Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2021)709 - Shipments of waste - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2021)709 - Shipments of waste. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2021)709  |
| date | 17-11-2021 |
1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL
• Reasons for and objectives of the proposal
In 2018, global trade in waste reached 182 million tonnes with a value of around EUR 80.5 billion 1 . Such trade has increased considerably in the last decades, with a peak of nearly 250 million tonnes in 2011. The EU is an important player in global trade in waste, and considerable volumes of waste are being shipped between Member States. In 2020, the EU exported to non-EU countries around 32.7 million tonnes of waste, an increase of 75% since 2004 2 , with a value of EUR 13 billion. Ferrous and non-ferrous metal scrap, paper waste, plastic waste, textile waste and glass waste represent the majority of waste exported from the EU. The EU also imported approximately 16 million tonnes, valued at EUR 13.5 billion. In addition, around 67 million tonnes of waste per year are shipped between Member States 3 (intra-EU shipments of waste).
Waste shipped across borders can generate risks for human health and the environment, especially when not properly controlled. At the same time, these wastes often have a positive economic value, notably as secondary raw materials that can replace and reduce dependence on primary 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 (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 4 on the control of transboundary movements of wastes destined for recovery operations (OECD Decision).
Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 5 (Waste Shipment Regulation (WSR)) implements in EU law the provisions of both the Basel Convention and the OECD Decision. In certain aspects, the WSR contains stricter control measures than the Basel Convention. The WSR requires Member States to ensure that shipments of waste and their treatment operations are managed in a manner that protects the environment and human health against any adverse effects that might result from such wastes. The WSR sets out control mechanisms for the export and import of waste between the EU and third countries, and for shipments between Member States. The types of controls under the WSR depend on the characteristics of the waste (for example hazardous, non-hazardous), its destination, and its treatment as part of recovery (for example recycling) or disposal (for example landfilling) operations. The WSR also lays down export prohibitions for certain categories of waste and certain destinations: the most important example is the prohibition to export hazardous waste from the EU to non-OECD countries.
The overall objective of the WSR review is to increase the level of protection of the environment and public health from the impacts of unsound transboundary shipments of waste. It addresses the problems identified in the WSR evaluation published by the Commission in January 2020 6 (see more information on this in point 3 below).
The WSR revision also responds to the call under the European Green Deal 7 and the Circular Economy Action Plan 8 to revise the WSR with the aim of:
·facilitating shipments of waste for reuse and recycling in the EU;
·ensuring that the EU does not export its waste challenges to third countries; and
· tackling illegal waste shipments.
Moreover, the European Green Deal and the Industrial Strategy 9 , including its update 10 acknowledged that access to raw materials is of strategic importance and a pre-requisite for Europe to deliver on its green and digital transition. The Critical Raw Materials Action Plan 11 stressed that significant amounts of resources leave Europe in the form of wastes, instead of being recycled into secondary raw materials and thus contributing to the diversification of sources of supply for the industrial ecosystems in the EU.
The European Parliament and the Council have also invited the Commission to come forward with an ambitious revision of the WSR 12 .
• Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area
There are synergies between the WSR and other pieces of EU waste legislation, especially the Waste Framework Directive 13 and directives covering specific waste streams. The Directive on the end-of-life vehicles 14 , the Batteries Directive 15 , the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive 16 and the WEEE Directive 17 all contain specific provisions on transboundary movement of the specified waste streams that refer to the WSR.
• Consistency with other Union policies
There are also synergies between the WSR and other EU legislation that is relevant for waste shipments, especially the Environmental Crime Directive 18 . This Directive covers the penalisation of criminal waste shipments and complements the WSR’s enforcement provisions.
2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY
• Legal basis
The existing legal basis of the Waste Shipment Regulation is Article 192 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which stipulates how Article 191 of the Treaty should be implemented. Article 191 addresses EU policy on the environment, which must contribute to pursuing the following objectives:
·preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment;
·protecting human health;
·utilising natural resources prudently and rationally; and
·promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in particular to combat climate change.
• Subsidiarity
The WSR ensures that the EU’s comprehensive waste legislation is not circumvented by shipping waste to third countries where waste management standards and performance greatly differ from those in the EU. It is important that common rules on the control of transboundary movements of waste are laid down at EU level, to avoid a situation where illegal operators would choose to ship their waste through Member States with less strict domestic rules than others, to export this waste from the EU (port-hopping scenario). EU rules are also justified for intra-EU shipments of waste because the EU waste industry is highly integrated and to ensure equal treatment and legal clarity for all economic actors in this sector.
• Proportionality
The WSR ensures consistency in the implementation by each Member State of the Basel Convention and the OECD Decision and as a result avoid obstacles to the shipments of waste within the EU or impediments to the good functioning of the EU internal 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 19 outside the OECD. The EU approach has a clear environmental added value compared with 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.
• Choice of the instrument
In 1984, Council Directive 84/631/EEC of 6 December 1984 20 was adopted, introducing EU‑wide measures on the supervision and control of shipments of waste. The Directive covered shipments of hazardous waste. It required a prior informed consent procedure for the countries concerned, thereby allowing them to object to a specific shipment.
Directive 84/631/EEC was amended by Council Directive 86/279/EEC of 12 June 1986, which introduced additional provisions in order to improve the monitoring of exports of waste from the Community. Following international developments in the context of the Basel Convention and the OECD, the first Waste Shipment Regulation (Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93, repealing Directive 84/631/EEC) was adopted in 1993.
It is important to note that a regulation — rather than a directive — was deemed necessary at that time in order to ensure simultaneous and harmonised application in all Member States. The choice of a regulation remains justified as it sets direct requirements for all operators, thus providing the necessary legal certainty and enforcement possibility of a fully integrated market across the EU. A regulation also ensures that the obligations are implemented at the same time and in the same way in all 27 Member States.
3. RESULTS OF EX POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
• Ex post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation
The Waste Shipment Regulation has been evaluated under five criteria, namely its effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1418/2007, adopted under Article 37(1) of the WSR, was also taken into consideration.
The main findings of the evaluation are the following.
·The WSR has established a robust legal framework that has been implemented by Member States. The WSR has generally been effective in delivering its two main objectives: to protect the environment and human health from adverse effects of waste shipments; and to implement the EU’s international commitments in this area. It has led to a better control of waste shipments and contributed to the environmentally sound management of shipped wastes at national and EU levels.
·At the same time, different levels and ways of applying and enforcing the WSR, often combined with different interpretations of its provisions and various inspection regimes, have hampered its optimal implementation throughout the EU. These factors limit or discourage legal shipments of good quality waste materials to recycling facilities, which are important for the transition to a circular economy in the EU.
·When it comes to the export of wastes, especially non-hazardous wastes, from the EU, a major shortcoming is the insufficient supervision of the conditions under which these wastes are managed in destination countries, especially in developing countries. As a result, the export of some waste from the EU has created environmental and public health challenges in the countries of destination. It also represents a loss of resources for EU recycling industries.
·Illegal shipments of waste within and from and to the EU also remain a considerable problem due to the general nature of the WSR provisions. This relates in particular to the elements that need to be checked by the competent authorities, for example on the environmentally sound management of waste and on enforcement. However, it is also due to shortcomings in the implementation and enforcement of the WSR.
These findings have been instrumental in defining the objectives pursued by the revision of the WSR.
• Stakeholder consultations
Stakeholders were consulted throughout the evaluation and impact assessment processes, which served to prepare the WSR revision. An open public consultation and a workshop were organised in 2018 to prepare for the evaluation. An inception impact assessment was then published on 11 March 2020 for public feedback, which was followed by an open public consultation until 30 July 2020 and a workshop on 23-24 September 2020. In addition, as part of the impact assessment process, several targeted consultations took place with a large number of stakeholders. More information on this consultation process can be found in Annexes 2 and 3 of the impact assessment report.
Stakeholders and Member States generally agreed with the main findings of the WSR evaluation and with the need to revise the WSR to address these findings.
On the issue of intra-EU shipments of waste, economic operators expressed strong support for a modernisation of the procedures applicable to shipments of waste and for the adoption of EU measures to avoid a fragmentation of the EU internal market. They particularly called for a digitalisation of the notification procedure, a better functioning of the fast-track procedures, the setting of common rules to decide on the classification of waste, and better standardisation of the calculation of financial guarantees. Civil society voices stressed the need for a better alignment of the WSR with the proximity principle and the waste hierarchy. On the other hand, some economic operators indicated that the WSR should not lay down substantial provisions (which are laid down in other legislation) but be limited to procedural requirements for the shipment of waste.
As to the export of waste from the EU, stakeholders generally acknowledged that the WSR should be amended to avoid situations where waste exported from the EU is mismanaged in the countries of destination. Different views were expressed as to the possible solutions to address this problem. Some stakeholders expressed concerns on measures that would lead to possible disruptions in global trade in high‑quality waste and on the impact of such measures on the EU sector currently involved in the collection, sorting and recycling of waste. They notably highlighted that there might not be enough capacity in the EU to deal with waste that is currently exported from the EU. This view was not shared by some other economic operators, who indicated that such capacity would be available. Civil society insisted on the need for the EU to set up very restrictive measures on the export of plastic waste from the EU.
Stakeholders generally expressed support for reinforcing the provisions against illegal shipments of waste.
The Commission proposal takes account of the views expressed and presents a proportionate approach to deal with the problems identified in the evaluation. This is particularly the case for the measures relating to export of waste, which do not amount to a blanket ban on export and which will only apply 3 years after the entry into force of the proposed regulation. All stakeholders and third countries, therefore, will have sufficient time to prepare for the implementation of the new rules.
• Collection and use of expertise
The impact assessment for the review of the Waste Shipment Regulation was supported by a study by external experts. These experts worked closely with the Commission through the different phases of the study. The Commission also used numerous other sources of information to prepare this proposal.
• Impact assessment
The proposal is based on an impact assessment. After having addressed the Regulatory Scrutiny Board's comments in its negative opinion of 9 April 2021, a revised impact assessment received a positive opinion on 4 June 2021. In its final opinion, the Board asked for further details, mainly on the comparison of options addressed in the impact assessment.
This impact assessment considered four policy options.
Policy option 1 is the baseline scenario. This assumes 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 21 . 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 table below provides an overview of options 2, 3 and 4, which are alternatives to option 1 (baseline scenario), and the combination of measures in these options.
| Measures | Option 2 (targeted changes) | Option 3 (structural changes) | Option 4 (far-reaching changes) |
| Objective 1: Facilitate shipments within the EU, in particular to align the WSR with circular economy objectives | |||
| 1a) Improve the regime of “pre-consented” facilities | x | x | |
| 1b) Streamline the notification procedure | x | x | |
| 1c) Clarify the scope of the WSR | x | x | |
| 1d) Set up a mandatory EU-wide electronic data interchange (EDI) | x | x | |
| 1e) Streamline the financial guarantee system by harmonising the calculation of the amount required under the guarantee | x | x | |
| 1f) Ensure mutual recognition at EU level of carriers of hazardous waste registered in one Member State | x | ||
| 1g) Align the WSR provisions with the waste hierarchy | x | x | |
| 1h) Issue guidance on current problematic issues | x | ||
| 1i) Ensure alignment with the provisions on end-of-waste and byproducts in the Waste Framework Directive | x | x | |
| 1j) Task the Commission, through delegated or implementing acts, to set thresholds for contamination of wastes to determine if they should be subject to the notification procedure or not | x | x | |
| 1k) Establish mutual recognition of national end-of-waste criteria for the purpose of waste shipments | x | ||
| 1l) Establish mutual recognition of national decisions in relation to the hazardous nature of wastes for the purpose of waste shipments | x | ||
Objective 2: Guarantee that waste exported from the EU is managed in an environmentally sound manner | |||
| 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 | x | x | |
| 2b) Task the Commission to set out criteria to differentiate between used goods and waste, for specific waste streams for which export to third countries raises particular challenges | x | x | |
| 2c) Establish a new framework in which non-OECD countries have to notify the EU of their willingness to import green-listed waste and demonstrate their ability to treat it sustainably according to set criteria | x | x | |
| 2d) Require that the export of green-listed waste from the OECD is subject to the notification procedure | x | ||
| 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 | x | x | |
| Objective 3: Better address illegal shipments of waste within and from and to the EU | |||
| 3a) Improve provisions on inspections and enforcement and the follow-up | x | x | |
| 3b) Issue guidance on efficient inspections and enforcement practices | x | ||
| 3c) Empower the Commission (through OLAF) to carry out transnational investigative and coordinating actions against waste trafficking in the EU | x | x | |
| 3d) Reinforce existing provisions on infringements and penalties | x | x | |
| 3e) Improve traceability of shipments of green-listed waste | x | x | |
| 3f) Facilitate cooperation between enforcement authorities at the national level | x | x | |
| 3g) Create a dedicated group at EU level with the task to facilitate and improve cooperation on enforcement of the WSR | x | x |
Policy option 2 (targeted changes) provides a package of measures that can effectively and, to an extent, efficiently address some of the problems that hamper the good functioning of the WSR.
Compared with the baseline, the targeted changes provide effective and consistent responses to achieve specific objectives, in particular to reduce administrative burden and to raise waste shipment for treatment higher up in the waste hierarchy. However, the envisaged measures alone would not be able to deliver maximum benefits, mostly due to the lower efficiency and lower internal coherence. Compared with the structural changes (option 3), this option will address only partly the challenges linked to the export of waste (objective 2). The measures only 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). The greatest benefits under this option are identified for the measures 3a‑3d and 3f, dedicated to better addressing illegal shipments of waste within and from and to the EU (objective 3).
Under policy option 3 (structural changes), measures 1d, 1e, and 1f directly address stakeholder concerns regarding the costs associated with the delays of intra-EU shipments and would significantly minimise administrative burden for public authorities and economic operators (objective 1). The introduction of measures 2c, 2d and 2e would set up a procedural framework at EU level to guarantee that waste exported from the EU is managed in an environmentally sound manner. It is considered as a proportionate and systemic response to objective 2. Certain changes would not be sufficient and coherent enough to achieve the necessary effect at Member State level. This is in particular the case for the proposed measures 3e and 3g to better address illegal shipments of waste (objective 3).
The impact assessment has shown that actions taken under options 2 or 3 would not allow to meet all the objectives of the review in the most effective, efficient and proportionate manner. Compared with these options, policy option 4, which combines measures in a mix of far‑reaching changes, would result in greater effectiveness, in an efficient and proportionate manner.
The preferred option is therefore 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). 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 addressing illegal shipments of waste, without risking excessive costs or disruption. It responds to both (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, guiding 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 on public administrations. These measures will generate important gains for both of them, through reduced administrative burden, reduced delays, and more efficient processing of information. They will also contribute to supporting 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 electronic data interchange regime (measure 1d) 22 . The obligation to digitalise the notification procedure for intra-EU shipments of waste via the electronic data interchange system will only become effective 24 months 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 EU approaches and the regulatory framework applying to the export of waste from the EU. This is needed in view of the failure of the current WSR to achieve the objective to ensure environmentally sound management 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 (measures 2c and 2e) and facility (measure 2a) level on the sustainable treatment of waste in the countries of destination. These measures should generate important environmental benefits. They will also have economic impacts. For some operators, notably those processing waste into secondary materials in the EU, this would potentially lead to higher quantities of feedstock available at a lower price, so this would have a positive impact overall. For those operators shipping waste from the EU, the impact will depend on whether evidence is made available that the exported waste in the destination countries is treated in an environmentally sound manner. It is likely that, as a result, the export to some countries might become more difficult, which would have a negative impact on the companies exporting waste to these countries. The costs resulting from this situation are however limited and are outweighed by the overall environmental benefits of the measures. Finally, it is also important to note that proportionality is ensured through the fact that the measures in option 4 would:
–apply a different regime between countries of destination, with more scrutiny over countries where the waste management practices are deemed to be less sustainable than in the EU (non-OECD countries);
–set up a mechanism, without any blanket ban, 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
–enter into force only 3 years after the changes in the Regulation become effective, leaving a period of transition for all involved to get prepared for the new rules.
·As to the third objective, option 4 provides a series of measures to improve enforcement of the WSR. They are needed to increase the capabilities of Member States and the Commission to reduce illegal shipments of waste. These measures do not involve any fundamentally new tasks or 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 to deliver significant cost savings for clean-up and repatriation, and indirect cost savings for Member States where waste transits. Better enforcement should also lead to a reduced loss of tax revenues. Furthermore, beyond the proposed measures, the Commission will use a wide array of tools to continue to support Member State efforts to better implement and enforce the WSR. Many initiatives have already been taken at EU level against waste trafficking, which is one of the priorities of the EU’s overall policy on organised crime 23 . The EU is also providing financial support to operational projects targeting waste trafficking 24 . In addition, the Commission is assisting Member States in this area through the Environmental Compliance and Governance Forum 25 , the TAIEX-EIR PEER 2 PEER programme 26 and the EU Environmental Law Training Package 27 .
Figure 1 below provides a schematic overview of the preferred option, and the measures that it contains. A more detailed description of how the preferred option achieves the objectives of the WSR review is presented in Annex 14 of the impact assessment report.
Figure 1 – Overview of measures in the preferred option
In terms of overall economic impact, this preferred option should result in significant savings for operators shipping waste and for authorities dealing with the procedures for authorising and monitoring these shipments, notably thanks to the establishment of the electronic data interchange system. This is expected to deliver savings in the order of EUR 1.4 million a year. Other measures to modernise and simplify the WSR will bring additional savings. The other important economic impacts will come from the measures linked to the export of waste, which should represent an overall economic gain for the EU economy, based on 2019 data, ranging from EUR 200-500 million a year, depending on the amount of waste that is retained in the EU. 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. Some of those involved in exporting these wastes are likely to see the costs for exporting such waste increasing, or they would turn to other purchasers in the EU, where they might get lower prices for their waste. Companies exporting waste would also have to set up (or purchase) auditing schemes to verify that facilities in third countries perform waste management activities in a sustainable manner; this would represent new but moderate costs. On the other hand, economic operators recycling or processing waste in the EU may be able to use more waste as feedstock, which they should be able to purchase at a lower price compared with the baseline. The measures on illegal shipments should benefit legal operators as they will help to tackle illegal activities; these represent a direct competition to the business of legal operators. 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.
SMEs will benefit greatly from the measures designed to facilitate shipments of waste within the EU. The obstacles and burdens linked to the shortcomings of current procedures represent proportionally a heavier burden for them than for larger companies. The measures on the export of waste will affect SMEs involved in export-related business activities. They will incur new costs to perform audits in facilities to which they are shipping their waste. These costs, however, remain limited and could be pooled with other SMEs, notably through Producer Responsibility Organisations 28 . Finally, the perspective that more waste will remain in the EU, together with new targets and obligations under EU law to ensure its recycling, will also represent opportunities for SMEs to develop innovative projects and technologies for recycling waste whose treatment poses particular challenges, such as plastic and textile waste.
This preferred option is expected to result in an overall significant 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. They would also lead to 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 they 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 being retained in the EU each year, which would be treated according to EU standards and processed into secondary materials. While it is not possible to perform a monetised impact of all these environmental gains, the benefits linked to a better treatment of residual waste in the EU and to avoiding shipping this waste to third countries would range from EUR 266‑666 million a 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, and to those against illegal shipments of waste, should reduce the negative impact on human health (e.g. respiratory problems, injuries) and labour conditions (e.g. no social benefits, low wages) stemming from the unsustainable management of waste, bringing overall benefits to society both abroad and in the EU. The treatment in the EU of waste that used to be exported should lead to the creation of 9 000‑23 000 jobs in EU 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 re-use. In third countries there might be job losses in the formal or informal waste treatment sectors in case less waste is exported to that country.
• Regulatory fitness and simplification
This proposal makes maximum use of the potential of digitalisation to reduce administrative costs. This is the case especially for the proposal to set up a mandatory EU-wide system to issue and interchange electronically data and information linked to waste shipments. The development of such a system that combines existing national platforms and/or platforms in place, like the environment established under Regulation (EU) No 2020/1056 on electronic freight transport information with a system at EU level is not expected to entail very high costs for the Commission, Member States or businesses. It will, however, provide Member State authorities and the Commission with a powerful tool for monitoring and enforcing, as well as an efficient tool for businesses to comply with the obligations in the proposed regulation.
• Fundamental rights
The proposal does not have consequences for the protection of fundamental rights.
4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS
The proposal implies the use of human resources and expenditure to ensure the proper implementation of some its provisions. Some of the human resource needs are expected to be sourced from the Commission’s existing allocations. The required Commission human resources will be DG ENV staff already assigned to management of the action. Redeployment within the DG, or from other DGs that are able to free themselves from current tasks related to implementation of the Regulation in force, could also contribute to managing the action. An additional allocation would have to be granted to the managing DG and to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) under the annual allocation procedure and subject to budgetary constraints.
The proposal includes several articles that detail further work streams that will need to be carried out to implement the Regulation and that would need to be adopted through implementing/ or delegated acts in the years following entry into force. These will cover the development of harmonised rules on classification of waste, on calculation of financial guarantees, the assessment of third countries’ notifications to receive EU waste exports, and coordination work as regards the enforcement of the Regulation. A detailed list of these envisaged actions is provided below.
·Establishment of a harmonised calculation method for financial guarantees or equivalent insurance;
·Examine and establish harmonised contamination threshold levels to classify certain wastes as green-listed or not.
·Examine and establish criteria to distinguish between used goods and waste for certain objects or substances;
·Establish and maintain a new framework for the export of green-listed waste from the EU to a non-OECD country, especially the establishment and updating of a list of countries to which the export of such waste is authorised.
·Monitor the export of waste to OECD countries and mitigate environmental problems that might be caused by such exports.
·Organise and facilitate the work of a dedicated group at EU level with the task to facilitate and improve cooperation on enforcement of the WSR (‘waste enforcement group’).
The Commission through OLAF will play a specific role in complementing the work of Member States in enforcing the provisions of this Regulation in complex cross-border cases and would engage in:
·conducting inspection of premises/boats/shipments of economic operators;
·collection of information/intelligence from a wide range of sources;
·analytical work (use of customs and specialised databases and dedicated tools);
·forensics acquisition;
·coordination with law enforcement agencies, market surveillance authorities and judicial authorities;
·cooperation with third countries (through mutual assistance agreements or administrative cooperation agreements); and
·cooperation with other EU agencies (EPPO, Europol, Eurojust, Frontex…)
For the development of the central system for electronic information exchange on waste shipments, work has been carried out internally in DG ENV, but will need to be extended in relation to development and maintenance of a central system for data exchange for waste shipment purposes. The existing IMSOC 29 platform will be used as a basis.
The European Commission will be responsible for general implementation of this Regulation and the adoption of all implementing and delegated acts envisaged by the Regulation. This will require the normal decision‑making processes including stakeholder consultation and committee procedures. The current financial estimates are based on:
·For ENV: 1 extra FTE AD post supported by 1.5 FTE contractual agents, as well as operational costs (e.g. study, external consultancy, meetings,…), envisaged for general implementation of the Regulation and the necessary preparatory work and drafting of secondary legislation in line with the deadlines proposed in the Waste Shipment Regulation. This amounts to a total cost of EUR 4 137 000 for the period 2024-2027, based on the latest update of the cost of Commission staff as reported on the DG BUDG website: https://myintracomm.ec.europa.eu/budgweb/en/pre/legalbasis/Pages/pre-040-020_preparation.aspx .
·For OLAF: 1 extra FTE AD post, envisaged for the implementation of the relevant enforcement‑related provisions in the Regulation. This amounts to a total cost of EUR 456 000 for the period 2024-2026, based on the latest update of the cost of Commission staff as reported on the DG BUDG website: https://myintracomm.ec.europa.eu/budgweb/en/pre/legalbasis/Pages/pre-040-020_preparation.aspx .
The budget of the proposal is presented in current prices.
The legislative financial statement attached to this proposal sets out the budgetary, human and administrative resource implications.
5. OTHER ELEMENTS
• Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements
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 within the EU and between third countries and 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 from and to the EU, and also monitoring of waste flows within, and to and from the EU will improve. 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 10 years of its entry into force to ensure that its objectives are being met and that its provisions remain justified.
• Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal
Title I contains general provisions on the purpose, scope and definitions of this Regulation.
Article 1 lays down the subject matter of the Regulation, which is to lay down measures to protect the environment and human health by preventing or reducing the adverse impacts that may result from the shipment of waste.
Article 2 outlines the scope of this Regulation.
Article 3 contains definitions.
Title II contains provisions on shipments within the Union, with or without transit through third countries.
Article 4 outlines the overall procedural framework applying to shipments of waste within the Union.
Chapter 1 of this Title contains the provisions applying to the prior written notification and consent procedure.
Article 5 establishes the duty for a notifier to submit a notification request when planning to ship wastes under Article 4(1) and (2).
Article 6 stipulates the requirements relating to the contract that needs to be included in the notification request.
Article 7 stipulates the requirement relating to the financial guarantee that must be in place for notified shipments of waste.
Article 8 outlines the procedural steps and deadlines for requesting and submitting additional information to complete a notification request.
Article 9 outlines the procedural steps and deadlines for competent authorities to take a decision on whether to consent or object to planned shipments, as requested in the notification.
Article 10 provides for competent authorities concerned to lay down conditions to a consented shipment.
Article 11 provides that shipments of waste for disposal are prohibited, except if certain conditions are met, in which case shipments of waste can be approved.
Article 12 provides for the grounds on which a competent authority can object to a shipment of waste for recovery.
Article 13 provides for the possibility to issue general notifications in the case of multiple shipments of the same waste to the same treatment facility.
Article 14 contains provisions on the conditions for waste recovery facilities to be pre-consented in Member States, on the mutual recognition by Member States of such facilities and on the specific “fast-track” procedure for shipment of certain waste to such facilities.
Article 15 contains additional provisions relating to shipments to interim waste treatment operations.
Article 16 contains requirements following consent of shipments.
Article 17 contains provisions on changes in the shipment after consent.
Chapter 2 of this Title consists of Article 18, which provides for the general information requirements for shipments of green‑listed waste.
Chapter 3 of this Title contains general requirements.
Article 19 prohibits the mixing of waste during shipment.
Article 20 contains provisions on the keeping of documents and information.
Article 21 contains provisions on public access to notifications.
Chapter 4 of this Title contains take-back obligations and consists of Articles 22 to 25, which provide for the take‑back of shipments and the bearing of costs of such take-backs.
Chapter 5 of this Title contains general administrative provisions.
Article 26 provides that the issuance and exchange of information and documents required under this Regulation is to be made by electronic means, and sets the conditions under which systems for such exchange have to operate.
Article 27 provides for the languages in which documents and communications must be issued in the context of this Regulation.
Article 28 provides for the applicable procedural requirements to be followed in the case of disagreement on the classification of a waste or material shipped. It further provides for the empowerment of the Commission to adopt implementing measures to clarify the classification of certain wastes and the distinction between used goods and waste for certain commodities.
Article 29 sets out the costs that may be charged to notifiers.
Article 30 provides for the possibilities of border-area agreements in exceptional cases.
Chapter 6 of this Title contains provisions on shipments within the Union with transit via third countries.
Article 31 provides for specific delays for the competent authority of third countries concerned to give its written consent in cases of shipments for disposal within the Union with transit through these third countries.
Article 32 provides for specific delays for the competent authority of third countries concerned to give its written consent in cases of shipments for recovery within the Union with transit through these third countries.
Title III consists of one article (Article 33) and relates to the need for Member States to have national regimes concerning shipments of waste within one Member State to safeguard coherence with the Union system.
Title IV contains provisions on exports from the Union to third countries.
Chapter 1 of this Title contains provisions on the export of waste from the Union for disposal.
Article 34 provides for an export prohibition except to EFTA countries.
Article 35 provides for the procedural requirements when exporting to EFTA countries. This Article refers mutatis mutandis to Title II and provides for relevant adaptations and additions to the provisions there. Procedural provisions in Chapter 2 of this Title IV refer back to this article.
Chapter 2 of this Title contains provisions on the export of waste from the Union for recovery.
Section 1 contains provisions for exports of hazardous and other certain wastes to non-OECD countries, with Article 36 providing for an export prohibition of hazardous and other waste to non-OECD countries from the EU.
Section 2 contains provisions for exports of non-hazardous wastes to non-OECD countries with Articles 37-40 providing for an export prohibition of non-hazardous waste to non-OECD countries except in the case where a non-OECD country notifies its willingness to import and demonstrates its ability to manage certain waste in an environmentally sound manner. These Articles further contain the procedure for third countries to notify their willingness and ability to receive and manage waste, and the empowerment for the Commission to assess these notifications and publish a list of countries that are eligible for receiving exports of certain green-listed wastes from the Union.
Section 3 contains provisions for exports to OECD countries.
Article 41 containing the procedural requirements for exports for recovery to OECD countries outside the Union. This Article refers mutatis mutandis to Title II and refers to Article 35, and provides for relevant adaptations and additions to the provisions there.
Article 42 provides for the monitoring of export to OECD countries and a safeguard procedure in case the exports of waste to such countries lead to a situation where such waste are not managed in an environmentally sound manner. This Article provides for the Commission to be empowered to take action where necessary in case where the waste is not managed in an environmentally sound manner.
Chapter 3 of this Title contains additional obligations applying to the export of waste.
Article 43 contains obligations for exporters to ensure the waste they export is managed at destination in an environmentally sound manner.
Article 44 contains obligations for exporting Member States to take necessary measures to ensure that the provisions in this Title are properly implemented.
Chapter 4 of this Title contains general provisions.
Article 45 prohibits the exports of waste to the Antarctic.
Article 46 provides that exports to overseas countries or territories for disposal and of hazardous waste for recovery are prohibited and that for other exports for recovery Title II applies mutatis mutandis.
Title V contains provisions on imports into the Union from third countries.
Chapter 1 of this Title contains provisions on the import of waste into the Union for disposal.
Article 47 prohibits imports except from a country Party to the Basel Convention or with an agreement in place or from other areas during situations of crisis or war.
Article 48 contains procedural requirements for imports from a country Party to the Basel Convention or from other areas during situations of crisis or war. This Article refers mutatis mutandis to Title II and provides for relevant adaptations and additions to the provisions there. Procedural provisions in Chapter 2 of this Title IV refer back to this article.
Chapter 2 of this Title contains provisions on the import of waste into the Union for recovery.
Article 49 prohibits imports except from an OECD Decision country or a country Party to the Basel Convention or with an agreement in place or from other areas during situations of crisis or war.
Article 50 contains procedural requirements for imports from an OECD Decision country or from other areas during situations of crisis or war. This Article refers mutatis mutandis to Title II and refers to Article 45, and provides for relevant adaptations and additions to the provisions there.
Article 51 contains procedural requirements for imports from a non-OECD Decision country Party to the Basel Convention or from other areas during situations of crisis or war. This Article refers mutatis mutandis to Article 45.
Chapter 3 of this Title contains additional obligations.
Article 52 contains obligations for Member States of import to ensure the sound management of imported waste and prohibit any such import if there is reason to believe the waste will not be managed properly.
Chapter 4 of this Title contains general provisions.
Article 53 provides that for imports from overseas countries or territories Title II applies mutatis mutandis.
Title VI contains provisions on transit through the Union from and to third countries.
Article 54 contains provisions for the transit for disposal.
Article 55 contains provisions for the transit for recovery.
Contents
Chapter 1 of this Title consists of one article (Article 56) and provides for the general obligations for all those involved in shipments of waste to take the necessary steps to ensure that, throughout the period of shipment and during its recovery and disposal, any waste they ship is managed without endangering human health and in an environmentally sound manner.
Chapter 2 of this Title contains provisions on the enforcement of this Regulation.
Section 1 addresses the enforcement actions by Member States.
Article 57 contains provisions on inspections.
Article 58 contains provisions on documentation and evidence.
Article 60 contains provisions on penalties.
Article 61 contains provisions on enforcement cooperation at national level.
Article 62 contains provisions on enforcement cooperation between Member States.
Article 63 contains provisions on the waste shipment enforcement group.
Section 2 addresses the enforcement activities actions by the Commission in the context of this Regulation.
Title VIII contains final provisions.
Article 69 contains provisions on reporting obligations for Member States.
Article 70 contains provisions on international cooperation.
Article 71 contains provisions on the designation of competent authorities in Member States.
Article 72 contains provisions on the designation of correspondents.
Article 73 contains provisions on the designation of customs offices of entry into and exit from the Union.
Article 74 contains provisions on the notification of, and information regarding, designations.
Article 75 contains provisions on the amendment of Annexes I to X to this Regulation.
Article 76 and 77 set out the conditions for the Commission's adoption of delegated and implementing acts.
Article 78 amends Regulation (EU) No 1257/2013 to align it and this Regulation with the applicable international obligations of the Union and its Member States as regards end-of-life vessels.
Article 79 amends Regulation (EU) No 2020/1056 to update the references made in that Regulation to waste transport documents.
Article 80 provides for a review of this Regulation in 2034.
Article 81 provides for repeal and transitional rules.
Article 82 provides for the entry into force and application of this Regulation.