Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on shipments of waste’ (COM(2003) 379 final - 2003/0139 COD)
Date: 2004-01-28
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: administrative formalities, amendment of a law, drafting of EU law, environmental protection, export of waste, hazardous waste

C 108/58

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘proposal for a Regulation of the
European Parliament and of the Council on shipments of waste’

(COM(2003) 379 final - 2003/0139 COD)

(2004/C 108/11)

On 1 September 2003 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 175 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 18 December 2003. The rapporteur was
Mr Buffetaut.

At its 405th plenary session held on 28 and 29 January 2004 (meeting of 28 January 2004), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion unanimously.

1. Introduction

The proposal has four main objectives:

a) to transpose into Community legislation: the revised OECD
Council decision of 14 June 2001; the revised Basle Conven-
tion;

b) to address the difficulties encountered in applying, adminis-
tering and enforcing the 1993 Regulation and establish
greater legal clarity;

waste (Annex III) for disposal, he or she must submit prior
written notification to the competent authority of dispatch.

The notifier is also to be obliged to draw up a contract with
the consignee for the recovery or disposal of the notified waste.

to the competent authority of
Notification must be sent
dispatch, which forwards it to the competent authority of desti-
nation. The latter sends an acknowledgement of receipt to the
notifier if it considers that the notification has been ‘properly
completed’.

c) to pursue global harmonisation with regard to trans-

boundary shipments of waste; and

2.2 Prior information requirement

d) to reorganise and simplify the structure of the Articles of
the Regulation in order to make it clearer and more logical.

Shipments of non-hazardous waste (Annex III) destined for
recovery are not to be subject to the prior written notification
procedure. However, a contract must be drawn up between the
person arranging the shipment and the consignee.

2. Main elements of the proposal

Waste shipments must follow various procedures and control
regimes, which are determined by the type of waste shipped
and the type of treatment to be applied to the waste at its desti-
nation. Therefore, different
levels of control regime are to
apply, depending on the risk posed by the waste and its treat-
ment.

2.3 Main changes to the scope and definitions (Title I)

a) The scope of the Regulation has been clarified.

b) The definitions of ‘notifier’, ‘consignee’, ‘dispatch’ and ‘desti-
nation’ have not been harmonised with the terminology
used in the Basle Convention and the 2001 OECD Decision.

2.1 Prior written notification and consent procedure

c) Several new definitions have been added.

Prior written notification and consent is to be required for ship-
ments of all waste destined for disposal and shipments of
hazardous and semi-hazardous waste destined for recovery.

d) It is proposed that the definition of ‘competent authority’ be

amended and aligned with the Basle Convention.

In practical terms, when a waste producer or waste collector –
the notifier – intends to ship hazardous or semi-hazardous
waste (Annex IV) for recovery or disposal or non-hazardous

e) A definition of ‘environmentally sound management’ has

been added.

f) The definition of ‘notifier’ has been clarified.

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/59

2.4 Main changes and clarifications as regards shipments within the

2.5 Provisions as regards shipments within Member States (Title III)

Community (Title II)

This is the heart of the Regulation and contains the main provi-
sions.

No changes are proposed.

a) The number of waste lists is to be reduced from three to
two, and at the same time it is proposed that the number of
procedures be reduced to two.

Thus, it is proposed that semi-hazardous waste (Annex III)
and hazardous waste (Annex IV) be put together in one list,
which becomes Annex IV. The list of non-hazardous waste
(currently Annex II) would then become Annex III.

In concrete terms, this means that:

— shipments of non-hazardous waste destined for recovery

are to be accompanied by certain information;

— shipments of all waste destined for disposal, hazardous
and semi-hazardous waste and non-listed waste destined
for recovery are to be subject to the prior written notifi-
cation and consent procedure.

b) It is also proposed that the competent authorities give their
consent individually within 30 days and that certain proce-
dural safeguards for the notifier be added.

c) Interim recovery and disposal facilities are to be bound by
the same obligations as final recovery and disposal facilities
(see comments below).

d) It is proposed to extend and clarify the list of information
and documentation which must accompany shipments of
non-hazardous waste.

e) In line with the 2001 OECD Decision, shipments of waste
destined for laboratory analysis are not to be subject to the
prior written notification and consent procedure.

f) Waste containing POP chemicals is to be subject to the
same provisions as shipments of waste destined for disposal.

g) It is proposed to establish a procedural rule to deal with
cases where the competent authorities disagree about the
classification of waste.

h) The notifier's financial guarantee or equivalent insurance
should be established and legally binding at the time of noti-
fication.

i) It is proposed that the obligation to take back waste (in
cases where the shipment cannot be completed or is illegal)
also apply to non-hazardous waste destined for recovery.

2.6 Main changes and clarifications as regards Community exports

and imports (Titles IV, V and VI)

a) These changes and additions primarily concern the imple-
mentation of the Basle Convention's procedural rules, which
differ from those applicable to intra-Community shipments.

b) According to the European Commission, this proposal will
economic burdens on industry.
it could entail extra costs for certain Member

additional

not place
However,
States.

c) It should promote a more uniform application of the Regu-
lation and reduce distortions of competition on the internal
market.

3. General comments

and

The

European

Economic

Social Committee
3.1
considers that
improve the
the Commission proposal will
‘traceability’ of waste shipment operations. The proposal should
help to do away with certain practices and provide the uniform
standards needed to effectively implement good practice with
the aim of improving environmental protection and sustainable
development.

3.2
The proposal should help to make the activities of waste
professionals more transparent, and to enhance traceability and
accountability, particularly by introducing declaration mechan-
isms and financial guarantees and requiring that waste be taken
back if a contract is not completed. It will also make authorities
more answerable, since they will have to give written consent
for planned shipments (classification of operations, authorisa-
tions to operate treatment facilities, compliance, etc.), which is
a much-needed improvement. Authorities will also have to
respect deadlines so that operations are not delayed.

The streamlining of the text should make it easy to
3.3
apply, which in turn should reduce distortions of competition
within the Union. It should be noted that the proposal has
already been examined both by the European Parliament
the EP plenary
Committee on the Environment and at
session. (1) It is unfortunate that the EESC was not consulted
earlier so that its opinion was available for the parliamentary
debate, during which improvements were made to the text.

(1) See document EP T5-0505/2003.

C 108/60

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

3.4
However, the EESC notes that the approach adopted
seems to be based on a procedure for individual shipments
involving a single loading operation, whereas
in practice
multiple shipments take place under a general notification
procedure. The related costs and paperwork and the fact that
the volume of waste transported requires several loading opera-
tions explain why individual shipments are the exception.

4. Specific comments

should be covered by the legislation on waste shipments,
only to ensure uniform procedures.

if

4.3 Article 2, Definitions

Parliament's proposals clarify the text and make it more
precise.

4.1
Articles 175 and 133 of the Treaty establishing the
European Community are given as the legal basis. Obviously
Article 175, i.e. environmental protection, must be kept. But it
is probably premature to invoke Article 133, since at
the
moment there are still too many disparities within Europe
which must be eliminated before a real European market in
waste can be considered to exist.

4.4 Article 3(4) and Article 20

seems

It
somewhat unrealistic to require that companies
wishing to send samples for laboratory analysis inform the
authorities three days in advance. Such an arrangement seems
impossible to organise and monitor in practice. In fact, in most
cases samples are delivered by car and collected the same day.

Definitions are inconsistent, there is a lack of clarity and preci-
sion, and therefore too many disparities of
interpretation
between countries and too frequent appeals to the Court of
Justice. In other words, this is a long way from being a market
in the European sense.

A declaration to be sent on the same day or before the waste is
transported or collected could solve the problem of traceability,
samples being transported with a copy of the information.

The Commission must certainly make efforts to open up this
market, but many steps still have to be taken first:

4.5 Article 3

— definition of recycling, recovery and disposal;

— definition and regulation of so-called interim operations;

— standardising various aids and tax regimes;

— transparent financing of facilities;

— uniform practice in relation to permits for geographical
regions where facilities operate, and the possibility for a
producer to conclude contracts anywhere in Europe;

— uniform classification of operations, with the guarantee that
the classification will not be revised for a shipment and that
the same constraints will be applied in the importing
country as in the country of origin.

Parliament has proposed that shipments of waste not intended
for ‘final’ treatment should be prohibited.

Under current legislation, no definition or operating rules exist
for interim operations. Surely the export of waste not intended
for final treatment should therefore be banned, as Parliament
proposes.

How can operations involving mixtures of waste be allowed
without addressing issues of dilution and therefore potential
decommissioning?

4.6 Article 4

It does not make sense that an operator who changes the
nature of waste should be the notifier of the shipment.

4.2 Article 1(6)

The EESC has reservations about excluding waste covered by
Regulation No. 1774/2002. If these products are waste, they

What is meant here by ‘changing’? As long as there is no legis-
lative framework governing such operations that are not waste
treatment operations, it seems inappropriate to ‘authorise’ them
in a regulation that is intended to ensure that waste shipments
are only possible if the environment is better protected and
recovery operations improved.

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/61

4.7 Article 5

It should be specified that the notification and movement docu-
ments could comprise e-documents standardised by a compe-
tent authority or an environmental agency.

However, Parliament's proposal, which would tend to exempt
public facilities from the obligations imposed on private facil-
ities,
reasons
should not be taken up for
concerning respect of competition rules.

the obvious

4.8 Articles 6(4), 7(3) and 7(6)

For the reasons already given above, operations that are not
final should not be covered by this regulation.

4.9 Articles 8 and 9

The EESC welcomes the guarantees provided for professionals
with respect to deadlines. To make these more effective,
it
should be stipulated that the notifier may claim damages and
interest
the
if
acknowledgement.

there is an unjustified delay in delivery of

4.10 Article 10

The purpose of this article is to accelerate procedures, and it
should therefore also encourage the use of e-mail to transmit
requests.

4.11 Article 11

It could be proposed in this article that waste treatment facil-
ities which import waste should inform the authorities of
dispatch of what will ultimately happen to the waste treated,
and that the authorities of dispatch and destination should also
be required to cooperate by each checking that the operations
are completed successfully.

4.12 Article 16

This is the first time in European legislation that the concept of
transparency has been introduced for so-called interim opera-

Brussels, 28 January 2004.

tions and the operator made accountable. This is a positive
development, but as noted above ‘interim’ operations are intro-
duced here without any background legislation. It would there-
fore seem preferable in the current circumstances to limit ship-
ments to final operations.

4.13 Article 21

The mixing of waste during shipment should be prohibited.

4.14 Article 31

Under this article, administrative costs may be charged to the
notifier. The problem here is that the definition of appropriate
and proportionate costs may vary considerably between indivi-
dual countries, which could lead to distortions of competition.

4.15 Article 62

This article is very vague and general. What type of additional
measures might the Commission adopt?

5. Conclusion

The EESC stresses that the proposal for a regulation improves
the traceability of waste and provides a guarantee for profes-
sionals that deadlines will be met. This is in the interests of
better environmental protection and respect for the require-
ments of sustainable development, objectives which must be
the fundamental priority of the text. Certain provisions must be
made more precise and simplified in order to be more effective.

To achieve a real liberalisation of the market, clear definitions
that are accepted by all the Member States must be proposed in
relation to recycling, recovery, disposal and interim operations.

It would also be particularly useful to organise an exchange of
information on good practice in the Member States. Subject to
these comments, the Committee considers that the amendment
of the regulation will help to improve European legislation.

The President

of the European Economic and Social
Committee

Roger BRIESCH