REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD OPINION Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on preventing plastic pellet losses to reduce microplastic pollution

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Brussels, 12.6.2023
SEC(2023) 346 final
REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD OPINION
Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE
COUNCIL on preventing plastic pellet losses to reduce microplastic pollution
{COM(2023) 645 final}
{SWD(2023) 330 final}
{SWD(2023) 332 final}
{SWD(2023) 333 final}
Offentligt
KOM (2023) 0645 - SEK-dokument
Europaudvalget 2023
________________________________
Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111
regulatory-scrutiny-board@ec.europa.eu
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD
Brussels,
RSB
Opinion
Title: Impact assessment / Measures to reduce the release of
microplastics in the environment
Overall 2nd
opinion: POSITIVE WITH RESERVATIONS
(A) Policy context
Microplastics are considered pollutants in the environment. Some microplastics are
intentionally added to products (e.g. in cosmetics, detergents, paints) or serve as input for
further processing (e.g. plastic pellets). Other microplastics originate from the abrasion of
larger plastic objects (e.g. painted surfaces, geotextiles, tyres, textile fibres).
This initiative focuses on the unintentional release of pellets and stems from the EU Action
Plan towards zero pollution for air, water and soil which aims to reduce microplastics
released into the environment by 30% by 2030.
(B) Summary of findings
The Board notes the improvements made to the report responding to the Board’s
previous opinion.
However, the report still contains significant shortcomings. The Board gives a
positive opinion with reservations because it expects the DG to rectify the following
aspects:
(1) The report does not sufficiently justify why only measures for pellets are
proposed at this stage and not for other sources, given that the precautionary
principle is invoked.
(2) The design of the options does not bring out clearly all available policy choices.
(3) The impact analysis is not sufficiently developed. The comparison of options is
not based on an assessment of their effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and
proportionality.
(4) The analysis of the impacts on SMEs and EU sector competitiveness is
inadequate.
Ref. Ares(2023)4068166 - 12/06/2023
2
(C) What to improve
(1) The report should reinforce the narrative as to why this impact assessment focusses
solely on pellets given that it states that the need to act is justified by the precautionary
principle. The report should clarify what additional information would be needed to trigger
action for the other sources of unintentional microplastic pollution to improve the analysis.
(2) The report should discuss the contribution of action on pellets to solving the entire
problem of microplastics released in the environment, including from the degradation of
macroplastics and define the relative scale of the microplastics from pellets problem. It
should discuss if taking measures on pellets first would be most effective and efficient to
reach the target of 30% reduction of microplastics from the Action Plan or if measures on
other sources would be more urgent and contribute more to this target. Moreover, it should
clarify if this 30% target refers to microplastics in general (including degradation of
macroplastics) or if it is for intentionally and unintentionally added microplastics, i.e.
excluding degradation from macroplastics.
(3) The report should further discuss the magnitude of the environmental impact of pellets
and the reliability of the estimates, including reference to scientific studies to support
anecdotal evidence. It should identify the potential harmful climate and human health
impacts from pellets specifically and be clear about the strength of scientific evidence in
this area, justifying the invocation of the precautionary principle.
(4) The design of options should bring out clearly the available policy choices. On the one
hand, the report should identify and clarify which actors in the supply chain are responsible
for most losses.. It should be more specific on the measures proposed, in particular, on the
operational controls, the equipment and the lighter regimes for SMEs, and consider if more
targeted alternative options would be feasible regarding some of these measures.. It should
explain how these measures go beyond existing environmental management systems. On
the other hand, if combinations of options are considered necessary to tackle all identified
problems (such as Option 1 and 2b and potentially different requirements within option 2b)
these should be identified up-front and subsequently compared to the other options.
(5) The report should further clarify and develop the impact analysis. It should quantify
the costs to businesses related to the implementation (testing and reporting) of the
mandatory standardised methodology to measure pallet losses or better explain why it is
considered that those costs are accounted for under the upcoming REACH proposal given
the likely broader scope of businesses covered by this initiative. It should also quantify the
costs to businesses of the notification of the outcomes of the certification to demonstrate
compliance with the defined mandatory requirements to prevent and reduce pellet losses or
better explain why those costs are considered “minimal”. The report should make an effort
to further quantify and monetise the expected benefits. It should monetise the estimated
reduction in CO2 emission. It should also explore whether it is possible to monetise the
expected reduction in the spill clean-up costs and improvements in work safety. It should
provide clear overview tables of costs and benefits. The report should better explain the
qualitative scoring of the environmental, economic and social impacts. As most of the
impacts are not monetised, it should justify the conclusions on “Low”, “Medium” and
“High” Benefit Cost Ratios for each option.
(6) Once the impact analysis is improved, the report should compare all relevant
(combinations of) options in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and
proportionality and present this comparison in a clear comparison table. It should better
justify the selection of the preferred option given the high uncertainties around the scale of
3
the problem and their impacts. These uncertainties should be clearly set out throughout and
included when addressing and qualifying the costs and benefits of the measures. When
selecting the preferred option, the report should better justify its proportionality. It should
explain how it was concluded that the benefits significantly outweigh the costs given that
the monetised costs are much higher than the monetised benefits.
(7) The concerns of SMEs, even for the lighter regimes, should be highlighted throughout
the report. The report should explain why not all SMEs would be included in the lighter
regime, in particular in light of the response of SME stakeholders to the specific
consultation. The report should analyse the impact of the preferred option on international
competitiveness of the sector as well as SME competitiveness. For the development of the
measuring methodology, full coherence with REACH requirements should be further
discussed.
(8) The report should quantify the administrative costs and differentiate those that are in
scope of the ‘One In, One Out’ approach.
(9) As the report is now focused on pellets, this approach should be coherently adopted in
the annexes, which should also focus on supporting the assessment for this specific source.
The Board notes the estimated costs and benefits of the preferred option in this initiative,
as summarised in the attached quantification tables.
(D) Conclusion
The DG must revise the report in accordance with the Board’s findings before
launching the interservice consultation.
If there are any changes in the choice or design of the preferred option in the final
version of the report, the DG may need to further adjust the attached quantification
tables to reflect this.
Full title Measures to reduce the release of microplastics in the
environment
Reference number PLAN/2020/8355
Submitted to RSB on 17 May 2023
Date of RSB meeting Written procedure
4
ANNEX: Quantification tables extracted from the draft impact assessment report
The following tables contain information on the costs and benefits of the initiative on
which the Board has given its opinion, as presented above.
If the draft report has been revised in line with the Board’s recommendations, the content
of these tables may be different from those in the final version of the impact assessment
report, as published by the Commission.
I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option
Description Amount Comments
Direct benefits
Reduction in pellet losses Measures under the preferred option could
potentially result in the reduction of pellet losses
to the environment in the range of 25 142 to
140 621 tonnes by 2030, which will reduce
adverse impacts on water resources (both marine
and freshwater and management wastewater).
As the reduction potential of all
measures under the preferred option
cannot be calculated, this estimation
is conservative. All stakeholders will
benefit because this will result in
better environmental quality.
Improved understanding
of pellet loss pathways
and mechanisms in
reaching the environment
The measurement standard and reporting will
improve the availability of data on pellet losses.
This benefit will be mostly for the
industry and public authorities. This
will be of much use in designing
better products, monitoring the
effectiveness of reduction measures.
Creation of a level-
playing field
Option 2b will create a level playing field
among different actors within the plastic value
chain. It will also bring a competitive advantage
to the EU industry by improving its global
reputation around environmental protection.
It could also negatively affect the
competitiveness of the EU industry if
a downstream actor in the value chain
imports pellets from outside the EU,
which could be cheaper in the
absence of regulatory requirements.
Indirect benefits
Safer work environment The measure will reduce the amount of pellet
spills and benefit the safety of employees
working throughout the pellet chain by reducing
their chances of falling.
Healthier soil The measure will reduce the quantities of pellets
in soil due to less losses through direct spills or
through the use of sewage sludge as a fertiliser.
Benefits to ecosystem
services
The measure will reduce the quantities of pellets
in affected areas, having knock-on effects on
sectors such as tourism and recreation (increased
attractivity of the region), fisheries (less pellets
being absorbed by marine animals) and
agriculture (less pellets being released on soils).
Reduced costs for
affected populations
The measure will reduce the need for local
populations to finance clean-up operations
following a spill.
Administrative cost savings related to the ‘one in, one out’ approach
Verification of data Due to the harmonised measurement standard, it
will be easier for authorities to collect and verify
data related to pellet losses, leading to cost
savings.
5
II. Overview of costs – Preferred option
Citizens/Consumers Businesses Administrations
One-off Recurrent One-off Recurrent One-off Recurrent
Action (a)
Direct adjustment
costs
No one-off
cost
A possible
minor increase
in the price of
pellets could be
passed on to the
downstream
users and,
ultimately
citizens because
of an increase
in the price of
plastic
products.
The businesses
need to adapt
their operations
and
administrative
procedures to
the new
requirements
by the
preferred
option.
Developing the
measurement
standard
(option 1) will
entail
adjustment
costs between
EUR 1.3 – 3.2
million,
however
compensated
by recurrent
savings in
using a single
method and in
reporting.
Costs for
applying the
methodology
developed
under option 1
for monitoring
however
compensated
by recurrent
savings on
reporting.
Actions for
implementing
pellet loss
reduction
measures (EUR
376 to 491
million of
pellets handled
during
production,
processing or
logistics
operations).
Businesses
could choose to
absorb these or
pass them on to
consumers.
Administrat
ions would
potentially
directly
support the
investments
needed to
develop
new
methodolog
ies and
standards
(option 1).
Administratio
ns will need
to ensure the
enforcement
of EU law on
pellets and
review the
reports
submitted.
Direct
administrative
costs
None None
Putting in place
administrative
procedures.
Minor costs for
data collection,
verification,
correction and
enforcement,
but more cost
savings
expected in the
existing
reporting.
Putting in
place
administrati
ve
procedures,
including
setting up a
register of
certified
companies.
Costs for
enforcement
and analysis
of the
reported data.
Direct regulatory
fees and charges
None None
None Only if public
authorities
decide to put
fees in place.
None None
Direct
enforcement costs
None None
Putting in place
administrative
procedures.
Minor costs for
notification.
Putting in
place
administrati
ve
procedures,
including
measures
for ensuring
compliance.
Costs for
enforcement
and analysis
of the
reported data.
6
Costs related to the ‘one in, one out’ approach
Total
Direct adjustment
costs
n/a n/a Cost savings:
putting in place
administrative
procedures,
compensated
by savings on
the single
method.
Minor costs for
reporting of
notification.
Indirect
adjustment costs
n/a n/a None None
Administrative
costs (for
offsetting)
n/a n/a None None
7
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Regulatory Scrutiny Board
Brussels,
RSB
Opinion
Title: Impact assessment / Measures to reduce the release of
microplastics in the environment
Overall opinion: NEGATIVE
(A) Policy context
Microplastics are considered pollutants in the environment. Some microplastics are
intentionally added to products (e.g. in cosmetics, detergents, paints) or serve as input for
further processing (e.g. plastic pellets). Other microplastics originate from the abrasion of
larger plastic objects (e.g. painted surfaces, geotextiles, tyres, textile fibres).
This initiative focuses on the unintentional release of microplastics and stems from the EU
Action Plan towards zero pollution for air, water and soil which aims to reduce
microplastics released into the environment by 30% by 2030.
(B) Summary of findings
The Board notes the additional information provided in advance of the meeting and
commitments to make changes to the report.
However, the Board gives a negative opinion, because the report contains the
following significant shortcomings:
(1) The report does not set out the exact scope of the initiative. It is not clear upfront
on the issues that will be dealt with in parallel and future initiatives. It does not
sufficiently explain the coherence with other legislation.
(2) The objectives of the initiative are not specific enough and do not clearly relate to
the problems. The report is not clear on how much this initiative is expected to
contribute to the 30% reduction target.
(3) The presentation of measures and options is not sufficiently clear or focussed on
the precise problems to be tackled by this initiative. The impact analysis is not
sufficiently clear and the level of uncertainty is not defined.
(4) The presentation of stakeholder views is too general and does not allow to
understand their different views.
(C) What to improve
(1) The report should clearly frame the scope of the initiative in its wider context, better
describing its boundaries and limits. It should clearly describe why it focusses on
8
unintended emissions at source level and discuss why, for example, the degradation of
macroplastics is not considered as in scope. It should clearly describe and analyse the
problems posed by microplastics released in the environment. It should present the risks to
human health and the environment, including climate impact. This analysis should be
supported by solid evidence. Where such evidence is lacking or is uncertain, the report
should indicate this clearly and discuss the robustness of the available evidence.
(2) The report should better describe the existing and on-going relevant initiatives to
enable a better understanding of the problems and their scale posed by different sources of
microplastics. The dynamic baseline should include other EU initiatives, measures already
taken by Member States, industry-led initiatives, and best practices around circularity. It
should set out the overlap and complementarity with existing initiatives in reaching the
30% reduction target and clearly present the specific contribution of this initiative to
meeting the target.
(3) The report should clarify upfront that only one specific sectorial issue together with a
limited horizontal one will be tackled in this initiative and the issues related to
microplastics releases from other sources are left to future or parallel initiatives, subject to
further analysis. The specific objectives are not precise enough to link them accurately to
the revised set of specific problems. They should be expressed in more SMART terms.
(4) Following a comprehensive problem definition and a clear and redefined scope of this
initiative, the report should present those measures that remain useful for tackling the
specific problems to be addressed by the initiative, discarding all measures clearly outside
the scope upfront. It should then present a clear and consistent intervention logic showing
how alternative set of measures could deliver on the refined set of specific objectives.
(5) The report should revise the impact analysis so that it follows the redefined scope of
the initiative. It should analyse the impacts of the remaining measures in sufficient depth
and be clear about the stakeholder groups affected. It should ensure analytical consistency
throughout. It should present the methodologies used for assessing the measures,
comparing them and constructing the preferred option. The level of certainty in the analysis
and conclusions should be clear.
(6) The views of the different stakeholders should be discussed throughout the report from
the scope of the initiative, the problem definition to the proposed options and their impacts.
Dissenting views need to be presented and discussed in the main report.
Some more technical comments have been sent directly to the author DG.
(D) Conclusion
The DG must revise the report in accordance with the Board’s findings and resubmit
it for a final RSB opinion.
Full title Measures to reduce the release of microplastics in the
environment
Reference number PLAN/2020/8355
Submitted to RSB on 17 October 2022
Date of RSB meeting 16 November 2022
Electronically signed on 12/06/2023 20:16 (UTC+02) in accordance with Article 11 of Commission Decision (EU) 2021/2121