Two MEPs discuss waste management options for the EU’s complex economy
The EU’s new chemicals policy could help cut down levels of harmful substances in waste, says Jonas Sjöstedt
Choices about resource use and waste management depend to a large extent on the relative prices of different waste treatment options. If prices were fair, then recycling would increase. Consumption of resources and wasteful activities must come at a cost, but our current pricing system and the stock markets currently indicate that the opposite is the case. Our energy taxes should be redesigned in such a way that the higher energy savings due to recycling compared to recovery are reflected in costs and prices. If the price is fair, then the market for secondary materials will grow.
Today the price signals for the recycling of waste oils run counter to legislative objectives. The environmental benefits of recycling over incineration are clear and the waste oils directive encourages this environmentally sound approach. But other EU decisions have provided for tax exemptions for the burning of waste oils, which undermines the incentive to recycle waste oils. We look forward to these exemptions coming to an end in 2006.
A hierarchy of waste management must remain the foundation of EU waste law. It is essential that it should continue to guide us in our choices of how waste should be managed. It has a clear system of preferences for different options from prevention, material recycling to disposal. Allowing for derogations from the waste hierarchy could be considered on a case by case basis if there was proof that some other option has a higher environmental performance for that particular case.
We must set ourselves ambitious targets for recycling. The basis of all environmental thinking is to ensure that resources are used in an efficient way. Today we lack incentives to recycle. The proposals contained in the Commission’s forthcoming Thematic Strategy should continue to give priority to this important recycling implementation tool because setting harmonised EU objectives on recycling would make recycling actually happen right across the EU and not just in certain pro-active states. Legislation on several waste streams is called for in the sixth environmental action programme, the most urgent of which is the biowaste stream. The importance of these objectives has been recognised in Sweden, with the Swedish parliament deciding in October 2003 on two new national targets for biowaste recycling. The EU has the responsibility to take the rest of the EU in the same direction – as it has already done on other waste streams. Alternative approaches that depend only on setting quality standards for waste products – through end-of-waste criteria for example – are not enough by themselves.
The waste framework directive is not, as many would like to believe, the main problem. The directive has been in place for 30 years and if it had been properly implemented we would not have as many problems as we have today. There is a great disparity between theory and practice – between the framework directive and how waste is treated on a day-to-day basis. The collapse of a dam containing mining waste in Donana, Spain, caused considerable environmental pollution to water and soil. This took place although the directive clearly states what waste should be disposed of without risk to water, air, soil, plants and animals.
The import of waste into Sweden has increased four-fold in the last five years.
In Sweden there is no tax on incineration. Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Italy and Austria have taxes in place for waste that is incinerated, which encourages recycling of waste.
The waste framework directive clearly sets out the goal that member states should be self-sufficient in waste disposal and also emphasises the importance of treating waste at the nearest possible installation. Here the principles laid down in the directive are also disregarded in this respect.
Our problems with waste can be solved through developments in other areas. The EU’s new chemicals policy could play an important role in ensuring that waste contains fewer harmful substances.
Swedish left MEP Jonas Sjöstedt is a member of the Parliament’s committee on the environment, public health and food safety.
Loopholes in EU legislation encourage the incineration of polluting waste to produce energy, warns Hans Blokland
Underlying the waste framework directive (WFD) are a number of important principles. Waste is defined. There is a hierarchy of management (prevention, re-use, recycling, recovery, disposal). Waste should be managed near to where it is created (proximity). Countries should be able to manage their own waste (self-sufficiency). The environment must be protected and there must be waste management plans in place.
It is expected that we will soon receive a proposal from the European Commission for a new WFD so it is a good moment to say what has to be done in order to improve the implementation of the principles just mentioned.
According to the WFD, waste is defined as “any substance or object in [certain categories]…which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard”. In 2003, the Commission considered that a number of EU states (Austria, Italy, Luxembourg and the UK) had still not correctly transposed the definition of waste. Evidently the reason for failing to do this is a desire to evade the requirements of proper waste management as laid down in the legislation on waste.
I understand that there are moves towards adding a clarification of when a waste ceases to be a waste. One of the arguments used is that in some cases traded wastes have similar ‘low’ risk to that of primary materials. An example mentioned is solid recovered fuel, produced from mixed household waste. The final treatment of this solid recovered fuel is, however, very polluting and must therefore take place in high standard facilities. If such fuels fell outside the definition of waste they could be shipped out of the EU and incinerated in polluting installations or even used as fuel by households, whether inside or outside the EU. The key point is that waste should be processed in an environmentally sound fashion. Article 5 of the WFD lays down that the member states must set up an integrated network of disposal installations, with account being taken of best available techniques and in a manner guaranteeing a high level of environmental protection. Looking for ways and means of processing waste with a lower level of environmental protection, by defining a mountain of waste as a product, is totally out of the question.
In my opinion it is not necessary to amend the definition of waste. Although the definition has often given rise to debate, its scope is sufficiently clear, thanks to several judgments by the European Court of Justice (ECJ). A new definition would generate fresh debate, leading to yet further judgments by the ECJ concerning its correct interpretation.
Since the late 1990s, the Commission has brought infringement proceedings against a number of member states which have taken steps to prevent or restrict exports of waste for recovery.
In all fairness, I have to admit that EU legislation in this area does indeed provoke exports. Different waste disposal operations are governed by different environmental rules. Under the waste incineration directive, waste incineration is subject to more stringent emission requirements than the co-incineration of waste in, for instance, a cement kiln or power plant. Consequently, more and more waste is going to co-incineration plants, leading to increased emissions of harmful substances.
The problem in this debate is that, even if waste is recovered, this is not necessarily better on environmental grounds. Clear criteria for recovery therefore need to be drawn up. At the moment the discussion is tending towards basing the definition of recovery on the substitution of natural resources, with an efficiency threshold. A corrective mechanism could be added in order to fight sham recovery and ensure recovery has a net environmental benefit.
This could be the introduction of the same standards for emissions of pollutants into air and water for incineration, co-incineration and other processes that generate gaseous emissions.
Centre-right Dutch MEP Hans Blokland is a vice-chair of the Parliament’s committee on environment, public health and food safety.