COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Subsidiarity Grid Accompanying the document Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2008/98/EC on waste
Date: 2023-07-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: circular economy, environmental protection, extended producer responsibility, fight against wastage, food waste, footwear industry, prevention of pollution, single market, textile industry, waste recycling

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 5.7.2023  SWD(2023) 420 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Subsidiarity Grid Accompanying the document Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2008/98/EC on waste {COM(2023) 420 final} - {SEC(2023) 420 final} - {SWD(2023) 421 final} - {SWD(2023) 422 final}  
 
 
Subsidiarity Grid 

1.  Can the Union act? What is the legal basis and competence of the Unions’ intended action? 

1.1 Which article(s) of the Treaty are used to support the legislative proposal or policy initiative? 

The  legal  basis  for  this  proposal  is  Article  192  of  the  TFEU.  Accordingly,  the  European  Union  shall 
contribute to the pursuit, inter alia, of the following objectives: preserving, protecting and improving 
the quality of the  environment;  protecting human health;  contributing to the prudent  and rational 
utilisation  of  natural  resources;  promoting  measures  at  international  level  to  deal  with  regional  or 
worldwide environmental problems, and combating climate change. 

1.2 Is the Union competence represented by this Treaty article exclusive, shared or supporting in 
nature? 

The EU has shared competence with the Member States as regards environmental policy in 
accordance with Art.  4 of the TFEU. 

2.  Subsidiarity Principle: Why should the EU act? 

2.1 Does the proposal fulfil the procedural requirements of Protocol No. 21: 

-  Has there been a wide consultation before proposing the act? 
- 

Is there a detailed statement with qualitative and, where possible, quantitative indicators 
allowing an appraisal of whether the action can best be achieved at Union level? 

The Commission’s proposal to amend the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC is supported by an 
impact  assessment  prepared  in  accordance  with  the  Commission’s  prevailing  guidelines  and 
reviewed by the independent Regulatory Scrutiny Board. The impact assessment addresses the issues 
of subsidiarity and proportionality, economic, social and environmental impacts and documents the 
extensive consultation activities undertaken. This consultation process included a variety of different 
consultation activities aimed at gathering the views of all relevant stakeholders and ensuring that the 
views  of  different  organisations  and  stakeholder  types  were  presented  and  considered.  As  regards 
food  waste,  local  or  regional  authorities  provided  2  out  of  6  contributions  received  from  public 
authorities to the Inception Impact Assessment and 13 out of 32 for the public consultation.  
Initial feedback was provided through an Inception Impact Assessment for the setting of food waste 
reduction targets that was launched on 1 October 2021 and closed on 29 October 2021 and a Call for 
Evidence  that  was  launched  on  25  January  2022  and  closed  on  22  February  2022.  In  brief,  85 
stakeholders provided their feedback to the Inception Impact Assessment and 198 stakeholders for 
the Call for Evidence. An online public consultation started on 24 May 2022 and ran until 24 August 
2022,  lasting  13  weeks.  The  public  consultation  questionnaire  was  uploaded  to  the  EU  Survey  tool 
and  was  made  available  on  the  Have  your  Say  platform  in  all  EU  languages.  Any  interested  or 
concerned 
association, 
academic/research 
company/business  organisation,  consumer  organisation,  EU  citizen,  environmental  organisation, 
non-EU  citizen,  non-governmental  organisation (NGO),  public  authority,  trade  union,  could  provide 
feedback  on  this  questionnaire  regarding  the  following  four  topics:  (1)  opinion  on  waste  related 
topic, (2) questions on food waste, (3) questions on separate collection, and (4) opinion on regulatory 
and/or  economic  incentives.  The  Commission  received  a  total  of  731  contributions  while  over  200 
stakeholders also uploaded or sent a position paper on the topics of the consultation. 
As regards  food waste, respondents were  concerned  by the  volumes of waste generated across all 

stakeholder, 

institution, 

business 

namely 

1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12016E/PRO/02&from=EN  

1 

 
 
                                                           
dimensions and types of waste as well as the impacts of waste on the environment. The respondents 
also  indicated  some  barriers  that  may  hamper  waste  reduction  efforts  and  recommended,  among 
others, to set waste prevention related targets or legislative and economic incentives. As regards the 
separate collection issue, the respondents indicated that more information about what happens to 
waste  once  it  is  collected,  how  it  can  serve  a  useful  purpose  and  on  how  to  separate  waste  for 
collection would increase participation in separate collection of municipal waste. Most respondents 
agreed  with  the  possible  EU  measures  to  improve  waste  prevention  and  recycling.  Concerning 
recycling, the respondents pointed out that more targets should be developed to promote recycling 
as  well  as  better  waste treatment  infrastructure.  On  textile  waste, many  respondents  stressed  the 
need to prevent fashion waste export, i.e. through EPR funds to support waste management in the 
communities where the collected clothing ended up. They also proposed several economic incentives 
to promote reuse within the textile industry. 
On  food  waste  the  respondents  agreed  with  the  setting  of  legally  binding  food  waste  reduction 
targets  on  EU  level.  Some  of  the  measures  that  the  respondents  found  most  effective  are  the 
following:  improving  efficiency  along  the  food  supply  chain,  education  and  training,  facilitating 
donation  of  surplus  food,  measuring  food  waste  to  track  progress,  setting  food  waste  reduction 
targets and using surplus food and by-products.  

2.2 Does the explanatory memorandum (and any impact assessment) accompanying the 

Commission’s proposal contain an adequate justification regarding the conformity with the 
principle of subsidiarity? 

The explanatory memorandum accompanying the Commission’s proposal presents a summary of the 
Commission’s analysis included in its impact assessment and covering elements on subsidiarity and 
proportionality.  
Different regulations and approaches in each Member State may hamper the creation of the textile 
recycling industry in the EU which is pan-European and cause fragments in the single market. Thus, 
the  harmonisation  of  certain  elements  regarding  textile  waste  is  necessary  at  EU  level.  This 
harmonisation in the textile waste management sector would facilitate the needed concerted action 
by the stakeholders across all the textiles value chain to achieve the necessary scale and investment 
and legal certainty to maximise re-use and expand the sorting and recycling capacities in the EU.  
Food waste is generated in all EU Member States and has significant trans-boundary environmental 
and  pollution  effects,  including  the  production  of  significant  GHGs  within  the  EU.  Food  is  traded 
widely  within  the  EU  internal  market  and  the  Member  State  of  food  production  is  often  different 
from the Member State of consumption. Food businesses that operate cross-border need coherence 
and clarity on the level of ambition expected in order to plan investments and actions on food waste 
prevention. 

Ensuring reduction of food waste across the EU in a consistent manner ensures prudent and rational 
utilisation  of  natural  resources,  reduction  of  negative  impacts  on  climate,  biodiversity  and  use  of 
natural resources, and, by making the food system more efficient, also contributes to food security. 

Despite  political  commitments  made  at  international,  EU  and  national  levels,  existing  legal 
requirements in the WFD and supporting activities by the Commission, Member States’ responses to 
food waste have been uneven and are, overall, not sufficient to address the problems identified and 
the environmental,  economic  and  social  consequences  for  consumers,  enterprises  and  society  as a 
whole. The variation in efforts across Member States as regards reduction of food waste generation 
indicates a need for reinforced and uniform legal measures at EU level to drive the progress at the 
pace required to achieve SDG Target 12.3.  

While the EU legislator can define a common target for reduction of food waste for different stages 
of the food supply chain to ensure that the EU achieves these objectives, each Member State needs 
to  develop  the  most  effective  measures  to  reach  the  objectives,  taking  into  account  its  specific 

2 

 
 
national  situation  (in  particular  complex,  market-  and  culture-specific  drivers  of  food  waste 
generation), while being able to draw on the supportive actions led by the Commission. 

2.3 Based on the answers to the questions below, can the objectives of the proposed action be 

achieved sufficiently by the Member States acting alone (necessity for EU action)? 

The objectives of the proposed action cannot be achieved sufficiently by the Member States acting 
alone because a harmonised approach is needed to achieve these objectives. 

(a)  Are there significant/appreciable transnational/cross-border aspects to the problems being 

tackled? Have these been quantified? 

the 

including 

In  the  area  of  textiles,  the  initiative  addresses  environmental  problems  with  transnational 
implications 
impacts  on  greenhouse  gas  emissions  and  air  and  water 
pollution from extraction  and  processing  of  virgin  raw  materials  and from  waste  collection  and 
treatment. It is estimated that the fashion industry is responsible for 10% of global carbon emissions. 
According to the European Environment Agency, textile purchases in the EU in 2017 generated about 
654 kg of CO2 emissions per person. It is also estimated that the global warming potential of textiles 
placed on the EU27 market can be extrapolated to 198 million metric tonnes CO2eq. 
As  stated  in  point  2.2.  food  waste  is  generated  in  all  EU  Member  States  and  has  significant  trans-
boundary  environmental and pollution effects  and  food  is one of the most important commodities 
traded within EU.  

The  58.5  Mt  of  food  waste  generated  in  the  EU  in  20202  caused  emissions  of  252  Mt  of  CO2 
equivalents3. This corresponds to 16% of the total GHG impact  resulting from the EU  food system. 
Food waste also puts unnecessary pressure on limited natural resources. For example, the amount of 
water  consumed  to  produce  food  that  is  ultimately  wasted  can  be  quantified  as  342  bn  m3  water 
eq.4, corresponding to 12% of the total impact of EU food production and consumption. Food waste 
is  also  responsible  for  16%  of  impacts  on  soil  as  a  caused  by  land  use  activities5,  while  the 
consequences on marine eutrophication are 15% of the total.6,7  

(b)  Would national action or the absence of the EU level action conflict with core objectives of 

the Treaty8 or significantly damage the interests of other Member States? 

In the absence of a common EU approach to textiles collection for re-use, preparation for re-use and 

2 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/env_wasfw/default/table?lang=en 
3 Calculated using the Consumption Footprint methodology, as presented in: European Commission, Joint 
Research Centre, Sanyé Mengual, E., Sala, S., Consumption footprint and domestic footprint: assessing the 
environmental impacts of EU consumption and production: life cycle assessment to support the European Green 
Deal, Publications Office of the European Union, 2023, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/218540. 
4 A m3-world eq. represents a cubic meter consumed on average in the world. The average refers to a 
consumption-weighted average, and hence represents the locations where water is currently consumed.  
5 Assessed considering impacts on four soil properties: biotic production, erosion resistance, groundwater 
regeneration and mechanical filtration, as presented in: De Laurentiis, V., Secchi, M., Bos, U., Horn, R., Laurent, 
A. and Sala, S., Soil quality index: Exploring options for a comprehensive assessment of land use impacts in LCA, 
Journal of Cleaner Production, 215, pp.63-74, 2019. 
6 The Consumption Footprint covers the 16 impact categories of the Environmental Footprint (European 
Commission, 2021) including freshwater eutrophication which is caused mainly by phosphorous emissions.  
7 OJ L 471, 30.12.2021, p. 1–396.  
8 https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-in-brief_en  

3 

 
 
                                                           
recycling  the  actors  involved  in  these  operations  (consumers,  re-use  operators,  waste  collectors, 
waste operators and producers) would face different regulation in each Member State with the risk 
of  creating  an  uneven  level  playing  field.  In  addition,  different  input  and  approaches  to  the 
subsequent  treatment  of  non-re-usable  textiles  would  hamper  the  development  of  a  recycling 
industry which requires large volumes of textile waste with similar composition and characteristics. 
This would  impede  the  Union’s efforts  in pursuing the  Treaty objective of achieving a high level of 
environmental and health protection. 

As stated in point 2.2. Member States’ responses to food waste have been uneven and are, overall, 
not  sufficient  to  address  the  problems  identified  and  the  environmental,  economic  and  social 
consequences  for  consumers,  enterprises  and  society  as  a  whole.  The  variation  in  efforts  across 
Member  States  as  regards  reduction  of  food waste  generation  indicates  a  need  for  reinforced  and 
uniform legal measures at EU level to drive the progress at the pace required to achieve SDG Target 
12.3.  

(c)  To what extent do Member States have the ability or possibility to enact appropriate 

measures? 

Through  a  directive,  Member  States  have  the  ability  or  possibility  to  enact  appropriate  national 
measures  when  implementing  an  EU  provision,  which  they  do  not  have  in  case  of  a  regulation. 
However,  the  several  key  elements  of  the  initiative,  such  as  the  extended  producer  responsibility 
scheme for textiles and footwear products, definitions are proposed to be harmonised to prevent the 
fragmentation of the internal market, uneven level playing field for the producers, re-use operators, 
waste management operators and illegal shipments. 

In the area of food waste, Member States are not obliged to take any new measures relating to food 
waste  reduction  other  than  those  already  established  by  the  Waste  Framework  Directive  (i.e., 
reducing  food  waste  at  each  stage  of  the  food  supply  chain,  preparing  food  waste  prevention 
programmes,  implementing  related  actions,  monitoring  and  reporting  on  progress  achieved). 
Moreover,  Member  States  have  already  committed,  since  the  adoption  of  the  Sustainable 
Development  Agenda  in  2015,  to  take  action  to  reduce  food  waste  in  order  to  contribute  to  SDG 
Target 12.3, which is de facto a non-binding, aspirational target. However, Member States’ responses 
to food waste have been uneven and are not sufficient to address the problems identified and the 
environmental,  economic  and  social  consequences  for  consumers,  enterprises  and  society  as  a 
whole.  Introducing  binding  reduction  targets  sets  a  clear  objective  and  ensures  that  food  waste 
prevention becomes a long-term political priority. 
Setting  targets  gives  Member  States  the  freedom  as  regards  the  selection  of  the  most  effective 
measures tailored to its specific national situation, both to support consumer behavioural change as 
well as ensuring coordination of actions between the actors across the whole food value chain. 

(d)  How does the problem and its causes (e.g. negative externalities, spill-over effects) vary 

across the national, regional and local levels of the EU? 

Different Member States have different scopes of what are “textiles” (clothes, HH linen, shoes etc.) 
and  this  impacts  what  is/will  be  covered  by  separate  collection  systems.  Member  States  also  have 
fragmented  collection  and  sorting  criteria  for  textiles  (what  is  considered  waste  and  what  is  not, 
waste  categories,  standards  for  products  “prepared  for  reuse”  or  “prepared  for  recycling”).  This 
hinders the circulation of used textile and textile waste across borders and their potential shipment 
outside  the  EU  for  re-use  or  for  waste  treatment.  In  addition,  different  set-ups  are  in  place  in 
different Member States in the way that separate collection schemes currently operate and on how 
to assign the responsibility of the upcoming separate collection obligation of post-consumer textiles. 
While  food  waste  generation  is  a  common  challenge  for  all  Member  States,  there  are  significant 

4 

 
 
 
 
variations between them resulting from a number of factors, most important being:  the size of the 
food production and manufacturing base; whether the country is a net food exporter or importer 9; 
share  of  disposable  income  allocated  to  food;  population  flux  (e.g.,  due  to  tourism,  migration); 
cultural differences and food habits.  

(e)  Is the problem widespread across the EU or limited to a few Member States? 

Given  the  persistence,  the  lack  of  harmonisation  of  the  approaches  to  textile  management,  the 
uneven  efforts  across  Member  States  as  regards  reduction  of  food  waste  generation  and  the 
transboundary character of the negative impacts of textile and food waste, the problem affects all EU 
Member  States.  Regardless  of  the  country  where  the  materials  and  finished  textile  products  are 
manufactured, each Member State will have to collect these textiles, promote their re-use and treat 
the ones that cannot be re-used as high up the waste hierarchy as possible. 

As stated in points 2.2 and point (d) above the food waste is generated in all EU Member States and 
is a common problem across the EU. 

(f)  Are Member States overstretched in achieving the objectives of the planned measure? 

The  Waste  Framework  Directive  2008/98/EC  (WFD)  is  the  main  EU  instrument  regulating  waste 
management. The Directive was adopted on 19 November 2008 and was amended by the Directive 
(EU)  2018/851,  which  set,  among  others,  the  target  of  separate  collection  for  bio-waste,  which 
includes food waste, by 31 December 2023 and for textiles by 1 January 2025. The WFD had to be 
transposed  by  Member  States  by 12 December 2010, while  the Directive  (EU)  2018/851 amending 
the WFD had to be transposed by Member States by 5 July 2020.  

Despite  any  delays  in  transposition  that  Member  States  may  have  encountered  due  to  Covid-19 
pandemic,  the  EU  legislative  framework  on  waste  management  is  already  well  embedded  in  the 
national  legislative  frameworks  of  Member  States,  and  there  was  enough  time  to  develop  the 
appropriate structure contributing towards the fulfilment of the WFD objectives. 
As stated in points (c) above – some Member States are already taking measures established by the 
Waste Framework Directive (reducing food waste at each stage of the food supply chain, preparing 
food  waste  prevention  programmes,  implementing  related  actions,  monitoring  and  reporting  on 
progress  achieved)  and  in  line  with  their  political  commitments  towards  the  SDG  Target  12.3. 
However, Member States’ responses to food waste have been uneven and, to date, are not sufficient 
to ensure a solid contribution from the EU to the global target.  

(g)  How do the views/preferred courses of action of national, regional and local authorities 

differ across the EU? 

Considering the variation of approaches among the Member States and the fact that, although they 
have made some plans in terms of assigning responsibilities and/or setting up an EPR scheme, some 
delays  are  likely  since  many  stakeholders  have  identified  the  wish  to  await  the  adoption  of  the 
legislative proposal amending the WFD on this issue. 
All Member States have accepted the political commitment resulting from SDG 12.3 and there are no 
differences concerning the general course of action. The selection of policy measures for food waste 
reduction  is  (and  will  continue  to  be)  managed  by  national  authorities,  and,  where  relevant 
depending  on  the  legal  and  administrative  rules  applicable,  regional  and  local  authorities’,  which 
should  take  measures  adapted  to  their  needs.  There  are  differences  in  the  breadth  and  scale  of 

9 Food waste arising in processing and manufacturing is quantified where it originates i.e. exporting country.   

5 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
actions taken and the pace of progress made, as some Member States have started taking measures 
earlier and are more advanced than the others. As regards local and regional authorities, no major 
divergence  of  views  was  reported.  The  role  of  regional  and  local  authorities  in  implementing  food 
waste  prevention  initiatives  is  also  highlighted  in  the  recommendations  of  the  citizens’  panel10 
convened  by  the  Commission  to  deliberate  on  actions  needed  to  step  up  efforts  to  reduce  food 
waste and achieve the future targets. 

2.4 Based on the answer to the questions below, can the objectives of the proposed action be 

better achieved at Union level by reason of scale or effects of that action (EU added value)? 

The objectives of the proposed can be better achieved at Union level rather than by the Member 
States acting alone because a harmonised approach is needed to achieve these objectives. 

(a)  Are there clear benefits from EU level action?  

An increased harmonisation of the approaches to textile management in terms of scope of textiles 
targeted,  organisational  features  of  textile  collection  systems  adhering  to  the  waste  hierarchy  and 
burden  sharing  would  facilitate  the  needed  concerted  action  by  the  stakeholders  (Member  States, 
social  enterprises,  waste  managers,  producers,  other  economic  players,  citizens)  across  all  the 
textiles value chain to achieve the necessary scale and investment and legal certainty to maximise re-
use and develop the sorting and recycling sectors in the EU. Operators of separate collection, sorting 
and subsequent treatment for recycling in all Member States achieve economic efficiencies  only by 
having to adhere to one EU-wide uniform regulatory approach.   
Setting  binding  food waste  reduction  targets  is  expected  to  confer  clear  accountability  to Member 
States for driving more ambitious action at national level, in line with their and the EU’s commitment 
to achieve relevant global targets. Indeed, such targets are expected to reinforce efforts to identify 
and scale-up effective strategies/initiatives both within and across Member States by: 

o  streamlining the contribution of food business operators, notably in the context of cross-border 
supply  chains,  avoiding  shifting  waste  from  one  stage  of  the  food  supply  chain  to  another  and 
ensuring systemic reduction across the food value chain; 
that 

addressed 
(market 
consistently/simultaneously by all Member States, in line with actions taken by the – so far few – 
front-runners as less advanced Member States can benefit from the experience of others; 

behavioural) 

o  helping 

drivers 

ensure 

and 

are 

to 

o  accelerating  the  development  of  effective  national  food  waste  prevention  strategies  by 
spreading  good  practices  and  synergies  from  similar  approaches  being  developed  in  different 
Member  States  and  by  further  leveraging  the  EU  knowledge  base  regarding  environmental 
impact of food waste generation, prevention and management. 

(b)  Are there economies of scale? Can the objectives be met more efficiently at EU level (larger 

benefits per unit cost)? Will the functioning of the internal market be improved? 

Should different regulations exist in each Member State, there is a risk of creating an uneven level 
playing  field  and  hampering  the  creation  of  the  sorting  and  recycling  industry.  This  is  relevant  in 
particular for the textile waste. 

For  food  waste,  the  are  no  specific  economies  of  scale,  however,  efficiency  gains  at  EU  level  are 
expected from the exchange of best practices, resources and learning amongst all players (actors in 
the  food  value  chain,  academia,  public  authorities  as  well  as  environmental-,  consumer  and  other 

10 European Citizens’ Panel on Food waste, Final recommendations, February 2023. 

6 

 
 
 
                                                           
NGOs  contributing  to  food  waste  prevention  at  national  level).  There  are  a  range  of  EU-level 
measures implemented to address possible barriers to food waste prevention (e.g., guidance on the 
application of EU legislation to facilitate food donation), strengthen the evidence base (e.g., calls for 
proposals  and  active  projects  under  Horizon  Europe)  and  leverage  learning  and  experience  of  all 
players  (e.g.,  a  dedicated  multi-stakeholder  platform  established  in  2016  (see  section  3.1.2  of  the 
SWD for further details). 

(c)  What are the benefits in replacing different national policies and rules with a more 

homogenous policy approach? 

A  more  homogenous  policy  and  legislative  approach  will  contribute  to  the  adoption  of  common 
scope  and  definitions  for  the  basic  -yet  unclear-  elements  and  common  treatment  standards  for 
textile  and  food  waste.  In  this  way,  the  necessary  scale  and  investment  and  legal  certainty  to 
maximise re-use and establish a recycling sector in the EU will be achieved. At the moment several 
approaches  are  proposed by  the  different  Member  States  and  only  France  has  an  operational  EPR 
scheme for textiles in place. 
The  proposal  of  setting  food  waste  reduction  targets  does  not  intend  to  replace  national  policies 
through a  homogenous  policy  approach. On the contrary, while the initiative  sets a  clear objective 
and provides direction for Member States’ action,  it provides flexibility to Member States  to select 
and implement policy measures best adapted to their national situations. 

(d)  Do the benefits of EU-level action outweigh the loss of competence of the Member States 
and the local and regional authorities (beyond the costs and benefits of acting at national, 
regional and local levels)? 

A possible limited loss of competence of Member States in certain areas which may be induced by 
this proposal is residual, since the latter i) keeps the form of a Directive as the most appropriate tool, 
while  the  WFD  regulatory  approach  of  harmonising  certain  elements  (definitions,  quantitative  or 
qualitative  objectives  operationalising  the  waste  hierarchy,  polluter  pays  principle,  reporting 
requirements) and leaving room for national implementing measures (waste management planning 
and permitting of waste  operations, including organisational features that  need to take  account  of 
national,  regional  and  local  circumstances)  is  consistent  with  carrying  out  at  EU  level  only  what  is 
necessary.; and ii) strengthens and improves an already existing legislative framework.  
The overall benefits of harmonised implementation of the EU obligations and  the provision of clear 
concepts  and  definitions  on  the  management  of  textile  and  food  waste  concerned,  outweigh  any 
possible loss of competence of the Member States on this matter. 

(e)  Will there be improved legal clarity for those having to implement the legislation? 

Yes, as the proposal contains the clarification of definitions and scopes of some basic elements of the 
Directive,  the  uncertainty  of  which  caused  problems  in  the  implementation.  More  specifically, 
stakeholders have indicated that there is non-uniform understanding of what should be covered by 
separate collection across the EU (collection systems, collection categories, collection for reuse vs. for 
recycling systems, communication on collection to consumers), hindering the large-scale circulation of 
used  textile  and  textile  waste  and  the  production  of  a  sufficiently  pure,  and  consistent  feedstock 
streams  required  by  large-scale  sorting  and  fibre  facilities.  They  also  proposed  that  the  definition  of 
recycling should be refined. 
In the area of food waste, the necessary provisions already exist in the WFD as amended in 2018. The 
proposal gives clear direction to Member States as to the level of food waste reduction to be achieved 
as  well  as  the  key  focus  areas  in  the  food  value  chain.  Moreover,  given  the  mechanisms  in  place  to 
facilitate sharing of experience and best practice,  any  issues arising related to  the implementation of 
food waste prevention that require legal clarification can be addressed faster and in a more coherent 

7 

 
 
way.  For  example,  the  Commission  adopted  EU  guidelines,  respectively  in  2017  and  2018,  to  clarify 
relevant provisions of Union legislation and lift barriers to food donation and the feed use of food no 
longer intended for human consumption.   

3.  Proportionality: How the EU should act 

3.1  Does the explanatory memorandum (and any impact assessment) accompanying the 

Commission’s proposal contain an adequate justification regarding the proportionality of the 
proposal and a statement allowing appraisal of the compliance of the proposal with the 
principle of proportionality? 

The explanatory memorandum summarises the analysis of the supporting impact assessment, which 
contains  an  environmental,  economic  and  social  assessment  of  each  policy  option  including  an 
assessment  of  proportionality.  A  qualitative  assessment  has  been  undertaken  that  shows  that  the 
proposals  are  proportionate,  i.e.,  that  societal  benefits  are  significantly  higher  than  the  incurred 
costs. The content of this proposal takes full account of the outcome of this analysis.  
The  WFD  regulatory  approach  of  harmonising  certain  elements  (definitions,  quantitative  or 
qualitative  objectives  operationalising  the  waste  hierarchy,  polluter  pays  principle,  reporting 
requirements) and leaving room for national implementing measures (waste management planning 
and permitting of waste  operations, including organisational features that  need to take  account  of 
national,  regional  and  local  circumstances)  is  consistent  with  carrying  out  at  EU  level  only  what  is 
necessary. 

3.2 Based on the answers to the questions below and information available from any impact 
assessment, the explanatory memorandum or other sources, is the proposed action an 
appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives? 

Given  that  the  proposal  regulates  only  the  aspects,  which  Member  States  could  not  achieve 
satisfactorily  on  their  own,  setting  objectives,  and  in  parallel,  giving  to  the  Member  States  the 
freedom  to  take  national  implementing  measures  according  to  their  specific  circumstances,  while 
ensuring that any adverse impact of the proposed objectives is proportionate, the proposed action is 
an appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives. 

(a)  Is the initiative limited to those aspects that Member States cannot achieve satisfactorily on 

their own, and where the Union can do better? 

Yes, the initiative is limited to those aspects that studies and evaluations show that Member States 
could not achieve satisfactorily on their own and was estimated that a harmonised EU approach  is 
the best way for the objectives to be achieved. In parallel, the approach of setting certain objectives 
and  letting  the  Member  States  adopt  the  appropriate  national  implementing  measures,  highlights 
the fact that EU action is limited to what is necessary on this matter. 
Noteworthy  is that the preparatory stages  of this initiative,  including the Call for Evidence  and the 
public  consultion,  looked  into  a  variety  of  areas  governed  by  the  WFD,  namely,  (1)  waste  oils,  (2) 
waste prevention practices and performance and (3) waste separate collection practices, though the 
preliminary  analysis  show  that  further  monitoring  data  is  necessary  to  assess  the  necessity  of  EU 
action. 

(b)  Is the form of Union action (choice of instrument) justified, as simple as possible, and 

coherent with the satisfactory achievement of, and ensuring compliance with the objectives 
pursued (e.g. choice between regulation, (framework) directive, recommendation, or 
alternative regulatory methods such as co-legislation, etc.)? 

The  use  of  a  directive  was  deemed  appropriate  when  the  Waste  Framework  Directive  was  first 

8 

 
 
adopted.  This  is  because  the  Directive  provides  the  overall  principles  and  sets  the  targets  to  be 
achieved  while  leaving  some  margin  of  implementation  to  the  Member  States  according  to  their 
national (or regional/local) circumstances. This proposal for a revision maintains that approach.    

(c)  Does the Union action leave as much scope for national decision as possible while achieving 
satisfactorily the objectives set? (e.g. is it possible to limit the European action to minimum 
standards or use a less stringent policy instrument og approach?) 

While additional EU action is deemed necessary to help Member States achieve the ambitious waste 
management  objectives,  Member  States  will  have  to  make  some  policy  choices  and  adopt  some 
national implementing measures (waste management planning and permitting of waste operations, 
including  organisational  features  that  need  to  take  account  of  national,  regional  and  local 
circumstances) in relation to their circumstances.   
Yes, action can and (must) be tailored – drivers are different etc 

(d)  Does the initiative create financial or administrative cost for the Union, national 

governments, regional or local authorities, economic operators or citizens? Are these costs 
commensurate with the objective to be achieved? 

The proposed initiative does not create additional financial or administrative costs for the Union. It 
may however have some negative economic impacts which, as said above (3.1.), are proportionate. 
The tables below summarise costs and benefits associated with the preferred options, respectively, 
for textiles and food waste. 
For textiles, the impact assessment finds the following costs and benefits (with net benefits): 

Economic costs (for producers and consumers): €913 million per year 
for sorting obligations, €7.79 million per year for producers to report 
for the purpose of EPR, €750 000 per year for EU enterprises to 
comply with EU reporting obligations 
Economic costs (for public authorities): register development costs of 
€2-12.3 million across Member States and maintenance costs of €11 
200 and 69 000 per Member State per year, €4.04 million costs of 
operating PRO registers and inspections, €208 per competent 
authority and €78 per exporter annualised per inspection, €26.5 
million landfill tax loss for Member States due to textiles diverted from 
landfills 
Economic benefits (for producers, consumers and waste management 
enterprises): EPR of €3.5-4.5 billion annual overall returns on recycling 
investment (including the benefits of other measures of Option 2) 
Economic benefits (for waste management enterprises): €534 million 
per year of re-use value and €117 million per year of recycling value 
from additional sorting 
Environmental benefits: €16 million from GHG emission reduction 
(assuming a social cost of carbon of €100 per tCO2e) as well as 
reduction in release of pollutants to air, water and land that would 
otherwise result from inadequate waste management 
Social benefits (for consumers and waste management enterprises): 8 
740 jobs created and social impacts of EU waste in third countries 
mitigated (no net impact assessment; see Annex 4 for details and 
underlying assumptions) 
Economic costs (for public authorities and waste management 
enterprises): €39.2 million per year for additional textile collection, 
sorting and treatment to meet a 50% collection target. Lack of robust 
data makes target setting for textile waste management premature 
for most targets 

9 

Costs: €963 million per year 
Benefits: €651 million per year of 
re-usable and recyclable materials, 
and €3.5-4.5 billion annual overall 
returns from EPR investments, 
environmental benefits (including 
€16 million or 160 000 tCO2e in 
GHG savings), and 8 740 jobs 
created 
Overall effectiveness, efficiency 
and coherence: positive and 
higher compared to Option 1 and 
Option 2, depending on the 
effectiveness of target 
implementation 

Costs: €39 million per year 
(covered by the EPR measure 2.9) 
Benefits: €28 million per year of 
reusable and recyclable textiles for 
the EU re-use and recycling 

 
 
Economic benefits (for producers and waste management 
enterprises): €28 million per year of combined reuse and recycling. 
Environmental benefits: Additional GHG emission reduction 

market, and additional GHG 
emission reduction 
Overall effectiveness, efficiency 
and coherence: effectiveness 
depends on targets being met, 
ensures flexibility for Member 
States to find cost efficient 
instruments to achieve target, 
coherence with existing waste 
targets 

For food waste, the impact assessment finds the following costs and benefits (with net benefits): 

Economic costs of food waste reduction 
 

Total adjustment costs for food waste reduction for actors in the 
food chain - €2 bln [€41/ton of food waste avoided]   

  Reduction in demand for food of 4.2% and a change in value of 

agri-food production of -1.8% alongside a fall in market prices of 
between 0.1 and 2.6% 

  A fall in farm income of up to €4.2 billion per annum 

Economic benefits of food waste reduction 
 

overall value added for EU economy €1.6 bn (net benefits - 
including abovementioned costs) 
savings in household food expenditure of €439 per year per 
household (4 pers.) 

 

Overall effectiveness, efficiency 
and coherence: positive 

Environmental benefits 
 

3.9 (in EU) and 12.6 (out of EU) million tonnes GHG emission 
reduction (including rebound effect) OR 62 million tonnes of GHG 
avoided (without counting the rebound effect) 

  Reduction of environmental impacts in particular on land use, 

marine eutrophication and water scarcity.  

  Overall environmental savings monetised - €9-23 bn  

Social costs and benefits 
up to 135 000 jobs lost in agri-food sectors (expected to be 
compensated in other sectors) 

(e)  While respecting the Union law, have special circumstances applying in individual Member 

States been taken into account? 

As  indicated  above,  the  proposal  sets  the  targets  to  be  achieved  while  leaving  some  margin  of 
implementation to the Member States according to their national (or regional/local) circumstances. 
For example, as regards the proposed EPR scheme, its implementation in particular in terms of the 
separate  collection  network,  producer  responsibility  organisations  MSs  will  maintain  a  level  of 
flexibility  in  their  implementation  so  that  they  are  able  to  consider  national  circumstances.  Also, 
relating to the separate collection systems the EU should provide high-level minimum requirements, 
but  the  collection  systems  should  be  tailored  to  the  reality  of  each  MS,  for  example  in  terms  of 
geography, density etc. 
For food waste, no special circumstances have been detected (see section 2.5.2 on territorial impacts 
in Annex 11 of the Staff Working Document) and the proposal is designed to allow for appropriate 
flexibilities:  targets  are  set  as  a  percentage  and  not  absolute  values  (which  means  that  Member 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
States in which more food waste is generated will need to make greater  reduction efforts); targets 
linked to consumption are expressed per capita to take into account demographic changes. Finally, 
Member  States  may  also  take  into  account  their  earlier  achievements  towards  to  attaining  of  the 
targets  (i.e.  earlier  reference  year  or  baseline)  provided  that  they  can  substantiate  progress  made 
through credible data.  

11