Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Communication from the Commission on the review of the Community strategy for waste management` (97/C 89/02)

On 2 August 1996 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the 'Communication from the Commission on the review of the Community strategy for waste management`.

The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 7 January 1997. The rapporteur was Mr Colombo.

At its 342nd Plenary Session (meeting of 29 January 1997) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 80 votes to one with three abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1. The Committee considers it appropriate to review the Community's waste management strategy in order to evaluate its results and to identify more appropriate machinery for eliminating the delays and shortcomings. It therefore welcomes the Commission intention of holding a wide debate on the review, and appreciates the Council's timely adoption (9 December) of a resolution on the subject.

1.2. Along with others, the ESC has stressed the need for an overall approach to waste management, based on a precisely-defined hierarchy of principles headed by waste prevention and a clear distinction between recycling, recovery of material and energy recovery; it is from this standpoint that the ESC has examined the Commission's specific proposals over the years, stressing the need to involve all the parties concerned, to back up regulatory measures with market machinery, to define levels of 'responsibility` and to provide harmonized data bases without delay.

1.3. In examining this Commission document with a view to contributing to the formulation of future strategy, the Committee has borne in mind its earlier opinions ().

1.4. The Committee feels that the adoption of a Council resolution will be only a first step towards a relaunch of Community strategy involving a commitment from the Member States to fulfil all the obligations resulting from the wealth of legislation in this field. It is necessary not only to provide new legislation in the areas which have still not been covered properly (e.g. regulations on landfills and specific waste streams), but also - and above all - to make existing regulations effective and operative; any shortcomings must be remedied, and a mix of backup instruments must be adopted for the entire waste generation/management sector.

1.5. The strategy must be organized around quantitative objectives and specific deadlines, and entail regular monitoring and clear responsibilities.

1.6. Community and national authorities do not hold sole responsibility in this field; regional and local authorities are also involved, and are directly responsible for management. These authorities are closer to the people and the various socio-economic partners, which must be the key players in a preventive approach to waste generation.

2. General comments

2.1. Subject to its more detailed comments below the Committee accepts the general principles laid down in the communication and their prioritization. These principles have been repeatedly endorsed by the Committee.

2.2. On the other hand, the communication provides neither adequate information on nor an assessment of the results of national and Community waste management policies; in this connection, the communication emphasizes the lack of appropriate statistics and highlights the delays with which Community policies in this area are implemented. The Committee has pointed this out repeatedly in past opinions and can but deplore this shortcoming.

2.3. In addition to specific observations on individual topics and problems, the communication paints a generally negative picture of the EU's overall waste management record. The systems adopted by Member States frequently appear ineffective, environmentally unsustainable and economically inefficient (continuous increase in average waste generation, prevalence of landfill disposal, low volumes effectively recovered, etc.). Furthermore, it seems impossible to formulate this judgement adequately, i.e. to provide a clear statement of the problem and its elements and to identify the causes of and factors responsible for this failure. Thus, whilst the Commission is right to say that the situation is most unsatisfactory, it is unable to pin down the whys and wherefores. This makes it difficult to decide how Community policies and actions should be reformed.

2.4. This problem is particularly evident in the recommendation section of the communication. Although the Commission announces a number of future activities, it does not set out a concrete policy comprising operational concepts, a clear framework for action or quantified, carefully programmed objectives.

2.5. The communication focuses on three main problem areas:

a) the scarcity of quantified information and the inefficient collection and transmission of inter-comparable data by the Member States, together with the need to develop efficient Community procedures and systems based on the specific priorities and standardized definitions;

b) the inadequate implementation of Community directives and regulations at national level;

c) delays in and inadequacies in the formulation and adoption by the EU of more sophisticated environmental measures, such as economic instruments, voluntary agreements and any other measure involving increased responsibility in this field, especially among producers and consumers.

2.6. These are clearly major political problems; it will therefore require special efforts and commitment on the part of the Community institutions and national governments to organize a major debate by Europe's citizens, economic operators and executive and administrative authorities on such major topics as sustainability, the relationship between environmental protection and modified personal and collective behaviour patterns and the potential convergence between the economic and ecological objectives of society.

2.7. The Committee notes that the Council resolution is a first positive step towards tackling these problems and opening up this major debate. The aim here is to highlight positive experience at regional and local level, strengthen arrangements for coordination and exchanges of experience, and identify clear policy priorities taking the form of quantitative objectives. This without prejudice to the subsidiarity principle.

2.8. The Committee would point out once again that the option, under Article 130t of the Treaty, for individual Member States to adopt more stringent protective measures, must be understood dynamically, i.e. with a view to extending them gradually to other Member States; and that Article 100a(3) on the functioning of the internal market provides for a high level of environmental protection.

2.9. Accordingly, the Committee feels it would be unhelpful to resume a fruitless confrontation between the internal market and environmental protection, and reopen a legalistic battle concerning the most appropriate legal basis for measures in the waste sector; the Court of Justice has discussed the problem on several occasions, due to the difficulties in establishing the exact boundary between goods and waste.

2.10. It is important to emphasize the integrated approach to waste management with priority for the source, i.e. when designing the product which will eventually become waste. An internal market with a high level of environmental protection requires an industrial and manufacturing policy which incorporates environmental issues into both the manufacturing cycle and consumer patterns, thus establishing the sustainable growth which the EU committed itself to internationally at the Rio Convention, and which is enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty.

2.11. Finally, the Committee would point out that the Commission paints rather a bleak picture of the implementation of Community environmental law () emphasizing the limitations of sanctions for Member State non-compliance. The area of environmental protection is obviously beset with problems of culture, education and information, which need to be addressed if society as a whole is to act responsibly.

2.12. Shared responsibility must not, however, become an excuse for watering down responsibilities; these need to be clearly defined: in the area of waste management, the 'polluter pays` principle and that of liability for environmental damage must be applied in the most appropriate manner.

2.13. The concept of producer responsibility referred to in the communication is particularly delicate given the increasing complexity of the large number of products, many of which have extended life cycles. This concept must be more clearly defined by identifying specific priorities; in this connection, the Committee would refer to the concrete proposals contained in its opinions on civil liability for damage caused by waste, and on the Green Paper on remedying environmental damage (). The Committee particularly feels that the concept of civil liability for damage and that of producer responsibility must be clearly distinguished. The concept of producer responsibility is particularly important in the case of waste management, since the producer is best placed to influence the kind and amount of waste produced at the end of a product's life. The packaging directive currently in force provides a good example of the practical application of the producer responsibility principle.

2.14. The Committee would like to see this approach extended to other types of goods and waste by identifying priority flows, and using other voluntary instruments such as the eco-label and the environmental audit to encourage producer responsibility and use information to involve all other players.

3. Specific comments

3.1. Prioritization

3.1.1. Whilst the communication draws a clear distinction between material recovery and energy recovery (points 3.1.1, 3.2.1 and 3.2.2), it does not give the same emphasis to the significance and role of the reuse and recycling of goods. At times (point 3.1.1), these appear (correctly) to be considered as one of the waste-prevention measures and strategies whereas, at others (points 3.2.1 and 3.2.2) they are seen as a form of recovery. This is a particularly important issue in the case of packaging waste, container refilling, etc. An environmental audit is needed to look more closely into the direct and indirect impact of reuse on the environment.

3.1.2. In keeping with the views it has already expressed on the subject, the Committee endorses the Commission proposal for a rational hierarchy of principles which gives precedence to waste prevention in the production and consumer cycles; this is to be followed by re-use and recovery of materials, as a more ecologically acceptable solution than other forms of recovery and disposal, based on the precautionary principle pending further scientific and technological progress, or developments in the methods of analysing the lifecycle of a product. The Committee endorses the Commission's intention to give precedence to energy recovery over final disposal methods such as incineration without energy recovery and landfill. In future, landfilling should be used only for elements of harmless waste, or waste which has been rendered harmless.

3.1.3. A clearer distinction must be made between energy recovery on the one hand, and incineration (= disposal) on the other. The Committee notes with satisfaction that point 17.5 of the Council resolution calls on the Commission to consider the case for amending Community legislation on waste incineration in order to clarify this distinction, and would emphasize, in this respect, that it is only possible to claim to have made an energy recovery from waste when certain strict quality requirements have been satisfied; these relate to:

- the calorific value of the waste;

- plant efficiency;

- energy yielded.

3.1.4. Dumping and discharge of waste at sea should be expressly forbidden by Community law, as a complement to international agreements on the subject.

3.2. The proximity and self-sufficiency principles

3.2.1. The ESC agrees that, in the case of waste disposal, the principles of geographical proximity - regardless of national borders - and self-sufficiency can and must temper that of free movement which should, in turn, take precedence in the case of waste recovery. In these circumstances however, every effort must be made to avoid situations (of the kind already noted) in which the materials exports of countries that are unwilling or unable to develop a national recycling and recovery industry reduce the ability of importing countries to initiate separate collection and waste recovery from their products. The principle of the free movement of recoverable waste is valid if the various Member States commit themselves to establishing competitive recycling systems and standards, or at least avoid distorting the market by direct or indirect unilateral support or disincentives.

3.2.2. Moreover, whilst it is true that, under the terms of Regulation 259/93, recoverability is deemed sufficient reason to allow hazardous waste to be traded and transported freely over long distances, it should be remembered that the risks from toxic-substances (type of substance and concentration) increase according to the distance they are transported i.e. according to the areas and number of people at risk of contamination. Consequently, the principle of proximity and self-sufficiency must take precedence whenever possible, even in the light of prevention priorities.

3.3. Voluntary and tax instruments

3.3.1. The Commission communication stresses the need to shift the emphasis from regulation to voluntary and economic instruments. Broadly speaking, this approach should be pursued, since the second-generation policies (voluntary agreements, tax measures, etc.) are expected to have greater effect and penetration. At the same time, however, great care must be taken not to weaken the structures for dealing with these problems. It is the common experience of authorities which have advocated voluntary agreements that these can be reached and concluded more easily if the partners are aware of the authorities' ability to adopt restrictive legal provisions whenever there are no consistent agreements on achieving a high degree of environmental protection, and if minimum values and standards of practice are fixed as a safeguard.

3.3.2. In certain cases, e.g. heavy metals and other toxic substances, the use of innovative market instruments does not preclude the adoption of regulations restricting, or, where possible, eliminating them from manufacturing processes and products. A judicious mix of regulations and market instruments is the most suitable way of implementing environmental policies, and particularly waste policy, in pursuit of the two objectives of a high degree of protection and incorporation of environmental concerns in other sectoral policies.

3.4. Databanks and public information

3.4.1. If the communication is to raise public awareness and be a valid contribution to an extensive debate, it must be backed by a minimum data base of the type already available in the European Environment Agency, Eurostat and the Commission itself.

3.4.2. The Committee calls for the European Environment Agency to be strengthened. It was only in 1996 that the Agency set up a thematic network for waste management, in order to link up national 'focal points` and identify priorities on the basis of past experience. The Agency's work must not overlap with EUROSTAT's statistics-collection activities, or with the discussions surrounding the harmonization of terminology and the OECD definition of waste. Given that Article 2 of the Regulation on the establishment of the Agency () entrusts it with the task of collecting 'the objective information necessary for framing and implementing sound and effective environmental policies`, in preparation for action and legislation on the environment, its data collection activities should be organized in this light, and policy priorities selected.

3.4.3. Moreover, a more accessible, user-friendly communication is needed for the general public. It currently contains many complex observations and ideas that are comprehensible only to specialists. In view of the nature of the problem and the need to involve all interested parties in working out a solution, in accordance with the principle of shared responsibility endorsed by the communication, the form and content must be capable of generating the broadest possible interest and discussion.

3.5. Comments on the Council resolution

3.5.1. Finally, the Committee feels that, whilst the communication aims to stimulate an in-depth, EU-wide debate on waste management strategy, the Council resolution makes statements and proposals intended to underpin future policy and regulatory action on waste management. In this respect, the Committee calls for the resolution to provide a basis for clear commitment, from the various authorities particularly as regards:

- adoption of clear objectives and time frames for a reduction in waste generation and for uniform re-use and recycling rates for materials;

- definition of clear objectives and time frames for restrictions on, and where necessary, the elimination of toxic substances from products and the productive cycle;

- early presentation of the new draft directive on landfills, to ensure high levels of environmental protection by providing for the internalization of the environmental costs involved in this type of disposal, which, if not paid, make it superficially cheaper to recover neither materials nor energy;

- provisions to ensure uniform, EU-wide environmental requirements for waste treatment and recovery plant, to avoid distortions of competition between the Member States having a perverse effect on waste transactions and transport;

- adoption of uniform standards for waste treatment in industrial plant and in specific treatment plant, to take account of the priority objective of prevention. Following an integrated approach, and in addition to the emission restrictions for industrial plant which use combustible waste, requirements will have to be set for the quality and safety of the processes and products they produce, so as to prevent the spread and use of contaminated or poor-quality technologies and products;

- an increase in funding for research into prevention and recycling, and the creation of an integrated waste management system, making judicious use of available financial instruments, e.g. the Fourth R& D Framework Programme, the LIFE Programme for pilot projects, the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund, in a framework which harnesses the job-creation potential of a modern industrial waste management system based on prevention, recycling materials, energy recovery and the harmless disposal of non recoverable elements;

- promotion of the recycled products market through initiatives targeted on priority sectors;

- support and dissemination of know-how and information on experience and successful schemes at local level, by promoting the role of the local and regional authorities in achieving strategic objectives and by providing support for networking between the competent authorities, in order to disseminate best organizational and management practice;

- promotion of public awareness and consumer education campaigns, actively harnessing the respective associations and organizations;

- promotion, perhaps via a specific EEA assignment, of studies and research into the key aspects of the problem and specific situations, until the complex mechanism for Europe-wide statistics processing starts to produce reliable data;

- a firmer undertaking from the Commission to develop better procedures for monitoring Member State compliance with Community regulations, and to establish, should the need arise, specific investigative and study programmes.

- greater attention on the part of the Community institutions and the Member States to the waste management policy's potential for job creation, on the basis of the suggestions contained in the White Paper on growth, competitiveness and employment, appropriately referred to in point 20.1 of the Council resolution.

Brussels, 29 January 1997.

The President of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

() See, in particular, those published in OJ No C 318 of 12. 12. 1988 (municipal waste incineration plants), No C 112 of 7. 5. 1990 (civil liability for waste damage), No C 40 of 17. 2. 1992 (landfill of waste), No C 332 of 16. 12. 1992 (incineration), No C 129 of 10. 5. 1993 (packaging), No C 34 of 2. 2. 1994 (hazardous waste) and No C 18 of 2. 1. 1996 (waste shipment control).

() Communication COM(96) 500 final.

() OJ No C 112, 7. 5. 1990 and OJ No C 133, 1. 5. 1994.

() OJ No L 120, 11. 5. 1990.