Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and Thhe Committee of the Regions - Taking sustainable use of resources forward - A Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste {SEC(2005) 1681} {SEC(2005) 1682}
Date: 2005-12-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, environmental law, prevention of pollution, waste management, waste recycling

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 21.12.2005 
COM(2005) 666 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THHE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Taking sustainable use of resources forward: A Thematic Strategy on the prevention 
and recycling of waste 

{SEC(2005) 1681} 
{SEC(2005) 1682} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 

The current situation .................................................................................................... 4 

Aims of an evolving EU policy on waste..................................................................... 6 

Action........................................................................................................................... 6 

What will be the impact of the proposed changes?...................................................... 8 

The international situation.......................................................................................... 11 

Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 12 

Review process........................................................................................................... 12 

ANNEX I: Main actions........................................................................................................... 13 

ANNEX II: Legislative Financial Statement ........................................................................... 13 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THHE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Taking sustainable use of resources forward: A Thematic Strategy on the prevention 
and recycling of waste 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Waste  is  an  environmental,  social  and  economic  challenge  for  Europeans.  For  some,  it 
conjures up negative images: rubbish bags, litter and toxic waste dumps. For others, waste is 
an  opportunity  –  Europe’s  drive  to  deal  with  waste  in  environmentally  sound  ways  has 
generated jobs and business opportunities. The waste management and recycling sector has a 
high growth rate and has an estimated turnover of over €100 billion for EU-25. It is labour-
intensive and provides between 1.2 and 1.5 million jobs. The recycling industry is providing 
increasing  amounts  of  resources  to  manufacturing  industry:  at  least  50%  of  the  paper  and 
steel,  43%  of  the  glass  and  40%  of  the  non-ferrous  metal  produced  in  the  EU  are  currently 
derived from recycled materials. 

In  the  last  30  years  waste  has  been  at  the  centre  of  EU  environment  policy  and  substantial 
progress  has  been  made.  Heavily  polluting  landfills  and  incinerators  are  being  cleaned  up. 
New  techniques  have  been  developed  for  the  treatment  of  hazardous  waste.  Hazardous 
substances  are  being  removed  from  vehicles  and  electrical  and  electronic  equipment.  The 
levels of dioxins and other emissions from incineration are being reduced. 

With time, waste is increasingly seen as a valuable resource for industry. Approaches such as 
re-use,  recycling  and  energy  recovery  are  starting  to  be  applied  to  regulated  wastes  - 
packaging  waste,  end-of-life  vehicles,  waste  electrical  and  electronic  equipment, 
biodegradable  waste  and  tyres.  Diversion  of  biodegradable  waste  from  landfills  and 
increasing recycling and recovery are contributing to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

However, despite these successes, waste remains a problem. Waste volumes continue to grow. 
Legislation  is,  in  some  cases,  poorly  implemented  and  there  are  significant  differences 
between national approaches. The potential for waste prevention and recycling is not yet fully 
tapped. The emerging knowledge about the environmental impact of resource use is not yet 
fully reflected in waste policy. 

The  unsustainable  trends  in  waste  generation  and  the  policy  issues  are  causes  for  concern 
because  the  generation  of  waste  can  be  a  symptom  of  environmentally  inefficient  use  of 
resources. Furthermore, waste management generates emissions to air, water and soil as well 
as noise and other nuisances which contribute to environmental problems and cause economic 
costs. 

In addition, EU waste law often remains unclear despite Court jurisprudence and has been the 
subject of considerable litigation on its interpretation. This results in regulatory overlaps and 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
uncertainty  for  competent  authorities  and  the  waste  industry  and  may  impede  necessary 
investments. 

Taking  all  this  into  consideration,  it  is  time  to  analyse  and  assess  EU  waste  policy,  with  a 
view to setting the strategic framework for the future. As prescribed in the Sixth Environment 
Action Programme (EAP), this strategy sets objectives and outlines the means by which the 
EU can move towards improved waste management. 

In the process, it substantially simplifies and clarifies the current legal framework, in line with 
the  EU’s  better  regulation  objectives.  Waste  has  been  identified  as  a  priority  area  for  the 
simplification of Community legislation [COM(2005) 535]. This Strategy spells out the initial 
steps that this first revision exercise has shown to be necessary and lays down the approach 
the Commission will take to achieve better regulation in EU waste law.  

Finally, the Strategy builds on existing legislation and extensive stakeholder consultation, and 
identifies  full  and  effective  implementation  by  Member  States  as  a  condition  for  making 
progress towards the goals set in this strategy. 

2. 

THE CURRENT SITUATION 

At  present  in  the  EU  municipal  waste  is  disposed  of  through  landfill  (49%),  incineration 
(18%), recycling and composting (33%). In the new Member States, where major efforts and 
investments have been made to align with the EU acquis, the situation is evolving rapidly but 
still  dominated  by  landfill.  There  are  wide  discrepancies  between  Member  States,  ranging 
from  those  which  recycle  least  (90%  landfill,  10%  recycling  and  energy  recovery)  to  those 
which  are  more  environmentally  friendly  (10%  landfill,  25%  energy  recovery  and  65% 
recycling). 

Current  EU  waste  policy  is  based  on  a  concept  known  as  the  waste  hierarchy.  This  means 
that,  ideally,  waste  should  be  prevented  and  what  cannot  be  prevented  should  be  re-used, 
recycled  and  recovered  as  much  as  feasible,  with  landfill  being  used  as  little  as  possible. 
Landfill is the worst option for the environment as it signifies a loss of resources and could 
turn into a future environmental liability. The waste hierarchy should not be seen as a hard-
and-fast  rule,  particularly  since  different  waste  treatment  methods  can  have  different 
environmental impact. However, the aim of moving towards a recycling and recovery society 
means  moving  up  the  hierarchy,  away  from  landfill  and  more  and  more  to  recycling  and 
recovery. 

The legal framework1 underpinning this strategic approach includes horizontal legislation on 
waste management, e.g. the Waste Framework Directive, the Hazardous Waste Directive, as 
well as the Waste Shipment Regulation. These are complemented by more detailed legislation 
concerning  waste  treatment  and  disposal  operations,  such  as  the  Landfill  and  Incineration 
Directives, and legislation to regulate the management of specific waste streams (waste oils, 
PCBs/PCTs and batteries). Recycling and recovery targets have been set for some key waste 
flows,  i.e.  packaging,  end-of-life  vehicles  (ELVs)  and  waste  electrical  and  electronic 
equipment (WEEE). See Annex III contained in the Commission Staff Document SEC(2005) 
1682 for a chart setting out the relevant legislation. 

1 

See Annex III for detailed list of legal acts. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Despite the considerable progress which has been made, overall waste volumes are growing 
and  the  absolute  amount  of  waste  going  into  landfill  is  not  decreasing.  Between  1990  and 
1995 total waste generation in the EU and EFTA increased by 10% whilst GDP increased by 
6.5%.  Municipal  solid  waste  (MSW)  generation  has  been  contributing  significantly  to  this 
increase and is coupled to the level of economic activity as both MSW generation and GDP in 
EU-25  increased  by  19%  between  1995  and  2003.  Smaller  but  important  waste  streams  are 
also growing: hazardous waste generation increased by 13% between 1998 and 2002 whilst 
GDP  grew  by  10%.  With  higher  levels  of  economic  growth  anticipated,  overall  volume 
growth  is  predicted  to  continue  and  will  concern  most  wastes.  For  example,  the  European 
Environment Agency predicts that paper/board, glass and plastic waste will increase by 40% 
by 2020 compared to 1990 levels. The OECD predicts that MSW generation will continue to 
grow until 2020 but at a slightly slower rate. The Joint Research Centre predicts an increase in 
MSW generation of 42.5% by 2020 compared to 1995 levels. Relatively faster MSW growth 
is predicted in the new EU-10 Member States. 

While recycling and incineration are increasing, the absolute amounts of waste landfilled are 
not decreasing because of the growth in waste generation. For example, the amount of plastic 
waste  going  to  landfill  increased  by  21.7%  between  1990  and  2002  yet  the  percentage  of 
plastic waste being landfilled dropped from 77% to 62%. 

These  unsustainable  trends  are  due  in  part  to  unsatisfactory  implementation  of  waste  laws 
which, in turn, is due in part to certain elements of the policy and legal framework that could 
be improved. 

There  are  a  number  of  implementation  problems,  ranging  from  dumping  of  waste  at 
mismanaged  landfills  to  shipments  of  hazardous  waste  in  violation  of  international 
conventions. Unclear definitions and differing views on how to implement the laws have not 
helped  to  improve  implementation  and  have  resulted  in  litigation.  Despite  rulings  by  the 
European Court of Justice, certain aspects, such as when waste ceases to be waste, are still not 
clear.  

Although waste prevention has been the paramount objective of both national and EU waste 
management policies for many years, limited progress has been made so far in transforming 
this objective into practical action. Neither the Community nor the national targets set in the 
past have been satisfactorily met. 

Recycling  and  recovery  are  increasing.  However,  they  cover  only  a  limited  proportion  of 
waste. Recycling Directives  have  so  far targeted individual waste streams and  have enabled 
Community waste policy to reduce environmental impact by promoting source separation and 
recycling  of  waste  streams  such  as  batteries,  packaging,  vehicles  and  waste  electrical  and 
electronic  equipment.  These  fast-growing  waste  flows  are  of  particular  importance  due  to 
their hazardous nature and complexity. However, they account for only a limited proportion 
of all waste generated. 

Furthermore,  while  the  amount  of  waste  being  recycled  is  increasing,  treatment  standards 
exist  only  for  landfills  and  incinerators  and,  partially,  for  recycling.  This  poses  an 
environmental  problem  as  some  recycling  facilities  can  cause  pollution  if  badly  operated. 
Standards are needed not only for environmental protection but also for business reasons – to 
promote a level playing field for recycled material. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
Against this background, preparations for this Thematic Strategy involved a major review of 
the existing situation and identification of problems and issues. This has led to the proposals 
set out below for a more comprehensive approach to waste prevention and recycling. 

3. 

AIMS OF AN EVOLVING EU POLICY ON WASTE 

EU  waste  policy  has  the  potential  to  contribute  to  reducing  the  overall  negative 
environmental  impact  of  resource  use.  Preventing  waste  generation  and  promoting 
recycling  and  recovery  of  waste  will  increase  the  resource  efficiency  of  the  European 
economy and reduce the negative environmental impact of use of natural resources. This will 
contribute to maintaining the resource base, essential for sustained economic growth. 

The  basic  objectives  of  current  EU  waste  policy  –  to  prevent  waste  and  promote  re-use, 
recycling  and  recovery  so  as  to  reduce  the  negative  environmental  impact  –  are  still  valid 
and will be supported by this impact-based approach. 

The long-term goal is for the EU to become a recycling society, that seeks to avoid waste and 
uses  waste  as  a  resource.  With  high  environmental  reference  standards  in  place  the  internal 
market will facilitate recycling and recovery activities. 

4. 

ACTION 

In  order  to  achieve  these  objectives  and,  hence,  secure  a  higher  level  of  environmental 
protection, the proposal is to modernise the existing legal framework – i.e. to introduce life-
cycle analysis in policymaking and to clarify, simplify and streamline EU waste law. This will 
contribute to resolving current implementation problems and move the EU decisively onto the 
path  of  becoming  an  economically  and  environmentally  efficient  recycling  society.  The 
current level of environmental ambition will be maintained and enhanced while providing the 
basis for sustained growth. 

This requires a combination of measures promoting waste prevention, recycling and re-use in 
such a way as to produce the optimum reduction in the accumulated impact over the life cycle 
of resources, including: 

-  A  renewed  emphasis  on  full  implementation  of  existing  legislation.  There  are 
different  problems  with  implementation  across  the  Member  States,  varying  from  the 
continued  existence  of  illegal  landfills  in  several  Member  States  to  differences  of 
interpretation  in  others.  Part  of  this  strategy  is  designed  to  remove  ambiguities,  resolve 
disputed  interpretations  and  amend  legislation  which  has  not  brought  the  expected 
environmental  benefits.  The  Commission  will  use  the  Waste  Management  Committee  as  a 
forum for exchange of information and best practice and also for bringing to light difficulties 
with implementation. It will continue to take legal action to ensure equal enforcement of the 
acquis across all Member States. 

-  Simplification  and  modernisation  of  existing  legislation  where  experience  has 
shown  that  this  is  necessary  to  reduce  administrative  burden  while  maintaining  the  level  of 
environmental  protection,  in  line  with  the  objectives  of  better  regulation.  This  will  result  in 
more cost-effective waste legislation and will involve several actions. Firstly, an amendment 
of  the  Waste  Framework  Directive  merging  it  with  the  Hazardous  Waste  Directives, 
introducing life cycle thinking, clarifying when waste ceases to be waste and the definitions of 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
recovery  and  disposal,  introducing  a  definition  of  recycling,  and  solving  overlaps  between 
different  pieces  of  waste  and  other  environmental  legislation.  Secondly,  the  repeal  of  the 
Waste Oils Directive and the transfer of its provisions on collection of waste oils in the Waste 
Framework  Directive.  Thirdly,  a  proposal  in  2006,  to  consolidate  the  three  Directives  on 
waste  from  the  titanium  dioxide  industry.  Fourthly,  beyond  the  proposals  adopted  together 
with  this  Strategy,  in  the  context  of  a  continuous  and  systematic  review  of  EU  waste 
legislation,  the  Commission  will  assess  the  need  for  additional  steps  taking  the  better 
regulation  and  simplification  objectives  further,  in  line  with  the  time  line  planned  in 
Communication COM(2005) 535. This shall inter alia include the upcoming reviews required 
by waste directives, such as the 2006 review of the Directive on end-of-life vehicles and the 
2008 review of the Directive on waste electric and electronic equipment, and a review of the 
system of waste nomenclature. Finally, with the common standards proposed by this Strategy 
in  place,  there  will  be  new  opportunities  to  create  a  simplified  regulatory  regime  for  the 
shipment of waste that further encourages recycling and recovery of waste. 

-  Introduction  of  life-cycle  thinking  into  waste  policy.  Environmental  policy 
traditionally focused on the early and the final phases of the life cycle: extraction, processing 
and manufacturing at one end and waste management at the other. It is now recognised that 
the environmental impact of many resources is often linked to the use phase2. All phases in a 
resource’s life cycle need to be taken into account as there can be trade-offs between different 
phases and measures adopted to reduce environmental impact in one phase can increase the 
impact in another. Clearly, environmental policy needs to ensure that negative environmental 
impact is minimised throughout the entire life cycle of resources. By applying the life-cycle 
approach, priorities can be identified more easily and policies can be targeted more effectively 
so that the maximum benefit for the environment is achieved relative to the effort expended. 

The life-cycle approach will be incorporated in EU legislation by clarifying the objectives of 
the  Waste  Framework  Directive  so  that  they  explicitly  consider  the  life-cycle  perspective. 
This  will  have  significant  consequences  for  framing  new  policy  and  for  waste  management 
principles and practices in the future. The recent review of recycling and recovery targets for 
packaging  waste  materials  was  the  first  example  of  using  life-cycle  thinking  for 
policymaking.  New  targets  are  set  for  each  material  concerned  by  analysing  the 
environmental and economic impact throughout the life cycle of the material. The review of 
the management of waste oil is another area in which life-cycle thinking was applied. 

-  Promotion  of  more  ambitious  waste  prevention  policies  by  clarifying  Member 
States’ obligations to develop publicly available waste prevention programmes. At EU level 
the Commission will promote the use of the IPPC Directive, IPP and other tools to encourage 
the spread of best practice. 

- Better knowledge and information which will underpin the continued development 

of waste prevention policy. 

- Development of common reference standards for recycling. In order to ensure the 
proper  functioning  of  the  internal  market  for  recycling,  the  proposal  is  to  set  minimum 
standards across the Community for recycling activities and recycled materials so as to ensure 
a  high  level  of  environmental  protection  and  to  prevent  the  threat  of  “eco-dumping”.  This 

2 

COM(2003) 302, Integrated Product Policy. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
approach will be based on amendments to the Waste Framework Directive and to the IPPC 
Directive. This approach will be applied to biowaste as a priority.  

- Further elaboration of the EU’s recycling policy. Building on the implementation 
of  existing  EU  waste  legislation,  new  ways  to  foster  recycling  will  be  sought.  A  detailed 
analysis  of  the  long-term  feasibility  and  viability  of  a  material-specific  approach  will  be 
undertaken.  Member  States  will  also  be  encouraged  to  make  more  use  of  economic 
instruments  and  to  exchange  experience/best  practice  through  improved  coordination  in  the 
Waste Management Committee. 

The action and changes proposed are explained in greater detail in Annex I which also gives 
an  indicative  timetable  for  presentation  of  the various  proposals  to  implement  the  Thematic 
Strategy. 

5. 

WHAT WILL BE THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES? 

This Thematic Strategy is expected to have implications for current practices in the Member 
States  and  to  create  new  opportunities  for  waste  management  options  other  than  landfill, 
thereby encouraging a general move up the waste hierarchy. These are summarised below (for 
more detail see the Impact Assessment which accompanies this strategy). 

Less waste to landfill 

The  action  taken  under  the  Thematic  Strategy  will  contribute  to  continuing  to  move  waste 
flows  away  from  landfill.  The  stronger  focus  on  implementation  and  on  the  promotion  of 
economic instruments will help to bring landfill prices up to a level which better reflects the 
real  environmental  impact  of  this  waste  management  option,  with  the  result  that  less  waste 
should  go  to  landfill.  But,  as  that  waste  management  option  is  still  the  default  solution  in 
many Member States, moving away from landfill will take time. Furthermore, for some types 
of waste, landfill might remain the only viable option. The new Member States will need time 
to build up alternative infrastructure and to deal with the legacy of the past.  

The amounts of waste going to landfill in the EU will be reviewed in 2010. If the amounts and 
types of wastes being landfilled remain unacceptable, and the move away from landfill is not 
progressing quickly enough, further landfill bans will be envisaged. 

More compost and energy recovery from waste 

As waste moves away from landfill it will be channelled into a variety of options higher up 
the waste hierarchy, all of which will be better for the environment.  

The  development  of  quality  benchmarks  for  composting  facilities  and  for  compost  will 
increase the prospects for composting. 

Where  energy  is  recovered  from  waste  the  Strategy  will  increase  energy  efficiency.  The 
Commission  proposes  to  start  introducing  the  use  of  efficiency  thresholds  to  classify  waste 
treatment in municipal incinerators either as recovery or disposal. This will also help the EU 
meet its targets under the Directive on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable 
energy sources. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
It is for individual Member States to decide which option is the environmentally best option in 
given circumstances. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
More and better recycling 

The  next  five  years  will  be  a  key  period  in  terms  of  implementation  of  the  Recycling 
Directives. By setting minimum quality standards for some recycling facilities, a significant 
improvement is expected, moving from the current situation where only 8 to 10% of wastes 
are covered by minimum quality standards to a situation where a substantial part of waste for 
recycling is covered. This coverage will be adapted in proportion to the environmental risk. 
This  will  ensure  that  as  recycling  increasingly  becomes  the  preferred  option  for  waste,  the 
environmental impact of the option is controlled and the market conditions to allow recycling 
to continue its current pace of growth are created. 

Quality  standards  for  recycling  will  stimulate  demand  for  and  acceptability  of  recycled 
materials.  This  will  then  pull  waste  flows  towards  recycling  and  re-use.  In  addition,  an 
improved  internal  market  for  recycling  based  on  EU  standards  will  allow  recycling  to  take 
place where it is most efficient. This will reduce costs and thereby further facilitate recycling 
and re-use. 

Recycling of a number of materials is currently working well, with high market prices driving 
growth in recycling rates. For example, utilisation of waste paper for the production of new 
paper has doubled between 1991 (25%) and 2004 (50%). For other materials, obstacles appear 
to be preventing full development of the recycling market, and work is underway to remove 
them. The situation will be reviewed in 2010. If recycling of materials that would lead to an 
environmental benefit is not taking place, further action can be taken focussing on materials, 
using the policy tool that is most appropriate (economic instrument, producer responsibility, 
landfill ban, collection or recycling target). 

Key benefits and positive impacts 

These efforts have the potential to improve the cost-effectiveness of EU waste policy and to 
deliver significant environmental and social benefits: 

–  waste policy will become more focused on environmental impact, thereby becoming more 

efficient and cost-effective; 

–  the  regulatory  environment  of  waste  management  activities  will  be  improved,  leading  to 

decreased costs and reduced barriers for waste recycling and recovery activities; 

–  waste  prevention  policies  will  be  implemented  at  national  level,  ensuring  the  highest 
environmental  and  economic  efficiency  and  promoting  action  closest  to  the  point  of 
generation of the waste; 

–  increases  in  waste  recovery  will  reduce  emissions  from  waste  disposal  and  result  in 

environmental benefits such as reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. 

These positive impacts can be illustrated by the following quantified examples: 

–  further  diversion  of  municipal  waste  from  landfill  to  composting,  recycling  and  energy 
recovery could produce additional reductions in greenhouse gas emissions ranging from 40 
to over 100 Mt CO2 equivalent per year; 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
–  clarifying  when  wastes  cease  to  be  waste  could  reduce  part  of  the  administrative  costs 
related  to  waste  legislation.  For  example,  the  aggregates  recycling  sector  estimates  these 
costs at roughly 1% of turnover; 

–  increased  recycling  creates  jobs:  recycling  10 000  tonnes  of  waste  need  up  to  250  jobs 
compared with 20 to 40 jobs needed if the waste is incinerated and about 10 for landfill. 
Taking  into  account  reduced  job  creation  in  the  extraction  and  production  of  virgin 
materials this should result in a limited net creation of jobs. 

6. 

THE INTERNATIONAL SITUATION 

Most  developed  economies  and  many  developing  countries  are  pursuing  the  objective  of 
improving  waste  management.  Countries  with  less  developed  waste  management  systems 
usually aim at improving basic waste management practices, especially as regards landfilling 
of municipal waste and management of hazardous waste. Countries with more mature waste 
management systems seek to prevent waste generation and to increase recycling and recovery 
of waste. 

The most important initiatives taken at international level are the Convention on the control of 
transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal (the Basel Convention) and 
the  OECD  work  on  controlling  shipments  of  waste  and  developing  internationally  agreed 
benchmarks  for  environmentally  sound  management  of  waste.  This  aims  inter  alia  at 
reinforcing  institutional  and  non-institutional  capacities  in  waste  management  in  developing 
countries.  The  EU  is  contributing  to  the  creation  of  a  control  system  at  international  level 
through its policies an in particular by its waste shipment regulation that aims at ensuring a 
high level of environmental protection. 

Recently, at the instigation of Japan, the G8 started work on reducing, re-using and recycling 
waste. 

Examples of policies developed by other industrial countries: 

–  Japan  has  extensive  legislation  related  to  waste  and  other  sustainable  production  and 
consumption policies under the “3Rs - reducing, re-using and recycling” umbrella. These 
include laws setting targets for general waste prevention, waste recycling and avoidance of 
final disposal. Japan aims to recycle 24% of municipal waste and to limit final disposal of 
waste to 50%. In addition to these targets, Japan has developed a number of recycling laws, 
some mirroring the objectives of the EU Recycling Directives (on packaging, WEEE and 
ELV),  others  on  issues  not  covered  by  legislation  in  the  EU  (construction  materials  and 
food). At local level, some local governments set waste treatment fees and levy taxes on 
landfilled industrial wastes. 

–  The USA has developed policies at Federal and State levels. The Federal government has 
set a long-term indicative target of a national recycling rate of 35% of municipal waste and 
is supporting this through a number of mainly voluntary programmes. This includes efforts 
to foster smart design and reduce the environmental impact of products. Several individual 
States have developed legislation restricting landfill and promoting the recycling of various 
waste flows, including legislation mirroring the objectives of the EU Recycling Directives 
(on  packaging  and  WEEE).  Attention  is  also  given  to  the  high  level  of  municipal  waste 
generation. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
–  China has enacted a number of laws that relate to waste management. In particular, these 
are  pursuing  the  objective  of  promoting  “the  circular  economy”.  Currently,  China  is 
developing medium-term and long-term plans for the development of this concept. There is 
also growing demand in China for recyclable materials. This has recently exerted pressure 
on the markets for these materials and is predicted to intensify in the future. 

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The strategy will be monitored on an ongoing basis. This will require a continuous effort to 
improve statistics on landfill and recycling and to build a stronger knowledge base relative to 
environment impact and impact indicators. Assessment of national waste policies, analysis of 
Member  States’  implementation  reports  and  continued  consultation  of  stakeholders  will 
contribute to this. 

8. 

REVIEW PROCESS 

The Commission will review the progress made towards achieving the strategy’s objective in 
2010.  This  review  will,  in  particular,  assess  progress  on  waste  prevention  policies,  on 
applying life-cycle thinking to waste management – including management of biowaste – and 
towards a European recycling society and will feed into the final evaluation of the Sixth EAP. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
ANNEX I: Main actions 

1. 

SIMPLIFICATION AND MODERNISATION OF EXISTING LEGISLATION 

The definition of waste 

The Waste Framework Directive defines waste as products or materials that are discarded. In 
the light of extensive stakeholder consultation the Commission has concluded that there is no 
need substantively to amend the definition of waste, but that it is necessary to clarify when a 
waste  ceases  to  be  a  waste  (and  becomes  a  new  or  secondary  raw  material).  Therefore,  an 
amendment  to  the  Directive  is  proposed  which  would  establish  waste-stream-based 
environmental  criteria  to  determine  when  a  waste  ceases  to  be  a  waste.  This  could  both 
improve  the  environmental  performance  of  recycled  products,  by  encouraging  businesses  to 
produce  recycled  products  that  conform  to  these  environmental  criteria,  and  reduce 
unnecessary  burdens  for  low-risk  recycling  activities.  Additionally,  the  Commission  will 
publish  a  Commission  Communication  containing  guidelines,  based  on  the  jurisprudence  of 
the  European  Court  of  Justice  and  addressing  the  issues  of  by-products  in  relevant  industry 
sectors, on when by-products should or should not be considered as waste in order to clarify 
the legal situation for economic operators and competent authorities. Within the review of this 
strategy in 2010, the Commission will assess the effectiveness of the guidelines. 

The current definition of waste sets no clear boundaries for when a waste has been adequately 
treated and should be considered a product. This is problematic, as it creates legal uncertainty 
and  administrative  costs  for  businesses  and  competent  authorities.  It  can  lead  to  diverging 
views  from  Member  State  to  Member  State  and  even  from  region  to  region,  which  creates 
problems for the internal market. On top of this, poor-quality recycled material circulates on 
the market, generating difficulties both for potential purchasers and also for reputable sellers. 

Discussions  with  stakeholders  and  with  the  Member  States  as  well  as  analysis  by  the 
Commission have revealed that a relatively small number of waste streams are concerned by 
this issue. This means that it is possible to select those waste streams for which criteria need 
to  be  set  on  the  basis  of  potential  environmental  and  economic  benefit.  The  first  wave  of 
waste  flows  to  be  addressed  by  this  system  will  include  compost,  recycled  aggregates,  and 
subject to the outcome of an ongoing study on environmental impacts, the use of tallow as a 
fuel. 

The Commission proposes to take a two-step approach to this issue: firstly, to establish in the 
Waste  Framework  Directive  the  procedure  for  adoption  of  the  criteria  and,  secondly,  to 
propose  specific  waste  streams  for  this  system,  selected  on  the  basis  of  environmental  and 
economic benefit. The Commission will conduct studies and stakeholder consultations before 
coming forward with a proposal. 

This approach should result in: 

–  improved environmental performance of recycled products as economic operators seek to 

attain the level required for their recycled product no longer to be considered a waste; 

–  greater certainty and predictability for purchasers of recycled products or materials; 

–  regulatory simplification for low-risk wastes used as secondary materials. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
One precondition for implementation of this approach will be to set environmental criteria at a 
high level to reduce environmental risk. In addition to environmental criteria, it will also be 
necessary to set fitness-for-use criteria to ensure that the recycled products can find a viable 
market.  Such  fitness-for-use  criteria  could  be  derived  from  existing  CEN  standards  or  other 
similar sources. 

A  range  of  factors  will  be  considered  in  the  selection  of  waste  streams  and  development  of 
criteria.  Notably,  these  include  the  risk  that  the  recycled  product  could  be  used  in  an 
inappropriate  way,  or  transported  outside  the  EU  for  sham  use,  or  otherwise  have  an 
environmental impact which classification as waste would have prevented. Another factor is 
the  existence  of  a  viable  market  for  the  recycled  product  in  question.  The  Commission  will 
weigh up these factors when proposing waste streams and criteria. 

The definition of recovery and disposal activities 

The  main  present  problem  with  the  definitions  of  recovery  and  disposal  in  the  Waste 
Framework Directive is that they are used for different purposes. In the Recycling Directives 
they are used to set targets and in the Waste Shipment Regulation they are used to determine 
whether the internal market rules apply to shipments of waste. 

Ideally  they  would  only  be  used  for  setting  targets  and  a  simpler  system  would  be  used  for 
shipments  of  waste.  However,  because  of  gaps  in  existing  European  waste  management 
standards and because of the need for waste management structures and policies to adapt, it is 
too early for such a change to the waste legislation. 

The definitions contained in the present legislation, as interpreted by the European Court of 
Justice, do not promote best environmental practice, for example as regards recovering energy 
from  waste  in  municipal  incinerators.  The  Commission  considers  that  further  definition  is 
required and is therefore proposing an amendment to the Waste Framework Directive which 
will base the definition of recovery on the concept of substitution of resources in the economy 
as opposed to in the specific plant. In addition, the amendment will make it possible to deal 
with the environmental issues raised by new technologies and practices case by case through a 
committee procedure. 

The  Commission  proposes  to  start  introducing  the  use  of  efficiency  thresholds  to  classify 
waste  treatment  in  municipal  incinerators  either  as  recovery  or  as  disposal.  Current 
jurisprudence  of  the  European  Court  of  Justice  classifies  the  overwhelming  majority  of 
municipal  incinerators  as  disposal  facilities.  This  classification  could  have  negative 
implications,  leading  to  a  degradation  of  the  environment.  For  example,  incineration  with 
energy  recovery  is  usually  considered  a  means  of  diverting  biodegradable  municipal  waste 
from landfills. However, there are concerns that if incineration is defined in the same category 
as  landfilling,  some  local  authorities  could  be  tempted  to  choose  the  cheapest  option 
(landfilling), which will in turn degrade the environment. Additionally, municipal incinerators 
with  high  energy  efficiency  are  negatively  discriminated  against  compared  with  co-
incineration operations with similar energy efficiencies but less stringent emission controls. 

A  definition  of  recovery  that  takes  into  account  that  energy  produced  by  a  municipal 
incinerator  substitutes  the  use  of  resources  in  other  power  plants  will  better  reflect  the 
environmental  benefits  of  incineration.  However,  the  energy  efficiency  of  municipal 
incinerators can vary dramatically. At low energy efficiencies incineration might not be more 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
favourable  than  landfill.  At  high  energy  efficiency  incineration  could  be  as  favourable  as 
mechanical recycling or composting of certain waste flows. 

The  Impact  Assessment  shows  that  application  of  an  energy  efficiency  threshold  for 
municipal incinerators could generate both economic and environmental benefits. Setting the 
level of the threshold by reference to the performance  of  a BAT (best available techniques) 
plant would facilitate achievement of the targets for diversion from landfill. 

The Commission is proposing an amendment to the Waste Framework Directive to include an 
energy  efficiency  threshold  above  which  municipal  incineration  is  considered  a  recovery 
operation. The threshold takes BAT as guidance and takes into account the recommendation 
in the BREF (BAT reference document) on waste incineration to use an equivalence factor of 
2.6 to compare energy in the form of electricity to energy in the form of heat, i.e. 1 kWh of 
electricity is equivalent to 2.6 kWh of heat, and a factor of 1.1 for district heating. 

This proposal will promote diversion from landfills and the use of BAT for recovering energy 
from waste burned in municipal incinerators. It will also allow continuous improvement of the 
environmental  performance  of  such  energy  recovery  as  the  efficiency  threshold  will  be 
regularly reviewed to reflect technological progress.  

This  clarification  of  definitions  should  facilitate  the  functioning  of  an  internal  market  for 
recycling applying high environmental standards. At the same time, it is necessary to continue 
to review the situation.  

Another  example  of  the  type  of  issues  this  system  will  be  able  to  address  are  the  cases  in 
which use of waste materials to build landfills may be considered a recovery operation. 

The definition of recycling 

A definition of recycling needs to be introduced in the Waste Framework Directive to serve as 
guidance in defining recycling policies and targets. 

Other simplification measures 

With a view to better regulation: 

–  overlaps between the permit procedures set up in the Waste Framework Directive and the 
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive will be removed by indicating that if 
an IPPC permit is held, no additional waste permit is necessary; 

–  Directive  91/689/EEC  on  hazardous  waste  will  be  merged  with  the  Waste  Framework 

Directive with a view to clarifying and removing overlaps and obsolete provisions; 

–  the Commission will propose in 2006 a consolidation of the three Directives on waste from 
the  titanium  dioxide  industry,  modernising  the  provisions  and  removing  any  obsolete 
provisions 

The  Commission  will  take  account  of  better  regulation  in  the  reviews  of  waste  directives 
provided  for  in  EU  waste  legislation,  e.g.  as  regards  the  incineration,  ELV,  landfill,  WEEE 
and RoHS directives, and, in the context of a systematic review of EU legislation on waste, 
propose amendments to existing EU legislation, as appropriate. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
2. 

INTRODUCING LIFE-CYCLE THINKING IN WASTE POLICY  

The environmental benefits of waste policy are complex because they occur at different stages 
of  the  life  cycle  and  in  different  forms  and  can  consequently  be  difficult  to  quantify  or 
compare. But, clearly, waste policy needs to contribute to minimising environmental impact 
throughout  the  entire  life  cycle  of  resources.  In  many  cases  this  just  means  using  common 
sense to look at the wider picture, but sometimes it could mean using assessment tools such as 
life-cycle assessments. 

The  Commission  proposes  to  clarify  the  objectives  of  waste  policy  under  the  Waste 
Framework Directive in order explicitly to apply life-cycle thinking. EU waste policy should 
aim to reduce the negative environmental impact of waste generation and management and to 
contribute to an overall reduction of the environmental impact of the use of resources. 

3. 

IMPROVING THE KNOWLEDGE BASE 

Life-cycle  thinking  requires  an  improved  knowledge  base  on  the  impact  of  resource  use, 
waste generation and management and more systematic forecasting and modelling. 

This will be provided mainly through the mechanism described in the Thematic Strategy on 
resources  and  through  initiatives  taken  in  the  context  of  Integrated  Product  Policy.  Beyond 
this,  the  European  Environment  Agency,  Eurostat  and  the  Joint  Research  Centre  will  all 
continue to play a role in building a robust scientific and economic information base for waste 
policy. 

Another  important  step  will  be  to  define,  in  consultation  with  the  scientific  and  stakeholder 
community,  basic  guidelines  to  make  life-cycle  tools  easily  usable  in  waste  policymaking, 
with  an  agreed  approach  and  methodology.  The  aim  is  to  make  these  tools  easier  to  use  in 
policy decisions from local to European level.  

4. 

WASTE PREVENTION 

The  potential  for  waste  prevention  depends  on  a  number  of  factors  -  economic  growth,  the 
extent to which economic operators have already adopted best practice in reducing waste, etc. 
Prevention can only be achieved by influencing practical decisions taken at various stages of 
the life cycle: how a product is designed, manufactured, made available to the consumer and 
finally used. Production of municipal waste is also affected by consumer behaviour which is 
related to the social structure, personal income and societal wealth. 

This  strategy  does  not  prescribe  EU  waste  prevention  targets  as  this  would  not  be  the  most 
effective and eco-efficient way to foster waste prevention. This is because such targets fail to 
address the complexity of environmental impact: the weight of waste could be reduced yet the 
environmental  impact  could  increase,  whereas  small  weight  reductions  can  bring  large 
reductions in environmental impact. In addition, prevention policies should take into account 
national  production  and  consumption  patterns,  their  projected  trends  and  their  relation  to 
economic growth. 

This  strategy  prescribes  a  coordinated  approach  to  waste  prevention  which  will  focus 
prevention  policies  on  reducing  environmental  impact  and  set  a  framework  for  specific 
national policies. Action on waste prevention needs to be taken at all levels of governance. At 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
European  level,  the  Integrated  Pollution  Prevention  and  Control  (IPPC)  Directive  and 
Integrated Product Policy can make a major contribution to waste prevention. Best available 
technique  reference  documents  (BREFs)  developed  under  the  IPPC  provide  useful 
information on waste prevention. These aspects of BREFs should be reinforced and Member 
States,  industry  and  other  stakeholders  should  exchange  information  on  best  practice  on  a 
more  regular  basis.  Finally,  the  Commission  intends  to  revisit  the  issue  of  developing  a 
framework for eco-design initiatives in the framework of Integrated Product Policy. 

Most prevention measures, however, will have to be taken at national, regional or local level. 
This  could  include  waste  prevention  targets.  The  Waste  Framework  Directive  will  be 
amended  to  clarify  the  obligation  for  Member  States  to  develop  publicly  available  waste 
prevention programmes, in the context of sustainable production and consumption. 

5. 

TOWARDS A EUROPEAN RECYCLING SOCIETY 

As  resources  placed  on  the  market  are  bound,  sooner  or  later,  to  become  waste  and  any 
productive activity generates some form of waste, measures to put waste back in the economic 
cycle  are  necessary.  The  recycling  sector  needs  a  regulatory  environment  that  encourages 
recycling activities.  

The current trend is towards increasing controls and restrictions on shipments of waste on the 
internal market. This will not significantly improve the environmental situation and could lead 
to  detailed  legislation  and  micro-management  of  waste  at  national  or  regional  level.  This 
could  potentially  reduce  availability  of  recyclable  waste  for  the  EU  industry,  especially  in 
small  Member  States.  To  counter  this  trend  a  level  playing  field  is  needed  for  recycling 
activities  throughout  the  EU.  Recycling  itself  needs  to  be  environmentally  sound  and  this 
requires the introduction of standards. 

While  in  certain  cases  market  forces  have  fostered  the  development  of  recycling,  market 
signals tend to push waste towards disposal. There is therefore a need for incentives for waste 
recycling and recovery. Economic instruments and national landfill taxes have high potential 
in this regard. 

A level playing field for recycling 

Building an internal market for recycling applying high environmental standards would have 
the advantage of spreading good practice across the whole of the EU and would also assist the 
recycling industry by allowing it to benefit from the internal market. 

A  number  of  measures  will  complement  existing  legislation  and  enable  the  EU  to  fill  the 
waste standards gap. They include: 

–  introducing efficiency criteria for selected recovery processes under the Waste Framework 
Directive and developing guidelines for the application of certain provisions of the Waste 
Shipment Regulation to combat sham recovery; 

–  spreading good practice through minimum standards in the Waste Framework Directive for 
relevant  recovery  processes  and  future  extension  of  the  scope  of  the  IPPC  Directive  to 
selected waste management activities; 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
–  adding  a  new  provision  to  the  Waste  Framework  Directive  to  allow  the  adoption  of 
environmental criteria for specific waste flows in order to specify when they no longer fall 
under the scope of waste legislation but are to be considered products instead. 

Improved exchange of information on national disposal taxes 

There is broad consensus that disposal taxes are cost-effective and can dramatically improve 
waste  management.  Moreover,  large  differences  in  disposal  taxes  between  Member  States 
could  lead  to  unnecessary  shipments  of  waste  and  affect  competition  between  waste 
management operators in different Member States. 

As the prospect of reaching agreement on action at EU level in this area is limited, a first step 
would be to encourage the Member States to use this type of economic instrument at national 
level.  The  Commission  encourages  Member  States  to  exchange  information  on  their 
approaches to disposal taxes while keeping the Commission fully informed. 

New ways to foster recycling 

Recycling Directives adopted over the last decade are facilitating the setting-up and financing 
of  recycling  infrastructure  for  large  waste  streams.  However,  it  is  difficult  to  justify 
application  of  this  approach  to  a  new  range  of  waste  streams.  For  smaller  waste  streams  or 
waste  streams  with  less  environmental  impact,  such  an  approach  could  create  heavy 
administrative burdens compared to the environmental benefit obtained. 

However, if organisation and promotion of recycling for all waste streams is left to the market 
it will not be possible to reap the full environmental benefits that recycling can deliver. While 
the  present  priority  is  to  ensure  complete  implementation  of  the  EU  Recycling  Directives, 
what  is  needed  for  the  future  is  a  complementary  approach  that  is  both  more  flexible  and 
broader in its coverage. The review of this strategy will assess the need for further measures 
to  promote  recycling.  In  particular,  it  will  consider  moving  towards  a  more  material-based 
approach,  possibly  using  producer  responsibility.  This  would  involve  assessing  whether  the 
market is likely  to drive  the  development of recycling  of a given material adequately on its 
own  or  if  measures  are  needed  to  overcome  obstacles  to  recycling.  In  this  context,  a  wide 
range of measures could be considered, and life-cycle thinking will contribute to ensuring that 
the environmental benefits of recycling are achieved at the lowest cost possible. 

Recycling targets 

Recycling and recovery targets are used in several EU Waste Directives. The recent revision 
of the recycling and recovery targets contained in the Directive on packaging and packaging 
waste has shown the importance of setting targets at the appropriate levels in proportion to the 
scope of the definition and of taking into account the specifics of each material. Without such 
an  analysis,  there  is  a  risk  of  setting  targets  that  promote  processes  with  little  or  no 
environmental  benefit  or  which  fail  to  promote  technologies  that  could  deliver  sizable 
environmental benefits but find it difficult to break into the market. 

Because  of  these  complexities,  the  level  of  targets  should  be  fixed  taking  into  account  the 
scope of the definition of recycling for the different materials as has already been the case in 
the  review  of  the  Packaging  Directive  targets,  and  should  take  into  account  the  specific 
characteristics  of  each  material.  Future  proposals  for  new  or  revised  recycling  or  recovery 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
targets  need  to  optimise  the  cost-efficiency  of  recycling  and  recovery  and  avoid  promoting 
inappropriate technologies for given materials. 

Management of biowaste 

The  main  negative  impact  of  biowaste  occurs  when  biowaste  is  landfilled.  This  produces 
methane,  a  greenhouse  gas  which  is  21  times  more  potent  than  carbon  dioxide.  In  order  to 
tackle  this  environmental  threat,  Directive  1999/31/EC  on  the  landfill  of  waste  provides  for 
redirecting  two  thirds  of  biodegradable  municipal  waste  away  from  landfills  and  requires 
Member  States  to  establish  and  regularly  review  national  strategies  for  management  of  the 
waste  diverted  from  landfill.  Full  implementation  of  this  obligation  will  make  a  significant 
contribution  to  reducing  the  environmental  impact  of  biowaste,  in  particular  in  terms  of 
emissions of greenhouse gases. 

However, the Commission’s report on the national strategies concluded that “having analysed 
the  strategies  it  is  unclear  whether  the  landfill  reduction  targets  will  be  achieved  for  those 
Member  States  where  this  is  not  already  the  case.  It  looks  like  additional  efforts  will  be 
necessary  to  achieve  the  targets.  The  Commission  will  pay  particular  attention  to  the 
attainment  of  the  target  of  2006  and  take  all  appropriate  measures  to  ensure  good 
implementation of the directive”3. 

There  is  no  single  environmentally  best  option  for  the  management  of  biowaste  that  is 
diverted  from  landfills.  The  environmental  balance  of  the  various  options  available  for 
management of this waste depends on a number of local factors, inter alia collection systems, 
waste composition and quality, climatic conditions, impact on climate change, the potential of 
compost  to  contribute  to  fighting  soil  degradation  and  other  categories  of  environmental 
impact.  Therefore  strategies  for  management  of  this  waste  should  be  determined  by  the 
Member States using life-cycle thinking. 

The  Commission  will  produce  guidelines  on  applying  life-cycle  thinking  to  management  of 
biowaste and will communicate these guidelines to Member States and invite them to revisit 
their national strategies. These guidelines will also assist local and regional authorities that are 
generally responsible for drawing up plans for management of municipal waste. 

Aspects  related  to  waste  standards  also  need  to  be  addressed  at  EU  level.  Compost  quality 
criteria will be adopted under the end-of-waste provision proposed for the Waste Framework 
Directive  and  the  Commission  will  propose  that  biological  treatment  of  waste  be  brought 
under the scope of the IPPC Directive when it is revised. 

Council Directive 86/278/EEC on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the 
soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture will be revised with a view to tightening the 
quality  standards  under  which  such  use  is  allowed  following  the  adoption  of  the  Thematic 
Strategy on soil and the associated measures. 

The  review  of  the  strategy  will,  in  particular,  address  the  progress  made  on  management  of 
biowaste and assess the need for additional measures. 

3 

COM(2005)  105.  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. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Management of waste oils 

Life-cycle thinking has been applied to the waste oil legislation (Directive 75/439/EEC). 

This Directive regulates the disposal of waste oils and prescribes waste oil regeneration. The 
law has not been well implemented, and several cases have been taken to the European Court 
of  Justice  which  has  ruled  against  five  Member  States.  Recent  analysis,  using  the  life-cycle 
approach, has shown that the priority given to regeneration of waste oils over use as a fuel is 
not  justified  by  any  clear  environmental  advantage.  In  addition,  waste  oil  collection  rates 
remain  too  low.  So  while  improper  disposal  of  waste  oils  can  have  substantial  negative 
impacts and should be avoided, the current law is not achieving the desired results. Therefore, 
it will be repealed and replaced by a new provision in the Waste Framework Directive, which 
will maintain the obligation for Member States to ensure collection of waste oils but will not 
give priority to regeneration. This will secure the full implementation by the Member States 
of the collection obligation that addresses the greatest environmental issue of waste oils. 

Next steps: Timetable for action implementing the Thematic Strategy on the prevention 
and recycling of waste and other measures and activities that will contribute  

Action proposed and/or planned by the Thematic Strategy 
on the prevention and recycling of waste 

Timing 

Proposal for a directive amending the Waste Framework 
Directive and repealing the Waste Oils Directive 

Proposed together with this 
strategy 

Report on implementation of Directive 94/62/EC on packaging 
and packaging waste 

2006 

Review of the targets set under Directive 2000/53/EC on end-
of-life vehicles 

Proposal for a directive bringing together in one directive the 
three Directives on waste from the titanium dioxide industry  

Publication of guidelines, based on the jurisprudence of the 
European Court of Justice, on the issue of when by-products 
should or should not be considered waste 

Publication of guidelines for Member States on applying life-
cycle thinking to management of biodegradable waste that is 
diverted from landfill 

2006 

2006 

2006 

2006 

Improving the knowledge base on impact of resource use, 
waste generation and waste management and more systematic 
forecasting and modelling 

Starting in 2006 

Proposal to clarify and extend the scope of the IPPC Directive 
to additional waste management activities, including biological 
treatment for recovery of waste and preparation of hazardous 
waste for incineration and of incineration slags for recovery 

2007, when the IPPC 
Directive will be subject to 
a general review 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
Proposal for revision of Council Directive 86/278/EEC on the 
protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, 
when sewage sludge is used in agriculture 

Publication of basic guidelines to make life-cycle tools easily 
usable in waste policymaking, with an agreed approach and 
methodology 

Publication of guidelines on certain provisions of the Waste 
Shipment Regulation to combat sham recovery 

Publication of guidelines on minimum environmental standards 
for permits of installations that are not covered by the IPPC 
Directive and on best available techniques for the mixing of 
hazardous waste 

2007 

2007 

2007 

2007 

Assessment of the state of play and of the need for additional 
measures to stimulate the move to a European recycling society 

2007 

Review of the targets under Directive 2002/96/EC on waste 
electrical and electronic equipment 

2008 

Adoption of a first set of quality standards for defining when 
certain waste flows cease to be waste, starting with compost 
and recycled aggregates 

2008 – subject to the entry 
into force of the revised 
Waste Framework Directive

Other measures and activities that will contribute to the Thematic Strategy on the 
prevention and recycling of waste 

Market development 

Several  Member  States  have  launched  initiatives  to  develop  the  waste  recycling  market, 
aiming  at  removing  technical  and  economic  obstacles  to  recycling  and  at  increasing  the 
demand  for  recycled  materials  (e.g.  development  of  standards,  improving  availability  of 
market-relevant information and public procurement). Such approaches appear to have some 
potential  to  complement  core  recycling  policies  and  could  be  taken  on  board  in  national 
roadmaps for implementation of the Environmental Technology Action Plan. 

Research and technology 

The Commission will ensure that the European funds available for research and development 
work on waste technology better tackle the key environmental impacts of waste. 

Best practices 

The Commission will support the dissemination and transfer of best practices concerning 
awareness, education and incentive initiatives and systems developed at national, regional and 
local level. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
State aid 

The guidelines on state aid for environmental protection will be reviewed. This review will, 
inter  alia,  clarify  in  which  cases  state  aids  may  be  granted  to  support  waste  recycling 
activities. 

In addition, the review of the strategy in 2010 will, if necessary, identify additional measures 
needed to promote waste prevention and apply life-cycle thinking to waste management and 
to progress towards a European recycling society. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
ANNEX II 
LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT 

1. 

NAME OF THE PROPOSAL: 

Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste 

2. 

ABM / ABB FRAMEWORK 

Policy Area: 07 – Environment 

Activity: 07 04 – Implementation of environment policy 

3. 

BUDGET LINES 

3.1. 

Budget  lines  (operational  lines  and  related  technical  and  administrative 
assistance lines (ex- B..A lines)) including headings: 

07 01 04 01 - Legislation, awareness-raising and other general actions based on the 
Community  action  programmes  in  the  field  of  the  environment  -  Expenditure  on 
administrative management. 

07  04  02  –  Awareness  raising  and  other  general  actions  based  on  the  Community 
action programmes in the field of the environment. 

3.2. 

Duration of the action and of the financial impact: 

The  strategy  has  a  time  span  of  10  years  (2005-2015).  The  present  LFS  covers  the 
financial aspects relative to the initial five years (2005-2010). 

3.3. 

Budgetary characteristics : 

Budget 
line 

07 04 02 

Type of expenditure 

New 

EFTA 
contribution 

Contributions 
from applicant 
countries 

Heading in 
financial 
perspective 

Non-
comp 

Diff4 

NO 

NO 

NO 

No 3 

4 

Differentiated appropriations. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4. 

SUMMARY OF RESOURCES 

The  needs  for  human  and  administrative  resources  shall  be  covered  within  the 
allocation granted to the managing DG (DG Environment) in the framework of the 
annual budget procedure. 

4.1. 

Financial Resources 

4.1.1. 

Summary of commitment appropriations (CA) and payment appropriations (PA) 

Section 
no. 

Expenditure type 

Operational expenditure5 

Commitment 
Appropriations (CA) 

8.1 

Payment  Appropriations 
(PA) 

a 

b 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010  

Total 

Year 
2005 

0.230 

0.380 

0.230 

0.230 

0.080 

1.150 

0.130 

0.280 

0.330 

0.230 

0.180 

1.150 

Administrative expenditure within reference amount6 

Technical 
& 
administrative  assistance 
(NDA) 

8.2.4 

c 

TTOOTTAALL  RREEFFEERREENNCCEE  AAMMOOUUNNTT  

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

Commitment 
Appropriations 

Payment 
Appropriations 

a+c 

b+c 

0.230 

0.380 

0.230 

0.230 

0.080 

1.150 

0.130 

0.280 

0.330 

0.230 

0.180 

1.150 

Administrative expenditure not included in reference amount7 

Human 
associated 
(NDA) 

resources 

and 
expenditure 

Administrative  costs,  other 
than  human  resources  and 
associated 
not 
included in reference amount 
(NDA) 

costs, 

8.2.5 

d 

0.486  0.486 

0.486 

0.486 

0.486 

0.486 

2.916 

8.2.6 

e 

0.002  0.088 

0.088 

0.090 

0.086 

0.084 

0.438 

5 
6 
7 

Expenditure that does not fall under Chapter xx 01 of the Title xx concerned. 
Expenditure within article xx 01 04 of Title xx. 
Expenditure within chapter xx 01 other than articles xx 01 04 or xx 01 05. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Total indicative financial cost of intervention 

TOTAL  CA 
cost 
Resources 

of 

TOTAL  PA 
cost 
Resources 

of 

including 
Human 

including 
Human 

Co-financing details 

a+c
+d+
e 

b+c
+d+
e 

0.488  0.804 

0.954 

0.806 

0.802 

0.650 

4.504 

0.488  0.704 

0.854 

0.906 

0.802 

0.750 

4.504 

If  the  proposal  involves  co-financing  by  Member  States,  or  other  bodies  (please 
specify  which),  an  estimate  of  the  level  of  this  co-financing  should  be  indicated  in 
the table below (additional lines may be added if different bodies are foreseen for the 
provision of the co-financing): 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Co-financing body 

…………………… 

TOTAL CA including co-
financing 

f 

a+c
+d+
e+f 

n + 1 

n + 2 

n + 3 

n + 4 

n + 5  

Total 

Year 
n 

4.1.2.  Compatibility with Financial Programming 

X 

Proposal is compatible with existing financial programming. 

(cid:133) 

(cid:133) 

Proposal  will  entail  reprogramming  of  the  relevant  heading  in  the  financial 
perspective. 

Proposal  may  require  application  of  the  provisions  of  the  Interinstitutional 
Agreement8 (i.e. flexibility instrument or revision of the financial perspective). 

4.1.3.  Financial impact on Revenue 

X 

Proposal has no financial implications on revenue 

(cid:133) 

Proposal has financial impact – the effect on revenue is as follows: 

EUR million (to one decimal place) 

Prior to

Situation following action 

8 

See points 19 and 24 of the Interinstitutional agreement. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Budget line 

Revenue 

action 
[Year 
n-1] 

[Yea
r n] 

[n+1] [n+2]  [n+3

] 

[n+4] [n+5]

9

a) Revenue in absolute terms 

b) Change in revenue 

 ∆ 

4.2. 

Human Resources FTE (including officials, temporary and external staff) – see 
detail under point 8.2.1. 

Annual requirements 

Year 
2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010  

Total 
number 
human resources 

of 

0.486 

0.486

0.486 

0.486 

0.486 

0.486 

5. 

CHARACTERISTICS AND OBJECTIVES 

5.1. 

Need to be met in the short or long term 

Address  the  environmental  concerns  relative  to  the  management  of  waste.  The 
Strategy  will  launch  actions  to  improve  waste  management  and  the  regulatory 
environment within which the waste management activities take place. 

5.2. 

Value-added  of  Community  involvement  and  coherence  of  the  proposal  with 
other financial instruments and possible synergy 

Waste management is an economic activity taking place in the internal market. This 
activity  is  highly  regulated  and  common  approaches  are  necessary  to  improve  the 
efficiency of the market. 

5.3. 

Objectives, expected results and related indicators of the proposal in the context 
of the ABM framework 

The strategy’s objective is to set out a series of actions that will allow reducing the 
environmental  impacts  of  waste  and  contribute  to  reducing  the  environmental 
impacts of the use of resources. 

In order to do that, a number of concrete actions are foreseen: 

1) 

Simplification  and  modernisation  of  the  regulatory  environment  of  waste 
activities. 
Improvement of the knowledge in this area. 

2) 
3)  Development  of  incentives  to  promote  the  prevention  and  the  recycling  of 

waste. 

9 

Additional columns should be added if necessary i.e. if the duration of the action exceeds 6 years. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
More details on the expected results and their impacts are in the Communication and 
in the impact assessment attached to it, respectively. 

5.4.  Method of Implementation (indicative) 

X 

Centralised Management 

X 

directly by the Commission 

(cid:133) 

indirectly by delegation to: 

(cid:133) 

executive Agencies 

(cid:133) 

bodies set up by the Communities as referred to in art. 185 of the 
Financial Regulation 

(cid:133) 

national public-sector bodies/bodies with public-service mission 

(cid:133) 

Shared or decentralised management 

(cid:133)  with Member states 

(cid:133)  with Third countries 

(cid:133) 

Joint management with international organisations (please specify) 

Relevant  comments:  The  measures  foreseen  under  the  strategy  will  be  directly 
implemented  by  the  Commission  (launch  of  studies,  organisation  of  meetings, 
running  of  service  contracts  etc)  and  by  Member  States  (implementation  of 
legislation and recommendations). 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
6. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

6.1.  Monitoring system 

The Commission proposes to review the effectiveness of the Thematic Strategy five 
years after publication of the Communication. For this purpose the Commission will 
prepare a report which will be published and submitted to the Institutions. 

6.2. 

Evaluation 

6.2.1.  Ex-ante evaluation 

The  Thematic  Strategy  has  been  the  object  of  an  Impact  Assessment  that  will  be 
published at the same time as adoption of the Communication. 

6.2.2.  Measures taken  following  an intermediate/ex-post evaluation (lessons learned from 

similar experiences in the past) 

The approach of policy-making using the tool of a Thematic Strategy is a novelty of 
the  Sixth Environmental  Action Programme10. However, the measures contained in 
this  specific  strategy  do  not  go  beyond  normal  administrative  practice  (launch  of 
studies,  organisation  of  expert  meetings,  service  contracts  of  relatively  small 
amounts  of  money)  for  which  appropriate  financial  safeguard  procedures  are  in 
place. 

6.2.3.  Terms and frequency of future evaluation 

The Commission proposes to review the effectiveness of the Thematic Strategy five 
years after publication of the Communication. For this purpose the Commission will 
prepare a report which will be published and submitted to the Institutions. 

7. 

ANTI-FRAUD MEASURES  

The  proposed  activities  only  consist  of  expenditure  on  personnel,  expert  meetings 
and  study  contracts.  The  latter  will  be  subject  to  the  Commission’s  usual  control 
mechanisms and therefore there is no need for supplementary anti-fraud measures. 

In particular, potential beneficiaries and contractors shall comply with the provisions 
of  the  Financial  Regulation  and  provide  the  evidence  of  their  financial  and  legal 
soundness. For grants, they are required to supply provisional statements of income 
and  expenditure  related  to  the  project/activity  for  which  funding  is  requested. 
Payments  are  made  on  the  basis  of  the  terms  and  conditions  related  to  the  grant 
agreement and on the basis of expenditure and income statements duly certified by 
the beneficiary and checked by the relevant service of the Commission. On the spot 
controls  are  also  possible  and  beneficiaries  are  required  to  keep  all  details  and 
supporting documents for a period of five years after the completion of the project. 

10 

Decision No 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). 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
                                                 
8. 

DETAILS OF RESOURCES 

8.1. 

Objectives of the proposal in terms of their financial cost 

(Headings  of  Objectives,  actions  and 
outputs should be provided) 

Type of 
output 

Av. 
cost 

Year  
2005 

Year 
2006 

Year 
2007 

Year 
2008 

Year 
2009 

Year 
2010 

TOTAL 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

Commitment appropriations in EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

OBJECTIVE11 

Preparation  of  Commission  decisions 
adopting implementation measures 

- Expert consultations 

Reports 

0.040 

- Studies 

TOTAL COST 

Reports 

0.150 

2 

1 

2 

2 

0.080 

0.150 

0.230 

2 

1 

0.080 

0.300 

0.380 

2 

1 

0.080 

0.150 

0.230 

0.080 

2 

0.080 

0.150 

0.230 

0.080 

8 

5 

0.400 

0.750 

1.150 

11 

As described under Section 5.3. 

EN 

29 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
8.2. 

Administrative Expenditure 

8.2.1.  Number and type of human resources 

Types of 
post 

Staff to be assigned to management of the action using existing and/or additional 
resources (number of posts/FTEs) 

Year 2005  Year 2006  Year 2007  Year 2008  Year 2009  Year 2010 

3.5 

1 

3.5 

1 

3.5 

1 

3.5 

1 

3.5 

1 

3.5 

1 

A*/AD 

B*, 
C*/AST 

Officials 
or 
temporary 
staff12 
(XX 01 
01) 

Staff  financed13  by 
art. XX 01 02 

staff14 
Other 
financed  by  art.  XX 
01 04/05 

TOTAL 

4.5 

4.5 

4.5 

4.5 

4.5 

4.5 

8.2.2.  Description of tasks deriving from the action 

The tasks to be performed are within normal administrative practice and include 
launch  of  studies,  organisation  of  expert  meetings,  management  of  service 
contracts, and the likes. 

8.2.3. 

Sources of human resources (statutory) 

X 

(cid:133) 

(cid:133) 

(cid:133) 

(cid:133) 

Posts  currently  allocated  to  the  management  of  the  programme  to  be 
replaced or extended 

Posts pre-allocated within the APS/PDB exercise for year n 

Posts to be requested in the next APS/PDB procedure 

Posts  to  be  redeployed  using  existing  resources  within  the  managing 
service (internal redeployment) 

Posts required for year n although not foreseen in the APS/PDB exercise 
of the year in question 

12 
13 
14 

Cost of which is NOT covered by the reference amount. 
Cost of which is NOT covered by the reference amount. 
Cost of which is included within the reference amount. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
8.2.4.  Other  Administrative  expenditure  included  in  reference  amount  (XX  01  04/05  – 

Expenditure on administrative management) 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Budget line 

(number and heading) 

Year
2005 

Year
2006 

Year
2007 

Year
2008 

Year
2009 

Year 
2010  TOTAL 

Technical 

1 
and 
assistance (including related staff costs) 

administrative 

Executive agencies15 

Other 

technical 

and 

administrative 

assistance 

- intra muros  

- extra muros 

Total  Technical  and  administrative 
assistance 

8.2.5.  Financial  cost  of  human  resources  and  associated  costs  not  included  in  the 

reference amount 

Type of human resources 

Year 
2005 

Year 
2006 

Year 
2007 

Year 
2008 

Year 
2009 

Year 
2010r 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Officials  and  temporary  staff 
(XX 01 01) 

Staff financed by Art XX 01 02 
(auxiliary,  END,  contract  staff, 
etc.) 

(specify budget line) 

Total cost of Human 
Resources and associated 
costs (NOT in reference 
amount) 

0.486 

0.486 

0.486 

0.486 

0.486 

2.430 

0.486 

0.486 

0.486 

0.486 

0.486 

2.430 

15 

Reference  should  be  made  to  the  specific  legislative  financial  statement  for  the  Executive 
Agency(ies) concerned. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Calculation– Officials and Temporary agents 

Each FTE is rated at €108,000 per annum. 

Calculation– Staff financed under art. XX 01 02 

8.2.6 Other administrative expenditure not included in reference amount 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Year 
2005 

Year 
2006 

Year 
2007 

Year 
2008 

Year 
2009 

Year 
2010  

TOTAL 

XX 01 02 11 01 – Missions 

0.002 

0.008  0.008 

0.010 

0.006 

0.004 

0.038 

XX 01 02 11 02 – Meetings & Conferences 

XX 01 02 11 03 – Committees16  

0.080  0.080  0.080  0.080  0.080  0.400 

XX 01 02 11 04 – Studies & consultations 

XX 01 02 11 05 - Information systems 

2 Total Other Management Expenditure 

(XX 01 02 11) 

0.002 

0.088  0.088 

0.090 

0.086 

0.084 

0.438 

3 

Other 

expenditure 

administrative 
including reference to budget line) 

nature 

of 

an 
(specify 

Total Administrative expenditure, other 
than human resources and associated 
costs (NOT included in reference 
amount) 

0.002 

0.088  0.088 

0.090 

0.086 

0.084 

0.438 

Calculation - Other administrative expenditure not included in reference amount 

It is assumed that an average mission would cost €1,000. 

16 

Specify the type of committee and the group to which it belongs. 

EN 

32 

   EN