Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Draft Council Regulation (EC) on waste management statistics'
Date: 1999-09-22
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU statistics, dangerous substance, environmental protection, waste management, waste recycling

17.11.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 329/17

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Draft Council Regulation (EC) on waste
management statistics’

(1999/C 329/07)

On 5 July 1999, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262
of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the above-mentioned draft Regulation.

The Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which was
responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 14 July 1999.
The rapporteur was Mr Vasco Cal.

At its 366th plenary session on 22 and 23 September 1999 (meeting of 22 September 1999), the
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 108 votes to one, with two
abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
On 24 February 1997, in view of the major legislative,
economic and technical progress made in the field of waste
policy since its resolution of 7 May 1990 (1), giving guidance
to national and Community authorities and economic oper-
ators and consumers, the Council adopted a new resolution
calling for a Community strategy for waste management (2). In
this resolution, the Council:

— emphasised the role that statistics can play in identifying
waste-related problems, assessing management priorities
and formulating and achieving realistic objectives within
the framework of waste management policies;

— stressed the need for the production on a regular basis of
adequate waste-related data coherent with Community
legislation;

— invited the Commission to establish, in cooperation with
the European Environment Agency and Member States, a
Community-wide reliable system of data collection for
waste, which should be based on common terminology,
definitions and classifications and should operate at the
lowest public and private cost;

— invited the Commission to promote and the Member
States and economic operators to establish and pursue
quantitative targets of an indicative nature which aim to
achieve significant reductions in the amount of waste
generated and increased levels of reuse, recycling and
recovery;

— requested that the Commission collect information on
those environmentally dangerous substances and materials
in waste which cause special problems in Member States
and to bring forward, as appropriate, recommendations
for measures to deal with these problems.

1.1.1.
In the same resolution, the Council expressed con-
cern ‘at the large-scale movements within the Community of
waste for incineration with or without energy recovery’ and

invited the Commission to consider the scope for adjusting
Community legislation on the incineration of waste with
energy recovery and to make proposals accordingly.

The most recent Community statistical programme (3)
1.2.
referred, under its ‘Environment’ title, to the four-year pro-
gramme (1994-1997) on the environmental component of
official statistics (4), which it stated had been designed ‘to meet
the needs for statistics together with the information from the
European Environment Agency’.

On the same subject it read: ‘ongoing work will be
1.2.1.
continued to fill important data gaps relating to waste and
recycling statistics, water use and discharges, use of hazardous
and scarce materials, as well as environmental expenditure. A
set of satellite accounts for the environment linked to the
national accounts will be developed covering the stocks and
use of the main natural resources, flows of materials, emissions
and environmental expenditure’.

1.3. The European Parliament

In its resolution of 14 November 1996 (5), the Euro-
1.3.1.
pean Parliament called for a clear definition in Community
legislation of the concepts of ‘waste’ and ‘product’ on the basis
of the relevant Court of Justice rulings (Zanetti and Wallonia
cases). Furthermore,
invited the
Council and the Commission:

the European Parliament

— to put forward proposals for cutting the volume of waste
as well as reducing the presence of hazardous substances
in waste such as chlorine, mercury, PVC, cadmium and
other heavy metals;

— to formulate targets in the waste management plans for
cutting the volume of waste in such a way that they can be
assessed and adjusted every two years on the basis of their
results.

(1) OJ C 122 of 18.5.1990.
(2) OJ C 76 of 11.3.1997.

(3) OJ L 42 of 16.2.1999.
(4) OJ L 328 of 20.12.1994.
(5) OJ L 362 of 2.12.1996.

C 329/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.11.1999

1.3.2.
In the same resolution, the European Parliament
supported the Commission’s view that much better waste
statistics were needed and called on the Member States to
work together with the European Environment Agency and
Eurostat.

2.2.
The Commission is to be assisted by the Statistical
Programme Committee and, within three years of the regu-
lation’s entry into force and every three years thereafter, must
submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council
on the statistics compiled and, in particular, their quality and
the burden on business.

1.4. The Committee of the Regions

1.4.1.
The Committee of the Regions, in its opinion of
16 January 1997 (1) on the Communication from the Com-
mission to the Council and the European Parliament on the
review of the Community strategy for waste management,
regretted ‘the limited statistical base available on waste at a
Community level’ and expressed the opinion that a better base
could be secured through ‘better cooperation among the local
and regional authorities’.

1.5. The Economic and Social Committee

1.5.1.
Point 2.1 of the Committee’s opinion of 19 Septem-
ber 1990 (2) on the proposal for a Council Decision adopting
a four-year programme (1990-1993) to develop regular official
statistics on the environment (3) reads:

‘The Committee realises that progress in compiling specific
statistics on the environment varies widely among national
statistics offices and that the task of developing for the
main sectors about one hundred uniform and reliable basic
statistical indicators, each representing the culmination of
the process of gathering and processing thousands and
tens of thousands of physical, technical, economic and
social data, is a methodologically complex one.’

2. The Commission’s draft regulation

2.1.
The draft regulation is designed to establish a frame-
work to oblige Member States and the Commission to produce
Community statistics on the management of waste generated
by businesses and households. The following areas are covered:

— waste production and recovery by economic activities;

— household and similar waste collection by businesses and

municipal collection schemes;

— waste incineration, composting and disposal by businesses

and municipal authorities.

The financial

2.3.
EUR 450 000 for the years 1999, 2000 and 2001.

impact

is estimated at a total of

3. General comments on the Commission document

The Economic and Social Committee welcomes the
3.1.
proposed regulation aimed at establishing a Community-level
statistical framework for the management of waste generated
by business and households. It should provide Eurostat with
reliable and comparable data, collected and processed in good
time to provide a basis for the progressive harmonisation of
waste management in the European Union.

The Committee calls on the Council to adopt the
3.2.
proposed regulation forthwith. It will be an important weapon
in the environmental policy armoury, in particular for pre-
venting illegalities in the management of waste collection and
incineration.

3.3.
The Committee is pleased to note that the proposal
will pave the way for effective cooperation between Eurostat
and the European Environment Agency (EEA) which was set
up in 1996. The European Waste Catalogue (EWC) established
by Commission Decision 94/3/EC (4) provides a classification
system which will henceforward serve as a basis for the
collection, in all the Member States, of all waste-related data.

3.3.1.
The Committee welcomes the fact that a ‘memor-
andum of understanding’ is being drawn up between the EEA
and Eurostat. The Committee hopes that this memorandum
will make for better and more rapid coordination between
these two bodies. It particularly wishes to see an end to
overlaps and oversights.

The Committee asks whether it would not be possible
3.4.
to shorten the transition period of three years referred to in
Article 4. It is aware, however, that the staff shortages and
financial constraints facing national statistical offices add
weight to the argument in favour of a period to enable Member
States to adjust gradually to Community requirements.

3.5.
However, the Committee would stress that Community
policy on the collection, recovery and/or elimination of waste
is universally welcomed and approved by the Member States.
It is, therefore, up to them to provide the necessary means for
optimal implementation.

(1) OJ C 116 of 14.4.1997.
(2) OJ C 332 of 31.12.1990.
(3) This programme was never adopted. The legislative procedure of
which this Committee opinion is a part led to the adoption by the
Council of the 1994-1997 programme referred to in point 1.2.

(4) OJ L 5 of 7.1.1994.

17.11.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 329/19

3.6.
The Committee again draws attention to the import-
ance of high quality statistics to back up national and
Community policies. It notes, however, that national statistical
offices often suffer from the belt-tightening that has been and
is still required for the implementation of the EMU and the
stability and growth pact.

4.2.
In Annex I, Section 2, paragraph 3, numbers 14 (non-
ferrous metal scrap excluding packaging), 26 (textile waste),
and 43 (construction and demolition waste) should not lead
to confusion since from a legal point of view these materials
are regarded as waste, even if technically they can be used as
raw materials.

The Committee would query the case for limiting the
3.7.
compulsory surveys provided for under Article 3 to enterprises
with more than nine employees. Nevertheless, while main-
taining that criteria based on quantity of waste would have
been preferable, the Committee accepts the wisdom of the
to avoid discouraging the
Commission-proposed criteria,
micro businesses that are so important for job creation,
particularly since enterprises generating dangerous waste are
governed by other measures.

3.8.
The Committee proposes that the financial statement
accompanying the proposal should be extended to include
partial Community funding for Member States that are lagging
a long way behind in the area of waste statistics (following the
lead of the Environment DG on statistical projects in Member
States). Negotiations should be initiated right now with those
countries applying to join the EU in order to help their
statistical offices to meet the requirements laid down in this
regulation.

3.9.
The Committee fears that statistical data collected on
the basis of the proposed regulation will not provide a clear
reflection of waste ‘flows’. It may be necessary to review the
system in due course to provide a picture of ‘flows’, to further
the battle against the improper elimination and illegal export
of certain types of waste.

4. Specific comments

In Article 2 (a) there should be a reference to Com-
to Direc-

4.1.
mission Decision 96/350/EC (1)
tive 75/442/EEC.

as well

as

(1) Commission Decision of 24 May 1996 adapting Annexes IIA and
IIB of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste. OJ L 135 of
6.6.1996.

Brussels, 22 September 1999.

4.3.
In the same Annex, it can be difficult to distinguish
between the products mentioned under numbers 25 (other
wood waste) and 43 (construction and demolition waste).
Products covered by number 43 cover 90 % of the total and
are by far the most damaging to the environment.

4.3.1.
should continue to be subject to special arrangements.

The Committee considers that dangerous waste

4.4.
Although the monitoring of codes 121 (quantity of
waste internally recovered) and 123 (quantity of secondary
waste resulting from recovery or incineration) in Section 3 of
Annex I would appear to be unjustified, the Committee accepts
the explanation given by the Commission representative,
whereby these codes enable a more precise record to be kept
of the elimination of waste and thus improve the monitoring
system.

4.5. With regard to Section 2 of Annex II, the Committee
would question whether numbers 16 (composite packaging),
17 (mixed packaging), and 19 (clothes and textiles) are
sufficiently clear.

4.6.
Annex III, Section 6, paragraph 1 reads ‘For each type
of operation listed..., Member States will indicate the percent-
age to which this activity is covered by data collection.
The coverage can be estimated by external criteria such as
employment or amount of waste input. Minimum requirement
for the coverage is 90 % for each type of operation.’ The
Committee is not totally convinced of the legitimacy of this
minimum percentage and considers that, for dangerous waste
in particular, a coverage rate of 100 % would be more
appropriate.

4.7.
In Annex III, Section 7, the distinction between ‘dis-
posal’ and ‘recovery’ of waste is not sufficiently clear in the
table specifying the waste,
incineration, composting and
disposal operations. The Committee proposes amending as
follows the sub-headings in the table so as to distinguish
clearly between the different operations: ‘Recovery, including
composting and incineration with energy recovery’ and ‘dis-
posal’.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI