation of the potential for resource efficiency. 
However, certain issues exist that may indicate gaps in the current
legislative framework. The decoupling of the generation of packaging waste from
economic growth is only relative and the re-use of household packaging is
decreasing. In addition, an approach to the prevention of packaging waste
entirely based on weight may lead to a focus on producing light-weight packaging. Such a purely weight-based approach could
create a disadvantage for packaging materials that are heavier but not
necessarily less environmentally-friendly.  Similarly, light- weighting can
affect the lifespan or cause spillages of packaged goods and especially food
products, leading to a loss of resources.
b.         The ELV Directive
There is a clear need for continued action on end-of-life vehicles
(ELVs) in the EU. The EEA estimated the number of ELVs arising
in the EU-25 to be about 14 million in 2010, compared to 12.7 million in 2005[145]
which need to be managed appropriately.
The ELV Directive responds to this need and the high number of
ELVs put on the EU market every year demonstrates a continuous need to recycle
and to improve recycling efficiency. In addition, the pending issues of
missing ELVs, still requires action at EU level. There is also a potential
to increase the impact of the Directive by widening its scope to all motor
vehicles. Given the benefits of the Directives and the progress made by the
industry, the ELV Directive seems to be the right instrument to ensure ELV
waste is treated appropriately.
Where Government intervention was directed more towards
enforcement and audits, as done in the UK, Portugal, Sweden or France, progress was made towards identifying and eradicating illegal treatment operation
and ensuring collection and treatment by authorized operators.
All stakeholders shared the view that the ELV Directive is the
right instrument to ensure that ELV waste is treated appropriately and that it
was the crucial driver for any progress made towards proper ELV treatment and
eco-innovation in car manufacturing. Research and development in car manufacturing
have led to phasing out nearly all hazardous material in cars and it has an
effect beyond the EU because European standards are to be observed for all
exports into the EU.
The ELV Directive has remained up to date. Yet recent advances in
materials management and technologies could have implications for the ELV
Directive in future. Nanomaterials, for example, are currently not addressed
while increasingly used in cars, e.g. in paint coating. Such new materials
cannot always be easily identified by car dismantlers and may need more
attention in future. Plastics are increasingly used in cars to make vehicles lighter.

In this sense there is potential for the Directive to further integrate
eco-design to make a more focused and more effective contribution to the resource
efficiency strategy and the 7th EAP, a view
that was supported by most stakeholders. More focused provisions on eco- design could be put in the
Directive, as already done in the WEEE Directive.[146]

The Directive itself does not address eco-design
directly, but the Directive's requirements on reusability, recyclability and
recoverability have forced car industry to integrate ecodesign into their
processes and it has helped that he automotive industry is Europe's largest investor in R&D[147]. Eco-design
is further enhanced through Directive 2005/64[148]
that requires new vehicles to demonstrate reusability and/or recyclability of
at least 85%, and reusability and/or recoverability of at least 95% by weight,
as measured against the international standard ISO 22620. Through these
eco design measures the amount of waste per
vehicle seems to be decreasing. The car industry achieved a 4.8% reduction of
waste between 2005 and 2007.[149]
Figure 11: Amount of waste produced by
the car industry in total and per vehicle (scrap metal recycled and used as a
secondary raw materials is not included)
There are tangible effects in limiting hazardous substances in
cars as shown in a study conducted by the Oeko-Institut.[150]

Stakeholders expressed a need for increasing co-operation between
producers and recyclers in order to achieve better recycling and resource use. An effective measure could be to indicate the parts that are not
suitable for recycling as well as the location of vehicle parts containing hazardous
substances or rare earth. As a first step into that direction, manufacturers
have already implemented an International Dismantling Information System (IDIS)[151]
to communicate data on vehicle composition to treatment facilities. 
The Directive fully
corresponds to the resource efficiency requirements[152]. Car industry is now seen as more efficient and sustainable as a
direct consequence of the Directive. Stakeholders consider the very ambitious
targets to be on the right level. 
Questions have been raised about the relatively
limited scope of the Directive: it only covers vehicle
designated as category M1 or N1 defined in Annex IIA to Directive 70/156/EEC and
three wheel motor vehicles as defined in Directive 92/61/EEC. Thus, for
instance, larger trucks (and other means of transport) are not covered by the
Directive.
Other relevant aspects that
the Directive may not yet sufficiently address relate to material technology
development, such as increased use of plastic and
carbon in production of light vehicles, use of nano-materials and introduction
of electric cars. Such innovation happens fast and will create new
challenges which will affect treatment of vehicles. 
More attention should be paid in future to avoid quantity
recycling in favour of quality recycling. In that context some stakeholders
highlighted that more attention needed to be paid to recycling of rare earth
present in a growing number of electronic components built into cars. Furthermore,
a number of stakeholders suggested including specific recycling targets for
raw materials covered by the EU Raw materials initiative.[153]
Further attention must be paid to the recyclability of increasing
amounts of plastic used in cars. As in the case of the PPWD, the trade-off
between resource efficient technologically advanced materials and their
recyclability should be more specifically addressed. 
Finally the ELV Directive has gained international relevance, which
could be expected because car manufacturing is for an international market. It has
provided the basis for the development of a new UNECE regulation on the
harmonisation of recyclability requirements for motor vehicles[154] that is expected to enter
into force in the next few months. Future revisions of the ELV Directive will
thus have an international impact. 
Relevance
in a nutshell  
The evaluation of the relevance of the Directive shows that the
ELV Directive has remained relatively up to date. New challenges may arise from
the use of new materials, such as nano-materials and plastics or carbon light
weight elements and the increased attention paid to critical raw materials
in the context of the EU raw materials initiative. ELVs are an important waste stream
for several of the 20 critical raw materials included on the EU list.
For example, a number of the stakeholders consulted in the course of the ex-post evaluation
study saw a need to recycle more rare earths. Recyclers ask manufacturers to
communicate more information on the presence of these materials in vehicles (as
provided for in Article 15 of the WEEE Directive).
Should electric mobility become more
widely spread, car and battery manufacturing will need to be more closely
linked in the future because batteries will then be an integral part of a car
and represent an important part of its composition both functionally and by
weight.
This will have an effect on calculating recycling figures and the need to do more
high-end battery recycling.
In addition, the
introduction of complex electronic systems and composite materials in modern
vehicles poses significant technological challenges in maintaining the overall
reuse, recycling and recovery rates of ELVs.
While the ELV
Directive has played a key role in moving towards more resource efficient car
manufacturing in Europe, there are serious risks for effective operation of the
Directive through implementation deficiencies leading to illegal shipment
and illegal treatment of ELVs as well as a significant number of ELVs of
unknown whereabouts. 
Eco design could
be more consequently integrated into the ELV Directive, e.g., no plastic should
be used in ELVs that cannot be fully recycled. New materials
such a carbon parts make vehicles lighter and more energy efficient, put they
pose particular challenges for recycling. Producers could be incentivised to
communicate the amount of recycled material used in cars where feasible. 
c.         The Batteries Directive
Batteries continue to be put on the market every year in fast
growing quantities and in a considerable chemical variety. The uncontrolled
disposal of batteries is a tangible hazard for human health and the
environment. Addressing battery waste management on European level helps
achieve overall high collection rates and eradication of uncontrolled disposal.

The Batteries Directive addresses resource efficiency and raw
materials policy, but with a rapidly growing battery market, there may be some
need for adaptation. 
EU legislation on batteries is not only an important driver for
resource efficiency through collection and recycling, but also an important
instrument to control sanitary aspects of battery waste. The proliferation
rate of portable batteries - nearly every citizen is holder of a number of
batteries with a short life cycle– represents a high potential risk of chemical
pollution through uncontrolled discarding into household waste or nature. 
The Directive is highly relevant but its useful effect depends
critically on good implementation. Stakeholders signaled implementation
problems caused by insufficient monitoring in some Member States, but also
by ambiguities in methods and definitions specified in the Batteries
Directive. 
Some lead acid batteries initially put on the market as industrial
type can be collected as portable. Since they are very heavy and count
against the collection rate for portable batteries by weight, this may in
theory show a statistical fulfilment of collection targets, while in practice
lighter batteries containing rare raw materials may not be sufficiently
collected. Stakeholders suggested the introduction of a weight limit on
portable batteries to avoid such a possible statistical distortion.
Concerns were expressed about collection targets for portable
batteries not differentiating between chemistries. Collection schemes focus
on the collection of certain batteries with positive value of recovered
materials while the ones with scarce materials or hazardous substances might
be landfilled. It is important to ensure that targets are not achieved
through the better treatment of the easiest target (portable primary batteries)
at the expense of losing scarce materials (such as Co, Ni and rare earth
elements: La, Ce, Pr, Nd) and polluting the environment with hazardous
substances.[155] 
Some stakeholders have also suggested that in the future,
collection targets should rather be expressed as a ratio of the amount of
batteries "available for collection" instead of, as is currently the
case, as a ratio of the amount of batteries "put on the market". 
The Batteries Directive only differentiates three battery
chemistries for the recycling efficiency criteria: Lead-acid batteries – 65%,
NiCd batteries – 75% and “other batteries” – 50%.  Recycling efficiency targets
do not distinguish between different chemistries beyond the Lead-acid and NiCd.
Some preliminary data suggest that a 50% recycling rate is not technically
possible for all battery chemistries (especially for emerging ones) and that
recyclers are able to claim a 50% recycling rate while valuable or hazardous
substances are disposed.[156]
The Directive marginally addresses eco design requirements in Art.
5. The Directive's mandate to increase environmental performance of batteries is
highly relevant to increase resource efficiency and could be expanded to cover
eco design more broadly. Art. 11, recently amended, addresses only the design
for removability of batteries. Stakeholders argued that easy recyclability
should become a mandatory design requirement in the Directive. 
The growing use of Lo-Ion batteries in electric vehicles (EV) is
not yet properly addressed. A rapid expansion of the world Lo-Ion Battery
market is expected by 2015.[157] For this
category of batteries re-use rules would be useful, as they will still have 80%
capacity at the end of life of an EV. Further challenges will need to be
addressed stemming from the lack of recycling facilities.[158]
There could be room for more specifically addressing eco-design in
Art. 5 and Art. 11 of the Batteries Directive. 
Relevance in a
nutshell
The evaluation of the
relevance of the Batteries Directive indicates that since its adoption in 2006
it remains relatively up to date. However, some technical advances could have
implications for the future. While current substance labelling requirements are
appropriate and sufficient, additional labelling by battery chemistry types
can improve their sorting and contribute to efficient recycling. 
The Batteries
Directive does not sufficiently integrate factors that influence treatment of
end-of-life batteries. Therefore, ecodesign and removability issues could be
addressed more thoroughly.
In addition, it has
been argued that the current methodology for recycling efficiency does not
fully adhere to the Batteries Directive goals, particularly for the
recycling of Li-ion batteries, as 50% recycling efficiency target does not
guarantee the recycling of hazardous and scarce materials. 
There are some
further adaptations that could be made to achieve objectives of the Resource
Efficiency Roadmap, particularly concerning the second hand use of batteries
and refining recycling efficiency targets.
d.         The PCB Directive
PCB is a Persistent Organic Pollutant and carcinogenic and
mutagenic. It accumulates in cell tissue and has in the past caused incidents of
food chain contamination.[159] Since PCB
equipment is widely spread worldwide, including in Europe, the Directive is of
ongoing relevance. This view is unanimously shared by stakeholders, who asked
the Commission to continue its enforcement efforts. 
Progress towards elimination and proper disposal of PCBs has been
quite significant. However, the elimination deadline for large PCB equipment to
be decontaminated or disposed of by 31 December 2010 at the latest was not met
by most Member States. 
Implementation efforts need to be considerably increased and they should
focus on monitoring Member States in meeting their obligations. Since only
a few Member States complied with the 2010 deadline urgent action is needed to
enforce the application of this Directive. 
The existence of PCB-contaminated equipment is especially an issue
in newer Member States.[160] Additional
enforcement measures and incentives may be needed to close current
implementation gaps. Closing the data gap is a particular priority.

Finally there is an issue on PCB in open applications (as
pesticide extenders, sealant, carbonless copy paper, industrial oils, paints,
adhesives, plastics, flame retardants) which might still be present in specific
waste fractions or in specific stocks in industry and household applications.
The Directive does not address such open applications although the POP
Regulation prescribes waste treatment restrictions. The Directive has further
potential relevance insofar as it should be a driver for looking for a more
proactive approach comparable with the one taken towards asbestos removal.  
Another aspect where potential relevance could be improved relates
to including targets and deadlines for equipment with < 5 dm³ PCB liquid,
and for equipment with concentrations of <50 ppm PCB. Furthermore,
transition measures are lacking for equipment > 5 dm³ for new Member States
or for Member States entering the EU after the deadline of 2010.
Relevance in a
nutshell
The Directive is
still highly relevant, although the deadline for the elimination of large PCB
equipment (2010) under the Directive was not met by most Member States. Despite
significant progress towards elimination many Member States still have to reach
the 2010 target. Therefore, rather than setting lower limits for PCB-containing
equipment, efforts should instead be focused on enforcement and assisting
Member States to eliminate the PCB equipment covered by the 2010 deadline. The
existence of PCB-contaminated equipment is also still an issue in the EU
(particularly in open applications such as pesticide extenders, sealant,
carbonless copy paper, industrial oils, paints, etc.), justifying the
continued relevance of the Directive – at least in the medium term. This is
especially the case for newer Member States (e.g. Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia).
Aspects of resource
efficiency and eco design have no relevance in the context of this Directive.
Additional
enforcement measures and incentives may be needed to close current
implementation gaps that have been identified in the Directive. Recent strategies
such as the 7th EAP and the resource efficiency roadmap put a particular focus
on that aspect. 
e.         The sewage sludge Directive
Since the Directive is nearly 30 years old and since its
requirements have been surpassed by Member States with stricter and more
frequent controls of more parameters than foreseen in the Directive, the aspect
of ex-post cost effectiveness and efficiency has become a hypothetical
question. A majority of stakeholders, however, supports the continued
existence of a separate legislative instrument on sewage sludge as a guaranteed
level of minimum requirements, despite of identified areas where it may not
fully match current needs and realities.
For
decades the use of sludge in agriculture has been a highly controversial issue
in Europe. It is a fact that sewage sludge can contain all thinkable hazardous
substances that can arrive in the public sewer. Sludge contains regularly heavy
metals and pathogens. Land spreading of sludge therefore inevitably leads to
the accumulation of heavy metals in agricultural soil[161]
and the process of hygienisation (neutralisation of pathogens) is also a
critical energy consuming process. The accumulation of heavy metals in soil may
happen within limits considered as safe today, but safety limits today may
be seen as unsafe with growing scientific knowledge about soil and flora
interaction. Mainly for these reasons Member States are split over the use
of sludge. What is considered still being safe practice by some is
considered unnecessary soil pollution by others.[162]
Member States policy on sludge differs greatly from banning the use of sludge
to applying much stricter limit values than the Directive foresees and
introducing new additional limit values for pathogens. A proper and full
risk assessment on European level has never been undertaken for sewage sludge. 
Sewage sludge is still widely used in agriculture in many Member
States. The Directive has not been revised since its adoption in 1986.
Since many Member States apply stricter limit values on heavy metals in sludge
and/or soil than prescribed in the Directive, this raises doubts as to the
relevance of the Directive in its present form concerning the limits for
heavy metals in sludge. This is further underlined by the fact that there is a
wide discrepancy between precautionary levels set in national legislation way
above those of the Directive and that all Member States apply an agricultural
practice to avoid groundwater contamination. 
There are neither any complaints about bad implementation or bad
application of this Directive, nor are there any infringement cases pending. 
For 10 years a revision of the Directive was on the Commission
work programme, but since a proper risk assessment on European level had never
been made, it was impossible to find any common ground for a revising the Directive. 

The European Commission is currently working towards a revision
of the Fertilizer Regulation 2003/2003[163].
One of the options under consideration is to include heavy metal limit values
in an annex to the Regulation[164]. This
raises the question whether sewage sludge meeting these requirements could, for
its fertilising properties, not be more adequately covered by the planned Fertiliser
Regulation. 
Several stakeholders stated that for assessing future relevance it
is important to assess links between the SSD and the Fertilizer Regulation, in
particular how sewage sludge and sludge products will fit into the future
Regulation. 
The Sewage Sludge Directive as well as the PCB Directive cannot
sensibly be screened under the aspect of integrating eco design because
both Directives do not relate to deliberately generated products but to
residues that need to be disposed of. 
Sewage sludge contains, however, phosphorous which is a scarce
resource. The use of sewage sludge in whatever way can therefore make a relevant
contribution to resource conservation. This resource can be re-introduced
into the ecosystem by land spreading or it can be extracted by newly developed
technologies such as mono incineration allowing for the phosphorous to be
extracted from the ashes. This technology is already successfully used in some
Member States. The developing of this technology was a side effect of the
sludge Directive. Phosphorous recovery was specifically highlighted by half of
the stakeholders with different suggestions for method and technology.
Any future decision about the SSD should take into account new
technologies developed to recover phosphorous through mono incineration from
sewage sludge. 
The land spreading of sewage sludge has also some relevance under
the aspect of resource conservation, but it is still primarily an
operation of eliminating sizeable quantities of sewage sludge. Precautionary
considerations have to be balanced against aspects of resource
conservation. Since there is no comprehensive risk assessment available for
the use of sewage sludge in agriculture, opinions among Member States about the
hazard potential of sewage sludge are split and all Member States have adopted
their own national and stricter precautionary measures.  
The sewage sludge Directive is the only piece of EU legislation
that is explicitly dedicated to the protection of soils in the European Union.
Such protection is offered by the limits for heavy metals in sludge and soil to
which sludge may be applied; by treatment requirements and by use restrictions.
All these elements allow the recovery of organic matter. Apart from costs of
incineration of sludge it would not contribute to maintaining soil organic
matter levels. 
Relevance in a
nutshell
The Directive
in its current form is clearly outdated but still considered relevant by a
number of stakeholders. Opinions between Member States are sharply split on
this point. Only a small number of stakeholders felt that sewage sludge management
could in principle be integrated into other EU legislation. 
Areas
where the Directive may not fully match current needs include: the limited
scope of the Directive (which addresses only the agricultural use of sludge),
and the lack of provisions on quality assurance and adequate monitoring.
Additional contaminants/substances in sludge have been identified that could be
monitored. Current limit values on heavy metals are clearly outdated and much
stricter in most Member States' legislation. 
The
Directive is consistent with the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe as it
diverts nutrients back into agricultural soil. Sludge is nevertheless also a
sink of contaminants and no matter how low heavy metal content or organic
pollutant content may be, its constant application will inevitably steadily
increase background levels of these contaminants in agricultural soil. 
6.4       Coherence
The aspect of coherence was already subject of two previous
studies which have been taken into account for the ex-post evaluation study
underlying this staff working paper. These previous studies have particularly
focused on the wider EU legislation aspect of coherence. The findings are
further extended and screened under the specific evaluation questions. 
-           To what extent do the
Directives satisfactorily complement other parts of EU waste law, especially
the Waste Framework Directive, and coherently reflect conceptual changes such
as the five step waste hierarchy, life-cycle thinking and resource efficiency? 
-           Can any specific
inconsistencies and unjustified overlaps e.g. in terms of definitions and key
concepts, across the Directives concerned and between them and other parts of
EU waste law (especially the Waste Framework Directive) be identified?
-           Is there any
scope for aligning key aspects across the Directives concerned, e.g. legal
base, provisions related to export? 
-           Can any obsolete provisions in the Directives be
identified?
a.         The
PPWD
There is in principle coherence between the PPWD and the WFD as well
as other waste legislation and policies. Some points requiring attention
have been identified with regard to concepts relating to resource efficiency,
including the waste hierarchy, life cycle thinking and certain definitions. EPR
is subject to both Directives and in need of further alignment as well as
further development in both Directives. There
was broad support for the PPW Directive to become legally based on the producer
responsibility principle. EUROPEN cited the OECD definition of
producer responsibility as the preferred approach, as an EU harmonised
definition of EPR was needed.[165]
Several stakeholders provided proposals for minimum requirements for
EPR schemes, including ACE, Eurometaux, EUROPEN and Municipal Waste Europe. FEAD and VKU suggested that producers should be made responsible in the context of eco-design as
well, thereby stimulating them to design less hazardous products that are
easier to dismantle and can be recycled in a qualitative and cost-efficient
way. However, according to the German VKU, in practice
the producer and retailer obligations comprise solely the financing of
collective systems for the organisation of the take-back and recovery of
specific waste streams.
Revision of Article 8 of the WFD may in future be needed providing
for more transparency on costs and material flows as a key element of ensuring
the effectiveness of PROs and their achievement of the aim of increasing
recovery rates.
The
PPWD addresses the five-step waste hierarchy in a non-binding way (recital,
Art. 4 and 5) as well as life-cycle thinking (Art. 10).[166]
Yet, some fine tuning might be necessary. The Court in case C-309/02
Radlberger/Land Baden Wurttemberg[167] found that the PPWD did
not sufficiently clearly establish a hierarchy between re-use and recycling.
This should be reason enough to clarify in a future revision that the waste
hierarchy is fully applicable to all waste stream Directives, including the
PPWD.  
Stakeholders
concluded that the WFD's reference to resource efficiency and raw materials
should be expressly integrated into the PPWD and other waste stream
legislation. 
The
PPWD definitions have not been amended since its introduction in 1994 (with the
exception of a precision of a definition of packaging). Disparities with WFD
definitions exist and should not be tolerated since they may be a source of
confusion. There should be full alignment of relevant definitions including "prevention",
“recycling” and "recovery".  
There
was a very clear opinion expressed by stakeholders that the separate targets in
the Waste Framework Directive and the PPWD should be maintained. The main
argument was that the packaging specific targets in the PPWD have had proven
benefits for the increase of recycling activity and separate statistics on
household packaging waste and on commercial and industrial packaging waste
established only under the PPWD, would in future be needed. Producer
Responsibility organisations (PRO) in particular pointed out that separate
targets increased transparency and were necessary to motivate industry to
drive and finance improved performance.[168] 
Inconsistencies were seen in the allegedly too vague reference to
EPR in Art.7 PPWD. The incoherent approach taken to
producer responsibility between the recycling Directives is already recognised,
and this has not been improved with the introduction of an article on producer
responsibility in the 2008 WFD.[169] There was broad support for further
refining and legally anchoring this aspect in the Directive. It was suggested to introduce also eco-design requirements via EPR
which would be consistent with Art. 8 of the WFD and it is an obvious need to
improve coherence.[170] 
The
scope for aligning the PPWD and other Directives is limited. As regards the legal base, industry
stakeholders want to keep the Internal Market legal base and no obvious reasons
were identified to suggest that a change in the legal base might make a major
contribution to coherence or any other parameters screened. However, the
continuing rise and development of the EU’s resource efficiency agenda is
likely to increase potential conflicts between the single market and
environmental objectives, particularly in relation to prevention and reuse
activities. The beverage packaging deposit system and free movement of goods
are one example.[171] 
No
obsolete provision could be identified, except for the maximum recycling
rates by weight set in the Directive. Such limitations did not make sense
to major stakeholders and are lacking reasonable explanation.
Coherence in a
Nutshell
The PPW
Directive is broadly coherent with other EU waste policies, but there is room
for a formal alignment of certain provisions and definitions with the Waste
Framework Directive (WFD) and other EU waste legislation.
One key
inconsistency is that the PPW Directive is not legally based on the producer
responsibility principle, as are other recycling Directives. Also, there is a
partial overlap between the packaging waste targets in the PPW Directive and
the WFD’s household waste recycling targets.
The legal base
between the PPW, ELV and Batteries Directives differs, depending on whether
their objectives are predominantly internal market- or environment related. 
The three product
related Directives screened here also present some differences regarding their
approaches to exports and targets. 
Apart from the
recovery/recycling targets (currently subject to an ongoing targets review),
the PPW Directive is relatively up to date. 
Making essential
requirements more concrete and more easily enforceable would increase coherence
with the resource efficiency concept.
b.         The
ELV Directive
Like
for the PPWD, there is, in principle, coherence between the Directive and
other waste law, notably the WFD. Some adjustments might have to be made
with regard to concepts relating to resource efficiency, including the waste
hierarchy, life cycle thinking and certain definitions. This was also
clearly highlighted during stakeholder consultation. 
The
definitions of "producer" and "placing on the market" are
defined in the Batteries Directive, while the ELV Directive defines
"producer" differently from the Batteries Directive and does not
define "placing on the market at all. The PPWD does not define both terms.[172]
The concept of producer responsibility is clearly addressed and
described in the WFD but only indirectly expressed in the waste stream
Directives. 
The definition of
"recycling" in Art. 2 (7) differs from the WFD. The definition in the
WFD excludes from recycling “reprocessing into materials that are
to be used as fuels or for backfilling operations”, while this is not
excluded by the ELV Directive. This difference in definition creates
confusion for Member States and discrepancies in how they calculate recycling
rates. 
The
study on waste coherence[173] suggests
for the waste stream Directives referring to the WFD for all aspects that
are common such as definitions, waste hierarchy, producer responsibility,
resource efficiency and resource conservation, life cycle thinking”. This would
facilitate subsequent legislative reviews and improve coherence and readability
of legislation. 
Some
stakeholders have pointed to a perceived problem of double counting of
batteries for the calculation of recycling targets under both the ELV
and the Batteries Directive. Lead acid batteries used in cars are weighted as
part of the end-of-life vehicle and counted towards the ELV recycling targets.[174].
These batteries are then removed from the ELV and handed to a battery recycler,
for further treatment. Under the Batteries Directive they are counted towards
the battery recycling efficiency target[175]. Most
stakeholders do not see this as an overlap as it is clear to them that the
batteries count as 100% in the recycling target for the ELVs as they are handed
for further recycling. 
Some
industry representatives have also complained that amendments to Annex II (restriction
of hazardous substances) are too frequent and take place at different intervals
compared to revisions under the REACH Regulation thus increasing administrative
costs for industry[176] 
There
may be a potential for aligning some key aspects. The Batteries Directive
requires “equivalent conditions” for treatment of waste exported outside of
the Community. The ELV Directive does not contain such a provision, but it
is reflected in Commission Decision 2005/293/EC, laying down detailed rules on
the monitoring of the reuse/recovery and reuse/recycling targets set out in the
ELV Directive.[177] 
Some
stakeholders called for setting targets for the whole recycling value chain,
including collection and recycling and prosed to link the ELV Directive via
references better to WEEE 2012/19/EU, RoHS 2, 2011/65/EU, the POPs Regulation
850/2004 and the Directive on hazardous substances 1272/2008/EC. This would
help ensuring that POPs waste from ELVs can be removed prior to shredding, thus
avoiding contamination of shredder output.[178]
The
Directive is up to date, but some stakeholders prosed to review the "free
take back provision" and incentivise last owners to bring their vehicle to
certified facilities. It was also highlighted that the Directive's Annex I
should be screened for obsolete provisions.[179] 
Coherence in a
Nutshell
The ELV
Directive is coherent with the environmental objective of the Waste Framework
Directive (WFD) and the 7th EAP as well as other strategies on raw
materials and resource efficiency. There is room for formal alignment with
certain provisions, such as on extended producer responsibility, and
definitions in the WFD. For instance, the definition of recycling in the
WFD excludes from recycling “reprocessing into materials that are to be used as
fuels or for backfilling operations”, while this is not excluded in the ELV
Directive. This difference in definitions creates confusion for Member States and discrepancies in how they calculate recycling rates. 
In addition, there
is potential to align the ELV Directive with the WFD definitions and
definitions in the PPWD and ELV Directive of “producer”, “producer
responsibility” or “placing on the market” to ensure full consistency. The
difference in definition makes comparison of data between Member States
difficult, as recycling may mean different things to different MS.  
The legal base
differs across the ELV, Packaging and Batteries Directives. The
three Directives also have different approaches to exports and targets, but
best practices could be transposed to other Directives. 
The ELV
Directive seems to be relatively up to date with no provisions that appear
obsolete. However, there may be a need to review the “negative value”
concept due to the rising price of materials.
c.         The
Batteries Directive
As
for the PPWD and the ELV Directive, there is, in principle, coherence
between the Directive and other waste law, notably the WFD. Some
adjustments might have to be made with regard to a legally binding reference to
the waste hierarchy, life cycle thinking and certain definitions. 
As to
the waste hierarchy, "re-use" is not mentioned in the Directive.
Industry has reported that there are increasingly cases of battery re-use.
Therefore the re-use could be specifically addressed as an objective of the
Directive[180]. This could be
complemented with defining incentives for the marketing of reusable
batteries.
Another
incoherence is that the Directive focuses on end of life, thus not
sufficiently integrating the life-cycle concept. The Directive addresses Battery design with regard to removability, but a life-cycle approach would have to
consider a full range of design aspects, pertaining to durability,
recyclability and toxicity. In addition the establishment of quantitative
targets, as already lined out in the chapter on effectiveness, means that
smaller batteries with critical rare raw materials may not be recycled.
Therefore stakeholders suggested adding qualitative targets to
quantitative targets. 
For batteries overlaps were raised by
some stakeholders in relation to the ELV Directive, as batteries fall under
the scope of both Directives. This was presented as potentially burdensome for
car industry. The car industry expressed a preference for counting waste
batteries from vehicles only under the Batteries Directive which is more
detailed and adapted.[181]  However, this
preference is challenged by the batteries recyclers.  
As
regards inconsistencies, the different definitions of
"recycling" in the WFD and the Batteries Directive are
potentially problematic. A comparison between the two definitions in the two
Directives shows clearly a more logical and more comprehensive and
differentiated definition in the WFD. There are no reasons why the WFD
definition should not be used unaltered in the Battery context. There is also a
difference in the definition of "treatment" with a clear
definition in the WFD and a clumsier wording in the Batteries Directive.[182]
It is not known whether such inconsistencies have caused an actual problem of interpretation,
but discrepancies in definitions should in any case be avoided.
Furthermore,
the definition of “producer” differs between the Batteries Directive and
the WEEE Directive, which complicates the enforcement of the two pieces of
legislation, especially when it comes to Internet sales. According to the
current definitions, dealers are not obliged to register EEE sold over the
Internet but are obliged to register batteries incorporated in these EEE, which
leads to confusion and misreporting. Stakeholders suggested to have
harmonised definitions of “producer”, “distributer”, “placing on the market”
and “making available on the market” in all Waste Directives. 
Industry
stakeholders have identified Art. 21 on capacity labelling for portable primary
batteries as a problematic provision because capacity depends highly on use
patterns which cannot be foreseen. This is confirmed by three studies.[183]
It has therefore been suggested to look into other
performance-based labelling options.
Coherence in a
Nutshell
The
Batteries Directive is coherent with relevant strategies and the Waste
Framework Directive (WFD). There is, however, room for formal alignment with
certain provisions and definitions in the WFD. There is room for improving
consistency with the five-step waste hierarchy, life cycle thinking and
resource efficiency. No significant inconsistencies were identified between the
Batteries Directive and ROHS or REACH. The Batteries Directive does not have
any obsolete provisions. 
Doubts
were raised as to the need of capacity marking of primary batteries, which
depends largely on the use patterns and therefore has little practical
significance.
d.         The
PCB Directive
The
PCB Directive is a standalone instrument with a very specific purpose of
protection of human health and the environment, which does not raise coherence
problems. Resource efficiency and circular economy aspects are obviously out of
the scope of the Directive.
There
is no relevant overlap with other legislation, including REACH. Both instruments
complement each other, with the PCB Directive dealing with the elimination of
PCBs, and REACH covering the placement on the market. As to the POP Regulation
that also applies to PCBs and which translates the Stockholm Convention into EU
law, there is some overlap, but  the more detailed PCB Directive, notably its
2010 deadline for the destruction of certain PCB equipment, goes beyond the
POPs Regulation. 
There
are certain aspects under the Stockholm Convention and the PCB Directive that
could be aligned, including the deadline for proper disposal of equipment
containing PCBs and the limit values of PCB-containing equipment.
A
specific matter of incoherence can be seen in the fact that the PCB Directive
shows large deficiencies in implementation. Most Member States have not kept
the 2010 deadline and have demonstrated a relatively astonishing lack of
urgency to fulfil their obligations under the Directive. Infringement
proceedings have not been launched yet but have to be envisaged in a relatively
short time. 
e.         The
Sewage Sludge Directive
The
Sewage Sludge Directive regulates the use of sewage sludge on agricultural land
under certain defined precautionary conditions. Like in the case of the PCB
Directive, modern waste policy concepts, such as life cycle thinking, EPR,
circular economy, have no function in a non-product related Directive.
On
the other hand, the second objective of the Directive, to bring organic matter
back to agricultural soil, whilst minimising environmental and sanitary drawbacks,
fits into the concept of the waste hierarchy, to favour recovery over
disposal. In so far there is coherence between the sewage sludge
Directive and the WFD.
The
different practice in Member States and regions of banning or using sludge in
agriculture may have an impact on the internal market. So far no evidence could
be found that the internal market for agricultural products had been really
affected by the fact that at present there is a large variety of sludge applied
in agriculture in Europe. There are stakeholders who believe that sewage sludge
should not fall under the definition of waste under the WFD, but Member State authorities do not agree with this view with reference to the precautionary
principle. 
Inconsistencies
or overlaps with other legislation do not exist, in particular not with regard
to the urban wastewater treatment Directive 91/271/EEC. The upcoming revision
of the Fertiliser Regulation may in future require a re-assessment of
the sewage sludge Directive. Depending on the scope of the revised
Regulation, it must be ensured that there are no contradictions or overlaps
between the two instruments. Whatever option should be considered in the
future, it should be seen in the light of the future revised fertiliser
Regulation.
Coherence in a
Nutshell
This non-product
related Directive fits into the concept of waste hierarchy, but following
the precautionary principle other modern concepts such as life cycle thinking,
EPR and circular economy, play little role. While the Directive is predominantly
an instrument of sanitary waste management, it also has a resource conservation
aspect by defining sanitary conditions under which the reintroduction of
organic matter and nutrients into agricultural soil can be done without
jeopardising human health and the environment.
There could be
scope for alignment with the urban waste water treatment Directive and possibly
the forthcoming new Fertilizer Regulation, but that depends on a decision about
the future fate of this Directive.
7.         Conclusion
This
section summarises the main findings of the Fitness Check identifying gaps,
inconsistencies, overlaps and areas for improvement. 
7.1       General Assessment
The
screening of five waste stream Directives for their relevance, effectiveness,
efficiency and coherence clearly demonstrated that these Directives are
examples of meaningful European Law making. As the analysis has shown, there
are very few outdated provisions or inconsistencies. 
Without
pre-empting any possible future decision, the Directive on Sewage Sludge may be
the only exception raising doubts about its relevance in its present form. In
almost 30 years, the standards and requirements set up in the directive have
never been revised or updated. Not surprisingly, most Member States have left the
precautionary minimum standards of the Directives far behind and are enforcing
bans, stricter limit values on heavy metals and in some cases additional limit
values for pathogens. In any case, it seems logical to ensure coherence and
avoid overlaps to postpone any future decision on the review the sewage sludge
directive until the adoption of the new fertilizers regulation. 
The
legislation screened here, covers nearly 30 years of European law making in the
field of waste. It has evolved from comparatively simple precautionary
legislation (Sewage Sludge Directive 1986) to a highly technical legislation
(Batteries/ELV). It has also seen a paradigmatic shift from looking at waste as
an end of pipe residue to be disposed of with a minimum of harm to the environment
and human health to considering waste as a valuable resource to be re-used,
recycled or otherwise recovered. This context is most clearly addressed in the 7th
EAP. It is remarkable, and clearly documented in this evaluation, that the
Directives screened were by and large well designed in order to respond in the
best possible way to rapidly developing requirements during nearly 30 years of
environmental law making.  
European
waste legislation is rather complex due to the technical nature of the issues
it addresses, but also due to the fact that waste policy has to fit into the
requirements of the EU Internal Market. There was broad overall agreement
between industry stakeholders NGOs and Member States that the body of law
screened here, by and large corresponds to what are standards of smart
regulation.
European
waste law looks however rather kaleidoscopic. Perhaps the
most striking feature is the co-existence between framework legislation and
waste stream specific legislation. In recent years, and as shown by this
evaluation, it has become more and more apparent that a parallel development
of framework legislation and waste stream legislation can create tensions.
Such tensions relate to the relatively static elements of legislation, such as
definitions, concepts of EPR, life cycle thinking and resource efficiency as
well as calculation methods for targets. Such static elements and principles
should be developed coherently across all the Directives of a certain sector
and not in parallel following different speeds of development. For
instance, there is no reason why the definition of "recycling" should
differ between any of the Directives, or why the five step waste hierarchy, an
essential element of the new WFD, should not be referred to in all waste stream
Directives. 
The
evaluation has also shown that the Directives are the fruit of constant
dialogue between the European law maker and stakeholders. This
continuous dialogue has helped keeping the instruments up to effectively
responding to environmental problems and to ensure a consistent interpretation
of their requirements. Technical adaptation committees meeting
regularly and discussing upcoming problems as well as preparing comitology
decisions are instrumental to this end. Moreover, stakeholder views, including
SMEs, are sought for at the very early stage of preparation in law making, the
stage of impact assessments. 
The
present evaluation also provides an indication to the debate on administrative
burden and implementation costs. While some pieces of EU waste law have been criticized
as containing unnecessarily burdensome provisions[184],
it is increasingly recognised that waste legislation is supporting economic
development. Economic growth, job creation and innovation are also
driven by environmental standards laid down in legislation. This is, as
recent studies demonstrate, particularly true for the waste sector. To develop
new technology for recovery of waste, new economic models and product design
requirements to make a circular economy with close to zero waste a reality,
there must not only be a green vision but also rules set through legislation,
providing above all a level playing field for economic actors, incentives for
innovation and security for investment. The importance of a level playing field
is particularly evident in the case of the ELV, packaging and batteries.
Uniform standards for in internal market are a prerequisite for smooth and
efficient intra-community trade. 
The
existing European waste legislation is already providing this stimulus
through the setting of ambitious targets with the view to increasing savings of
raw materials and improving technology to help generating and stabilising this
process. 
Overall,
this Fitness Check demonstrates a good regulatory performance of the legislation
screened while indicating the routes to further improving it.  
The
EU added value of all the five Directives screened was looked at
under the different evaluation questions in more detail. Besides the already
mentioned need for European industry to find a level playing field of
competitive conditions through harmonised European law, there are also other
aspects to consider: Most obviously in the case of packaging, uniform European
rules avoid being exposed to environmental standards differing between 28
Member States, increasing administrative burdens and insecurity of compliance.
Environmental law has indirectly set product standards in recent years, e.g. in
the PPWD, ELV and Batteries Directive, all of which require recyclability,
specified limitations on hazardous content or functionality, recycling and /or
recovery targets as well as the observation of specific waste treatment
requirements. These end-of life standards have had a repercussion on how cars,
packaging and batteries are designed and will continue to do so. Every
producer, importer or retailer active on the European market therefore has a
reliable framework of rules to follow which is important for planning
investment into infrastructure as well as R&D. Most obviously in the car industry
the ELV Directive with its hazardous substances restrictions has triggered
innovation which also helps marketing European cars on the international
market. In turn, international car manufacturers having to comply with European
rules for export, apply directly European environmental standards. In the case
of the Sewage Sludge Directive and the PCB Directive the EU added value comes
more from the aspect of creating an EU wide safer environment. 
7.2       Specific issues concerning Gaps, inconsistencies, Overlaps
and areas for improvement
The
foregoing analysis has revealed a number of aspects that may in future require
attention, either as part of any up-coming revision of these Directives or as
part of “soft law” or enforcement actions. These include the following:
a.         Legal
basis – stricter national provisions
With
regard to the five Directives' legal basis only for the PPWD has a potential
problem has been identified. The Directive is based in its totality on 114
TFEU (ex-Art. 95 TEC), the Internal Market legal base. This makes it virtually
impossible for Member States to apply stricter national provisions. Should
the Directive be based on Art.192 TFEU (ex-Art 176 TEC), Member States could
take more stringent measures under Art. 193 TFEU.
There
was, however, agreement among all stakeholders (Member States, industry, NGOs)
that there is no obvious need to change the legal base of the Directive or
to introduce a double legal base as in the
Batteries Directive. There seems
to be more general support to address any tensions from the PPWD Directive's
dual objective of protection of human health and the environment as well as the
functioning of the internal market through a revised legal text, rather than
through change in the legal base of the Directive.
b.         Scope
of the Directives 
The
question about the scope of the Directives has some relevance in particular for
the PPWD. This Directive relates to end-consumer, commercial and industrial
packaging waste. Its recycling targets consequently also relate to consumer
and commercial waste. There is therefore some overlap with the recycling
targets for household/municipal waste under the WFD which may also include
household and (some) commercial packaging waste. 
This
issue was considered also in the waste target review 2014. Stakeholders agreed
that this limited overlap was not a problem in itself and saw the effectiveness
and the coherence of the PPW Directive better ensured in maintaining its status
as the overriding piece of legislation relating to packaging and packaging
waste, thereby retaining household and non-household waste within its scope.
c.
        Eco-design
Eco-design
requirements play an increasingly important role for waste prevention and resource
efficiency, but they are only vaguely or not at all addressed in the waste
stream Directives evaluated here. In order to
ensure full consistency with the 7th EAP, the resource efficiency
roadmap as well as the raw materials initiative and the WFD, eco-design
requirements could
be a future candidate
for
further consideration in any future work towards a more general
alignment of waste stream Directives. 
d.         The
waste hierarchy
The
waste hierarchy is a binding principle of the WFD and one of the
cornerstones of waste legislation with far reaching consequences for resource
efficiency and waste prevention. There is confusion as to what extent the waste
hierarchy is also binding in the context of the waste stream Directives. 
However,
the 3 product related Directives and also the sewage sludge Directive make
reference to the waste hierarchy in one way or other, without referring to it
as a binding principle of waste legislation. 
In
addition, the Batteries Directive does not focus on waste prevention.
This is a major shortcoming that could be addressed at the occasion of the next
revision of the Batteries Directive. But it would also be important to
mainstream the waste hierarchy adequately into the waste stream Directives. 
Differences
exist in the product related waste Directives in relation to provisions on
collection, recovery, recycling, re-use and waste prevention (except for
batteries). Such differences, as highlighted in the chapter on
effectiveness, are a potential source of confusion and uncertainty. 
e.
        Targets
There
is a considerable variety of different targets in the waste stream Directives.
   Provision || PPW || Batteries || ELVs 
 Action || Recycling: Member States to ensure that specific materials from all packaging placed on the market to be recycled || Collection: Member States to ensure collection rates based on sales figures (products placed on the market over the last three years) Recycling: Member States to ensure that recycling processes meet recycling efficiency targets   || Reuse and recovery: Member States to ensure that economic operators achieve a minimum percentage for all end-of-life vehicles by an average weight per vehicle and year Reuse and recycling: Member States to ensure that economic operators achieve a minimum percentage by an average weight per vehicle and year 
 Target for collection || No explicit target   || ·         25% (2012) ·         45% (2016)   || No explicit target   
 Target for reuse || None (but a specific article) || None || 2006: ·         85% (reuse and recovery) ·         80% (reuse and recycling) 2015: ·         95% (reuse and recovery) ·         85% (reuse and recycling) 
 Target for recycling || ·         55% overall target ·         60% of glass, paper and board ·         50% of metal ·         22.5% of plastic ·         15% of wood || 2010: ·         recycling of 65% by average weight of lead-acid batteries and accumulators, including recycling of the lead content ·         recycling of 75% by average weight of nickel-cadmium batteries and accumulators, including recycling of the cadmium content ·         recycling of 50% by average weight of other waste batteries and accumulators 
Table 5:
Comparison of targets in the PPW, Batteries and ELV Directives
It
would potentially increase coherence to have a similar approach to targets
across all waste stream Directives and the WFD. Only the Batteries Directive
has an explicit collection target, while it has no re-use target in contrast to
the ELV and the PPWD. Furthermore, "separate collection" featuring
high in the WFD, because it is important for increasing the recycling yield,
does not play any role in the PPWD Directive, although it covers also household
waste packaging. 
In
the ELV and PPWD, re-use, although higher up on the WFD waste hierarchy,
features less prominently than recycling or recovery. 
Recycling
efficiency is a parameter in the Batteries Directive, but not addressed in the
ELV and PPWD.
There
is growing concern amongst stakeholders that in future the existing
quantitative targets may not be enough to respond adequately to the challenges
form resource efficiency and preservation of raw materials. In order to achieve
resource efficiency it seems evident that recycling targets should in future
have a qualitative element to allow for cradle to cradle recycling as a general
rule and to accept only exceptionally downcycling. Evidently, net virgin
material savings require recyclates which are on the same quality level as
virgin raw material. 
f.         Export
Provisions
Export provisions are an important consideration for the
environmentally sound management of waste, and these feature in all but the PCB
and Sewage Sludge Directives. Each of the waste stream recycling Directives
includes export provisions, and a similar approach is taken to recycling and
recovery occurring outside the EU. Recycling or recovery activities undertaken
on waste exported from a Member State can count against that Member State’s targets if the recycling or recovery operation took place under conditions
broadly equivalent to those prescribed in EU legislation. Despite these
provisions, significant illegal exports still occur.
Beyond a harmonisation of the Directives in this respect, there may be scope to
further tighten export controls, e.g by introducing requirements for evidence
of functionality for exported second hand vehicles.[185]
g.         Definitions     
It
has been highlighted under the different evaluation criteria that there is a
lack of coherence in a small number of definitions across the waste stream
Directives and that the WFD key definitions could be mainstreamed into the
waste stream Directives. This would improve legal certainty. Inconsistent
definitions in legislation covering the same policy field cannot be tolerated
since they can be a source of confusion.
h.         Reporting
and calculation
The
three yearly reporting (and 4 years in the sewage sludge Directive) could be
reconsidered. Member States have consistently complained about excessive
reporting obligations in the waste stream Directives, while they also have to
report to EUROSTAT. Moreover, there are doubts about the usefulness of current
reporting mechanisms. Too often reports are late or incomplete and don't allow
for a timely, sufficiently precise and meaningful information. 
An
additional problem has been identified as regards the calculation of
recycling rates. This is of particular significance to monitor
compliance with the PPWD targets.
Solutions
to both these issues (reporting and calculation) are being considered as part
of the review of waste targets. The review may include proposals to amend the
WFD and the PPWD to:
·       
Simplify
reporting mechanisms and obligations by relying on the waste statistics
collected by EUROSTAT as the main mechanism to monitor compliance with waste
targets, and
·       
Ensure
that only waste which effectively undergoes a recovery or recycling operation
is accounted for when calculating recovery or recycling rates. 
Consideration
may also need to be given as to whether at least the batteries and the ELV
directives could be amended to introduce similar rules on reporting and
calculation.
The
WFD makes in its recital 23 explicit reference to the three product related
waste stream Directives screened here and stipulates that for the purpose of
calculation of fulfilment of recycling targets the amounts of waste which
have ceased to be waste should be accounted for as recycled and recovered
waste when the recycling or recovery requirements of that legislation are
satisfied. However, it seems that waste which is transferred to a recycling
facility but not effectively recycled (e.g. waste discarded as non-fit for
recycling) is being accounted for as recycled. 
i.
         Producer responsibility
Producer
responsibility is an important element in the WFD to supporting resource
efficiency by linking more clearly the obvious interdependence of product and
waste regime. It is evident that the success of waste prevention depends
largely on how producers manufacture their products, to make them long lasting,
repairable, not containing hazardous substances and recyclable. 
None
of the three waste stream Directives is sufficiently strong on producer
responsibility and in particular the PPWD has no reference to producer
responsibility. 
Future legislative
action on waste legislation could look for ways to introduce a more coherent
approach on producer responsibility across the waste stream Directives. The
review of waste targets includes amendments to set minimum EPR requirements in
the WFD building upon the findings of a recent study commissioned by DG ENV. It
might be advisable to consider including similar requirements, or referring to
the ones proposed for the WFD, whenever relevant, in waste stream directives.
j.          Implementation
gap
All
the directives assessed have been effective in achieving the environmental and
resource efficiency objectives for which they were designed. The PPWD, the ELV
Directive and the Batteries Directive have significantly contributed, particularly
through target-setting, to raising waste collection and recycling rates
throughout the EU. The level of compliance with the recycling targets in the
PPWD is a case in point. The two older directives (PCB/PCT and sewage sludge)
have also been successful by reducing potential risks to human health and the
environment.
Stakeholders
have also stressed the importance of internal market benefits through the
removal of trade barriers and marketing restrictions. The establishment of
harmonised product-related requirements in the PPWD, the ELV Directive and the
Batteries Directive has helped to ensure a smooth functioning of the internal
market in three sectors of particular economic significance.
There
are however some implementation gaps which may have their roots also in
legislative ambiguity, lack of clarity or even contradictions. A case of bad
implementation, however not due to ambiguity, was found in the PCB Directive.
The Directive is clear in its structure, free of ambiguity of contradiction and
it has still not been properly implemented by a majority of Member States. Other
examples of bad implementation may concern the ELV directive (illegal exports
and ELVs of unknown whereabouts) and the batteries directive (marketing of
non-compliant batteries). Legislative action may be needed, if appropriate,
improving the design of legislation, to address those and other implementation
gaps.
7.3       Areas for improvement and priority setting
Improving
implementation and ensuring coherence in the design of waste legislation and
improving relevance in relation to the EU Raw Materials Initiative appear as the most important priorities to be pursued. 
A
classical instrument of ensuring coherence and simplification is codification. Codification
is expressly mentioned in the Commission's smart Regulation process as a
classical tool to ensure coherence. The 3 product related waste stream
Directives screened here and possibly even more Directives may be candidates
for simplification through codification. This has already been pointed out in
earlier studies on coherence of waste legislation.[186]
Other possible options to improve coherence include the recast of waste stream
directives or a limited review to align them with the waste framework
legislation.
Whatever
option is chosen, it might be wise not to take action until the legislative
process to review the targets in the WFD, the LD and the PPWD is finalised
since it may result in legislative changes concerning some key horizontal
issues (e. g. EPR, monitoring, calculation of recycling rates and reporting).
The
status quo, however, by no means showed to be unsatisfactory to any major
degree,
a view that was unanimously shared by stakeholders throughout the consultation
process. Most of the specific issues highlighted in the foregoing chapter can
be addressed on occasion of a general overhaul of the waste acquis when it is
deemed to be politically opportune. 
With regard to
synergies with EU raw materials policy, an important priority is for the (implementation
of the)
ELV and Batteries Directive to properly
address the challenges of increasing the resource efficiency and recycling of
critical raw materials. 
One
point of major concern, relates to the already mentioned calculation of targets
and reporting by Member States. Material collected for recycling needs to be
reported in a uniform way across Member States and from what is collected for
recycling can only be calculated towards the recycling target if it has
actually been recycled. This is already being addressed as part of the target
review carried out in parallel to this exercise. 
Annex I
Mandate
FITNESS CHECK OF WASTE STREAM DIRECTIVES 
1.         Background
As part of the 2010 Work
Programme1, the Commission has started reviewing the body of EU legislation
in selected policy fields through "fitness checks" in order to keep
current regulation "fit for purpose". Their goal is to assess issues
related to "effectiveness", "efficiency",
"coherence" and "relevance" of specific parts of the EU
acquis, thus promoting better/smart EU legislation, making it
more responsive to current and future challenges, and helping improve
implementation.
Within the Commission pilot
exercises were launched in four areas: employment & social policy,
environment, transport and industrial policy. Following its first fitness check
(in the area of freshwater policy), DG ENV will now launch a fitness check
related to waste policy.
This document describes
the context framing the fitness check of five waste stream directives and
identifies the key activities that will be undertaken.  The overall aim of this
fitness check is to:
·      Assess if the expectations of these directives have been met and
assess whether the existing framework is fit for purpose,
·      Assess how coherently and consistently the legislation/activities
work together and to identify any excessive (regulatory) burdens, overlaps,
gaps, inconsistencies and or/obsolete measures which may have appeared over
time, 
·      Contribute to the knowledge base regarding the overall impact (benefits
and costs) of legislation/Commission actions. 
 2.        Scope of the Fitness Check
The box below summarizes
the main legal instruments forming the EU waste acquis. These consist of three
different categories of legislation: i) framework legislation; ii) legislation
on waste treatment operations; iii) and waste stream specific legislation (the
'waste stream directives'). Some of these legal instruments are quite new
whereas others date back to as early as 1986.
Waste stream directives covered by the fitness check 
This fitness check will
focus on directives dealing with five specific waste streams. These directives
have similar objectives in that they each ensure the efficient and
environmentally sound management of specific waste categories.  They
also share a similar framework with regard to substance restriction, extended
producer responsibility and collection and recycling targets (with the
exception of the two oldest directives on sewage sludge and PCB/PCT). The
majority of them have been in place for ten or more years, allowing reasonable
conclusions to be drawn on their impact and effectiveness.
The following directives
will be covered by this fitness check:
·        
Directive 86/278/EEC of
the Council of 12 June 1986 on
the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage
sludge is used in agriculture[187]. This Directive regulates the use of sewage
sludge in agriculture in order to prevent harmful effects on soil, vegetation,
animals and humans. It encourages the
correct use of sewage sludge. 
·        
Directive 94/62/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 1994 on packaging and
packaging waste[188].This Directive aims at harmonizing national
measures concerned with the management of packaging and packaging waste. This
was expected to achieve a high level of environmental protection while ensuring
the proper functioning of the internal market. To this end, the Directive lays
down measures aimed at, as a first priority, preventing the production of
packaging waste and, as additional fundamental objectives, at reusing
packaging, at recycling and other forms of recovering packaging waste and,
hence, at reducing the final disposal of such waste.
·        
Directive 96/59/EC of the
Council of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and
polychlorinated terphenyls
(PCB/PCT)[189]. This Directive seeks to approximate Member
States' laws on the controlled disposal of PCBs, the decontamination or
disposal of equipment containing PCBs and/or the disposal of used PCBs in order
to eliminate them completely.
·        
Directive 2000/53/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life
vehicles[190]. The ELV Directive seeks to prevent waste from
vehicles and to increase re-use, recycling and other forms of recovery of ELVs
and their components, as well as to improve the environmental performance of
all economic operators involved in the life cycle of vehicles as well as the
treatment of ELVs. 
·        
Directive 2006/66/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and
accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directives 91/157/EEC[191]. The Batteries Directive establishes rules on
the placing on the market of batteries and accumulators, prohibiting hazardous
content. It also contains rules on the collection, treatment, recycling and
disposal of batteries. The Directive also seeks to improve the overall
environmental performance of waste batteries under a life cycle perspective.
Although the Batteries
Directive will be covered, it will not be possible to produce a detailed
analysis of aspects concerning its effectiveness and efficiency, given the
relatively short time frame over which it has been in effect. The Commission's
first implementation report on the Directive is only due in the first quarter
of 2014.
Directives not
covered by the fitness check
The Directive on Waste
from Electric and Electronic Equipment (WEEE)[192] and the Directive on the Restriction of the Use
of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment[193] will not be covered by the fitness check since
these two waste stream directives have very recently been subject to an
extensive recast. Their transposition deadlines are 14 February 2014 and 2
January 2013 respectively. 
The fitness check will
not directly cover the Framework Directive on Waste 2008/98/EC (WFD)[194].  This Directive had a transposition deadline
of December 2010, but four Member States have not yet completed their
transposition and others did so late. Therefore, it is not possible to evaluate
the WFD under this fitness check. The
fitness check will nonetheless refer to the WFD with regards to the coherence
of waste stream legislation with the WFD. Within that context, questions of
interest include the extent to which key concepts contained in the WFD, such as
extended producer responsibility, the five step waste hierarchy, specific
definitions, environmental objectives and life-cycle thinking would need to be
mainstreamed into the (older) waste stream directives. 
Three other EU waste
directives will not be covered by the fitness check since they are not
waste-stream but process-related directives i.e. they deal with the technical
conditions of waste treatment operations, such as landfill and incineration
rather than the management of specific waste streams.  These are: i) the
Directive on Landfill of Waste[195]; ii) the Mining Waste Directive[196]; and iii) the Directive covering the incineration
of waste[197]. The latter two directives are also too new to
enable a proper evaluation under the fitness check.
3.         Questions to
be addressed by the fitness check
The following questions will
be addressed under the four basic aspects that the fitness check will cover:
•          Effectiveness
-           What progress has been made over time towards achieving the
objectives (and, where applicable, targets) set out in the Directives in
various Member States? Is the progress made in line with initial expectations?
-           Which main factors (e.g. implementation by Member States,
action by stakeholders, cooperation between producers and recyclers) have
contributed to – respectively stood in the way of – achieving these objectives?

-           Beyond these objectives, did the Directives achieve any
other significant results e.g. have they helped ensure safer EU access to raw
materials, reduced GHG emissions and/or spurred innovation?
•          Efficiency
-           What are the costs and benefits associated with the
implementation of the Directives in various Member States? If there are significant
cost differences between Member States, what is causing them? Can any costs be
identified that are out of proportion with the benefits achieved? 
-           What good practices in terms of cost-effective
implementation of the Directives in MS can be identified e.g. use of economic
instruments such as cost-effective producer responsibility schemes, product
policies?  
-           Can any specific provisions in the Directives be identified
that make cost-effective implementation more difficult?
-           Have the Directives been kept fit for purpose through
regular adaptation to technical and scientific progress? 
•          Coherence

-           To what extent do the Directives satisfactorily complement
other parts of EU waste law, especially the Waste Framework Directive, and
coherently reflect conceptual changes such as the five step waste hierarchy,
life-cycle thinking and resource efficiency? 
-           Can any specific inconsistencies and unjustified overlaps
e.g. in terms of definitions and key concepts, across the Directives concerned
and between them and other parts of EU waste law (especially the Waste
Framework Directive) be identified?
-           Is there any scope for aligning key aspects across the
Directives concerned, e.g. legal base, provisions related to export? 
-           Can any
obsolete provisions in the Directives be identified?
•          Relevance

-           Do the issues addressed by the Directives still match
current needs and do they continue to require action at EU level?
-           Are factors (such as eco-design) that influence end-of-life
impacts sufficiently integrated into the Directives?
-           Are the EU waste stream Directives consistent with
Commission policies on resource efficiency and raw materials and do they cover
all relevant waste streams or are there gaps in the present EU waste legislation?
-           Are there any gaps where further EU waste legislation is
required to achieve the objectives set out in the Resource Efficiency Roadmap?
Aspects of the
relationship between the five waste stream directives and wider EU (environmental
and other) legislation may be addressed in the context of this fitness check if
appropriate.
4.         Working
methods and expected results
The fitness check will
be based on an evidence-based approach and cover legal (legal base, coherence
in terminology and legal concepts) as well as environmental, economic and
social aspects of the five waste stream directives described above. Extensive
and recent studies and implementation reports already exist on many of the
aspects covered by the fitness check. The most pertinent studies and reports
are listed in the Annex. Further relevant information is provided on DG ENV's
web page: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/index.htm. The existing studies and reports will be used
as a basis and, where necessary, will be complemented by additional literature
and empirical research, alongside consultation of Member States and
stakeholders.
The fitness check is
expected to further improve our understanding of the functioning of the
directives covered by the exercise. Problems may have various causes, ranging
from inadequate provisions to provisions which have become redundant over time.
It may also turn out that regulation is sound but that there is a deficiency in
the implementation. In this respect, the fitness check may deliver information
on specific problem areas of implementation and provide insight into the
possible obstacles to achieve the objectives set in the respective legal
instruments.
The fitness check should
also use cost-benefit analysis to assess the availability of alternative
options which may achieve the same objectives at a lower cost. Finally, it is
expected that potential new challenges will be identified, which are not yet
sufficiently addressed by existing waste legislation, 
5.         The
Fitness Check as part of the planned Review of Waste Policy and Legislation
As reflected in the
Commission's work programme for 2013, the fitness check will take place as part
of a planned review of EU waste policy and legislation. The results of this
single, comprehensive and coherent review will be presented in 2014 and will,
in addition to the fitness check, cover the following two elements:
§ 
1. A review of key
targets in EU waste legislation (in line with the review clauses in the Waste
Framework Directive, the Landfill Directive and the Packaging Directive);  
§  2.
An assessment of how the problem of plastic waste can best be tackled in the
context of the current waste policy framework.
This review of EU waste
policy and legislation will be informed by the 'aspirational objectives'[198] set out in the Commission’s Resource Efficiency Roadmap, as well as
by the objective to ensure safe/sustainable access to raw materials as one of
the key contributions to the Raw Materials Initiative. The review will also
build upon the 2011 Communication on the implementation of the Thematic
Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste[199], where the Commission identified a list of actions and priorities
to both improve the implementation of existing legislation and to move towards
a more ambitious waste management policy. This includes continuing efforts to
modernize, simplify and ensure the consistency of the waste legislation and the
review of main targets included in key waste Directives.
The two exercises –
fitness check and targets review – are fundamentally different (an ex post
evaluation covering all relevant aspects of the selected waste stream
directives in case of the fitness check versus a forward-looking review of one
specific aspect – the quantified targets – in case of the targets review)
without any significant risks of overlaps. The objective of the directives
covered by the fitness check is to create specific waste streams with their own
collection and recycling channels which operate in isolation from all other
waste streams. 
There is only one area
where the fitness check and the review of targets may overlap. At present, the
Packaging Waste Directive includes recycling targets for some categories of
packaging materials (e.g. plastic, paper) which are found in municipal waste
and which are therefore also covered by the recycling target for household
waste set out in the WFD. In order to ensure consistency and avoid duplications
and double counting, it might be necessary to redesign the targets in the
Packaging Waste Directive and to align them to the WFD. This issue should be
addressed together with the review of the WFD targets and not as a part of the
fitness check.
6.          Steering group
The Commission’s Waste
Management Unit (Unit C2 in DG Environment) has set up an interdepartmental Steering
Committee comprising staff from SG, ENTR, ECFIN, ESTAT and CLIMA as well as
colleagues from the evaluation and impact assessment unit in ENV. The group
will meet at regular intervals; the first preparatory meeting took place in
June 2012. 
7.         Tasks/Phases
7.1       Preparation
of this fitness check mandate
This mandate was
prepared by DG ENV C2 in consultation with the Steering Group. 
7.2       External
study (January 2013 – April 2014)
During this phase, an
integrated evaluation of the five directives covered by the fitness check will
be carried out. This activity will aim to provide answers to the fitness check
questions formulated above. The exercise will be outsourced to independent
consultants, using the DG ENV framework contract for such studies. The consultants’
terms of reference include requirements to conduct desk research, face-to-face
consultations including interviews of selected stakeholders and Member States,
as well as the organization of a stakeholder workshop in October 2013. The
consultants will deliver and present his intermediate findings in a draft
evaluation report in August 2013. They will also organise a stakeholder
workshop in October 2013 in which preliminary findings will be discussed and then
refined in the month remaining until the delivery of the final evaluation
report in March 2014. 
7.3
      Commission Staff Working Paper
The final results of the
fitness check will be presented in the form of a Commission Staff Working
Paper. 
8.         Communication
and consultation
DG
ENV has set
up a dedicated page on the Europa website to outline the fitness check and provide links to key documents. 
The consultants,
together with DG ENV, have established a list of stakeholders to be consulted
in a constant process until November 2013. The consultations will be based on
stakeholder questionnaires which will be adapted according to the stakeholders
to be consulted. Means of consultation will be e-mails, online surveys and
structured interviews.
The results of the
stakeholder consultation will be published on the website, as will the outcome
of the fitness check.
Annex II
overview of existing studies and reports
1. Commission staff
working document (2011) accompanying the Communication from the Commission to
the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Thematic Strategy on the
Prevention and Recycling of Waste 
The Staff Working
Paper was based on a number of preparatory studies including one synthetic
study coordinated by the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP). 
The paper contains
an in-depth assessment of the contribution that current EU waste legislation
has made, Directive by Directive, to achieve the objectives of the 6th EAP,
mainly to help Europe to become a resource efficient, recycling society with a
high standard of environmental protection. 
The report was
underpinned ample stakeholder consultation. It examined the achievements of
each single Directive and their individual contribution to the 6th EAP. Among
the parameters assessed were: level of implementation; Member State performances; progress to a recycling society; GHG emissions and recycling; economic
impacts of legislation; waste policy and globalisation; and future trends in
all relevant parameters. 
The report is an extensive
ex-post evaluation of the whole existing EU waste acquis.
2.         Study on
coherence of waste legislation 2009
This study checked
coherence between the new WFD and the Directives on Packaging, ELV, WEEE, RoHS,
Batteries, including their interaction with REACH.
It was accompanied
by extensive stakeholder consultation and delivered significant results in
identifying incoherence between older legislation and the new WFD. The stress
was on legally formal inconsistencies with impact on practicality of the
acquis. Inconsistencies were inter alia identified relating to: definitions,
objectives and principles, legal bases, producer responsibility, targets and
their comparability (baselines and end points), flexibility for adjustment to scientific
progress, different concepts not mainstreamed (such as waste hierarchy, life
cycle thinking, re-use, recycling, recovery not defined or defined differently
etc.)
This study is an in
depth assessment of coherence of the main legal instruments in waste policy.
3. Study on coherence
of waste legislation 2011
This study took an
even broader look in the functionality of existing key legislation, the
Directives on WEEE, Batteries, ELV, RoHS, Packaging and its interdependence
with the WFD and corollary acquis such as the Landfill Directive and the Waste
Shipment Regulation as well as its effectiveness and efficiency.
The objectives were
to identify: potential gaps, inconsistencies and overlaps between the five
Directives and other main elements of EU waste legislation; the effectiveness
and efficiency of the current waste stream Directives; potential alternative
approaches in the design of legislation; and upcoming challenges in the
development of EU waste legislation related to recycling.
Key findings include:
introduction of additional material-based targets, better implementation and
enforcement, integration of eco-design requirements, harmonisation with WFD,
improved separate collection, increased quantitative targets for ELV and
Packaging Waste.
The study also
covered an evaluation of current achievements, gaps, burdens, socio-economic
effects, cost savings potentials, contribution to resource efficiency and
relevant drivers for resource efficiency.
4.         Study on
green growth (2010)
This study looked into
benefits and barriers related to better implementation of the EU waste acquis.
It was informed by a number of stakeholder workshops. The study contains ample
information about the functioning of legislation, its benefits and obstacles to
reaping these benefits.
5.         Study on
market-based instruments for waste management (2012)
This study was a
follow-up to the studies carried out for the study on the Thematic Strategy on
Waste and looked into the use of economic instruments in relation to the
management of specific waste stream Directives in different Members States
(producer responsibility schemes, pay-as-you-throw schemes and taxes for
landfill and incineration). 
This study also
looks into how the implementation of the waste stream Directives can be improved
by using economic instruments. The results have already been used in the AGS
2012 exercise as well as to better define ex ante conditionality for the use of
structural funds. 
6.         Study on the
feasibility of a waste implementation agency (2010)
This study examined how
insufficient enforcement by Member States affects the effectiveness of the EU
waste acquis and lists the benefits of better enforcement of current rules.
7.         Implementation
reports
Various implementation
reports under the Directives concerned (with the exception of the Batteries
Directives for which the first implementation report is not due until the first
quarter of 2014).
Annex III 
Material-specific recycling targets under the PPWD 
Material-specific recycling targets under the PPWD were by and
large met: 
·       
For paper and board:
Figure
1: Paper and
board recycling rates by EU-27 Member State, 2011 (%)Error! Bookmark not defined.
·       
For glass:
Figure
2: Glass
packaging recycling rate, 2011 (%)[200]
·       
For metal:
Figure 3: Metallic
recycling rate by Member State, 2011 (%)
·       
And for plastic:
Figure
4: Plastic
packaging recycling rates by Member State, 2011 (%)[201]
While for paper, metal and glass the difference between the total
amount of waste and the amounts recycled were very close, there is a very large
gap between plastic waste arisings and plastic waste recycling, being a
relatively new technology.
Figure 5: Plastic
packaging waste generated and recycled by Member States, 2011 (kg/capita) [202]
Statistical plastic packaging waste recycling rates over 30% in
certain Member States would deserve some additional scrutiny, since they are
way above the 32,2% overall plastic packaging recycling rate calculated by
"Consultic"[203] in 2012 for
the German BVSE.
___________
[1]              OJ L 181,
4.7.1986, p. 6–12.
[2]              OJ L 365,
31.12.1994, p. 10–23.
[3]              OJ L 243,
24.9.1996, p. 31–35.
[4]              OJ L 269, 21.10.2000, p.34.
[5]              OJL 266,
26.0.2006, p. 1-14.
[6]              OJ
L 194/39 of 25.7.1975, p.39.
[7]              OJ L
114/9, 27.4.2006, p.9.
[8]              OJ L
312/3 of 22.11.2008, p. 3.
[9]              Decision
1600/2002/EC laying down the Sixth Community Action Programme; OJ L 242,
10.9.2002, p.1.
[10]             Court of
Justice of the European Union.
[11]             It is therefore necessary to revise Directive
2006/12/EC in order to clarify key concepts such as the definitions of waste,
recovery and disposal, to strengthen the measures that must be taken in regard
to waste prevention, to introduce an approach that takes into account the
whole life-cycle of products and materials and not only the waste phase,
and to focus on reducing the environmental impacts of waste generation and
waste management, thereby strengthening the economic value of waste.
Furthermore, the recovery of waste and the use of recovered materials should be
encouraged in order to conserve natural resources. In the interests of clarity
and readability, Directive 2006/12/EC should be repealed and replaced by a new
directive.
[12]             Measures
taken at the stage of waste prevention must logically also encompass measures
taken on the level of production, more precisely, the design of products. 
[13]             This
is spelled out in its recital 7.
[14]             Council Directive
85/339/EEC of 27 June 1985 on containers of liquids for human consumption 
                OJ
L 176, 6.7.1985, p. 18–21.
[15]             Directive
94/62/EC on Packaging and Packaging Waste, as amended by Directive 2004/12/EC, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:01994L0062-20050405:EN:NOT.
[16]             PARCOM.
International Treaty on the phasing out of PCBs and hazardous substitutes. 
[17]             As to the
quantities: BIOIS(2014), ex post evaluation of certain waste stream Directives,
p. 107.
[18]             OJL 266,
26.0.2006, p. 1-14.
[19]          Review
of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union
Environment and Climate Change, February 2014; 
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/279194/environment-climate-change-documents-final-report.pdf.
[20]             See
Annex B, in: BIOIS (2014) ex-post evaluation of certain waste stream
Directives, p.307.
[21]             See
fig. 20 and 21 BIOIS (2014) ex post evaluation of certain waste stream
Directives, p. 286/287.
[22]             See Fig.
23 and 24 BIOIS (2014) ex post evaluation of certain waste stream Directives,
p. 289.
[23]             For data on the material-specific targets under the PPWD
see Annex III.
[24] Eurostat (2013) Packaging waste statistics (env_waspac), http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Packaging_waste_statistics.
[25]             It should be noted that DE already had a packaging Regulation
(Verpackungsverordnung) in 1991 which set the agenda for achieving high recycling
rates of packaging waste and which served as a model for the later EU Directive
on packaging and packaging waste. See: Di Fabio,
Staatliche Gewährleistungsverantwortung für Systeme gesellschaftlicher
Selbstregulierung, Rechtsgutachten für ALBA Group plc. & Co.KG, Februar 2014, S. 6. http://www.umweltruf.de/2014_Programm/news/news_druck.php3?nummer=1204.
[26]             See: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32005D0270&from=EN
[27]             It is worth observing that taking the actual output of the recycling
process would provide an even more realistic picture of the recycling rates
achieved.
[28]             See EPR Data Verification Study prepared by Sismega and
FFact of November 2013.
[29]             Eurostat (2013), Packaging waste
statistics, (env_waspac), 
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=env_waspac&lang=en.
[30]             BiPro (2013) Support to Member
States in improving waste management based on assessment of
Member
States' performances,
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/pdf/Final%20Report%20_130507.pdf.
[31]             IEEP
(2009) A report on the implementation of the Packaging and Packaging Waste
Directive 94/62/EC,
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/reporting/pdf/Packaging%20Directive%20Report.pdf.
[32]             BIOIS (2013) Development of guidance on Extended
Producer Responsibility (EPR), Background paper for the stakeholders workshop, 
http://epr.eu-smr.eu/documents/EPR_18sept_Workshop_BackgroundDocument.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1. For a full overview see: BIOIS(2012), Use
of Economic Instruments and Waste management Performances – Final Report, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/final_report_10042012.pdf
[33]             BIOIS
(2011) Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth, 
                http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/pdf/study%2012%20FINAL%20REPORT.pdf.
[34]             Eurostat
(2013), Final consumption aggregates (nama_co3_c) for the following goods: Food
and non-alcoholic beverages, Alcoholic beverages, tobacco and narcotics,
Clothing and footwear, Furnishings, household equipment and routine maintenance
of the house, Telephone and telefax equipment, Audio-visual, photographic and
information processing equipment, Newspapers, books and stationery.
[35]             See: Di
Fabio, log.cit., for DE, p. 25 seq. 
[36]             See
Annex II of Directive 94/62/EC.
[37]             For
examples, see: BIOIS (2014) ex post evaluation of certain waste stream
Directives, p. 40 seq.
[38]             EIMPack
(2011) Economic Impact of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive –
literature review,
http://eimpack.ist.utl.pt/docs/Literature%20Review_final.pdf.
[39]             European
Commission, Best practices on waste prevention, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/prevention/practices.htm.
[40]             BIOIS (2014), ex post evaluation of certain waste stream
Directives, p. 60
[41]             As to specific weaknesses of essential requirements see:
Arcadis (2009) A survey on compliance with
the Essential
Requirements in the Member States, 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/packaging/pdf/report_essential_requirements.pdf. The 
notorious confusion
caused by the term "compostable" in relation to bio plastics may
serve as an 
example. 
[42]             Arcadis (2009) A survey on compliance with the
Essential Requirements in the Member States,
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/packaging/pdf/report_essential_requirements.pdf.
[43]             EN 13432:2000
Packaging is the harmonised European standard specific to packaging, linked to
the PPWD. EN 14995:2006 Plastics is a more comprehensive version broadening the
scope to use for non-packaging applications.
[44]             ASTM International. Standard Specification
for Labelling of Plastics Designed to be Aerobically Composted in Municipal or
Industrial Facilities.
www.astm.org/Standards/D6400.htm.
[45]             British Plastics
Federation. Packaging waste directive and standards for compostability. 
www.bpf.co.uk/Topics/Standards_for_compostability.aspx.
[46]             Biodegradable Products
Institute. Summary page: “Standard EN 13432: Proof of compostability of plastic
products.” www.bpiworld.org/Default.aspx?pageId=190437.
[47]             Gomes, Nunes, Vitoria no, & Pedrosa, (2008) Co-composting
of Biowaste and Poultry Waste. 
www.iswa.org/uploads/tx_iswaknowledgebase/paper25.pdf.
[48]             BIOIS (2013) Analysis
of the public consultation on the green paper “European Strategy on Plastic Waste
in the Environment”.
[49]             Communication
from the Commission  (2009/C 107/01),  Beverage packaging, deposit systems
and free movement of goods.
[50]             IEEP
(2009) A report on the implementation of the Packaging and Packaging Waste
Directive 94/62/EC, 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/reporting/pdf/Packaging%20Directive%20Report.pdf.
[51]             BIOIS
(2013) Green
paper on a strategy on plastic waste in the Environment, evaluation, p.34-35.
[52]             EIMPack
(2011) Economic Impact of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive –
literature review,
http://eimpack.ist.utl.pt/docs/Literature%20Review_final.pdf.
[53]             For
more details see: BIOIS (2014) ex post evaluation of certain waste stream
Directives, p.65.
[54]             EIMPack
(2011) Economic Impact of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive –
literature review,
http://eimpack.ist.utl.pt/docs/Literature%20Review_final.pdf.
[55]             ECOLAS
and PIRA (2005) Study on the implementation of the Directive 94/62/EC on
Packaging and Packaging Waste and Options to Strengthen Prevention and Re-use
of Packaging,
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/packaging/050224_final_report.pdf.
[56]             Öko-Institut
(2010) ELV Directive Annex II: analysis of costs and environmental benefits
of heavy metals ban, and proposal for better regulation, available at
www.acea.be/images/uploads/files/%C3%96ko_Institut.pdf.
[57]             Eurostat
data. Ireland did not report for 2011.
[58]             Detail are regulated
in the Commission Decision 2005/293/EC on the monitoring of the reuse/recovery
and reuse/recycling targets set out in Directive 2000/53/EC. DG ESTAT has also
developed a guidance document on how to report on recycling and recovery
targets.
[59]             European
Parliament (2010) End-of-life Vehicles: Legal aspects, national practices
and recommendations for future successful approach; the Commission
Guidelines for Reporting seem not to have changed that situation much; for
stakeholder suggestions to improve the current situation see: BIOIS (2014),
ex-post evaluation of certain waste stream Directives p. 112/113.
[60]             BIOIS(2013)
Development
of Guidance on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR).
[61]             The
Correspondents' Guidelines No 9 on shipment of waste vehicles have been
adopted by the waste shipment correspondents in 2011.  These Guidelines define
criteria for the differentiation between second-hand vehicles and waste
vehicles that is a broader scope that the ELV scope, and therefore, these
Guidelines include ELVs
(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/guidance.htm).
[62]             Oko-Institut
et al. (2011) European second-hand car market analysis, European
Commission.
[63]             In this
sense Christa Friedl and Ulrich Leunig (BDSV), Recycling Magazin 08/2012, p.
35. He deplores in particular a discrepancy between the statistical evidence
and the reality of bad implementation as well as constructive faults of the
Directive itself. 
[64]             In this
sense Christa Friedl and Ulrich Leunig (BDSV), Recycling Magazin 08/2012, p.
35.
[65]             Öko-Institut
et al. (2011) European second-hand car market analysis, European
Commission. 
[66]             For IMPEL
suggestions, see: BIOIS(2014) ex-post evaluation of certain waste stream
Directives, p.115
with reference to the "correspondent's
guidelines No 9 on shipment of waste vehicles".
[67]             European
Parliament (2010) End-of-life Vehicles: Legal aspects, national practices
and recommendations for future successful approach.
[68]             BIOIS(2010) Etude
de la gestion de la filière de collecte et de valorisation des véhicules hors
d'usage dans certains pays de l’UE.
[69]             Reinhardt,
W.A. (2005) Drive towards compliance, Recycling end-of-life vehicles in an
enlarged EU, available at www.acea.be/images/uploads/etr/SDOC0823.pdf.
[70]             Konz, R.J. (2008) The
End-of-life Vehicle (ELV): The road to Responsible Disposal, Minnesota Journal of International law (Vol.18), available at: http://www.law.umn.edu/uploads/BX/fw/BXfwZTM0VoxN2BtOQ7E2Vg/Konz-Final-Online-PDF-03.30.09.pdf.
[71]             GHK and
BIOIS(2006) A study to examine the benefits of the End of Life Vehicles Directive
and the costs and benefits of a revision of the 2015 targets for recycling,
reuse and recovery under the ELV Directive, DG ENV, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/study/final_report.pdf.
[72]             EPBA
(2013) The collection of waste portable batteries in Europe in view of the
achievability of the collection targets set by Batteries Directive 2006/66/EC
and Stibat.
[73]             Art. 14 
Dir. 2006/66/EC.
[74]             Recycling
magazine “Battery Directive : Time limit expired”.
www.recyclingmagazin.de/rmeng/news_detail.asp?ID=11090&MP=2&MODE=205&NS=1.
[75]             BIOIS(2014)
ex-post evaluation of certain waste stream Directives, p. 149.
[76]             EPBA
(2013) “The collection of waste portable batteries in Europe in view of the
achievability of the collection targets set by Batteries Directive 2006/66/EC”
and Stibat; EBRA study “10 years of battery recycling in Europe” October 2008;
this refers to lead acid batteries, representing currently 90% of industrial
batteries but also NiCd batteries, NiMH and Li-Ion batteries.
[77]             BIOIS
(2014), ex-post evaluation of certain waste stream Directives, p. 155.
[78]             EPBA
(2013) The collection of waste portable batteries in Europe in view of the
achievability of the collection targets set by Batteries Directive 2006/66/EC
and Stibat.
[79]             BIOIS
(2014) ex-post evaluation of certain waste stream Directives, p. 156.
[80]             A 2010
survey conducted by BEBAT and Lielens in Belgium, which had the highest
collection rate in 2007 of 54% showed the following distribution of consumers:
18% throw waste batteries away, 9% stock them, 18% sort but do not return and
55% do return. It is worth noticing that these rates are applicable mainly for
primary batteries because, as mentioned above, consumers regard primary
batteries as the main object for recycling and not all of them are aware that
rechargeable batteries need to be collected and recycled as well. This shows
that consumer awareness raising needs to be stepped up significantly. 
[81]             BIOIS(2014)
ex-post evaluation of certain waste stream Directives, p. 156.
[82]             Commissions
staff working paper SWD(2013) 268 (impact assessment accompanying a proposal to
strengthen inspections and enforcement of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 on
shipments of waste, July 2013).
[83]             Ministerial
Meeting of the Oslo and Paris Commission of 21-22 September 1992.
[84]             CLEEN
(2005) EuroPCB: inventory PCB enforcement in Member States – Part I, Final,
October 2005.
[85]             For the
bizarre justification given by Member States see further: BIOIS (2014) ex-post
evaluation of
certain waste stream Directives, table 19, p.214.
[86]             COM(82) 527,
10.9.1982.
[87]             In 1982,
the Commission estimated the following break down for sludge outlets in the 12
Member States which were at that time part of the EEC: 45% landfilled, 7%
incinerated, 19% dumped at sea, and 29% used in agriculture. The Commission in
the Explanatory Memorandum remarked that, "The figure of 29% for the
amount of sewage sludge used in agriculture is low considering that sludge is
of considerable use to soil as a source of organic matter containing phosphorus
and nitrogen. The use of sludge in agriculture needs careful appraisal as to
the kind of treatment required and the quantities that may be spread".
[88]             The
limits and use restrictions contained in the Commission proposal were
underpinned by the conclusions and main findings of a Concerted Action on the
treatment and use of sewage sludge (COST Project 68).
[89]             In 2009,
around 48% of dry sludge solids generated in the EU 27 were spread on
agricultural land; Eurostat data (ENV_WW_SPD) for EU-28 for 2005-2010; data
missing for 2005 for Denmark, France, Croatia, Austria and Portugal; data
missing for 2010 for Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Portugal and Finland.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/dataset?p_product_code=ENV_WW_SPD.

[89]             Milieu
(2010) Environmental, economic and social impacts of the use of sewage
sludge on land, Final Report,
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/sludge/pdf/part_i_report.pdf.
[90]             For
a more detailed overview see: BIOIS (2014) ex-post evaluation of certain waste
stream Directives, p.349, table 30.
[91]             For the
depletion of the finite resource phosphorous, see: Plant Research International
(2010). Sustainable Use of Phosphorus. Retrieved 13 February 2014 from www.fertilizerseurope.com/fileadmin/user_upload/publications/statistics_publications/Stat_website.pdf
[92]             BIOIS,
Implementing EU waste legislation for green growth, 27 November 2011, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/pdf/study%2012%20FINAL%20REPORT.pdf.
[93]             EIMPack
(2011) Economic Impact of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive –
literature review, European Investment Bank, Universidad de Lisboa.
[94]             For the
effectiveness of packaging taxes see: Report on the implementation of the
packaging and packaging waste directive 94/62/EC  (IEEP and Ecologic,
2009).
[95]             Remote
and sparsely populated regions will generally be more difficult and expensive
to collect from. For cost efficiency of collection systems, see: EIMPack (2012)
Economic Impact of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive. The
Economics of the Recycling of Packaging Waste: The Case of the UK, study commissioned by the European Investment Bank.
[96]             More
in-depth analysis of cost-recovery and transparency of EPR schemes can be found
in chapters 4.2 “Cost coverage and true cost principle”  and  4.4 “Transparency
and control” in the parallel study “Development of Guidance on Extended
Producer Responsibility (EPR)”.
[97]             For more
information on the use of economic instruments, see: BIO Intelligence Service
(2012) Use of economic instruments and waste management performances,
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/final_report_10042012.pdf.
[98]             Here to
be understood as a system in which the waste producer (household) pays per Kg
of the waste
 for final disposal combined with
other factors linked to the use of disposal service.
[99]             See BIOIS(2012), Use of Economic Instruments and Waste
management Performances – Final Report,
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/final_report_10042012.pdf, p. 86 - 89
[100]            BIOIS(2011) Awareness and
Exchange of Best Practices on the Implementation and Enforcement of 
the Essential Requirements for
Packaging and Packaging Waste.
[101]            For a more
detailed picture see Fig. 22 BIOIS study, p.68.
[102]            Fost Plus,
annual report 2012.
[103]            The
price of glass waste sold to the market was not provided due to
confidentiality. As an approximation, the price of 14.57 EUR/tonne of glass
sold in Liege (Belgium) was applied.
[104]            For an
overview, see: BIO Intelligence Service (2012) Use of economic instruments and
waste management performances; BIOIS (ongoing) Development of Guidance on
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR).
[105]            BIOIS
(2012) Use of economic instruments and waste management performances, p. 6
[106]            BIOIS
(ongoing) Development of Guidance on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR).
[107]            See for
more details the study: EIMPack (2012). Economic Impact of the PPWD. The
Economics of the Recycling of Packaging Waste: The Case of the Romania. Study commissioned by the European Investment Bank.
[108]            See in
particular two studies on essential requirements: BIOIS(2011) Awareness and
Exchange of Best Practices on the Implementation and Enforcement of the
Essential Requirements for Packaging and Packaging Waste; Arcadis (2009) A
Survey on compliance with the Essential Requirements in the Member States. 
[109]            BIOIS
(2011) Awareness and Exchange of Best Practices on the Implementation and
Enforcement of the Essential Requirements for Packaging and Packaging Waste,
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/packaging/pdf/packaging_final_report.pdf.
Arcadis
(2009) A survey on compliance with the Essential Requirements in the Member
States,
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/packaging/pdf/report_essential_requirements.pdf.
[110]            Smith Adam
(1759), The Theory of Moral Sentiments.
[111]            GHK
and BIOIS(2006) A study to examine the benefits of the End of Life Vehicles
Directive and the costs and benefits of a revision of the 2015 targets for
recycling, reuse and recovery under the ELV Directive, DG ENV, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/study/final_report.pdf.

[112]            See
further to economic benefits of ELV treatment tin a circular economy:
Remanufacture, refurbishment, reuse and recycling of vehicles: Trends and
opportunities Prepared with support from The Scottish Government, Final Report
June 2013, Reference No J2432/OPT/001/12. 
[113]            For a
complete thorough cost-benefit analysis of the ELV Directive see: GHK and BIOIS
(2006) A study to examine the benefits of the End of Life Vehicles Directive
and the costs and benefits of a revision of the 2015 targets for recycling,
reuse and recovery under the ELV Directive, DG ENV, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/study/final_report.pdf.
[114]            UK Defra
(2008) Reported numbers of abandoned vehicles, archive on data.gov.uk: 
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment/waste/wrabanvehicles.htm.
[115]            GHK and
BIOIS (2006) A study to examine the benefits of the End of Life Vehicles
Directive and the costs and benefits of a revision of the 2015 targets for
recycling, reuse and recovery under the ELV Directive, DG ENV, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/study/final_report.pdf.
[116]            GHK and
BIOIS (2006) A study to examine the benefits of the End of Life Vehicles Directive
and the costs and benefits of a revision of the 2015 targets for recycling,
reuse and recovery under the ELV Directive, DG ENV, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/study/final_report.pdf.
[117]            Art. 7, 2b
Dir. 200/53/EC.
[118]            BIOIS(2014)
ex-post evaluation of certain waste stream Directives, p. 122.
[119]            EAA (European
Aluminium Association); see for costs through increased plastic recycling:
Coates et al. (2007), Assessing the economics of pre-fragmentation material
recovery within the UK.; and for glass recycling: OVAM (2013), Technical and
economic assessment of recycling routes for automotive glass; see further for
unproven benefits through higher targets: ADEME (2003) Economic study of the
management of ELV.
[120]            See the
proactive approach by paying premiums to dismantlers taken in the NL: EPR case
study on ELVs in the Netherlands. In most Member States due to the positive
residual value of ELVs, no fees need to be paid by producers, leaving the
economic risk of dismantling solely with dismantlers. 
[121]            Konz, R.J.
(2008) The End-of-life Vehicle (ELV): The road to Responsible Disposal, Minnesota Journal of International law (Vol.18), available at: www.law.umn.edu/uploads/BX/fw/BXfwZTM0VoxN2BtOQ7E2Vg/Konz-Final-Online-PDF-03.30.09.pdf.
[122]            Material
exemptions for lead, cadmium, mercury, chromeVI.
[123]        For
an analysis made by Öko-Institut to improve Annex II, see: 
Öko-Institut (2010) ELV Directive Annex II: analysis of costs and
environmental benefits of heavy metal ban, and proposal for better regulation,
www.acea.be/images/uploads/files/%C3%96ko_Institut.pdf.
[124]            For costs of portable batteries collection schemes see
table 26,  BIOIS(2014)
ex-post evaluation of         certain waste stream Directives, 
[125]            BIOIS(2014),
ex-post evaluation of certain waste stream Directives, p. 176.
[126]            recycling
of zinc primary and lithium rechargeable batteries with low added value
electrode materials such as manganese dioxide or iron phosphate is unprofitable
at current prices. Recovered value for Li-ion batteries based on MnO2 is just
EUR 200 per tonne, see :  BIOIS(2014), ex-post evaluation of certain
waste stream Directives, p. 184.
[127]           Figures
compiled by BIOIS:  1) Liquid PCB from few ppm to pure PCB:
50-500 EUR/tonne, 2) Capacitors: depending of the size: 500-1 300
EUR/tonne, 3) Transformers: depending on material type:
600-1 500 EUR/tonne, Table 29, p. 346. See further BIOIS study Table
18, p.225.
[128]            WRc, Hall Jeremy, Ecological and
economical balance for sludge management options.
[129]            For more
details see: BIOIS(2014), ex-post evaluation of certain waste stream
Directives, p. 241.
[130]            As to
costs savings by using sludge instead of commercial fertilizer, see detailed
references in:
BIOIS(2014), ex-post evaluation of certain waste
stream Directives, p. 244 seq.
[131]            Milieu
(2010) Environmental, economic and social impacts of the use of sewage
sludge on land, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/sludge/pdf/part_iii_report.pdf.
[132]            WRc, Hall
Jeremy (2012) Ecological and economical balance for sludge management
options.
[133]            BIOIS(2014),
ex-post evaluation of certain waste stream Directives, p.48.
[134]            Eurostat
(2013), Packaging waste statistics, (env_waspac), 
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=env_waspac&lang=en.
[135]            EIMPack
(2011) Economic Impact of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive –
literature review, http://eimpack.ist.utl.pt/docs/Literature%20Review_final.pdf.
[136]            In this
sense (BIOIS) 2014, ex-post evaluation of certain waste stream Directives, p.95.
[137]            Eunomia (ongoing) Targets
review project: Appendix 1 – consultation on the review of European waste management
targets, 
http://www.wastetargetsreview.eu/shopimages/Targets_Review_Project_Summary_Consultation_Results.pdf.
[138]            As proposed by the European Parliament as part of the
amendments it adopted to the Commission proposal on plastic carrier bags
(COM/2013/0761 final) in April 2014.
[139]            European Commission (2013) Integration
of results from three Marine Litter Studies,   
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/pdf/Integration%20of%20results%20from%20three%20Marine%20Litter%20Studies.pdf.
[140]            IEEP
(2013) How to improve EU legislation to tackle marine litter, www.seas-at-
risk.org/news_n2.php?page=625.
[141]            Directive
2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009
establishing 
a
framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related
products, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32009L0125:EN:NOT.
[142]            EUROPEN
(2013) Packaging Waste Management is Increasingly Resource Efficient - EU
Data Shows, 
www.europen.be/download_protected_file.php?file=231.
[143]            European
Commission (2010) Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the
Communication 
from
the Commission on the Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of
Waste,
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/Commission%20Working%20Doc.pdf.
[144]            BIOIS(2011)
Study on coherence of waste legislation, 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/pdf/Coherence_waste_legislation.pdf.
[145]            ETC/RWM
(2008) quoted in the European Parliament study (2010) End-of-life Vehicles:
Legal aspects, National practices and recommendations for future successful
approach.
[146]            WEEE
has clear provisions on eco design.
[147]            See for
example, www.automotivecouncil.co.uk.
[148]            Directive 2005/64/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the
type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to their reusability, recyclability
and recoverability and amending Council Directive 70/156/EEC, OJ L 310, 25.11.2005,
p. 10–27.
[149]            ACEA:
www.acea.be/news/news_detail/production_car_makers_reduce_environmental_impact/.
[150]            Öko-Institut
(2010) ELV Directive Annex II: analysis of costs and environmental benefits
of heavy metals ban, and proposal for better regulation, available at
www.acea.be/images/uploads/files/%C3%96ko_Institut.pdf.
[151]            For
more information on IDIS, visit www.idis2.com.
[152]            EEA Report (2011) Resource
Efficiency in Europe, Policies and approaches in 31 EEA Member and cooperating
countries.
[153]            2013 Report from the
European Commission to the European Parliament on the Implementation of the Raw
Materials Initiative:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2013:0442:FIN:EN:PDF.
[154]            UNECE’s (United
Nations Economic Commission of Europe) draft regulation on recyclability of
motor vehicles is available at  http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2012/wp29/WP29-157-05e.pdf.
[155]            As
an example, for a mixture (50% each in weight) of portable Li-ion and NiMH
batteries, the required recycling target is 50%. In a recycling process (Option
1) where the ‘less noble’ elements are recovered as oxides (slag), and the
‘more noble’ elements are recovered as a metal alloy, the recycling rate is
much higher than the required target (up to 70%). The oxygen that is in the
Li-ion batteries will be accounted as recycled as it forms compounds with Mn,
Al etc. Mn, Al, Li and the REE’s will also be accounted although they are
‘downcycled’ (they are used for a low end application).In another recycling
process (Option 2), if the less noble elements are recovered in a form that
would allow high end applications (e.g. when Li and the REE’s are recovered as
carbonates), the recycling efficiency would be lower (around 62%).
[156]            BIOIS(2014),
ex-post evaluation of certain waste stream Directives, p. 187.
[157]            L’ADEME (2011). Etude de la
second vie des batteries des vehicules electriques et hybrides rechargeables.
[158]
           Avicenne
Energy (2010) The worldwide Battery market 2011-2025; BIO study on behalf of
ADEME (2010) Etude du potentiel de recyclage de certains métaux rares; Aswin Kumar. Waste Management
World. The Lithium Battery Recycling Challenge. www.waste-management-world.com/articles/print/volume-12/issue-4/features/the-lithium-battery-recycling-challenge.html.
[159]            For
a number of illustrative examples in Europe, see: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychlorinated_biphenyl#Belgium.
[160]            BIOIS(2014),
ex-post evaluation of certain waste stream Directives, p. 12, p. 215.
[161]            See FAO on the
application of sewage sludge in agriculture making reference to a UK study (Carlton-Smith, 1987) showing increase in heavy metal concentration in
experimentally sludge spiked soil.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/t0551e/t0551e08.htm#TopOfPage.
[162]            For the current level
of disagreement as to what should be regulated by the Directive and how, only see
the stakeholder discussion on contaminants, reflected in: BIOIS(2014), ex-post
evaluation of certain waste stream Directives, p. 258 seq.
[163]            Regulation
EC No. 2003/2003, OJL 304, 21.11.2003, p.1.
[164]            Centre for
Strategy and Evaluation Services, Evaluation of Regulation (EC) 2003/2003
relating to Fertilisers: Final Report, November 2010.
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/chemicals/files/fertilizers/final_report_2010_en.pdf.
[165]            “an
environmental policy approach in which a producer’s responsibility (physical
and financial) for a product is extended to the post-consumer state of a
product’s life cycle. There are two features of EPR policy: (1) the shifting of
responsibility (physically and/or economically, fully or partially) upstream
toward the producer and away from municipalities, and (2) to provide incentives
to producers to take environmental considerations into the design of the
product.”
[166]            CEN (2010)
Packaging - Report on criteria and methodologies for life cycle analysis of
packaging, CEN/TR 13910:2010. 
[167]            http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-309/02.
[168]            See for
further discussion, BIOIS (2014), ex-post evaluation of certain waste stream
Directives, p. 91seq.
[169]            IEEP
(2009) Coherence of Waste Legislation – Assessment of lessons learnt from
the EU “Recycling Directives”.
[170]            See for
further discussion and details, BIOIS (2014), ex-post evaluation of certain
waste stream Directives, p. 91 seq.
[171]            European
Commission (2009) Communication
from the Commission — Beverage packaging, deposit systems and free movement of
goods
(2009/C
107/01).
[172]            See
for a need to streamline these definitions horizontally through the recycling
Directives: BIOIS (2011) Study on Coherence of Waste legislation,
European Commission.
[173]            BIOIS
(2011) Study on Coherence of Waste legislation, European Commission.
[174]            Commission
Decision 293/2005, OJ L 94, 13.4.2005, p. 30
[175]            Commission
Regulation 493/2012, OJ L 151, 12.6.2012, p. 1
[176]            Interview
with Michel Baumgartner, EUROBAT.
[177]            Commission
Decision 293/2005, 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2005:094:0030:0033:EN:PDF.
[178]            BIOS(2014),
ec-post evaluation of certain waste stream Directives, p. 135.
[179]            This
relates to the non-recyclability of dashboards that have to be removed provided
they are recycled in the shredder process, see: BIOS(2014), ec-post evaluation
of certain waste stream Directives, p. 136.
[180]            Reuse
and Second Use of Batteries, RECHARGE, June 2013. See also: See 
www2.toyota.co.jp/en/news/13/01/0123_1.html.
[181]            BIOIS(2014), ex-post evaluation of certain waste stream
Directives, p. 183.
[182]            For a
synoptic overview of different definitions in the EFD, Batteries Directive and
WEEE Directive see: BIOIS(2014), ex-post evaluation of certain waste stream
Directives, Table 26, p. 317.
[183]            BIO (2010), Study on Elements for an Impact Assessment
on the Capacity Labelling of Portable Primary
Directives in the context of the Batteries Directive,
ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/batteries/pdf/battery_report_june2010.pdf  and
BIO (2008), Establishing Harmonised Metholds to Determine the Capacity of
all Portable and Automative Batteries, ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/batteries/pdf/battery_report.pdf;
CENELEC (2012), Feasibility Study on Labelling and Efficiency of Primary
Batteries,
ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/batteries/pdf/CENELEC%20feasibility%20study.pdf
[184]  See in particular the comments made by SMEs in the TOP 10 exercise
conducted by the Commission in 2013.
[185]            BIOIS(2014), ex-post
evaluation of certain waste stream Directives, p. 292.
[186]            BIOIS(2011)
Study on Coherence of Waste legislation, European Commission.
[187]
           OJ
L 181, 4.7.1986, p. 6–12.
[188]            OJ L 365,
31.12.1994, p. 10–23.
[189]
           OJ
L 243, 24.9.1996, p. 31–35.
[190]            OJ L 269, 21.10.2000, p.34.
[191]            OJL
266, 26.0.2006, p. 1-14.
[192]            Directive
2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on
waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) - Joint declaration of the
European Parliament, OJ L 37, 13.2.2003, p. 24–39.
[193]            Directive
2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8. June 2011 on the
restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and
electronic equipment, OJ L 174, 1.7.2011, p. 88.
[194]            Directive
2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on
waste and repealing certain Directives, OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, p. 3–30.
[195]
           Council
Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, OJ L
182, 16.7.1999, p. 1–19.
[196]            Directive
2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on
the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive
2004/35/EC  OJ L 102, 11.4.2006, p. 15–34. 
[197]            Covered by
the Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75.
[198]            By 2020 landfilling
should be virtually eliminated, reuse and recycling should be at their maximum
feasible level, energy recovery should be limited to not recyclable waste  and
waste generation should have been decreased.
[199]            COM (2011)
13. 
[200]            Eurostat
(2013), Packaging waste statistics, (env_waspac), 
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=env_waspac&lang=en.
[201]            Eurostat (2013),
Packaging waste statistics, (env_waspac),
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=env_waspac&lang=en.
[202]            Eurostat
(2013), Packaging waste statistics, (env_waspac), 
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=env_waspac&lang=en.
[203]            Consultic
Marketing & Industrieberatung GmbH, Christof Lindner, www.consultic.com.