Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the 'Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the review of the Community strategy for waste management` (97/C 116/10)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Communication from the Commission on the review of the Community Strategy for Waste Management (COM(96) 399 final);

having regard to the Commission decision of 2 August 1996 to consult the Economic and Social Committee;

having regard to its decision of 8 March 1996, pursuant to Article 198c, to instruct Commission 5 to draw up this opinion;

having regard to the Commission 5 opinion adopted on 20 November 1996, with Jens Kramer Mikkelsen as rapporteur,

unanimously adopted the following opinion at its 16th plenary session on 15 and 16 January 1997 (meeting of 16 January).

INTRODUCTION

1. In September 1989 the Commission drafted its first communication to the Council on a Community strategy for waste disposal (). The Council and the Parliament adopted this strategy in their respective Resolutions of 7 May 1990 () and 19 February 1991 (). Also, the Parliament presented in its Resolution of 22 April 1994 arguments for further development of community waste-management strategy ().

2. The latest Communication from the Commission on the Review of the Community strategy for waste management retains the previously adopted waste-management hierarchy. The emphasis in the review is on the prevention of waste as a first priority, recovery as the second priority and disposal (including incineration operations without energy recovery) as the third priority. A new element in the review is that preference should in general be given to the recovery of material over energy-recovery operations.

3. The review includes a summary of the currently applicable principles for waste management: first, that waste must be disposed of as close to the source as possible (the proximity principle) and, second, that each Member State must be self-sufficient with respect to waste-disposal facilities (the self-sufficiency principle).

GENERAL REMARKS

4. The waste management strategy has clearly proved to be ineffective. Waste production continues to increase on a Community scale, and there is no sign that community policies in this area have had proven results. Waste is a form of pollution that causes extremely serious environmental problems. The contamination of groundwater as a result of improper waste disposal and air pollution as a result of inadequate incineration are just two of the problems caused by waste on a daily basis. Also, the huge amounts of waste produced are an expression of a blind and ruthless exploitation of our natural resources which is unsustainable and which we will regret on our descendants' behalf.

5. Against this backdrop, the Committee of the Regions welcomes this initiative of the Commission. There has been a need for an update of waste management strategy for several years. Although the basic principles should be retained, experience since the strategy was formulated shows that an adjustment and renewal of the strategy is necessary, although the basic principles should be retained.

6. In the opinion of the Committee of the Regions, the Commission's waste management strategy should await the results of the current review of the fifth environmental action programme. The fifth environmental action programme affects future waste management strategy in a number of vital areas. As a result, and as a result of the greater legitimacy which the action programme will enjoy once it is adopted in accordance with the procedure in Article 189B of the Treaty, it is the opinion of the Committee of the Regions that the waste management strategy and its implementation should be adapted to conform to the action programme.

7. The Committee of the Regions also finds that the central role the regions play in waste management planning, implementation and operations should be described more clearly in the reviewed strategy. This does not contain a goal-orientated strengthening of the instruments which should be utilized to ensure smoothly functioning waste management systems which meet Community environmental objectives.

8. The European regions are often responsible for waste management, and the waste management sector is for the most part run and coordinated by local or regional authorities, thereby ensuring that waste management systems are adapted to local conditions.

9. In this connection, waste planning is an important management instrument for local and regional authorities which helps them design suitable waste management systems and services. It is the view of the Committee of the Regions that it will in the future be necessary to give added weight to this instrument.

10. According to the review, material recovery is to be given higher priority than energy recovery; the Commission is also of the opinion that waste should be sorted at the source. The Committee of the Regions agrees with both points of view, but would like to point out that, in order to achieve a satisfactory degree of source separation, regulatory instruments must be developed which ensure that source separation does take place.

11. In the review, product manufacturers play the predominant role because they have a high degree of influence on their products and thereby on the extent and composition of the resultant waste. The Committee of the Regions agrees, but must also stress that the role of the waste producer in waste management must also be considered predominant. The waste producer is the only part of the waste stream able to ensure pure source-separated materials for recycling. If the waste produced at source is mixed, then the prospects for subsequent recycling to achieve materials of a high quality are considerably poorer.

12. It is the opinion of the Committee of the Regions that before the strict waste treatment requirements can be met it is necessary to establish smoothly functioning and coherent waste management systems in the individual regions of Europe. It is the opinion of the Committee of the Regions, that waste management should be subject to a high degree of subsidiarity.

13. The review is very much based on the qualities of waste as goods. In this connection, the Committee of the Regions would like to underscore the special nature of these goods: they may cause environmental damage. The environmental protection factor may thus give rise to exceptions from the principle of free movement of goods.

14. Waste should be considered primarily as an environmental problem, and it is the opinion of the Committee of the Regions that the consideration of the nature of the waste as a commercial good should not obstruct environmental protection concerns. This point of view is in line with the fact, that as well the general directive on waste (Council Directive 75/442/EEC () as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC) () and the Regulation on transport of waste (93/259/EEC) () have authority in the Article 130S of the Treaty.

15. The special nature of wastes also means that there is no normal market regulation of trade in these goods. Since waste for recycling may have a negative value, there is often a risk that waste is managed in an uncontrolled and environmentally unsound manner. As a result, it is necessary to ensure a regulation of waste streams that is based on sound environmental criteria.

16. The Commission bases its review on the proximity principle applying only to waste for final disposal, not to waste for recovery. The Committee of the Regions must point out that under European Court of Justice decision C-155/91 the competent authorities may restrict the shipment of waste for recovery as well as final disposal on the grounds of adopted waste management plans (cf. Article 7 of the waste management directive). It is the opinion of the Committee of the Regions that this possibility is essential also in the future. It is important to create a framework promoting the recycling of secondary raw materials.

REMARKS ON THE INDIVIDUAL SECTIONS OF THE COMMUNICATION

1. Introduction

17. The Committee of the Regions has with satisfaction noted that the Review of the waste management strategy specifies that the strategy must be reviewed again after five years. It is the opinion of the Committee of the Regions that a waste management strategy should be a dynamic tool which sets the guidelines for the work in the years to come.

18. As a result, the Committee of the Regions finds that it is of considerable importance that the strategy and its implementation is adapted to the Fifth Environmental Action Programme when the final version of the Programme is issued.

2. The context

19. In the review, the Commission explains the principles of proximity and self-sufficiency and states that these principles have been incorporated into the Community waste management legislation enacted since the strategy was adopted. However, the Commission also points out that these principles have not been applied to the recovery of waste.

20. The Committee of the Regions would like to draw attention to Article 7 of the Waste Management Directive (75/442/EEC, as amended by 91/156/EEC) which authorizes Member States/competent authorities to restrict the shipment of waste for recovery as well as waste for disposal, as long as such shipment does not comply with their waste management plans. This principle has also been fully incorporated in the Articles 4 and 7 of the Council Regulation on the monitoring and control of the transport of waste (93/259/EEC). Waste management plans are thus a crucial instrument in securing proper waste handling and treatment at a local and regional level (see also 3.4 below on the shipment of waste).

21. Placing the responsibility for waste planning at a local or regional level also creates the best basis for avoiding the NIMBY effects have prevented effective waste solutions in some areas. Local and regional authorities have a particularly important role to play in involving their communities in decision-making and working to develop a consensus in this complex and controversial area. The work on Local Agenda 21 being pursued by many local authorities throughout Europe is a key mechanism for consulting different sectors within the community and generating public involvement.

22. In the review, the Commission also interprets the self-sufficiency principle such that it is considered to be applicable primarily at a Community level. The Committee of the Regions does not agree with this interpretation. The Committee of the Regions must point out that the self-sufficiency principle is of vital importance for the local and regional authorities in order to ensure the fulfilling of the targets in waste management. This principle obliges each Member State to provide an integrated and adequate network of waste disposal installations, cf. Article 5 of the Waste Management Directive. The idea behind such a network is to ensure that the waste can be disposed of as close to the source as possible.

23. The Committee of the Regions has with satisfaction noted that it is the goal of the Commission to ensure that the same standards are set for waste treatment in industrial installations as for treatment in waste treatment installations. It is the view of the Committee of the Regions that this principle can be brought to bear in all future regulations and directives issued in the waste area, e.g. the upcoming establishment of new rules for the incineration of waste.

24. The Committee of the Regions also agrees that the terminology used in the waste area should be adjusted. According to the review, if Member States do not consider the EC list of hazardous waste to be satisfactory, then they may add further types of waste to the list. However, Member States must also notify the Commission of any such additions. Since the hazardous waste list was established on the basis of Article 130S of the Treaty, the Committee of the Regions assumes that this committee procedure will not impede such list additions by Member States.

25. The central role played in the waste area by local and regional authorities provide good opportunities to coordinate efforts with the Local Agenda 21 activities. The Committee of the Regions believes that the Commission's strategy should emphasize the importance of this and thus help boost the active participation of citizens in achieving objectives in the area of waste.

26. Finally, the Committee of the Regions also endorses the efforts of the Commission to ensure the collection of sufficient data to support future efforts.

3. Objectives

3.1. General principles of Community waste management policy

27. The review confirms the hierarchy of waste management principles which was established in the strategy document of 1989. The prevention of the generation of waste remains the first priority, with recovery and disposal respectively as the second and third priorities.

28. It appears from the review, that the Commission intends to make proposals for fixed targets for production and recovery of wastes. The Committee of the Regions is in favour of fixed minimum targets. However, it is not described in the review how these targets should be reached. The reliability of fixed minimum targets in this area is closely connected to the availability of the adequate regulatory instruments for the local and regional authorities, who should meet these targets. Complementary measures could be necessary when other actors, such as manufacturers, are obliged to achieve objectives in this area.

29. The review states that the product manufacturer plays a predominant role in the life cycle of a product, from production to sale, consumption, waste collection and waste treatment. Since the manufacturer takes decisions concerning the design and composition of the product, he also has a great deal of influence on the potential of the product as regards recovery and disposal when it becomes waste.

30. The Committee of the Regions agrees with the principle that product manufacturers should have a considerable share of the responsibility to ensure that the production, use and final disposal of their products gives rise to the fewest possible environmental problems and the lowest possible consumption of resources - also, in certain cases, that the manufacturer must ensure adequate treatment facilities to process materials. This is also in accordance with the polluter-pays principle.

31. However, the Committee of the Regions must point out that the role of the product manufacturer is limited by his lack of influence on how the waste is handled by the waste producer. Whether or not the individual waste fractions can be reused, recycled, etc. depends very much on the actions of the enterprise or activity, that actually discard the product as waste, the waste producer. The waste producer also decides whether or not he mixes the waste fractions he produces. If the waste producer mixes these fractions in an inexpedient manner, it will lead to a contamination of otherwise pure and easily recyclable fractions, which means that recycling of this waste is prevented or made substantially more difficult or expensive.

32. In the opinion of the Committee of the Regions, the waste producer, as the only actor who can ensure a sufficiently careful separation of the waste, should have the primary responsibility for doing so. If the waste producer through sorting of the waste is becoming aware of his types and amounts of waste, it will change his behaviour against the product manufacturer. Thus the waste producer should, as is the case with the product manufacturer, in this way be made to play a predominant role.

33. Making the product manufacturer responsible for collection and separation may at worst lead to the establishment of costly parallel systems in which the waste for which the manufacturer is responsible is collected and separated in a system parallel to a locally or regionally organized system. This would create an unnecessary duplication of costs for collection, and it may also be difficult to maintain an adequate level of quality in the recyclable materials collected.

34. The Committee of the Regions also wishes to call attention to the inexpediency of the establishment of parallel systems and to stress the importance of coordinating the responsibility for the establishment of collection systems with the authorities responsible for waste planning. It must be underlined, that to the extent that the introduction of producer responsibility and possible parallel systems are leading to increased costs be imposed on local authorities, this is absolutely unacceptable.

35. In the view of the Committee of the Regions, a direct placing of the collection responsibility with the product manufacturer will have the greatest effect where it is possible in practice for the manufacturer to receive his own products. Examples of this are end-of-life automobiles and used refrigerators, fractions which are easy to separate.

36. In the review, the Commission points out that the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that the product can be recovered or disposed of correctly after use is in accordance with the principle of shared responsibility as described in the Fifth Environmental Action Programme.

37. The Committee of the Regions wishes to point out that the principle of shared responsibility as formulated in the Fifth Environmental Action Programme requires an effort from all economic operators. For this reason, the Committee of the Regions wishes to stress that this principle should also be applied in the establishment of a waste management strategy so that the product manufacturer, waste producer and all other economic operators receive the necessary attention in the Commission's administration of the strategy.

38. It is also the opinion of the Committee of the Regions that if the principle of shared responsibility is to be implemented in the waste sector, it will be necessary for the authorities to follow up on the actions of the actors and to ensure an adequate treatment capacity for recyclable materials and particularly difficult waste fractions. The authorities in charge of waste management must thus be equipped with adequate regulatory instruments to allow them to perform this task.

39. In the view of the Committee of the Regions, agreements between the Community and, for example, trade organizations concerning the establishing of take-back schemes, etc. for recyclable products with a view to implementation of the principle of producer responsibility must be considered a part of the fulfilment of Community objectives in the environment area under Article 130R of the Treaty. For this reason, implementation of such agreements must, according to Article 130S of the Treaty, be adopted according to the procedure described in Article 189C of the Treaty.

40. This would ensure that none of the above-mentioned inexpedient side effects of any such agreements would arise as a result of Community decisions.

3.2. Specific objectives

41. The Committee of the Regions agrees with the Commission in its intentions concerning the prevention of waste generation. It is clear that previous efforts in this area have proved insufficient and that there is a need for more work in this area.

42. The Committee of the Regions especially endorses the Commission's efforts to minimize the hazardousness of waste. Thus the Committee of the Regions agrees that bans on and low maximum permissible limits of certain substances in waste should be introduced at a Community level.

43. The Committee of the Regions also concurs in the Commission's desire that measures should be taken to minimize levels of heavy metals in specific products and production processes. In the opinion of the Committee of the Regions, however, it should also be possible to institute such measures against other hazardous substances as well.

44. The Committee of the Regions shares the opinion of the Commission that reuse should be promoted, since it reduces the generation of waste. As a consequence, the Committee of the Regions believes that reuse should have a higher priority than recycling of materials.

45. According to the review, material recovery should be given a higher priority than energy recovery. Generally speaking, the Committee of the Regions does indeed agree with this, but wishes to point out that the positive effects of material recovery mentioned by the Commission depend on source separation. The communication does not, however, specify ways to ensure that source separation takes place. Also, the Committee of the Regions wishes to underline, that the principle of giving priority to material recovery must be applied with flexibility, to take account of specific geographical circumstances such as population density and the availability of reprocessing facilities, as well as the properties of the materials concerned.

46. An effective and adequate source separation of waste depends on the existence of regulatory instruments which affect waste producers. The Committee of the Regions wishes to emphasize once more the need for adequate instruments in the hands of the competent authorities.

47. To minimize the amount of waste to be landfilled, a crucial factor - as the Commission suggested - will be the formulation of quality criteria for the waste to be disposed in this manner. In the opinion of the Committee of the Regions, similar steps should be taken with respect to waste for incineration, so that the amount of recyclable or non-combustible waste incinerated is minimized through suitable source separation programmes. These programmes should be included in waste management plans. In pursuing this objective the Committee of the Regions admits that it is necessary to recognise that different situations exist in the Member States and that these must be taken into account.

48. The Commission mentions in its review that, as a result of the proximity principle, an integrated and adequate network of waste disposal installations is to be set up all throughout the Community. As also mentioned by the Commission, waste management plans will be of considerable importance in ensuring that this network is established. The role of waste management planning, however, is not defined in the strategy, nor is the function of waste management planning under Article 7 of the Waste Management Directive described. The Committee of the Regions believes that a more precise definition is needed of the possible ways in which waste management planning can ensure a coherent and smoothly functioning waste management system; it is also necessary to stress that waste management plans ensure adaptation of these systems to local and regional conditions.

As a consequence of the proximity principle, it should be possible in frontier areas between Member States to have a waste management plan for a trans-frontier region, if conditions make it evident and the competent authorities agree on it.

49. In the view of the Committee of the Regions, individual Member States as well as local and regional authorities should apply the strategy according to local circumstances to secure development of more sustainable waste management practices. It should be remembered that a policy, which seeks to bring fundamental changes in waste management methods over a short timescale may create acute budgetary problems for local authorities.

3.3. Priority waste streams

50. According to the review, the Commission is of the opinion that no new priority waste stream projects should be initiated. The Committee of the Regions agrees with this assessment. Previous experience with this type of project shows that there is a need for considerable changes to the concept, e.g. with respect to the representation of various interest groups in the project groups.

51. It is thus the view of the Committee of the Regions that a new procedure should be developed to replace the existing procedures in connection with the priority waste streams. Some waste fractions which should be considered after the establishment of possible new procedures are laboratory waste, waste from genetic engineering activities, waste from ships and waste from the use of chemical pesticides in agriculture.

3.4. The shipment of waste

52. In its review, the Commission presents a new interpretation of a number of existing EU regulations and European Court of Justice decisions. It is stated that the principles of proximity and self-sufficiency apply only to waste for disposal; on this basis, the Commission assumes that there is free circulation of waste for recovery within the EC. The Committee of the Regions does not agree with this interpretation.

53. In this connection, the Committee of the Regions must point out that this interpretation will lead to a number of new and greater environmental problems, and it will remove the basis for satisfactory and coherent waste planning as already laid down in Community rules and regulations. Moreover, it is the opinion of the Committee of the Regions that this interpretation is not in accordance with the current Waste Management Directive (75/442/EEC, as amended by 91/156/EEC), and that the most recent interpretation runs counter to previous Court decisions (section 14, Case C-155/91).

54. The abovementioned Court ruling and Community rules and regulations underscore how important it is to be able to restrict the shipment of waste, including waste for recovery, if such shipment is in conflict with an adopted waste management plan. Thus, according to the abovementioned Court ruling, the shipment of waste for recovery operations can be restricted under Article 7 of the Waste Management Directive if such shipment is not in keeping with waste management plans.

55. It is the view of the Committee of the Regions that the Commission's interpretation, which would involve the free circulation of waste within the EU, would if implemented lead to considerable damage to the environment. The specific nature of wastes as goods results in the lack of a normal market regulation of the waste (goods) stream. The 'seller` of waste for recovery would thus often have no interest in whether or not the waste is treated in an environmentally sound manner; his primary concern is avoiding a continues responsibility for the waste. Also the 'buyer` of waste would also often not be interested in the composition and nature of the waste - if only smaller or particular parts of the waste are relevant to the objectives of the buyer.

56. The specific nature of wastes as goods would thus, in the opinion of the Committee of the Regions, lead to a compelling need for waste streams to be regulated in an expedient manner based on environmental criteria.

57. The substantial environmental impact of the shipment of heavy loads of waste provides in itself grounds to restrict shipments of large amounts of waste as much as possible.

58. If actual targets are set for recovery and material recycling in excess of what can be secured as a consequence of the mechanisms of market economics, then such targets will make it necessary to find a way to ensure adequate waste treatment capacity. Should this capacity also have to be established in accordance with market economics principles, then it would be necessary to ensure or render probable a supply of waste. This means that a controlled planning of the available waste streams would be necessary as well.

59. In the opinion of the Committee of the Regions, it is paradoxical that recycling activities established as a consequence of waste planning could, if the review is implemented, result in recycling activities no longer being included in waste management plans, thus providing increasingly poorer conditions for the establishment of new recycling schemes and greater difficulties in maintaining the results already achieved.

60. Irrespective of the interpretation of the proximity and self-sufficiency principles applied, the review specifies that an environmentally sound management of waste for recovery must be ensured. Against this background, it is necessary to apply strict standards for waste treatment throughout the Community. In the opinion of the Committee of the Regions, however, it is precisely the environmental aims of waste regulation which lead us to conclude that harmonized standards should not be fixed standards, but instead, in continuation of Article 130T of the Treaty, minimum standards which would allow individual Member States to implement stricter requirements than those in force for the Community as a whole.

4. Instruments

4.1. Regulatory instruments

61. The Commission suggests that targets should be set which lead to measurable results in the area of waste. It is not described which instruments are available for the competent authority to reach these targets. Key elements such as waste planning, regulations, inspection, enforcement, waste collection and waste treatment are often the responsibility of local and regional authorities. The Committee of the Regions finds that an explanation is lacking of how the role of such instruments is secured for reaching the specified objectives. The Commission does not describe what the connection should be between the proposed targets, the related instruments and the waste management plans adopted.

62. The Committee of the Regions must emphasize again that if actual targets are set for the recovery and recycling of waste, then it is crucial that these targets are followed up by adequate instruments which the competent authorities can use. It is also crucial that the adopted waste management plans take into account the objectives set and specify how these objectives are to be met. It is the opinion of the Committee of the Regions that regulatory instruments must be established before a source separation system can be set up which enables the achievement of such objectives.

4.2. Economic instruments

63. The Commission asks the Member States to introduce economic instruments which would especially promote the recycling of waste and non-polluting products. The Committee of the Regions agrees, given that the economic instruments are very flexible.

4.3. Waste statistics

64. The Committee of the Regions regrets the limited statistical base available on waste at a Community level. It is the opinion of the Committee of the Regions that a better base can be secured through better cooperation among the local and regional authorities.

4.4. Other management instruments

65. According to the review, Member States have prepared national waste management plans to a limited extent only. Waste management plans are to be drafted by the competent authorities appointed to do so in each Member State. In the opinion of the Committee of the Regions, this organization of waste planning is an excellent way to ensure that the necessary provision is made for local and regional conditions in the preparation and implementation of waste management plans. Thus the adoption of waste management plans is an area which should continue to be governed by the principle of subsidiarity.

66. In the light of the above, the Committee of the Regions wishes to stress that there exists a need for a clarification of the future role of waste management plans. The lack of a definition of the role this important planning instrument should play in the waste management strategy may have the result that this instrument is given too low a priority. If future fixed targets for recovery and recycling are to be reached, then in the opinion of the Committee of the Regions it is crucial that the competent authorities draft a satisfactory plan and that adequate regulatory instruments are available to implement the plan. As the Commission notes, this will have an effect on compliance with the principles of proximity and self-sufficiency.

67. The Committee of the Regions otherwise agrees that there is a need for an effective control and enforcement of the existing regulations in this area.

5. Actors

68. The Committee of the Regions welcomes the viewpoint of the Commission that local and regional authorities play an important role in the establishment of a sound waste management policy. However, the Committee of the Regions feels that the Review does not contain a clear understanding of the central role of the local and regional authorities in all parts of the waste management system and thus the strategy lacks proposed initiatives which would strengthen the instruments which should be used to achieve the objectives.

6. Comments on the conclusions in the strategy

69. The Committee of the Regions welcomes the Commission's initiative on a proposed new waste management strategy: the Committee of the Regions acknowledges that there is a need for a revision of the strategy and especially a need to ensure a greater effective implementation of the policies presented.

70. The Committee of the Regions is prepared to work together with the Commission to strengthen this implementation by, among other things, working with the Commission towards a better coherence between waste management policy on a local and regional level and waste management policy at Community level.

Brussels, 16 January 1997.

The Chairman of the Committee of the Regions

Pasqual MARAGALL i MIRA

() SEC(89) 934 final of 18 September 1989.

() OJ No C 122, 18. 5. 1990, p. 2.

() OJ No C 72, 13. 3. 1991, p. 34.

() OJ No C 128, 9. 5. 1994, p. 471.

() OJ No L 194, 25. 7. 1975, p. 39.

() OJ No L 78, 26. 3. 1991, p. 32.

() OJ No L 30, 6. 2. 1993, p. 1.