COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Synopsis Report Stakeholder Consultation Accompanying the document Proposal for Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment
Date: 2018-05-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, environmental impact, environmental protection, fishing industry, marine pollution, non-durable goods, plastics, pollution control measures, waste, waste management

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 28.5.2018 SWD(2018) 257 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Synopsis Report Stakeholder Consultation Accompanying the document Proposal for Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment {COM(2018) 340 final} - {SEC(2018) 253 final} - {SWD(2018) 254 final} - {SWD(2018) 255 final} - {SWD(2018) 256 final}  
 
 
1. Introduction 

The consultation activities described here captured the views, concerns and ideas of diverse 
stakeholders on the best means to achieve a reduction in marine litter, particularly originating 
from Single-Use Plastics (SUP) and from abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear 
(ALDFG).  The  results  have  fed  into  the  Commission's  Plastics  Strategy1  and  the  Impact 
Assessment on SUP and fishing gear. 

2. Approach to consultation and inclusion of other information sources 

The consultation approach included: 

Inception Impact Assessment open consultation/feedback; 
Interviews/ad hoc consultation with stakeholders; 

  Two stakeholder workshops on SUP on 16 June and 14 September 2017; 
 
 
  Special Eurobarometer 468 (EC, 2017)2 and Flash Eurobarometer 388 (EC, 2014)3; 
  The Online Public Consultation (OPC) on 'Reducing marine litter: action on single-use 

plastics and fishing gear' from 15 December 2017 to 12 February 2018; 

  The Reinventing Plastics Stakeholder Conference4 held on 26 September 2017, with a 

specific session on marine litter and single-use plastics; 

  The 2018 Circular Economy Stakeholder Platform Conference on 20 February, which 

included a session on marine litter.   

3. Summary results of stakeholder consultation  

3.1 Stakeholder workshops and conferences   

The participants at the stakeholder workshops on SUP generally agreed that items classified 
as  SUP,  should  fulfil  the  following  criteria  (with  some  exceptions):  Prevalence  in  marine 
environment; Short use phase; Consumed predominantly away from home and; Reusable or 
non-plastic alternatives exist.  

The root causes of the leakage of SUP were identified including low levels of re-use and low 
levels  of  recycling,  design  of  products,  materials  and  consumer  behaviour.  A  lack  of 
regulatory measures could be seen as a root cause.  

Regulatory  and  voluntary  measures  were  discussed  including:  incentives  for  producers  and 
consumers  (financial  and  behavioural);  better  plastic  waste  collection;  standards,  bans  and 

1 A European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy; COM(2018) 28 final, 18.1.2018. 
http://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1516265440535&uri=COM:2018:28:FIN     
2 
http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/instruments/SPECIAL/s
u rveyKy/2156   
3 http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/flash/fl_388_en.pdf    
4 https://ec.europa.eu/info/plastics-conference_en     

1 

 
 
                                                            
obligations introduced in product design and waste reporting. Respondents favoured an EU-
wide waste prevention target and stakeholders cooperation to develop a holistic approach to 
SUP.  Other  potential  measures  included  amending  the  Waste  Framework  Directive, 
complemented by better respect the waste hierarchy, green public procurement and voluntary 
agreements.  

Discussions around the limitations measures highlighted:  

  There is limited evidence of effective awareness raising campaigns and that these are 

not sufficient as a standalone measure.  

  Bans can be a good way of enforcing redesign of specific low-value items but if set at 

national level they can interfere with the single market. 

  The timeframe of implementation needs to ensure that substitution materials meet the 

standards and consumers are prepared.   

  Charges are an effective preventive measure to influence consumer behaviour, whilst 
generating revenue. Industry representatives highlighted that a legislative approach is 
needed to ensure a level playing field.  

  Setting  reduction  targets  for  specific  items  was  generally  seen  as  an  appropriate 

measure.  

  An alternative option is ensuring SUP are not given away free at the point of sale.  

3.2 Inception Impact Assessment feedback  

The 28 submissions indicated strong support for intervention at an EU level, with retailers and 
producers  expressing  a  preference  for  voluntary  approaches  over  regulatory  measures.  The 
private  sector  emphasised  the  importance  of  economic  viability  of  recycling,  poor 
implementation  of  existing  rules  and  regulatory  gaps.  Several  highlighted  the  need  for  a 
circular  or  life-cycle  approach  that  supports  prevention  and  called  for  incentives  on 
innovation and the removal of national regulatory barriers.  

The  diversity  of  SUP  called  for  differentiated  approaches  depending  on  whether  plastic 
marine  litter  is  the  result  of  items  (1)  that  can  be  recycled,  or  (2)  for  which  sustainable 
alternatives  exist.  For  items  already  captured,  strong  interest  was  expressed  in  Extended 
Producer  Responsibility  (EPR)  Schemes,.  Several  referred  to  the  success  of  Deposit  Return 
Svcheme  (DRS)  (e.g.  for  bottles),  although  some  warned  of  negative,  and  potentially 
disproportionate,  economic  implications  for  retailers.  Factors  crucial  to  the  success  of  such 
schemes included the efficiency of existing waste management systems, consumer behaviour, 
local  infrastructure,  the  item's  reuse  potential,  and  enfocement.  For  items  that  could  be 
replaced by more sustainable alternatives, retailers argued that this would be best achieved at 
a consumer level through awareness-raising and positive incentives. Caution was advised on 
use of biodegradable plastics with several calling for clarity of information and labelling for 
consumers.  Business  representatives  highlighted  that  any  restrictions  must  take  account  of 
single market requirements and administrative burdens.  

In relation to fishing gear feedback centred around three main areas: (1) the baseline and its 
assumptions; (2) the policy options and (3) the interview questionnaire.   

2 

 
 
As a result of feedback and additional sources the loss rate of plastic fishing and aquaculture 
gear for European seas in the baseline was reduced from 30% to 15%. The percentage weight 
distribution of plastic waste between aquaculture and fishing was also reconsidered. Initially 
the distribution (based on Norwegian data) was 77% from aquaculture and 23% from fishing. 
However,  to  more  accurately  reflect  EU-28  fish  catch  and  aquaculture  production,  the 
weighting has been changed to 60% aquaculture and 40% fishing. Feedback led to inclusion 
of  an  assumption  of  full  implementation  of  the  revised  Port  Reception  Facilities  Directive, 
Control Regulation and Waste Framework Directive in the baseline.  

The four policy options evaluated were (1) EPR without DRS; (2) EPR and a DRS; (3) target 
setting (recycling target); and (4) alternative materials and product design. Feedback pointed 
out the importance of impact quantification, which was included to the best extent possible.  

3.3 Interviews/ad hoc consultation  

More  than  30  interviews  helped  develop  the  problem  and  impact  analyses  on  SUP.  These 
sought  to  shape  and  test  potential  intervention  measures,  analyse  technical  feasibility  and 
likely  effects.  Specific  data  was  gathered  on  performance  and  costs  and  how  these  may 
change as a result of potential intervention measures.   

Stakeholders across groups highlighted the importance of the availability and function of the 
SU  non-plastic  or  multi-use  alternatives,  and  the  potential  cost  to  manufacturers  to  switch 
materials.  Consulting  with  the  operators  of  multi-use  refill  schemes  and  water  companies 
helped develop a better understanding of the operation and challenges. 

On  fishing  gear,  16  direct  interviews,  and  15  by  email  and  telephone,  gathered  input  for 
description, quantification and evaluation of the four policy options.  

Stakeholders  agreed  that  it  is  necessary  to  reduce  plastic  marine  litter  from  fishing  and 
aquaculture and that political action is required, also on a EU level. The majority viewed the 
proposed  four  policy  options  as  the  right  choice,  while  pointing  out  the  challenge  to 
implement, enforce and monitor policies and measures at a EU scale.  

EPR, with or without DRS, was viewed as the most beneficial policy option as it can cover 
costs for sorting, dismantling and transporting as well as pay for retrieval operations. A DRS 
would create a financial incentive for returning end-of-life gear to ports. Concerns were raised 
that such a scheme would punish fishers for non-retrievable lost gear and create incentive for 
fishing for the intact gear of others. Successful examples from Iceland, Norway and Denmark 
were repeatedly refered to. Recycling targets were seen as beneficial to divert end-of-life gear 
from landfill or incineration to recycling facilities. Better market uptake for recycled materials 
from  fishing  and  aquaculture  gear  is  required  and  public  or  EPR  funding  should  be  used  to 
create  a  competitive  position  for  recycled  materials  from  the  packaging  industry. 
Biodegradable  plastics  were  deemed  too  expensive  and  not  widely  available,  particularly 
those that biodegrade in salt water and large depths. Further, some stakeholders pointed out 
that biodegradable material might encourage disposal of plastic fishing gear in the sea rather 
than returning it to port.  

3 

 
 
3.4 Eurobarometer consultations  
The Eurobarometer consultation in 2014 revealed Europeans' support5 for an EU-level target 
to  reduce  marine  litter.  In  Special  Eurobarometer  468  (EC,  2017)6  33%  of  respondents 
identified  marine  pollution  as  the  most  important  environmental  issue.  72%  stated  they  had 
reduced  their  use  of  single-use  plastic  carrier  bags,  with  38%  cutting  down  in  the  last  12 
months. Between 89% and 94% considered the following measures as important:   

industry and retailers to make an effort to reduce plastic packaging;  

  products designed to facilitate recycling of plastic;  
 
  education on how to reduce plastic waste; and  
 

local authorities to provide more and better collection facilities for plastic waste.  

61% of respondents considered important that consumers pay an extra charge for single-use 
plastic  goods.  Across  the  EU  increasing  numbers  believe  decisions  on  environmental 
protection should be taken jointly within the EU.  

3.5 Open Public Consultation  
The  Online  Public  Consultation7  (OPC)  on  'Reducing  marine  litter:  action  on  single-use 
plastics and fishing gear' (15 December 2017 to 12 February 2018) received 1,807 responses.  

Harm to animal welfare, human health risks and impact on ecosystem services ranked as the 
three  most  important  issues  linked  to  marine  litter  and  SUP.  95%    respondents  agreed  that 
action on SUP is both necessary and urgent. Most believed the EU should support mandatory 
instruments  at  global  or  EU  level.  Public  authorities  diverged  from  this  view  noting  that 
certain measures should be delivered at EU level, with others at local or national level.  

The  case  for  reducing  SUP  in  the  environment  was  supported  strongly,  with  caps,  lids  and 
drinking  bottles  on  the  list  of  priorities.  Regarding  measures,  respondents  favoured  beach 
cleaning,  active  'fishing  for  litter'  and  regular  quantification  of  marine  and  beach  litter. 
Industry and trade associations were the only category not to support active 'fishing for litter'.  

Many  respondents  reported  a  decrease  in  personal  use  of  light  weight  shopping  bags,  drink 
bottles and caps and lids. Consumption of crisps packets and sweet wrappers had changed the 
least.  The  overwhelming  majority  attributed  such  reductions  to  increasing  awareness  of  the 
environmental impacts of SUP. Respondents appeared most keen to reduce their use of plastic 
bottles; more than half reported that they had already done so. 77% would be willing to pay a 
small  additional  amount  as  part  of  a  DRS  on  plastic  bottles.  There  was  extensive  support 
(93%)  for  policies  to  phase  out  disposable  plastic  tableware  in  favour  of  biodegradable  or 
reusable  alternatives,  even  with  a  small  price  increase.  Industry  and  trade  association 
representatives were split in their willingness to pay while still in favour of phasing out SUP.  

Considerable  support  (91%)  was  expressed  for  rules  requiring  cigarette  companies  to 
contribute  financially to costs of cleaning up cigarette butts. Industry and trade  associations 

5 26,595 EU citizens from 28 Member States were interviewed between the 3rd and 7th of December 2013. 
6 27,881 EU citizens from 28 Member States were interviewed between 23 September and 2 October 2017. 
7 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/pdf/marine_litter.pdf  

4 

 
 
                                                            
were  relatively  more  reluctant.  A  similar  suggestion  for  producers  of  sanitary  items  was 
supported by 79% of respondents.  

DRS  were  considered  the  most  appropriate  response  (47%)  for  drinks  bottles  followed  by 
targets  for  use  reduction  (33%).  Respondents  noted  the  high  return  rates  (around  90%)  of 
DRS and high quality of resulting feedstock for manufacturing, but retailers signaled potential 
economic and operational impacts, particularly for smaller shops, and called for tailor made 
schemes implemented at national level.   

Minimum design requirements found less support (20%) and were not favoured by business 
representatives.  For  SUP  which  could  be  replaced  by  more  sustainable  alternatives,  such  as 
cotton  buds  and  cutlery,  respondents  supported  legislative  action  and  use  reduction  targets. 
Similar  legislative  measures  were  thought  to  be  appropriate  even  for  items  for  which  no 
obvious alternative existed such as cigarette butts and sanitary towels. For items falling under 
this SUP category, EPR schemes were viewed as equally suitable.  

340  people  responded  to  the  fisheries  specific  part  of  the  OPC.  95%  agreed  that  action  to 
address the amount of marine litter is necessary and urgent. Specifically on fishing gear 79% 
think  that  it  is  necessary  and  urgent  to  act.  Impacts  of  marine  litter  on  fisheries  and 
aquaculture are considered by 100% of fisheries organizations (and 53% overall) as quite or 
very  important.  Clean-up  costs  of  litter  are  considered  by  84%  of  respondents  as  very 
important or important.  

80%  indicated  fishers,  as  they  are  the  direct  users  of  the  gear,  as  very  important  actors  for 
change.  The  EU,  Member  States,  local  and  regional  authorities  and  fisheries  organizations 
were  also  considered  important.  Surprisingly  the  private  sector  was  seen  as  playing  a  less 
important role, despite their potential role in EPR schemes.  

A  majority  stated  that  “some”  gear  is  lost  (ranging  from  28%  for  seine  nets  to  54%  for 
gillnets) or discarded (22% for seine nets to 43% for lines and cords).  

The four prefered measures were: (1) incentives to bring fished up litter and end-of-life gear 
ashore  (88%),  (2)  better  collection  and  sorting  facilities  on  vessels  and  at  ports  (70%),  (3) 
incentives/funding  of  retrieval  action  (68%),  and  (4)  better  enforcement  of  existing  rules 
(67%).  

In  open  field  comments  stakeholders  also  proposed  EPRs,  requested  higher  penalties  for 
pollution  and  explained  the  risk  and  inefficiency  of  retrieval  actions,  underpinned  the 
importance  of  education  of  fishers,  called  for  gear  marking,  highlighted  that  high  harbour 
costs lead to more discarding of gear at sea and called for suitable port facilities.  

Addressing  which  additional  targeted  measures  would  support  the  bringing  back  of  gear 
ashore, respondents favour (59%) DRS levied on fishers or (53%) EPR schemes including a 
levy on gear. Fears were raised that DRS might punish fishermen unable to reclaim deposits 
for unintentionally lost or non-recoverable gear.  

5 

 
 
3.6 Conferences 

At  a  conference  on  "Rethinking  Plastics"  (Brussels,  26  September  2017)  stakeholders 
suggested  that,  to  achieve  the  50%  marine  litter  reduction  target  voted  by  the  European 
Parliament,  an  ambitious  EU-wide  strategy  was  required,  with  specific  policy  measures  for 
different SUP.   

Binding  consumption  reduction  targets  linked  to  achievable  time  frames  were  proposed. 
Consumer  incentives,  DRS  and  infrastructure  for  recycling  were  identified  as  potentially 
appropriate  measures.  As  well  as  targeting  the  items,  sources  and  pathways  of  marine  litter 
should  also  be  addressed.  Stakeholders  noted  poor  results  of  public  awareness  initiatives 
linked  to  under-resourced  campaigns.  Green  procurement  was  considered  a  good  way  to 
increase demand for alternatives to SUP.  

The  2018  Circular  Economy  Stakeholder  Platform  Conference8  (20-21  February  2018) 
provided further insights on actions on plastics in the marine environment.  

3.7 Conclusions  

Distinct measures were deemed appropriate for different SUP items. Diverse measures were 
discussed  depending  on  existing  legislation  and availability of  sustainable  alternatives.  EPR 
measures were generally viewed favourably. Implied costs associated to some of the measures 
and  the  importance  of  understanding  these  prior  to  any  action  were  highlighted  by  industry 
and  business  representatives.  Legislative  approaches  were  also  favoured.  Reduction  targets 
were popular with caveats regarding conditions for implementation (e.g. time-bound targets).  

Further  measures  and  policies  were  thought  to  be  necessary  to  achieve  overarching  EU 
targets. Stakeholders indicated willingness to pay for more sustainable alternatives to SUP or 
to  pay  charges  as  a  penalty  for  the  use  of  SUP.  Awareness  campaigns  were  seen  rather  as 
complementary measures to other regulatory and voluntary measures. 

On fishing gear, stakeholders indicated that action is necessary and urgent. The policy options 
of EPR and DRS were favoured in addition to better port reception facilities. EPR combined 
with a DRS was deemed to have positive cost-benefit effects and to contribute to the target of 
the plastics strategy to reduce the level of plastics in European seas.    

8 http://www.eesc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/circular-economy-stakeholder-
conferenceprogramme_v20180212-2.pdf     

6