Getting to grips with waste

CEMR secretary general Jeremy Smith explains what is at stake for local authorities as parliament debates new waste proposals

On 9 May 2008, the European parliament’s environment committee voted on the revision of the waste framework directive. This is a typical “local issue”, since across Europe waste management is a competence of local authorities. Being the umbrella organisation of over 50 national associations of local and regional government, the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) had to make sure that the EU institutions listened to those who would have to implement the legislation.

Some 150 billion kilos of waste are produced each year in the EU, a trend that, far from going down, has been increasing steadily over the last 20 years. For this reason, the European commission proposed, in 2005, “to refresh” and to reinforce the existing waste framework directive. The commission’s aims were to make member states reduce the volume of waste and enhance the contribution of waste policy to the EU environmental goals.

The first step for CEMR was to work out a joint position with its members from across the EU and EFTA countries. This was achieved within a few months and with fruitful exchanges with other European associations and bodies such as the Committee of the Regions. Second, CEMR and its members sought to raise the awareness of MEPs ahead of each vote (the first and second readings in the environment committee and at the plenary), explaining why the suggested changes were important for Europe’s towns and their citizens.

CEMR and the European parliament found themselves on the same wavelength on the issue of recycling objectives. We feel that the EU, globally, should be able to recycle 50 per cent of the amount of waste it produces annually by 2020. However, since there are significant differences in terms of situation, technology and legislation from one EU member state to another, any target should provide the sufficient flexibility to take into account the widely diverging starting points in member states.

One of the most significant points of the revision of the directive relates to the European commission’s aim to promote energy recovery (that is, burning waste in order to produce electricity and heat). In other words, some incinerators merely burn waste in order to dispose of it, and in doing so consume energy and contribute to global warming, while others succeed in producing more energy than they use in burning waste. CEMR called on the EU institutions to clearly distinguish between these two types of incineration. From an environmental, energetic and economic view, it is essential to promote energy recovery incinerators, which cannot be put in the same category as landfill.

Another significant point relates to the definition of “waste”. What is waste? From which moment in the recycling process is waste not considered as waste anymore? These are crucial questions, since the answers will define the extent of the sphere of activity of the directive. We urged the EU institutions to make sure that the directive’s provisions be extremely precise on this point. Similarly, CEMR called on the EU to make a clear distinction between dangerous waste and other waste. Indeed, even the wording “directive on waste” involves the risk of weakening the distinction between these two types of waste. This is why we asked MEPs to make sure that the provisions on dangerous waste, containing substances classified as very toxic or harmful, are not diluted or weakened in the new directive.

The European parliament’s draft report called for member states to set up systems of separate waste collection, at least for paper, metals, plastic, glass, textiles, other biowaste, oils and dangerous waste, by 2015. However, CEMR considers that waste management depends too much on local conditions to establish one single rule for all. As I said earlier, the starting points are too different in terms of size, resources and technological development amongst our municipalities for the EU to impose one single date for all. We favour a more gradual approach. On the other hand, we are in favour of common provisions relating to the quality of biowaste, for example to support a single European market for compost since size, resources and technology factors are less relevant on this issue.

The European institutions work out and adopt legislative texts which in practice are addressed, such as in the case of waste, almost exclusively by local and regional government. The Council of European Municipalities and Regions consequently has the obligation to make sure that the “end product” of this framework directive reflects in a balanced way the need for better managing the hundreds of millions of tons of waste produced annually in the EU, while adapting it to the means and needs of around 100,000 local and regional councils.

CEMR’s position, elaborated with our member associations and sent to the European institutions, aims to show the way towards this balance. The outcome of the debates in the environment committee was favourable to the CEMR position on some key points such as the clarification of definitions, the reinforcement of provisions on hazardous waste and the recognition of energy efficient incinerators as recovery installations. Some unknowns remain regarding recycling targets and biowaste, however, which will require CEMR attention before the final vote in plenary on 17 June 2008.