Waste Targets Review – Main elements of the impact assessment Karolina D'Cunha, Michel Sponar DG Environment, Unit A2

Outline  Background  Methodology  Problem definition/Objectives  Policy Options  Targets setting  Proposed Legislation  Conclusions

Background

Why new targets? And why now? 1.Review clauses in 3 Directives by Even with full implementation of existing legislation, valuable resources are lost 3.Gap between existing targets and ambition level of the Resource Efficiency Roadmap and the recently adopted 7 th EAP 4.Room to do more than existing targets – important benefits to capture

Waste generation in decline Strategy to combat food waste in place Recycling/Reuse increased Energy recovery limited to non-recyclable waste Phasing out of landfilling (limited to non- recoverable waste) Use of market-based instruments Implementation of the legislation By 2020, 'taking into account time derogations provided in existing legislation' 7 th EAP Objectives

Methodology

What worked and what didn't? Ex post Evaluations Building blocks What are the main barriers and how to overcome them? EEA ex post assessment EU Court of Auditors report Thematic strategy report Studies on Economic instruments (EPR) Fitness check (packaging) EEA ex post assessment EU Court of Auditors report Thematic strategy report Studies on Economic instruments (EPR) Fitness check (packaging) What are the main impacts? Ex-ante evaluation Impact assessment Legislative proposal Legislative proposal EEA model New modules Questionnaire to all MS + 19 Country visits EEA model New modules Questionnaire to all MS + 19 Country visits Identification of best practices Fact sheets, Roadmaps Seminars in 10 MS Identification of best practices Fact sheets, Roadmaps Seminars in 10 MS Stakeholder consultations on targets and EPR 7th EAP Council/EP opinions Country visits Committee of Region opinion SME's seminar Stakeholder consultations on targets and EPR 7th EAP Council/EP opinions Country visits Committee of Region opinion SME's seminar What are stakeholder point of views? Quality check IA Internal consultation EEA/Eurostat support Specific contract Inform

Stakeholder consultation Consultation/interviews of key stakeholder Definition of main issues to be addressed and possible options Development of a on line questionnaire On line consultation – two parts (experts/non expert) - Summary of the results (670 answers)

Model Design EU Reference Model on Municipal Waste Management: Central Mass Flow Model, and additional operational and assessment modules. Mass Flows Module MSW generation projections Waste prevention and reuse Financial costs Waste collection and treatment costs Recycling, composting & anaerobic digestion Residual waste treatment: MBT & Incineration Resource efficiency indicators and distance to targets assessment, marine litter Landfill Collection module Calculates the cost of current collection systems, and potential additional costs to achieve intended future recycling performance Prevention module Ability to constrain waste, and account the costs of initiatives Environmental impacts Monetised GHG and air quality emissions Employment

Problem Definition

"Loss of valuable materials due to improper waste management" Problem definition

Underlying causes In some MS, lack of administrative capacity Lack of coordination between local/regional and national levels Lack of economic incentives and Sub optimal EPR schemes Inappropriate use of Regional funds Issues related to Governance Uneven quality of statistics Late reaction in case of risks of non-attainment Issues related to monitoring Lack of mid-term targets leading to sub optimal investments Unclear definitions, obsolete requirements Overlaps in targets, ambiguous measurement methods Complex reporting obligations Administrative burden notably for SME’s Issues related to the EU legislation

Objectives

but also:  Simplification/consistency between targets  Improving implementation  Creating mid-term certainty Capture potential benefits: direct savings, access to raw materials, GHG/air emissions reduction, job creation, marine litter reduction, enhanced EU recycling industry Move towards a "circular economy" by re- injecting valuable resources into the EU economy by aligning the waste targets with the 7 th EAP

Options to achieve the objectives

Options Basis = Orientations approved in the 7th EAP  Only achievable targets and deadlines  Avoid completely new targets  No target without clear measurement method More than 60 options were considered, main rejected options:  Overall targets for prevention or re-use,  Recycling targets for industrial, hazardous, mining, commercial waste  Maximum targets for incineration  Same economic instruments for all MS

Options retained Option 1: Ensuring full implementation Option 2: Measures to simplify legislation, improve monitoring and disseminate best practices Option 3: Upgraded targets 3.1 Municipal recycling (60% and 70% by 2030) 3.2 Packaging waste (80% by 2030 – variant for Alu) 3.3 Landfill reduction (25% by 2025, 5% by 2030) 3.4 Combination of 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3: 3.5 Alternative deadlines for groups of MS 3.6 More stringent deadlines with time derogations 3.7 Option extension of the landfill bans

Target setting What is achieved today in the most advanced MS? Feasible targets Based on past experience, what is the time needed? Realistic targets What are the costs and benefits of the options? Affordable targets What are stakeholder views? Acceptable targets

Financial costs (M€ relative to full implementation, EU 28)

Externalities (M€ relative to full implementation, EU 28)

Changes in employment by 2030 relative to full implementation

Stakeholder signals COR outlook opinion 7th EAP EPR consultation Municipal waste Between 65/70% (Industry) and 80% (NGO's) 84% of respondents proposed 70% or more Packaging waste Between 65/70% (Industry) and 80% (NGO's) Landfilling Large support to abandon landfilling in the mid term

Main elements of the proposal

Approach Combination of : Improved/increased targets Measures to ensure proper and full implementation

Prevention, eco-design Aspirational objective to reduce food waste by 30% by 2025 (Art 9 WFD) Ecodesign Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) - minimum requirements (true and full cost concept linking the fees paid by producers to recyclability of the products)

Separate collection obligation by 2015 (Art 11(1) WFD) New separate collection obligation for bio-waste by 2025 Clarification on measuring Definition of municipal waste New targets – municipal waste recycling

 By 2025:  no landfilling of recyclable waste  max 25% landfilling  By 2030 (aspirational): residual waste only max 5% landfilling  Review clauses: 2018 for inert waste 2025 for the 2030 aspirational target New targets – municipal waste landfilling

New targets – packaging waste recycling Clarification on measuring (same as for municipal waste) Repeal of the recovery and max recycling targets New target for aluminium

Proposed targets

Simplification, data quality and best practices Simplification: Reporting obligations – no more implementation reports Definition + additional exemptions for SMEs Better data: Quality check report + third party verification of statistics National electronic registries (at least hazardous waste) Dissemination of best practices: Minimum conditions for EPR Early Warning System (next slide)

Early Warning System 1.Every 5 years: identification of MS at risk of not meeting the targets + recommendations 2.If identified as at risk, compliance plan, including measures listed in Annex VIII The list of measures in Annex VIII is consistent with: Ex-ante conditionalities Country-specific recommendations Roadmaps discussed with 10 less advanced MS

Conclusions With the proposed option: More jobs (around 180,000) Less GHG (- 443 on the period) Better access to raw material and positive effect on competitiveness Direct savings due to better waste management Reduced marine litter (- 27,5% by 2030) It will require: Better governance/political will needed Best practice dissemination Involvement of the civil society

Thank you for your attention More information: