Annexes to COM(2023)420 - Amendment of Directive 2008/98/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. |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2023)420  |
| date | July 5, 2023 |
- By 2030, achieving reduction food waste generation by 10% in the processing and manufacturing of food and by 30% in the retail, food services and households
1.5.Grounds for the proposal/initiative
1.5.1.Requirement(s) to be met in the short or long term including a detailed timeline for roll-out of the implementation of the initiative
The detailed requirements would need to be specified through implementing acts in a time horizon of around 3 years. These will cover the following:
- Implementing acts establishing the harmonised format for registration in the register
- Possible delegated acts to amend the Combined Nomenclature codes listed in Annex IVc to bring them in line with the codes listed in Annex 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 and to ensure the legal certainty on the products covered by the extended producer responsibility
- Possible implementing act laying down criteria for producer responsibility organisations for the financial contributions paid to them by producer
- Implementing act laying down the methodology for the calculation and verification of the separate collection rate
- Implementing acts adopted pursuant to paragraph 37 of this Article laying down the format for reporting the data referred to in paragraph 1 to adapt them to the requirements set out in paragraph 3 of that Article
- There are no requirements to be met in the area of food waste (as the necessary pre-requisites have already been adopted in the 2018 WFD revision and subsequent secondary legislation
1.5.2.Added value of Union involvement (it may result from different factors, e.g. coordination gains, legal certainty, greater effectiveness or complementarities). For the purposes of this point 'added value of Union involvement' is the value resulting from Union intervention, which is additional to the value that would have been otherwise created by Member States alone.
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.
Setting 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.
1.5.3.Lessons learned from similar experiences in the past
The Waste Framework Directive (WFD) establishes horizontally applicable concepts related to waste generation and waste management, including waste treatment, recycling and recovery. It creates the waste hierarchy, giving priority to waste prevention over reuse and/or recycling, subsequently recycling over other recovery options and final disposal via landfilling. Further, it obliges Member States to have in place functioning Extended Producer’s Responsibility (EPR) schemes, which ensure that producers of products bear responsibility for the management of the waste stage of their products. In the Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP), the Commission committed to review the WFD in the context of textiles waste.
For food, while this is the first target on reduction of food waste generation, other targets set in waste legislation aiming to increase waste recycling or decrease landfilling of waste are generally regarded as successful, as they provide clear objectives and legal certainty for all players and society in general, while giving Member States full flexibility as to the selection of measures required. Experience shows that progress made towards targets need to be monitored and support provided to Member States through the exchange of best practices on instruments and tools applicable at national level to achieve the targets as well as clarification through guidance and/or amendment of relevant measures in related legislation to facilitate waste prevention (e.g. addressing any barriers encountered.
1.5.4.Compatibility with the Multiannual Financial Framework and possible synergies with other appropriate instruments
The initiatives fall under the umbrella of the European Green Deal, which guides the EU's recovery strategy. The Green Deal recognises the advantages of investing in our competitive sustainability by building a fairer, greener and more digital Europe. This includes circular economy, which is the main driver of increasing material recovery and improving quality of secondary raw materials as well as the Farm to Fork Strategy.
The support and commitment of the European Commission in the research in the field of circular economy and in particular related to textiles is covered by projects funded under the H2020 programme and the financial contribution to their implementation. The results of these projects will support and promote circularity and recyclability of textiles. The network of European Digital Innovation Hubs – funded under the Digital Europe Programme, helps SMEs to implement digital tools that support circularity and recyclability of textiles as well as to mitigate food waste in the agri-food and hospitality industry. In the area of food waste, supporting projects research projects are funded under the H2020 programme but also under Horizon Europe.
1.5.5.Assessment of the different available financing options, including scope for redeployment
For textiles, in theory, national legislations in Member States could have been established. However, it can be observed that the legislation in place (and planned) would not guarantee the required level of harmonisation across the EU that would avoid contributing to the fragmentation of the internal market.
For textiles, in theory, national legislations in Member States could have been established. However, it can be observed that the legislation in place (and planned) would not guarantee the required level of harmonisation across the EU that would avoid contributing to the fragmentation of the internal market.
The European Environmental Agency was chosen for the data collection and validation given the existing management of re-use of products data flow, outstanding reputation and its availability to manage the data flow. Links to the Manufacturing Data Spaces can help to reduce implementation and transaction costs.
Tasks related to development of implementing acts at the EU level cannot be externalised.
The nature of the proposal – legally binding targets imposed on Member States means that related measures will be financed mostly at national level.
1.6.Duration and financial impact of the proposal/initiative
limited duration
– in effect from [DD/MM]YYYY to [DD/MM]YYYY
– Financial impact from YYYY to YYYY for commitment appropriations and from YYYY to YYYY for payment appropriations.
unlimited duration
–Implementation with a start-up period from 2024 to 2028,
–followed by full-scale operation.
1.7.Method(s) of budget implementation planned 87
Direct management by the Commission
– by its departments, including by its staff in the Union delegations;
– by the executive agencies
Shared management with the Member States
Indirect management by entrusting budget implementation tasks to:
– third countries or the bodies they have designated;
– international organisations and their agencies (to be specified);
– the EIB and the European Investment Fund;
– bodies referred to in Articles 70 and 71 of the Financial Regulation;
– public law bodies;
– bodies governed by private law with a public service mission to the extent that they are provided with adequate financial guarantees;
– bodies governed by the private law of a Member State that are entrusted with the implementation of a public-private partnership and that are provided with adequate financial guarantees;
– bodies or persons entrusted with the implementation of specific actions in the CFSP pursuant to Title V of the TEU, and identified in the relevant basic act.
–If more than one management mode is indicated, please provide details in the ‘Comments’ section.
Comments
None.
2. MANAGEMENT MEASURES
2.1.Monitoring and reporting rules
Specify frequency and conditions.
This Legislative Financial Statement includes staff expenditure in the Commission. A potential need for reinforcement for the European Environmental Agency will be grouped together in a Legislative Financial Statement of a forthcoming legal proposal, taking synergies into account. Standard rules for this type of expenditure apply.
2.2.Management and control system(s)
2.2.1.Justification of the management mode(s), the funding implementation mechanism(s), the payment modalities and the control strategy proposed
N/A – cf. above
2.2.2.Information concerning the risks identified and the internal control system(s) set up to mitigate them
N/A – cf. above
2.2.3.Estimation and justification of the cost-effectiveness of the controls (ratio of "control costs ÷ value of the related funds managed"), and assessment of the expected levels of risk of error (at payment & at closure)
N/A – cf. above
2.3.Measures to prevent fraud and irregularities
Specify existing or envisaged prevention and protection measures, e.g. from the Anti-Fraud Strategy.
N/A – cf. above
3. ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE
3.1.Heading(s) of the multiannual financial framework and expenditure budget line(s) affected
·Existing budget lines
In order of multiannual financial framework headings and budget lines.
| Heading of multiannual financial framework | Budget line | Type of expenditure | Contribution | |||
| Number | Diff./Non-diff. 88 | from EFTA countries 89 | from candidate countries and potential candidates 90 | From the third countries | other assigned revenue | |
| 7 | 20 02 02 01 Headquarters and Representation offices | Non-diff. | NO | NO | NO | NO |
| 7 | 20 02 01 01 Contract staff | Non-diff. | NO | NO | NO | NO |
·New budget lines requested
N/A
3.2.Estimated financial impact of the proposal on appropriations
3.2.1.Summary of estimated impact on operational appropriations
– The proposal/initiative does not require the use of operational appropriations
– The proposal/initiative requires the use of operational appropriations, as explained below:
EUR million (to three decimal places)
| Heading of multiannual financial framework | 7 | ‘Administrative expenditure’ |
This section should be filled in using the 'budget data of an administrative nature' to be firstly introduced in the Annex to the Legislative Financial Statement (Annex 5 to the Commission decision on the internal rules for the implementation of the Commission section of the general budget of the European Union), which is uploaded to DECIDE for interservice consultation purposes.
| DG Environment | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | TOTAL | |
| □ Human resources | 0.171 | 0.358 | 0.358 | 0.358 | 0.358 | 1,603 | |
| □ Other administrative expenditure | |||||||
| TOTAL DG Environment | Appropriations | 0.171 | 0.358 | 0.358 | 0.358 | 0.358 | 1,603 |
DG ENV costs stem from the co-decision process and implementation as well as the various implementing acts proposed under the proposed amendments.
Existing staff (0.75 FTE, AD) will be fully employed for the negotiation and general implementation of the amended Directive and the different preparatory work and drafting of the implementing acts according to the deadlines proposed in amendment. The latter will require 0.33 FTE (AD).
3 additional contractual staff (3 CAs) are needed to perform the technical work, including:
- Implementing acts establishing the harmonised format for registration in the register
- Possible delegated acts to amend the Combined Nomenclature codes listed in Annex IVc to bring them in line with the codes listed in Annex 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 and to ensure the legal certainty on the products covered by the extended producer responsibility
- Possible implementing act laying down criteria for producer responsibility organisations for the financial contributions paid to them by producers
- Implementing act laying down the methodology for the calculation and verification of the separate collection rate
- Implementing acts adopted pursuant to paragraph 37 of this Article laying down the format for reporting the data referred to in paragraph 1 to adapt them to the requirements set out in paragraph 3 of that Article.
| DG SANTE | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | TOTAL | |
| □ Human resources | 0.086 | 0.086 | 0.086 | 0.086 | 0.086 | 0,427 | |
| □ Other administrative expenditure | |||||||
| TOTAL DG SANTE | Appropriations | 0.086 | 0.086 | 0.086 | 0.086 | 0.086 | 0,430 |
DG SANTE costs stem from the co-decision process and the monitoring of performance across Member States. They reflect existing staff (AD).
| TOTAL appropriations under HEADING 7 of the multiannual financial framework | (Total commitments = Total payments) | 0.257 | 0.444 | 0.444 | 0.444 | 0.444 | 2,033 |
EUR million (to three decimal places)
| 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | TOTAL | |||
| TOTAL appropriations under HEADINGS 1 to 7 of the multiannual financial framework | Commitments | 0.257 | 0.444 | 0.444 | 0.444 | 0.444 | 2,033 | |
| Payments | 0.257 | 0.444 | 0.444 | 0.444 | 0.444 | 2,033 |
3.2.2.Estimated output funded with operational appropriations
Commitment appropriations in EUR million (to three decimal places)
| Indicate objectives and outputs | Year N | Year N+1 | Year N+2 | Year N+3 | Enter as many years as necessary to show the duration of the impact (see point 1.6) | TOTAL | ||||||||||||
| OUTPUTS | ||||||||||||||||||
| Type 91 | Average cost | No | Cost | No | Cost | No | Cost | No | Cost | No | Cost | No | Cost | No | Cost | Total No | Total cost | |
| SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE No 1 92 … | ||||||||||||||||||
| - Output | ||||||||||||||||||
| - Output | ||||||||||||||||||
| - Output | ||||||||||||||||||
| Subtotal for specific objective No 1 | ||||||||||||||||||
| SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE No 2 ... | ||||||||||||||||||
| - Output | ||||||||||||||||||
| Subtotal for specific objective No 2 | ||||||||||||||||||
| TOTALS |
3.2.3.Summary of estimated impact on human resources and administrative appropriations
Estimated requirements on administrative appropriations in the Commission
– The proposal/initiative does not require the use of appropriations of an administrative nature.
– The proposal/initiative requires the use of appropriations of an administrative nature, as explained below:
EUR million (to three decimal places)
| 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | TOTAL |
| HEADING 7 of the multiannual financial framework | ||||||
| Human resources | 0.257 | 0.444 | 0.444 | 0.444 | 0.444 | 2.033 |
| Other administrative expenditure | ||||||
| Subtotal HEADING 7 of the multiannual financial framework | 0.257 | 0.444 | 0.444 | 0.444 | 00.444 | 2.033 |
| Outside HEADING 7 93 of the multiannual financial framework | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Human resources | ||||||
| Other expenditure of an administrative nature | ||||||
| Subtotal outside HEADING 7 of the multiannual financial framework | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| TOTAL | 0.257 | 0.444 | 0.444 | 0.444 | 0.444 | 2.033 |
The appropriations required for human resources and other expenditure of an administrative nature will be met by appropriations from the DG that are already assigned to management of the action and/or have been redeployed within the DG, together if necessary with any additional allocation which may be granted to the managing DG under the annual allocation procedure and in the light of budgetary constraints.
3.2.3.3.Estimated requirements of human resources in the Commission
– The proposal/initiative does not require the use of human resources.
– The proposal/initiative requires the use of human resources, as explained below:
| 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | ||
| 20 01 02 01 (Headquarters and Commission’s Representation Offices) | 1.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 20 01 02 03 (Delegations) | ||||||
| 01 01 01 01 (Indirect research) | ||||||
| 01 01 01 11 (Direct research) | ||||||
| Other budget lines (specify) | ||||||
| 20 02 01 (AC, END, INT from the ‘global envelope’) | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||
| 20 02 03 (AC, AL, END, INT and JPD in the delegations) | ||||||
| XX 01 xx yy zz 94 | - at Headquarters | |||||
| - in Delegations | ||||||
| 01 01 01 02 (AC, END, INT - Indirect research) | ||||||
| 01 01 01 12 (AC, END, INT - Direct research) | ||||||
| Other budget lines (specify) | ||||||
| TOTAL | 1.5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
XX is the policy area or budget title concerned.
The human resources required will be met by staff from the DG who are already assigned to management of the action and/or have been redeployed within the DG, together if necessary with any additional allocation which may be granted to the managing DG under the annual allocation procedure and in the light of budgetary constraints.
Description of tasks to be carried out:
| Officials and temporary staff | DG ENV: Existing 0.75 FTE (AD) for co-decision and existing 0.33 FTE (AD) for implementation DG SANTE: Existing 0.5 FTE (AD) for co-decision and monitoring of Member States. |
| External staff | DG ENV: 3 additional contractual staff (3 CAs) are needed to perform the technical work, including: - Implementing acts establishing the harmonised format for registration in the register - Possible delegated acts to amend the Combined Nomenclature codes listed in Annex IVc to bring them in line with the codes listed in Annex 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 and to ensure the legal certainty on the products covered by the extended producer responsibility - Possible implementing act laying down criteria for producer responsibility organisations for the financial contributions paid to them by producers - Implementing act laying down the methodology for the calculation and verification of the separate collection rate - Implementing acts adopted pursuant to paragraph 37 of this Article laying down the format for reporting the data referred to in paragraph 1 to adapt them to the requirements set out in paragraph 3 of that Article. |
3.2.4.Compatibility with the current multiannual financial framework
The proposal/initiative:
– can be fully financed through redeployment within the relevant heading of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF).
– requires use of the unallocated margin under the relevant heading of the MFF and/or use of the special instruments as defined in the MFF Regulation.
Explain what is required, specifying the headings and budget lines concerned, the corresponding amounts, and the instruments proposed to be used.
– requires a revision of the MFF.
Explain what is required, specifying the headings and budget lines concerned and the corresponding amounts.
3.2.5.Third-party contributions
The proposal/initiative:
– does not provide for co-financing by third parties
– provides for the co-financing by third parties estimated below:
Appropriations in EUR million (to three decimal places)
| Year N 95 | Year N+1 | Year N+2 | Year N+3 | Enter as many years as necessary to show the duration of the impact (see point 1.6) | Total | |||
| Specify the co-financing body | ||||||||
| TOTAL appropriations co-financed |
3.3.Estimated impact on revenue
– The proposal/initiative has no financial impact on revenue.
– The proposal/initiative has the following financial impact:
on own resources
on other revenue
please indicate, if the revenue is assigned to expenditure lines
EUR million (to three decimal places)
| Budget revenue line: | Appropriations available for the current financial year | Impact of the proposal/initiative 96 | ||||||
| Year N | Year N+1 | Year N+2 | Year N+3 | Enter as many years as necessary to show the duration of the impact (see point 1.6) | ||||
| Article …………. |
For assigned revenue, specify the budget expenditure line(s) affected.
Other remarks (e.g. method/formula used for calculating the impact on revenue or any other information).
(1) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the European Green Deal, COM(2019) 640 final.
(2) A new Circular Economy Action Plan: For a cleaner and more competitive Europe, COM(2020)98 final of 11.3.2020.
(3) EU Transition Pathways (europa.eu)
(4) OJ L 312 22.11.2008, p. 3.
(5) European Environment Agency, Waste prevention in Europe, 2021, Waste prevention in Europe — European Environment Agency (europa.eu)
(6) Lai, O., What is fast fashion, Earth.org, 2021, https://earth.org/what-is-fast-fashion
(7) Stakeholder workshop.
(8) European Commission, Joint Research Centre, 2021, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/858144 .
(9) European Commission, Joint Research Centre. Techno-scientific assessment of the management options for used and waste textiles. 2023 (under development)
(10) European Commission, Joint Research Centre. Techno-scientific assessment of the management options for used and waste textiles. 2023 (under development).
(11) European Environment Agency, 2019.
(12) EEA. Textiles and the environment: the role of design in Europe’s circular economy (2022). Available at: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/textiles-and-the-environment-the.
(13) Ellen Mac Arthur Foundation, 2017, https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/a-new-textiles-economy.
(14) The waste hierarchy is a central concept in the WFD that establishes an order of preference for managing and disposing of waste: prevention first (including re-use) followed by waste management operations: preparing for re-use, recycling, recovery and last disposal. It is operationalised through specific rules and performance targets, such as setting separate collection obligations and targets for prevention, recycling or diversion from landfill.
(15) COM(2020)98 final.
(16) COM(2022)141 final.
(17) Sanye Mengual, E. and Sala, S., 2023. Consumption Footprint and Domestic Footprint: Assessing the environmental impacts of EU consumption and production.
(18) Sanyé-Mengual, E., Biganzoli, F., Valente, A., Pfister, S., & Sala, S. (2023). What are the main environmental impacts and products contributing to the biodiversity footprint of EU consumption? A comparison of life cycle impact assessment methods and models.
(19) https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/env_wasfw/default/table?lang=en
(20) Calculated using the Consumption Footprint methodology, as presented in: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Sanyé Mengual, E., Sala, S., Consumption footprint and domestic footprint: assessing the environmental impacts of EU consumption and production: life cycle assessment to support the European Green Deal, Publications Office of the European Union, 2023, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/218540.
(21) A m3-world eq. represents a cubic meter consumed on average in the world. The average refers to a consumption-weighted average, and hence represents the locations where water is currently consumed.
(22) Assessed considering impacts on four soil properties: biotic production, erosion resistance, groundwater regeneration and mechanical filtration, as presented in: De Laurentiis, V., Secchi, M., Bos, U., Horn, R., Laurent, A. and Sala, S., Soil quality index: Exploring options for a comprehensive assessment of land use impacts in LCA, Journal of Cleaner Production, 215, pp.63-74, 2019.
(23) The Consumption Footprint covers the 16 impact categories of the Environmental Footprint (European Commission, 2021) including freshwater eutrophication which is caused mainly by phosphorous emissions.
(24) OJ L 471, 30.12.2021, p. 1–396.
(25) Eurostat, 2022 (see note 92, page 32).
(26) Manfredi, S., & Cristobal, J., Towards more sustainable management of European food waste: Methodological approach and numerical application. Waste Management and Research, 34(9), 957–968, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X16652965.
(27) European Commission, Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, EU agricultural outlook for markets, income and environment 2022-2032, Publications Office of the European Union, 2023, p. 43. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2762/29222. Note: very small variation (less than 1%), because of slightly different MAGNET baseline used.
(28) Eurostat, October 2022. Living conditions in Europe - material deprivation and economic strain - Statistics Explained
(29) The need to ensure access to food and solidarity in the food supply chain is also highlighted in the recommendations of the European citizens’ panel on food waste. For the complete set of recommendations, see Annex 16 of the Impact Assessment Report.
(30) COM(2020)381 final
(31) OJ L 248, 27.9.2019, p.77-85.
(32) OJ C 361, 25.10.2017, p. 1–29.
(33) OJ C 133, 16.4.2018, p. 2–18.
(34) https://food.ec.europa.eu/safety/food-waste/eu-actions-against-food-waste/eu-platform-food-losses-and-food-waste_en
(35) https://food.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-05/fs_eu-actions_action_platform_key-rcmnd_en.pdf
(36) https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/food_waste/eu_actions/date_marking_en
(37) https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/food_waste/eu-food-loss-waste-prevention-hub/eu-member-state-page/show/FI
(38) https://restwith.eu/
(39) European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Caldeira, C., Sala, S., De Laurentiis, V., Assessment of food waste prevention actions. Development of an evaluation framework to assess the performance of food waste prevention actions, Publications Office, 2019.
(40) See projects CHORIZO and ToNoWaste
(41) See projects FOLOU and WASTELESS
(42) Example: HaDEA 2022 call for proposals to help stakeholders take action on fighting food waste
(43) European Commission, Food Safety, EU Code of Conduct on Responsible Food Business and Marketing Practices, 2021
(44) COM/2022/66 final
(45) COM/2021/709 final
(46) COM/2022/142 final
(47) OJ L 272 18.10.2011, p. 1
(48) OJ L 396 30.12.2006, p. 1
(49) COM(2020) 562 final
(50) COM(2012)060 final
(51) https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/404a8144-8892-11ec-8c40-01aa75ed71a1
(52) https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15441-2022-INIT/en/pdf
(53) SWD(2023)4 final, Drivers of food security.
(54) OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p.47.
(55) European Commission, Have your say, Published initiatives, Environmental impact of waste management – revision of EU waste framework, https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13225-Environmental-impact-of-waste-management-revision-of-EU-waste-framework_en
(56) European Commission, Have your say, published initiatives, Food waste – reduction targets, https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13223-Food-waste-reduction-targets_en
(57) 198 indicated on Environmental impact of waste management – revision of EU waste framework (europa.eu) because one is a duplication from WEEE forum.
(58) All received contributions were considered valid.
(59) The high number of respondents from Belgium is assumed to result from the fact that Brussels hosts many of the organisations representing different groups of interest before EU Institutions, such as industry associations, non-governmental and consumers' organisations etc.
(60) European Citizens’ Panel on Food Waste, Final recommendations , February 2023
(61) European Commission, Joint Research Centre. Circular economy perspectives in the EU Textile sector. 2021 and European Commission, Joint Research Centre. Techno-scientific assessment of the management options for used and waste textiles. 2023 (under development).
(62) De Laurentiis, V, Mancini, L, Casonato, C, Boysen-Urban, K, De Jong, B, M’Barek, R, Sanyé Mengual, E, Sala, S. Setting the scene for an EU initiative on food waste reduction targets. Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2023, doi: 10.2760/13859, JRC133967.
(63) De Jong B, Boysen-Urban K, De Laurentiis V, Philippidis G, Bartelings H, Mancini L, Biganzoli F, Sanyé Mengual E, Sala S, Lasarte-López J, Rokicki B, M’barek R. Assessing the economic, social and environmental impacts of food waste reduction targets. A model-based analysis. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2023, doi:10.2760/77251, JRC133971.
(64) https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Food_waste_and_food_waste_prevention_-_estimates . The database can be found under code ( env_wasfw ) at Eurostat website)
(65) For an overview of the channels through which the circular economy impacts competitiveness, please see Flachenecker, F. (2018) The causal impact of material productivity on macroeconomic competitiveness in the EU. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies 20, 17–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-016-0180-3 and Flachenecker, F., Kornejew, M. (2019) The causal impact of material productivity on microeconomic competitiveness and environmental performance in the EU. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies 21, 87–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-018-0223-z
(66) COM/2014/0397 final
(67) OJ C , , p. .
(68) OJ C , , p. .
(69) COM(2020)98 final of 11 March 2020.
(70) EU Transition Pathways (europa.eu)
(71) COM(2022)141 final of 30 March 2022.
(72) For the complete list of recommendations, see Annex 16 of the Impact Assessment Report.
(73) OJ L 140, 5.6.2009, p. 114.
(74) OJ L 114, 27.4.2006, p. 9.
(75) OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, p. 3.
(76) Commission Delegated Decision (EU) 2019/1597 of 3 May 2019 supplementing Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards a common methodology and minimum quality requirements for the uniform measurement of levels of food waste (OJ L 248, 27.9.2019, p. 77).
(77) Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 64).
(78) OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.
(79) COM (2021) 778 final of 9 December 2021.
(80) OJ to insert the reference number once adopted.
(81) Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 on textile fibre names and related labelling and marking of the fibre composition of textile products and repealing Council Directive 73/44/EEC and Directives 96/73/EC and 2008/121/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 272, 18.10.2011, p. 1).
(82) OJ to insert the reference number once adopted.
(83) OJ L 277, 27.10.2022, p. 1.
(84) OJ to insert the reference number once adopted.
(85) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ L 55, 28.02.2011, p. 13).
(86) As referred to in Article 58(2)(a) or (b) of the Financial Regulation.
(87) Details of budget implementation methods and references to the Financial Regulation may be found on the BUDGpedia site: https://myintracomm.ec.europa.eu/corp/budget/financial-rules/budget-implementation/Pages/implementation-methods.aspx
(88) Diff. = Differentiated appropriations / Non-diff. = Non-differentiated appropriations.
(89) EFTA: European Free Trade Association.
(90) Candidate countries and, where applicable, potential candidates from the Western Balkans.
(91) Outputs are products and services to be supplied (e.g.: number of student exchanges financed, number of km of roads built, etc.).
(92) As described in point 1.4.2. ‘Specific objective(s)…’
(93) Technical and/or administrative assistance and expenditure in support of the implementation of EU programmes and/or actions (former ‘BA’ lines), indirect research, direct research.
(94) Sub-ceiling for external staff covered by operational appropriations (former ‘BA’ lines).
(95) Year N is the year in which implementation of the proposal/initiative starts. Please replace "N" by the expected first year of implementation (for instance: 2021). The same for the following years.
(96) As regards traditional own resources (customs duties, sugar levies), the amounts indicated must be net amounts, i.e. gross amounts after deduction of 20 % for collection costs.