Sittings · Document
ORDINARY LEGISLATIVE procedure
(First reading without prior interinstitutional negotiations)
Follow up to the European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2008/98/EC on waste
1. Rapporteur: Anna ZALEWSKA (ECR / PL)
2. Reference numbers: 2023/0234 (COD) / A9-0055/2024 / P9_TA(2024)0145
3. Date of adoption of the resolution: 13 March 2024
4. Legal basis: Article 192(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
5. Competent Parliamentary Committee: Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI)
6. Commission's position: takes note of the amendments proposed by the European Parliament.
At this stage, the Commission reserves its position, pending the adoption of the Council’s general approach and the subsequent trilogue negotiations, while drawing attention to the following points:
As regards Food Waste:
Level of food waste reduction targets
The European Parliament proposes to raise the targets substantially, to 20% in processing and manufacturing and to 40% jointly in retail and other distribution of food, in restaurants and food services and in households. The Commission notes that the proposal to raise the levels of the food waste reduction targets is not supported by the feasibility analysis of the accompanying impact assessment.
Further evaluation obligation for the Commission
The Parliament proposes to request the Commission to assess, by 31 December 2025, the appropriate levels for targets for the primary production, including for food left unharvested or used on farms. It also proposes to evaluate, by 31 December 2027, the possibility to further raise by 10% the level of the targets to be reached by 2035. In both cases, the Commission is to report to co-legislators, accompanied by legislative proposals, as appropriate. The issue of extending the scope of the targets to cover food waste occurred at the level of primary production is already covered in the Commission proposal by the review clause included in Article 9a(7) for 2027. The Commission notes that completing such an assessment by the end of 2025 - raises concerns for its feasibility. In addition, the consideration of binding targets for food losses (i.e., products that have not yet entered into the food chain such as non-harvested crops) goes beyond the scope of the Waste Framework Directive and would likely create additional reporting obligations for farmers.
As regards Textile:
The Commission welcomes the progress made and the support of the Parliament for the core elements of the proposal, including the exclusion of micro-enterprises and suppliers of used textiles from the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), while expressing concerns about some amendments that depart most significantly from the Commission proposal, including two review clauses calling the Commission respectively for the evaluation of the entire Waste Framework Directive and of the Landfill Directive. The Commission notes that, if a general evaluation of these directives is considered, then it should be combined with: (i) the existing 5 revision clauses contained in the Waste Framework and the Landfill Directives, (ii) the newly proposed revision clauses for textiles and food waste, which should all be rationalised. In this context, it should also be recalled that the Commission, respecting the principles underpinning the current Multiannual Financial Framework, operates under a stable staffing principle. Any increases of the workload will need to be addressed by potential reallocation and redeployment within the services.
Furthermore, the Commission suggests further assessment of the proposed amendments related to the extension of the scope of the EPR for textiles to cover carpets and mattresses whose main composition is textile, and the inclusion of EPR for Personal Protective Equipment via a delegated act by 2024.
Regarding the collection of textile waste, the introduction of waste permits for textile collection points is a source of concern in terms of administrative burden and disruption of functioning collection systems. The Commission points however to the benefits of considering textiles as waste upon their collection as part of the system for separate collection of waste, until their professional assessment as fit (or not) for direct reuse. This would contribute to tackling the problem of proper treatment and illegal exports of textile waste disguised as used products and improving the monitoring of the post-consumer textile market.