Brussels, 30/11/2006 (Agence Europe) - The European Parliament's Committee on the Environment is in favour of the thematic strategy proposed by the European Commission for the prevention and recycling of waste (EUROPE 9095), on the strict condition that the current principle of a hierarchy in waste is maintained, ranking waste treatment solutions by their environmental impact. This was the main requirement set by the parliamentary committee which hoped the EU would have the necessary means to effectively tackle this serious problem. In their view, however, the thematic strategy and the legislation that accompanies it need to be further clarified and specified.
The stakes are considerable as waste production in the EU, estimated at almost 500 kg per person per year, increases more rapidly than GDP, although less than one third is recycled. Municipal waste alone increased by 19% in the EU25 between 1995 (457 kg per person) and 2003 (534 kg per person).
Giving their views on 28 November on the thematic strategy (rapporteur Johannes Blokland, IND/DEM, NL) and its corollary - revision of the 1975 directive aimed at defining recycling standards and compelling Member States to develop binding national programmes to reduce their waste production - the members of the parliamentary committee were unequivocal in delivering their message.
“There are a number of problems with this directive because it is so wide-ranging. We absolutely must clarify it to avoid constantly having to go to the Court of Justice”, warned Caroline Jackson (EPP-ED, UK), rapporteur for the proposal for a revised directive, before the vote on some 140 amendments. The 14 compromise amendments negotiated by her were all adopted by a very large majority. The main results of the vote on the directive were:
Considering that the innovative approach of the Commission, based on the life-cycle of products, was too abstract, the EU will “as a general rule” keep to the current policy of a hierarchy that ranks waste treatment solutions in categories, from the most to the least environmentally-sound: prevention, re-use, recycling. After this will come the other methods of recycling such as incineration with energy generation. Finally, and as a last resort, there will be disposal. Nonetheless, Member States will be able to depart from this hierarchy “when life-cycle assessments and cost-benefit analyses indicate clearly that an alternative treatment option shows a better record”. The revised directive would contain the provisions required for clearly establishing the general rule and the conditions for its exception.
For the first time, waste prevention objectives would be fixed so that Member States stabilise their waste production by 2012, compared to that in 2008, the year of reference. The European Commission is asked to propose indicators by 2008 for assessing progress made by Member States and to formulate by 2010 a product eco-design policy as well as targets for waste reduction.
The requirements for national waste management programmes would be simplified in order to make them less bureaucratic and more compatible with the subsidiarity principle. Member States would also have to ensure that all waste undergoes recovery operations “where practicable”.
In line with the European Commission's recommendations, when energy is produced from waste treatment installations that meet a number of energy efficiency criteria, these may be considered as waste recovery industries rather than waste elimination installations. Caroline Jackson said this gives the companies certain advantages arising from recognition of their public utility and their acceptable nature. She felt that this will encourage those wishing to set up new installations of this kind to ensure that they meet the strictest energy efficiency criteria.
There will be clarification of the distinction between waste and useable by-products that can still be used industrially such as glass, metal and compost. With this in mind, the European Commission will be invited to present interpretative guidelines on the basis of the existing jurisprudence, and to propose, where necessary, criteria for determining on a case by case basis when such material or substances cannot be considered as waste. Two years after the entry into force of the directive, the Commission is also expected to propose, where necessary, environmental criteria to be met by each category of waste which could be used as a secondary product, material or substance.
./..
It would also be appropriate, five years after the directive came into force, that the Commission set out, if necessary, the provisions applicable to compost, chipboard, paper, glass, metal, old tyres and second-hand clothes.
The amendments to the thematic strategy aim to limit the use in future of the comitology procedure in waste policy only to decisions of a technical and scientific nature, and to reaffirm the importance of the hierarchy in waste treatment. The Commission is also invited to put forward proposals on concrete measures on waste prevention, new indicators, directives on biodegradable waste, builders' and demolition waste, sewage sludge and a review of the directive on the storage of waste. (an)