EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 16.1.2018

COM(2018) 28 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN

PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL

COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

A European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy

{SWD(2018) 16 final}

1

1. INTRODUCTION

Plastic is an important and ubiquitous material in our economy and daily lives. It has multiple

functions that help tackle a number of the challenges facing our society. Light and innovative

materials in cars or planes save fuel and cut CO2 emissions. High-performance insulation

materials help us save on energy bills. In packaging, plastics help ensure food safety and reduce

food waste. Combined with 3D printing, bio-compatible plastic materials can save human lives

by enabling medical innovation.

However, too often the way plastics are currently produced, used and discarded fails to capture

the economic benefits of a more 'circular' approach and harms the environment. There is an

urgent need to tackle the environmental problems that today cast a long shadow over the

production, use and consumption of plastics. The million tonnes of plastic litter that end up in the

oceans every year are one of their most visible and alarming signs of these problems, causing

growing public concern.

Rethinking and improving the functioning of such a complex value chain requires efforts and

greater cooperation by all its key players, from plastics producers to recyclers, retailers and

consumers. It also calls for innovation and a shared vision to drive investment in the right

direction. The plastics industry is very important to the European economy, and increasing its

sustainability can bring new opportunities for innovation, competitiveness and job creation, in

line with the objectives pursued by the renewed EU Industrial Policy Strategy.1

In December 2015, the Commission adopted an EU Action Plan for a circular economy.2 There,

it identified plastics as a key priority and committed itself to ‘prepare a strategy addressing the

challenges posed by plastics throughout the value chain and taking into account their entire life-

cycle’. In 2017, the Commission confirmed it would focus on plastics production and use and

work towards the goal of ensuring that all plastic packaging is recyclable by 2030.3

The EU is best placed to lead the transition to the plastics of the future. This strategy lays the

foundations to a new plastics economy, where the design and production of plastics and plastic

products fully respect reuse, repair and recycling needs and more sustainable materials are

developed and promoted. This will deliver greater added value and prosperity in Europe and

boost innovation. It will curb plastic pollution and its adverse impact on our lives and the

environment. By pursuing these aims, the strategy will also help achieve the priority set by this

Commission for an Energy Union with a modern, low-carbon, resource and energy-efficient

economy and will make a tangible contribution to reaching the 2030 Sustainable Development

Goals and the Paris Agreement.

The strategy presents key commitments for action at EU level. Yet the private sector, together

with national and regional authorities, cities and citizens, will also need to mobilise. Similarly,

international engagement will be necessary to drive change outside Europe’s borders. With

decisive and concerted efforts, Europe can turn challenges into opportunities and set the example

for resolute action at global level.

1 COM(2017) 479. 2 COM(2015) 614. 3 Commission Work Programme 2018 - COM(2017) 650.

2

2. PLASTICS TODAY: KEY CHALLENGES

Over the past 50 years, the role and importance of

plastics in our economy has consistently grown.

Global production of plastics has increased

twentyfold since the 1960s, reaching 322 million

tonnes in 2015. It is expected to double again over the

next 20 years.

In the EU, the plastics sector employs 1.5 million

people4 and generated a turnover of EUR 340 billion

in 2015. Although plastics production in the EU has

been stable in recent years, the EU’s share of the

global market is falling as production grows in other

parts of the world.

In the EU, the potential for recycling plastic waste

remains largely unexploited. Reuse and recycling of

end-of-life plastics is very low, particularly in

comparison with other materials such as paper, glass

or metals.

Around 25.8 million tonnes of plastic waste are

generated in Europe every year.5 Less than 30% of

such waste is collected for recycling. Of this amount, a significant share leaves the EU6 to be

treated in third countries, where different environmental standards may apply.

At the same time, landfilling and

incineration rates of plastic waste remain

high 31 % and 39 %, respectively and

while landfill has decreased over the past

decade, incineration has grown. According

to estimates, 95 % of the value of plastic

packaging material, i.e. between EUR 70

and 105 billion annually, is lost to the

economy after a very short first-use cycle.7

Demand for recycled plastics today

accounts for only around 6 % of plastics

demand in Europe. In recent years, the EU

plastic recycling sector has suffered from

low commodity prices and uncertainties

about market outlets. Investments in new

plastic recycling capacity have been held

back by the sector’s prospects of low

profitability.

4 This includes raw material producers and product manufacturers. 5 Source: Plastics Europe. 6 Source: Eurostat. 7 Ellen MacArthur Foundation, The new plastics economy, 2016

(https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/EllenMacArthurFoundation_TheNewPlasticsEconomy_Pages.pdf ).

3

It was estimated that plastics production and the

incineration of plastic waste give rise globally to

approximately 400 million tonnes of CO2 a year.8

Using more recycled plastics can reduce dependence

on the extraction of fossil fuels for plastics production

and curb CO2 emissions.9 According to estimates,

10

the potential annual energy savings that could be

achieved from recycling all global plastic waste is

equivalent to 3.5 billion barrels of oil per year.

Alternative types of feedstock (e.g. bio-based plastics

or plastics produced from carbon dioxide or methane),

offering the same functionalities of traditional plastics

with potentially lower environmental impacts, are also

being developed, but at the moment represent a very

small share of the market. Increasing the uptake of

alternatives that according to solid evidence are more

sustainable can also help decrease our dependency on

fossil fuels.

Very large quantities of plastic waste leak into the

environment from sources both on land and at sea,

generating significant economic and environmental

damage. Globally, 5 to 13 million tonnes of

plastics — 1.5 to 4 % of global plastics

production — end up in the oceans every year.11

It is estimated that plastic accounts for over 80 %

of marine litter. Plastic debris is then transported by

marine currents, sometimes over very long

distances. It can be washed up on land,12

degrade

into microplastics or form dense areas of marine

litter trapped in ocean gyres. UNEP estimates that

damage to marine environments is at least USD 8

billion per year globally.

In the EU, 150 000 to 500 000 tonnes13

of plastic

waste enter the oceans every year. This

represents a small proportion of global marine

litter. Yet, plastic waste from European sources

ends up in particularly vulnerable marine areas,

such as the Mediterranean Sea and parts of the

Arctic Ocean. Recent studies show plastics

8 Ibid. Data refer to 2012. 9 According to estimates, recycling one ton of plastic saves around 2 tCO2 (see http://presse.ademe.fr/wp-

content/uploads/2017/05/FEDEREC_ACV-du-Recyclage-en-France-VF.pdf ).Recycling 15 million tons of plastics per year by 2030

(equivalent to about half of the projected plastic waste generation) would save CO2 emissions equivalent to taking 15 million cars off the

road. 10 A. Rahimi, J. M. García, Chemical recycling of waste plastics for new materials production, Nat. Chem. Rev. 1, 0046, 2017. 11 Jambeck et al, Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean, Science, February 2015. 12 Including on uninhabited land, for example see http://www.pnas.org/content/114/23/6052.abstract 13

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/good-environmental-status/descriptor-

10/pdf/MSFD%20Measures%20to%20Combat%20Marine%20Litter.pdf

4

accumulate in the Mediterranean at a density comparable to the areas of highest plastic

accumulation in the oceans. Plastic pollution also affects areas of the European Exclusive

Economic Zone, in the outermost regions along the Caribbean Sea, the Indian, Pacific and

Atlantic Oceans. In addition to harming the environment, marine litter causes economic damage

to activities such as tourism, fisheries and shipping. For instance, the cost of litter to EU fisheries

was estimated at about 1 % of total revenues from catches by the EU fleet.14

This phenomenon is exacerbated by the increasing amount of plastic waste generated each

year, and is also fuelled by the growing consumption of ‘single-use’ plastics, i.e. packaging or

other consumer products that are thrown away after one brief use, are rarely recycled and prone

to being littered. These include small packaging, bags, disposable cups, lids, straws and cutlery,

for which plastic is widely used due to its lightness, low cost, and practical features.

New sources of plastic leakage are also on the rise, posing additional potential threats to both the

environment and human health. Microplastics, tiny fragments of plastic below 5mm in size,

accumulate in the sea, where their small size makes it easy for marine life to ingest them. They

can also enter the food chain. Recent studies also found microplastics in the air, drinking water

and foods like salt or honey, with yet unknown impacts on human health.

In total, it is estimated that between 75 000 and 300 000 tonnes of microplastics are released

into the environment each year in the EU.15

While a large amount of microplastics result from

the fragmentation of larger pieces of plastic waste, significant quantities also enter the

environment directly, making it more challenging to track and prevent them.

In addition, the increasing market shares of plastics with biodegradable properties bring new

opportunities as well as risks. In the absence of clear labelling or marking for consumers, and

without adequate waste collection and treatment, it could aggravate plastics leakage and create

problems for mechanical recycling. On the other hand, biodegradable plastics can certainly have

a role in some applications and the innovation efforts in this field are welcomed.

As plastic value chains are increasingly cross-border, problems and opportunities associated with

plastics should be seen in light of international developments, including China's recent decision

to restrict imports of certain types of plastic waste. There is a growing awareness of the global

nature of these challenges, as shown by international initiatives on marine litter, like the UN

Global Partnership on Marine Litter16

and the action plans put forward by the G7 and G20.17

Plastic pollution was also identified as one of the main pressures on healthy oceans at the

international ‘Our Ocean Conference’, hosted by the EU in October 2017. A resolution on

marine litter and microplastics was adopted at the United Nation Environment Assembly in

December 2017.18

3. TURNING CHALLENGES INTO OPPORTUNITIES: A VISION FOR A CIRCULAR

PLASTICS ECONOMY

Moving decisively towards a more prosperous and sustainable plastics economy could deliver

considerable benefits. To reap these, Europe needs a strategic vision, setting out what a ‘circular’

plastics economy could look like in the decades ahead. This vision needs to promote investment

14 Joint Research Centre, Harm Caused by Marine Litter, 2016. 15 Source: Eunomia. 16 https://www.unep.org/gpa/what-we-do/global-partnership-marine-litter 17 https://www.g7germany.de/Content/EN/_Anlagen/G7/ 2015-06-08-g7-abschluss-eng_en.html and

https://www.g20.org/Content/DE/_Anlagen/G7_ G20 /2017-g20-marine-litter-en.html?nn=2186554 18 UNEP/EA.3/L.20 see: https://papersmart.unon.org/resolution/uploads/k1709154.docx

5

in innovative solutions and turn today’s challenges into opportunities. While the EU will propose

concrete measures to achieve this vision, making it a reality will require action from all players

in the plastic value chain, from plastic producers and designers, through brands and retailers, to

recyclers. Similarly, civil society, the scientific community, businesses and local authorities will

have a decisive role to play in making a difference, working together with regional and national

governments to bring about positive change.

‘A vision for Europe’s new plastics economy’

A smart, innovative and sustainable plastics industry, where design and production fully

respects the needs of reuse, repair, and recycling, brings growth and jobs to Europe and

helps cut EU's greenhouse gas emissions and dependence on imported fossil fuels.

− Plastics and products containing plastics are designed to allow for greater durability,

reuse and high-quality recycling. By 2030, all plastics packaging placed on the EU

market is either reusable or can be recycled in a cost-effective manner.

− Changes in production and design enable higher plastics recycling rates for all key

applications. By 2030, more than half of plastics waste generated in Europe is recycled.

Separate collection of plastics waste reaches very high levels. Recycling of plastics

packaging waste achieves levels comparable with those of other packaging materials.

− EU plastics recycling capacity is significantly extended and modernised. By 2030, sorting

and recycling capacity has increased fourfold since 2015, leading to the creation of

200 000 new jobs, spread all across Europe.19

− Thanks to improved separate collection and investment in innovation, skills and capacity

upscaling, export of poorly sorted plastics waste has been phased out. Recycled plastics

have become an increasingly valuable feedstock for industries, both at home and abroad.

− The plastics value chain is far more integrated, and the chemical industry works closely

with plastics recyclers to help them find wider and higher value applications for their

output. Substances hampering recycling processes have been replaced or phased out.

− The market for recycled and innovative plastics is successfully established, with clear

growth perspectives as more products incorporate some recycled content. Demand for

recycled plastics in Europe has grown four-fold, providing a stable flow of revenues for

the recycling sector and job security for its growing workforce.

− More plastic recycling helps reduce Europe’s dependence on imported fossil fuel and cut

CO2 emissions, in line with commitments under the Paris Agreement.

− Innovative materials and alternative feedstocks for plastic production are developed and

used where evidence clearly shows that they are more sustainable compared to the non-

renewable alternatives. This supports efforts on decarbonisation and creating additional

opportunities for growth.

− Europe confirms its leadership in sorting and recycling equipment and technologies.

Exports rise in lockstep with global demand for more sustainable ways of processing end-

of-life plastics.

In Europe, citizens, government and industry support more sustainable and safer

consumption and production patterns for plastics. This provides a fertile ground for social

innovation and entrepreneurship, creating a wealth of opportunities for all Europeans.

− Plastic waste generation is decoupled from growth. Citizens are aware of the need to

avoid waste, and make choices accordingly. Consumers, as key players, are incentivised,

19 This data corresponds to building about 500 new sorting and recycling plants (source: Plastics Recyclers Europe).

6

made aware of key benefits and thus enabled to contribute actively to the transition.

Better design, new business models and innovative products emerge that offer more

sustainable consumption patterns.

− Many entrepreneurs see the need for more resolute action on plastics waste prevention as

a business opportunity. Increasingly, new companies emerge that provide circular

solutions, such as reverse logistics for packaging or alternatives to disposable plastics,

and they benefit from the development of digitisation.

− The leakage of plastics into the environment decreases drastically. Effective waste

collection systems, combined with a drop in waste generation and with increased

consumer awareness, avoid litter and ensure that waste is handled appropriately. Marine

litter from sea-based sources such as ships, fishing and aquaculture are significantly

reduced. Cleaner beaches and seas foster activities such as tourism and fisheries, and

preserve fragile ecosystems. All major European cities are much cleaner.

− Innovative solutions are developed to prevent microplastics from reaching the seas. Their

origin, routes of travel, and effects on human health are better understood, and industry

and public authorities are working together to prevent them from ending up in our oceans

and our air, drinking water or on our plates.

− The EU is taking a leading role in a global dynamic, with countries engaging and

cooperating to halt the flow of plastics into the oceans and taking remedial action against

plastics waste already accumulated. Best practices are disseminated widely, scientific

knowledge improves, citizens mobilise, and innovators and scientists develop solutions

that can be applied worldwide.

4. THE WAY FORWARD: TURNING VISION INTO REALITY

To move towards that vision, this strategy proposes an ambitious set of EU measures.20

These

will be put forward in line with the Better Regulation principles. In particular, any measure likely

to have significant socioeconomic impact will be accompanied by an impact assessment.

Recognising the importance and need of common efforts, the strategy also identifies key actions

for national and regional authorities and industry.21

4.1 Improving the economics and quality of plastics recycling

Stepping up the recycling of plastics can bring significant environmental and economic benefits.

Higher levels of plastic recycling, comparable with those of other materials, will only be

achieved by improving the way plastics and plastics articles are produced and designed. It will

also require increased cooperation across the value chain: from industry, plastics manufacturers

and converters to public and private waste management companies. Specifically, key players

should work together to:

− improve design and support innovation to make plastics and plastic products easier to

recycle;

− expand and improve the separate collection of plastic waste, to ensure quality inputs to

the recycling industry;

− expand and modernise the EU’s sorting and recycling capacity;

− create viable markets for recycled and renewable plastics.

20 All the EU measures are listed in Annex I. 21 These are listed in Annex II.

7

Over the past months, the Commission facilitated a cross-industry dialogue and now calls on the

industries involved22

to swiftly come forward with an ambitious and concrete set of voluntary

commitments to back this strategy and its vision for 2030.

To support these developments, the Commission has already proposed new rules on waste

management.23

These include clearer obligations for national authorities to step up separate

collection, targets to encourage investment in recycling capacity and avoid infrastructural

overcapacity for processing mixed waste (e.g. incineration), and more closely harmonised rules

on the use of extended producer responsibility. The Commission has consistently called on the

co-legislators to swiftly agree on these new rules. Once adopted and implemented, this new

European legislation should do much to improve the current situation, driving public and private

investment in the right direction. However, additional and more targeted action is needed to

complement waste laws and remove barriers that are specific to the plastics sector.

Design for recyclability

Today, producers of plastic articles and packaging have little or no incentive to take into account

the needs of recycling or reuse when they design their products. Plastics are made from a range

of polymers and are highly customised, with specific additives to meet each manufacturer’s

functional and/or aesthetic requirements. This diversity can complicate the recycling process,

make it more costly, and affect the quality and value of recycled plastic. Specific design choices,

some of which are driven by marketing considerations (e.g. the use of very dark colours) can

also negatively affect the value of recyclates.

Plastics packaging is a priority area when it comes

to design for recyclability. Today it accounts for

about 60 % of post-consumer plastic waste24

in the

EU, and product design is one of the keys to

improve recycling levels. It has been calculated

that design improvements could halve the cost of

recycling plastic packaging waste.25

In 2015, the Commission already proposed that by

2025 at least 55 % of all plastics packaging in the

EU should be recycled. If greater levels of high-

quality recycling are to be reached, design issues

must be addressed far more systematically.

To support improved design while preserving the

internal market, EU action is essential. The

Commission will work on a revision of the

essential requirements for placing packaging on

the market.26

The objective will be to ensure that,

by 2030, all plastics packaging placed on the EU market is reusable or easily recycled.27

In this

context, the Commission will also look into ways of maximising the impact of new rules on

Extended Producers Responsibility (EPR), and support the development of economic incentives

22 This dialogue was conducted with Plastics Europe, European Plastics Converters (EuPC) and Plastics Recyclers Europe. 23 COM (2015) 593, COM (2015) 594, COM (2015) 595, COM (2015) 596. 24 Source: Plastics Europe. 25 Ellen MacArthur Foundation, The New Plastics Economy: Catalysing action, January 2017. 26 Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging and Packaging Waste. 27 i.e. it can be recycled cost-effectively.

8

to reward the most sustainable design choices. It will also assess the potential for setting a new

recycling target for plastic packaging, similar to those put forward in 2015 for other packaging

materials.

Construction and the automotive, furniture and electronics sectors are also important applications

for plastics use and are a significant source of plastics waste that could be recycled. For these

applications, lack of information regarding the possible presence of chemicals of concern (e.g.

flame retardants) creates a significant obstacle to achieving higher recycling rates. As part of its

work on the interface between chemicals, waste and product policies, the Commission is

proposing to accelerate work in order to identify possible ways to make chemicals easier to trace

in recycled streams. The aim will be to make it simpler to process or remove these substances

during recycling, thus ensuring a high level of health and environmental protection.

The Commission also remains committed to developing, where appropriate, product

requirements under the Ecodesign Directive that take account of circular economy aspects,

including recyclability.28

This will make it easier to recycle plastics used in a wide variety of

electrical appliances and electronic goods. The Commission has already proposed mandatory

product design and marking requirements to make it easier and safer to dismantle, reuse and

recycle electronic displays (e.g. flat computer or television screens). It has also developed

criteria to improve recyclability of plastics in its Ecolabel and Green Public Procurement criteria

(e.g. marking large plastic parts to facilitate sorting, designing plastic packaging for recyclability,

and designing items for easy disassembly in furniture and computers).

Boosting demand for recycled plastics

Weak demand for recycled plastics is another major obstacle to transforming the plastics value

chain. In the EU, uptake of recycled plastics in new products is low and often remains limited to

low-value or niche applications. Uncertainties concerning market outlets and profitability are

holding back the investment necessary to scale up and modernise EU plastics recycling capacity

and boost innovation. Recent developments in international trade, restricting key export routes

for plastics waste collected for recycling,29

make it more urgent to develop a European market

for recycled plastics.

One of the reasons for the low use of recycled plastics is the misgivings of many product brands

and manufacturers, who fear that recycled plastics will not meet their needs for a reliable, high-

volume supply of materials with constant quality specifications. Plastics are often recycled by

small and predominately regional facilities, and more scale and standardisation would support

smoother market operation. With this in mind, the Commission is committed to working with the

European Committee for Standardisation and the industry to develop quality standards for sorted

plastic waste and recycled plastics.

A greater integration of recycling activities into the plastics value chain is essential and could be

facilitated by plastics producers in the chemical sector. Their experience and technological

expertise could help reach higher quality standards (e.g. for food grade applications) and

aggregate offer for recycled feedstock.

28 Directive 2009/125/EC; this Directive covers all energy-related products. 29 In particular China's recent announcements of its decision to ban import of certain types of plastic waste – see section 4.4.

9

The chemical composition of recycled plastics and their suitability for the intended uses can also

act as a barrier in some instances. Incidental contamination30

or lack of information about the

possible presence of chemicals of concern is a problem for various streams of plastics waste.

These uncertainties can also discourage demand for recycled plastics in a number of new

products with specific safety requirements. The Commission’s work on the interface between

chemicals, waste and product policy is set to address some of these issues and will therefore

contribute directly to increased uptake of recycled plastics. The EU will also finance research

and innovation projects on better identification of contaminants and on decontamination of

plastic waste through Horizon 2020.

As regards the use of recycled plastics in food-contact applications (e.g. beverage bottles), the

objective is to prioritise high food safety standards, while also providing a clear and reliable

framework for investment and innovation in circular economy solutions. With this in mind, the

Commission is committed to swiftly finalise the authorisation procedures for over a hundred

safe recycling processes. In cooperation with the European Food Safety Agency, the

Commission will also assess whether safe use of other recycled plastic materials31

could be

envisaged, for instance through better characterisation of contaminants.

Volumes and quality alone, however, do not fully explain the small market share held by

recycled plastics today. Resistance to change among product manufacturers and a lack of

knowledge of the additional benefits of closed-loop recycled plastics have also emerged as

barriers to the higher uptake of recycled content.

Europe has examples of successful commercial partnerships between producers and plastics

recyclers (e.g. in the automotive sectors), showing that quantity and quality issues can be

overcome if the necessary investments are made. To help tackle these barriers, and before

considering regulatory action, the Commission is launching an EU-wide pledging campaign to

ensure that by 2025, ten million tonnes of recycled plastics find their way into new products on

the EU market. To achieve swift, tangible results, this exercise is addressed to both private and

public actors, inviting them to come forward with substantive pledges by June 2018. The details

are presented in Annex III.

To further support the integration of recycled plastics in the market, the Commission will also

explore more targeted sectoral interventions. For instance, certain applications in the

construction and automotive sectors show good potential for uptake of recycled content32

(e.g.

insulation materials, pipes, outdoor furniture or dashboards). In the context of ongoing and

upcoming evaluations of EU rules on construction products and on end-of-life vehicles, the

Commission will look into specific ways of promoting this. In the context of future work on the

Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive, thought will also be given to using economic

instruments to reward the use of recycled content in the packaging sector. Finally, the

Commission will work on integrating recycled content in Green Public Procurement criteria.

National governments can also achieve a great deal through economic incentives and public

procurement. The French system ‘ORPLAST’33

or Italy’s new rules on public procurement are

30 Contamination of recycled streams can originate from multiple sources (e.g. impurities, the use-phase, misuse, degradation, improper

separation of materials, legacy substances or cross contamination during waste collection). Such incidental contaminants can affect the

quality and safety of recyclates. 31 i.e. plastics other than PET or plastics not originating from closed-loop reuse applications. 32 Contrary to other applications, such as packaging, aesthetic requirements are less relevant and health and environmental exposure is

usually lower. In addition, the European Committee for Standardisation has already developed assessment standards to identify hazardous

substances which could be embedded in recycled materials. 33 https://appelsaprojets.ademe.fr/aap/ORPLAST2017-68

10

two good examples of what could be done at national level. Similarly, local authorities can

support the objective of this strategy when purchasing work, goods or services.

Better and more harmonised separate collection and sorting

More and better plastic recycling is also held back by insufficient volumes and quality of

separate collection and sorting. The latter is also essential to avoid introducing contaminants in

the recycling streams and retain high safety standards for recycled materials. National, regional

and local authorities, in cooperation with waste management operators, have a key role to play in

raising public awareness and ensure high-quality separate collection. Financial resources

collected through the Extended Producer Responsibility schemes can do much to boost such

efforts. Similarly, deposits systems can contribute to achieving very high levels of recycling.

Reducing fragmentation and disparities in collection and sorting systems could significantly

improve the economics of plastics recycling, saving around a hundred euros per tonne

collected.34

To encourage more standardised and effective practices across the EU, the

Commission will issue new guidance on separate collection and sorting of waste. More

importantly, the Commission strongly supports the European Parliament and the Council in their

current effort to amend waste rules to ensure better implementation of existing obligations on

separate collection of plastics.

4.2 Curbing plastic waste and littering

Growing plastic waste generation and its leakage into our environment must be tackled if we are

to achieve a truly circular lifecycle for plastics. Today, littering and leakage of plastic waste

harm the environment, cause economic

damage to activities such as tourism,

fisheries and shipping, and may affect human

health through the food chain.

Preventing plastic waste in our environment

Growing use of plastics for a wide range of

short-lived applications gives rise to large

quantities of plastic waste. Single-use plastics

items are a major source of plastic leakage

into the environment, as they can be difficult

to recycle, are often used away from home

and littered. They are among the items most

commonly found on beaches, and represent

an estimated 50% of marine litter.35

Increasing on-the-go consumption of food

and drink is fuelling the growth of ‘single-

use plastics’ and the problem is therefore

expected to grow. Where waste management

is sub-optimal, even plastic waste that has

been collected can find its way into the environment. More recycling of plastics used in

agriculture (such as plastic mulching films or greenhouses) can contribute to reduce leakages in

34 Ellen MacArthur Foundation, The New Plastics Economy: Catalysing action, January 2017. 35 Joint Research Centre, Top Marine Beach Litter Items in Europe , 2017.

11

the environment. To achieve this, Extended Producer Responsibility schemes have proven

effective in several countries.

Marine litter from sea-based sources is also significant. Fishing gear abandoned at sea can have

particularly harmful impacts through entanglement of marine animals.

Curbing plastic waste and pollution is a complex problem, given its diffuse nature and the link

with social trends and individual behaviour. There is no clear incentive for consumers and

producers to switch to solutions that would generate less waste or litter.

The EU has already taken steps by setting requirements for Member States to adopt measures to

cut the consumption of plastic bags36

and to monitor and reduce marine litter.37

EU funding is

also being deployed to understand and combat the rise of marine litter,38

supporting global,

national and regional action. EU rules supporting higher recycling rates and better waste

collection systems are also important in helping to prevent leakage. In addition, through its

upcoming legislative proposal for a revision of the Drinking Water Directive, the Commission

will promote access to tap water for EU citizens, therefore reducing packaging needs for bottled

water. The criteria for the Ecolabel and Green Public Procurement also promote reusable items

and packaging.39

Additional measures at EU and national levels can be developed to reduce the unnecessary

generation of plastic waste, especially waste from single-use items or over-packaging, and to

encourage the reuse of packaging. Analytical work, including the launch of a public consultation,

has already started to determine the scope of a legislative initiative on single-use plastics at EU

level to be tabled by this Commission, following the approach used for light-weight plastic bags

and examining relevant evidence from behavioural science.40

Furthermore, the Commission will

explore the feasibility of introducing measures of a fiscal nature at the EU level.41

Finally, the

Commission will also look into the issue of over-packaging as part of the future review of the

essential requirements for packaging.

Extended Producer Responsibility schemes at national level can also help finance action to curb

plastic litter. Targeted deposit schemes can help reduce littering and boost recycling, and have

already helped several countries achieve high collection rates for beverage containers.42

Awareness campaigns, measures to prevent littering and projects to clean up beaches can be set

up by public authorities and receive support from EU funds, for instance through the European

Solidarity Corps. On 30 May 2017, the Commission presented a proposal to extend and reinforce

the European Solidarity Corps, with a budget of €341.5 million for the years 2018-2020.43

This

36 Directive 2015/720/EU amending Directive 94/62/EC as regards the consumption of lightweight plastic carrier bags. 37 Directive 2008/56/EC establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy. 38 For instance, in the Arctic Region, the "Circular Ocean" INTERREG project is testing new opportunities for reusing old fishing nets,

including a material to remove pollutants from water (http://www.circularocean.eu/). In the Baltic Sea Region, the BLASTIC project maps

potential litter sources in urban areas and monitors litter levels in the aquatic environment (https://www.blastic.eu/). Both projects are

supported by the European Regional Development Fund. 39 For example, the Ecolabel criteria for tourism and the Green Public Procurement criteria for food and catering restrict the use of single-use

plastics in catering. 40 The Joint Research Center conducts in-house behavioural research in various policy areas, helping to better understand both the drivers of

behaviour and the relative effectiveness of alternative solutions. 41 The modalities of such a potential fee would have to be decided on the basis of the assessment of its contribution towards meeting the

strategy goals. On top of that, in the context of the preparation of the post-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework, it could be considered as

one of potential options to generate revenues for the EU budget. 42 The five best performing Member States with deposit schemes for PET bottles (Germany, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and Estonia)

reached an average collection rate for PET of 94% in 2014. 43 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2017:262:FIN

12

means that in the near future there will be even more opportunities for young people across the

EU to actively engage and support the objective of this strategy.

To reduce discharges of waste by ships, the Commission is presenting together with this strategy

a legislative proposal on port reception facilities.44

This presents measures to ensure that waste

generated on ships or gathered at sea is delivered on land and adequately managed. Building on

this, the Commission will also develop targeted measures for reducing the loss or abandonment

of fishing gear at sea. Possible options to be examined include deposit schemes, Extended

Producers Responsibility schemes and recycling targets. The Commission will also further study

the contribution of aquaculture to marine litter and examine a range of measures to minimise

plastic loss from aquaculture.45

Finally, it will continue its work to improve understanding and

measurement of marine litter, an essential but often neglected way to support effective

prevention and recovery measures.

As a complement to these preventive measures, action to retrieve some of the plastics floating in

the oceans and innovative technologies for retrieval are supported by EU funds.4647

Finally, as

developed in section 4.4, international action will remain key to tackling the most significant

sources of plastics litter in the oceans, i.e. insufficient waste management infrastructure in

developing countries and emerging economies.

Establishing a clear regulatory framework for plastics with biodegradable properties

In response to the high level of plastic leakage into our environment and its harmful effects,

solutions have been sought to design biodegradable and compostable plastics. Targeted

applications, such as using compostable plastic bags to collect organic waste separately, have

shown positive results; and standards exist or are being developed for specific applications.

However, most currently available plastics labelled as biodegradable generally degrade under

specific conditions which may not always be easy to find in the natural environment, and can

thus still cause harm to ecosystems. Biodegradation in the marine environment is particularly

challenging. In addition, plastics that are labelled 'compostable' are not necessarily suitable for

home composting. If compostable and conventional plastics are mixed in the recycling process, it

may affect the quality of the resulting recyclates. For consumer applications, the existence of a

well-functioning separate collection system for organic waste is essential.

It is important to ensure that consumers are provided with clear and correct information, and to

make sure that biodegradable plastics are not put forward as a solution to littering. This can be

achieved by clarifying which plastics can be labelled 'compostable' or 'biodegradable' and how

they should be handled after use. Applications with clear environmental benefits should be

identified and in those cases the Commission will consider measures to stimulate innovation and

drive market developments in the right direction. To allow adequate sorting and avoid false

environmental claims, the Commission will propose harmonised rules for defining and labelling

compostable and biodegradable plastics. It will also develop lifecycle assessment to identify the

conditions under which the use of biodegradable or compostable plastics is beneficial, and the

criteria for such applications.

44 COM (2018) 33 on port reception facilities for the delivery of waste from ships and repealing Directive 2000/59/EC and amending

Directive 2009/16/EC and Directive 2010/65/EU. 45 Including the possible adoption of a Best Available Technique reference document for aquaculture installations. 46 See for example the call under Horizon 2020 to develop and scale up innovative processes to clear the sea of litter and pollutants:

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/bg-07-2017.html 47 https://ec.europa.eu/easme/en/information-day-blue-growth-calls-under-emff

13

Finally, some alternative materials claiming biodegradability properties, such as 'oxo-degradable

plastics', have been found to offer no proven environmental advantage over conventional

plastics, while their rapid fragmentation into microplastics cause concerns. Therefore, the

Commission has started work with the intention to restrict the use of oxo-plastics in the EU.48

The rising problem of microplastics

Microplastics are intentionally added to certain product categories (such as cosmetics,

detergents, paints), dispersed during the production, transport and use of plastic pellets, or

generated through wear and tear of products such as tyres, paints and synthetic clothes.

Microplastics intentionally added to products represent a relatively small proportion of all those

in the sea. However, since they are relatively easy to prevent and in response to public concern,

several countries have already taken action to restrict their use,49

while the cosmetic industry has

also taken voluntary action. Bans are under consideration or planned in several Member States

and this may lead to fragmentation in the single market. In line with the REACH procedures for

restricting substances that pose a risk to the environment or health, the Commission has therefore

started the process to restrict the use of intentionally added microplastics, by requesting the

European Chemicals Agency to review the scientific basis for taking regulatory action at EU

level.50

More research is needed to improve our understanding of the sources and impacts of

microplastics, including their effects on the environment and health, and to develop innovative

solutions to prevent their dissemination (see section 4.3). This can include ways to improve the

capture of microplastics in waste water treatment plants, as well as targeted measures for each

source. A Cross Industry Agreement51

for the prevention of microplastic release into the aquatic

environment during the washing of synthetic textiles is set to develop first proposals on test

methods in 2018. For its part, the Commission will consider measures such as labelling and

specific requirements for tyres, better information and minimum requirements on the release of

microfibers from textiles, as well as measures to reduce plastic pellet losses. Extended producer

responsibility schemes can also be envisaged, where relevant, to cover the cost of remedial

action. Microplastics also need to be monitored in drinking water, where their impact on human

health is still unknown.

4.3 Driving innovation and investment towards circular solutions

Achieving the objectives laid out in this strategy will require major investments in both

infrastructure and innovation. Meeting ambitious goals on plastics recycling alone will require an

estimated additional investment of between EUR 8.4 and 16.6 billion.52

Therefore, creating an

enabling framework for investment and innovation is central to implementing this strategy.

Innovation is a key enabler for the transformation of the plastics value chain: it can help reduce

the costs of existing solutions, provide new ones and amplify potential benefits beyond Europe’s

48 In line with REACH procedures for restricting substances that pose a risk to the environment or health, the Commision has requested the

European Chemicals Agency to review the scientific basis for taking regulatory action at EU level. 49 Bans on the use of microplastics in specific personal care products have been put in place in the United States and Canada; several EU

Member States have also notified the Commission of draft laws to ban microplastics in certain cosmetics. The Council has called on the

Commission to take measures on microplastics, especially from cosmetics and detergents. 50 On that basis, the Agency must initiate the restriction process within 12 months, if the conditions are met. 51 The Agreement is signed by five industry associations: AISE, CIRFS, EOG, EURATEX and FESI. 52 Deloitte, Increased EU Plastics Recycling Targets: Environmental, Economic and Social Impact Assessment, 2015.

14

borders. While the EU can play an enabling role, European businesses need to invest in the

future and affirm their leadership in the modernisation of the plastics value chain.

Innovative solutions for advanced sorting, chemical recycling and improved polymer design can

have a powerful effect. For instance, scaling up new technological solutions such as digital

watermarking could allow much better sorting and traceability of materials, with few retrofitting

costs. Research and innovation can also make a difference in preventing plastic waste and

microplastics pollution. The Commission is particularly attentive to innovation on materials that

fully biodegrade in seawater and freshwater and are harmless for the environment and

ecosystems. New approaches developing innovative business models, reverse logistics or

designing for sustainability, for instance can do much to help minimise plastic waste at source,

while achieving further economic, environmental and social benefits. Finally, further scientific

research is needed to gauge the potential health impacts of microplastics and develop better

monitoring tools.

Alternative feedstocks, including bio-based feedstocks and gaseous effluents (e.g. carbon dioxide

or methane) can also be developed to avoid using fossil resources. Currently, these feedstocks

represent a small but growing share of the market.53

Their cost can be an obstacle to wider use;

in the case of bio-based plastics it is also important to ensure that they result in genuine

environmental benefits compared to the non-renewable alternatives. To that effect, the

Commission has started work on understanding the lifecycle impacts of alternative feedstock

used in plastics production, including biomass. Based on the available scientific information, the

Commission will look into the opportunities to support the development of alternative feedstocks

in plastic production.

EU research funding will support all these efforts. So far, Horizon 2020 has provided over

EUR 250 million to finance R&D in areas of direct relevance to the strategy. About half has

been used to help develop alternative feedstocks. This has been complemented by support under

the EU cohesion policy, in the context of smart specialisation strategies.54

A large number of

these strategies include plastics-related innovation priorities.

In the run-up to 2020, an additional EUR 100 million will be devoted to financing priority

measures, including developing smarter and more recyclable plastics materials, making recycling

processes more efficient, and tracing and removing hazardous substances and contaminants from

recycled plastics. Finally, the Commission will develop a Strategic Research and Innovation

Agenda on plastics to provide guidance for future research and innovation funding after 2020.

To meet the objectives of this strategy, the scale of private and public investment must

significantly increase, not only as regards innovation. At present, private investment in sorting

and recycling plants is held back by uncertainties about profitability (given low oil prices, lack of

outlets, etc.). For instance, only about two-thirds of the plastics recycling businesses in France

today are profitable.55

As the situation in other EU countries shows,56

it is important to

modernise and scale up recycling plants if plastic recycling is to be economically viable. Many

of the measures proposed in section 4.1 are specifically designed to boost investors’ confidence.

53 Today, bio-based plastics represent between 0.5 and 1% of EU annual plastic consumption. 54 National and regional innovation strategies, developed through a bottom-up process engaging industry and stakeholders to identify areas of

regional competitiveness. The Commission also supports interregional partnerships for smart specialisation areas. 55 French Environment and Energy Management Agency, Analyse de la chaîne de valeur du recyclage des plastiques en France, March

2015. 56 Ibid.

15

Public authorities need to invest in extended and improved separate collection. Well-designed

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes can play a key role to provide the necessary

funding. In some countries with very high recycling rates, for example, most separate collection

and treatment costs for packaging waste are financed through contributions paid by the

producers.

In addition to being a source of financing, EPR can provide economic incentives for businesses

to develop more sustainable plastic products. If well designed and implemented across Europe,

EPR systems could help improve the efficiency of the recycling process, encourage design for

recycling, reduce waste and littering and promote greater dialogue between producers, local

authorities and recyclers. In its proposed review of waste legislation, the Commission aims to

promote this model and make it more effective through minimum common requirements, based

on existing best practice. To ensure EPR schemes run smoothly and support investment in

recycling, the Commission will provide guidance on how to ensure effective modulation of fees

paid by the producers, in particular for packaging. For instance, ‘eco-modulation’ of such fees

can produce results only if it provides a meaningful financial reward in return for more

sustainable product design choices.

The principle of extended producer responsibility could possibly also be applied to create a

private-led fund for financing investment in innovative solutions and new technologies aimed at

reducing the environmental impact of primary plastic production. This could, for instance,

support the uptake of recycled plastics. By mid-2019, the Commission, in cooperation with

stakeholders, will analyse the potential design features of such fund, including as regards

technological and material neutrality and complementarity with existing instruments, and will

closely examine its technical, economic and legal feasibility.

Member States’ decisions on taxation and public procurement will also play a vital role in

supporting transition and steering investments.57

In its proposed waste review, the Commission

has emphasised the use of economic instruments to prioritise waste prevention and recycling at

national level. Internalising the environmental costs of landfilling and incineration through high

or gradually rising fees or taxes could improve the economics of plastic recycling.

European Structural and Investment Funds, in particular cohesion policy funds, also make a key

contribution to developing EU recycling capacity, including the recycling of plastics. From 2014

to 2020, over EUR 5.5 billion has been allocated for improving waste management. This is

expected notably to result in an increase of 5.8 million tonnes per year in waste recycling

capacity.58

The European Fund for Strategic Investment (EFSI) can also play an important part,

for instance by supporting greater integration of the value chain and projects for closed-loop

plastics recycling. The recently launched ‘Circular Economy Finance Support Platform’ will

help raise awareness among investors and facilitate access to finance for circular economy

projects.

4.4 Harnessing global action

Opportunities and challenges linked to plastics are increasingly global and addressing them will

significantly contribute to achieving the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. Outside Europe,

57 The Commission has a well-defined state aid framework to support such measures. See 2014/C 200/01, Communication from the

Commission: Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020. 58 https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu

16

plastics consumption per capita is growing quickly, most notably in Asia.59

Plastics value chains

are developed across entire continents and plastic waste is traded internationally: in the EU about

half the plastic waste collected is sent abroad, where uncertainty remains over its treatment.

More than 85 % of the exported plastic waste is currently shipped to China,60

a situation that will

soon change following China’s decision to ban the import of certain types of plastic waste,61

thus

creating opportunities for EU recyclers.

Adequate plastic waste prevention, collection and recycling systems are needed in many parts of

the world. Marine litter from one country can end up on the beaches of another, and fragments of

plastic from all over the globe accumulate over time in the oceans and seas, carried by marine

currents. International cooperation is crucial to tackle this issue. Oceans and seas are a global

good and common heritage, and if the current trend is not reversed this could have legacy effect

for future generations through degradation of marine ecosystems and threats to human health.

Establishing sound waste prevention and management systems, particularly in emerging

economies, is essential to keep plastics out of the sea. Many initiatives have been launched at

international fora (such as G7 and G20, the United Nations, and in the context of the MARPOL

Convention62

) and regional sea conventions; actions against marine litter are also included in the

International Ocean Governance Agenda for the future of our oceans.63

The EU will continue to support international action, promote best practices worldwide, and use

its external funding instruments to support improved waste prevention and management around

the world. In particular, the Commission will continue to make use of policy dialogues on

environment and industry and dialogues under free trade agreements, and to actively cooperate

in Regional Sea Conventions.64

It will also take an active part in the working group established

by the United Nations Environment Assembly in December 2017 to work on international

responses for combating plastic marine litter and microplastics. In 2018, the Commission will

launch a dedicated project to reduce plastic waste and marine litter in East and South-East Asia,

where the problem is growing fast.65

It will also examine possible ways to take action to reduce

plastic pollution in the Mediterranean, in support of the Barcelona Convention, and in major

world river basins, as a vast proportion of waste plastic is carried by rivers before it reaches the

seas. Finally, the Commission will facilitate the cooperation of the outermost regions of the EU66

with their neighbours along the Caribbean Sea, the Indian, Pacific and Atlantic Oceans across

different fields, including in waste management and recycling.

Going forward, there are also significant prospects for developing an innovative circular plastics

industry worldwide. The EU already has the world’s highest rate of plastic recycling. With its

objectives on improved recyclability of packaging and increased recycling rates, it is well placed

to lead new developments by supporting, in particular, investment in modern recycling

technologies, new materials better suited to recycling, and solutions to curb marine litter.

59 Per capita plastic consumption has reached around 100 kg per year in Western Europe and North America; in Asia it is currently above 20

kg per year, a figure expected to grow rapidly. 60 Global Waste Management Outlook 2015. 61 WTO Notification G/TBT/N/CHN/1211 of 18 July 2017 and G/TBT/N/CHN/1233 of 15 November 2017, covering a range of waste types,

including certain types of plastic waste. 62 The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL convention) regulates the discharge of garbage from

ships. 63 JOIN(2016)49 64 The EU is a member of the OSPAR (North East Atlantic), HELCOM (Baltic) and Barcelona Conventions (Mediterranean) and provides

support to the Bucharest Convention (Black Sea). 65 In the context of the Partnership instrument. 66 The nine Outermost Regions of the European Union consist of six French overseas territories (French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique,

Mayotte, Réunion and Saint Martin), two Portuguese autonomous regions (the Azores and Madeira) and one Spanish autonomous

community (the Canary Islands).

17

Measures that increase the trust of operators and public authorities are needed to better integrate

plastics recycling globally, and thus create a circular value chain across borders. For instance, the

Commission will promote the development of international standards to boost industry

confidence in the quality of recyclable or recycled plastics. It will also be important to ensure

that any plastics sent abroad for recycling are handled and processed under conditions similar to

those applicable in the EU under rules on waste shipments,67

supporting action on waste

management under the Basel Convention, and developing an EU certification scheme for

recycling plants. A global industry effort is also needed to promote widespread use of recyclable

and recycled plastics.

5. Conclusions

Challenges linked to the production, consumption and end-of-life of plastics can be turned into

an opportunity for the EU and the competitiveness of the European industry. Tackling them

through an ambitious strategic vision, covering the entire value chain, can spur growth, jobs and

innovation. It can also reaffirm European leadership in global solutions and help us make the

transition towards a low-carbon and circular economy, while providing citizens with a cleaner,

safer environment.

This strategy proposes concrete actions designed to make the vision for a more circular plastics

economy a reality. The Commission will focus on making decisive progress within its current

mandate, while preparing the ground for longer-term action. It will be essential for other key

actors to also play their part. The Commission therefore calls on the European Parliament and

Council to endorse this strategy and its objectives, and calls on national and regional authorities,

cities, the entire plastics value chain, and all relevant stakeholders, to commit to resolute and

concrete action.

67 Regulation (EC) 1013/2006 on waste shipments.

EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 16.1.2018

COM(2018) 28 final

ANNEXES 1 to 3

ANNEXES

to the

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the

European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions

A European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy

{SWD(2018) 16 final}

1

ANNEX I

List of future EU measures to implement the Strategy

Measures Timeline

Improving the economics and quality of plastics recycling

Actions to improve product design:

− Preparatory work for future revision of the Packaging and Packaging Waste

Directive: Commission to initiate work on new harmonised rules to ensure that by

2030 all plastics packaging placed on the EU market can be reused or recycled in a

cost-effective manner.

− follow-up to COM (2018) 32 "Communication on the implementation of the

circular economy package: options to address the interface between chemical,

product and waste legislation": improve the traceability of chemicals and address

the issue of legacy substances in recycled streams

− new eco-design measures: consider requirements to support the recyclability of

plastics

Q1 2018 onwards

Q1 2018 onwards

ongoing

Actions to boost recycled content:

− launching an EU-wide pledging campaign targeting industry and public authorities

− assessment of regulatory or economic incentives for the uptake of recycled content,

in particular in the context of the:

− Revision of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (see above)

− Evaluation/review of the Construction Products Regulation

− Evaluation/review of End-of-life Vehicles Directive

− as regards food-contact materials: swift finalisation of pending authorisation

procedures for plastics recycling processes, better characterisation of contaminants

and introduction of monitoring system

− development of quality standards for sorted plastics waste and recycled plastics in

cooperation with the European Standardisation Committee

− Ecolabel and Green Public Procurement: Further incentivise the use of recycled

plastics, including by developing adequate verification means

Q1-Q3 2018

Q1 2018 onwards

ongoing

2018

2018 onwards

Actions to improve separate collection of plastic waste:

− issue new guidelines on separate collection and sorting of waste

− ensure better implementation of existing obligations on separate collection,

including through ongoing review of waste legislation

2019

ongoing

Curbing plastic waste and littering

Actions to reduce single-use plastics:

− analytical work, including the launch of a public consultation, to determine the

scope of a legislative initiative on single-use plastics

ongoing

Actions to tackle sea-based sources of marine litter:

− adoption of a legislative proposal on port reception facilities for the delivery of

waste from ships

− development of measures to reduce loss or abandonment at sea of fishing gear (e.g.

including recycling targets, EPR schemes, recycling funds or deposit schemes)

− development of measures to limit plastic loss from aquaculture (e.g. possible Best

Available Techniques Reference Document)

Q1 2018

2018 onwards

Actions to monitor and curb marine litter more effectively:

− improved monitoring and mapping of marine litter, including microplastics, on the

basis of EU harmonised methods

− support to Member States on the implementation of their programmes of measures

on marine litter under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, including the link

with their waste/litter management plans under the Waste Framework Directive

2018 onwards

Actions on compostable and biodegradable plastics:

− start work to develop harmonised rules on defining and labelling compostable and

biodegradable plastics

− conduct a lifecycle assessment to identify conditions where their use is beneficial,

and criteria for such application

− start the process to restrict the use of oxo-plastics via REACH

Q1 2018 onwards

Q1 2018 onwards

ongoing

2

Actions to curb microplastics pollution:

− start the process to restrict the intentional addition of microplastics to products via

REACH

− examination of policy options for reducing unintentional release of microplastics

from tyres, textiles and paint (e.g. including minimum requirements for tyre design

(tyre abrasion and durability if appropriate) and/or information requirement

(including labelling if appropriate), methods to assess microplastic losses from

textiles and tyres, combined with information (including possibly

labelling)/minimum requirements, targeted research and development funding)

− development of measures to reduce plastic pellet spillage (e.g. certification scheme

along the plastic supply chain and/or Best Available Techniques reference

document under the Industrial Emissions Directive)

− evaluation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive: assessing effectiveness

as regards microplastics capture and removal

ongoing

ongoing

Q1 2018 onwards

ongoing

Driving investment and innovation towards circular solutions

Actions to promote investment and innovation in the value chain:

− Commission guidance on the eco-modulation of EPR fees

− Recommendations by the recently launched ‘Circular Economy Finance Support

Platform’

− examine the feasibility of a private-led investment fund to finance investments in

innovative solutions and new technologies aimed at reducing the environmental

impacts of primary plastic production

− direct financial support for infrastructure and innovation through the European

Fund for Strategic Investment and other EU funding instruments (e.g. structural

funds and smart specialisation strategies, Horizon 2020)

− pursue work on life-cycle impacts of alternative feedstocks for plastics production

− development of a Strategic Research Innovation Agenda on plastics to guide future

funding decisions

2019

in mid-2018

By mid-2019

ongoing

2018 onwards

Q2 2018

Harnessing global action

Actions focusing on key regions:

− project to reduce plastic waste and marine litter in East and South-East Asia to

support sustainable consumption and production, the promotion of the waste

hierarchy and extended producer responsibility, and improve recovery of fishing

gear

− examining options for specific action to reduce plastic pollution in the

Mediterranean, in support of the implementation of the Barcelona Convention

− cooperation on plastic waste prevention in major world river basins

2018 onwards

Actions in support of multilateral initiatives on plastic:

− renewed engagement on plastics and marine litter in fora such as the UN, G7, G20,

the MARPOL convention and regional sea conventions, including the development

of practical tools and specific action on fishing and aquaculture.

− support to action under the Basel Convention, particularly for the implementation

of the toolkit on environmentally sound waste management

2018 onwards

Actions relating to bilateral cooperation with non-EU countries:

− promote a circular plastics economy in non-EU countries through policy dialogues

on trade, industry and environment, as well as economic diplomacy

− use bilateral, regional and thematic funding in EU development, neighbourhood and

enlargement policies to support the plastics strategy by preventing and

appropriately managing waste and supporting the circular economy; through

programmes and instruments including ‘Switch to Green’ and the External

Investment Plan

2018 onwards

Actions relating to international trade:

− support the development of international industry standards on sorted plastic waste

and recycled plastics

− ensure that exported plastic waste is dealt with appropriately in line with the EU

Waste Shipment Regulation

− support the development of a certification scheme for recycling plants in the EU

and in third countries

2018 onwards

3

ANNEX II

List of measures recommended to national authorities and industry

Key measures to improve the economics and quality of plastics recycling

National and regional authorities are encouraged to:

favour reusable and recycled plastics in public procurement;

make better use of taxation and other economic instruments to:

− reward the uptake of recycled plastics and favour reuse and recycling over landfilling and incineration

− step up separate collection of plastics waste and improve the way in which this is done

put in place well-designed EPR schemes and/or deposit systems, in consultation with the relevant sectors

make voluntary commitments in support of the strategy’s objectives, in particular as regards the uptake of

recycled plastics

Industry is encouraged to:

take concrete steps to improve dialogue and cooperation across the value chain, in particular on material and

product design aspects

make voluntary commitments in support of the strategy’s objectives, in particular as regards the uptake of

recycled plastic

Key measures to curb plastic waste and littering

National and regional authorities are encouraged to:

raise awareness of littering and consider fines, where they do not exist already; promote beach clean-up

activities

step up waste collection, particularly near the coasts, and improve coordination between the authorities

responsible for waste management, water and the marine environment

step up efforts to eradicate illegal and non-compliant landfills

develop national monitoring of marine litter on the basis of harmonised EU methods

engage in regional seas conventions, in particular to develop regional plans against marine litter

consider introducing EPR, in particular to provide incentives for collecting discarded fishing gear and

recycling agricultural plastics

consider introducing deposit refund schemes, in particular for beverage containers

Industry is encouraged to:

promote existing alternatives to single-use plastic items (e.g. in catering and take-aways), where these are

more environmentally beneficial

pursue and implement cross-industry agreements to reduce the release of microplastics in the environment

put in place measures to avoid spillage of plastic pellets

Key measures to drive investments and innovation towards circular solutions

National, regional and local authorities are encouraged to:

make better use of economic instruments, especially to raise the cost of landfilling and incineration and

promote plastic waste recycling and prevention

make greater use of public procurement and funding to support plastic waste prevention and recycling of

plastics

Industry is encouraged to:

increase infrastructure and R&D investment in areas of direct relevance to achieving the strategy’s

objectives

contribute to work on setting up a private investment fund to offset the environmental externalities of plastic

production

Key measures to harness global action

National and regional authorities, including in non-EU countries, are encouraged to:

engage in international fora to develop a global response to the increase in marine litter

take domestic action to reduce the leakage of plastics in the environment, prevent plastic waste and increase

recycling

Industry is encouraged to:

Play an active part in supporting an integrated, cross-border circular plastics economy, including through

the development of a global protocol for plastics

4

ANNEX III

Pledging Campaign

1. The European Commission calls on stakeholders to come forward with voluntary

pledges to boost the uptake of recycled plastics. The objective is to ensure that by

2025 ten million tonnes of recycled plastics find their way into new products on the

EU market.

2. Interested companies and/or industry associations have until 30 June 2018 to submit

their pledges to the following email address: GROW-ENV-RPLASTICS-

PLEDGE@ec.europa.eu

3. When sending in their pledges, stakeholders are asked to provide the European

Commission with data illustrating how their pledge contributes to achieving the

quantitative objective set in paragraph 1. Such data will be treated confidentially and

will be used exclusively for the purpose of monitoring overall progress towards the

quantitative objective. Pledges will be put under quality check, and assessed against

their reliability and ability to meet declared deadlines.

4. When sending in their pledges on recycled content, stakeholders are welcome to make

pledges covering other aspects which are relevant to the strategy, such as design for

recyclability.

5. The pledges received will be made public through a dedicated webpage.

6. By 31 October 2018, the Commission will present an assessment of the pledges

received and their overall contribution to the quantitative objective set in paragraph 1.

Should the contribution be deemed insufficient, the Commission will start work on

possible next steps, including regulatory action.

EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Strasbourg, 16.1.2018

COM(2018) 29 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN

PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL

COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

on a monitoring framework for the circular economy

{SWD(2018) 17 final}

1

1. Introduction

The transition to a circular economy is a tremendous opportunity to transform our economy

and make it more sustainable, contribute to climate goals and the preservation of the

world’s resources, create local jobs and generate competitive advantages for Europe in a

world that is undergoing profound changes. The importance of the circular economy to

European industry was recently highlighted in the renewed EU industrial policy strategy1. The

transition to a circular economy will also help to meet the objectives of the 2030 Agenda for

Sustainable Development2.

In the circular economy action plan3, a circular economy is explained as an economy ‘where

the value of products, materials and resources is maintained in the economy for as long as

possible, and the generation of waste minimised’.

In the transition to a more circular economy, monitoring the key trends and patterns is key to

understand how the various elements of the circular economy are developing over time, to

help identify success factors in Member States and to assess whether sufficient action has

been taken. The results of monitoring should form the basis for setting new priorities

towards the long-term objective of a circular economy. They are not just relevant to policy

makers, but should inspire all and drive new actions.

This is why the Commission, in the circular economy action plan, committed to come forward

with a simple and effective monitoring framework. This has been echoed by the Council of

the EU, in its conclusions on the circular economy action plan4, where it stressed ‘the need for

a monitoring framework to strengthen and assess the progress towards circular economy,

while minimising the administrative burden’. Also, the European Parliament has called upon

the Commission to develop indicators on resource efficiency to track progress towards the

circular economy.5

This Communication implements this commitment by putting forward a monitoring

framework composed of a set of key, meaningful indicators which capture the main elements

of the circular economy.

The circular economy monitoring framework draws upon and complements the existing

Resource Efficiency Scoreboard6 and Raw Materials Scoreboard

7, which were developed in

recent years by the Commission. The framework is presented on a website8 where all the

indicators are available and will be kept up to date.

1 COM(2017) 479. 2 https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/international-strategies/global-topics/sustainable-development-goals/eu-

approach-sustainable-development_en 3 COM(2015) 614. 4 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/06/20/envi-conclusions-circular-economy/pdf 5 European Parliament Resolution of 9 July 2015 on resource efficiency: moving towards a circular economy

(2014/2208(INI)). 6 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/resource_efficiency/targets_indicators/scoreboard/index_en.htm. 7 https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1ee65e21-9ac4-11e6-868c-01aa75ed71a1. 8 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/circular-economy

2

2. Monitoring progress towards a circular economy

Monitoring progress towards a circular economy is a challenging task. The transition

towards a circular economy is not limited to certain materials or sectors. It is a systemic

change that affects the entire economy and involves all products and services. Ideally,

indicators should primarily capture trends in preserving the economic value of products,

materials and resources as well as trends in waste generation.

Just as there is no one universally recognised indicator of ‘circularity’, robust off-the-shelf

indicators to describe the most relevant trends are in short supply. With a single measure, or

score, it would not be possible to appropriately capture the complexity and the many

dimensions of the transition to a circular economy. For this reason, a set of relevant indicators

will be used for this monitoring framework.

One way of looking at the circular economy is to see how materials enter, flow within and

(eventually) leave the economy. Such a visual overview can be provided by a material flows

diagram, which shows all raw materials — aggregated as well as grouped by categories of

materials — throughout the economy, from their extraction until they become waste.

Figure 1: Material flows in the economy (EU-28, 2014)9, 10

9 Source: Andreas Mayer, Willi Haas, Dominik Wiedenhofer, Fridolin Krausmann, Philip Nuss, Gian Andrea

Blengini (forthcoming): Monitoring the circular economy in the EU28 - A mass-balanced assessment of

economy wide material flows, waste and emissions from official statistics. In: Journal of Industrial Ecology

3

Figure 1 presents an overview of material flows in the EU in 2014. The input-side on the

left shows that 8 billion tonnes of materials are processed into energy or products annually in

the EU. Only 0.6 billion tonnes originate from recycling. On the output-side, it shows that out

of the 2.2 billion tonnes of waste that are generated only 0.6 billion tonnes re-enter the system

as recycled materials. The rest of the materials, equivalent to 1.5 billion tonnes, is waste.

These aspects point to a significant potential for improvement in particular by increasing

the share of materials recycled as secondary raw materials and decreasing the production of

waste.

The monitoring framework aims at measuring progress towards a circular economy in a way

that encompasses its various dimensions at all stages of the lifecycle of resources, products

and services. This is why the monitoring framework has a set of ten indicators (see Table 1)

grouped into four stages and aspects of the circular economy: (1) production and

consumption, (2) waste management, (3) secondary raw materials and (4) competitiveness

and innovation. This broadly follows the logic and structure of the circular economy action

plan.

10 Energetic use covers raw materials used for combustion or production of food and feed.

4

No Name Relevance EU levers (examples)

Production and consumption

1 EU self-sufficiency for raw materials

The circular economy should help to address the supply risks for raw materials, in particular critical raw materials.

Raw Materials Initiative; Resource Efficiency Roadmap

2 Green public procurement*

Public procurement accounts for a large share of consumption and can drive the circular economy.

Public Procurement Strategy; EU support schemes and voluntary criteria for green public procurement

3a-c Waste generation In a circular economy waste generation is minimised.

Waste Framework Directive; directives on specific waste streams; Strategy for Plastics

4 Food waste* Discarding food has negative environmental, climate and economic impacts.

General Food Law Regulation; Waste Framework Directive; various initiatives (e.g. Platform on Food Losses and Food Waste)

Waste management

5a-b Overall recycling rates Increasing recycling is part of the transition to a circular economy.

Waste Framework Directive

6a-f Recycling rates for specific waste streams

This reflects the progress in recycling key waste streams.

Waste Framework Directive; Landfill Directive; directives on specific waste streams

Secondary raw materials

7a-b Contribution of recycled materials to raw materials demand

In a circular economy, secondary raw materials are commonly used to make new products.

Waste Framework Directive; Eco-design Directive; EU Ecolabel; REACH; initiative on the interface between chemicals, products and waste policies; Strategy for Plastics; quality standards for secondary raw materials

8 Trade in recyclable raw materials

Trade in recyclables reflects the importance of the internal market and global participation in the circular economy.

Internal Market policy; Waste Shipment Regulation; Trade policy

Competitiveness and innovation

9a-c Private investments, jobs and gross value added

This reflects the contribution of the circular economy to the creation of jobs and growth.

Investment Plan for Europe; Structural and Investment Funds; InnovFin; Circular Economy Finance Support Platform; Sustainable Finance Strategy; Green Employment Initiative; New Skills Agenda for Europe; Internal Market policy

10 Patents Innovative technologies related to the circular economy boost the EU’s global competitiveness.

Horizon 2020

* Indicators under development

Table 1: Indicators on the circular economy included in the monitoring framework

5

These indicators were selected to capture the main elements of a circular economy. Data

availability was taken into account when choosing them, building on the Resource Efficiency

Scoreboard and the Raw Materials Scoreboard. The indicators are based on existing data as

much as possible, thus limiting the administrative burden. Other criteria against which the

indicators were assessed include relevance, acceptance, credibility, ease of use and

robustness.

Responses to the public consultation on the roadmap11

and discussions with Member States

representatives and stakeholder experts12

were also taken into account when selecting the

indicators.

The Commission will be improving the knowledge base and data availability for measuring

progress in the circular economy:

- Work is ongoing to develop methodologies and data collections that can be used for the

indicators on green public procurement and food waste, with a view to publishing the

data in the coming years. Meanwhile, Eurostat is producing some provisional estimates of

food waste.

- As part of the 2015 circular economy package and broader efforts by the Commission to

improve the quality of EU statistics on waste, the Commission has proposed to

harmonise the methodologies for calculating recycling rates for municipal waste13

and

packaging waste14

. Once adopted by the Council and the European Parliament and

implemented by the Member States, these proposals will bring about more reliable and

comparable statistics.

- Through Horizon 2020, the Commission is funding several research projects that will

deliver better data to complement the official statistics, in particular via the EU raw

materials information system15

.

3. First findings

The ten indicators of the monitoring framework provide a broad picture of the key leverage

points to increase the circularity of the EU’s economy. While it will take some time before the

results of the actions on the circular economy are visible in the statistics, it is meaningful to

start by establishing baselines. This will help to monitor future developments and inform

policy making processes.

There is both a strong need and a significant potential for further improvements in the

performance of the EU and its Member States. The role of the EU is greater in some areas

(such as trade in recyclable raw materials) than in others (e.g. green public procurement).

11 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2017-1830357_en . 12 Producers of official statistics on environmental accounts and experts on resource efficiency/integrated

product policy and on raw materials policy:

http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=2673,

http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=470,

http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=2812,

http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=1353. 13 COM(2015) 595 final 14 COM(2015) 596 final. 15 http://rmis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

6

Production and consumption

Some progress can be observed towards more circular trends in production and

consumption e.g. in terms of waste generation. Nevertheless, there is still considerable

room for narrowing the gap in performance between Member States and across materials.

The indicator on self-sufficiency in the supply of raw materials shows that the EU is largely

self-sufficient for most non-metallic minerals such as construction materials and industrial

minerals. However, the indicator also confirms that for the EU’s critical raw materials16

the

EU is relying on imports to a large extent, which highlights the need for secure access and

diversification of supply. Many of these materials are needed to achieve the EU’s objective of

a sustainable, low-carbon, resource-efficient and competitive economy17

.

Public Procurement represents a large share of GDP and hence green public procurement –

i.e. when public authorities use their purchasing power to choose environmentally friendly

goods, services and works – can be a driver for the circular economy and for innovation.18

Data is still to be developed for this indicator.

EU municipal waste19

generation per capita has dropped by 8 % between 2006 and 2016 to

an average of 480 kg per capita per year. This is a clear example of an area where each citizen

can make a positive contribution. However, large variations among Member States are

observed (between 250 and 750 kg per capita per year) 20

, and municipal waste generation is

still growing in several Member States. The quantity of waste generated still correlates to a

certain degree with GDP per capita. It is therefore positive that the data on total waste

generation (including industrial and commercial waste but excluding major mineral waste) per

unit of GDP shows a decrease of 11 % since 2006.

Reducing food waste21

has an enormous potential for saving the resources we use to produce

the food we eat. Food waste takes place all along the value chain: during production and

distribution, in shops, restaurants, catering facilities, and at home. This makes it particularly

hard to quantify. According to Eurostat’s preliminary estimates, EU food waste decreased

from 81 to 76 million tonnes (i.e. by around 7 %) between 2012 and 2014, equivalent to a

drop from 161 to 149 kg per capita.

Waste management

Waste management generally shows positive developments, yet with significant room for

improvement and differences among Member States and across waste streams.

16 COM(2017) 490. 17 E.g. cobalt for batteries used in electric cars, silicon for solar panels. 18 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/index_en.htm 19 Waste from households and in public spaces and similar waste from other sources. 20 Differences in the way Member States measure waste generation can explain some of the differences. 21 https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/food_waste/eu_actions_en

7

Between 2008 and 2016, EU recycling rates for municipal waste increased from 37 % to

46 %. Five Member States recycle more than half of their municipal waste, while some

countries are approaching the 2030 recycling target of 65 % proposed by the Commission22

;

however, five Member States are still below 25 %.23

Source: Eurostat

Between 2008 and 2015, the recycling rates for packaging waste also increased in the EU,

from 62 % to 66 %; it increased in almost all Member States, and in 2015 almost all Member

States had met the 2008 target of 55 % (the Commission has proposed a target of 65 % by

2025 and 75 % by 203024

). For plastic packaging, the average recycling rate in the EU is

significantly lower, at 40 %, even though there have been improvements in recent years.

The recycling of municipal biowaste in the EU was 79 kg per capita in 2016, an increase of

23 % compared to 2007.

For the recycling of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), the data show that

the level of collection and recycling varies considerably across EU Member States and

indicate a great potential to improve resource efficiency and reduce illegal collection,

treatment and shipment. In 2015, only four Member States recycled25

over half of the

electrical and electronic equipment that had been put on the market.

Finally, for construction and demolition waste, 20 Member States have reported that they

already achieved the 70 % recovery target26

set for 2020. Given that by weight this is the

22 COM(2015) 595 final . 23 Member States are using different methods to calculate recycling rates, which can explain part of the

differences. The Commission has proposed a common method in its legislative proposal on waste. 24 COM(2015) 596 final. 25 or prepared for reuse 26 The target covers not only recycling but also re-use and other material recovery, including backfilling of non-

hazardous construction and demolition waste excluding naturally occurring material

8

single biggest waste stream in the EU, it is a positive sign. However, it should be noted that

the target includes backfilling27

, a practice that does not keep the value of the materials in the

economy and is therefore not conducive to a circular economy. In addition, there are large

differences in data reporting between Member States.

Source: Eurostat

Secondary raw materials

The contribution of recycled materials to overall materials demand is relatively low. Trade

in secondary raw materials is increasing both in the EU and with third countries.

In a circular economy, materials embedded in products and components are recycled when

they reach their end-of-life and are then injected back into the economy as secondary raw

materials. This reduces the environmental footprint of production and consumption and

increases the security of supply of raw materials. In the EU, the level of demand for raw

materials exceeds what could be supplied even if all waste were turned into secondary raw

materials. Therefore, the supply of primary raw materials will remain necessary.

On average, recycled materials only satisfy around 10 % of the EU demand for materials,

in spite of a steady improvement since 2004. For a number of bulk materials, secondary raw

materials satisfy over 30 % of total demand for materials (e.g. copper and nickel). However,

for a large number of materials, including almost all critical raw materials, the contribution of

recycled materials to satisfying the demand for raw materials is still small to negligible. This

may be because it is not profitable to recycle them, the technologies to recycle them are

27 A recovery operation where suitable waste is used for the purposes of reclamation in excavated areas or for

engineering purposes in landscaping.

9

lacking, or the materials are embedded in products kept in use for a long time (e.g. rare earth

elements used in wind turbines).

Furthermore, the indicator on trade in recyclable waste shows that the EU is a net exporter

of several major recyclable waste streams such as plastics, paper and cardboard, iron and

steel, copper, aluminium and nickel. Trade within the EU of plastics, paper and cardboard,

copper, aluminium, nickel and precious metals waste increased considerably between 2004

and 2016, allowing economic operators to reap the benefits of the EU internal market for

secondary raw materials.

Competitiveness and innovation

The transition to a circular economy increases investments, value added and jobs, and

stimulates innovation.

Source: Eurostat

In 2014, private investments in a subset of economic sectors relevant to the circular

economy28

are estimated to have been around EUR 15 billion in the EU (i.e. 0.1 % GDP).

The same year there were more than 3.9 million jobs in these sectors, an increase of 2.3 %

compared to 2012. In spite of the economic and financial crisis, these circular economy

sectors created around EUR 141 billion of value added in 2014, which represents an increase

of 6.1 % compared to 2012. Several EU funding programmes are available to support the

transition to a circular economy, such as the European Fund for Strategic Investments, the

European Structural and Investment Funds, Horizon 2020 and the LIFE programme. In

addition, in January 2017 a Circular Economy Finance Support Platform was launched.

For patents on recycling and secondary raw materials, the data show an increase of 35 %

between 2000 and 2013. EU patents for glass recycling represent 44 % of the world total for

such patents, while the EU’s share is 18 % for plastics and 23 % for paper.

28 I.e. reuse and recycling activities. Renting and leasing activities can also contribute to circular economy, but

are for now not included because current statistics may not distinguish with sufficient granularity those activities

that clearly contribute to circular economy from those that do not. For further details, see the Staff Working

Document.

10

4. Conclusions

This monitoring framework captures, in a concise set of indicators, the main elements of the

circular economy, including the lifecycle of products and materials, the priority areas and

sectors, and the impacts on competitiveness, innovation and jobs. It will thus be a tool to

follow key trends in the transition, to assess whether measures in place and the engagement of

all the actors have been sufficiently effective, and to help identify best practices in Member

States that can be disseminated.

The indicators will be continuously updated on the website dedicated to the monitoring

framework29

. This website also includes tools to monitor progress and documents the

methodologies for the indicators, data sources, definitions and publishing standards. The

Commission will continue to elaborate the indicators which need further development, in

particular on food waste and green public procurement.

A dialogue with Member States and stakeholders will help to further improve the framework.

In particular, the framework relies to a large extent on high quality statistics that the Member

States provide to Eurostat. The Commission would also welcome the involvement of all EU

institutions.

29 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/circular-economy.

EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Strasbourg, 16.1.2018 COM(2018) 32 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL

COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

on the implementation of the circular economy package: options to address the interface between chemical, product and waste legislation

(Text with EEA relevance)

{SWD(2018) 20 final}

1

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL

COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

on the implementation of the circular economy package:

options to address the interface between chemical, product and waste legislation

(Text with EEA relevance)

1. INTRODUCTION The European Commission adopted in December 2015 an ambitious Circular Economy Package to help EU businesses and consumers to make the transition to a stronger and more circular economy where resources are used in a more sustainable way.

The proposed actions contributed to "closing the loop" of product lifecycles through greater recycling and re-use to the benefit of both the environment and the economy. The aim is to extract the maximum value and use from all raw materials, products and waste, fostering energy savings and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Recycling and re-use can be hampered by the presence of certain chemicals. Some chemicals can simply constitute technical barriers preventing recycling. Even a benign substance, which for example has a strong smell, could in some cases prevent use of the recycled material1. Other chemicals are hazardous to humans or the environment. A growing number of these are being identified and becoming subject to restrictions or prohibitions. These chemicals may be present in products sold before the restrictions applied, some of which have a long lifetime, and therefore prohibited chemicals can sometimes be found in recycling streams. Such substances can be costly to detect or remove, creating obstacles in particular for small recyclers. All these different types of chemicals we call 'substances of concern' in this Communication.

The Communication and the accompanying Staff Working Document is the result of cross-cutting work between experts in charge of different legislative areas. Also an extensive targeted stakeholder consultation was undertaken, which was open for input between 12 April - 7 July 2017 and received input from over 100 experts.

The Communication explores the four most critical issues identified in the way the legislation on chemicals, products and waste work together and how these are hampering a circular economy development. On this basis, we pose specific key questions on how these issues can be overcome and we indicate the actions that the Commission will already now initiate. In the accompanying Staff Working Document, the Commission services have provided a more elaborated analysis of the legal and technical challenges which need to be discussed and suggest possible options of how that would be possible.

1 This could be the case for recovered materials to be used as a new food contact material.

2

2. WHAT DO WE AIM FOR? The Circular Economy Action Plan contained the following two-fold objectives to be achieved:

1) enabling recycling and improving the uptake of secondary raw materials, by limiting unnecessary burdens, and facilitating the cross-border circulation of secondary raw materials to ensure that they can be traded easily across the EU; and

2) substituting substances of concern and, where this is not possible, reducing their presence and improving their tracking.

These two objectives, one stemming from waste policy and the other from chemicals policy, have often been perceived to be in opposition and have given rise to claims that the one policy area impedes on the fulfilment of the objectives of the other.

The aim of this Communication is to promote a broad discussion in the Union on how the major elements identified at the interface between chemicals, product and waste legislation can be addressed in a satisfactory manner. Solutions need to take into account that this is a policy field where specific – often regional or even local – circumstances play an important role.

We are looking for solutions with broad support from the involved stakeholders that should be implemented at the right level. Not all issues would necessarily need an EU level response if national or local solutions would help us achieve better results.

3. FOUR IDENTIFIED ISSUES In the open, competitive EU market, firms produce their goods on the basis of the materials they believe suit their needs best. When waste has been treated to re-enter the market anew, these recovered materials are in direct competition with primary materials. Therefore, for any recovered material, its competitive position in the market is strongest when it is as close as possible to the primary material in performance and quality. This allows a broader range of uses for the recovered material.

Recovered materials that contain substances of concern may not be taken up because their use could simply harm the image of the product that contains the material. Furthermore, in some cases, these materials may not be allowed to be reused, for example, to produce new food contact materials.

In order to contribute to the success of the Union in maximizing recycling and minimising use of primary materials, we have thoroughly looked at the EU rules applicable to waste management, chemicals and products and found that four main issues stand out at the interface between these rules.

3.1. Information on presence of substances of concern is not readily available to those who handle waste and prepare it for recovery

Waste often consists of mixed goods produced at different times meeting different product standards. Often, companies handling waste do not have access to information on the composition of the discarded goods they handle because the information either does not exist or if it does, it is not available by the time the good becomes waste. Furthermore, materials may also be affected by incidental contamination throughout their lifecycle.

3

Example: The paper industry makes efforts to keep its product safe and easy to recycle. When paper is used by converters to make printed products, inks and other materials can be added. The current rules do not enable paper recycling mills to have sufficient information about chemicals added in previous life-cycles. This limits recycling of paper and increases costs due to the need to perform additional controls and testing2. We have seen recent cases where ink residues and mineral oils have been found in food as a result of migration from packaging made from recycled paper and board3.

In addition, studies conducted by Member States relating to waste electrical and electronic equipment show that only in rare cases the information required under EU law is transferred to or made accessible to waste treatment facilities4.

3.1.1. Objective We must ensure that appropriate information on substances of concern in products is available to all actors in the supply chain and ultimately also becomes available to waste operators. This will contribute to the promotion of non-toxic materials cycles and improve the risk management of chemicals during repair and other forms of reuse and in waste recovery processes.

3.1.2. Planned actions In parallel with this consultation, we will improve the evidence base by launching a feasibility study, addressing representative sectors, on the use of different information systems, innovative tracing technologies and strategies which could enable relevant information to flow along article supply chains and reach recyclers. This study is expected to be ready by the end of 2019. Other planned activities include developing working procedures to make sure that imported articles do not contain substances which are not authorised for use in the production of articles in the EU, and simplified procedures for restricting CMR5 substances in consumer articles.

Questions: What would be the added value of introducing a compulsory information system in the Union that informs waste management and recovery operators of the presence of substances of concern?

How should we manage goods imported to the Union?

2 According to information from CEPI provided in the targeted consultation.

3 See for instance: https://chemicalwatch.com/7210/mineral-oils-health-scare-sparks-food-packaging-debate or BEUC's position paper (see page 5) https://www.anec.eu/images/Publications/position-papers/Sustainability/ANEC-PT-2017-CEG-017.pdf

4 Source: Input of the Swedish EPA and France. Studies: Goodpoint, Information on Hazardous Substances in Waste, 2016 (In English) and Goodpoint, Information Transfer on Hazardous Substances, 2017 (In English).

5 Substances that cause cancer, mutations or adverse effects on reproduction.

4

3.2. Waste may contain substances that are no longer allowed in new products New chemicals are continuously placed on the market whilst others are forbidden when it is discovered that they pose a risk. This on-going process has the implication that products legally produced today may contain a substance that later may be forbidden. When the product becomes waste and is then recovered, the forbidden substance may still be contained in the recovered material. This is what we call the issue of 'legacy substances'.

Example: There are multiple examples of problems with "legacy substances". For instance, certain brominated flame retardants that are persistent, bio-accumulative and toxic have been reported found in recycled plastic products including toys and kitchen utensils6. In another case, the use of certain substances that were originally added to PVC to soften it is now regulated which means that recycled PVC containing those substances above specific quantities should not be used or placed on the market in the EU.

3.2.1. Objective We must make recycling easier and improve the uptake of secondary raw materials by promoting non-toxic material cycles. In addition, when considering possible chemical restrictions and exemptions to restrictions, we must give more attention to their impact on future recycling and reuse.

3.2.2. Planned actions The issue of legacy substances will continue to constitute a barrier to the circular economy and, therefore, we will take steps to develop a specific decision-making methodology to support decisions on the recyclability of waste containing substances of concern. This methodology will take into account the overall cost-benefit of recycling a material compared to its disposal (including incineration with energy recovery). We expect to finish this work by mid-2019.

We also see a need to prepare guidelines to ensure that the presence of substances of concern in recovered materials is better addressed in the early stages of the preparation of proposals to manage the risk of substances of concern.

Finally, we are considering enacting implementing legislation to allow an effective control of the use of the existing exemption from REACH registration for recovered substances.

Questions:

How do we reconcile the idea that waste is a resource that we should recycle and, at the same time, ensure that waste that contains substances of concern is only recovered into materials which can be safely used?

Should we allow recycled materials to contain chemicals that are no longer allowed in primary materials? If so, under what conditions?

6 See reference to several studies provided in contribution by EEB and BEUC. See for example page 4 of http://eeb.org/publications/81/circular-economy/33789/pops-in-the-circular-economy.pdf

5

3.3. EU's rules on end-of-waste are not fully harmonised, making it uncertain how waste becomes a new material and product

Our rules, case law and years of experience establish when a good is no longer a good and has become waste. When that happens, EU waste legislation applies. The EU waste rules are stringent in order to protect human health and the environment. In a circular economy, materials should only stay in the waste phase temporarily as the aim is that they should be recovered and reintroduced into the economy to replace primary materials. In most cases, in order for this to happen, materials which have been recycled should no longer be considered waste.

For waste to cease to be waste, it has to meet the so-called 'end-of-waste criteria'. For some waste streams such criteria have been set at EU or national level. However, the scope of these rules and clarity on how they operate is lacking. The complexity of waste streams, recovery processes and recovered materials means that end-of-waste criteria that are applicable to whole waste streams are not easy to establish. Consequently, many recovered materials are traded and used in the absence of established end-of-waste criteria and therefore under unclear legal circumstances and without transparency.

Example: In the targeted consultation, the metals and the electricity industries reported difficulties in determining the waste or product status of materials such as coal ashes, copper slags or ferromolybdenum slags. Different criteria are applied across Member States, and even among different regions. This leads to problems in trans-border transport of these materials and sometimes makes it impossible to derive useful resources from these materials, some of which are waste generated in quantities counted in millions of tonnes per year7.

Uncertainties about the status of a material as a waste or a product is also an issue for authorities which often face difficulties in determining whether waste or product legislation applies. This situation arises for example in deciding whether recycled PVC containing DEHP should still be considered waste or whether it should be treated as a product.

3.3.1. Objective We must enable a more harmonised interpretation and implementation of end-of-waste rules across the EU to further facilitate the use of recovered material within the EU.

3.3.2. Planned actions The Commission will facilitate closer cooperation between existing chemical and waste management expert networks and prepare an on-line EU repository for all adopted national and EU end-of-waste and by-product criteria. It will also launch a study to gain a better understanding of Member States' practices as regards implementation and verification of provisions on end-of-waste as a basis for possible guidelines.

Question:

How and for which waste streams should we facilitate more harmonisation of end-of-waste rules?

7 See Eurometaux: https://www.eurometaux.eu/media/1634/eurometaux-response-chemicals-products-waste-interface-stakeholder-c.pdf and Eurelectric: http://www.eurelectric.org/media/340047/eurelectric-interface_consultation-final_07072017-2017-2430-0001-01-e.pdf.

6

3.4. Rules to decide which wastes and chemicals are hazardous are not well aligned and this affects the uptake of secondary raw materials

The production and use of hazardous chemicals and products are subject to strict EU rules adopted to protect workers8, citizens and the environment from harm. When a chemical is determined to be hazardous, it is classified as such, which leads to clear obligations for operators to ensure their safe handling.

Waste management is similarly governed by EU rules adopted with the same objectives in mind so that hazardous waste is treated without harming the environment or human health. However, the two sets of rules are not fully aligned. We have seen situations where the same material, containing a hazardous substance, may be considered hazardous or not hazardous depending on whether it is waste or a product. This discrepancy means that it cannot be assumed that materials that re-enter the economy resulting from the recovery of non-hazardous waste will necessarily result in a non-hazardous product.

The way rules on classification of waste are implemented and enforced has important consequences on future waste management choices, such as feasibility and economic viability of collection, recycling method or the choice between recycling and disposal. Such discrepancies may have an impact upon the uptake of secondary raw materials.

Example: Lead metal has a different classification depending on its waste or product status. Lead metal waste from construction and demolition activities is listed as non-hazardous waste in the European List of Waste. Lead metal as a product is classified as a hazardous substance under the EU legislation on classification, packaging and labelling of chemicals (CLP – Regulation) due to its harmful effects on reproduction.

Another example is the case of flexible PVC waste containing certain additives, where often waste operators (mis)classify this waste as non-hazardous although the resulting recovered product will be classified as a hazardous chemical mixture under the CLP Regulation.

3.4.1. Objective We must ensure a more consistent approach between chemicals and waste classification rules.

3.4.2. Planned actions We are about to publish a guidance document on waste classification to assist waste operators and competent authorities to have a common approach to waste characterisation and classification. We will also promote the exchange of best practices with regard to test methods for the assessment of substances as concerns the hazardous property HP 14 ‘Ecotoxic’ with a view to their possible harmonisation.

Question:

Should we further align the rules on hazard classification so that waste would be considered hazardous according to the same rules as products?

8 Directive 89/391/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work; Directive 98/24/EC on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work; Directive 2004/37/EC on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens or mutagens at work.

7

4. CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS These four issues constitute important barriers for the circular economy. From the input received, it is clear that there are challenges with the practical application on the ground, in terms of the limited availability of resources and knowledge as well as regarding the coordination between the various actors at local, national and EU level.

Our analysis also shows that there are legal challenges. The longer term aspiration must be to achieve full coherence between the laws implementing waste and chemicals policies. This will help to achieve the aim that materials are safe, fit-for-purpose and designed for durability, recyclability and have a low environmental impact. Goods should be designed, manufactured, traded and recycled with minimal use of substances of concern to facilitate reuse in a way that maximises the materials' economic benefits and utility to society while maintaining a high level of human health and environmental protection.

The policy options in the Staff Working Document cover both the immediate issues and those that can only be solved over time. The document includes several options per issue and invites reflection on the appropriate balance between the overall long term benefits from circular use of these materials and the overall long term health and environmental concerns relating to substances present in that material.

We need to clear the path towards a circular economy in the Union. We have some tools readily available that can diminish some of the frictions, but we need more evidence and input from all over the EU to ascertain how we can best tackle some of the wider-ranging issues.

We invite the European Parliament, the Council and the Committee of the Regions and interested stakeholders to engage in the discussion and to take positions on the identified challenges so we can define a path forward to a truly circular economy.

The ambition is that, by the end of the mandate of this Commission in 2019, the promised actions are already on track and are underpinned by solid evidence. The new studies we are launching as well as the consultation in which all stakeholders are now invited to participate will therefore have an instrumental role to play in bringing our work forward.

EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Strasbourg, 16.1.2018

COM(2018) 33 final

2018/0012 (COD)

Proposal for a

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on port reception facilities for the delivery of waste from ships, repealing Directive

2000/59/EC and amending Directive 2009/16/EC and Directive 2010/65/EU

(Text with EEA relevance)

{SWD(2018) 21 final} - {SWD(2018) 22 final}

EN 2 EN

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL

Reasons for and objectives of the proposal

Discharges of waste from ships pose an increasing threat to the marine environment, with

costly environmental and economic consequences. Recently, the problem of marine litter has

come to the fore, as a growing number of scientific studies provide evidence of the

devastating effects on marine ecosystems and of the impacts on human health. Although most

sources of marine litter are land-based, shipping also has an important role to play in

discharges of household waste and operational waste at sea. There are also major concerns

over the eutrophication effects of discharges of sewage from ships, in particular from large

passenger ships, in certain sea areas such as the Baltic Sea, as well as the effects of oily waste

discharges on marine life and habitats.

Reasons for the occurrence of illegal discharges at sea can be found both on the ships

themselves, in particular bad on-board waste management practices, as well as on shore, due

to a lack of adequate facilities in ports to receive waste from ships.

Directive 2000/59/EC1 regulates the shore side through provisions ensuring the availability of

port reception facilities (PRF) and the delivery of waste to those facilities. It implements the

relevant international norms, i.e. those contained in MARPOL2. However, whereas the

Directive focuses on operations in port, MARPOL mostly focuses on operations at sea. In this

way, the Directive both aligns with and complements MARPOL, by regulating the legal,

practical and financial responsibilities at the shore-sea interface. Although MARPOL provides

a comprehensive framework addressing ship-source pollution from different polluting

substances, it does not provide for an effective enforcement mechanism. Therefore,

incorporating the main concepts and obligations of MARPOL into EU law means that they

can be enforced effectively through the EU legal system.

Some 17 years after its entry into force, the Directive is in need of a thorough revision. The

current situation is now significantly different to when the original Directive was adopted in

2000. Since then, MARPOL has been strengthened through subsequent amendments, while

the scope and definitions of the current Directive are no longer in line with the international

framework. As a consequence, Member States are relying increasingly on the MARPOL

framework, making implementing and enforcing the Directive problematic. In addition,

Member States apply different interpretations of the Directive's main concepts, creating

confusion among ships, ports and operators.

The revision aims to achieve a higher level of protection of the marine environment by

reducing waste discharges at sea, as well as improved efficiency of maritime operations in

port by reducing the administrative burden and by updating the regulatory framework. As the

proposal comes under the Regulatory Fitness Programme (REFIT), it aims to be in line with

the REFIT principles of simplification and clarification.

For the sake of clarity, the proposal repeals the current Directive, replacing it with a single

new Directive. It also includes ancillary changes to Directive 2009/16/EC on Port State

Control3, as well as Directive 2010/65/EU

4.

1 Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 27 November 2000 on port

reception facilities for ship generated waste and cargo residues, OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p. 81. 2 The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (consolidated version). 3 Directive 2009/16/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 April 2009 on port state

control, OJ L 131, 28.5.2009, p. 57.

EN 3 EN

Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area

Reducing pollution in the seas is an important field of EU action in maritime transport. This

was reiterated in the Commission Communication on the EU maritime transport policy until

20185, which calls for zero-waste from maritime traffic. This goal can be achieved through

compliance with international conventions and standards. MARPOL, the relevant

international framework, has undergone a series of amendments, such as including new or

stricter discharge norms for ships. These should be properly reflected in the Directive.

The provision of waste reception facilities in ports qualifies as a service that a port provides to

its users, as defined in the Port Services Regulation6. The proposed Directive takes into

account the relevant principles and provisions as included in this regulation, but goes beyond

its requirements by providing for cost structures and their transparency. This is to serve the

overall aim of the proposed Directive, which is to reduce discharges of waste at sea. In

addition, the Port Services Regulation only applies to the TEN-T ports, whereas the proposed

Directive covers all ports, including smaller ones, such as fishing ports and marinas.

Directive 2010/65/EC includes the advance waste notification within the information to be

electronically reported through the ‘national single window’ system. To this end, an electronic

waste message has been developed. The information reported in this message is subsequently

exchanged through the EU’s maritime information and exchange system (SafeSeaNet) and

relayed to the reporting module in the Port State Control Database set up under Directive

2009/16/EC to facilitate compliance, monitoring and enforcement.

Consistency with other Union policies

The Directive in force and the present proposal are fully in line with the principles of EU

environmental law, in particular: (i) the precautionary principle; (ii) the ‘the polluter should

pay’ principle; and (iii) the principle that preventive action is taken at source where possible.

It also contributes to the aims of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive7, which seeks to

protect the marine environment and calls for good environmental status of all EU marine

waters by 2020. The proposed Directive also gives effect to the Waste Framework Directive8

by envisaging improved waste management practices in ports in line with the polluter pays

principle and the EU waste hierarchy. Finally, the proposed Directive is in line with the

Sulphur Directive9, which contributes to the sustainability of maritime transport by reducing

the sulphur content of marine fuel. However, the application of the regime imposed by the

Sulphur Directive must not result in a shift from air emissions to discharges of waste at sea, or

to other water bodies, such as ports and estuaries, as a by-product of the abatement

technologies applied, such as exhaust gas cleaning systems.

4 Directive 2010/65/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 20 October 2010 on reporting

formalities for ships arriving and/or departing from ports of the Member States, OJ L 283, 29.10.2010,

p. 1. 5 COM(2009)8 "Strategic goals and recommendations for the EU's maritime transport policy until 2018". 6 Regulation (EU) 2017/352 of the European Parliament and the Council of 15 February 2017

establishing a framework for the provision of port services and common rules on the financial

transparency of ports, OJ L 57, 3.3.2017, p. 1-18. 7 Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a

framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy, OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p.

19-40. 8 Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and

repealing certain directives, OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, p. 3-30. 9 Directive 2005/33/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 6 July 2005 as regards the sulphur

content of marine fuels, OJ L 191, 22.7.2005, p. 59.

EN 4 EN

The proposed Directive will also be instrumental in achieving the target set in the

Commission’s Circular Economy Strategy10

to reduce by 30 % by 2020 the amount of marine

litter found on beaches and lost fishing gear found at sea. The Circular Economy Strategy also

recognises that revising the old PRF Directive can make a direct and significant contribution

to reducing marine litter generated by ships. In the Commission's Strategy on Plastic11

,

additional measures for reducing lost or abandoned fishing gear are examined, such as

extended producer responsibility and deposit-refund schemes for commonly littered fishing

gear, as well as increased exchange of information on such schemes.

2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY

Legal basis

Given that the proposal replaces the current Directive, the legal basis remains Article 100 (2)

TFEU (ex. Article 80(2) TEC), which includes the adoption of common rules for sea

transport. Although the Directive aims to protect the marine environment from discharges of

waste at sea, its overall policy objective is to facilitate sea transport and contribute to the

realisation of the internal transport market.

Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)

Shipping is an international sector, with operations taking place in international waters and in

ports across the globe. The sector therefore requires international rules, which for ship-source

pollution are provided by MARPOL. However, the main problems in the international regime

do not relate to insufficient standards, but rather to the fact that they are not adequately

implemented and enforced. Striving for harmonised implementation of internationally agreed

rules, where necessary complemented by specific EU requirements, is one of the fundamental

pillars of EU maritime policy. This is also reflected in the Directive’s legal basis, namely

Article 100(2) TFEU, which includes the adoption of common rules for sea transport. As the

Directive transposes the MARPOL Convention into EU law, it shares the same objective as

the Convention, i.e. the protection of the marine environment against pollution from ships.

The problem of marine pollution typically occurs across EU waters and therefore requires a

common EU approach to tackle the issues effectively, as these cannot be solved by action

from individual Member States.

To avoid a litany of different policies in ports for the delivery of waste from ships, and to

ensure a level playing field for both ports and port users, further harmonisation at EU level is

necessary. A simplified and therefore more harmonised implementation of the different

obligations at EU level will improve competitiveness and economic efficiency of the shipping

sector, while ensuring basic conditions in ports. This should avoid adverse effects such as

‘PRF shopping’, where ships keep their waste on board until they can deliver it to the port

where this is economically most advantageous. Further harmonisation of the exemption

regimes for ships in scheduled and regular traffic would also tackle inefficiencies at the ship

and port sides.

At the same time, Member States maintain a margin of discretion with respect to

implementing common rules and principles at local/port level. With the new Directive, they

will continue to decide on the design and operation of the cost recovery systems, the level of

the fees and the development of waste reception and handling plans for ports in their territory.

Member State authorities are best placed to determine the level of detail and coverage of the

10 COM/2015/614 final, ‘Closing the loop — an EU action plan for the Circular Economy’. 11 Commission Staff Working Document SWD (2018)16

EN 5 EN

waste reception and handling plans, taking into account the size and geographic location of

the ports and the needs of the ships visiting them.

Proportionality

The proposal has a two-fold objective: (i) improving the protection of the marine environment

against discharges of waste from ships, while (ii) ensuring the efficiency of maritime transport

operations in ports. The impact assessment has shown that waste continues to be discharged at

sea, with devastating effects on marine ecosystems, especially from garbage disposal. At the

same time, the current regime creates an unnecessary administrative burden on ports and port

users, mostly caused by inconsistencies between the obligations under the Directive and the

international framework (i.e. the MARPOL Convention). The impact assessment has

demonstrated the proportionality of the preferred option for addressing the problems, in line

with the comments received from the Regulatory Scrutiny Board on the impact assessment

report.

The proposal aims to address these problems by seeking further alignment with MARPOL, in

particular as regards its scope, definitions and forms. The proposed Directive also aims for

more consistency with other EU acts, by incorporating the inspections fully within the Port

State Control framework, and aligning with Directive 2002/59/EC as regards the monitoring

and reporting obligations. The new approach relies significantly on a system of electronic

reporting and exchange of information, based on existing electronic systems, and on the

principle that the information should only be reported once. This should facilitate monitoring

and enforcement, while minimising the associated administrative burden.

The specific problem of marine litter warrants additional measures, which should result in a

further reduction of garbage discharges from ships. This should be achieved through a

combination of incentive and enforcement measures. Given that the fishing and recreational

sectors also contribute significantly to the problem of marine litter, these have been more

systematically integrated in the system, in particular as regards the incentives for delivery of

waste on shore. However, as notification and inspection obligations would put a

disproportionate burden on smaller vessels and ports, a differentiated approach based on

length and gross tonnage is applied. This approach will consist in the following:

– The reporting of information contained in the advance waste notification and waste

receipt will only be required from vessels of 45 metres and above, in line with

Directive 2002/59/EC.

– The 20 % inspection target for fishing vessels and recreational craft will only apply

to vessels over 100 gross tonnage, consistent with the IMO requirements for a

garbage management plan to be kept on board.

– Merchant vessels will be inspected as part of Port State Control, following a risk-

based approach, which should render the system more efficient and effective.

Although the Directive aims at further harmonising the main concepts of the PRF regime to

ensure a common EU approach on the basis of the relevant international norms, it leaves a

margin of discretion for Member States to decide on the operational measures applicable at

port level, based on local considerations and the port’s administrative set-up and ownership

structure. The adequacy of waste reception facilities is determined based on the size,

geographic location and type of traffic visiting the port, which in turn determine the level of

detail and scope of the port’s waste reception and handling plan. These plans can also be

EN 6 EN

developed in a geographic context, thus serving the interests of ports within regional

proximity, as well as those of regional traffic.

Although Member States will have to ensure that the cost recovery systems incorporate the

principles laid down in the Directive, in particular for indirect fee and levels of transparency,

they will still be free to design the systems of charges and decide on the exact level of the

fees, taking into account the type of traffic to the ports. This discretion will be more limited

for garbage — the most important component of marine litter — for which the costs shall be

recovered fully through the indirect fee. Given the particularly negative effects on the marine

environment from plastics and other components of garbage from ships, a maximum financial

incentive is needed to ensure that garbage is delivered at every port call, instead of being

discharged at sea.

Choice of the instrument

In the interests of clear and consistent legal drafting, the most appropriate legal solution was

found to be the proposal for a single new Directive. The alternative option of proposing a set

of amendments to the current Directive was discarded because it would have required a large

number of changes. The choice of a new regulation was also discarded as this would not give

enough flexibility to Member States to decide on the best implementation policies for their

ports, which differ widely in terms of size, location, ownership and administrative set-up.

3. RESULTS OF EX POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER

CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS

Ex post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation

The ex post evaluation has shown that the Directive has been relevant to achieving the

objective of reducing waste discharges at sea and has had clear EU added value. However,

while waste volumes delivered on shore have increased, trends are uneven between the

different waste categories. Moreover, a significant amount of waste continues to be

discharged at sea. This is mainly due to differences in how the current Directive’s main

obligations, such as provision of adequate port reception facilities, the design and operation of

cost recovery systems and the enforcement of the mandatory delivery obligation, are

interpreted and implemented.

The concept of adequacy of port reception facilities was not defined clearly in the old

Directive, causing confusion among port users and operators. By extension, lack of

consultation of port users, as well as inconsistencies with EU ‘land-based’ legislation, has

resulted in situations where adequate facilities are not always available in ports. For example,

stakeholders during the consultation complained about the lack of separate collection in ports

of waste that had been previously segregated on board in line with international standards. In

addition, there has been confusion over the scope of the mandatory delivery obligation in the

light of the MARPOL discharge norms, including the definition of sufficient storage capacity

on board as the main exception for a ship to leave without having delivered its waste.

The legal and administrative framework for PRF inspections has also been unclear, as well as

the basis for and regularity of these inspections. Finally, exemptions for ships in scheduled

traffic have been applied on varying grounds and under different conditions, creating

unnecessary administrative burden. These issues have rendered the regime less effective in

delivering on its main objective: i.e. reducing discharges of waste at sea.

EN 7 EN

Further issues highlighted by the ex post evaluation:

The Directive is not fully consistent with relevant EU policies such as the EU waste

legislation and its key principles, which have not been fully implemented in ports.

Significant changes in the international legal framework (MARPOL) have not been

incorporated into the Directive.

The lack of systematic recording of waste delivered in ports and insufficient

exchange of information between Member States have hampered the efficient

monitoring and enforcement of the Directive and resulted in significant data gaps on

waste streams in EU ports.

Stakeholder consultations

Regular consultations have been held with a wide range of stakeholder groups in the context

of the PRF Subgroup set up under the European Sustainable Shipping Forum to assist in the

revision process. The Subgroup, which unites the main stakeholder groups, i.e. Member State

national authorities, ports, ship owners, port reception facility operators and environmental

NGOs, brings together a high level of expertise on port reception facilities for managing

waste from ships. Over the course of several meetings, the Subgroup examined and discussed

the proposed measures and options for the revision, and its suggestions were properly

reviewed and taken into consideration in the drafting of the proposal. A summary of the

outcome of the Subgroup’s discussions is included in the annexes to the staff working

document12

.

Generally, stakeholders are in favour of a revision, which seeks further alignment with

MARPOL, in particular as regards the scope of the mandatory delivery requirement, and

provides specific measures addressing the problem of marine litter. The Subgroup has stressed

on multiple occasions the need for a proper implementation of the EU waste principles in the

context of the PRF regime, as well as for further harmonisation of the exemption regime and

the cost recovery systems, without imposing a ‘one system fits all’ approach for EU ports. In

addition, the Subgroup discussed ways to improve monitoring and enforcement was discussed

and how electronic reporting and data exchange could facilitate the process.

In the context of the impact assessment process, an open public consultation was organised,

which triggered responses from a wide variety of stakeholders. This was followed up by a

targeted consultation directed at all port stakeholders. These consultations revealed that the

lack of incentives and enforcement are among the most important drivers of the overall

problems of waste discharged at sea. In addition, it was pointed out in both consultation

rounds that inconsistency in definitions and forms and different exemption regimes lay at the

basis of the unnecessary administrative burden.

Collection and use of expertise

This proposal builds on the information collected and analysed during the evaluation and the

impact assessment process, for which external studies were conducted. In addition, technical

assistance and specific data were received from the European Maritime Safety Agency

(EMSA).

The 2015 ex post evaluation study assessed data received from 40 large commercial ports, on

the basis of which a time series on waste deliveries was drawn up for the period 2004-2013.

12 Annex 2, page 7, Synopsis Report of stakeholder consultation.

EN 8 EN

Part of the data originated from earlier studies that EMSA had conducted on the

implementation of the Directive, and was supplemented by a stakeholder survey.

The support study conducted in 2016 to assist with the impact assessment for the revision of

the Directive sought to supplement the data on waste volumes delivered at the ports identified

in previous studies (Ramboll 2012 and Panteia 2015) for the period 2013-2015. Updated

waste delivery data for this period were received from 29 out of the 40 ports assessed earlier.

In addition, the impact assessment support study applied a model to calculate the waste gap,

known as the MARWAS model, which measures: (i) the difference between waste that is

expected to be delivered to the ports for which delivery data has been received, on the basis of

the traffic to these ports during the specified time frame; and (ii) what was delivered in

absolute volumes in these ports during this period. Ship movement data were obtained from

EMSA for the 29 ports under review and fed into the model. The support study also

developed an environmental vulnerability assessment of the different regional sea areas in

relation to the different categories of waste from ships. The methodology is explained in detail

in the relevant annex to the staff working document accompanying this proposal13

.

Continuous support throughout the process has been provided by the PRF Subgroup

mentioned above.

Impact assessment

The impact assessment examined different policy options for revising the Directive, based on

the following guiding principles:

(1) The scope of the revision, the extent of the legislative changes and the

development of soft law guidance;

(2) The scope of the mandatory delivery requirement for waste. The choice for

aligning with the MARPOL discharge norms or aiming for a zero-waste

discharge regime through full delivery to ports. This also has an impact on

other aspects such as the application of cost recovery systems and enforcement;

(3) The potential for addressing the specific problem of marine litter from ships

(mostly garbage from ships);

(4) The potential for reducing the administrative burden and simplifying the

regime in line with the REFIT objectives of the proposal.

These principles are reflected in the policy objectives described below.

OPTION 1: Baseline scenario. Under this option no legislative change to the Directive is

planned. Instead, soft law guidance would be developed, as well as further expansion of the

electronic reporting and monitoring system set up under article 12(3) of the current Directive,

which is based on the electronic reporting into SafeSeaNet and THETIS (Port State Control

Database).

OPTION 2: Minimum revision. This option envisages targeted initiatives and concise legal

adjustments in relation to the MARPOL Convention as well as relevant Union legislation,

building on the baseline scenario. In particular, it would bring the scope into line with the

MARPOL Convention, by including waste covered under Annex VI to the Convention and

update references to Union environmental legislation.

13 Annex 4, page 23, Analytical models used in preparing the Impact Assessment.

EN 9 EN

OPTION 3: MARPOL alignment. This option seeks further approximation to MARPOL, in

particular in determining the scope of mandatory delivery in line with the MARPOL

discharge norms, which would address the illegal discharges of waste at sea. This option also

includes incorporating PRF inspections into Port State Control, and includes the full range of

measures to improve the adequacy of facilities and economic incentives for ships to deliver to

them.

OPTION 4: EU PRF regime beyond MARPOL. This option aims to strengthen the current

regime under the Directive, going beyond the MARPOL Convention. Mandatory delivery

would apply to all waste from ships, including the waste that may be discharged at sea under

MARPOL. This option also includes the full range of measures for improving adequacy of the

facilities and providing the right incentives for delivery.

OPTIONS 3B and 4B: Marine litter option variants under options 3 and 4 above. These

variant options specifically address the problem of marine litter from ships (mostly garbage

discharges). Both incentive and enforcement measures are included, as well as a proposal to

bring fishing vessels and recreational craft fully within the scope of the Directive, albeit with

a differentiated enforcement approach based on gross tonnage.

The impact assessment concluded that the preferred option is policy option 3B, as it

reconciles the objectives of reducing waste discharges at sea, in particular garbage discharges

(marine litter), with the intended reduction of the administrative burden through further

alignment with the MARPOL Convention.

The preferred policy option is expected to:

generate positive environmental impacts, as it should result in a substantial reduction

of illegal discharges at sea of oily waste, sewage, garbage and scrubber waste;

make an important contribution to the circular economy through special measures

focused on reducing marine litter, including waste originating from the fishing and

recreational sector, and improving waste management practices in port;

result in a reduction of the enforcement costs and a substantial reduction of

administrative costs;

generate additional employment, especially for waste handlers and in the tourism

sector in coastal areas;

lead to increased environmental awareness around the problem of marine litter, both

at shore and on board.

The preferred option is expected to generate additional compliance and operational costs,

in particular from investments in waste collection in ports, the alignment of the cost recovery

systems and the development of new capacity for the reception and treatment of new waste

streams. However, these costs are expected to be limited. The anticipated level of these costs

is described in impact assessment included in the staff working document accompanying the

proposal14

. However, an exact quantification of the overall compliance costs could not be

provided due to a lack of data.

14 Commission Staff Working Document – Impact Assessment, page 60 (compliance costs), and page 73

(conclusion).

EN 10 EN

The impact assessment was submitted to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board for approval in May

2017. The Board issued a positive opinion with reservations15

. In its opinion, the Board

expressed concerns over the added value of the Directive compared to the MARPOL

Convention, and requested more explanation of the relationship between the two regimes and

how the proposed options are in line with or go beyond the Convention. In this context the

Board also posed some questions regarding the proportionality of the preferred option, in

particular as it includes more specific requirements for smaller vessels, and there is still some

uncertainty as regards the exact compliance and investment costs related to this option. These

comments were addressed in the following ways:

– Additional explanation was included on how the Directive aims to transpose the

relevant obligations from the MARPOL Convention through a port-based approach,

and not only seeks to provide for enforcement of these requirements through the EU

legal regime, but also offers added value as regards their implementation in the

Member States, in particular through additional elements such as the waste reception

and handling plans, cost recovery systems in ports and the regime on exemptions for

ships in scheduled traffic. A table offering a comparison between the two instruments

was included, as well as an overview of the most relevant amendments to the

MARPOL Convention in the last 15 years.

– A table was included comparing the different policy options to the MARPOL

Convention. It was also explained that the preferred option based on alignment with

MARPOL does not equal full alignment, as this would mean retracting fundamental

obligations, which have proven very relevant and useful, as was shown in the ex-post

(REFIT) evaluation of the Directive. Additional explanations were included to

demonstrate the proportionality of each one of the options, and more information was

provided on how the preferred options proposes to redefine the position of the

smaller vessels, i.e. fishing vessels and recreational craft, taking a differentiated

approach to enforcement based on gross tonnage and length overall.

– Finally, additional efforts were made to obtain quantitative data from the ports in

relation to some of the key obligations included in the preferred option. However, as

it concerns commercially sensitive data, limited feedback was received, and the

description of the compliance and investment costs remains mostly qualitative.

Territorial impact assessment

The proposed revision has an important regional dimension given the different sea basins in

the EU and the local specificities of ports. For this reason, a territorial impact assessment was

undertaken. The assessment pointed to the specific challenges that ports located in small

islands and remote places may face when implementing the PRF regime, but also concluded

that the new Directive may provide benefits to these regions, in particular in tourism

development, employment and governance. However, in spite of the regional differences, the

territorial impact assessment revealed a strong call for harmonisation of the key aspects of the

Directive. The results of the territorial impact assessment have been summarised in the

synopsis report attached to the staff working document accompanying the proposal.

15 Opinion on the Impact Assessment/Port reception facilities for ship generated waste and cargo residues,

23 June 2017, http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/[....]

EN 11 EN

Regulatory fitness and simplification

Given that the proposal is a REFIT initiative, it aims to simplify the regulatory framework and

reduce administrative burden.

By better aligning the definitions with MARPOL, the standard forms developed by the IMO

for waste notification and waste receipt can also be fully incorporated into the Directive. By

doing so, parallel forms and systems can be avoided as much as possible. In addition, it is

proposed to include the PRF inspections in the Port State Control regime and employ the

information and monitoring system, which was developed on basis of the current Directive

(Article 12(3) and which is based on electronic reporting in SafeSeaNet and THETIS, to

facilitate monitoring and enforcement. These measures are expected to generate a EUR 7.1

million reduction in administrative costs as they should result in more effective inspections.

The proposed revisions are also expected to increase business opportunities for waste

operators in ports, as well as operators in the recreational and tourism sector, most of which

qualify as SMEs, as more waste should be landed in ports, resulting in a cleaner marine

environment, with positive effects for local and regional tourism.

The proposal for a new Directive leaves a considerable margin of discretion to Member States

to: (i) organise the reception facilities in their ports, as reflected in the waste reception and

handling plans; and (ii) design the appropriate fee systems, taking into account the size and

geographic location of the ports, as well as the type of traffic to those ports.

The proposed revision envisages the further development and operation of the information,

monitoring and enforcement system that was already set up under the present Directive to

facilitate monitoring and enforcement of the Directive. The system will be based on the Union

Maritime Information and Exchange System provided for under Directive 2002/59/EC and the

Inspection Database set up under Directive 2009/16/EC. Data will be reported electronically

using the ‘national single window’ system, in line with Directive 2010/65/EU, and exchanged

between Member States for monitoring and enforcement purposes. The proposal will also

further standardise electronic reporting formats for waste receipt, waste notification and the

exemptions for ships in scheduled traffic.

Fundamental rights

The proposal has no consequences for the protection of fundamental rights.

4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS

The proposal has no consequences for the Union budget.

5. OTHER ELEMENTS

Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements

The proposal is accompanied by an implementation plan that lists the actions needed to

implement the measures and identifies the main technical, legal and time-related

implementation challenges.

Adequate monitoring and reporting arrangements have been identified. EMSA plays an

important role in this process, as the Agency is in charge of the development and operation of

electronic data systems for maritime transport.

EN 12 EN

The Directive in force already calls for the establishment of a common information and

monitoring system that would: (i) identify ships not delivering their waste; and (ii) ascertain

whether the goals of the Directive had been met. In recent years, this system has been

developed on the basis of existing databases: in particular SafeSeaNet has provided the

electronic reporting and exchange of the information from the advance waste notification, and

a separate EU module has been developed within the Inspection Database (THETIS) for the

reporting of results from PRF inspections. In addition, steps have been taken to ensure that the

information stored in SafeSeaNet is systematically transmitted to THETIS-EU so that the

mandatory delivery obligation can be monitored and enforced. With the proposed Directive,

the systems will be further improved and should also include the basic information on the

availability of reception facilities in EU ports. This information will also be transmitted to

GISIS, the IMO’s global integrated ship information system, and to ensure that Member

States, by reporting under the Directive, meet their international reporting obligations at the

same time.

In addition, EMSA will help monitor the implementation of the proposed Directive. Given

that the full cycle of envisaged EMSA implementation visits is scheduled to last 5 years16

, the

evaluation cycle of the Directive is set at seven-year intervals.

Finally, it is also envisaged that an expert group will be set up, consisting of representatives

from the Member States and from other relevant sectors. The group will exchange

information and experience on the implementation of the Directive and provide the necessary

guidance to the Commission.

Explanatory documents (for directives)

Explanatory documents are not required as the proposal aims to simplify and clarify the

existing regime.

6. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSAL

The proposed Directive will align the EU regime as far as possible with MARPOL, in

particular as regards scope, definitions and forms. Full alignment, however, is not possible, as

the focus of the Directive is on operations in ports, while MARPOL is focused on operations

at sea. Although the Directive builds on the obligations which Member States have assumed

under MARPOL, it goes further by addressing in detail the legal, operational and financial

responsibilities of all the operators. In addition, the proposed Directive, like its predecessor,

has a wider scope by covering all sea-going vessels and all EU ports visited by these vessels.

The main areas where the Directive and MARPOL will continue to differ concern the

following:

the adoption of waste reception and handling plans;

the development and operation of the cost recovery systems;

the mandatory reporting of information from the advance waste notification and the

waste receipt;

the inspection regime;

16 As provided for in the EMSA Methodology for visits to Member States,

http://emsa.europa.eu/implementation-tasks/visits-and-inspections/items.html?cid=89&id=3065

EN 13 EN

the regime of exemptions for ships in scheduled traffic.

Many of these differences in the EU regime serve to better implement and enforce the regime

envisaged by MARPOL.

The most important changes introduced by the new Directive are outlined below.

Title, scope and definitions:

The title will be changed to expressly refer to the delivery of waste from ships, as this would

better reflect the main objective of the Directive.

Article 2 will replace the definition of ‘ship-generated waste’ with the more generic definition

of ‘waste from ships’, defined in relation to the relevant Annexes to MARPOL. This will also

include the category of ‘cargo residues’, as well as waste falling under MARPOL Annex VI,

i.e. the residues from exhaust gas cleaning systems, which comprise of sludge and bleed-off

water from these systems. By deleting the distinction between ship-generated waste and cargo

residues, and ensuring full compliance with the MARPOL definitions, further alignment with

the standard IMO forms and certificates is made possible. Passively fished waste, i.e. waste

collected in nets during fishing operations, has been included in the definition of waste from

ships to ensure appropriate arrangements are made for the delivery of this type of waste from

the fishing sector to port reception facilities, given its relevance in the context of marine litter.

Clear and updated references have been added to the relevant pieces of EU legislation.

Adequacy of port reception facilities:

The notion of ‘adequate port reception facilities’ has been more clearly described in line with

IMO guidance. The requirement for separate collection of waste stemming from the Waste

Framework Directive has been expressly included in Article 4 to be applied in ports. This is

especially relevant in cases where the waste was previously segregated on board in line with

international norms and standards.

As regards the waste reception and handling plans, which are instrumental for achieving

adequacy of port reception facilities, stronger emphasis has been placed in Article 5 and

Annex 1 on the consultation requirements. Clarifications have also been provided for the

notion of what constitutes an ‘appropriate plan’, the ‘significant changes’ to such a plan and

the ‘regional context’ in which it can be developed.

Incentives for delivery:

To ensure that the right incentives are provided for the delivery of the different types of waste

to port reception facilities, Article 8 lays down the main principles to be incorporated and

employed in every fee system set up under the Directive. This includes the relationship

between the fee charged and the costs of PRF, the calculation of the ‘significant contribution’

to be covered by the indirect fee, and the main transparency requirements. A new Annex 4 is

included in the Directive, which provides an overview of the different types of costs of the

PRF system, distinguishing between direct and indirect costs.

Although Article 8 does not prescribe one particular system to be applied in all EU ports, the

proposed cost recovery system is stricter as regards the principles to be applied when

establishing the indirect fee for garbage, including passively fished waste. As garbage

discharges contribute significantly to the wider problem of marine litter, a ‘no special fee’

system is proposed, in which payment of the indirect fee should give ships the right to deliver

EN 14 EN

all their garbage on board, without having to pay any additional direct fees (based on

volumes). As fishing vessels and recreational craft will also be included in the indirect fee

system, this should also address the disposal of end-of-life fishing nets and passively fished

waste.

Article 8 also strengthens the ‘green ship’ concept, as already developed and applied by

individual ports in line with international standards and certification schemes. Under this

concept, a reduced waste fee should be applied for ships that can demonstrate sustainable

waste management on board, the criteria for which will have to be further set out by the

Commission in a delegated act.

Enforcement of the mandatory delivery requirement:

The advance waste notification form referred to in Article 6 has been fully aligned with IMO

Circular MEPC/834 and is provided in a new Annex 2 to the Directive. The scope of the

delivery obligation for all waste has been set in accordance with MARPOL, so that the PRF

Directive mirrors the MARPOL discharge regime: where MARPOL prohibits the waste from

being discharged at sea, the PRF Directive requires the delivery of this waste to port reception

facilities on shore, including the cargo residues. With this approach, no specific provision for

the delivery of cargo residues is necessary, as was the case under the old Directive. In

addition, Article 7 requires the issuing of a waste receipt to the ship upon delivery of the

waste, containing the information that should be electronically reported by the ship into the

information, monitoring and enforcement system, i.e. SafeSeaNet, before departure.

Article 7 limits the application of the exception based on sufficient storage capacity to

situations where the next port of call is located in the EU and where there is no uncertainty

over the availability of adequate port reception facilities. This assessment should be done on

basis of the information made available in the information, monitoring and enforcement

system that is embedded in SafeSeaNet, on adequate port reception facilities in EU ports.

Furthermore, this proposal envisages the adoption of specific methods to calculate sufficient

on-board storage capacity by the Commission through an implementing act.

On the inspection regime, Article 10 specifies that the PRF inspections must be fully

integrated into the Port State Control regime set up under Directive 2009/16/EC and follow a

risk-based approach, when the ship falls within the scope of that directive. To ensure that

every Port State Control inspection also verifies compliance with the PRF requirements,

certain changes need to be made to Directive 2009/16/EC, as set out in Article 21. At the

same time, a separate inspection regime is provided for fishing vessels, recreational craft and

domestic vessels over 100 gross tonnage, as these vessels are not covered by the Port State

Control Directive. Results from the inspections undertaken on these vessels will have to be

recorded in the information, monitoring and enforcement system, in a specific EU module

within THETIS.

Exemption regime for ships in scheduled and regular traffic:

Article 9 of the proposal provides for further harmonisation of the exemption criteria, in

particular what constitutes a ‘ship in scheduled traffic’ with ‘frequent and regular port calls’,

as well as what constitutes ‘sufficient evidence of an arrangement’ for delivery and payment

of the fee. A standard exemption certificate is introduced, which should be included in the

information, monitoring and enforcement system through electronic reporting into

EN 15 EN

SafeSeaNet, so that Member States can subsequently exchange the information contained in

the certificate.

Fishing vessels and recreational craft:

The position of fishing vessels and small recreational craft has been redefined in the

Directive, given their relative importance in contributing to the problem of marine litter at sea.

Whereas under the current Directive both fishing vessels and small recreational craft are

exempted from some of the key obligations, these exemptions have been redefined, so that the

larger vessels are included based on length and gross tonnage to ensure proportionality of the

regime

As regards the cost recovery systems, fishing vessels and recreational craft will be subject to

the indirect fee. Similar to other vessels, fishing vessels and recreational craft will thus be

required to pay a fee to the port/harbour irrespective of whether they deliver any waste or not.

However, this should also give these ships the right to deliver all their garbage without having

to pay any additional fees, including any derelict fishing gear and passively fished waste. As

regards the other waste types, the general obligations of applying a minimum 30% indirect fee

will also apply to the delivery of waste by the fishing and recreational sector.

Reporting of the information from the waste notification and waste receipt will only be

required for fishing vessels and recreational craft of 45 metres and above. Requiring vessels

below this threshold to report electronically before arrival and departure would be

disproportionate, as these vessels are generally not equipped for electronic reporting nor are

the ports receiving them able to process electronic notifications at each and every port call.

This was also shown in the impact assessment accompanying the proposal17

.

On enforcement, the Directive lays down that inspections must be carried out for at least 20 %

of all fishing vessels and recreational craft over 100 gross tonnage calling in the ports of a

relevant Member State annually. This threshold coincides with the MARPOL requirement for

carrying a garbage record plan on board for ships over 100 gross tonnage.

17 Commission Staff Working Document – Impact Assessment, chapter 5.2.5, page 46.

EN 16 EN

2018/0012 (COD)

Proposal for a

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on port reception facilities for the delivery of waste from ships, repealing Directive

2000/59/EC and amending Directive 2009/16/EC and Directive 2010/65/EU

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular

Article 100(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee18

,

Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions19

,

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure,

Whereas:

(1) The Union's maritime policy is aimed at a high level of safety and environmental

protection. This can be achieved through compliance with international conventions,

codes and resolutions while maintaining the freedom of navigation as provided for by

the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

(2) The International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships ('MARPOL

Convention') provides for general prohibitions on discharges from ships at sea, but

also regulates the conditions under which certain types of waste can be discharged into

the marine environment. The MARPOL Convention requires Member States to ensure

the provision of adequate reception facilities in ports.

(3) The Union has pursued the implementation of the MARPOL Convention through

Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and the Council20

, by following a

port-based approach. Directive 2000/59/EC aims to reconcile the interests of smooth

operation of maritime transport with the protection of the marine environment.

(4) In the last two decades, the MARPOL Convention and its Annexes have undergone

important amendments, which put in place stricter norms and prohibitions for the

discharges of waste from ships at sea.

(5) Annex VI to the MARPOL Convention introduced discharge norms for new waste

categories, in particular, the residues from exhaust gas cleaning systems, consisting of

18 OJ C , , p. . 19 OJ C , , p. . 20 Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 27 November 2000 on port

reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues (OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p.81).

EN 17 EN

both sludge and bleed-off water. Those waste categories should be included in the

scope of the Directive.

(6) On 15 April 2014, the International Maritime Organisation ('IMO') adopted the

Consolidated Guidance for port reception facility providers and users

(MEPC.1/Circular 834), including the standard format for waste notification, waste

receipt, and reporting alleged inadequacies of port reception facilities.

(7) In spite of these regulatory developments, discharges of waste at sea still occur. This is

due to a combination of factors, namely adequate port reception facilities are not

always available in ports, enforcement is often insufficient and there is a lack of

incentives to deliver the waste onshore.

(8) Directive 2000/59/EC has contributed to increasing volumes of waste being delivered

to port reception facilities since its entry into force, and as such has been instrumental

in reducing waste discharges at sea, as was revealed in the REFIT Evaluation of the

Directive.

(9) The REFIT Evaluation has also demonstrated that Directive 2000/59/EC has not been

fully effective due to inconsistencies with the MARPOL framework. In addition,

Member States have developed different interpretations of the key concepts in the

Directive, such as adequacy of the facilities, advance waste notification and the

mandatory delivery of waste to port reception facilities, and exemptions for ships in

scheduled traffic. The evaluation called for more harmonisation of those concepts and

further alignment with the MARPOL Convention in order to avoid unnecessary

administrative burden on both ports and port users.

(10) The Directive is also instrumental for the application of the main environmental

legislation and principles in the context of ports and the management of waste from

ships. In particular, Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and the

Council21

, as well as Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and the

Council22

, are relevant instruments in this regard.

(11) Directive 2008/98/EC lays down the main waste management principles, including the

"polluter pays" principle and the waste hierarchy, which calls for the reuse and

recycling of waste over other forms of waste recovery and disposal and requires the

establishment of systems for the separate collection of waste. These obligations also

apply to the management of waste from ships.

(12) Separate collection of waste from ships, including derelict fishing gear, is necessary to

ensure its further recovery in the downstream waste management chain. Garbage is

often segregated on board of ships in accordance with international norms and

standards and Union legislation should ensure that these efforts of on-board waste

segregation are not undermined by a lack of arrangements for separate collection on

shore.

(13) Although the majority of marine litter originates from land-based activities, the

shipping industry, including the fishing and recreational sectors, is also an important

contributor, with discharges of garbage, including plastic and derelict fishing gear,

going directly into the sea.

21 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, p.3). 22 Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a

framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy

Framework Directive) (OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p.19).

EN 18 EN

(14) The Commission’s Circular Economy Strategy23

has set a reduction target for marine

litter of 30 % by 2020 and acknowledged the specific role that the Directive

2000/59/EC has to play in this respect, by ensuring the availability of adequate

facilities for the reception of garbage, and providing for both the right level of

incentives and the enforcement of the delivery of waste to the on-shore facilities.

(15) A port reception facility is considered to be adequate if it is able to meet the needs of

the ships normally using the port without causing undue delay. Adequacy relates both

to the operational conditions of the facility in view of the user needs, as well as to the

environmental management of the facilities in accordance with Union waste

legislation.

(16) Regulation (EC) 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council24

requires

international catering waste to be incinerated or disposed of by burial in an authorised

landfill, including waste from ships calling at Union ports which has potentially been

in contact with animal by-products on board. In order for this requirement not to limit

the promotion of further reuse and recycling of waste from ships, efforts should be

made to better segregate the waste on board so that potential contamination of waste,

such as packaging waste, can be avoided.

(17) To ensure adequacy of port reception facilities, the development and re-assessment of

the waste reception and handling plan is essential, based on consultation of all relevant

port users. For practical and organisational reasons, neighbouring ports in the same

region may want to develop a joint plan, covering the availability of port reception

facilities in each of the ports covered by the plan while providing a common

administrative framework.

(18) To address the problem of marine litter effectively, it is fundamental to provide the

right level of incentives for the delivery of waste to port reception facilities, in

particular garbage. This can be achieved through a cost recovery system, which

requires the application of an indirect fee, which is due irrespective of the delivery of

waste and which should give a right of delivery of the waste without any additional

direct charges. The fishing and recreational sector, given their contribution to the

occurrence of marine litter, should also be included in this system.

(19) The ‘Green Ship’ concept should be further developed in relation to waste

management, so that an effective reward system can be implemented for those vessels

that reduce their waste on board.

(20) Cargo residues remain the property of the cargo owner after unloading the cargo to the

terminal, and often have an economic value. For this reason, the cargo residues should

not be included in the cost recovery systems and the application of the indirect fee; the

fee for the delivery of cargo residues should be paid by the user of the reception

facility, as specified in the contractual arrangements between the parties involved or in

other local arrangements.

23 Commission Communication COM/2015/0614, 'Closing the loop- an EU action plan for the Circular

Economy', section 5.1. 24 Regulation (EC) 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and 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) 1774/2002 (OJ L 300, 14.11.2009, p.1).

EN 19 EN

(21) Regulation (EU) 2017/352 of the European Parliament and the Council25

, includes the

provision of port reception facilities as a service in the scope of the Regulation. It

provides rules on the transparency of the charging structures applied for the use of port

services, consultation of port users and handling of complaint procedures. The

Directive goes beyond the framework provided by the Regulation (EU) 2017/352 by

providing more detailed requirements for the operation and design of the cost recovery

systems for port reception facilities for waste from ships and the transparency of the

cost structure.

(22) In addition to providing incentives for delivery, effective enforcement of the delivery

obligation is paramount and should follow a risk-based approach in line with Directive

2009/16/EC26

, which is no longer consistent with the 25 % target for inspections in

Directive 2000/59/EC for vessels falling under its scope.

(23) One of the main obstacles for the effective enforcement of the mandatory delivery

obligation has been the different interpretation and implementation by Member States

of the exception based on sufficient on-board storage capacity. To avoid that the

application of this exception undermines the main objective of the Directive, it should

be specified further, in particular in regard to the next port of call, and sufficient

storage capacity should be determined in a harmonised way in Union ports, based on

common methodology and criteria.

(24) Monitoring and enforcement should be facilitated through a system based on

electronic reporting and exchange of information. To this end, the existing information

and monitoring system set up under Directive 2000/59/EC should be further

developed, and continue to be operated on basis of existing electronic data systems, in

particular the Union Maritime Information and Exchange system (SafeSeaNet) and the

Inspection Database (THETIS). The system should also include the information on

port reception facilities available in the different ports.

(25) The MARPOL Convention requires the contracting parties to maintain up-to-date

information on their port reception facilities and communicate this information to the

IMO. To this end IMO has established a Port Reception Facilities Database within its

Global Integrated Ship Information System (‘GISIS’). By reporting this information

into the Information, Monitoring and Enforcement System set up by the Directive, and

the subsequent transmission of this information via the system to GISIS, Member

States would no longer have to report this information separately to the IMO.

(26) There is a need for further harmonisation of the regime of exemptions for ships in

scheduled traffic with frequent and regular port calls, in particular clarification of the

terms used and the conditions governing those exemptions. The REFIT Evaluation and

the Impact Assessment have revealed that the lack of harmonisation of the conditions

and application of exemptions has resulted in an unnecessary administrative burden

for ships and ports.

(27) The Subgroup on Port Reception Facilities, which had been set up under the European

Sustainable Shipping Forum, and which brings together a wide range of experts in the

field of ship-source pollution and the management of waste from ships, has provided

valuable guidance and expertise to the Commission. It would be desirable to maintain

25 Regulation (EU) 2017/352 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2017 establishing a

framework for the provision of port services and common rules on the financial transparency of ports (OJ L

57, 3.3.2017,p.1). 26 Directive 2009/16/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 April 2009 on port state

control (OJ L 131, 28.5.2009, p.57).

EN 20 EN

this group as a separate expert group to exchange experience on the implementation of

the Directive.

(28) The powers conferred on the Commission to implement Directive 2000/59/EC should

be updated in accordance with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European union

(TFEU).

(29) In order to provide for a methodology for the application of the exception based on

sufficient storage capacity, and for the further development of the information,

monitoring and enforcement system set up under this Directive, implementing powers

should be conferred on the Commission. Implementing acts should be adopted in

accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and the

Council.

(30) In order to take account of developments at international level, and to promote

environmentally sound waste management practices on board, the power to adopt acts

in accordance with article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission in

respect of amending this Directive to update the references to international instruments

and the Annexes and to change references to international instruments, in order to

prevent, if necessary, changes to those international instruments from applying for the

purposes of this Directive, and to develop common criteria for recognising 'green

ships' for the purpose of granting a reduced waste fee to those ships. It is of particular

importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its

preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission when preparing and

drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate

transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and the Council.

(31) Since the Directive's objective of protection of the marine environment from

discharges of waste at sea cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States

unilaterally but rather, by reason of the scale of action, can be better achieved at Union

level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity

set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on the European Union. In accordance with the

principle of proportionality, as set out in that article, this Directive does not go beyond

what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.

(32) The Union is characterised by regional differences at port level, as also demonstrated

in the Territorial Impact Assessment.. Ports differ based on geographic location, size,

administrative set-up and ownership, and are characterised by the type of ships

normally visiting. In addition, waste management systems reflect the differences at

municipal level and downstream waste management infrastructure.

(33) Directive 2000/59/EC should therefore be repealed.

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

SECTION 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 1

Subject matter

This Directive aims to protect the marine environment against the negative effects from

discharges of waste from ships using ports located in the Union, while ensuring the smooth

operation of maritime traffic, by improving the availability of adequate port reception

facilities and the delivery of waste to those facilities.

EN 21 EN

Article 2

Definitions

For the purpose of this Directive:

(a) ‘ship’ means a seagoing vessel of any type operating in the marine

environment, including fishing vessels and recreational craft not engaged in

trade, hydrofoil boats, air-cushion vehicles, submersibles and floating craft;

(b) ‘MARPOL Convention’ means the International Convention for the Prevention

of Pollution from Ships, in its up-to-date version;

(c) ‘waste from ships’ means all waste, including cargo residues, which is

generated during the service of a ship or during loading, unloading and

cleaning operations, or waste that is collected in nets during fishing operations,

and falls under the scope of Annexes I, II, IV, V and VI to MARPOL;

(d) ‘cargo residues’ means the remnants of any cargo material on board which

remain on the deck or in holds following loading and unloading, including

loading and unloading excess or spillage, whether in wet or dry condition or

entrained in wash-water, excluding cargo dust remaining on the deck after

sweeping or dust of the external surfaces of the ship;

(e) ‘port reception facilities’ means any facility, which is fixed, floating or mobile

and capable of receiving the waste from ships;

(f) ‘fishing vessel’ means any ship equipped or used commercially for catching

fish or other living resources from the sea;

(g) ‘recreational craft’ means a ship of any type, with a hull length of 2.5 metres

and beyond, regardless of the means of propulsion, intended for sports or

leisure purposes, and not engaged in trade;

(h) ‘domestic vessel’ means a ship flying the flag of a Member State solely

engaged in domestic voyages in that Member State;

(i) ‘domestic voyage’ means a voyage in sea areas from a port of a Member State

to the same or another port within that Member State;

(j) ‘port’ means a place or a geographical area made up of such improvement

works and equipment as to permit the reception of ships, including the

anchorage area within the jurisdiction of the port;

(k) ‘catering waste’ means all waste food, including used cooking oil originating in

restaurants, catering facilities and kitchens’;

(l) ‘sufficient storage capacity’ means enough capacity to store the waste on board

from the moment of departure until the next port of call, including the waste

that is likely to be generated during the voyage;

(m) ‘scheduled traffic’ means traffic based on a published or planned list of times

of departures and arrivals between identified ports or recurrent crossings that

constitute a recognised schedule;

(n) ‘regular port calls’ means repeated journeys of the same ship forming a

constant pattern between identified ports or a series of voyages from and to the

same port without intermediate calls;

(o) ‘frequent port calls’ means visits by a ship to the same port taking place at least

once a fortnight;

EN 22 EN

(p) ‘GISIS’ means the Global Integrated Ship Information System set up by the

International Maritime Organisation.

‘Waste from ships’, as defined in points (c) and (d) shall be considered to be waste

within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC27

.

Article 3

Scope

This Directive shall apply to:

(a) all ships, irrespective of their flag, calling at, or operating within, a port of a

Member State, with the exception of any warship, naval auxiliary or other ship

owned or operated by a State and used, for the time being, only on a

government non-commercial basis;

(b) all ports of the Member States normally visited by ships falling under the scope

of point (a).

Member States shall take measures to ensure that, where possible, ships, which do not fall

within the scope of this Directive, deliver their waste in a manner consistent with this

Directive.

SECTION 2: PROVISION OF ADEQUATE PORT RECEPTION FACILITIES

Article 4

Port reception facilities

1. Member States shall ensure the availability of port reception facilities adequate to

meet the need of the ships normally using the port without causing undue delay to

ships.

2. Member States shall ensure that:

(a) The port reception facilities have the capacity to receive the types and

quantities of waste from ships normally using that port, taking into account the

operational needs of the users of the port, the size and geographical location of

the port, the type of ships calling at that port, and the exemptions provided for

under Article 9;

(b) The formalities relating to the use of the facilities are simple and expeditious to

avoid undue delays to ships, and the fees charged for delivery do not create a

disincentive for ships to use the port reception facilities;

(c) The port reception facilities allow for the management of the ship’s waste in an

environmentally appropriate way in accordance with the requirements of

Directive 2008/98/EC and other relevant Union legislation on waste. To this

end, the Member States shall provide for separate collection of waste from

ships in ports as required in Union waste legislation, in particular Directive

2008/98/EC, Directive 2012/19/EU and Directive 2006/66/EC. Point (c) shall

27 Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and

repealing certain directives, OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, p. 3-30.

EN 23 EN

apply without prejudice to the more stringent requirements imposed by

Regulation (EC) 1069/2009 for the management of catering waste from

international transport.

3. Member States shall use the forms and procedures laid down by IMO, for reporting

to the authorities of the port state alleged inadequacies of port reception facilities.

Any information received through this reporting procedure shall also be transmitted

electronically to the part of the information, monitoring and enforcement system

referred to in article 14 of this Directive.

4. Member States shall investigate all reported cases of alleged inadequacies and ensure

that any party involved in the delivery or reception of waste from ships can claim

compensation for damage caused by undue delay.

Article 5

Waste reception and handling plans

1. An appropriate waste reception and handling plan shall be in place and implemented

for each port following ongoing consultations with the relevant parties, in particular

with port users or their representatives. Those consultations should be held both

during the initial drafting of the plans and after their adoption, in particular when

significant changes have taken place, with regards to the requirements in Articles 4,

6, and 7. The detailed requirements for the development of such plans are set out in

Annex 1.

2. Member States shall ensure that the following information from the waste reception

and handling plans on the availability of adequate reception facilities in their ports

and the associated costs shall be clearly communicated to the ship operators and

made publicly available either via the website of the ports or in printed form:

(a) location of port reception facilities applicable to each berth;

(b) list of waste from ships normally managed by the port;

(c) list of contact points, the operators and the services offered;

(d) description of the procedures for delivery of the waste;

(e) description of the cost recovery systems; and

(f) description of the procedures for reporting alleged inadequacies of port

reception facilities.

This information shall also be electronically reported in the part of the information,

monitoring and enforcement system referred to in Article 14 of this Directive, in

accordance with Directive 2002/59/EC.

3. The waste reception and handling plans referred to in paragraph 1 may, where

required for reasons of efficiency, be developed in conjunction by two or more

neighbouring ports in the same region, with the appropriate involvement of each

port, provided that the need for and availability of, reception facilities are specified

for each port.

4. Member States shall evaluate and approve the waste reception and handling plan,

monitor its implementation and ensure its re-approval at least every three years after

it has been approved or re-approved, and after significant changes in the operation of

the port have taken place. These changes shall include, but not be limited to,

EN 24 EN

structural changes in traffic to the port, development of new infrastructure, changes

in the demand and provision of port reception facilities, and new on-board treatment

techniques.

SECTION 3

DELIVERY OF WASTE FROM SHIPS

Article 6

Advance waste notification

1. The operator, agent or master of a ship falling within the scope of Directive

2002/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council28

, other than a fishing

vessel or a recreational craft of less than 45 metres, bound for a port located in the

EU shall complete accurately the form in Annex 2 and notify that information to the

authority or body designated for this purpose by the Member State in which that port

is located:

(a) at least 24 hours prior to arrival, if the port of call is known;

(b) as soon as the port of call is known, if this information is available less than 24

hours prior to arrival;

(c) at the latest upon departure from the previous port, if the duration of the

voyage is less than 24 hours.

2. The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be reported electronically in the part

of the information, monitoring and enforcement system, referred to in Article 14 of

this Directive, in accordance with Directive 2010/65/EU and Directive 2002/59/EC.

3. The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be kept on board at least until the

next port of call and shall be made available upon request to the relevant Member

States’ authorities.

4. Member States shall ensure that the information that is notified pursuant to this

Article is appropriately examined and shared with the relevant enforcement

authorities without delay.

Article 7

Delivery of waste from ships

1. The master of a ship calling at a Union port shall, before leaving the port, deliver all

the waste carried on board of the ship to a port reception facility in accordance with

the relevant discharge norms laid down in the MARPOL Convention.

2. Upon delivery, the waste operator or the authority of the port where the waste was

delivered shall accurately complete the form in Annex 3 and issue the receipt to the

ship.

This requirement shall not apply in small unmanned ports or in remotely located

ports, provided that the Member State where such a port is located has reported this

28 Directive 2002/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 establishing a

Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system and repealing Council Directive

93/75/EEC (OJ L 208, 5.8.2002, p.10).

EN 25 EN

information electronically in the part of the information, monitoring and enforcement

system referred to in Article 14 of this Directive.

3. The operator, agent or master of a ship, falling within the scope of Directive

2002/59/EC, shall before departure, electronically report the information from the

waste receipt in the part of the information, monitoring and enforcement system

referred to in Article 14 of this Directive, in accordance with Directive 2010/65/EU

and Directive 2002/59/EC.

4. The information referred to in paragraph 2 shall be kept on board for at least two

years and shall be made available upon request to the Member States’ authorities.

5. Without prejudice to paragraph 1, a ship may proceed to the next port of call without

delivering the waste, if:

(a) the ship only calls at anchorage for less than 24 hours or under adverse weather

conditions;

(b) the information provided in accordance with Annexes 2 and 3 shows that there

is sufficient dedicated storage capacity for all waste that has been accumulated

and will be accumulated during the intended voyage of the ship until the next

port of call.

6. In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of the exception based

on sufficient dedicated storage capacity, implementing powers shall be conferred on

the Commission to define the methods to be used for the calculation of the sufficient

dedicated storage capacity on board. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in

accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 20(2).

7. If the next port of call is located outside the Union, or there are good reasons to

believe that adequate facilities are not available in the next port of call, or this port is

unknown, the Member State shall require the ship to deliver all its waste before

departure.

8. Paragraph 2 shall apply without prejudice to more stringent requirements for ships

adopted in accordance with international law.

Article 8

Cost recovery systems

1. Member States shall ensure that the costs of operating port reception facilities for the

reception and treatment of waste from ships, other than cargo residues, shall be

covered through the collection of a fee from ships. Those costs include the elements

listed in Annex 4.

2. The cost recovery systems shall provide no incentive for ships to discharge their

waste at sea. To this end, the Member States shall apply the following principles in

the design and operation of the cost recovery systems in ports:

(a) part of the fee to be paid by ships shall be an indirect fee, to be paid

irrespective of delivery of waste to a port reception facility;

(b) the indirect fee shall cover the indirect administrative costs, as well as a

significant part of the direct operational costs, as determined in Annex 4. The

significant part of the direct operational costs shall represent at least 30 % of

the total yearly direct costs for actual delivery of the waste;

EN 26 EN

(c) in order to provide for a maximum incentive for the delivery of waste as

defined in Annex V to the MARPOL Convention, including the waste that has

been collected in nets during fishing operations, the indirect fee to be charged

shall cover all the costs of port reception facilities for this waste, in order to

ensure a right of delivery without any additional direct charges;

(d) The indirect fee shall not cover the waste from exhaust gas cleaning systems,

the costs of which shall be covered on the basis of the types and quantities of

waste delivered.

3. The part of the costs which is not covered by the fee referred to in subparagraph (b),

if any, shall be covered on the basis of the types and quantities of waste actually

delivered by the ship.

4. The fees may be differentiated with respect to, inter alia, the category, type and size

of the ship and the type of traffic the ship is engaged in, as well as with respect to

services provided outside normal operating hours in the port.

5. The fees shall be reduced if the ship’s design, equipment and operation are such that

it can be demonstrated that the ship produces reduced quantities of waste, and

manages its waste in a sustainable and environmentally sound manner. The

Commission shall be empowered by means of delegated acts in accordance with

Article 19, to define the criteria for determining that a ship meets the requirements

stated in this paragraph in relation to the ship’s on-board waste management.

6. In order to ensure that the fees are fair, transparent, non-discriminatory, and that they

reflect the costs of the facilities and services made available, and, where appropriate,

used, the amount of the fees and the basis on which they have been calculated shall

be made available to the port users.

Article 9

Exemptions

1. Member States may exempt a ship calling at their ports from the obligations in

Articles 6, 7(1) and 8 cumulatively, where there is sufficient evidence that:

(a) the ship is engaged in scheduled traffic with frequent and regular port calls;

(b) there is an arrangement to ensure the delivery of the waste and payment of the

fees in a port along the ship’s route;

(c) the arrangement under point (b) is evidenced by a signed contract with a port or

waste contractor, waste delivery receipts and confirmation that the arrangement

has been accepted by all ports on the ship’s route. The arrangement for delivery

and payment of the fee shall be made in a port located in the Union in order to

constitute sufficient evidence in accordance with this paragraph.

2. If the exemption is granted, the Member State where the port is located, shall issue

an exemption certificate, based on the format set out in Annex 5, confirming that the

ship meets the necessary conditions and requirements for the application of the

exemption and stating the duration of the exemption.

3. Member States shall report the information from the exemption certificate

electronically in the part of the monitoring and information system referred to in

Article 14 of this Directive, in accordance with the provisions of Directive

2002/59/EC.

EN 27 EN

4. Member States shall ensure effective monitoring and enforcement of the

arrangements for the delivery and payment in place for the exempted vessels visiting

their ports.

SECTION 4: ENFORCEMENT

Article 10

Inspections

Member States shall ensure that any ship may be subject to an inspection in order to verify

that it complies with the requirements of this Directive.

Article 11

Port State Control Inspections

Inspections shall be carried out in accordance with Directive 2009/16/EC for the ships falling

in the scope of that Directive, so that any such inspection includes a verification that the ship

complies with the requirements of Articles 6, 7, and 9.

Article 12

Inspections outside Port State Control

1. As regards inspections of ships falling outside the scope of Directive 2009/16/EC,

Member States shall ensure that inspections are carried out of at least 20 % of the

total number of the individual vessels for each category listed below:

(a) domestic ships flying their flag of 100 gross tonnage and above calling in the

relevant Member State annually;

(b) fishing vessels of 100 gross tonnage and above calling in the relevant Member

State annually;

(c) recreational craft of 100 gross tonnage and above calling in the relevant

member State annually.

2. The results of the inspections referred to in paragraph 1 shall be recorded in the part

of the information, monitoring and enforcement system referred to in Article 15 of

this Directive.

3. Member States shall establish procedures for inspections for fishing vessels below

100 gross tonnage as well as for recreational craft below 100 gross tonnage, to ensure

compliance with the applicable requirements of this Directive.

4. If the relevant authority of the Member State is not satisfied with the results of the

inspection, it shall, without prejudice to the application of the penalties referred to in

Article 16, ensure that the ship does not leave port until it has delivered its waste to a

port reception facility in accordance with Article 7.

Article 13

Information, Monitoring and Enforcement System

The implementation and enforcement of the Directive shall be facilitated by the electronic

reporting and exchange of information between Member States in accordance with Articles 14

and 15.

EN 28 EN

Article 14

Reporting and exchange of information

1. The reporting and exchange of information shall be based on the Union Maritime

Information and Exchange System (SafeSeaNet), referred to in Article 22a(3) and

Annex III of Directive 2002/59/EC.

2. Member States shall ensure that the following data is reported electronically and

within reasonable time in accordance with Directive 2010/65/EC:

(a) information on the actual time of arrival and time of departure of every ship,

falling in the scope of Directive 2002/59/EC, calling at an EU port, together

with an identifier of the port concerned;

(b) the information from the waste notification as contained in Annex 2;

(c) the information from the waste receipt as contained in Annex 3;

(d) the information from the exemption certificate as contained in Annex 5.

3. Member States shall ensure, to the extent possible, that fishing vessels and

recreational craft over 100 gross tonnage, calling at an Union port, shall also report,

the information on the actual time of arrival and departure.

4. The information reported for the purposes of Articles 4 and 5(2) shall be

subsequently transmitted by the Commission to the IMO Port Reception Facilities

Database within GISIS.

Article 15

Recording of inspections

1. The Commission shall develop, maintain and update an inspection database to which

all Member States shall be connected and which shall contain all the information

required for the implementation of the inspection system provided for by this

Directive. This database will be based on the inspection database referred to in

Article 24 of Directive 2009/16/EC and shall have similar functionalities to that

database.

2. Member States shall ensure that the information related to inspections under this

Directive, including information regarding non-compliances and prohibition of

departure orders granted, is transferred without delay to the inspection database, as

soon as the inspection report has been completed, or the prohibition of departure

order has been lifted, or an exemption has been granted.

3. Member States shall ensure that the information transferred to the inspection

database is validated within 72 hours.

4. The Commission shall ensure that the inspection database makes it possible to

retrieve any relevant data reported by the Member States for the purpose of

monitoring the implementation of the Directive.

5. Member States shall at all times have access to the information recorded.

Article 16

Penalties

Member States shall lay down of the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of national

provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive and shall take all the measures necessary to

EN 29 EN

ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for shall be effective, proportionate

and dissuasive.

SECTION 5: FINAL PROVISIONS

Article 17

Exchange of experience

The Commission shall provide for the organisation of exchanges of experience between the

Member States’ national authorities and experts, including those from the private sector, on

the application of this Directive in Union ports.

Article 18

Amendment procedure

1. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with

Article 19 in order to amend the Annexes to this Directive and the references to IMO

instruments to the extent necessary to bring them into line with Union law or in order

to take account of developments at international level, in particular at IMO.

2. The Annexes may also be amended when it is necessary to improve the

implementation and monitoring arrangements established by this Directive, in

particular those provided in Articles 6, 7 and 9, in order to ensure effective

notification and delivery of waste, and the proper application of exemptions.

3. In exceptional circumstances, where duly justified by an appropriate analysis by the

Commission and in order to avoid a serious and unacceptable threat to maritime

safety, to health, to shipboard living or working conditions or to the marine

environment, or to avoid incompatibility with Union maritime legislation, the

Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 19,

amending this Directive in order not to apply, for the purpose of this Directive, an

amendment to the MARPOL Convention.

4. Those delegated acts shall be adopted at least three months before the expiration of

the period established internationally for the tacit acceptance of the amendment

concerned or the envisaged date for the entry into force of said amendment. In the

period preceding the entry into force of such delegated act, Member States shall

refrain from any initiative intended to integrate the amendment in national legislation

or to apply the amendment to the international instrument concerned. .

Article 19

Exercise of delegation

1. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 8(5), Article 18(1), Article

18(2) and Article 18(3) shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of five

years from [the date of entry into force]. The Commission shall draw up a report in

respect of the delegation of power not later than nine months before the end of the

five year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an

identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such

extension not later than three months before the end of each period.

2. The delegation may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the

Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power

EN 30 EN

specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the

decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified

therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.

3. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to

the European Parliament and the Council.

4. A delegated act shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either

by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of

notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the

expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed

the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by two

months at the initiative of the European Parliament and the Council.

Article 20

Committee

1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention

of Pollution from Ships (COSS) established by Regulation (EC) No 2099/2002. That

Committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU)

No 182/2011.

2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU)

No 182/2011 shall apply.

Article 21

Amendments to Directive 2009/16/EC

Directive 2009/16/EC is amended as follows:

(1) Article 13 is amended as follows:

(a) In paragraph (1) the following point (d) is added:

(d) ‘verifies that the ship complies with Article 6, Article 7 and Article 9,

where applicable, of Directive 201X/XX/EU on port reception facilities

for the delivery of waste from ships.’

(b) In paragraph (3) first subparagraph the following provision is added at the end

of the paragraph:

‘..or of Directive 201X/XX/EU'.

(c) The following paragraph is added:

(4) ‘If after the inspection referred to in point 1(d) or referred to in paragraph

3, the inspector is not satisfied that the ship has been in compliance with

Directive 201X/XX/EU, the ship shall not be allowed to leave the port,

without prejudice to the application of the penalties referred to in

Article 16 of Directive 201X/XX/EU, until the ship has delivered its

waste to a port reception facility.’

(2) In Annex I.II.2B, the following indent is added at the end of the list of unexpected

factors:

– 'Ships which have been reported as not complying with the obligation to

deliver their waste in accordance with Article 7 of Directive 201X/XX/EU or

for which the information reported in accordance with Article 6 of Directive

EN 31 EN

201X/XX/EU has revealed evidence of non-compliance with Directive

201X/XX/EU'.

(3) In Annex IV, the following points are added:

(51) A copy of the advance waste notification documents kept on board in

accordance with Article 6(3) of Directive 201X/XX/EU

(52) The standard waste receipt forms issued in accordance with Article 7 of

Directive 201X/XX/EU.

(53) The exemption certificate issued in accordance with Article 9 of Directive

201X/XX/EU.

Article 22

Amendment to Directive 2010/65/EU

Directive 2010/65/EU is amended as follows:

In point A of the Annex, point (4) is amended as follows:

'4. Notification of waste from ships, including residues

Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 201X/XX/EU of the European Parliament and the Council'.

Article 23

Repeal

Directive 2000/59/EC is repealed.

References to the repealed Directive shall be construed as references to this Directive.

Article 24

Review

The Commission shall evaluate this Directive and submit the results of the evaluation to the

European Parliament and the Council no later than seven years after its entry into force.

Article 25

Transposition

1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 31st of December 2020 at the latest, the

laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this

Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those

provisions.

When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this

Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official

publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.

2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions

of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.

EN 32 EN

Article 26

Entry into force

This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in

the Official Journal of the European Union.

Article 27

Addressees

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Strasbourg,

For the European Parliament For the Council

The President The President