30.3.2004 EN C 80/47 Official Journal of the European Union
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the
Commission Towards a thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste’
(COM(2003) 301 final)
(2004/C 80/14)
On 28 May 2003, the Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentionedcommunication.
The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on this subject, adopted its opinion on 14 November 2003. The
rapporteur was Mr Buffetaut.
At its 404th plenary session held on 10 and 11 December 2003 (meeting of 11 December), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 29 votes in favour and three against.
1. Introduction
1.1. The question of the prevention and recycling of waste
and the various forms of waste-recovery and elimination of
waste is one of the fundamental questions which have tobe addressed when tackling the issue of the sustainable
development of our societies. For this reason the Commission
wishes to set out, as part of its Sixth Environmental ActionProgramme, a thematic strategy on the prevention and recyc-
ling of waste, at a time when the overall quantity of waste is
continuing to increase, in spite of the policies for preventingwaste-recovery which have been pursued for several years.
Furthermore, the accession of ten new Member States to the
European Union can only increase the scale of the problem.
1.2. Total waste generation in the EU is about 1,3 billion
tonnes per year, or 3,5 tonnes per capita a year (not includingagricultural waste). According to information published by the
European Environment Agency (EEA), five major waste streams
make up the bulk of total waste generation in the EU:manufacturing waste (26 %), mining and quarrying waste
(29 %) (
1), construction and demolition waste (22 %) and
municipal solid waste (14 %), and agricultural and forestrywaste (estimation of the amounts involved is particularlydifficult). 2 % of this waste is hazardous waste, i.e. about
27 million tonnes.
1.3. Evidence shows that total waste quantities continue to
increase. However, where a proactive sectoral policy has beenpursued (e.g. for packaging waste in Germany), there has been
a reduction in some specific kinds of waste, though not
enough to reverse the general trend. One relatively optimisticsign is that there has been some progress in the decoupling of
waste generation from economic growth, the production of
waste rising less quickly than economic growth (
2).
(1) See Opinion on the management of waste from the extractive
industries.
(2) European Environment Agency, 2002: Environmental Signals 2002
— Benchmarking the Millennium , Environmental assessment report
No 9, Copenhagen: EEA, chapter 12, pp. 100-105.1.4. The relationship between the generation of waste and
its environmental impacts is complex and depends on a
number of factors including the nature and composition ofthe waste concerned. Assessing the environmental costs ofwaste is complicated by the fact that techniques to express
environmental impacts in monetary terms still have metho-
dological limitations. Hence it is difficult to estimate theenvironmental costs of waste.
1.5. Control procedures and procedures for the differing
implementation of the common general principles necessary
to ensure a high level of protection of the environment andhuman health across the Community have been in existence
since the adoption of the waste framework directive of 1975
and the hazardous waste directive of 1991. To enable anassessment to be made of the true impact of the existing laws,
however, there is a need to make available statistics and data,
drawn up in accordance with simple, standard criteria, enablingmeaningful and reliable comparisons to be made. In thisrespect a more sustained effort is needed to provide more
dependable statistics. Similarly, it would be useful to have a
catalogue of best practices developed by different local auth-orities in Europe.
1.6. Despite the progress made in reducing the environmen-
tal impacts of waste treatment, thanks to the implementation
of European and national standards, significant problems stillexist. Above all, problems have been experienced with the
transposition and implementation of Community waste legis-
lation in EU Member States. This issue could well become amore acute problem when the new EU Member States have to
adopt the existing body of EU environmental legislation. In
many cases the former Communist regimes have left acatastrophic legacy and caused their countries to lag far behindothers in this field.
C 80/48 EN 30.3.2004 Official Journal of the European Union
2. Gist of the proposal
2.1. The Commission’s Communication launches a broad
consultation of stakeholders in order to get their views on theset of policy options included in the Communication. These
policy options include such issues as how to avoid generating
waste, how to reduce the use of resources and how best todesign recycling systems for certain types of waste. The
Commission’s strategy also seeks to assess the achievements of
EU waste policy to date, as well as to understand better whatareas require further development.
2.2. The Commission’s Communication is part of a major
rethink by the Commission about sustainable production andconsumption. It is linked to its Communication on Integrated
Product Policy (
1) and its forthcoming Communication on the
Sustainable use of Natural Resources.
2.3. The Communication recognises that there is a need for
targets on waste prevention as well as for measures thatwill ensure these targets can be feasibly met. As such, the
Communication invites comments about the feasibility of
specific prevention measures including waste prevention plans,low waste production techniques and replication of best
practice from national to EU level.
2.4. In its document, the Commission raises the question
of the advisability of taking a fresh look at the definition of
‘waste’ and examines the arguments both for and against. Thenature and content of the future strategic options which are
adopted will clearly be dependent upon the definition of
‘waste’. Operators, economic actors and consumers do, at allevents, require legal certainty and stability. Any change in the
definition of waste would have major consequences.
2.5. The Communication states that recycling policy could
be improved in several ways as a means of helping resolve the
waste problem in the EU. Specifically it examines issues suchas the setting of recycling targets for materials, the high costsof recycling and ways in which recycling can be made cheaper,
easier and cleaner.
3. General comments
3.1. The EESC supports the Commission’s efforts to exam-
ine the ways in which a broad mix of policy options can be
(1) COM(2003) 302 final.designed and applied in a way that can feasibly seek to resolvethe important issue of the increase in waste generation in the
EU.
3.2. The Committee welcomes the fact that the Com-
mission’s proposal is in line with the Conclusions of theGothenburg European Council (June 2001), the aims of
the 6th Environmental Action Programme of the European
Community (July 2002) and the Agenda 21 plan of implemen-tation of the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable
Development (September 2002). It regrets, however, that in its
draft the Commission does not formulate specific environmen-tal targets. The purpose of a strategy is to develop ways of
achieving objectives deemed to be essential. The Committee
therefore considers the formulation of waste prevention targetsonly during or even after the strategy discussion prompted by
the Commission to be a potentially flawed approach which
makes the prospects somewhat unclear.
3.3. The Committee agrees with the scope of the strategy
which, it believes, should be in accordance with the OECD (
2)
guidelines in this field. The Committee approves the launching
of a debate with a view to identifying the priorities in respectof the prevention and processing of waste, without excluding
from the outset any form of recovery of waste.
3.4. The Committee would like the Commission to ensure
that the strategy endeavours to reinforce environmental and
health rules in the EU and control levels that apply to recycling,
but without hampering its development, as these rules areoften less stringent than those that apply to the maindisposal options (landfill and incineration). If not, an unwanted
consequence of the strategy would be to encourage systematic
recourse to less controlled waste treatment options, leadingeasily to higher impacts on the environment. This is all
the more important as recycling techniques still rely to a
considerable extent on manual methods which expose oper-ators to greater health, hygiene and safety risks. It would be
useful here to provide for adequate means of promoting the
development of specific technologies for protecting publichealth and the environment.
3.5. The strategy covers prevention and recycling and, as
such, does not directly cover other forms of recovery, whichonly appear as a secondary concept. This is particularly
true with regard to composting and energy recovery. The
Committee believes that, in any future EU waste strategy, allforms of potentially worthwhile recovery should be con-
sidered, taking into account environmental requirements,
economic and energy conditions and geographical constraints.
(2) OECD, ENV/EPOC/PPC (2000)5/Final: Strategic Waste Prevention:
OECD Reference Manual, August 2000.
30.3.2004 EN C 80/49 Official Journal of the European Union
3.6. The Committee agrees that estimating the environmen-
tal costs of waste generation is a complex art, but believes that
the Commission, in designing any future waste strategy, should
bear in mind the relative costs and benefits of the policymeasures to be adopted and whether or not chosen policyoptions can be feasibly applied across the EU. The Committee
also underlines the continued need to ensure even and
successful implementation of waste legislation across all EUMember States, no matter what policy options are finally
agreed. It is particularly essential to harmonise the definition
of waste, which currently varies between the Member Stateswhere implementation is concerned.
3.7. The Committee welcomes the option proposed by the
communication which seeks to encourage selective collection
systems and quantitative waste prevention by introducing
charging arrangements; these ‘pay-as-you-throw’ schemes arealready in operation in certain Member States.
3.8. In order to implement an effective waste strategy it is
important to have a good definition of the concept of waste
which makes possible effective and rational handling of waste
for all parties involved. The existing definition of waste datesfrom 1976 when the handling of waste was quite different
from what it is today. The existing definition means that the
re-use and recycling of waste products in many cases mademore difficult, like the treatment of waste in the caseswhen the EU’s different regulations work together. The EESC
therefore welcomes the proposal in the Commission’s Com-
munication to initiate a debate on the matter.
4. Specific comments
4.1. Regarding the scope of the strategy, the Committee
appreciates that the Communication generally aims to encour-age both waste prevention and recycling. However, while the
need to encourage prevention is undisputable, the promotion
of recycling is sometimes presented in a simplistic way. TheCommittee believes that recycling is not always synonymouswith a high level of environment protection, nor necessarily
the best waste treatment option. For this reason, the strategy
on recycling should focus on specifically promoting goodforms of recycling (good in terms of environment protection,
economy and social terms), i.e. complying with sustainable
development principles.
4.2. As regards the prevention of waste, the Committee
recommends that the strategy:
— sets both quantitative and qualitative objectives, taking
account of (a) the demands made earlier by the EuropeanParliament and the Council with regard to the wasteproducts which have to be tackled as a matter of priority,
(b) the requirements of the Sixth Environmental Action
Programme, and (c) experience gained at national level
with regard to the prevention of waste;
— encourages the adoption of regulatory measures and
economic incentives for reducing the quantity of wasteproduced;
— encourages the development and adoption of ‘clean’
technologies and products;
— strongly encourages measures to reduce the volume of
waste produced and to re-utilise materials and products
which have real applications (in particular, glass bottlesfor example).
4.3. As regards the recycling of waste, the Committee
recommends that the strategy:
— makes it possible to increase the volume of recycled
materials used in all products, by setting out clearobjectives and incentives. One way of achieving this goal
is to make increased use of instruments whereby recycling
systems can be started up when market mechanisms ontheir own are not enough;
— identifies ways of removing obstacles to the competi-
tiveness of the recycling sector by improving the market-
ing conditions for recycled materials, without creatingundue distortions in competition;
— encourages the selective collection of biodegradable waste
and high-quality composting of this material so that
energy can be recovered;
— reduces cross-border movements of waste that are dispro-
portionate or excessive or are due to environmental
dumping;
— utilises to the maximum, the various information tools
that can help inform citizens of the measures they cantake to reduce and recycle waste and also be informed by
local authorities about the impacts their efforts are
having.
4.4. The Committee finds the reference to ‘tradable certifi-
cates’ to be an interesting new approach as it is the first time
the Commission envisages the application of such mechanisms
in the development of recycling. The Committee considersthat an appraisal and initial stock-taking of the mechanismintroduced in the UK could provide interesting pointers to the
benefits and pitfalls of such a scheme, and that an in-depth
study exploring the technique would help clarify how it couldwork best.
C 80/50 EN 30.3.2004 Official Journal of the European Union
4.5. The Committee recommends that there should be a
level playing field for recycling and calls, in particular, for the
Directive on integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC
Directive) to be applied across-the-board in the waste sector.At present many forms of waste-processing are excluded fromthe outset from the field of application of reference documents
on best available techniques (BREFs) and therefore cannot be
given a ‘best available technique’ (BAT) status; composting is acase in point.
4.6. The Committee supports the revision of Annexes II A
and II B of the Waste Framework Directive in order to re-
evaluate the definition of recovery and disposal operations.
4.7. Changing the definition of ‘energy recovery’ (page 37):
The Committee supports the Commission’s move to revise the
definition of energy recovery as part of a rethink of certain
aspects of Council Directive 75/442/EEC, provided that energyrecovery is fairly recognised as a form of recovery (and not of
disposal) in all cases where energy produced from incineration
as well as co-incineration processes is effectively recovered andused.
Brussels, 11 December 2003.
The President
of the European Economic and Social Committee
Roger BRIESCH4.8. The Committee regards the Commission’s initiative as
opportune. In the Committee’s view the question of the
prevention and processing of waste is an issue of fundamental
importance which has to be addressed without ideologicalprejudice and with an open mind as regards the variousmethods of processing and their relative merit. The Committee
highlights the fact that the difficulties encountered in increasing
the use of recycling derive mainly from cost issues, inadequatetechnology that compromises the quality of the recycled
product and the lack of marketing opportunities for recycled
products, which are not competitive enough. This situationshould provide an incentive for seeking and developing more
competitive technologies; it does, however, also raise the issue
of the internalisation of environmental costs.
The Committee also highlights the fact, without actually posing
questions, as it does in the Green Paper, the Commission hasadopted the approach of calling for contributions, views and
exchanges of experience in the fields which it is examining.
This participatory approach involving the sectoral players andthe public should be applauded.