Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the "Communication from the Commission Towards a thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste"
Date: 2003-11-20
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU environmental policy, environmental protection, waste recycling

23.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/63

Reason

Local and regional government must be included in such discussions given their role in implementing
tolls and introducing tolling policies. According to the principle of subsidiarity local and regional
government must be able to participate in such discussion as there may be instances when a local or
regional authority is seeking to pursue a policy to introduce toll systems which may not be in accordance
with Member State level policies.

Brussels, 20 November 2003.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Albert BORE

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Communication from the Commission Towards
a thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste’

(2004/C 73/12)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Commission Communication: Towards a thematic strategy on the prevention and
recycling of waste (COM(2003) 301 final);

having regard to the decision of the European Commission on 28 May 2003 to consult it on the subject,
under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

having regard to the decision of its Bureau on 19 June 2003 to instruct the Commission for Sustainable
Development to draw up an opinion on the subject;

having regard to the document in question;

having regard to the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme;

having regard to its document on The Committee of the Regions’ political priorities for the period 2002-
2006, point 5 of which sets out requirements in the field of environmental protection:

b)

standardised EU-wide material rules that really help to improve the quality of the environment and
which should be national requirements;

c)

indispensable Community-wide standards for environmental protection;

C 73/64

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.3.2004

having regard to its opinions:

— CdR 447/98 fin on the Proposal for a Council Directive on the incineration of waste (1);

— CdR 36/2001 fin on the sixth environment action programme (2);

— CdR 190/2002 fin on the Commission Communication: Towards a thematic strategy for soil

protection (3);

having regard to the international commitments made by the EU in the field of sustainable development;

having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 239/2003 rev.) adopted on 29 September 2003 by the
Commission for Sustainable Development (rapporteur: Mr Condorelli, Member of Catania Municipal
Council (IT/ELDR);

whereas:

1)

2)

EU waste policy must be brought up to date in the light of progress made, problems encountered
and the requirements of the sustainable development principle, with due respect for international
agreements;

any strategy promoting measures aimed at quantitative and qualitative waste prevention and waste
recycling must recognise the key part played by regional and local authorities, who are called upon
on a daily basis to ensure efficient management, in order not only to limit the impact on the
environment and human health but also to contribute to the development of ecologically,
economically and socially sustainable local development systems;

3) when it reviewed the sixth programme, the Committee called on the EU’s to commit to implementing
all the measures necessary for sustainable development, regardless of progress on international
agreements, not least to secure the EU’s international leadership in this field and to benefit from the
advantages of an ecologically based economy ‘as an engine for innovation, competitiveness and
economic efficiency’ (CdR 36/2001, points 3.2 and 3.1);

4)

there is a need to move faster to improve the level of environmental protection in the accession
countries, not least to generate sustainable economic development by means of the transfer of clean
technologies, in order to prevent a repetition of the problems encountered over the years in the EU
and to bridge or at least reduce the current technology gap;

5) waste policy ought to be built into the other environment policies and the various approaches to
the waste issue must be made more consistent; these requirements led the CoR to recommend that
‘protecting soils from erosion and pollution’ be dealt with under the heading ‘Sustainable use of
natural resources and management of wastes’ rather than under ‘nature and bio-diversity’ (CdR 36/
2001, point 3.31);

6)

careful management is needed to prevent infiltration by ‘ecomafia’ organisations, which find fertile
ground in this sector and cause enormous damage to the environment through illegal waste-disposal
practices, as well as distorting the market by offering lower prices than companies that comply with
regulations; a further commitment is needed to protect the environment in third-world countries,
which frequently fall victim to such practices;

(1) OJ C 198, 14.7.1999, p. 37.
(2) OJ C 357, 14.12.2001, p. 44.
(3) OJ C 128, 29.5.2003, p. 43.

23.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/65

7)

the sixth Community environment action programme:

— promotes ‘the full integration of environmental protection requirements’ (Article 2 (4));

— affirms the need to decouple ‘the use of resources and the generation of waste from the rate of

economic growth’ (Article 2 (2));

— sets the objective of achieving ‘a significant reduction in the quantity of waste going to disposal

and the volumes of hazardous waste’ (Article 8 (1)),

— is committed to ‘encouraging re-use’ and to giving preference ‘to recovery and especially to

recycling’ (Article 8 (1));

— sets the objective of ‘developing a set of quantitative and qualitative reduction targets covering

all relevant waste, to be achieved at Community level by 2010’ (Article 8 (2)(ii)(a));

8)

9)

10)

in view of the above, it would seem necessary to act more decisively in order to prevent waste; it is
unacceptable that the most important step in the hierarchy of measures should not be applied in
practice, and that decisions must therefore be taken on prevention targets. The Commission
document, which views itself as the starting point for a consultation process in this initial phase and
deliberately avoids suggesting objectives, ought in this connection to prepare a bold thematic
strategy, indicating precise objectives and deadlines;

there is a need to reiterate clearly that recycling should take priority over energy recovery in the
hierarchy of measures, as already stated in the opinion on the incineration directive (CdR 447/98
fin, point 5): ‘In the CoR’s view, energy-generating waste incineration can be one component of a
modern waste processing system with the proviso that (...) waste incineration does not hold back
recycling or waste reduction schemes’;

in connection with the above point, it should be noted that it is often the case that, with only a
limited commitment to selective collection and recycling, there is a tendency to opt predominantly
for incineration, for both municipal waste (as confirmed in point 5.3.1 of the Commission
document) and sewage sludge, whose use in agriculture has actually fallen, despite the importance
of well-humified soil in carbon accumulation; most seriously, these trends are more marked in the
southern European countries where the desertification problem and thus the need to restore organic
matter to the soil are greatest. The Committee stresses that the spreading of sewage sludge on
agricultural land should be done with maximum consideration for protection of the environment
and health, and should therefore be subject to strict rules,

adopted the following opinion at its 52nd plenary session on 19 and 20 November 2003 (meeting of
20 November).

1. Views of the Committee of the Regions

The Committee of the Regions

welcomes the document, which while being a starting
1.1.
point for the consultation process is realistic in setting out the
conditions for greater environmental protection;

in defining the Community’s thematic strategy. This is all the
more important in the light of the imminent enlargement of
the Union, which will pose entirely new ecological challenges;
although waste levels are likely to rise, the environmental
impact should gradually lessen significantly as Community
directives are implemented. The Committee has a crucial part
to play in helping the applicant countries’ local and regional
governments to rise to these challenges;

1.2.
reiterates its belief that as the implementation of many
of the decisions adopted or to be adopted in this sensitive area
falls to local and regional authorities, it is vitally important to
give them sufficient opportunities to influence the final phases

1.3.
believes there is a need for a closer link with other
waste management initiatives (incineration and the use of
organic waste) and for greater determination to pursue a

C 73/66

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.3.2004

quantitative waste prevention policy. The Committee is aware
in this context that waste prevention is not only to be achieved
with waste management instruments but should also be an
objective in other areas such as integrated product policy,
resources policy and chemicals policy;

1.4.
believes that it is essential that the Member States take
greater pains to transpose EU directives rapidly and properly,
and thus calls for improved monitoring of the results achieved
and the problems hindering implementation;

regrets the current state of knowledge regarding waste
1.8.
production levels and trends in the EU and Member States.
Community statistics are seriously lacking on a number
of counts,
including incomplete coverage and a lack of
harmonisation and comparability, so a general assessment
cannot be made of most of the five main waste streams
(manufacturing waste, mining and quarrying waste, construc-
tion and demolition waste, municipal solid waste and agricul-
tural and forestry waste). The Committee points out that
overcoming these shortcomings would help in the fight against
‘ecomafia’ organisations as it would make it easier to monitor
the waste cycle. It thinks that a sound scientific analysis of
waste production levels and trends is a sine qua non for the
rigorous fixing of waste prevention targets. However, the fact
that statistics on municipal waste are generally considered to
be the most reliable points once more to the strategic position
of local government in shaping policy in this sector;

1.5.
believes that differences in Member States’ environ-
mental legislation cause tensions on the internal market; in
order to avoid environmental dumping in the EU and in
developing countries, the EU must adopt common standards
on recycling;

welcomes the good results obtained by the Member
1.9.
in
States in the area of self-sufficiency in waste disposal
accordance with the proximity principle, and hopes that this
situation will not change with the accession of the new
Member States;

local and regional

is convinced that waste-management policies, and
1.6.
environmental policies in general, should be implemented
primarily at
level. Regional and local
authorities understand the scale of the phenomenon, manage
all aspects of the problems, and have credibility vis-à-vis the
public when it comes to implementing and managing recycling
and waste-prevention policies. They spend large sums from
their own budgets on such policies, conduct public awareness-
raising and information campaigns, strive to implement good
practice, and finance studies and research. Against this back-
drop, the importance of the urban dimension of the issue is
particularly relevant, not only because of
the very high
percentage of the European population living in cities and the
inevitable impact on the environment and on human health,
but also regarding the connection with development policies.
Similar attention should however be given to rural areas, with
particular reference to the problems posed by certain categories
of farm waste, such as machinery or pesticides. In view of the
special protection required for upland, island and rural areas,
one issue that must be considered and resolved is the cost of
transporting small quantities of waste from such areas to
processing plants that are often a long way away;

is also convinced of the need for regional and local
1.7.
measures to be coordinated with initiatives launched at
national and European level, pursuant to the principles of
subsidiarity and proximity, and reiterates the importance of
synergy between the various tiers of government;

1.10.
following the debate that will spring from the com-
munication, would stress the need for the Commission to link
up important aspects when it comes to the reuse of materials
and issues dealt with by other bodies, starting with waste
incineration and the role of organic waste and sewage sludge.
Current trends in these sectors go against the thrust of the
thematic strategy under discussion, as the communication
itself points out (‘However, landfill taxes need to be comp-
lemented by other instruments so as to avoid diverting mixed
waste in bulk towards incineration’ — point 5.3.1);

believes that a more precise definition of the notion
1.11.
of waste would be useful, given the interpretative problems
that have arisen in recent years; however, there should be no
change to the broad interpretation of the concept of waste
provided by the European Court of Justice, which guarantees a
high level of environmental protection;

1.12.
believes that the waste management hierarchy should
be strongly reaffirmed, giving priority to prevention (for
which practical objectives must be set and pursued with the
maximum involvement of regional and local authorities and
with the relevant planning) and the reuse and recycling of
materials as opposed to other forms of treatment, most
pointedly incineration, which though useful is in danger of
becoming an easy way out especially for countries that are
behind with waste separation;

23.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/67

would stress that more and more organic waste (from
1.13.
municipal waste and sewage sludge)
is being incinerated,
despite recent scientific findings and the conclusions of the
Bonn and Marrakech climate change conferences, which
stressed the importance of composting with a view to seques-
tering large quantities of carbon in soil. The important recent
landfill directive, which provides for a drastic reduction in the
landfill of organic waste, could further accelerate this trend
towards incineration. This would be somewhat inefficient both
economically (the cost of composting is generally lower than
that of incineration) and, above all, environmentally. In this
connection, the Committee would stress that it already raised
this issue in its opinion on the thematic strategy for soil
‘It would be inadvisable to develop separate
protection:
initiatives on erosion, organic matter decline and contami-
nation’ (1). In the light of the above, the communication needs
to secure better coordination with the compost directive
currently under preparation;

hopes that the new policies will also be applied
1.14.
in order to prevent
promptly by the new Member States,
imbalances from worsening. The involvement of
regional
regional and local government should be encouraged by
pooling good practice and the wealth of knowledge and
experience available inter alia through the work of the EEA
(European Environment Agency)
in Copenhagen and the
OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Develop-
ment).

2. Recommendations of the Committee of the Regions

The Committee of the Regions

is aware that a complete thematic strategy should
2.1.
involve a combination of regulatory, voluntary and economic
instruments, changes in behaviour and the setting of precise
and verifiable objectives. This should include efforts to help
establish markets for recycled products;

2.2.
would repeat the request it made in its opinion on the
sixth programme, that there should be ‘clear objectives and
targets, where possible, specifying figures and deadlines’ (2) and
that ‘the extension of the Sixth Programme’s duration to ten
years (...) makes it all the more necessary to define specific
goals and indicators’ (3). Given that a number of initiatives
have been launched in the area of the prevention of hazardous
waste, specific objectives must be set for quantitative preven-
tion;

calls, therefore, for a greater commitment to prevention
2.3.
activities, as it is illogical that so little is still being done and
no practical objectives have been set regarding what is the top
priority. Although this principle was already present in the
first environmental action programme, the practical steps
taken to date are still not enough. At local level in particular,
management plans could set out practical objectives for
reducing the quantity of municipal waste (or at least for
slowing the increase). This could include the use of incentives
for high levels of waste minimisation and penalties for poor
performance;

2.4.
would like to see faster action on policies in other
sectors that would be of significant benefit to the field of waste
(for instance: a robust policy on improving water mains would
significantly reduce the production and use of glass and in
particular plastic bottles);

2.5.
is in favour of using instruments which are in line with
market practice to promote reuse and recycling, as it already
stressed in its opinion on the sixth environment action
programme (4), in which it strongly backed ‘the proposal for a
green public procurement policy, recommending the adoption
of guidelines to ensure that all public bodies in Europe, ranging
from the Commission and the Parliament to the Member
States and local and regional authorities, undertake to make
all contracts and purchases subject to prior assessment of the
lifecycle and environmental sustainability of the products and
services in question’. In this connection it calls for the further
development of the policy (already contained in the sixth
Community environment action programme) on ‘green pro-
curement’ and ‘tradable environmental permits’ (also known
as tradable certificates), which could be exchanged at European
level, while also taking into account the need to define the
practical aspects of implementation and checks and balances;

2.6.
is also in favour of better coordination between
national authorities responsible for landfill taxes. Naturally, in
view of
the considerable political sensitivity surrounding
taxation in general, this would not necessarily involve the
introduction of a Community-level harmonised landfill tax.
The goal at all events would be to increase the cost of waste
treatment methods other than recycling, also bearing in mind
the need to prevent the indiscriminate use of incineration;

2.7.
would stress that local and regional authorities have a
critical part to play in Integrated Product Policy (IPP), as they
can conduct
information campaigns to guide the public
towards knowledgeable and sustainable consumption and they
can encourage agreements with local companies and use
instruments such as Local Agenda 21;

(1) CdR 190/2002 fin, point 3.5.3.
(2) CdR 36/2001 fin, point 1.2.
(3) CdR 36/2001 fin, point 1.7.

(4) CdR 36/2001 fin, point 2.16.

C 73/68

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.3.2004

supports the proposal to tighten up the ‘polluter pays’
2.8.
principle, which leads on to the principle whereby producer
responsibility should be individual rather than shared by the
general public. These principles are an incentive to producers
to develop products that are more environmentally sound;

welcomes the proposal

to focus on the recycling
2.9.
of materials and not
just of specific products, both for
environmental reasons and to facilitate the cooperation of the
public, which currently cannot understand why certain paper,
plastic, glass or metal products can be recycled and others,
made of the same materials, cannot;

it

is

believes

2.10.
to work towards all-
important
encompassing legislation on recycling, rather than continuing
to adopt directives for individual sectors. A new directive could
for instance cover all materials and contain specifications for
each sector in an appendix;

2.11.
as regards construction and demolition waste, calls
for the adoption of building demolition practices that allow
waste to be separated into homogeneous fractions. If selective
demolition practices of this kind are to be developed, the
quality of the products obtained must be guaranteed (certifi-
cation of recycled materials) and market outlets secured (it
should be made compulsory for public bodies to use such
products in their procurement contracts for roads and railways,
etc.);

2.12.
proposes reducing VAT rates for eco-design products
that reuse materials, bearing in mind the compatibility of
various factors and the constraints surrounding tax and
competition policy;

2.13.
calls for an awareness-raising campaign to discourage
the ‘throw-away’ mentality (though not in cases where it is
justified for reasons of hygiene and safety), and believes that
the role of local and regional authorities in guiding public
behaviour is fundamental here;

Brussels, 20 November 2003.

proposes developing

‘waste
2.14.
exchanges’ in order to encourage manufacturers to recycle
waste materials, subject to their inclusion in waste legislation;

such as

schemes

proposes making the most of

the opportunities
2.15.
provided by existing programmes,
in particular the LIFE-
Environment programme and the sixth research and develop-
ment framework programme, especially on issues relating to
the urban dimension of waste management, in the field of
new prevention technologies, transport, recycling, reuse and
disposal;

2.16.
proposes that the Commission finance projects to
help local and regional authorities to set up integrated
qualitative and quantitative waste prevention systems and to
generate synergies between the various spheres of government;

believes it is essential to establish ways of promoting
2.17.
the exchange of good practice at European level,
in the
implementation of waste-related legislation, giving priority to
the local level and, at this point in time, encouraging maximum
dissemination to the new Member States;

for

calls

2.18.
the establishment of waste-prevention
schemes within legislative instruments, in the form of environ-
mental agreements to be negotiated at various levels (European,
national and local), concerning economic sectors or businesses;

supports the use of

2.19.
‘pay-as-you-throw’ schemes,
particularly to encourage more widespread separate collection
of waste, and trusts that the adoption of these schemes to
encourage separate collection and quantitative waste preven-
tion will take into account the need to apply appropriate
measures tailored to the local level;

proposes that, when shaping new initiatives, special
2.20.
attention be given to pinpointing the administrative and
financial resources needed to implement the legislation, bear-
ing in mind its technical complexity, and seeking to ensure
that the costs of the new strategy do not fall exclusively on
local authorities, as this would considerably increase the cost
of services and level of charges.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Albert BORE