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 2014

2. 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 7th 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'

7th 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 reportThematic strategy reportStudies on Economic

instruments (EPR)Fitness check (packaging)

EEA ex post assessment EU Court of Auditors reportThematic strategy reportStudies on Economic

instruments (EPR)Fitness check (packaging)

What are the main impacts?

Ex-ante evaluation

Impact assessment

Impact assessment

Legislative proposal

Legislative proposal

EEA modelNew modules Questionnaire to all MS + 19

Country visits

EEA modelNew modules Questionnaire to all MS + 19

Country visits

Identification of best practices

Fact sheets, RoadmapsSeminars in 10 MS

Identification of best practices

Fact sheets, RoadmapsSeminars in 10 MS

Stakeholder consultations on targets and EPR

7th EAP Council/EP opinions Country visitsCommittee of Region opinionSME's seminar

Stakeholder consultations on targets and EPR

7th EAP Council/EP opinions Country visitsCommittee of Region opinionSME's seminar

What are stakeholder point of

views?

Quality check IA

Internal consultation

EEA/Eurostat support

Specific contract

Inform

Stakeholder consultation

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 costsWaste 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 moduleCalculates 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 initiativesEnvironmental

impacts Monetised GHG and air

quality emissions

Employment

Problem Definition

"Loss of valuable materials due to improper waste management"

Problem definition

Underlying causes

Objectives

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 7th 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 incinerationSame 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 MS3.6 More stringent deadlines with time derogations3.7 Option 3.4 + extension of the landfill bans

Target setting

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

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 + recommendations2. 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:http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/target_review.htm