REPORT on the communication from the Commission: Towards a thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste
(COM(2003) 301 - C5-0385/2003 - 2003/2145(INI))
18 March 2004
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy
Rapporteur: Karl-Heinz Florenz
PROCEDURAL PAGE
By letter of 8 May 2003 the Commission forwarded to Parliament its communication : Towards a thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste (COM(2003) 301), which had been referred to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy for information.
At the sitting of 4 September 2003 the President of Parliament announced that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy had been authorised to draw up an own-initiative report on the subject under Rules 47(2) and 163 and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy had been asked for their opinions.
The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy appointed Karl-Heinz Florenz rapporteur at its meeting of 9 September 2003.
The committee considered the draft report at its meetings of 16 February 2004 and 16 March 2004.
At the latter meeting it adopted the motion for a resolution by 23 votes to 11, with 0 abstentions.
The following were present for the vote: Caroline F. Jackson (chairman, Guido Sacconi (vice-chairman), Karl-Heinz Florenz (rapporteur), María del Pilar Ayuso González, María Luisa Bergaz Conesa, Hans Blokland, John Bowis, Hiltrud Breyer, Dorette Corbey, Chris Davies, Jillian Evans (for Alexander de Roo), Marialiese Flemming, Robert Goodwill, Marie Anne Isler Béguin, Christa Klaß, Eija-Riitta Anneli Korhola, Bernd Lange, Paul A.A.J.G. Lannoye (for Patricia McKenna), Torben Lund, Minerva Melpomeni Malliori, Rosemarie Müller, Antonio Mussa (for Jim Fitzsimons), Riitta Myller, Ria G.H.C. Oomen-Ruijten, Marit Paulsen, Jacqueline Rousseaux, Yvonne Sandberg-Fries, Karin Scheele, Inger Schörling, Jonas Sjöstedt, María Sornosa Martínez, Catherine Stihler, Antonios Trakatellis, Peder Wachtmeister.
The opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is attached.) The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs decided on 12 March 2003 not to deliver and opinion.
The report was tabled on 18 March 2004.
MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION
on the communication from the Commission: Towards a thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste
(COM(2003) 301 - C5-0385/2003 - 2003/2145(INI))
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Commission's communication 'Towards a thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste' (COM(2003) 301 - C5-0385/2003)[1],
– having regard to Decision No 1600/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 22 July 2002 on the 6th Environment Action Programme of the European Community[2],
– having regard to the Commission's communication 'Development of a thematic strategy for the sustainable use of natural resources' (COM(2003) 592),
– having regard to the Commission's communication to the Council and the European Parliament 'Integrated product policy - building on environmental life-cycle thinking' (COM(2003) 302)
– having regard to Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 on integrated pollution prevention and control[3],
– having regard to the Commission proposal of 29 October 2003 for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH) (COM(2003) 644).
– having regard to its resolution of 19 November 2003 on the Commission's report on the implementation of Council Directive 75/442/EEC (waste framework directive)[4],
– having regard to its resolution of 14 November 1996[5] and Council Decision of 24 February 1997[6] on the Commission's communication on the Community's strategy for waste management,
– having regard to Rule 47, paragraph 2, and Rule 163 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (A5-0176/2004),
B. A. whereas Article 3(1) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste as amended requires that Member States shall take appropriate measures to encourage firstly the prevention or reduction of waste production and its harmfulness,whereas Article 4 of the decision concerning the 6th Environment Action Programme provides that the thematic strategies adopted by the programme must be submitted to the European Parliament and the Council, where appropriate, take the form of a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council to be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty (Co-decision),
C. whereas Article 8(1) of the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme includes the following objectives:
- - a significant overall reduction in the volumes of waste generated through waste prevention initiatives, better resource efficiency and a shift towards more sustainable production and consumption patterns,
- -a significant reduction in the quantity of waste going to disposal and the volumes of hazardous waste produced, while avoiding an increase of emissions to air, water and soil,
- -encouraging re-use and for wastes that are still generated: the level of their hazardousness should be reduced and they should present as little risk as possible; preference should be given to recovery and especially to recycling; the quantity of waste for disposal should be minimised and should be safely disposed of; waste intended for disposal should be treated as closely as possible to the place of its generation, to the extent that this does not lead to a decrease in the efficiency in waste treatment operations,
D. whereas Article 8, paragraph 2, point (ii) of the programme provides for the development and implementation of measures on waste prevention, including qualitative and quantitative reduction targets, while point (iii) addresses waste management, and a development of a thematic strategy for waste recycling,
E. whereas Article 8, paragraph 2, point (iv) of the programme provides for the development or revision of the legislation on wastes, including, inter alia, construction and demolition waste, sewage sludge and biodegradable wastes, and the clarification of the distinction between waste and non-waste and development of adequate criteria for the further elaboration of Annex IIA and IIB of the framework directive on wastes,
F. whereas Article 8 of the programme also provides for the development of a thematic strategy on the sustainable use and management of resources and reflects the close link between the sustainable management of natural resources and waste management,
G. whereas the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme recognises in its policy approach that action to prevent waste must, therefore, be first and foremost done ‘at source’; this means, on the one hand, using less resources in products, shifting to cleaner, less wasteful production processes and extending product life-spans, and, on the other hand, influencing consumer choice and demand in the market place in favour of less wasteful products and services,
H. whereas most Member States are still not making sufficient effort to implement Community rules on waste within the stipulated period and apply them correctly which is significantly detrimental to the level of environmental protection to which the Community aspires and gives rise to considerable competitive disadvantages for companies in Member States which do implement within the stipulated period,
I. whereas 'waste prevention' refers solely to the reduction of the generation of waste in the first place and should not be confused with the diversion of waste already generated from disposal,
J. whereas, although the EU has already taken numerous measures to minimise waste problems, these have not been sufficient to reduce the generation of hazardous and non-hazardous waste and their adverse effects on the environment, nor to ensure sustainable waste management,
K. whereas cultural and regional differences in the various Member States are substantial and whereas a uniform system must permit regional differences; whereas a comprehensive waste strategy should therefore be developed in such a way that various instruments can be used,
L. whereas a successful waste avoidance policy should ultimately be based on a solid scientific analysis and good statistical data; whereas the fact that the data available have hitherto not been evaluated or evaluated inadequately and the data produced on the basis of the waste statistics regulation will not be available until 2006 at the earliest should not serve as an excuse to further delay the adoption of reduction targets,
M. whereas the prevention of waste inevitably constitutes an objective also for the natural resource strategy and integrated product policy and that the IPPC Directive and REACH could play an important role in the prevention and treatment of waste; whereas product policy is crucial for waste prevention, but will only deliver, if clear objectives are set in the waste and natural resource strategies on quantitative prevention and material efficiency, respectively,
N. whereas in most states, disposal and, in particular, landfill still constitute the most frequent methods of waste treatment,
O. whereas state-of-the art waste land-fill sites make an important contribution to environmental protection,
P. whereas the prevention of waste generation represents by far the greatest potential for a successful quantitative waste prevention policy,
Q. whereas an adjustment in production processes can result in less waste or less hazardous waste,
R. whereas reuse, recycling and energy recovery of waste could make a vital contribution to the conservation of natural resources, and whereas according to the state of the art at the present time, the separation of certain waste streams is a condition thereof,
S. whereas there are no Community minimum standards for recovery facilities, which results in their different levels of environmental protection in the Member States, eco-dumping and distortion competition,
T. whereas, although attempts to establish material-related recycling criteria, e.g. for plastics, or a system of tradeable certificates may supplement the Community rules on treatment, at the present time numerous questions concerning the practical applicability of these remain open,
U. whereas there is an urgent need to demarcate between recovery and disposal; whereas clarifying the distinction between waste and non-waste is a condition of greater certainty for companies in terms of law, planning and investment and whereas, moreover, there are no adequate Community definitions of waste prevention and reuse,
1. Welcomes the Commission's communication as an appropriate basis for discussion of future strategy;
2. Calls on the Commission to turn the future thematic strategy into an ambitious policy framework with primary emphasis on concrete measures towards waste prevention so that it achieves the objectives of the Sixth Environment Action Programme;
3. Notes and welcomes the fact that the communication broadens the thematic strategy for waste recycling provided for in the 6th environment action programme to include the vital areas of waste management, inter alia waste prevention and clarification of the legal framework;
4. Considers it essential that the strategy should be discussed by the European Parliament and the Council in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty (codecision);
5. Takes the view that the title of the strategy ('Towards a thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste') does not adequately reflect the substantive objectives of the strategy and the challenges of a future EU waste management policy and therefore proposes the following title: 'Towards a thematic strategy on the prevention and treatment of waste';
6. Considers it essential unequivocally to clarify the relation of the strategy to other relevant measures and rules, in particular the resource strategy, integrated product policy, the IPPC directive and REACH, as well as to the objectives of climate and soil protection policies, and to ensure their consistency;
7. Considers that the strategy should be proposed simultaneously with the resource strategy and that a further intensive dialogue should be conducted until that time with all stakeholders;
8. Underlines that the overall objective of the strategy is to reduce to a minimum the negative environmental impact of waste; this implies that in the thematic strategy environmental impact should be defined, that recycling is not an end in itself and that the waste hierarchy is not fixed for all situations and materials; it should be the environmental impact that counts; therefore calls for future legislation only to give preference to waste prevention and recycling over regulated disposal where they actually are more environmentally friendly; this could, for instance, be determined through a comparison of emission and energy consumption levels for the various alternative processes;
9. Confirms that the objective of the strategy must be prevention of the generation of waste and sustainable resource management, i.e. that future Community measures and targets must take account of environmental, economic and social requirements on an equal footing and with a view to the future;
10. Expressly welcomes in this connection the fact that the Commission is to use an approach with the strategy which takes account of the entire life cycle of resource management and that future Community measures and targets are to be based on a thorough analysis of the eco-efficiency, cost and benefit and cost-effectiveness of various options;
11. Stresses the need to set environmental indicators for consumer products that include among others the quantity and impact of final waste; is convinced that these indicators will be a strong incentive for improving the environmental quality of products; believes that clear indicators can enable producers to direct their investment towards environmentally friendlier materials and production methods;
12. Calls on the Commission to be ambitious when setting new targets, to use best environmental practice as the reference for setting targets, to aim at transitional periods that could be met by a maximum of Member States, allowing additional time for certain Member States in well justified cases, and to ensure that effective measures to monitor implementation are put in place;
13. Requests the Commission to take account of the subsidiarity principle when drawing up the strategy; underlines in this respect the need to set clear objectives for the EU as a whole, while giving Member States flexibility in how to achieve these objectives;
14. Considers that there is an urgent need to speed up the entire Treaty infringement procedure in the waste sector in order to put an end to the competitive disadvantages suffered by companies established in Member States which implement legislation within the stipulated period; encourages the Commission to use its powers to monitor the implementation of Community law in the waste sector more stringently and to apply Articles 226 and 228, paragraph 2 of the EC Treaty without reservation;
15. Considers, moreover, with a view to the transposition of Community law, that there is an urgent need for more intensive coordination between the Member States, with the participation of the Commission, in order to ensure better exchange of experience and to avoid excessive discrepancies in transposition into national law; calls therefore on the Commission and the Member States once again to set up a waste steering and advisory committee to facilitate thorough and consistent monitoring and coordination of implementation of the applicable waste legislation and consultation with stakeholders on all legislation on waste;
16. Proposes that the abovementioned body should review the existing rules on waste with a view to coherence and simplification with the aim of recommending, where necessary, the repeal of provisions which result in unnecessary costs to the authorities and industry or which have an inhibitive effect on innovation;
17. Proposes that a separate category, 'reuse', be distinguished from the waste category 'recovery', between prevention and recycling; considers that in this way reuse will be defined in its own right and that it will be possible to take effective measures to promote reuse; takes the view that an optimal waste management strategy is a combination of prevention, reuse of products and components, recycling of materials, energy recovery and environmentally-friendly disposal;
18. Points, in this connection, to the importance of energy recovery for sustainable waste management;
19. Calls for the setting up of a 'working Party On Waste Prevention', consisting of experts from the Member States and the Commission, to evaluate, within a period of two years, current and new data and studies on waste prevention and to draw up indicators for waste prevention and practical recommendations for measures; the findings of the working party should be forwarded to the European Parliament and the Council in a report and made available to the public; the Commission should, on the basis of the report and the data expected by 2006 by way of the regulation on waste statistics, propose a legislative framework on waste reduction that sets up the various tools needed to implement and accompany the objectives set for waste reduction, namely:
- -clarification and elaboration of the definition of waste prevention,
- -guidelines for drawing up waste reduction plans,
- -biannual monitoring and reporting mechanisms on the implementation of the national waste reduction plans,
- -harmonised methodology for measuring of, and reporting on, waste reduction through developing a range of harmonised waste reduction indicators for municipal and industrial waste reduction and, if necessary, for different types of waste within these categories;
20. Calls for compulsory waste reduction plans, which could be supplemented by voluntary waste reduction plans or programmes at regional, local or sectoral level;
21. Calls on the Commission to establish complementary tools to the waste reduction framework such as:
- -cleaner production benchmark for structural funding,
- -an EU network of technical assistance centres on cleaner production that offer their services free-of-charge,
- -criteria for waste reduction in the industry permitting process,
- -a system of accredited reuse and repair centres,
- -guidelines and criteria for implementing Pay-As-You-Throw schemes, and a working group for sharing knowledge about best practice on Pay-As-You-Throw schemes,
- -a working group in conjunction with the Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use and Management of Natural Resources to identify environmentally harmful subsidies on the one hand and environmentally beneficial taxes on resources on the other hand;
22. Calls on the Commission to consider extending the IPPC Directive to the waste sector as a whole and, in so doing, to take account of experience to date in terms of the enforcement and effectiveness of the directive;
23. Welcomes the proposals recently submitted by the Commission on mineral waste and the amendment of the batteries directive as well as the Commission's plan to submit proposals during 2004 on biodegradable waste and to amend the sewage sludge directive, which are important elements of the strategy;
24. Calls on the Commission to submit proposals within two years for harmonised standards for recovery and recycling facilities, including pre-treatment facilities, at a high level;
25. Calls on the Commission to submit within two years proposals for defining quality standards for materials recovered from recycling of waste;
26. Considers that there is a need to establish further recycling targets and standards for waste streams which, owing to their quantity or hazardousness, have a considerable impact on the environment and, because of their negative or low value, offer no or hardly any market incentive for recycling, with particular reference to construction and demolition waste, as provided in the Sixth Environment Action Programme, and commercial and industrial waste;
27. Calls on the Commission, with a view to long-term, sustainable recycling, to propose practical measures to ensure the competitiveness of secondary raw materials in relation to primary raw materials;
28. Calls on the Commission to take measures to encourage reuse; recommends that Member States apply a reduced VAT rate on products sold by reuse centres;
29. Calls for the quantities of waste for disposal to be reduced to a minimum, in particular by means of the most extensive ban possible on landfill of recoverable waste by the year 2025, and requests the Commission to submit a phased timetable which might take the following form:
- ∙from 2010, a ban on landfill of non-pretreated waste with biodegradable components;
- ∙from 2015, a ban on landfill of paper, cardboard, glass, textiles, wood, plastics, metals, rubber, cork, pottery, concrete, brick and tiles;
- ∙from 2020, a ban on landfill of all recoverable waste;
- ∙from 2025, a ban on landfill of all residual waste, except where this is unavoidable or hazardous (e.g. filter ash);
30. Considers the harmonisation of landfill taxes to be appropriate since it makes landfill more expensive and generates income to raise quality standards of landfills; calls for stricter criteria for the depositing and sealing of landfill;
31. Confirms that manufacturer responsibility should continue to be an essential feature of Community waste policy, but warns that this should primarily be regarded as a financial responsibility, so that options which are socially or environmentally preferable are not precluded;
32. Underlines the importance of the implementation of the concept of individual producer responsibility in order to steer towards design for waste prevention for priority end-of-life product waste streams such as batteries, construction waste, furniture, paper and tyres;
33. Asks the Commission to investigate in more detail the efficiency and cost effectiveness of material-based recycling targets and, in addition, to clarify how manufacturer responsibility should be assigned; points out that material-based recycling targets only make sense where there are no secondary raw material markets in operation;
34. Asks the Commission to investigate in greater detail tradeable certificates as an instrument of achieving recovery targets, to evaluate experience with trading certificates in other sectors and to summarise the findings in a report before it is tested in overviewable recovery sectors;
35. Rejects, at present, the establishment of European recycling quotas to replace the quotas hitherto to be achieved at national level, since they could lead to considerable discrepancies in waste standards in Europe and thereby to distortion of competition; such an instrument would depend on the establishment of harmonised recovery standards and the development of an efficient European monitoring and sanctions system, which should be explored in greater depth in conjunction with tradeable certificates;
36. Considers pay-as-you-throw schemes to be a promising instrument for creating financial incentives for individuals and companies to reduce the volume of residual waste or collect waste separately; considers their use, however, to be more suited to the regional and local level owing to the differences in regional conditions; welcomes the Commission’s initiative, therefore, to produce a guidebook for local decision-makers;
37. Encourages in this respect Member States as well as regional and local authorities to develop and implement in cooperation with recycling companies policies and measures to ensure the separate collection of recyclable materials; points out that the failure of certain authorities to do so leads to a distortion of the level playing field;
38. Emphasises that industrial waste materials are often easier to recycle since they are often purer and of a higher quality; calls, therefore, on the Commission to take due account of this in the planned legal act and to provide for obligatory separate collection of recyclable materials in industry;
39. Asks the Commission to differentiate clearly between recovery and disposal, as swiftly as possible and independently of the strategy;
40. Calls, in this connection, to respect the judgement of the European Court of Justice that incineration of waste in a waste incineration plant is recognised as a disposal operation even if energy is recovered and supplied to third parties;
41. Calls on the Commission to evaluate the consultation procedure as regards the definition of the concept of waste already carried out and to make it accessible to the public;
42. Calls on the Commission, as provided in the Sixth Environment Action Programme, to clarify the distinction between waste and non-waste, to clarify the definition of recovery and to draw up a general definition of the terms ‘waste prevention’, ‘re-use’, 'recycling' and 'recycler' as swiftly as possible and independently of the strategy;
43. Urges the Commission to consider the scope for making legislation on waste more flexible, for example by increasing the discretion to treat waste case by case, according to its quality, and to apply less cumbersome administrative procedures, in order to ensure that legislation does not unnecessarily impede the recycling and utilisation of waste;
44. Proposes that information campaigns should be used to heighten awareness in favour of sustainable waste management among the public, the authorities and economic stakeholders;
45. Calls for all parties involved in the waste recycling cycle, including end users, to be involved and calls for measures relating to separate collection of waste, in order to meet the challenge of sustainable waste management;
46. Calls for the establishment of advice centres to promote waste prevention and sustainable waste management among small businesses;
47. Calls on the Member States to enter into an exchange of information at European level on national training and education programmes in the field of waste management and proposes that a European study should be carried out in schools on the teaching and knowledge of the problems associated with waste with the aim of addressing a recommendation to the Member States to heighten the awareness of young people about those problems; also proposes in this context that a support programme should be set up for school projects on the basis of this study with the aim of introducing waste prevention and sustainable waste management in schools;
48. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to intensify their efforts to develop international waste disposal standards further at UN and OECD level;
49. Welcomes the Commission’s intention to subject the strategy to an extended impact assessment;
50. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
The Communication serves the purpose of consultation with the various stakeholders, who had until 30 November 2003 to submit their opinions to the Commission. The Communication does not propose any specific environmental targets. These are to be fixed in the actual strategy itself on the basis of consultation and current studies. The Commission has set the date of September 2004 for the adoption of the strategy.
With this strategy, the Commission is seeking to advance on the Community strategy for waste management from 1989 and 1996. It wishes to adopt an approach which takes into account the entire lifecycle of resource management and takes the waste phase as its point of departure. The aim of the strategy is to promote more sustainable waste management, taking account of the three 'pillars' constituted by environmental, economic and social factors. For that reason, measures are to be based, inter alia, on a cost-benefit analysis and on their cost-effectiveness.
However, the Communication goes far beyond the thematic strategy for waste recycling set out in the Sixth Environment Action Programme. It broadens it, in particular to include the development and implementation of measures for the prevention and management of waste, as also provided in the Environment Action Programme, and to include the drafting or revision of legal provisions in respect of waste, such as clarifying the distinction between waste and non-waste and drawing up appropriate criteria for the further elaboration of Annexes IIA and IIB of the waste framework directive.
Your rapporteur welcomes this approach but regrets that the emphasis is placed too heavily on waste prevention and recycling, even though the Commission itself notes in the Communication that only a combination of the different potential offered by prevention, recycling, energy recovery and environment-friendly disposal can result in sustainable waste management. It should also be added here that re-use is not mentioned here at all in the Communication.
The primary requirement is to ensure that the strategy fits into the overriding framework of the EU's sustainability and environment policies. The Commission's efforts to make the strategy consistent with the resources strategy, IPP, the IPPC Directive and REACH, is therefore to be welcomed. There is also a need to bring the strategy into line with other environment policies such as the targets for climate and soil protection.
The integrated product policy and the IPPC Directive (provided they prove to be effective in their current sphere of application) could make a significant contribution to the qualitative and quantitative prevention of waste during the product-design and product-manufacturing phases.
Qualitative (pollution-based) prevention is a condition of ensuring the least pollutant waste possible and of obtaining pollutant-free recycling materials. For that reason, it should form a mainstay of the strategy. There are already some EU rules contributing to this effect, such as the old vehicle directive, the directive restricting the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment and other rules on hazardous substances. Provision has been made for further measures, among which REACH, in particular, could play a leading role in terms of qualitative prevention.
By far the greatest potential for legislative measures in the area of quantitative prevention, however, lies in the prevention of waste for disposal. Disposal and, in particular, landfill is in most States still the most common method of waste treatment. On this point, the Commission should propose a specific timeframe, in particular for the most extensive ban possible on landfill in order for the waste to be recycled. This would also have a positive impact on product design and the manufacture of products. Your rapporteur puts forward a proposal for discussion on this point, a phased timetable for the introduction of a ban on landfill of recoverable waste by the year 2025.
However, mandatory quantitative prevention quotas for products or production defeat the object in that they entail inappropriate interference with supply and demand and ignore the fact that certain factors are difficult to control, such as demographic changes, lifestyle, patterns of consumption and economic growth. Moreover, companies bent on maximising profits exempt themselves from efforts to reduce the resources they use. The approach using integrated product policy, the IPPC Directive, support measures such as EMAS, voluntary waste prevention programmes at local or sectoral level, together with advice and information campaigns, in particular for small businesses, could hold out a more promising prospect of success.
It should be noted that, although the potential for quantitative waste prevention in the production phase (if it can be quantified at all) is of importance and calls for policy measures, it is relatively small in comparison with the potential offered by the use of resources through recycling.
For example, a European packaging manufacturer was able to reduce by 10% his consumption of materials by using lifecycle analyses, environment design and CEN standards in his most important packaging segment between the years 1981 to 2001 - a huge effort and achievement which also shows, however, that in comparison with the reference year - to express it in very simplified terms - 90% of the potential lay in the prevention of waste for disposal. In 2002, the company's recycling rate was 27% and the overall recovery rate 56%.
Taking an integrated approach, therefore, it can be seen that qualitative prevention, on the one hand, and the prevention of waste for disposal (by means of re-use, recycling and energy recovery) on the other , offer the greatest potential for a waste prevention policy in the medium term.
The proposals recently submitted by the Commission on waste from mining and the amendment of the battery directive, together with the proposals planned for 2004 on biodegradable waste and amendment of the sewage sludge directive, will make an important contribution to waste stream management.
However, there is a need for further recovery targets and standards for waste streams which have a considerable environmental impact owing to their quantity or hazardousness and which, because of their negative or low value offer no or scarcely any market incentives for recovery, with particular reference to construction and demolition waste (some 22% of total waste) and commercial and industrial waste (some 26% of the total amount of waste and 75% of total hazardous waste).
For example, in the 15 Member State EU, it is estimated that the annual quantity of construction and demolition waste is 180 million tonnes, only 28% of which is recovered or re-used (mainly concrete, bricks and tiles). The potential of recycling larger quantities is obvious.
One of the Community's most urgent tasks, in addition to reducing the amount of waste for disposal, must be to establish harmonised standards for recovery and pre-treatment facilities in order to ensure high-level recovery, to bring differing levels of environmental protection in the Member States into line with each other and to prevent eco-dumping and distortion of competition. The Commission should, therefore, draw up appropriate legislative proposals as quickly as possible.
In order to channel secondary raw materials genuinely back into production, appropriate market economy measures must be taken to ensure that they are competitive in relation to primary raw materials.
It should be mentioned in this context that energy recovery from waste can make a significant contribution to sustainable resource utilisation. In classifying waste incineration plants, account must be taken of the fact that they operate as pollutant sinks and can achieve very low emission values through their use of expensive flue-gas cleansing systems. Apart from providing normal waste treatment, they can also make a significant contribution to climate protection in that they recover energy from waste which they use for the plant itself and to supply to third parties and thus substitute for fossil fuels. If it is assumed that some 50 million tonnes of waste is treated in waste incineration plants in Europe annually, this represents a substitution of 8 billion cubic metres of natural gas or 7.5 billion litres of oil. This means that some 16 million households can be supplied with electricity and 4.7 million households with heat throughout the year, which is the equivalent, for example, of the entire population of the Netherlands. In Sweden, waste incineration plants in some regions cover up to 40% of total heat requirements. It is estimated that by substituting for natural gas and oil, some 15.2 million tonnes and 21.5 million tonnes respectively of CO2 emissions are prevented. Waste which it is not rational to recycle from the current point of view should, therefore, be consigned to these plants as much as possible.
Tradeable certificates and material-based quotas may in future contribute towards sustainable waste management as part of a mix of instruments. Discussions so far have revealed that there are still too many questions open. These instruments should, therefore, be explored in greater depth and, where appropriate, tested in pilot projects before they are applied in practice to waste management. In this context, the results of emission trading and certificate trading in the packaging sector in the UK should be assessed.
Nearly all economic stakeholders, but also numerous national authorities, point to the problems posed by differing definitions in the waste sector. The large number of cases before the European Court of Justice confirms that greater clarity is called for. The need to differentiate between recovery and disposal is relatively undisputed in this respect.
A specific definition of waste, as called for in the Sixth Environment Action Programme, is desirable because it will contribute to greater certainty in terms of the law, planning and investment for companies and, ultimately, to higher environmental standards. There is no reason to suppose, for example, that firms which take complete old equipment and certain components out of the waste stream in order to re-use them run the risk of having to comply with the stricter rules on waste. As soon as reusable products are removed from the waste stream, they should no longer be characterised as waste. For those firms, the same rules should apply as to other repair businesses. The same should apply to secondary raw materials which meet the standards required of primary raw materials.
There are also major discrepancies in the use of the term ‘quantitative prevention’. Whereas some take it to mean only prevention in product design, manufacture and possibly the phase during which products are used, others add to this the prevention of waste for disposal, re-use, recycling and, in certain cases, also energy recovery.
The Packaging Directive defines ‘prevention’ (quantitative and qualitative, rightly taking into account the entire life cycle) as follows: ‘‘prevention’ shall mean the reduction of the quantity and of the harmfulness for the environment of materials and substances contained in packaging and packaging waste, packaging and packaging waste at production process level and at the marketing, distribution, utilisation and elimination stages, in particular by developing ‘clean’ products and technology.’ Nevertheless, there would seem to be a need for general clarification .
Awareness of the environment among the public, companies, traders etc. can best be enhanced by way of information campaigns. This should also be one of the main objectives of the strategy. The greatest potential for influencing consumer behaviour permanently by means of information lies in education. Information campaigns and projects should, therefore, concentrate more on schools. Successful ideas will undoubtedly have an impact on later social and professional life.
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY, EXTERNAL TRADE, RESEARCH AND ENERGY
8 March 2004
for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy
on the communication from the Commission
'Towards a thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste'
(COM(2003) 301 -C5-0385/2003 - 2003/2145(INI))
Draftsman: Werner Langen
PROCEDURE
The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy appointed Werner Langen draftsman at its meeting of 9 November 2003.
It considered the draft opinion at its meetings of 26 January 2004, 24 February 2004 and 8 March 2004.
At the last meeting it adopted the following suggestions by 15 votes to 14.
The following were present for the vote: Luis Berenguer Fuster, chairman, Peter Michael Mombaur, vice-chairman, Claude Turmes, vice-chairman, Werner Langen (draftsman), Sir Robert Atkins, Danielle Auroi, Guido Bodrato, Giles Bryan Chichester, Marie-Françoise Duthu, Francesco Fiori (for Dominique Vlasto), Norbert Glante, Michel Hansenne, Roger Helmer(for Paul Rübig), Bashir Khanbhai, Bernd Lange (for Erika Mann), Eryl Margaret McNally, Hans-Peter Martin (for Daniela Raschhofer), Ana Miranda de Lage, Bill Newton Dunn, Angelika Niebler, Reino Paasilinna, John Purvis, Bernhard Rapkay (for Mechtild Rothe), Imelda Mary Read, Christian Foldberg Rovsing, Esko Olavi Seppänen, W.G. van Velzen, Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca, Myrsini Zorba.
SUGGESTIONS
The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy calls on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions in its motion for a resolution:
A. whereas an adjustment in production processes can result in less waste or less hazardous waste,
B. whereas re-use or recycling are not always more environmentally friendly than disposal,
C. whereas there are often more possibilities for avoiding waste and reducing its hazardousness at the production stage of a product than during its use; whereas, consequently, legal provisions should target the former,
D. whereas state-of-the art waste land-fill sites make an important contribution to environmental protection,
E. whereas changes in production processes which pay for themselves quickly in economic terms are often also of benefit to the environment,
1. Calls on the Commission to evaluate the consultation procedure as regards the definition of the concept of waste already carried out, to make it accessible to the public and to put forward a proposal regarding a re-cast definition;
2. Calls on the Commission to take account of the transformation of waste into a secondary raw material in defining the concept of waste;
3. Calls for future legislation only to give preference to waste prevention and recycling over regulated disposal where they actually are more environmentally friendly; this could, for instance, be determined through a comparison of emission and energy consumption levels for the various alternative processes;
4. Notes that taxes on landfill sites can be counterproductive since they render landfilling more expensive without improving quality standards; moreover, illegal dumping of waste may also increase, in addition, the inevitable residual products of recycling would also be affected by taxes on landfill sites, so that the cost of recycling would also increase;
5. Calls on the Commission to verify compliance with existing standards for landfill sites and, where appropriate, to initiate Treaty infringement proceedings;
6. Emphasises that industrial waste materials are often easier to recycle since they are often purer and of a higher quality; calls, therefore, on the Commission to take due account of this in the planned legal act and to provide for obligatory separate collection of recyclable materials in industry but to refrain from adopting provisions regarding household waste which are not economically or ecologically convincing;
7. Supports the introduction of 'pay as you throw' schemes in all Member States.