EEB Waste Report 2012

P U B LIS H ED B Y EE B A P RIL 2 0 1 2
Throwing away the chance to improve waste policy?

An examination of the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC transposition and waste policy implementation.
P r o d u c t & wa s t e p o l i c y
EUROPES LARGEST FEDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZENS ORGANISATIONS
THROWING AWAY THE CHANCE TO IMPROVE WASTE POLICY
A report conducted by the European Environmental Bureau Thanks
EEB Members who contributed to this report through the survey die umweltberatung sterreich (Eco Counselling Austria) Austria
Environmental Association Za Zemiata (For the Earth) - Bulgaria - Ecological Recycling Society Greece
Edition
EEB April 2012 2012 European Environmental Bureau (EEB). Boulevard de Waterloo 34, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium E-mail eeb@eeb.org www.eeb.org Authors
Publisher EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENTAL BUREAU (EEB)
Tel +32 2 289 1090 Fax +32 2 289 1099
Angeliki Malizou, Stephane Arditi Editor responsible
Jeremy Wates (EEB Secretary General) Editor in Chief
Alison Abrahams (EEB Communications Officer) This publication is part-financed by the European Union, the French
Ministry of Environment MEDTL and the Norwegian government. Sole responsibility lies with the authors and the donors are not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained herein.
2 AN EXAMINATION OF THE WASTE FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE 2008/98/EC TRANSPOSITION AND WASTE POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
Contents
Executive Summary.............................................................. 1.0 Background and aims..........................................................
# # #
5 6 9
2.0 Tools and methodology........................................................ 3.0 Analysis of Concerns......................................................... 3.1 3.2

#
11
How to boost the proper implementation # and the enforcement of waste policy?.............................. 11 Summary of recommendations.........................................
#
16
3.3 What could narrow the gaps between the advanced and less advanced Member States? Selective issues on Member State divergence # and related survey findings............................................... 19 3.4 Summary of recommendations.........................................
#
22
3.5 An enriched, ambitious yet binding hierarchy. How enforceable is it? Regulatory and # technical constraints- related survey findings..................... 25 3.6 4.0 Summary of recommendations......................................... Main references................................................................
# # # #
30 32 33 34
5.0 Charts and figures............................................................ 6.0 Footnotes.........................................................................
AN EXAMINATION OF THE WASTE FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE 2008/98/EC TRANSPOSITION AND WASTE POLICY IMPLEMENTATION 3
Executive summary
At the time this report is being released, a study commissioned by the European Commission assessed that a full implementation and enforcement of existing waste policy could lead to a 215Mt CO2e savings, to the creation of 400000 jobs and to financial savings of up to 72 billions 1. Complementing a set of reports and studies on the matter of Waste policy implementation, the EEB conducted a survey amongst its members active in the area in 2011 to gather evidence on how this opportunity is being used in the framework of the Waste Framework Directive transposition. This results in identifying some key recommendations that could contribute to accelerating the fulfillment of the potential along three lines of thoughts: How to boost the proper implementation and enforcement of waste policy? What could narrow the gaps between the advanced and less advanced Member States? The new Waste Framework Directive introduced an improved, ambitious and binding hierarchy. How enforceable is it?
List of recommendations Issue How to boost the proper implementation and enforcement of waste policy? Recommendation
Extension of the knowledge basis of the European Commission Regulation of the civil society participation and facilitating the civil society monitoring activity: Preventive rather than a punishing method for ensuring compliance Enable civil society to spot and report illegal activities - Creating a common language between stakeholders Moving from waste disposal to recycling- Creative use of the regional approach as a means to tackle the gaps between MS Consideration of integrated costs of collection and treatment schemes Intensifying political awareness A structure for best practice exchange between Member States Set separate collection as the default choice for local authorities Harmonized recycling criteria, linked to legal obligations by MS. A broadly accepted LCT methodology for the application of the waste treatment hierarchy. Setting Targets for prevention, reuse and biowaste recycling Clarification of the status of co-incineration/co-processing Embed waste policy principles as conditionality clauses for EU funding. Performance contracts for waste management Allocation rules for landfill or incineration taxes Harmonization of calculation methods and data collection.
What could narrow the gaps between the advanced and less advanced Member States?
The new Waste Framework Directive introduced an enriched, ambitious yet binding hierarchy. How enforceable is it?
1.0
Background and aims

This idea is strengthened by the elaboration of an enriched, 5 level, waste hierarchy the respect of which is an obligation not only for the EU Member States but also and foremost for the European Institutions3. Finally, the revised WFD provides a greater democratic basis for the elaboration of national waste management solutions as well as the implementation of waste policy by enhancing the role and the participation of the civil society. Rationale-Why has the EEB produced this report? The vision for a European Union with sound waste management has proven to be - despite the progress achieved - challenging and elusive, throughout the decades following the first waste Directive in 1975. On the upside, over the last years an increasing number of studies continue to substantiate the multidimensional benefits of proper waste policy implementation, which, on top of the overall environmental improvement can provide significant socioeconomical benefits. As an example, a report by Friends of the Earth estimated that over 500 000 jobs have been created with todays increased recycling rate4. Today in the EU, each person consumes 16 tonnes of materials annually, of which 6 tonnes are wasted, with half going to landfill5
Policy context of the report Through this project, the EEB puts the transposition of the revised Waste Framework Directive (WFD)2 under the spotlight, as well as the overall implementation of European waste policy. This report was prompted by the EU decision to focus on the long-standing issue of proper implementation of the waste acquis, rather than propose new legislation. The project idea was triggered at a moment where the transposition deadline was already behind schedule and a number of European Member States had not yet fulfilled or properly fulfilled their legal obligations. This Directive constitutes an innovative tool which, more than any WFD did in the past, intends to approach in an integral way both environmental protection and human health, as well as linking with other European policies. The WFD is the first- since 1975 (Council Directive 75/442/EEC) - of a series of legal texts on waste to refer in Article 1 so to its aim, namely to protect the environment and human health by preventing or reducing the adverse impacts of the generation and management of waste and by reducing overall impacts of resource use and improving the efficiency of such uses.
Figure 1: How much can recycling contribute to consumption6

% waste material 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Iron and Steel Paper and cardboard Other metals Glass Aluminium Copper Concrete WEEE Plastics Current contribution Potential contribution
Background Studies and Literature Since the adoption of the first European waste legislation there have been a number of studies focusing on the implementation of waste policy. The main studies supporting this report are listed in the references section. This report provides a more focused NGO view with a view to challenge, as well as complement some of the official reports which mainly rely on Member States official views and data. Objectives The main objective is to ignite dialogue between the NGO community, the EU institutions and stakeholders involved in waste management. Among the innovations of the new WFD is the requirement for civil society involvement. Therefore, the EEB took this chance to exploit the potential provided by its own wide NGO network to explore what could be the civil society contribution to the implementation of waste policy. The project is intended also to serve as a barometer of the level of preparation to engage the new challenges and as an opportunity for an appraisal of NGO community participation so far. It intends to provide some legal and practical advocacy tools in order to reinforce civil society participation and as far as possible help to better implementation. Main concerns The following three concerns will be explored in this report. These represent issues where there is the opportunity for contribution from civil society. How to boost the proper implementation and enforcement of waste policy? What could narrow the existing gaps between the Member States? The new Waste Framework Directive introduced an improved, ambitious yet binding hierarchy. How enforceable is it?
Tools and methodology

The following research tools were used in the compilation of this report: Online Survey With a strong presence in the field of waste policies and a broad network of more than 140 national member organizations, the EEB was prompted to engage its membership in a survey to assess the situation at MS level. The survey was carried out during the (late) transposition period between March and August 2011. Although in some cases the situation may have changed, the main findings are nonetheless still relevant as this report is being released. Data collection By requesting specific data on the generation and treatment of specific waste streams we intended to assess the availability of up to date data and in some cases of waste streams that appear neglected by the official datasets. Active participation Participating in European Commission stakeholder consultations on waste constitutes an excellent opportunity not only to share the civil society approach but also to get visibility of the emerging concerns of other stakeholders and identify the possibilities to create synergies between different actors. Official reports monitoring and analysis During the preparation of the report official studies on waste policy implementation were published. They were systematically reviewed in order that the authors could benefit from their insights and findings. However, our aim is not to repeat their findings but to concentrate on complementary findings and proposals not necessarily formulated in these reports.
2.0
Analysis of concerns
3.1 How to boost the proper implementation and the enforcement of waste policy?
3.0
3.1.1 Key barriers to effective enforceability and uniform enforcement Analysis of issues and report findings: The European Commission has published several studies on why Europe remains far from having optimised waste management. Waste policies are constantly updated to meet evolving consumption patterns. However, many constraints have made enforcement difficult. It is testament to the complexity of the issue of waste that the Commission has gone so far as to consider a Waste Implementation Agency to enforce waste policy. While this option is now being challenged with other options7, it is clear that if waste policies are to be enforced effectively, extra resources and dedication is required. Poor enforcement is a major factor in delays in realising more ambitious waste policy and ultimately impedes the greater vision of a Resource Efficient Europe and a recycling European society.
Table 1: Barriers to full implementation for EU Commission and for Member States8 Implementation body EU Commission Member States Barriers
Sources informing the Commission on bad implementation: erratic knowledge base Lack of interest and/or resources Fear of high costs, lack of awareness of potential economic/financial/social benefits Inadequacy of waste management structures Complexity of the institutions: multi-level governments Diffusion of responsibility for waste management Environmental authorities lacking the power to tackle criminal offences Constitutional constraints Local situations Special issue: criminal activities counteracting implementation
3.1.2 Enforcement/enforceability jeopardized by the multi-level competencies Waste remains a shared competence of the European Union and its Member States. With the adoption of the first Waste Directive in 1975, European waste legislative production augmented rapidly, shifting waste policy increasingly within the competence of the EU. Directives have been deemed so far the most appropriate legislative tool for the purpose of regulating. This gives EU Member States flexibility in their interpretation and implementation of waste policy. This interpretation inherently harbours risks for the enforceability and the enforcement of waste policy. Regarding the enforceability, risks are likely to emerge especially at the stage from the legislative production until full transposition. Whereas the enforcement risks being weakened during the transposition until reaching full implementation. Following the legislative production, the national and above all the local legislator is requested to transpose and implement a legal text of which he was neither the drafter nor the instigator. Not being fully aware of the background on which the legislation is built, the full content and purpose of the wording or legal interpretation guidance, the local legislator might deliver an outcome that does not reflect the spirit of the law. In the case of the revised WFD, Guidelines on the interpretation of key provisions of the Directive 2008/98/EC on waste issued in July 2011 was an attempt to address such risks. Nevertheless this draft was issued half a year after the transposition due date, a critical point where the text could have provided valuable support to the national legislator. It is as yet too early to assess any loopholes following the transposition stage. While this research project is conducted, some Member States are still at the legislative stage and it is hard to estimate when enforcement can really start. Even after that, a great effort will be necessary in order to come closer to the ambitious vision of the revised WFD and the vision of a recycling society. The issue of enforcement poses a common challenge to all areas of European policy. In order to understand how legal flaws might occur during the transposition stage, we asked our members to provide the original text as well as the English translation of some key provisions of the text transposing the revised WFD into their national law.
A key legal requirement identified is the one referring to the conditions under which derogation from the hierarchy of waste management options is possible. The majority of the respondents confirmed that Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) has to be the main driver to justify such derogations while others made reference to provisions from derogation without specifying under what justification that is possible. Thus, LCT is a broad concept, which fosters a wide range of methodological approaches. For instance, in some cases cost-benefit analysis can be amongst the decisive parameters of LCT. The failure to provide a solid definition of LCT to Member States will inevitably create an enforceability deficit during transposition. Flanders in its ongoing reform of waste legislation embeds the concept of the lifecycle thinking when applying the waste hierarchy allowing derogations only when taking into account environmental, economic and social impacts
Germany during the transposition procedures of the WFD was urged by the European Commission to revise its plans to set incineration of any waste with a calorific value over 11,000 kilojoules per kg at the same hierarchical step as recycling. Another key provision on which our members elaborated is the provisions regarding the participation of civil society. The following cases show that indeed the majority of the Member States involved civil society in the law making procedure. Nevertheless, the majority of the respondents described their participation as superficial when it came to rating the opportunity given to them for substantial contribution figure 2: How is civil society invloved?
Not ofcially involved Personal meeting Ofcial Consulation
Bulgarian NGO: ...the Ministry explicitly mentioned in its announcement of a consultation during the WFD transposition that it does not commit to providing any feedback. The intention of the European Commission to promote the involvement of the civil society in tackling the challenges of waste in the Union is contradicted by the fact that due to long comitology procedures, the notification format for the Waste Management Plans remains unknown to the public, with no possibility to question the conformity criteria. This illustrates the level of opacity with regards to crucial information developed at EU level. Often, this information is circulated too late, when it hardly helps to challenge MS decisions as changes/ are no longer easy to suggest. This does not help civil society to challenge local decisions, as no official support is available on time to justify propositions. Additionally, it appears contradictory that MS decide alone in the comitology process what will be the criteria to evaluate their own action and when these criteria will be released. What will the notification format look like? Since November 2010, the EEB has requested information about the formulation of waste management plant notification format. However, it has proven impossible for EC to release this format, as it is not yet defined with MS. This illustrates the kind of vicious cycle that prevents proper enforcement/implementation: to challenge Member States we need the tools, but those tools are released only according to Member States will. This clearly points to a need for more direct relations between EC and civil society, not conditioned by the acceptability of Member States to release the necessary information. It is today premature to assess any kind of loopholes regarding proper or improper implementation during the enforcement stage. Still, the feedback provided by the participants shows that some fear that breakthroughs which the Directive promised may not be fulfilled due to the deficiencies of appropriate enforcement mechanisms and relevant information released on time. 3.1.3 Constitutional constraints: Are fines a sufficient driver for improvement? Ensuring enforcement and implementation of European Legislation falls within the remit of the European
Commission. Although environmental law, as well as being an issue of nature conservation, concerns the protection of the health of millions of Europeans, direct intervention when the law is contravened is possible only for reasons concerning preservation of the common market. Another important point is the subsidiarity principle applicable to waste policy implementation. This means that controls and audits of waste are not an EC task according to the Lisbon Treaty (art 337). As the EC has no direct jurisdiction in the Member States regarding the implementation of waste policy, financial sanctions is the main weapon to cope with cases of contravention. It is important to cultivate a ground of co-operation where the MS will feel free to take advantage of the expertise of the EC in order to correct any malpractices. Adopting such tactics should not be considered preferable just in order to give more time to the Member States but because fining in many cases does not remediate the problem. In fact, fines come late when the bad habits routines are already embedded in daily management and existing facilities. In the case of the mis-implementation of the Landfill Directive, Greece was taken to the European Court of Justice where it was subjected to fines, after several warnings. However such fines have not proven enough to urge the national authorities to take the appropriate measures. There is no doubt that such legal action is necessary- and is perhaps the last available means- to prohibit further disaster. However, relying on legal proceedings can create a stagnant situation where financial sanctions are insufficient to modify Member State behavior. Civil society, which is also the final recipient of the financial sanctions, becomes aware of the specific deficiencies of the public authorities at the stage when the issues are being discussed in European court rooms. The correspondences between EC and MS throughout the process that can lead to legal action are not made public. Furthermore, the warning signals and possible improvement requests are not circulated. Thus, advocating to challenge implementation before it reaches the legal action is impossible. And when the case is taken to court the facts may be out of date and any pressure no longer relevant. Finally, these sanctions end up further burdening society as they are essentially paid by the Member State taxpayers. At the transposition stage of the revised WFD, the European Commission has publicly warned some Member States that they may begin judicial proceedings against them, but no particular justification regarding the grounds of these
proceedings were made available to the public. This closed door approach between the European Commission and the Member States deprives other stakeholders such as the civil society the possibility to maintain pressure on the national authorities to resolve the problem before it reaches the judicial path. Therefore, in order to maintain the level of attention and involvement and ensure continuity between the transposition and the implementation process, it is important to ensure the same level of representation and participation of all different stakeholders for all processes. This includes the legislative process. Full transparency should be ensured in all procedures. 3.1.4 The limitations of the knowledge basis of the European Commission at the transposition and implementation stage The aforementioned risks could be better controlled if stakeholders both at a national and at European level would maintain constant coordination and cooperation. Civil society, as the main recipient and funder of all public policies, could play a role in this. By promoting preventive communication NGOs could have an informative role to the EC. NGOs working at a European level are well-placed FIGURE 3: Environment: Infringement cases by sector (June 20)
nature liability chemicals air information micellaneous water impact waste impact nature impact assessments waste (79) 21% (1) 0% (33) 9% (40) 11% (3) 1% (1) 0% (89) 24% (1) 0% (4) 1% (38) 10% (86) 23%
intelligence on specific issues that might otherwise be difficult to assess, concluding that Co-operation does not need to come only when it is too late: Italy and Greece both accepted the participation of the European Commission in the joint inspection (with the local authorities) of notorious land fills of Napoli, Italy and Crete, Greece. a fluid communication between the Commission and NGOs could be established in this regard and the contribution of NGOs to an improvement of implementation of waste legislation increased. This clearly indicated that relations between the European Commission and Civil Society are not to be conditioned by Member States acceptability. In this case, transparent information could be exchanged on a flexible multilateral platform where all stakeholders have access. Through such a platform, NGOs can contribute by widening the knowledge base of the EC and the MS simultaneously; the EC can have direct information about the progress made by the MS and, in case of noncompliance, to take the appropriate measures. Such a communication platform could also ensure transparency and data dissemination. By granting the opportunity to NGOs/civil society to impart such knowledge, the clause that requires more participation of the society will acquire a more substantial meaning. EC Communication gaps: - The state of transposition was not circulated as it should have been, even after the due date of December 2010 - The remarks that the EC eventually addressed to MS during late transposition stages were not made public - In case of mandatory regular reports (e.g. landfill achievements), the individual reports by MS are not made public. Only consolidated results are circulated months afterwards. There seems to be no robust mechanisms within the EU, which work proactively and in support of MS to ensure compliant transposition of waste legislation. Most actions focus on the stage that follows the transposition. From the current situation it is obvious that the margin of discretion left to Member States is exploited, sometimes deliberately. Therefore, it is crucial to open and facilitate an open channel of communication between the EC and those drafting the law at MS level, including civil society, through the creation of a smooth mechanism that the MS can consult during
to quickly direct information from their national members towards the right officials. The use of the NGO network as a means to extend the knowledge basis of the EU in cases of bad implementation has already been provided as a suggestion by the BIO Intelligence report Implementing waste policy for green growth. According to this policy option the EEA could take up from the EC the preliminary mapping of the implementation process by the EU MS and among other actions, create a network of NGOs/ citizens groups to report bad implementation. The final report confirms that as part of the knowledge base improvement NGO networks can provide
the transposition procedure and thus monitor compliance with the spirit of the Directive. This should be based on the idea that transposition is a concern for all and that the appropriate space for civil society to express and monitor the actions of the national authorities is to be provided. In the following case the European Commission took action after persistent pressure from recyclers and NGOs. Germany asked to rethink draft waste law The draft law drawn up by Germany to implement the waste framework directive (WFD) contravenes the directives waste hierarchy, the European Commission says. It has asked the German government to revise the legislation. Germany planed to rank incineration of any waste with a calorific value over 11,000 kilojoules per kilogram as equal to recycling. But in a response to a parliamentary question, issued on Thursday, the commission says this is at odds with the waste hierarchy, which prioritizes recycling over incineration Source: ENDS Europe It is worth noting that such a flaw had been identified and reported at EU level by German NGOs long before the EC officially notified Germany. A communication mechanism during the transposition stage would work in future to ensure compliant transposition. The lack of public information on the progress of the transposition and the areas where the main difficulties are encountered does not allow the interested actors to focus on the same problems and work together to resolve them. Disseminating information on the transposition stage voluntarily, instead of the lengthy procedure of information request, will provide more transparency on the procedure and give the possibility to civil society not only to react but also to contribute.
3.1.5 Inspections, the core of enforcement Further than the improvements in the reporting stage, practical enforcement still remains the most challenging loophole. The quality of inspections relies on both qualitative and quantitative parameters. In many cases the inspection and enforcement is attributed to authorities with general competency and an already overburdened agenda. At the same time, the entry into force of the revised WFD sets a high level of ambition and innovations which will increase the need for inspections by an updated and trained inspection body. On top of this, inspection bodies are required to operate taking into account the concept of free movement of goods and services within the EU, which can bring them across waste or material generated in another Member State. A first step towards improvement would be to develop a set of European inspection standards. Such standards would be a major contribution to the work of IMPEL (the European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law) as it would provide a common language and the possibility to produce more comparable results. During the ongoing recession, increasing inspection resources remains highly unlikely. NGO and civil society have a role to play in addressing this and partially compensating for the scarcity of resources. This could happen as a kind of pre-screening activity to help national inspection focus their controls. Pre-screening activities will enable the NGOs/ civil society to correctly identify potential risky situations and directly warn the competent authorities who can then take over and further investigate. Opening up such kind of specialized training to the civil groups and other stakeholders will help them to develop a common language when consulting each other and set common priorities on the most persistent loopholes. The participation of industry -with interest for proper implementation - to help share expertise and provide some advise for pre-screening activities may be considered as well.
3.2 Summary of recommendations

3.2.1 Extension of the knowledge basis of the European Commission
Opening a direct communication channel between civil society and the European Institutions, without being subordinated to MS acceptability, so as to share in real time the necessary knowledge and consequent potential action. Establishing a multilateral communication platform for all stakeholders ensuring both flexibility and transparency regarding the disseminated data and tackling the exclusion of the civil society from waste related procedures in some MS.
3.2.2 Regulation of the civil society participation and facilitating the civil society monitoring activity
Defining some minimum rules of NGO/civil society participation as required by the revised WFD. On time availability of official supporting documents such as the notification format for waste management plans and other guidelines proving useful for transposition
3.2.3 Adoption of a preventive rather than a punishing method for ensuring compliance Early information and knowledge sharing throughout the transposition stage
Sharing publicly the escalation of actions that might lead to legal proceedings, enabling political pressure before the case is taken to court and eventual sanctions are imposed
3.2.4 Enabling civil society to spot and report illegal activities- Creating a common language between stakeholders
Involvement of NGOs in enforcement as pre-screening activities Training NGOs together with police and inspectors, using industry expertise
16
3.3 What could narrow the gaps between the advanced and less advanced Member States? Selective issues on Member State divergence and related survey findings
3.3.1 Landfilling a strong indicator of MS divergence The EU provides an umbrella for a large number of countries with different backgrounds, levels of progress and potential. This differentiated starting point is expressed in all kinds of European policies and waste policy is no exception. This differentiation has been stated explicitly in the the review of the Thematic Strategy on waste where countries are categorized into advanced, less advanced and nonadvanced.
The following section goes through a selection of factors that tend to illustrate the gaps between MS: In a number of studies, MS are grouped according to their performance in waste management. Often, the decisive criteria for this grouping is the minimization of the landfilling rate, as landfilling is deemed the most unsustainable and environmentally aggravating solution for waste management. The Landfill directive11 99/31/EC lays down targets to reduce biodegradable waste going to landfill to 75% of 1995 figures by 2010 and to 35% by 2020. Figure 4 illustrates the percentage of municipal waste that was landfilled in the EU-27, 1995 and 2007. From the graph, it is obvious that for certain countries the chances of meet the aforementioned targets remain slim. Differences between Member States derive from history and a number of parameters such as taxation, development of separated collection systems for recycling, ambitious national targets and other factors. In any case it is certain that the
Figure 4 : Percentage of municipal waste that is sent to land fill in the EU-27, 1995 and 200710
%
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
0
M alt a t ni a l y y y s s k a c e a a a e a a a n n g 7 d d d ru atvi ec ari upli aki eni gar ani lan uga pia lan dom oni lan Ital -2 nc bor stri ar ium de nd an S Ire ng L Gre ulg eb lov lov un om Po ort st Fin EU Fra em Au enm elg we erla erm E i B B R S th G S S P H R x K D h d Lu Ne ec ite n Cz U
1995 2007
Li
a hu
p Cy
success came from a combination of different instruments. Amongst them, economic instruments play a crucial role. Economic instruments should be seen as a fundamental and necessary condition to achieve the expected performances. In that sense, creating EU obligations for their harmonized deployment should be investigated, while flexibility may be maintained to define the details of the implementing methods in each MS. Note: at the time of writing this report, a study commissioned by the EC is in its final stage regarding the use of economic instruments for waste policy implementation. The results tend to show that not only that the more advanced countries have all used intensively economic instruments, but also that without such instruments they would never have been to perform as they do12. 3.3.2 Correlation with applied economic instruments- landfill tax, an example of eco instrument applied in different countries Economic instruments are used as means to accelerate the accomplishment of waste policy targets. In some of them, incorporating or reallocating external costs works as the lever to diverge to other more sustainable options. The following case studies have been chosen as they are representative and illustrate the differentiated use of economic instruments around the EU: Bulgaria, Estonia, UK and Germany. The selection of these countries derives from the fact that they reflect the different paces that waste policy is evolving throughout the EU. Bulgaria: is a MS with a limited and improper waste treatment infrastructure. Economic growth and the change of consumption patterns of the last few years have lead to negative decoupling of waste and GDP13. Due to the different infrastructure level the diversion of biodegradable waste has been set to 2020 whereas the date for more advanced countries is 2016. Today, Bulgarias landfilling taxation scheme requires 3 euros per ton landfilled.
Estonia: For Estonia, where GDP/ capita is moderate the Landfill Directive targets are due in 2020. The landfill tax, integrated in landfill gate fees, is between 10 and 40/t. Estonia has reduced its landfilling rate by nearly 50% between 1995 and 2007. In Estonia a comprehensive system of waste disposal charges has been introduced. The charges differ for different types of waste and for different locations of sites as well as whether or not the site meets environmental regulations (EEA, 2005). Noticeably in ordinances from 2007 and 2008, Estonia sets separate collection schemes for garden and kitchen waste. This illustrates that the landfill tax is to be seen as an element of an integrated solution combining different carrot and stick instruments, and not as the silver bullet solution, solving the whole issue of landfill by itself14. UK: belongs to the advanced Member States with established waste treatment infrastructure with ongoing efforts to improve recycling performances. GDP/capita is among the highest in the EU. The UKs Landfill Directive targets are due in 2016. According to the ongoing scheme there is a landfill tax escalator which means that the tax per ton goes up by 8 every year. The government has confirmed that this will remain in place at least until 2013. This will mean that landfill tax will be 56 in 2011, 64 in 2012, 72 in 2013. Germany: is known as one of the best performing MS in waste management. GDP/ capita is one of the highest in Europe. Germany has no landfill tax; instead, it has proceeded to a complete ban of untreated waste landfilling. Beyond these examples, an IEEP study15, listed the different landfill taxes schemes applied across the EU. Taxes can go from a few to several tens and their allocation can vary greatly.
As widely acknowledged, the transition from landfilling to more sustainable waste management solutions has been to a great extent achieved through taxation schemes. Furthermore, according to the IEEP, in most cases, where indeed landfill taxation has been a decisive improvement factor, it was combined with an overall modernization and improvement of waste policy, which a proper allocation of resulting taxes has been able to lever.
3.3.3 WFD transposition and risks of future divergence It is worth investigating what reforms and plans the MS anticipate in order to engage the exigencies of the new, binding waste treatment hierarchy: Figure 5
No Yes No Yes
Is there any reference to prevention action
In February 2011 an unprecedented, long lasting, violent demonstration broke out in Greece. This time not from organized groups but from the ordinary citizens of the little town of Keratea, opposing the construction of a landfill planed to accept a big part of the waste generated by the 4,000,000 inhabitants of Athens. The plans for this landfill go back in 2003. People No are opposing its construction demanding sustainable Yes waste management which will stop the continuous degradation of the natural and cultural heritage of the country. The case of Keratea is one of the many uncontrollable protests that have taken place all around the country against such plants. In another anti-landfill protest case, in Lefkimi on the island of Corfu, violent clashes between citizens and police special forces cost a young woman her life. Source: compiled from Greek Press own translation
No Yes No Yes
Figure 6
Is there any target or objective set regarding prevention?
No Yes
No Yes
Figure 7
Are there any monitoring schemes for waste prevention? (assessment indicators, evaluation process...)
No Yes
3.3.3.1 Prevention The majority of the survey respondents confirmed that their national legislation complies or will be compliant with the European legislation which requires the elaboration of Waste Prevention Programs (WPP) by the end of 2013. Nevertheless, when it comes to current or anticipated actions that will prepare the ground for a smoother transition to WPP, little can be said at the moment. While advanced MS showed a generally higher level of preparation to engage to the preparation for prevention actions, in other MS a mere reference to the obligation of 2013 is all there is at the moment.
Two remarkable actions were identified, one coming from Germany and the other from Denmark.

3.4.1 Moving from waste disposal to recyclingCreative use of the regional approach as a means to tackle the gaps between MS: Boosting separate collection can be a crucial step to increase recycling and align better MS performances. According to each waste stream to be separated, a geographical scale could usefully be established according to the order of magnitude of required waste amount for optimized recycling/recovery needs. For example, for biowaste, a 50 000 inhabitants base may be enough to start a composting platform. For construction & demolition (C&D) waste, local needs for aggregates could justify local infrastructure for recycling capacity investment. But applying the preferred proximity principle may not be feasible for treating all waste streams. Our recommendation is to provide the right economic analysis and institutional guidelines to intensify separate collection, as a clear entry point for accelerating the recycling of waste (going from landfill to recycling, rather than going from landfill to incineration/ energy recovery). Such a regional approach could be adjusted and could also benefit small Member States/ regions where capacity for investment is not financially feasible. E.g.: For some hazardous/specific waste treatment or recycling process requiring capacity investment, local authorities - or even national authorities - may collaborate and establish coordinated long term plans. These could be adapted progressively according to the investments needs and separate collection achievements. Initially, small Member States/regions could work together and share a common recycling investment where the material would be transported. That could become an immediate starting point and incentives for separate collection and pre-treatment/ dismantling activities. For the practical implementation of this idea proxy economical models of the recycling cost of each waste stream will be required. Providing reliable economical models and facilitating collaboration could be a clear role for the national authority, or for European commission in the case of MS collaboration.
The Federal Environment Agency in Germany, Oko-Institut and Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy collaborated on a project16 dedicated to spot specific qualitative and quantitative benchmarks to be incorporated in future waste prevention measures. In Denmark, the Danish Waste Strategy17 goes further than simply addressing prevention as a noble goal. The Strategy makes specific reference to awareness raising campaigns, measures to tackle food waste, opening up the discussion with other countries and national players as well as co-operating with environmental organizations and municipalities. Chapter 2 of the Strategy makes specific reference to prevention initiatives in a wide range of waste generating environments and sectors (households, industry, service providers and offices etc).
Figure 8
Are there national rules on consultation and involvement of the civil society?
No Yes
3.3.4 WFD- a crash test for public participation The majority of the respondents to the EEB study were positive with regards to the opportunity for participation in the development of national waste legislation and policy. However, the picture changes when asked to evaluate the quality of participation. MS responses ranged from satisfaction with the openness, regularity and constructiveness of the meetings with official authorities, to disappointment with the credibility and unequal treatment compared to other stakeholders. A common concern raised by a number of MS NGOs focuses on the lack of funding which would enable NGOs and civil society to be represented more extensively.
Balancing the waste treatment hierarchy and proximity principle in a regional approach EEB is aware of the risk of contradicting the proximity principle, by suggesting the regional approach. But in the perspective of reducing the gaps between MS regarding waste management, there is a clear need to address the resource availability and economical viability issues. This regional approach should be deployed for accelerating recycling possibilities and minimizing the risk of developing incineration infrastructure which could monopolise all of the finances available and acts as a barrier to moving away from incineration on the long term. Obviously, the environmental benefits of increased recycling through regional approach should be balanced with transportation burden. Thats also why EEB suggests structuring this regional collaboration. Cooperation should happen between neighborhood areas and countries, where it makes sense. The reality is that such a collaborative possibility has so far very seldom been seriously explored by the relevant authorities. Today such a regional approach may be sometimes claimed by industry for more profitable investments, through economy of scales, but it remains very poorly documented and not at all integrated in long term planning. A structured cooperation would allow the adjustment of investments to the expected achievements in separate collection and precisely take into consideration the proximity principle for sequencing the projects. Additionally, it should be noted that the proximity principle mainly applies to the disposal of waste in the WFD, not to recovery operations. The key question for such a regional approach is: does it enable us to move faster towards the upper echelons of the waste treatment hierarchy, thereby allowing less advanced MS to catch up with their more advanced counterparts?
3.4.2 Considering the integrated costs of collection and treatment when deciding on collection and treatment schemes We have identified the initiation of separate collection as facilitating quality and profitable recycling and thus as one of the main levers for reducing the gaps between MS and moving towards a more harmonized recycling performance. One barrier to separate collection is the existing division of competencies between collection and treatment in most EU countries. Collection often relates to Municipality responsibility (and thus budget), while treatment can rely on different/higher administrative level competency. As each level tries to optimize its own costs, this can result in blocking initiatives for separate collection. In fact, municipalities argue that additional separate collection will increase their collection costs. As a consequence, they are reluctant to consider further separate collection, if these are not made mandatory. But the reality may be different with an integrated view. As separate collection can drastically reduce the costs of further steps in the waste management chain, the cost optimization of each step in isolation can be finally counter-productive when compared to integrative approach. We illustrate this possibility with the example of separate collection for household biowaste. The following tables18 represent a cost analysis of biowaste separate collection at the region of Lombardy, Italy. Through this analysis it was clearly observed that savings on treatment and optimized collection practices offset increase in cost for separate collection19.
Figure 10: Cost optimisation (Lombardy, 1500 Municipalities

Cost of collection (green bars) Cost of treatment/disposal (blue bars)
90 80 cTRAT/abeq cRACC/abeq
Euro/person
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
<20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
70
%
It results from this analysis that a firmer call by the EU to set separate collection rather than the mere encouragements stated in the WFD - is recommended. EEB clearly favors a legal obligation for a minimum rate of separate collection of waste streams, particularly biowaste. Separate collection for biowaste should be the default scheme in all MS. At least an obligation to consider the overall integrated cost should be required before local authorities take decisions to reject separate collection. 3.4.3 Increasing political awareness Awareness rising should not only happen at the level of civil society but also on a political level. Waste and waste management is a low priority in a number of MS political agenda due to the perceptions surrounding waste and ignorance about the potential of waste for job creation and climate improvement. NGO community including federation of municipalities involved in waste management - can play a role in making these benefits more visible to politicians and local authorities and disseminating the most up to date information/practice on the issue. Improved waste management is unanimously considered as a generator of environmental and human health benefits, as well as job creation and green growth opportunities20. 3.4.4 Providing a structure to Member States for best practice exchange As already stated the establishment of an official regular platform facilitating collaboration and exchange of best practices between MS at the stage of the drawing up of their WMP. Such reference already exists in the Implementation Report of 2001-2006 and could be further
Figure 9: Separate Collection - more expensive?

180 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Italia 131,00 31% Nord 117,90 45% Veneto 99,00 53% Consorzio Consorzio Tvtre Priula 96,00 66% 95,50 78% 0
Separate collection (%)
Cost Euro/year
Costo Procapite (/ab*anno) % Raccolta Differenziata
160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
Italia, Norde Veneto: dati 2006 (fonte Rapporta Riuti 2007 APAT - ONR) Consorzio Priula e Consorzio TVtre: costi dati 2008 - % RD stima anno 2008
developed. As the waste management sector is in many MS open to the private sector, the participation of NGOs and civil society, besides a legal provision, is also deemed crucial in such a platform for ensuring that the solutions adopted are aligned with human health and environmental protection. To make this best practice exchange as useful as possible, a different type of MS grouping could take place. According to the 2030 projections, the generation of Municipal Solid Waste tends to stabilize while the need for capacity does not show the same tendency21. A different country grouping focusing on the cause rather than the result could be useful to identify common patterns and difficulties, thus creating opportunities for targeted exchange of best practices and facilitation of regional approaches. NGOs could therefore work together and coordinate the efforts for such an initiative.
3.5 An enriched, ambitious yet binding hierarchy. How enforceable is it? Regulatory and technical constraints
3.5.1 From the 70s to the (20)20s: The era of industrialization signaled a permanent switch to the rhythm of producing, consuming and finally disposing. It was in 1975 when the EU first adopted regulatory measures applicable to all Member States concerning waste management, namely the Directive 75/442/EEC. At that moment, such regulatory measures were deemed necessary in order to avoid disparity between the provisions on waste disposal already applicable or in preparation in the various Member States which may create unequal conditions of competition and thus directly affect the functioning of the common market22 and aimed mainly at addressing sanitary implications related to waste disposal. At that moment, the only element that could foreshadow the notion of waste hierarchy was the encouragement of Member States to take appropriate steps to encourage the prevention, recycling and processing of waste, the extraction of raw materials and possibly of energy there from and any other process for the re-use of waste. For the next 31 years several parts underwent complete codification in the body of the Waste Framework Directive 2006/12/EC which introduced a three step hierarchy which set as most preferable option prevention, followed by
recovery (it is remarkable to think now that recycling, incineration and other forms of recovery were at the same level of preference) and finally disposal. Although a legal component, this three-step hierarchy has had a guiding role for the Member States showing the direction in which waste policy on the national level should be further developed. One year earlier, in 2005 the European Commission had unveiled the Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste which envisages Europe as a recycling society that, together with the Thematic Strategy on Sustainable Use of Natural Resources, aims to reverse the dramatic rhythm of natural resource depletion and at changing European consumption patterns. At that moment, it was obvious that the existing waste legislation could no more respond to the exigencies of such an ambitious mission. The mission of the new WFD was no longer to protect the integrity of the internal market but to protect the environment and human health by preventing or reducing the adverse impacts of the generation and management of waste23 besides any waste policy should aim at reducing overall impacts of resource use and improving the efficiency of such use and to the reduction of the use of resources and the practical application of the waste hierarchy.24 For these purpose the waste treatment hierarchy was improved, giving recycling precedence to energy recovery and incineration. This new hierarchy is no longer a guideline but a legal obligation, deviation of which should be justified by life cycle analysis. This modernized Directive provided a key tool on the way to the Europe 2020 vision for green growth. For more than 3 decades, from 1975 to 2008, a high number of countries with diverse capacities, consumption patterns and trends and geomorphologic exigencies joined the EU. In 2011, although much has been achieved, the capacity discrepancies among MS remain and while the consumption patterns have significantly accelerated during the last years the question is inevitable: how realistic is it for the MS to comply with the new waste treatment hierarchy? Figure11: Waste Hierarchy
Prevention Preparing for use Recycling Other recovery Disposal
3.5.2 Waste hierarchy An overview of the current level of preparation 3.5.2.1 Prevention Article 29 Member States shall establish, in accordance with Articles 1 and 4, waste prevention programmes not later than 12 December 2013 Prevention of waste is the most preferable option of waste management. Re-use forms part of the broader notion of prevention as it interrupts/delays the chain of actions that would allow an object to enter the phase of waste treatment. The EEB survey confirmed that the majority of countries had transposed accordingly the legal obligation regarding the development of Waste Prevention Programmes (WPP). Nevertheless, the level of preparation for introducing and implementing such plans in less than two years was described as very low by respondents in the majority of countries. Another aspect not to be neglected is the relationship between waste prevention and product design. The choices made during the product design stage can affect up to the 80% of the environmental and health issues related to the final product. It is therefore understood that product policy can work in tandem with waste policy in order to achieve the most environmentally sound resources consumption overall.
State of preparation Quantitative prevention:
Figure 12
Are there any monitoring schemes for waste prevention? (assessment indicators, evaluation process...)
No Yes
Good news from Germany: In a 2010 publication of the under the name Development of scientific and technical foundations for a national waste prevention programme the German Federal Environment Agency introduces a database of 17 measures on waste prevention already used in a limited level in the country preparing the ground for the elaboration of waste management plans.
The PAYT scheme in Poland reports that 100% of the country is covered by the scheme regarding household waste. Wallonia reports that the whole region is covered by the scheme either by volume or weight of the waste produced. Pay-as-you-throw: According to this scheme, the user pays a variable price for waste services according to the amount of waste he produces. As a result, it is in the users own financial interest to reduce the material he disposes of and make wiser choices in terms of packaging at the consumption stage. Most countries report that less than 10% of their territory is covered by PAYT schemes.
The UK press has reported that the coalition government has ruled out PAYT and would rather see voluntary agreements. Qualitative prevention: Almost unanimously all respondents agreed that there is sufficient coverage of the topic by law, but that structured enforcement for such a serious matter - not only for the environment but also for human health - is totally absent.
Good practice: In the Czech Rep there is target set regarding qualitative prevention that is to decrease the amount of produced hazardous waste to 20% by 2020 in comparison with levels in 2000. 3.5.2.2 Re-use and preparation for re-use Article 11 1. Member States shall take measures, as appropriate, to promote the re-use of products and preparing for reuse activities, notably by encouraging the establishment and support of re-use and repair networks, the use of economic instruments, procurement criteria, quantitative objectives or other measures. Almost all respondents give a disappointing overview regarding the situation in their MS. At the moment reuse data at EU level is not available. Although for some countries there is a long-standing tradition of a second hand market that operates in parallel to the normal market, there is no monitoring tool available at the moment and no action at a European level anticipated. Czech Republic reports on legal provisions in the WMP described as activity for preparation for reuse: generate conditions for support returnable and reusable packaging. However this is only a provision with no specified evaluation. Standards for preparation for reuse concern standardization of returnable bottles for beer and mineral water. However the standardized bottles which are currently available do not correspond with consumer preferences.
There has been a first attempt to get a legal target for re-use activities in the WEEE recast, which has failed due to reluctance of the Member States. However legal drivers and legal targets are often the best trigger for a proper measurement and monitoring of innovative activities and reuse activities will be one of the key levers for prevention plans. 3.5.2.3 Recycling: definition uncertainties and competition with burning The WFD requires any derogation from the waste treatment hierarchy to be justified under the Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) approach. LCT is a broad concept, which fosters a wide range of methodological approaches. For instance, in some cases cost-benefit analysis can be amongst the decisive parameters of LCT. In the, not so hypothetical, scenario that competent authorities will be called upon to design WMP according to such an LCT approach, the cost-benefit parameter will give privilege to the waste management solution that requires minimum investment to infrastructure and resources putting low the level of ambition towards a European recycling society. In article 4 of the revised WFD there is a reference to the term economic viability. At this point, it is important to stress the difference between cost effectiveness which is the least expensive option and economic viability which means that the project is feasible, even if not the less expensive on a short-term basis. 3.5.3 Data availability and comparability Janez Potonik European Commissioner for Environment, Eurostat Conference 2011: We should therefore look for additional sources of information. We have to open our doors to research institutes, business organisations, space agencies and think tanks. We believe that the European Statistical System should intensify a dialogue with data sources outside the statistical community The credibility of target achievements (and in general quantifying the progress of waste policy) is questioned due to the lack of updated and comparable data. Researching the Eurostat database for waste stream generation and treatment information has not always been an easy task as some data are non systematic and other are totally absent. The 2020 target chart on Construction and Demolition waste requires 70% by weight of non-hazardous waste to be prepared for re-use, recycled or recovered but this waste stream is not covered at all in the database or at least not in
Wallonia: a loose approach to the issue: The National Waste Management program for 20092013 includes a lot of possible measures for reuse. However the language used is hopeful. The proposed targets for recycling (and preparation for reuse) are very ambitious, but in no way binding (i.e. by 2010 - at least 17 % of all municipal waste to be recycled; by 2013 at least 13% of all municipal waste to be recycled.) Most measures related to prevention, reuse, recycle are tentative, desirable, but in no way represent a binding requirement.
a harmonized way (it is sometimes accounted for in MSW and sometimes considered separately). This is also the case for tyres and the fulfillment of the zero landfilling 2020 target. In the case of Construction and Demolition waste it is particularly interesting to take into account that 2/3 of the waste generated in EU-27 is mineral waste, coming from construction and demolition activities (25-30%) and from mining and quarrying 25%25. 3.5.4 Selected Issues considering legal requirements versus existing infrastructure 3.5.4.1 In most MS collection and treatment are not integrated to evaluate overall costs leading to a sub-optimization of the waste management planning. As both levels try to optimize their costs this works at the expense of the total cost. For example a separate collection26 system can be more expensive than a commingled one, but enables treatment at lower cost. The need for such cost optimization becomes more imminent due to the current financial challenges and especially in countries with long standing waste problems (Cyprus, Greece) weakening any prospects for improvement towards higher steps of the waste hierarchy. Despite a majority of MS report experiences in biowaste separate collection, the majority also states that these do not represent the dominant waste management pattern 3.5.4.2 Another process that can jeopardize recycling as an option is co-processing in cement kilns. The Cement industry sometimes claims that they should be considered as part of the energy recovery process and not disposal. Even more, as they integrate part of the material they burn into the clinker, and then into the final product, they also state that they contribute to a kind of material recovery. Thats why they qualify their process of using waste as co-processing rather than mere energy recovery. The debate on the characterization of this process under the light of the waste treatment hierarchy is still ongoing amongst stakeholders. Disposal is deemed too loose and material recovery exaggerated to qualify the treatment of waste in cement kilns. But according to current legal hierarchy, cement kilns are considered disposal (co-incineration) and not energy recovery as Municipal Solid Waste incinerators reaching a certain energetic performance (Waste to Energy plants).
Whether or not co-processing in cement kilns is a more desirable solution than landfilling or incineration remains a burning issue. However, the commodity of making almost any kind of high energetic value waste disappear in a cement kiln gives very little incentive to promote recycling. Due to this borderline definitional debate, establishing a balanced policy approach, and still proving the respect of waste treatment hierarchy could prove a challenge when considering the local possibility of reducing waste landfilling through burning in cement kilns. 3.5.4.3 The lock-in effect represents a high risk strategy for dealing with waste. Incineration infrastructure demands enormous capital investments and enchains competent authorities into long-term financial commitments., The likelihood for authorities to opt for more sustainable waste treatment solutions is therefore limited not only for the near but neither for the distant future as the lifetime of an incinerator can reach 20 years or more. Polish Media: There appears to be a stir in the so-far quiet municipal waste incinerators sector in Poland. According to data gathered by industry portal wnp.pl, almost PLN 2.3 billion (570 million) worth of incinerator projects received crucial EU funding that will push forward their development in the nearest months Source: CleanTech Poland
The anti-incineration movement growing: The municipality of Usurbil in the Basque country has achieved 88% separate collection after only two years of implementing door-to-door collection a little later the municipalities of Hernani and Oiartzun have joined this system of separate collection with citizens groups opposing strongly to the development of new incineration plants in the region.

3.6.1 Filling the gaps on the new waste hierarchy regulatory deficits: Strategy to set separate collection as the default choice for local authorities. Separate collection has been identified as a way to speed up the alignment between MS. It is also a clear driver for enforcement of the waste hierarchy, as from separate collection, recycling is easier and more cost effective. Beyond the current encouragement for separate collection, we suggest to set legal obligations for a minimum rate of separate collection, starting with biowaste, in the framework of the review of the WFD by 2014. In the meantime, an economic analysis for integrated collection and treatment cost should be established and circulated by EC. In the framework of WFD implementation, promoting separate collection as the default choice should be further promoted for the establishment of national Waste Management Plans to be reviewed by EC. As part of the notification format for these plans, there should be a requirement for sound cost/benefit analysis of integrated approach with minimum criteria to be respected. The burden of proof should be put on deviating from this default separate collection approach, and not on justifying it.
having been recycled and to make the respect of these criteria a condition for contributing to legal achievements. The work undertaken to define End of Waste criteria could be an inspiration to this process, as it defines requirements for inputs, process, outputs, information and quality assurance system. As a result of such standards or harmonized criteria, recycling achievements should be based on outputs of treatment rather than on the quantity sent as inputs to final recovery operations. Additionally, it would minimize the shipment for recycling outside EU, as receiving facilities abroad should also report on their outputs, for MS to pretend this contributes to their legal recycling objectives. In that perspective we call for the cultivation of local coalitions between NGOs and recyclers to put pressure on decision makers at EU and national levels.
Establishing a broadly accepted LCT methodology for the application of the waste treatment hierarchy. The guidelines of the European Commission have not proven sufficiently clear to address this issue leaving a lot of space for derogations. At the moment, the diversity of methods used provides the ground to decision makers to justify any convenient decision. This standardized LCA method should be used to support decision-making at a regional level bearing in mind that in principle the hierarchy should not be deviated from. Target setting for prevention, reuse and biowaste recycling. Targets have been proven a powerful driver for better environmental performance. Bio-waste targets, prevention targets and reuse targets all need to be developed in the perspective of 2014 WFD review. Clarification of the status of co-incineration/ co-processing in order to avoid large amounts of recyclables vanishing into cement kilns and set some guidelines as a condition to consider co-incineration preferable to disposal.
Establish harmonized recycling criteria, linked to legal obligations by MS. Today, what can be considered as recycled material depends on the MS and local facilities. According to the legal provisions, it is enough to send a certain amount of waste to a final recovery/recycling plant to consider the shipment as totally recycled. This clearly creates various standards and quality levels. This also does not trigger the implementation of best technologies for maximizing recycling. The current formulation leaves too much space for ambiguity regarding how to consolidate achievements if based on inputs to final recycling/recovery. Given the losses due to material inadequacy and procedural inefficiencies, calculation of the output will set the level of ambition higher than previously and be a driver of the improvement of the recycling infrastructure. We suggest establishing standards and/or harmonized criteria for when a material can be considered as
3.6.2 On the links with infrastructure: Embed waste policy principles as conditionality clauses for EU funding. Despite the introduction of the waste hierarchy, there are several cases of EU funding for landfill and incineration construction, which are not at all subordinated to a sound prevention and recycling policy. Making the integration of good waste policy principles a condition of receiving EU funding could mean, for example, that funding would only provide for incineration as long as a separate collections system for recycling is established first.
Investigate the feasibility of performance contracts for waste management. Promoting a waste operator model that integrates the concept of waste avoidance and recycling optimization into the mid term contract bid. This idea could take inspiration from the energy performance contracts targeting energy savings rather than energy delivering. From an integrated waste point of view this could mean a financial bonus for waste being prevented or recycling improvements compared to waste incineration/disposal. Set allocation rules for landfill or incineration taxes. Introduce mechanisms to ensure financial transparency, in order that waste management fees can be allocated to the improvement of waste management infrastructure or related awareness campaigns (particularly prevention actions). Today, part of the collected fees can be simply included in the overall budget of a MS or a regional administration, not leading to any leveraging effect in terms of climbing up the hierarchy.
A radical idea of the Association of Cities and Regions for Recycling and Sustainable Resources Management (ACR+) on how to assess the respect of hierarchy In the context of notifying the Waste management plans to check their compliance with the binding hierarchy, the federation of European municipalities, ACR+, engaged for ambitious waste management, has suggested a simple yet provocative vision. They suggest that the best way to check the efforts by MS to conform to the binding hierarchy is to relate it to their budget and expected expenditures. The hierarchy should be reflected in the budget allocations. As a consequence, the prevention budget should be more than recycling budget, which should be more than the energy recovery budget and disposal etc.
3.6.3 Data availability and comparability: Harmonization of calculation methods and data collection. In order to assess the level of progress regarding the targets set by the WFD it is important to establish credible calculation methods. Excess flexibility and margin of discretion for the Member States on the choice of calculation methods (apart from drawing a plasmatic image of the level of progress) can intensify the discrepancies between member states who intend to manipulate the data and those who do not. It is characteristic that in the case of municipal solid waste/ household waste there are 4 available calculation methods, which can be used alternatively till they provide the desired outcome.
4.0
Main References
The following studies and reports highlight the main tenets of European waste policy and its inherent implications. Nevertheless, the list, going back to 1995, is not exhaustive but rather highlights the persistency of the problems and reveals some of the reasons that sparked the elaboration of this report:
Implementation Reports to the EC from 1995 - 2006 Reviewing backwards the timeline of European waste policy in order to view the differentiated range of progress between the MS. The enlargement of the EU and the accession of less developed countries have unavoidably contributed into deepening the gap between the MS in environmental protection matters. Study on the feasibility of the establishment of a Waste Implementation Agency - Milieu - December 2009 Despite the inconclusive consultation on the possible establishment of a Waste Implementation Agency, the initiative to commission such a study is a corroboration of the persistency of the problem. The review of thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of waste- European Commission-January 2011 This report sets a long-term goal for the EU to become a recycling society and use waste as a resource. Study on Coherence of waste legislation - BIO Intelligence March 2011 this report intends to identify and elaborate on inconsistencies, overlaps and gaps in waste legislation by studying comparatively specific waste stream Directives.
The Use Of Economic Instruments and Waste Management Performances- Institute of European Environmental Policy - October 2011 this report identifies existing economic instruments associated to waste management in different MS and assessed their relevance and conditions for operability. Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth Report - BIO Intelligence - November 2011 This study intends to present policy options to the EC that will enable the MS to better grasp the benefits of the European waste policy. Guidance on permitting and inspection of waste management operations- BIPRO- January 2012 this study intends to identify best practices on permitting and inspection of waste facilities throughout the EU.
charts and figures
5.0
Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 4 How much can recycling contribute to consumption? How is civil society involved? Percentage of municipal waste that is sent to landfill in the EU-27, 1995 and 1997
Figure 3 Environment infringement cases by sector
Figure 5 Is there any reference to prevention action? Figure 6 Is there any objective or target set regarding prevention? Figure 7 Are there any monitoring schemes for waste prevention? Figure 8 Are there national rules on consultations and involvement of the civil society? Figure 9 Separate collection - More expensive? Figure 10 Cost of collection and cost of treatment disposal Figure 11 Waste treatment hierarchy Figure 12 Are there any monitoring schemes for waste prevention? Tables Table 1 Barriers to full implementation for EU Commission and for Member States
6.0
Waste Hierarchy
footnotes
#12 The Use Of Economic Instruments and Waste Management
Performances- Institute of European Environmental PolicyIntermediary session - October 2011
#1 See Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green

Growth Report by BIO Intelligence - November 2011. See Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth Report by BIO Intelligence- November 2011
#2 The Waste Framework Directive is referred to as 2008/98/

EC. Throughout the whole report, this will be referred to as the WFD.
#13 Arcadis- Preparatory study for the review of the thematic

strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste pg. 13
#14
#3 Client Earth-10 December 2010 Legislative briefing- The EU #4

Friends of the Earth-September 2010 More jobs less waste (http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/jobs_ recycling.pdf) EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe- http://ec.europa.eu/environment/resource_ efficiency/pdf/com2011_571.pdf
For more details on landfill situation in Estonia, see the presentation by Peeter Eek in Tallinn - FEAD seminar 2009 http://www.ejkl.ee/content/files/PEek,FEAD.pdf Instruments, Pg. 7
#15 IEEP Background Document on Waste Economic #16 Umweltbudesamt, Germany- Report on the Development
of scientific and technical foundations for a national waste prevention programme
#5 COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE
#17 Affaldsstrategi 10 - http://www.mst.dk/NR/

rdonlyres/5944D6BF-C455-4A94-A7D1-9062ED0173A0/0/ Affaldsstrategi10.pdf
#18 Enzo Favoino - Agricultural school of Monza Italy - Cost

benefit of separate collection
#6 EEA- Recycling current and potential contribution (*) to

meeting EU demand for various materials, 2006- http:// www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/recyclingscurrent-and-potential-contribution
#19 In an article dated 2004, Enzo Favoino, from shows how

the separate collection of biowaste from households can also help to optimize the overall collection MSW collection costs, mainly by reducing the frequency of collection for residual waste and adapting the fleet of vehicles. This additional collection optimization could reinforce further the profitability of separate collection for biowaste.
#7
Briefly, according to option A the European Commission other than improving its current procedures takes up the monitoring e and auditing of national control and inspection systems for waste management schemes in Member States . Option B expands EEAs analytical and monitoring potential without though attributing any political role . Finally, option C suggests the foundation of a dedicated agency shouldered with the execution of all relevant tasks . See Implementing EU Waste legislation for green growth - BIO Intellignce - Final Report - Pg. 88-102 and for Member States- Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth Final Report Pg. 49
#20 In this perspective, the recent report on Implementing

Waste policy for Green Growth is paradigmatic and confirms all previous studies on the potential of waste implementation. See Implementing EU Waste legislation for green growth - BIO Intelligence - Final Report-Nov 2011
#8 Table 16: Barriers to full implementation for EU Commission
#21
Preparatory Study For The Review Of The Thematic Strategy On The Prevention And Recycling Of Waste preamble
#22 Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste#23 Article 1 of the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC #24 Recital 6 of the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/E #25 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying
the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste.
#9
Preparing for the Review of the Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste Final Report October 2010-BIO Intellignce -Page 113 the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste, Figure 25 Pg.41
#10 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying
#11 Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the

landfill of waste
#26
FoE Briefing 2009- Recycling collections source separated or commingled?
2012 European Environmental Bureau (EEB) Boulevard deWaterloo 34, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium www.eeb.org

EEB Waste Report 2012

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

EEB Waste Report 2012

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

P U B LIS H ED B Y EE B A P RIL 2 0 1 2

Throwing away the chance to improve waste policy?

EUROPES LARGEST FEDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZENS ORGANISATIONS

THROWING AWAY THE CHANCE TO IMPROVE WASTE POLICY

A report conducted by the European Environmental Bureau Thanks

Publisher EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENTAL BUREAU (EEB)

Tel +32 2 289 1090 Fax +32 2 289 1099

Angeliki Malizou, Stephane Arditi Editor responsible

Jeremy Wates (EEB Secretary General) Editor in Chief

THROWING AWAY THE CHANCE TO IMPROVE WASTE POLICY

2.0 Tools and methodology........................................................ 3.0 Analysis of Concerns......................................................... 3.1 3.2

5.0 Charts and figures............................................................ 6.0 Footnotes.........................................................................

THROWING AWAY THE CHANCE TO IMPROVE WASTE POLICY

THROWING AWAY THE CHANCE TO IMPROVE WASTE POLICY

Background and aims

Figure 1: How much can recycling contribute to consumption6

THROWING AWAY THE CHANCE TO IMPROVE WASTE POLICY

THROWING AWAY THE CHANCE TO IMPROVE WASTE POLICY

Tools and methodology

THROWING AWAY THE CHANCE TO IMPROVE WASTE POLICY

THROWING AWAY THE CHANCE TO IMPROVE WASTE POLICY

Not ofcially involved Personal meeting Ofcial Consulation

THROWING AWAY THE CHANCE TO IMPROVE WASTE POLICY

THROWING AWAY THE CHANCE TO IMPROVE WASTE POLICY

THROWING AWAY THE CHANCE TO IMPROVE WASTE POLICY

THROWING AWAY THE CHANCE TO IMPROVE WASTE POLICY

3.2 Summary of recommendations

THROWING AWAY THE CHANCE TO IMPROVE WASTE POLICY

THROWING AWAY THE CHANCE TO IMPROVE WASTE POLICY

THROWING AWAY THE CHANCE TO IMPROVE WASTE POLICY

Is there any reference to prevention action

THROWING AWAY THE CHANCE TO IMPROVE WASTE POLICY

3.4 Summary of recommendations

THROWING AWAY THE CHANCE TO IMPROVE WASTE POLICY

THROWING AWAY THE CHANCE TO IMPROVE WASTE POLICY

Figure 10: Cost optimisation (Lombardy, 1500 Municipalities

Figure 9: Separate Collection - more expensive?

Separate collection (%)

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

THROWING AWAY THE CHANCE TO IMPROVE WASTE POLICY

Prevention Preparing for use Recycling Other recovery Disposal

THROWING AWAY THE CHANCE TO IMPROVE WASTE POLICY

State of preparation Quantitative prevention:

THROWING AWAY THE CHANCE TO IMPROVE WASTE POLICY

THROWING AWAY THE CHANCE TO IMPROVE WASTE POLICY

THROWING AWAY THE CHANCE TO IMPROVE WASTE POLICY

3.6 Summary of recommendations

THROWING AWAY THE CHANCE TO IMPROVE WASTE POLICY

charts and figures

Figure 3 Environment infringement cases by sector

THROWING AWAY THE CHANCE TO IMPROVE WASTE POLICY

#1 See Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green

#2 The Waste Framework Directive is referred to as 2008/98/

#13 Arcadis- Preparatory study for the review of the thematic

#3 Client Earth-10 December 2010 Legislative briefing- The EU #4

#5 COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE

#17 Affaldsstrategi 10 - http://www.mst.dk/NR/

#18 Enzo Favoino - Agricultural school of Monza Italy - Cost

#6 EEA- Recycling current and potential contribution (*) to

#19 In an article dated 2004, Enzo Favoino, from shows how

#20 In this perspective, the recent report on Implementing

#8 Table 16: Barriers to full implementation for EU Commission

#10 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying

#11 Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the