COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND TO EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT A COMMUNITY STRATEGY FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT
Date: 1989-09-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU action, EU strategy, action programme, fight against wastage, prevention of pollution, storage of waste, transport regulations, waste, waste disposal, waste recycling

COMMISSION  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES 

SEC  (89)  934  final 

Brussels,  18  September  1989 

Sorti du Secretari 
G'  , 

A  co MM u :tf;!T Y  S T RAT E G Y 

WASTE  MANAGEMENT 

' 

j 

. 

• 

--

-

'\° 

c_1  QC 
,::,Ji!.  c  j5  7 

CONTENTS 

I. 

IN'I'.OOOOCI'ION 

II. 

BACKGROUND 

III. 

BASIC  POLICY  GUIDELINES 
The  EEx::;  Treaty 
A. 
The  action programmes 
B. 

IV. 

FIRST  STRATffiIC  GUIDELINE: 
A. 
B. 

Prevention by  technologies 
Prevention by  products 

PREVENTION 

V. 

SEXXlND  GUIDELINE:  RECYCLING  AND  REUSE 

VI. 

THIRD  GUIDELINE:  OPI'IlfIZATION  OF  FINAL  DISPOSAL 

VII. 

rouRTH  GUIDELINE:  REGUI.ATION  OF  TRANSPORT 

VIII.  FIFI'H  GUIDELINE:  REMEDIAL  ACI'ION 

IX. 

IMPLEMENTATION  OF  OOMMUNI'IY  LffiISIATION 

x. 

WASTE  MANAGEMENT  IN  A OOMMUNI'IY  WITHOUT  INTERNAL  FIDNTIERS 

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  * 

-

l  -

l 

' 

:.\ 
} 
~ 

CD,JMmf(CATIQJ  FIQf  THE  ITWISSIQJ 

A CXW!NJTY  STRATJm  FOR  WASTE  KANHzBMBNT 

I. 

The  problems  to  which waste  gives  rise are .both  specific a.ni  relatively 
OO!l!Plex:  waste  is not  only  a  potential souroe  of pollution but  can  al.so 
constitute  "seooIXla.ry"  natural  resources.  Action  require:i  of  the 
authorities  in relation to waste  therefore  concerns  environment  policy but 
is relevant  to  other  policies  as well,  in particular  economic,  technology 
a.n:l·. consumer-affairs  policies. 

In~  context questions  a.rise  conoern1.ng  preferre:i disposa.1  rates  a.ni  the 
-._  rules  governing  the IOOVEf8I1ts  of waste  as  the  in~  market  opens  up. 
The-· ma.in· disposal.  rates i,re  recyoling,  incineration a.ni  la.nifill. 
The 
ahc)ioe  of priorities will have  direct  economic  a.n:t.environmenta.l 

.-.  oonsa;i:uences. 

I 
I 

-2-

It follows,  given  the  close  interdepenience between  waste 1llallag~t)un a, 
wide  rcmge  of  iniustriaJ.  aro.  connnerc1aJ.  activities,  that  in : th e~  of 
a  Conmru:ni ty concept  of waste  management,  the  environment  wou1d  suffer;  .·a,;rtl.•  . 
what  is more,  the  completion  of  the  inter.na.l  market  would .. pa  put at r~;,as 
distortions  to cornpeti tion,  unwa.rra.ntai  investment  shifts· ·<Un  eveti;ma.,-pket 
••• segmentation  ooourrei. 

~: 

~! 

In these  circumstances  action by  the European  Conmru:ni ty  on waste  management 
must  be basei on  clear principles am.  guidei by  compreb.ensj_ve  meiium- am 
long-term strategic th:i.nking  aro.  the setting  of  general.  priorities to be 
tra.nsla.tai  into action in the  period up  to  20CXJ. 

This  is the aim  of  this communication,  which  respoms  ,  in particular,  to 
the  wish expressei by  the  European  Parliament  as  long  ago  as  1984  in the 
resolution it adoptai  in the  wake  of  the  peregrinations  of  the waste  from 
the  Seveso  disaster  (OJ  No  C  127  of  14 May  1984,  p.  67) . 

A first  series  of  measures  must  be  linked up  with  those  plannei in the 
fourth  environment  action programme. 
assessei in the  light  of  the  results  of  the  first  period . 

Further  action thereafter will be 

• 

__ 

• 

- 3  -

This  definition  takes  in all waste,  whether  it is to  be  inten:iei  for 
recycling am.  reuse  or  for  disposal. 

For  the  purposes  of  this  communication,  the definition  of  "waste"  is  that 
usei  in the  proposals  for  Directives  on  waste  am.  hazardous  wastes  row 
before  the  Council.I  Nuclear  waste  is not  coverei; 
peculiar  to  it dernarrl  a  rather  different  approach,  discussei  in a  recent 
communication  to  the  Council.2  The  Commission  will  put  up  a  proposal  for 
a  Directive  before  the  en:i  of  the  year. 

the  problems 

II. 

IWWi1QlNP 

It is extremely  difficult,  if not  impossible,  to  est.ircate  the  quantity  of 
waste  produce:l  in the Cormmrn.ity,  particularly because  of  the  lack  of  a 
single nornenclature  usei by  the  Member  States. 
Parliament's  Committee  on  the  Environment  refers  to  a  total  quantity  of 
aroun:i  2  200  million  tormes. 

In a  1987  report,2a 

• 

1  OJ  C 295,  19.11.88. 
2  O)M:(87)312  final. 
2a  Document  A 2-31/87. 

• 

1 

- 4  -

A  breakclo~m  of waste  by  source  shows  that,  on  average,  in the  :majority  of 
the Member  States  60%  of household  waste  is dumped,  33%  is incinerated.  and 
sorae  7%  is compostei,  whereas  over  60%  of  industrial waste  ani 95%  of 
It is clear  from  these  figures  that  a 
agricultural  waste  a.re  reusai. 
significant  proportion  of  waste  is simply  dTui.iped  a.n::l  is a  waste:i  economic 
asset. 

It is evident  from  this  conclusion  and.  the  quantity  of  waste  exported.  each 
year  outside  t.li.e  Community  (waste  incinerate:!.  or  dTuuped  at  sea  or  dumped  in 
non-member  countries)  that  ti.11e:re  is a  lack of  disposal  plants  within the 
Community,  partioula.rly  incineration plants. 

The  waste  treatment  sector,  whic...ri  covers  the  disposal,  treatment,  recycling 
and.  saJ..e  of  waste,  arnployei  over  two  million people  in the  Corornuni ty  in 
1982  and.  had  an  annual  turnover  of  between  EOJ  100  000  and. 
200  000  million.3  These  figures  demonstrate  the  importance  of  waste 
mai."lageroent  for  the  economy  as  a  whole. 
In  the Unitei  States  it occupies 
fourth  place  among  the  economic  sectors  considere:l  to  be  most  significant 
in the  next  ten years. 

The  right  steps  at  the  right  points  in the  path  followe:l  by  the  waste  must 
be  workei  out  in the  light  of  these  general  considerations. 

3 

"I.a  structure  et l'irnpaot  sooio-econorniqu.e  des  iniustries de 
recuperation  et de  recyclage  dans  les  pays  rnembres  de  la Cornmuna.ute 
europeemlS"  - OJtober  1982  - EUIOconsult. 

- 5  -

. 

' 

r  • 

' 

, 

'nle· Commission  has  sta.rta:i work  in the Eurostat  framework  to  upia,te  the 

•·:· m.  ~ FQI.TGt WIDBTJNBS 

A. 

· The  EEP  Treaty 

The.  Treaty  of Rome,  as  amerded  by  the  Single  European  Act,  enshrines 
environment  policy among  the  officiaJ.  policies  of  the  European  Community 
a.n::l  assigns  three  objectives  to  it: 

~-

• 

• 

-•. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

to preserve,  protect am.  improve  the qua.11 ty of  the  environment; 
to  contribute  towards  protecting human  health; 
to  ensure  a.  prudent  am.  rational  ut111za.tion  of  natural  resources. 

More  specifica.lly,  Article  130 r (2 )   of  the  Treaty  la.ys  down   that action by 
the Conmiunity  relating  to  tbe   environemnt  shall be  hasa:1.  on  the principles 
of preventive  action,  rectification of  enviromnentaJ.damage  a.t  source  as a 
priority am.  the principle  that  the polluter  should pa.y . 

.. . Aocordingly, ·the European  COnmun1 ty must  first address  i  tse1 f   to  preventing 

waste.before  considering  its (re)use am.  how  it is to be ultimately: 
disposa:l.  of. 
must  be  to  a.void  waste  am.  reduce  its quantity am.  harmfulness. 

In any  event,  the  l:asic  princ1ple  of action b y   the   COmmunity 

The  last sentence  of Article  130 r (2 )   lays  down   that  environmental 
protection requirements  (am hence  waste  ma.nagement,  which  is involve:i) 
sba.ll  henoeforth•be  a.  component  of  the COmmunity's  other  policies. 

• 

-6-

The  :mutual.  impact  of waste  management  policy am  the  internaJ. :market  is 
in:lisputable. 

' 

• 

The  proposei action is basei on  -pie  pr1nciple  set  out  in Article  130r(4)  of 
the  Treaty,  that  the Community  will  a.et  only  where  it is more  appropriate 
for  it to  a.et  than  for  the Member  States  to do  so  separately: 

I 

I 

because  the pollution or  nu1sance  in question ma.y  spill over  national. 
frontiers; 
or because dispa.ri ties between  national.  measures  could  cause 
distortions  of  competition  or  raise barriers  to  the  establishment  of 
the  internal :market; 
or  because disparities between  national. measures  could  contribute  to 
uniesirable diversion  of  investments  or  widen  tbegap in the quaJ.ityof 
life between  Member  States; 
or  because  the  coordination or  combination  of national.  efforts would 
permit  a.  substantial  saving in overall  terms. 

I 

B.  The  action p r~  

The  European  Community's  action programmes  on  the·environrnenthave  aJ.ready 
set out  certain basic  lines  of policy  for  the Community  to  a.et  on  in 
relation to waste  management . 

• 

- 7  -

The  first  action programme  (1973-76)  emphasize:i  the  neei  for  a  remErlial 
approach  at Community  level  to  problems  of  waste  disposaJ.  which  were  either 
on  a  major  soaJ..e  or  causei distortions  of  competition. 

The  seconi action programme  (1977-81),  like  the  third  (1982-86)  placei  the 
problem  of  waste  in the  context  of  action by  the  Community  requirei  to 
coml:at  waste  a.ni  to  safeguard  natural  resources  while  managing  them 
properly.  These  programmes  outlinei a  policy  with  three aspects: 

• 

1.  waste  prevention; 
2.  waste  recycling  a.ni  reuse; 
3.  safe disposaJ.  of  non-recoverable  residues. 

This  threefold  policy approach  was  confi:rmei  in the  fourth  action programme 
(1987-92),  which  nevertheless  places  special  emphasis  on  the  neei  for 
The  desirability  of 
"clean  technology"  a.ni  "clean  product"  measures. 
"rnultirnei.ia"  Community  action in relation  to  waste,  with  economic 
incentives  a.ni  information  caropa.igns  as  well  as  regulatory :measures,  is 
also  emphasizei.4 

1Y. 

FIRST  S'J'BATlliIG  GUIDETJNB:  PREVENTIOO 

To  prevent  waste  is un:loubte::lly  thre  first  guideline  of  European  waste 
:management  strategy. 

• 

4  OJ  C 328,  7.12.1987. 

- 8  -

Recent  figures  show  that  technological.  changes  can  have  a  positive  impact 
on  waste  generation  providoo.  that  genuine  clean  technologies  are developoo., 
rather  than  purification  technologies,  which  merely  shift  the 
pollution.4,5 

To  complete  this waste  roo.uction  approach,  bearing  in mini  that waste 
arises  chiefly at  two  stages:  first,  when  prcxiucts  are  ma.nufacturoo. 
(in:iustriaJ.  waste,  etc.)  an:i  secon:lly,  after  they  are  usoo.  (domestic 
refuse,  etc.),  it is proposoo.  that  a  duaJ.  preventive  strategy be developoo.: 

1.  prevention by  technologies, 
2.  prevention by  prcxiucts. 

A.  Prevention b7  technol~ies 

The  primary  purpose  of developing  clean  technologies  is  to  perfect 
non-polluting  manufacturing  processes  which  prcxiu.ce  little or  no  waste. 

Such  technologies  usuaJ.ly  teni  to  improve  manufacturing  processes 
generally. 

Iniustries  themselves  are  in the  best  position to  reduce  the  quantity an:i 
ha.rm.fulness  of  wastes  ari.sing  from  their  prcxiuction  processes.  Generali y 
speaking,  it is for  them  to develop  ccxies  of  practice designe;i  to  prevent 
waste  at  the  process-developne:nt  stage a.ni  to  promote  those  ccxies  by  means 
of  information  a.ni  training  programmes. 

5  Rheinisch-Westfalisches  Institut  fur  Wirtschaftsforschung,  Analyse  der 
Strukturellen Entwirklung  der  deutschen  Wirtschaft  Strukturwa.niel  uni 
Umwel tschutz,  Essen  1987. 

- 9  -

Various  measures  have  been  taken at Community  level,  leading  in particular 
to  the ACE  programme  (Action by  the  Community  on  the  Environment),  with 
financial  support  to  demonstration projects  (Regulation No  1872/84/EEC  a.rrl. 
Regulation No  2242/87/EEC)  a.rrl.  the  setting-up  of  a  European  Information 
Network  on  environmental  technologies  (NEIT) .  These  initiatives :must  be 
continue:l: 

Special  ea.re  must  be  taken  to  integrate  a.rrl.  foster  clean  technologies 
within all the  Community  policies,  as  require:l  by  Article  130r. 

Action 

Proposal  to  the  Council  for  the  continuation a.ni  strengthening  on  a 
permanent  :00.Sis  of  action by  the  Community  on  the  environment  (ACE)  in 
the  field  of  clean  technologies. 

B.  Prevention m:  products 

The  minimizing  of  waste  at 
Waste  prevention is also  a  matter  of  prod.ucts. 
prod.uct  level :must  consist  in taking  account  of  the  environmental  impact  of 
the  entire prod.uct  life cycle. 
It :must  be  ensure:l  that  prod.u.cts  place:l  on 
the  market  make  the  smallest  possible  contribution,  by  their manufacture, 
use  or  finaJ.  disposal,  to  increasing  the  amount  or  ha.rrnfiimess  of  waste  a.n::l 
pollution hazards. 
manufacturers  a.ni  designers  of  prod.ucts,  a.ni  the  consumers,  the waste 
makers. 

The  "clean prod.ucts"  c.ampa.1gn  :must  bring  in both  the 

• 

, 

- 10  -

To  enable  consumers  to  play  their  full  part,  they must  be  informe1  al:>out 
the  ecologica.1  cha.raoteristics  of  products  ani  their  packaging  by 
appropriate  labelling. 
Member  States,  ani they  a.re  being  studiai in others . 

F.cologioa1  labelling schemes  a.lready  exist  in some 

In the  single market  context  1 t  is v1 taJ.  to  introduce  a.  Commun:1. ty · framework 
for  ecologica.1  infor:ma.tion  ani parameters  so  that  users/consumers  can enjoy 
the benefits  of  products  in an  environmentally  benign wa.y  without affecting 
the  operation of  the  single mark.et.  Developing  an integral.  oonoept  of  .· 
infor:ma.tion  on both product  qua.llty ani behaviour  in the  environment  (in 
use  ani dispOSaJ.)  will  ensure  tba.t  users/consumers  play an  operative  role. 

This  integral.  Commun1 ty approach will make  for  the  ecologica.lly benign use 
of  products  ani will mark  a  stage  in Conlmmity  progress  towards  a. 
oomprehensive  policy  for  product qua.11ty. 

Public procurement  is such a.  l.a.rge  seotor  tha.t  it am i,l&y  a  ·oruc1&1 
J.eadjJJg  role.  A stmy will '.be  made  of  tbe ~ h f l  1 ty of writing 

•· 

" 

• 

-

-_ • ecological ~ t a  on .a· non-d1sorim1natory basis into -~  

speoifiO&tions. 
Cammlity policies oould.  be- add.ai. 

llequirea\ents ~ from ·tlbe  priorities of  other 

-

- ----- -

---

_j 

- ll -

'  , 

_ Actions 

ProposaJ.  on  ecologica.l  parameters  for  products  a.1lnei  at the 
introduction of  a  Conummity  ecologica.l  label.ling  scheme. 

v. 

SiUJm GU f I ffiJNR:  BBJYCTOO  AND  RmlSB 

-

-

Once  waste  has  arisen,  the best way  of  preventing  or  raiu.cing  a:ny  adverse 
impa,ct  on  the  environment  is to  recycle  a.nil or  reuse  it;  in other words, 
to bt'ing  it back  into  the  economic  cycle  proper. 

-

In.  compliance  with enviromnental  parameters,  several  criteria will 

' - influence  the  choice  of disposal  route; 

the  waste  could be  recyclai,  or  it 

couid.  be  finally  elilni.natai. 
another  route,  the choice  will  largely depeni  on  the  cost. 

If there  are no  rules  imposing  one  or 

_ In the  choice  of  the  form  of  re-use,  then,  the  emphasis  will be  on  economic 
,,  CODSidera.tions. 

In a.  glabaJ.  approach  these  must  not  o'l:lecure  the 

__ 

socio-economic ani enviromnental  results  of  fa.iling  to  re-use  or  recycle 
the waste.  Any  assessment  of  not  recycling  waste,  1. e.  final  disposal  by 
dumping,  must  not  be  restriotai to  the  soo1aJ.  costs  of waste,  which  are 

___  usually.difficult  to,.quantif'y  exactly a.IXl  va;ry  considerably  with  the  nature 

of  the waste.  But  the  costs  of  in:lustrial  treatment  ani disposal 

' 

' 

' , 

- 12  -

I 

, 

processes  a.ni  of  rela.tei operations  such  as  collection,  sorting a.ni 
transport  - the  externa.l  costs  - axe  easily quantifiable.  An  overall 
assessment  must  aJ.so  take  into aooount  the  outlets :for.\products ~ 
from  reoyoling. 

Recycl1ng  an:l  re-:use  of  waste ea.n  ~ a.  variety of  fo~:.iDpl~ >:,  . i[Cl 
regeneration,  raw  mater:iaJ.s . recovery  am. ~ .conversicm.  •.  -- The}ohQ~~l,,;:  . 
should ·be  basai· on :the ·a.utof  raiucixlg··thequa.ntittes:iif wastle.~-:-,·{_'i}\-\ 
conserving  ra.w  materials a.n:i ·energy. 

The  COnnnission  concludai  that  the  re-use  or  recycling  of ~ shmtld~be 
vigorously  promotei,  ·through:· 

research a.ni  development  on  re-use  an:l  recycling  techniques, 
optirni.zing  collection ani-sorting  systems  (Sel89~ve  collections, 
electromeaha.nicaJ.  sorting,  etc.), 
raiucing  the  externa.l  costs  of  re-use  an:l  recycl1ng, 
creating  outlets  for  the products  of re-use  a.ni  recycling. 

The  resources  an:l  instruments  for  improving_the  re-use  an:l  recycling  of 
waste,  together  with their respective merits  an:l drawbacks,  should be  the 
subject  of  oompa.t'a.tive  studies a.t  Conununity  level. 

• 

1 

I 

To  be  fully  effective,  this oampa.1gn  should  be  a.ccompa.n1ai  by  incentives 
such  as  deposits  on  returnable  items  a.ni  taxes. 
right  level  should 1n no  circumstances  be discrimina.tory  or  out  of 
proportion  to  the aim  in view. 

Such measures  at  the 

.:...  13  -

r  ' 

' 

From  a,  sectoral.  point  of view  it must  be  pointed  Ollt  that  the  Communi.ty  has 
a..1.readyinstituteda. number  of  scbemes  for  recycling  waste  oil,  waste 
pa.per,  beverage  containers  ani usai mtteries.  Other  sectors must  still 
be  ta.cklai. 
a.otion  on  plastic waste  1s an urgent  necess1 ty. 

Followmg  the Court's  judgment  in case  380/87,  Communi.ty 

ProposaJ.s  to  l:ail  metal 

•  containers have  al.ready  been  introduoai  in some  Member  States,  thus 

, 

·jeopardizing  the  free movement  of goods. 
this  field  too. 

Communi.ty  a.otion  1s neaied  in 

Actions 

Proposal.  to  the Council  for  the  continuation ani strengthening  on  a. 
permanent  basis  of a.otion  by  the  Community  on  the  enviromnent  (ACE)  in 
the  field  of  waste  reuse  ani  recycling  technologies 
Proposal  on  plastic waste. 
Proposal.  on  metal.  packaging. 
Studies  of  instruments  to  improve  the  reuse  ani recycling  of waste 
(recyclable-waste  excha.nges,  oomputerizei  systems,  data bases). 

- I  

VI. 

'THIRD  Gu i I >RFDJB:  QPj']Jfi?:ATIQi  OF  FmAL  mSF(&L • 

Wastes  which  cannot  be  re:-USErl  or  recyolai must  -:'by definition - be 
d1sposai  of: 

in prlllCiple  they  a.re  dUinpEn~ 

- 14  -

, 

Yet  waste  dumping  is increasingly seen  to  present  serious  problems  of 
environmental  1.mpaot  an:i  the  avaj J ah1 J i ty of  suitable  sites.  Conse-:ruentl y 
dumping  Im.lSt  be  relioo.  on  only  as  the  last resort  in waste  :management. 
Every  possible  trea:tment  prior  to  dumping  Im.lSt  be  lookoo.  at,  with  the  aim 
of  re:iucing  the volume  of  potentia.l  harmfulness  of  the  waste. 
application  of  physico--chemicaJ.  or  biologicaJ.  treatment  processes 
(neutralizing,  stahi J 1 zing,  composting,  fer.menting,  etc. )  Im.lSt  be  expa.nie:i. 

The 

Dumping,  which  at  the  very least will  retoo.i.n  the  finaJ.  destination of 
residues  from  other  waste  treatment  processes,  :neeis  to  be  subject  to 
compliance  with strict sta.n::ia:rds  for: 

site selection 
site development 
site operation 
pre-treatment  of  the  waste  dumpe:i 
type  of  waste  aooeptoo. 
post-closure  supervision. 

At  present  the  pattern of  regulation  in Member  States  is uneven  an:i  varies 
widely  from  one  to  another,  leading  to  growing  differences  in environmental 
quaJ.i ty between  them. 
harmonization  of  sta.n:ia.rds  on  the  basis  of  a  high  level  of  environmental 
protection is urgently  neoo.oo.. 

To  counter  this  di verging  process,  the 

- 15  -

Incineration is a  widely  usei  form  of  waste  disposal  which  is acceptable 
within strict limits. 
monitoring. 

It must  be  subject  to  strict emission  stamards  an:i 

The  Commission  has  already  put  forward  proposals  on  D.f:'M  a.n:i  existing 
incinerators  for  domestic  refuse,  which  have  been  a.doptei  by  the 
COuncil.6a  Incinerators  for  .iniustrial  waste  are  now  under  study  in 
order  that  a  proposal  may  be  sent  to  the  COuncil. 

' 

As  regards  the  rema.:i..ning  methoos  of  disposal,  dumping  a.n:i  incineration at 
sea,  decisions  unier  the  relevant  international  conventions  (the  Ba.rcelo:na 
and.  Oslo  Conventions  in particular)  lei to  the  Commission  putting  to  the 
Council  (in  1985)  a  proposal  for  phasing  out  these  practices.6b 

Actions 

Proposal  to  approx:i.rrate  the  sta.n:lards  applicable  to  the  dumping  of 
wastes. 
Proposal  for  drawing  up  a  list of  wastes  the  dumping  of  which  is 
prohibitei or  permittei subject  to  specific  corrlitions. 
Proposal  on  incinerators  for  irrlustrial  waste. 

6a 00 No  L  203,  15.7.1989,  p.  50;  00 No  L 
6b  a:l!(85)373  final. 

- 16  -

VII.  HXIRrR  GUIDE[JNE:  REimATIOO  OF  TRANSPORt' 

, 

A range  of  national.  a.ni  international.  provisions  to  guard  against  transport 
haza.rds  a.re  in force,  as  describei  in  the  Commission's  fina.1  report  on  the 
transport  of  hazardous  goods  a.ni  waste. 

The  Commission  is continuing  its work  in this area as  a.nnouncei  in the 
report.7 

VIII.  FIFm Gu 11 >Bt.JNE:  RfflIDIAL  .wr:rcJJ 

The  growth  of  iniustrial society a.ni  inadequate  waste  management  (or  no 
management  at all)  a.re  two  :rrajor  causes  of  groun:i  pollution by  waste. 
Whether  caused.  by  abanionro  or  unregulated.  tips  or  derelict  iniustrial 
sites,  this  contamination  is a  threat  not  only  to  groun:iwater  but  aJ.so  to 
the  environment  in the  widest  sense. 

Events  in the  last  10  years  have  prompted.  some  Member  States  to  prepare 
inventories  of  black  spots  a.ni  intrcxiuoe  clean-up  progrrumnes.  A large 
financial  outlay  is necessary  for  research a.ni  development  on  detection a.ni 
clean-up  techniques  a.ni  for  decontamination  a.ni  reclamation  operations. 

J 

7  Transport  of  hazardous  goods  a.ni  waste: 

Commission,  O)M(87)187  final.. 

final  report  by  the 

- 17  -

The Gommunity  nmst  support  this RID  on  techniques  for  site mapping  am 
clean-up .. 

As .. regards• resea.rch,  the  reha.bili ta.tion  of  a.banionei  sites is covere1  in 
the  STEP  programme  1989--92  (Science  ani Technology  for  EnviromnentaJ. 
Protection) . 8  UIXier  the ACE  programme,  fina.nc1aJ.  support  can be given  to 
demonstration projects  on  DEM  techniques  for  mapping  am  reha.h:i J 1 ta.ting 
contami.na.te1  sites. 
the·cost  of rehabilitating contami.na.te1  in:iustrial  sites in d.ecl:l.n:mg 
in:lustrial a.reasone  of  the  guidelines  for  the Community's  regionaJ. 
policy.Ba. 

The  Commission  a.lso  made  the ability to contribute  to 

, , 

, 

These  effortslml$t be  cont.inuej,  am  1ntensifie1 a.s  the  situation develops. 

In order  to make  the  "polluter pays"  principle a.s  la.id.  down  in the  Single 
Act  in Article  130r(2)  :f'q;l.ly  operative,  the Commission  will eniea.vour,  in 
.the  light  of  na.tionaJ.  ~ e s .  to identify  the  involvement  of  waste 
generators am  to w:ork  out  how  they  should  contribute  to  the  future 
rehahi Ji ta.tion  of  oontam1na,te1  lanifills am  sites. 

PlJ:rsuµit  to  the  "polluter  pays"  principle,  the Commission has  sent  the 
.Council  a  proposaJ.  for a  Directive  on  oi vil  Ji abiJ i ty in respect  of waste. 9 

8  Contamina.tai  sites in the  EFr!,  1986:  B 6632,  11  September  1987 . 
.. &J..  CD!(89)287  final .. 
• 
9 

\ 

- 18  -

Actions 

) 

ProposaJ.  to  the  Council  for  the  contirruation  of  action  by  the  Cornrmmity 
on  the  environment  (ACE)  for  the  rehabilitation of  contaroinatai  sites 
(pilot  projects). 
Study  of  current  a.rrl.  pla.nnei  financial.  instruments  for  rercmying  the 
damage  causal by  wastes  in a.barrlonei  lanifills. 

IX. 

IMPLEMENTA'ITCIJ  OF  <XJOOJNITY  LIDJS[ATICIJ 

A f'uniaroentaJ.  guarantee  of  gocxi  waste  management  is a  natter  of  compliance 
with  Community  directives  on  the  subject. 

In accordance  with  the  Fourth  Environment  Action  Programme,  the  Commission 
will  continue  to  be  vigilant  over  the  correct  application  of  the  Directives 
by  the Member  States,  including  their  compliance  with  the  obligations  to 
draw  up  waste  disposaJ.  plans  a.rrl.  to  report  on  the  status  of  waste  disposaJ.. 
It is not  only  the  lawm9king  by  the  Member  States  that  neeis  to  be 
roonitoral,  but  aJ.so  the  application  of  Community  provisions  at national 
level  in practice. 
Cornrmmity  rules  will  be  fully  operative  in the  interests  of  protecting  the 
environment. 

Such  monitoring  is the  only  guarantee  that  the 

X. 

WASTE  MAlWiEMEN'f  IN  A <XJOOJNITY  WITH  ID  INTERNAL  FIQlrIERS 

Having  outlinei  the  re.sic  principles,  we  rcrust  now  turn  to  the  question  of 
waste  management  in the  run-up  to  1992  when  the  Co:rnrm.mity's  internal 
frontiers  will be  removal. 

r  I 

I  • 

- 19  -

Waste  disposal  will be  optimizei not  only by choosing  the best disposal. 
. systems  but by careful management  of  the  channels  through  which  waste  is 
suppliei to  these  systems. 
principles governing  the movement  of waste  within  the Community  am.  exports 
of waste  from  the Community. 

Particular attention must  be  given  to  the 

Tbe  mmzement  of waste  prior  to  dj sposa.1 

Ca)·  Dis;posa.l  within :the  Corramm1.w 

As  was  pointei out  in Section III,  waste  management  entails a  large number 
of  commeroia1  transactions,  whether  the waste  is to be  finally disposei of 
or recla.imei.  Having  regard  to  the  particular  nature  of  the waste  in 
question, .Community  law has  already  esta.blishoo.  a  set of  rules designei  to 
ensure  not  only  that waste  is disposei  of  or  recla.imei  in an 
environmentaJ.ly acceptal:>le  manner  but also  that movements  of  it are 
controllei . 

. Community·.law  provides  for  a.  harmonized ·system  in a.  limitei number  of 
situations.  D:Lreotive84/63l/EEXJ  on  the  tra.nsfrontier  shipnent  of 
llaza.ro.ous  waste,9a.  for  example,  instituteia. system  basei  on 
authorizations  issuai by  the importing  country.  It is open  to  the 
exporti:ng·country  to.object,  but  only  on  the :tesis  of  an  existing waste 
disposal.  plan. 

•9a·ro No  L  326,  13.12.1984,  p.  31. 

- 20  -

Directive  75;439;:EEX:,'9b  on  the  disposaJ.  of  waste  oils  lays  down  that  each 
Member  State shall approve  esta.blishroents  disposing  of  waste  oils,  a.ni  the 
Court  of  Justice has  accepte:i  t:."lat  a  person  holding  waste  oils in one 
Member  State may  seni  them  for  disposaJ.  to  an  approve:i  establishment  in 
another  Member  State.  Directive  86/278/~ on  the  use  of  sewage  sludge 
permits  it to  be  exporte:i  thereof  from  one  Member  State  to  another  provide:i 
that  the ma.terial  fulfills  COmmunity  sta.mards. 

' 

Apa.rt  from  the  specific provisions,  COmmunity  law  on  waste  lays  down  a 
number  of  principles.  Since  these  principles  are  very broad,  their 
application a.ni  interpretation leave Member  States  a  great  deal  of 
latitude.  They  :must  be  applie:i  by  the Member  States  of  course,  in 
accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  Treaty  a.ni  the decisions  of  the  Court 
of  Justice. 
The  result has  been,  despite  the  fact  that  there  is COrnmunity  law  on  the 
subject,  divergent  development  in the  rules  govern:rng  waste  :management  in 
the Member  States. 

In  these  circumstances  a  treni has  emerge:i  for  waste  to  be  move:i  for  finaJ. 
disposaJ.  in lower-cost  facilities. 

The  cost  of  waste  disposaJ.  is directly depen:ient  on  the  sta.mards  a.ni 
regulations  govern:rng  the  construction a.ni  operation  of  the  facility,  but 
aJ.so  on  the  type  of  facility use:i  a.ni  on  a  large  number  of  external  factors 
such  as  the  cost  of  larrl  a.ni  social  costs. 

9b  OJ  No  L  194,  25.7.1975,  p.  23. 
9c OJ  No  L  181,  4.7.86,  p.  6. 

J 

-21-

• 

( .  

Amortization  of  waste  disposal  plants  is directly proportiona.l  to  the 
volume  of waste  han1lei a.ni  therefore  to  the  flow  of waste  to  them.  Since 
there a.re  at present  big differences between  technicaJ.  regula.tions  relating 
to waste  disposaJ.  plants  - or  even  no  specific  regula.tions  - there  is a 
reaJ.  risk that  in a  Comnrunity  without  internal  frontiers  the  flow  of  waste 
towards  lower-cost  disposaJ.  plants may  become  a.  flood.  The  areas  where 
they a.re  sitei might  become  pa.rticula.rly vulnerable  from  the  environmentaJ. 
point  of  view.  It is therefore  apparent  that harmonization  of  technicaJ. 
stama.rdsfor waste  disposa.l  plants  is a  basic  priority for  environmentaJ. 
pr~tection;  a.ni  it must  be  harmonization basei on  a,  high level  of 
protection.  Note,  however,  that  the a.pproxination  of  stama.rds  describerl 
in Pa.rt  VI  will not.lead  to uniformity  of prices. 

, 

The  cost.• of waste .disposa.l  also  deperrls,  of  course,  on ex:ternaJ.  constraints 
such  as  the cost of  la.ni,  socia.l  costs  a.ni  on  the  type  of  installation 
· compatible with  the site: 
treatment  fa.cili ty. 

incinerator,  la.nifill  or whatever  other kin:i  of 

~ 

- 22  -

For  example,  some  Member  States now  fini it impossible  to approve  further 
expa.nsio~  of  la.nifill sites am  have  to use  incineration,  which 
necessitates more  expensive  installations. 
harmonization  of  technical.  sta.n:la.rds  may  help  to  raiuce  the ~ t  of 
waste,  it will not  prevent  it altogether. 

It follows  that  aJ.th.olJgh 

This  backgrouni does  not  provide  a.ny  incentive  to make  further  adva:noes  in, 
for  example,  the _field  of  Clean  technologies,  recycling  or waste  trea;tment. 
In particular it is l.iltely  in the meiium  term  that movements  of waste  will 
involve a  shift of investment  in fa.cilities  for  fina.l  disposaJ.  to  certain 
regions,  leaving  others unier--equippai. 

In add1 tion,  as  a  resu1 t  of  recent  events  in several  Member  States,  it is 
11kely  that  the  public  will refuse more  am  more  vehemently  to  aoceptwaste 
from  other  areas.  There  is a  danger  that  such  a  situation will place 
unier--equippai  regions  in an extremely  critical.  position. 

To  cope  with  these  eventualities  affecting waste  management  in the  future 
COnmlllnity  without  interna.l  frontiers,  a  policy  for  the  fina.l  disposaJ.  am 
recyCling  of  waste must  be  basal on  principles which  safeguard  the 
_environment  without  the measures  implementing  those  principles  being 
disorjjnjm.tory  or arbitrarily affecting  the  rules  of  free  competition. 

) 

] 

- •  

) 

.  ' 
. 

' 

\. 

- 23  -

. In other words.the  neei  to  protect  the  environment  may  lead  to a 
restriction of movements,  for  the movement  of waste  within  the  framework  of 
the  internal. market,  or  even within a  region  or  a  Member  State,  must  be 
ooritrollei movement  compatible  with a  high  level  of  protection. 

In view  of  these  ecologioa.l,  economic  am  socio-poll tioa.l  considerations,  a 
network  of  facilities  for  the  final disposal  of waste  neoo.s  to develop  so 
that  the whole  operation  (collection,  transport am  disposal)  does  not 
create a  regional  imbala.noe,  within the  Community  framework,  leaving 
certain areas UIXier--equipperl. 

The  Cormnission  thinks  that  in order  to do  this,  provision must  be  made  to 
ensure.that as  far  as  possible waste  is d.isposei  of  in the  nearest  suitable 
centres,  nak1ng  use  of  the most  appropriate  technologies  to guarantee  a 
h1g'h  level  of  protection for  the  environment  am  public health. 

T.he.impl.ementation  of such aprinciple clearly must  not  lead  to  a  monopoly 
situation. 

Here  "the nearest"  does  not  neoessa.rily,  in every,'.~e,  mean  close-by. 
achieve  the best  possible distribution of  ins~t±Qns,  a.ocount  ImJSt  be 
taken of  requirements  ani capacities  for  trea.tmeri.ti;, 
The  distribution of 
plants  for  the  reception  of domestic  refuse,  for  ~ l e ,  cannot  be  the 
same  as  for  installations  for  d1spos1ng  of ha1ogenic  chemical  waste. 

,.:.~> 

,., 

To 

There will. thus  be a.  real.  neerl  to monitor  waste  a,t ..  Commun1 ty level.  To 
this eni,  the  Commission  will be making  a.  proposal  ,COnoerniilg  the movement 
of waste  to  replace  the Directives introducing  controls  on  the 
transfrontier  shipment  of waste.  Existing Directives already contain the 
germ  of  such a.  system,  :making  provision  for  a.  system  Of  backllp  ani 
monitoring  of waste  ani  the  framing  of waste  d1sposa.l  plans  by  the 
competent  authorities. 
States,  will  coordinate  the  jj((plementation ani backup  for  these  plans 
wherever  necessary. 

The  Connnission,  in conjunction with  the Member 

The  situation is different with waste  to be  recyclei by  the  recipient. 
The  holder  ImJSt  pay  for  the • final  disposal  of  waste.  Where  waste  is for 
recycling,. the holder  of  the waste  1s· pa.id  by  the  recycler. 

L 

-25-

I 
I 

'  ' 
' 

\ 

This  IMkes  waste  for  recycling  pa.rt  of  a  productive  economic  cycle,  and 
operators  IlnlSt  have  access  to  those  firms  which  can  recycle  most 
efficiently,  subject  to  market  rEqllirements.  It goes  without  saying  that 
unier  no  circumstances  IlnlSt  this  efficiency errlanger  the  environment  or 
human  health.  Nor  I1n1St  operators  be  allowe:i  to divert  waste  from  the 
recycling  for  which  it is intenie:i. 
the  Community's  priorities in this  field,  the  principles  of  free 
competition I1n1St  operate  provide:i  that movements  of  waste  are  monitore:i  and 
effecte:i  on  the basis  of  a  recycling  contract  bin:iing  the  waste  holder  and 
the  recycler;  and  both IlnlSt  be  recognize:i  and  approve:i.  For  waste  of  this 
type,  exceptions  may  be  made  unier  these  circumstances  to  the  principle 
whereby  waste  IlnlSt  be  dispose:i  of  at the  site closest  to  the  place where  it 
is produce:i. 

In order  to  promote  recycling,  one  of 

(b)  waste  d,is;posaJ.  outside  the  Cornnrunicy 

In its Resolution  of  21  December  198810  the Council  adopte:i  guidelines  on 
transfrontier movements  of  hazardous  waste  to  third countries. 

10  QT  No  C 9,  12.1.1989,  p.  1. 

-\ 

' 

j 

- 26  -

Because  of  the  shortage  of  disposal  capacity,  but  also  because  of  the 
introduction  of more  stringent  control  measures  a.ni  rules  on  disposal 
within  the  Co:mmunity,  m:my  holders  of  waste  were  exporting  it outside  the 
Community.  Unfortunately,  although  some  of  the  countries  receiving  the 
waste  had  adequate  disposal  facilities,  some  had  no  facilites  at all. 

Directive  84/631/EEXJ  on  the  transfrontier  shipment  of  hazardous  wastes,11 
as  aroenied.  by  Directive  86/279/EEXJ,12  intrcxluce:l  a  control  system  applying 
to  all exports  of  hazardous  waste  to  non-member  states.  The  recent 
international  convention  on  the  transfrontier  shipment  of  hazardous  waste, 
signed.  in Basle  on  22  March  1989,  provides  a  framework  for  world-wide 
control.  The  signatories  include  the  Co:mmunity  a.ni  some  of  its Member 
States.  The  existing Directives  on  the  transfrontier  shipment  of  hazardous 
waste  should  be  reviewed.  in the  light  of  this Convention. 

In  the  specific  context  of  the  preferential  relationship  between  the  ACP 
countries  a.ni  the  Co:mmunity,  a.ni  in the  spirit  of  solidarity which  is a 
feature  of  the Lome  Convention,  the  Community  has  made  known  that  it 
intends  to  take  a  favourable  view  of  the  request  made  by  the  ACP  countries 
that  a  b:m  should  be  placed.  on  exports  of  waste  from  the  Co:mmunity  to  their 
countries,  subject  to  certain con:litions  which  will be  exarninai  during  the 
negotiations  which  a.re  now  taking  place.  Any  such  b:m  would  have  to  be 
combinro  with  a  b:m  on  ACP  countries  importing  such  waste,  whatever  the 
source. 

11  OJ  No  L  326,  13.12.84,  p.  31. 
12  OJ  No  L  181,  4.7.86,  p.  13. 

_J 

,----

- 27  -

However,  it would  have  to  be  provision  for  exceptions,  at  the  request  of  an 
AGP  country which  did have  proper  facilities  for  recycling  or disposing  of 
the waste. 

Regardless  of  special  agreements  with AGP  countries,  the  Commission  will 
continue  to  provide  active  technologicaJ.  or  administrative  assistance  for 
axiy  country  in the  form  of  technicaJ.  information  on: 

training  of  specialists; 

(i) 
(ii)  setting  the  technicaJ.  sta.n::lards  re:ru,ira:l  for  waste  treatment  plants; 
(iii)  assessing  the  impact  of  waste  shipments  before  authorizing  their 

admission; 

(iv)  checking  that  transport  am.  treatment  a.re  con:luctai  correctly; 
(v)  setting up  a  continuous  monitoring  system. 

IdeaJ.ly  this kini  of  cooperation should  take  place as  far  as  possible  on  a 
world-wide  basis.  For  the  moment,  however,  waste  a.rising  within  the 
Corornunity  which  cannot  be  recycla:l  should  be  treatai within  the  Corornunity 
where  possible am.  exportai  only  in exceptional  circurosta.nces. 

Action 

Proposal  on  movements  of  waste  to  replace  the Directives  introducing 
controls  on  the  tra.nsfrontier  shipment  of hazardous  waste. 

• 

• 

'