Luxembourg, 28/10/2014 (Agence Europe) - Moderation, reluctance and a call for realism dominated the very first public policy debate held by EU environment ministers in Luxembourg on Tuesday 28 October on the draft directive seeking to revise EU waste management law - the only legislative instrument in the circular economy package presented by the Commission in July (see EUROPE 11185).
The package was well received by ministers and described by some as “visionary”, and outgoing Environment Commissioner Janez Potocnik was given a standing ovation for the courage and determination he had shown as the person behind the new model.
However, the recycling targets proposed by the Commission (70% for municipal waste and 80% for packaging waste by 2030, a ban on putting recyclable waste to landfill from 2025 and the reduction of food waste) were deemed to be ambitious by most member states (the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltic States). Concerned by the cost of the measures and keen to see the cost effectiveness and the national specifications of the various member states taken into account, this majority called for realistic and realisable targets. Reservations and doubts were expressed on the early warning mechanism and most of the member states felt that extended producer responsibility, seen by some as too prescriptive, needed further discussion. Most member states backed accompanying measures for implementation of the targets.
The message was received loud and clear by Gian Luca Galletti, the Italian chair of the Council, who said that this guidance would mean that the various positions could be analysed to take forward discussions within the Council “because it is essential to move to a circular economy”.
A disappointed Potocnik pointed out to the ministers that, in adopting the 7th environment action programme, the Council and the Parliament had called on the Commission to reduce waste, in particular food waste, and to restrict incineration and landfilling. “But agreeing on principles is easier than agreeing on definite proposals”, he observed. “While the European Commission has been delayed in presenting its communication on sustainable food, this document will propose that by 2025 we throw away 30% less than today when we throw one third of our food away”, he said, not understanding how some states could question the value of such a target in tackling this “amoral and economically harmful” waste. Judging from the outcome of the debate, the commissioner felt that he could not have been sufficiently persuasive.
“The minimum requirement for producer responsibility is not too prescriptive - the member states will have wide room for manoeuvre - it will prevent infringement proceedings. The early warning mechanism will not concern every member state”, he pointed out at the start of the debate.
Only a few delegations (Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, France and Luxembourg) welcomed the proposal's level of ambition. Belgium and Sweden would like more ambitious targets, ending landfilling (Germany deemed that target unrealistic). France argued for “a clear, proactive signal on the circular economy and waste”, and took the view that the proposal did not lay sufficient emphasis on prevention (by means of the eco-design directive). Looking for progress as fast as possible with ambitious yet realistic targets for 2030, it called for a flexibility mechanism to allow the member states to achieve the targets within the timescale (our translation throughout). (AN)