Select Committee on European Legislation First Report


WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

1.   We consider that the following raises questions of political importance, and recommend its further consideration by European Standing Committee A:--

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

(17447) 9651/96 COM(96)399

Commission Communication on the review of the Community Strategy for     Waste Management, and draft Council Resolution.

 Legal base:          --

Background

1.1  The document sets out the Commission's review of the Community's Strategy for Waste Management and seeks Council endorsement of a Resolution on waste policy.

The review and draft Resolution

1.2  The review argues that waste is a form of pollution and is of growing concern. It says that Community waste legislation has tried to strike a balance between the need for a high level of environmental protection and the need for an appropriate level of regulation to ensure the functioning of the internal market. It also advocates a high level of protection, with emissions from installations to the environment (air, water, soil) reduced as much as possible in the most economically efficient way, and strict standards applying to waste whether it is treated in industrial installations or in waste treatment installations (recovery or disposal). The executive summary lists four aims:

"--  a comprehensive and integrated legal framework

--  appropriate definitions of waste related concepts

--  suitable rules and principles: proximity and self-sufficiency

--  reliable and comparable data".

1.3  It confirms the hierarchy of principles that prevention of waste should be the first priority, followed by recovery, and finally safe disposal. Implementation should be guided by the best environmental solution taking into account economic and social costs. This is spelt out in greater detail.

"--   As regards the prevention principle, the following measures should be particularly developed: promotion of clean technologies and products, reduction of the hazardousness of wastes, the establishment of technical standards and possibly EC-wide rules to limit the presence of certain dangerous substances in products, the promotion of reuse and recycling schemes, the appropriate use of economic instruments, eco-balances, eco-audit schemes, life-cycle analysis and actions on consumer information and education as well as the development of the eco-label system.

--  Within the recovery principle, where environmentally sound, preference should in general be given to the recovery of material over energy recovery operations. This reflects the greater effect on the prevention of waste produced by material recovery rather than by energy recovery.

--  Concerning final disposal, particular care should be taken to avoid as much as possible incineration operations without energy recovery. Uncontrolled landfilling and contaminated sites are two problems requiring special and strong actions at different levels.

--  The strategy addresses the question of producer responsibility. Considering the life cycle of a product from manufacture until the end of its useful life, producers, material suppliers, trade, consumers and public authorities share specific waste management responsibilities. However it is the product manufacturer who has a predominant role since he takes the key decisions concerning his product which largely determine its waste management potential. This principle will, thus, be integrated in future measures, on a case by case basis, taking into account the specific responsibilities of the different economic operators.

--  The reviewed strategy on the priority waste streams programme suggests that the approach has not been sufficiently successful to replace the traditional preparatory stage of the institutional decision making process; therefore, in principle, no new specific projects will be initiated. Rather, waste streams and material flows will be examined on a case by case basis."

1.4  The strategy reaffirms the need for appropriate control of shipment of waste, which is dealt with separately, and sets out instruments which are to be used at different levels to achieve the objectives fixed by the strategy, namely: regulatory and economic instruments, reliable and comparable statistics on waste and other management instruments such as waste management plans, appropriate enforcement of legislation, and impartial use of life cycle analysis and eco-balances.

1.5  The review admits that a common definition of waste has not yet been achieved and that discussion on the distinction between waste and goods has been going on for almost 20 years. This fairly fundamental point does not, however, inhibit the Commission from putting forward a broad action programme and asking for Council agreement to a Resolution which could provide a basis for wide-ranging legislation. Moreover the draft Resolution, unlike the executive summary and the review, does not give equal emphasis to the cost of the proposals or the practicability of a highly interventionist approach.

The Government's view

1.6  In his Explanatory Memorandum dated 23 October, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of the Environment (Mr Clappison) says that the Government welcomes the review of the Community's waste strategy and considers it in line with that of the United Kingdom. He does, however, draw attention to three concerns. The first is that the hierarchy of principles set out by the Commission requires flexible interpretation and the use of Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) in the management of individual waste streams. He recognises that the current draft Resolution does not address this adequately. Second, the introduction of the concept of producer responsibility into waste strategy could militate against the concept of shared responsibility. He points out that the issue of producer responsibility is a complex one and that any strategy must accommodate a wide range of choice and permit targeting on a sector by sector basis. Third, he is concerned that the pre-treatment of all waste going to landfill should not become an accepted EU policy. In the UK different types of waste are treated in different ways to prevent pollution caused by degradation processes.

Conclusions

1.7  The Explanatory Memorandum from the Parliamentary Secretary states that there are no subsidiarity issues either for the Communication or for the draft Resolution. This is somewhat surprising, given the wide range of legislation which could be accommodated under the strategy outlined in the draft Resolution. We consider that the proposal merits further consideration by European Standing Committee A, in particular in the following respects:

--  How can a policy be developed if a definition of waste has not yet been agreed?

--  Is the argument put forward by the Commission that a Community policy is essential to "create a level playing field" (paragraph 10 of the review) a valid one?

--  Is the Government satisfied that action at Community level is appropriate, or should more decisions be taken at national level?

--  To what extent should the Resolution deal only with general principles, and leave it to Member States to work out the right balance between cost and benefit in relation to their own specific needs?

--  How would the concept of producer responsibility actually work? If a retailer demanded a certain degree of "waste" from a supplier in order to meet his specification (for example, for certain horticultural produce) would the producer be responsible?

--  The Commission argues for a policy to provide a high level of protection. Is the Government satisfied that such a high level of environmental protection is compatible with the need for international competition, or will it have a negative effect on Community industry?

--  What would be the impact of the proposal on the countries of Central and Eastern Europe?

---

Prepared 12th November 1996