EC on waste - Main contents

Please note

This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.

dossier	COM(2023)420 - Amendment of Directive 2008/98/EC on waste.
source	COM(2023)420
date	05-07-2023

1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL

• Reasons for and objectives of the proposal

The European Green Deal ¹ and the Circular Economy Action Plan ² call for reinforced and accelerated EU and Member State action to ensure environmental sustainability of the textiles and food sectors as they represent top resource intensive sectors causing significant negative environmental externalities, where financing and technological gaps impede progress towards the transition to a circular economy and decarbonisation. Food and textiles are the first and the fourth most resource intensive sectors respectively ³ and that do not fully adhere to the fundamental EU waste management principles set out by the waste hierarchy which require the prioritisation of waste prevention followed by preparation for re-use and recycling. Reflecting on the commitments made, this proposal to amend the Waste Framework Directive (WFD)⁴ focuses on two resource intensive sectors: textiles and food, with the following general objectives:

- To reduce environmental and climate impacts, increase environment quality and improve public health associated with textiles waste management in line with the waste hierarchy,

- To reduce the environmental and climate impacts of food systems associated with food waste generation. Preventing food waste would also contribute to food security.

Textile waste

Despite waste prevention being a key objective of the WFD and the implementation efforts at national level including by private actors, general waste generation continues to increase and only a ‘relative decoupling’ of waste generation from economic growth can be observed⁵. This trend for overall waste can also be observed for textile waste. It is, however, exacerbated by the so-called ‘fast fashion’, which is characterised by more frequent fashion collections being placed on the market⁶ with low-priced products that do not internalise environmental externalities⁷, encourage customers to shop impulsively and incentivises purchasing larger quantities of clothes⁸. This increasing textile consumption leads to increasing volumes of textile waste. According to an ongoing study by the Joint Research Centre (JRC)⁹, total textile waste, covering clothing and footwear, home textiles, technical textiles, and post-industrial and pre-consumer waste, in 2019 amounted to 12.6 million tonnes (Mt) (10.9 Mt post-consumer waste and 1.7 Mt post-industrial and pre-consumer waste). Clothing and footwear waste amounted to 5.2 Mt, equivalent to 12 kg per person per year in the EU.

According to a study from the Joint Research Centre (JRC)¹⁰, currently, around 78% of the post-consumer textiles waste covering clothing and footwear, home textiles and technical textiles is not separately collected and ends up in mixed household waste, destined to be incinerated or landfilled. This resource-inefficient waste management is not in line with the waste hierarchy and leads to environmental harm in the EU and in third countries through excessive levels of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, water consumption, pollution and land use. Of the separate collected textile waste, representing only 22% of the post-consumer textile waste generated, around 32% is recycled within the EU (around 20% outside the EU) and around 8% is re-used within the EU (around 38% outside the EU), while the rest is exported.

The separate collection obligation for textiles in the WFD is coming into force on 1 January 2025. According to information from Member States, it is estimated that the separate collection systems and the sorting and recycling infrastructures are unlikely to be ready to handle the expected additional amounts to be collected. Sorting is expected to take place in most Member States close to the waste collection points and at a higher scale in those where the market conditions are favourable (e.g. lower costs of waste management, existing upscaleable infrastructure and skills, proximity to recycling/production hubs and ports). Recycling is not expected to take place in all countries and is likely to be located in regions close to the textile production centres and existing infrastructure bases.

The textile sector is resource intensive. In relation to both the production of raw materials and textiles most of the pressures and impacts related to the consumption of clothing, footwear and household textiles in the EU occur in other regions of the world. However, while most of the environmental pressures of the EU consumption of textiles occur in third countries¹¹, they also affect the EU due to their global impact. The EEA estimates that to produce the amount of clothing, textiles and footwear consumed in the EU in 2020, 80% of primary raw materials, 88% of water and 92% of land used and 73% of GHG emissions took place outside the EU. For example, GHG emissions are a global phenomenon and are not circumscribed to specific boundaries or regions. Additionally, almost 13 million full-time equivalent workers were employed worldwide in the supply chain¹². Therefore, preventing, re-using and recycling textile waste can help reducing the environmental footprint of the sector.

Additionally, the waste management costs of used clothing and household textiles are not internalised in the price of new products. On average, the costs of collection and treatment would equate to approximately 12 cents per item. However, these costs vary by item type, with those involving a mix of textile fibre types and the inclusion of disruptors (for example buttons and zips) costing more to manage and those that comprise a single fibre type with no disruptors such as t-shirts costing less. Given the large volumes of textile wastes currently disposed of in residual waste, the cost of disposal and the environmental externalities of that disposal including emissions from incineration and landfilling are also not internalised. Other externalities include notably the environmental and social impacts of textile waste exported to third countries disguised for re-use purposes, in particular, in relation to exported non-sorted textiles, of which a significant portion ends up in (illegal) landfills.

Fragmented definitions of textiles and textile waste lead to administrative burden and pose barriers to cross-border shipments. Different policy and regulatory signals in each Member State and information gaps (e.g. about the quality of feedstock) hamper the scaling up of the recycling industry and re-use and disrupt the level playing field of the single market, in addition to the complexity in recycling textiles due to different compositions of textile waste. This obstructs not only the transition to a circular economy in textiles, but also prevents quality jobs and value-added being created in the EU. The insufficient sorting and recycling infrastructure is likely to lead to textiles not being treated in line with the waste hierarchy even once the separate collection obligation comes into force. Low added-value manufacturing mainly occurs in third countries. Production and disposal of imported textile waste create significant negative societal impacts at local, regional and global levels¹³.

Therefore, specific objectives for this proposal as regards textile waste is to improve textile waste management in line with the ‘waste hierarchy’¹⁴ enshrined in the WFD, prioritising waste prevention, preparing for re-use and recycling of textiles over other recovery options and disposal and implement the polluter pays principle. The Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP)¹⁵ and the EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles (‘Textiles Strategy’)¹⁶ call for reinforced and accelerated EU and Member State action to prevent textiles waste and to improve the circularity of textiles, as it is a resource intensive sector causing significant negative environmental externalities, where financing and technological gaps impede progress towards the transition to a circular economy.

Food waste

Food waste is one of the largest sources of inefficiency in the agri-food chain. In particular, it results in negative environmental and climate impacts. Food consumption is the main contributor to the environmental impacts¹⁷ and biodiversity footprint¹⁸ of EU consumption.

When food is discarded, all the embedded energy and resources and their environmental consequences, such as GHG emissions – that accumulate along the food chain – still materialise with no benefit for human nutrition. Food processed, transported and cooked that is then wasted at consumption stage – has a higher environmental impact than unprocessed food products lost at the farm. The 58.5 Mt of food waste generated in the EU in 2020¹⁹ caused emissions of 252 Mt of CO2 equivalents²⁰. This corresponds to 16% of the total GHG impact resulting from the EU food system. Food waste also puts unnecessary pressure on limited natural resources. For example, the amount of water consumed to produce food that is ultimately wasted can be quantified as 342 bn m³ water eq.²¹, corresponding to 12% of the total impact of EU food production and consumption. Food waste is also responsible for 16% of impacts on soil caused by land use activities²², while the consequences on marine eutrophication are 15% of the total²³^,²⁴.

As regards economic consequences, the 58.5 Mt of food waste have an associated market value estimated at 132 bn EUR²⁵. These costs include lost resources by food business operators at each stage of the food supply chain, but also unnecessary spending by households. In addition, the cost of collection and treatment of food waste is estimated at an additional 9.3 bn EUR²⁶.

Wasting food has important social consequences. It leads to unnecessary spending of resources that could be otherwise allocated. The average share of food expenditure (agri-food and food services) in total household expenditure in the EU is around 19%²⁷. Discarding food that is fit for human consumption – rather than redistributing that food to those in need, including through food donation – also represents a missed opportunity in the light of growing challenges to food security. Although, in Europe, food availability is ensured, food affordability is a concern for a growing number of EU citizens: 32.6 million people cannot afford a meal with meat, fish, chicken or vegetarian equivalent every second day²⁸. Finally, for many consumers, wasting food has an important ethical dimension²⁹.

In this context, the EU and its Member States committed to achieving Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Target 12.3 to halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses, by 2030.

The EU has implemented a dedicated action plan to reduce food loss and waste, including both regulatory and non-regulatory actions, initially as part of the 2015 Circular Economy Action Plan and, since 2020, under the EU’s Farm to Fork Strategy³⁰. In doing so, the Commission aims not only to lay down clear obligations for Member States as regards reduction of food waste but also to create policy environment that supports Member States in taking effective action.

The WFD, as revised in 2018, requires Member States to prepare specific food waste prevention programmes, in line with the waste hierarchy. It requires Member States to reduce food waste at each stage of the food supply chain, monitor food waste levels and report on progress made. The Commission adopted, in 2019, a common food waste measurement methodology³¹, to be utilised as a basis for EU-wide food waste monitoring.

In order to support Member States in taking action, the Commission has, since 2015, taken initiatives to clarify and harmonise relevant legislation (e.g., adoption of EU guidelines on food donation³², followed by amendments to food hygiene rules to facilitate safe food donation practices, as well as EU guidelines regarding the feed use of food no longer intended for human consumption³³). The Commission has also established, as of 2016, a multi-stakeholder platform, the EU Platform on Food Losses and Food Waste ³⁴ (FLW) to support all players in defining measures to prevent food waste, share best practice and evaluate progress. It has also adopted its own deliverables (e.g., recommendations for action in food waste prevention ³⁵) and has supported work undertaken at EU level to improve date marking ³⁶ practices. The sharing of best practice and solutions to reduce food waste across the EU is also facilitated through the digital EU Food Loss and Waste Prevention Hub ³⁷. The RESTwithEU pilot project³⁸ evaluates and recommends digital tools to reduce food waste in the restaurant industry. Supporting consumer behavioural change is addressed by a dedicated sub-group of the Platform and a best practice compendium, developed by the EU pilot project, the European Consumer Food Waste Forum, will be made available by end June 2023. In order to strengthen the evidence base for food waste prevention, the Joint Research Centre carries out assessments of the effectiveness of food waste prevention interventions³⁹, supported by an evaluation framework that can be utilised by all actors. Calls for proposals under the EU Research and Innovation Framework Programme Horizon 2020 ⁴⁰ and Horizon Europe ⁴¹ have been offering new opportunities for research and innovation to address food loss and waste. Other funding instruments for food waste prevention include the LIFE programme and www.interregeurope.eu/what-is-interreg-europe">InterReg Europe. Under the Single Market Programme, the Commission also makes available grants to support Member States and stakeholders⁴² in improving food waste measurement and implementation of actions to reduce food waste, in collaboration with the European Health and Digital Executive Agency (HaDEA).

Many food business operators along the food supply chain have taken important steps to reduce food waste generation and improve resource efficiency. Under the EU Code of Conduct for responsible Food Business and Marketing Practices⁴³, food processors and retailers, have made concrete commitments on food waste reduction in their operations and along the supply chain.

Despite these actions and the growing awareness of the negative impacts and consequences of food waste, political commitments made at EU and Member State levels and EU measures implemented since the 2015 CEAP, food waste generation is not sufficiently decreasing to make significant progress towards SDG Target 12.3. In the EU, despite the existing legal obligations in the WFD and the supporting activities of the Commission, action taken to date in Member States is disparate and has not allowed a significant reduction of food waste levels.

The setting of targets is therefore a necessary next step. The specific objectives of this proposal are: firstly, to assign clear responsibility to Member States for accelerating reduction of food waste along the food supply chain and in households, in their respective territories, and thus make a solid contribution towards achieving SDG Target 12.3; and secondly, to ensure sufficient and consistent response by all Member States to reduce food waste, in line with that of front-runners.

This should lead each Member State to take ambitious action – deploying the most effective measures, tailored to its specific national situation – and aiming to support consumer behavioural change as well as strengthen coordination of actions between actors across the whole food value chain as well as with other relevant actors (e.g., academia, NGOs, financial institutions, social economy actors, etc).

In addition, after the Conference on the Future of Europe, food waste was selected as the first subject for deliberative European Citizens’ Panels. The Citizens’ Panel’s recommendations will support the Commission’s work and will support Member States in designing national strategies and action plans to prevent food waste.

• Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area

The proposed amendment is in accordance with the Article 11(1) of the WFD that requires Member States to set up separate collection for textiles by 1 January 2025. The proposal introduces extended producer responsibility (EPR) and other policy measures that aim to support the required finance and harmonise information and approaches related to the collection, sorting, re-use, preparing for re-use and recycling infrastructure that will be needed once the separate collection obligation unfolds its effect.

According to Art 9(6) of the WFD, the Commission is required, by 31 December 2023, to examine the data on food waste provided by Member States with a view to consider the feasibility of establishing a Union-wide food waste reduction target to be met by 2030 and submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council, accompanied, if appropriate, by a legislative proposal. Setting targets should strengthen the current provisions of Article 9(1) of WFD that requires Member States to take measures to reduce food waste across the whole food supply chain.

• Consistency with other Union policies

The EU Textiles Strategy addresses the production and consumption of textiles, whilst recognising the importance of the textiles sector. It presents a 2030 vision for textiles which sets the goal for textile products that are long-lived and recyclable, to a great extent made of recycled fibres, free of hazardous substances and produced in respect of labour and social rights and the environment, and points to the need for producer responsibility along the value chain, for sufficient capacities for innovative fibre-to-fibre recycling, bio-based solutions, and reducing the incineration and landfilling of textiles to the minimum. Particularly relevant for waste management is that the EU Textiles Strategy announced harmonised EU rules on EPR for textiles, and economic incentives to make products more sustainable (“eco-modulation of fees”). Furthermore, it highlighted the Commission’s aim to address the challenges related to the export of textile waste, and to promote decent work worldwide for a global just transition and a sustainable recovery ⁴⁴.

This initiative also aims to contribute to the goal of the circular economy action plan to significantly reduce total waste generation and halve the amount of residual (non-recycled) municipal waste by 2030. The revision of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (PPWD) will aim to reduce waste generation of packaging waste. Taken together this initiative and the revision of the PPWD initiative will tackle over 65% of all municipal waste generated (packaging, food waste and textile waste) therefore contributing to the overarching objective of the WFD and the European Green Deal.

The Commission proposal for the Waste Shipments Regulation (WSR)⁴⁵ was adopted on 17 November 2021 and at the time of the adoption of this proposal negotiations are still ongoing. It aims to ensure that the EU does not export its waste challenges to third countries and to facilitate shipments for recycling, while discouraging shipments to disposal. Measures include criteria to better distinguish between mixed and non-mixed waste, as well as between used and waste goods, that may be established for textiles. Also, a stricter export regime to non-OECD third countries is proposed, as well as an obligation to audit the performance of recovery facilities in third countries. Finally, measures are proposed to step up the efforts on enforcement of the waste shipment rules, including for textile waste. The impacts of the WSR proposal are factored into the assessment performed. Furthermore, the measures that address shipments of materials (measures 2.6 and 2.9) distinguish textiles that are for re-use and no longer waste (and, therefore, not subject to the WSR) and those that are waste for which the measures in the proposal are referred to directly.

The proposed Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR)⁴⁶ will set a framework to set ecodesign requirements for specific product groups to significantly improve their circularity, energy performance and other environmental sustainability aspects. Ecodesign requirements can be of key importance for waste prevention and high-quality recycling, as they can improve product durability, reparability, recyclability and recycled content. The development of such requirements can also serve as a basis for the setting of harmonized financial contributions to EPR schemes. Ecodesign requirements for textiles are expected to be in place by 2025 or 2026. In addition to the introduction of new ecodesign requirements, ESPR will introduce measures to counter the destruction of unsold consumer products. Firstly, it proposed to introduce a requirement for large enterprises to publicly disclose information on the number and types of unsold consumer products they discard. This measure is intended to function as a reputational dis-incentive for this practice while it is also envisaged to create an improved evidence base on the extent to which the destruction of unsold consumer products takes place. Secondly, ESPR will include an empowerment to adopt delegated acts prohibiting the destruction of specific groups of unsold consumer products, such as textiles, taking into account the information from the general disclosure obligation. Other important Union policies include the Textile Labelling Regulation ⁴⁷ and the Regulation concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)⁴⁸.

Legally binding targets for food waste reduction contribute to a number of other EU policy objectives, namely a reduction of GHG emissions, thus contributing to the EU’s objective of climate neutrality by 2050 and to the objective of at least 55% net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 as expressed in 2030 Climate Target Plan ⁴⁹. Food waste reduction also leads to more sustainable use of land, reduced marine eutrophication and less water scarcity, in line with the objective of establishing a sustainable food system, as put forward in the Farm to Fork Strategy.

The Strategy foresees the establishment of a baseline for food waste levels, considering new data reported by the Member States, and the setting of legally binding targets to reduce food waste across the EU by 2023.

The Bioeconomy Strategy ⁵⁰ calls for actions to reuse, reduce and recycle bio-waste streams. The reduction of food waste contributes to core principles of the strategy such as the circular economy, the cascading use of biomass and the application of the waste hierarchy.

The Transition Pathway for Tourism ⁵¹, published in February 2022, among its key actions highlights the reduction of food waste in the hospitality sector. In December 2022, Member States adopted Council Conclusions on the European Agenda for Tourism 2030 ⁵², calling Commission and Member States to support improved circularity of tourism services, including food waste.

Finally, food waste has been identified as one of the main drivers affecting food security from both the supply and demand sides ⁵³. Reducing food waste can contribute to increased resilience of food systems and to food security in general, by improving supply chain efficiency and productivity as well as food affordability. By increasing the efficiency of food systems and supporting consumer behavioural change to avoid unnecessary discarding of food, it would be possible to feed a greater number of people with the same food production. Reducing food waste can therefore contribute to meeting the expected growing demand for food whilst ensuring that our food system operates within planetary boundaries. Moreover, reducing food loss and waste could contribute to food price decreases, thereby potentially improving economic access to food.

2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY

• Legal basis

Article 192 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)¹ empowers the EU to act in the field of environmental policy to preserve, protect and improve the quality of the environment, protect human health, contribute to the prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources, and promote measures at the international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems.

The proposal is set through a targeted amendment of the Directive 2008/98/EC on waste (WFD) which is the only legal vehicle to regulate textile waste prevention and management in the EU and is based on Article 192(1) TFEU. While there are several legal acts regulating textiles products (e.g. REACH, Textiles Labelling Regulation), the WFD is the only legal instrument regulating all aspects of textile waste management, including the specific obligations to ensure separate collection, treatment and reporting requirements.

The targeted amendment of the WFD builds on these existing requirements to remove identified regulatory barriers and address market failures by making those provisions clearer, more specific and harmonised to reduce the scope of potential national divergences and create the conditions for the scaling up re-use and recycling of textiles infrastructure. In addition, the creation of the EPR for textiles obligations follows the minimum requirements established in EU law and aim for harmonisation. This objective is further pursued by mandating the Commission to adopt more detailed rules through implementing acts. Clear application dates for the individual measures are defined in line with the feasibility of implementing them and the necessary adaptation time needed for the obliged stakeholders.

In the area of food waste, the targeted amendment of the WFD builds on existing requirements addressing major aspects of food waste prevention (definition of food waste and common food waste measurement methodology, obligations for Member States to reduce food waste at each stage of the food supply chain, monitor and report annually on food waste levels, preparation of national food waste prevention programmes) and management (e.g., separate collection).

• Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)

Given the transboundary nature of textiles value chain from an economic, environmental and social perspective, the sale, consumption and end-of-life management of textiles is intrinsically linked to the functioning of the single market and global value chains. The high dependency on raw materials highlights the importance of boosting circular business models to lower the use of primary raw materials and help mitigate the associated with its negative environmental externalities.

The collection, sorting and recycling systems need to be scaled up to be prepared for the upcoming separate collection obligation and its full implementation since several regulatory and market failures that impact all Member States and actors across the textile value chain currently obstruct sufficient provision of collection, sorting and recycling capacity. The absence of a common EU approach to textiles management risks creating or further entrenching a regulatory fragmentation and disrupted waste and material flows, thereby hampering cross-border movements of textiles (products, used and waste textiles) and coordinated action and swift investments across the EU. There are high risks for further increase in the regulatory fragmentation and administrative burdens on the industry stakeholders, mainly SMEs, resulting from diverse application of the polluter pays principle through national extended producer responsibility schemes for textiles. Addressing transboundary environmental externalities, including GHG emissions and the export of textiles (and waste disguised as non-waste) to third countries is more effectively addressed by EU action, in particular, as the key problem drivers relate to regulatory failures resulting from lack of harmonised definitions and regulatory fragmentation and a funding gap common to all Member States.

All Member States generate food waste, which creates significant transboundary environmental externalities. The production, storage, transport and processing of food and disposal of food waste cause environmental and climate impacts (such as GHG emissions, and effects on land use, biodiversity, water use and eutrophication) within the EU. Moreover, production of food imported to the EU can lead to significant global environmental and climate impacts.

Reduction of food waste across the EU in a consistent manner is needed to ensure, in each Member State, prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources, reduction of negative impacts on climate, biodiversity and use of natural resources, with benefits extending beyond national borders. Importantly, by making the food system more efficient, food waste reduction also contributes to food security across the EU.

Food is traded widely within the EU market and food businesses that operate cross-border need coherence and clarity on the level of ambition expected in order to plan investments and actions on food waste prevention. A coordinated approach at EU level can bring reliability and continuity and thus support adoption of new business models by food business operators in order to accelerate food waste reduction across the food value chain.

Despite political commitments made at international, EU and national levels, existing legal requirements in the WFD and supporting activities by the Commission, Member States’ responses to food waste have been uneven and are, overall, not sufficient to address the problems identified and the environmental, economic and social consequences for consumers, enterprises and society as a whole. The variation in efforts across Member States as regards reduction of food waste generation and different levels of expectations as to the contribution of food business operators indicates a need for more coordinated and uniform measures at EU level to drive the progress at the breadth and pace required to achieve SDG Target 12.3.

Setting legally binding food waste reduction targets for Member States to achieve by 2030 is expected to reinforce efforts to identify and scale-up effective strategies and initiatives both within and across Member States by: streamlining the contribution of food business operators, notably in the context of cross-border supply chains; helping to ensure that drivers of food waste generation (market and behavioural) are addressed consistently and simultaneously by all Member States, in line with actions taken by the – so far few - frontrunners; and accelerating the development of effective national food waste prevention strategies through the spreading of good practices and further leveraging the EU knowledge base related to food waste prevention.

Setting targets in EU waste legislation is a policy instrument that would require Member States to take action whilst giving full flexibility as to the selection of measures required. Member States may, therefore, choose the policy instruments that would be the most effective and efficient according to the specific situation in their respective territories.

• Proportionality

The WFD regulatory approach of harmonising certain elements of waste management (definitions, quantitative or qualitative objectives operationalising the waste hierarchy, polluter pays principle, reporting requirements) and leaving room for national and local-specific implementing measures (waste management planning and permitting of waste) is consistent with EU level action limited to only the extent strictly necessary.

An increased harmonisation of the approaches to textile waste management in terms of scope of textiles targeted, clear definitions, minimum shipment and treatment requirements to operationalise the waste hierarchy, organisational features of textile collection systems and burden sharing would provide legal certainty for the needed concerted action by the concerned stakeholders across the textile value chain (Member States, social enterprises, waste managers, producers, other economic players, citizens) to invest in the development of infrastructure across the EU to maximise re-use and recycling. These operators achieve economic efficiencies due to economies of scale and lower compliance costs by only having to adhere to one EU-wide uniform regulatory approach, for which EU level action is required. A harmonised approach to closing the financing gap through common rules on EPR while reducing other regulatory barriers hampering greater uniformity of textile waste for sorting inputs and outputs and shipments across country borders for sorting, re-use and recycling would considerably reduce economic burdens on the industry and SMEs, maintaining their competitiveness. it should also be noted that since the textile sector is 99% comprised of SMEs, the fulfilment of the extended producer responsibilities would be exercised collectively by means of producer responsibility organisations taking up the responsibility on their behalf, which would significantly reduce administrative burden on them. The combined improvement of environmental quality can be considered an important co-benefit. To further reduce the impact on SMEs, microenterprises (up to 10 employees) – representing 88% of all companies in the sector – are excluded from the extended producer responsibility, which provides for an important alleviation of administrative burden and impact on SMEs.

The textiles sector is dominated by SMEs. Microenterprises cover around 88% of the sector. The proposal is specifically tailored to minimise the financial and administrative impacts on microenterprises, most notably by excluding all microenterprises from the EPR. All remaining SMEs (i.e. SMEs that are not microenterprises) would still be covered by the EPR. At the same time, the support to re-use and recycling would support also those SMEs covered by the EPR (i.e. those that are not microenterprises) compared to the status quo by ensuring more funding is available, and a more stable feedstock of re-usable and recyclable textiles are available in the market.

For food waste, the proposed setting of food waste reduction targets, does not set new measures at EU level. Setting targets gives Member States the freedom as regards the selection of the most effective measures, tailored to its specific national situation. Member States are not obliged to take any new measures relating to food waste reduction other than those already established by the WFD (i.e. reducing food waste at each stage of the food supply chain, preparing food waste prevention programmes, implementing related actions, monitoring and reporting on progress achieved). Moreover, Member States have already committed, since the adoption of the Sustainable Development Agenda in 2015, to take action to reduce food waste in order to contribute to SDG Target 12.3, which is de facto a non-binding, aspirational target.

The experience from leading countries shows that the measures implemented by governments so far are based on the voluntary engagement of economic actors in the food supply chain in common roadmaps aiming to achieve shared food waste reduction objective. Financial assistance (in the form of action grants) is currently offered at EU level, in order to support stakeholders in taking concrete steps to improve food waste measurement and prevention. The grants implemented so far by the Commission, under the Single Market Programme, have in particular targeted SMEs in order to address their specific needs and support the development and dissemination of best practice.

The further exchange of knowledge, best practices, tools, guidelines and experience will continue via the EU Platform (including its sub-groups) and the dedicated website (EU Food Loss and Waste Prevention Hub).

Overall, the proposed measures do not go beyond what is necessary to ensure regulatory compliance while guaranteeing the protection of the environment.

• Choice of the instrument

Given the above explanations, amendment to the WFD, a Directive, is the right instrument to use. It allows for a harmonisation of certain elements while leaving space to Members States to accommodate national specificities in the transposition of the Directive.

The WFD is the only legal vehicle to regulate textile waste prevention and management in the EU and is based on Article 192(1) TFEU. While there are several legal acts regulating textiles products (e.g. REACH, Textiles Labelling Regulation), the WFD is the only legal instrument regulating all aspects of textile waste management, including the specific obligations to ensure separate collection, treatment and reporting requirements.

Food waste is also defined and regulated in the WFD. While a number of individual measures which can help reduce food waste are regulated in legislation related to functioning of the food market, food safety or food information to consumers at Union level, the overall legislative framework for food waste prevention, including monitoring and reporting on food waste arising and planning of national food waste prevention programmes, is part of the WFD.

3. RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS

• Ex-post evaluations

No ex-post evaluations were undertaken since the latest amendment of the WFD only took place in 2018. It would have therefore been premature to have an ex-post evaluation of the recent amendments made that have yet to unfold their full effect. Additionally, the WFD foresees specific review clauses for specific waste streams that would result in analyses of the impacts of current provisions.

• Stakeholder consultations

The consultation method and strategy were outlined in the Call for Evidence (CfE) for a proposal on ‘Environmental impact of waste management – revision of EU waste framework’¹ and the Inception Impact Assessment (IIA) ‘Proposal for a revision of Directive 2008/98/EC on waste – part on food waste reduction target’.² Given that the two proposals aim to amend the same legal act under the same legal basis, it was decided to merge them. Consequently, the open public consultation conducted in May-August 2022, covered both waste streams.

Textile waste

As part of the CfE, the Commission received 197 ³ separate responses. Respondents are based in 25 different countries including four non-EU countries: 65 in Belgium reflecting the number of industry trade associations and non-governmental organisation (NGOs) in that country, 23 in Germany, 16 in France, 14 in the Netherlands and 12 in Italy.

The results of the consultation indicated overall support to the need to improve the management of textiles in line with the waste hierarchy, calling for regulatory measures that would address the current market failures that favour disposal. There was overall support to the introduction of the extended producer responsibility schemes in line with the polluter pays principle, including from the affected industry. However, it was accompanied by strong calls for as much harmonisation as possible to limit the impact on the industry which is dominated by SMEs, in particular, to ensure full coherence with the ecodesign requirements for textile products under the ESPR when implementing the EPR fee modulation requirements. Representatives from the recycling industry recalled that associated recycling schemes for textiles require appropriate transition periods to set up the recycling capacity and systems to ensure input qualities. The current design of clothing with mixed composition of textiles is a challenge for recycling as well as lack of automatic sorting technologies and capacities necessary to prepare feedstock for recycling. Stakeholders from the re-use and NGO field pointed to evidence how second-hand clothing contributes to the reduction of textile waste and that separate collection of used textiles and not just waste textiles is essential to ensure re-use. The textile industry representatives also emphasised the socio-economic and environmental benefits of circular business models such as the renting of textiles to extend textile lifetime compared to owned textiles. Stakeholders from various stakeholder groups emphasized the importance of ensuring harmonised application of the waste textiles and used textiles to facilitate cross border movements of such materials and to tackle any illegal shipments of waste disguised as used products, notably to address concerns raised by some stakeholders on the environmentally sound treatment of exported used and waste textiles, in particular, unsorted. Similar strong calls from a broad group of stakeholders concerned the need for harmonisation of textiles definitions as well as the products subject to the extended producer responsibility and its key features, in particular, to reduce the risk of market and legislative fragmentation and administrative burden in view of several countries considering introduction of extended producer responsibility schemes.

A public consultation was open 24 May 2022 - 24 August 2022 to collect additional evidence on the baseline, seek opinions and insights about the issues related to textile waste, the feasibility and possible impacts of alternative actions, gather examples of best practices and views on the subsidiarity of possible actions. In total, 731 valid responses ⁴ were received. In addition, 207 respondents submitted written contributions. Respondents were mostly company/business organisations and business associations (40%, 299 replies) and EU citizens (36%, 255 replies). 94% of the respondents (693 replies) are based in EU and most of them are based in Belgium (16%, 119 replies)⁵, Germany (13%, 96 replies), Italy (11%, 82 replies) and France (8%, 63 replies).

It is important to stress that textile waste is the type of waste that least concerns the respondents consulted only being stated as such by 63% of concernment on companies and business associations. The remaining stakeholders (EU citizens, NGOs, and public authorities) showed greater levels of concern in the matter. More than half of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they were participating in the separate collection of textile waste, with a deferral on results depending on the stakeholder group they pertained to. EU citizens led the collection of textile waste, followed by public authorities; and leaving NGOs and companies and business associations the last positions. However, only 40% of public authorities, 32% of companies and business associations, 28% of EU citizens and 24% of NGOs agreed or strongly agreed (221 replies) that they were satisfied with the waste collection system in place where they live to collect textile waste.

Nearly 30 position papers covered the area of textiles waste, of which about half came from SMEs or organisations representing them. SMEs pointed out that there is currently no large-scale plan to process textile waste. They stressed the need to promote durable, high-quality textiles, improve their re-use, wherever possible prepare them for re-use and scale up sufficient sorting for re-use, recycling and processing infrastructure. They also recommended that changes in textiles’ design and consumption patterns should take place, that the amount of textile waste should be decreased through ambitious waste policies. The same points on durability and re-use of textiles, as well as on sorting and recycling capacity were shared by the recycling industry that also noted that circular and social textile value chains should be developed.

Among the recommendations were the need to set quantitative re-use and preparation for re-use targets and to improve separate collection systems. SMEs noted that EPR schemes should enforce the waste hierarchy by setting quantitative targets for waste prevention and preparation for re-use, ensure the eco-modulation of fees and fair competition in recycling markets, granting access to the waste stream to preparing for re-use operators, while also involving social enterprises as key stakeholders in the development, governance and functioning of these schemes. They also advocated consistency with other regulatory initiatives, such as the ESPR and WSR and the harmonisation of end-of-waste criteria at EU-level, which was also endorsed by the recycling industry. SMEs also pointed out the need for guidance to achieve high levels of separate collection of textiles and that mature fibre sorting and pre-processing is critical to scale the recycling of post-consumer waste. Some position papers reflect on a harmonised definition of textile waste.

In addition, stakeholder interviews were conducted. In April and May 2022 interviews were organised with selected stakeholders from across all stakeholder groups primarily focussing on a broader scope at first and then later focussing on used textile and textile waste. Twenty-seven one-to-one interviews / one-to-group interviews were held with regard to problem identification, the scope of the objectives and evidence gathering with regard to the impacts of options and measures. According to the stakeholders, an EU-wide EPR framework should include specific elements in order to be efficient. Measures on re-use, repair and separate collection need to include enforceable, binding targets to stimulate producers to make the transition to circularity. As regards the scope of the initiative, some of the stakeholders suggested that the collection should include textile waste generated by households and professionals that is comparable to household textiles such as clothes, home and interior textiles, bags made from textiles and textile accessories; however, they raised concerns on shoes and technical textiles. They also suggested to limit the scope first and to extend it over time when the infrastructure is in place and to use the Customs Tariff CN codes to define the textiles covered by the suggested EPR scheme.

The stakeholders expressed different views on the issue of guidance. In terms of targets, the stakeholders recommended that targets with a gradual increase in their level of ambition over time should be developed, depending on the levels of consumption, as well as enforceable resource reduction targets for textile production, by e.g., a recycled-content target. They also highlighted the fact that any targets should be combined with the scaling up of recycling technologies in the Member States and that the re-use targets should ensure that re-use is actually taking place. They noted that it is important to consider that targets for preparation for re-use and recycling of textile waste should be based on the waste hierarchy.

Targeted consultation for used textiles and textile waste took the form of four virtual stakeholder workshops using group discussions as a whole as well as break-out groups and use of digital white boards. Additionally, a meeting of the WFD Expert Group (Member States), interviews and a conference on the future of Europe were used to obtain more targeted evidence.

Information gathered during stakeholder consultations helped inform the definition of the problems and which policy options to focus on.

Food waste

In the context of the Inception Impact Assessment, 85 contributions were received from respondents in 17 Member States and 2 third countries (United Kingdom and USA). Most contributions were from business associations (27), followed by NGOs (18, of which 12 with an environmental focus), companies (11), EU citizens (9), consumer i and environmental (3) organisations. Six public authorities (including 3 Member States) provided input through the feedback mechanism.

Overall, stakeholders expressed support for the EU legislative initiative, seen as essential in order to achieve the Green Deal objectives of climate neutrality and transition to sustainable food systems as called for by the Farm to Fork Strategy. Most stakeholders affirm that food waste reduction targets should cover the whole supply chain (reflecting an integrated food systems approach), with the future EU target in line with Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Target 12.3. While some industry respondents (mainly from primary production and processing sectors) prefer a target focussed on retail and consumption only, other industry stakeholders and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) argue for a holistic approach to ensure shared responsibility and accountability of all actors. Several stakeholders stress the need for a solid evidence base for setting targets as well as a baseline that recognises efforts of early achievers. Around one-third of contributions received called for ambitious actions and an advanced target level (50%), including almost all NGOs; on the other hand, the three contributions from Member States suggested that basic or medium options are more realistic. Some stakeholders (from environmental- and consumer NGOs as well as) social enterprises call, in addition, for the integration of on-farm food losses in the future legislative proposal, whilst primary producers argue that such losses cannot be addressed (for both legal and operational reasons). Finally, many stakeholders call for policy coherence and the need to build a culture of food value in order to address systemic issues linked to food systems.

The public consultation, which was open from 24 May 2022 to 24 August 2022 covered both textile and food waste. Regarding food waste reduction, stakeholders across all groups agreed or strongly agreed (over 90%) with the benefits brought by reducing food waste, the most important being to ‘help reduce environmental impacts’ and to ‘help mitigate climate change’. Respondents identified the main actors that need to take more action to reduce food waste as consumers, retailers and other distributors, food manufacturers, and hospitality and food services. Respondents noted that the most important challenges for the reduction of food waste concern the need for consumers to adopt new habits, such as improved food management skills, followed by the need for businesses to integrate food waste prevention in their operations. Ensuring sufficient action is taken at the pace needed to reach global commitments to halve food waste by 2030 was considered more important by public authorities than other groups. As regards possible EU measures to improve waste prevention, 74% of respondents (488 replies) agreed or strongly agreed with the setting of legally binding food waste reduction targets, with even greater support expressed by public authorities (86%, 25 replies).

53 position papers received through the public consultation focused on food waste or included considerations on this topic. 26 papers including comments on food waste were received from business associations, 12 from non-profit organizations, 8 from companies and 7 from public authorities. Most of the position papers expressed agreement on the setting of food waste reduction targets, with 10 papers advocating the need for ambitious targets (50% reduction) and 18 in favour of applying targets in all the stages of the supply chain. However, two business organisations disagreed on setting targets at the primary production stage, due to the imbalance of power in the supply chain and market dynamics that cannot be controlled by farmers. Several papers stressed the importance of prioritizing those actions with the greatest environmental or climate impact and the role of packaging in preventing food waste was also highlighted, mainly by business associations. Concerning the actions and policy initiatives that the EU should undertake, rules on date marking and actions related to awareness raising and education were the most mentioned, with some also referring to improved monitoring systems and one suggesting to provide fiscal incentives for food donations. Policy coherence between food waste and other related policies (e.g., labelling, climate action, Common Agricultural Policy) was also recommended by some stakeholders.

Data collection on food waste prevention initiatives were carried out by means of two surveys sent to Member State experts and stakeholders in the food value chain. Both surveys aimed at collecting quantitative data on costs of food waste prevention initiatives and amounts of food waste prevented. In addition, four interviews were held with selected stakeholders who replied to the survey (two companies, a non-profit organization and a public authority) in order to collect additional data and insights on their initiatives and/or to clarify information provided through the surveys.

Finally, targeted consultation meetings were held with the EU Platform on FLW on four occasions. The EU Platform on FLW includes international organisations, EU institutions, Member States’ experts and stakeholders from the food supply chain including farmers, industry, environmental-, consumer- and other NGOs (including food banks and other charities). Private sector organisations in the food value chain represent SMEs for their specific sector of activity (e.g., food manufacturing, retail, food services etc.)

The most frequent issues raised by stakeholders consisted in the inclusion of all the stages of the food supply chain in the scope of the targets, with some highlighting the importance of monitoring and integrating on-farm, pre-harvest food losses; the importance of taking into account food and feed safety (expressed especially by private sector organizations); the concern regarding the choice of 2020 as a baseline for target-setting due to the impact of COVID-19 (highlighted by some Member States and NGOs); the possibility of differentiating and taking into account edible and non-edible food waste (mentioned by private sector organizations); and the possibility of considering the results already achieved by Member States when setting the baseline (highlighted by Member States and private sector organizations).

In the context of finalising the impact assessment, the Commission further convened a meeting of the Member States Expert Group on Food Losses and Food Waste (7 March 2023) and a joint meeting of the EU Platform on FLW and the Advisory Group on Sustainability of Food Systems (13 March 2023). The abovementioned issues were reiterated, and further feedback provided regarding the consideration of different policy options for setting targets.

Information gathered during the abovementioned stakeholder consultations helped inform the definition of policy options, in particular that targets not be limited to the consumption and retail stages but that they cover the food supply chain more broadly. The data on costs of food waste prevention collected through the survey for stakeholders showed a high variability and were generally higher than values found in the literature. Therefore, they were not directly used in the model to calculate the macro-economic impacts of targets.

Citizens’ Panel

As a follow-up to the Conference on the future of Europe, the Commission announced a “new generation” of citizens’ panels to consult randomly selected citizens before certain key proposals at the European level. Food waste was selected amongst the three first topics to be addressed by citizens (along with virtual worlds and learning mobility), with the panel convened for three sessions held from December 2022 to February 2023. Although the Citizens’ panel was not part of the consultation activities organised for the purpose of the preparation of the legal proposal, citizens’ recommendations ⁶ will continue to support the Commission's work related to food waste prevention and have been considered in the preparation of this legislative proposal. Citizens’ recommendations will also serve as a guide to help Member States in achieving the food waste reduction targets in this proposal. 

The 23 recommendations put forward by citizens highlight the need to take a broad food systems approach, engaging all actors and strengthening collaboration across the food supply chain. This comprehensive approach is put forward in the three topics addressed by the panel’s recommendations: 1) Cooperation in the food value chain: from farm to fork; 2) Food business initiatives; and 3) Supporting consumer behavioural change.

Citizens’ recommendations reflect the three principal lines of action, which need to be undertaken by Member States in order to accelerate food waste reduction at national level and reach the future targets. The overarching EU regulatory framework for food waste prevention laid down in the WFD as well as supporting measures undertaken at EU level will also draw from the recommendations and support Member States in achieving the future targets.

• Collection and use of expertise

Textile waste

The Joint Research Centre provided crucial scientific inputs throughout the impact assessment stages, including by reviewing documents and publishing evidence on the issue ⁷:

The Commission procured an external study to support this impact assessment of policy options for a revision of the WFD in 2023 – Specific Contract n° 090202/2021/861277/ENV.B.3. It was also supported by several experts and technical assistance studies listed in the Annex to the Impact Assessment.

Food waste

In addition to IIA, public and targeted consultations described above, the impact assessment in the area of food waste was supported by the following expertise:

- The Joint Research Centre provided crucial scientific inputs by preparing two reports with analysis supporting development of the impact assessment of the revision of the WFD, in particular on the feasibility of setting food waste reduction targets:

- European Commission, Joint Research Centre: Setting the scene for an EU initiative on food waste reduction targets, 2023 ⁸

- European Commission, Joint Research Centre: Assessing the economic, social and environmental impacts of food waste reduction targets. A model-based analysis, 2023 ⁹

- On 25 October 2022, Eurostat published the first dedicated statistical monitoring of the amount of food waste in the European Union, supported with additional explanations on the data of food waste amounts in the EU. The description and interpretation of data as well as methodology can be found at the Eurostat Statistics Explained webpage dedicated to food waste¹⁰. The data have been last updated in March 2023.

• Impact assessment

The proposal is accompanied by an impact assessment. The impact assessment provides to a large extent two stand-alone sections covering separately the food and textile waste, as both topics in terms of problems addressed, objectives set and options identified have different specificities that could not be answered by the same approach.

After addressing the comments of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board in its initial negative opinion of 17 March 2023 and making the necessary modifications and additions, the impact assessment received a positive opinion with reservations on 26 May 2023.

Detailed comments from the Regulatory Scrutiny Board and how they have been taken into account can be found in Table 1 in Annex I to the Impact Assessment accompanying this proposal.

The impact assessment compiled all possible measures for analysis, based on inputs received from an external consultant, stakeholder workshops, an online public consultation and targeted interviews. The diverse, complex and often interrelated measures were grouped under three policy options, which are compared to a business-as-usual scenario.

The three policy options for textiles can be summarised as follows:

- Option 1 – Supports Member States in implementing and enforcing current provisions through more harmonised application of definitions, approaches to separate collection and attribution of responsibility for waste management by adopting non-binding guidance, recommendations and exercise of existing Commission mandates for secondary legislation, improving current stakeholder platforms for guidance and exchange of best practices. This option addresses all problem drivers and both specific objectives albeit with a likely reduced impact due to the nature of the measures being limited to non-binding instruments

- Option 2 – Sets additional binding regulatory requirements to improve the waste management performance in line with the waste hierarchy through a targeted amendment of the WFD. The purpose of the amendments is to create new operational obligations on Member States, producers of textiles and waste management operators. They would clarify and harmonise definitions at EU level, clarify the scope of the existing reporting obligations to improve the robustness of data, clarify the scope of the separate collection obligations, and introduce new operational obligations for waste operators to ensure sorting for re-use and recycling. The flagship measure of this option is introducing a mandate for Member States to set up national EPR schemes for textiles and harmonise its scope, objectives and key organisational and operational features. This option addresses all problem drivers and both specific objectives

- Option 3 – Prescribing waste management performance targets at EU level. This option entails an amendment to the WFD establishing binding waste management performance targets operationalising the waste hierarchy for the Member States and economic operators. Harmonisation of scopes and definitions would be integral to the definition of the target in the WFD and subsequent implementing acts defining more detailed rules on the calculation methodology for each of the target. This option addresses both specific objectives and all problem drivers, albeit it would not bring about a level of harmonisation as provided by Option 2 since it leaves the decisions on the means to attain the performance levels to the Member States. Since the current data on textile waste generation is not sufficiently robust, which is partly due to the fragmented understanding of whether collected textiles are waste and the scope of the textiles covered by Member State implementation, the Impact Assessment explains the feasibility of the mechanism by which targets could be set in the future and the impacts of that process (and not the actual levels of targets). In relation to setting a target for collection, a more detailed assessment based on an interim medium-ambition target is presented. Measure 3.6 specifically is about setting a 50% collection target for textiles: The attainment of the target would improve separate collection rate for textiles thereby increasing re-use rates, recycling rates and decreasing disposal rates, but it would also impose administrative burden and the existing 2025 separate collection obligation may have a similar effect on the separate collection rate. There is also large heterogeneity across the predicted rates across Member States, which may make it challenging to set a target at this stage.

Impacts on SMEs are assessed as part of the impact assessment process. The SME filter identified this initiative as having high overall impact on SMEs. The various SME categories are identified across the textile value chain as a basis for the IA process.

88% of textile companies are microenterprises (0-9 employees), 12% are other SMEs (10-249 employees) and the remaining 0.3% are large companies (more than 250 employees). SMEs were very well engaged in the public consultation as well as in the targeted consultation processes. 320 respondents to the public consultation were SMEs versus 138 large companies. Amongst the categories ‘businesses/companies’ and ‘business association’ we received 200 SME replies compared to 99 from large businesses. Also, large business associations that have expressed detailed views are largely composed of SME members representative of the composition of the textile sector in manufacturing and retail and waste management stages. `

In general, SMEs pointed out in their position papers that currently there is no large-scale planning to process the waste. Most of them agreed that textile production’s design and consumption patterns have to be changed, leading to the production of textiles of higher quality that can last longer. They also highlighted the importance of prioritizing waste prevention and re-use and the need to set re-use and preparation for re-use targets, as well as to improve separate collection systems. Regarding EPR, the main points were to ensure that EPR schemes enforce the waste hierarchy by setting quantitative targets for waste prevention and preparation for re-use, ensure a harmonised approach to eco-modulation of EPR fees and the fair competition in recycling markets, granting access to the waste stream to preparing for re-use operators, while also involving social enterprises as key stakeholders in the development, governance and functioning of these schemes. Also, the harmonisation at EU-level of end-of-waste criteria was advocated which was also endorsed by the recycling industry, as well as the insurance of the consistency with other regulatory initiatives, such as the ESPR and WSR. Further, they pointed out that guidance to achieve high levels of separate collection of textile waste is needed, while maturing fibre sorting and pre-processing is critical to scale the recycling of post-consumer waste. Some of them reflected on the need for a harmonised definition of textile waste.

In addition to the collection of stakeholder evidence on the potential impacts on SMEs additional assessment using data from Eurostat on the composition, turnover and spread of SMEs was performed in order to identify those impacts that would significantly impact on such enterprises. The consultant’s study considered the specific impacts on SMEs for each measure. In this respect measures under Option 1 are likely to place no significant administrative burden on SMEs, while at the same time the measures should simplify obligations placed on SMEs aligning the scope of textiles. The guidance and support platform foreseen under this option would have the largest impacts on SMEs overall. Measures under Option 2 and 3 are expected to have minor additional costs on SMEs. The most burdensome measure that considers the application of extended producer EPR schemes (measure 2.9) would address SMEs given the majority of producers are SMEs. Additionally, reporting obligations have been targeted to revise existing obligations in the first place to make them more fit for purpose and improve the knowledge base for the textile sector overall.

To avoid the application of unnecessary administrative and compliance burdens, the IA proposes, and the legal text excludes micro-enterprises and the re-use sector from the scope of the EPR. Re-use actors that place both new and used products on the market, would be requested to only account for and report the new ones. The knock-on consequence of such exclusions would be a minor increase in the costs applicable to enterprises with over 10 employees, with those over 250 employees facing the largest additional burdens.

The impacts on competitiveness have been assessed quantitatively, where possible, considering impacts on different types of competitiveness ¹¹. Price competitiveness aims to reflect the relative impacts of prices companies or company groups are able to set within a market. Dynamic competitiveness refers to the impacts on research and innovation that would enable to maintain or improve the firms’ competitiveness stance over time. Strategic competitiveness refers to the firms’ ability to partially meet their raw material or product demand through re-used or recycled textiles within the EU. The impacts on competitiveness are either positive or neutral.

For food waste, policy options focused on different types, levels and scope of food waste reduction targets to be achieved by 2030, which can be summarised as follows:
Options 1 to 3 consist of legally binding targets i.e. they are subject to annual reporting and, if targets are not met, they can be enforced by infringement procedures.
The proposal has no consequences for the protection of fundamental rights.
The financial statement included shows the detailed budgetary implications and the human and administrative resources required by this proposal.
Article 1 lays down the amendments for the WFD, in particular the following articles of that Directive:

1. For food waste, policy options focused on different types, levels and scope of food waste reduction targets to be achieved by 2030, which can be summarised as follows:

Option 1 is based on the minimum targets examined in the 2014 proposal to revise WFD ¹².

- Target for primary production – no target,

- Target for processing and manufacturing – 10%,

- Target for retail and consumption stages – 15%

Option 2 is a more ambitious variant with the maximum target examined in 2014 for retail and consumption stages.

- Target for primary production – no target%,

- Target for processing and manufacturing – 10%,

- Target for retail and consumption stages – 30%

Option 3 reflects the targets set referred to in SDG Target 12.3 and additional commitment made by the www.fao.org/platform-food-loss-waste/background">“Food is never waste” Coalition at 2021 UN Food Systems Summit.

- Target for primary production – 10%,

- Target for processing and manufacturing – 25%,

- Target for retail and consumption stages – 50%

2. Options 1 to 3 consist of legally binding targets i.e. they are subject to annual reporting and, if targets are not met, they can be enforced by infringement procedures.

Option 4 reflects setting a voluntary target at the level of the SDG 12.3 commitment regarding the retail and consumption stages (i.e. 50% reduction), with no numerical commitment assumed for earlier stages. This option would not be subject to enforcement mechanisms other than annual reporting of food waste levels.

The analysis of the impacts demonstrated that all options deliver significant environmental benefits. The magnitude of benefits increases with the scope and level of targets, from Option 1 to Option 3. The benefits would be lowest for Option 4. The main gain comes from reduction of GHG emissions (however it differs significantly depending on methodological approach). Other environmental impacts considered for this IA – land use, marine eutrophication and water use – show a similar pattern for the impacts i.e. that magnitude of benefits increases with the scope and level of targets.

Concerning economic impacts – reduction of food waste is expected to reduce demand for food which in turn could lead to marginal negative impacts on food production sector (-3.6% in most pessimistic assumption) and positive on other sectors, resulting in an overall slightly positive balance (up to EUR2.3 bn).

Quantifiable social impacts are strongly linked to economic impacts and show a similar pattern. The greater the reduction of food waste, the better the options perform in terms of food affordability and household savings. On the other hand, the magnitude of negative impacts on employment in the agri-food sector rise from Option 1 to Option 3, which are, however, expected to be compensated through new job profiles in the food sector and gains in other economic sectors.

The impact on SMEs is expected to be limited. The initiative focuses on setting of food waste reduction targets for Member States and will not apply to individual businesses. While Member State authorities will likely engage with all actors in the food supply chain, the actions observed so far in countries which have undertaken coordinated actions to reduce food waste focus on larger businesses and on voluntary measures encouraging engagement in food waste prevention supported by government financing. In the consultation process, SMEs have not expected problems caused directly by this initiative, although remained cautious about the potential future implementing action by Member States.

Preferred options

Based on assessments of how the options contribute to the two main objectives, on the balance between economic, environmental and social impacts, and on the total costs and benefits where these could be calculated, the preferred option for the Commission is Option 2. However, the setting of a textiles waste collection target (measure 3.6) may additionally be considered to complement the measures in Option 2. Measure 3.6 could therefore also be part of the preferred option. Other textile waste management targets cannot be set at this stage due to the lack of complete and robust data.

The Impact Assessment concludes that setting a 50% target for separate collection for textiles would facilitate the concerted action of the various textile value chain, re-use operators and waste management operators to ensure the treatment of the textiles in line with the waste hierarchy, prioritising re-use and fibre to fibre recycling. It also concludes that such a target may need to be considered carefully in view of the current large variations in the separate collection rates across the EU and the overarching obligation in the WFD that such waste shall be separately collected. In view of those considerations, as well as the strengthened rules on the organisation of the separate collection through EPR and the objective to reduce administrative burden, the preferred option reflected in the legislative proposal does not include a separate collection target.

In the area of food waste, after comparison of economic, environmental and social impacts, but also the technical feasibility of the proposed options, the preferred option is Option 2. This option is expected to be effective in providing a strong policy impulse for Member States to take action to reduce food waste at national level and achieve substantial environmental gains, while being proportionate and feasible. The establishment of legally binding food waste reduction targets should thus follow a step-wise approach, starting with a level which is lower than the one set under the SDG, with a view to ensuring a consistent response of Member States and tangible progress towards Target 12.3. An interim review of progress made by Member States, based on the annual monitoring of food waste levels, would allow for a possible adjustment of the targets in view of strengthening the Union’s contribution and further aligning with SDG Target 12.3 as well as providing direction for further progress beyond 2030.

• Regulatory fitness and simplification

The proposed measures have different levels of administrative burden, which would mainly result from monitoring and reporting on compliance, both for public authorities and for businesses. At the same time, this proposal makes full use of digitalisation to reduce administrative burden.

The proposed targets on food waste reduction are based on measures already included in the WFD, therefore create no additional administrative burden.

Preferred combined option	Description of impact	Overall balance
Option 2 - Additional regulatory requirements + target for textiles (measure 3.6) AND Option 2 for food waste reduction targets	Economic costs - €913 million per year for sorting obligations - Register development costs of €2-12.3 million across Member States and maintenance costs of €11 200 and 69 000 per Member State per year - €7.79 million per year for producers to report for the purpose of EPR - €4.04 million costs of operating PRO registers and inspections - €39.2 million per year for additional textile collection, sorting and treatment to meet a 50% collection target - €208 per competent authority and €78 per exporter annualised per inspection - €750 000 per year for EU enterprises to comply with EU reporting obligations - €26.5 million Landfilllandfill tax loss for Member States due to textiles diverted from landfills - Reduction in demand for food of 4.2% and a change in value of agri-food production of -1.8% alongside a fall in market prices of between 0.1 and 2.6% - A fall in farm income of €4.2 billion per annum Total adjustment costs for food waste reduction for actors in the food chain - €2 bln [€41/ton of food waste avoided] Economic benefits for textile sector - EPR: €3.5-4.5 billion annual overall returns on recycling investment (including the benefits indicated for the other measures) - Additional sorting: €534 million per year of re-use value and €94 million per year of recycling value - Additional collection: €28 million per year of combined re-use and recycling value Economic benefits for food waste reduction - overall value added for EU economy €1.6 bn (including abovementioned costs) - savings in household food expenditure of €439 per year per household (4 pers.) Environmental benefits - €16 million from GHG emission reduction from textile waste as well as reduction in release of pollutants to air, water and land that would otherwise result from poor waste management. - 3.9 (in EU) and 12.6 (out of EU) million tonnes GHG emission reduction (including rebound effect) OR 62 million tonnes of GHG avoided (without counting the rebound effect) - reduction in release of pollutants to air, water and land that would otherwise result from poor waste management - Reduced impact on land use of 2.2 Trillion Pt, - reduction in marine eutrophication of 532 million kg of Neq - reduction in water scarcity of 80 billion m3 per annum. - Overall environmental savings monetised - €9-23 bn Social benefits - 8 740 jobs created in relation to textiles and social impacts of EU waste in third countries mitigated (no net impact assessment; see Annex 4 for details and underlying assumptions) - Up to 135 000 jobs lost in agri-food sectors (expected to be compensated in other sectors)	Costs: €975 million (these costs may fall on consumers, producers or a mix of both). Overall value added for EU economy form the reduction of food waste 1.6 bn EUR (0.016%) Benefits: Direct benefits of €656 million of reusable and recyclable textiles for the EU re-use and recycling market as well as support to €3.5-4.5 billion annual overall returns from EPR investments. Savings in household food expenditure of €439 per year per household (4 pers.) Additional GHG emission reduction equal to €16 million per year from textiles and additional GHG emission reduction equal to 62 million tonnes per year (overall environmental savings monetised - €9-23 bn), 8 740 jobs created in waste management but up to 135 000 lost in agri-food sectors (expected to be compensated in other sectors) Overall effectiveness, efficiency and coherence: positive

• Fundamental rights

3. The proposal has no consequences for the protection of fundamental rights.

4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS

4. The financial statement included shows the detailed budgetary implications and the human and administrative resources required by this proposal.

The European Commission, and more specifically the Directorate-Generals for Environment (DG ENV) and for Health and Food Safety (DG SANTE), will be responsible for negotiating the Directive through the regular co-decision procedure, as well as for its general implementation and adoption of all the implementing and delegated acts envisaged in it. Other Directorate-Generals and agencies that will provide input include DG Joint Research Centre (JRC) and the European Environmental Agency (EEA).

For DG Environment, the current financial simulations are based on existing 0.75 FTE (AD) for the co-decisions process and implementation as well as new 3.0 FTE contractual agents for the technical implementation of developing the implementing acts foreseen.

For DG SANTE, the financial simulations are based on existing 0.5 FTE (AD) for the co-decision process and the monitoring of implementation across Member States.  

The costs for Commission staff amount to a total of EUR 2 033 000 based on the latest salary scales, which are publicly available.

5. OTHER ELEMENTS

• Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements

The proposal includes several provisions to improve monitoring. Annex 14 of the Impact Assessment details the monitoring and evaluation tools. The impact of the preferred policy option in the attainment of the objectives to reduce textile waste and residual textile waste generation is monitored through the indicators and targets set out in measure 3.6. and based on the improved data flows on textiles as a result of measure 2.14. The latter will also enable further performance targets to be set that is currently assessed as not feasible under option 3. Monitoring is based on annual data on textiles prepared for re-use under the EPR schemes (measure 2.14 and see Annex 10 for details).

In case of food waste, monitoring will rely on existing reporting obligations i.e. annual reporting from Member States of arising amounts of food waste (Article 37(3) of the WFD) and the biennial review of progress on implementation on food waste prevention programmes by the European Environment Agency (Article 30 of the WFD).

• Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal

5. Article 1 lays down the amendments for the WFD, in particular the following articles of that Directive:

Article 2(1)(a) lays down the revised scope of the exclusion from the scope of the Directive for gaseous effluents emitted into the atmosphere and carbon dioxide captured and transported for the purposes of geological storage and geologically stored.

Article 3 lays down new definitions for ‘producer of textile, textile-related and footwear products listed in Annex IVc', ‘making available on the market’, ‘producer responsibility organisation’, ‘online platform’ and ‘consumer’.

Article 9a lays down requirements as regards measures to be taken by Member States to prevent food waste concerning supporting behavioural change and supply chain cooperation (1) and defines food waste reduction targets to be achieved by Member States by 2030 i.

Article 22a lays down requirements as regards measures to be taken by Member States to introduce extended producer responsibility scheme for textiles, textile-related and footwear products and harmonised rules for its application, including on the products in its scope and the scope of the financial responsibility of the producers.

Article 22b lays down requirements as regards measures to be taken by Member States for the establishment of the textiles, textile-related and footwear producer register to implement the extended producer responsibility schemes.

Article 22c lays down requirements as regards measures to be taken by Member States for the establishment and responsibilities for producer responsibility organisations for textiles.

Article 22d lays down requirements as regards measures to be taken by Member States for the management of textile waste.

Article 29a lays down obligations as regards measures to be taken by for Member States to review and adapt their food waste prevention programmes in view of attaining the reduction targets (1) and to designate the competent authorities responsible for the coordination of food waste reduction measures (2).

Article 37 lays down reporting requirements as regards measures to be taken by Member States with regard to textiles and change in the reporting requirements of Member States with regard to the re-use of products data flow to the European Environmental Agency.

Article 2 lays down the transposition of the amendments to the Directive.

Article 3 lays down entry into force of the amendments to the Directive.

Article 4 lays down the addresses of the amendments to the Directive.

Please note

Contents

1.

For food waste, policy options focused on different types, levels and scope of food waste reduction targets to be achieved by 2030, which can be summarised as follows:

2.

Options 1 to 3 consist of legally binding targets i.e. they are subject to annual reporting and, if targets are not met, they can be enforced by infringement procedures.

3.

The proposal has no consequences for the protection of fundamental rights.

4.

The financial statement included shows the detailed budgetary implications and the human and administrative resources required by this proposal.

5.

Article 1 lays down the amendments for the WFD, in particular the following articles of that Directive: