FEAD feedback for the simplification of administrative burden in environmental legislation

FEAD welcomes the opportunity to comment on the reduction of bureaucracy in the environmental sector as well as the EU Commission’s efforts to reduce administrative burden. Companies of the European recycling and waste management industry continue facing significant red tape. Given the challenging economic circumstances in which in particular the recycling sector currently finds itself, measures to reduce bureaucracy are urgently needed in order to cut costs and remove barriers to trade and use for recycled raw materials and products. A combination of both, repealing certain provisions and a harmonisation exercise can contribute to this.

However, FEAD also urges caution when abolishing certain reporting requirements. A circular economy will only succeed if compliance with the obligations of economic operators can be verified and traced, and compliance with targets can only be verified if data is collected. Information on the composition and ingredients of products is important in order to assess their recyclability and to be able to send them for appropriate treatment. In this respect, careful consideration is required. No provisions that are necessary for the implementation of circular economy policy objectives and the obligations required to achieve them should be repealed.

1. Improve the SCIP database integrating it with the digital product passport

The traceability of SVHCs remains fundamental to reach the EU circular economy objectives and for an efficient waste management. But the way the database is currently structured does not allow its use by the waste management sector as it is overly complex and not well suited for practical needs.

In order to address these shortcomings, the SCIP database should not be discontinued outright but rather improved and integrated with the new Digital Product Passport, maintaining the responsibility of the producers and allowing greater transparency. This integration should avoid duplication, ensure compatibility, and create a system designed for day-to-day use within the waste management sector. It must be efficient, scalable, and deployable at industrial level, thereby enhancing transparency across the entire value chain with regard to materials and potential contaminants.

Additionally, the ongoing REACH revision aims to establish an interlink between REACH compliance and DPP, using the DPP to digitise supply chain communication on substances of very high concern in articles. A complete phase-out of the SCIP database without a functional alternative for communicating the presence of substances of concern in end-of-life articles would risk undermining certain recycling operations and bring discontinuity to the future ambitions of the REACH revision. Instead, the solution lies in simplifying information requirements and improving data accessibility through the Digital Product Passport.

The environmental omnibus could also be used to present a differentiated view of the DPP and make it clear that it should simplify and improve things for waste management companies and must not further complicate waste disposal. To this end, careful consideration would need to be given to which products actually require a DPP. For (plastic) packaging, for example, a DPP would be counterproductive or unnecessary. Thanks to sophisticated sorting technology, packaging can be sorted and recycled effectively even without information about its composition, etc. In addition, the practicability (legibility) of the DPP must be taken into account; for materials/products that are first shredded as waste (such as plastic packaging), the DPP will be difficult to read. It would therefore be of no use. The situation is quite different for larger products made of different materials, e.g. batteries, electrical appliances and motor vehicles.

• Simplify EU- wide end-of-waste criteria
  • Improve the current process for adopting EU-wide end-of-waste criteria, which is extremely resource-intensive, both for the European Commission and for stakeholders involved in the waste value chain for the relevant raw materials. When the criteria meet the requirements of the Waste Framework Directive and there is consensus within the value chain, they should benefit from accelerated adoption procedures at the EU level.
  • Ensure mutual recognition of national end-of-waste criteria, until EU-wide end-of-waste criteria are adopted. The diversified waste status among Member States creates instability for the application of EU waste shipment regulation directly impacting shipment between EU countries. The cross-border transportation of paper between France and Italy is a great example to illustrate that issue: in one country, paper is considered as waste whereas it is considered as a secondary raw material in the other. Concretely, if a product derived from waste complies with the EoW criteria of MS1 and is placed on the market in MS2, and vice versa, the two MS should mutually recognize the EoW criteria applied. It may be considered to subject those national criteria to a review process by the Commission after which the EoW may be placed in a registry of approved national EoW criteria. Key aspects of this review process would be ensuring that the EoW criteria meet the requirements under Article 6 of the WFD and that they do not lead to a “race-to-the-bottom” scenario in terms of environmental and quality standards.
  • Ensure uniform interpretation of the legal status of recycled materials by competent authorities to reduce legal uncertainty for recycling operators and increase user confidence in recycled material.

• Simplify waste shipments

A fully functioning circular economy relies on the unrestricted availability of waste. It is essential to acknowledge that waste and secondary raw material markets extend beyond the EU’s internal and external borders. Waste must be transported swiftly and efficiently to the facilities best equipped to process it in line with the waste hierarchy, including highly specialised recycling plants. Priority areas for improvement are:

1. In general, the rules governing waste shipments must be streamlined with accelerated permitting process under the Waste Shipment Regulation, and the relaxation of restrictions on the export of waste for recovery to third countries.
   1. Extend the tacit consent possibility to the competent authority of dispatch, together with the competent authority of transit, already foreseen in Art. 9(1) WSR.
   1. Simplify the financial guarantee required in Art 7 WSR by ensuring a timely adoption of the simple, risk-based and harmonised calculation method foreseen in art. 7(10) WSR.
   1. Modify Art. 18(5) WSR so the person who arranges the shipment only needs to complete the form the day of the shipment, but no later than the start of the shipment. Demanding that the form be completed two working days in advance serves no benefit to the protection of the environment and hampers the free movement of waste. Contrary to the political objectives of this Commission it hampers the competitiveness of circular products with virgin products which aren’t subject to similar excessive administrative burdens.
   1. Specify in Art. 18(5) WSR that information on the quantity of the waste shipped according to the general information procedure may be estimated when completing Annex VII before the start of the shipment. The actual quantity of the waste shipped (as currently required by Art. 18(5)) can only be determined at the weighbridge of the receiving facility, and can therefore not be indicated before departure. Estimated quantities are common practice when fulfilling Annex VII prior to departure.
   1. Ensure a mutual recognition of transportation certificates between Member States. In many Member States, not all waste transportation certificates are recognised, creating a legal insecurity for waste shipments operators. The harmonization of regulation at EU level will help to smooth the intra-EU waste shipment and increase the EU’s waste treatment rate. 
   1. Ensure that digitalisation of waste shipments simplifies the process instead of making it more complex. The upcoming digital system must ensure that an equivalent level of automatisation as companies have today is possible.
2. Ensure effectiveness of EPR schemes
   1. Maintain the national authorised representative requirement. Removing the authorised representative (AR) and the declaration obligation in each Member State for product providers would significantly increase the risk of free riders for producers covered by a given Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme. The AR plays a vital role in the practical enforcement of EPR, although, the current AR framework is fragmented, legally ambiguous, and administratively burdensome, which undermines the very purpose of EPR and weakens enforcement across Member States.

One of the key challenges is the lack of harmonization across the EU – not only between Member States, but also across different EPR streams (packaging, WEEE, batteries, textiles, furniture). Definitions, responsibilities, and liability rules differ. In some jurisdictions, the AR is fully liable for compliance failures; in others, liability remains solely with the producer. This legal uncertainty creates compliance risks for companies and hampers enforcement authorities in effectively overseeing producer obligations. Enforcement gaps are further exacerbated by the absence of a centralized register or tracking mechanism for ARs. Authorities often do not know who is acting as an AR for which producer and for which product group, making it difficult to monitor compliance — especially in the growing context of cross-border e-commerce. Unscrupulous actors can exploit these loopholes, and compliant producers face unfair competition from those who ignore their obligations entirely.

Moreover, the quality and accountability of ARs are currently unregulated. In most Member States, anyone with a legal presence can act as an AR, regardless of their knowledge, capacity, or reliability. This lack of quality control increases the risk of non-compliance for producers relying on these representatives to handle critical tasks such as registration, reporting, and communication with national authorities.

The administrative burden for appointing ARs is another major concern. Some Member States require formal notarisation or legalization of powers of attorney, even for minor compliance tasks, creating an unnecessary barrier for businesses, especially SMEs. In addition, there is no EU-wide clarity on what constitutes a ‘legal establishment’ for the purpose of appointing an AR—an issue particularly relevant for online sellers and platforms. Furthermore, it should be clarified that a single AR may represent a producer across multiple EPR systems within a Member State, in order to reduce fragmentation and costs.

To strengthen enforcement and improve the effectiveness of EPR, we strongly recommend the following reforms:

• Harmonise the definition, legal role, and liability of ARs across all EPR-relevant areas and Member States through clear EU legislation
• Establish a centralised, publicly accessible EU register of ARs, clearly linking each representative to their respective producers and EPR schemes
• Introduce minimum qualification standards and a certification framework for ARs to ensure professionalism and accountability
• Require professional liability insurance for ARs to safeguard producers and the integrity of the compliance system
• Simplify the process of appointing ARs by eliminating disproportionate requirements such as notarised powers of attorney or unnecessary formalities
• Clarify the definition of ‘establishment’ in the context of EPR, especially for digital commerce, to ensure consistent application across the EU
• Allow and encourage the appointment of a single AR per country for multiple EPR streams to reduce duplication and administrative burden

In conclusion, the Authorised Representative must be recognised as a central element of effective EPR enforcement—not a mere administrative formality. A harmonised, streamlined, and transparent AR system will significantly improve compliance, close existing enforcement gaps, and support a fair and functioning internal market across the European Union.

• As a basic principle, before setting up any new EPR schemes a socio-economic assessment of extended producer responsibility as a policy tool should be carried out. EPR schemes should thus target market failures. Concretely, they should be developed only when this instrument is truly necessary to address, focusing the financial support of producer responsibility organisations on the weaknesses of the current waste management system.
  • Any simplification effort under the Omnibus should remain consistent with other ongoing EU initiatives. This is particularly important in the context of the EPR scheme introduced by the revised Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive, a landmark measure to ensure the effective application of the polluter-pays principle. Efforts to weaken or dismantle this provision would severely undermine the credibility of EU environmental and circular economy policies, while allowing major polluters to externalise the impact of their products. Defending and fully implementing this EPR scheme is therefore essential to ensure both environmental protection and fairness in the transition to a circular economy.
• Simplify legislation for food contact materials

The current regulatory framework for recycling food-contact materials presents significant challenges for European plastic recyclers due to its stringent requirements for decontamination processes and input qualification. This restrictive environment has resulted in a limited number of technologies being recognised as suitable for the production of food-grade materials:

1. Facilitate the recognition of novel technologies as suitable for the production of food-grade materials under Regulation 2022/1616. The current framework for recycling food-contact materials limits the development of alternative technologies, such as those used to generate food-grade polyolefins, e.g. HDPE materials from milk bottles or PET pellets from municipal solid waste, due to the requirements for decontamination processes and input qualification. The Commission should create, for example, a formal call for projects through a consortium, rather than waiting for recyclers to candidate without standardized sets of data, and without giving a precise timeframe for assessing the requests and mutualising data from different requests.
   1. Make the framework for recycling food contact materials exigent, but flexible with other waste treatment methods ensuring high decontamination level. For instance, manually collected plastics waste should be accepted as feedstock for recycling food contact materials if they allow precise materials identification and minimisation of cross-contamination risks by following strict food safety requirements. It ensures essential traceability for food applications but also guarantees the high quality of recycled raw materials by a precise sorting method.
2. Facilitate environmental permitting
   1. Introduce an EU time limit for the permit granting process. Renewal of existing permits and the obtention of new ones are critical to industry. Although the duration of permit-granting processes varies, we experience that it is not uncommon that obtention of new permits (or even renewals of existing permits) may take many years. Naturally, such permitting challenges hampers investments and slows down the green transition in Europe. FEAD believes that an EU time limit should be introduced for the permit granting process for new environmental permits. This has already been done in the EU Critical Raw Materials Act and similar requirements could be introduced in the Industrial Emissions Directive. Where an environmental impact assessment is required, this impact assessment should not be included in the maximum duration for the permit-granting.
   1. Address the interface between the Water Framework Directive and the Industrial Emissions Directive. The European Water Framework Directive poses an increasing risk to new and existing permits. The so-called non-deterioration principle, as interpreted under the Weser ruling, focuses on preventing the deterioration of a single quality factor (one out-all out) rather than the overall water quality of a water body, making exemptions almost impossible. This has led to applications for establishment of new modern industrial facilities being turned down by the national environmental authorities, because of the deterioration of a single quality factor. The narrow interpretation of the Water Framework Directive sets aside BAT-AELs, which have been carefully developed under the Industrial Emissions Directive. This results in unrealistic requirements for emissions to water. Hence, we strongly recommend that the interface between the Water Framework Directive and the Industrial Emissions Directive be addressed, to simplify the burdens in the environmental legislation.
3. Re-evaluate certain reuse targets in the PPWR

The obligation to reuse 100% of transport packaging used for shipments between companies within a single Member State or for shipments across Member States within the same group of companies (Art. 29(2), (3)) should be re-evaluated through a Delegated Act (Art. 29(18)). Operators are already warning of economic damage resulting from this obligation, which cannot be offset. Companies would be forced to operate two parallel logistics systems for transport: a reusable system for domestic deliveries and a single-use system for cross-border transport. This creates a significant administrative burden and is practically as well as economically unfeasible and ecologically questionable.

• Assess the need of postponing the entry into force date of the PPWR to the beginning of 2027

The date of application of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (12 August 2026) is raising concerns. In particular, such mid-year change of the regulatory framework is causing concerns about serious legal uncertainty and significant structural and financial disruptions within an already highly complex system. The Commissions should carefully assess those concerns and consider the need to postpone the entry into force from 12 August 2026 to 1 January 2027 as part of the Environmental Omnibus to ensure a smooth and legally secure implementation.

Key concerns include:

• Two legal regimes within one financial year: from 12 August 2026, new EU definitions will apply (including “manufacturer”, “producer”), with significant effects on the assignment of obligations in the extended producer responsibility (EPR) system. The obligation for companies to licence packaging is shifting, whereby there is a high probability that previously obligated companies suspend or reduce their payments because it is unclear who is responsible.
• Lack of legal clarity at EU and national level: national packaging legislations will remain partially applicable until the end of 2026. At the same time, e.g. the German PPWR implementation law is not expected to be available until mid-2026. Key questions of interpretation at EU level – for example on quota fractions or packaging categories – have also not yet been answered.
• Blocked planning and contractual certainty: without clarity regarding definitions and obligations, neither EPR systems nor manufacturers can plan reliably. Annual contracts, volume forecasts and pricing are impossible. Municipalities, in turn, do not know whether and through which dual system services such as waste counselling or container cleaning will continue to be financed.
• Bureaucratic and financial risks with systemic relevance: the changeover during the year requires duplicate contracts, data reports and billing procedures – an enormous amount of additional work with no ecological benefit. At the same time, there is a risk of financing gaps in system services, including the loss of municipal tasks or the destabilisation of EPR structures.

Ensuring a smooth and legally secure implementation would help reduce administrative burdens without compromising the objectives of the PPWR. Nonetheless, any amendment to postpone the date of application of the PPWR must not be used as an opportunity to reopen debate on other provisions of the Regulation.

In principle, when further implementing the PPWR by adopting delegated acts and implementing acts, care should be taken to ensure that they enter into force at the beginning of a calendar year. This applies in particular to the reporting requirements, e.g. in the area of register and quantity reporting for producer responsibility.

• Strengthen regulatory coherence
  • Remove inconsistencies between EU environmental/waste legislations. Some main EU regulations related to the waste, like the Waste Framework Directive, the Nitrates Directive, the Fertilizers Regulation and the Animal By-products Regulation contain certain inconsistencies which create regulatory uncertainties for waste management operators. Similarly, the Fertilising Products Regulation needs to be better aligned with other existing EU legislation, especially ABPR and waste regulation. For example, the 95% purity requirement for CMC 11 (by-products under the WFD) hinders well-established solutions. Likewise, the current recognition procedure for agricultural by-products as secondary raw materials is ineffective: not a single application was successful in the past three years, hindering the commercialisation of innovations such as struvites or biochar.
  • Ensure harmonised definitions. Administrative burden is also created by Members States practising different interpretations of EU regulations and definitions. For instance, different interpretations of the European definitions of by-products and end of waste are still common, as well as the level of contaminants allowed for in types of so-called ‘green listed waste’. As an example, there are numerous interpretations on the criteria for by-products in the Waste Framework Directive with regard to e.g. when a substance or object is considered to be produced as an integrated part of a production process. The same applies for when the specific use of a by-product is considered to not have overall adverse environmental or human health impacts. The definition of bioplastics should also be clarified, by clearly distinguishing bio-based plastics (as opposed to fossil-based plastics) from biodegradable plastics. The latter disrupt recycling streams when incorrectly sorted. A clear definition would help streamline identification, treatment and regulation. It is also essential to limit the proliferation of biodegradable resins and ensure their recyclability. Indeed, biodegradable plastics do not add any organic value to compost. Different interpretations and practices stand in the way of well-functioning European markets for secondary materials.
  • Favour a centralized approach under the REACH regulation to ensure clarity and effective protection across the entire life cycle of materials. The regulatory duplication between chemical legislation and waste (with, e.g., PFAS requirements under PPWR) or product legislation leads to inefficiencies without delivering added value.
  • Implement effective prevention measures to prevent pellet losses by ensuring the methodological consistencies under the pellet loss Regulation.
  • Another striking example of inconsistency between EU environmental/waste legislation concerns Waste-to-Energy (WtE) facilities. The Waste Framework Directive, through the waste hierarchy, clearly recognises WtE (R1) as a preferable option to landfilling or incineration without energy recovery (D10). Yet, the EU Taxonomy fails to reflect this recognition (Article 17). Such inconsistency not only creates confusion in policy objectives but also undermines the EU’s own waste hierarchy by discouraging investments in WtE. The practical consequence is significant: advanced WtE plants face severe barriers in accessing sustainable finance, which in turn penalises related infrastructures – for instance district heating – that the Taxonomy itself aims to promote. Ensuring coherence across EU policies is therefore essential if Europe is to attract the investments needed for a truly circular and climate-resilient economy. A legal interpretation of Article 17 of the Taxonomy Regulation (2020/852) should also be provided to clarify when an activity leads to a significant increase of incineration and waste disposal, thereby significantly harming the circular economy. A significant increase shall be considered in relation to the total capacity of residual waste treatment. This means that there is no significant increase when the installation in question replaces an existing, permitted landfill for non-hazardous waste (especially in MSs that are not in line with the Landfill Directive), or replaces or upgrades an existing Waste-to-Energy plant.
• Simplify environmental reporting obligations
  • Introduce a ‘one data, one reporting, one certification’ principle to avoid multiplying similar procedures for waste operators and to streamline reporting obligations.
  • Remove overlapping requirements to develop transition plans and decarbonization roadmaps. The Industrial Emissions Directive (IED), Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and ETS Directive all include reporting requirements with regards to transformation/ transition plans that shall ensure that companies are taking steps to transition to net zero emissions. Overlapping information requirements create administrative burdens and reporting costs. These efforts have to be streamlined and simplified, especially for sectors and activities covered under the Industrial Emissions Directive. We recommend that facilities that are covered by the IED, and subject to requirements to develop transformation plans, should be able to use the same information and plans to comply with the requirements in the CSRD, CSDDD and ETS-directive.
  • Monitoring plans should be proportionate to the capacity of the facility and to the simplicity/complexity of the treatment process. For example, performing daily monitoring on small non-hazardous waste treatment/management plants could be avoided or else commensurate/limited to the actual needs of control/monitoring of certain parameters or processes. It would be advisable to develop unequivocal, clear, and simplified guidelines regarding the management of anomalies that occur during the operation of plants, which would also include the relevant report and exchange with the competent Control Authority. In this sense, sometimes closing an anomaly proves to be more burdensome and time-consuming than the practical management and resolution of the anomaly itself; occasionally, the closure/management of an anomaly is handled differently/inconsistently from case to case, depending on the territory and Province/Region.
• Streamline the BREF process under the IED
  • Extend the review cycle for BREF-documents to at least 10 years. According to the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED), the procedures for updating existing BAT reference documents (BREF-document) aims at an eight-year review cycle, prioritising the documents that have the highest potential to improve the protection of human health or the environment (art. 13 (1)). FEAD believes that the review cycle for BREF-documents should be extended to at least 10 years. First of all, the review of BREF-documents is a time and resource consuming task. Contrary to the aims in the directive, a review after only eight years has not yet occurred for any BREF document. Secondly, the emergence, installation and operation of new technologies and techniques in different industries, which is the basis for reviewing BAT and BAT-conclusions, will normally follow timelines that go far beyond eight years.
  • Extend the deadline to implement and enforce new BAT-conclusions to 6 years. The IED specifies that all permit conditions shall be updated in accordance with new BAT conclusions four years after its publication (art. 21 (3)). Our experience is four years may be too little time to implement new BAT conclusions, considering the need to carry out necessary investments and installations of new technology. Further, the requirement that installations shall comply with the permit condition within four years is in many cases not implemented or enforced in Member States. Therefore, the deadline to implement and enforce new BAT-conclusions should be expanded to 6 years. This will provide more flexibility for industry and also ease the pressure on case handling capacity within the competent authorities.
  • Review the adequacy, clarity and legal certainty of several provisions, i.a. the EMS, binding ranges for environmental performance, transitional provisions.

FEAD is the European Waste Management Association, representing the private waste and resource management industry across Europe, including 20 national waste management federations and 3,000 waste management companies. Private waste management companies operate in 60% of municipal waste markets in Europe and in 75% of industrial and commercial waste. This means more than 500,000 local jobs, fuelling €5 billion of investments into the economy every year. https://fead.be