COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Subsidiarity Grid Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on preventing plastic pellet losses to reduce microplastics pollution
Date: 2023-10-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: carriage of goods, chemicals legislation, environmental impact, handling, plastic waste, plastics, pollution control, prevention of pollution, supply chain

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 16.10.2023  SWD(2023) 330 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Subsidiarity Grid Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on preventing plastic pellet losses to reduce microplastics pollution {COM(2023) 645 final} - {SEC(2023) 346 final} - {SWD(2023) 332 final} - {SWD(2023) 333 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. In accordance with Article 192(1) 
of the TFEU, the European Union shall contribute to the pursuit, inter alia, of the following 
objectives: preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment, 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? 

In the case of the environment, the Union’s competence is shared, in accordance with Article 
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: 

The  Commission’s  proposal  for  a  Regulation  on  preventing  pellet  losses  to  reduce 
microplastic pollution 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. 

The  consultation  process  included  a  variety  of  different  consultation  activities  aimed  at 
gathering the views of all stakeholders and ensuring that these were taken into consideration. 

•  An  online  Public  Consultation  was  undertaken.  The  survey  included  general 
questions related to microplastics along with specific questions focused on pellets and 
other potentially important sources.  

•  Extensive  bilateral  consultations  were  held  with  a  range  of  relevant  stakeholders 
including representatives from the pellets industry, NGOs and various Commission 
services and other representatives such as the EEA.  

•  Seven  stakeholder  workshops  were  conducted  with  representatives  from  across  all 
industry 

including  Member  State  authorities,  NGOs, 

stakeholder  groups 
representatives and other relevant stakeholders.  

•  A  dedicated  SME  consultation  was  undertaken  as  SMEs  account  for  an  important 

share of the pellet supply chain.  

•  Anecdotal  evidence  was  gathered  to  assess  the  impact  of  pellet  losses  on  local 

communities.  

In  line  with  the  Commission’s  commitment  to  better  regulation,  this  proposal  has  been 
prepared  inclusively,  based  on  full  transparency  and  continuous  engagement  with 
stakeholders  with  due  regard  to  avoiding  unnecessary  burdens.  It  is  based  on  the  best 

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

1 

 
 
 
available  evidence  referenced  in  the  Impact  Assessment  accompanying  this  proposal,  and 
expert knowledge taking into account the external feedback. In particular, an assessment of 
subsidiarity is included both in the Impact Assessment and the Explanatory Memorandum.  

The proposal respects fundamental rights, in particular those in the Charter of Fundamental 
Rights of the European Union. It also contributes to the right to a high level of environmental 
protection in line with the principle of sustainable development, as laid down in Article 37 
of the Charter.  

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 addresses the 
principle of subsidiarity, as follows:  

“A common set of requirements for pellet handling within the Union is essential to ensuring 
a high level of environmental protection. Like all microplastics, pellets are readily transported 
from one geographical place to another and can be found in all environments including the 
most remote places. While pellet losses can be first concentrated in one geographical area 
(petrochemical  or  polymer  industrial  areas,  logistic  platforms  like  ports,  etc.),  they  are 
extremely mobile and can then be dispersed by surface water and sea currents, as well as 
through the air. The transboundary nature of the problem is the most important reason to act 
at EU level. If Member States act individually, the level of environmental protection would 
remain suboptimal and there is a risk that competing different legislation would be used.”    

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 pellet losses happen across the EU and pellet pollution is transboundary. 
So  far,  only  fragmented  approaches  have  been  observed,  such  as  national  actions  on  one 
aspect only of pellet pollution (e.g. measuring), national actions not covering the entire pellet 
supply chain (e.g. producers and converters but not transporters) or national actions limited 
to  one or a few Member States.  These approaches  would not  bring gains  as they  are less 
effective  in  reducing  transboundary  pellet  pollution  and  overall  more  costly  in  achieving 
wider policy goals on reducing releases of microplastics.  
EU  level  action  is  the  most  cost-effective  and  efficient  way  of  tackling  this  issue  and 
achieving the objectives set out in the Zero Pollution Action Plan.  

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

tackled? Have these been quantified? 

Pellet  losses  and  their  associated  impacts  are  transboundary,  travelling  across  national 
borders, both between Member States and across the frontiers of the EU. Hence appropriate 
and effective pollution control can be achieved more quickly and efficiently at Union level 
compared to Member States acting alone in an uncoordinated manner.  

2 

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

the Treaty2 or significantly damage the interests of other Member States? 

The  absence  of  a  common  EU  approach  to  tackle  pellet  losses  to  the  environment  risks 
impeding the Union’s effort in pursuing the objectives and target set out in the Zero Pollution 
Action Plan, notably the 2030 target for a 30% reduction in microplastic releases. Not acting 
would also risk hindering the Treaty objectives of achieving a high level of environmental 
and human health protection. 

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

measures? 

While  Member  States  have  the  required  competence  to  introduce  appropriate  measures, 
progress  is  very mixed in  tackling pellet  losses with only  one Member State identified as 
having adopted legislation specifically to prevent pellet losses (France). This is because pellet 
losses are spread across the supply chain and therefore across borders making it a complicated 
issue to legislate at the national level in a cost-effective manner.  

(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? 

Pellet pollution is widespread due to losses across the supply chain and to pellets’ mobility 
once in the environment. Their environmental and health impacts are therefore generally the 
same  across  national,  regional  and  local  levels  of  the  EU  (as  they  are  widespread  in  the 
environment).  Pellets  can  be  found  in  soil  (including  agricultural  lands),  lakes,  rivers, 
estuaries,  beaches,  lagoons,  seas  and  oceans.  They  can  be  found  in  areas  close  to 
petrochemical or polymer industries, but also far from them, including in important Natura 
2000 areas. However, economic impacts are especially relevant for local communities who 
have  to  cover  the  costs  of  cleaning  up  pellets  from  their  environment  (which  is  very 
challenging and requires significant resources). In addition, certain economic sectors in these 
communities  (e.g.  fishing,  agriculture,  tourism)  are  also  negatively  impacted  because  the 
presence of pellets hinders their activities.  

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

Pellets can be lost at all stages of the supply chain (including transport) making this problem 
widespread  across  the  EU.  In  addition,  pellet  pollution  is  transboundary.  Some  national 
differences are observed, however, due to differences in levels of plastic manufacturing and 
processing as well as the presence of key transport routes (such as ports).  

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

Much of the burden associated with the planned measure (and associated actions) would sit 
with  industry  who have, for  some part, already started to  take  certain  actions  as part of  a 
voluntary initiative. Member States will have to register economic operators’ notification of 
compliance with the mandatory requirements laid out in the measure and handle enforcement. 
They  are  responsible,  in  case  of  non-compliance,  for  imposing  corrective  measures,  and 
where necessary, penalties. 

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

differ across the EU? 

2 https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-in-brief_en   

3 

 
 
 
Considering the harmful impacts of microplastics (including pellets), five EU Member States 
(i.e. Denmark, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands) and Norway called on the 
Commission  to  introduce  the  necessary  measures  tackling  unintentional  microplastic 
releases, to reach the 30% reduction target in microplastic releases by 2030. According to 
these countries,  tackling microplastics pollution is  a cross-border challenge, and therefore 
national and voluntary measures alone are not sufficient. Measures at EU level are needed. 
France is the only Member State who has adopted legislation specifically to prevent pellet 
losses.  Spain  is  promoting  the  industry  Operation  Clean  Sweep®  programme  (OCS) 
including  certification  of  companies  against  industry  requirements.  Regional  and  local 
authorities across the EU have shared concerns about pellet pollution at pellet related events 
(e.g. Catalonia, Hainaut/Belgium).  

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 action can be better achieved at Union level because EU-level 
action will ensure a higher level  of  environmental  protection  and a harmonised and well-
functioning internal market. It could also help influence the pellet supply chain worldwide 
by leveraging the size of the EU market, thus contributing to more reductions in pellet losses.  

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

There is a clear benefit in taking action at the EU level on pellet losses, as this can efficiently 
ensure a high level of environmental protection throughout the EU territory through reduced 
pellet  losses  to  the  environment,  and  a  harmonised  and  well-functioning  internal  market 
across all Member States (same requirements for pellet pollution prevention and reduction, 
reduced costs of harmonised approaches). 
Furthermore,  the  size  of  the  internal  market  provides  a  critical  mass  enabling  the  EU  to 
promote handling practices that release fewer pellets that could influence the pellet supply 
chain  worldwide.  It  will  also  guide  EU  actions  at  the  global  level  in  the  context  of  the 
negotiations on a Global Plastic Agreement and at the level of Regional Seas Conventions. 

(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? 

The objectives can be met more efficiently at EU level as fragmented approaches, such as 
national actions on one aspect only of pellet pollution (e.g. measuring), actions not covering 
the entire pellet supply chain (e.g. producers and converters but not transporters) or actions 
limited  to  one  or  a  few  Member  States,  would  not  bring  efficiency  gains  as  they  are  less 
effective  in  reducing  transboundary  pellet  pollution  and  overall  more  costly  in  achieving 
wider policy goals on reducing releases of microplastics. Action at EU level will ensure a 
uniform approach and level playing field for different actors in the pellets supply chain thus 
avoiding  any  distortion  of  the  internal  market.  Developing  one  methodology  to  measure 
pellet  losses  as  part  of  the  proposal  can  also  bring  economies  of  scale  (one  methodology 
instead of several ones, that otherwise could be developed). 

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

homogenous policy approach? 

Very limited policies and rules have been developed to date at a Member State level so an 
EU level homogenous approach would allow for a more comprehensive legislative approach 

4 

 
 
to the pellets supply chain. This would help ensure a level playing field and a more significant 
reduction in pellet losses to the environment.   

(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 loss of competence of Member States and local and regional authorities is limited as there 
are currently very limited actions being taken at national, regional or local levels. In addition, 
no significant administrative burden for national, regional or local levels is foreseen in the 
initiative.  Overall,  benefits  of  the  initiative  outweigh  any  possible  loss  of  competence  of 
Member States and local and regional authorities. 

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

The  proposal  will  improve  legal  clarity  by  addressing  the  full  pellet  supply  chain  and 
applying a uniform  approach across  the EU. Clear and precise EU-wide  rules will enable 
concerned  individuals  and  legal  persons  to  ascertain  the  full  extent  of  their  rights  and 
obligations. 

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 assessed each policy option according to their environmental, economic 
and  social  impacts,  as  well  as  contains  their  proportionality.  The  text  included  in  the 
explanatory memorandum is as follows:  

“The requirements in the proposal do not go beyond what is necessary to enable economic 
activities  involved in  the handling of plastic pellets  in  quantities higher than 5 tonnes per 
year, to safely and responsibly handle such pellets. They are based on existing best handling 
practices,  notably  the  industry  Operation  Clean  Sweep®  programme  (OCS).  The 
proportionality of the requirements is ensured by introducing lighter requirements for SMEs, 
where  necessary,  as  the  result  of  thorough  stakeholder  consultation.  National  competent 
authorities  in  charge  of  verifying  industry  compliance  will  be  supported  by  the  work  of 
certification  bodies  and  environmental  auditors  that  will  be  tasked  respectively  with 
certification and external auditing. This system will provide a high degree of legal certainty 
and facilitate enforcement activities.”   

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? 

The proposed action constitutes an appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives. The 
impact assessment showed that the preferred option does not go beyond what is necessary to 
achieve the objectives of the initiative. It aligns with what industry had indicated would be 
appropriate to effectively reduce pellet losses, and includes lighter requirements for SMEs, 
who had indicated the necessity of this. It is directly applicable as a Regulation and does not 

5 

 
 
require Member States to implement their own legislation. It will help level the EU playing 
field and ensure a harmonised internal market.  
Overall, 
national/regional/local authorities.  

its  expected  benefits  outweigh 

its  associated  costs 

industry  and 

for 

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

their own, and where the Union can do better? 

The initiative is limited to aspects related to the handling of plastic pellets. In doing so, it 
focuses on the handling operations where the pellet losses occur (the  entire supply chain) 
with measures that can improve their handling (not just their measuring) and covers all actors 
involved in the handling of pellets (with the exclusion of those handling less than 5 tonnes 
per year). Very partial policies and rules have been developed to date at a Member State level. 
In addition, if Member States act individually, the level of environmental protection would 
remain  suboptimal  and  there  is  a  risk  that  competing  different  legislations  would  set 
competing different requirements. 

(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 objectives of this proposal can be best pursued through a Regulation, which is the most 
appropriate instrument to implement the requirements necessary to reduce and prevent pellet 
losses to the environment in a uniform way across the EU. In addition, it follows industry’s 
existing  approach  to  ensure  compliance  is  as  straightforward  as  possible,  without  putting 
national,  regional  or  local  authorities  under  undue  burden  (no  need  for  Member  States  to 
create their own legislation as Regulation applies directly and uniformly to all EU Member 
States).  

(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 or approach?) 

The proposal will set specific minimum requirements that actors in the pellet supply chain 
will need to implement to reduce and prevent pellet losses to the environment (with lighter 
requirements  for  SMEs  and  the  principle  according  to  which  the  implementation  of  the 
applicable  requirements  may  take  account  of  the  size  and  scale  of  operations).  These 
minimum requirements will ensure a uniform approach is taken across the EU and the entire 
pellet supply chain to reduce and prevent pellet losses to the environment.  Member States 
will be responsible for the enforcement of these obligations.  

(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? 

There will be one-off costs for the Union if the EU directly supports the development of the 
measurement standard for pellet release. For national authorities, there will be initial costs to 
set up at national level a public register of certified companies. There will be minor costs for 
competent authorities in Member States for processing the certification and enforcement of 
the obligations set out in the Regulation. There will be both one-off and recurrent costs for 
actors in the pellet supply chain for compliance including the need to adapt their operations 

6 

 
 
and  administrative  procedures  to  the  new  requirements  and  then  to  ensure  ongoing 
compliance. 
These costs are considered proportionate to the anticipated benefits and commensurate with 
the objectives to be achieved.  

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

States been taken into account? 

Not applicable.  

7