EN

(...PICT...)|EUROPEAN COMMISSION|

Brussels, 18.5.2010

SEC(2010) 577 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Accompanying the Communication from the Commission On future steps in bio-waste management in the European Union

{COM(2010) 235 final}

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Accompanying the Communication from the Commission On future steps in bio-waste management in the European Union

Assessment of the management of bio-waste

Table of contents

1. Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties 6

1.1. Background study 6

1.2. Internal consultation 6

1.3. External consultation 6

2. Policy context 7

3. Problem definition 8

3.1. The nature of the problem 8

3.2. The issue of bio-waste in EU legislation and policy to date 12

3.3. What are the underlying drivers of sub optimal bio-waste management? 13

3.4. The right of the EU to act, subsidiarity 14

3.5. Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent? 17

4. Objectives of an EU initiative 17

5. Baseline scenario 18

5.1. Main assumptions 18

5.2. Construction of the baseline scenario 19

5.2.1. Bio-waste generation and composition 19

5.2.2. Collection coverage, needed and planned treatment capacities 19

5.2.3. Industrial waste 20

5.3. Analysis of the baseline scenario 20

5.3.1. Bio-waste generation 20

5.3.2. Bio-waste management 21

5.3.3. Implementation of existing legislation 22

5.3.4. Conclusions 24

6. Policy Options 25

6.1. Rejected options 25

6.1.1. Proportionality 25

6.1.2. Other rejected options 25

6.1.3. Options analysed but not developed into scenarios 26

6.1.4. Non-regulatory measures 26

6.2. Options shortlisted for scenario analysis 26

6.2.1. General assumptions for all scenarios 27

6.2.2. Scenario 1: Set compost standards only 28

6.2.3. Scenarios 2 and 2A: Compost standards + high biological treatment rates + waste prevention 29

6.2.4. Scenarios 3 and 3A: Compost standards + moderate biological treatment rates 29

6.3. Scenarios comparison and modelling 29

7. Analysis of impacts 30

7.1. General description of impacts 30

7.2. Environmental impacts 30

7.2.1. Direct emissions into the air 30

7.2.2. Production and consumption of energy 31

7.2.3. Use of compost/digestate on soil 32

7.2.4. Environmental impacts not quantified 32

7.2.5. Environmental impacts from changes in waste collection 32

7.2.6. Monetization of environmental impacts 33

7.3. Economic impacts 33

7.3.1. Financial cost of waste treatment technologies 33

7.3.2. Cost of separate collection 34

7.3.3. Administrative cost 35

7.3.4. Cost comparison of treatment techniques 35

7.4. Social impacts 35

7.4.1. Involvements of households 35

7.4.2. Effects on employment 36

7.4.3. Effects on workers and neighbours health of bio-waste treatment plants 36

7.5. Impacts on the specific group of stakeholders 36

7.6. Cost of prevention and possible impacts from waste prevention 37

8. Comparisons of scenarios 38

8.1. Assessment of impacts of the different scenarios 38

8.1.1. Scenario 1 - only compost standards 38

8.1.2. Scenarios 2 and 3 40

8.2. Comparison of policy scenarios and recommended scenario 46

8.3. Impacts of the recommended scenario 46

8.4. Possible EU initiatives to implement the recommended policy scenario 47

8.4.1. Waste prevention 48

8.4.2. Increasing the biological treatment of bio-waste 48

8.4.3. Demand-orientated measures to encourage the use of biologically treated bio-waste 49

8.5. Recommendation for next steps, proposed timing 50

9. Monitoring and evaluation 51

9.1. Indicators of progress towards meeting the objectives 51

9.2. Broad outline for possible monitoring and evaluation arrangements 51

List of the Annexes

Annex 1: Minutes from the last ISG meeting

Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation on bio-waste management – summary of comments

Annex 3: Potential contribution of bio-waste to the 2020 bio-fuel target – detailed calculation

Annex 4: Bio-waste generation assessment – main assumptions, results per Member State

Annex 5: Collection coverage per Member State

Annex 6: GHG and air pollutant emissions of bio-waste treatment methods

Annex 7: Energy consumed/produced for each bio-waste treatment method

Annex 8: Energy mix per Member State and monetisation of related environmental impacts

Annex 9: Use of Compost/Digestate: benefits and monetisation

Annex 10: Financial cost of bio-waste treatment methods

Annex 11: Comparisons of the costs of switch between treatment techniques, country by country

Annex 12: Monetisation of environmental impacts: basic data, case study (Czech Republic)

Annex 13: Summary of the potential impacts of compost standards (scenario 1)

Annex 14: Mass flow modification per Member State – scenarios 2 and 3

Annex 15: Cost, Benefit and GHG emission implication of Scenario 2 and 3 per Member State

Annex 16: Summary of the main uncertainties and their possible impacts on policy options

Annex 17: Benefits and drawbacks of different measures to introduce selected policy actions

Contents of figures:

Figure 1: Baseline scenario – projected bio-waste generation 2008 - 2020

Figure 2: Baseline scenario – projected evolution of bio-waste treatment 2008-2020

Figure 3: Scenario definition and level of ambition

Figure 4: Example of breakdown of financial costs: AD with biogas used as a vehicle fuel

Figure 5: Mass flow modifications of treatment flows by 2020

Figure 6: GHG emission relative to the baseline Scenario (year 2020) including biogenic carbon

Figure 7: GHG emission relative to the baseline Scenario (year 2020) excluding biogenic carbon

Figure 8: Total Financial and Environmental Costs of scenario over the period 2013-2020

Figure 9: Total Environmental Benefits of each scenario for the EU-27 (2013-2020) (NPV)

List of acronyms and abbreviations

AD: Anaerobic Digestion

AQ: Air Quality

CH4: Methane

CHP: Combined Heat and Power

CO 2 : Carbon dioxide

CO 2e : CO 2 equivalent

ETS: Green house gas emission trading scheme

EU-27: Current Member States

EU-15: European Union countries prior to 1 st May 2004

EU-12: New Member States after 1 st May 2004

GHG: Greenhouse Gases

ISG: Inter Service Group

IVC: In-vessel composting

IPCC: Intergovernmental panel on climate change

MBT: Mechanical-biological treatment

MSW: Municipal solid waste

Mt: Million tonnes

NGO's: Non Governmental Organisations

N 2 O: Nitrous oxide

NO x : Nitrogen oxides

NPV: Net Present Value

QAS: Quality Assurance Schemes

WFD: Waste Framework Directive (1998/2008/EC)

1. Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties

This assessment aims at assessing the management of bio-waste as requested by Article 22 of the Waste Framework Directive Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste, OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, p.3 .[1]

Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste, OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, p.3

1.1. Background study

Background data and information for this report were developed by a consortium of consultants - Arcadis and Eunomia - from January to November 2009. Interim results and draft reports were made available to stakeholders for comments and published online. The study is further referred to in this Assessment as the "Arcadis/Eunomia report "Assessment of the options to improve the management of bio-waste in the European Union", Arcadis/Eunomia, December 2009 ". All data mentioned in this Assessment originate from this study, unless mentioned otherwise.[2]

"Assessment of the options to improve the management of bio-waste in the European Union", Arcadis/Eunomia, December 2009

1.2. Internal consultation

An Interservice Steering Group (ISG) was created to follow the preparation of the Assessment. It was a continuation of the ISG established for the purposes of the Green Paper on the Management of Bio-waste in the EU. The ISG met twice: first to comment on the outline and policy scenarios of the Assessment and a second time to discuss the structure and the main messages from the Assessment. The following Commission services were engaged in the preparation of this Assessment: DG ECFIN, TREN, ENTR, RTD, AGRI, SANCO, JRC, SJ, and SG. Minutes from the last ISG meeting form the Annex 1 to this Assessment.

1.3. External consultation

DG ENV carried out a broad stakeholder consultation throughout the process of preparation of this IA. On 3 December 2008, the Commission's Green Paper on bio-waste management was adopted and published. A first round of consultation on this issue ended mid-March 2009. In this process, the stakeholders were asked questions concerning various policy and technology options and expected future developments in the area of bio-waste management.

Almost 150 comments were received and made public on a specific CIRCA website http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/biowaste_prop/home All references to CIRCA in the text refer to this website . A summary of the comments is given in Annex 2. This website was also used to host deliverables from the Arcadis/Eunomia study and comments thereto. From spring 2009, interested stakeholders were regularly informed via a website dedicated to the issue of biodegradable waste management http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/compost/index.htm .[3][4]

http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/biowaste_prop/home All references to CIRCA in the text refer to this website

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/compost/index.htm

On 9-10 July 2009, DG ENV together with 3 Member States (Belgium, the Czech Republic and Germany) co-organised a conference on bio-waste which gave the stakeholders an opportunity to further comment on the issue.

The conference was open to the public and around 200 participants actively attended the meeting Proceedings are published on the http://www.biowaste.eu . Several Member States, environmental NGO's and a majority of waste related industries expressed strong support for a standalone legislation on bio-waste while another group of Member States and representatives of regional and local authorities voiced reservations.[5]

Proceedings are published on the http://www.biowaste.eu

On 25 June 2009, the Environment Council adopted its conclusions on the Commission's Green Paper on bio-waste management 2953rd Environment Council meeting, Luxembourg, 25 June 2009 . The Council expressed concerns about the increasing volume of biodegradable waste and the linked greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution - especially when such waste is landfilled. It was also agreed that improved bio-waste management could contribute to fighting climate change and help to improve soil quality via the application of compost.[6]

2953rd Environment Council meeting, Luxembourg, 25 June 2009

The Council urged the Commission to take into account local conditions when weighing up policy options to improve the management of bio-waste in the EU and invited the Commission to present an EU legislative proposal on biodegradable waste by 2010, "if appropriate". The conclusions have been adopted unanimously; however, negotiations over the text were intense and demonstrated significant differences in the views of Member States with regards to this issue.

A targeted stakeholder consultation of Member States and key stakeholders was conducted in May-June 2009 to allow stakeholders to verify and comment on the baseline scenario developed for the Assessment. Another targeted consultation was conducted in October 2009 on the results of the scenario developed to assess the possible impacts of various options on improved bio-waste management. Main comments are summarized in Annex1.

Box 1: What is bio-waste?

"Bio-waste" is defined in the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) as " biodegradable garden and park waste, food and kitchen waste from households, restaurants, caterers and retail premises, and comparable waste from food processing plants ". It does not include forestry or agricultural residues, manure, sewage sludge, or other biodegradable waste (natural textiles, paper or processed wood).

"Biodegradable waste" is a broader concept defined in the Landfill Directive as any waste that is capable of undergoing anaerobic or aerobic decomposition, such as food and garden waste, and paper and paperboard. All biodegradable waste can have negative impacts on the environment when improperly managed, notably in landfills. Environmentally preferable options can include composting (notably food and garden waste), recycling or use as renewable energy sources (for example paper, paperboard, treated wood). The WFD defined bio-waste more precisely and focused on this fraction.

The total yearly production of bio-waste in the EU amounts to 118 to 138 Mt of which around 88 Mt originate from municipal waste and between 30 to 50 Mt from industrial sources such as food processing Data based on data on municipal waste from EUROSTAT, source : Arcadis/Eunomia report 2009 . In the EU, bio-waste usually constitutes between 30% and 40% - but can range from 18% up to 60% - of municipal solid waste (MSW). The bio-waste part of MSW comprises two major streams: green waste from parks, gardens etc. and kitchen waste. The former usually includes 50-60% water and more wood (lignocellulosis), the latter contains no wood and up to 80% water.[7]

Data based on data on municipal waste from EUROSTAT, source : Arcadis/Eunomia report 2009

2. Policy context

Since 1999, the issue of specific legislation on biodegradable waste and bio-waste was subject to intensive political debate. Many stakeholders including several Member States and European Parliament directly formulated calls for such legislation. The idea was also supported by environmental NGO's and the waste management services. At that time, the legislation was supposed to supplement other legislations concerning the management of municipal waste, namely the Landfill Directive Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the Landfill of waste, OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p. 1 and the Waste Incineration Directive Directive 2000/76/EC on the incineration of waste, OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p. 91 . [8][9]

Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the Landfill of waste, OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p. 1

Directive 2000/76/EC on the incineration of waste, OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p. 91

The issue of bio-waste management was further addressed in the Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste COM (2005) 666 final . The Strategy stated that, since there is no single environmentally best option for the management of bio-waste diverted from landfills, bio-waste management options should be determined by Member States using life-cycle thinking. In parallel, the Commission would continue its work on preparing guidelines on the application of life-cycle thinking and address standards for waste recycling. This work has progressed substantially and guidance documents are being published JRC is finalising t he International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) handbook which contains a series of technical guidance documents that provide the basis for consistent and quality-assured life cycle data, methods and assessments. In parallel, JRC is also developing the "ILCD Data Network" which supports access to quality assured life cycle data, worldwide, building on the ILCD Handbook. More information is available from: http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/eplca/deliverables/international-reference-life-cycle-data-system-ilcd-handbook . [10][11]

COM (2005) 666 final

JRC is finalising t he International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) handbook which contains a series of technical guidance documents that provide the basis for consistent and quality-assured life cycle data, methods and assessments. In parallel, JRC is also developing the "ILCD Data Network" which supports access to quality assured life cycle data, worldwide, building on the ILCD Handbook. More information is available from: http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/eplca/deliverables/international-reference-life-cycle-data-system-ilcd-handbook

Beyond non-binding guidance, the new end-of-waste mechanism of the revised Waste Framework Directive (WFD) now provides a legislative tool for binding EU standards on waste management processes and the quality of recycled materials, including compost. Article 22 specifically calls upon the Commission to carry out " an assessment of the management of bio-waste, with a view to submitting a proposal, if appropriate ", and to analyze " the opportunity of setting minimum requirements for bio-waste management and quality criteria for compost and digestate from bio-waste in order to guarantee a high level of protection for human health and the environment ".

The European Parliament in its resolution on the proposal for a Soil Framework Directive European Parliament legislative resolution of 14 November 2007 on the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the protection of soil also called for a European initiative on bio-waste management. Accordingly, the Commission in 2008 started to re-examine the issue and published a Green Paper on the Management of bio-waste in the EU. The foregoing discussions have already given valuable indication for the scope of possible policy options. This Assessment is intended to up-date the debate, using new information and data available after enlargement by 12 new Member States. [12]

European Parliament legislative resolution of 14 November 2007 on the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the protection of soil

3. Problem definition

3.1. The nature of the problem

About 30 to 40% of the mass of the municipal solid waste produced in the European Union is bio-waste, equivalent to 88 million tonnes annually (around 170 kilograms per inhabitant annually, respectively 0.5 kilograms per day). Without additional action, this amount is projected to increase by 10% by 2020.

Box 2: Bio-waste treatment methods – technologies in use and potential

Today's most common bio-waste management options include, in addition to prevention at source, its collection - separately or with mixed waste, anaerobic digestion and composting, incineration, and landfilling. The environmental and economic benefits of different treatment methods depend partly on local conditions such as population density, infrastructure and climate as well as on the existence of markets for associated products - energy and compost. The two most important methods of biological treatment of bio-waste are composting and anaerobic digestion (AD).

Composting is a process which turns biomass into compost with the use of oxygen and certain microorganisms. There are two forms of composting: windrow composting conducted in open air and in-vessel composting (IVC) carried out in closed containers. Windrow composting is the most used method of treating green waste today, mostly due to very low investments costs, but it is not suited to treat food waste. IVC is more adapted for treating food waste and causes less nuisances to the neighbourhood, but is more costly. Home composting or "backyard composting" refers to composting by citizen at home using simple methods. During composting around 50% of the mass of waste (mostly water) is lost. The rest turns into compost. Separate collection of bio-waste is one of the conditions required to guarantee the high quality of the compost produced.

Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a process in which wet waste degrades in enclosed tanks without oxygen using the activity of other types of microorganisms than those active in the composting process. During this process large amounts of methane are generated which can easily be collected and used for energy generation purposes: either directly to power gas engines or as a vehicle fuel (CNG). Another promising option for the bio-methane produced would be its injection into the natural gas distribution grid. Moreover, grid injection would have the economic advantage of relying on an already existing distribution infrastructure. Solid residues from the process - a "digestate" - can be used in agriculture (mostly after composting). In this Assessment the term “compost” refers to both compost and digestate, unless stated otherwise and the term "biological treatment" covers composting and anaerobic digestion of separately collected bio-waste and home composting.

Bio-waste can also be used as a source of carbon neutral energy As bio-mass during its growth removes CO2 from atmosphere via photosynthesis – emission of GHG is regarded by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as part of natural carbon cycle. As a result, biogenic CO2 is not taken into account when greenhouse gas emissions are calculated during incineration or via production of biogas during anaerobic digestion. In the near future, bio-waste may also be used on a wider scale as a resource for the production of second generation of bio-fuels.[13]

As bio-mass during its growth removes CO2 from atmosphere via photosynthesis – emission of GHG is regarded by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as part of natural carbon cycle. As a result, biogenic CO2 is not taken into account when greenhouse gas emissions are calculated

The range of technologies used to treat mixed municipal waste using biological treatment is often referred to as Mechanical-Biological Treatment (MBT). This method is usually used to only pre-treat biodegradable waste in order to stabilise it before its final disposal and to sort recyclable fractions from the mixed waste. Some MBT facilities produce compost from mixed waste but the quality of such material is very low.

Finally, landfilled bio-waste undergoes a process similar to AD: it decomposes in landfills to produce large amount of greenhouse gases (especially methane) which needs to be captured and leachate which may contaminate the soil and groundwater if the landfill is not operated in conformity with the provisions of the Landfill Directive. Also, landfilling means an irrecoverable loss of resources.

Food waste disposers D evice, usually electrically-powered, installed under a kitchen sink which shreds food waste into small pieces to pass through plumbing. could constitute an alternative method, especially in places where separate collection of food waste is not possible or feasible and where an individual sewer system and waste water treatment installations allows for their use. However they do not solve the problem of food waste but transfer it to the waste water treatment plant. As their feasibility depends on local conditions the decision of promoting/banning should not be taken at the EU level but left to national/regional or even local authorities. Therefore they are not covered by this analysis.[14]

D evice, usually electrically-powered, installed under a kitchen sink which shreds food waste into small pieces to pass through plumbing.

In a number of Member States, the management practices for bio-waste are not optimal: EU-wide, 36 million tonnes (40%) of this waste are still landfilled Data for the year 2008 - source: Arcadis/Eunomia report ; in some Member States this amount still exceeds 90%. The massive use of landfilling for bio-waste management violates the “hierarchy” of waste management options which is a binding legal requirement for national waste management policies Article 4 of the WFD includes a precise definition of the waste management hierarchy: the prevention of waste is defined as the best option, followed by re-use, recycling and energy recovery. Disposal (landfilling, incineration with low-energy recovery) is defined as the worst environmental option as it disregards better alternatives such as prevention and recycling.[15][16]

Data for the year 2008 - source: Arcadis/Eunomia report

Article 4 of the WFD includes a precise definition of the waste management hierarchy: the prevention of waste is defined as the best option, followed by re-use, recycling and energy recovery. Disposal (landfilling, incineration with low-energy recovery) is defined as the worst environmental option

It also represents a risk of non compliance with the Landfill Directive, notably its provisions for diverting biodegradable waste and managing landfill gas. EU legislation indeed already bans landfilling of an increasing part of biodegradable waste (Box 3).

While the Landfill Directive does not impose specific treatment on bio-waste diverted from landfills, Member States are obliged according to the requirements of the Waste Framework Directive to optimise treatment with a view to sustainable resource use, avoiding negative impacts on the environment and human health according to their specific conditions. This includes notably the requirement to develop national policies in support of waste prevention and recycling.

Failure by many Member States to respect in practice the "waste hierarchy" principles leads to significant losses of material and energy resources, unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts, e.g. on groundwater quality.

The EU as a whole is therefore missing out on the economic and environmental opportunities offered by directing bio-waste to the most appropriate management techniques Box 2 outlines the bio-waste management options . For example, recycling of bio-waste accounts for only 1/3 of its overall potential Source: Orbit/ECN , although seemingly cheaper alternatives have been shown to be more expensive when taking into account their financial, environmental and social costs.[17][18]

Box 2 outlines the bio-waste management options

Source: Orbit/ECN

It is estimated that by improving bio-waste management and make it conform to the principle of the "waste hierarchy" notably by increasing prevention and recycling efforts:

· Significant financial savings could be made by citizens. For example, one third of food bought by UK households (approximate value of €19 billions) becomes waste Source: "The Food We Waste" report for the "Waste Resources Action Programme (WRAP) – UK" – April 2008 . Up to 60% of this waste could theoretically be avoided. Other sources Source: Association for Cities Recycling (ACR+) - presentation at the biowaste conference, June 2009 suggest that 5% of food waste can be saved by smarter consumption (avoid food wasting) and a similar amount of garden waste by improved gardening practises; [19][20]

Source: "The Food We Waste" report for the "Waste Resources Action Programme (WRAP) – UK" – April 2008

Source: Association for Cities Recycling (ACR+) - presentation at the biowaste conference, June 2009

· The market for quality compost could be increased by a factor of 2.6 to reach about 28 million tonnes Source: ORBIT/ECN, 2008, Compost production and use in the EU, Final report. The production of compost from bio-waste in 2005 was estimated at 10,5 million tonnes . This could help to improve the quality of 3% to 7% of depleted agricultural soils in the EU Source: ORBIT/ECN, based on the assumption of an application of 10 tons/ha/year of compost repeated every year and to address the problem of degrading soil quality in Europe Around 45% of EU soils lack humus – prerequisite of soil fertility ; [21][22][23]

Source: ORBIT/ECN, 2008, Compost production and use in the EU, Final report. The production of compost from bio-waste in 2005 was estimated at 10,5 million tonnes

Source: ORBIT/ECN, based on the assumption of an application of 10 tons/ha/year of compost repeated every year

Around 45% of EU soils lack humus – prerequisite of soil fertility

· Maximising composting could also substitute 10% of phosphate fertilizers, 9% of potassium fertilizers and 8% of lime fertilizers Example of Germany, source Orbit/ECN ;[24]

Example of Germany, source Orbit/ECN

· About one-third of the 2020 EU target to use renewable energy in transport As outlined in Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources could be met by using the biogas produced from bio-waste as vehicle fuel. If all the bio-waste produced in the EU in 2020 was treated by anaerobic digestion and the gas used by public vehicle fleets, the potential gain would be around 13 Mt CO 2 -equivalent Detailed calculation are given in Annex 3 . In terms of the achievement of the 10% biofuel target this would represent an average contribution ranging from 6% in Luxembourg up to 85% in Romania;[25][26]

As outlined in Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources

Detailed calculation are given in Annex 3

· Emissions of between 10 Mt Calculation based on Sander, K. (2008) “Climate protection potentials of EU recycling targets”, Ökopol GmbH, Germany - http://www.eeb.org/publication/documents/RecyclingClimateChangePotentials.pdf to a maximum of 50 Mt Details of the calculation are given in section 8 CO 2 -equivalent could be avoided by more prevention and biological treatment, representing between 0.4 % and 2.3 % of the EU 2005 GHG emissions (not covered by ETS) This scheme covers over 11.500 energy-intensive installations across the EU, which represent close to half of Europe’s emissions of CO 2 . These installations include combustion plants, oil refineries, coke ovens, iron and steel plants, and factories making cement, glass, lime, brick, ceramics, pulp and paper in 2005 Source: Decision N° 406/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the efforts of Member States to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to meet the Community's greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments up to 2020, OJ L 140/136, 5.6.2009, the EU 27 target is a reduction of around 10% of the non ETS EU GHG's emissions by 2020 compared to 2005 emissions . This could represent between 4% to a maximum of 23% of the 2020 EU target (10% reduction compared to 2005 emissions) for the non ETS GHG emissions These data are purely indicative as it will depend in reality on the calculation methods under the non ETS directive . [27][28][29][30][31]

Calculation based on Sander, K. (2008) “Climate protection potentials of EU recycling targets”, Ökopol GmbH, Germany - http://www.eeb.org/publication/documents/RecyclingClimateChangePotentials.pdf

Details of the calculation are given in section 8

This scheme covers over 11.500 energy-intensive installations across the EU, which represent close to half of Europe’s emissions of CO 2 . These installations include combustion plants, oil refineries, coke ovens, iron and steel plants, and factories making cement, glass, lime, brick, ceramics, pulp and paper

Source: Decision N° 406/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the efforts of Member States to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to meet the Community's greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments up to 2020, OJ L 140/136, 5.6.2009, the EU 27 target is a reduction of around 10% of the non ETS EU GHG's emissions by 2020 compared to 2005 emissions

These data are purely indicative as it will depend in reality on the calculation methods under the non ETS directive

In summary, the EU is missing out on significant environmental, social and economic opportunities as bio-waste management options are not optimal and EU legislation on the prevention and management of bio-waste is insufficiently implemented in many Member States.

The waste sector has been steadily developing in the EU for over a decade with high growth rates driven by the implementation of EU and national waste policies. It includes two sub-sectors: specialised waste management companies (collection, incineration, landfill, composting, etc.) and businesses recovering and recycling materials (composting, paper, glass, metals, etc.). Solid Waste Management and Recycling Industries have a turnover of €137 billion which is just over 1.1% of EU GDP. These areas together represent over 2 million jobs Source: Study on the Competitiveness of the EU eco-industry, ENTR/06/054 Final Report. Directorate-General Enterprise & Industry and Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste COM(2005) 666 . [32]

Source: Study on the Competitiveness of the EU eco-industry, ENTR/06/054 Final Report. Directorate-General Enterprise & Industry and Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste COM(2005) 666

3.2. The issue of bio-waste in EU legislation and policy to date

The management of bio-waste is covered by several pieces of EU legislation. The revised WFD requires Member States to develop waste management policies that protect the environmental and human health and ensure a sustainable use of natural resources. Member States are thus legally bound to optimize the treatment of bio-waste according to their specific conditions.

Article 4 on the “waste management hierarchy” defines this approach more precisely: the prevention of waste is defined as the best option, followed by re-use, recycling and energy recovery. Disposal (landfilling, incineration with low-energy recovery) is defined as the worst environmental option (emissions, loss of resources).

The WFD also encourages Member States to separately collect and recycle bio-waste. For example, Member States can include bio-waste when calculating the legally binding recycling target for municipal waste.

Furthermore, it enables the setting of EU minimum criteria for the quality of compost from bio-waste, including requirements on the origin of the waste and the treatment processes. Such criteria have been called for by many Member States and other stakeholders in order to enhance user confidence in compost, thus strengthening the market and supporting the EU’s policy towards a material efficient economy. The revised WFD also sets binding efficiency levels for the recovery of energy from direct incineration of municipal waste. It thus could discourage the incineration of bio-waste with low calorific value due to high water content.

Landfilling of bio-waste is addressed in the Landfill Directive (See Box 3) which requires the diversion of biodegradable municipal waste from landfills. The directive also contains stringent provisions towards the avoidance of GHG emissions from landfilled biodegradable waste.

Improved management of bio-waste is in line with EU policies concerning environment and sustainability. It fits into the EU's Sustainable Development Strategy which sets particular emphasis on avoiding the generation of waste and enhancing the efficient use of natural resources by applying life-cycle thinking and promoting re-use and recycling.

It would also contribute positively to Sustainable Consumption and Production policy and to the EU policy on Climate Change and notably to meet the EU targets of reducing by 10% (by 2020 compared to 2005) the green house gas emission not covered by ETS Refer to note 16 . [33]

Refer to note 16

There are very clear synergies to be exploited between the management of bio-waste and the production of bio-fuels and renewable energy. Renewable Energy Directive Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC OJ L 140, 5.6.2009, p. 16–62 sets ambitious targets for 2020 to which bio-waste management could contribute. [34]

Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC OJ L 140, 5.6.2009, p. 16–62

Box 3: Bio-waste and the Landfill Directive

The Landfill Directive requires Member States to set up a National strategy for the reduction of biodegradable waste going to landfills. This strategy should ensure that by mid 2006 biodegradable municipal waste going to lan d fills is reduced to 75 % of the total amount of biodegradable municipal waste produced in 1995. By mid 2009 this must be reduced to 50 % of this amount, and by mid 2016 to 35%. The main objective of these targets and measures is to reduce the production of methane in landfills in order to reduce GHG emissions.

Member States which relied heavily on landfilling in 1995 - for more than 80% of municipal waste - were given a four year extension period. They must achieve a 25% reduction by 2010, then meet the 50% target by 2013 and finally meet 65% in 2020 Member States concerned are: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and the UK . [35]

Member States concerned are: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and the UK

The targets set in the Landfill Directive refer to the diversion of biodegradable waste from landfills, but do not prescribe specific treatment options. In practice, Member States are often inclined to choose the seemingly easiest and cheapest option disregarding the actual environmental benefits and costs.

3.3. What are the underlying drivers of sub optimal bio-waste management?

As detailed in section 3.1, optimized management of bio-waste is still not achieved by many Member States. Notably, waste prevention is nearly inexistent while biological treatment remains underused and the potential market for quality compost remains underdeveloped. The reasons for this sub-optimal management can be summarized as follows:

1. Waste prevention : programs to prevent the generation of bio-waste require a combination of policy instruments that need to address a variety of actors and need to complement each other over many years to be successful:

· a "chain" of actors should be involved in reducing the generation of bio-waste - households, producers, retailers, and public authorities;

· more specifically, waste prevention programs may require politically sensitive messages towards a modification of the current consumption habits, which requires time to be absorbed;

· a variety of instruments such as economic, legal and information should be combined in a consistent manner in order to achieve significant results;

· these instruments should be defined and applied at various competence levels from European and National to regional and up to very local levels.

In summary, successful prevention programs require the mobilization of several actors, various instruments and at different levels of competence. The financial, social and environmental potential benefits of prevention are largely underestimated by most Member States. This could explain why so far no significant efforts have been undertaken at large scale to enhance prevention, even if at the local level promising results are progressively emerging.

2. Concerning increased bio-waste separate collection: there are different obstacles for the development of large scale separate collection programs and biological treatment for bio-waste:

· Participation of citizens: inhabitants need to be informed and convinced to participate in separation collection schemes;

· Logistics issues: in many areas, especially densely populated, separate collection could be difficult to set up due to logistics constraints such as insufficient space for sorting. This could affect the acceptance of introducing separate collection. However, some of the most densely populated Member States have established very advanced separate collection schemes like in the NL , DK or BE;

· Uncertainties over expected quantities/quality of the material: this depends largely on the efforts of the citizens to sort bio-waste in an appropriate way, but also on the capability of the authorities in charge of waste collection and treatment to motivate and inform correctly the population and implement effective monitoring – or if needed enforcement schemes;

· These uncertainties could complicate planning and the design of the necessary investments. Some experts see this problem as a "vicious circle" as regards composting – the lack of separate collection does not justify the construction of composting plants, whilst the lack of treatment capacity affects the setting up of separate collection;

· Lack of sufficient incentives for the development of biomethanisation at larger scale: although separate collection and composting or home composting could in general be beneficial from the financial point of view See section 7.3 , this is not the case for biomethanisation which still needs additional financial incentives in most of the Member States as demonstrated in section 7. [36]

See section 7.3

In summary, even if separate collection followed by biological treatment could represent a less expensive option for the competent authorities while presenting larger environmental benefits, it is not yet sufficiently developed. It indeed requires additional efforts from the authorities and the citizens notably in terms of organization and participation in selective collection systems. The uncertainties linked with the setting up of such programs complicate the planning work of local authorities who have to ensure the permanent affordability of the service.

There are differences between Member States in terms of development of separate collection and biological treatment which will be discussed in section 5.3.3. These differences are linked to various factors including differentiated levels of citizen and authority's environmental awareness and differences in availability of space notably for landfills.

3. Concerning the development of a market for compost: in order to ensure that the additional compost produced will find its market, new initiatives are required. The development of such market is indeed currently limited for the following reasons:

· Absence of common European standards for compost which limits intra EU trade and could increase the risk of soil contamination due to the use of compost of low quality;

· Lack of confidence from the potential end-users: this is the case particularly in agriculture as it could take time to convince farmers to use compost originating from waste.

As the place of origin of bio-waste is often in large urban centers while the main use would be in agricultural areas, facilitating intra-EU trade would be important. It is therefore indispensable to ensure a common approach at EU level in order to harmonize the existing national standards and to offer new market perspectives for compost of good quality.

In summary, for all these reasons the efforts achieved by Member States to implement in practice the "waste hierarchy" in the case of bio-waste management are generally insufficient. The absence of clear guidance possibly including targets for the Member States to implement this hierarchy could also explain why these efforts have been so far too limited.

3.4. The right of the EU to act, subsidiarity

The Union competence to take action on bio-waste management derives from the articles of the Lisbon Treaty related to the protection of the environment.

Under Article 191 of the Treaty, Union policy on the environment shall contribute, among other things, to protecting and improving the quality of the environment, protecting human health, ensuring prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources, and combating climate change. Under Article 194 of the Treaty, Union policy on energy shall aim to promote the development of new and renewable forms of energy.

In the revised WFD the legislator has re-iterated several of these objectives and explicitly called on the Commission to identify ways of improving bio-waste management by means of additional initiatives (Article 22).

More specifically, the WFD calls upon the Commission to "carry out an assessment on the management of bio-waste" examining "the opportunity of setting minimum requirements for bio-waste management and quality criteria for compost and digestate in order to guarantee a high level of protection for human health and the environment".

In accordance with the requirement of the WFD, different policy options are assessed in this Assessment, including new initiatives to improve bio-waste management in line with the waste hierarchy principles (more prevention and more separate collection and recycling) and setting common compost standards at European level. The respect of the subsidiarity principle is analyzed for each of these options.

Concerning prevention , the analysis carried out to build the baseline scenario (section 5), indicates that in the vast majority of the Member States no clear and measurable steps to increase bio-waste prevention have been so far taken, although prevention has been shown to be an extremely effective option. This is partly due to the lack of clear guidance including measurable quantitative targets. As will be explained in section 7.6, at this moment, due to the uncertainties linked with the cost and effectives of prevention actions the impacts of setting a common quantitative target at European level cannot be assessed.

Therefore, in line with the subsidiarity principle, a first immediate step could be for Member States to further investigate the opportunity of setting indicative targets at national level for bio-waste prevention. In addition, the Commission could provide specific guidance on bio-waste prevention to be included in the National prevention plans to be drafted according to the WFD. This combination of actions at European and Member States levels should provide the necessary incentive to move towards increased prevention while ensuring enough flexibility in its application.

Concerning the introduction of a minimum quantitative targets for biological treatment, the analysis of the baseline scenario (section 5) indicates that a number of Member States representing together around a quarter of the EU population have already or are expected to dramatically reduce landfilling of bio-waste and increase its biological treatment. However, the baseline scenario also shows that even for these "advanced" Member States the opportunities of improved bio-waste management could be better exploited.

As shown in section 5.3, without EU level incentives, it is improbable that the less advanced Member States alone will take steps in the foreseeable future to increase converting bio-waste into bio-fuel and compost, the options which are environmentally and economically most beneficial. Instead, they will continue choosing the seemingly easiest option disregarding the actual environmental benefits and costs. This also explains why for so many years some Member States and stakeholders continued to press the Commission to initiate action in this area.

In order to better take into account these differences of actual performances between the Member States but also to leave an appropriate level of flexibility, the feasibility of introducing an EU minimum target for biological treatment needs further analysis while already at present it can be recommended that Member States pursue their national efforts to increase biological treatment.

The cost/benefit analysis detailed in section 8 shows that some flexibility should also be introduced for what concerns the type of biological treatment to be promoted. The choice of the best option (centralised or de-centralised composting, energy production by digestion and various ways of using the energy produced - transport, electricity heat production) is depending on local conditions (energy mix, possible synergies with other policies) and should be left to the Member States.

The present knowledge base indicates that a future EU target, if any, for biological treatment should remain moderate to allow Member States to choose the zones in which the organization of separate collection is most relevant. For instance, it seems that separate collection should be set up as a matter of priority in semi-rural or semi-urban zones in which more space is available in the houses.

In summary, Member States should be encouraged to increase biological treatment for bio-waste and the added value of fixing a minimum target at EU level should be further investigated.

The compost market of the EU shows a huge variety in terms of quality parameters, assessment criteria and quality assurance systems. Compost quality refers to the overall state of the compost with regard to physical, chemical and biological characteristics. These parameters are indicators of the ultimate impact of the compost on the environment. In particular, the most important parameters from the point of view of environment protection standards, public health and the soil are those related to pathogens, inorganic and organic potentially toxic compounds (heavy metals, phthalates, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) and stability.

Within the EU, the limit values adopted by the Member states vary widely, with the north being generally more stringent than the south. A recent study Lasaridi et al (2006) « Quality assessment of compost in the Greek market: The need for standards and quality assurance”, Journal of Environmental Management 80: 58-65. has recently evaluated the quality profile of compost products in Greece, and examined their compliance with the Greek standards. They also examined how the compost complied with more stringent limit values valid in other countries of the EU. A total of 28 compost products available on the Greek market were identified and analysed. The scientists measured the physical and chemical parameters (moisture, organic mater, electrical conductivity, pH and heavy metals), stability indicators (self-heating potential), and biological parameters (microbial population, pathogen indicators and selected pathogens) to determine the quality of the compost products. [37]

Lasaridi et al (2006) « Quality assessment of compost in the Greek market: The need for standards and quality assurance”, Journal of Environmental Management 80: 58-65.

The results showed that there were wide variations in the quality of the study products, even within the same group of products. This is an interesting finding as the studied parameters are directly related to environmental protection and public health. For example, the content of heavy metals ranged from levels exceeding the fairly tolerant limits of the Greek legislation to below the stringent Austria limits for compost. The authors noted that approximately 25% of the compost examined met the heavy metals limits for the EU-ecolabel award. The study concludes that the diversity of limit values within the EU countries highlights the need to develop homogenous standards within Europe in order to harmonise the compost market.

In addition, the quality assurance systems for compost demonstrate significant differences across the EU. Depending on intention, philosophy, political or functional approach, the quality assurance systems for compost comprise different elements Including Raw material, intake control, limits for harmful substances, quality criteria for the valuable constituents in the compost, composting production, external control (product and/or production), in-house monitoring, quality label for the product, certificate for the plant and/or the product, declaration of the properties of compost, recommendations for use and application, training and qualification of the operator, management and operation of plants (plant assessment), annual certificates . [38]

Including Raw material, intake control, limits for harmful substances, quality criteria for the valuable constituents in the compost, composting production, external control (product and/or production), in-house monitoring, quality label for the product, certificate for the plant and/or the product, declaration of the properties of compost, recommendations for use and application, training and qualification of the operator, management and operation of plants (plant assessment), annual certificates

Efforts to ensure systematic quality assurance varies from Member State to Member State ranging from no efforts (eg FI; EL; IE, PT) to advanced quality check systems (eg AT, BE, DE, NL). http://www.compostnetwork.info/index.php?id=10.[39]

http://www.compostnetwork.info/index.php?id=10.

There are clear advantages of fixing common compost standards , notably from the market point of view and to ensure that increase compost production will be achieved without risks for the environment. As confirmed by stakeholders, to guarantee the quality and safety of compost across the EU and to boost the compost markets (which in turn will encourage more recycling) harmonised standards need to be adopted, also to stand the competition on the market with peat-, earth- and bark products . Such standards will address the obstacles in trade and secure the same minimum level of environmental and health protection. Several Member States have already developed their own legislation in this area which fragments the EU compost market. Union action will level out these differences.

Concerning industrial waste , this Assessment (section 5.2.3) indicates that the added value of a European initiative would be too limited. The quality of this waste is more stable than municipal waste and most of it is already either re-used or recycled. It is also to be assumed that direct financial interest of the industries concerned are strong incentives for them to reduce as far as possible their bio-waste production.

In summary, a good balance between what is needed at EU level and what could be done at national or local levels is indispensable to improve bio-waste management in a cost effective way, taking into account the local constraints and conditions. At national level, Member States can already revisit their national waste management planning related to bio-waste, for example by setting up separate collection systems and planning of infrastructure for the treatment of the collected bio-waste. They can also develop ambitious waste prevention programmes where already today they can set national benchmarks, targets and indicators. The present knowledge base seems to indicate potential for additional benefits from setting EU level standards for the quality of compost, for applying compost to soil, and minimum levels of ambition for recycling/prevention. However, investigations are needed to better underpin the feasibility of such measures. The final recommendations of this Assessment (see section 8.5) have been scrutinized in order to reach an optimal combination of EU, national and local actions.

3.5. Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent?

All citizens are at least indirectly affected by threats related to inadequate management of bio-waste, as those threats are of a general nature – climate change, public health, possible air, water and soil pollution due e.g. inadequate landfilling, incineration and spreading of poor quality composted waste on soil.

Citizens are the main producers of bio-waste and at the same time they could provide a part of the solution through more efforts for preventing the generation of bio-waste and participation in separate collection schemes. They also bear the financial consequences of bio-waste management.

Also, waste related industries which deal with composting, anaerobic digestion and production of bio-fuels are affected by the opportunities of adequate bio-waste management.

4. Objectives of an EU initiative

The main objective of an EU action is to ensure that existing legislation is better implemented in practical terms by the Member States. Only improved practical application of legislation will ensure that the opportunities of an appropriate management of bio-waste - in terms of environmental protection, energy and resource savings , improved quality of EU soils and cost efficient waste management - will be better exploited in the European Union.

More specifically and in line with the "waste hierarchy", the objectives should be as follows:

· Create optimal conditions for reducing the generation of garden and especially food waste to avoid environmental impacts of unnecessary food production and related waste management;

· Optimise conditions for the recycling of bio-waste to marketable products, thus saving primary materials (peat moss, mineral fertilizer) and contributing to a material efficient economy;

· Optimize the recovery of renewable energy from bio-waste in support of EU energy policy targets;

· Optimize the use of bio-waste as soil improver (contribution to EU soil policy) and limit emissions of GHG from sub-optimal bio-waste management (contribution to EU climate policy).

The means for achieving these objectives could include actions aiming at increasing prevention of bio-waste, encouraging recycling and energy recovery by facilitating the use and trade of products made from bio-waste, including enhancing customers' confidence, regulating the use of recycled bio-waste on soil, setting minimum quantitative targets for prevention and biological treatment.

Therefore, the objective of this Assessment is to analyze the main environmental, social and economic impacts of different policy options to move towards optimal bio-waste management at EU level.

Various levels of ambition of the application of the waste hierarchy will be assessed and compared to a "baseline scenario" (without additional action at EU level) in order to identify EU targets for bio-waste management minimizing costs while maximizing benefits. As far as possible environmental impacts will be monetized and compared to the costs of the analyzed options. In order to meet EU objectives for bio-waste management, the use of different possible policy instruments will be assessed.

5. Baseline scenario

A baseline scenario was constructed in order to assess the expected consequences of already decided and planned policies without additional European initiative. The analysis has been limited to the "foreseeable future", i.e. until 2020.

5.1. Main assumptions

Even if the issue of bio-waste management cuts across many policy areas the legislation which will have a predominant impact on bio-waste management up to 2020 are the Landfill Directive and the revised Waste Framework Directive. The potential impacts of both pieces of legislations should be clearly distinguished.

The Landfill Directive has potential important consequences, especially for Member States which have heavily relied upon landfilling as a method of waste disposal. Its implementation in these Member States will require significant diversions of waste flows combined with an upgrading of alternative waste management systems in line with the WFD within the coming years.

The question whether the countries which still rely heavily on landfilling will meet the landfill diversion targets within the deadlines set by the Directive was raised during the consultation processes. It was however seen as a separate issue of non-compliance with the existing acquis that may need to be addressed eventually by the appropriate means of enforcement.

In the framework of the present Assessment, it was assumed that all Member States will comply with the Landfill Directive for the following reasons:

· The first reduction target for mid-2006 (25% of reduction of biodegradable waste landfilled) has been met by the relevant Member States;

· During the stakeholder consultation, no Member State reported that it expected delays with meeting the targets;

· Furthermore, no Member State has signalled to the Commission difficulties in achieving the 2009/2010 targets in response to a recent enquiry Response from the Member States to a Commission enquire in July 2009 regarding the Landfill Directive biodegradable waste diversion targets ;[40]

Response from the Member States to a Commission enquire in July 2009 regarding the Landfill Directive biodegradable waste diversion targets

· The enforcement of the existing legislation is already a matter of priority for the Commission and additional new initiatives with the aim to further promote proper implementation are under way;

· The objective of this Assessment is to assess the added value and the opportunity of a new EU initiative in addition to existing policies.

Concerning the application of the Waste Framework Directive , the efforts of the Member States to apply in practice the “waste hierarchy” principles are supposed to be reflected in their National waste management plans. These plans have been used as a source of information for the construction of the baseline scenario (section 5.2.2).

It was assumed that no major technological breakthrough will occur in the next 10 years and that the composition of municipal waste as well as bio-waste will remain stable over the period of the exercise which is in line with the results of the stakeholder consultations.

In order to construct the baseline and the alternative scenarios, it was necessary to make assumptions on several parameters not or insufficiently known. These uncertainties and their potential implications in terms of policy development are presented and discussed in section 8.1.2.4.

5.2. Construction of the baseline scenario

For the construction of the baseline scenario information on the generation and composition of municipal waste as well as on the household waste collection and treatment was gathered.

5.2.1. Bio-waste generation and composition

For each Member State, an estimate of the future generation of municipal waste was made on the basis of the actual (2006) generation and demographic and economic development evolutions In order to ensure consistency with other Commission scenarios, economic and demographic projections used are based on the "European Energy and Transport – Trends to 2030 – 2007 Update" as published by DG TREN . Some degree of decoupling between GDP and waste generation was introduced depending on the economic welfare. A summary of the assumptions taken is given in Annex 4. [41]

In order to ensure consistency with other Commission scenarios, economic and demographic projections used are based on the "European Energy and Transport – Trends to 2030 – 2007 Update" as published by DG TREN

5.2.2. Collection coverage, needed and planned treatment capacities

For each Member State, the projections of waste generation were compared to the planned treatment capacities and to the Landfill Directive targets.

The possible needs for additional capacities were calculated in such a way that the targets of the Landfill Directive are met. For Member States for which the collection is not ensured for the entire population, additional assumptions were made on the collection coverage rate and its evolution (Annex 5, Table A5-1).

The planned bio-waste treatment capacities were identified on the basis of the available official reports such as the national waste management plans and national strategies for the implementation of the reduction of biodegradable waste going to landfills which have to be submitted to the Commission in line with the requirements of the WFD and the Landfill Directive.

However, these strategies date back to 2005 and do not cover the EU-12. In addition, the existing harmonised reporting requirements are not adapted to the data needs of this assessment. It was therefore necessary for some Member States to make hypotheses on the evolution of bio-waste treatment capacities. This was achieved taking into account policy preferences of these Member States on the basis of additional sources of information Country Fact Sheets of the European Topic Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production ETC/SCP, reports from national Environment Ministries, waste management Agencies and statistical Agencies . In case of conflicting figures, choices were often made on the basis of judgement from the involved experts. [42]

Country Fact Sheets of the European Topic Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production ETC/SCP, reports from national Environment Ministries, waste management Agencies and statistical Agencies

The first draft baseline scenario was sent for consultation to the Member States and the most relevant stakeholders (Annex 1). Fourteen Member States answered and their comments and suggestions were taken into account as far as possible. Some countries contested the assumptions concerning shares of treatment methods until 2020, however no evidence or alternative data were provided. The main results in terms of projected type of bio-waste treatment for each Member State are presented in Table 1, Figures 1 and 2, and discussed in section 5.3.

5.2.3. Industrial waste

The baseline scenario does not include bio-waste from industrial sources such as food processing as it was not possible to gather reliable information on industrial bio-waste at EU level. While there are some general estimations on the amounts of industrial bio-waste (between 30 Mt to 50 Mt), the data is generally scarce and of low quality. The analysis of case studies Notably in Belgium and Lithuania, source: Arcadis/Eunomia demonstrated that this waste is usually reused or recycled within agriculture and related industries e.g. as animal feed. The case studies are showing that the quality of this waste is stable which allows its re-use or recycling in good economic and safety conditions. The interest of the concerned industries is to reduce and re-use or recycle as far as possible their bio-waste. [43]

Notably in Belgium and Lithuania, source: Arcadis/Eunomia

For these reasons, bio-waste from industrial sources was excluded from all detailed scenarios with the exception of setting compost/digestate standards.

5.3. Analysis of the baseline scenario

5.3.1. Bio-waste generation

Figure 1 show the expected evolution of bio-waste generation within the next 10 years. The amount of bio-waste generated is expected to rise rather slowly - from 87.7 Mt to 96.4 Mt, a 10% increase. The growth in EU-12 will be more pronounced - from 12.9 to 18 Mt, a 40% growth, but in 2020 the EU-12 will still be responsible for only a small part of bio-waste generated in the EU (18.5%). Projected bio-waste generation per Member State is given in Annex 4, Table A4-3. Differences are expected between Member States which is mainly due to socio-economic parameters.

(...PICT...)

Figure 1: Baseline scenario – projected bio-waste generation 2008 - 2020

5.3.2. Bio-waste management

Concerning bio-waste management, as shown in Figure 2, the amounts of landfilled bio-waste are expected to drop considerably - from 35.7 Mt in 2008 to 15.1 Mt in 2020 – a reduction of 38%. By 2020 bio-waste is expected to be diverted from landfills to the following treatment techniques:

Composting: from 18.7 Mt in 2008 to 27.6 Mt in 2020, expected increase of 48%;

Incineration: from 17.4 Mt in 2008 to 22.6 Mt in 2020, expected increase of 29.5%;

Mechanical and biological treatment (MBT): from 11.2 Mt in 2008 to 22.8 Mt in 2020, expected increase of 103%;

Anaerobic digestion (AD): from 1.5 Mt in 2008 to 6.9 Mt in 2020, increase of 349%;

Home composting: from 0.7 Mt in 2008 to 1.6 Mt in 2020, increase of 148%.

I

(...PICT...)

Figure 2: Baseline scenario – projected evolution of bio-waste treatment 2008-2020 (EU-27)

5.3.3. Implementation of existing legislation

As detailed in section 5.1, the baseline scenario has been constructed assuming that all Member States will comply with the diversion targets of the Landfill Directive. The targets set in the Landfill Directive refer to the diversion of biodegradable waste from landfills but do not prescribe specific treatment options . In practice, for various reasons, Member States are often inclined to choose the seemingly easiest and cheapest option of landfilling disregarding the actual environmental benefits and costs.

Table 1 clearly shows that for some Member States this will require either no effort or limited effort although for other Member States significant actions have to be taken in the coming years. For example, Member States such as AT, DK, DE and SE will landfill no bio-waste waste by 2020 whereas other Member States such as PL, BU, CY, CZ; EE and FR will have to make significant efforts to divert bio-waste into options other than incineration and landfill.

Table 1: Baseline scenario – projected evolution of bio-waste treatment 2008-2020 (Tonnes - EU-27)

|Landfill|Incineration|MBT|Composting|Anaerobic Digestion|Home composting|Not collected|

|2008|2020|2008|2020|2008|2020|2008|2020|2008|2020|2008|2020|2008|2020|

AT|0|0|514.419|513.565|210.115|180.442|432.432|498.932|136.136|195.660|232.232|283.707|0|0|

BG|818.810|374.145|0|427.595|0|267.247|27.976|142.532|0|0|6.141|61.085|54.442|0|

BE|239.055|0|624.020|741.061|26.508|21.940|1.034.898|992.451|78.603|216.759|95.410|192.586|0|0|

CY|129.975|32.904|0|59.825|0|56.834|0|25.070|0|0|0|3.419|0|0|

CZ|1.086.967|298.450|120.774|373.062|0|572.028|63.565|602.638|0|66.960|0|0|0|0|

DK|0|0|712.731|849.407|0|0|554.403|634.021|0|0|5.600|33.370|0|0|

EE|263.860|22.400|0|88.580|0|130.055|31.277|90.852|0|0|26.643|38.936|27.981|0|

FI|722.931|400.466|30.122|197.244|0|0|193.284|195.252|19.116|183.298|0|19.924|0|0|

FR|6.574.986|3.511.501|4.542.718|4.389.376|836.816|3.072.563|498.105|2.090.179|0|0|0|0|0|0|

DE|0|0|5.263.551|5.282.749|3.226.048|3.237.814|7.640.639|6.816.450|848.960|1.704.113|0|0|0|0|

EL|1.733.523|402.417|8.755|10.318|8.755|1.650.943|0|229.298|0|0|0|0|152.264|0|

HU|770.547|557.651|107.095|123.087|77.485|417.009|493.353|763.986|0|0|143.399|233.440|0|0|

IE|429.847|32.107|0|288.966|20.255|321.073|84.950|333.916|0|192.644|34.698|115.586|142.437|0|

IT|3.492.523|1.353.146|825.505|579.920|2.032.013|1.288.711|1.508.135|3.382.866|79.376|1.449.800|0|0|0|0|

LV|171.885|89.318|0|0|0|165.876|0|96.245|0|0|0|13.124|96.686|3.682|

LT|404.444|165.987|0|105.628|0|105.628|88.780|142.275|0|0|0|19.401|0|0|

LU|30.938|32.282|0|1.699|0|0|47.689|52.380|9.768|10.728|0|0|0|0|

MT|60.852|7.502|0|0|0|67.518|0|0|0|0|0|14.289|0|0|

NL|220.527|206.474|1.019.937|954.944|137.829|129.047|1.258.030|1.214.471|66.212|362.764|0|0|0|0|

PL|2.560.373|852.096|14.800|1.503.699|384.796|2.656.535|0|954.729|0|0|0|0|0|0|

PT|1.236.964|260.066|436.576|715.182|145.525|650.165|46.133|216.722|10.127|46.440|0|46.440|0|0|

RO|1.870.129|915.135|0|0|0|2.353.203|93.000|547.836|0|0|0|74.705|2.043.257|0|

SK|405.908|156.607|117.844|202.284|0|293.638|21.823|223.724|0|0|0|55.931|0|0|

SI|228.225|63.793|37.991|81.655|11.092|109.724|30.812|137.401|0|0|0|0|0|0|

ES|4.643.828|3.437.250|928.766|1.580.633|3.715.062|3.345.256|259.077|1.379.918|219.971|418.157|9.776|292.710|0|0|

SE|38.300|0|1.212.825|1.177.910|25.533|24.039|465.313|512.832|62.880|160.260|100.608|128.208|0|0|

UK|7.603.448|1.949.870|884.122|2.304.391|353.649|1.654.435|3.785.305|5.344.087|3.789|1.877.652|0|0|0|0|

EU-27|35.738.844|15.121.568|17.402.551|22.552.781|11.211.481|22.771.721|18.658.979|27.621.062|1.534.937|6.885.235|654.508|1.626.861|2.517.066|3.682|

As follows from table 1 such Member States have very little composting or anaerobic digestion and instead heavily reply on landfill and incineration. This may require significant changes in the national waste management systems related to bio-waste, including setting up separate collection schemes or sorting systems, developing infrastructure for incineration, composting and anaerobic digestion. For example, to implement the diversion targets of the Landfill Directive, Poland will have to divert almost 5 million tonnes of bio-waste generated in 2020 from landfills. This includes directing 1.5 million tonnes of bio-waste to incineration, mechanical-biological treatment of 2.5 million tonnes of bio-waste and composting of around 1 million tonnes.

However, there is no systematic need to build new waste management facility at national level: Member States are allowed to cooperate with other Member States to establish a network of municipal (including bio- waste disposal or recovery operations (Art. 16 of the Waste Framework Directive).

The preferred options for each Member State assumed in the baseline scenario are supposed to represent the plans of the Member States for future bio-waste management. These choices which were broadly confirmed during the stakeholder consultation (section 5.3.2) are not necessarily the least cost or the easiest option to follow: for instance the expected increase in composting and anaerobic digestion implies the organization of additional separate collection and the construction of new infrastructures.

As regards the application of the waste hierarchy by the Member States, as there are no quantitative objectives for the concrete application of the hierarchy, it is not possible to assess the impact of the full application of the hierarchy by each Member State. Nevertheless, Table 1 gives some indications on how the hierarchy can be reasonably expected to be applied by 2020.

In summary, a group of more advanced Member States are expected to apply the hierarchy to a large extent: landfill is already either abandoned (AT, DE, DK) or will be abandoned by 2020 (BE, SE), recycling by composting or digestion is expected to increase in a significant proportion. On the contrary, some Member States are still heavily relying on landfills for the management of bio-waste. For those countries no additional progresses in the application of the hierarchy are expected beyond what is strictly necessary to meet the Landfill Directive targets.

The projections on bio-waste generation are mainly linked with socio-economic parameters. It has indeed not been possible to identify national ambitious and effective strategies to prevent municipal bio-waste production. This means that the first “pillar” of the waste hierarchy (prevention) is not expected to be applied by most of the Member States. Therefore a part of the expected gains will be off-set by a rising amount of bio-waste generated.

5.3.4. Conclusions

In conclusion, the baseline scenario shows that the proper implementation of the Landfill Directive is expected to improve significantly bio-waste management at European level. This will require different levels of effort from the Member States (from significant to no efforts). A clear margin of progress towards the application of the waste hierarchy still remains unexploited for all Member States notably as more efforts on prevention and recycling of good quality (composting and digestion of bio-waste) could be done. These margins will be further analysed through the development of alternative scenarios (section 6.2). The projected increase of compost production also shows the necessity to set up compost standards which will increase confidence in the product and the development of the related market.

6. Policy Options

A first comprehensive attempt to analyse and set up policy options for biodegradable waste management was made in 2004 "Preliminary Impact Assessment for an Initiative on the Biological Treatment of Biodegradable Waste" http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/compost/pdf/ia_biowaste_Directive_report.pdf . The recommended policy option included setting quality criteria for compost and allowing Member States to set their own national recycling targets. Compared to 2004, the present analysis includes the assessment of the situation in the new Member States and an update of the EU-15 situation.[44]

"Preliminary Impact Assessment for an Initiative on the Biological Treatment of Biodegradable Waste" http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/compost/pdf/ia_biowaste_Directive_report.pdf

6.1. Rejected options

6.1.1. Proportionality

This analysis is limited to options directly linked with bio-waste management. On the basis of the principle of proportionality, possible changes in the following policies were not considered:

· climate change policies e.g. by the introduction of waste management into ETS;

· taxation policies e.g. by taxation of landfill or other disposal of bio-waste;

· renewable energy policies.

In all the abovementioned options, as the issue of bio-waste management would account for a relatively limited part of the changes, it seems disproportionate to modify these instruments in order to meet part the objectives detailed in section 4.

For instance, bio-waste is a limited fraction from the point of view of the ETS. Therefore the additional costs – notably the administrative costs - of introducing bio-waste into ETS appeared disproportionate compared to the potential benefits.

As explained in section 3.1, improving bio-waste management could contribute to meeting the targets defined in other European policies such as renewable energy and non ETS emissions.

Landfill related taxes are used in many European countries today, but are very country-specific. E x perience shows that the harmonisation of these taxes at EU level is very likely to result in low level of taxes adjusted to different national contexts and pr i orities.

6.1.2. Other rejected options

The options below were analysed but were not shortlisted for a detailed Assessment.

· Introduction of a total ban on landfilling of bio-waste or extension of the current limitations . Such a ban is considered as disproportionate compared to the objectives detailed in section 4. The current targets in the Landfill Directive still allow landfilling of 35% of biodegradable waste after 2016 which would allow the Member States still heavily relying on landfills to meet the targets progressively. Moreover, as shown by experience and in the analysis of the baseline scenario (section 5) such a ban alone is unlikely to direct diverted waste to optimal treatment.

· Setting a limit for the amount of bio-waste in municipal residual waste. This option was suggested during the stakeholder consultation By European Environmental Bureau (association of environmental NGOs) . Even if potentially interesting it was rejected as it will require costly monitoring and enforcement systems. Targets on separate collection or recycling seem to offer similar results but perform better as they allow for more flexibility.[45]

By European Environmental Bureau (association of environmental NGOs)

· Voluntary agreements would need to be concluded with counterpart o r ganisations representing the relevant market actors and which can enter into long-term commitments on their b e half. As currently there is no such agreement or organisation able to guarantee self-regulation on that issue, the option has been abandoned.

6.1.3. Options analysed but not developed into scenarios

The options listed below have not been developed into scenarios due to challenges with setting clear and measurable objectives.

· Introduction of differentiated recycling targets . This option proposed setting national recycling targets which would take into account differences between Member States, e.g. their soil situation, demand on quality compost, geographical and climatic conditions, population density. However, it was concluded that setting acceptable and objective criteria for such differentiation would require disproportionate efforts in practice.

· Differentiation according to a time schedule (derogation for specific countries) was also rejected as a standalone option as it was not expected to deliver significantly different results than the options pre-selected for full assessment.

· Setting GHG targets instead of recycling targets . While this option seemed to be attractive, especially as it enables a more flexible approach, it was rejected since the setting of a GHG based target could lead to disregarding other environmental benefits of the treatment of bio-waste. This option should be further reviewed in the future, starting with the definition of appropriate specific objectives. Nevertheless, it has been decided to include certain elements of this option in a variant of the scenario analyzed in this Assessment with the aim of assessing solutions maximizing GHG savings.

6.1.4. Non-regulatory measures

· Awareness raising instruments and public pr o curement policy were both regarded as necessary but insufficient as standalone measures to meet the objectives as defined in section 4. Meeting these objectives will indeed require a modification of the current and foreseen bio-waste management practices which could not be achieved only with these instruments. Nevertheless these instruments should be considered at local level when implementing potential legislation.

· National targets (i.e. set nationally by Member States) could also offer a positive contr i bution to improved bio-waste management. Such national targets would ensure that a certain fraction of bio-waste is biologically treated. Compared to EU mandatory separate collection or recycling targets, the setting of national targets would offer a more flexible approach for individual Member States in framing their specific strategies for bio-waste management. However, the achievement of such targets would be uncertain and rely on Member States willingness. Parts of this option are already included in the baseline scenario as possible elements of national implementation strategies of the Landfill and Waste Framework Directives.

Non-inclusion of non-regulatory measures in the detailed assessment does not exclude their future use as they may effectively support other legislative instruments. For example, regulatory measure could be successfully accompanied by awareness raising measures.

6.2. Options shortlisted for scenario analysis

Any EU initiative on bio-waste should take into account local/regional specific conditions as much as possible. The options selected for further analysis therefore meet the following criteria:

· Allow Member States as much flexibility as possible in the selection of waste management systems;

· Do not hinder further technological development in bio-waste treatment.

6.2.1. General assumptions for all scenarios

Taking into account that bio-waste management strategies are quite different from one Member State to another, the following assumptions have been made:

· No modifications compared to the baseline scenario will occur before 2013;

· Each scenario assumes an interim target corresponding to 40% of the final target by 2017. Progress towards the targets will be linear;

· 10% Average ratio in the EU composting and AD plants – source: Arcadis/Eunomia of the separately collected waste sent to anaerobic digestion and 5% of the waste sent to composting becomes a residue and is landfilled;[46]

Average ratio in the EU composting and AD plants – source: Arcadis/Eunomia

· Green waste separately collected in addition to the baseline will be treated by in-vessel composting;

· The setting of compost standards is an element of each scenario and implies in practice the organisation of separate collection to ensure the quality of the compost/digestate produced;

· In cases where for some "advanced" Member States the baseline scenario performs better than an alternative scenario, the baseline scenario is maintained for the calculation of the impacts.

The necessity of organizing separate collection of bio-waste to ensure the quality of the compost produced has been confirmed during the stakeholder consultation and by the "return" on experiences from projects on composting based on mixed collection. Separate collection is therefore considered a pre-requisite before envisaging more ambitious objectives in terms of biological treatment. Four scenarios representing an increased level of ambition in the application of the waste hierarchy principles were analysed in detail, the main assumptions used are summarised in Table 2. Figure 3 illustrates the gradation of the different scenarios in term of environmental ambition. In addition to these four scenarios, another qualitative scenario has been analysed in order to assess the added value of EU common compost standards (scenario 1).

The selection of the boundary conditions for scenarios has been done on the basis of the experiences of Member States with separate collection.

The levels set in scenarios 2 and 2A reflect the most advanced performance of projects in the leading Member States. It corresponds to the separate collection and biological treatment of 90% of garden waste and 60% of kitchen waste – or an average of 66% of all bio-waste.

The levels set in scenarios 3 and 3A represent the midpoint between the current EU 27 weighted average of biological treatment (19%) and the rate in the most advanced Member State (DK with 54% of separate collection). This calculated midpoint amounts to 36.5%, meaning in practice that all Member States currently below this target are supposed to meet it by 2020. For the other Member States which are expected to exceed this minimum target in 2020, no modification has been introduced compared to the baseline scenario.

|Baseline scenario|Scenario 3 : moderate biological treatment|Scenario 2: prevention and high biological treatment|

Prevention - waste generation 2008-2020|10% increase of waste generation between 2008 and 2020|No prevention - same amount of waste generated as in the baseline|Compared to the baseline, reduction of 3% by 2017 and 7,5% by 2020|

Compost standards |No EU standards|New EU standards|New EU standards|

Biological treatment in 2020 |37.5% (average at EU 27 level – no minimum target per MS)|36,5% as minimum in all Member States |66% (90% garden waste and 60% food waste)|

Interim target in 2017||40% of 2020 target|40% of 2020 target|

Variant - scenario 2A and 3A||Kitchen waste separately collected treated in AD|Kitchen waste separately collected treated in AD|

Table 2: Comparison of the main assumptions used for each scenario

(...PICT...)

Figure 3 This graphic is illustrative based on a qualitative approach. It aims at summarizing the scenario which were assessed in the Assessment : Scenario definition and level of ambition [47]

This graphic is illustrative based on a qualitative approach. It aims at summarizing the scenario which were assessed in the Assessment

6.2.2. Scenario 1: Set compost standards only

This option includes setting quality standards for compost produced from bio-waste in order to facilitate trade, eliminate potential risks of soil contamination, improve compost markets and enhance customers' confidence. Compost standards represent a valuable quality framework within which other policy measures can more successfully be enacted.

6.2.3. Scenarios 2 and 2A: Compost standards + high biological treatment rates + waste prevention

These two scenarios assume setting ambitious prevention and biological treatment for bio-waste. Successful implementation of these targets necessitates efforts to promote prevention and the implementation of comprehensive systems for separate collection of bio-waste from both household and commercial sources on the national level.

Separate collection schemes and further composting or anaerobic digestion of bio-waste would cover a majority of households and be organised either through kerbside door-to-door collection, a bring-in system on communal amenity sites, or through access to tools for monitored and structured home composting.

Only composting or digestion of source separated bio-waste as well as “controlled home composting” is considered as "biological treatment" in these scenarios in order to guarantee the quality of compost. Practical capture rates would be around 60% of food waste and 90% of garden waste (average of 66% for all bio-waste). A target for prevention of 7.5% This target has been fixed on the basis of the results of existing prevention programmes launched at local level – references: WRAP and ACR+ is defined for 2020 with an interim objective of 3% in 2017. [48]

This target has been fixed on the basis of the results of existing prevention programmes launched at local level – references: WRAP and ACR+

Scenario 2A is based on almost identical assumptions as scenario 2. The sole difference is that while scenario 2 maximizes the overall total benefit for society, scenario 2A maximizes environmental gains by choosing the system leading to the greatest reduction in GHG emissions. In practice, it means that in scenario 2A food waste is subject to anaerobic digestion even in countries for which the more economic solution would be an in-vessel composting.

6.2.4. Scenarios 3 and 3A: Compost standards + moderate biological treatment rates

The main difference between these scenarios and scenarios 2 and 2A is the absence of waste prevention targets and a much less ambitious level of obligatory separate collection and biological treatment - separate collection and biological treatment at 30% for food waste and 70% for garden waste (average of 45% on all bio-waste).

Scenario 3A is based on almost identical assumptions as scenario 3 but while in scenario 3 the total benefits for society are maximized, in scenario 3A the GHG emission reduction are maximized. This is similar as for scenarios 2 and 2A.

6.3. Scenarios comparison and modelling

Taking into account the above assumptions, a model was developed in order to assess the impacts of each scenario. The results of this comparison are presented in section 8.

The model used for assessing the impacts of the scenarios is based on a "optimal" approach at society level: in order to meet a certain ambition level in terms of biological treatment, the solution offering the best cost/benefit ratio at society level for the treatment of bio-waste is searched country by country. On this basis, an analysis of how the waste streams will change in comparison to the baseline scenario was conducted. It allowed making estimations on how much waste has to be diverted from landfilling, incineration and MBT in order to meet the pre-defined targets as fixed in the different scenarios. It is assumed that, for each country a switch will be made into the most effective biological treatment option which depends on country specific data.

The environmental and economic impacts were calculated for each treatment method in each Member State. As detailed in section 7, the impacts of the treatment methods were estimated in detail, including energy used and produced, direct emissions to air and GHG, avoided emissions linked with energy and compost used. Knowing the amount of waste moved into biological treatment as well as the differences between the costs and benefits per technology, the result of the “technology switch” were calculated per country for each scenario and expressed both in costs and benefits (including a monetization of the environmental impacts) and in tonnes of GHG emissions avoided.

As explained above, it was not possible to take into account specific local conditions, e.g. outlets for compost, available city heating or gas grids etc. Country averages were used instead. Therefore, the modelling gives general answers which are valid at the EU-27 level but could not be used as the main tool for selecting waste management systems at a local level.

7. Analysis of impacts

7.1. General description of impacts

The main impacts of the policy options identified in section 6 are linked to the modification of the amount of waste generated and the way it is treated. The impacts are summarized below.

7.2. Environmental impacts

The main environmental impacts are linked to the emissions of GHG, other emissions into the air affecting air quality and soil improvement.

Each treatment method and waste collection system was assessed against environmental impacts which, where possible, were quantified. This evaluation considers direct emissions as well as how much emission could be avoided by using the energy and compost/digestate produced.

The environmental impacts were assessed assuming that all installations are in compliance with the existing relevant Directives and notably the Landfill, the Waste Incineration and the Industrial Emissions Directives Directive on Industrial Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) 1996/61/EC. This directive will be replaced by directive of Industrial Emissions (currently in co-decision process) which will set up operational requirements for large biological treatment plant (above 50t/day) .[49]

Directive on Industrial Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) 1996/61/EC. This directive will be replaced by directive of Industrial Emissions (currently in co-decision process) which will set up operational requirements for large biological treatment plant (above 50t/day)

7.2.1. Direct emissions into the air

The main emissions for the analysed bio-waste treatment methods are summarised below:

· Emissions from composting include GHG from the decomposition of organic matter (however a significant part of this gas remains bound in organic matter), nitrous oxide and methane;

· Emissions from anaerobic digestion include mainly small amounts of fugitive emissions of methane from the installation and emissions of GHG and nitrogen oxide in the process of combustion of biogas to generate energy;

· Emissions from landfilling include significant amounts of gases consisting of methane, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide and ammonia. About 1% of landfill gas is made up of trace substances which may include up to 150 often harmful substances. Flaring or combusting landfill gas results in carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions;

· Incineration generates significant emissions of biogenic (i.e. regarded as carbon neutral) CO 2 see box 2 as well as a variety of harmful air pollutants including dust and particulate matters, dioxins, nitrogen oxide, sulphur dioxide, acids, carbon monoxide, organic volatile compounds and heavy metals. These emissions are assumed to be below the limit values of the Incineration Directive. [50]

see box 2

As detailed in Annex 6, in quantitative terms, the majority of air pollutants and GHG emissions are emitted by landfills, followed by incineration and composting. The least emitting technology is anaerobic digestion.

7.2.2. Production and consumption of energy

As detailed in Annex 7, the emissions linked to energy consumed and/or produced by each process, were also included in the calculation of the impacts:

· For composting, no energy generation is envisaged and energy used in the process is rather low - electricity and Diesel fuel;

· Anaerobic digestion requires electricity to run the process; however generation of biogas delivers a surplus of energy. Biogas can be used as an energy source in four different ways:

– combusted on the site of the facility in a gas engine and used to generate electricity only;

– combusted on the site of the facility in a gas engine and used to generate electricity and heat;

– upgraded (cleaned) and used as a vehicle fuel (e.g. for buses as is currently the case in some Member States), replacing Diesel fuel;

– upgraded biogas injected into the gas grid, where it replaces natural gas;

· Incineration uses energy in the process within the air pollution control system and to start the combustion process. This however is by far offset by the use of energy generated. Depending on the type of incinerator, it can produce only electricity, only heat, or both (CHP process).

· Landfilling requires some electricity to run the plant and Diesel fuel to operate the landfill equipment. As capturing of landfill gas is compulsory, it was assumed that 50% of the gas is captured on site of which 60% is used to generate electricity.

The energy generated at a waste treatment facility is regarded as renewable according to the methodology used by the IPCC and also laid down in numerous community legislation, such as the Renewable Energy Directive, which states that the waste with biological origin can be used for producing renewable energy. It is assumed that the energy produced from bio-waste replaces the energy which would have been produced from other sources in the given country.

As detailed in Annex 8 (Table A.8-1 and A.8-2), the energy mix for each country was defined on the basis of ESTAT data for heat and electricity generation. On the basis of the country specific energy mix and the related emission factors, the air emissions were estimated.

In practice it means that electricity produced from waste will allow avoiding a larger amount of air pollutants in countries like Poland or Estonia where more than 90% of electricity originates from solid fuels combustion emitting significant amounts of air pollutants. The situation would be different in Austria which generates 62% of electricity from renewable sources or Sweden where 47% of energy originates from nuclear sources and 50% from renewable sources. The energy mixes has been prepared based on country's averages. It could be argued that in case marginal source of electricity would be used instead of average - fossil fired power plant would be substituted first - as these plants generally have the highest variable cost. No Member State would reduce the production of e.g. hydropower because of increased incineration, but rather export (if possible) this surplus electricity abroad. However if demand for electricity would rise the electricity for bio-waste would rather supplement than substituted existing plants. Nevertheless changing this assumption would improve the performances of solutions that substitute electricity, such as incineration and electricity from biogas, in the countries relying on fossil fuels.

7.2.3. Use of compost/digestate on soil

Environmental advantages of using compost on soil are quite difficult to quantify. Due to a loss of water and gases during composting the mass of compost produced is equal to 50% of bio-waste collected and slightly lower for anaerobic digestion. Similarly as in the case of energy, most of these environmental impacts were re-calculated into avoided air and GHG emissions (Annex 9).

This is for instance the case for benefits from the use of compost on soil linked to the substitution of alternative nutrient sources otherwise applied through the use of synthetic fertilisers, including the avoided external costs of fertiliser manufacture and the avoided associated energy use.

7.2.4. Environmental impacts not quantified

In the framework of this assessment, it was not possible to quantify the following impacts:

· The production of leachate and waste water from all the processes - composting, landfilling, landfilling of incineration residues;

· Odour and bio-aerosols from landfilling and composting process as well as other nuisances such as insects and vermin;

· Estimation of the financial disamenities linked with living in the vicinity of waste treatment facilities.

While the data on both the magnitude of disamenities and their possible valuation are inadequate, it is assumed that these impacts are likely to be relatively small as it has been assumed that all plants are supposed to respect the EU relevant legislation. The risk for soil from the presence of harmful substances in compost was not quantified either, even though this issue has been recognised by experts e.g. the problem of an accumulation of heavy metals in soil Amlinger, E. Favoino, M. Pollak, S. Peyr, M. Centemero and V. Caimi (2004) Heavy metals and organic compounds from wastes used as organic fertilisers , Study on behalf of the European Commission, Directorate-General Environment, ENV .A.2, http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/compost/index.htm . [51]

Amlinger, E. Favoino, M. Pollak, S. Peyr, M. Centemero and V. Caimi (2004) Heavy metals and organic compounds from wastes used as organic fertilisers , Study on behalf of the European Commission, Directorate-General Environment, ENV .A.2, http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/compost/index.htm

However, the application of source segregated bio-waste as well as setting standards for compost and limit values for soils to which it can be applied should adequately address this issue.

7.2.5. Environmental impacts from changes in waste collection