EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 52021SC0331

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on shipments of waste and amending Regulations (EU) No 1257/2013 and (EU) No 2020/1056

SWD/2021/331 final

Brussels, 17.11.2021

SWD(2021) 331 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Accompanying the document

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council

on shipments of waste and amending Regulations (EU) No 1257/2013 and (EU) No 2020/1056

{COM(2021) 709 final} - {SEC(2021) 402 final} - {SWD(2021) 330 final} - {SWD(2021) 332 final}


Table of contents

Glossary

1.Introduction

1.1Policy context

1.2Legal context

1.2.1 The international legal framework: the Basel Convention and the OECD Decision    

1.2.2 The EU legal framework    

1.2.3 Links with other EU legislation    

1.3Evaluation of the WSR

2.Problem definition

2.1 What are the main problems that the review of the WSR seeks to address?

2.2 What are the problem drivers?

2.3Who is affected and how?

2.4How will the problem evolve?

3.Why should the EU act?

3.1Legal basis

3.2Subsidiarity: Necessity and added-value of EU action

4.Objectives: What is to be achieved?

5.Baseline

6.What are the available policy options for the review of the WSR?

6.1 Description and screening of the measures

6.1.1 Description of potential measures to address the objectives of the review of the WSR    

6.1.2 Screening    

6.2 Measures that were discarded

6.3 Policy options

7.What are the impacts of the policy options?

7.1 Impacts of the proposed measures

7.1.1 Objective 1: Facilitate shipments within the EU, in particular to align the WSR with circular economy objectives    

7.1.2 Objective 2: Guarantee that waste exported outside the EU is managed in an environmentally sound manner    

7.1.3 Objective 3: Better address illegal shipments of waste within the EU as well as illegal exports to third countries.    

7.2 How the options compare

8.Preferred option

8.1 Conclusions based on the analysis of the impacts

8.2 Overall impact of the preferred option

8.3 REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency)

9.How will impacts be monitored and evaluated?

Glossary

Term or acronym

Meaning or definition

Animal By-products Regulation

Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002.

Basel Convention

Basel Convention of 22 March 1989 on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal.

Batteries Directive

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 Directive 91/157/EEC (OJ 266, 26.9.2006).

Combined Nomenclatures, CN codes

The Combined Nomenclature (CN) is a tool for classifying goods, set up to meet the requirements both of the Common Customs Tariff and of the EU's external trade statistics. The CN is also used in intra-EU trade statistics.

Competent authority

Competent authority as established under art. 2.18 of the Waste Shipment Regulation

Correspondents

Art. 54 of the WSR establishes for Member States and the Commission to each designate one or more correspondents responsible for informing or advising persons or undertakings making enquiries.

Disposal

Any operation which is not recovery even where the operation has as a secondary consequence the reclamation of substances or energy. Annex I of Directive 2008/98/EC on waste sets out a non-exhaustive list of disposal operations.

EFTA

The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) is the intergovernmental organization of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.

ELV Directive

Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life vehicles (OJ L 269, 21.10.2000).

Environmental Crime Directive

Directive 2008/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the protection of the environment through criminal law (OJ L 328, 6.12.2008)

Environmentally sound management (“ESM”)

Environmentally sound management as defined by the Basel Convention means taking all practicable steps to ensure that […]wastes are managed in a manner which will protect human health and the environment against the adverse effects which may result from such wastes;

EPR

Extended producer responsability.

Eurostat

Eurostat is the statistical office of the European Union situated in Luxembourg. Its mission is to provide high quality statistics for Europe.

Green-listed waste

Green listed wastes (presenting low risk for human health and the environment 1 ), are not subject to any other controls than those normally applied in commercial transactions;

(Amber listed wastes on the other hand are largely those regulated under the Basel Convention (listed in its Annexes II 2 and VIII 3 ))

IMPEL

European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law

IMPEL-TFS

Working Group on transboundary shipments of waste under IMPEL

EDI

Electronic data interchange

EU List of Waste

Commission Decision of 3 May 2000 replacing Decision 94/3/EC establishing a list of wastes pursuant to Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and Council Decision 94/904/EC establishing a list of hazardous waste pursuant to Article 1(4) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste (2000/532/EC). OJ L 226, 6.9.2000.

Export

Export is defined by the WSR as “the action of waste leaving the Community but excluding transit through the Community ”

Exporter

“natural or legal person arranging for the export of the waste”

OECD Decision

Decision of the Council on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Wastes Destined for Recovery Operations (OECD/LEGAL/0266).

OLAF

The European Anti-Fraud Office

Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive

European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste. OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, as amended by Directive 2018/852.

Port Reception Facilities Directive

Directive 95/21/EC, which was amended by Directive 2001/106/EC concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control). OJ L 157, 7.7.1995.

Proximity principle

Wastes should be disposed of as close to the source as possible.

REACH, REACH Regulation

Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC.

Recovery

Any operation the principal result of which is waste serving a useful purpose by replacing other materials which would otherwise have been used to fulfil a particular function, or waste being prepared to fulfil that function, in the plant or in the wider economy. Annex II of Directive 2008/98/EC on waste sets out a non-exhaustive list of recovery operations.

Recycling

Any operation which reprocesses waste materials into useful products, materials or substances.

REFIT platform

The REFIT Platform brings together the Commission, national authorities and other stakeholders in regular meetings to improve existing EU legislation.

Regulation (EC) 1418/2007

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1418/2007 of 29 November 2007 concerning the export for recovery of certain waste listed in Annex III or IIIA to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council to certain countries to which the OECD Decision on the control of transboundary movements of wastes does not apply.

Self-sufficiency principle

At Community and, if possible, at Member State level. Member States need to establish, in co-operation with other Member States, an integrated and adequate network of waste disposal facilities 4 .

Ship Recycling Regulation

Regulation (EU) No 1257/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on ship recycling and amending Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 and Directive 2009/16/EC.

WEEE

Waste electric and electronic equipment

WEEE Directive

WEEE Directive: Directive 2012/19/EU on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE).

WFD, Waste Framework Directive

Waste Framework Directive: 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).



1.Introduction

Global trade in waste reached 182 million tonnes with a value of around 80.5 billion euro in 2018 5 . Such trade has increased considerably in the last decades, with a peak at nearly 250 million tonnes in 2011.

The EU generated 2400 million tonnes of waste in 2018 corresponding to a 5.1% increase since 2010 6 . In 2020, the EU exported to non-EU countries around 32.7 million tonnes of waste, an increase of 75% since 2004 (see Figure 1 ). This is only 1.4% of the total waste generated in the EU. However, for some waste streams, exports represent a large proportion of the waste generated in the EU. Ferrous and non-ferrous metal scrap, paper waste, plastic waste, textile waste and glass waste represent the majority of waste exported outside the EU. The 32.7 million tonnes of exported waste have a value of 13.0 billion euro and the EU also imported approximately 16 million tonnes, with a value of 13.5 billion euro. 

Figure 1 – EU import and export of waste

The export of waste to OECD member countries represents around 50% of the overall volume and value of waste exported outside the EU. This is notably due to the fact that Turkey is by far the biggest importer of waste from the EU. Again, there are significant differences between different waste streams. Ferrous metal scrap and glass waste exported from the EU are mostly destined to OECD member countries, while non-ferrous scrap, paper waste, plastic waste and textile waste are mostly exported to non OECD member countries.

In addition, around 67 million tonnes of waste per year are shipped between EU Member States 7 (intra-EU shipments of waste).

The economic profile and geographical position of a Member State influence the volume of waste shipped to and from that Member State. Some Member States rely more on the shipments of waste out of their territory than others, mostly due to their location and/or due to insufficient domestic capacity. In general, the more industrialised countries are important actors in the shipment of waste. Also, more shipments of waste occur from, to and via countries with significant port infrastructure. For instance, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands received 40% of all plastic waste shipped from other Member States in 2019. These Member States are also the largest exporters of waste outside the EU. Figure 2 below shows the share of the intra- and extra-EU shipments of waste by weight for the most important waste streams traded within and outside the EU - ferrous metals, non-ferrous metal, paper and cardboard, textiles, plastics and glass.

Figure 2 - Share of the intra- and extra-EU shipments of waste by weight

As indicated above, the EU exported 32.7 million tonnes of waste in 2020. The export of hazardous waste is either prohibited (to non-OECD countries) or subject to the notification procedure. The amount of waste exported outside the EU subject to the notification procedure amounted to 1.9 million tonnes in 2017. Of these, 0.72 million tonnes, or 2.32% of the overall volume of waste exported outside the EU, concern hazardous waste. The figures below provide an overview of the main categories of waste imported into and exported from the EU.



Figure 3 – Exports and imports of the main categories of waste from/to the European Union

Figure 4 – Exports of waste from the EU to OECD and non-OECD countries

The export of “green-listed” waste represents by far the largest share of these overall exports. Metal scraps account for about 50% of all waste exported from the EU and paper, plastic and textile wastes represent the other most important types of waste. Statistics and further details on the trends for the export of these wastes outside the EU (volume, value, main countries of destination) are presented in Annex 7.

Waste shipped across borders can generate risks for human health and the environment, especially when not controlled properly. At the same time, these wastes often have a positive economic value, notably as secondary raw materials that can replace virgin materials and thereby contribute to a more circular economy.

Measures on the supervision and control of shipments of waste have been in place in the EU since 1984. In 1989, the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (the Basel Convention) was adopted to address serious problems linked to deposits of toxic wastes imported from abroad to various parts of the developing world. In 1992, the OECD adopted a legally binding Decision 8 on the control of transboundary movements of wastes destined for recovery operations (the OECD Decision).

Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 9 (Waste Shipment Regulation (WSR)) implements the provisions of the Basel Convention and of the OECD Decision into EU law. The WSR sets out control mechanisms for the export and import of waste from the EU to third countries, as well as for shipments between EU Member States. In certain instances, the WSR contains stricter control measures than the Basel Convention.

1.1Policy context

In December 2019, the European Commission adopted the Communication on a European Green Deal, which sets out an ambitious roadmap to transform the EU into a sustainable economy. It indicates that the European Commission should revisit the rules on waste shipments and that the EU should stop exporting its waste outside the EU. The 2020 Communication on the new Circular Economy Action Plan further stresses the need for action to ensure that (i) shipments of waste for re-use and recycling in the EU are facilitated, (ii) the EU does not export its waste challenges to third countries and (iii) illegal waste shipments are better addressed. Both the Council and European Parliament have also called for a revision of the WSR 10   11 . It also stresses that the European Union cannot deliver alone to tackle the global waste challenges and that it should enhance its global leadership in this regard.

These calls for changes arise in a situation where the global waste market is undergoing major changes, which have important repercussions for the EU. In the 1990’s and 2000’s, the export of waste outside the EU steadily increased, with more waste destined to countries outside the OECD. In recent years, a number of countries which were previously importing considerable quantities of waste from the EU have restricted imports. The most significant is China, which used to be by far the largest importer of plastic and paper waste from the EU. Since 2018, it has taken a series of drastic import restrictions for most waste streams. Following this decision, important waste flows were re-routed from the EU to other Asian countries. Some of these also adopted waste import restrictions 12 , especially for plastic waste, as a response. The exposure to negative environmental impacts linked to the growing volume of plastic waste exported from OECD countries to developing countries, also led the 187 Parties to the Basel Convention to adopt new global rules governing the trade in plastic waste in 2019. These new rules entered into force in the EU in 2021 and mean that large categories of plastic waste can no longer be exported from the EU to non OECD member countries.

This resulted in a decrease of export from the EU of some types of waste (mostly plastic and paper waste) since 2017, with large quantities staying in the EU instead. Exports of other waste streams (metal scraps, textile and glass waste) have remained stable or continued to increase.

The import restrictions from some countries have exposed the fragility of a business model/supply chain where the export of waste was a common way of dealing with some waste streams generated in the EU. Broadly, the EU is exporting its waste challenges to third countries, where it might create serious environmental and human health problems, as well as security issues in case of illegal waste trafficking. The export of this waste also means that it is not used in the EU. This contributes to maintaining the dependence of the EU industry to virgin materials, which has important environmental consequences 13 and result in the fact that only 12% of raw materials used by EU’s industry come from recycling. These externalities could be substantially reduced if larger volumes of waste were recycled and re-enter the economy as secondary materials in the EU. In that context, increased opportunities for reuse and recycling can be seen as an opportunity to support the aim of the Circular Economy Action plan for increased use of secondary raw materials and the promotion of “recycled in the EU” as a benchmark for these materials.

1.2 Legal context

1.2.1 The international legal framework: the Basel Convention and the OECD Decision

The Basel Convention entered into force on 5 May 1992. Its 187 Parties include the EU and all EU Member States. It covers hazardous wastes, as well as “other wastes” (which currently include household waste, residues arising from the incineration of household waste and - since 2021 - hazardous and hard-to-recycle plastic wastes).

The main purpose of the Basel Convention is to provide a global legal framework on the transboundary movements of hazardous waste and reduce them globally. It aims to minimize the negative environment and human health impact of such wastes and ensure their environmentally sound management. To do so, the Basel Convention sets up a procedure of prior informed consent (PIC), according to which the exporting and importing countries need to give their authorization for any shipment to take place legally.

In December 2019, an important amendment to the Convention entered into force (the “Basel ban amendment”), which prohibits the export of hazardous waste from OECD and EU countries to non-EU, non-OECD countries. The EU and its Member States have ratified and are bound by this amendment, but many other OECD countries are not.

Article 11 of the Basel Convention allows Parties to enter into bilateral, multilateral, regional agreements or arrangements on the transboundary movement of waste, which might derogate from the Convention, provided that these agreements or arrangements contain provisions which are not less environmentally sound than the Convention. These instruments need to be notified to the Secretariat of the Basel Convention. On this basis, the EU submitted in 2020 a notification 14 , covering shipments of waste within the Union, providing the EU with the possibility to maintain a specific regime for intra-EU shipments of waste, which might differ from the provisions of the Convention.

The OECD Decision provides a simplified and more detailed framework to facilitate and control transboundary movements of waste destined for recovery operations between OECD member countries 15 . It also distinguishes between green-listed and amber-listed waste, which are subject to different procedures: 

·Green listed wastes (presenting low risk for human health and the environment 16 ), are not subject to any other controls than those normally applied in commercial transactions;

·Amber listed wastes (presenting sufficient risk to justify their control) are largely those regulated under the Basel Convention (listed in its Annexes II 17 and VIII 18 ), supplemented with a number of specific wastes. They are subject to control procedures similar to the PIC procedure.

1.2.2 The EU legal framework

Waste is defined in the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) as any substance or object which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard 19 . To address the challenges linked to the treatment of this waste, and ensures that it is managed without endangering human health and harming the environment, the EU has developed comprehensive policies and legislation. The five-step “waste hierarchy”, established in the WFD, is a cornerstone of this EU waste management policy. It establishes the following priority order for waste prevention and management policies: prevention; reuse; recycling; other recovery operations (such as energy recovery); and finally disposal (such as incineration without energy recovery and landfilling). The EU waste management policy contributes to the circular economy by extracting high-quality resources from waste as much as possible.

The WFD provides criteria to distinguish when waste ceases to be waste and becomes a secondary raw material, and how to distinguish between waste and products. It also sets out specific rules on the management of “hazardous” waste, which poses a greater risk to the environment and human health than non-hazardous waste and therefore require a stricter control regime. The classification into hazardous and non-hazardous waste is based on the system for the classification and labelling of dangerous substances and preparations 20 .

The WSR implements the international obligations of the EU deriving from the Basel Convention and OECD Decision into EU law, but also contains stricter provisions. The WSR sets out control mechanisms for the export and import of waste from the EU to third countries, as well as for shipments between EU Member States (“intra-EU shipments”). The types of controls under the WSR depend on the characteristics of the waste (for example hazardous, non-hazardous), its destination and if its treatment is recovery (for example recycling) or disposal (for example landfilling) operations and aim to control the movement of hazardous and problematic waste, with the objective to protect the environment. The WSR also lays down export prohibitions for certain categories of waste and certain destinations: the most important examples are the prohibition to export hazardous waste from the EU to non-OECD countries and to export waste for disposal outside the European Economic Area (EEA) member countries.

The WSR establishes two types of control procedure for the shipment of waste across borders (applying both to intra-EU and extra-EU trade):

·The procedure of prior written notification and consent (“notification procedure”) applies to waste meant for disposal between EU countries or that belongs to certain categories (hazardous, household or residues from its incineration, hard-to-recycle plastics, and “unlisted waste”). The competent authorities of the dispatch, destination and transit countries have to give their consent to the shipment, within a given delay, before this shipment can take place. A general notification can cover multiple shipments. The WSR also contains specific provisions to simplify the notification procedure for the shipment within the EU of waste destined for recovery in facilities to which a “preconsent” has been issued by the competent authorities (so-called “pre-consented” facilities ). In this simplified notification procedure, the various deadlines for the instruction of the procedure are considerably shorter.

·An operator wishing to ship non-hazardous waste (“green listed waste”) for recovery in another country has to fulfil the general information requirements (Article 18) and make sure the shipment is accompanied by relevant documentation (Annex VII), but no prior consent is required.

All actors involved in shipments must ensure that waste is managed in an environmentally sound manner, respecting EU and international rules throughout the shipment process and during recovery or disposal. Therefore, the exporter or the country of destination must demonstrate that the facility receiving the waste will operate in accordance with human health and environmental protection standards that are broadly equivalent to the ones established in EU legislation (see Article 49 of the WSR). In addition, competent authorities in the EU Member State of export are required to ensure that the waste is managed in “an environmentally sound manner throughout the period of shipment, (and…) in the third country of destination  21 They should also prohibit such export if “it has reason to believe that the waste will not be managed in accordance with the requirements” 22 . These provisions are particularly important to ensure ESM of green-listed waste. The EU has adopted a unique regime in which each non-OECD country has to provide information to the Commission to determine whether green-listed waste may be imported for recovery from the EU to its territory and under which control procedure. The Commission compiles this information in a dedicated Regulation (EC) 1418/2007 23 . Neither this Regulation, nor the WSR itself contain precise provisions to verify ESM at destination. EU exporters are required to follow the control procedure of each country included in Regulation (EC) 1418/2007. In the absence of a confirmation from a specific country on the controls it requires, export of green-listed waste is subject to the notification procedure by default.

The WSR 24  includes provisions to address illegal shipments of waste, both within the EU and exported outside from the EU. For waste subject to the notification procedure,  the exporter has a duty to take back waste shipments that are found to be illegal or cannot be treated as intended (including the recovery or disposal of waste). For this purpose, all shipments requiring a notification also require a financial guarantee or equivalent insurance for the period that waste is shipped under the responsibility of the notifier, including the period needed for the final treatment of the waste.

The provisions of the WSR on enforcement were strengthened in 2014 25  and require Member States to establish inspection plans including a minimum set of elements, such as information on human, financial and other resources for inspections. The 2014 amendments provided enhanced powers to the authorities involved in inspections to reverse the burden-of-proof on exporters in order to determine whether a shipment can be considered illegal. Enforcement authorities in some Member States have indicated that this reversal of the burden of proof proved very helpful to facilitate inspections and investigations.

The WSR further requires Member States to lay down rules on penalties applicable for infringements of the WSR, which shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.

Figure 5 below provides an overview of the main features of the WSR.

Figure 5 – Overview of the main features of the WSR

 

1.2.3 Links with other EU legislation

There are important links between the WSR, the WFD and Directives governing specific waste streams. The ELV Directive, the Batteries Directive, the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive and the WEEE Directive 26 all contain reference to the WSR when it comes to regulating the transboundary shipments of the waste they regulate. The EU waste legislation contains ambitious and binding provisions for the attainment of high levels of recycling and the reduction of landfilling. In some instances, the Directives contain additional provisions designed to facilitate the implementation of the WSR for specific waste streams (for example Annex VI of the WEEE Directive on the distinction between used equipment and waste).

The overall purpose of these directives is to ensure sustainable management of the waste within their scope. As important volumes of these waste are shipped across borders, in order to reach the objectives of these directives, it is key that the provisions of the WSR are properly implemented. In particular, for the recycling targets in the WFD, waste can only be accounted for in the calculation of the recycling rates, if it was treated in broadly equivalent conditions in the country of destination. In the 2018 amendment of the WFD, the recycling calculation method has been specified and now requires additional monitoring and reporting on the environmentally sound treatment of exported wastes by exporting companies and competent authorities of exporting EU Member States. This issue is addressed in the Commission implementing decision on reporting requirements adopted in June 2019 27 . Similar rules are applicable for disposal targets: municipal waste shipped to another Member State or exported from the Union for the purpose of landfilling, is counted towards the amount of waste landfilled by the Member State in which that waste was collected 28 .

In addition to the rules on penalties laid down in the WSR, the Environmental Crime Directive 29  requires Member States to criminalise the shipment of waste, where this activity constitutes an ‘illegal shipment’ as defined in the Waste Shipment Regulation, and is undertaken in a non-negligible quantity. The Environmental Crime Directive requires Member States to penalise such offences with effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal sanctions. However, neither the WSR nor the Environmental Crime Directive prescribe the specific sanctions Member States are to incorporate into their national legislation.

1.3Evaluation of the WSR

The Commission carried out an evaluation of the WSR, which was finalised in January 2020 30 . It found that the regulation has several achievements. It provides legal clarity, minimises the negative impacts of hazardous waste shipments and contributes to the environmentally sound management of non-hazardous waste. It also creates a level playing field for waste shipments across the EU and provides useful information on the type of hazardous waste shipped, their routes and treatment methods.

The evaluation also identified the following main problems with regard to the implementation of the WSR:

·The WSR does not effectively support the transition to a circular economy within the EU, as some of its procedures are burdensome and are inconsistently implemented by the Member States, with the result that waste circulating within the EU fails to be properly and timely recycled. 

·Important volumes of waste are exported outside the EU, often without sufficient control of the conditions under which these waste are managed in the destination countries, especially in developing countries. This can harm the environment and public health in destination countries. The provisions of the WSR do not appear sufficient to address this situation, and their implementation is uneven across the EU.

·The enforcement of the WSR is also insufficient, which results in high amount of illegal shipments of waste occurring within the EU, as well as from the EU to third countries.

The conclusions of the WSR evaluation can be found more in detail in Annex 6. The development of this impact assessment is based on the evaluation. More information on the procedural aspects can be found in Annex 1. A synopsis report of these consultations can be found in Annex 2, and a more detailed analysis of the responses to the public consultations can be found in Annex 3.



2.Problem definition

Figure 5 below reproduces the main problems linked to the implementation of the Waste Shipment Regulation, as well as its drivers and consequences. To address each of these problems, this impact assessment defines objectives, which are described in section 4.

Figure 6 – Problem tree for the WSR review



2.1 What are the main problems that the review of the WSR seeks to address?

Problem 1: Waste shipped not always treated in line with the circular economy objectives in the EU

The most important issue is the complex, costly and time-consuming (mainly paper-based) procedures for shipping waste subject to the notification procedure. To avoid this procedure’s delays and potential costs, waste of good quality that would have been suitable to send to recycling facilities in another Member State might instead be sent for disposal in the country where it was generated. This hinders the transition towards a circular economy model, as waste is not being treated as high up the waste hierarchy as possible.

This problem is compounded by the fact that the WSR does not favour recycling (and preparation for re-use) over other recovery operations (like incineration for energy production ). Around 60% of notified waste currently shipped between Member States is not destined for recycling. This has raised concerns in some countries as waste treatment facilities (e.g. waste to energy and cement kilns) prefer to treat imported waste (often of better specifications for their process) over the domestic one. This reduces the incentives to separately collect and sort domestic waste, as it will not be treated in appropriate treatment facilities.

Currently, there is no data on the final destination of “green-listed” waste. However, one can assume that also for green-listed waste some recyclable waste is being sent for other waste management operations. Whilst in 2018 a substantial part of the EU waste legislation was amended to enhance its contribution to a circular economy (e.g. notably via the setting of targets to increase recycling rates and reduce landfilling), no amendement was made to the WSR.

There are currently 331 pre-consented facilities in 15 Member States. This limited number compared to the large number of recycling facilities in the EU is due to the fact that the WSR does not set the criteria to grant the pre-consented status to a facility. Therefore, Member States have their own criteria and often do not recognise a pre-consented facility authorised in other Member States. Therefore, this simplified and faster procedure is not used as much as it could be and waste shipment companies are subject to the full, more cumbersome procedure for more of their shipments.

Finally, there are different interpretations in EU Member States of what constitutes a waste or not, on what is considered a hazardous or non-hazardous waste and on the thresholds for impurities that determines whether a waste is considered a mixed waste. This leads to inconsistent approaches of national authorities in terms of whether the notification procedure is necessary and hampers legal clarity for economic operators active on the EU market. In turn these lead to delays in shipments of waste, with additional costs to waste shipment companies, mainly due to waste storage costs before transport. As regards to what constitutes a waste or not, in 2015, the Commission provided guidance on the correlation between waste codes and customs codes 31 , but both private and public stakeholders have indicated that this guidance is of limited added-value to them.

Problem 2: mismanagement of the EU exported waste in third countries

Despite the obligation in the WSR to ensure that waste is treated in third countries in an environmentally sound manner, large amounts of waste exported from the EU are not. There is evidence 32 that the export of waste streams from the EU to countries where their treatment is not environmentally sound, can generate important negative externalities on environment and public health, such as air, soil, water and marine pollution. They can exacerbate global environmental problems (for example oceans affected by pollution due to discharge of plastic waste, or increase in greenhouse gas emissions due to the treatment/processing practices for these wastes). 

An important driver for the mismanagement of waste exported from the EU is the difficulty to verify that this waste is managed in an environmentally sound manner in the countries of destination. As indicated above, the WSR requires that the Member State of export, as well as the companies exporting the waste from the EU, ensure that the waste is managed without endangering human health and in an environmentally sound manner during the shipment and the treatment stages 33 . In practice, the implementation of these provisions has proved to be a very difficult task 34 as there are no clear criteria defining the environmental sound management of waste.

Overall, the legal framework set up by the WSR to ensure the sound management of waste exported from the EU does not function properly, especially for non-OECD countries 35 .


Problem 3: illegal shipments of waste

The policy against organised crime for the period 2018-2021 36  identifies illegal shipment of waste as one of the most serious forms of environmental crime and hence as a priority. Furthermore, the EU Strategy to tackle Organised Crime 2021-2025 37  also mentions that environmental crime, including illegal waste shipments, deserves particular attention. 

Illegal waste shipments undermine the legitimate waste treatment and recycling industries. Estimates by a recent study 38  suggest that the annual revenues derived from the illicit waste market in the EU range between 4 and 15 billion euro (mid-point figure of 9.5 billion euro).

Illegal shipments occur both between EU countries and between the EU and third countries. Illegal shipments of waste within the EU occur when waste, instead of being sent to a proper treatment facility, is shipped to another Member State to be stored for an indefinite amount of time, landfilled illegally, dumped or even burned 39 . Also, significant amounts of waste leave the EU illegally to end up in third countries that often cannot treat the waste in a sustainable manner. Examples of illegal export of waste from the EU include export of plastic waste to South East Asia, e-waste or end-of-life vehicles to West Africa 40 , or household waste to North Africa 41 . It is difficult to obtain reliable data on the extent of this illegal activity due to its very nature and gaps in reporting. The European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law (IMPEL) reports that of 30.8% of inspected waste shipments were in violation of the WSR in 2016 and 33.4% in 2017 42 . These numbers are higher than those previously reported by IMPEL. Also, these cases do not reflect the overall number of inspections and violations in the EU, as they were reported as part of joint activities carried out over six inspection periods under the umbrella of IMPEL. The figure below provides an overview of the main international illegal waste trade routes.

It is uncertain to which extent all the provisions in the WSR on enforcement have been applied by all Member States as there is little information to assess their implementation and it is difficult to assess the precise evolution of numbers of illegal shipments. Despite the legal framework in the WSR, there is no indication that illegal shipments have decreased recently. The restrictions linked to the export of plastic waste established by some importing countries have on the contrary led to a steep increase in illegal shipments of plastic waste 43 .

Figure 7 – Global illegal waste traffic

Source: Rucevska et al. 2015; Nellemann et al., 2016

2.2 What are the problem drivers?

The most important drivers for each of the three problems are presented below. Some of these drivers are common to more than just one problem, but are mentioned in relation to the problem for which they are more prevalent. More detailed explanations on the problem drivers can be found in Annex 8 to this report.


Problem 1: obstacles to the good functioning of the EU internal waste market in support of the transition to a circular economy

Around 20 million tonnes of waste per year are shipped under the notification procedure. Competent authorities in Member States were consulted on the notification procedure and based on the 16 responses received, the extrapolated EU-27 number of notifications is around 21500 each year. This targeted consultation also provided some data to better identify the administrative burden linked to this procedure. The main burden stems from the handling of these notifications. From data provided by national or regional competent authorities, it appears that hanlding these procedures with electronic systems saves almost 50% of staff time compared to handling them in paper format. The handling of this extensive paper work complicated the shipment of waste and can result in long delays as the various documents required to authorise a shipments are requested and sent by post. Waste shipment companies have voiced their concerns as these delays increase their costs while waiting for the shipment, mainly in terms of storage costs.

Stakeholders have raised a number of concerns on the financial guarantees. Stakeholders criticise that the amounts of such guarantees are excessively high, rarely used and that the levels applied in the different Member States for these guarantees vary widely 44 . Indeed, from the document compiled by the European Commission in 2016 45 , it is apparent that some countries do not indicate how they will calculate the necessary financial guarantee. Some waste shipment companies call for the Commission to abolish the regime for these guarantees altogether. A second point raised by stakeholders and competent authorities is that in some rare cases the amount provided through the guarantee was not sufficient to cover the actual costs. Or in cases of illegal shipments that have not been notified, no guarantee has been set-up in the first place. In these cases, the national authorities bear the costs of the dealing with the illegal shipment. The third concern brought forward by many are the different approaches in different Member States to calculate the amount for the financial guarantee. The proposed measures aims to address this problem, which actually can be addressed on EU level and would enhance the harmonisation and predictability for companies to budget the obligation to provide a financial guarantee in case they want to ship waste under a notification procedure.

Problem 2: mismanagement of EU generated waste in third countries

Regulation (EC) 1418/2007 is an important source of information on the various legal frameworks in place in non-OECD third countries on the import of waste from the EU. Its purpose is mainly to inform traders of the applicable rules in importing countries. It does not have provisions to help verifying that the exported waste is managed in a sustainable manner. In addition, many third countries do not respond to the Commission requests, many responses are not sufficiently clear and the domestic rules change regularly, which means that the Regulation quickly becomes outdated. As explained in section 1.4.2, the WSR foresees that exporting companies and competent authorities should verify that waste exported from the EU are managed in an environmentally sound manner. However, there are no clear provisions in the WSR on how this should be done, which is an important driver for the mismanagement of waste exported from the EU in the countries of destination 46 .

Waste is exported outside as it is more profitable for exporters to ship waste for treatment outside the EU. In many third countries, treatment will be cheaper due to lower operating costs. This is linked to lower labour costs and to provisions governing waste management activities and the industrial processing of waste into secondary materials that are less developed and detailed than EU legislation 47 . About half of the exported waste is destined to non-OECD countries, which often have lower environmental and public health rules and thus do not fully take into account the environmental and health externalities of waste treatment. Therefore, there is a serious risk that the waste exported from the EU to these countries is not managed in a sustainable manner.

There is an important demand in third countries for waste from the EU, which is reprocessed by the local manufacturing (paper, plastics, and textile) or metal industries. The lack of corresponding demand in the EU for such wastes or the recycled materials after their treatment, is mentioned by exporters as the reason for the substantial volume of export to third countries.

Finally, a specific driver for the problems posed by the export of waste outside the EU is the difficulty to distinguish between waste and used goods or equipment. This is particular problematic for some waste streams like e-waste, end-of-life vehicles, batteries or tyres. This issue is also relevant for the question of illegal shipment presented below.

Problem 3: illegal shipments of waste

The main drivers for the high levels of illegal shipment of waste are (i) their economic profitability, (ii) non comparable resources and insufficient coordination at national and EU level, (iii) the lack of deterrent sanctions, and (iv) the lack of traceability of some waste shipments.

The first driver is related to the profits some actors can make by disregarding the waste shipment rules by reducing or avoiding the costs linked to the proper transport and management of waste. It is estimated that profits up to 9.5 billion euro per year ar made by criminal networks in this context. With more countries imposing import bans, illicit waste trade is expected to remain an issue and it might even grow if no coordinated actions are taken to address this problem.

The insufficient priority given to address illegal shipments of waste is the second important driver for its prevalence. This results in a lack of resources in Member States to prevent, control and investigate illegal waste trade activities.

The third driver is related to the effectiveness of penalties/sanctions to discourage actors from engaging into the illegal shipments. Highly variable practices in different Member States and often limited amounts of financial penalties are the main issues here. While this problem is common to other forms of environmental crime, it is of particular acuity for illegal shipments of waste, which does not seem to be treated as seriously as other forms of criminality.

The fourth driver is the limited traceability of waste streams, especially green-listed waste. Also, by trading waste via a multitude of intermediate actors, traders and dealers, the trace of where waste originated and/oris sent to, is often lost or very difficult to retrieve.

2.3Who is affected and how?

Society as a whole (general public): An effective and efficient legal and procedural framework to control and monitor waste shipment ensures that waste is shipped and treated under environmentally sound conditions. This contributes significantly to the overall environmental and public health protection of citizens in the EU and in third countries importing waste from the EU.

Waste producers: the companies generating waste are responsible for their sustainable management, in accordance with the polluter-pays principle. While most of these companies are generally not directly involved in the management of waste, they often contribute financially to this activity. This is especially the case for those placing products (like packaging) on the EU market, which are subject to “Extended Producer Responsibility” schemes. When products become waste, which is shipped to another country, the waste producers need to ensure that it is managed properly. Some producer responsibility organisations (PRO) have set up criteria to check that this is the case. The WSR provisions on the verification of the environmentally sound management of waste in third countries are of direct relevance for these actors.

Companies involved in waste management (collection, sorting and treatment of waste): Based on the statistical classification of economic activities 48 , there is a large heterogeneity of the economic actors involved in the EU waste sector which is dominated by micro and small companies in terms of number of companies but by medium and large companies in terms of turnover. These larger companies are the ones likely to be most involved in the shipment of waste outside the EU. The companies active in the whole waste management supply chain are affected by the WSR, in view of the integrated nature of the waste markets in the EU and since some waste (e.g. metal scrap, paper waste, and plastic waste) are internationally-traded commodities. The decision to ship or receive waste to or from another country depends on commercial factors, but also on the provisions of the WSR and its impact on these transactions. The first companies (or municipalities) concerned are those collecting waste, which they will typically send to sorting facilities; in many cases these facilities are located in the country where the waste is collected, but they can also be abroad. Collected waste can also be sent directly to treatment facilities (in the country where it was collected or abroad), when the waste does not require prior sorting. A second category are the sorting companies, which are important players in the shipping of waste to third countries: first, because a number of them rely on the arrival of unsorted waste from other EU Member States for their supply and, second, because, once sorted, these waste are further sent to treatment facilities. For some waste streams, these treatment facilities are often located outside the EU. Finally, companies that treat or process waste into secondary materials located in one EU Member State also rely on feedstock which comes from other countries. It should also be noted that a number of companies across the EU perform all types of waste management activities (collection, sorting, treatment) and have developed international activities relying on the shipments of waste from different countries, as part of their overall integrated waste management strategies. The WSR has a direct impact on the activities of all these companies as it sets common rules, which ensure a level playing field. This brings benefits in terms of legal clarity and avoid unfair competition, as all companies are subject to the same rules across the EU. It can also generate costs, especially when the WSR is not implemented in a harmonised manner between the different Member States, or when companies consider that the costs linked to the procedures in the WSR are disproportionate to the aims that it seeks to achieve. Companies involved in waste treatment in third countries, notably in countries importing large volumes of waste from the EU, are also affected by the WSR.

Waste traders: companies specialised in trading activities are also be affected by the WSR. They do not perform activities related to waste management, but are dealing with shipments of waste. Their main activity consists in purchasing, shipping and selling waste, which is considered as a tradable commodity like many others.

Public authorities: The implementation and enforcement of the WSR is a responsibility of the competent authorities in the EU Member States. They are therefore key actors for the good functioning of the WSR and will be affected by future changes to it. Public authorities in third countries in charge of import and export of waste, as well of the management of imported waste, are also affected by the WSR, as its provisions require that the rules and practices of third countries for import and waste management are taken into consideration.

Member States: The economic profile and geographical position of a Member State influence its exposure on waste export, both for intra- and extra-EU shipments. Some Member States are generally relying more than others on shipments of wastes either to other EU Member States or outside the EU. Germany is by far the largest exporter of waste by volume, reflecting that industrialised countries are important actors in the shipment of waste. Belgium and Netherlands are among the largest exporters of waste to third countries, largely due to their port infrastructure. Together with Germany, these countries receive considerable amounts of waste from other Member States, and then export it outside the EU. For instance, these three countries received 40% of all plastic waste shipped from other Member States in 2019. Due to their geographical conditions and limited treatment capacity, Member States such as Ireland, Cyprus, Malta are dependent on exports outside the EU. Italy and France also rely more than other Member States on exports due to more limited domestic capacity.

2.4How will the problem evolve?

If no action is taken, the most likely scenario is that the problems set out in section 2 will continue to undermine the efficiency, effectiveness and added-value of the WSR. More information on these points is provided in section 5 of this report.

3.Why should the EU act?

3.1Legal basis

The existing legal basis of the WSR is Article 192 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union that effectively sets the manner in which Article 191 of the Treaty should be implemented. Article 191 addresses EU policy on the environment that must contribute to pursue the following objectives:

·preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment,

·protecting human health,

·utilising natural resources prudently and rationally,

·promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in particular to combat climate change.

The WSR pursues all these objectives. In addition, the rules governing the shipments of waste within the EU are also of relevance for the functioning of the internal market, while the rules governing shipments of waste outside the EU are relevant for the EU common commercial policy.

3.2Subsidiarity: Necessity and added-value of EU action

As provided in Article 5 of the TFEU, the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level. 

The WSR ensures that the EU comprehensive waste legislation is not circumvented by shipping waste to third countries, where waste management standards and performance greatly differ from the EU ones. It is important that common rules on the control of transboundary movements of waste are set out at the EU level, to avoid a situation where illegal operators would chose to ship their waste through EU countries with less strict domestic rules than others, to export this waste outside the EU (port-hopping scenario). EU rules are also justified for intra-EU shipments of waste, in view of the fact that the EU waste industry is highly integrated and in order to ensure equal treatment and legal clarity to all economic actors in this sector.

The added-value of an EU approach to waste shipment is also that it ensures consistency in the implementation of the Basel Convention and the OECD Decision by each Member States. The detailed provisions contained in the WSR avoid that Member States develop different interpretations of these provisions, which would hamper the shipments of waste within the EU. As indicated earlier, stakeholders often complain that the EU rules on the shipments of waste are actually not sufficiently detailed in some aspects, which result in diverging national approaches and impede the good functioning of the EU single market. In addition, the EU approach to waste shipment is stricter than the Basel Convention when it comes to export of waste, as it prohibits the export of waste for disposal outside EFTA countries and the export of some non-hazardous waste 49 outside the OECD. The EU approach has a clear environmental added-value compared to each Member State individually relying on the Basel Convention. Indeed, the EU is one of the only Parties to the Basel Convention to apply such strict rules (as an example, the United Kingdom will not apply a prohibition of the export of plastic waste which became listed in Annex II of the Basel Convention in 2021, while they would have had to do it if they had remained in the EU).

4.Objectives: What is to be achieved?

The overall objective of the review of the WSR is to increase the level of protection of the environment and public health from the impacts of unsound transboundary shipments of waste. It pursues the ambitious approach laid down in the Green Deal and the Circular Economyc Action Plan to ensure higher levels of recycling of waste and the creation of a dynamic market for secondary raw materials in the EU. It also promotes this ambition at the international level, through concrete measures in favour of the sustainable management of waste exported to third countries. The table below described the three general objectives, as well as associated specific objectives.

There are synergies between the specific objectives. For example, the reduction of administrative burdens by moving from a paper based procedural framework to a model of electronic interchange of documents and data, will reduce costs related to shipments of waste, but will also enhance the ability of competent authorities to monitor these shipments (within the EU, but also beyond), better organise enforcement actions and allow for an improved and quicker reporting.

Table 1 – Objectives for the review of the WSR

General objectives

Specific objectives

Facilitate shipments within the EU, in particular to align the WSR with circular economy objectives

1.1 Reduce administrative burden for intra-EU shipments of waste

1.2 Increase the amount of waste shipped for treatment higher up the waste hierarchy

1.3 Harmonise the interpretation and the application of the WSR across Member States

Guarantee that waste exported outside the EU is managed in an environmentally sound manner

2.1 Stop the export of the waste from the EU where it will not be managed in an environmentally sound manner

2.2 Improve waste management in third countries

Better address illegal shipments of waste within and outside the EU

3.1 Further strengthen the WSR’s provisions on enforcement and inspections

3.2 Strengthen cooperation within the Member States, across the EU and with international partners

5.Baseline

The baseline scenario considers that the Basel Convention and the OECD Decision will remain largely unchanged until at least 2030. In addition, the current WSR, including its delegated Regulation, will continue to be applicable. Its current implementation will continue and harmonisation across Member States would be further pursued through existing efforts, notably the development of guidance and ad hoc exchanges between Member States, mostly via the Waste Shipment Correspondents. The EU will also continue to promote global measures to improve the control of transboundary movements of waste and waste management in international organisations, especially the Basel Convention and the OECD. The baseline scenario also takes account of the COVID-19 pandemic presented in the box below.

The EU initiatives in support of a circular economy and the recent changes in the EU waste legislation should lead to improvements in the separate collection of waste, higher recycling rates and higher uptake of recycled materials in products put on the EU market. It is also expected that additional capacity for recycling will be made available in the EU in the coming years. These factors should help fostering recycling and re-use of waste in the EU.

However, they will not solve all the problems described in section 2.1. The EU market for recycling will continue to be hampered by burdensome procedures, leading to the export of waste outside the EU in sometimes unsustainable conditions without clear means to avoid it, and to illegal shipments that continue to create serious environmental harm. More specifically, with regard to intra-EU shipments of waste, stakeholders in the context of the EEA work on intra-EU shipments of waste indicated that the current procedures for shipping hazardous and other waste subject to the notification procedure poses significant obstacles to the optimal functioning of the EU market. In particular the delays while waiting for a consent during the notification procedure often cause large volumes of waste not to be directed to recycling, but to in-country destinations where they will be treated to generate energy, be incinerated or landfilled.

Guidance on various topics has been developed since the WSR was adopted in 2006, and in a baseline scenario more guidance can be expected to come. Experience has shown that, partly because of its non-binding nature, guidance will not completely discontinue the disharmonised implementation of the provisions of the WSR, and for some of the issues that were identified, it is doubtful that the Commission would find the support with Member States to even start developing guidance, such as for many issues related to enforcement.

With regard to the export of waste outside the EU, it should be acknowledged that any projection into future trends is challenging. Future exports will depend on many factors, including the generation of waste in the EU, the impact of the EU and international rules on the management and shipment of waste, the prices of waste commodities and virgin materials on the international market, and third countries’ decisions on imports of waste from the EU. Such reluctance of some third countries to import waste is one important factor but it will not necessarily lead to a downwards trend of exports from the EU. It might impact more some waste streams (plastics and paper notably) than others, and is also likely to lead to shifts of exports to other countries. For instance, the exports of plastic waste from the EU have considerably changed since 2018, with South East Asian countries first becoming major importers after the closure of the Chinese market, after then restricting themselves such imports, which led to exports being re-routed to Turkey which became in 2019-2020 one of the main importers of plastic waste. In 2021 though, Tukey itself decided to restrict their import of plastic waste. The international regulatory context on waste shipment is therefore quite volatile and projections of future trends need to be treated with caution.

In this context, the report has used a linear regression model based on the trends in the export of waste from the EU observed in the last 15 years, in order to project the levels of waste expected to be exported from the EU until 2030. The regression model was applied to the most traded wastes (ferrous, non-ferrous, paper, plastic, textile, glass). On this basis, the baseline shows that the overall export of waste from the EU will continue to increase until 2030 even though the European Commission aims at a reduction of waste generated, while import of waste are expected to decline. The table below provides an overview of these results. Recently published data indicates that the 2020 projection is underestimtad with the real figure being nearly 33 million tonnes 50 . In view of the challenges described above to predict correctly future projections, the report usually uses the data on export from 2019 to assess future changes in policies and the impact of the various measures presented in this report.

More information on these trends, on the most commonly exported waste streams, can be found in Annex 7. These figures were used to assess the impacts of the different measures. This increase in exports will mean an increase in the problems linked to their possible mismanagement in third countries.

Table 2 – Forecast of amounts of waste (tonnes) exported from the EU to third countries under the baseline scenario

The challenges linked to illegal shipment of waste are also expected to grow in the future. The EU waste management rules have set stricter conditions for waste treatment in the coming years, with requirements to increase recycling and decrease landfilling. In line with the orientations set out in the Circular Economy Action Plan on environmental taxation, an increase in landfill and incineration taxes can also be expected in the coming years in the EU Member States. International rules on the shipment of plastic waste which apply from 2020 will also be stricter. All of these changes will represent additional costs for some waste operators, notably those dealing with waste currently destined to other treatments than recycling, as they would have to change their practices (to ensure better sorting of their waste for example) or pay higher taxes. It is likely that criminal groups will seek opportunities to take advantage of this situation, with the aim to offer alternative and cheaper solutions to waste operators (for example offer them to deal with their waste at a price lower than the cost linked to their proper treatment, and subsequently transport them in an illegal site). The perspective of making important economic gains, coupled with limited control over transboundary shipments of waste, limited coordination between Member States and low levels of sanctions, means that a continuation of illegal shipments of waste is very likely, in the absence of a stronger response from the EU and its Member States.

Indeed, the 2021 EU Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment (EU SOCTA) 51 , produced by Europol on the basis of extensive contributions from Member States and other stakeholders, highlights that waste crime are likely to increase in the foreseeable future. The growing waste management industry will continue to present novel opportunities for criminal exploitation in those jurisdictions where legislation and controls remain weak. Criminal networks operating globally are able to shift their activities swiftly in reaction to legal changes or to emerging opportunities. The Covid19 pandemic has increased the risks of criminal infiltration of sanitary waste management business. Sanitary waste may be illegally stored, dumped or trafficked relying on document counterfeiting.

BOX 1:The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on waste shipments

The crisis linked to the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the importance of waste shipments across the EU.

Indeed, as a first response to the crisis, individual Member States took measures to restrict the cross-border movements of commodities (including waste). These measures created difficulties for operators in different Member States who could no longer transfer their waste to the intended treatment facility. Some waste shipments had to be suspended and the waste stored, pending confirmation that the shipments could be completed. In some cases this waste was landfilled as there was no possibility to ship it to a treatment facility in another Member State. Hence, the waste could not be treated in the most effective manner according to the waste hierarchy and the performant waste collection and treatment in various parts of the Union was jeopardised.

The Commission provided advice on how to ensure a continuation of waste shipment within the EU in this context in a specific guidance document 52 and the initial difficulties were alleviated after a few weeks. However, the situation effectively demonstrated that the EU waste market is subject to a high level of integration– i.e. that the EU is generally the right scale for waste operations.

The COVID-19 also impacted the procedures linked to the WSR. The production and exchange of paper-based documents became more challenging or impossible, which prompted the use of electronic means as the most common and practical way of dealing with the notification and general information procedures. This illustrated the potential of electronic systems to significantly increase the efficiency of the Regulation’s implementation. It also showed the readiness and willingness of a large majority of involved actors’ to shift to such electronic systems. In fact many Member States’ competent authorities have indicated they intend to continue the practices introduced to avoid the use of paper when handling notification request.

The crisis also strongly affected plastic recycling 53 . The drop in crude oil value lead to a decline in virgin polymer prices resulting in turn in a drop in prices and demand for recycled plastics. This undermined the economic viability of many plastics recyclers across Europe. If this situation persists this will reduce the incentives to invest in additional recycling facilities which the industry says are needed to achieve the objectives of the Green Deal and the CEAP. The demand and prices for waste from PET plastic bottles have remained stable thanks to recycled content targets set by the Single-Use Plastics Directive, demonstrating the relevance of pull measures on the demand side.

The other impacts of the pandemic, concerning volumes of health-care waste and their crossing of borders, are likely to remain relevant for the remainder of the COVID-19 crisis while it is expected that these issues will diminish in magnitude as the crisis is more effectively managed.

Some problems were also reported concerning shipments of waste to or from non-EU countries due to the COVID-19 crisis. The export of textile waste to third countries was raised as an issue with some third countries putting in place bans on the import of textile wastes from the EU, or strengthening already existing import restrictions for such waste.

6.What are the available policy options for the review of the WSR?

6.1 Description and screening of the measures

This section presents potential measures for each of the specific objectives of the review. These measures were identified as a result of the comprehensive assessment of the implementation of the WSR, its evaluation and the wide consultation carried out in support of this impact assessment. A more detailed description of the measures can be found in Annex 9 to this report.

6.1.1 Description of potential measures to address the objectives of the review of the WSR

Objective 1: Facilitate shipments within the EU, in particular to align the WSR with circular economy objectives

Specific objective 1.1: Simplification and reduction of administrative burden for intra-EU shipments of waste

Improve the regime of “pre-consented facilities” by establishing harmonised conditions/requirements that need to be fulfilled in order for a recovery facility to be preconsented by a Member State. Mututal recognition would be required for facilities that were pre-consented based on the harmonised criteria (i.e. all Member States involved in a shipment will be required to follow Article 14 procedure if the shipment is destined to a facility pre-consented by any Member State). The measure would also set a default three year consent period for shipments to pre-consented facilities, while preserving the prerogative for competent authorities to limit any consent in time or by attaching specific conditions to it.

Adapt the Regulation to remove the financial guarantee regime and no longer require such guarantees.

Allow the financial guarantee system via a national fund or via an EU fund. The WSR would introduce the possibility for Member States to set up a national fund or alternatively, to set up such a fund on the EU level.

The fund would collect fees from notifiers for each notification request or shipment, possibly taking into account certain criteria to determine the value of the fee (e.g. amount and nature of waste or risk assessment).

Streamline the financial guarantee system by harmonising the calculation method of the amount required for these guarantees. The WSR would empower the Commission to adopt secondary legislation to harmonise the calculation method for the amount required under the financial guarantee or equivalent insurance. This measure could build on existing transparency efforts where the Commission compiled the different calculation methods of different countries 54 .

Streamline the notification procedures and related administrative elements. These include the destination and amount of waste exempted from the notification procedure when the shipment is meant for laboratory test and trials of research and development activitiesor. In addition, English would be established as an additional language to the national ones of the countries concerned by the shipment. Other changes aimed at rationalising some of the procedural delays are proposed under the assumption that EDI will be in place and that information will be digitally and immediately available of uploaded information.

Clarify the scope of the WSR with regard to waste that is covered by other legislation. This includes the following waste streams: animal-byproducts, demilitarized ammunition, and end-of-life vessels.

Introduce an additional new procedure for certain shipments of certain hazardous waste destined to certified facilities. This measure would introduce an additional procedure that would not require a prior consent for certain waste streams that are currently subject to the prior notification and consent procedure, like hazardous waste, that move from and to certified facilities. This certification would be based on applicable standards or certification schemes and would require a regular audit of the involved companies. Currently, only WEEE as a waste stream and certain treatment facilities, possibly certified in the near future, seem to be eligible for such a procedure. This would not be coherent with the rest of the provisions of the WSR that are based on the distinction between hazardous and non-hazardous waste rather than on different waste streams.

Set up a mandatory EU-wide electronic data interchange (EDI) to issue and share documents and information linked to the implementation of the procedures under the WSR. The WSR would set out the conditions or empower the Commission to adopt detailed provisions on the functioning of the EDI via delegated or implementing acts (e.g. interconnectivity, architecture, security) that would allow competent authorities and economic actors to use the system. This obligation would apply 24 months from the entry into force of the revised WSR. More specific information on this measure is provided in Annexes 9 and 10.

Ensure mutual recognition at EU level of carriers of waste registered in one Member State. When a company is duly registered in one Member State to carry out the transportation of waste, it would automatically be authorised to transport waste across borders in all EU Member States.

Specific objective 1.2: Better align the rules on waste shipment with the waste hierarchy

Align the WSR provisions with the waste hierarchy. Shipments of waste destined for disposal operations, such as landfills or incineration without energy recovery, would be prohibited except in limited and well-justified circumstances (for example for outermost regions or islands or for shipments to landfills in a neighbouring country where this is the nearest-by option). The possibilities for Member States to limit shipments destined to other forms of recovery, like energy recovery, to their territory would be clarified. Finally, the WSR would limit the grounds for a Member State to object to shipment of waste destined for reuse or recycling from/into another Member State.

Apply stricter rules to shipments destined to recovery operations other than reuse and recycling. This measure would subject shipments of all waste destined for incineration with energy recovery (R1) and other non-recycling recovery (like backfilling) to the prior notification and consent procedure.

Specific objective 1.3: harmonisation of interpretation, application and enforcement across Member States

Issue guidance on current problematic issues. The development of guidance is typically part of a baseline scenario. However, to underline the importance of specific issues that need harmonisation or simplification, this measure would include in the WSR an explicit delegation to the Commission to issue guidance documents on the alignment with the waste hierarchy, the application of common contamination thresholds linked to the classification of waste, and on the classification of waste under various coding systems according to different pieces of legislation.

Ensure alignment with the provision on end-of-waste and byproducts in the Waste Framework Directive. This measure would amend Article 28(1) of the WSR, to add an explicit reference to the relevant provisions in the Waste Framework Directive on criteria for the definition of byproducts and end of waste.

Task the Commission to set thresholds for contamination of wastes to determine if they should be subject to the notification procedure or not through delegated/implementing acts. This measure would empower the Commission to adopt delegated or implementing acts to determine, for certain wastes, acceptable levels of contamination or impurities to classify that waste as “green-listed” under Annex III or IIIA of the WSR.

Establish mutual recognition of national end-of-waste criteria for the purpose of waste shipments. Under this measure, the WSR would set out the principle that, if a Member State has defined criteria for the determination of end-of-waste status for a specific commodity, and, on that basis, has classified a specific commodity as non-waste for the purpose of shipping this commodity to another Member State, the commodity in question would have to be recognised as non-waste by all EU Member States involved in its shipment. The criteria used by the Member State to classify a commodity as end-of-waste would have to comply with the EU end-of-waste criteria in the waste framework Directive. This measure would be different from the current regime in the WSR 55 , whereby in case of dispute over waste classification between Member States, the solution is always that the commodity in question will be classified as a waste. The measure could foresee that it could be either the view of the country of dispatch which prevails, or the view of the country of destination.

Establish mutual recognition of national decision in relation to the hazardousness/contaminated nature of wastes for the purpose of waste shipments. Under this measure, the WSR would set out the principle that, if a Member State has classified a specific waste as not being subject to the notification procedure (because this waste is not hazardous or does not meet other conditions for notified waste, for example is contaminated), this decision should be recognised by all EU Member States involved in the shipment of this waste. This measure would reverse the current current logic in the WSR 56 , whereby in case of dispute over waste classification between Member States on whether the waste should be notified or not, the solution is that the commodity in question will be classified as a notified waste. The measure could foresee that it could be either the view of the country of dispatch which prevails, or the view of the country of destination.

Objective 2: Guarantee that waste exported outside the EU is managed in an environmentally sound manner

Specific objectives

2.1: Stop the export of the waste from the EU where it will not be managed in an environmentally sound manner

2.2: Improve waste management in third countries 

Specify obligations for exporters and public authorities to ensure and verify that waste exported to third countries are managed in an environmentally sound manner. This measure would introduce provisions in the WSR to require that companies exporting waste outside the EU set out and implement independent auditing/traceability schemes to ensure that exported waste is sustainably managed in the receiving facilities in third courties. These schemes would apply to the whole supply chain of these exports (i.e. transport of waste; treament in facilities located in the destination countries, including treatment of residual waste from recycling facilities). The schemes would be based on criteria designed to ensure that the waste in question is managed in environmentally sound manner, according to rules/standards which are broadly equivalent to EU standards. These criteria would be defined in an Annex to the WSR, which could be modified through delegated or implementing acts. This measure would also include a requirement for national competent authorities in the EU Member States to check that EU exporting companies comply with their obligations to verify that waste are dealt with according to ESM principles in destination countries and for the Commission to assist and oversee the EU Member States in this task.

Task the Commission, via implementing or delegated acts, to set out criteria to differentiate between used goods and waste, for specific waste streams for which export to third countries raises particular challenges. This measure would allow to define legally-binding and enforceable criteria to differentiate between used goods and waste, for the purpose of the shipments of waste. The decisions by the Commission would be taken for specific commodities, with a selection based on specific problems experienced in the distinction between waste and used goods. This procedure would not impact existing EU legal acts which already lay out criteria for such distinction for specific waste streamns (like waste electronic and electrical equipment (WEEE), for which such criteria are defined in Annex VI of Directive 2012/19/EU).

Ban all exports of waste from the EU to third countries. This measure would involve the establishment of a complete ban on all export of waste from the EU without any exemption, including to OECD member countries.

Ban export of all waste to non-OECD countries. Under this measure, the Regulation would prohibit the export of waste to countries that are not members of the OECD, without any exemption.

Establish a new framework for the export of green-listed waste from the EU to a non-OECD country, according to which such export is only authorised to those countries that notify the EU of their willingness to import green-listed waste and demonstrate their ability to treat it sustainably, in accordance with criteria set out in the WSR. Under this measure, the WSR would establish a procedure that provides that export of waste to non-OECD countries would only be authorised to those countries that notify the Commission that they wish to import one or more green-listed waste from the EU and demonstrate their overall ability as a country to deal with them sustainably based on criteria set in the WSR. This measure would build on and complement the obligation currently laid down in the WSR 57 to verify that waste exported to third countries is managed in an environmentally sound manner (i.e. in accordance with human health and environmental protection standards broadly equivalent to EU legislation). The Commission would assess this information and then decide whether the criteria for sustainable management of the waste are met. If the Commission comes to the conclusion that these countries comply with the criteria, the Commission would include them in a list of countries authorised to import waste from the EU, which would be regularly updated through a delegated/implementing act.

Require that the export of green-listed waste outside the OECD is subject to the notification procedure

Under this measure, all export of green-listed waste outside the OECD would be subject to the notification procedure, which implies that the competent authorities of the countries of export, transit and destination would have to give their consent to the shipments of waste, before the shipments can take place.

Set up a specific procedure to monitor export of waste to OECD countries and mitigate environmental problems that might be caused by such exports. Under this measure, the Commission would be tasked to monitor the levels of export of waste from the EU to OECD countries, and the Commission would be empowered to launch a process towards a given country to evaluate if export cans till occur there, which could ultimately lead to banning the export of some waste to the country concerned if it can not be demonstrated that the waste in question is not managed in an environmentally sound manner.

Establish a new mechanism governing the export of waste outside the EU, which would operate a distinction between processed and unprocessed waste. Under this measure, the WSR would introduce new control mechanisms for the export of waste outside the EU, which would be different depending on whether the waste concerned is processed or unprocessed.

Task a dedicated Agency (or similar body) at the EU level to monitor export of waste as well as their treatment in third countries. This measure would entrust a dedicated Agency or similar EU level body with specific tasks to monitor waste shipments and the treatment at destination.

Objective 3: Better address illegal shipments of waste within and outside the EU

Specific objective 3.1: Further strengthen the WSR’s provisions on enforcement and inspections 

Complement existing provisions on inspection plans. This measure would complement the existing provisions of the WSR by requiring Member States to notify their inspections plans to the Commission, which would be tasked to assess these plans, with a view to providing further support to Member States and facilitatating the development of a harmnonised approach for inspections across the EU.

Issue guidance on efficient inspections and enforcement practices. As for the guidance mentioned above, the development thhereof is typically part of a baseline scenario. However, to underline the importance of specific issues related to enforcement of the WSR, this measure would provide a delegation to the Commission to adopt guidance related to enforcement practices, and inspection prioritisation and cooperation.

Empower the Commission (through OLAF) to carry out transnational investigative and coordinating actions against waste trafficking in the EU. This measure would entitle the Commission (through its anti fraud office, OLAF) to carry out investigative and coordinating actions in respect of illegal waste shipments within the EU (intra-EU) and towards third countries to assist the Member States in enforcing the provisions of the WSR. OLAF’s actions would complement, not replace, the powers of the national competent authorities to initiate and conduct their own investigations.

Reinforce existing provisions on penalties by introducing a list of common, non-exhaustive and indicative criteria for determining the types and levels of penalties to be imposed in case of infringements, including also a non-exhaustive list of the main types of santions.

Improve traceability of shipments of green-listed waste by introducing in the WSR an obligation to use the EDI system for the documentation accompanying the shipments of “green-listed” waste (form in Annex VII). This will include notably the obligation to keep record of these forms, which could be made available to the competent authorities, even after the shipment is completed. In addition, the WSR would, as a new measure, require that all brokers/intermediaries who want to ship waste within or from the EU are specifically registered in all of the EU Member States where they carry out commercial activities linked to the shipment of waste.

Specific Objective 3.2: Strengthen cooperation within the Member States, across the EU and with international partners

Facilitate cooperation between enforcement authorities at the national level. This measure would introduce a provision in the WSR for all competent authorities involved in implementation of the WSR to ensure that they have effective mechanisms to enable them to cooperate and coordinate domestically concerning the development and implementation of enforcement policies and activities to combat illegal shipments of waste.

Creation of a dedicated group at the EU level with the task to facilitate and improve cooperation on enforcement of the WSR. Under this measure, the WSR would establish a “waste shipment enforcement group”, with the mandate to facilitate and improve cooperation and coordination on enforcement policy and practice in the Member States, focusing in particular on issues relating to illegal shipments of waste within the EU as well as illegal shipments outside the EU, in particular exports to third countries. It would guide the Member States’ authorities in their actions to enforce the WSR, by sharing best practices, intelligence, and ongoing activities and facilitate joint actions between EU Member States.

6.1.2 Screening

In line with better regulation guidelines, the potential measures presented in section 6.1.1. have been screened against the criteria of legal feasibility, coherence (with other EU legislation and between each other), proportionality and effectiveness. The screening of these measures is presented below, per objective. When they are alternatives or when they were suggested as a solution to the same problem, they are grouped into one box, for example all the measures relating to financial guarantees.

Any measure that has a “no” in any of the criteria was discarded in order to have a proportionate assessment in this report. A brief description of why certain measures were discarded is provided in section 6.2 and a more extensive version in Annex 9. On the other hand, some of these measures are strongly supported by the public or certain stakeholders. In these cases, DG ENV decided to run a fuller analysis (to be found in Annex 9) than would normally be the case in an impact assessment for discarded measures, in order to have a well substantiated proposal for decision makers.

For the EU-wide electronic data interchange system, a specific technical description is provided in Annex 10.

Objective 1: Facilitate shipments within the EU, in particular to align the WSR with circular economy objectives

Measures

Legal feasibility

Coherence

Proportionality

Effectiveness

Improve the “pre-consented facilities” regime

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Remove the financial guarantee system OR

Allow the financial guarantee system via a national fund OR

via an EU fund

Streamline the financial guarantee system via a harmonised calculation of the amount required

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Streamline the notification procedures

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Clarify the scope of the Regulation

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Introduce an additional procedure for certain shipments of hazardous waste destined to certified facilities

No

No

No

Yes

Set up a mandatory EU-wide electronic data interchange

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Ensure mutual recognition at EU level of carriers of hazardous waste registered in one Member State

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Align the WSR provisions with the waste hierarchy

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Apply stricter rules to shipments destined to recovery operations other than reuse and recycling

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Issue guidance on current problematic issues

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Ensure alignment with the provisions on end-of-waste and byproducts in the Waste Framework Directive

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Task the Commission to set thresholds for contamination of wastes through delegated /implementing acts

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Establish mutual recognition of national end-of-waste criteria for the purpose of waste shipments

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Establish mutual recognition of national decision in relation to the hazardousness nature of wastes for the purposes of waste shipments

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Objective 2: Guarantee that waste exported outside the EU is managed in an environmentally sound manner

Measures

Legal feasibility

Coherence

Proportionality

Effectiveness

Specify obligations for exporters and public authorities to ensure and verify that waste exported to third countries is managed in an environmentally sound manner.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Task the Commission, via implementing or delegated acts, to set out criteria to differentiate between used goods and waste, for specific waste streams for which export to third countries raises particular challenges

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Ban export of all waste outside the EU OR

a.Ban all exports of waste from the EU to non-OECD countries OR

Establish a new framework for the export of green-listed waste from the EU to a non-OECD country, according to which such export is only authorised to those countries that notify the EU of their willingness to import green-listed waste and demonstrate their ability to treat it sustainably, in accordance with criteria set out in the WSR OR

b.Require that the export of green-listed waste to non-OECD countries is subject to the notification procedure

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Set up a specific procedure to monitor export of waste to OECD countries and mitigate environmental problems that might be caused by such exports

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Establish a new mechanism governing the export of waste outside the EU, which would operate a distinction between processed and unprocessed waste

Yes

No

Yes

No

Task a dedicated Agency (or similar body) at the EU level to monitor export of waste as well as their treatment in third countries

Yes

Yes

No

Yes



Objective 3: Better address illegal shipments of waste within the EU as well as illegal exports to third countries.

Measures

Legal feasibility

Coherence

Proportionality

Effectiveness

Complement existing provisions on inspection plans

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Issue guidance on efficient inspections and enforcement practice

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Empower the Commission (through OLAF) to carry out transnational investigative and coordinating actions against waste trafficking in the EU

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Reinforce existing provisions on penalties

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Facilitate cooperation between enforcement authorities at the national level

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Improve traceability of shipments of green-listed waste

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Creation of a dedicated group at the EU level with the task to facilitate and improve cooperation on enforcement of the WSR

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6.2 Measures that were discarded

As indicated in section 6.1, the measures presented below are not analysed further in the body of this impact assessment. More information on them, including a limited analysis of their impacts, can however be found in Annex 9.

Financial guarantees

The possibility to abolish the regime for the financial guarantees was discarded as this is required by the international legal framework on waste shipments. The regime is also based on the principle that cost incurred by illegal or irregular operations should be borne by the notifier.

Adding the possibility of a national or EU-level fund were also discarded. These measures do not resolve the problem of the high financial burden to shipment companies and of the diverging levels of guarantees set by different competent authorities. A fund could address the rare cases where the guarantee is unsufficient or not set-up only if the contributions were not reimbursed to notifiers. A growing fund could cover costs based on past experience and contributions could be reduced to maintain the fund level. However, certain waste management treatment companies were against this solution because their contributions would benefit actors that do not comply with the rules, and in particular or with free- riders not notifying waste shipments.

Additional procedure for certain shipments of hazardous waste destined to certified facilities

This measure was discarded because the notification procedure for hazardous waste shipments is required by the Basel Convention. Derogating from this procedure would have to be duly justified (for example via the use of the specific procedure for this purpose laid down in Article 11 of the Basel Convention) since it will present risks for the protection of the environment.

Apply stricter rules to shipments destined to recovery operations other than reuse and recycling

This measure was discarded as it is likely that it would not be compatible with the OECD Decision, which provides for the international framework for shipments to recovery between OECD members and does not distinguish between recovery operations.

Ban all exports of waste from the EU to third countries

This measure was discarded as it is likely that it would be incompatible with the EU’s international obligations. In addition, the environmental objectives can be achieved through other less restrictive remedies, e.g. a system certifying that the third country importing the waste has the capacity to receive and treat the waste in a sustainable manner.

Nevertheless, this measure was assessed because it reflects in the strictest sense the language used in the Green Deal on the export of waste and correspond to expectations by certain stakeholders and the public opinion (as shown in the results of the public consultation). It is possible that these proposals will resurface during the discussions on the legislative proposal with the co-legislators. DG ENV therefore believes a full assessment will support the decision-making process.

Ban export of all waste to non-OECD countries

This measure was discarded as it likely that it would be incompatible with the EU’s international obligations. In addition, the environmental objectives can be achieved through other less restrictive remedies, e.g. a system certifying that the third country importing the waste has the capacity to receive and treat the waste in a sustainable manner (see measure 2c).

Establish a new mechanism governing the export of waste outside the EU, which would operate a distinction between processed and unprocessed waste

This measure is not assessed in details as it is not coherent with the current legal regime in the Basel Convention and the WSR which operate two fundamental distinctions:

·Between waste and non-waste, with the consequence that any commodity classified as waste should be subject to a particular regime when shipped across borders, as well as;

·between notified waste (hazardous waste or waste which present particular challenges for their treatment) and green-listed waste. 

The proposed measure does not fit with this distinction, but adds new categories of waste which risk rendering the legal framework applying to the shipment of waste more complex and confusing. In addition, there is no agreed criterion which would allow to draw a clear line between “processed” and “unprocessed” waste. The proposed measure also does not take into account the fact that even “processed” waste remains waste and would be subject to further processing operations in the countries of destination. These operations can generate negative environmental externalities and would therefore also need controls and monitoring. Finally, the current legal framework already makes it clear that waste, when processed into a commodity which complies with “end-of-waste” criteria, becomes a product and is not subject any longer to the WSR. That solution should address the issue that this proposed measure seeks to solve.

Task a dedicated Agency (or similar body) at the EU level to monitor export of waste as well as their treatment in third countries

Pursuing the creation of a dedicated body at the EU level, would require considerable financial and human resources. Allocating these tasks to an existing body/agency appears difficult as well, as there is currently no EU body with a relevant mandate and appropriate expertise. Creating an entirely new one to centralise monitoring of waste export and treatment in destination countries would contribute to ensuring the environmentally sound management of waste in third countries. Nevertheless, this measure is considered disproportionate as similar objectives could be achieved with measures 2a and 2c, which together establish a framework for the export of green-listed waste and specify obligations for exporters and public authorities to ensure and verify that waste exported to third countries is managed in an environmentally sound manner.

6.3 Policy options

This section presents 4 policy options. These options aim to address the problems identified in section 2 and to achieve the policy objectives defined in section 4. The baseline (policy option 1) is not repeated for each objective.

Different groups and combinations of the measures presented in section 6.1 underly the options 2, 3 and 4. The complete set of measures under each option is listed in the chart in Figure 7.

Option 1: Baseline scenario

The first option is the baseline where no change would be made to the Regulation but the challenges linked to the implementation of the Regulation would be addressed through a continuation of the current approach, as well as soft law initiatives and legally non-binding instruments, such as guidance.

Option 2: Improving the implementation of the regulation via targeted amendments (“Targeted changes”)

The second option consists in introducing targeted changes to the WSR, corresponding to each of the three objectives of the review, while maintaining the overall approach contained in the current version of the WSR. The current provisions would be complemented and improved to facilitate the shipments of waste within the EU in line with the waste hierarchy (notably through the harmonisation of the regime for pre-consented facilities (measure 1a) and a reduction of delays applicable for the notification procedure (measure 1b)), reduce burden for economic operators (notably through the use of national funds instead of financial guarantees) and clarify the scope of the WSR (measure 1c). Additional provisions (measure 1g) would be added to allow Member States to object to shipments of waste for recovery other than recycling and to tighten the conditions under which shipments destined for disposal operations (landfilling, incineration) could be authorised. Alignment of the provisions on end-of-waste and by-products with the Waste Framework Directive (measure 1i) and issuing of guidance on current problematic issues (measure 1h) would help to better harmonise the interpretation and the application of the Regulation.

With regard to waste shipped outside the EU, this option would create an obligation for exporters to demonstrate, via audit schemes, that waste exported outside the EU is treated in an environmentally sound manner (measure 2a), thereby making the current provisions of the WSR on this point more operational. It will also empower the Commission to set out criteria to distinguish between second-hand goods and waste, for waste whose exports create particular challenges (measure 2b).

Finally, this option would complement the existing provisions on enforcement, notably on the inspection plans (measure 3a) and the penalties (measure 3d) applicable for breaches of the WSR. Additional guidance on inspections and enforcement (measure 3b) and set up of mechanisms to improve the domestic cooperation (measure 3f) would boost the capacities of Member States to react and prevent/neutralise the consequences of the illegal shipment. It will also empower the Commission, via its anti-fraud office OLAF, to carry out investigative and coordinating actions against transnational waste trafficking activities in the EU (measure 3c).

Option 3: Overhaul of the regulation with simplified rules on intra-EU shipments of waste and new mechanisms for the export of waste and to address illegal shipments (“Structural changes”)

The third option consists in operating structural changes to the current Regulation. This option would include measures which depart from the current approach underpinning the Regulation.

It would first greatly simplify the implementation of rules on the intra-EU shipments of waste, via a full digitalisation of the exchange of data for the notification procedure (measure 1d), the harmonised calculation of financial guarantees (measure 1e) and address problems linked to various interpretations by the Member States of some provisions of the WSR via EU-wide harmonisation, for example on contamination levels (measure 1j) or mutual recognition, such as relating to the distinction between waste and non-waste (measure 1k), or hazardous and non-hazardous waste (measure 1l)), and on the registration of carriers (measure 1f).

This option would also establish new mechanisms, in order to ensure that waste exported outside the EU is managed in an environmentally sound manner in the countries of destination. With respect to the export of green-listed waste outside the OECD, this option would set out that export is only authorised to those countries that notify the EU of their willingness to import green-listed waste and demonstrate their ability to treat it sustainably, in accordance with criteria set out in the WSR (measure 2c). Alternatively, this option could include a requirement that all export of green-listed waste outside the OECD become subject to the notification procedure (measure 2d). With regard to export to OECD countries, a specific procedure would be set up, whereby the Commission would monitor export levels and be able to take specific action to mitigate environmental problems that might be caused by such exports (measure 2e).

Finally, in order to reduce illegal shipments of waste, this option would ensure a better traceability for green-listed waste (measure 3e) and set out a new group at EU level to increase enforcement cooperation between the Member States and with EU and international relevant partners (measure 3g).

Option 4: Overhaul of the regulation in support of circular economy with modernisation and digitalisation of procedures, establishment of a new framework to ensure that waste exported outside the EU are managed sustainably and strengthened enforcement (“Far-reaching changes”)

The fourth option consists in developing a new Regulation, replacing the current WSR, which would improve a number of existing provisions of the current Regulation, which are still relevant but would be adjusted and complemented (as in option 2), together with some structural changes that set out new approaches (as in option 3), based notably on digitalisation, mondernisation and a new framework on the export of green-listed waste. This blend of elements from options 2 and 3 would ensure that the WSR facilitates intra EU shipments of waste in line with the circular economy objectives, supports the EU’s objective to stop exporting its waste challenges to third countries and contributes to better address illegal shipments of waste.

With respect to the first objective on intra-EU shipments of waste, this option will include, similarly to option 2, new provisions to harmonise the regime for pre-consented facilities (measure 1a), reduce the delays applicable for the notification procedure (measure 1b), reduce burden for economic operators through harmonised rules to set the amounts for financial guarantees (measure 1e), and clarify the scope of the WSR (measure 1c). In addition, the Commission would have an explicit mandate to adopt secondary legislation on thresholds for contaminated waste (measure 1j). The option would also include an explicit reference in the WSR to the provisions in the Waste Framework Directive on end-of-waste and by-products to clarify the status of commodities (waste or non-waste) shipped between EU Member States (measure 1i).

Additional provisions (measure 1g) would be added to allow Member States to object to shipment of waste for recovery other than recycling and to tighten the conditions under which shipments destined for disposal operations (landfilling, incineration) could be authorised. Further, as in option 3, the interchange of data via electronic means (measure 1d) would be made mandatory to modernise the procedures governing intra-EU shipments of waste. This digital system is a tool that would promote the success of a number of other measures to simplify procedures and reduce administrative burden. It will also be designed to improve the monitoring and traceability of waste.

With respect to the second objective on waste exports, this option would also build around measures presented both in option 2 and in option 3.

It will first, as in option 3, establish new mechanisms, in order to ensure that waste exported outside the EU is managed in an environmentally sound manner in the countries of destination. With respect to the export of green-listed waste outside the OECD, this option would set out that export is only authorised to those countries that notify the EU of their willingness to import green-listed waste and demonstrate their ability to treat it sustainably, in accordance with criteria set out in the WSR (measure 2c). A list of countries authorised to import such waste would be set up by the Commission. This would replace Commission Regulation (EC) 1418/2007, which would be repealed. With regard to export to OECD countries, a specific procedure would be set up (measure 2e), whereby the Commission would monitor export levels and be able to take specific action to mitigate environmental problems that might be caused by such exports.

In addition to these mechanisms (which are based on a general assessment of the ability of countries to deal with waste exported by the EU), this option would, similarly as in option 2, include the following measures:

·companies exporting waste outside the EU would have the duty to audit facilities where they are sending this waste, to verify that they are managed in an environmentally sound manner (measure 2a). The Member States and the Commission would be tasked to ensure that the exporting companies properly fulfil their duties in that respect;

·finally, in order to address the serious problem linked to the export of waste falsely presented as “used goods”, the Commission would be tasked to develop specific binding criteria to differentiate between waste and used goods, for specific commodities for which this is a particular problem (measure 2b).

Finally, to better address the third objective on illegal shipments of waste, this option would focus on legally binding tools. It would not pursue the development of guidance but complement the current provisions of the WSR relating to inspections (measure 3a) and penalties (measure 3d). This would be supplemented by measures designed to improve cooperation against illegal shipments at national, EU and international levels. To this end, the Commission (through its anti-fraud office OLAF) would be empowered to carry out transnational investigative and coordinating actions against waste trafficking in the EU (measure 3c), thereby helping Member States working together on these problems. The WSR would also require that Member States set up mechanisms to ensure domestic internal coordination against illegal shipments of waste (measure 3f), as is the case for other areas of EU legislation. Finally, a dedicated group at the EU level will be created (measure 3g) which would gather enforcement agencies from the Member States, EU and international bodies, with the task of facilitating and improving enforcement cooperation at the EU and international levels.



Figure 8 - Measures proposed under option 2, 3 and 4 for each of the three objectives

7.What are the impacts of the policy options?

The economic, environmental and social impacts of the proposed measures as well as the effectiveness and efficiency of the options to meet the specific objectives and coherence with existing EU policy objectives were assessed in line with the better regulation guidelines. Each measure is presented with its title and its expected impacts are quantified whenever possible. Otherwise a qualitative assessment was performed. The impacts were assessed by taking into consideration the costs and benefits linked to each measure, and possible synergies with other measures. The measures were assessed over the same time horizon as the baseline, i.e. up to 2030. A quantification of the impact for each measure is presented.

The analytical methods used to determine the impacts are described in detail in Annex 5 and a brief overview is provided for each of the three main objectives in their respective section. A number of measures presented require new resources in the Commission. An overview of these impacts is provided in Annex 12 to this report.

7.1 Impacts of the proposed measures

7.1.1 Objective 1: Facilitate shipments within the EU, in particular to align the WSR with circular economy objectives

For measures on intra-EU shipments of waste, the report uses standard cost model to estimates the administrative costs or savings of some of the measures. It also estimates the potential costs savings to notifiers due to reduced delays to obtain a consent from a competent authority. The analysis is based on the information provided by competent authorities and operators.

The environmental impacts are based on a qualitative assessment which focuses notably on the potential for the proposed measures to increase the recycling of waste in the EU, as well as the impacts on other forms of waste treatment (incineration with and without energy recovery, landfilling, etc.). There is a correlation between recycling rates and other environmental indicators (notably emissions of GHG, use of virgin resources etc.) so that increased recycling levels can be considered as a good proxy for environmental impacts linked to the measures proposed with respect to intra-EU shipments of waste.

Where relevant, the social impacts are assessed in terms of the likely EU job creation. For some measures, social impacts are not provided because none are expected.

Specific objective 1.1: Simplification and reduction of administrative burden for intra-EU shipments of waste

1a) Improve the regime of “pre-consented” facilities

Economic impacts

Setting common conditions in order to identify a pre-consented facility would ensure that all competent authorities have certainty about the criteria considered and would allow for mutual recognition of facilities pre-consented throughout the EU.

In addition, competent authorities would have clarity on which shipments should follow the simplified pre-consent procedure and which should not. This will lead to fewer disputes with other competent authorities or companies, and fewer requests for additional information to be provided, thus minimizing delays to issue consent. Delays in handling of notification requests and during transport often bring significant costs for the companies involved in the shipment.

It is not possible to estimate the precise impact as it is not possible to know precisely how many facilities would be granted pre-consented status in the future. At the moment 331 facilities are pre-consented in 15 Member States. Mainstreaming this facilitated regime and the related waste shipment procedure, is expected to result in more facilities being pre-consented in all Member States overall.

Further, by extending the validity of the notification request to 3 years as a standard 58 , notifiers shipping to pre-consented facilities will only need to submit a notification request once every three years and competent authorities will only have to handle and issue such request once every three years. This will reduce these administrative costs by a factor of three for both companies and competent authorities. Unfortunately, there is no comprehensive overview of what share of the total amount of notification dossiers submitted concern pre-consented facilities. Therefore, it is not possible to calculate the monetised benefit of this measure.

In addition, companies would save notification fees. It is difficult to quantify these costs as they can vary between Member States and there is no comprehensive overview of the fee imposed by each competent authority. What we can say is that if the validity is extended to 3 years as a standard, the cost for notification under this procedure should be divided by about 3 as the typical validity of a notification is currently one year. Taking the example of Brandenburg in Germany, 59 and the Flemish and Walloon Regions in Belgium 60 , companies would save 832, 266 and 166 euro per notification respectively. Based on the annual notifications handled by these three competent authorities, this would amount to annual savings of 112, 372 and 116 thousand euro for the companies submitting these notifications.

Costs would include the workload for companies to prepare and substantiate the request to be pre-consented, and for competent authorities to handle these request. However, stakeholders claim that these costs would be outweighed by the benefits of saving time and resources due to the reduced number of notifications.

In general, feedback from stakeholders on a potential improvement of the regime of pre-consented facilities in the WSR showed strong support and point to the benefits that would come with it.

Environmental impacts:

If certain facilities are pre-consented according to harmonised and solid criteria, waste shipments to pre-consented facilities would become a secure yet swift path for waste producers to find a solution for their waste. As a result, this waste will more easily find its way to the optimal treatment option across the EU. More waste will be recovered and re-enter the circular economy. This will facilitate the attainment of the targets for waste recycling and reduction of landfilling set out by the EU legislation.

Social impacts

Incentives to recycle waste will result in the expansion of the waste recycling sector, and in turn extra jobs are created. Annex 5 provides an overview of full time equivalent (FTE) employment related to waste management within the EU for certain categories of waste.

Stakeholders’ opinions

This measure was broadly and largely supported by stakeholders, while some of them stressed it should only be applied for regularly audited and high-quality certified recovery facilities.

1b) Streamline the notification procedures:

Economic impacts

Increasing the amount of waste exempted from control if it is being sent for laboratory/testing purposes would facilitate the companies involved and hence speed up the development of innovative technologies and their upscale at economically viable volumes. In turn, innovative and improved technologies will bring new businesses to the EU and contributes to more effective and efficient recycling.

Setting up and operating an EU-wide EDI (measure 1g) allows to reduce the delays foreseen in the WSR for some aspects of the notification procedure that were designed with a paper-based approach. This would reduce costs linked to such delays.

English is proposed as a common language for documents, complementary to any translated version in national languages, since this is the most widely spoken foreign language in the EU. This is confirmed by the data submitted by competent authorities in the Basel Convention national reports. Of the 25 Member States that submitted a national report in 2018 or 2019, 24 reported English as an accepted language for shipments in transit and all of those but one also accepted English for shipments arriving 61 . A common language would again contribute to a potential reduction on delays.

Many other measures are designed to simplify and clarify procedures in order to achieve the benefits of these reduced delays. In the evaluation of the WSR, business operators indicated that although it is difficult to quantify number of delays per annum or waiting times of delays, on average, costs linked to delays per shipment can be up to 150 000 euro. It will in particular have a positive affect on SMEs which dominate the waste management sector in terms of number of companies.



Environmental impacts

This measure ensures a swifter handling of shipment procedures and better monitoring of where waste is intended to be treated. This should accelerate shipment procedures in order to direct waste to optimal treatment with all the associated environmental benefits. It further motivates to develop innovative solutions that would contribute to a more effective and efficient treatment of waste and a transition to a circular economy.

Stakeholders’ opinions

Stakeholders across the board expressed strong support for streamlining the procedural framework of the WSR.

1c) Clarify the scope of the Regulation:

Economic impacts

A clear understanding of the scope of this Regulation, in relation to other legal frameworks on the transport of goods across borders, minimizes the room for interpretation in each Member State of the controls and procedures to apply. This reduces the chance that disputes delay shipments of these materials on the ground. Delays in shipping goods, including waste, come with a considerable cost, as also explained under measure 1c above.

Environmental impacts

A clear understanding of the scope of this Regulation, in relation to other legal frameworks on the transport of goods across borders, ensures that the rules and procedures are properly followed, which should ensure the most optimal environmental protection.

Stakeholders’ opinions

Stakeholders across the board pleaded for clarifying as much as possible what would be covered by the WSR and what would be covered under other relevant legislation or controls.

1d) Set up a mandatory EU-wide electronic data interchange (EDI)

Economic impacts

Setting up and operating an EU-wide EDI that allows for both interconnecting national electronic notification systems and directly connecting to an EU-level operated system, would be in line with the EU Digital Strategy 62 . An EU-wide EDI will generate costs both in terms of establishment and in terms of maintenance of the system. These costs would be shared between the EU and its Member States. The central component is being developed on EU budget while Member States will fund the replacement of their national system or its  adaptation to make it interoperable if they wish to maintain their own system. Depending on the required functionalities and consequent complexity, the Commission estimated that the cost of a system interconnecting national systems would be approximately €900 000 over 5 years; this includes set-up costs and subsequent maintenance costs. Based on DG ENV’s experience with other policies (like FLEGT), maintenance costs are estimated between 50 000 and 80 000 euro for the first year but should drop up to about 20 000 euro per year once the system has been refined. Relevant extra staff would also be needed at the EU level to set up the centralised system or component and at national level to adapt the national system and maintain it over time.The cost for Member States currently maintaining their own system is estimated to be approximately 50 000 euro per year. This cost will continue for Member States that decide to keep their own national system. Given about half of the Member States that responded have an electronic system, this is equivament to an annual cost of about 675 thousand year for all the Member States concerned. Most Member States that currently operate their own system, have indicated they will most probably continue to do so, for reasons of business continuity and to benefit from investments already made. For Member States that have no national system or decide to replace their current system and would fully rely on the EU one 63 , no additional significant costs are expected. Once established, the EDI will bring benefits to Member States linked to the digitalisation of the procedure. The Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the Commission Communication on EU Regulatory Fitness in 2012 64 estimated these cost savings to be around €44 million per year. This figure was based on the existence and development of Member State electronic systems at the time of that report. It is expected these overall savings are an overestimation, since this assessment is nearly a decade old and electronic systems have further developed. 

This report is based on more recent estimates based on competent authorities’ input on the staff time spent on notifications and whether these are paper-based or electronic (or partially electronic). Based on the 21500 annual notifications, the time savings of working with an electronic system and assuming a staff cost of 20 euro/hour, the use of EDI systems in all Member States could bring competent authorities savings between 0.95 and 3.2 million euro per year, compared to the current situation. Similarly, if all notifications were managed electronically, EU notifiers could save between 450 and 950 thousand euro per year.

Both Member States and the EU would also benefit from the availability of this data in an electronic system to monitor waste flows more swiftly and with much greater analytical capability and accuracy (due to increased consistency in the data). This would moreover also apply to green listed waste, as the required information to accompany these shipments is also foreseen to be included in the EDI.

Businesses involved in waste shipments would benefit from the EDI as the digital notifications would similarly take less time than paper ones for their staff. An EDI is likely to also reduce errors or losses in the completion of the consent forms compared to a paper version.

In addition, notification dossiers and any supplementary information requested during the consent procedure, would be delivered and be processed more swiftly as the logistics of the paper notification could be avoided. This would mean that consents would be issued in a shorter time delay, resulting in gained time and money for businesses since the waste can be shipped faster with reduced storage costs while waiting for consent for transport.

Environmental impacts:

No overall negative impacts on the environment are foreseen as a result of the introduction of EDI. As broadly expressed by stakeholders during the consultations for this impact assessment, the shift from a paper-based system to EDI is expected to create transparency and increase the efficiency of implementing the WSR’s obligations and help to create a single market for secondary raw materials. However, no qualitative data were available to support these expectations. Benefits are foreseen in terms of reduced direct and indirect costs of using paper for administrative purposes and the lower generation of paper waste. Also, the use of EDI could positively contribute to the implementation of EMAS (Eco-Management Audit Scheme). Positive environmental impacts are also envisaged for private sector and national administrations in terms of spending significantly less resources for printing, filing, storing, and retrieving paper documents. It was suggested by some stakeholders that the time saved as a result of the introduction of EDI could be dedicated to conducting more on the ground inspections of shipments or treatment facilities by Competent Authorities. EDI would ensure better data traceability and potentially reduce non-compliance with the Regulation, i.e. risks of illegal shipments 65 .

Social impacts

There are no significant social impacts expected from this measure. The staff in Competent Authorities and businesses would have to be trained to move from a paper-based to an electronic system. Based on the information collected through the targeted interviews, introduction of the electronic data interchange could have an impact on employment levels for staff at Competent Authorities. The impacts could be positive as well as negative. With regards to understaffed Competent Authorities, their staff could be less overloaded given that introduction of the EDI would, on annual basis, save 35% of their time, based on the time saving estimates also used in assessing the economic impacts for this measure 66 .

Stakeholders’ opinions

Stakeholders have been pleading for years for the digitalisation of the notification procedure and have expressed strong support for this digitalisation to be made mandatory through EU legislation. They see it as a key enabler to facilitate and speed up the procedure and, with it, the shipments of waste within the EU.



1e) Streamline the financial guarantee system by harmonising the calculation of the amount required under the guarantee

Economic impacts:

The financial guarantee was set up in the context of the Basel Convention to insure risk associated with unexpected costs due to a waste shipment. This is because waste is shipped from one destination to another and travels potentially through different countries/seas. It is hence a transnational problem with spill-over effects between the different countries. Efforts to provide global harmonisation on the issue of financial guarantees have been made in the framework of the Basel Convention, but have proven to be a complex and lengthy process. The next best solution, to strive for harmonisation at the EU level, is a more realistic approach.

Efforts have been made over time to exchange information between Member States on the methodology they use to calculate the financial guarantee 67 . This however has had no significant effect on the harmonisation of the calculation methodologies. By harmonising the calculation method for the guarantee, notifiers would have better predictability of the financial guarantee required for the shipment of notified waste, which would allow them to better budget the expected costs related to their waste shipment activities. This would streamline the process and avoid that very different levels are set in different Member States.

Moreover, administrative burden for public authorities to handle the financial guarantee process would be reduced – particularly for countries that require specific offers for transport and storage to be presented for every shipment. The application of the harmonised calculation method would be easier and predictable for all actors. This may have a positive impact on the delay to obtain consent for shipment with time and costs saved for notifiers as already explained under measure 1c above.

A report from the Flemish waste agency OVAM 68 goes into details about the current functioning of the bank guarantee. It concludes that alternatives to the current system are difficult to devise and that the best way forward may be to harmonise the calculations rules across all competent authorities.

Environmental impacts:

During the consultation with stakeholders, it was commonly agreed that a harmonisation of the financial guarantee system would ensure the same level of protection as the current system.

Stakeholders’ opinions

Mostly private actors, involved in shipments of waste under the notification procedure pleaded for a reform of the regime on financial guarantees. One important concern was relating to the level of these guarantees, which they see as too high and also very variable depending on the Member States. A number of stakeholders supported the idea to have EU-wide criteria on the methodology to calculate the guarantees.

1f) Ensure mutual recognition at EU level of carriers of hazardous waste registered in one Member State

Economic impacts

The measure would reduce the delays linked to the issuing of consent for a notification, which occur because the carriers that are indicated in the notification dossier lack a registration in one the countries involved in the shipment, and have then to complete these administrative steps for this registration, or include alternative eligible carriers in the notification request dossier. The measure would also lead to reductions of delays occurring during the transport, including of green listed waste. Such delays occur when consignments are being blocked due to the lack of registration of an involved carrier in a given country of transit or final destination of the shipment of waste. The costs linked to such delays (see also measure 1a) would then be reduced for the transport companies and other companies involved in the shipment of waste.

However, the problem seems to be specific to some Member States and of relatively limited magnitude, as many Member States’ competent authorities at the moment already recognise registrations in other Member States 69 .

Environmental impacts

No environmental impacts are expected, relating to this measure.

Coherence

This registration obligation is actually applicable both for carriers performing their activities within national boundaries and those shipping waste across borders. The Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC regulates this, together with other obligations for economic operators involved in waste management. No single changes in the WSR alone can bring change to this regime and rather the upcoming review of the Waste Framework Directive could be benefited from to address this issue of mutual recognition of registrations in Member States.

Stakeholders’ opinions

During the consultation process, stakeholders raised the problem that carriers of waste often need to be registered in the countries where they operate, and comply with sometimes strict obligations in that regard (for example demonstrating specialised training or speaking the language of the country).

Therefore, actors involved in the actual transport of waste showed support for such a mutual recognition.



Specific objective 1.2: Better align the rules on waste shipment with the waste hierarchy

1g) Align the WSR provisions with the waste hierarchy

Economic impacts:

-Impact linked to the limitation of possibility to object to waste shipments for recycling

Limiting the possibility for Member States to object to waste shipments for recycling would mean that waste management operators would be free to ship waste to their chosen facility. This would limit the risk that waste that is suitable for recycling ends up being treated in a way which is not as environmentally sound in its country of generation, due to objections by the country of destination to receiving the waste for recycling in its territory. Therefore, the measure could contribute to increase recycling in the EU with benefits for recycling companies which would see their activities expand. Increased recycling would ensure an increased – and predictable – supply in recycled material to be used in manufacturing of new products. It is important to note that the Commission is considering mandating recycled content targets in different products. These have already been set for PET bottles in the Single Use Plastics Directive 70 and proposed for batteries and accumulators in the Commission proposal 71 . These measures will drive demand in synchronisation with increased supply, resulting in better pricing for secondary materials.

It is difficult to quantify the impact of this measure accurately. Based on available data dating from 2015, the amount of waste shipped for recycling for which an objection was made by another Member State represented around 12 000 tonnes. This is a limited quantity compared to overall waste flows, but it is expected that recycling activities have increased since 2015 and will continue to do so in the future, so that the proposed measure will have a potential to avoid that restrictions for shipments of waste for recycling reach higher volumes and ensure a smoother market for recycling in the EU altogether.

-Impact linked to the measure allowing one Member State to object to shipments destined for recovery other than recycling when this jeopardizes its waste management strategy 

In case Member States can restrict the import of certain wastes from other Member States in accordance with their national waste management planning, their domestic waste management system will struggle less to find solutions for domestically collected waste to be treated in the most optimal treatment option, and a more stable investment climate would occur for developing the recycling and recovery sector in these countries, to move away from landfilling. Better sorting should result in acceptance of the waste in energy-from-waste plants, and investments in better sorting techniques would be encouraged as foreign waste no longer disrupt their national market. Member States that send waste abroad would still have many other options for the concerned waste, the first being to opt for better sorting and recycling, the second to ship the waste to another Member State that does not object to the import.

A positive impact, economically, but also for the environment and as regards the creation of extra jobs in the recycling industry in those countries (see below) can be expected from clarifying the grounds for destination countries to plan and limit imports in order to implement their national waste management plans and strategies. Energy-from-waste plants in the countries concerned, may face higher costs due to the fact they may have to purchase domestic waste at higher prices compared to imported waste.

Data from 2017 show that only 40% of waste subject to the notification procedure is shipped for recycling in the EU. Some waste which could be sorted for recycling is shipped to other Member States for energy recovery instead, as this is a more profitable option. Hence measures that address shipments for recovery, would have an impact on recycling.

-Impact linked to the prohibition to ship to disposal operations, with limited exemptions

The shipments of hazardous waste destined for disposal in another EU Member State amounted to 1.7 million tonnes 72 . A total ban on shipment of such waste would therefore potentially affect large quantities of waste. The measure proposed however foresees that, in well justified cases, such shipments could still take place between Member States. The exact definition of the exemptions will be very important in that regard. Exemptions which would allow such shipments to take place will include situations where, in accordance with the proximity principle, disposal facilities are located in a neighbouring country and are the closest option for treating the waste in question, as well as for islands which do not have sufficient infrastructure and capacity to deal with waste which needs to be disposed of.

This measure would affect in bigger proportion those EU Member States (like Italy and Luxembourg) which are currently shipping large volumes of waste to disposal to other Member States. It will also impact Member States (like Portugal) which are receiving such waste from other Member States.

The companies involved in the shipment and treatment of this waste in disposal facilities (incinerators or landfills) will also be affected. Many of these companies are however also active in recovery operations (waste for energy facilities; recycling plants) and would benefit from a surplus of waste diverted from disposal operations.

Environmental impacts:

-Impact linked to the limitation of possibility to object to waste shipments for recycling

As indicated above, limiting the grounds to object in Art. 12 would not lead to significant amounts of waste diverted to recycling, thus not resulting in substantial benefits to the environment.

However, as explained in the subsection above, environmental benefits can be expected from clarifying the grounds for destination countries to plan and limit imports in order to implement their national waste management plans and strategies, because of increasing the possibilities for the domestic recycling sector to mature. This will result in less landfilled waste and more material retained in the circular economy.

-Impact linked to the measure allowing one Member State to object to shipments destined for recovery other than recycling when this jeopardizes its waste management strategy 

This measure would help some Member States to implement their domestic waste management plans, by making sure that domestic waste collected and sorted can find an appropriate treatment destination, and is not refused due to the fact that existing facilities prefer to receive waste from other Member States. This will be a factor supporting the Member States concerned to meet their obligations for waste treatment (notably diverting waste from landfills) under the EU waste legislation.

This concerns rather specific cases of importing Member States and the EU regions for which imported waste streams (most often refuse derived fuels (RDF) or sewage sludge) negatively influence their domestic waste collection and management system. Exporting Member States would still have many other options for the concerned waste, the first being to opt for better sorting and recycling, the second to ship the waste to another Member State that does not object to the import.

-Impact linked to the prohibition to ship to disposal operations, with limited exemptions

This measure would be complementary to the landfill reduction targets set out in the EU waste legislation, which aims at reducing the quantity of municipal waste landfilled in order to reduce its associated greenhouse gas impacts. Under this legislation, the maximum amount of total municipal waste that can be landfilled should be 10% in 2035 (or 2040 in case of derogations). Waste shipped to another country for landfill counts towards the target of the country where it was generated. On the other hand, landfill sites are not subject to any limitations and they can therefore be used to dispose of waste coming from other countries. The proposed measure would make it impossible for operators to ship their waste for disposal to another Member State, except in well-defined circumstances, which should contribute to redirecting waste currently shipped for disposal to recovery operations with the associated environmental benefits.

The access to existing significant landfill capacity in some Member States is often an incentive for operators from other Member States to ship their waste there, while a large share of this waste could be treated higher up in the waste hierarchy. Concentration of landfilling of waste in one area would constitute adverse impact on the environment in the area where the landfilling takes place. Moreover, the negative impact of transport has to be additionally taken into account. Stricter conditions on the shipment of waste for disposal would therefore positively affect the environment in the destination Member States, as it would decrease their landfilling quantities as a result of reduced imports of waste for disposal. Member States having high net-outflow of waste for disposal, in particular, landfilling, to other Member States would be required to recover or dispose of this waste domestically. This should provide an incentive for their treatment under better environmental conditions than disposal, even if it create pressures to the environment and human health on the short term in there is no capacity available for dealing with this waste domestically. Moreover, it could potentially increase the risk of illegal shipments.

In the medium to long term this measure is expected to contribute to expanding waste recycling, which provides a broader range of environmental benefits. The French environment and energy management agency (ADEME) and the recycling industry association FEDEREC have conducted a study on the positive effects of recycling, based on life cycle analyses. The study revealed that recycling saves 124 TWh of energy and avoids 22.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions annually. In 2014, recycling processes also helped to save 250 million cubic metres of water 73 .

Social impacts:

This measure is expected to increase investments in waste treatment facilities in line with the waste hierarchy. Recovery operations require higher capacities of intensive collection and sorting, which in turn require greater numbers of labour intensity, notably via the additional workforce required for material recovery collection and sorting. This is confirmed by a recent study assessing the job creation potential of zero waste solutions 74 , which estimates that the job potential is related to the waste hierarchy as illustrated in Figure 9 below.

Figure 9 – Job potential related to the waste hierarchy

Additional data on job creation in waste treatment are provided in Annex 5 of this report.

Stakeholders’ opinions

Diverging views were expressed on this measure by stakeholders. A number of stakeholders (mostly from the waste management sector, and especially the energy-from-waste subsector) indicated that, as a matter of principle, the WSR should be limited to procedural rules and not contain any provisions of substance distinguishing between the types of treatment operations. They indicated that EU waste management rules are sufficient to reflect the EU overall objectives and priorities for waste management and the transition to a circular economy. This view was however not shared by other stakeholders (notably NGOs and some Member States).

More specifically, some stakeholders indicated that, for some non-recyclable waste, the only available solution to avoid their landfilling was to ship them to another Member State where they would be incinerated to produce energy, in the absence of sufficient capacity for such operations in the country where the waste was generated.

Some stakeholders also emphasized that in some cases it is justified to ship waste for disposal to another Member State (for example for hazardous waste for which there is no capacity in the Member State where the waste was generated). Some Member States stressed that the current rules already allow for a country to object to imports of waste for disposal from another Member State, and that therefore no change on this point would seem warranted. NGOs were supportive of the idea to set out stricter rules for such shipments, notably that they should only occur when it can be demonstrated that the waste in question cannot be subject to a treatment operation higher up in the waste hierarchy.

Specific objective 1.3: Harmonisation of interpretation, application and enforcement across Member States

1h) Issue guidance on current problematic issues

Economic impacts:

Providing guidance on how to apply Art. 11 and Art. 12, on how to apply contamination rules and on how to classify waste under the different codes would contribute to a common basis of interpretation and implementation of the WSR. A study from IMPEL 75 , also noted that guidance documents are positive measures to counter implementation challenges (such as the UK government and IMPEL’s separate guidance documents). It is assumed therefore that guidance would have a positive economic effect for waste shipment practitioners.

Setting a contamination threshold would reduce the possible contamination. The lower is the set value, the purer the waste stream with a positive impact on the recycling process: the waste should be easier to treat, leaving a lower amount of residue and resulting in a better quality secondary material which can claim higher value on the market. However, practically speaking, some level of contamination is always likely to occur. The chosen value should set a threshold that prevents deliberate or careless contamination whilst allowing an achievable level of contamination in practice.

A lower level of contamination will facilitate recycling and provide a higher and more stable flow of waste to recycling facilities. Many recycling technologies are currently being explored in the EU and are still immature. Larger scale separate and incontaminated waste stream can provide more experience and economies of scale.

In addition, there would be added clarity for competent authorities and a likely reduction in delays due to such issues. As already explained, delays before or during waste shipments often bring significant costs for the companies involved in the shipment (see also measure 1a), which could be reduced.

Environmental impacts:

The environmental benefits related to the issuing of guidance is considered to be limited due to its non-legally binding nature. However, clarification of WSR procedures, notably on the alignment of waste shipments with the waste hierarchy, would still incentivise and prioritize recycling over other treatment operations of waste and boost the retention of secondary raw materials in the circular economy. With clear guidance on how to assess contamination levels in waste, the sorting quality would improve as well as the quality of recyclates for the supply chain. Clear guidelines on coding would facilitate the overall circulation of waste in the EU and would potentially have a positive impact.

However, for a number of important issues – such as contamination thresholds for specific waste – it would be more effective to clarify and strengthen the legal rules, rather than proposing guidance on a wider range of topics: the scope of such guidance might not be sufficiently clear and their non-binding nature means that there would a risk that they are not implemented properly.

Stakeholders’ opinions

Defining contamination thresholds was supported by stakeholders from the waste management sectoras a means to overcome the fragmentation of the EU single market resulting from different intepretations by the Member States. Some recognised though that this task can be challenging. During the workshop, stakeholders which supported guidance stated the main benefits would be to aid with enforcement and interpretation.

1i) Ensure alignment with the provisions on end-of-waste and byproducts in the Waste Framework Directive

Economic impacts:

This measure is expected to positively affect the economy, as it would minimize the risks of market distortions which could emerge as a result of existing unequal policy conditions for end-of-waste between Member States. As it was noted in the EU waste markets study 76 , these conditions have an impact on transnational markets in which the Member States with less demanding policies attract wastes from more demanding Member States. While this may prevent market distortions by Member States offering more lenient environmental conditions to attract a market, but it could also result in an inappropriate application of the more stringent provisions for protectionist reasons 77 . Therefore, linking corresponding provisions of WSR and WFD would not only help to ensure that EoW/by-product criteria are also respected with regard to the definition on waste vs. non-waste, but it would also contribute to a smoother functioning of the internal market.

Environmental impacts:

Cross-reference with Article 6 of WFD would help to clarify whether an item in question is waste or not through fulfilment of essential conditions determining the end-of-waste status.

Article 28 serves as an “inspection” mechanism which main task is to foresee negative environmental implications and suspend the shipment through imposing stricter provisions in favour of classifying the suspicious/questionable commodities to be shipped as “waste”. As it was revealed in the study on waste markets in the EU 78 , there is a large discrepancy between the environmental performances between the Member States, which also justifies the strict waste shipment procedure. Better legal clarity in Article 28 on application of the stringent provisions of WSR in conjunction with the Article 6 of WFD would eliminate ambiguities between national authorities and would allow preventing environmental and health safety risks linked with further use of shipped materials in the manufacturing process of new products, notably in the cases when one of the Member States concerned applies no EoW criteria but those already established at the EU level 79 . Emphasizing the interconnection of Article 28 of WSR and Article 6 of WFD would lead to a more accurate application of the EU rules on EoW, which would accelerate the formation of sustainable market of secondary materials.

Stakeholders’ opinions:

Many economic operators highlighted during the consultation the challenges with diverging interpretations on the waste status of the material they wish to ship and aksed for clarification as regards the issue of end-of-waste and by products as regards shipments of waste. Member States competent authorities on the other hand were rather clear in their support for the current provisions and mechanisms in Article 28 of the WSR.

1j) Task the Commission to set thresholds for contamination of wastes through delegated/implementing acts to determine if they should be subject to the notification procedure or not

Economic impacts:

The increased clarity on the acceptable levels of contamination will reduce the disputes on whether waste should be subject to the notification procedure or not.

As mentioned above, there is less agreement on what the level of the threshold should be. It is therefore not possible to propose a threshold level to be included in the WSR without additional preparatory and consultation work. Therefore, the development of thresholds through implementing acts or through guidance on the matter are considered to be most effective approaches to harmonising this matter across the EU. The advantage of providing this delegation explicitly in the WSR is that the Commission would then be clearly mandated to further investigate for which specific waste stream it is relevant and needed to set a threshold to determine contamination to an extent that it renders the waste to no longer be green-listed.

Environmental impacts:

With clear thresholds to assess contamination levels in waste, the sorting quality would improve as well as the quality of recyclates for the supply chain. It would allow choosing the most optimal treatment method for the contaminated waste, leaving a lower amount of residue. Clear threshold levels would ensure a more accurate application of procedural requirements and would minimize the risks of environmental damage related to storage, transportation and handling of waste and the illegal shipment.

Stakeholders’ opinions

During the stakeholder workshop, 69% of stakeholders favoured the use of legally binding instruments (such as delegated acts by the Commission) over guidance documents or other means on such issues. Regulatory changes would ensure higher probability they will be implemented properly.

1k) Establish mutual recognition of national end-of-waste criteria for the purpose of waste shipments.

Economic impacts:

With a short term increase in legal clarity, less disputes on classification could be expected and thus reduction of costs due to delays in shipment. On the other hand the level playing field may be unbalanced as the Member States that act fastest on developing their detailed national end-of-waste criteria would determine the classification of certain materials as end-of-waste for all other Member States on their own terms, including economic, which could cause a disadvantage for businesses in other Member States.

Environmental impacts:

Limited delivery of environmental benefits is expected, as unilateral nationally developed end-of-waste criteria are not necessarily sufficient to ensure the highest environmental protection standards on EU level. Although setting a principle of mutual recognition would provide a legal clarity for the waste shipment purposes, the long-term effectiveness of this measure would be questionable as the WSR is not able to address the specifics of all waste streams and materials in detail.

Stakeholders’ opinions:

Similar as for measure 1i, many economic operators highlighted during the consultation the challenges with diverging interpretations on the waste status of the material they wish to ship and aksed for clarification as regards the issue of end-of-waste and by products as regards shipments of waste. Member States competent authorities on the other hand were rather clear in their support for the current provisions and mechanisms in Article 28 of the WSR and their reluctance to be obliged to mutually recognize national decisions on end-of-waste in other Member States.

1l) Establish mutual recognition of national decisions in relation to the hazardousness nature of wastes for the purpose of waste shipments

Economic impacts:

With a short term increase in legal clarity, less disputes on classification could be expected and thus reduction of costs due to delays in shipment. On the other hand the extent to which legal clarity would be increased is to be seen, as over time Member States’ specific positions on the classification of certain waste as hazardous or not, may change and uncertainties would still remain. Further, an uneven level playing field may appear as the classification of certain waste as hazardous or non-hazardous may be based on local terms, including economic, which could cause a disadvantage for businesses in other Member States.

Environmental impacts:

Limited delivery of environmental benefits is expected, as unilateral nationally developed criteria are not able to ensure the highest environmental protection standards on an EU level. Although setting a principle of mutual recognition would provide legal clarity for the waste shipment purposes, the long-term effectiveness of this measure would be questionable as it would not be able to prevent the undesirable flow of improperly classified hazardous waste to the areas where the lowest standards might be applied.

Stakeholders’ opinions:

Many economic operators expressed their support for a mechanism that obliges competent authorities to mutually recognize each other’s classification of a given waste. Member States competent authorities on the other hand were rather clear in their support for the current provisions and mechanisms in Article 28 of the WSR and their reluctance to be obliged to mutually recognize national decisions on classification of a given waste in other Member States.

7.1.2 Objective 2: Guarantee that waste exported outside the EU is managed in an environmentally sound manner

The proposed measures support both specific objectives that were identified for the general objective 2: “stop the export of the waste from the EU where it will not be managed in an environmentally sound manner”, and “improve waste management in third countries”.

The proposed measures on the export of waste have an impact on the amount of the waste currently exported. To assess this impact, the report estimates the volume and value of waste that would stay and be processed in the EU compared to what would be exported from the EU in the baseline scenario. This is done for a selected number of wastes representing the largest proportion of recoverable and recyclable wastes, i.e. plastics, glass, paper and cardboard, textiles, non-ferrous metals and ferrous metals. The model then factors in the value of the currently exported waste as declared in Comext, the costs of treating this waste in the EU, the expected revenues from the sale of the resulting secondary materials, the differences in transport costs and the value of energy produced in the EU by incinerating recycling rejects of paper and cardboard, plastics and textiles (see Annex 5 for more details on these calculations). These calculations allow to present overall values for the differences between the value created by the export of waste outside the EU and the value created by the treatment of the corresponding waste in the EU.

Projecting future levels of export is challenging, because it depends on a large number of factors which cannot be predicted accurately with a ten years horizon. The value and tonnage of waste exported was projected with linear regression from the Comext data of for the period 2004-2019. The value of the waste retained in the EU was calculated based on the projected quantities factored with the current prices of secondary materials (or high quality waste) across the entire timeline. The impact of each measures is first calculated on the basis of the actual figures for export for 2019 and then on the basis of the projected amounts until 2030.

·International legal considerations

When assessing possible measures linked to the export of waste, it is important to take the relevant international legal framework into account, i.e. the Basel Convention, the OECD Decision and the GATT agreement under the World Trade Organisation (WTO). More information on this point is presented in Annex 11.

·Common features linked to the economic impacts of the measures affecting export of waste

This section considers the impacts of the measures pertaining to the export of waste outside the EU on the waste management sector within the EU (mostly SMEs, but also large companies which represent the highest share of the turnover of the sector). The amounts of the different waste streams retained in the EU would vary significantly depending on whether the measures focus on countries outside the OECD or cover all third countries.

To properly understand the impact of the retention of the amounts of waste in the EU presented above, it is necessary to describe the value chain linked to the export and management of waste, which would be affected by these changes.

Under the baseline scenario, the collection and sorting of waste take place in the EU, after which the waste in question is sold for export outside the EU. This would change with the measures assessed in this section, where some of the waste collected and sorted in the EU would be sold for treatment/recycling in the EU instead of being exported.

The measures would first impact the companies which currently export the waste outside the EU (sorting companies in most of the cases, as well as those specialised in trading waste). It is likely that these companies would sell their waste to a recycling company in the EU at a lower price compared to the prices that they would obtain for exporting their waste. This is linked to the difference between treatments costs in the EU and the equivalent treatment costs outside the EU. This gap cannot be precisely quantified (notably as it varies depending on the waste streams and from country to country). The methodology used to calculate the impacts of the measures versus the baseline is based on the difference between the prices of secondary materials that can be sold on the EU market versus the price declared by exporters in Comext, which provides an indication of the value which would be generated in the EU for the whole supply chain. It should also be underlined that the lower prices that would be paid for their waste to the companies currently exporting it outside the EU can be mitigated for collecting and sorting companies for waste that is (like packaging or WEEE) subject to “extended producer responsibility schemes”, as these schemes may provide a balancing support in case of decreases of market prices for the waste concerned 80 .

The companies purchasing the waste and processing/recycling them in the EU would also be affected by the measures. It is anticipated that they will be able to acquire additional quantities of waste for processing into secondary raw materials (i.e. transforming bales of plastic waste into plastic pellets, or processing ferrous scrap into steel). With a larger supply of waste as feedstock for their secondary materials, this sector would be able to produce a larger volume of secondary materials, which might allow them to lower their prices on the EU and international markets. The price of secondary raw materials is currently one of the biggest obstacles for their uptake into production processes, as they compete with cheaper virgin materials. However, the ability of the recycling industry to offer cheaper prices for their secondary materials, while still making a profit, also depends on the costs for waste treatment.

An important point in this analysis relates to the availability of the infrastructure to deal with additional waste in the EU, as well as of the corresponding demand for this waste in the EU. The most important industries in this regard include the industries recycling or processing ferrous metal, non-ferrous metal, paper, plastic and textile waste.

For some waste (paper and metal scrap for example), there are well established international supply chains for waste going to industries in Asia, which process them for manufacturing new commodities in that same region. EU-based companies exporting these wastes question the readiness of the EU paper and steel industries to absorb this waste and use it as feedstock. On the other hand, in the last years, the manufacturing industries have increased their uptake of waste as feedstock and have indicated in the context of this initiative that they are ready to use more of this waste in the future and have already programmed investments in this regard.

Ferrous metal scrap is the largest category of waste exported outside the EU. At the same time, the European steel industry is the second largest producer of steel in the world after China. It has 500 production sites located in 23 EU countries. Their output is over 177 million tonnes of steel a year, accounting for 11% of global output 81 , providing over 320,000 direct jobs and 1.5 million indirect jobs 82 . The European steel industry has been using around 80 to 90 million tonnes of steel scrap/year in the last 5 years, the large majority of which is processed in electric arc furnaces into new steel products. The use of scrap is a key factor for the transition of the steel sector to a decarbonised and circular economy, as steel scrap replaces iron ore and coal and are used in electric arc furnaces which produce far less CO2 emissions than blast furnaces.The proportion of steel scrap used in relation to crude steel production in the EU is 56%. The use of steel scrap also represents economic savings as it lowers the costs linked to CO2 emissions paid under the EU emissions trading system (ETS) by the steel industry. The uptake of additional steel scrap is an integral part of the EU steel industry strategy.

The pulp and paper industry has a turnover of 90 billion EUR and provides more than 180 000 jobs in Europe directly 83 . This industry has steadily increased its uptake of paper waste (“paper for recycling”) for the production of paper in the EU, so that 49 million tonnes of “paper for recycling” were used by the industry in 2019, representing 55% of the overall paper and board production 84 . A study on investment needs in the waste sector published in 2019 85 identified paper and cardboard among waste materials where the recycling capacity is sufficient to meet the municipal and packaging waste targets, as recovered paper materials can directly substitute for primary materials in existing production facilities. Additionally, the paper industry plans investments in 2021-2023 for increasing their production from “paper for recycling” in the EU for an amount of 2 million tonnes. This is driven by the expansion of the paper/cardboard packaging sector (to replace plastic packaging), which uses more recycled materials than the traditional “paper for publication” sector.

With respect to non-ferrous metals, this report focuses on scrap from aluminium and copper, which represent the highest share of non-ferrous metal scrap exported outside the EU. There are about 220 aluminium recycling plants in Europe, many of which are SMEs and family-owned businesses. There are also large companies, such as Norsk Hydro, Hindalco’s subsidiary Novelis, AMAG Austria Metall, and TRIMET Aluminium, operating aluminium recycling facilities 86 . Meanwhile, Europe’s copper industry comprises three sectors: miners, producers and semi-fabricators. There are around 500 companies with an estimated turnover of about 45 billion euro and around 50 000 people employed 87 .

The EU aluminum industry produces currently about 4 million tonnes of aluminium through the processing of scrap. This represents twice the volume of aluminium produced from raw materials sourced in the EU. It is also important to note that the EU industry also relies heavily on the import of raw materials (bauxite) for its production: the EU is a net importer of raw materials with 4.6 million tonnes, originating mostly from Russia, the Middle East or Africa. According to the information provided by the European Aluminium industry, current recycling capacity in Europe is 12 million tonnes. The recycling of aluminium lowers by 95% the use of the energy needed for primary production 88  and, just as for the steel industry, is part of the strategy for the future of this industry in the EU. In 2018, the EU28 industry used approximately 2 million tonnes of scrap for its production of copper. This represents around 50% of the feedstock used, the rest being supplied by domestic mining and import of primary copper. This is higher than share of copper scrap used for the overall production at the global level, which is of 32%.

Compared to these traditional industrial sectors, the plastics recycling industry is a relatively new sector, which is expected to grow steadily in the coming years. In 2019, 9.4 million tonnes of plastic waste were collected for recycling in the EU, out of which around 2 million tonnes were exported outside the EU. This suggests that around 7.5 million tonnes of waste were recycled in the EU. The study on investment needs in the waste sector mentioned above, estimates that an additional capacity of around 3 million tonnes would need to be established at the EU level to recycle all waste generated on its territory and stop exporting it. These figures include the UK, which exported 0.5 million tonnes of plastic waste in 2019 and was, together with Germany, the top exporter of plastic waste among EU Member States. Therefore, the figure of 3 million tonnes of additional capacity needed to treat all plastic waste produced in the EU should be lower for EU27. The same study indicates that stakeholders suggest that the tendency to export plastic waste prevents the expansion of domestic capacity, as new recycling facilities would face uncertainty about having enough plastic waste to process. However, since 2016, exports of plastic waste outside the EU have gone down considerably. According to more recent data, plastics recycling in Europe 89 represents 8.5 million tonnes of installed recycling capacity, with a turnover of 3 billion EUR, 600 companies and 20000 employees 90 . In a 2019 report 91 , the Bureau of International Recycling observes new trends as large European waste collectors have been taking over many recycling companies in order to process their own collected plastic waste. In addition, these companies have been looking to collaborate with the plastics industry to bring new circular products into the market. Meanwhile, the European recycling companies have been investing heavily in washing and extrusion lines. Higher recycling targets set under EU law (notably for packaging) at the 2025 and 2030 horizons, as well as other regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives to boost the use of recycled plastics in different economic sectors, are likely to continue supporting the EU plastics recycling industry. Higher retention of plastic waste inside the EU would further incentivise these changes.

In the textile sector, the EU currently extensively relies on export of textile waste as more almost half of this waste by volume is destined to third countries due to the limited volume of it recycled in the EU 92 . The EU second-hand market represents an important outlet for used textile, including materials which are prepared for reuse and placed back on the market. There is limited information the current capacity for treating textile waste in the EU. This is largely because there is no requirement at the EU level for reporting on the separate collection and treatment of all post-consumer textiles 93 . Important changes are expected in the sector starting with the introduction of the new obligation for Member States to set up separate collection for textile waste from 2025 94 . New measures to improve the treatment of textile waste are expected to be put in place, in line with the Green Deal and the Circular Economy Action Plan, with the upcoming adoption of the first comprehensive EU Textile Strategy later in 2021, which aims at putting the textile sector and its entire value chain on a more sustainable and circular path. There are also important research and investment projects to improve textile waste treatment, notably on textile material recycling and integration into new products. The study on investment needs in the waste sector mentioned above indicates that investments amounting to 300 million euros would be needed by 2027 and a further 300 million euros by 2035 to treat the additionally collected textile waste. Different initiatives are taken to boost the recycling capacity. EURATEX 95  intends to establish 5 EU recycling hubs near textile and apparel districts to make raw materials by collecting, sorting, processing and recycling post-production and post-consumption textile wastes. Chemical recycling potential is being trialled mainly in the Nordic countries, in particular regarding the environmental perspectives for mixed textile recycling 96 . Siptex 97 is a large scale sorting and recycling facility that uses infrared light to sort textiles by fibre composition and colour. Therefore, regardless certain short-term challenges, including possible termporary diversion of textile waste into energy for recovery plants, in the medium term, the EU textile waste treatment industry would be able to process textile higher up the waste hierarchy.

The potential gains for the European eoncomy to boost its recycling capacity is one of the reasons why, as part of their recovery and resilience plans, the Commission has prompted EU Member States to prioritise financial support to investments in waste management and circular economy. Investments have been made and are being planned in the European industries recycling and processing waste which should allow to absorb an afflux of waste, even though a transition period might be needed to ensure that the required infrastructures are established for all waste streams concerned. It should also be noted that the demand for recyclates in the EU depends also on factors which are outside the remit of the WSR, like the prices for virgin materials and the obligation to incorporate recycled materials in new products, which are subject to other initiatives under the EU policy for circular economy.

In addition to the recycling sector in the EU, the energy-from-waste sector is also likely to be impacted by a possible reduction of the export of waste. If more waste is retained in the EU for treatment, additional quantities of waste will be sent to recycling facilities. These have a certain quantity of residual waste, which cannot be recycled – rates are different for different waste streams – and is directed to energy recovery plants 98 . In addition, at least in the short term, if all waste retained in the EU cannot be sent for recycling due to a lack of capacity or demand, a share of it will be destined to facilities using waste as a source of energy.

Member States which rely a lot on export for some waste streams, and which have limited capacity to deal it domestically, would be more affected than others by measures relating to the export of waste outside the EU. This is likely to be the case for export of plastic and textile waste most notably. However, the impact will depend on the real volume of waste which would be affected by measures on export, and it could in many case be mitigated through export to other EU Member States or should be included in the waste management strategy of the exporting Member State to increase its waste management capacity.

Beyond the EU, a reduction on the export of waste would also impact a number of countries which are relying on this supply for their domestic economy. A reduction of exports to non-OECD countries would considerably impact textile waste, paper waste, non-ferrous metal scrap and, to a lesser extent, plastic waste and ferrous metal scrap as can be seen in the tables provided in Annex 9. Among the non-OECD countries, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, China, Egypt and the Russian Federation feature among the top importers of waste exported from the EU. Among OECD countries, Turkey is by far the largest importer. For some of them, the import of waste represents an important source of feedstock for their industries (steel in Turkey for example) and avoid the use of virgin materials in their industrial processes. The impact on these countries might be limited to the short term. Academic research has found that developed countries gained economically through global waste trade, including to developing countries, but failed to incorporate true environmental costs. At the same time waste management is a challenge for developing countries mainly due to the increasing generation of waste in these countries and the increasing costs associated to its management. High amounts of imported waste may disrupt the domestic waste management system with operators rather opting for the treatment of ‘cleaner’ foreign waste, instead of investing in separate collection and efficient sorting of domestically generated waste. Many of the countries importing waste from the EU are also emerging economies generating increasing volumes of waste, which could also replace imported waste as feedstock for their industries. On the longer term, reduced imports of waste should reduce the pressure on these vulnerable systems and allow for the development and improvement of domestic waste management systems in developing countries. This will result in a better performant management system, also economically.

There are considerable challenges in attempting to quantify the economic impacts of the potential reduction of export of waste and of the associated surplus of waste retained in the EU. As detailed in Annex 5, a large set of data has been compiled for the purpose of this impact assessment. This data is used below, in an attempt to provide, as far as feasible, quantified estimates on the economic impact of the various measures considered. These estimates should be considered with caution.

·Common features linked to the environmental impacts of the measures affecting export of waste

The assessment of the environmental impacts of the measures affecting the export of waste depends on a number of factors, which are common for all these measures and are therefore presented together here. Overall, the different measures would result in positive impact for the environment, as they would lead to:

·The treatment of waste (in the EU or in third countries authorised to import waste) in conditions which are subject to high environmental requirements, thereby avoiding the environmental externalities linked to the treatment of exported waste under the baseline scenario. However, this impact will depend on the volume and type of waste retained in the EU and on the time horizon considered. In the short term, a large surplus of waste staying in the EU might not be absorbed by the EU recycling industry, due to a lack of capacity, and could be diverted to other forms of treatment, like incineration or landfilling;

·Higher amounts of waste recycled in the EU, leading to replacement of virgin material by secondary materials in EU production processes 99 , with associated environmental gains linked to reduction of (i) GHG and other environmental emissions, (ii) energy savings both from recycling materials 100 and producing energy from the non-recyclable fractions 101 and (iii) avoided extraction of virgin resources;

·Less environmental emissions linked to the shipping of waste to third countries (expressed as GHGs and overall environmental externalities).

It is not possible to perform a quantified assessment of all these environmental impacts, due to a lack of data. Therefore, this impact assessment provides:

·a quantified assessment of the environmental impact linked to (i) the treatment of residual waste and (ii) transport externalities. This quantified assessment is expressed in differences in emissions of GHGs and overall environmental externalities (i.e. monetized environmental emissions).

·a qualitative assessment of a number of environmental impacts, where sufficiently reliable data was not available to quantify them.

The methodology, assumptions, data and modelling used for the assessment of these environmental impacts are in section 2(c) of Annex 5.

·Common features linked to the social impacts of the measures affecting export of waste

Where relevant possible social impacts in third countries are assessed, as a result of changes in flows of EU waste to those countries. In this regard, two major social impacts are assumed associated with the measures foreseen:

1.changes affecting employment sector, impacts on standards of living for people in the third countries which used to import the EU waste and impacts on public health of waste workers and communities leaving close to areas where waste are treated or or disposed in third countries;

2.additional employment possibilities within the EU as a result of increased volumes of waste retained within the EU.



2a) Specify obligations for exporters and public authorities to ensure and verify that waste exported to third countries is managed in an environmentally sound manner

Economic impacts

For companies exporting waste from the EU, the costs linked to this proposed measure will depend on a number of factors:

·Some companies already have mechanisms in place to ensure the traceability of their shipments of waste, so that the new auditing schemes would build on these mechanisms and the costs linked to the new measure would be limited to cover the new requirements laid out in the measure. The costs would be higher for companies which have so far not developed any particularly thorough traceability scheme for their supply chains; 

·The costs of the proposed measure would also depend on the types and volumes of waste shipped, the countries of destination, the size of the facility, the complexity of the value chain, the nature of the waste treatment operations;  

·Finally, the proposed measure foresees that exporting companies which have commissioned an audit to a given facility in accordance with the proposed measures should make their audit report available under fair commercial conditions to other exporting companies intending to export waste to the same facility. This should generally lower the costs of this measure for the exporting companies concerned.  It should also be noted that some companies (especially SMEs) might also entrust Producer Responsibility Organisations to commission audits for their members, thereby pooling resources and decreasing costs of these audits.

As part of this impact assessment, the Commission consulted European companies that are planning to put in place auditing schemes for facilities located in third countries which treat waste from the EU.

Based on the elements presented above, it can be estimated that the measure would first incur a one-off cost for companies to organise themselves in setting up the audit schemes in question. This cost would mostly consist of time spent by the relevant staff of the company to identify and take the structural actions needed to implement this measure (such as contracting the independent audit company which will perform the audit of the facility/ies concerned). It can be estimated that this cost will represent several thousand euros but will not exceed 30 000 euros. It can also be estimated that the maintenance of these schemes would require a yearly recurring cost of around 5000 euro. In addition to these fixed costs, the costs of the audits themselves can be estimated at between 1000 and 2000 euro per audit of individual facilities.

These costs could be lower for companies which rely on Producer Responsibility Organisations to perform the audits or which acquire audit reports performed on behalf of other exporting companies, as indicated above. It should also be noted that the creation of such obligation would also ensure a level playing field for all companies, which would avoid a situation where different companies set up their own auditing schemes, on a voluntary basis, based on different criteria and methodologies.

For some companies which are currently not exercising any monitoring on their export, the obligation resulting from this new measure could lead to a complete disruption of their supply chains if they find out during the audit that their supply chain is not sustainable enough. This could force them to either chose new commercial partners in third countries or stop exporting their waste altogether.

To mitigate this risk, a transition period of three years after entry into force the new Regulation is foreseen before the proposed measure comes into force. This would allow companies sufficient time to prepare for the implementation of these new obligations. This includes companies located in outermost regions.

For companies located in third countries which transport and process waste imported from the EU, the effect would be positive for those performing their activities in an environmentally sound manner, as the audit would consolidate their activities and competitiveness, even though it could also incur some costs for upgrading their infrastructure and standards in the short term. The impact would be negative for those companies which are not able to comply with the criteria for environmentally sound management of waste laid out in the auditing schemes as they would lose customers from the EU.

For the competent authorities in the Member States, this measure would require to set up new procedures and adequate resources to check that exporting companies under their jurisdiction have adequately carried out the required audit schemes.

Environmental impacts:

The measure would have positive environmental impacts as it would guarantee that shipments of waste to third countries properly meet the criteria for environmentally sound management. This would represent an added-value compared to the current provisions of the WSR, which contain general obligations to this end, but do neither provide concrete criteria to check exports against, nor other tools to help companies and competent authorities meeting these obligations. The definition of criteria for the definition of such environmental sound management practices, and the implementation of comprehensive audit schemes by the companies exporting waste from the EU to ensure that they are fulfilled, should allow to check if the reality on the ground corresponds to the general aims of the WSR in that respect. If properly implemented, this measure would ensure that companies based in the EU stop exporting waste to facilities which are not managing it sustainably and avoid the related damages for the environment and public health.

Social impacts:

The social impacts for this measure is expected to be positive as it would reduce the adverse effects of mismanaging of waste in third countries. This would affect in the first place positively the health of workers active in the waste management sector and of local populations living nearby the areas where waste is treated. 

Stakeholders’ opinion

As indicated above, the Commission consulted, as part of this impact assessment, European companies exporting waste outside the EU, which are planning to put in place auditing schemes for facilities located in third countries which treat waste from the EU. They have expressed support for an auditing mechanism that would be harmonised throughout the Union. They further referred to positive feedback from other companies in the sector that have shown interest in the experiences of the development of these corporate auditing schemes as a manner of demonstrating ESM of their exported waste at destination.

2b) Task the Commission, via implementing or delegated acts, to set out criteria to differentiate between used goods and waste, for specific waste streams for which export to third countries raises particular challenges

Economic impacts:

The measure is expected to contribute to increasing the treatment of waste in the EU, but cannot be quantified precisely and is expected to be rather limited. Clearer rules to distinguish used goods from waste should lead to better enforcement of the WSR and avoid that waste are illegally exported outside the EU. For example there are currently about 1 million used vehicles which are exported outside the EU and, among them, a certain share are “end-of-life vehicles” (ELVs) whose export outside the OECD is banned 102 but takes place nevertheless, as there are no legally-binding and easy-to-enforce criteria to distinguish between ELVs and used vehicles. Defining such criteria in EU law would help to ensure that these ELVs are not exported outside the EU, but stay in the EU and be recycled there. This would have consequences for vehicles dismantlers and shredders in the EU and increase the production of metal scrap (derived from these ELVs) in the EU. It is important to stress that, in order to produce the desired results, this measure should be accompanied by adequate enforcement activities (i.e. clearer criteria will help enforcement authorities to implement the WSR, but there will still be a need for these authorities to devote sufficient time and resources to inspecting the waste in question). 

Environmental impacts:

The environmental impact of the measure could be substantial for some waste streams, for which the unclear distinction between used goods and waste is an important factor contributing to their unauthorised export outside the EU. This is the case for some commodities containing hazardous substances (vehicles/ELVs, e-equipment/e-waste, batteries, etc.), whose export outside the OECD is banned. Once they arrive at destination, often in vulnerable countries with little or no proper waste management system, these wastes are usually treated under unsound conditions, with their valuable components sub optimally recovered (often through open burning) and the rest of it discharged in the open environment. The measure would contribute to stopping the export of these waste and contribute to putting an end to these severe environmental and public health damage.

In addition, the measure would provide reassurance that the export of used goods consists of commodities which are of better quality than waste. This should benefit economic operators exporting and importing these products, as well as customers in third countries buying these second-hand goods.



Social impacts:

The social impacts of this measure are expected to be positive as it would reduce the adverse effects linked to goods that are wrongfully declared as used (non-waste), but being dumped or mismanaged as waste in third countries. This would positively affect in the first place local populations living nearby dumpsite areas and waste pickers working there.

Stakeholders’ opinions:

Similar as for intraEU shipments, many economic operators highlighted during the consultation the challenges with diverging interpretations on the waste status of the material they wish to export and aksed for clarification as regards the issue of used goods versus waste as regards shipments of waste. NGOs pointed at the large amounts of waste that end up in vulnerable countries outside the EU, that are exported under the guise of being “used” and not waste, and referred to the absence of clear criteria to make a distinction between used and waste for many products.

2c) Establish a new framework for the export of green-listed waste from the EU to a non-OECD country, according to which such export is only authorised to those countries that notify the EU of their willingness to import green-listed waste and demonstrate their ability to treat it sustainably, in accordance with criteria set out in the WSR

The extent of the reduction of the volume of exported waste under this measure would depend on several factors, notably the number of non-OECD countries authorised to import waste and the amount of waste that they could treat. In theory, the amounts of waste retained in the EU could correspond, as a maximum, to the overall waste currently exported outside the OECD. It is likely though that a number of non-OECD countries would be interested in continuing to receive waste from the EU and be able to demonstrate that they can deal with them in a sustainable manner. Some of the waste currently exported outside the OECD would also be re-directed to OECD countries.

Given this uncertainty, the impacts for this measure were calculated with the hypothesis that between 20% and 50% of the volume of the current exports of waste to non-OECD countries are retained in the EU. The tables 3-6 below provide the projections of volumes and value of 20% and 50% of waste being retained in the EU.

For 2019, this means that 2.4 - 6 million tonnes are retained in the EU, which were exported for a value ranging between 536 and 1341 million euro in 2019. Based on the projections of the volumes exported until 2030, the volume retained in the EU would be between 2.3 and 5.7 million tonnes and the value between 835 and 2088 million euro.

Economic impacts:

Based on the methodology explained in Annex 5 (point 3(b)(2)), the economic impact of this measure compared to the baseline, has been calculated as the difference between:

·the value of the waste which would have been exported under the baseline scenario but, under the proposed measure, would stay and be processed in the EU (so the loss in export value, taken from the value of waste declared upon export as detailed in tables E.10 and E.11 in Annex 5), and

·the net value generated by treating this waste in the EU (so the gain in value), which is calculated from (i) the revenues generated in the EU from the sale of the secondary materials resulting from this treatment minus (based on market prices as detailed in tables E.12 and E.13 in Annex 5) (ii) the costs for treating this waste in the EU. The net value also factors in (iii) the difference in the costs of transport between shipping to a third country and transporting within the EU to a recycling facility. The value of energy produced with the recycling rejects (iv) is also considered to calculate this net value.

Tables 7 and 8 below present this difference in the 2019-2030 time period for the different waste streams concerned. This is a proxy for the economic impact of the proposed measure for the EU economy. These tables show that the overall impact for the EU economy of this measure would represent a net benefit varying between 200 and 510 million euro (for 2019) and of between 1611 and 4044 million euro (for 2030). The impact differs greatly depending on the types of waste. This depends on the prices of secondary materials that would be sold in the EU.

Sorting companies are expected to sell waste in the EU market at lower prices than when such waste is exported, while companies purchasing this waste from sorting companies and recycling them would benefit from additional feedstock at lower prices, which would allow them to offer cheaper secondary raw materials and improve their competitiveness. SMEs active in the collection and sorting of waste could therefore be negatively impacted, insofar as they are dealing with waste which are currently exported at a higher price than the price that would be obtained on the EU market. An important share of SMEs working in the waste management sector are however not directly involved in the export operations outside the EU, so that it can be expected that this impact would remain limited. In addition, the retention of waste in the EU may have the side effect of generating new opportunities for economic operators, including SMEs, especially those involved in innovative technologies for recycling waste streams which pose particular challenges (such as plastics and textile).

It is likely that the paper, ferrous, non-ferrous metal industries would be able to process the additional waste staying in the EU as a result of this option without particular challenges. As indicated above, these industries are already processing in the EU important and quantities of waste (90 million tonnes of steel comes from scrap, which is also the case for 49 million tonnes of paper, 4 million tonnes of aluminium, 2 million tonnes of copper 103 ), which have increased steadily in the last years.

The yearly volume which would stay in the EU as a result of this measure would, under the 50% waste retention scenario, amount to between 1.5 and 2 million tonnes of ferrous metals, 0.2 to 0.6 million tonnes of non-ferrous metals, with the highest amount of paper and cardboard waste equal to between 2.3 and 2.5 million tonnes. Under the 20% waste retention scenario for the same period, that would result in 0.8-0.6 million tonnes of ferrous metals, 0.2-0.1 million tonnes of non-ferrous metals, almost 1 million tonnes of paper and cardboard waste. These figures represent a relatively limited quantity overall compared to the current capacity of the steel, paper and non-ferrous metal industries, and in view of its planned increase in the future.

Table 3 – Forecast of tonnes of 20% exports of wastes to non-OECD countries for the period 2019-2030

Table 4 – Forecast of tonnes of 50% exports of wastes to non-OECD countries for the period 2019-2030

Table 5 – Forecast of EUR value of 20% exports of wastes to non-OECD countries for the period 2019-2030



Table 6 – Forecast of EUR value of 50% exports of wastes to non-OECD countries for the period 2019-2030

Table 7 – Economic impact if 20% of waste currently exported to non-OECD countries is retained in the EU (EUR)

Table 8 – Economic impact if 50% of waste currently exported to non-OECD countries is retained in the EU (EUR)

With regard to the plastics recycling industry, which is a relatively new sector, the situation is a bit different but the surplus of waste staying in the EU linked to this option should also be manageable. Under this option, by 2030 between 0.2 and 0.5 million tonnes of plastic waste should annually be retained in the EU, which used to be exported. This should be manageable by the EU plastic industry, which has an installed capacity of 8.5 million tonnes.

For the textile sector, the volume that is currently recycled in the EU is limited. Overall, it is estimated that the amount of textile waste that will stay in the EU under the measure 2c would be around 0.3-0.4 million tonnes annually - taking 20% waste retention scenario or around 0.7- 1 million tonnes if 50% of currently exported waste waste was retained within the EU. Some of this waste might not find its way to recycling in the EU immediately and would probably be sent to energy for recovery plants. This would still be more sustainable than shipping them to some third countries where no information would be available on their treatment and where they would run a serious risks of being burnt or landfilled in unsustainable conditions. And in the medium term, the EU textile waste treatment industry would certainly be able to absorb much more waste than today.

It is also important to stress that the measures foreseen under this measure would become effective only three years after the entry into force of the new regulation, which would leave time for a transitional period during which the relevant industries might also get prepared for these changes.

It should also be noted that, for some industries, it is expected that the measure will provide additional economic gains, due to a decrease of their financial contribution to the Emission Trading System, linked to a reduction of their emissions of greenhouse gases. For example, it can be estimated that for the steel industry, these economic gains could potentially amount to between 36 million and 116 million/year 104 .

In addition to the economic impact linked to the treatment and valorisation of waste retained in the EU, this measure should also provide legal clarity to exporting companies from the EU and to competent authorities in the EU Member States on the regime and conditions applying to export of green-listed waste to a given country. This should reduce the number of delays in shipments linked to possible communication problems and the disputes linked to the refusal of a third country to import waste from the EU. These refusals and the implementation of the take-back procedures of waste into the EU often generate considerable difficulties and important costs for EU Member States.

Environmental impacts

Based on the methodology explained in section 7.1 and detailed in Annex 5 (point 3(c)), the environmental impacts of this measure are expected to be the following:

·The measure would ensure a better treatment of waste which are currently exported outside the OECD, because such waste would either:

I.continue to be exported to a non-OECD country, which has demonstrated its capacity and ability to manage this waste in an environmentally sound manner;

II.not be exported outside the OECD any longer but stay in the EU or be re-routed to an OECD country, where waste management standards are generally higher than outside the OECD.

·Overall, it would reduce the negative externalities linked to the mismanagement of waste in non-OECD countries and result in positive environmental impacts in the EU as higher amounts of waste would be recycled in the EU, processed into secondary raw materials and enter the circular economy. For example the use of steel scrap retained in the EU under this measure is expected to lead to a reduction of between 1 and 2.9 million tonnes/year of CO2 for the steel industry in the EU 105 . This demonstrates that the life cycle environmental impacts of metal production from waste sources are significantly lower than those for primary production. Assessment shows that 1 tonne of aluminium recycling saves 93% of the virgin aluminium impact equal to 7.65 t CO2-eq. per t of aluminium scrap recycled 106 . This shows that the life cycle environmental impacts of metal production from waste sources are significantly lower than those for primary production. By diverting the currently exported scrap materials into the production of aluminium, the EU could reduce considerable amounts of CO2-eq. in tonnes. Under 50% waste retention scenario, it would lead minimum to savings ranging between 2-0.9 million t of CO2-eq./year in 2019-2030. Under 20% waste retention scenario, these estimates would be 0.8-0.4 million t. Accordingly, copper recycling saves 65% of the virgin impact equal to 0.81 tonnes CO2-eq. per tonne of recycled copper scrap. Under the 20% retention scenario, the use of copper scrap which would stay in the EU could lead to annual savings of 180 000 tonnes of CO2-eq based on 2019 data. Similar benefits can also be calculated for other waste materials, like plastic waste, for which recycling and further use of recycled content generates less CO2 emissions than the primary production based the extraction of fossil fuels. Recent assessments 107 show that 1 tonne of recycled plastics in the EU saves 997 kg of CO2-eq. Based on that, recycling within the EU of 50% of the currently exported plastic waste outside the OECD would potentially reduce the emissions by 0.5 million t CO2-eq/year for the period 2019-2030. Alternatively, under a 20% waste retention scenario these estimates would be around 0.2 million t of CO2-eq./year for the same period.

· As it is however also expected that the use of such waste materials, particularly, scrap of ferrous and non-ferrous metals, can lead to reductions of CO2 emissions in the countries where it is currently exported and processed into secondary materials, these figures have not been used for the quantification of the environmental impacts presented below. In the short-term, however, this measure might lead to oversupply of some types of waste streams that the recycling industry in the EU is not able to absorb. This is likely to be limited, notably as the measure would enter into force three years after the adoption of the Regulation to leave time to the recycling industry to adapt to the new situation.

·The treatment of rejects from the waste retained in the EU, compared to their treatment in a third country outside the OECD, would save 0.2 million tonnes of GHG emissions per year (under a 20% retention scenario) or 0.5 million tonnes (under a 50% retention scenario), for the period 2019-2030. The savings are particularly important for paper/cardboard, textile and plastic waste. In monetary terms, this represents savings of 674 million euro for the whole period of 2019-2030 in a 20% retention scenario or 56 million euro per year. Under a 50% retention scenario, the total amount for the same period would be around 1.7 billion euro or 140 million euro per year.

·The environmental benefits expected in avoiding transport related externalities for the period 2019-2030 are expected to amount to a total value of around 2.6 billion euro under a 20% retention scenario, which equals to around 215 million euro savings per year. Under a 50% retention scenario value would amount to 537 million euro per year.

·The total environmental benefits linked to a combination of (i) a better treatment of rejects and to (ii) avoiding emissions linked to transporting the waste under a scenario where 20% of waste exported outside the OECD would be retained in the EU amount between 266 million euro in 2019 and 275 million euro in 2030. Taking the scenario that this measure could result in 50% of waste retained in the EU, theses environmental benefits would range between 666 million euro in 2019 and 687 million euro in 2030. These values represent minimum amounts of the overall environmental gains linked to this measure, as many others could not be quantified and should be taken into consideration as well. Notably, in receiving countries, this measure could also create an incentive to improve waste management infrastructure and related technologies and skills, in order to demonstrate that they can deal with the waste in a sustainable manner.

·In the short term, this measure could cause a reduced amount of waste being imported to third countries from the EU. This could lead local industries in destination countries to switch from waste to virgin materials as feedstock, thus increasing its environmental footprint. However, this risk seems to be limited as the measure does not set a full ban on shipments to third countries, but allows countries to continuously deal with the waste in a sustainable manner. In the medium term, domestic waste could replace imported waste. The reliance on the import of waste by the recycling industry in some countries actually often impedes the establishment of a proper system for the collection and treatment of domestic waste. Hence this measure is expected to have a positive environmental impact relating to the improvement of the sustainable management of domestic waste. For example, India develops at the moment a new legislation on the recycling of end-of-life vehicles. India is one of the world’s largest importers of steel scrap. With the new legislation on end-of-life vehicles, India could in the future, rather than import steel scrap, source a considerable amount of steel waste from its domestic market, as steel is the largest component recovered from waste vehicles.



Social impact:

The social impacts in third countries will be positive as the measure would contribute to averting the detrimental effects of export of waste in a given country, and its possible associated negative impact on public health for the workers or populations affected by the treatment of this waste. On the other hand the livelihood of people in receiving third countries could be negatively affected.

There will be positive social impacts also in the EU, in terms of potential job creation in the recycling industry, linked to the treatment of waste retained in the EU. Applying the methodology detailed in section 7.1 and Annex 5, it is expected that the measure could lead to the creation of between 9 000 108 and 23 000 109 jobs in the EU waste treatment and industrial sector processing waste (notably ferrous and non-ferrous industry).

It should be noted that the measure would also have an impact on the companies transporting waste outside the EU. As it is expected that a large share of the waste retained in the EU would however be shipped inside the EU, the negative impact on employment linked to a reduction of export would likely be compensated by an increase in employment in the transport sector linked to the shipments of waste across the EU. This aspect is therefore not analysed further in the report.

Stakeholders’ opinions

All stakeholders agreeds during the consultations, that the current regime under Article 37 of the WSR and Commission Regulation 1418/2007 does not function well. Diverging views were expressed on the extent to which exports of green-listed waste should be controlled or limited. Industry mainly active in the collection and sorting of waste was more reluctant to limit exports of green-listed waste, than those industry actors active in final recycling of this waste in the EU. Companies involved in the collection and sorting of waste in the EU warned against the detrimental impact of a regime which would abruptly put an end to the export of waste which are pre-treated in the EU: according to them, this would have no or limited environmental added-value and undermine the economic business model and stability of the EU waste management sector, as it would impact the profitability of the companies collecting and sorting waste in the EU. Member States competent authorities expressed their support in principle for a reform of the current rules, which would provide better tools to verify that exported waste are management sustainably in the countries of destination. NGOs felt that exports of waste should be limited severely, or completely banned (for plastic waste for example) and that, for waste which is exported outside the EU, a robust verification of ESM of the concerned waste at destination is absolutely necessary.

2d) Require that the export of green-listed waste outside the OECD is subject to the notification procedure

The reduction of the export of waste under this measure would likely be more modest than for other measures. It could still be assumed that it could reach up to 20% of the level of export outside the OECD, or 2.4 million tonnes, with a value on export of 536 million euro in 2019. Taking projections until 2030, the amount would be around 2.3 million tonnes with a value of 835 million euro.

Economic impacts

As explained under measure 2c, assuming a 20% retention scenario, this measure brings economic benefits of around 200 million euro in 2019 and 1.6 billion euro in 2030. The same economic impact as for measure 2c (for the 20% waste retention scenario) would be expected.

The EU steel industry would see its financial contribution to the Emission Trading System decrease by around 36 million euro/year.

This measure would result in considerable administrative costs for the competent authorities in the EU Member States, which would have to process a considerable quantity of new notifications. The administrative burden linked to this would also be important for companies exporting waste outside the EU, which would have to constitute the notification file, submit to all relevant authorities and await that all consents are provided, to be able to proceed with the export of the waste concerned. Finally, this would also have costs for the competent authorities in the countries of destination, which would need to also process the notifications. A number of third countries might not be legally able to issue consents for green-listed waste, as this is not required under the Basel Convention and might not be possible under their domestic legal regime.

Environmental impacts

This measure could provide more controls on and better monitoring of exported wastes, which could result in better guarantee of ESM in the country of destination. Requiring a more transparent transport and management evidence trail, this measure brings to some extent the environmental impacts as explained in the measure 2c above, relating to the amounts of waste retained in the EU for treatment. This includes avoided environmental externalities relating to transport and substandard treatment of the waste with regard to different percentages of retention of EU waste that would normally have been exported to non-OECD third countries.

The calculations for the environmental benefits of measure 2c under a retention scenario of 20% are valid for this measure as follows:

·Overall, the environmental benefits linked to (i) a better treatment of rejects and to (ii) avoiding emissions linked to transporting the waste would be between 266 million euro in 2019 and 275 million euro in 2030. As in the case of measure 2c, these values represent minimum amounts of the overall environmental gains linked to this measure, as many others could not be quantified and should be considered as well.



Social impacts:

In addition to the social impacts explained in measure 2c, it is estimated that this measure could lead to the additional creation of around 9 000 110 jobs in the EU waste treatment and industrial sector processing waste (notably ferrous and non-ferrous industry).

Stakeholders’ opinions

The measure was proposed by one Member State as a way to better monitor the export of green-listed outside the OECD, through the use of a well-known procedure, which already applies for notified waste. However, most private and public stakeholders are not supportive of increasing the amount of notifications and the burdens linked with it.

2e) Set up a specific procedure to monitor export of waste to OECD countries and mitigate environmental problems that might be caused by such exports

This measure is a safeguard, which would allow the Commission to monitor exports of green-listed waste to OECD countries, which are not subject to any specific control procedure involving public authorities, and to trigger a specific procedure in case it appears that such exports are causing environmental damages in a given OECD country. The adoption of this measure should not lead to any immediate considerable impact: it is setting out a procedure which, if used, could ultimately lead a reduction of export of certain waste streams to one or more specific OECD countries. This individual decisions would then have tangible economic, environmental and social impacts which would need to be assessed in the process leading to their adoption.

Economic impacts

As indicated above, the measure would not have any direct substantial economic impact. If export restrictions are adopted on the basis of this measure, they would lead economic operators in the EU to divert their export of waste to other destinations, either in the EU or outside the EU. The impact will depend on the volume and prices of the waste concerned, and would have to be assessed on a case by case basis.

Environmental impacts:

The environmental impacts of this measure are expected to be positive as it would provide a means for the Commission to avoid a situation whereby the export of waste from the EU is causing particular environmental difficulties in one OECD country. This would provide a legal basis for the Commission to start an official process towards the competent authorities of this country, which could ultimately lead to a suspension of the export of the problematic waste in question and thereby to the end of the environmental difficulties linked to this export.

Overall, the quality of waste management systems in OECD countries is assumed to be of higher quality than outside the OECD. It is however clear that still differences exist in some of the OECD countries, as compared with EU waste management standards, notably in some of the OECD countries among the top ten countries that currently receive waste from the EU. The export of waste to OECD countries has increased considerably in the last years and is likely to increase further in the future, notably as a follow-up to decisions adopted in the Basel Convention on plastic waste and to the potential adoption by the EU of other measures presented in this report with regard to export outside the OECD. Additional countries have recently become members of the OECD and others are likely to join the organisation in the coming years. In this context, it is important the EU is able to prevent environmental challenges that could be created by the export of waste to OECD countries, notably in case of important waste flows or if they increase suddenly.

Social impacts:

The social impacts will be limited but would be positive as the measure would contribute to averting the detrimental effects of export of waste in a given country, and its possible associated negative impact on public health for the workers or populations affected by the treatment of this waste.

Stakeholders’ opinions

Industry actors from the waste management sector generally consider that OECD countries have waste treatment standards which are comparable to those in the EU and do not think additional rules on such exportsare needed. Several Member States’ competent authorities have highlighted their experiences with waste exported to some OECD countries outside the EU, which create environmental challenges in these countries. These authorities have expressed their support to also strengthen the rules and controls for exports to OECD countries. This view was also shared by NGOs and some EU based recycling industries.

7.1.3 Objective 3: Better address illegal shipments of waste within the EU as well as illegal exports to third countries.

In general, each of the measures under objective 3 would contribute to improving the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the enforcement regime and inspection practices of the WSR and help better addressing waste crime, which is recognised in the 2021 EU SOCTA as being one of the most serious criminal threats facing the EU. These measures are mostly assessed qualitatively on how they can contribute to reduce illegal activities and unfair competition for legal operators in the waste sector.

Economic impacts:

The measures would have a positive economic impact for the legitimate actors in the waste sector reducing their loss of income linked to unfair competition from the illegal sector, notably ensuring that they are supplied with waste instead of illegal actors, and overall provide a better level playing field for their activities.

The measures should also result in benefits for public authorities, first directly through a better cooperation and synergies between other EU Member States authorities in tackling transnational criminal activities. The measures could also reduce enforcement actions linked to clean-up operations or repatriation activities, which are very costly and happen to remediate illegal activities. Repatriation costs of a single container within the EU are typically above €5000, and the costs can be up to €20,000 to bring back a container from Asia to Europe. Where a multi-container consignment needs to be repatriated, costs quickly mount up, as do the complexities of the repatriation.

Finally, better enforcement should also lead to a reduction of loss of tax revenues.

Environmental impacts:

The most problematic illegal waste shipments are those concerning hazardous waste and waste which is illegally sent for dumping or sub-standard treatment. The dumping or substandard treatment of waste often has severe impacts on the environment (e.g. air, soil, groundwater contamination, effects on animals and plants, indirect impact on climate change etc.). By contributing to improving the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the enforcement regime, the measures would help prevent and reduce the serious environmental impacts stemming from illegal waste shipments, bringing overall environmental benefits.

Social impacts:

By contributing to improving the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the enforcement regime, the measures would help prevent and reduce the negative human health impacts (e.g. respiratory problems, injuries etc.) and negative impacts on labour (e.g. child and woman workers, no social benefits, low wages, etc.) stemming from illegal waste shipments, bringing overall societal benefits. Furthermore, better enforcement will have the positive effect of bringing overall societal benefits by reducing criminal activities, including organised crime activities which operate through informal and clandestine channels.

Stakeholders’ opinions

During the consultations, many economic actors involved in waste collection and transport, but also treatment, stressed that for them a robust enforcement of the WSR is key to ensure a safe transition to a circular economy. Member States competent authorities agreed to that, but also pointed to the challenges they face at the moment, to perform enforcement actions as regards waste shipments. Most stakeholders, both private and public, expressed their support for strengthening the WSR’s provisions and improve coordination and cooperation on enforcement.

Specific impacts linked to each measure listed under Objective 3 are described further below.

Specific objective 3.1: Further strengthen the WSR’s provisions on enforcement and inspections

3a) Complement existing provisions on inspection plans

Economic impacts:

Requiring Member States to make available their inspection plans to the Commission represents a limited burden for the Member States. The assessment of the plans by the Commission should lead to identification of best practices and allow for better targeting of inspection activities.

Environmental impacts:

No specific environmental impacts relating to this measure are foreseen in addition to the general environmental impacts described above.

3b) Issue guidance on efficient inspections and enforcement practices

Economic impacts:

Increased legal clarity results in less disputes and thus reduction of costs due to delays during shipments, but only limited effect is expected from this measure.

Environmental impacts:

The measure would have only limited environmental impacts since a guidance on inspections and enforcement practices cannot prescribe legally binding provisions.

3c) Empower the Commission (through OLAF) to carry out transnational investigative and coordinating actions against waste trafficking in the EU

Economic impacts:

Empowering the Commission (through OLAF) to carry out investigative and coordinating actions in respect of illegal waste shipments (both intra-EU and extra-EU) would strengthen the overall enforcement capacity and instruments at disposal of the EU and its Member States and could lead to more efficient use of scarce resources for enforcement. Furthermore, entrusting OLAF, an existing EU body with relevant investigative and coordinating experience and toolbox, with improving enforcement of the Regulation would also be proportionate and limit any possible financial impact of such measure as compared with the establishment of a new enforcement body at EU level. It is estimated that OLAF would be able to absorb new waste shipment cases in the first year of the application of the new Regulation. In the subsequent years, OLAF would need 1-3 FTEs, depending on the real increase of case numbers.

Environmental impacts:

No specific environmental impacts relating to this measure are foreseen, in addition to the general environmental impacts described above.

3d) Reinforce existing provisions on penalties

Economic impacts:

This measure should lead to a better targeting of penalties toward serious infringements to the WSR, which would be subject to higher sanctions, compared to infringements of lesser importance. This would help enforcement authorities, as part of their risk-based approach, to focus on the more prevalent forms of criminality linked to illegal shipments, which should overall have a positive economic impact for the waste sector. The incorporation of the economic value linked to the type of infringement for the calculation of the penalties should have a more deterrent impact on the illegal operators involved in waste shipments.

Environmental impacts:

It is expected that higher and more efficient penalties would prevent the perpetration of illegal shipments and their associated negative impact for the environment.

3e) Improve traceability of shipments of green-listed waste:

Economic impacts:

The digitalisation of the form in Annex VII of the WSR that needs to be completed for the shipment of green-listed waste should make it easier for economic operators to fill it in and present to competent authorities. A few minor additional elements of information would increase the efficiency of enforcement efforts considerably.

The registration of traders, brokers and other intermediary actors involved in waste shipments in all EU Member States where they perform their activities linked to the shipment of waste will generate a limited new additional administrative burden for those which are not yet registered in these countries, but again would render enforcement efforts and, where relevant, prosecution more efficient.

Environmental impacts:

The measure should help to better track the shipment of green-listed waste and make illegal traders accountable for their activities. As the illegal shipment of green-listed waste is one of the most serious challenges currently faced by enforcement authorities, the measure would contribute to tackle this problem, and address the environmental damages associated with these shipments.

Specific Objective 3.2: Strengthen cooperation within the Member States, across the EU and with international partners

3f) Facilitate cooperation between enforcement authorities at the national level

Economic impacts:

It is estimated that introducing a provision laying down requirements on national cooperation between the relevant enforcement authorities within the Member States will likely have some resource implications, in particular in Member States where effective mechanisms for such structured cooperation are currently lacking. On the other hand, it is expected that the overall economic benefits resulting from better and more efficient cooperation and coordination between the relevant national authorities will by far outweigh these possible additional costs.

Environmental impacts:

No specific environmental impacts relating to this measure are foreseen, in addition to the general environmental impacts described above.



3g) Creation of a dedicated group at the EU level with the task to facilitate and improve cooperation on enforcement of the WSR

Economic impacts:

No specific economic impacts relating to this measure are foreseen, in addition to the general environmental impacts described above.

Environmental impacts:

No specific environmental impacts relating to this measure are foreseen, in addition to the general environmental impacts described above.

Stakeholders’ opinions

Member States authorities generally were in favour of increasing cooperation at EU and international levels against illegal waste shipments, with some of them indicating that the creation of a new group on this issue at EU level should build on, and not overlap with, existing structures, notably IMPEL.

7.2 How the options compare

The comparison of the policy options peformed in this section is based on the assessment of the impacts of the proposed measures contained in section 7.1, taking into account the different combination of measures under each option, and is made against the standard assessment criteria defined in the Better Regulation guidelines (effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and proportionality). To facilitate such comparison, the impacts of each measure have also been calculated with a rating on a scale of 0-2, as presented in Annex 12. This allows to allocate an overall rating for each policy option, which represents the sum of the average of the scores per impact of the measures contained in these options. An overview of the ratings per options is also presented in Annex 12 in more detail.

Policy option 2 (“targeted changes”) provides a package of measures that can effectively and somehow efficiently address some of the problems which hamper the good functioning of the WSR. The measures under this option are coherent between themselves and also with other legislation, for example by clarifying the scope of the WSR. With respect to intra-EU shipments of waste, this option would help meeting the objective of this review by improving the functioning of the notification procedure (notably through a more consistent and frequent use of pre-consented facilities) and steer shipments of waste in the EU for recycling. For export outside the EU, it will put clear responsibilities on the EU exporting companies to show, via audit schemes, that they comply with the requirements that exported waste should be dealt with in an environmentally sound manner in the countries of destination. It would also provide better tools at the EU level to investigate illegal waste shipments, through the recognition of a formal role for the Commission (through its anti-fraud office OLAF) in this area. Many stakeholders have indicated the importance that addressing many of these issues bear for them. However, important problems identified in the evaluation, and repeatedly raised by stakeholders, would not be addressed through this option. Most prominently, this option does not address the pressing need to modernize the Regulation and reduce the burdens and delays caused by the paper-based systems in use in many Member States for the notification procedure for intra-EU shipments of waste. This option is also not effective in addressing the lack of clear procedures and criteria which the Commission and third countries should follow to ensure the sustainable management of green-listed exported non-OECD countries. In that respect, the EU policy would continue to rely on Commission Regulation 1418/2007, which does not function well. This option would further not result in better coordination on enforcement between Member States against illegal shipments of waste. Finally, this option foresees that guidance could be adopted to avoid differences in interpretations of some provisions in the WSR between Member States, but experience shows that such soft law instruments are often not sufficient.

Overall, this option would represent an improvement of the current WSR but is not sufficiently effective in tackling serious problems which are linked to the general approach pursued in the WSR. This option would therefore have a limited impacts, compared to option 4. This is reflected in the overall scoring of this option (4.12), based on the assessment of each of its measures contained in Annex 12, which shows that it is well below policy option 4.

Policy option 3 (“structural changes”) provides for the introduction of measures, tools and procedures which are new compared to the current WSR. The underlying approach under this option is that the problems identified in the evaluation can only be overcome through a change of approach, both for intra-EU shipments of waste and the export of waste outside the EU. For intra-EU shipments of waste, an important new approach under this option is the shift to electronic systems to handle the notification procedures (through the EDI). This shift would ensure that burdens and delays are significantly reduced for both private and public actors in shipments of waste. It would moreover allow for a better monitoring of all waste flows as it can incorporate also the general information requirements for green-listed waste electronically and grant quicker access to all enforcement agents that are concerned with waste shipments. This option further includes the harmonisation of contamination levels for the classification of some waste and the mutual recognition of decisions taken by Member States on other classification issues (notably to determine if a commodity should be considered as ceasing to be qualified as waste). All this represents an effective way to ensure a smoother functioning and integration of the internal market for waste. This will however not necessarily lead to more recycling in the EU, as a majority of shipments of waste within the EU currently does not go for recycling. For the export of waste outside the EU, this option establishes a new framework (to be implemented by public authorities) to ensure that green-listed waste exported outside the OECD are managed in an environmentally sound manner, either through the application of the notification procedure for this waste, or the obligation for importing countries to demonstrate that they are able to deal with them sustainably. The application of the notification procedure for the export of all green-listed waste outside the OECD would represent an important burden for operators and public authorities, and not be linked explicitly to the objective to ensure the environmentally sound management of the waste in the countries of destination. It does not appear proportionate and cost-efficient to achieve this aim. On the other hand, the establishment of a new framework requesting non-OECD countries to demonstrate that they are able to deal with green-listed wastes sustainably would be better suited and cost-efficient to attain this objective. With regard to illegal shipments of waste, this option would lead to a better monitoring of shipments of green-listed waste through better traceability (also via EDI) and better coordination between EU Member States thanks to the creation of a dedicated official group at EU level for this purpose. This would address some of the challenges linked to illegal waste shipments, but not improve the shortcomings due to insufficient detection and non-deterrent penalties.

Overall, while a focus on new solutions and approaches could be effective in achieving some of the objectives of the review of the WSR, it would remain insufficient to tackle all issues identified, especially those that require adjustments and improvements of the provisions in the WSR, such as streamlining existing procedures, address the environmentally sound management of waste in third countries at the level of individual shipments and treatment facilities, or improve the provisions on enforcement. Many of those detailed issues were raised as concerns by a broad range of stakeholders. In addition, some of the proposed measures would not be proportionate to the aims that it seeks to achieve (the generalisation of the notification procedure to the export of green-listed waste outside the OECD especially). Its overall impact to address the problems identified in the evaluation of the WSR would therefore be limited compared to option4 4. This is reflected in the overall scoring of this option (4.18), based on the assessment of each of its measures, contained in Annex 12, which shows that it is well below policy option 4.

Option 4 (“far-reaching changes”), which combines measures from options 2 and 3, represents the most comprehensive option. It is more effective than the two other options as it contains a consistent set of measures, which both improve the implementation of the WSR and set out new solutions to tackle important challenges that the current WSR cannot address in its current form. This allows to deal with all important problems and concerns raised by stakeholders and identified in the evaluation. The measures under this option are coherent between themselves and also with other legislation, including on an international level.

Comparison with regard to the first objective of the review (Facilitate shipments of waste within the EU, in particular to align it with the circular economy objectives)

The fact that option 4 would combine the establishment of a new mandatory electronic system (electronic data interchange (EDI)) for the notification procedure with a range of measures designed to simplify, modernise and harmonise the rules governing intra-EU shipments of waste, as well as align them with the waste hierarchy, means that it would be far more effective than the two other options in achieving the first objective of this review. At the same time, this option would not contain any guidance measures, which are not sufficiently effective, and would also not try to pursue full harmonisation or mutual recognition on issues where this is not warranted in light of the limited gain that this would bring or of the likely opposition by Member States or stakeholders. This option would therefore also be proportionate to the aims that it seeks to achieve.

Comparison with regard to the second objective of the review (Guarantee that waste exported outside the EU is managed in an environmentally sound manner)

Compared to the other options, option 4 would represent a more effective way to achieve the second objective of the review. Option 4 is the only option which provides a comprehensive set of measures, commensurate with the seriousness and magnitude of the problems that this objective seeks to address. Option 4 is more effective than option 2, which only complements existing provisions of the WSR with (i) obligations for exporters to ensure that their waste are dealt with in an environmentally sound manner through audit systems and (ii) with the possibility for the Commission to set out criteria to distinguish between used goods and waste. While this is necessary, this is not enough, which is the reason why option 4 also includes a new framework to ensure that public authorities are also involved in the verification and monitoring of the sustainability of export of green-listed waste. This is done through the new regime requiring importing non-OECD countries to inform the Commission that they wish to import waste from the EU and demonstrate that they can deal with it sustainably, as well as the specific procedure to monitor export of waste to OECD countries. These measures are contained in option 3, but again in isolation from other measures, which weakens their effectiveness. Option 4 is also efficient as it only imposes limited new costs to exporting companies exporting their waste outside the EU through new obligations for audits. It will change procedures for the export of waste, especially outside the EU, which will trigger some economic consequences for the waste sector in the EU. This impact is however proportionate, as export will remain possible, as long as there is evidence of the sustainability. Also, a 2 years transition period before these new rules would enter into force, is foreseen, leaving sufficient time for Member States, third countries and exporting companies to transition to the new system.

Comparison with regard to the third objective of the review (Better address illegal shipments of waste within and outside the EU)

Similarly as for the other objectives, option 4 is more comprehensive and effective in achieving the third objective of the review of the WSR. Option 4 includes all measures from option 2 (except guidance documents, in view of their non-legally binding nature and limited expected effect) which would reinforce the existing framework on inspection, penalties and allow the Commission to support transnational investigations in the EU. In addition, option 4 incorporates the measures under option 3 designed to better track green-listed waste and set up a formal group designed to reinforce cooperation at EU level on enforcement against illegal waste shipment. Option 4 therefore addresses the main challenges linked to illegal shipments of waste, which can be dealt with through regulatory changes of the WSR. It is also consistent with the EU policies and legislation on environmental crime, notably the Environmental Crime Directive and the recently adopted strategy against organised crime. Stakeholders have overall expressed support for reinforcing the framework on enforcement in the WSR.

The overall effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and proportionality of the policy option 4 is reflected in the rating for this option (4.70), based on the assessment of each of its measures, contained in Annex 12, which shows that it is well above other policy options.

Table 9 provides an overview of how the different options compare based on the individual assessment of measures as provided in Annex 12.

The options are composed of a selection of the measures above as explained in detail in section 6.3 of the impact assessment report. The overall rating for each policy option is the average of the overall ratings of all the measures it contains (these are listed in the left-hand column for ease of reference). The rating for each option’s criteria was calculated by taking the average of the ratings of the measures that are included in that option. For example the rating relating to the economic impact of option 3 is the average of the rating for this impact of measures 1d, 1e, 1f, 1j, 1k, 1l, 2c, 2d, 2e, 3e, and 3g 111 . The overall rating of each option corresponds to the sum of the ratings for each impact plus efficiency, and is presented in the right-hand column. This presentation provides an insight on the trade-offs for each option. Option 2 has economic, environmental and social impacts rated 1.38, 1.19 and 0.85 respectively and an efficiency impact of 0.69. Option 3 has higher economic impact with a rating of 1.68 but lower environmental and social impacts both rated at 0.82 with an efficiency rating of 0.86, which adds up to an overall rating of 4.18 – very close to the one of option 2. The table also clearly shows that the combination of measures included in option 4 results in the best rated environmental and social impacts with ratings of 1.27 and 1.00 respectively, a balanced economic impact rated at 1.53, and provides the most efficient way forward with an efficiency rating of 0.90. Option 4 has an overall highest rating of 4.70 compared to 4.18 for Option 3 and 4.12 for Option 2.


Table 9 – Summary on the comparison of policy options

Option

Economic impact

Environmental impact

Social impact

Efficiency

Overall

Option 2 “Targeted changes”

Measures 1a, 1b, 1c, 1g, 1h, 1i, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, 3f

Rating: 1.38

Rating: 1.19

Rating: 0.85

Rating: 0.69

Overall Rating: 4.12

Conclusion

Compared to the baseline, the targeted changes are more effective and coherent in achieving specific objectives, in particular to reduce administrative burden (1.1.) and increase waste shipment for treatment higher up the waste hierarchy (1.2.). However, as the rating indicates, the foreseen measures alone would not be able to result in maximum benefits, mostly due to the lack in efficiency and inter-coherence. Compared to the structural changes, this option is of rather limited scope to ensure that waste shipped across borders is managed in an environmentally sound manner (Objective 2). Although indispensable, implementation of Option 2 would only deliver moderate environmental and social impacts, as the measures mostly fragmentally target certain problem areas, e.g. by setting out criteria to differentiate between used goods and waste (2b) or by specifying the obligations for exporters (2a), and hereby lack a proportionate response to the problems. In this regard, the largest benefits are identified for the measures 3a-d and 3f, dedicated to better address illegal shipments of waste within and outside the EU (Objective 3).

Option 3 “Structural changes”

Measures 1d, 1e, 1f, 1j, 1k, 1l, 2c, 2d, 2e, 3e, 3g

Rating: 1.68

Rating: 0.82

Rating: 0.82

Rating: 0.86

Overall Rating: 4.18

Conclusion

Compared to Option 2, this option promises larger economic, environmental and social benefits. The implementation of the measures 1d, 1e, and 1f directly address the stakeholders’ concerns regarding the costs associated with the delays of intra-EU shipments and would significantly minimize administrative burden for national governments, authorities and economic operators (Objective 1). The introduction of measures 2c, 2d and 2e would set up a procedural framework at the EU level to guarantee that waste exported outside the EU is managed in an environmentally sound manner. It is considered as a proportionate and systemic response to the Objective 2. Based on the assessment of individual measures, certain changes would not be sufficient and coherent enough to achieve the necessary effect at the level of Member States. This is in particular so for the proposed measures 3e and 3g to better address illegal shipments of waste (Objective 3).

Option 4 “Far-reaching changes”

Measures 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 1g, 1i, 1j, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2e, 3a, 3c, 3d, 3e, 3f, 3g

Rating: 1.53

Rating: 1.27

Rating: 1.00

Rating: 0.90

Proportionality:+

Overall Rating: 4.70

Conclusion

The assessment shows that actions taken under targeted or structural changes alone would not reach the maximum effectiveness. Compare to these options,, the option to combine measures in a mix of “far reaching changes”, would result in a higher effectiveness, in an efficient and proportionate manner. Option 4 connects essential operational changes under Option 2 with the systemic ones, as presented under Option 3, by providing a package of the most efficient measures coherent with the overarching objectives of the European Green Deal – green and digital transition. The implementation of the measures to facilitate the intra EU trade of waste while preserving the environment provide a proportionate yet effective response to many of the challenges linked with the current regime, with a shift to an information exchange via electronic means and streamlined procedural framework, resulting a significant reduction of administrative burden for national governments, authorities and economic operators (Objective 1). The export related measures would deliver the most environmental benefits, while remaining proportionate to the objective they aim to achive (Objective 2). Option 4 best addresses the problems described higher in this report. The package of enforcement related measures under the Option 4, provides a balanced approach and a basis for intervention at the EU, regional and national level necessary to reach efficiency, effectiveness and coherence in addressing the illegal shipment inside and outside the EU (Objective 3). Therefore, the integrated approach based on the separate elements of the structural and targeted changes would allow reaching highest positive impacts in a proportionate manner that would be impossible to achieve under the baseline option.

8.Preferred option

8.1 Conclusions based on the analysis of the impacts

The preferred option is Option 4. The blend of the targeted and structural changes chosen would result in a balanced approach in terms of effectiveness (achievement of the objectives) and efficiency (cost-effectiveness) as illustrated in Section 7.2. It aims to ensure that this Regulation can facilitate intra EU shipments in line with the circular economy objectives, support the EU’s objective to stop exporting its waste challenges to third countries and contribute to better address illegal shipments of waste, without risking excessive costs or disruption. It responds both to (i) the need for new, effective measures to achieve the three objectives, and (ii) the importance attached to them being implementable while not creating excessive burden or undesirable impacts.

Option 4 is also proportionate to the aims that this review seeks to achieve:

·With respect to objective 1 on intra-EU shipments of waste, all measures under option 4 are necessary to achieve a better integration of the EU internal market for waste, steering these shipments to recycling. They will represent important changes for the procedures currently applicable to shipments, which will have an effect both on economic operators and public administrations. As detailed in sections 7.1 and 8.2, these measures will generate important gains for both of them, through reduced administrative burden, reduction of delays and more efficient processing of information. They will also contribute to support the transition to a circular economy in the EU, therefore benefiting the protection of the environment. These gains will largely outweigh the costs linked to the establishment of the new measures, notably the EDI regime. In addition, the obligation to digitalise the notification procedure for intra-EU shipments of waste via the EDI system will only become effective two years after the entry into force of the revised WSR, and preparatory work with Member States and stakeholders is already ongoing to get ready for this new regime.

·With respect to the second objective, option 4 will lead to important changes in the EU approaches and regulatory framework applying to the export of waste outside the EU. This is needed in view of the failure of the current WSR to achieve the objective to ensure ESM of waste exported from the EU, especially to developing countries. One important feature of option 4 is that it will require both economic operators and public authorities to take concrete actions to verify that waste exported from the EU is treated in a sustainable manner in the countries of destination. This will ensure that guarantees are provided both at country (through measures 2c and 2e) and at facility levels (through measure 2a) on the sustainable treatment of waste in the countries of destination. As detailed in sections 7.1 and 8.2, these measures should generate important environmental benefits. They will also have economic impacts. For some economic operators, notably those processing/recycling waste in the EU into secondary materials, this would potentially lead to higher quantities of feedstock available at a lower price, so this would overall have a positive impact. For those economic actors shipping waste outside the EU, the impact will depend on whether evidence is made available that the exported waste in the destination countries are treated in an environmentally sound manner. It is likely that, as a result, the export to some countries might become more difficult, which would impact negatively the companies exporting waste to these countries. They could face a decrease in the prices for the waste that they used to sell abroad, which would undermine their profitability. The costs resulting from this situation are however expected to be limited and are outweighed by the overall environmental benefits of the measures. Finally, it is also important to note that proportionality is also ensured through the fact that the measures in option 4 would:

oapply a different regime between countries of destination, with more scrutiny over countries where the waste management practices and practices are deemed to be less sustainable than in the EU (non-OECD countries),

onot result in a blanket ban but would set up a mechanism where importing countries have the opportunity to import waste from the EU if they demonstrate they are able to deal with the waste in a sustainable manner, and

oenter into force only three years after the changes in the Regulation become effective, leaving a period of transition for all actors involved to get prepared for the new rules. This transition period would allow to mobilise funding to build capacity for processing additional waste in the EU, notably for plastic and textile recycling. This will be supported by public investments at EU and national levels, stemming from the Recovery and Resilience Plans, as well as from the EU Structural Funds. This transition period will also leave  time for operators currently shipping their waste outside the EU to adapt to the new regulatory framework and, if necessary, change their supply chain to ensure that they are in line with the new EU rules on waste shipments and become more sustainable. The implementation of the Green Deal and Circular Economy Action Plan should also translate in new measures on waste reduction, better separate collection of waste, uptake of recycled content and higher levels of re-use and high quality recycling, which will help consolidating economic actors of the circular economy in the EU.   

·With respect to the third objective, option 4 provides a series of measures to improve enforcement of the WSR. They are needed to step up the abilities of the Member States and the Commission to reduce illegal shipments of waste. These measures do not involve any fundamentally new tasks and additional related costs for operators and Member States. A more effective enforcement regime would help to prevent or reduce the volume of illegal shipments and, with it, significant cost savings for clean-up and repatriation as well as indirect cost savings for Member States where waste transits. Better enforcement should also lead to a reduction of loss of tax revenues. Furthermore, beyond the proposed measures, the Commission will continue to support the Member States’ efforts to better implement and enforce the WSR via a wide array of tools. Many initiatives have been already taken at EU level against waste trafficking, which is one of the priorities of the EU overall policy on organised crime 112 . The EU is also providing financial support to operational projects targeting waste trafficking 113 . In addition, the Commission is also assisting Member States in this area through the Environmental Compliance and Governance Forum 114 , the TAIEX-EIR PEER 2 PEER programme 115 and the EU Environmental Law Training Package 116 .

The graphic in Figure 10 below provides a schematic overview of the preferred option, and the measures that it contains. A more detailed description of how the preferred the option achieves the objective of the review of the WSR is presented in Annex 14.

Figure 10 – Overview of measures in the preferred option

8.2 Overall impact of the preferred option

In terms of overall economic impact, this preferred option should result in important savings for business operators shipping waste and competent authorities dealing with the procedures for authorising and monitoring these shipments, notably thanks to the establishment of the EDI system which is expected to represent savings in the order of 1.4 million euro/year. Other measures to modernise and simplify the WSR will bring additional savings. The other important economic impacts will stem from the measures linked to the export of waste, which should represent an overall economic gain for the EU economy ranging from 200 to 500 million euro/year, depending on the amount of waste which is retained in the EU, and based on 2019 data. For economic operators based in the EU, the impacts of these measures will differ significantly depending on their position in the value chain and the types of waste concerned, with some of those involved in exporting these waste likely to see the costs for exporting such waste increasing or turning to other purchasers in the EU, where they might get lower prices for their waste. Companies exporting waste would also have to set up auditing schemes, which would represent new but moderate costs (in the order of 5000 to 15000 euro/year after the setting up of the schemes). On the other hand, the economic actors recycling or processing waste in the EU should be able to use more waste as feedstock, which they should be able to purchase at a lower price compared to the baseline. The measure on illegal shipments should benefit to legal operators as they will help tackling illegal activities which represent a direct competition to their business.

SMEs will greatly benefit from the measures designed to facilitate shipments of waste within the EU, as the obstacles and burdens linked to the shortcomings of the current procedures represent proportionally a heavier burden for them that for larger companies. The measures on the export of waste will affect SMEs involved in export-related business activities. They will have to incur new costs to perform audits in facilities where they are shipping their waste (as foreseen in measure 2a). These costs remain however limited and could be pooled with other SMEs, notably through Producer Responsibility Organisations. They might also get lower revenues when selling their waste in the EU rather than exporting them, due to other measures on the export of waste (notably measure 2c). This could be problematic for some SMEs which rely extensively on export to non-OECD countries, but it is expected that such trade is mostly operated by large companies, so that the overall impact on SMEs will remain limited. Finally, the perspective that more waste will remain in the EU, together with new targets and obligations under EU law to ensure their recycling, will also represent a more solid basis for SMEs to develop innovative projects and technologies for recycling waste whose treatment pose particular challenges, such as plastic and textile waste.

This preferred option is expected to result in an overall important positive environmental impact. The measures designed to facilitate the shipment of waste for re-use and recycling in the EU will lead to higher amount of waste treated in better environmental conditions and higher amounts of secondary materials available in the EU, which would replace virgin materials as feedstock for a number of industries based in the EU. The proposed measures relating to the export of waste would have positive environmental impacts as it would better guarantee that shipments of waste to third countries are managed in an environmentally sound manner. It would also potentially lead to between 2.4 and 6 million tonnes of waste retained in the EU each year, which would be treated according to EU standards and processed into secondary materials in the EU. While it is not possible to perform a monetised impact of the entirety of these environmental gains, the benefits linked to a better treatment of residual waste in the EU and of avoiding shipping this waste to third countries would range from 266 million euro to 666 million euro/year. The overall gains are likely to be even higher. By contributing to improving the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the enforcement regime, the measures relating to illegal shipments would help prevent and reduce the serious environmental impacts stemming from illegal waste shipments, bringing overall environmental benefits.

Finally, as regards the overall social impact, the measures linked to the export of waste, as well as those against illegal shipments of waste, should reduce the negative impact on human health (e.g. respiratory problems, injuries etc.) and labour conditions (e.g. no social benefits, low wages, etc.) stemming from the unsustainable management of waste, bringing overall societal benefits both abroad and in the EU. The treatment of waste in the EU, which used to be exported, should lead to the creation in the EU of between 9000 to 23000 jobs in the recycling and re-use sectors. Additional jobs in these areas are likely to be generated as a result of the measures designed to ensure a better functioning of the WSR for shipments of waste in the EU for recycling and reuse.

8.3 REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency)

A number of measures would lead to simplification and reduced costs (though these can be hard to quantify).

Table 10 – Overall quantified impact of the preferred option

REFIT Cost Savings – Preferred Option(s)

Description

Amount

Comments

1a) Improve the regime of “pre-consented” facilities

Common conditions to identify a pre-consented facility set the foundation for mutual recognition

Clarity on which shipments should follow the simplified pre-consent procedure leading to fewer disputes and delays

More simplified pre-consent procedures with faster delivery of consent

Predictability on obtaining pre-consented status

Longer consent validity to 3 years leads to 1/3 of notifications for pre-consent facilities

Notification fees divided by 3

1b) Improve or clarify notification procedures

Reduce delays during shipment: one delay estimated at 150k euro

Rationalise delays based on an electronic system

Increased amounts of waste exempted from control for laboratory/testing purposes

Reduce delays due to language issues

1c) Clarify the scope of the Regulation with respect to waste covered by other legislation

1k) Ensure that the EU criteria on end-of-waste are better respected for decisions regarding the shipment of waste/non-waste between EU Member States

1g) Mandatory EU electronic data interchange

0.9 – 1.1 million per year for public authorities (EU27)

450 thousand per year for economic operators overall throughout the EU27

Expected resources saved on a yearly basis for the submission and handling of notification requests electronically for competent authorities and companies respectively

1h) Harmonise calculation methodology of financial guarantee

Lower administrative burden for competent authorities and companies, which have to apply a harmonised methodology

1j) Task the Commission to set thresholds for contamination of wastes

Reduced delays as rules are more clear

2b) Mandate for implementing or delegated acts, to set out criteria to differentiate used goods and waste, for specific waste streams

Reduced delays as rules are more clear

2c) Export to non-OECD countries under strict conditions

The current Commission Regulation (EC) 1418/2007 would be repealed and replaced by this measure.


9.How will impacts be monitored and evaluated?

The new Regulation should result in an increase in waste materials reused and recycled in the EU, an improvement in standards and practices for waste management in countries importing waste from the EU and a reduction of illegal waste shipments both in the EU and outside the EU. It should also contribute to building robust and dynamic markets for secondary materials and increasing the transition to a circular economy in the EU and third countries.

In terms of monitoring, potential problems with compliance and enforcement would be monitored through the Member States’ regular implementation reports and progress reports drawn up by the Commission based on these Member States’ reports.

In this respect, it is noted that a key measure to improve the efficiency of the implementation of this Regulation is the establishment of an EU wide system to interchange documents and information electronically (electronic data interchange or “EDI”). This should allow for all involved actors to have better access to many data that are of relevance for the implementation of Regulation. Notably competent authorities will have a much more comprehensive and consistent data set to monitor waste streams, both within and outside the EU, and also monitoring of waste flows within, and to and from the EU will improve. In the end the EDI system should ensure that structured data are interchanged, which means extractions can be consistently done by Member State competent authorities and the Commission. This should improve the quality of reporting considerably and hence allow to better monitor how successfully the Regulation is being implemented.

Furthermore, the new provision concerning the review of Member States’ inspection plans by the Commission would also be an important source of information for monitoring the implementation and enforcement of the Regulation.

Additionally, compliance and enforcement issues would be monitored and discussed in the context of the new Waste Shipment Enforcement Group, which could also identify further actions and measures to be undertaken at the EU level to increase the effectiveness of the Regulation in the future.

Finally, the Regulation would be reviewed within ten years after its entry into force to ensure that its objectives are being met and its impact is ensured and justified.This review would take into consideration in particular the indicators in Table 10 below.



Table 11 – Indicators to take into account in future reviews of the WSR

The contribution of the WSR to the transition towards a circular economy in the EU

-the amount of waste shipped for recycling in a given year;

-the number of consents to notifications in a given year, destined for recycling;

-the number of pre-consented facilities throughout the EU;

-the amount of waste shipped to pre-consented facilities in a given year;

-the number of consents to notifications in a given year, destined for pre-consented facilities.

The effectiveness of any waste export restriction outside the OECD, outside the EU or to the OECD

-the amounts of waste shipped annually to those areas respectively, per relevant waste stream;

-the number of non-OECD countries which are included on the EU list of countries authorised to import waste from the EU, and the amount of waste exported to these countries.

The effectiveness of the WSR’s provisions on enforcement

-the number of inspections carried out by a MS in a given year;

-the number of reported illegal cases and penalties imposed;

-the amounts of waste involved in those illegal cases;

-the number of investigative and coordinating actions carried out by OLAF on illegal shipment of waste, as well as the number of recommendations issued by OLAF upon which Member States have acted.

(1)

A typical example is clean and well sorted paper waste. Annex III and IIIA of the WSR provides the list of these wastes.

(2)

This Annex includes mixed household wastes and unsorted hard to recycle plastic waste.

(3)

This Annex contains waste like waste oils and waste asbestos.

(4)

One related provision would be art. 16 of the Waste Framework Directive.

(5)

 Yamaguchi, S (2021, forthcoming), “International trade and circular economy – policy alignment”, OECD Trade and Environment Working Papers, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=COM/TAD/ENV/JWPTE(2020)2/FINAL&docLanguage=En . - https://doi.org/10.1787/18166881  

(6)

This data is updated in even years. The 2020 data will be published in 2022.

(7)

Source: Comext. The scope of 'waste’ is measured in terms of relevant product codes from the  Combined Nomenclature  used in International Trade in Goods Statistics - see list of codes in the Appendix to Annex 5 of this report.

(8)

Council Decision C(92)39/FINAL on the control of transboundary movements of wastes destined for recovery operations (this Decision was amended and the last version is Decision of the Council on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Wastes Destined for Recovery Operations (OECD/LEGAL/0266)

(9)

  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32006R1013  

(10)

  https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2021-0040_EN.html  

(11)

  https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-13852-2020-INIT/en/pdf  

(12)

Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam for example have in the last years enacted new, stricter provisions on the import of a number of waste streams (notably, plastic waste, metal waste, e-waste)

(13)

The extraction and processing of virgin materials generate high environmental externalities in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental factors (for more information this, see https://www.euric-aisbl.eu/position-papers/item/335-euric-unveils-metal-recycling-brochure  )

(14)

Notification by the EU and its Member States in accordance with Article 11 of the Basel Convention: https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-11066-2020-INIT/en/pdf  

(15)

The OECD Decision also allows trade with OECD member countries which, like the United States of America, are not a Party to the Basel Convention.

(16)

A typical example is clean and well sorted paper waste.

(17)

This Annex includes mixed household wastes and unsorted hard to recycle plastic waste.

(18)

This Annex contains waste like waste oils and waste asbestos.

(19)

Directive 2008/98/EC, OJ L 312 22.11.2008, p. 3

(20)

 For more information on the classification of all types of waste (including hazardous), see the  European List of Waste.

(21)

Article 49 of the WSR

(22)

See article 49(2) of the WSR

(23)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1418/2007 of 29 November 2007 concerning the export for recovery of certain waste listed in Annex III or IIIA to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council to certain countries to which the OECD Decision on the control of transboundary movements of wastes does not apply (see https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32007R1418 )

(24)

Article 50

(25)

Regulation (EU) No 660/2014 of 15 May 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 1013/2014 regarding the strengthening of Member States’ inspection systems

(26)

See glossary for full references to these Directives

(27)

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) 2019/1004 of 7 June 2019

(28)

Article 5a (3) of Directive.

(29)

Directive 2008/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the protection of the environment through criminal law, OJ L 328, 6.12.2008

(30)

https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/pdf/SWD_2020_26_F1_SWD_EVALUATION_EN_V4_P1_1064541.pdf  

(31)

See COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/1245 of 28 July 2016 (available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32016R1245)

(32)

This has been documented in the evaluation of the WSR (see https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/pdf/SWD_2020_26_F1_SWD_EVALUATION_EN_V4_P1_1064541.pdf  ) and additional information on this issue can also be found in numerous publications by civil society and the media, such as for example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412020318481#s0125 ; https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2020/10/18/tweede-kamer-wil-opheldering-van-staatssecretaris-over-gedumpt-plastic-a4016425 ;  https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2020/10/16/nederlands-plastic-illegaal-gestort-in-turkije-a4016257  

(33)

Article 49 of the WSR

(34)

For information on the challenges linked to the implementation of the provisions in Article 49 referring to environmental sustainable management of waste, as well as attempts to address them, see this 2019 study: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/3d72ef00-bcac-11e9-9d0101aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-102642024

(35)

  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6466021/ : this article provides examples of mismanagement of waste, including imported in developing countries, and not always linked to illegal activities.

(36)

  https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9450-2017-INIT/en/pdf  

(37)

  https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/default/files/pdf/14042021_eu_strategy_to_tackle_organised_crime_2021-2025_com-2021-170-1_en.pdf  

(38)

  https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2837/64101  

(39)

See for example problems with illegal shipments of waste to Poland, which resulted in important fires after the waste were being stored improperly or dumped:

https://vsquare.org/poland-burning-landfills-the-wasteland-on-fire/

https://www.euronews.com/2018/06/07/how-europe-s-rubbish-is-helping-to-fuel-a-fires-crisis-in-poland  

(40)

  https://wasteforceproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/WasteForce-Waste-Crime-Alert-1.pdf  

(41)

  https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/dec/24/tunisia-minister-sacked-and-arrested-in-scandal-over-waste-from-italy-mustapha-aroui ; http://www.theindependentbd.com/post/257505  

(42)

  https://www.impel.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/FR-2018-04-Enforcement-Actions-project-2016-2017.pdf  

(43)

See 2020 Interpol report on this issue: https://www.interpol.int/News-and-Events/News/2020/INTERPOL-report-alerts-to-sharp-rise-in-plastic-waste-crime  

(44)

Member States have reported that total amounts of 6 million up to 237 million Euros in a given Member State are blocked on bank accounts in order to provide for this guarantee for all valid notification consents. Furthermore, in practice, the financial guarantee is used in less than 0.1% of occurring shipments.

(45)

  https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/pdf/Calculation%20of%20financial%20guarantee.pdf  

(46)

For information on the challenges linked to the implementation of the provisions in Article 49 referring to environmental sustainable management of waste, as well as attempts to address them, see this 2019 study: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/3d72ef00-bcac-11e9-9d0101aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-102642024

(47)

Data and information on waste management across various countries in the world have been compiled in a number of publications, including the following:

What a Waste 2.0. A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050. World Bank (2018)

The Global Waste Management Outlook by UNEP and ISWA (2015);

Waste Management Outlook for Asia, United Nations Environment Programme (2017);

Waste Management Outlook for Africa, United Nations Environment Programme (2018);

Waste Management Outlook for West Asia United, Nations Environment Programme (2019)

Waste Mismanagement in Developing Countries: A Review of Global Issues. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1060 ( https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/6/1060 )

(48)

NACE code 38 covering collection, treatment, recovery, and disposal of waste (Eurostat, 2018)

(49)

The « other waste » listed in Annex II of the Basel Convention

(50)

  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20210420-1?redirect=%2Feurostat%2Fweb%2Fmain%2Fhome  

(51)

 Europol (2021), European Union serious and organised crime threat assessment, A corrupting influence: the infiltration and undermining of Europe's economy and society by organised crime, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. See https://www.europol.europa.eu/european-union-serious-and-organised-crime-threat-assessment-2021  

(52)

  https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/pdf/waste_shipment_and_COVID19.pdf  

(53)

  https://www.euric-aisbl.eu/position-papers/download/695/393/32  

(54)

See https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/pdf/Calculation%20of%20financial%20guarantee.pdf  

(55)

Article 49

(56)

Currently a consent can be given up to three years, but often companies submit the request for only one year which actually increases the burden on competent authorities to handle requests under great time pressure annually, instead of triennially.

(57)

The notification fee is set at 1250 euro ( https://www.sbb-mbh.de/aufgaben-der-sbb/grenzueberschreitende-abfallverbringung/gebuehren-einer-notifizierung.html )

(58)

The notification fee is set at 400 euro in Flanders ( https://publicaties.vlaanderen.be/download-file/11074 ) and 250 in Wallonia ( https://wallex.wallonie.be/de/contents/acts/20/20160/1.html?doc=4832&rev=4129-2295 ) 

(59)

  http://www.basel.int/Countries/NationalReporting/NationalReports/BC2019Reports/tabid/8645/Default.aspx   http://www.basel.int/Countries/NationalReporting/NationalReports/BC2018Reports/tabid/8202/Default.aspx  

(60)

  https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/content/european-digital-strategy  

(61)

  https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/pdf/1a_Project_Charter_EDI_for_WSR.pdf  

(62)

SWD(2012) 423 final 

(63)

Some estimates suggest that the overall non-compliance rate with the Regulation could be around 25 %)

(64)

Based on data provided by Member States’ Competent Authorities the time saved when processing a notification as a result of an electronic system compared to the paper-based system is on average 5.7 hours per notification, which means a saving of almost 35%.

(65)

The most recent overview is from 2016 and can be found here: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/pdf/Calculation%20of%20financial%20guarantee.pdf  

(66)

  https://publicaties.vlaanderen.be/download-file/11074  

(67)

See compilation of such information here: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/pdf/Summary_on_waste_carriers_update_2020.xlsx  

(68)

  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/904/oj  

(69)

  https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/batteries/pdf/Proposal_for_a_Regulation_on_batteries_and_waste_batteries.pdf  

(70)

  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Waste_shipment_statistics#Export_of_all_notified_waste.2C_in_tonnes  

(71)

  https://www.economiecirculaire.org/articles/h/environmental-impact-of-recycling-in-france.html  

(72)

  https://zerowasteworld.org/wp-content/uploads/Jobs-Report-ENGLISH-2.pdf  

(73)

IMPEL (2017) “ A survey of practitioners’ views about the implementation challenges with EU environmental legislation, their underlying reasons and ways to improvement: 2017 ”.

(74)

  https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/pdf/waste_market_study.pdf  

(75)

The efficient functioning of waste markets in the European Union - Legislative and Policy options (2015) https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/pdf/waste_market_study.pdf  

(76)

Ibid.

(77)

More information is available here: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/end_of_waste.htm  

(78)

See Article 8a of the Waste Framework Directive on the general minimum requirements for EPR schemes, and in particular its paragraph 4(a)

(79)

  The EU steel industry | Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (europa.eu)  

(80)

European vision on steel-related skills and supporting actions to solve the skills gap today and tomorrow in Europe, ESTEP report (2020) https://www.estep.eu/assets/Uploads/FINAL-REPORT.en.pdf

(81)

Based on https://www.cepi.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Final-Key-Statistics-2019.pdf

(82)

See https://www.cepi.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Final-Key-Statistics-2019.pdf  

(83)

 Eunomia, COWI (2019), the study is available at: https://op.europa.eu/s/oSEb

(84)

  https://face-aluminium.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2019-LUISS-Study.pdf

(85)

  https://copperalliance.eu/about-us/europes-copper-industry/

(86)

Primary production of aluminium is a highly electro-intensive process with 14-16 MWh electricity use per tonne primary aluminium produced. This process requires a steady, uninterrupted supply of baseload electricity. For secondary aluminium the electricity use per tonne aluminium produced is 0.12-0.34 MWh/t

(87)

Plastics Recyclers Europe: Recycling Statistics 2020 based on the EU27 + United Kingdom and Norway

(88)

  This compares to a figure of about 6.6 million tonnes of installed recycling capacity in 2017 reported in the Eunomia, COWI study on investment needs in the waste sector, indicating that recycling capacity is growing.  Eunomia, COWI (2019), the study available at: https://op.europa.eu/s/oSEb

(89)

  https://bir.org/publications/annual-reports/download/648/1000000235/36?method=view  

(90)

Less than 1% of textile waste is recycled into new fibres for clothing (“textile-to-textile” recycling) as technologies for processing textiles to recycled fibres are only starting to emerge. A large share of unsorted collected textiles is sent for sorting in Eastern European countries then exported again for reuse or recycling in Africa and Asia. More information available at the Eionet Report (2019/6) - Textiles and the environment in a circular economy.

(91)

At the level of Member States, only France has comprehensive reporting obligations and an Extended Producer Responsibility scheme for textile waste.

(92)

Article 11 (b) of the Directive (EU) 2018/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive 2008/98/EC on waste

(93)

The European Apparel and Textile Confederation, representing in the EU 160,000 companies with a turnover of €162 billion, employing 1.5 million workers. https://euratex.eu/news/euratex-presents-its-recovery-strategy/  

(94)

  https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b01742  

(95)

https://smartcitysweden.com/best-practice/415/siptex-world-unique-textile-sorting/

(96)

Residues of recycling within the EU are assumed to be incinerated with energy recovery, as far as it concerns combustible fractions (plastics, paper, and textiles).

(97)

As examples: the recycling of plastic waste allows to reduce the use of oil for the production of new plastic products, the recycling of paper reduces the use of wood pulp in the paper production, the processing of steel scrap reduces the use of iron ore and coal for the steel industry, recycling of textile reduces use of cotton

(98)

  https://www.economiecirculaire.org/articles/h/environmental-impact-of-recycling-in-france.html  

(99)

  https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/waste-to-energy.pdf  

(100)

ELVs are considered as hazardous waste (unless they have been subject to depollution operation) whose export outside the OECD is banned under the WSR and the Basel Convention

(101)

Based on the data gathered per industrial sector, including the reports and overviews available on the websites of Aluminium Institute, Copper alliance, The International Copper Study Group (ICSG), Eurometaux, Bureau of International Recycling (BIR), EuRIC, CEPI.

(102)

Depending on the 20% or 50% retention rate, and based on the amount of ferrous scrap retained in the EU, the fact that recycling of one tonne of ferrous scrap for the production of steel saves overall 1.5 tonnes of CO2 compared to the use of iron ore and coal and with a price of 40 euro/tonnes of CO2 under the EU ETS carbon market (value on Q1 2021).

(103)

Depending on the 20% or 50% retention rate, and based on the fact that recycling of one tonne of ferrous scrap for the production of steel saves overall 1.5 tonnes of CO2 compared to the use of iron ore and coal

(104)

More information available at:  https://european-aluminium.eu/media/2906/european-aluminium-circular-aluminium-action-plan.pdf  

(105)

JRC report "Tonini et al. 2021, Environmental effects of plastic waste recycling"

(106)

Under a scenario where 20% of waste exported outside the OECD would be retained in the EU

(107)

Under a scenario where 50% of waste exported outside the OECD would be retained in the EU

(108)

Under a scenario where 20% of waste exported outside the OECD would be retained in the EU

(109)

Details on the rating of individual measures is provided in Annex 12 to this report.

(110)

  https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9450-2017-INIT/en/pdf  

(111)

 For example https://www.wasteforceproject.eu/, http://www.lifesmartwaste.com/, https://opfawaste-project.eu/ or https://www.sweap.eu/  

(112)

  https://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/compliance_en.htm  

(113)

  https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eir/p2p/index_en.htm  

(114)

  https://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/training_package.htm  

Top

Brussels, 17.11.2021

SWD(2021) 331 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Accompanying the document

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council

on shipments of waste and amending Regulations (EU) No 1257/2013 and (EU) No 2020/1056

{COM(2021) 709 final} - {SEC(2021) 402 final} - {SWD(2021) 330 final} - {SWD(2021) 332 final}


Table of contents

Annex 1: Procedural information

Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation

Annex 3: In depth analysis of the public consultations outcome

Annex 4: Who is affected and how – overview of costs and benefits

Annex 5: Analytical methods

1.Datasets

2.Supporting study

3.Analysis of impacts

1.1.Baseline

1.2.Modelling economic impacts

1.2.1.    Modelling economic impacts for measures on intra-EU shipments of waste (objective 1)    

1.2.2.    Modelling economic impact for measures linked to the export of waste (objective 2)    

1.3.Modelling environmental impacts

i)    General approach pursued to evaluate the environmental impacts of measures linked to the export of waste    

ii)    Methodology and modelling used to evaluate the environmental impact of the differences of treatment of “rejects” in the EU and in third countries    

iii)    Methodology and modelling used to evaluate the environmental impact of the shipping of waste to third countries    

iv)    Results of the modelling of quantifications of environmental impact linked to the treatment of rejects and to the shipping of waste to third countries, for measures 2c and 2d, as well as discarded measures on banning exports of waste    

1.4.Modelling social impacts

Annex 6: Summary of the Evaluation

Annex 7: Facts, figures and trends in waste Shipments

1.Key figures on the waste treatment sector in the EU

2.Key figures on shipments of waste within the EU and outside the EU

3.Exports outside the EU

4.Key figures on capacity for the EU industry to process additional volume of waste

Annex 8: Problem drivers

Annex 9: Detailed description of measures

Annex 10: Moving to a mandatory use of electronic means to interchange data

Annex 11: International legal context applicable to measures with an impact on export of waste

Annex 12: Impacts of measures

1.Rating of measures and options

2.Impacts of measures on Commission resources

Annex 13: The relationship between the WSR and the EU Regulation on Ship Recycling

Annex 14: How the Preferred option achieves the objectives for this review

8.1.1 Objective 1: Facilitate shipments within the EU, in particular to align the WSR with circular economy objectives    

8.1.2 Objective 2: Guarantee that waste exported outside the EU is managed in an environmentally sound manner    

8.1.3 Objective 3: Better address illegal shipments of waste within the EU as well as illegal exports to third countries    


Annex 1: Procedural information

1.Lead DG, Decide Planning/CWP references

The impact assessment has been coordinated by the European Commission's Directorate-General (DG) for Environment supported by an inter-service steering group (ISG) involving representatives of DG Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, DG Taxation and Customs Union, DG Justice and Consumers, DG Health and Food Safety, DG Climate Action, DG Trade, DG Mobility and Transport, DG Migration and Home Affairs, DG International Cooperation and Development, the European Anti-Fraud Office, the Joint Research Centre, the Legal Service and the Secretariat-General. The group steered and monitored the impact assessment’s development and ensured that it met the necessary standards for quality, impartiality and usefulness.

It was included as PLAN/2019/5394 in the DECIDE/Agenda Planning database.

2.Organisation and timing

The inception impact assessment was published on 11 March 2020 1 and feedback on this inception impact assessment was received until 8 April 2020. Feedback from 81 stakeholders, including Member States competent authorities was received.

The stakeholder consultation strategy was prepared and made publicly available on 7 May 2020. It set a number or consultation activities comprising a public consultation and targeted consultation in the form of interviews and surveys. While a detailed consultation synopsis is provided in Annex 2, a brief explanation of consultation activities follows here.

The open public consultation started on 7 May 2020 and ended on 30 July 2020. To maximise the response rate, a link to the questionnaires was placed on the Consultations page within the EUROPA Website, 2 and several organisations were also contacted directly and asked to help disseminate the link to the questionnaire. The public consultation triggered 295 responses. 11 interviews were carried out among Member States and other stakeholders. A workshop, gathering around 90 participants, was held on 23 and 24 September 2020 to actively involve Member State competent authorities and stakeholders. Finally, a number of ad hoc contributions was received (more details in Annex 2).

The inter-service group met at the inception and interim stages of the impact assessment work and provided guidance and comments on draft reports. During the inception phase of the study, the inter-service group was consulted to provide input to the problem definition of the study. It met on 18 September 2020 ahead of the stakeholder workshop, as well as on 3rd and 22 February 2021 to discuss the draft staff working document on the impact assessment of the WSR. Several comments were sent by different DGs, which were taken into account in the development of the version of the impact assessment report submitted to the RSB for the meeting of 7 April 2021.

A Europa webpage was set up to provide information on the review process 3 .

3.Consultation of the RSB

An upstream online meeting with the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) was held on 24 March 2020. The resulting advice was taken into account in the subsequent work and in drafting the impact assessment report, which was sent on 5 March 2021 to the RSB. A meeting was held on 7 April 2021 with the Board to present and discuss the draft impact assessment report. The negative opinion of the Board was received on 9 April 2021 and a revised version of the report taking into account the elements brought forward in this opinion, was submitted to the Board on 7 May 2021. The positive opinion of the Board was received on 4 June 2021 and taken into consideration in the final report.

The table below presents the points listed in Section C “What to improve” of the RSB opinions and how these have been addressed. The first table presents the points from the negative opinion while the second table presents the futher points of improvement suggested in the positive opinion.

Table A-1: Points to imprve from negative RSB opinion 9 April 2021

What to improve

Response

(1) The report should strengthen the analysis of the most significant problems, bringing in selected evidence from the annex. It should not consider profit-maximising behaviour by economic agents active in waste shipment as a problem driver. The reinforced problem analysis should permit a clearer link to be established with the various proposed measures and a strengthened intervention logic.

To clarify the links between the problems (including their drivers and consequences), objectives, policy options and measures, the charts in sections 2 and 6 have been amended and are now aligned with each other. Additional information and key evidence on the problem drivers were included into section 2 of the main report (from Annex 8) to support this logic.

With regard to the role of profit-maximisation in driving the unsustainable treatment of waste exported outside the EU, the report was modified in order to clarify that the actual drivers in this respect are the lack of internalisation of environmental costs in some third countries and the insufficient clarity in the current regulation. The attractive prices obtained by EU-based traders for exporting waste are indeed to a large extent due to the lack of internalisation of environmental costs in third countries. The new formulation is better aligned with the objective of the review to improve the management of waste in these countries.

(2) The report should restructure the options in a clearer way. This could be done either by:

a) turning the various measures into (sets of) options that would be structured around the three main problems, or

b) keeping the current two ‘high level’ options, while adding the preferred set of measures as an alternative option upfront, making it an integral part of the impact analysis.

The report should clarify in the options which measures are complementary and which are exclusive, what trade-offs they contain, and what the fundamental policy choices for the policy makers are.

In addition to the baseline, section 6.3 of the report now presents three options with different combinations of measures. In this manner the report integrates the preferred option upfront, as a distinct option, as suggested in the opinion by the RSB. The report also explains better in section 6.1 and in the chart in section 6 where the measures would complement each other and where they are alternatives to other measures.

(3) The report should better justify the expected increase of waste exports under the baseline scenario, taking into account recent declining trends and the increasing reluctance of third countries to import waste.

A linear regression model based on the trends in the export of waste outside the EU in the last 15 years, was used to project the export of waste outside the EU in the baseline scenario until 2030. The export of waste depends on a large number of factors (waste generation growth, prices of commodities on the international market, demand for domestic waste in the EU, import rules in third countries) so these figures should be considered indicative. The reluctance of some third countries to import waste is one important factor explaining the recent past declines observed for certain waste streams, but it will not necessarily lead to a continuous downwards trend of exports. It is likely to lead to shifts of exports to other countries (like has been the case lately with Turkey becoming one of the main importers of plastic waste since enhanced import restrictions in South East Asia). Data recently published by Eurostat for 2020 indicates that export of waste has gone up compared to 2019.

(4) Each option should be impact assessed and compared against the standard assessment criteria (effectiveness, efficiency, coherence). The report should be clearer about the foreseen impacts on waste shipping operators, on supply chains and on the treatment sector.

It should specify the impacts across Member States and on SMEs. Trade-offs between business concerns and environmental objectives should be made more transparent. The report should further clarify the impacts on public authorities and how effective enforcement will be ensured. The proportionality of the preferred option should be assessed in light of the scale of the problem and the expected costs and benefits.

New elements were included in Annex 12, which provide an analysis of the impacts of the different measures contained in each policy option, against the standard assessment criteria. These elements are used to support the comparison of each policy option in section 7.2. (“how do the options compare”), which has also been completely rewritten and includes now a more in-depth comparison of the impact of the different options.

Additional elements were included in section 8 to strengthen the analysis of the proportionality of the preferred option, as well as its impact on SMEs. Overall, these changes allow for a deeper analysis of the impact of the “preferred option”.

(5) The report should clarify stakeholders’ positions on the preferred option and explain how concerns have been addressed.

For each of the measures assessed in section 7.1, the stakeholders’ views have been clarified. Section 8 also includes new elements on how the concerns of stakeholders have been accommodated in the preferred option.



Table A-2: Points to improve from positive RSB opinion 4 June 2021

What to improve

Response

(1) The report should introduce an overview table summarising how the different options compare against all assessment criteria, drawing on the annex. It should better justify the scores given to the measures’ impacts. The applied scoring method in annex seems to favour measures with some impacts across the assessment criteria over measures that very 2 effectively target only one criterion. The report should explain to what extent this is appropriate.

Table 9 was introduced in section 7.2 of the main report. It presents an overview of how options compare . It is based on the table in Annex 12 but provides an overall assessment of each option.

Further explanations were provided in the report on how the scoring takes into account the different criteria.

(2) The report should better argue why the combination of measures in the preferred option is optimal. Under the applied scoring method, it seems possible to construct a combination of measures that would yield a higher average score.

Additional explanations were provided on why the combination of measures in the preferred option is optimal. It is important to consider that the policy options were constructed as internally consistent packages of measures and this was clarified in the text.

(3) The baseline is based on estimates of waste exports that cannot capture the potential increased reluctance of third countries to receive waste. The report should better take into account these uncertainties in the baseline estimates in the impact analysis.

Indeed there are some uncertainties in the baselines estimates that are clearly explained in the report. To address this, the methodology considers the effect of any export related measure on the actual 2019 data as well as on theforecasted 2030 data. Considering 2019 data is useful to demonstrate the effect of the measures on consolidated data, while projecting those effects on forecasted numbers gives an insight in the possible range of effects in the near future.

(4) The trade-offs between business concerns and environmental objectives could be more clearly presented. The report should explain whether any mitigating or transitional measures were considered to address the recycling of waste whose treatment pose particular challenges, such as plastic and textile waste.

Different concerns were expressed by different stakeholders, but often no data or other evidence was presented. The additional research conducted by the study team and the Commission services could also not retrieve evidence to underpin some of these concerns.

Specifically on plastic waste and textile waste and the concern about the current lack of recycling capacity in the Union that will need to be bridged, the proposal contains a transitional period for the entry into force of the export related measures that was extended from two to three years following stakeholder consultation.

4.Evidence, sources and quality

The impact assessment was supported by a study that provided support on stakeholder consultation. This study was initiated end of December 2019 and was performed by a consortium led by Trinomics 4 . The study was completed in June 2021 and published on […] 5 . Stakeholder consultation and targeted data collection were an important element of the exercise (see Annex 2). A workshop was held to actively involve Member State competent authorities and stakeholders.

List of main publications:

Reports:

Yamaguchi, S (2021), “International trade and circular economy – policy alignment”, OECD Trade and Environment Working Papers, OECD Publishing, Paris, - https://doi.org/10.1787/18166881 ;

Commission SWD Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 1013 /2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (2020), available at https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/pdf/SWD_2020_26_F1_SWD_EVALUATION_EN_V4_P1_1064541.pdf ;

Interpol report (2020), available at https://www.interpol.int/News-and-Events/News/2020/INTERPOL-report-alerts-to-sharp-rise-in-plastic-waste-crime ;

Kaza, S., Yao, L., Bhada-Tata, P., & Van Woerden, F. (2018). What a waste 2.0: A global snapshot of solid waste management to 2050. Urban Development Series. Washington, DC: World Bank, availabel at: https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1329-0;

Open burning of waste a global health disaster (2016) Regions of Climate Action, available at: https://regions20.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/OPEN-BURNING-OF-WASTE-A-GLOBAL-HEALTH-DISASTER_R20-Research-Paper_Final_29.05.2017.pdf;

The report on the 8th round of mutual evaluations on “The practical implementation and operation of the European polices on preventing and combating Environmental Crime” (2019), available at https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14065-2019-INIT/en/pdf ;

Waste Mismanagement in Developing Countries: A Review of Global Issues. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health (2019), 16, 1060, available at https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/6/1060

WasteForce project Alert report (2019), available at https://wasteforceproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/WasteForce-Waste-Crime-Alert-1.pdf  

Waste Management Outlook for West Asia UNEP (2019), available at: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11822/31205

Waste Management Outlook for Africa, UNEP (2018), available at: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11822/25514  

Waste Management Outlook for Asia, UNEP (2017), available at: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11822/27289  

Basel Convention National Reports (2018), available at http://www.basel.int/Countries/NationalReporting/NationalReports/BC2019Reports/tabid/8645/Default.aspx  

Method of Calculation in the Member States of the Financial Guarantee and Equivalent Insurance pursuant to Art. 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 on shipments of waste (2016), available at:

https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/pdf/Calculation%20of%20financial%20guarantee.pdf  

The Global Waste Management Outlook by UNEP and ISWA (2015), available at:  https://www.uncclearn.org/wp-content/uploads/library/unep23092015.pdf  

Studies:

Trinomics and Wood (2021) revision of WSR [to be published]

Study for the Environmental European Agency “Expanding the knowledge base on intra-EU waste movements in a circular economy” (2021) Project reference: ENV/HSR/20/001-1[to be published]

Contributions to the further development of the EC Waste Shipment Regulation (report by Ramboll on behalf of the German Environment Agency), published in 2021 and available at: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/5750/publikationen/2021-01-21_texte_13-2021_ec_waste_shipment.pdf

Mapping the risk of serious and organised crime infiltrating legitimate businesses (Final Report) (2021), available at:

https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/ab3534a2-87a0-11eb-ac4c-01aa75ed71a1/language-en  

George Bishop, David Styles, Piet N.L. Lens, Recycling of European plastic is a pathway for plastic debris in the ocean, Environment International, Volume 142, 2020, 105893, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105893  

Cotta, B. What goes around, comes around? Access and allocation problems in Global North–South waste trade. International Environmental Agreements 20, 255–269 (2020), available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-020-09479-3  

Study on investment needs in the waste sector and on the financing of municipal waste management in Member States (Eunomia, COWI) (2019), available at: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/4d5f8355-bcad-11e9-9d01-01aa75ed71a1  

Study to support the implementation of reporting obligations resulting from the new waste legislation adopted in 2018 (Eunomia) https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/3d72ef00-bcac-11e9-9d01-01aa75ed71a1 ;

IMPEL (2017) “ A survey of practitioners’ views about the implementation challenges with EU environmental legislation, their underlying reasons and ways to improvement: 2017 ”, available at: https://www.impel.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/FR-2017-27-Implementation-Challenge-follow-up.pdf ;

IMPEL (2017) “ A survey of practitioners’ views about the implementation challenges with EU environmental legislation, their underlying reasons and ways to improvement: 2017 ”, available at: https://www.impel.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/FR-2017-27-Implementation-Challenge-follow-up.pdf ;

The efficient functioning of waste markets in the European Union - Legislative and Policy options (2015), available at:

https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/pdf/waste_market_study.pdf ;

Rucevska I., Nellemann C., Isarin N., Yang W., Liu N., Yu K., Sandnæs S., Olley K., McCann H., Devia L., Bisschop L., Soesilo D., Schoolmeester T., Henriksen, R., Nilsen, R. (2015) Waste Crime – Waste Risks: Gaps in Meeting the Global Waste Challenge. A UNEP Rapid Response Assessment. United Nations Environment Programme and GRID-Arendal, Nairobi and Arendal, www.grida.no ;

Feasibility Study for the establishment of an Electronic Data Interchange for Waste Shipment (2014), available at:

electronic_data_exchange_waste_shipment_regulation.pdf (europa.eu) ;

Wiedinmyer, C., Yokelson, R., Gullet, B.K. (2014). Global Emissions of Trace Gases, Particulate Matter, and Hazardous Air Pollutants from Open Burning of Domestic Waste. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 16, 9523–9530, available at: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es502250z .

Other publications:

CE Delft Environmental Prices Handbook EU 28 version, available at : https://www.cedelft.eu/en/publications/2191/environmental-prices-handbook-eu28-version  ;

EU paper recyclers ‘in crisis’ as China waste import ban bites, available at  https://www.euractiv.com/section/circular-economy/news/eu-paper-recyclers-in-crisis-as-china-waste-import-ban-bites/  

Manfredi S, Tonini D and Christensen T, (2010) ‘Contribution of individual waste fractions to the environmental impacts from landfilling of municipal solid waste’; Waste management 30 (3 ), 433-440;

Manfredi S, Tonini D and Christensen T, (2010) ‘Environmental assessment of different management options for individual waste fractions by means of life-cycle assessment modelling’, 55 (11 ), 995-1004 ;

Christensen T, (2009) ‘Environmental assessment of solid waste landfilling technologies by means of LCA-modelling’; Waste management,  29, (1 ),  32-43

EuRIC:  https://www.euric-aisbl.eu/position-papers/item/335-euric-unveils-metal-recycling-brochure  

EUROFER : https://www.eurofer.eu/assets/publications/position-papers/contribution-of-the-waste-shipment-regulation-to-eu-ambitions-on-circularity-and-climate/20200728_EUROFER-Input-WSRConsultation_Paper_Final.pdf



Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation

1.Introduction

This synopsis report summarises the results of all of the consultation activities undertaken as part of the project “Exploration of potential policy responses to the review of the Waste Shipment Regulation.”

2.Consultation of citizens and stakeholders

The method of consultation was outlined in the inception impact assessment ‘Waste shipments – revision of EU rules’ 6 . The consultation addressed interviews with relevant stakeholders, an online public consultation and a one-day online workshop split over two mornings. All consultation was handled online as a result of restrictions resulting from COVID-19.

Objectives

The objectives of the consultation were:

·To gather views on the scope of the impact assessment process, in particular to ensure that the correct objectives were being targeted.

·To gather views with regard to the options and measures under consideration to address the objectives identified.

·To gather further evidence to substantiate the analysis of the options and measures.

Stakeholders

Relevant stakeholders to be addressed as part of the impact assessment were identified as:

·Member States and their authorities responsible for waste shipments and waste management. This included members of the European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law (IMPEL);

·The Waste Shipment Correspondents 7 ;

·Industrial/economic actors, including small and medium sized enterprises, within sectors involved in waste shipments and/or the implementation of the Regulation;

·Civil society, including environmental Non-Governmental Organisations and citizens' initiatives;

·International organisations relevant to the matter of waste shipment, e.g. those involved in the implementation of multi-lateral environmental agreements;

·Academia, research and innovation organisations and institutes; and

·Citizens.

3.Methods for engagement of stakeholders

The methods to be applied according to the consultation strategy were identified as:

1.Public consultation through an online questionnaire, including expert consultation as part of the same exercise, using the Commission consultation’s website;

2.Targeted consultations including:

oA stakeholders’ workshop; and

oInterviews.

3.Feedback received on the evaluation roadmap.

Public consultation

A 12-week public consultation related to the Waste Shipment Regulation (WSR) Impact Assessment was held between 7 May and 30 July 2020. The public consultation was split into two main sections. The first section contained general questions on the policy objectives of the review of the WSR and how to pursue them. The second section asked for more detailed views from stakeholders with a more in-depth knowledge of the WSR. The questionnaire was hosted on the EU Survey tool.

The consultation elicited 295 responses. As part of the initial screening of responses a number of stakeholders were re-categorised as a result of the nature of their organisation. This led to some business association being categorised as such and not as NGOs as originally registered, environmental organisations being re-categorized as NGOs or public authorities and those in the ‘other category’ being redistributed to their correct delineation.

An in-depth analysis of the public consultation is provided in Annex 3.

Campaign responses

No official campaigns took part in the public consultation. It was clear in some cases that both business and NGO stakeholders had separately coordinated some of the responses to the open questions within their respective groups leading to the same wording being used.

Position papers

As part of the consultation process stakeholders were invited to submit additional information including position papers. The information submitted was reviewed in order to identify position papers. More than 65 separate submissions were received, some of these included documents that were submitted multiple times by different stakeholders or by the same stakeholder at different points in IA process. When this situation arose, the position paper was logged and reviewed only once. An overview of the position papers received is presented in the table below.

Table B.1     Overview of position papers received

Author

Title

AFNOR

Quality standards for sorted plastic waste — Main element — Complementary element

Bra Servizi

Contribution to the public consultation

ERAMET

Contribution to the public consultation

APRA, ACEA, CLEPA, COCIR, Conseil Europeen de Remanufacture, DIGITALEUROPE, EuroCommerce, Eurometaux

Towards a circular vision for the revision of the Waste Shipment Regulation

Fortum

Fortum calls for stronger enforcement and improvements of the Waste Shipment Regulation, WSR

Confederation of Danish Industry

The Waste Shipment Regulation is a barrier to circular economy in the EU

EVOA

Consultatie WSR 2020

Land Brandenburg

Stellungnahme im Rahmen der öffentlichen Konsultation zur Abfallverbringungsverordnung

CEWEP

Open letter to the Commissioner

NL

Waste Shipment Regulation Impact Assessment – Public Consultation - non-paper NL

European Environmental Bureau (EEB)

Additional paper to the consultation on Waste shipment regulation:

NABU

Wie können Plastikmüllexporte reguliert werden?

NRK Recycling

NRK Recycling visie ten aanzien van de aanpassing van de EVOA

IKEA

Response to the European Commission’s public consultation on the Waste Shipment Regulation Impact Assessment [Inter IKEA & Ingka Group]

DIGITALEUROPE

A Circular Economy Card for the Waste Shipment Regulation

VCI

Public consultation by the EU on the revision of the Waste Shipment Regulation (EG) Nr. 1013/2006

WIEN ENERGIE

Contribution to the public consultation

Cerame-Unie

Waste Shipment Regulation revision

Cerame-Unie’s answer to the public consultation

EERA

A requirement for a Circular Economy within the EU.

NATO

The industrial demilitarization of ammunition

CEMBUREAU

Waste Shipment Regulation Public Consultation

WPT

Open letter as part of the EU WSR Survey

Borealis

Contribution to the public consultation

EURIC

EURIC Position on the revision of the Waste Shipment Regulation

AVR

How a Waste Recycling Energy Plant can boost Climate and Circular Economy

RDF Industry Group secretariat

RE: Public Consultation on the Waste Shipment Regulation Impact Assessment

UNESID

UNESID’S feedback on the EU waste shipment rules

HWE

Contribution to the public consultation

ERP

Recommendations for the revision of the European Union rules on waste shipment

SUEZ

SUEZ recommendations on the Waste Shipment Regulation

CEFIC

Explanatory note based on Cefic position paper on Waste Shipment Regulation to support our reply to the public consultation

EK

Confederation of Finnish Industries views on “Waste shipments – review and assessment of revision of EU rules”

Belgium

Additional responses from Belgium as regards the Public Consultation on the Review of the Waste Shipment Regulation

EBRA

EBRA draft contribution to the Public Consultation regarding the Waste Shipment Regulation Impact Assessment.

Euromines

Euromines – Public Consultation on the Waste Shipment Regulation

Czechia

Waste Shipment Regulation Impact Assessment – Public Consultation - Additional comments of the Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic

ECGA

ECGA Position Paper – Public Consultation on the Waste Shipment Regulation

ACE

Shipment of waste in and outside Europe

Dutch Waste Management Association

Contribution to the public consultation

Derichebourg environnement

Waste Shipment Regulation Impact Assessment – Public Consultation position paper

Neste

Neste Reply to Waste Shipment Regulation – Public Consultation on the review of EU rules

Plastics Europe

PlasticsEurope response to the public consultation on the revision of the Waste Shipment Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006)

PolyStyreneLoop

Feedback on Impact Assessment of Waste Shipment Regulation - Regulation 1013/2006

Eurofer

The contribution of the Waste Shipment Regulation to EU ambitions on circularity and climate

rreuse

RREUSE feedback: Waste Shipment Regulation – Public Consultation

Eurochambres

EUROCHAMBRES Position on the Revision of the EU rules on Waste Shipment

Polyeco

Waste Shipment Regulation Impact Assessment – Public Consultation

Ferver

Position of FERVER on the revision of the Waste Shipment Regulation

BDE

BDE's additional remarks to the Public consultation by the EU on the revision of the Waste Shipment Regulation (EG) Nr. 1013/2006

Rethink Plastic

Public Consultation on the Revision of the Waste Shipment Regulation - Submission from the Rethink Plastic alliance, supported by the Basel Action Network and GAIA

FEAD

FEAD additional comments to the EC questionnaire on the revision of the WSR

ESWET

Time to ensure sustainable waste shipments in Europe

Basel Action Network (BAN)

Comments for the Public Consultation on the Revision of the

European Union Waste Shipment Regulation by the Basel Action Network (BAN)

ETRMA

ETRMA contribution to the inception impact assessment on

Waste Shipments (WSR) – revision of the EU rules

Germany

German Comments related to the impact assessment of the Commission regarding Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 on shipments of waste (WSR)

Targeted consultations

Targeted consultation took the form of a stakeholder workshop, interviews and attendance at an external workshop hosted by the Impel network. Details on each of these are presented below.

Stakeholders’ workshop

A stakeholder workshop was organised over two consecutive mornings on 23rd and 24th September 2020. The workshops have gathered more than 200 participants from 88 organisations on Day One and 90 on Day Two including representatives from Member States’ competent authorities, industry, NGOs, EU services, academia and international organisations. Attendees were provided with:

i.    a background paper in advance of the workshop; and

ii.    presentations at the workshop itself that were further explained by the consultants assisting the Commission in the assessment process.

The agenda was split across two mornings, with the first morning dedicated to examination of objectives concerned with the intra-EU shipment of waste and the second that considered extra-EU shipments of waste and enforcement.

Day One attendees were comprised of:

-    29 Member State representatives, including government ministries and competent authorities.

-    21 Company / business organisations.

-    11 Waste treatment associations.

-    8 Environmental NGOs.

-    6 recycling / materials trade associations.

-    3 individual waste treatment companies.

-    3 individual non-waste treatment / recycling companies.

-    2 recycling / materials trade companies.

-    5 other organisations (comprised of European Institution bodies and international bodies).

Day Two attendees were comprised of:

-    31 Member State representatives, including government ministries and competent authorities.

-    24 Company / business organisations.

-    10 Waste treatment associations.

-    8 Environmental NGOs.

-    4 recycling / materials trade associations.

-    3 individual waste treatment companies.

-    3 individual non-waste treatment / recycling companies.

-    2 recycling / materials trade companies.

-    5 other organisations (comprised of European Institution bodies and international bodies).

As a result of restrictions stemming from Covid-19 the meeting was hosted virtually on WebEx and included the use of Sli.do to pose questions to attendees and to run polls.

A workshop report was produced by Wood that was shared for comment by attendees. The workshop report was subsequently updated by the consultants and shared with participants.

Interviews

In April and May 2020 interviews were organised with selected stakeholders primarily comprising stakeholders involved in both waste management and those involved in the generation and shipping of waste. Eleven one-to-one interviews were held with regard to the scope of the objectives and evidence gathering with regard to the impacts of options.

IMPEL Workshop

The consultants and European Commission attended a virtual workshop hosted by IMPEL 8 in May 2020 where the scope of the impact assessment was presented and IMPEL members were invited to comment and to provide further input following the meeting.

4.Feedback received on the inception impact assessment

The inception impact assessment was published on 11 March 2020 with feedback invited until 8 April 2020. A total of 81 stakeholders provided feedback on the evaluation roadmap during the consultation period 9 . The key feedback is summarised in the table below, organised per evaluation criteria.

Overview of key issues raised Roadmap feedback

·Simplification of the waste shipment Regulation – with several comments referring to the overly burdensome nature of administrative procedures for shipments of waste

·Lack of harmonisation in implementation – with respondents highlighting the impact of different approaches undertaken by competent authorities in their application of the Regulation, in particular concerning the categorization of waste materials.

·The circular economy – with respondents generally pointing to the need for the waste shipment Regulation to provide greater support to the circular economy work within the EU, including with regard to the issues highlighted above (the need to simplify shipments to enable speedier shipments contributing to the circular economy to take place and harmonising the categorization of waste, in particular concerning end of waste criteria.

·Concerning extra-EU shipments of waste – A number of responses indicating support for a blanket export ban or a targeted restriction for certain wastes (in particular plastic).

·Resourcing of inspections and enforcement – With a number of responses highlighting that inspection and enforcement shortcomings stem from lack of resources.

·Other issues not specifically addressed in the inception impact assessment – including in relation to introduction of a common language for shipment documentation, shipments of waste for research and links with other EU waste objectives, in particular with regard to recycling targets.

The opinions raised and evidence provided in this feedback are used in the study directly, with a number of the respondents providing further materials as part of the other consultation activities undertaken.

5.Use of the information gathered

All of the information gathered as part of the data collection exercise, both through the consultation streams highlighted in this synopsis report, as well as literature review and evidence gathering by the team of consultants was combined. This formed the basis for the examination of all data sources against each of objectives, noting relevant sources of evidence that are then quoted in the main body of the study. Data was analysed to identify contradictory or supportive statements and evidence to reach the conclusions contained in the final evaluative study. In this context, all widely supported views are entirely considered in the final report, with less widely supported views identified as such.



Annex 3: In depth analysis of the public consultations outcome

1.Introduction

The analysis in this Annex was drawn from the exploratory study in support of this impact assessment 10 and does not necessarily use the same presentation of measures as eventually chosen in the sections of the present report. The study based itself on the presentation of objectives and measures in the questionnaire for the public consultation. In the subsequent process of developing this impact assessment, thinking developed further and resulted in an advanced presentation of objectives, options and underlying measures. This annex does however provide an in depth insight in stakeholders views on the various objectives and potential policy options for this review.

2.Public Consultation Results

Overview of respondents

A 12-week public consultation related to the Waste Shipment Regulation (WSR) Impact Assessment was held between 7 May and 30 July 2020. The public consultation was split into two main sections. The first section contained general questions on the policy objectives of the review of the WSR and how to pursue them. The second section asked for more detailed views from stakeholders with a more in-depth knowledge of the WSR. The questionnaire was hosted on the EU Survey tool.

The consultation elicited a total of 295 responses. As part of the initial screening of responses a number of stakeholders were re-categorised as a result of the nature of their organisation. This led to some business associations being categorised as such and not as NGOs as originally registered, environmental organisations being re-categorized as NGOs or public authorities and those in the ‘other category’ being redistributed to their correct delineation.

The consequent breakdown of stakeholder responses by respondent type is provided below.

Table C.1 - Type of respondents involved in the consultation

Type of respondent

Number of respondents

Percentage of respondents

Company/business organisation

116

39%

Business association

77

26%

EU citizen

47

16%

Public authority

36

12%

Environmental non-governmental organisation (NGO)

17

6%

Trade union

1

>0%

Academic/research institution

1

>0%

Total

295

100%

Responses were received from respondents in most Member States. The majority of these were received from Belgium (64), followed by Germany (45), Italy (38) and France (25). A detailed overview of the responses received by country is shown in the table below.

Table C.2 - Responses received by country

Type of respondent

Number of respondents

Percentage of respondents

Belgium

64

22%

Germany

45

15%

Italy

38

13%

France

25

8%

Netherlands

18

6%

Spain

14

5%

Austria

12

4%

Sweden

10

3%

Portugal

8

3%

United Kingdom

7

2%

Finland

5

2%

Greece

5

2%

Romania

5

2%

Bulgaria

4

1%

Lithuania

4

1%

Luxembourg

4

1%

Ireland

3

1%

Norway

3

1%

Poland

3

1%

Denmark

2

1%

Hungary

2

1%

Malta

2

1%

Slovakia

2

1%

Slovenia

2

1%

United States

2

1%

Andorra

1

>0%

Czechia

1

>0%

Estonia

1

>0%

French Guiana

1

>0%

Indonesia

1

>0%

Switzerland

1

>0%

Grand Total

295

100%

The section below provides an overview of headline results from the online survey carried out so far, per specific objective under the study.

Section 1 – General public

Section 1 of the questionnaire addressed the three main objectives being addressed, with a number of questions being addressed against each objective. A summary of the responses is provided in the following section.

·First policy objective: the WSR should support the transition to a circular economy in the EU more effectively

Questions under the first objective addressed five main sub-objectives that are addressed in the order in which the questions were posed in the questionnaire.

Firstly, the link with the circular economy was addressed as shown in Figure C.1 below.

Figure C.1 - Responses to the statement ‘a review of the Waste Shipment Regulation should seek to more effectively support the transition to a circular economy

The vast majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the need for the WSR to support the transition more effectively to a circular economy.

Secondly, stakeholders were asked whether the review of the Regulation should seek to make the movement of waste easier within the EU when destined for preparation for reuse or recycling.

As for the statement on the circular economy, a vast majority of respondents either agree or strongly agree with the statement.



Figure C.2 - Responses to the statement that a review of the Waste Shipment Regulation should seek to make the movement of waste easier within the EU when destined for preparation for reuse or for recycling

Thirdly, stakeholders were asked whether a review of the WSR should seek to make movements more difficult within the EU when destined for incineration with energy recovery. In contrast to the first two statements, a majority of stakeholders either strongly disagreed or disagreed with the statement as shown in Figure C.2 below.



Figure C.3 - Responses to the statement ‘A review of the Waste Shipment Regulation should seek to make the movement of waste more difficult within the EU when destined for incineration with energy recovery’

It should be noted that there is a general split in the stakeholders in responding to this statement. Company and Business Organisations and Business Associations represent the stakeholder groups most opposed to the statement. Conversely, NGOs and most EU citizens that responded either agree or strongly agree with the statement. Public authorities show split views on this matter. There are also a significant number of stakeholders of all categories that stated they had no opinion.



Fourthly, stakeholders were asked whether the WSR should seek to make the movement of waste more difficult or even impossible within the EU when destined for disposal (e.g. incineration without energy recovery, landfilling). The results are shown in Figure C.4 below, with a split in opinion – the majority of respondents indicating that they agree or strongly agree with the statement, but still with a large number of mainly industry related stakeholders disagreeing or disagreeing strongly with the statement.

Figure C.4 - Responses to the statement A review of the Waste Shipment Regulation should seek to make the movement of waste more difficult or even impossible within the EU when destined for disposal (e.g. incineration without energy recovery, landfilling)



Finally, under the first objective, stakeholders were asked whether the review of the Regulation should seek to improve the efficiency of the procedures and administration for both competent authorities and companies shipping waste between Member States. As shown in below, the vast majority of stakeholders strongly agreed with the statement, with the remainder or respondents agreeing with the statement.

Figure C.5 - Responses to the statement ‘A review of the Waste Shipment Regulation should seek to improve the efficiency of the procedures and administration for both competent authorities and companies shipping waste between Member States’



·Second policy objective: Restrict the export of EU waste to third countries

The second policy objective against which stakeholders were provided with a number of statements to indicate their level of agreement concerned the restriction of export of EU waste the third countries. Stakeholders were posed with six statements against different restriction scenarios. The results of the consultation of stakeholders against these statements are provided below.

The first statement concerned whether the review should seek to keep the current EU rules on export of waste unchanged but increase their enforcement. The responses are summarised below.

Figure C.6 - Responses to the statement A review of the Waste Shipment Regulation should seek to keep the current EU rules on export of waste unchanged but increase their enforcement

A split in responses by stakeholder type is notable. NGOs and some industry stakeholders – notably those involved in the processing of wastes as secondary raw materials, disagreed with the statement that the current rules should be maintained and their enforcement increased. The industry stakeholders concerned frequently noted in their later responses to other questions the need for the WSR to more effectively support the circular economy and the need to simplify the WSR to this effect that could account for some of the level of disagreement in this stakeholder category. However, a majority of stakeholders agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.

Next, stakeholders were asked whether, regarding export of waste to non-EU OECD countries the EU should ban the export of waste to such countries.

Figure C.7 - Responses to the statement Regarding export of waste to non-EU OECD countries ban the export of waste to non-EU OECD countries

Here, a reversal in the trend from the previous statement can be seen, which is unsurprising given that those that had requested to maintain the present system are unlikely to support the kind of change envisaged by this statement. NGOs and citizens almost universally agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. It also likely reflects the fact that member countries of the OECD are generally perceived to apply waste treatment measures more akin to those of the EU than non-OECD countries.



Thirdly, stakeholders were asked to which extent they agreed with the statement ‘Regarding export of waste to non-EU OECD countries the EU should ban the export of waste to non-EU OECD countries, unless there is clear evidence that it will be processed in an environmentally sound manner’. In contrast to the previous statement, this statement includes a proviso concerning environmentally sound management of wastes in the country of destination. This important qualifier results in a generally higher level of support compared to the previous statement as shown in Figure C. below.

Figure C.8 - Responses to the statement ‘Regarding export of waste to non-EU OECD countries Ban the export of waste to non-EU OECD countries, unless there is clear evidence that it will be processed in an environmentally sound manner



Next, stakeholders were asked their opinion with regard to the statement ‘Regarding export of waste to non-OECD countries the EU should only ban the export of waste to developing countries’. The responses to this statement are provided below.

Figure C.9 - Responses to the statement ‘Regarding export of waste to non-OECD countries the EU should only ban the export of waste to developing countries’

Here there was a large split in opinion. As per statement two under this objective, NGOs and citizens nearly universally agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. Those industry representatives that agreed or strongly agreed with the statement were generally involved in waste treatment, with those industries more involved in the manufacturing of products and often subject to extended producer responsibility requirements more likely to disagree or strongly disagree with the statement.



The insertion of the same qualifier as for the OECD statements addressed earlier was then added to this non-OECD statement, with the new statement asking stakeholders the extent to which they agreed that regarding export of waste to non-OECD countries the EU should ban the export of waste to developing countries, unless there is clear evidence that it will be processed in an environmentally sound manner. The results of this statement are shown below.

Figure C.10 - Responses to the statement ‘Regarding export of waste to non-OECD countries only ban the export of waste to developing countries, unless there is clear evidence that it will be processed in an environmentally sound manner’

The largest group of stakeholders either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, with a large number of industry stakeholders that had opposed a general ban being more supportive of a ban in cases where ESM of processing was not apparent.



Finally, stakeholders were asked their opinions with regard to the statement that the EU should only restrict the export of certain wastes to developing countries. Interestingly, proportionally stakeholders were slightly more supportive of the previous statement concerning ESM than a targeted restriction of certain wastes to developing countries as shown below.

Figure C.11 - Responses to the statement ‘Regarding export of waste to non-OECD countries only Restrict the export of certain wastes to developing countries’


·

·Third policy objective: Strengthen the enforcement of the Waste Shipment Regulation’s provisions

The final objective that the general public was asked to provide its opinion concerned that of strengthening the enforcement of the WSR’s provisions. To this effect, stakeholders were asked to provide their opinion against two statements.

The first statement concerned whether the review should seek to strengthen the enforcement of the Waste Shipment Regulation’s provisions in general. The responses were almost overwhelmingly in agreement with the statement as shown below.

Figure C.12 - Responses to the statement ‘A review of the Waste Shipment Regulation should seek to Strengthen the enforcement of the Waste Shipment Regulation’s provisions’



Secondly, stakeholders were asked whether a review of the Waste Shipment Regulation should seek to improve the coordination at EU level of enforcement efforts by Member States against illegal shipment, for example by establishing a dedicated forum or body.

Figure C.13 - Responses to the statement ‘a review of the Waste Shipment Regulation should seek to improve the coordination at EU level of enforcement efforts by Member States against illegal shipment, for example by establishing a dedicated forum or body’

Once again, stakeholders overwhelmingly agreed or strongly agreed with this statement.


·Additional policy objectives and measures identified in the general public section of the consultation 

Following completion of the sections concerning the three main objectives identified by the Commission in respect to the revision of the WSR, the general public section of the questionnaire posed two final questions in an open box format.

The first question asked what policy objectives in addition to those previously addressed the review of the WSR should pursue. Over 100 responses were provided to this question, with responses focussing on the following general themes:

-Simplifying waste codes currently in use under the Regulation – nine responses

-Enforcing the proximity principle and address waste management as close to the place of its generation as possible – 13 responses

-Addressing plastic wastes more effectively – two responses

-Increasing extended producer’s responsibility– one response

-Prohibiting shipping for incineration – one response

-Reducing waste generation in the first place – four responses

-Improving consistency of implementation in the EU – 23 responses

-Greater support in relation to pre-consented facilities – three responses

-Banning shipments for disposal – three responses

-Creating a registry of approved importers and exporters – three responses

-Simplifying shipment procedures – 27 responses

-Allowing the market to operate freely and regulate itself – 10 for procedures responses

-Providing a single language (English) – two responses

-Creating an EU wide single market for waste – 23 responses

-Defining a single financial guarantee value for shipments subject to financial guarantees – one response

-Distinguishing between wastes and secondary raw materials – 17 responses

-Defining end of waste at the EU level – eight responses.

The second question asked what measures in addition to those already listed the review of the WSR should include. The following new points were raised (beyond those addressed in response to the previous question):

-Apply fines to public authorities that fail to process notifications according to the timings laid down in the Regulation

-All waste to energy facilities in the EU should receive pre-consented status to reduce administrative burden.

-EU inspection of non-EU countries on environmental and social grounds and to identify the destination of recycling residues.

-Review hazardous waste requirements specifically for waste products that are to be recycled or refurbished or parts harvested. Look at two levels of hazardous classification, those that are hazardous in their primary state and those that are hazardous following an industrial process.

-Provide for notifications to have longer validity.

-Provide a list of pre-consented facilities for recycling and recovery (within EU)

-Establish uniform and, unambiguous definitions for Li-ion batteries at EU level: harmonise classification of undamaged Li-ion batteries as non-hazardous and avoid an unnecessary notification process for that waste product category.

-To assign a specific status to EFTA countries in order to encompass these countries with the EU countries and not with OECD countries.

-Limit the export of hazardous waste out of the country where the waste is collected unless that material could not be treated and recycled locally. This principle should concern all shipments, including intra EU.

-The enforcement of the regulation should be supported by clearly defining the consequences in cases of breach and of attempt to circumvent the prohibition of exports and by providing for EU harmonised penal, administrative and/or customs sanctions in case of non-compliance. Effective deterrence would require fines and periodic penalty payments, for natural and legal persons, imposed either at national or EU level, to be established in the WSR.

-The review should also favour the creation of an EU level body, as a one stop shop to contact in case of evidence of irregular waste management.


Section 2 – Expert stakeholder questionnaire

The expert section of the questionnaire was structured similarly to the general public section, albeit under each of the three main objectives more specific objectives and measures were presented to stakeholders upon which stakeholders were able to state their preference. Despite the fact that the section was targeted at experts, nothing prevented non-experts from answering the questionnaire and whilst the total number of respondents was smaller than in Section 1, all stakeholder groups except trade unions had at least one representative that answered at least part of section 2, with business organisations, companies, NGOs and public authorities comprising the majority of those that responded.

Challenge 1 - Ensuring a smoother functioning of the EU internal market for waste and supporting the transition to a circular economy

Set of measures 1a – Align shipments with the waste hierarchy and existing EU legislation

The results of the public consultation suggest that stakeholders have the greatest support for the following measures, and consider them as the most likely to be effective and proportionate in simplifying and reducing the administrative burden imposed by the WSR in its present form:

·Simplifying notification procedures for intra-EU shipments of waste destined for reuse or recycling, and more in particular improving and harmonising the current provisions in relation to pre-consented facilities

·Narrowing the grounds for objections to shipments of waste for preparation for reuse or recycling.

Whilst the other measures listed have received some support and are generally considered likely to be effective and proportionate, the limitation of shipments of waste for energy recovery is generally opposed by most business stakeholders.

Figure C.14 shows the breakdown of support for each sub-measure by stakeholder group. It shows the number of respondents who claimed that they either fully support or support the measure to a large extent. It is clear that there seems to be a preference for the three sub-measures outlined above across stakeholder groups.

Companies and business associations have a preference for the three options outlined above and seem be against considering options to limit shipments of waste to energy recovery and considering options to limit further or prohibit (with limited exemptions) shipments for disposal between Member States. Public authorities on the other hand seem to prefer sub-option 1a2 on simplifying notification procedures for intra-EU shipments of waste destined for reuse or recycling and determining contamination levels at the EU level in the context of classifying waste as hazardous or mixed. NGOs also support these two measures, as well as considering options to limit shipments of waste to energy recovery and considering options to limit or further prohibit shipments of waste.

Figure C.14 - Support for measures under 1a

Note: Blank and do not know responses removed.

Regarding estimated impacts of the measures, the first two sub-measures received great support from stakeholders (over 75%), whereas considering options to limits shipments of waste to energy recovery and limiting shipments for disposal between MS were considered ineffective by 51% and 37% of respondents, respectively.

Set of measure 1b – simplification and reduction of administrative burden for intra-EU shipments of waste

For this set of measures, the results from the consultation suggest that there is a strong call for the development of an Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) system to facilitate electronic notification and movement procedures for waste shipments, better monitoring of waste flows and to allow a smooth sharing of information between public authorities. In fact, 99% of companies, 97% of business associations, 100% of citizens and 100% of public authorities who replied to this question were in full support or in large support of the measure. A detailed breakdown regarding support for this measure is shown in Figure C.15 below.



Figure C.15 - Support for measures under 1b

Note: Blank and do not know responses removed.

Regarding expected impacts of this measure, the majority of respondents (over 80% for all three sub-measures) deemed this would be effective and proportionate.



Set of measures 1c – harmonisation of interpretation, application and enforcement across Member States

Stakeholders are most supportive of the following measures to create more coherence of EU legislation effectively and proportionately:

·Provide further guidance to clarify links between the different types of classifications of waste, specifically in the WFD, customs HS codes, Basel convention and OECD decision). (Supported by 100% of citizens, 85% of companies, 88% of business associations, 80% of NGOs and 74% of Public Authorities.)

·Establish structured exchange of information and experience between MS and at EU level, e.g. by creating a platform for MSs to share information.

·Introduce the principle of mutual recognition of national classification in the WSR, to clarify whether a commodity is waste or not in case of shipments, including as regards the application of end-of-waste criteria.

Figure C.16 - Support for measures under 1c

Note: Blank and do not know responses removed.

Whilst nearly all other measures listed received some support and were considered effective and proportionate (by >50% of stakeholders), the defining of rules to decide whether a commodity is classified as waste or not, or as hazardous or non-hazardous was generally not favoured or viewed as effective by stakeholders, especially by NGOs and public authorities who were against this measure.

Set of measures 1d – Provide more relevant delegations to the Commission to adapt the Regulation over time to technical and policy progress.

This set of measures would involve providing more relevant delegations to the Commission to adapt the Regulation over time to technical and policy progress. The results of the public consultation suggest that the majority of stakeholders support the objective of this measure. However, few were fully in favour of providing more relevant delegations to the Commission to adapt the Regulation over time to allow technical and policy progress. Most stakeholders believed it to be proportionate and effective.

In particular, 27% of companies supported the measure fully, 26% to a large extent and 27% only to some extent. Full support of this measure was even lower for business associations with only 14% supporting the measure fully, 32% to a large extent and 30% only to some extent. Similar values were obtained for citizens and NGOs with 0% who claimed they do not support the policy measure at all. For public authorities, 30% supported the measure fully or to a large extent, and 47% supported the measures only to some extent.

Regarding expected impacts, the majority of respondents reported that they expected it either to effective and proportionate (58%), or effective and disproportionate (33%).

Challenge 2 – Better guarantee waste shipped across borders are managed in an environmentally sound manner

Set of measures 2a – stop exporting EU waste outside of the EU

The sub-measures which received most support were work on the Basel Convention, for example considering the inclusion of additional waste streams in the Convention or reinforcing the Convention with regards to Environmentally Sound Management or even Circular Economy aspects like lifecycle approach policy and reviewing the current OECD framework governing transboundary movements of waste, specifically for EU exports to other OECD countries. These were mostly supported by NGOs, Public Authorities and Citizens. Business associations and Companies tended not to be in favour of measure 2a. With the greatest support from business associations on the option to maintain the current rules on both hazardous and green listed waste exports to third countries and focus on stronger enforcement measures (64% of respondents) and for companies on work on the Basel Convention, for example considering the inclusion of additional waste streams in the Convention or reinforcing the Convention with regards to Environmentally Sound Management or even Circular Economy aspects like lifecycle approach policy (59% support from respondents.)



Figure C.17 - Support for measures under 2a

Note: Blank and do not know responses removed.



An overview of expected impacts with regards to effectiveness and proportionality of measures is shown in Figure C.18 below.

Figure C.18 - Views on expected impacts for measures under 2a

Note: Blank and do not know responses removed.



Set of measures 2b – verify ESM in destination countries

Regarding sub-measures under measure 2b, aimed a verifying ESM in destination countries, the one which received most support from all stakeholders except citizens was to clarify what the EU considers as the environmentally sound management of waste, by including additional provisions on this point in the regulation or in implementing acts. The other two sub-measures also received significant support, especially from citizens, NGOs and public authorities. Details are outlined in the graph below.

Figure C.19 - Support for measures under 2b

Note: Blank and do not know responses removed.

Regarding effectiveness of these measures, the majority of stakeholders deemed the first option to be effective and proportionate (80%), whereas for the second and third option this dropped to 49% and 61% respectively. In fact, for the latter two options many respondents seemed to expect that the measures would be ineffective, with 15% believing this for the option on the establishment of an EU agency to inspect and certify that waste management facilities in 3rd countries processing waste imported from the EU comply with EU requirements on the environmentally sound management” of waste, and 18% believing the option of introducing a guidance document outlining more detailed and stricter conditions governing the export of waste outside the EU to be ineffective.



Set of measures 2c

Sub-measures under measure 2C received support mostly from citizens, business associations, public authorities and companies. NGOs seemed to be generally against these measures.

Figure C.20 - Support for sub-measures under Measure 2c

Note: Blank and do not know responses removed.

Regarding expected impacts on effectiveness for the measure, the majority of respondents deemed the measure to be effective and proportionate, with 78% claiming this for the first sub-measure and 84% claiming this for the second measure.



Challenge 3 – Better prevent and address illegal shipments of waste

Measure 3a – Further strengthen provisions on enforcement and inspections

Stakeholders seemed to be mostly in favour of measures to further strengthen provisions on enforcement and inspections. Generally, public authorities, NGOs and citizens seemed to be more in favour with these compared to business associations and companies. A detailed breakdown regarding support for these sub-measures is shown in the table below.

Figure C.21 - Support for measures under 3a

Note: Blank and do not know responses removed.

Regarding expected impacts on effectiveness for the measure, the majority of respondents deemed the measure to be effective and proportionate, with 78% claiming this for the first sub-measure, 81% claiming this for the second measure and 72% for the third measure.



Set of measures 3b – Increase the priority of addressing illegal shipments of waste and strengthen EU and global cooperation

Stakeholders seemed to be mostly in favour of measures to increase the priority of addressing illegal shipments of waste and strengthen EU and global cooperation. A detailed breakdown regarding support for these sub-measures is shown in the Figure below.

Figure C.22 - Support for sub-measures under Measure 3b

Note: Blank and do not know responses removed.

Regarding expected impacts on effectiveness for the measure, the majority of respondents deemed the measure to be effective and proportionate, with 85% claiming this for the first sub-measure and 74% claiming this for the second measure.



Annex 4: Who is affected and how – overview of costs and benefits

1.Practical implications of the initiative

Who is affected and how?

Section 2.3 of the impact assessment report contains information on who is affected by this initiative and how. 

2.Summary of costs and benefits

Tables I and II present the costs and benefits identified and assessed for the preferred option.

I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option

Description

Amount

Comments

Direct benefits

Additional revenue versus cost linked to measures on export of waste

200-510 million euro in 2019 and

1.6 and 4.0 billion euro in 2030

Waste management sector

Reduced administrative costs due to EDI

950 000 euro per year,

450 000 euro per year

Competent authorities,

Waste traders

Reduced maintenance costs of current national electronic systems

50 000 euro per year

For each competent authority that decides to replace their current national electronic system and use the EU level system directly

Reduced administrative costs

3-yr default consent validity leads to 1/3 of notifications for pre-consent facilities per year

Competent authorities,

Waste traders

Reduced administrative fees

Notification fees divided by 3

Waste traders

Reduced delays to receive consent

Not quantified

Waste traders

Reduced delays during shipments

150 000 euro per delay

Waste traders (mainly due to storage costs)

Indirect benefits

Reduced transport externalities and GHG emissions

266-666 million euro in 2019 and

275-687 million euro in 2030

Citizens

Additional EU jobs

9000-23000 jobs in the EU

Citizens

Reduced environmental externalities of mismanaged waste and health risks in third countries

Not quantified

Citizens

Promote recycling

Not quantified

Recycling sector

Discourage incineration and landfill

Not quantified

Citizens

Clarify used goods versus waste, end of waste criteria, and contamination thresholds

Not quantified

Waste management sector

Avoided clean-up and repatriation costs

Not quantified

Member States,

waste management sector

More legitimate income

Not quantified

Waste management sector

Increased tax revenue

Not quantified

Member States



II. Overview of costs – Preferred option

Citizens/Consumers

Businesses

Administrations 11

One-off

Recurrent

One-off

Recurrent

One-off

Recurrent

Setting up and running of a system for Electronic Data Interchange (EDI)

Maintenance: 50k – 80k euro

20k euro per year following years

Measure directed to exporting companies to ensure sustainable management of waste by facilities in third countries (auditing)

Direct costs

30k euro

5k euro/year overhead+ 1k-2k euro/audit

Indirect costs

New framework for export of waste outside the OECD

Direct costs

Indirect costs

Possible economic losses for companies that currently export waste

Enforcement cooperation

Direct costs

Resource needs for inspection, investigation and prosecution

Indirect costs



Annex 5: Analytical methods

1.Datasets 

The analysis of policy options, particularly those relating to changes in waste flows, has required the analysis of several datasets. There is no single source of information on waste movements both within the EU and between the EU and third countries. The Wood-Trinomics study has made use of data extracted from the following sources:

Notifiable waste: According to the WSR, all hazardous waste as well as some non-hazardous but problematic waste streams and other kinds of waste defined in the regulation, must be notified to the authorities before being shipped across borders. Based on annual reports from Member States, Eurostat maintains a relevant dataset (env_wasship), which has been used to examine the impacts of policy options on changes in the tonnage of notified waste shipped. It has not been possible to determine a monetised value of notifiable wastes given the widespread variation in the types of waste materials addressed by this group of materials.

Other wastes: Not all wastes that are transported across boundaries are subject to notification. To determine the impacts of policy options on non-notifiable wastes that are not addressed specifically by waste shipment data, information from the European international trade in goods statistics, Comext, was used. Comext is Eurostat's reference database for detailed statistics on international trade in goods. It provides trade data for the EU and its individual Member States as well as for a significant number of non-EU countries. Comext includes information on the volume of materials traded by the EU but also their value, which is expressed in two ways: the taxable amount or invoice value and the statistical value. Data is captured in two different ways within Comext.

-Extrastat: data on trade in goods with non-EU countries collected by customs authorities and based on the records of trade transactions in customs declarations. The dataset on trade with third parties is considered particularly robust as it is based on all reported customs movements.

-Intrastat: data about the movement of goods (i.e. dispatches and arrivals) between EU member states collected directly from traders once a month.

A challenge with using the CN codes to identify waste shipments is that the CN categorisation does not correspond one-to-one with the Basel Codes, the ELoW and the Commission Notice on the ELoW as referred to above. For the purpose of determining the main wastes exported from the EU to third countries for this impact assessment, a re-categorization of CN codes was done (see Appendix to this Annex) to ensure greater consistency between the categorisation of wastes under the WSR and CN codes for the following wastes that are the main waste flows modelled:

2.Supporting study 

One source for the assessment of impacts was the study which the Commission procured in support to the impact assessment 12 . The study assesses the measures proposed to achieve the desired objectives. These were assessed in terms of economic, environmental and social impacts in line with better regulation guidelines. 

In this study, research was undertaken through literature review, an open public consultation, targeted interviews with a number of stakeholders from Member States, industry and non-governmental organisations, and a stakeholder workshop.

More details on how the economic, environmental and social impacts were assessed is provided below for the measures grouped under each of the three objectives.

This study is also subject to the following limitations.

·The assessment model is a simplification, i.e. it does not examine possible changes in waste flow at the individual ELoW code level.

·Some stakeholder opinions seem to be in contrast to available evidence.

·Determining the impacts of export restrictions from the EU is not straightforward, as possible impacts of action at the EU level are likely to intermingle with impacts of actions taken by third countries.

·Some analysis has been undertaken at the EU27 level and not at the Member State level, which may increase the margin of error in results.

3.Analysis of impacts

The economic, environmental and social impacts of the proposed measures were assessed in line with the better regulation guidelines. Additional assumptions and details on the assessment of the measures under the three objectives are presented below.

1.1.Baseline 

Table E.1: Forecast of tonnes of exports of wastes to OECD countries for the period 2019-2030

Table E.2: Forecast of tonnes of exports of wastes to non-OECD countries for the period 2019-2030

1.2.Modelling economic impacts

1.2.1.    Modelling economic impacts for measures on intra-EU shipments of waste (objective 1)

The proposed measures on intra-EU shipments of waste, under objective 1, are intended to ensure a smooth functioning of the internal market and facilitate the recycling of waste. They will impact the number of notifications that would be destined for a pre-consented facility, the consent validity period of notifications, the amounts required for the financial guarantees. The effect of changes in both the nature of waste shipments and the procedures applied to those shipments have been assessed by considering the additional costs of applying new controls as well as the potential savings to be made by simplifying existing measures.

The following data and assumptions have been used in this section.

Administrative costs have been calculated based on the existing administrative burden that either stems from the present WSR and would be reduced (for example in relation to the simplification or digitisation of notification procedures) or would be added to new types of shipments to improve their level of control (for example in relation to an additional simplified procedure for wastes that are currently not subject to such a provision).

Administrative savings expected from a completely electronic system were estimated by using the standard cost model. Trinomics and Wood (2021) asked companies and Member States’ competent authorities, to provide data on the number of notification procedures they handle and the staff time spent on notifications that are paper-based or electronic (prepare and submit for operators and verify and issue a consent or objections for competent authorities). From this information, the average number of hours spent on paper-based versus electronic notifications was calculated as detailed in the table below. On (EU) average, working with electronic systems saves almost 50% of time per notification compared to handling procedure in paper format. The savings from the introduction of EDI were estimated based on the costs per notification of paper-based versus electronic systems. Two different methods were used. The first is based on the cost per notification and the number of annual EU-27 notifications (extrapolated from the 15 Member States for which competent authorities provided data) and the second on the number of notifications estimated based on the number of shipments expected given the amounts of waste transported. The two methods estimate a saving of between 950,000 and 3.2 million euro per year for competent authorities and between 450 and 950 thousand euro per year for notifiers, compared to the current situation.

In addition, savings were calculated for the measure which would mandate a validity period of three years for notifications. Given the current typical period is one year, for a certain number of cases that are eligible under this measure, this would divide by three the number of yearly notifications and hence the related costs for competent authorities and exporters. These costs cover the time saved for staff handling these notifications but also the administrative fees that operators would save by only having to file a notification every three years instead of each year.

Table E.3: Average time spent on notification requests

Type of notification

Target group

Tariff € per hour

Time (hour)

Cost per notification

Paper based assessment

Member State competent authorities

20

19.5

330

Electronic assessment

Member State competent authorities

20

10.8

216

Paper based submission

Operators

20

24

480

Electronic submission

Operators

20

16

320

Further, the economic benefits of increasing the amount of pre-consented facilities was estimated on the basis of the shorter delays that could be expected with this measure and the consequent positive impact on storage costs for operators waiting to ship the waste to its destination.

As regards the impacts on Member States of restricting shipments for disposal, the following ratios per Member State were taken into account.

Note: Data has been conditionally formatted to show the largest exporters (blue) and importers (red). 



Country

Net exports - D1, D5, D12

Net exports - D10

Net exports - D-other

Belgium

17 306

86 951

9 945

Bulgaria

0

1 177

128

Czechia

0

0

0

Denmark

3 637

2 706

79

Germany

-12 883

30 309

110 331

Estonia

0

0

1

Ireland

0

0

0

Greece

0

0

0

Spain

335

3 790

579

France

-13 372

21 934

27 863

Croatia

358

10 843

1 701

Italy

412 757

243 764

57 104

Cyprus

0

25

0

Latvia

0

0

0

Lithuania

0

689

0

Luxembourg

221 469

-443

35 168

Hungary

0

59

0

Malta

0

0

0

Netherlands

-87

-7 433

-17

Austria

3 224

19 091

21

Poland

3 413

0

0

Portugal

-46 111

1 381

0

Romania

0

0

0

Slovenia

0

0

0

Slovakia

0

0

0

Finland

-167

6 093

222

Sweden

1 682

1 645

2 211

Source: Trinomics-Wood study.

As regards the impacts on Member States of restricting shipments for recovery, other than reuse or recycling, the following ratios per Member State were taken into account.

Note: Data has been conditionally formatted to show the largest exports (blue) and importers (red). 

Country

Net exports - R1

Net exports - R2 - R10

Net exports - R-other

Belgium

288 621

2 249 806

661 820

Bulgaria

-27 442

-1 932

-1 141

Czechia

0

0

0

Denmark

-70 863

-33 030

33 416

Germany

104 697

1 817 533

-52 081

Estonia

-66 885

-13 627

-29 845

Ireland

0

0

0

Greece

-10 210

-10 755

-127

Spain

-5 669

-233 891

-46 838

France

4 609

281 454

-94 776

Croatia

-4 584

71 696

25

Italy

408 931

-97 880

122 074

Cyprus

0

-16 196

0

Latvia

2

70

-754

Lithuania

983

13 996

-2 893

Luxembourg

-31 160

112 291

75 337

Hungary

-73 930

-88 022

-18 145

Malta

0

0

0

Netherlands

-476 195

-3 654 529

-637 374

Austria

121 125

65 282

-22 454

Poland

4 983

-240 015

0

Portugal

-22 766

10 964

-182

Romania

-3 800

-8 497

0

Slovenia

-51 789

-25 178

0

Slovakia

-213 481

-12 811

-620

Finland

146 890

78 388

33 754

Sweden

-176 180

19 485

-5 680

Source: Trinomics-Wood study.

1.2.2.    Modelling economic impact for measures linked to the export of waste (objective 2)

To assess the measures on export, under objective 2, the model used in the support study considers a selected number of wastes – namely plastics, glass, paper and cardboard, textiles, non-ferrous metals and ferrous metals. Those waste streams where selected because they represent the largest proportion of recoverable and recyclable wastes that are currently sent from the EU to third countries.

The volume and values of such exports are declared in Comext (i.e. total weight and euro value declared for plastic/metal/paper/etc. waste exported to third countries). This report assumes that this is the current revenue that economic operators generate by exporting this waste from the EU to a third country.

To assess the net impact of the different measures, we need to evaluate:

1.the volume and value of the waste which would stay and be processed in the EU (so the loss in export value)

2.the net value generated by treating this waste in the EU (so the gain in value), which is calculated from the revenues generated in the EU from the sale of the secondary materials resulting from this treatment minus the costs for treating this waste in the EU and the difference in the costs of transport between shipping to a third country and transporting within the EU to a recycling facility.

Volume of the waste which would stay and be processed in the EU

The support study estimated the amounts of waste for the baseline and for the different proposed measures for the period 2020-2030. The 2030 horizon reflects the target dates of other related legislation including the Waste Framework Directive, Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive and the Plastics Strategy. The report estimates:

-The amounts exported from the EU in the baseline scenario where no change would be made to the WSR. These projections are based on a linear regression analysis with a 95% confidence interval, which extrapolates trends observed for the export of waste in the last decade (2010-2020) to predict the evolution up to 2030.

-The amounts no longer exported from the EU in the different measures and hence the amounts that are expected to stay in the EU to undergo treatment, with the aim of reintroducing them in the economy as secondary raw materials. Each measure might lead to different levels of reduction of export and will also affect differently the types of waste currently exported 13 . The value of the waste retained in the EU was calculated based on the projected quantities factored with the current prices of secondary materials (or high quality waste) across the entire timeline.

Projecting future levels of export is challenging, because it depends on a large number of factors which cannot be predicted accurately with a ten years horizon. These include the evolution of the volume of waste generated in the EU, economic growth, the prices of waste commodities on the international market, or decisions taken by third on their own regime applying to import of waste. Specifically, the amount of waste retained in the EU would have an impact on prices but this was not possible to estimate. Therefore, the impact of each measure is first calculated on the basis of the actual figures for export for 2019 and then on the basis of the projected amounts until 2030.

Top five destination countries (by value in euro) of EU ferrous metals, glass and plastic waste in 2019

Ferrous metals

Glass

Plastic

Turkey

2,377,293,768

United Kingdom

12,603,311

Malaysia

69,787,797

India

524,361,713

Switzerland

4,065,966

United Kingdom

68,930,1616

Egypt

258,865,963

United States

3,430,311

Hong Kong

54,050,463

Pakistan

196,197,852

Russian Federation

1,671,670

Turkey

38,977,721

United Kingdom

155,291,965

Norway

1,441,023

India

24,964,910

Top five destination countries (by value in euro) of EU non-ferrous metals, paper and cardboard and textiles waste in 2019

Non-ferrous metals

Paper and cardboard

Textiles

China

1,201,145,329

India

105,702,397

Russian Federation

101,188,599

United States

1,038,977,703

China

101,092,850

Ukraine

91,376,796

Switzerland

894,900,583

Indonesia

90,853,422

Cameroon

67,463,632

United Kingdom

691,576,729

Turkey

58,840,348

Tunisia

49,657,500

India

433,825,216

Vietnam

53,567,696

United Arab Emirates

41,720,2828

Value generated by the treatment of the waste retained in the EU

The value generated by the treatment of waste retained in the EU was calculated based on the costs of treatment in the EU and the revenues that will be generated from the sale of the secondary materials resulting from this treatment. The calculations assume that most of the retained waste will be recycled if possible, while the non-recyclable rejects will recovered by incineration to produce energy and heat. The differences in transport costs between shipping waste outside the EU and retaining this waste was also factored in.

Costs linked to collection and sorting of waste in the EU

Collection costs are assumed to be the same in the comparison of the measures to the baseline since collection is taking place both when wastes are shipped outside the EU and when they are retained in the EU.

Sorting costs are assumed largely comparable between waste for export and for treatment within the EU. Indeed, unsorted waste cannot be exported (to non-OECD countries) or requires prior controls (to OECD countries). This approach of not accounting for additional sorting costs for waste retained in the EU, might result in an underestimation of the costs of sorting waste retained in the EU because in some instances further or more thorough sorting might take place, compared to a when waste is exported outside the EU. This extra-cost is assumed to remain limited and does not compromise the overall calculation of the costs of dealing with waste in the EU.

Costs linked to treatment of waste in the EU

The costs for treating waste within the EU are estimated based on the capital expenditure when there are currently capacity gaps in specific streams and operational costs for the treatment of the additional waste compared to the baseline. Based on the recycling targets set by EU waste legislation and on the assumption of self-sufficiency, the COWI and Eunomia study 14 estimated that by 2027, additional capacity will be required for municipal solid waste, bio-waste, plastics, and textiles, while there will be some potential overcapacity for incineration and mechanical biological treatment facilities.

The additional treatment costs per tonne have been calculated on an annual basis using calculations included in studies performed by the JRC, COWI and Eunomia and the European reference model on municipal solid waste and are provided in the table below. The equivalent treatment costs outside the EU are unknown and would vary from country to country. To solve this uncertainty, the methodology used to calculate the impacts of the measures versus the baseline is based on the difference between the prices of secondary materials that can be sold on the EU market versus the price declared by exporters in Comext.



Table E.4: Treatment cost per tonne for the selected waste types

Waste type

Treatment cost per tonne

Plastic

121.9

Textiles

650

Non-ferrous metals

1181.5

Ferrous metals

138.63

Other

13

Values of secondary materials retained in the EU

The projected values for the treated/processed waste were calculated both based on the Comext data on value and with data from market surveys and recent studies, which are often more specific to certain waste streams than Comext data. This provides a range of cost/benefit estimates. The first set of data is based on average Comext prices for the different waste streams concerned, multiplied by the total weight of wastes which would be retained in the EU. The prices might however be underestimated as Comext prices provide an average for waste of different qualities, which can be much lower than prices of secondary raw materials. The second set of data is based on the prices of secondary raw materials, or if those are not available, on the prices of high-quality waste which should approach market prices for secondary materials. These are provided in the table below. To this second set, the rejection rates were applied so that the value will not be for the full amounts expected to be retained in the EU but only for the proportion of this waste that can be practically transformed into secondary materials, i.e. excluding rejects that cannot be recycled. This second set of data was not calculated for non-ferrous metals since the prices of the different non-ferrous metals are not comparable and the volumes are not available for each non-ferrous metal separately.

Table E.5: prices for secondary raw material derived from the selected waste types

Waste type

Secondary material prices per tonne

Ferrous metals

500

Glass

147

Paper and cardboard

274

Plastic

743

Textiles

584

In that respect, secondary raw materials are expected to have a higher value than waste so that secondary raw material prices should normally be higher than the waste prices declared in Comext. This assumption can be distorted in the global value chain as the cost of treatment and disposal is likely to be lower in third countries than in the EU because of lower labour costs and/or lower environmental standards. The price obtained for an export may therefore be higher than the value of secondary raw materials obtained after treatment in the EU, again because of the different labour conditions and more stringent – and often more sophisticated – treatment conditions within the EU as compared to many receiving third countries.

Savings from energy production

Residues of recycling within the EU are assumed to be incinerated with energy recovery, as far as it concerns combustible fractions (plastics, paper, and textiles). The JRC quantified the KWh and MJ per tonne of each reject treated in EU (these calculations were also used for the purpose of assessing environmental impacts of treatment of rejects in third countries).

Table E.6: energy production from waste

 

LHVwet (MJ/t)

Electricity (kWh/t)

Heat (MJ/t)

1 t glass (inert)*

0

0

0

1 t paper/cardboard

11090

484

4436

1 t plastic

34210

1492

13684

1 t wood

15580

679

6232

1 t textiles

18400

802

7360

It was then further calculated how much energy can be potentially produced from total annual reject in the various scenarios. The economic savings were calculated by multiplying these quantities with the average electricity (0.1254 euro/kWh) 15  and derived heat price (0.0315 euro/kWH) 16 .

Table E.7a

Table E.7b

Table E.7c

Table E.7.d

Table E.7e

Savings from transport costs

Based on available data, the study report estimated that on average, compared to the costs of shipping wastes to third countries, shipping waste within the EU would bring a cost saving of €24 per tonne of waste. These costs were therefore deducted from the costs linked to the treatment of waste in the EU.

Net value generated by treating waste in the EU which is currently exported outside the OECD, as consequence of some proposed measures on export

By taking the projected volumes detailed in the baseline and applying the expected effect of the measure (i.e. retention of 20% or 50% of waste exported outside the OECD), the amounts of waste retained in the EU were calculated, with the results as presented further in Table E.8 and Table E.9.

The projected value for the treated/processed waste were calculated with both methods as exaplained above (the Comext data on value and data from market surveys and recent studies). This is presented in the Table E.10, Table E.11, Table E.12 and Table E.13 below.

The net value generated by treating this waste in the EU is then calculated from:

·the revenues generated in the EU from the sale of the secondary materials resulting from this treatment minus (tables E.12 and E.13);

·the costs for treating this waste in the EU (table E.4);

·the difference in the costs of transport between shipping to a third country and transporting within the EU to a recycling facility (24 euro/tonne);

·the value of energy produced with the recycling rejects (tables E.7d and E.7e).

The results of these calculations (which are used to provide an assessment of the impact of the measure) are detailed in the tables E.14 and E.15 below.

Table E.8: Amounts (tonnes) retained in the EU if 20% of current waste exported to non-OECD countries is retained in the EU

Table E.9: Amounts (tonnes) retained in the EU if 50% of current waste exported to non-OECD countries is retained in the EU

Table E.10: Value (EUR) based on Comext data if 20% of current waste exported to non-OECD countries is retained in the EU

Table E.11: Value (EUR) based on Comext data if 50% of current waste exported to non-OECD countries is retained in the EU

Table E.12: Value (EUR) based on market data if 20% of current waste exported to non-OECD countries is retained in the EU

Table E.13: Value (EUR) based on market data if 50% of current waste exported to non-OECD countries is retained in the EU

Table E.14: EUR value comparison of the baseline with 20% of wastes formerly exported to non-OECD retained in the EU

Table E.15: EUR value comparison of the baseline with 50% of wastes formerly exported to non-OECD retained in the EU

1.3.Modelling environmental impacts

i)    General approach pursued to evaluate the environmental impacts of measures linked to the export of waste

The first environmental impact of the proposed measure is the environmental benefits resulting from the treatment of wastes in the EU in comparison to the treatment of this waste in the third countries, especially outside the OECD.

This is firstly linked to the general conditions under which waste management occurs in the EU, compared to third countries. The EU has a comprehensive policy governing collection, sorting and treatment of waste, designed to ensure high levels of recycling and reducing pollution from waste treatment operations. This is enshrined in the EU legislation on waste as well as the EU legislation on the industrial emission Directive 17 and the associated BREFs 18 . It is also commonly considered 19 that developed countries have well-functioning systems of collection and waste management, while in developing countries collection is generally undertaken only in urban areas, and waste is often disposed in illegal dump sites or burnt 20 . It is for example estimated that 1.1 billion tonnes, or 41 %, of the total waste generated worldwide is disposed of through unregulated burning every year, notably in China, Turkey, Pakistan, Brazil, and Mexico 21 . The challenges faced by these countries in managing their domestic waste are also preventing them from ensuring a fully sustainable management of waste imported from abroad. For instance, it has been estimated 46% of European post-consumer plastic destined for recycling was exported in 2017, with 3% of it ending up as plastic debris in the ocean, where this constitutes a major source of marine pollution 22 . Using the baseline scenario, this would mean that for the period 2021-2030 more than half-a-million 524 436 tonnes of plastic waste would be entering the ocean because of EU plastic waste being exported to third countries.

Based on the World Bank projections on the increase of waste generation until 2050 23 , it is expected that third countries will be increasingly exposed to environmental pressures and public health challenges in relation to waste collection and treatment 24 . There is therefore a high risk that the current environmental difficulties linked to the treatment of imported waste in developing countries will become more pressing in the future. Moreover, the import of waste in some instances deter these countries from putting in place efficient collection and treatment systems for their domestic waste, as the industry which could take on these wastes rely instead on (already collected and sorted) imported waste as feedstock. There are therefore substantial benefits from a waste management perspective to treat waste in the EU, rather than in many 3rd countries currently importing waste from the EU.

A very important criterion to assess the differences in the treatment of waste in the EU and in third countries is to compare the conditions under which residual waste (“rejects”) are treated. Detailed calculations on this point have been performed to provide for a quantification of the differences in impacts linked to treatment of these rejects, for the different measures proposed. The data and methodology for such calculations are presented in subsection (ii) below.

Another important environmental benefit linked to the treatment of waste in the EU relates to the nature of the re-processing of waste materials in the EU, compared to 3rd countries. The processing activities of the same waste will generate less greenhouse gases and other pollutants in the EU than in third countries. This is especially the case for industrial activities such as the processing of ferrous metal and non-ferrous metal scrap into new materials, for which energy forms a significant input. Taking as a reference the CO2 equivalent intensity of the national electricity grids, it can be considered that the energy used in similar processing facilities for ferrous metal scrap in the EU would generate lower net CO2-eq. emissions than in the major importing countries of the EU ferrous metal wastes, with an average difference of ~300 g CO2-eq/kWh. This, assuming that ferrous metal waste reprocessing needs an input of ca. 437.5 kWh/tonne scrap (375-500 kWh/tonne scrap depending on the output alloy quality) and that 1.5 million tonnes ferrous scrap could be processed in the EU (in a scenario where 50% of the waste exported to non-OECD countries is retained in the EU) in 2030, corresponds to an additional GHG savings of about 0.2 million tonnes CO2-eq per year (monetized this means saving the equivalent of 11 million euro per year in EU ETS allowances, using 2026-2030 price estimates as a reference 25 ). Under a 20 % retention scenario in 2030, this would amount to 0.6 million tonnes of ferrous scrap processed, saving 40 160 t CO2-eq per year, which in monetary terms would be about 2.3 million euro. Yet, it should be borne in mind that this figure underestimates the total GHG benefits, as it accounts only for the decreased footprint of the electricity grid in the EU compared to production outside of the EU, while EU facilities would also have a better control of the direct environmental emissions and thus the total GHG emissions within the EU would be even lower.

Table E.16: GHG equivalent intensity of electricity production of the major countries importing EU ferrous metal waste 26

The retention of waste in the EU should also lead to higher volume of waste recycled in the EU, which brings with it additional environmental gains. 

Higher volume of recyclates would therefore be produced in the EU, which could ensure a steady supply of high quality secondary materials in the EU internal market. This is particular important for the transition of the EU to a circular economy, as currently only 12% of raw materials used by EU’s industry come from recycling. The replacement of primary materials by secondary materials in production process can result in significant GHG savings per kg of production.  According to the European Recycling Industries’ Confederation (EURIC) 27 , using recycled steel to make new steel reduces air pollution by 86%, water use by 40%, and water pollution by 76%. By using aluminium scrap, CO2 emissions can be reduced by 92% compared to raw aluminium, while recycling aluminium saves 95% of the energy needed for primary production and one tonne of recycled aluminium saves up to 14,000 kWh of energy, and 7.6 cubic meters of landfill. By using copper scrap, CO2 emissions are reduced by 65% and recycling copper saves 85% of the energy needed for primary production.

The production of primary glass fibres in the EU results in 2.1 kg CO2-eq/kg, while in the rest of the world it is estimated to generate 2.5 kg CO2-eq/kg. Meanwhile, producing glass from 100% recycled glass materials incurs a carbon-footprint of 1.2 kg CO2-eq/kg 28 . The use of secondary raw materials also reduces the need for extraction of virgin materials, and its associated environmental costs. For instance, use of 1 tonne of steel scrap saves around 1.5t of CO2 emissions as compared to using raw iron ore 29   and one tonne of recycled aluminium saves up to 8 tonnes of bauxite. It should be stressed that the retention of waste in the EU would also have an impact in the choice of secondary vs primary materials in 3rd countries which are currently importing waste from the EU. In a number of importing countries (Turkey, India for example), the reliance on the import of waste from the EU has reduced their dependence on primary materials, for example for the production of steel. A reduction of supply of waste from the EU could, at least in the short term, affect their production system and force them to use more virgin materials instead of the imported waste. There is however a prospect that a number of those countries could also take this opportunity to better maximize and valorize their domestic waste to replace imported waste in the medium term.

The reduction in export waste would also represent environmental gains linked to the GHG and other transport-related emissions (primarily particulate matter and sulfur/nitrogen oxides) which would be avoided due to ending the shipping of waste to 3rd countries. Detailed calculations on this point have been performed to provide for a quantification of the differences in these emissions, for the different measures proposed. The data and methodology for such calculations are presented in subsection (iii) below.

ii)    Methodology and modelling used to evaluate the environmental impact of the differences of treatment of “rejects” in the EU and in third countries

Rejects are the fraction of the waste which does not get recycled or reprocessed into secondary materials, because it is not valuable enough, or has a low quality or contains hazardous/contaminated substances. Their treatment presents particular challenges and can produce important environmental nuisances, if not performed in an environmentally sound manner.

For the modelling of the difference in treatment in rejects in the EU and in third countries, the first step was to consider the rejection rates for the different wastes per material during the recycling process. For the purpose of this report, it is assumed that the quantity of rejects during a recycling process in the EU is the same as the quantity of rejects during a recycling process outside the EU. This is a conservative approach as in reality it is likely that these rejects rates are higher in third countries, but specific data are not available. The calculations are therefore likely to underestimate the environmental impact of the recycling of waste outside the EU and should be considered as minimum levels. Taking into the account data presented in different studies 30 rejection rates per material are based on EU average losses. Consequently, the following average rejection rates were taken as a basis for the calculation of this study: 30 % for plastics, 10 % for textiles, 8 % for glass, 10% for paper and cardboard, and 19% for ferrous/non-ferrous metals.

The second step in the modelling was to identify the most likely treatment methods applied to these rejects in the EU and in third countries. It was assumed that energy recovery represents the conventional treatment method in the EU for rejects from recycling of plastic, paper and textile waste (combustible waste) and that rejects from glass and metal waste recycling (inert waste) are instead deposited in engineered landfills. For third countries, it was assumed that these rejects are either deposited in open dumps (uncontrolled landfills) or open burnt. Although it is impossible to present precise amounts of waste subject to open burning or open dumping in third countries, it is assumed, based on available literature 31 , that 60% of the residues of the non-inert waste is sent to open dumping, while 40% is subject to open burning. This ratio is applied consistently across all the wastes 32 , regardless of the nature of the material, taking into account that dump sites contain a mix of heterogeneous waste materials. In the absence of a specific dataset, the impact of textile waste has been approximated as a mix of plastic (15%) and paper/cardboard (85%) based on the assumption that ca. 15% of the textile is composed of biological fibres while the rest is synthetic. The impact of open dumping and burning of metals has been approximated with that of glass, both being inert materials, in the absence of specific datasets. Regarding the impact of landfilling and incineration of rejects from recycling in the EU, it must be stressed that on top of the environmental emissions relating to the treatment itself, these also include the downstream environmental savings obtained through energy recovery (i.e. electricity and heat).

The third step was to allocate levels of GHG emissions for the different waste treatment techniques identified above (energy recovery and engineered landfills for the EU; 60% open dumping and 40% open burning for third countries). For this purpose, the latest Ecoinvent 3.7 database 33 was used to describe the open dump and open burning activities for individual waste materials (plastic, glass and similar inert, and paper/cardboard) 34 , while datasets for the EU conventional engineered landfills and incinerators with energy recovery were taken from literature 35 The chemical composition of the waste materials investigated was based on the analyses provided in dedicated scientific literature 36 . Assumptions for energy recovery and savings by EU incinerators were based on recent studies 37 , conforming to the Product Environmental Footprint method. Modelling and impact calculations were facilitated with the waste LCA-tool EASETECH 38 . The calculations resulting in the differences between treatment in the EU and treatment in third countries were expressed in quantities of GHG emissions (expressed in kg CO2-eq) and overall environmental externalities 39 (i.e. monetised emissions, expressed in EUR/tonne 40 ).

To this end, the following indicators have been used:

1)the global warming impact assessed using the IPCC metric (expressed in tonnes CO2-eq. 41 ; 100y time horizon for integration of radiative forces) and reflecting the climate effect of GHG emissions (100y time horizon), and

2)the environmental externalities reflecting the monetized environmental emissions (to soil, water, and air) cost expressed in euro. The monetised emissions (external costs) are used for two reasons: to provide an aggregated picture of the environmental impact and because they allow comparing external costs (i.e. environmental emissions not internalized by the market) with financial costs. To associate a cost to the environmental emissions, we relied on the CE Delft Environmental Prices Handbook 42 , using the central values. It should be noted that littering and associated effects are here not quantified or monetised due to lack of price information.

The calculation of the net costs or benefits of managing rejects in the EU in comparison to third countries has been performed for the most commonly exported waste streams, as shown below, with the savings presented in positive numbers.

Table E.17 considers the emissions resulting from the treatment of rejects per tonne in third countries.

Table E.17: Third country environmental impacts from treatment of rejects per tonne

Externalities include all environmental emissions. Savings are shown as positive numbers, with burdens shown as negative numbers.

Waste material

GHG emission (kg CO2-eq./t)

Externalities (EUR/t)

Amount sent to engineered landfill %

Amount sent to incineration %

Glass (inert)

-129*

-13*

60

40

Ferrous metals (inert)

-129*

-13*

60

40

Non-ferrous metals (inert)

-129*

-13*

60

40

Paper/cardboard

-1345

-240

60

40

Plastic

-1105

-377

60

40

Textile

-1309

-308

60

40

*The figures for glass, ferrous and non ferrous are identical as we assumed for all of them the same dataset representing open dump/open burning of glass inert material (no datasets available for metals).



Table E.18 considers the emissions resulting from the treatment of rejects per tonne in the EU.

Table E.18: EU environmental impacts from the treatment of rejects per tonne

Externalities include all environmental emissions. Savings are shown as positive numbers, with burdens shown as negative numbers.

Waste material

GHG emission (kg CO2-eq./t)

Externalities (EUR/t)

Amount sent to engineered landfill %

Amount sent to incineration %

Glass (inert)

0

0

100

0

Ferrous metals (inert)

0

0

100

0

Non-ferrous metals (inert)

0

0

100

0

Paper/cardboard

492

-29

0

100

Plastic

-1067

17

0

100

Textile

391

-23

0

100

By considering tables E.17 and E.18, a calculation of the net costs or benefits of managing rejects in the EU in comparison to third countries has been performed. Savings in this table are shown as positive numbers, with burdens shown as negative numbers which notably concerns GHG emissions from plastic waste because the CO2 emitted is of fossil origin. It should be noticed that positive numbers reflect the environmental savings as the energy recovery carries larger benefits than the direct emissions from the stack. This is typically the case for the GHG emissions from incineration of mostly biogenic material such as paper/cardboard and textiles where the CO2 emitted is of biogenic origin (non-fossil).

Table E.19 Figures applied to assess the environmental impacts resulting from waste treatment of “rejects” in third countries in comparison to the EU (GHG emissions expressed in kg CO2-eq. per tonne treated and overall environmental externalities expressed in euro per tonne treated).

Savings are shown as positive numbers, with burdens shown as negative numbers.

Waste material

GHG emission (kg CO2-eq./t)*

Externalities (EUR/t)*

Glass (inert)

129

13

Ferrous metals (inert)

129

13

Non-ferrous metals (inert)

129

13

Paper/cardboard

1837

211

Plastic

38

394

Textile

1701

285

* The results are derived by subtracting the value in Table E.18 to the corresponding values in Table E.17 (e.g. for glass GHG: 0 – (-129) = 129; etc.).

While little difference is foreseen for the inert waste (metals and glass), the highest savings are estimated for paper/cardboard, textile and plastic waste. For paper/cardboard and textile this is due to avoiding their uncontrolled degradation and consequent methane emissions in open dumps or burning in third countries, while having controlled management in EU (e.g. incineration with energy recovery). For plastic waste, the GHG savings are mainly related to avoiding open burning in third countries because open dumping of plastic is per se not a source of GHGs (but rather of other environmental issues, e.g. littering and water/soil pollution). It should be noticed that plastic incineration at EU level from one side incurs high energy recovery (therefore avoiding production of electricity and heat from fossil and conventional sources) but at the same time is inevitably a net source of CO2 (1 tonne of plastic incinerated emits ca. 2.6 t CO2-eq. given a fossil carbon content of 719 kg). Therefore, from a strict GHG perspective the savings would be associated to avoiding open burning practices in third countries, but much more environmental savings are expected (on top of GHGs, notably reduced littering to soil/ocean and related toxicity effects harming ecosystem and human health) that overall translates in reduced externalities.

iii)    Methodology and modelling used to evaluate the environmental impact of the shipping of waste to third countries

A calculation has been performed of the emissions of GHG and air pollutants linked to the shipping of waste to third countries, taking account of the distance travelled by materials 43 . In order to determine average ship emissions, a general breakdown of use of the two main fuel types was applied, showing that heavy fuel oil 44 represented by far the largest quantity of fuel used in comparison to bunker fuel. The difference in expected emissions was based on the size of vessel, generally described according to the twenty-foot equivalent unit (TEU) container. The average size of a vessel is deemed to be between 2525 and 7553 TEU. The average transfer time is 17 days to Africa, 28 days to the Far East. Under these assumptions, it was estimated that the environmental externalities (i.e. damage; accounting for monetised GHGs and air emissions only from shipping, as stressed earlier) per tonne of material shipped in respect ranges between 41 EUR/tonne with a destination to the Near East 45 and 132 EUR/tonne to the Far East, when the average size of container ship is below 8000 TEU. The results are presented in table E.20 below. Additional information on these calculations can be found in the study supporting this report.

Table E.20: Environment damage determined in euro per tonne of material shipped in respect to GHG and air emissions by destination

iv)    Results of the modelling of quantifications of environmental impact linked to the treatment of rejects and to the shipping of waste to third countries, for measures 2c and 2d, as well as discarded measures on banning exports of waste

The tables below present the results of calculations for measure 2c) (Establish a new framework for the export of green-listed waste from the EU to a non-OECD country, according to which such export is only authorised to those countries that notify the EU of their willingness to import green-listed waste and demonstrate their ability to treat it sustainably, in accordance with criteria set out in the WSR), but it must be noted that calculations for measure 2c) under a 20% waste retention scenario are also valid for measure 2d) (Require that the export of green-listed waste outside the OECD is subject to the “prior written notification and consent” procedure).

Table E.21: Environmental transport externalities avoided under measure 2c) with regard to different percentages of retention of EU waste that would normally have been exported to non-OECD third countries in euro value

Table E.22: Environmental transport externalities avoided forecast for 20% retained within EU

Table E.23a+b: GHG emissions avoided in tonnes of CO2-eq under measure 2c)*

*Note that the savings reported here do not include the GHG savings associated with cleaner recycling processes in the EU compared to third countries, due to data limitations. While some figures are reported in the text above, e.g. for ferrous metals and glass, they have not been included in the overall calculations herein reported.

Table E.24a+b: Change in external costs resulting from the management of rejected wastes in third countries moving to the EU under measure 2c) in EUR*

*Note that the savings reported here do not include the GHG savings associated with cleaner recycling processes in the EU compared to third countries, due to data limitations. While some figures are reported in the text above, e.g. for ferrous metals and glass, they have not been included in the overall calculations herein reported.



Conclusions:

·This measure would reduce the negative externalities linked to the mismanagement of waste in non-OECD countries and result in higher amounts of waste recycled in the EU, which would be processed into secondary raw materials and enter the circular economy.

·The treatment of rejects from the waste retained in the EU would result in savings of GHG emissions, compared to their treatment in a third country outside the OECD, for an estimated amount between 207 000 tonnes CO2-eq (under a 20% retention scenario) and 517 000 tonnes CO2-eq per year (under a 50% retention scenario) for the period 2019-2030. The savings are particularly important for paper/cardboard, textile and plastic waste. In monetary terms, this represents savings of 674 million euro for the whole period of 2019-2030 in a 20% retention scenario or 56 million euro per year. Under a 50% retention scenario, the total amount for the same period would be around 1.7 billion euro or 140 million euro per year.

·The environmental benefits expected in avoiding transport related externalities for the period 2019-2030 are expected to amount to a total value of around 2.6 billion euro under a 20% retention scenario, which equals to around 215 million euro savings per year. Under a 50% retention scenario value would amount to 537 million euro per year.

Ban all exports:

Similar calculations were made as regards the discarded measures to ban all exports of waste from the EU to third countries and from the EU to non-OECD countries outside the EU, as a means of providing additional basis for the impact assessment as a whole.

Table E.25: Environmental transport externalities avoided under a total ban of export of the EU waste in EUR

Table E.26: GHG emissions avoided in tonnes of CO2-eq under a total ban*

*Note that the savings reported here do not include the GHG savings associated with cleaner recycling processes in the EU compared to third countries, due to data limitations. While some figures are reported in the text above, e.g. for ferrous metals and glass, they have not been included in the overall calculations herein reported.

Table E.27: Change in external costs resulting from the management of rejected wastes in third countries moving to the EU under a total ban in EUR*

*Note that the savings reported here do not include the GHG savings associated with cleaner recycling processes in the EU compared to third countries, due to data limitations. While some figures are reported in the text above, e.g. for ferrous metals and glass, they have not been included in the overall calculations herein reported.

Conclusions:

·A total export ban would directly affect the EU by retaining 100% of otherwise exported waste for treatment within the EU.

·Based on this 100 % waste retention scenario, environmental benefits linked to avoiding transport related externalities are expected to amount to a total value of around 22 billion euro until 2030, with the savings ranging from 1.6 billion euro starting in 2019 to 2 billion euro in 2030.

·Relating to managing waste that is rejected from recycling in the EU, in comparison to third countries, considerable green-house-gas (GHG) savings in tonnes of CO2-eq are expected. Within the period 2019-2030 the overall amount of saved emissions linked solely to the treatment of rejects for the waste retained in the EU would be more than 24 million tonnes CO2-eq in total or an average of around 2 million tonnes CO2-eq per year. This would result in average savings of external environmental costs would amount to around 440 million euro per year or around 5.3 billion euro benefits for the whole period.

Ban export of all waste to third countries outside the OECD

Table E.28: Environmental transport externalities avoided under a ban of export of EU to non-OECD third countries waste in EUR

Table E.29: Emissions avoided in tonnes of CO2-eq under a ban of export of EU to non-OECD third countries*

*Note that the savings reported here do not include the GHG savings associated with cleaner recycling processes in the EU compared to third countries, due to data limitations. While some figures are reported in the text above, e.g. for ferrous metals and glass, they have not been included in the overall calculations herein reported.

Table E.30: Change in external costs resulting from the management of rejected wastes in non-OECD third countries moving to the EU under in EUR*

*Note that the savings reported here do not include the GHG savings associated with cleaner recycling processes in the EU compared to third countries, due to data limitations. While some figures are reported in the text above, e.g. for ferrous metals and glass, they have not been included in the overall calculations herein reported.

Conclusions:

·Currently, 46% of all waste exported from the EU is shipped to third non-OECD countries, amounting to around 12 million tonnes. These amounts would no longer cause environmental impacts in these third countries.

·Assuming that 50% of the currently exported waste is retained in the EU (and 50% is diverted to third OECD countries), the environmental benefits are expected in avoiding transport related externalities with a total value reaching 3.1 billion euro until 2030 with an average savings of 260 million euro. Under a 75 % retention scenario for the same period, this increases to around 6.2 billion euro and a saving of around 518 million euro per year.

·Relating to managing waste that is rejected from recycling in the EU, and projecting until 2030,the average green-house-gas (GHG) savings would be 964 000 tonnes of CO2-eq per year with a total amount of 11.5 million in tonnes of CO2-eq for the whole period 2019-2030 under a 75% waste retention scenario. Taking a 50% scenario (and thus 50% being diverted to third OECD countries), the total amount of GHG savings would be 7.7 million tonnes of CO2-eq with an average of 643 000 tonnes of CO2-eq per year for the same period.

·The calculated total benefits in monetary terms, in relation to the management of the additional volume of retained waste would amount to 140 million euro per year with a total of around 1.7 billion euro for the whole period of 2019-2030 in a 50% retention scenario. Under a 75% retention scenario, the total amount for the same period would be around 2.5 billion euro, with an average of 210 million euro per year.

1.4.Modelling social impacts

In order to calculate the employment impacts of retaining wastes within the EU an assessment of existing data has been undertaken in the study supporting this report, taking into account full time equivalent (FTE) employment related to waste management per tonne within the EU for different categories of waste as demonstrated in the table E.3.

Table E.29: Calculation of full time equivalent (FTE) employment related to waste management within the EU for certain categories of waste

It was difficult to calculate the total social impacts of a reduction in export of waste from the EU, including both employment and impacts on standards of living, for people living in the third countries which would be affected by this reduction. It can be assumed that, on the short term, the impact on the employment in the third countries is likely to be higher in FTE than the benefits expected for the EU in term of job creation, due to the existence of more efficient waste management and automated systems in the EU in comparison to a majority of the third countries to which waste is exported. The medium term impact on employment in third countries will depend on how the workers concerned will be able to find other employment possibilities in the waste sector, especially if waste imported from the EU is replaced in the facilities dealing with it with waste collected domestically or imported from other countries than EU Member States.

Table E.30a: Calculated FTE created within the EU, in case of waste retained from export overall (reference year 2019)

Waste retention in %

Waste type

75%

50%

20%

100%

Ferrous metals

25.570

17.046

6.819

34.093

Glass

1.556

1.037

415

2.074

Non-ferrous metals

15.210

10.140

4.056

20.280

Paper and cardboard

5.302

3.535

1.414

7.070

Plastic

12.556

8.371

3.348

16.742

Textiles

5.572

3.715

1.486

7.430

Total (FTE)

65.766

43.844

17.538

87.688

Table E.31b: Calculated FTE created within the EU, in case of waste retained from export to non-OECD (reference year 2019)

Waste retention in %

Waste type

75%

50%

20%

Ferrous metals

6.521

4.347

1.739

Glass

293

195

78

Non-ferrous metals

9.660

6.440

2.576

Paper and cardboard

4.177

2.784

1.114

Plastic

8.296

5.531

2.212

Textiles

4.999

3.333

1.333

Total (FTE)

33.945

22.630

9.052



Appendix to Annex 5: List of CN codes used in the determination of waste flows

Eurostat present CN-code

Description of CN-code (label)

Type of waste for the purpose of this study

26201100

Hard zinc spelter

Non-ferrous metal wastes

39151000

Waste, parings and scrap, of polymers of ethylene

Plastic wastes

39152000

Waste, parings and scrap, of polymers of styrene

Plastic wastes

39153000

Waste, parings and scrap, of polymers of vinyl chloride

Plastic wastes

39159011

Waste, parings and scrap, of polymers of propylene

Plastic wastes

39159013

Parings and scrap, of acrylic polymers

Plastic wastes

39159018

Waste, parings and scrap, of addition polymerization products (excl. that of polymers of ethylene, styrene and vinyl chloride and propylene)

Plastic wastes

39159019

parings and scrap, of addition polymerization products (excl. that of acrylic polymers, polymers of ethylene, styrene and vinyl chloride and propylene)

Plastic wastes

39159080

Waste, parings and scrap, of plastics (excl. that of polymers of ethylene, styrene, vinyl chloride and propylene)

Plastic wastes

39159090

Waste, parings and scrap, of plastics (excl. that of addition polymerization products)

Plastic wastes

39159091

Parings and scrap, of epoxide resins

Plastic wastes

39159093

Parings and scrap, of cellulose and its chemical derivatives

Plastic wastes

39159099

Parings and scrap, of plastics (excl. that of addition polymerization products, epoxide resins, cellulose and its chemical derivatives)

Plastic wastes

41152000

Parings and other waste of leather or of composition leather, not suitable for the manufacture of leather articles; leather dust, powder and flour

Textile wastes

47071000

Recovered "waste and scrap" paper or paperboard of unbleached kraft paper, corrugated paper or corrugated paperboard

Paper and cardboard wastes

47072000

Recovered "waste and scrap" paper or paperboard made mainly of bleached chemical pulp, not coloured in the mass

Paper and cardboard wastes

47073010

Old and unsold newspapers and magazines, telephone directories, brochures and printed advertising material

Paper and cardboard wastes

47073090

Waste and scrap of paper or paperboard made mainly of mechanical pulp (excl. old and unsold newspapers and magazines, telephone directories, brochures and printed advertising material)

Paper and cardboard wastes

47079010

Unsorted, recovered "waste and scrap" paper or paperboard (excl. paper wool)

Paper and cardboard wastes

47079090

Sorted, recovered "waste and scrap" paper or paperboard (excl. waste and scrap of unbleached kraft paper or kraft paperboard, or of corrugated paper or corrugated paperboard, that of paper or paperboard made mainly of bleached chemical pulp not coloured in the mass, that of paper or paperboard made mainly of mechanical pulp, and paper wool)

Paper and cardboard wastes

50030000

Silk waste, incl. cocoons unsuitable for reeling, yarn waste and garnetted stock

Textile wastes

50031000

Silk waste, incl. cocoons unsuitable for reeling, yarn waste and garnetted stock, neither carded nor combed

Textile wastes

50039000

Silk waste, incl. cocoons unsuitable for reeling, yarn waste and garnetted stock, carded or combed

Textile wastes

51031010

Noils of wool or of fine animal hair - not carbonised

Textile wastes

51031010

Noils of wool or of fine animal hair - carbonised

Textile wastes

51032000

Waste of wool or of fine animal hair, incl. yarn waste (excl. noils and garnetted stock)

Textile wastes

51032010

Yarn waste of wool of fine animal hair

Textile wastes

51032091

Waste of wool or of fine animal hair, non-carbonised (excl. yarn waste, noils and garnetted stock)

Textile wastes

51032099

Waste of wool of fine animal hair, carbonised (excl. yarn waste, noils and garnetted stock)

Textile wastes

51033000

Waste of coarse animal hair, incl. yarn waste (excl. garnetted stock, waste of hair or bristles used in the manufacture of brooms and brushes, and of horsehair from the mane or tail)

Textile wastes

52021000

Cotton yarn waste, incl. thread waste

Textile wastes

52029100

Garnetted stock of cotton

Textile wastes

52029900

Cotton waste (excl. yarn waste, thread waste and garnetted stock)

Textile wastes

53013000

Flax tow and waste, incl. yarn waste and garnetted stock

Textile wastes

53013010

Flax tow

Textile wastes

53013090

Flax waste, incl. yarn waste and garnetted stock

Textile wastes

55051010

Waste of staple fibres of nylon or other polyamides, incl. noils, yarn waste and garnetted stock

Textile wastes

55051030

Waste of staple fibres of polyesters, incl. noils, yarn waste and garnetted stock

Textile wastes

55051050

Waste of acrylic or modacrylic staple fibres, incl. noils, yarn waste and garnetted stock

Textile wastes

55051070

Waste of polypropylene staple fibres, incl. noils, yarn waste and garnetted stock

Textile wastes

55051090

Waste of synthetic staple fibres, incl. noils, yarn waste and garnetted stock (excl. that of polypropylene, acrylic, modacrlyic, polyester, nylon and other polyamide staple fibres)

Textile wastes

55052000

Waste of artificial staple fibres, incl. noils, yarn waste and garnetted stock

Textile wastes

63090000

Worn clothing and clothing accessories, blankets and travelling rugs, household linen and articles for interior furnishing, of all types of textile materials, incl. all types of footwear and headgear, showing signs of appreciable wear and presented in bulk or in bales, sacks or similar packings (excl. carpets, other floor coverings and tapestries)

Textile wastes

63101000

Used or new rags, scrap twine, cordage, rope and cables and worn-out articles thereof, of textile materials, sorted

Textile wastes

63101010

Used or new rags, scrap twine, cordage, rope and cables and worn-out articles thereof, of wool or fine or coarse animal hair, sorted

Textile wastes

63101030

Used or new rags, scrap twine, cordage, rope and cables and worn-out articles thereof, of flax or cotton, sorted

Textile wastes

63101090

Used or new rags, scrap twine, cordage, rope and cables and worn-out articles thereof, of textile materials, sorted (excl. flax, cotton, wool or fine or coarse animal hair)

Textile wastes

63109000

Used or new rags, scrap twine, cordage, rope and cables and worn-out articles thereof, of textile materials (excl. sorted)

Textile wastes

70010010

Cullet and other waste and scrap of glass (excl. glass in the form of powder, granules or flakes)

Glass wastes

70010091

Cullet and other waste and scrap of glass; glass in the mass - optical glass

Glass wastes

70010099

Cullet and other waste and scrap of glass; glass in the mass - other

Glass wastes

71123000

Ash containing Precious metal or Precious-metal compounds

Non-ferrous metal wastes

71129100

Waste and scrap of gold, incl. metal clad with gold, and other waste and scrap containing gold or gold compounds, of a kind used principally for the recovery of Precious metal (excl. ash containing gold or gold compounds, waste and scrap of gold melted down into unworked blocks, ingots, or similar forms, and sweepings and ash containing Precious metals)

Non-ferrous metal wastes

71129200

Waste and scrap of platinum, incl. metal clad with platinum, and other waste and scrap containing platinum or platinum compounds, of a kind used principally for the recovery of Precious metal (excl. ash containing platinum or platinum compounds, waste and scrap of platinum melted down into unworked blocks, ingots, or similar forms, and sweepings and ash containing Precious metals)

Non-ferrous metal wastes

71129900

Waste and scrap of silver, incl. metal clad with silver, and other waste and scrap containing silver or silver compounds, of a kind used principally for the recovery of Precious metal (excl. ash, and waste and scrap of Precious metals melted down into unworked blocks, ingots or similar forms)

Non-ferrous metal wastes

72041000

Waste and scrap, of cast iron (excl. radioactive)

Ferrous metal wastes

72042110

Waste and scrap of stainless steel, containing by weight >= 8% nickel (excl. radioactive, and waste and scrap from batteries and electric accumulators)

Ferrous metal wastes

72042190

Waste and scrap of stainless steel (not containing >= 8% nickel, radioactive, or waste and scrap from batteries and electric accumulators)

Ferrous metal wastes

72042900

Waste and scrap of alloy steel (excl. stainless steel, and waste and scrap, radioactive, or waste and scrap from batteries and electric accumulators)

Ferrous metal wastes

72043000

Waste and scrap of tinned iron or steel (excl. radioactive, and waste and scrap of batteries and electric accumulators)

Ferrous metal wastes

72044110

Turnings, shavings, chips, milling waste, sawdust and filings, of iron or steel, whether or not in bundles (excl. such items of cast iron, alloy steel or tinned iron or steel)

Ferrous metal wastes

72044191

Trimmings and stampings, of iron or steel, in bundles (excl. such items of cast iron, alloy steel or tinned iron or steel)

Ferrous metal wastes

72044199

Trimmings and stampings, of iron or steel, not in bundles (excl. such items of cast iron, alloy steel or tinned iron or steel)

Ferrous metal wastes

72044910

Waste and scrap of iron or steel, fragmentised "shredded" (excl. slag, scale and other waste of the production of iron and steel; radioactive waste and scrap; fragments of pigs, blocks or other primary forms of pig iron or spiegeleisen; waste and scrap of cast iron, alloy steel or tinned iron or steel; turnings, shavings, chips, milling waste, sawdust, filings, trimmings and stampings; waste and scrap of primary cells, primary batteries and electric accumulators)

Ferrous metal wastes

72044930

Waste and scrap of iron or steel, not fragmentised "shredded", in bundles (excl. slag, scale and other waste of the production of iron and steel; radioactive waste and scrap; fragments of pigs, blocks or other primary forms of pig iron or spiegeleisen; waste and scrap of cast iron, alloy steel or tinned iron or steel; turnings, shavings, chips, milling waste, sawdust, filings, trimmings and stampings; waste and scrap of primary cells, primary batteries and electric accumulators)

Ferrous metal wastes

72044990

Waste and scrap of iron or steel, not fragmentised "shredded", not in bundles (excl. slag, scale and other waste of the production of iron and steel; radioactive waste and scrap; fragments of pigs, blocks or other primary forms of pig iron or spiegeleisen; waste and scrap of cast iron, alloy steel or tinned iron or steel; turnings, shavings, chips, milling waste, sawdust, filings, trimmings and stampings; waste and scrap of primary cells, primary batteries and electric accumulators)

Ferrous metal wastes

72045000

Remelting scrap ingots of iron or steel (excl. Products whose chemical composition conform//or ferro-alloys)

Ferrous metal wastes

74040010

'Waste and scrap, of refined copper (excl. ingots or other similar unwrought shapes, of remelted refined copper waste and scrap, ashes and residues containing refined copper, and waste and scrap of primary cells, primary batteries and electric accumulators)

Non-ferrous metal wastes

74040091

Waste and scrap, of copper-zinc base alloys "brass" (excl. ingots or other similar unwrought shapes, of remelted waste and scrap of copper-zinc alloys, ashes and residues containing copper-zinc alloys and waste and scrap of primary cells, primary batteries and electric accumulators)

Non-ferrous metal wastes

74040099

Waste and scrap, of copper alloys (excl. of copper-zinc alloys, ingots or other similar unwrought shapes, of remelted waste and scrap of copper alloys, ashes and residues containing copper alloys, and waste and scrap of primary cells, primary batteries and electric accumulators)

Non-ferrous metal wastes

75030010

Waste and scrap, of non-alloy nickel (excl. ingots or other similar unwrought shapes, of remelted non-alloy nickel waste and scrap, ashes and residues containing non-alloy nickel, waste and scrap of primary cells, primary batteries and electric accumulators)

Non-ferrous metal wastes

75030090

Waste and scrap, of nickel alloys (excl. ingots or other similar unwrought shapes, of remelted nickel alloys waste and scrap, ashes and residues containing nickel alloys)

Non-ferrous metal wastes

76020011

Turnings, shavings, chips, milling waste, sawdust and filings, of aluminium; waste of coloured, coated or bonded sheets and foil, of a thickness "excl. any backing" of <= 0,2 mm, of aluminium

Non-ferrous metal wastes

76020019

Waste of aluminium, incl. faulty workpieces and workpieces which have become unusable in the course of production or processing (excl. slag, scale and other waste from the production of iron or steel, containing recyclable aluminium in the form of silicates, ingots and other primary forms, of smelted waste or scrap, of aluminium, ash or the residues of the production of aluminium, and waste in heading 7602.00.11)

Non-ferrous metal wastes

76020090

Scrap of aluminium (excl. slags, scale and the like from iron and steel production, containing recoverable aluminium in the form of silicates, ingots or other similar unwrought shapes, of remelted waste and scrap, of aluminium, and ashes and residues from aluminium production)

Non-ferrous metal wastes

78020000

Lead waste and scrap (excl. ashes and residues from lead production "heading No 2620", and ingots or other similar unwrought shapes, of remelted waste and scrap, of lead "heading No 7801" and waste and scrap of primary cells, primary batteries et electric accumulators)

Non-ferrous metal wastes

79020000

Zinc waste and scrap (excl. ash and residues from zinc production "heading 2620", ingots and other similar unwrought shapes, of remelted waste and scrap, of zinc "heading 7901" and waste and scrap of primary cells, primary batteries and electric accumulators)

Non-ferrous metal wastes

79031000

Zinc dust

Non-ferrous metal wastes

79039000

Zinc powders and flakes (excl. grains of zinc, and spangles of heading 8308, and zinc dust)

Non-ferrous metal wastes

80020000

Tin waste and scrap (excl. ash and residues from the manufacture of tin of heading 2620, and ingots and similar unwrought tin produced from melted tin waste and scrap of heading 8001)

Non-ferrous metal wastes

81019700

Tungsten waste and scrap (excl. ash and residues containing tungsten)

Non-ferrous metal wastes

81029700

Molybdenum waste and scrap (excl. ash and residues containing molybdenum)

Non-ferrous metal wastes

81033000

Tantalum waste and scrap (excl. ash and residues containing tantalum)

Non-ferrous metal wastes

81042000

Magnesium waste and scrap (excl. ash and residues containing magnesium, and raspings, turnings and granules graded according to size)

Non-ferrous metal wastes

81053000

Cobalt waste and scrap (excl. ash and residues containing cobalt)

Non-ferrous metal wastes

81060010

Unwrought bismuth; bismuth powders; bismuth waste and scrap (excl. ash and residues containing bismuth)

Non-ferrous metal wastes

81073000

Cadmium waste and scrap (excl. ashes and residues containing cadmium)

Non-ferrous metal wastes

81083000

Titanium waste and scrap (excl. ash and residues containing titanium)

Non-ferrous metal wastes

81093000

Zirconium waste and scrap (excl. ash and residues containing zirconium)

Non-ferrous metal wastes

81102000

Antimony waste and scrap (excl. ash and residues containing antimony)

Non-ferrous metal wastes

81110019

Manganese waste and scrap (excl. ash and residues containing manganese)

Non-ferrous metal wastes

81121300

Beryllium waste and scrap (excl. ashes and residues containing beryllium)

Non-ferrous metal wastes

81122200

Chromium waste and scrap (excl. ash and residues containing chromium and chromium alloys containing > 10% by weight of nickel)

Non-ferrous metal wastes

81123040

Germanium waste and scrap (excl. ashes and residues containing germanium)

Non-ferrous metal wastes

81124010

Unwrought vanadium; vanadium powders; vanadium waste and scrap (excl. ash and residues containing vanadium)

Non-ferrous metal wastes

81125200

Thallium waste and scrap (excl. ashes and residues containing thallium)

Non-ferrous metal wastes

81129210

Unwrought hafnium "celtium"; hafnium powders; hafnium waste and scrap (excl. ash and residues containing hafnium)

Non-ferrous metal wastes

81129221

Niobium "columbium", rhenium, gallium, indium, vanadium and germanium waste and scrap (excl. ashes and residues containing these metals)

Non-ferrous metal wastes

81129239

Niobium "columbium" and rhenium waste and scrap (excl. ash and residues containing these metals)

Non-ferrous metal wastes

81129250

Gallium and indium waste and scrap (excl. ashes and residues containing these metals)

Non-ferrous metal wastes

81129291

Unwrought vanadium; vanadium powders (excl. ash and residues containing vanadium)

Non-ferrous metal wastes

81130040

Waste and scrap of cermets (excl. ashes and residues containing cermets)

Non-ferrous metal wastes



Annex 6: Summary of the Evaluation

The Waste Shipment Regulation has been evaluated 46 under five criteria, namely the Regulation's effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value. Commission Regulation (EC) 1418/2007 adopted pursuant art. 37(1) of the WSR, was also taken into consideration.

1.Findings

1.1 Effectiveness

The WSR has established a robust legal framework, which has been implemented by the Member States and generally led to a better control of shipments of waste and the environmentally sound management of shipped wastes at national and EU level.

However, various challenges remain: