Communication from the Commission - Towards a thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste
Date: 2003-05-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, environmental law, waste recycling

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 27.5.2003
COM(2003) 301 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

Towards a thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

Towards a thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive summary .................................................................................................................... 4

1.

2.

2.1.

2.2.

2.3.

3.

3.1.

3.2.

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 6

The Environmental challenge of waste ........................................................................ 8

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 8

Trends in waste generation and management .............................................................. 9

Environmental issues related to waste management .................................................. 10

Assessment of the Community’s waste management policy ..................................... 12

Achievements ............................................................................................................. 13

Elements to be further developed............................................................................... 15

3.2.1.

Implementation........................................................................................................... 15

3.2.2.

Limited progress towards waste prevention............................................................... 16

3.2.3.

Lack of a comprehensive approach to recycling........................................................ 17

3.2.4. Harmonised standards for recycling operations ......................................................... 20

3.2.5. Other aspects of the legal framework......................................................................... 21

4.

4.1.

4.2.

4.3.

5.

Setting of targets......................................................................................................... 22

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 22

Waste prevention........................................................................................................ 22

Recycling targets ........................................................................................................ 24

Building blocks of a thematic strategy....................................................................... 26

5.1.

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 26

5.2.1. Measures specific to quantitative prevention ............................................................. 28

5.2.2. Measures specific to qualitative prevention ............................................................... 28

5.2.3. Other measures promoting both quantitative and qualitative prevention................... 29

5.2.3.1. Waste prevention plans .............................................................................................. 29

2

5.2.3.2. The IPPC directive and BREF documents ................................................................. 30

5.3.

Instruments to promote waste recycling..................................................................... 30

5.3.1.

Landfill taxes.............................................................................................................. 31

5.3.2.

Producer responsibility............................................................................................... 31

5.3.3.

Tradable certificates ................................................................................................... 33

5.3.4.

Pay-As-You-Throw schemes ..................................................................................... 34

5.3.5.

Incentive systems ....................................................................................................... 35

5.3.6.

Prescriptive instruments ............................................................................................. 35

5.4.

A level playing field for recycling ............................................................................. 36

5.5.1.

Improving the legal framework on waste management ............................................. 37

5.5.1.1 Definitions of recovery and disposal operations .......................................................... 37

5.5.1.2 Definitions of waste...................................................................................................... 38

5.5.2. R&D and technology demonstration.......................................................................... 40

5.5.3. Demand-side measures............................................................................................... 41

5.5.4 Education and training..................................................................................................... 41

5.6.

Conclusion and proposed way forward...................................................................... 42

6.

7.

8.

9

Environment and health ............................................................................................. 43

Enlargement ............................................................................................................... 44

International co-operation concerning recycling........................................................ 44

Extended impact assessment ...................................................................................... 45

10.

Future development of the strategy............................................................................ 45

Annex I:

EC waste legislation ..................................................................................... 47

Annex II: trends in waste generation and management............................................................ 53

Annex III................................................................................................................................... 59

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Waste presents our society with a two fold environmental challenge. All waste has to be
recovered  or  disposed  of  through  operations  which  inevitably  have  environmental
impacts  and  economic  costs.  Waste  can  also  be  a  symptom  of  inefficient  consumption
and  production  patterns,  in  the  sense  that  materials  may  be  used  unnecessarily.  These
materials  not  only  create  waste  but  also  have  different  impacts  during  their  production
and use phase.

The  6th  Environmental  Action  Programme  calls  for  a  number  of  inter-related  measures
designed  to  reduce  the  environmental  impacts  of  resource  use  in  line  with  the  EU‘s
Sustainable Development Strategy. This includes a thematic strategy on the recycling of
waste and initiatives in the  field of  waste prevention, notably proposals on Community
waste prevention targets.

This Communication is a first contribution to the development of a thematic strategy that
will cover both waste prevention and recycling. It is the starting point of  a consultation
process which will continue until the Commission adopts proposals both for the overall
framework  of  the  thematic  strategy  and  for  the  individual  measures  through  which  the
strategy will be implemented.

This  Communication  has  been  inspired  by  a  life-cycle  approach  to  resources
management and takes the waste phase as its starting point. Indeed, waste prevention and
recycling  can  reduce  the  environmental  impact  of  resource  use  in  two  ways:  avoiding
negative environmental impacts from  the  extraction  of  primary  raw  materials  and  from
the transformation of primary raw materials in production processes.

Waste  prevention  and  recycling  should  also  be  seen  as  part  of  a  broader  waste
management  strategy.  The  challenge  for  policy  makers  is  to  find  the  optimal  recycling
rate  and  the  best  combination  of  different  approaches.  Additionally,  the  focus  on
environmental  benefits  achievable  through  waste  prevention  and  recycling  at  upstream
phases of the life-cycle of resources must be complemented by reducing environmental
impacts at the waste management phase including in waste recycling.

In relation to waste prevention, the objective of this Communication is to launch, for the
first time, a consultation process leading to the development of a comprehensive strategy,
including  waste  prevention  targets  and  the  instruments  needed  to  achieve  them.  The
communication invites a very broad discussion, including on:

(cid:1) 

Identifying potentials for waste prevention;

(cid:1)  Exchange of good practices and experience with a view to defining how the EU may

contribute to these;

(cid:1)  The role of the future chemicals policy as regards qualitative prevention of waste;

(cid:1)  Exploring  how  voluntary  or  mandatory  waste  prevention  plans  could  contribute  to

waste prevention;

(cid:1)  Assessing  the  waste  prevention  potential  of  the  directive  on  Integrated  Pollution

prevention and Control (IPPC).

4

For  waste  recycling,  this  Communication  invites  comments  on  options  to  promote
recycling, including on:

(cid:1)  The development  of  material  based recycling targets  in  articulation  with  end-of-life

products based targets;

(cid:1)  Getting  the  prices  of  the  different  waste  treatment  options  right  by  using  economic
instruments,  which  could  include  tradable  certificates,  the  co-ordination  of  national
landfill 
taxes,  promoting  pay-as-you-throw  schemes  and  making  producers
responsible for recycling;

(cid:1)  Ensuring  recycling  is  both  easy  and  clean.  In  some  cases,  implementation  of  EU
waste  law  may  have  led  to  unnecessary  burdens  on  the    recycling  industry.  Such
problems  need  to  be  identified  and  solved.  Additionally,  common  approaches  for
recycling could ensure that recycling businesses apply the best available technology.

The  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  Economic  and  Social  Committee,  the
Committee of the Regions and all stakeholders are invited to provide comments on this
Communication by 30 November 2003. The final Strategy will be produced in 2004.

5

1.

INTRODUCTION

Waste presents our society with a two fold environmental challenge. All waste has to be
recovered  or  disposed  of  through  operations  which  inevitably  have  environmental
impacts  and  economic  costs.  Waste  can  also  be  a  symptom  of  inefficient  consumption
and  production  patterns,  in  the  sense  that  materials  may  be  used  unnecessarily.  These
materials  do  not  only  create  waste  but  also  cause  a  wide  range  of  impacts  during  their
production and use phase.

Improving  waste  management  is  recognised  as  a  major  environmental  challenge  at  the
international  level.  The  plan  of  implementation  agreed  at  the  World  Summit  on
Sustainable  Development  (Johannesburg,  September  2002)  builds  on  Agenda  21  and
calls for further action to “[p]revent and minimise waste and maximise reuse, recycling
and  use  of  environmentally  friendly  alternative  materials,  with  the  participation  of
government authorities and all stakeholders, in order to minimise adverse effects on the
environment and improve resource efficiency.”1

The Commission's proposal for a European Union strategy for sustainable development
also highlights the need to break the link between economic growth, the use of resources
and  the  generation  of  waste.2  The  European  Council  meeting  in  Göteborg  (June  2001)
concluded  that  “[t]he  relationship  between  economic  growth,  consumption  of  natural
resources and the generation of waste must change. Strong economic performance must
go hand in hand with sustainable use of natural resources and levels of waste […]”.3

This  theme  is  further  developed  in  the  Community’s  6th  Environmental  Action
Programme  (6EAP),4  with  the  overall  aim  of  achieving  “better  resource  efficiency  and
resource  and  waste  management  to  bring  about  more  sustainable  production  and
consumption  patterns,  thereby  decoupling  the  use  of  resources  and  the  generation  of
waste  from  the  rate  of  economic  growth  and  aiming  to  ensure  that  the  consumption  of
renewable  and  non-renewable  resources  does  not  exceed  the  carrying  capacity  of  the
environment.” This overall aim will be addressed in the context of the thematic strategy
on the sustainable use and management of resources (“the resources strategy”).

The  impacts  of  resource  use  can  arise  at  all  stages  in  the  life-cycle  of  the  resource,
including  extraction  and 
transformation  and  manufacturing,
consumption  or  use  and,  finally,  waste  management.  Measures  to  prevent  waste
generation  and  to  re-incorporate  waste  in  the  economic  cycle  (“closing  the  materials
loop”),  i.e.  waste  recovery,  are  therefore  an  important  element  of  a  comprehensive
approach to resource management.

initial  processing, 

1

2

3

4

http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/html/documents/summit_docs/2309_planfinal.htm, 
particular paragraph 21.
Commission  Communication  COM  (2001)  264  final  of  15.5.2001:  “A  sustainable  Europe  for  a
better World: a European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development”.
See  the  Presidency  Conclusions  available  at  http://ue.eu.int/en/Info/eurocouncil/index.htm,
especially paragraph 31.
Decision N° 1600/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2002 laying
down the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme, OJ L 242, 10.9.2002, p.1.

in

6

                                                
The  6EAP  decision  calls  for  a  number  of  measures  to  be  adopted  to  further  promote
waste prevention and recycling, including a thematic strategy on the recycling of  waste
and initiatives in the field of  waste  prevention,  notably proposals on Community waste
prevention targets.

This Communication is a first contribution to the development of a thematic strategy that
will cover both waste prevention and recycling. It includes an assessment of Community
waste policy in relation to prevention and recycling, with a view to identifying means to
further develop waste management policy in line with the hierarchy of objectives set out
in the Community’s waste strategy.5 It focuses on the means to promote more sustainable
waste management, by minimising the environmental impacts of waste while also taking
into account economic and social considerations. Community measures should therefore
be based on a thorough analysis of costs and benefits, as well as of the cost-efficiency of
different  options.  The  objective  of  this  Communication  is  to  launch  a  process  of
consultation  of  the  Community  institutions  and  of  waste  management  stakeholders  to
contribute  to  the  development  of  a  comprehensive  and  consistent  policy  on  waste
prevention  and  recycling.  Waste  prevention  and  recycling  policies  shall  contribute
together  with  energy  recovery  and  sound  disposal  options  to  the  achievement  of  an
optimal  waste  management  strategy  aimed  to  minimise  environmental  impacts  through
the adoption of the most cost-efficient option.

The future thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste shall identify the
most  efficient  combination  of  measures  and  targets  necessary  to  promote  more
sustainable  waste  management.  In  relation  to  waste  prevention,  the  objective  of  this
Communication is to launch, for the first time, a consultation  process  leading up to  the
development  of  a  comprehensive  strategy,  including  a  discussion  on  waste  prevention
targets  and  the  instruments  needed  to  achieve  them.  For  waste  recycling,  this
Communication  investigates  ways  to  promote  recycling  where  potential  exists  for
additional environmental benefits and analyses options to achieve recycling objectives in
the most cost-effective way possible.

The Commission is not yet in a position to propose specific environmental targets at this
early stage of the thematic strategy. Such targets will be defined during the development
of  the  strategy,  building  on  the  results  of  the  foreseen  consultation  process  and  studies
currently underway. In relation to instruments, this Communication emphasises the need
to  develop  an  appropriate  mix  of  instruments  including  legislative,  voluntary  and
economic instruments. Complementing current Community waste policy with economic
instruments  is  explored  in  some  depth  given  the  high  potential  of  such  instruments  to
promote changes in the behaviour of all economic actors, including households, towards
more sustainable waste management. The objective is to improve the effectiveness of the
Community’s  waste  management  policy,  while  ensuring  that  rules  are  both  simple  and
cost-effective, consistent with the Commission’s efforts to achieve better regulation.6

5

6

The Community Strategy for Waste Management was adopted in 1989, see SEC(89)934 final of
18 September 1989. The Strategy was reviewed in 1996, see COM(96)399 final of 30.7.1996.
See  Commission  Communication  COM(2002)275  final  of  6.6.2002:  “European  Governance:
better lawmaking”.

7

                                                
This  Communication  builds  on  existing  Community  policy  and  analysis  carried  out  by
the Commission, including the Commission’s Communication on The Competitiveness of
the Recycling Industry7 and the work of the Recycling Forum.8

This Communication is structured as follows:

–  section  2  assesses  the  environmental  context  for  waste  management,  in  particular

trends in waste generation, the main environmental impacts of waste;

–  section 3 describes the Community’s existing waste policy, its achievements and areas

which can be improved or further developed;

–  section  4  analyses  the  role  of  target  setting  in  the  context  of  an  overall  approach  to

prevention and recycling;

–  section  5 introduces a  framework  for the  future  thematic  strategy  and  highlights  the

main issues for discussion as part of the latter’s development;

–  section 6 describes the link between waste management and human health;

–  section  7  sets  out  the  challenges  facing  waste  management  in  the  context  of  the

enlargement of the EU;

–  section 8 briefly describes work ongoing at OECD and international levels concerning

waste management;

–  section  9  indicates  that  the  final  Thematic  Strategy  will  be  subject  to  an  extended
impact assessment and invites stakeholder comments on the policy options outlined in
section 5;

–  section 10 describes future steps in the development of the strategy.

2.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGE OF WASTE

2.1.

Introduction

This chapter summarises trends in waste  generation and management. It also highlights
the  main  environmental  impacts  of  waste  management.  These  include  both  the
environmental  impacts  of  waste  treatment  (including  disposal)  and  the  environmental
impact  of  resource  use  that  can  potentially  be  avoided  through  waste  prevention  and
recycling initiatives.

More detailed information about waste generation and management trends can be found
in annex II.

7

8

Commission  Communication  COM(1998)  463  final  of  22.7.1998:  “The  competitiveness  of  the
recycling industries”.
See http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/events/recycling/recycling.htm.

8

                                                
2.2.

Trends in waste generation and management

Total  waste  generation  in  the  EU  is  about  1.3  billion  tonnes  per  year  (excluding
agricultural  waste).  This  means  that  total  waste,  which  includes  municipal  waste,
industrial waste, etc, amounts in the EU to approximately 3.5 tonnes per capita and year.
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%),  construction  and  demolition  waste
(C&DW) (22%) and municipal solid waste (MSW) (14%), and agricultural and forestry
waste which estimation of amounts is particularly difficult. 2% of this waste is hazardous
waste, i.e. about 27 million tonnes.9

Data  limitations  prevent  a  comprehensive  assessment  of  most  of  the  waste  streams  in
Europe.  However,  recent  reports  give  some  information  on  the  current  trends  in  waste
generation.

In  its  third  assessment  of  Europe’s  Environment10  the  EEA  reports  that  “Total  waste
quantities continue to increase in most European countries. Municipal waste arisings are
large and continue to grow. The quantities of hazardous waste generated have decreased
in many countries but increased in  others due  to change of definitions…/…Total  waste
generation has been decoupled from economic growth in a limited number of countries.”
This  confirms  the  previous  findings  of  the  EEA11  that  waste  generation  seems  to  be
decreasing in some European countries since the 1990s, demonstrating progress towards
decoupling  of  waste  generation  from  economic  growth.  Additionally,  indicators  from
OECD  projects  point  in  the  direction  of  increasing  waste  generation  for  some  waste
streams (e.g. municipal  waste,  construction and demolition  waste and industrial waste),
but for others the trends are more complex.

Central  and  Eastern  European  Countries  appear  to  have  experienced  decreasing
generation  of  waste  during  the  1990s,  mainly  due  to  economic  restructuring  which
accompanied the transition to a market economy, including the phasing out  of obsolete
industrial  capacity12.  Additionally,  the  EEA  reports  in  its  third  assessment  that
“quantities  are  increasing  in  most  European  countries  and  to  a  lesser  extent  in  most
central and eastern European countries and the countries of EECCA”.

It is generally agreed that, in the absence of additional policy measures, waste generation
in the EU is likely to increase for the foreseeable future. The Organisation for Economic
Co-operation  and  Development  (OECD)  estimates  that  MSW  generation  in  the  OECD
region will increase by 43% from 1995 to 2020, reaching 640 kg of MSW per capita. The
OECD also projects significant future growth for a number of other major waste streams,
such as industrial waste and C&DW.

9 
10 
11

12 

Waste generated in Europe, data 1985-1997, Eurostat, 2000, p.37.
EEA, 2003: Europe’s environment: the third assessment, p. 151.
EEA,  2002:  Environmental  Signals  2002  –  Benchmarking  the  millennium,  Environmental
assessment report N. 9, Copenhagen: European Environment Agency, chapter 12, pp. 100-105.
Regional  Environmental  Centre  for  Central  and  Eastern  Europe,  2001:  Waste  Management
Policies  in  Central  and  Eastern  European  countries  –  Current  Policies  and  Trends,  executive
summary, p.6.

9

                                                
Comprehensive information about trends in the treatment of waste is difficult to obtain.
The most reliable information is available for MSW. This shows that that there has been
some progress in moving away from landfilling as the main treatment method, although
landfilling  still  accounted  for  the  majority  (57%)  of  waste  treatment  in  the  late  1990s.
Some progress can be observed in recycling and composting of MSW, which went from
15% in 1995 to 20% in the late 1990s.

Figures  for  the  EU  as  a  whole  should  be  treated  with  care  in  this  context,  since  they
include a tremendous variety of national situations. In some Member States, landfilling is
still  the  dominant  treatment  method  for  MSW,  with  a  share  of  80%  or  more.  In  other
Member States, less than 20% of MSW now goes to landfill. The situation shows even
greater variation for the biodegradable fraction of MSW.

Similar  wide  variations  prevail  for  other  waste  streams.  For  example,  the  EEA  reports
that while about 90% of C&DW is recycled in the Netherlands, less than 10% is recycled
in  Luxembourg.  Given  this  wide  variety  of  national  situations,  it  is  clear  that  not  all
Member States will be able to make progress at the same rate in the future. In general, it
can be expected that those Member States which are furthest advanced today will only be
able to make incremental progress on their current recycling rates.

One  should  note  that  Municipal  Solid  Waste  (MSW)  often  receives  the  most  attention
from  policy-makers,  partly  due  to  the  fact  that  collection  and  treatment  of  MSW  is
generally  a  responsibility  of  public  authorities.  Whereas  MSW  is  an  important  waste
stream for a number of reasons including its heterogeneity, other waste flows are at least
of a comparable importance.  For example, only a minor part  of waste  from  households
(the bulk of MSW) is hazardous and this accounts for about 1 % of the total hazardous
waste  quantities13;  whereas  the  major  contributor  to  hazardous  waste  generation  in
several Member States is the manufacturing industry, accounting for more than 75% of
total hazardous waste generation.

Finally, estimates concerning the total waste generation and the contribution of different
sectors  to  it  should  be  interpreted  with  caution,  since  the  weight  or  volume  of  waste
generated is not necessarily the most appropriate indicator of the  environmental burden
of  waste.  In  practice,  the  relationship  between  the  generation  of  waste  and  the  latter’s
environmental impacts is more complex and depends on a number of factors, including
the nature and composition of the waste concerned.

2.3.

Environmental issues related to waste management

Historically, concern about the impact of waste on the environment and human health has
focused on poor practices and standards in the whole area of waste management. Some
waste incinerators gave rise to toxic emissions (esp. dioxins/furans and heavy metals) and
some  landfills  were  not  well  controlled.  In  addition  there  have  been  a  number  of
incidents where waste did not even reach the designated waste management facilities but
was  dumped  in  a  totally  uncontrolled  manner.  Whilst  there  has  been  significant
improvement in these areas significant environmental problems remain in some places.

13

EEA,  2002:  Hazardous  waste  generation  in  EEA  member  countries,  Topic  report  N.  14/2001,
Copenhagen: European Environment Agency, p. 22.

10

                                                
Notwithstanding remaining problems with uncontrolled waste dumps and non-compliant
waste incinerators, which the Commission will continue to pursue vigorously in its role
as  guardian  of  the  Treaties,  considerable  progress  has  been  made  in  recent  years.  Both
Member  States  and  the  Community  have  enacted  legislation  that  requires  significantly
higher environmental standards for landfills and incinerators.

This has already begun to yield significant environmental benefits. For example, stricter
legislation on waste incineration adopted at national and European level has significantly
reduced and will further reduce emissions of dioxins from municipal waste incinerators.
The  full  implementation  of  the  incineration  directive  will  mean  that  this  process  is  no
longer  a  major  contributor  to  dioxin  emission  in  the  EU.  Development  of  new
combustion technologies have contributed to this achievement and will facilitate energy
recovery also in future.

Existing economic assessments indicate that the  environmental  costs of  emissions from
waste incinerators are dominated by particulate matter (PM10), SO2 and NOx; followed by
disamenity effects.14 Some studies indicate that the costs due to dioxin emissions are at
least  two  orders  of  magnitude,  i.e.  100  times,  smaller  than  the  health  costs  due  to
emissions of nitrates, particulates and sulphates from this source.15 For modern-standard
landfills, disamenity effects and the contribution to global warming currently seem to be
the  most  important  impacts.16  These  estimates  provide  a  broad  indication  of  the  most
important  environmental  impacts  of  waste  treatment.  However,  they  should  be
interpreted with caution, since techniques to express environmental impacts in monetary
terms still have methodological limitations.

Waste  treatment  is  only  one  of  the  ways  in  which  waste  generates  environmental
impacts.  Improving  the  efficiency  of  resource  use  is  just  as  important.  This  is  where
waste prevention and waste recovery, whether energy recovery or material recovery can
make a specific contribution to reduce the environmental impact of resource use, above
and beyond what can be achieved by regulating waste treatment processes.

Waste  prevention  should  include  cleaner  technologies  at  the  level  of  production
processes, better product eco-design and, more generally, more eco-efficient production
and consumption patterns. However, every material object placed on the market is bound,
sooner  or  later,  to  become  waste.  In  addition,  every  production  process  produces  some
waste.  Even  waste  recovery  processes,  whether  energy  recovery  or  material  recovery,
generate  some  “residual”  waste  that  is  not  amenable  to  further  recovery  and  therefore
requires  disposal.  Waste  prevention  must  therefore  be  complemented  by  a  policy  to
promote environmentally sound waste recovery, in particular material recycling but, also,
taking into account the benefits of energy recovery to increasing energy demand.

14

15

16

See COWI, 2000: A study on the economic valuation of environmental externalities from landfill
disposal and incineration of waste, Brussels: European Commission, esp. chapter 9. Disamenity
effects  are  impacts  on  the  welfare  of  the  local  population  due  to  increased  traffic  congestion,
odour, noise, litter, etc. This can, for example, reduce the price of local property prices in the area
surrounding a waste management installation.
See http://externe.jrc.es/.
See COWI, 2000, op. cit., esp. chapter 9.

11

                                                
Waste prevention and recycling can thus reduce environmental impacts of resource use in
two ways:

i.

ii.

the avoided environmental impacts from the extraction of primary raw materials.
For example, each tonne of recycled metal avoids the mining of several tonnes
of metal ore,17 thus reducing the environmental impact of mining. The latter can
include “air pollution (mainly dust), noise, soil and water pollution and effects
on  ground  water  levels,  destruction  or  disturbance  of  natural  habitats,  and  the
visual impact on the surrounding landscape.”18

the  avoided  environmental  impacts  from  the  transformation  of  primary  raw
materials in production processes. For example, recycling of plastics can reduce
emissions of aerosols and particulate matter – both of which have strong links to
human  health  –  by  avoiding  the  production  of  virgin  polymer.  Moreover,
producing materials by recycling waste often requires less energy than doing so
using primary raw materials.

The  Wuppertal  Institute  has  calculated  that  the  “ecological  rucksack”  (the  amount  of
waste generated in producing everyday products) is 1.5 kg for a toothbrush, 75 kg for a
mobile  phone  and  1,500  kg  for  a  personal  computer.  Use  of  substantial  amounts  of
natural resources and the associated impacts on the environment can therefore be avoided
by re-using or recycling these products in their waste phase and by designing them in a
more  eco-efficient  way.  Only  in  terms  of  greenhouse  gases  emissions,  recycling  one
tonne  of  paper  saves  900  kg  of  CO2  equivalent  over  production  of  virgin  paper.  The
corresponding figure for Polyethylene Tere-Phtalate (PET) (a type of plastic) is 1,800 kg
and for aluminium it is 9,100 kg.19

3.

ASSESSMENT OF THE COMMUNITY’S WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICY

This section highlights the achievements of EC waste management policy and areas that
require  further  development.  In  particular,  it  reviews  the  different  elements  of  the
Community’s legal framework for waste management. Annex I provides a more detailed
description of this legal framework.

It  should  be  noted  that  the  Community  framework  is  only  the  backbone  of  waste
management practice. It necessarily needs complementary action by Member States and
local  authorities.  The  nature  of  this  document  is,  however,  rather  to  open  a  discussion
about  strategic  options  for  the  further  development  of  Community  policy  on  waste
prevention  and  recycling  than  giving  a  full  analysis  of  waste  management  policy  at  all
levels. This would go beyond the role and available resources of the Commission.

17

18

19

How much depends on the metal content (known as “the grade”) of the ore. This can vary from a
few parts per million (gold) to a few percent or higher, e.g. 30 per cent for manganese, 40 per cent
for iron. See “Mining – facts, figures and environment”, Industry and Environment, Vol. 23, p. 5.
Recycling one tonne of metal whose ore is of average grade of 10 per cent avoids the mining of 10
tonnes of metal ore.
See Commission Communication COM(2000) 265 final of 3.5.2000, p. 8: “Promoting sustainable
development in the EU non-energy extractive industry”.
See AEA Technology, 2001: Waste management options and climate change, Brussels: European
Commission.

12

                                                
3.1.

Achievements

A  common  set  of  general  principles  and  control  procedures  necessary  to  ensure  a  high
level of protection of the environment and human health across the Community has been
established by horizontal legislation for waste management, i.e. the waste framework
directive20  and  hazardous  waste  directive,21  as  well  as  the  waste  shipment  regulation.22
They provide the foundation on which other elements of the policy framework rest:

–  the waste management hierarchy, the polluter pays principle and the requirement that
waste  management  may  not  adversely  impact  human  health  and  the  environment  at
large  are  key  elements  of  Community  legislation  for  guaranteeing  environmentally
sound management of waste;

–  the permitting, registration and inspection requirements contained in the directives on
waste and on hazardous waste are the backbone of a comprehensive control system for
ensuring that waste management does not harm human health or the environment;

–  the  waste  shipment  regulation  has  established  a  harmonised  system  governing  the
cross-border shipment of waste, which seeks to reach a balance between the objective
of a high level of environmental protection and the objective of ensuring the effective
functioning  of  the  Internal  Market.  Furthermore,  the  free  trade  regime  for  waste
destined  for  recovery  has  an  important  potential  for  fostering  the  development  of
recovery of waste.

In order to guarantee a high level of environmental protection and to ensure the effective
functioning of the Internal Market, the general principles and requirements of horizontal
waste legislation are complemented by more detailed legislation in two areas:

1.

2.

20

21

22

legislation concerning waste treatment – including disposal – operations, such as
the landfill, incineration directives;

legislation  to  regulate  the  management  of  specific  waste  streams.  This
legislation has been motivated by one or more of the following considerations:

–  the growing  volumes  or  complexity  of  some  waste  streams,  e.g.  packaging,

end-of-life vehicles and waste electrical and electronic products;

–  the need to subject them to specific controls due to their hazardousness, e.g.

certain types of batteries, PCBs;

–  the fact that their uncontrolled use can have harmful effects on human health
and  the  environment,  e.g.  the  uncontrolled  spreading  of  sewage  sludge  on
agricultural  land  and  the  uncontrolled  application  of  livestock  manure  on
agricultural land, particularly in nitrates vulnerable zones.

Directive  75/442/EEC  of  15  July  1975  on  waste,  as  amended  by  directive  91/156/EEC  of
18 March 1991 amending directive 75/442/EEC on waste, OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p.39 and OJ L 78,
26.3.1991, p.32.
Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste, OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p.20.
Council  regulation  (EEC)  No  259/93  of  1  February  1993  on  the  supervision  and  control  of
shipments  of  waste  within,  into  and  out  of  the  European  Community,  as  amended,  OJ L 30,
6.2.1993, p.1.

13

                                                
The  environmental  impacts  of  waste  treatment  have  been  reduced  in  recent  years
through legislative measures. This trend will be reinforced though three recently adopted
directives:  the  directive  on  integrated  pollution  prevention  and  control  (IPPC),23  the
landfill  directive24  and  the  incineration  directive.25  Due  to  the  transition  periods  for
existing  installations  foreseen in  these  directives, their  full environmental  benefits  have
not  yet  been  achieved.  Nevertheless,  the  implementation  of  this  legislation  means  that
this  decade  will  be  one  of  considerable  evolution  of  the  waste  management  sector
towards more stringent environmental standards. For example, some of the problems of
highest  concern  associated  with  waste  treatment  installations,  such  as  emissions  of
dioxins  from  municipal  waste  incinerators,  will  be  largely  solved  through  the
implementation  of  the  incineration  directive.  Similarly,  the  EEA  estimates  that  EU
emissions of greenhouse gasses from waste management will decrease significantly from
1990 to 2010, principally due to the implementation of the landfill directive, which more
than compensate for emission increases due to forecasted increases in waste generation.26

The implementation of the landfill directive will be a major driver for the development of
waste management policies at national level during the current decade, including efforts
to promote the diversion of waste towards material recycling and biological treatments.27
Particularly important in this context are the restrictions on landfilling introduced by the
directive,  in  particular  the  reduction  in  the  amount  of  biodegradable  waste  going  to
landfill  and  the  prohibition  on  the  landfilling  of  a  numbers  of  waste  types,  including
liquid wastes and tyres. Moreover, the stricter environmental standards introduced by the
landfill and incineration directives will to a certain extent promote the diversion of waste
towards material recycling.

Better management of a number of problematic waste streams has been achieved through
Community directives on specific waste streams. Important hazardous wastes have been
addressed such as waste oils,28 PCBs/PCTs29 and batteries.30 Heavy metals have and are
being further restricted by Community waste legislation in a number of products, aiming
at  qualitative  prevention.  Recycling  and  recovery  targets  have  been  set  for  some  key
complex waste flows, i.e. packaging,31 end-of-life vehicles (ELVs)32 and waste electrical

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

Council directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and
control, OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p.26.
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  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  of  4  December  2000  on  the
incineration of waste, OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p.91.
See EEA, 2002: Analysis and comparison of national and EU-wide projections of greenhouse gas
emissions, Topic Report 1/2002, Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.
Biological  treatment  includes  composting,  anaerobic  digestion  and  mechanical/biological
treatment.  The  Commission  has  announced  that  it  will  present  a  proposal  for  a  directive  on  the
biological treatment of biodegradable waste by end 2004.
Council directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils, OJ L 194, 25.7.1975,
p.23.
Council  directive  96/59/EC  of  16  September  1996  on  the  disposal  of  polychlorinated  biphenyls
and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT), OJ L 243, 24.9.1996, p.31.
Council directive 91/157/EEC of 18 March 1991 on batteries and accumulators containing certain
dangerous substances, OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p.38.
European  Parliament  and  Council  directive  94/62/EC  of  20  December  1994  on  packaging  and
packaging waste, OJ L 30, 3.2.1994, p.1.
Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and  of  the  Council  of  18  September  2000 on
end-of life vehicles, OJ L 269, 21.10.2000, p.34.

14

                                                
and electronic equipment (WEEE).33 Such targets are necessary where separate collection
and  recycling  are  not  profitable  under  free  market  conditions  but  are  beneficial  from  a
societal point of  view.  Although  these  targets  are  generally  the  subject  of  much  debate
during the  adoption process, once  adopted they provide  the  legal  certainty and stability
necessary  to  allow  the  recycling  industry  to  programme  investments  in  the  knowledge
that there will be a demand for recycling services.

In addition, the principle of producer responsibility has also provided a stable source of
financing  to  off-set  the  cost  disadvantage  of  recycling  versus  energy  recovery  and
landfilling. While the current packaging directive is not based on this principle, almost all
Member  States  have  chosen  to  implement  it  at  least  partly  on  the  basis  of  producer
responsibility, although there are some exceptions such as Denmark and the Netherlands
where the financing is ensured mostly via municipalities and waste charges and taxes.34
Both  the  ELV  directive  and  the  WEEE  directive  explicitly  include  an  element  of
producer responsibility.

Separate collection systems have and will continue to be widely implemented to achieve
the objectives of Community directives on specific waste streams, especially for end-of-
life products which would otherwise enter the MSW stream. One of the characteristics of
MSW  is  its  heterogeneity.  Obtaining  good  quality  recyclates  from  mixed  MSW  is
therefore generally difficult from a technical point of view and costly from an economic
point of view. However, by ensuring that recyclable materials are collected separately, a
supply of relatively homogenous and high quality recyclate can be obtained.

In this context, one should not neglect the indirect effect on consumers behaviour of the
implementation  of  separate  collection  schemes  at  the  municipal  level.  Separate
collection,  especially  if  carried  out  through  kerb-side  schemes,  requires  the  active
involvement of citizens in waste management issues. This involvement may be a spur for
a  more  general  awareness  of  the  environmental  dimension  of  waste,  thus  promoting
changes in consumer behaviour.

3.2.

Elements to be further developed

Despite the important progress highlighted above, the Community’s policy framework on
waste management still contains a number of gaps or areas where further progress can be
made. These are described below.

3.2.1.

Implementation

Timely and full implementation of existing Community waste legislation is a prerequisite
to  ensure  effective  waste  management.  Unfortunately,  Member  States  regularly  fail  to
transpose  Community  waste  legislation  on  time  and  to  correctly  apply  important
elements  of  the  Community’s  legal  framework  on  waste  management.  This  may
sometimes  be  a  symptom  of  the  ambitious  deadlines  and  approaches  contained  in

33

34

Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste
electrical  and  electronic  equipment  (WEEE)-  Joint  declaration  of  the  European  Parliament,  the
Council and the Commission relating to Article 9, OJ L 37, 13.2.2003, p. 24
See  Commission  Communication  COM  (2001)  729  final  of  7.12.2001,  p.  11:  “Upgrading  the
investment services directive”.

15

                                                
Community legislation, but in general it also shows insufficient efforts by Member States
to transpose and enforce agreed legislation.

Efforts  should  be  made  to  ensure  that  Member  States  dedicate  sufficient  resources  to
implementing  Community  legislation,  while  ensuring  that  deadlines  and  targets  set  in
directives are realistic.

3.2.2.

Limited progress towards waste prevention

Waste prevention includes both quantitative and qualitative prevention:

–  quantitative prevention refers to a reduction of the amount of waste generated;

–  qualitative prevention refers to a reduction of the hazardousness of waste generated.

In  practice,  qualitative  prevention  can  be  seen  as  a  special  case  of  quantitative
prevention,  since  it  implies  a  reduction  of  the  quantity  of  hazardous  waste  generated.
This is a somewhat crude approach towards qualitative prevention, since it assumes that
all hazardous waste is equally hazardous. However, more sophisticated approaches based
on  a  composite  index  of  “hazardousness”  are  not  currently  feasible  given  the
methodological  problems  that  they  would  raise,  e.g.  weighting  of  different  hazard-
properties. In what follows, qualitative prevention is therefore defined as a reduction of
the quantity of hazardous waste generated.

As  discussed  in  section  2.1,  the  available  evidence  suggests  that  the  volume  of  waste
generated  in  the  EU  is  likely  to  increase.  Some  measures  have  been  adopted  at
Community level that will undoubtedly promote waste prevention. The most significant
measure adopted so far is the IPPC directive, which lists among the basic obligations of
the  operator  that  waste  production  is  avoided  in  accordance  with  Council  directive
75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste. Moreover, the use of low-waste technology and
the use of less hazardous substances are listed  among the considerations  that should be
addressed  as  part  of  the  definition  of  Best  Available  Techniques  (BAT)  in  accordance
with the IPPC directive. This means the latter will be an important instrument to promote
waste  prevention  in  the  industrial  sector,  although  it  is  not  yet  possible  to  estimate  the
significance of this impact due to the early stage of implementation of the directive.

A number of directives on end-of-life products address waste prevention, although these
have either limited scope or are at an early stage of implementation. The ELV directive
and the directive on the restriction of certain hazardous substances (RoHS) in electrical
and electronic equipment35 have focused on qualitative prevention by restricting the use
of  hazardous  substances  in  products.  Quantitative  prevention  is  to  a  certain  extent
addressed in the packaging directive. However, the balance between packaging volume,
weight, functionality and environmental impact is a complex question about which there
continues to be much debate.

There have been several attempts to define waste prevention targets in the past, which
have generally been unsuccessful. Three examples illustrate the point:

35

Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on the
restriction  of  the  use  of  certain  hazardous  substances  in  electrical  and  electronic  equipment,  OJ
L 37, 13.2.2003, p.19.

16

                                                
–  Spain’s  National  Plan  for  Municipal  Waste  (2000-2006)  aims  at  stabilising  MSW
generation per capita at 1996 levels by 2002.36 However, Eurostat data indicates that
Spanish  MSW  generation  increased  from  390  kg/capita  in  1996  to  621  kg/capita  in
1999, suggesting that it is highly unlikely that the target will be achieved;

–  the overall objective of the Danish “Waste 21” policy (the Danish government’s waste
action plan for the period 1998–2004) is to stabilise the total volume of waste by 2004
and to gradually reduce it thereafter. However, recent assessments estimate that waste
generation in Denmark increased by 17% over the period 1994-2000 and  that it  will
further increase by about 27% between 2000 and 2020;

–  the Community’s 5th Environmental Action Programme (5EAP) included a target to
stabilise  annual  MSW  generation  at  300  kg  per  capita,  the  EU  average  for  1985,37
although it did not identify a deadline by which this target should be achieved nor the
measures  necessary  to  achieve  it.  It  is  estimated  that  annual  MSW  generation
currently stands at about 550 kg per capita (average across the EU), while the OECD
estimates that MSW generation will reach 640 kg per capita in 2020.

It  therefore  remains  true  that,  although  waste  prevention  has  been  the  paramount
objective of  both  national  and  Community  waste  management  policies  for  many  years,
limited  progress  has  been  made  so  far  to  turn  the  objective  of  waste  prevention  into
practice.

This lack of progress can partly be explained by the absence of a comprehensive strategy
to  promote  waste  prevention.  In  particular,  targets  were  sometimes  defined  without
considering their justification and the means to achieve them, therefore undermining the
credibility of the exercise. In addition, there was generally no robust assessment of waste
generation  patterns  in  different  sectors  of  the  economy  allowing  credible  and  effective
waste prevention targets can be defined.

This experience shows that a successful policy on waste prevention will need to be based
on a fuller scientific analysis, in particular the relationship between the weight or volume
of  waste  generated,  the  hazardousness  of  the  waste  and  the  related  risks,  and  its
environmental  impacts.  Moreover,  any  targets  would  have  to  be  based  on  a  robust
assessment  of  waste  generation  trends  in  different  economic  sectors,  as  well  as  their
potential for waste prevention. Finally, the definition of waste prevention targets must be
accompanied by an evaluation of the potential range of measures through which they can
be achieved. Ideas on how to build on this experience are given in sections 4.3 and 5.2.

3.2.3.

Lack of a comprehensive approach to recycling

Directives on specific waste streams have so far targeted individual waste streams on  a
case-by-case basis. These directives are an important success of Community waste policy
in  reducing  environmental  impacts  by  promoting  source  separation  and  recycling  of
waste  streams  such  as  batteries,  packaging,  ELV  and  WEEE  which  are  waste  flows  of
particular importance  in  terms of hazardous character, increasing  complexity  or  growth
rate  of  waste  generation.  These  measures  have  the  effect  of  improving  the  quality  of
separated material which is an important factor  affecting the  costs  of  recycling  and  the

36

37

See http://www.mma.es/calid_amb/residuos/plan/, section 6.1.
[1993] OJ C 138/59.

17

                                                
quality of the recycled materials. However, these directives cover a limited proportion of
all  waste  generated.  For  example,  packaging  waste  represents  about  5%  of  all  waste
generated, while both end-of-life vehicles and waste electrical and electronic equipment
represent about 1% of total waste generation. Additionally, while Community legislation
requires  recycling  of  paper  and  cardboard  from  packaging,  there  is  no  analogous
requirement  for  paper  from  other  sources,  e.g.  office  paper  or  newsprint.  Paper  from
these  sources  is  often  appropriate  for  recycling  from  both  an  economic  and
environmental  point  of  view.  Similarly,  while  Community  legislation  requires  the
recycling of plastic packaging and, in practice, plastics from some other regulated waste
streams (ELV and WEEE), there is currently no Community requirement for recycling of
plastics  from  other  important  applications,  e.g.  construction  materials.  Thus,  beyond
closing existing gaps in Community legislation where necessary, Community legislation
on  recycling  could  be  complemented  by  new  initiatives  focussing  on  given  materials
rather than on specific end-of-life products.

The  implementation  of  the  waste  management  hierarchy  has  contributed  to  encourage
recycling. While recognising this general principle, the Commission considers that there
is a need for further developing approaches for the determination of best environmental
options  and  for  the  setting  of  targets  for  recycling  and  recovery  of  waste,  taking  into
account the differences between products and materials and the possible alternatives.

The  principle  of  producer  responsibility  is  continuing  to  be  successfully  used  in
Community and national legislation to promote the recycling of end-of-life products. By
requiring that producers bear the costs of recycling their products after these have been
discarded  by  consumers,  their  specific  role  in  the  chain  of  producers,  consumers  and
waste managers is used to finance recycling and to integrate waste management costs in
the product price. This also aims to provide economic incentives for producers to reduce
the cost of re-using and recycling their products, e.g. by improving design or materials to
facilitate recycling.

Some  work  has  been  carried  out  to  evaluate  the  advantages  and  disadvantages  of
producer  responsibility.38  This  indicates  that  producer  responsibility  can  be  very
successful to promote recycling for some waste streams while it may be less appropriate
for others. This suggests that while the principle of producer responsibility will continue
to be an important element of the Community’s recycling policy, in particular for end-of-
life products, it will need to be complemented by other instruments to promote recycling
of  important  waste  streams.  Moreover,  many  factors  influence  the  effectiveness  of  the
economic  incentives  created  by  a  producer  responsibility  scheme.  Where  recycling  is
already profitable under market conditions, it may not be necessary and useful to develop
a  legislative  framework  but  voluntary  approaches  could  be  developed  to  optimise  the
functioning of these markets.

The 6EAP states that the recycling strategy should include “inter alia” measures aimed at
ensuring  source  separation,  the  collection  and  recycling  of  priority  waste  streams.  In
addition,  other  elements  of  the  6EAP  are  strongly  linked  to  recycling.  In  particular,
article 8(2)(iv) calls on the Commission to propose new or revised legislation “including

38

See,  for  example,  OECD,  2001:  Extended  Producer  Responsibility  –  A  Guidance  Manual  for
Governments, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and SOU, 2001:
Resurs i retur - Slutrapport från utredningen för översyn av producentansvaret, SOU 2001:102,
Stockholm: Statens Offentliga Utredningar.

18

                                                
inter  alia  construction  and  demolition  waste,  sewage  sludge,  biodegradable  wastes,
packaging, batteries and waste shipments, clarification of the  distinction  between  waste
and non-waste and development of adequate criteria for the further elaboration of Annex
IIA and IIB of the framework directive on wastes.”

Several  of  the  above  mentioned  proposals  contained  in  the  6EAP  relate  directly  to
recycling. The Thematic Strategy should help to clarify this relationship with a view to
identifying  priorities and  ways in which  recycling  policy could  be further developed in
the most efficient way.

Moreover, the main barrier  to  progress  towards  higher  recycling  rates is in  many  cases
the unfavourable economic situation facing recycling, as landfilling and incineration are
often cheaper. This situation arises partly  because  the  prices  of  resource  use  and  waste
treatment methods do not always reflect social costs, i.e. there are negative externalities.
This  means  that  market  choices  about  waste  management  options  are  frequently  sub-
optimal.  Overcoming  this  barrier  will  be  central  in  future  Community  policy  on
recycling. However, increased recycling of particular end-of-life products, waste flows or
materials would to a varying degree deliver additional environmental benefits. Therefore,
new  initiatives  should  as  a  matter  of  priority  be  designed  to  deliver  environmental
benefits in areas where recycling is most justified from a cost-benefit point of view.

More  stringent  environmental  standards  introduced  by  recent  Community  legislation
(IPPC,  landfill  and  incineration  directives)  may  increase  the  costs  of  operating  certain
disposal  facilities,  thus  providing  an  economic  incentive  to  divert  waste  towards
recovery,  including  material  recycling.  For  example,  the  waste  acceptance  criteria
prescribed  by  the  landfill  directive  may  increase  the  costs  of  disposal  and  thus  also
improve  the  relative  economic  position  of  material  recycling  for  some  materials.  This
may be the case, for example, for some categories of waste currently considered as inert
waste,  e.g.  certain  types  of  construction  and  demolition  waste.  However,  by  itself  the
implementation  of  the  landfill  directive,  even  where  complemented  by  landfill  taxes
adopted at national level, is unlikely to bring into line the costs of landfilling and material
recycling.  In  absence  of  other  measures  a  significant  proportion  of  combustible  waste
could  be  diverted  towards  energy  recovery,  which  normally  has  a  lower  cost  than
material  recycling.  In  addition,  remaining  differences  in  costs  of  landfilling  across  the
EU may in some case generate unnecessary transport of waste over long distances.

Finally,  another  dimension  that  should  not  be  disregarded  in  developing  further
initiatives  is  the  optimisation  of  allocation  of  resources,  i.e.  the  administrative  and
financial  resources  required  at  the  national  and  European  levels.  Resources  needed  to
implement legislation addressing waste flows case by case should not be underestimated,
in  particular  due  to  the  potential  inflation  of  the  number  of  directives  and  to  he  high
degree of technical complexity of such legislation.

The  “mandate”  of  the  6EAP  and  the  above  considerations  lead  to  the  conclusion  that
there  is  a  need  for  an  appropriate  mix  of  instruments  to  address  the  issues  of  waste
management and to ensure  both  the  effectiveness  and  the  cost-efficiency  of  Community
waste  policy.  This  mix  could  include  new  legislative  initiatives,  the  negotiation  of
environmental  agreements  and  the  development  of  economic  instruments.  The  latter
could  play  a  prominent  role  given  that  the  current  economics  of  waste  tend  to  give
signals  that  discourage  recycling.  As  regards  legislative  initiatives,  the  Commission
considers it worth exploring the merits of complementing existing directives with a new

19

approach  addressing  materials  rather  than  end-of-life  products.  This  could  include
developing  producer  responsibility  obligations  where  most  appropriate  from  both  an
environmental and an economic perspective. Discussion on the mix of instrument would
cover how to implement the waste management hierarchy and which instruments should
be  used  to  define  the  best  waste  management  options.  Potential  ways  forward  are
described in sections 4 (targets) and 5 (instruments).

3.2.4. Harmonised standards for recycling operations

Many  treatment  operations,  in  particular  recycling  operations,  are  not  covered  by
harmonised  environmental  requirements  across  the  Community.  Some  of  these
operations  fall  within  the  scope  of  the  IPPC  directive  and  will  therefore  have  to  apply
Best  Available  Techniques  (BAT).  However,  the  extent  to  which  this  harmonises  the
environmental performance of these facilities  will depend on  the way  in  which  BAT  is
implemented at local level.

The absence of mandatory waste treatment standards at EU level undermines the creation
of a high level of protection across  the  Community  and  has  also  raised  concerns  about
“standards  dumping”.  The  argument  that  different  environmental  standards  lead  to
significant  differences  in  costs  incurred  by  waste  management  facilities  is  in  principle
plausible, although little factual information is available about these economic issues and
the  actual  waste  flows  involved.  Nevertheless,  there  have  been  allegations  that  waste
destined for recycling tends to be driven out of countries with higher standards and that,
as a consequence, installations  in  these  countries  do  not  receive  sufficient  quantities  of
waste to be economically viable. It is therefore argued that Member States are impeded
from  developing  and  enforcing  environmentally  superior  waste  treatment  technologies
and requirements in the field of recycling, as waste tends to flow towards countries with
lower standards.

According  to  the  jurisprudence  of  the  European  Court  of  Justice,  wastes  destined  for
recovery are to be considered as tradable goods covered by the provisions of the Treaty
(Articles  28  to  30)  on  the  free  circulation  of  goods.  Thus  national  measures  that  could
impede exchanges of waste destined for recovery could be considered to be incompatible
with Article 28  of the Treaty unless  the measures  are justified and  proportionate  to  the
objective pursued.

The  definitions  of  disposal  (D)  and  recovery  (R)  operations  contained,  respectively,  in
annexes II A and II B of the WFD are the key elements determining what set of rules
apply  to  a  given  waste  treatment  operation.  In  particular  they  determine  the  rules  that
apply  to  cross-border  shipments  of  waste  within  the  Community  in  the  context  of  the
Waste  Shipment  Regulation.  Moreover,  they  also  determine  which  operations  can
contribute towards the achievement of recycling and recovery targets contained in certain
directives.

These  definitions  are  general  in  nature  and  leave  a  relatively  substantial  leeway  for
interpretation which can be used to undermine obligations for waste destined for disposal
by sending this waste to operations which may or may not be recovery operations. They
can also be used by Member States to stop the shipment of waste out of their territories.
These implementation problems and criticism by various stakeholders have materialised
in litigation both at national and European level.

20

In  recent  jurisprudence  the  European  Court  of  Justice  developed  a  criterion  for
distinguishing  between  waste  recovery  and  waste  disposal.  According  to  the  Court,  a
waste treatment operation is to be classified as recovery when the fundamental objective
of the operation is that the waste substitutes the use of primary resources. The Court has
notably  concluded  that  filling  a  mine  with  waste  could  be  a  recovery  operation  if  the
waste is used in replacement of primary resources that would have otherwise been used
for  the  purpose  of  filling  the  mine39.  This  could  for  instance  be  the  case  when,  for  the
purpose of stabilising land a mine must be filled. The Court also concluded that use of
waste as a fuel in a cement kiln is recovery when excess heat is generated and this heat is
used  in  the  process40.  In  contrast,  the  Court  decided41  that  incineration  in  a  dedicated
municipal waste incinerator has for primary objective to dispose of the waste. The Court
added that, in  the  cases analysed, this classification  as disposal  operation  would  not  be
changed if, as a secondary effect of the process, energy is generated and used

The Court also underlined that pursuant to Article 7(4) fifth indent of Regulation (EEC)
259/93 on shipments of waste, Member States may object to shipments of “if the ratio of
the  recoverable  and  non-recoverable  waste,  the  estimated  value  of  the  materials  to  be
finally  recovered  or  the  cost  of  recovery  and  the  cost  of  the  disposal  of  the  non-
recoverable  fraction  do  not  justify  the  recovery  under  economic  and  environmental
conditions”.  Application  of  this  provision  should  enable  Member  States  to  avoid  that
sham recovery is taking place.

Section 5.5.1.1  further  develops  issues  that  should  be  debated  in  the  framework  of  this
Communication.

3.2.5. Other aspects of the legal framework

In addition, certain aspects of the legal framework relevant to waste recycling have been
the  subject  of  previous  work  by  the  Commission.  For  example,  the  Recycling  Forum42
analysed the cost complying with waste legislation, esp. concerning the requirements of
the waste framework directive and of the waste shipment regulation. This section focuses
on  ways  in  which  compliance  costs  could  be  reduced  by  taking  advantage  of  existing
provision of EC waste legislation and by clarifying certain of its elements.

The Commission is finalising a proposal for the review of the waste shipment regulation.
Through  this  review  the  Commission  aims  at  incorporating  international  obligations  of
the  EU  as  well  as  clarifying  and  streamlining  the  control  procedures  that  apply  to
transboundary  shipments  of  waste.  This  review  should  clarify  and  where  possible
simplify the rules that apply to trade of waste both within the Community and with third
countries.

The  definition  of waste  contained  in  article  1(a)  of  the  WFD  is  the  keystone  of  waste
legislation.  This  definition  has  been  the  subject  of  considerable  discussion  and  the
European  Court  of  Justice  has  provided  valuable  guidance  on  the  interpretation  of  this
definition.  However,  debate  about  definition  of  waste  is  likely  to  continue.  Moreover,

39

40

41

42

Case C-6/00
Case C–228/00
Case C-458/00
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/events/recycling/recycling.htm.

21

                                                
article 8(2)(iv) of the 6EAP calls for a "clarification of the distinction between waste and
non-waste."

The definition of waste is a legal construction which it may well be possible to improve.
However,  the  criticisms  levelled  against  the  current  definition  are  often  of  a  general
nature.  For  example,  it  is  sometimes  claimed  that  recyclable  materials  should  be
excluded  from  the  definition  because  the  economic  costs  of  complying  with  waste
legislation and the negative image linked to the term “waste” undermine the creation of a
competitive  recycling  sector.  However,  these  allegations  are  rarely  supported  by  an
assessment of the actual economic cost of compliance.

Section 5.5.1.2 further  develops  issues  that  should  be  debated  in  the  framework  of  this
Communication.

4.

SETTING OF TARGETS

4.1.

Introduction

In  general,  an  optimal  waste  management  strategy  to  minimise  environmental  impacts
will include a combination of waste prevention, material recycling, energy recovery and
disposal options.

Cost-Benefit  Analysis  (CBA)  provides  a  framework  to  define  optimal  recycling  rates,
although relatively little experience exists for CBA of waste prevention measures. CBA
provides estimates of the monetary value of different environmental impacts, which are
often not reflected in market prices (externalities). It therefore allows the environmental
benefits of waste management choices to be compared to their economic costs. Although
there  continues  to  be  debate  about  certain  methodological  aspects  of  CBA  –  such  as
monetisation  factors43  and  discounting44  or  taking  into  account  local  conditions  –  the
Commission  considers  that  this  technique  provides  the  best  available  basis  for  the
assessment of targets in the field of waste management policy.

The  Commission  has  launched  a  study  to  assess  cost-benefit  scenarios  for  future
recycling in the EU, based on different assumptions concerning legislative and technical
developments. This will inform the development of recycling targets in the context of this
strategy  and  will  allow  the  Commission  to  further  develop  the  approach  used  for  the
revision of the recycling targets of the packaging directive. The first results of this study
should be made available by end 2003.

4.2.

Waste prevention

Waste  generation  trends  are  driven  by  several  factors,  including  levels  of  economic
activity, demographic changes, technological innovations, life-style and, more generally,

43

44

Monetisation  factors  are  used  to  asign  a  monetary  value  to  environmental  impacts,  e.g.  the
“economic cost” of emitting one tonne of C02.
Discounting involves choosing an interest or “discount” rate to account for the changing economic
value of assets over time.

22

                                                
patterns of production and consumption.45 This close link makes it difficult to deal with
waste  prevention  in  isolation  from  resource  management  and  product  policy.  This  is
likely to be the main explanation for the lack of success of existing policies to promote
waste prevention in general and setting waste prevention targets in particular.

Most previous attempts to define waste prevention targets have focused on the weight or
volume  of  waste  generated.  However,  it  is  questionable  whether  weight  or  volume  are
always the most appropriate indicators of the environmental burden of waste. In practice
the relationship between the generation of waste and the latter’s environmental impacts is
more complex, since changes in waste  generation patterns  generally  affect  not only  the
quantity of waste generated, but also the type of waste generated. Such changes may also
influence  impacts  in  other  stages  of  the  product  life  cycle,  e.g.  through  changes  in
product  design.  For  example,  moving  towards  more  lightweight  packaging  does  not
necessarily  reduce  the  environmental  impact  of  packaging,  either  during  its  end-of-life
phase  or  over  its  entire  life-cycle.  Nevertheless,  given  the  complexity  inherent  in  any
attempt to develop composite indicators of the environmental impact of waste, there does
not  currently  appear  to  be  a  practical  alternative  to  using  weight  or  volume  to  express
waste prevention targets. In that context, it is important to recognise that to maximise the
results  a  direct  link  between  waste  prevention  and  IPP  has  to  be  established.  The  first
step  towards  a  global  strategy  for  waste  prevention  should  be  strengthening  of  the
coherence between all available instruments.

Any  attempt  to  define  waste  prevention  targets  at  EU  level  is  also  confronted  with  the
unsatisfactory  status  of  current  statistics  about  waste  generation.  These  shortcomings
mean  it  is  not  possible  at  this  stage  to  propose  any  operational,  quantified  waste
prevention  targets  based  on  a  comprehensive  environmental  and  economic  analysis.
Moreover,  in  the  absence  of  reliable  statistics  and  a  robust  baseline  scenario  for  future
waste generation, monitoring progress would be almost impossible.

The  Waste  Statistics  Regulation46  is  intended  to  close  these  gaps  in  our  knowledge  of
waste generation and will provide a legal basis for a complete statistical data collection
on  waste  generation  and  treatment  in  the  Community.  When  fully  applied,  the  Waste
Statistics Regulation will provide a comprehensive picture of waste generation and waste
treatment for the  whole economy in the Community, by type of waste and by  sector of
economic  activity.  Data  collection  will  take  place  every  second  year,  starting  with  the
reference year 2004. The first set of statistics will be made available to the Commission
in 2006.

Consequently, a satisfactory knowledge of waste generation and treatment patterns at EU
level will be available in 2006 at the earliest. However, trends cannot be estimated on the
basis of data for a single year. Therefore, a first assessment of trends in waste generation
across the EU will only be possible in 2008, when the second set of statistics collected in
the context of the Waste Statistics Regulation will become available.

45

46

See, for example, OECD, 2002: Household Energy & Water Consumption and Waste Generation:
Trends,  Environmental  Impacts  and  Policy  Responses,  ENV/EPOC/WPNEP(2001)25,  Paris:
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, pp. 67-62.
Regulation (EEC) N° 2150/2002 of the European parliament and of the Council of 25 November
2002 on waste statistics, OJ L 332, 9.12.2002, p.1.

23

                                                
Additionally, a protocol to the Aarhus Convention47 is currently being negotiated within
the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) for the implementation
of  Pollutant  Release  and  Transfer  Registers  (PRTR).  This  could  be  implemented  via  a
revised  European  Pollutant  Emissions  Register  (EPER)48  with  an  expanded  scope.  The
EPER could then provide information on production and management of waste and cover
a large number of significant waste producers. This would provide a potential  basis for
target setting for specific industrial sectors or for groups of sectors.

There  continues  to  be  significant  uncertainty  about  the  scope  for  waste  prevention  in
different  sectors  of  the  economy  and  about  the  effectiveness  of  different  instruments  to
achieve waste prevention. Despite the potential usefulness of setting a political ambition
in relation to waste prevention, the risk is that new targets would merely raise hopes that
might  be  as  much  disappointed  as  in  the  5th  EAP.  Thus,  the  Commission  intends  to
launch  a  debate  on  the  fundamental  analysis  that  can  justify  waste  prevention  targets
and,  in  particular,  on  the  link  between  waste  prevention,  resource  management  and
Integrated  Product  Policy.  Before  proposing  targets,  the  Commission  also  wishes  to
obtain more clarity with which measures such targets can be achieved and whether such
measures  would  be  supported  by  the  respective  legislators.  Furthermore,  stakeholders
are  invited  to  report  about  past  experiences  related  to  waste  prevention,  which  effects
could  be  achieved  and  how  much  such  measures  could  contribute  to  achieving  overall
waste prevention targets.

4.3.

Recycling targets

In contrast to waste prevention, target setting is both better established and less complex
in the field of recycling. This thematic strategy should therefore focus on improving the
efficiency  of  recycling  targets.  Firstly,  the  Community’s  approach  to  setting  recycling
targets  has  until  now  focused  on  end-of-life  products,  without  distinguishing  between
different  materials.  The  packaging  directive  provides  a  partial  exception  to  this,  as  the
directive  requires  that  minimum  recycling  targets  are  reached  separately  for  each
material.  In  its  proposal  to  revise  the  directive’s  targets,  the  Commission  proposed
differentiated targets for each material, arguing that the optimal recycling rates should be
based on the costs and benefits for the specific material concerned, which would clearly
be different from one case to another.49

Setting targets for end-of-life products has been a successful way of promoting separate
collection and recycling. However, in some cases questions arise why specific materials
where addressed in one waste streams but not in others. For example, while Community
legislation  requires  recycling  of  paper  and  cardboard  from  packaging,  there  is  no
analogous requirement for paper from other sources, e.g. office paper or newsprint. Paper
from these sources is often at least as appropriate for recycling from both an economic
and  environmental  point  of  view.  Similarly,  while  Community  legislation  requires  the

47

48

49

Convention  on  Access  to  Information,  Public  Participation  in  Decision-making  and  Access  to
Justice in Environmental Matters, signed by the Community at the inter-ministerial conference on
23/25 June 1998.
See  Commission  Decision  of  17  July  2000  on  the  implementation  of  a  European  pollutant
emission  register  (EPER)  according  to  Article  15  of  Council  Directive  96/61/EC  concerning
integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC), OJ L 192, 28.7.2000, p.36.
See Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive
94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, COM(2001)729 final of 7.12.2001, esp. p. 12ff.

24

                                                
recycling of plastic packaging (and, in practice, plastics from some other regulated waste
streams, in particular WEEE), there is currently no Community requirement for recycling
of plastics from other important applications, e.g. construction materials.

It  would  be  possible  to  combine  the  waste-stream  oriented  and  material-specific
approach.  In  general,  it  may  well  be  the  case  that  the  former  is  more  appropriate  to
ensure separate collection and dismantling of complex end-of-life products. A material-
specific approach could then be used to set recycling targets. Following such an approach
would  suggest  a  separation  of  separate  collection  and  dismantling  requirements  from
recycling  targets  in  future  waste  legislation.  The  intrinsic  differences  between  the
materials, the recycling processes and the market structures should be carefully taken into
consideration while assessing the efficiency of setting-up complementary material based
targets.

Secondly,  current  directives  foresee  that  all  Member  States  should  achieve  the  same
recycling target. However, the question is legitimate whether this uniformity in targets is
most  effective  from  both  an  environmental  and  economic  point  of  view.  From  an
environmental point of view, it is more important to optimise collection and recycling in
the Community  as  a whole  than  whether this takes  place  in  a  particular  Member  State.
From an economic point of view, it is more important to create  fair competition within
the  Internal  Market  rather  than  achieve  the  same  level  of  collection  and  recycling
everywhere.  This  could  be  reflected  in  an  overall  recycling  target  at  Community  level
and letting market forces determine which recycling  facilities can  achieve  the objective
in a most cost-effective manner. Such an approach would require a more market oriented
legal framework. However, it is likely that such an approach will only be feasible if the
environmental  standards  for  recycling  facilities  were  more  harmonised  across  the
Community than is currently the case. Such a legal framework would have to include a
clear distribution of responsibilities and an appropriate system to generate information on
achievements to ensure that it is enforceable.

Finally,  recycling  targets  contained  in  existing  Community  legislation,  e.g.  the
packaging,  ELV  and  WEEE  directives,  are  legally-binding.  This  approach  could  be
extended  if  material-oriented  targets  are  included  in  future  initiatives.  In  addition,
complementary  indicative  targets  could  be  defined  for  large  waste  streams  such  as
Construction and Demolition Waste (C&DW) and Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). This
would  provide  a  means  to  monitor  progress  in  different  Member  States,  while  leaving
sufficient  flexibility  to  take  into  account  the  variety  of  local  conditions  which  prevail
across the Community.

This Communication and the following debates should raise ideas on how to set targets
which are more effective from an environmental and economic point of view. This could
include  targets  focusing  on  materials  rather  than  on  end-of-life  products,  possible
Community targets instead of national targets to allow more flexibility to focus collection
and recycling to geographical areas where it is most effective, etc. This approach could
be complemented by  more general indicative targets  for important waste streams,  such
as municipal solid waste.

The  Commission  would  therefore  welcome  input  from  stakeholders,  in  particular
concerning the following points:

–  the potential role and effectiveness of material-oriented targets;

25

–  the  costs  of  implementing  material  based  targets  in  articulation  with  end-of-life

products based targets;

–  the possibility of introducing greater flexibility to take  into  account  local  conditions
by setting  targets  for the  Community  as  a  whole.  This  would  also  have  implications
for competition in the recycling industry;

–  the respective roles of legally-binding and indicative recycling targets.

5.

BUILDING BLOCKS OF A THEMATIC STRATEGY

5.1.

Introduction

This  chapter  focuses  on  the  instruments  through  which  waste  prevention  and  waste
recycling  targets  discussed  in  chapter  4  can  be  implemented.  On  the  basis  of  the
assessment of existing Community measures in chapter 3, the Commission considers that
the  future  Thematic  Strategy  on  the  prevention  and  recycling  of  waste  should  be
structured around four building blocks:

Block 1.

core instruments to promote waste prevention;

Block 2.

core instruments to promote waste recycling;

Block 3.

measures to close the waste recycling standards gap;

Block 4.

accompanying measures to promote waste prevention and recycling.

These  building  blocks  are  intended  to  set  priorities  for  the  coming  years  and  are
additional  to  the  implementation  of  existing  legislation  and  approaches.  Although
existing EC waste legislation has led to considerable progress towards more sustainable
management of waste, it does  not  yet  provide  a  comprehensive  framework  in  which  to
promote  waste  prevention  and  recycling.  Moreover,  several  existing  directives  are
characterised  by  considerable  technical  complexity.  A  few  elements  such  as  the  phase-
out of certain hazardous substances apart, waste prevention policy has so far failed due to
a lack of clarity on possible approaches.  In order to ensure  a maximum  effect of waste
policy, it will therefore be necessary to focus efforts on those elements with the biggest
potential  to  reduce  environmental  impacts  and  problems  in  the  application  of  waste
legislation.

Choices  about  resource  use  and  waste  management  depend  to  a  large  extent  on  the
relative prices of different waste treatment options (landfilling, incineration, gasification,
material recycling, etc.). Legislation can be used to mandate changes in behaviour, but as
long  as  price  signals  run  counter  to  legislative  objectives,  an  incentive  exists  to
circumvent  the  latter  and  ever  more  complex  mechanisms  are  necessary  to  implement
and  control the application  of legislation. Moreover,  the Commission  pointed  out  in  its
Communication  on  A  European  Strategy  for  Sustainable  Development50  that  it  would
give  priority  in  its  policy  and  legislative  proposals  to  market-based  approaches  that
provide price incentives, whenever these are likely to achieve social and environmental

50

Commission  Communication  COM(2001)264  final  of  15.5.2001:  “A  sustainable  Europe  for  a
better World: a European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development”.

26

                                                
objectives  in  a  flexible  and  cost  effective  way.  Such  approaches  would  have  to  be
consistent with international rules on trade. Furthermore, the Commission considers that
the  economic  dimension  of  the  waste  management  industry,  in  general,  and  of  the
recycling industry, in particular, is an integral part of the challenge that the EU is facing
today. The Commission will ensure that the economic dimension will be fully taken into
account  in  the  elaboration  and  implementation  of  future  Strategy  on  Waste  prevention
and Recycling.

This  Communication  analyses  means  to  ensure  that  a  mix  of  regulatory,  voluntary  and
economic  instruments  provides  the  appropriate  incentives  to  promote  more  sustainable
waste  management  in  the  areas  of  prevention  and  recycling.  In  addition,  this
Communication analyses ways to close  the  existing  gap in  Community  waste recycling
standards and to clarify the fundamental definitions of Community waste legislation.

These approaches will be additional to the currently planned directives, i.e. proposals for
the revision of the directive on sewage sludge and of the waste shipment regulation and
for  directives  on  biodegradable  waste51  and  on  mining  waste.  Further  proposals,  e.g.
concerning  construction  and  demolition  waste,  may  follow  as  an  integral  part  of  the
Thematic Strategy.

Section 5.2 reviews the applicability of various instruments to promote waste prevention
and  section  5.3  makes  a  similar  review  as  regards  recycling.  Some  of  the  available
instruments  analysed  below  will  promote  both  waste  prevention  and  waste  recycling.
They  are  discussed  under  the  heading  for  which  they  will  have  the  main  impact.  The
objective of these sections is not to advocate the use of a particular instrument but rather
to  launch  a  debate  on  the  potential  role  and  effectiveness  of  these  instruments  in  the
context  of  a  comprehensive  thematic  strategy.  The  effectiveness  of  a  given  instrument
will vary depending on the economic and technical context, so there is unlikely to be a
single  policy  response  that  will  be  applicable  in  all  cases.  Therefore,  the  Commission
does not take a firm view at this stage about the way in which instruments should be used
and how they should be combined.

Section 5.4 addresses the need to ensure a level playing field for recycling across Europe.
This becomes particularly important if a more market-oriented policy is implemented, as
differences  in  environmental  standards  for  recycling  facilities  across  Europe  could
exacerbate  concerns  about  unfair  competition  through  “standards  dumping”.  Finally,
section  5.5  examines  a  number  of  accompanying  measures  that  could  be  used  to
stimulate  recycling.  These  measures  would  not  be  sufficient  by  themselves  to  achieve
significant progress, but could usefully support the  core  measures included  in Blocks 1
and 2.

51

The  directives  on  sewage  sludge  and  biodegradable  waste  are  closely  linked  to  the  Thematic
Strategy for Soil Protection. Therefore, the problems these directives address are discussed in that
context rather than in this strategy.

27

                                                
5.2.

Instruments to promote waste prevention

5.2.1. Measures specific to quantitative prevention

Achieving  significant  progress  towards  waste  prevention  means  changing  the  way
resources  are  used  in  production  processes  and  in  products.  This  requires  modifying
behaviours,  of  households,  producers  and  other  actors  in  the  economy.  Although
traditional  regulatory  measures  can  play  a  role,  they  are  rarely  effective  in  isolation  in
such  a  complex  context.  As  all  materials  used  in  an  economy  sooner  or  later  become
waste, major changes in waste generation require changes in production and consumption
patterns. This requires policy approaches which go beyond waste policy in its strict sense
and enter into fields such as resource management and Integrated Product Policy.

There  are  a  number  of  options  to  address  waste  prevention  from  a  waste  management
perspective. Often, such measures take the form of economic instruments or information
campaigns  and  can  have  an  effect  both  in  encouraging  waste  prevention  and  directing
wastes to preferable treatment  options  such as recycling.  However, in  general  there  are
not  many  practical  experiences  for  instruments  which  could  lead  to  significant
quantitative  reductions  of  waste  generation  and  in  which  the  Community  could  play  a
role.

Nevertheless, there could be added value in the co-ordination of national approaches that
address  the  players  in  the  marketplace.  In  particular  the  consumer’s  choice  as  well  as
voluntary  schemes  implemented  by  public  purchasers  are  potentially  a  powerful  signal
for  the  development  of  greener  products,  including  products  which  in  their  production,
use  and  consumption  generate  less  waste.  National  and  local  experiences  in  designing
incentives for consumers to select such greener products could possibly benefit from an
exchange  of  information  and  debate  at  European  level.  This  is  also  true  of  national
incentives for greening production. Debate on such an approach in the framework of this
Communication could be a useful contribution for understanding how the prevention of
waste could be included in the Integrated Product Policy.

The Commission therefore welcomes input from all stakeholders with a view to carrying
out a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of different instruments to implement
future  waste  prevention  targets  and  the  role  the  Community  could  play  in  developing
these  instruments.  In  particular,  the  Commission  would  welcome  the  views  of  Member
States  and  stakeholders  on  the  advantages  of  information  exchange  at  European  level
concerning  national  incentive  systems  directed  at  the  consumers  as  well  as  green
procurement initiatives.

5.2.2. Measures specific to qualitative prevention

The future Regulation on Chemical policy will aim at ensuring a high level of protection
for  human  health  and  the  environment,  while  ensuring  the  efficient  functioning  of  the
internal market and stimulating innovation and competitiveness in the chemical industry.
In 2001, the Commission adopted a White  Paper52 setting out its proposals for  a future
chemicals  policy  strategy.  Central  to  these  proposals  is  the  REACH  (Registration,
Evaluation  and  Authorisation  of  CHemicals)  system.  The  latter  is  based  on  a  set  of

52

White Paper – Strategy for a future Chemicals Policy, COM(2001) 88 final of 27.2.2001.

28

                                                
principles  to  improve  our  knowledge  of  and  strengthen  controls  over  chemicals  which
may  have  an  adverse  impact  on  human  health  and  the  environment.  In  particular,  this
would involve:

–  producers  and  other  downstream  users  would  have  to  assess  the  safety  of  their
products for the part of the life cycle to which they contribute, including disposal and
waste management;

–  the  promotion  of  substitution  of  dangerous  by  less  dangerous  substances  where
suitable  alternatives  are  available. The  increased accountability  of  downstream  users
and better public information would create  a  strong  demand  for  substitute  chemicals
that have been sufficiently tested and that are safe for the envisaged use;

For substances of very  high  concern,  the  White  Paper  foresees  an  authorisation  system
based  on  a  risk  assessment  covering  the  whole  life-cycle  of  the  substance,  including
disposal,  with  respect  to  the  particular  use.  An  authorisation  will  be  granted  if  the  use
presents a negligible risk.

The approach foreseen by the Commission in the White paper would allow much better
control over the use of dangerous substances, including those that end up in waste, while
promoting  the  substitution  of  dangerous  substances  when  suitable  alternatives  are
available.  This  should  in  turn  lead  to  a  reduction  in  the  generation  of  hazardous
(production and post-consumer) waste.

The Commission  has  now  launched  an  8-week  Internet  consultation  open  until  10  July
2003 on the workability of the proposed future REACH system.53

Given  the  wide-ranging  implications  of  the  new  chemicals  policy  and  the  close  link
between  the  use  of  dangerous  substances  and  hazardous  waste  generation,  the
management of the risks related to such substances should be done through the REACH
system. This could then cover also the qualitative waste prevention aspects. Nevertheless,
the  Commission  does  not  exclude  the  possibility  of  adopting  additional  restrictions  for
particular  substances  and  applications  that  may  pose  specific  risks  in  the  waste  stage.
This  is  in  line  with  the  approaches  taken  in  the  existing  waste  directives  and  would
continue to apply until the REACH system would fully cover these aspects.

5.2.3. Other measures promoting both quantitative and qualitative prevention

5.2.3.1. Waste prevention plans

Waste  prevention  plans  can  contribute  to  both  quantitative  and  qualitative  waste
prevention.  Member  States  have  launched  a  number  of  initiatives  and  programmes
concerning  the  development  of  such  plans  by  economic  operators.  Advocates  of  this
approach  argue  that  because  of  the  complexity  of  waste  prevention,  it  is  only  through
intense  discussion  with  the  concerned  economic  sectors  that  cost-effective  waste
prevention  measures  can  be  identified.  Furthermore,  strong  commitment  of  the
authorities is needed for negotiated waste prevention plans to be successful.

53 

http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/chemicals/whitepaper.htm

29

                                                
These  plans  may  be  elaborated  at  the  level  of  entire  economic  sectors  or  of  individual
enterprises, for example in the context of environmental management systems such as the
Community  Eco-Management  and  Audit  Scheme  (EMAS).54  Waste  prevention  plans
could be  negotiated  at  various  levels,  including  the  European,  national  and  local  levels
with different but complementary focus. They could be made mandatory by Community
legislation or remain at the level of environmental agreements.

Other  options  such  as  the  use  of  tradable  certificates  for  industrial  waste  could  be
mentioned. However, in general there are not many practical experiences for instruments
which could lead to significant quantitative reductions of waste generation and in which
the Community could play a role.

5.2.3.2. The IPPC directive and BREF documents

The  IPPC  directive  lists  among  the  basic  obligations  of  the  operator  that  waste
production is avoided in accordance with Council directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975
on waste and the use of low-waste technology and less hazardous substances (qualitative
prevention)  are  listed  among  the  considerations  that  should  be  addressed  as  part  of  the
definition  of  Best  Available  Techniques  (BAT)  in  accordance  with  the  IPPC  directive.
The potential impact of this Directive on waste prevention should not be underestimated
as most55 significant industrial producers of waste fall under its scope.

Although  it  is  not  yet  possible  to  estimate  the  impact  of  the  Directive  due  to  its  early
stage  of  implementation,  it  is  desirable  to  promote  good  practice  in  implementing  the
waste  related  provisions  of  the  Directive.  The  Commission  intends  to  support  and
participate  actively  in  the  IMPEL  project  on  waste  related  conditions  in  environmental
permits, aiming at better and more consistent implementation in Europe. This project was
approved by the IMPEL plenary meeting in December 2002 for submission for financing
by the Commission and could begin mid-2003.

This assessment could lead to conclusions on how to optimise the efficiency of the IPPC
process as  regards  both  qualitative and  quantitative  waste  prevention,  e.g.  through  the
publication  of  guidelines  on  addressing  waste  prevention  in  BAT  reference  documents
(‘BREFs’) and in permits. Comments and suggestions are welcome on the best means to
promote waste prevention through the application of IPPC.

5.3.

Instruments to promote waste recycling

The main obstacle to further recycling is the latter’s cost disadvantage compared to other
waste treatment options. The use of economic and market-based instruments is therefore
considered to be the most promising way to promote recycling.

However,  if  the  outcome  of  the  consultation  process  should  reveal  that  economic
instruments  are  not  acceptable  or  feasible,  for  either  political  or  technical  reasons,  the
Commission  intends  to  make  full  use  of  its  right  of  initiative  to  propose  legislative

54

55

Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 of the European parliament and of the council of 19 March 2001
allowing  voluntary  participation  by  organisations  in  a  Community  eco-management  and  audit
scheme (EMAS), OJ L 114, 24.4.2001, p.1.
Sectors not covered include mining and quarrying, forestry, most agriculture.

30

                                                
measures  aimed  at  achieving  more  sustainable  waste  management.  This  could  include
instruments reviewed under section 5.3.6. Prescriptive instruments.

5.3.1.

Landfill taxes

Changing the relative costs of different waste management options, in particular so that
they  internalise  external  costs,  can  be  a  very  powerful  means  to  change  waste
management choices. The simplest means to achieve this change is to increase the cost of
alternative waste  treatment methods. This has led  a number of  Member States to  adopt
landfill taxes. However, landfill taxes need to be complemented by other instruments so
as to avoid diverting mixed waste in bulk towards incineration. In particular, the effect of
landfill  taxes  needs  to  be  assessed  taking  into  account  the  variations  of  costs  of
alternative  waste  treatment  operations.  Moreover,  the  uncoordinated  introduction  of
landfill taxes l could create difficulties where neighbouring countries or regions introduce
taxes at very different levels.

The  role  of  landfill  taxes  should  be  explored  in  the  context  of  this  thematic  strategy,
despite the political sensitivity associated with fiscal measures in general. This would not
necessarily  imply  the  introduction  of  a  harmonised  Community  landfill  tax.  Closer  co-
ordination between competent authorities in Member States could be a useful first step to
address  this  issue.  This  could  initially  focus  on  building  consensus  concerning  the
effectiveness  of  landfill  taxes  and  later  develop  criteria  for  closer  alignment  of  taxes
adopted at national level.

5.3.2.

Producer responsibility

The 6EAP decision  refers  to producer  responsibility  as  one  of  the  three  elements  to  be
addressed in the context of the recycling strategy. On the basis of the analysis  given in
chapters  3.1  and  3.2.3,  the  Commission  intends  to  hold  an  open  debate  on  producer
responsibility. This will clearly have to build on the experience gained in the context of
the relevant initiatives at the Community, national and international levels.

The  Commission  recognises  the  merits  of  these  initiatives  which,  in  many  cases,  have
been very successful. Therefore part of the debate should be whether and to what waste
streams  this  approach  can  be  extended.  In  addition,  some  specific  aspects  of  producer
responsibility should also be addressed in the context of this strategy:

–  impact  on  product  design:  relatively  little  is  known  on  the  effects  of  producer
responsibility  to  promote  eco-design.  There  are  indications  that  the  use  of  producer
responsibility  for  packaging  has  in  certain  countries  led  to  a  reduction  in  packaging
quantities put on the market. This is probably the result of the incorporation of the cost
of recycling into the production costs. Effects of individual producer responsibility as
applied in the ELV and WEEE directives are largely unknown due to the recent date
of their adoption;

–  individual  vs.  collective  responsibility:  in  sectors  characterised  by  considerable
product  differentiation,  individual  producer  responsibility  may  provide  a  significant
incentive to modify product designs in order to promote recyclability or reduce waste
generation  while  collective  producer  responsibility  may  make  more  sense  for
standardised  and  large  volume  products  with  a  low  value.  The  lifetime  of  a  product

31

can  also  be  important.  The  longer  the  lifetime  of  a  product,  the  less  likely  it  is  that
future costs will influence design decisions today;

–  impact  on  competition:  the  Commission  has  recently  adopted  three  decisions
concerning "green dot" companies56 due to concerns about the practical application of
producer  responsibility  schemes.  The  implementation  of  the  ELV  and  WEEE
directives may  give  rise to further  cases. This point was also highlighted  in a recent
report to the Swedish government, which noted that "statutory producer responsibility
has  given  rise  …  to  monopoly  tendencies…"57.  The  way  in  which  producer
responsibility schemes favour or hinder competition should therefore be an important
factor in future discussions in the context of this thematic strategy.58

Finally, from the point of view of the Commission, the first directive to be addressed in
this context is the Packaging and Packaging Waste directive. Contrary to the more recent
directives on End-of-Life Vehicles and Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment, this
directive  does  not  contain  an  obligation  to  introduce  producer  responsibility  (compare
section  3.1.).  Given  that  most  Member  States  have  implemented  the  directive  through
some  form  of  producer  responsibility,  it  is  a  fair  question  whether  this  should  not  be
harmonised  on  a  Community  level.  On  the  other  hand,  harmonisation  will  also  entail
costs related to changing existing systems which have so far operated quite successfully.
The  results  of  this  debate  could  then  feed  into  a  report  called  for  by  the  European
Parliament  and  the  Council  in  the  context  of  the  ongoing  revision  of  the  Packaging
directive.

The producer responsibility principle may also be included in the  revisions of directive
91/157/EEC  of  18  March  1991  on  batteries  and  accumulators  containing  certain
dangerous  substances,59  which  several  Member  States  have  implemented  through
producer responsibility schemes.60 Further waste streams may  be  targeted in the future,
once the debate on this strategy is concluded.

For all the merits of producer responsibility described above, the Commission considers,
however,  that  there  are  limits  to  its  application.  In  particular,  not  all  waste  streams  are
appropriate  to  be  addressed  in  this  way.  Moreover,  addressing  smaller  waste  streams
through  producer 
in
legislative/administrative  and  financial  terms)  for  a  relatively  limited  environmental
benefit.  This  Thematic  Strategy  should  therefore  make  an  important  contribution  to
clarifying the applicability of producer responsibility in different circumstances, building

responsibility  may 

significant 

resources 

involve 

(both 

56

57

58

59

60

See  Commission  decision  2001/463/EC  of  20  April  2001  relating  to  a  proceeding  pursuant  to
Article 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 166, 21.6.2001, p. 1) and Commission decision 2001/837/EC of
17  September  2001  relating  to  a  proceeding  under  Article  81  EC  Treaty  and  Article  53  EEA
Agreement (OJ L 319, 4.12.2001, p.1) for the DSD case and Commission decision 2001/663/EC
of 15 June 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the
EEA Agreement (OJ L 233, 31.8.2001, p. 37) for the Eco-Emballages case.
SOU, 2001: Resurs i retur - Slutrapport från utredningen för översyn av producentansvaret, SOU
2001:102, Stockholm: Statens Offentliga Utredningar, p. 32.
For  a  general  discussion  see  H.  Vedder,  2002:  Competition  Law,  Environmental  Policy  and
Producer Responsibility, Amsterdam: Centre for Environmental Law, University of Amsterdam.
Council Directive 91/157/EEC of 18 March 1991 on batteries and accumulators containing certain
dangerous substances, OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 38.
For example, the Belgian BEBAT system ( http://www.bebat.be/).

32

                                                
on  an  assessment  of  existing  schemes  and  of  analytical  work  done  at  national  and
international level.

The first question to address is how to best combine more general and applicable tools
such as economic instruments with existing legislation based on producer responsibility
to move towards  the  goals  of  a  more  sound  resource,  waste  and  recycling  policy.  This
should  aim  at  attaining  more  environmental  benefits  with  lower  legislative  and
administrative requirements. More specifically on producer responsibility, comments and
experiences on advantages and drawbacks of such schemes are invited along with ideas
how  existing  systems  can  be  improved  and  whether  and  to  what  waste  streams  the
producer responsibility concept should be  extended to. Comments are also welcome  on
the  essential  characteristics 
that  producer  responsibility  systems  developed  at
Community level should display in order to remain both effective and economic in terms
of the administrative resources needed at Community and national levels.

5.3.3.

Tradable certificates

Article  3  of  the  6EAP  calls  for  an  analysis  of  the  environmental  efficiency  of  tradable
environmental permits (also know as tradable certificates) as a generic instrument with a
view to promoting and implementing their use where feasible. Tradable certificates have
been widely used in environmental policy.61 However, they are a relatively new concept
in the field of waste management.62 In the EU, only the United Kingdom has used them
extensively,  notably  in  the  context  of  directive  94/62/EC  on  packaging  and  packaging
waste. In addition, the UK is also introducing a system of tradable certificates to limit the
amount  of  biodegradable  municipal  waste  landfilled  by  local  authorities.63  Finally,  the
European  Commission  has  in  the  past  analysed  the  possibility  of  using  tradable
certificates to implement Community legislation in the field of waste management.64

From an economic point of view, tradable certificates are generally favoured as providing
the most cost-effective means to implement environmental objectives.65 In addition, they
give  a  long-term  price  signal  which  directs  investment  in  new  technologies.66  Tradable
certificates could also be a way to implement recycling targets at a Community level, for
example in the context of a producer responsibility scheme. They would allow companies
to  fulfil  their  obligations  by  buying  certificates  both  nationally  and  in  other  countries,
either  freely  on  the  market  or  from  recycling  organisations.  This  would  be  one  way  to
create an incentive to separately collect and recycle more waste at a lower cost by putting

61

62

63

64

65

66

For  a  review,  see  OECD,  1999:  Implementing  Domestic  Tradable  Permits  for  Environmental
Protection, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
See OECD, 2001: New areas for application of tradable permits: Solid waste management, Paris:
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
See http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/strategy/cm4693/index.htm, chapter 5.
A consultation document has been published at
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/consult/tradeperm/pdf/tradable.pdf.
See ERM, 1999: Tradable certificates for recycling of waste electrical and electronic equipment
(WEEE), Brussels: European Commission.
See, for example, Pearce, David W. and Turner, R. Kerry, Economics of Natural Resources and
the Environment, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, esp. chapter 8.
See,  for  example,  Egenhofer,  C.  and  Legge,  T.,  2002:  Greenhouse  Gas  Emissions  in  Europe,
Conditions  for  Environmental  Credibility  and  Economic  Efficiency,  CEPS  Task  Force  Report
N. 43, Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies.

33

                                                
into  competition  the  various  recycling  organisations  and  other  actors  involved  in  the
recycling chain.

While a system of tradable certificates is in principle feasible  and  cost-effective  in  this
context, several practical aspects would need to be defined before it can be implemented.
These include the scope of the scheme and the means of allocating recycling obligations.
Effective  monitoring  and  enforcement  mechanisms  would  also  have  to  be  established,
including  penalties  for  non-compliance.  Simplicity  of  the  system  would  be  an  asset  to
promote the use of tradable certificates and to deter fraud.

The  Commission  intends  to  canvass  opinion  among  stakeholders  regarding  the
acceptability  and  feasibility  of  tradable  certificates  as  a  means  to  implement  waste
recycling targets. In parallel, the Commission will analyse the practical aspects referred
to above.

5.3.4.

Pay-As-You-Throw schemes

One of the options to encourage separate collection and, to a limited degree, quantitative
waste prevention is the introduction of charging systems.67 Pay As You Throw (PAYT)
are a particularly interesting example. They are mainly applicable to household waste and
similar MSW, e.g. waste from retail and small businesses.  Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT)
schemes68 rely on volume- or weight-based waste charges and have become increasingly
popular.  PAYT  schemes  provide  citizens  with  an  economic  incentive  to  reduce  the
amount  of  “residual”  waste  they  throw  away  because  the  cost  of  waste  collection
increases with the volume or weight of waste they dispose of. This encourages citizens to
participate  in  separate  collection  schemes  (since  collection  of  recyclables  is  generally
subject to a lower or zero charge), thus boosting recycling of MSW. PAYT schemes are
therefore  most  effective  where  combined  with  the  promotion  of  separate  collection
schemes for recyclable materials.

There  is  substantial  evidence  that  PAYT  schemes  are  an  effective  means  to  reduce  the
amount  of  “residual”  waste  disposed  of  by  households,  though  the  effect  on  waste
generation  is  much  more  uncertain.  In  addition,  many  communities  that  have
implemented  PAYT  schemes  also  reduce  the  overall  costs  of  municipal  waste
management.

The  introduction  of  PAYT  schemes  has  raised  concerns  about  potential  increases  in
illegal  dumping,  as  some  citizens  seek  to  circumvent  the  cost  of  disposing  of  their
waste.69  However,  most  communities  that  have  introduced  PAYT  schemes  have  not

67

68

69

See,  for  example,  Ernst  &  Young,  2002:  Analysis  of  the  Application  of  the  Producer  Pays
Principle  to  Producers  of  Household  Waste  as  a  Driver  Towards  Sustainability,  A  Preliminary
Discussion  Document,  London:  Ernst  &  Young;  and  Skumatz,  Lisa  A.,  2002:  Variable-rate  or
“Pay-as-you-throw” Waste Management: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, Los Angeles:
Reason Foundation.
PAYT schemes are also referred to as variable-rate schemes or unit pricing schemes.
See,  for  example,  Tønning,  K.,  2001:  Vægtbaserede  indsamlingssystemer  for  dagrenovation,
Undersøgelse  i  Tinglev  og  Nørre  Rangstrup  Kommuner,  Miljøprojekt  Nr.  645,  Copenhagen:
Miljøstyrelsen.

34

                                                
experienced large and sustained increases in illegal dumping. Moreover, this problem can
be mitigated by appropriate accompanying measures.70

The  European  Commission  has  funded  a  research  project  in  this  field,  the  objective  of
which  is  to  provide  a  comprehensive  analysis  of  the  drivers,  barriers  and  potentials  of
PAYT to identify workable ways for a successful introduction of such systems by urban
decision-makers.  The  project  will  produce  a  guidebook  aimed  at  decision-makers  and
institutions  working  on 
improve  urban  waste
the  development  of  policies 
management.71

to 

An  issue  to  be  clarified  is  the  potential  role  of  the  Community  in  promoting  such
schemes. Financing of MSW management is often a politically sensitive issue and local
conditions and preferences may vary. Inevitably, this raises questions about subsidiarity.
The  extent  to  which  PAYT  schemes  could  be  mandated  at  Community  level  therefore
requires careful analysis and consensus building among all parties concerned, involving
especially local authorities.

5.3.5.

Incentive systems

Incentive systems to encourage final consumers and industry to recycle waste have been
designed  at  national  and  sub-national  levels.  These  include  for  example  programmes
promoting  Environmental  Management  Systems  and  encouraging  the  participation  of
SMEs  or  combinations  of  PAYT  systems  with  tax  rebate  systems  upon  proof  of
participation in selective collection or home composting programmes. Other approaches
seek  to  develop  incentives  for  consumers  based  on  rating,  e.g.  through  eco-points
systems,  environmental  friendly  behaviour 
in  recycling
programmes. National experiences in designing incentives for citizens and businesses to
participate  in  recycling  campaigns  could  possibly  benefit  from  an  exchange  of
information and debate at European level.

including  participation 

The  Commission  would  welcome  the  views  of  Member  States  and  stakeholders  on  the
advantages  of  information  exchange  at  European  level  concerning  national  incentive
systems encouraging citizens and businesses to participate in recycling programmes. The
Commission therefore welcomes input from all stakeholders with a view to carrying out
an  assessment  of  the  possible  role  the  Community  could  play  to  contribute  to  the
development of these instruments.

5.3.6.

Prescriptive instruments

In  practice,  landfill  bans  have  the  effect  of  diverting  waste  to  other  waste  treatment
techniques  such  as  incineration,  energy  recovery  or  recycling.  Which  waste  treatment
operation they are diverted to would depend on the nature of the waste and on the relative
costs of the remaining waste treatment options. Thus, such bans can in some cases be a
way to allocate the cost of recycling or recovering waste to its final holder. The landfill
directive  already  bans  the  landfill  of  tyres  and  partially  bans  landfill  of  biodegradable
waste. Several Member States are implementing additional landfill bans. Bans decided at
Community  level  could  be  a  strong  incentive  for  recycling.  However,  such  measures

70

71

Eunomia,  2001:  Costs  for  Municipal  Waste  Management  in  the  EU,  Brussels:  European
Commission, p. 39.
For a description of the project, see http://www.payt.net/.

35

                                                
should  be  carefully  assessed  to  ensure  that  the  incentive  is  towards  recycling  and  not
towards incineration. Obligatory source separation of specific wastes is another possible
method of allocating the cost of recycling to the  final holder.  Once waste materials  are
separated, it is usually economical to recycle them.

Views  are  invited  on  the  application  of  these  and  any  other  instruments  which  could
promote recycling.

5.4.

A level playing field for recycling

Another  main  challenge  facing  Community  waste  policy  is  to  move  towards  a  level
playing  field  across  the  EU  for  recycling  guaranteeing  a  high  level  of  environmental
protection with recycling being supported by an efficient internal market.

To  reach  this  objective  it  is  necessary  to  adopt  a  limited  number  of  measures  at
Community  level  for  filling  the  waste  recycling  standards  gap.  These  measures  must
guarantee  that  when  recycling  is  performed  in  the  EU  (a)  there  are  no  unacceptable
emissions to the environment and (b) a level of quality of recycling is reached.

These objectives could be to a large extent reached through the following measures:

–  Extension  of  the  IPPC  directive  to  the  whole  waste  sector:  This  directive  already
covers  a  limited  number  of  waste  recycling  operations.  Best  available  technique
reference documents (BREFs) are currently being developed for these. The extension
of  this  directive  would  initiate  a  bottom-up  process  by  which  BREFs  would  be
developed  for  all  waste  management  operations  and  the  permits  of  recycling
installations  would  be  updated  by  permitting  authorities  to  include  emission  limit
values and other appropriate permit conditions based on best available technology. In
this way one would move towards the harmonisation of environmental standards at the
level of waste management installations.

–  Determination  of  quality  standards  for  recycling  in  Annexe  IIA  of  the  directive
75/442/EC on waste. This would complement the technical requirements set at facility
level  through  extension  of  the  IPPC  directive.  The  quality  requirements  would
condition  whether  a  given  treatment  operation  is  classified  as  disposal  or  recovery.
For example, a process that actually recycles only a minor part of the waste would not
be classified as recovery.

Additionally,  a  limited  number  of  processes  could  require  the  setting  in  legislation  of
EU-wide  emission  limit  values.  The  BREFs  would  be  appropriate  documents  for
informing  decisions  on  emission  limit  values  for  the  corresponding  processes  as  laid
down in Article 18 of the IPPC directive. Furthermore, in cases where legislation is being
developed  for  specific  waste  flows,  requirements  on  the  appropriate  treatment  of  the
waste could be included.

Comments and suggestions are welcome, in particular on whether the scope of the IPPC
directive should be extended and in what way quality standards for recycling operations
in Annex IIA of the waste framework directive could be set.

36

5.5.

Accompanying measures

In  addition  to  the  options  outlined  above,  which  would  constitute  the  main  building
blocks of the strategy, a number of accompanying measures can be foreseen. These fall
into three broad categories:

–  improving the legal framework;

–  promoting  research  and  development,  as  well  as  technology  demonstration,  and

technology development;

–  measures to promote demand for recycled materials.

5.5.1.

Improving the legal framework on waste management

5.5.1.1 Definitions of recovery and disposal operations

Section  3.2.4  has  indicated  that  there  is  a  need  to  assess  the  existing  definitions  of
recovery and disposal operations contained in the annexes to the WFD. These definitions
are general in nature and leave a relatively substantial leeway for interpretation and this
can  have  unwanted  consequences  for  the  recovery  of  waste  in  the  Community.  This
exercise  should  cover  all  of  the  definitions  including  those  concerning  pre-treatment,
reclamation, energy recovery and recycling of waste.

As regards changing the definition of energy recovery the Commission is of the opinion
that this would have to be done in the framework of an amendment of Council Directive
75/442/EEC  on  waste,  as  amended.  At  this  stage  and  taking  into  account  the  Court’s
interpretation,  the  Commission  is  reflecting  on  the  need  for  any  such  proposals.  The
Commission also considers it could be useful to develop common guidelines concerning
the application of Article 7(4) fifth indent of the waste shipment Regulation.72

In addition, Community legislation does not contain a generally applicable definition of
recycling. The waste framework directive remains silent on this point: it defines recovery
as "any of the operations provided for in Annex II B" of this directive. A number of these
operations use the word recycling, but the latter is never itself defined in the directive. It
has  therefore  fallen  to  individual  directives  to  define  the  meaning  of  recycling.
Inevitably, the definitions contained in the above mentioned directives are not identical –
the  main  difference  relates  to  the  explicit  reference  to  organic  recycling  in  some
directives but not in others.

While  this  situation  has  not  given  rise  to  significant  practical  problems  so  far,  a  case
currently pending before the European Court of Justice73 suggests that  the definition of
recycling can have important practical implications. A generally applicable definition of
recycling in  Community  legislation  could  therefore  be  useful  in  order  to  promote  legal
certainty and coherence among different legal acts in this area. The logical place to do so

72 

73

This  provision  reads  as  follows:  “if  the  ratio  of  the  recoverable  and  non-recoverable  waste,  the
estimated value of the materials to be finally recovered or the cost of recovery and the cost of the
disposal  of  the  non-recoverable  fraction  do  not  justify  the  recovery  under  economic  and
environmental conditions”.
See Opinion of Advocate General Alber delivered on 4 July 2002 in Case C-444/00 The Queen v.
Environment Agency and others, esp. paragraphs 102ff.

37

                                                
would seem to be the waste framework directive. This would also provide an opportunity
to address emerging processes in the field of organic recycling.

The  Commission  has  already  launched  a  study  to  provide  the  necessary  technical
information  to  develop  possible  options  to  revise  annexes  II A  and  II B  of  the  waste
framework  directive,  including  the  use  of  the  definitions  contained  in  these  annexes  to
specify  quality  criteria  for  recycling.  The  study  will  be  presented  in  interim  form  to  a
workshop  gathering  experts  from  Member  States  and  from  stakeholder  organisations.
The workshop will discuss how the Thematic Strategy should address the issues related
to the definitions of recovery  and  disposal  operations  building  on  recent  jurisprudence
developed by the European Court of Justice. These discussions should also address the
usefulness  of  a  generally  applicable  definition  of  recycling  and  of  developing  common
guidelines for the application of Article 7(4) fifth indent of Regulation (EEC) 259/9 as a
means to fight against sham recovery.

Additionally,  comments  and  suggestions  are  in  particular  welcome  concerning  the
usefulness  of  developing  common  guidelines  for  the  application  of  Article  7(4)  fifth
indent of Regulation (EEC) 259/93, as a means to fight against sham recovery.

5.5.1.2 Definitions of waste

The  definition  of waste  contained  in  article  1(a)  of  the  WFD  is  the  keystone  of  waste
legislation.  This  definition  has  been  the  subject  of  considerable  discussion  and  the
European  Court  of  Justice  has  provided  valuable  guidance  on  the  interpretation  of  this
definition.  However,  debate  about  definition  of  waste  is  likely  to  continue.  Moreover,
article 8(2)(iv) of the 6EAP calls for a "clarification of the distinction between waste and
non-waste."

The definition of waste is a legal construction which it may well be possible to improve.
However,  the  criticisms  levelled  against  the  current  definition  are  often  of  a  general
nature.  For  example,  it  is  sometimes  claimed  that  recyclable  materials  should  be
excluded  from  the  definition  because  the  economic  costs  of  complying  with  waste
legislation and the negative image linked to the term “waste” undermine the creation of a
competitive  recycling  sector.  However,  these  allegations  are  rarely  supported  by  an
assessment of the actual economic cost of compliance.

Moreover,  compliance  costs  need  to  be  weighed  against  the  benefits  of  the  additional
control under the waste regime. These control requirements prevent abuse, e.g. in cases
of  contamination  of  otherwise  non-hazardous  and  commercially  valuable  secondary
waste materials. The current definition aims at ensuring a high level of protection of the
environment,  i.e.  it  is  based  on  the  consideration  that  when  a  material  is  discarded  it
might be used or treated in a way that could harm the environment and must therefore be
considered  as  waste.  Thus,  potential  solutions  proposed  for  the  improvement  of  the
definition of waste would have to ensure that the objective of a high level of protection of
the  environment  is  not  undermined.  In  particular,  if  certain  waste  flows  were  to  be
considered as a product  at  a  given  stage, this could  only be the case  when  the material
does not display particular risks for the environment that are related to the waste nature
of the material.

38

Additionally, it is probable that because of the subjective nature of the concept of waste,
any improved definition would still contain at least some degree of ambiguity. One way
to mitigate the ambiguity of the current definition of waste could be to add to the general
definition  objective  criteria  that  determine  when  a  specific  material  or  object  becomes
waste.  Similarly,  objective  criteria  could  be  developed  to  indicate  when  a  given  waste
should no more be considered as waste unless the material itself is again discarded; the
latter could be the case for example if there is no market for the recovered material. This
transition  between  waste  and  non-waste  is  also  linked  to  the  definition  of  recovery
operations,  discussed  in  the  preceding  section,  since  the  point  at  which  the  recovery
operation  is  deemed  to  be  complete  is  one  of  the  factors  that  determine  whether  the
material  is  still  subject  to  “discarding”.  However,  such  an  approach  would  have  to  be
limited  to  key  products  and  waste  flows  to  avoid  a  potential  inflation  of  technical
provisions defining wastes.

Because of the inherent uncertainty embedded in the definition of waste, it also appears
desirable  to  limit  the  economic  costs  related  to  implementation  of  waste  legislation  as
much  as  possible  in  all  cases  when  this  is  appropriate  from  an  environmental  and
economic  perspective.  This  could  be  achieved  by  systematically  exploiting  such
possibilities  offered  by  the  existing  legal  framework.  This  concerns  in  particular  the
possibility  to derogate from  the  permit  requirement  foreseen  in  Article  11  of  the  waste
framework  directive  and  in  Article  3  of  the  hazardous  waste  directive.  So  far,  the
Commission  has  received  only one notification  from  Member States  that this Article is
being  used  for  non-hazardous  waste.  As  regards  applying  permit  exemptions  to  the
recovery  of  hazardous  waste,  only  one  notification  has  been  received  and  approved  by
the  Commission74.  Similarly,  little  use  seems  to  be  made  of  Article  9  of  the  waste
shipment regulation, which provides a specific regime entailing a substantial reduction of
delays for shipments destined for recovery in so-called “pre-consented facilities”.

Finally,  common  guidelines  on  the  application  of  the  definition  of  waste  could  assist
Member States in applying the definition of waste case by case and mitigate any market
distortions  that  would  be  related  to  non  harmonious  application  of  the  definition  in
different Member States.

The Commission is ready to hold a debate on the definition of waste. This needs to take
into account that amending the waste definition  would have far  reaching consequences
and  it  is  probable  that  any  new  definition  would  also  contain  a  certain  degree  of
uncertainty. Thus, discussion on the virtues and drawbacks of the current and alternative
definitions  should  also  cover  possibilities  to  ease  the  application  of  the  definition  and
reduce compliance costs. This could include (a) the development of objective criteria to
establish  when  certain  products  become  waste  or  to  establish  that  recovery  of  certain
wastes has been completed, (b) systematic application of exemption possibilities offered
by  the  current  legal  framework,  and  (c)  the  elaboration  of  common  guidelines  for  the
application  of  the  definition  by  Member  States  on  a  case  by  case  basis  Finally,  any
proposal  for  improvement  should  include  clear  evidence  that  the  current  definition
entails unjustified implementation costs or otherwise has negative consequences as well

74

Commission Decision of 13 November 2002 on Italian rules waving permitting requirements for
undertakings  and  establishments  recovering  hazardous  waste  under  Article  3  of  directive
91/689/EEC on hazardous waste, OJ L 315, 19.11.2002, p.16.

39

                                                
as  a  clear  demonstration  that  a  high  level  of  protection  of  the  environment  is  ensured
through the alternative proposal.

5.5.2.

R&D and technology demonstration

Technology is an important enabling factor for better waste management.  In  relation to
recycling, advances in certain areas, such as automated sorting techniques, could reduce
the cost and increase the effectiveness of recycling for certain waste streams, e.g. mixed
plastics.  Moreover,  there  is  still  significant  innovation  in  recycling  processes  in  certain
sectors  for  wastes  that  are  less  readily  recycled,  e.g.  concerning  chemical  recycling  of
plastics  or  recycling  of  tyres.  Furthermore,  where  existing  recycling  processes  have
negative  impacts  on  the  environment  new  cleaner  processes  have  to  be  developed  to
replace  them.  Similar  efforts  are  necessary  when  new  products  and  new  processes  are
developed, both to ensure the  recyclability of the new  wastes  generated  and to  develop
appropriate  processes  for  their  recycling.  The  Forum  on  the  competitiveness  of  the
recycling  industry  has  underlined  some  R&D  actions  which  should  be  supported  and
promoted.

However,  other  factors  are  generally  much  more  important  in  determining  the
effectiveness  of  a  recycling  scheme.  This  includes  a  clear  legal  and  economic
framework.75  Logistics is also  an  important  element.  For  example,  the  degree  to  which
certain  waste  fractions  (paper,  plastics,  biodegradable  waste)  can  be  recycled  or
composted  depends  to  a  large  extent  on  their  homogeneity  and  purity.  This  is  in  turn
largely influenced by the effectiveness of separate collection systems.

In  relation  to  waste  prevention,  technologies  aimed  at  making  more  efficient  use  of
resources  are  necessary  to  significantly  reduce  the  amounts  of  waste  produced  .  New
clean  technologies  would  allow  more  recycling  of  waste  in  situ,  reducing  the
consumption  of  water,  chemicals,  energy  and  other  materials.  In  addition,  appropriate
economic  incentives,  notably  through  price  signals,  will  tend  to  provide  the  most
powerful incitement  to  economic  operators  to  modify their resource use  patterns  which
would also encourage efforts in R&D.

According to recent work by the OECD76 that was supported by the Commission over the
last decade, modern biotechnology could play a role for achieving waste prevention and
recovery.  This  could  include  possibilities  for  cleaner  products  and  processes,  thus
reducing  the  generation  of  wastes,  and  facilitating  the  elimination  and/or  recycling  of
such wastes.

75

76 

The importance of legal certainty to promote investment in recycling capacity was emphasised in
the evidence provided by the waste management industry to a parliamentary enquiry concerning
the  disposal  of  refrigerators  in  the  UK.  See  House  of  Commons,  2002:  Environment,  Food  and
Rural  Affairs  Committee,  Disposal  of  Refrigerators  -  Fourth  Report,  HC  673,  London:  The
Stationary Office, esp. Minutes of Evidence, 26 March 2002 (Evidence from Peter Jones, Biffa). It
also emerged as an important element in the evidence provided to the another UK parliamentary
enquiry  into the  management of hazardous  waste.  See  House  of  Commons,  2002:  Environment,
Food  and  Rural  Affairs  Committee,  Hazardous  Waste  –  Eight  Report,  HC  919,  London:  The
Stationary Office, esp. p. 10, paragraph 16, and p. 13, paragraph 29.
See  OECD  following  reports  by  the  OECD:  Biotechnology  for  a  clean  environment,  1994;
Biotechnology for clean industrial products and processes: towards industrial sustainability, 1998;
The application of biotechnology to industrial sustainability, 2001.

40

                                                
Further research concerning waste prevention, collection and recycling technologies on
certain clearly identified issues, such as the environmental impacts of waste management
(transport, recycling, recovery and disposal) can be useful, but a dedicated initiative to
promote research and development in this field does not seem warranted. Full use should
be made of existing programmes, mainly the LIFE-Environment programme and the 6th
Framework  Programme  (FP6)  on  Research  and  Development.  These  are  largely
complementary, with the later focusing on the technological research and development,
while LIFE supports technology demonstration projects. Many projects addressing waste
collection  and  recycling  have  been  and  are  currently  funded  within  the  FP  and  LIFE-
Environment  programme.  It  will  therefore  be  important  to  identify  themes  for  future
research  within  the  relevant  thematic  priorities  of  FP6  and  to  ensure  that  the  LIFE
guidelines reflect the priorities for the recycling strategy as this develops.

5.5.3. Demand-side measures

Demand for recycled materials is affected by many factors, from consumer perceptions to
product specifications, public procurement rules and  corporate purchasing patterns. The
generally  decreasing  trend  in  the  price  of  many  primary  raw  materials  has  also  slowed
down  the  uptake  of  recycled  materials.  However,  the  use  of  recycled  materials  is  one
factor  among  others  which  affect  the  life-cycle  performance  of  products.  Proposals  to
introduce  demand-side  measures  should  therefore  be  based  on  a  life-cycle  perspective.
Moreover, many of the measures mentioned in this paragraph are already being analysed
in  the  context  of  the  “toolkit”  provided  by  Integrated  Product  Policy  (IPP).  The
Commission  therefore  intends  to  continue  to  analyse  these  measures  in  the  context  of
IPP, rather than launching a parallel discussion in the context of this thematic strategy.

A  measure  that  is  often  mentioned  in  this  context  is  the  requirement  for  minimum
recycled contents. While this would undoubtedly stimulate demand, the implementation
of this measure would be difficult to enforce and verify because it is often very difficult
to distinguish between recycled and virgin material in the final product. Moreover, there
are  questions  about  compatibility  of  such  requirements  with  WTO  rules  as  this  might
oblige third countries to use recycled material although such material might not be easily
available  there.  Finally,  minimum  content  requirements  would  involve  detailed  and
potentially  complex  regulatory  requirements.  Often,  there  may  be  technical  reasons
against such a requirement in specific applications and the legislator may not have all the
necessary  information  to  assess  whether  this  is  the  most  effective  solution  from  an
environmental point of view.

For  these  reasons,  it  may  be  more  suitable  to  stimulate  the  supply-side,  inter  alia  by
providing  financing  for  separate  collection,  and  allowing  market  forces  to  determine
where the resulting materials can most effectively be used.

5.5.4 Education and training

People play  a key role for the implementation of waste  prevention and waste recycling
policies. Education and training are important factors determining their understanding of
the issues related to waste prevention and recycling. Awareness campaigns developed by
national, 
this
local  and  regional  authorities  have  already  been  addressed 
Communication.  However,  integration  of  environmental  concerns  in  general  and  waste
management aspects in education and training programmes would be important elements
to promote the implementation of policies in the area of waste prevention and recycling.

in 

41

The  Commission  would  welcome  the  views  of  Member  States  and  stakeholders  on  the
advantages  of  information  exchange  at  European  level  concerning  national  education
and training programmes in the area of waste prevention and recycling. The Commission
therefore welcomes input from all stakeholders with a view to carrying out an assessment
of the possible role the Community could play to contribute to the development of these
initiatives.

5.6.

Conclusion and proposed way forward

This chapter has analysed possible lines of action for the future thematic strategy on the
prevention and recycling of waste, which are structured around four “building blocks”. In
the  field  of  waste  prevention,  the  main  questions  about  which  the  Commission  seeks
comment from stakeholders are:

–  how  to  best  identify  the  areas  where  prevention  can  be  achieved  and  assess  the

magnitude of the potentials for waste prevention;

–  the  identification  of  the  measures,  whether  economic  instruments  or  other,  for
achieving  waste  prevention  targets,  and  the  level  of  support  of  the  respective
legislators for such measures;

–  whether  measures  to  promote  prevention  can  be  seen  independently  of  action  in
relation to the use of resources and IPP, or whether the latter provide the appropriate
framework for action to achieve this objective.

The  answers  to  these  questions  largely  determine  the  extent  to  which  different
instruments  can  be  used.  The  Commission  therefore  sees  the  upcoming  consultation
process  concerning  this  thematic  strategy  as  an  occasion  to  achieve  a  better
understanding of the potential for progress in relation to waste prevention including the
building  of  an  understanding  of  how  IPP  may  contribute  to  waste  prevention  and  an
assessment of other instruments that could become integral part of the Thematic Strategy.

For  recycling,  the  main  question  that  arises  concerns  the  best  instruments  to  provide
appropriate  economic  incentives.  In  addition,  if  the  latter  cannot  be  put  into  place,
additional regulatory measures would need to be considered. Moreover, the Commission
does not exclude a limited number of specific legislative initiatives to promote recycling
where  this  is  the  most  effective  approach  for  environmental,  economic  or  technical
reasons.  Such  initiatives  could  complement  existing  legislation  with  an  approach
focussing  on  waste  materials  rather  than  on  end-of-life  products.  The  Commission  in
particular invites comments on:

–  the  scope  for  using  economic  instruments,  including  fiscal  measures,  to  achieve

recycling objectives;

–  where  legislative  initiatives  are  contemplated,  the  scope  for  providing  greater
flexibility  in  order  to  achieve  recycling  targets  in  the  most  cost-effective  way.  This
includes the potential role of tradable certificate systems;

–  the  potential  for  further  development  of  the  producer  responsibility  principle,  taking

into account that this principle is not suitable for all waste streams.

42

Several of the measures described in this chapter would only be workable if there was a
clear  identification  of  waste  flows,  materials  or  end  of  life  products  which  recycling
would generate high environmental benefits. A detailed list of such wastes has not been
established to date. A study is currently underway which will inter alia aim at identifying
recycling  potentials.  Nevertheless,  on  the  basis  of  existing  studies,  at  this  stage  a
preliminary  list  of  criteria  to  identify  potential  waste  streams  requiring  additional
measures  could  already  be  established  for  further  discussion  and  elaboration  in  the
consultation process. Such criteria could include amounts, rate of growth, hazardousness,
GHG contribution, etc.

6.

ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH

The  environmental  benefits  associated  with  recycling  are  also  expected  to  deliver
benefits for human health. For example, a recent study about the recycling of packaging
waste showed that the main environmental benefit from recycling of one type of plastic
bottles  is  the  avoided  emissions  of  aerosols  and  particulate  matter,  both  of  which  are
important contributors to the health impact of air pollution.

However, like other industrial activities, recycling also has an impact on the environment
and human health, for example due to transport of waste during collection, emissions to
air and water of the recycling process and the generation of residual waste – in general, a
fraction  of  the  waste  being  recycled  can  not  be  further  recovered  and  is  therefore
landfilled or incinerated. When assessing the benefits of recycling, it is important to look
at net benefits, i.e. total avoided impacts minus additional impacts due to recycling. The
latter  can  in  certain  cases  be  significant  and  can  imply  the  need  for  statutory
environmental  standards  for  the  recycling  process  itself.  Moreover,  whether  recycling
delivers  significant  benefits  for  human  health  depends  on  a  number  of  factors  and  can
only  be  established  on  a  case-by-case  basis.  In  some  cases,  the  health  benefits  may  be
marginal.

Finally,  the  use  of  hazardous  substances  in  products  which  are  subsequently  recycled,
e.g.  into  construction  products  (combustion  ashes,  hazardous  waste  injected  in  cement
kilns,  etc.)  could  lead  to  accumulation  of  dangerous  substances,  such  as  Persistent
Organic  Pollutants  (POPs)  and  heavy  metals,  in  the  human  environment.  Current
knowledge about this phenomenon needs to be improved. Appropriate standards on  the
health and safety of products are already in place in many cases, such as in the context of
the construction products directive77 and the directive of food contact materials.78 These
standards should not discriminate against recycled materials, which should be subject to
the same requirements imposed on primary raw materials. Qualitative waste prevention is
also important in this context, notably through the implementation of the future REACH
system (see section 5.2.2.).

77

78

Council  Directive  89/106/EEC  of  21  December  1988 on  the  approximation  of  laws,  regulations
and  administrative  provisions  of  the  Member  States  relating  to  construction  products,  OJ L 40,
11.2.1989, p.12.
Council Directive of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
relating  to  materials  and  articles  intended  to  come  into  contact  with  foodstuffs,  OJ L 40,
11.2.1989, p.38, which is complemented by specific directives concerning a number of materials,
such as plastics, paper, ceramics, etc.

43

                                                
7.

ENLARGEMENT

The enlargement of the EU will increase the diversity of waste management practices in
the Community as well as the size of the waste recovery market. Acceding and Candidate
countries will in future account for an important part of this market.

Implementation  of  the  acquis  is  a  key  driver  for  the  development  of  new  waste
management  strategies  and  policies  by  Acceding  and  Candidate  countries.  Households
and  businesses  will  increasingly  be  sorting  their  waste  and  recycling  will  increase  for
packaging and other waste flows regulated by Community legislation such as end-of-life
vehicles  and  waste  electric  and  electronic  equipment.  This  will  in  turn  drive  cultural
changes  in  attitudes  towards  waste  and  the  environment  in  general  in  Acceding  and
Candidate  countries  like  in  today’s  Member  States.  Furthermore,  while  emerging  new
consumption patterns are likely to lead to increases in the current low level of generation
of  municipal  waste,  implementation  of  the  acquis  will  benefit  the  environment  of
Acceding  and  Candidate  countries  as  environmental  impacts  of  waste  treatment  will
reduce  significantly  in  particular  thanks  to  implementation  of  the  IPPC,  landfill  and
incineration directives.

The diversity of the environmental requirements that are applied to recycling operations
in  the  Community  will  also  increase.  Concerns  of  Member  States  and  Candidate
Countries concerning risks of standards dumping (see section 3.2.4) have materialised in
agreements  reached  in  the  accession  negotiations  concerning  a  number  of  temporary
restrictions of shipments of waste to Acceding and Candidate countries. The creation of a
level  playing  field  as  envisioned  in  this  Communication  will  ensure  an  appropriate
framework  for  the  development  of  the  recycling  industry  in  all  Member  States  and
Acceding and Candidate Countries.

Furthermore,  the  development  of  such  harmonised  environmental  requirements  for
recycling will avoid divergence of national policies which would lead to islands of high
or  low  environmental  protection  with  lower  protection  of  the  environment  in  the  EU
taken globally.

8.

INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION CONCERNING RECYCLING

There are two main fora for co-operation at international level concerning waste recovery
and recycling:

(cid:1)  Within the OECD the Working Group on Waste Prevention and Recycling (WGWPR)
addresses issues on transboundary shipments of waste and on the economics of waste.
The  WGWPR  is  also  a  forum  for  the  exchange  of  information  on  good  practices.
Currently,  this  working  group  is  preparing  a  draft  OECD  recommendation  on  the
environmentally  sound  management  (ESM)  of  waste.  This  recommendation  would
encourage  OECD  member  countries  to  develop  ESM  programmes  including  the
implementation  of  certain  internationally  agreed  guidelines  and  the  development  of
programmes  designed  to  help  recycling  businesses  to  implement  so-called  core
performance elements. Environmental Management Systems are an important part of
the latter.

44

(cid:1)  At global level,  the  Basel  Convention  has  developed  a  number  of  guidelines  for  the
environmentally sound management of a number of wastes and is developing more of
such  these  guidelines.  Additionally,  the  Convention  has  developed  a  Strategic  Plan
which implementation will include co-operation projects aiming at helping developing
countries to implement environmentally sound management of waste.

9

EXTENDED IMPACT ASSESSMENT

On 5 June 2002, the Commission published a Communication from the Commission on
impact  assessment79,  which  introduces  a  new  impact  assessment  process.  This  process
aims at improving the quality of Commission proposals and at improving and simplifying
the regulatory environment.

The  Thematic  Strategy  on  the  prevention  and  recycling  of  waste  will  be  subject  to  an
extended impact assessment.

Within the framework of the consultation on this Communication stakeholders are given
the  opportunity 
their  positions  and  concerns  on
in  writing 
environmental, economic, financial and social aspects related to this Communication. In
particular, the Commission invites  interested parties  to comment on the  selected  policy
options outlined in section 5 of this Communication.

to  communicate 

10.

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STRATEGY

This Communication describes strategic options to develop the  Community’s policy, in
relation to waste prevention and recycling. It builds on current achievements and seeks to
identify  actions  which  maximise  the  environmental  benefits  in  a  cost  effective  and
flexible manner.

On  the  basis  of  the  analyses  developed  in  this  Communication  and  the  outcome  of  the
consultation process, the Commission will propose in 2004 a comprehensive Community
Thematic  Strategy  on  the  prevention  and  recycling  of  waste.  Some  of  the  measures
discussed in this Communication may proceed before the full strategy is adopted, due to
their link to other policy measures.

This document should be seen as the starting point of a consultation process which will
continue  until  the  Commission  adopts  proposals  both  for  the  overall  framework  of  the
thematic  strategy  and  for  the  individual  measures  through  which  the  latter  will  be
implemented. Its objective is to launch a debate among the Community’s Institutions and
all interested stakeholders concerning the future orientations of policy in these fields.

79 

Communication from the Commission COM(2002)279 of 5.6.2002 on impact assessment.

45

                                                
Stakeholders  are  invited  to  provide  comments  on  this  Communication,  in  particular  on
the  building  blocks  identified  in  section  5,  and  to  make  more  general  comments  or
suggestions concerning issues relevant to waste prevention and recycling. Comments can
be submitted to the following address, preferably by email in a widely used format (MS
Word, Adobe Acrobat PDF, HTML, etc.) until 30 November 2003:

Ms. Marianne Klingbeil

European Commission

DG Environment (BU-5 5/167)

Fax:

+32 (0)2 299.42.7

B-1049 Brussels

Email: env-waste-strategy@cec.eu.int

46

Annex I:

EC waste legislation

Introduction

EC waste legislation can be divided into three main categories:

–  horizontal legislation;

–  legislation on waste treatment operations;

–  legislation on specific waste streams.

Each category serves a specific role: horizontal legislation establishes the overall framework
for  the management  of waste, including definitions and  general  principles.  The  objective  of
this  legislation  is  to  set  the  overall  requirements  that  apply  to  all  waste  management
operations,  e.g.  permitting  of  waste  treatment  facilities,  and  to  provide  the  "common
vocabulary"  necessary  to  allow  a  uniform  implementation  of  waste  legislation  across  the
Community. However, due  to  its very  general nature, this horizontal legislation  cannot  take
into account the specificity of all waste management operations nor of all waste materials.

It is therefore complemented by more detailed legislation in two areas:

1.

2.

legislation concerning waste treatment – including disposal – operations, such as the
landfill and incineration directives;

legislation to regulate the management of specific waste streams. This legislation has
been motivated by one or more of the following considerations:

–  the growing volumes or complexity of some waste streams, e.g. packaging, end-

of-life vehicles and waste electrical and electronic products;

–  the  need  to  subject  them  to  specific  controls  due  to  their  hazardousness,  e.g.

certain types of batteries, PCBs;

–  the fact that their uncontrolled use can have harmful effects on human health and
the environment, e.g. the uncontrolled spreading of sewage sludge on agricultural
land.

In several cases, Community waste legislation is partly  motivated by the need to ensure the
effective functioning of the Internal Market as different requirements adopted at national level
could lead to barriers to trade or distort competition. This is for example the case for product-
related requirements, such  as restrictions on the contents of dangerous substances  in  certain
products  (mercury  in  batteries)  and  recycling  targets  for  certain  end-of-life  products
(packaging).

This  annex  describes  the  main  provisions  of  each  category  of  EC  waste  legislation.  The
objective is not to be comprehensive, but rather to provide an overview of the main elements.

47

Horizontal legislation

Horizontal  legislation  establishes  the  overall  framework  for  the  management  of  waste.
Council directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste80 (the "waste framework directive" or
WFD)  includes  the  main  definitions  and  principles  concerning  waste  management.  It  was
comprehensively  revised  in  199181  and  again  in  1996  to  update  the  disposal  and  recovery
operations listed in annexes II A and II B.82

In  essence,  the  WFD  requires  Member  States  to  give  priority  to  waste  prevention  and  to
encourage  re-use  and  recovery  of  waste.  Member  States  must  also  ensure  that  waste  is
recovered and disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or
methods  which  could  harm  the  environment.  The  directive  also  requires  Member  States  to
draw-up  waste  management  plans  and  to  establish  a  system  for  the  authorisation  of  waste
management  installations.  The  WFD  defines  waste  as  "any  substance  or  object  in  the
categories set out in Annex I which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard."
Annex I of the WFD lists 16 categories of waste.83

Council  directive  91/689/EEC  of  12  December  1991  on  hazardous  waste,84  as  amended,
complements the waste framework directive for hazardous waste. Annex  III of the  directive
lists  14  properties  of  waste  which  render  them  hazardous  within  the  meaning  of  the
directive.85 The directive also contains substantive requirements concerning, for example, the
permitting of installations handling hazardous waste. In general, the hazardous waste directive
does not significantly augment the substantive requirements of the waste framework directive
as  regards  permitting  and  registration  of  waste  management  installations.  However,  it
contains additional requirements concerning, for example, limitations of mixing of hazardous
waste,  record  keeping  and  the  shipment  of  waste  at  national  level,  which  must  be
accompanied by a tracking form.

The  WFD  and  the  directive  on  hazardous  waste  are  the  basis  for  the  list  of  wastes  and  of
hazardous  wastes.86  This  list  is  applicable  for  the  purposes  of,  for  example,  the  permit
requirements of the waste framework directive.

The Community has also adopted legislation concerning the cross-border shipment of waste.
The main legal instrument in this field is Council regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February
1993  on  the  supervision  and  control  of  shipments  of  waste  within,  into  and  out  of  the
European  Community,87  as  amended.  This  regulation  implements  the  Community’s

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

Council directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p.39.
Council directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending directive 75/442/EEC on  waste (OJ L 78,
26.3.1991, p. 32).
Commission decision 96/350/EC of 24 May 1996 adapting Annexes IIA and IIB to Council directive
75/442/EEC on waste (OJ L 135, 6.6.1996, p. 32).
Such as "Production or consumption residues not otherwise specified below" (Q1), "Materials spilled,
lost  or  having  undergone  other  mishap,  including  any  materials,  equipment,  etc.,  contaminated  as  a
result of the mishap" (Q4), "Residues of industrial processes (e.g. slags, still bottoms, etc.)" (Q8) and
"Any materials, substances or products which are not contained in the above categories" (Q16).
Council directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste, OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20.
Such as explosive (H1), flammable (H3-B), carcinogenic (H7), teratogenic (H10) and ecotoxic (H14).
Commission Decision of 3 May 2000 (OJ L 226, 5.9.2000, p. 3) as last amended by Council Decision
2001/573/EC, superseded the previously existing lists.
Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments
of waste within, into and out of the European Community, OJ L 30, 6.2.1993, p. 1.

48

                                                
international obligations arising from the Basel Convention88 and the OECD Decision89 which
apply to shipments of waste. The regulation incorporates the internationally agreed principle
that waste should be treated in an Environmentally Sound Manner (ESM) and bans shipments
of hazardous waste from EU countries to non-OECD countries. Furthermore, it lays down the
procedures  and  requirements  concerning  the  all  transboundary  shipment  of  wastes  destined
for recovery and for disposal. In essence, for shipments within the EU area, the requirements
are  intended  to  apply  the  proximity  and  self-sufficiency  principles  to  waste  destined  for
disposal, while allowing a more liberal regime for wastes destined for recovery.

The Basel Convention, OECD Decision and the waste shipment regulation are the origin of a
second  system  of  lists  of  waste  that  are  specifically  used  for  the  control  and  supervision  of
transboundary shipments of waste.

Waste treatment operations

The  second  category  of  the  legal  framework  on  waste  concerns  waste  treatment  operations,
including  disposal.  Directive  1999/31/EC  of  26  April  1999  on  the  landfill  of  waste90  ("the
landfill  directive")  sets  out  a  number  of  administrative  requirements,  including  permit
conditions,  technical  requirements  and  environmental  standards  applying  to  landfills
accepting various categories of waste (inert, non-hazardous and hazardous waste). Moreover,
the  directive  contains  a  number  of  targets  concerning  the  reduction  of  biodegradable  waste
disposed of in landfills and bans the landfilling certain types of waste, such as liquid wastes,
infectious  waste  and  most  tyres.  Member  States  are  obliged  to  define  a  strategy  to  achieve
these  objectives  at  the  latest  by  16  July  2003.  The  landfill  directive  also  requires  all  costs
relating to the establishment, operation and closure of a landfill are internalised into the price
charged by the operator.

Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on
the incineration of waste91 ("the incineration directive") replaces three older directives92 and
thus  consolidates  the  Community's  legal  requirements  concerning  the  incineration  and  co-
incineration  of  waste  of  non-hazardous  and  hazardous  waste.  The  directive  establishes  the
permitting conditions for incineration plants, including under abnormal operating conditions,
as well  as limit  values  in  relation  to,  for example,  emissions to air  and discharges  to  water.
The  directive  includes  requirements  concerning  the  delivery  and  reception  of  waste  and
concerning  the  management  of  incineration  residues,  including  the  requirement  that  when
appropriate  the  residues  be  recycled.  Finally,  it  also  includes  requirements  on  control,
monitoring and measurement.

88

89

90

91

92

Basel Convention on the control of trans-boundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal,
adopted by the Conference of the Plenipotentiaries on 22 March 1989.
OECD  Council  Decision  C(92)39/FINAL  on  the  control  of  the  trans-boundary  movements  of  wastes
destined  for  recovery  operation.  This  Decision  has  been  revised  to  harmonise  it  with  the  Basel
convention by OECD Council Decision C(2001) 107/FINAL. The Commission is preparing proposals
for adaptation of regulation (CEE) 259/93 to these changes.
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  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  4  December  2000  on  the
incineration of waste, OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p.91.
Council directive 94/67/EC of  16  December  1994 on  the  incineration  of  hazardous  waste  (OJ  L  365,
31.12.1994, p.34), Council directive 89/369/EEC of 8 June 1989 on the prevention of air pollution from
new  municipal  waste  incineration  plants  (OJ  L  163,  14.6.1989;  p.  32)  and  Council  directive
89/429/EEC  of  21  June  1989  on  the  reduction  of  air  pollution  from  existing  municipal  waste
incineration plants (OJ L 203, 15.7.1989, p. 50)

49

                                                
In addition, a number of waste treatment operations fall within the scope of Council directive
96/61/EC  of  24  September  1996  concerning  integrated  pollution  prevention  and  control93
("the  IPPC  directive").  These  are  mainly  hazardous  waste  recovery  operations,  the
incineration of waste, with or without energy recovery, and certain waste disposal operations,
including landfilling of waste.

As part of the implementation of the IPPC directive, the Commission is developing a number
of  Best  Available  Technique  Reference  (BREF)  documents.  In  practice,  permits  issued  to
waste treatment installations falling within the scope of the  IPPC directive have to be based
on Best Available Techniques (BAT) as described in the corresponding BREF document (or
other  recognised  publications),  although  competent  authorities  can  derogate  from  BAT  to  a
certain extent because of local conditions. One BREF document will cover mainly recovery of
hazardous  waste,  preparation  for  energy  recovery  and  disposal  of  waste.  Another  BREF
document will be dedicated to waste incineration.

As  a  general  rule,  recovery  and,  in  particular,  recycling  of  non-hazardous  waste  and  many
types of hazardous waste and the related preparatory operations are not included in the scope
of the IPPC directive and will therefore not be covered by BREF documents. Although some
of  these  operations  are  covered  by  other  BREFs,  e.g.  use  of  recovered  paper  in  paper
production94 or of metal scrap in metal production,95 waste-related aspects tend to be covered
only partially or with limited depth.

The IPPC directive lists among the basic obligations of the operator that waste production is
avoided  in  accordance  with  Council  directive  75/442/EEC  of  15  July  1975  on  waste.
Moreover, the use of low-waste technology and the use of less hazardous substances are listed
among  the  considerations  that  should  be  borne  in  mind  when  determining  Best  Available
Techniques  (BAT)  in  accordance  with  the  IPPC  directive.  This  means  the  latter  will  be  an
important instrument to promote waste prevention in the  industrial  sector,  although it  is not
yet  possible  to  estimate  the  significance  of  this  impact  due  to  the  early  stage  of
implementation of the directive.

landfill, 

The 
incineration  and  IPPC  directives  are  currently  at  various  stages  of
implementation.  These  directives  all  make  a  distinction  between  "existing"  and  "new"
installations.  The  former  are  generally  granted  a  transition  period  to  implement  the
requirements of the applicable directive, while the latter have to comply immediately with the
relevant requirements of the applicable directive. For example, for the purposes of the landfill
directive, any landfill in operation or for which a permit has been granted before 16 July 2001
is considered an "existing" landfill, while any landfill authorised after this date is considered a
new landfill. Existing non-hazardous waste landfills have until 16 July 2009 to comply with
the  requirements  of  the  landfill  directive.  Similarly,  the  incineration  directive  foresees  a
transitional period for existing incinerators until 28 December 2005, while the IPPC directive
grants a transitional period for existing installations until 30 October 2007.

93

94

95

Council  Directive  96/61/EC  of  24  September  1996  concerning  integrated  pollution  prevention  and
control, OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p.26.
See the BREF document for pulp and paper manufacture at http://eippcb.jrc.es
See 
at
metals 
document 
ftp://ftp.jrc.es/pub/eippcb/doc/fmp_bref_1201.pdf  and  that  for  non-ferrous  metals  processing  at
http://eippcb.jrc.es.

processing 

ferrous 

BREF 

the 

on 

50

                                                
Specific waste streams

It  would  be  beyond  the  scope  of  this  document  to  exhaustively  list  and  describe  all
Community legal instruments dealing with specific waste streams, even though most of them
have at least a potential impact on recycling activities. Where an individual legal instrument is
relevant to a specific point covered in this document, it will be discussed in the corresponding
section. This section is therefore limited to the most important legal instruments and focuses
on their provisions that directly affect recycling.

European Parliament and Council directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and
packaging waste96 is perhaps the best known directive concerning a specific waste stream. It
is certainly the one for which most practical experience exists. The directive sets quantitative
targets  for  the  recovery  and  recycling  of  various  packaging  materials.  These  targets  are
currently  being  revised,  with  a  view  to  their  substantial  increase.  The  Commission  initiated
this review97 on the basis of studies of the environmental and economic costs and benefits of
recycling, which aimed at identifying optimum recycling rates. This has lead the Commission
to propose differentiated recycling targets for each of the materials covered by the directive,
taking into account the different environmental and economic costs/benefits of each material.

Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000
on  end-of-life  vehicles98  ("the  ELV  directive")  is  currently  being  implemented  by  Member
States. The directive also includes a number of targets for recycling. Article 7(2)(a) provides
for a "re-use and recovery" target of 85% and a "re-use and recycling" target of 80%, both of
which should be achieved by 1 January 2006. Article 7(2)(b) provides that these targets shall
be increased  to  95%  re-use  and recovery  and  85%  re-use  and  recycling  by  1  January  2015.
This  directive  is  the  first  piece  of  Community  legislation  making  producer  responsibility
mandatory.

The  directive  on  Waste  Electrical  and  Electronic  Equipment  (WEEE)  adopted  in  January
200399 contains a number of targets concerning the recovery of WEEE – these are described
in Article 6 and must be met by 31 December 2006. The recycling targets range from 50% to
80% depending on the type of equipment and recovery rates are also set for the different types
of equipment. This directive also makes producer responsibility mandatory.

Council directive100 75/439/EC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils as amended by
87/101/EEC  contains  a  requirement  that  where  technical,  economic  and  organisational
constraints so allow, Member States shall take the measures to give priority to the processing
of waste oils by regeneration.

96

97

98

99

100

European  Parliament  and  Council  Directive  94/62/EC  of  20  December  1994  on  packaging  and
packaging waste, OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10.
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 94/62/EC
on packaging and packaging waste, COM (2001) 729 final of 07.12.2001, OJ C 103, 30.4.2002, p.17.
Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-
life vehicles, OJ L 269, 21.10.2000, p. 34.
Directive  2002/96/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  27  January  2003  on  waste
electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), OJ L 37, 13.2.2003, p.24.
Council  Directive  75/439/EEC  of  16  June  1975  on  the  disposal  of  waste  oils,  OJ  L  194,  25.7.1995,
p. 23.

51

                                                
Community legislation regulating End-Of-Life (EOL)  products  and waste streams  have also
addressed waste prevention. Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste101 is one
of  the  few  Community  legislative  instruments  that  explicitly  addresses  quantitative
prevention.  One  of  the  essential  requirements  contained  in  this  directive  states  that
“packaging shall be so manufactured that the packaging volume and weight be limited to the
minimum adequate amount to maintain the necessary level of safety, hygiene and acceptance
for the packed product and for the consumer.”

Qualitative prevention is an important objective of a number of directives on EOL products.
These  include  directive  91/157/EC  on  batteries  and  accumulators  containing  certain
dangerous substances,102 directive 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles103 and the directive on
the  Restriction  of  certain  Hazardous  Substances  (RoHS)  in  electrical  and  electronic
equipment.104 Their impact  is  not limited to end-of-life  products  alone,  since  restrictions  on
the  use  of  hazardous  substances  in  the  relevant  products  will  also  feed  through  into  less
hazardous production waste.

101

102

103

104

European  Parliament  and  Council  Directive  94/62/EC  of  20  December  1994  on  packaging  and
packaging waste, OJ L 365, 21.12.1994, p.10.
Council  Directive  91/157/EEC  of  18  March  1991  on  batteries  and  accumulators  containing  certain
dangerous substances, OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p.38.
Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-
life vehicles, OJ L 269, 21.10.2000, p.34.
Directive  2002/95/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  27  January  2003  on  the
restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment, OJ L 37,
13.2.2003, p. 19.

52

                                                
Annex II: trends in waste generation and management

Overall assessment

The  objective  of  this  annex  is  to  describe  the  current  state  of  our  knowledge  about  waste
generation levels and trends, at the level of the EU and of its Member States. Available data
are summarised both for waste generation as a whole and for major waste streams.

Any discussion about trends in waste generation and management needs to take into account
the shortcomings that characterise statistics in this field. In this context, a distinction needs to
be made between the statistics describing the situation at national level and those describing
the situation in the EU as a whole.

Most EU Member States collect statistics about waste generation. Some Member States have
collected comprehensive statistics for some time. In Denmark, the ISAG (Information System
for  Waste  and  Recycling)  system  was  first  implemented  in  1993.  The  eighth  report,
containing  data  for  the  year  2000  together  with  projections  for  waste  generation  and
management up to 2020, was published in 2002.

Other Member States have made significant efforts in recent years to improve the quality of
statistics  available  at  national  level.  For  example,  the  United  Kingdom  launched  its  first
national waste production survey in 1999, which provided a first reliable assessment of waste
generation  by  industry  and  commerce  in  the  United  Kingdom.  This  is  complemented  by
regular  surveys  of  Municipal  Waste  Management.105  Similarly,  the  Millennium  Report
published  by  the  Irish  Environmental  Protection  Agency  states  that  “[c]onsiderably  more  is
known  about  waste  management  in  Ireland  now  than  was  known  in  1996.  The  scarcity  of
reliable, complete and up-to-date data on waste was identified as a key problem at that time.
Two  comprehensive  surveys  have  since  been  conducted  by  the  EPA,  with  national  level
information  now  available  for  1995  and  1998.  The  waste  information  deficit  has,  therefore,
largely been addressed.”106

Notwithstanding these improvements, the quality and scope of the data  available  at national
level  is  variable  and  it  is  recognised  that  there  is  considerable  room  for  improvement.
Moreover, data is often reported with significant time-lags. For example, the most recent data
reported in the latest compendium of environmental statistics for Germany are for 1998.107

Statistical  data  at  Community  level  suffers  from  a  number  of  shortcomings,  including
incomplete coverage  and lack of harmonisation. These problems are widely recognised.  For
example,  a  report  published  by  the  EEA  in  1999  states  that  “[d]etailed  analysis  of
developments  in  waste  generation,  waste  management  and  waste  minimisation  is  hampered
by  the  lack  of  comparable  definitions  and  statistical  information  across  Europe.  Even  for
municipal  waste  and  household  waste,  which  are  normally  thought  of  as  areas  with  good
statistics, confusion prevails.”108 The latest environmental assessment report published by the

105

106

107

108

See  Environment  Agency  for  England  and  Wales,  2002:  Strategic  Waste  Management  Information  –
Waste Statistics for England and Wales 1998-99, Bristol: Environment Agency for England and Wales.
Irish EPA, 2000: Ireland’s Environment – A Millennium Report, Dublin: Irish Environmental Protection
Agency, p. 55.
Umweltbundesamt  and  Statistisches  Bundesamt,  2002:  Environmental  Data,  Germany  2002,  Berlin:
Umweltbundesamt and Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt, p. 21.
EEA, 1999: Baseline projections of selected waste streams - Development of a methodology, Technical
report No 28, Copenhagen: European Environment Agency, p. 6.

53

                                                
EEA  also  states  that  “[d]ata  limitations  prevent  a  comprehensive  assessment  of  most  of  the
waste  streams  in  Europe.”109  A  recent  publication  from  the  OECD  similarly  states  that
“available data on waste generation and management are limited.”110 The lack of harmonised
statistics in the field of waste management was also highlighted in the Commission’s recent
report on the ‘open list’ of environment-related headline indicators, which the available data
on recycling rates for various materials is incomplete or not sufficiently up to date.111

The Waste Statistics Regulation 112 is intended to close these gaps in our knowledge of waste
generation  and  will  provide  a  legal  basis  for  a  complete  statistical  data  collection  on  waste
generation  and  treatment  in  the  Community.  In  the  Commission’s  five-year  statistical
programme,  implementation  of  the  Regulation  is  regarded  as  a  priority  task  within  the
European Statistical System.

The Regulation comprises three  technical  annexes  in  which  the  data  collection is described.
The annex on waste generation will provide a table on waste generation for about 40 different
waste  category-groups.  Data  will  also  be  classified  according  to  origin  by  households  and
circa 20 economic activities using the NACE-classification113. The annex on waste treatment
will provide  tables on  waste treatment per  waste category  and per treatment method  for  the
main  treatment  methods.  The  third  annex  comprises  the  transposition  table  between  the
European  list  of  waste,  as  established  by  Commission  Decision  2000/532/EC,  and  the
statistical waste classification.

When fully applied, the Regulation will provide a comprehensive picture of waste generation
and waste treatment for the whole economy in the Community. Data collection will take place
every  second  year,  starting  with  the  reference  year  2004.  The  first  set  of  statistics  will  be
made available to the Commission in 2006.

Consequently,  a  satisfactory  knowledge  of  waste  generation  levels  at  EU  level  will  be
available in 2006 at the earliest. However, trends cannot be estimated on the basis of data for
a single  year. Therefore, a first assessment of trends in waste generation  across  the  EU  will
only  be  possible  in  2008,  when  the  second  set  of  statistics  collected  in  the  context  of  the
Regulation will become available.

Given  the  above  mentioned  limitations,  existing  statistics  on  waste  generation  should  be
treated with care, especially when analysing developments across the EU. Existing statistics
can at most be used to infer trends for waste generation as a whole. Despite these statistical
limitations there is little doubt that the amount of waste generated throughout the Community
has increased significantly over the last decades.114

109

110

111

112

113

114

EEA,  2002:  Environmental  signals  2002  –  Benchmarking  the  millennium,  Copenhagen:  European
Environment Agency, p. 102.
OECD,  2001:  OECD  Environmental  Outlook,  Paris:  Organisation  for  Economic  Co-operation  and
Development, p. 235, note 1.
Report from the Commission to the Council- Analysis of the ‘open list’ of environment-related headline
indicators, COM(2002) 524 final of 20.09.2002.
Regulation (EEC) N° 2150/2002 of the European parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2002
on waste statistics, OJ L 332, 9.12.2002, p.1.
Commission  regulation  (EC)  No  29/2002  of  19  December  2001  amending  Council  regulation  (EEC)
No 3037/90 on the statistical classification of economic activities in the European Community, OJ L 6,
10.1.2002, p.3.
EEA, 2002 (see note 109 supra), Figure 12.3, indicates that total waste generation has been more or less
stable during the 1990s. This is largely due to the impact of reduced  waste  generation in  Central  and
Eastern European Countries linked to economic restructuring during the 1990s.

54

                                                
This  trend  is  reflected  in  the  national  statistics  for  waste  generation  of  many  EU  Member
States. Some examples are provided below:115

–  it is estimated that waste generation in Denmark increased by 17% over the period 1994-

2000;116

–  the Irish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that almost 2.3 million tonnes of
household  and  commercial  waste  were  generated  in  Ireland  in  2000.  This  represents  an
increase  of  over  sixty  per  cent  in  five  years  in  the  generation  of  “household  and
commercial waste;”117

–  total waste generation in the Netherlands increased from 50,180 kTonnes in 1990 to 58,750
kTonnes in 2000, an increase of 17%. Total waste generation in the Netherlands increased
by 25% between 1980 and 2001;118

Similar  trends  have  been  observed  in  other  industrialised  countries.  For  example,  waste
generation in Norway increased about 13% between 1996 and 2000.119

The  overall  trend  in  Central  and  Eastern  European  Countries  (CEECs)  during  the  1990s
suggests  decreasing  overall  waste  generation,  mainly  due  to  economic  restructuring  which
accompanied  the  transition  to  a  market  economy,  including  the  phasing  out  of  obsolete
industrial capacity. As a result, “[t]he average amount of generated waste in the CEECs per
capita  fell  from  8.7  tonnes  in  1995  to  5.2  tonnes  in  1999,  a  decrease  of  approximately
40%.”120 However, accelerated economic growth in the future will probably imply a return to
increased waste generation.121

Projections  calculated  at  national  level  also  indicate  significant  increases  in  future  waste
generation for several EU Member States. For example, the Danish Environmental Protection
Agency estimates that total waste generation in Denmark will increase by about 27% between
2000 and 2020.122

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

National statistics often use different definitions and coverage’s. Comparisons between countries should
therefore be handled  with care. However, national statistics do  provide  a  good  indication  of  trends  at
national level.
Bach,  H.,  Christensen,  N.  &  Kristensen,  P.  (Eds.)  2002:  The  State  of  the  Environment  in  Denmark,
2001,  NERI  Technical  Report  No.  409,  Roskilde:  National  Environmental  Research  Institute,  p.  102.
See  also  Danish  Government,  2002:  Denmark’s  National  Strategy  for  Sustainable  Development
“A Shared  Future  –  Balanced  Development”,  Indicator  Report,  Copenhagen:  Danish  Environmental
Protection Agency, p. 47.
Irish  EPA,  2002:  Environment  in  Focus  2002  –  Key  Environmental  Indicators  for  Ireland,  Dublin:
Environmental Protection Agency.
RIVM, 2001: Environmental Data Compendium 2001, Bilthoven: Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid
en  Milieu,  table  C1.9,  and  RIVM,  2002:  Milieubalans  2002,  Bilthoven:  Rijksinstituut  voor
Volksgezondheid en Milieu, annex 3.
Bad news for CO2 and waste in Norway, Environment Daily N° 1311, 18 October 2002.
REC, 2001: Waste Management Policies in Central and Eastern European Countries: Current Policies
and Trends, Budapest: The Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe, p. 38.
EEA, 2002: Implications of EEA/EU enlargement for state-of-the-environment reporting in the EU and
EEA Member States, Technical report No 82, Copenhagen: European Environment Agency, p. 4.
Danish  EPA,  2002:  Waste  Statistics  2000,  Environmental  Review  No.  1/2002,  Copenhagen:  Danish
Environmental Protection Agency, p. 50.

55

                                                
Major waste streams

It is generally agreed that five major waste streams account for the overwhelming majority of
waste  generation.123  These  include  manufacturing  waste,  Mining  and  Quarrying  Waste
(MQW),  Construction  and  Demolition  Waste  (C&DW),  Municipal  Solid  Waste  (MSW).
Agricultural and forestry waste is estimated to be one of the largest waste streams, although
little  information  is  available  about  volumes  or  composition.  Together,  these  waste  streams
account for about 90% of waste generated across the EU.

The  availability  of  statistics  about  these  waste  streams  is  unsatisfactory.  Although  the  EEA
has  recently  reported  some  progress  towards  decoupling  waste  generation  from  economic
growth,124 a number of important waste streams continue to grow. Economic growth, social-
demographic  patterns  and  consumption  patterns  are  all  drivers  for  increasing  waste
generation.  The  OECD  projects  significant  future  growth  for  a  number  of  major  waste
streams, including MSW, Construction and Demolition Waste (C&DW) and industrial waste.

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) often receives the most attention from policy-makers, partly
due to the fact  that  collection  and  treatment  of  MSW  is  generally  a  responsibility  of  public
authorities. However, MSW is neither the largest waste stream nor the most problematic one
from  an  environmental  point  of  view.  For  example,  ,  only  a  minor  part  of  waste  from
households  (the  bulk  of  MSW)  is  hazardous  and  this  accounts  for  about  1  %  of  the  total
hazardous waste quantities125; whereas.126 The EEA estimates that MSW accounts  for  about
one  sixth  of  total  waste  generated  in  the  EU.  MSW  generation  is  currently  estimated  at  an
average of about 550 kg per capita on average across the EU. This should be compared to the
EU  average  for  1985,  which  was  approximately  300  kg  per  capita.  The  Organisation  for
Economic  Co-operation  and  Development  (OECD)  estimates  that  MSW  generation  in  the
OECD region will increase by 43% from 1995 to 2020, reaching 640 kg per capita at the end
of this period.127

Industrial  waste  refers  to  waste  produced  by  manufacturing  industry  –  section  D  of  the
NACE  classification  of  economic  activities.  Harmonised  data  on  waste  generation  in  this
sector is incomplete and assessing waste generation levels and trends in this sector, except at
high  levels  of  aggregation,  is  highly  problematic.  For  example,  Eurostat  notes  that  data  for
industrial  waste  “includes  estimates,  non-validated  data,  partial  data  and  are  based  on
different definitions of sectors or on coverages which may vary from one year to another.”128

123

124

125

126

127

128

Radioactive  waste  is  not  discussed  in  this  Communication,  as  its  management  poses  different
challenges than other waste types and it is covered by specific legislation.
EEA,  2002:  Environmental  Signals  2002  –  Benchmarking  the  millennium,  Environmental  assessment
report N. 9, Copenhagen: European Environment Agency, chapter 12, pp. 100-105.
EEA,  2002:  Hazardous  waste  generation  in  EEA  member  countries,  Topic  report  N.  14/2001,
Copenhagen: European Environment Agency, p. 22.
EEA,  2002:  Hazardous  waste  generation  in  EEA  member  countries,  Topic  report  N.  14/2001,
Copenhagen: European Environment Agency, p. 22.
See  OECD,  2002:  OECD  Environmental  Strategy  for  the  First  Decade  of  the  21st  Century,  Paris:
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, p. 236.
Eurostat,  2002:  Sourcebook  of  environmentally-relevant  data  on  industry  –  Data  1990-1999,
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, p. 44.

56

                                                
Available  data  indicates  that  manufacturing  industry  contributes  between  one  fifth  and  one
quarter of total waste generation. A background paper prepared for the OECD estimates that it
will grow faster than total waste generation and therefore account for a slightly larger share of
total waste generation in 2020 than it did in 1997 (24% vs. 22%).129

Mining  and  quarrying  waste  accounts  for  between  a  sixth  and  a  third  of  total  waste
generation according to EEA and OECD data. However, as for other sectors, the contribution
of  this  sector  in  different  EU  Member  States  is  also  subject  to  variations,  depending  for
example on the importance and type of mining activities. It appears that this waste stream is
relatively more important in accession countries than in current EU Member States.

Construction  and  demolition  waste  (C&DW)  covers  a  wide  range  of  materials.  The  total
amount of C&DW per capita changes considerably from country to country and it seems to be
related to economic and cultural aspects in different countries as well as to different existing
definitions.  According  to  Symonds,  C&DW  amounted  around  180  million  tones  in  the  EU
each year and that five Member States accounted for 80% of the total amount of C&DW in
the EU, which seems to be consistent with their contribution to the total construction market
C&DW is over 480 kg per person per year and only about 28% is recycled or re-used across
the EU-15. A high proportion of it is concrete, bricks and tiles, which is well suited to being
crushed  and  recycled  as  a  substitute  for  newly  quarried  aggregates  in  certain  lower  grade
applications. The nature of C&DW is directly linked to the building techniques that were used
when  the  buildings  and  other  structures  that  are  now  demolished  were  built.  Thus,  as  an
increasing variety of materials are used in buildings, the complexity of managing waste from
demolition activities will increase.

Agricultural waste comprises firstly slurry, manure, straw, silage, silage effluent, vegetable
and  cereal  residues,  etc.  and,  secondly,  waste  such  as  scrap  machinery,  pesticides  or  waste
oils, etc. According to the EEA no overall estimations are available for total agricultural waste
in the EU.

Hazardous waste

A recent report by the EEA concluded that “the trend [in hazardous waste generation] is not
very  clear  due  to  the  fact  that  the  amounts  of  hazardous  waste  in  some  countries  fluctuate
from year to year. Furthermore, some countries do not have access to new data, which makes
it difficult to establish reliable trends in relation to the generation of hazardous waste.”130

Reported  hazardous  waste  generation  during  the  1990s  has  been  affected  by  changing
definition  of  hazardous  waste.  For  example,  hazardous  waste  generation  in  the  United
Kingdom  more  than  doubled  from  1996/7  to  1997/8  following  the  implementation  of  the
Hazardous Waste List.131 Similarly, the Austrian Federal Waste Management Plan 2001 states
that  “the  significant  increase  in  the  volume  of  hazardous  waste  […]  is  not  due  to  the
additional  production  of  hazardous  waste  but  rather  to  changes  in  the  definition  of  hazard-

129

130

131

Stutz, J. et al., 2001: “Waste trends and outlook – Background document for the OECD Environmental
Outlook  for  chapter  20:  Waste”,  Paris:  Organisation  for  Economic  Co-operation  and  Development,
p. 26.
EEA,  2002:  Hazardous  waste  generation  in  EEA  member  countries,  Topic  report  N.  14/2001,
Copenhagen: European Environment Agency, p. 20.
Council Decision 94/904/EC of 22 December 1994 establishing  a  list  of  hazardous  waste  pursuant  to
Article  1  (4)  of  Council  directive  91/689/EEC  on  hazardous  waste,  OJ L 356,  31.12.1994,  p.14.  This
was  subsequently  replaced  by  Commission  Decision  2000/532/EC  of  3  May  2000,  as  amended
OJ L 226, 6.9.2000, p.3. The latter applies since 1 January 2002.

57

                                                
relevant  properties  of  waste  as  a  result  of  the  Ordinance  on  the  classification  of  hazardous
waste  and  hazardous  household  waste  (Waste  Classification  Ordinance  of  1997).”132  The
OECD also observes that “[n]o trend in hazardous waste generation can be provided because
of  the  constantly  changing  definitions  of  hazardous  waste  within  the  OECD  Member
countries.”133

According  to  the  EEA,  manufacturing  industry  is  the  major  contributor  to  hazardous  waste
generation in several Member States, accounting for more than 75% of total hazardous waste
generation.134 It is not possible to establish a precise classification by industrial sector on the
basis of available statistics. However, data reported by the EEA indicates that chemicals and
metalworking are the industrial branches which generate the most hazardous waste.135

Conclusions

In  summary,  it  can  be  concluded  that  both  our  historical  experience  and  future  projections
indicate that, in the absence of additional policy intervention, total waste generation has and
will continue to increase for the foreseeable future. However, currently available statistics do
not  allow  a  more  detailed  analysis  of  waste  generation  levels  or  trends.  For  some  waste
streams,  notably  industrial  waste  and  hazardous  waste,  it  is  difficult  to  make  a  reliable
assessment  even  of  trends.  This  is  a  significant  obstacle  for  policymaking  and  needs  to  be
remedied as a matter of urgency.

132

133

134

135

BMU,  2001:  Federal  Waste  Management  Plan  2001,  Vienna:  Federal  Ministry  of  Agriculture  and
Forestry, Environment and Water Management, p. 12.
Stutz et al., op. cit. (note 129 supra), p. 19.
EEA, 2001b: p. 26.
Ibid., p. 27.

58

                                                
Annex III

Abreviation
6EAP
BAT
C&DW
CBA
CEECs
D
EEA
EECCA
ELVs
EMAS
EOL
EPA
EPER
ESM
FP6
GHG
IPPC
ISAG
MQW
MSW
OECD
PAYT
PCBs
PCTs
PET
PM10
POPs
PRTR
R
RoHS
UNECE
WEEE
WFD
WGWPR

Meaning
6th Environmental Action Programme
Best Available Techniques
Construction & Demolition Waste
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Central and Eastern European Countries
Disposal
European Environment Agency
Easter European Caucasian and Central Asia Countries
End of Life Vehicles
Eco-Management and Audit Scheme
End of Life
Environmental Protection Agency
European Pollutant Emissions Register
Environmentally Sound Management
6th Framework Programme
Green House Gas
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control
Information System for Waste and Recycling
Mining and Quarrying Waste
Municipal Solid Waste
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Pay As You Throw
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Polychlorinated Terphenyls
Polyethylene Tere-Phtalate
Particulate Matter
Persistent Organic Pollutants
Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers
Recovery
Restriction Of Hazardous Substances
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment
Waste Framework Directive
Working Group on Waste Prevention and Recycling

59