Outlook Report of the Committee of the Regions on the implementation of the Directive on the Landfill of Waste (1999/31/EC) at Regional and Local Level
Date: 2005-11-17
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EC Directive, application of EU law, local authority, public awareness campaign, regional authority, unauthorised dumping, waste management, waste recycling

16.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/95

Outlook Report of the Committee of the Regions on the implementation of the Directive on the
Landfill of Waste (1999/31/EC) at Regional and Local Level

(2006/C 115/21)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS:

Having regard to the request of the European Commission of 10 December 2004 to draw up an outlook
report on the Implementation of the Directive on the Landfill of Waste (1999/31 EC) at Regional and
Local Level, under Article 265(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

Having regard to the cooperation protocol of September 2001 between the European Commission and
the Committee of the Regions, which encourages the Committee of the Regions ‘to draw up strategic docu-
ments reviewing matters which the Commission regards as important; these “outlook reports” shall explore
in greater depth problems in areas where the Committee of the Regions has the appropriate local informa-
tion resources’;

Having regard to its President's decision of 20 January 2005 to instruct its Commission for Sustainable
Development to draw up an outlook report on this subject;

Having regard to the Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste;

Having regard to the Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the
national strategies for the reduction of biodegradable waste going to landfills pursuant to Article 5(1) of
Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste (COM(2005) 105 final);

Having regard to the Council Directive of 15 July 1975 on waste (75/442/EEC) (Waste Framework Direc-
tive) as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC, 91/692/EEC and by Decisions 76/431/EEC, 94/3/EC and
96/350/EC;

Having regard to its opinion on the Commission Communication towards a thematic strategy on the
prevention and recycling of waste (COM(2003) 301 — CdR 239/2003 (1));

Having regard to the results of the survey on the Implementation of the Directive on the Landfill of
Waste (1999/31 EC) at Regional and Local Level commissioned by the Committee of the Regions (2);

Having regard to its draft outlook report (CdR 254/2005 rev. 1) adopted on 6 October 2005 by its
(rapporteur: Mr Wim van Gelder, Queen's Commissioner,
Commission for sustainable development
Province of Zeeland (NL/EPP));

WHEREAS

1)

2)

3)

4)

over the last decades, the amount of waste generated in Europe has grown considerably. Waste
prevention, waste treatment and disposal are among the main environmental challenges for the EU.
Accordingly,
the EU's Sixth Environment Action Programme identifies waste prevention and
management as a top priority;

landfilling is still the predominant way of waste disposal in many parts of the EU. Landfills with low
environmental standards often pose a threat to human health and the environment by polluting air,
water and soil and contributing to global warming by generating greenhouse gases;

according to the so-called waste hierarchy, waste disposal should only be the last resort. Preference
should be given to the prevention, re-use and recycling of waste;

the proximity principle and the goal of waste-disposal self-sufficiency at every level have been
defined as cornerstones of EU waste policies,

unanimously adopted the following outlook report at its 62nd plenary session, held on 16 and
17 November 2005 (meeting of 17 November):

(1) OJ C 73, 23.3.2004, p. 63.
(2) The study with the results of the survey will be published in the end of 2005. Almost 200 regional authorities from
23 Member States participated in the survey which took place in June/July 2005 . Further details on the results of the
survey can be found in the appendix (in English only).

C 115/96

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.5.2006

1. Views of the Committee of the Regions

The Committee of the Regions

General remarks

1.1 welcomes the European Commission's request for the
report as it is the first of its kind regarding the implementation
of an EU Directive on environmental policy at regional and
local level, thus deepening cooperation between the Commis-
sion and the Committee of the Regions;

1.2 welcomes the strong participation of regional and local
authorities in its survey on the implementation of the Landfill
Directive at regional and local level, which shows the impor-
tance of this Directive for the regional and local level;

1.3
points out that, on account of different demographic
and geographic situations, different organisation structures and
waste management systems in the Member States, their regions
and municipalities, the picture of the implementation of the
Landfill Directive at regional and local level in the EU-25 is
diverse;

the most

important aspects.

underlines that local and regional authorities in the EU-
1.4
25 are responsible for the application of a significant part of
the EU environmental policy of which waste management
represents one of
In general,
responsibilities for the granting of landfill permits, approval of
landfill conditioning plans, closure procedures, control and
inspection lie most often with regional authorities, while local
authorities generally play a major role in the localisation of
landfill sites and have responsibility for infrastructure for the
collection of household waste. This highlights the need for
close cooperation between all levels of government to imple-
ment the directive;

highlights

that moving away from simple waste
1.5
disposal towards more sustainable policies focusing on preven-
tion, re-use, and recycling demands substantial efforts, requiring
additional human and financial resources within regional and
local authorities;

1.6
concludes that the effects of waste policies in general
and policies on landfilling in particular are strongest felt at the
local level and therefore requires a special involvement of local
stakeholders. Local populations are consulted by the majority
of regional and local authorities regarding the planned localisa-
tion of landfills and in the permitting procedure. While NGOs
are consulted by about half of the authorities, local businesses
are rarely involved;

Implementation efforts/current level of implementation

1.7
or

considers that, in most Member States, at national and/
significant efforts have been made to

level,

regional

transpose the Landfill Directive into national and/or regional
legislation. However, a series of Member States did not respect
the deadline (3) for the setting-up of a national strategy for the
implementation of the reduction of biodegradable waste going
to landfills thus delaying the achievement of the reduction
targets;

1.8
states that the answers to the questionnaire and addi-
tional research have shown strong differences of the level of
implementation in the EU. Many Member States, and accord-
ingly a large number of local and regional authorities, are
experiencing difficulties in complying with this directive, while
others are adapting to its requirements without significant
problems;

1.9
points out that, according to regional and local authori-
ties, considerable efforts have been made to ensure that landfill
sites comply with technical requirements. Further efforts will
however be necessary in a series of Member States. A large
majority of existing landfills are said to comply already with
the requirements of the directive or to be upgraded by 2007,
and that those not complying will then be closed down;

1.10
notes that existing landfills in new Member States at
present generally have a lower compliance with the require-
ments of the Landfill Directive than landfills in old Member
States, mainly due to the fact that there only is a short tradition
of tackling waste problems and that national waste strategies
have only recently been established;

regrets that, regarding the process of transposition
1.11
and subsequent
implementation in their respective Member
States, the majority of local and regional authorities consider
that they have not been informed or consulted sufficiently.
There generally is a higher level of consultation in old Member
States and a higher level of information in new Member States;

1.12 welcomes that the Landfill Directive played a role in
increasing a transfer of responsibilities to regional and local
authorities in dealing with landfills in several countries, espe-
cially in the new Member States, but deplores that these trans-
fers have rarely been accompanied by a transfer of financial
and human resources to fulfil the new tasks, thus placing addi-
tional burdens on regional and local authorities;

1.13
affirms that, also due to the implementation of the
Landfill Directive, the amount of biodegradable waste sent to
landfills has decreased. A greater decrease can be noted in areas
where regional and local authorities had already put measures
in place to reduce the amount of landfilled biodegradable waste
before the Landfill Directive came into force, such as aware-
ness-raising campaigns, the setting-up of separate collection
infrastructures and statutory instruments (e.g. regulations on
selective collection);

(3) 16 July 2003 for the old Member States, 1 May 2004 for the new

Member States.

16.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/97

1.14
underlines that the directive only prescribes targets
for the diversion of waste away from landfilling, but does not
set targets for the use of other waste treatment schemes, by
e.g. setting targets for recycling as it has been, for example, in
the Directive on waste of electrical and electronic equipment
(WEE Directive);

Importance of landfill of waste

1.15
reiterates that there are great discrepancies within the
EU regarding waste generation and treatment in general and
the importance of
landfilling in particular. Several Member
States managed to decouple waste generation from economic
growth, significantly reduced the amount of biodegradable
waste going to landfills and already currently fulfil the future
reduction targets set out in the directive. However,
in other
Member States,
the generated amount of waste is steadily
growing and landfilling is still predominant;

least

landfilling, at

for municipal waste,

1.16
points out that in the future, a decrease in the impor-
is to be
tance of
expected throughout the EU. However, despite waste preven-
tion and recycling initiatives,
there will remain a need to
dispose of non-combustible waste and non-recyclable residues
the landfill of waste will
and it
continue to have a role to play in the disposal chain;

is therefore expected that

Main implementation problems

identifies the following subjects as main problems
1.17
which local and regional authorities have to face while imple-
menting the Directive:

a. Meeting the targets for the reduction of biodegradable waste going
to landfills: Regional and local authorities, especially from
Member States in which the national strategy for the reduc-
tion of biowaste has not yet or only recently been adopted,
see this as a critical issue. This often corresponds with the
lack of a developed market for the re-use of biodegradable
waste in these countries. Moreover, a lack of effective tools
for the reduction of biodegradable waste in national strate-
gies is considered as a problem.

b. Design, operation and after-care of landfill sites: The majority of
the authorities consider design, operation and after-care to
be difficult or difficult in some cases; after-care appearing to
technical
be the most difficult subject. The rigidity of
requirements sometimes poses problems, because it does
not leave room for specific adaptation to geological circum-
stances, innovative techniques or progressing knowledge.

c. Lack of funds and human resources: Changing waste policies
from mainly disposal
to a more sustainable approach
requires considerable financial and human resources. The

majority of regional and local authorities, in particular those
from the new Member States and specifically while imple-
menting the targets for biodegradable waste, regard the lack
of these resources as a major problem.

d. Lack of public awareness: Many regional and local authorities
struggle to raise public awareness and motivate their citizens
and businesses to cooperate in separated collection schemes.

e. Complexity of procedures: As a result of the Landfill Directive,
especially in countries without a formerly distinguished
landfill policy, the procedures for permitting have become
more complex and longer.

f. Fly-tipping: Landfilling has often been a cheap way to
dispose of waste. As landfill tariffs rise, fly-tipping often
increases and requires strict counteraction.

g. Waste transports: As a result of the Landfill Directive, many
local landfill sites are being closed and new landfills serve
larger areas. This often leads to an increase in transport
which generates costs and has a negative impact on the
environment. This problem can especially be felt in sparsely
populated areas.

h. Lack of a level playing field: Due to different time schedules
for implementation, different environmental standards and
disposal costs, and partially different definitions of recycling
a level playing field between Member States (and sometimes
also within one Member State) does not yet exist. As a
consequence, there are often strong financial incentives to
export — legally or illegally — waste to neighbouring coun-
tries, thus going against the proximity principle and the
goal of waste-disposal self-sufficiency. Moreover,
it also
generates an increase in the transport of waste over long
distances.

i. Danger of a too-narrow-approach: There is a danger that the
directive is giving an incentive for the reduction of muni-
cipal waste only, but neglects other waste categories where
a reduction is also highly important, e.g. industrial waste.

j. Lack of guidelines: It can be difficult to promote separate
collection of biodegradable waste and establish a market for
the re-use of such waste due to the inexistence of guidelines
or references on this matter.

Costs and benefits

1.18
concludes that regional and local authorities report an
increase of costs for the landfill of waste due to the implemen-
tation of the directive. However, the main burden is borne less
by authorities than by landfill operators, citizens and businesses
on whom operators pass on the cost increase;

C 115/98

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.5.2006

1.19
concludes that only a minority of local and regional
authorities received any specific funds partially or entirely
covering the costs for the implementation of the Landfill Direc-
tive and that for those which received extra funds, the imple-
mentation of the directive in general appears to be less difficult;

reduce the amount of biodegradable waste going to landfills. In
the majority of the Member States where a landfill tax exists, it
is assigned to general tax funds, but in some cases to specific
environmental funds foreseen e.g. for promoting waste preven-
tion and funding recycling schemes;

highlights the positive environmental effect of

1.20
the
directive: in the perception of a large majority of regional and
local authorities, the implementation of the directive has posi-
tive impacts on the environment. The positive effects regard
the reduction of the landfill activity on surface water, ground-
water, soil, air and human health. Furthermore, it can contri-
bute to the reduction of greenhouses gases. Authorities who
see little or no positive effect on the environment are often
from Member States where legislation similar to the directive
was already in place beforehand;

1.21
points out that, as a result of the implementation of
the Landfill Directive, a reduction of the overall costs for the
cleaning-up of landfill soil and groundwater in the future is
expected;

1.22
underlines that a majority of local and regional autho-
rities consider that the implementation of the Landfill Directive
contributed to promoting more advanced landfilling technolo-
gies in comparison with the situation before implementation,
therefore bringing about environmental and financial benefits,
e.g. landfill gas recovery for energy production. However, the
Directive does not leave room for the application of innovative
techniques, thus promoting a standstill situation after the initial
technological improvements;

1.23
Directive,
ment schemes, can help create new jobs in the waste sector;

points out that the implementation of the Landfill
if it contributes to a diversification of waste treat-

1.24
notes that the large majority of regional and local
authorities state that the tariff collected by the landfill operators
entirely covers the landfill costs, thus fulfilling the requirements
of the Landfill Directive; warns that the landfills where these
requirements are not met and which are offering waste disposal
at lower costs are likely to encourage waste exports. Moreover,
low landfill tariffs do not provide enough incentive to dispose
of waste in a more sustainable way;

Success Factors:

concludes that the following success factors can be
1.27
identified as being necessary for a successful implementation of
the Landfill Directive:

a. A pro-active attitude: It is apparent that certain developments
on the implementation of what was to become the Landfill
Directive in some Member States were initiated in the first
half of the last decade, if not earlier. Due to this pro-active
attitude, many regional and local authorities could comply
relatively easily with the requirements on the set dates after
the directive was transposed into national or regional legis-
lation.

b. Placement of the implementation of the Directive in a broader
context: The implementation of the Directive should not be
seen as an isolated policy measure. Waste disposal is a part
of the management of material resources and has to be
placed in this context at policy level. It is therefore impor-
tant to develop integrated national, regional and local strate-
gies which link it with other waste treatment schemes, but
also with other policy areas, e.g. procurement and resource
efficiency policy.

schemes,

treatment

c. Giving regional and local authorities the means to fulfil their
responsibilities: Establishing new recycling and other alterna-
tive
setting up awareness-raising
campaigns, upgrading landfills etc. requires knowledge and
human and financial resources within regional and local
authorities. A transfer of funds from higher levels of govern-
ment or the possibility for authorities to introduce fiscal
mechanisms is therefore often the prerequisite for meeting
the targets of the Landfill Directive.

1.25
concludes that steering of the waste (disposal) market
with financial instruments, such as taxes on landfilling or other
incentives, can stimulate the preferred route of disposal via
alternative waste treatments;

notes that a majority of the Member States have a
1.26
landfill tax in place and that the amount of tax differs widely.
However, over a third of the regional and local authorities have
not put into place a landfill tax or other financial incentives to

d. Cooperation of all levels of government and exchange of informa-
tion: As the task of putting the directive into practice in
almost all Member States has to be fulfilled by different
levels of government, a close cooperation between these
levels is vital for a good implementation. This includes an
exchange of knowledge on how the new, stricter require-
ments for the building, operation, closure and after-care of a
landfill site can be met and how alternative treatment
schemes can be put into place. Moreover, waste policy often
has to overcome administrative borders of neighbouring
municipalities and regions, e.g. when establishing common
waste treatment facilities or recycling schemes.

16.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/99

e. Financial

incentives: As businesses mainly act according to
economic logic, it is important to give incentives to reduce
the amount of waste going to landfills by making landfilling
more expensive, for example by means of a landfill tax.

f. Supporting alternatives: To divert waste from going to land-
fills, waste holders need to be given economically viable
waste treatment alternatives. Therefore, these alternatives,
where inexistent or insufficient, have to be stimulated. To
avoid an increase in waste transports,
local solutions like
home-composting or waste treatment facilities on company
grounds have to be encouraged.

g. Combating fly-tipping: Rising costs for waste treatment can
lead to more illegal dumping. A combination of measures
can prevent and discourage the disposal of waste in an
illegal manner. These measures require, at least for a transi-
tional period, that extra human resources are dedicated to
this task.

h. Raising public awareness and stakeholders' consultation: Active
participation of citizens and businesses is indispensable for
reducing the amount of waste being generated and land-
filled. Therefore, communication campaigns and consulta-
tion of stakeholders, combined with effective infrastructure
provisions, are necessary.

Best practices

highlights
the

that numerous cases of best practice
1.28
regarding
exist
throughout the EU. They concern innovative techniques as well
as policy measures which have proved to be successful. Only a
few are mentioned here:

implementing the Landfill Directive

a) P u b li c a w a r e ne s s ca m p a i g n

The Devon Authorities Recycling Partnership planned and
implemented a six month county-wide waste awareness and
education campaign. Following a bid, this local authority Part-
nership received £1.119M for a waste awareness/analysis
campaign from the Department of Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

The objectives of the campaign were:

— to increase the tonnage of recycled material, specifically by
increasing the participation in recycling schemes and/or the
quality and quantity of
for
collection;

the material being put out

participate in recycling schemes that are available and to
encourage them to participate;

— to use the information gathered to enable future publicity

to be effective in raising public awareness.

The campaign consisted of four main parts: waste analysis,
participation monitoring, doorstepping and media/education.

Key results of the campaign were:

— residents have positive feelings about recycling and want to

participate;

— lack of participation is not due to apathy but largely to
practical reasons such as no kerbside container, no trans-
port facility, and no storage space;

— kerbside recycling is the most favoured method of recy-

cling;

— kerbside recycling has seen a dramatic 31 % increase over

the tonnage figures for the previous year;

— the growth in residual waste sent

to landfill has been
reduced to 0.88 % in 2002/03 as compared to 3.3 % in
2001/02;

— the public want to recycle cardboard and plastics and are
looking for kerbside schemes to include these materials
where they do not at present;

— television advertising has been shown to be the most effec-

tive media.

b) Comba ti ng fly - ti p p i ng

In the City of Pezinok, Slovakia, the closure of municipal
landfills and higher landfill tariffs have encouraged fly-tipping.

Therefore, the following measures have been undertaken:

— enhance public awareness to overcome citizens'

lack of

information;

— improve environmental education in schools;

— set up an environmental police force and monitor closely

how the public deals with its waste;

— give official bodies more powers to penalise those breaking

the law on waste;

— increase penalties for individuals and companies, simplify

sanctions procedures;

— to gather information on the usage of current recycling
facilities and find out from the public why they do/do not

— place scrap iron collection points near landfills to cut waste

put into landfills;

C 115/100

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.5.2006

— place PET compactors near shops selling PET packaged

goods;

— provide training for citizens in home composting;

— work with primary schools to organise collections of

composite packaging;

— arrange payment for glass waste;

— increase tariffs for municipal waste;

— reduce tariffs for sorted waste.

c) Fi nanc i a l tr a nsfe r for waste pr e ve nti on a nd r edu c -

ti on p r oje ct s

The Italian Region Marche, an Objective 2 area, has used EU
Structural Funds for the implementation of
its strategy to
prevent and reduce the generation of municipal waste. This
strategy was mainly put into practice by financing projects
carried out at local level. Since there was a high level of partici-
pation of municipalities and good preliminary results,
the
Region has decided to continue this financing scheme after the
EU funding had expired.

d) Landsc aping of L andfill si tes afte r c losure

In the rather flat countryside of the Netherlands, Landfill sites,
at 30 to 45 metres in height, stand out. For aesthetic purposes,
special care is given to the landscaping of landfill sites. Further-
more, since space in the country is limited and therefore expen-
sive, closed landfill sites are often given a recreative function.
For this reason, and to raise the level of acceptance for landfill
sites, a refurbishment is often carried out in the after-care
phase.

An example of this is found in the former landfill site in the
area of Spaarnwoude. After closure, this site was reconfigured
into a recreational area containing the following facilities:

— indoor ski hall;

— mountaineering wall;

— hiking area;

— mountain biking route;

— sleigh ramp.

Furthermore, the area was planted with trees and bushes for a
better fit into the surrounding area.

2. Recommendations

The Committee of the Regions

recommends to the Commission, the Member States
2.1
and regional and local authorities to widely communicate the
above-described success factors to support better implementa-
tion;

suggests to found an expert centre on which national,
2.2
regional and local authorities,
landfill operators, NGOs and
other stakeholders can call on for information, advice on
specific (technical and organisational) problems and exchange
best practices and which can be given a function to contribute
to put into practice the recommendations given in this report.
It would be preferred if this expert centre were incorporated
into an existing organisation as a new task;

2.3
recommends that innovative techniques and progres-
sive knowledge are being reviewed periodically and communi-
cated to stakeholders;

2.4
recommends to make the Landfill Directive a more
integrated part of the EU waste policy, and to promote an inte-
grated implementation rather than a sectoral one;

2.5
appeals to the Commission to facilitate, in particular via
the upcoming strategy on waste prevention and recycling, the
further development of recycling initiatives and, if appropriate,
include supportive measures, especially in small Member States
where the necessary economy of scale is harder to achieve;

2.6
calls on the Commission to make efforts in order to
eliminate incentives for ‘waste tourism’ caused by different
environmental standards of waste treatment/disposal between
Member States and in order to accelerate the realisation of a
level playing;

calls for a better coordination between national authori-
2.7
in view of the
ties responsible for landfill taxes. Naturally,
considerable political
taxation in
general, this would not necessarily involve the introduction of
a Community-level harmonised landfill tax;

surrounding

sensitivity

2.8
recommends to the Commission to closely monitor the
implementation of the directive with studies and other pre-
emptive work in order to help national, regional and local
authorities complying with the requirements and to avoid
infringement procedures. This
includes assigning sufficient
human resources to this task;

invites the Commission to examine if the decrease of
2.9
biodegradable waste being landfilled has led to a shift towards
measures which are more effective in reducing environmental
impacts;

2.10
reviewing the Landfill Directive, more flexibility regarding:

calls on the Commission to incorporate, when

— the requirements concerning the design and construction of
landfill sites so they can be adjusted to local geological
circumstances. This may be possible by means of incorpor-
ating the definition of the goal
(a minimum protection
level) rather then the means to that goal;

— innovative techniques in order to prevent a stand still situa-
tion where no use can be made from new developments;

16.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/101

2.11
calls on the Commission to include the regional and
local dimension in the formulation of future European policy
on waste management in general and the landfill of waste in
particular;

2.12
their
calls on the Member States to ensure that
national strategies to reduce biowaste going to landfills do not
only lead to diverting waste from being landfilled towards
incineration, but also include measures which are more effec-
tive in reducing environmental impacts;

calls on the Member States to ensure that regional and
2.13
local authorities
transposition
fully involved in the
measures regarding EU legislation when they carry, as with the
Landfill directive, the main burden of putting it into practice;

are

2.14
calls on the Member States to ensure that transfer of
responsibilities to regional and local authorities are accompa-
nied by a transfer of resources;

2.15
appeals to the Member States to promote a close
cooperation of all levels of government for the swift implemen-
tation of the directive;

to fully
appeals to regional and local authorities
2.16
involve all stakeholders in the decisions regarding landfills in
particular and waste policy in general;

2.17
offers to play a significant partnering role in the
consultations that are to accompany the further evaluation of
the Landfill Directive in particular and waste policy in general.

Brussels, 17 November 2005.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Peter STRAUB