COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on substances that deplete the ozone layer and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009
Date: 2022-04-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Climate Action, European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, export (EU), import (EU), market approval, ozone, pollution control measures, stratospheric pollutant, stratospheric pollution, supply, waste management

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Strasbourg, 5.4.2022  SWD(2022) 100 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a  REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on substances that deplete the ozone layer and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 {COM(2022) 151 final} - {SEC(2022) 157 final} - {SWD(2022) 98 final} - {SWD(2022) 99 final}  
 
 
Emissions from ozone depleting substances (ODS) result both in climate warming and a 
‘hole’ in the ozone layer, with adverse impacts on our health, the biosphere and climate 
change,  as  well as  having  large economic implications. Preventing  such  impacts  is  key 
for the European Green Deal and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and for the 
EU’s  compliance  with  the  Montreal  Protocol  on  substances  that  deplete  the  ozone 
layer. 

EU-wide  legislation  has  prevented  significant  amounts  of  ODS  emissions  for  three 
decades.  Today  only  very  few  ODS  uses  are  allowed  in  the  EU  and  they  must  be 
controlled  tightly  to  avoid  illegal  use.  The  focus  has  thus  shifted  from  phasing  out 
production and consumption of ODS to sustaining important emission reductions that 
are already locked in by the EU Regulation.  

This  assessment is  the basis for  reviewing Regulation (EC) 1005/2009  on substances 
that deplete the ozone layer. An evaluation1 found that it was generally fit-for-purpose 
and  a  strictly  controlled  EU  ODS  policy  has  avoided  a  recurrence  of  emissions. 
However,  the  few  remaining  uses  could  be  controlled  in  a  slightly  more  efficient, 
coherent and clear manner. Therefore, this review is firstly about fine-tuning the design 
of the existing measures. Secondly, in the light of the Green Deal, it is examined if any 
of the remaining emissions could be reduced further at proportionate costs.  

The measures to address these issues are bundled into three different packages. Option 1 
includes  measures  resulting  in  cost  savings  or  very  low  costs  only.  It  focuses  on 
simplifications,  better  coherence  and  clarifications  as  well  as  a  low-cost  emission 
reduction  measures  that  will  prevent  emissions  from  metal-faced  panels  of  insulation 
foams  during  renovation  or  demolition  activities.  Option  2  includes,  in  addition,  ODS 
recovery from more types of insulation foams and more comprehensive monitoring and 
control,  associated  with  moderate  costs.  Option  3  includes  all  measures  that  were 
considered  feasible,  including  high-cost  measures.  Option  2  is  the  preferred 
combination of measures, because it achieves significantly more emission savings than 
Option  1  and  is  therefore  more  coherent  with  the  European  Green  Deal.  The  third 
package, on the other hand, appears to  be  too  costly compared to  the benefits  it would 
generate.  

The most effective emission reduction measure in Option 2 will make it mandatory to 
recover  and  destroy  ODS  from  two  types  of  insulation  foams2  when  renovating  or 
taking down old  buildings. Until  2050  such action  may  in  total  save emissions  that are 
equivalent to almost 180 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (tCO2e). For comparison, this 
is the amount reported by the Netherlands (UNFCCC) for all greenhouse gases in the 
year 2019.  Abatement  costs were estimated to  be below 20€/tCO2e abated in  countries 
where rules and infrastructure on demolition activities are in place and will be well below 
230€/tCO2e  in  all  Member  State.  Costs  are  therefore  proportionate  to  what  other 

1 SWD(2019) 407 final. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/document/download/62a6fb28-0df8-4abb-b3e8-
373933f97191_en 
2  In  addition  to  foam  as  metal-faced  panels  also  some  laminated  boards  depending  on where  they  are 
installed 

1 

 
                                                           
sectors need to contribute to achieve climate neutrality, in the context of the EU long-
term  strategy3.  The  option  will  stimulate  R&D  and  may  result  in  additional  jobs  in  the 
recycling sector. For measures increasing efficiency, coherence and clarity, businesses, 
SMEs,  Member  States  and  the  Commission  will  be  saving  costs.  Low  costs  will  be 
associated with more comprehensive monitoring and control.   

In  the  preparation  of  the  impact  assessment  stakeholders  were  consulted  extensively. 
They generally supported the measures in Option 2, but business were opposed to some 
of the additional measures in Option 3 due to very high estimated costs. 

3 
(europa.eu) 

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/climate-strategies-targets/2050-long-term-strategy_en 

2