7 Management of bio-waste
| (30311)
17559/08
+ ADD 1
COM(08) 811
| Commission Green Paper on the management of bio-waste in the European Union
|
| Legal base | — |
| Document originated | 3 December 2008
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 12 January 2009
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 18 February 2009 and Minister's letter of 31 March 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
7.1 According to the Commission, growth is still accompanied by
increasing amounts of waste, and it says that one of the Community's
strategic goals is to reduce the resultant negative impacts (in
terms of unnecessary losses of materials and energy, and damage
to health, the environment and quality of life). It notes that
waste management is already governed by a substantial body of
regulation, but that there remain opportunities for further improving
the management of some major waste streams, including bio-waste
(defined as biodegradable garden and park waste, and food and
kitchen waste), in the light of recent technological progress
and research results. In particular, it points out that very different
national policies apply to bio-waste management within the Community,
and says that consideration should be given to whether national
action is sufficient, or Community action is needed. It has therefore
sought in this Green Paper to explore the various issues which
arise, and to invite views, and so prepare the ground for an Impact
Assessment. In doing so, it is also fulfilling a remit contained
in the revised Waste Framework Directive (2005/281).
The current document
7.2 The Commission observes that the total annual bio-waste in
the Community is put at between 76.5 and 102 million tonnes of
food and garden waste in mixed municipal waste, and up to 37 million
tonnes from the food and drink industry, with two major streams
— green waste (which usually comprises wood and 50-60% water)
and kitchen waste (which contains up to 80% water, but no wood).
It also points out that, in addition to prevention at source,
the waste management options available include separate collection,
biological treatment (including anaerobic digestion and composting),
mechanical-biological treatment, incineration and landfill, with
the environmental and economic implications of each depending
on local conditions. Within this framework, it notes wide differences
between Member States, with three main approaches having been
identified — heavy reliance on incineration to divert waste
from landfill, accompanied by a high level of material recovery
and biological treatment; high material recovery rates accompanied
by composting and mechanical-biological treatment, but relatively
low incineration; and reliance on landfill, particularly in a
number of the new Member States.
7.3 The Commission goes on to review the Community
legal instruments relating to the treatment of bio-waste. In addition
to the general requirements laid down in the Waste Framework Directive,
these include the Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC) which requires
the diversion of biodegradable bio-waste from municipal landfills;
the revised Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive
(which applies to installations biologically treating more than
50 tonnes of organic waste a day); the Waste Incineration Directive;
and the Animal By-Products Regulation (where such by-products
are treated in composting and biogas plants). These are accompanied
by a number of measures relating to the use of bio-waste, covering
in particular the use of compost in organic farming and in energy
recovery, notably in relation to renewable electricity and biofuels.
Also, since incinerated bio-waste is regarded as a carbon-neutral
source of energy, it is covered by the Renewable Electricity Directive
(2001/77/EC), and by the current proposed Directive on the promotion
of energy from renewable sources.[41]
7.4 The Green Paper then focuses in more depth on
the environmental, economic and social issues related to bio-waste
management. As regards the environmental impacts, it points out
that the decomposition of biodegradable waste in landfill
gives rise to emissions of greenhouse gases, notably methane (although
these are expected to reduce as a result of the Landfill Directive),
may give rise to odours and an adverse visual impact, and involve
an irrecoverable loss of resources and land; that incineration
may provide carbon-neutral energy as an alternative to fossil
fuels, but that the efficiency of current incinerators varies
considerably, with its main impacts arising from airborne emissions,
the loss of organic matter and other resources, and the disposal
of ashes etc; and that, although biological treatment involves
some limited emissions of greenhouse gases and volatile organic
compounds, it can provide potential agricultural benefits (subject
to proper control being exercised over input quality to avoid
contamination and the accumulation of hazardous substances). It
suggests that there seems to be no single environmentally best
option for the management of biodegradable waste diverted from
landfills, with the balance depending upon a number of local factors,
such as waste collection systems, climate conditions, and the
potential use of the various waste derived products. Consequently,
it says that strategies for the management of this waste should
be determined "on an appropriate scale", based on a
Life Cycle Assessment.
7.5 As regards the economic impacts, the Commission
notes that the capital and operating costs of municipal waste
management and the biological treatment of waste depend upon multiple
factors[42] and vary
regionally and locally, making it difficult to make meaningful
comparisons. However, it says that landfill is usually regarded
as the cheapest option, although this may well change if the Landfill
Directive leads to increased costs and to a rising awareness of
the "real" long term costs involved; that incineration
requires higher investment, but can offer good economies of scale,
whilst avoiding changes to existing municipal waste collection
schemes and bringing in revenue from energy recovery; and that
the diverse range of biological treatments generally require good
quality waste, and hence gives rise to separate collection costs.
It also notes that establishing separate collection schemes present
a number of challenges, such as the re-design of collection systems,
changing consumer habits, the identification of suitable areas,
and problems in matching the supply of waste with the market for
its subsequent recycled use.
7.6 The Commission also refers briefly to the social
and health impacts, noting that, although increased recycling
of bio-waste is expected to have limited impacts on employment,
new jobs may be created in waste collection and in small composting
plants. However, it says that there is a general lack of quality
data on the health impacts of the various options, but that there
are no apparent ill effects on people living near municipal waste
management facilities or incineration plants. On the other hand,
small risks of birth defects have been identified near landfill
sites, and of bronchitis near to composting sites.
7.7 The Green Paper concludes by seeking views on
the following policy areas:
- possible new bio-waste prevention
action at the EU level;
- the need for further restrictions on biodegradable
waste to landfill, beyond those of the Landfill Directive, what
form these might take and whether they should be at Community
or national level;
- what measures might be taken to encourage specific
bio-waste management options such as anaerobic digestion and composting,
and whether life-cycle studies should be more widely used to evaluate
options;
- measures to improve energy recovery;
- the promotion of bio-waste recycling through:
target setting, rules for quality and use of compost, measures
to promote separate bio-waste collections — in each case
with measures at Community or individual Member State level;
- the contribution of composts and digestates to
soil improvement and the setting of standards on when such materials
have completed the recovery process and cease to be waste;
- the setting of operational standards for bio-waste
plants treating less than 50 tonnes per day (and thus not currently
covered by the revised IPPC Directive);
- research and development into new, alternative
ways of treating bio-waste, and possible regulatory obstacles.
The Government's view
7.8 In her Explanatory Memorandum of 18 February
2009, the Minister of State (Farming and the Environment) at the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jane Kennedy)
said that the Green Paper is important to the UK since the management
of bio-waste is currently undergoing great change, and that, although
infra-structure and collection practices remain under-developed,
the potential for energy and resource conservation was large.
She added that the paper raised several issues of interest to
the Government, and that it would be drawing up its response over
the coming weeks, in consultation with relevant stakeholder, and
submitting comments to the Commission before the consultation
period ended on 15 March 2009. She added that the Commission had
stated its intention to present its analysis of the responses
in late 2009 with, if appropriate, proposals and/or initiatives
for a Community strategy on the management of bio-waste.
7.9 Since we felt it would be sensible to take into
account the views expressed by the UK to the Commission, we decided
to await these before considering our Report to the House. The
Minister has now enclosed a copy of the UK's response with a letter
of 31 March 2009. That response says that:
- the UK broadly welcomes the
Green Paper as a fair summary of the issues, and, like most Member
States, is already making very significant changes to the way
it manages certain bio-waste streams in response to the Landfill
Directive and in drawing up a strategy to meet its renewable energy
targets;
- it believes that the prevention of waste, including
bio-waste, is far more resource and energy effective than subsequent
management or treatment, and that it would expect bio-wastes to
be included in Member States' waste prevention programmes: however,
it believes that public information campaigns need to be alert
to national sensitivities, and would not therefore work at a European
level, and that the same applies to decisions on how to collect
waste and such issues as the role of home composting;
- consumer responses to date marking of food can
have an important impact on the generation of food waste, and
that there is therefore a need to clarify Community legislation
in this area;
- the UK has found its targets under the Landfill
Directive to be extremely challenging, and any changes to the
existing regulatory framework for bio-waste need to be justified
by a thorough impact assessment (though it retains an open mind
on the possibility of further measures, such as a ban on the types
of waste which could be disposed of in this way);
- the most appropriate option for the treatment
of bio-waste will depend upon the location, the waste feedstock
used, and the availability of suitable destinations for treated
material, with the best option usually being decided on a case
by case basis: however, the UK believes that anaerobic digestion
may often be the best option for bio-wastes such as food waste,
but that composting still has an important role to play in the
treatment of biodegradable waste;
- there is a need to encourage the use of good
quality compost on land, but that this should be done through
market "pull", rather than legislative "push",
bearing in mind also that varying soil characteristics make it
difficult to set prescriptive Community-wide standards: each Member
State should therefore be free, within an overall Community framework,
to set its own parameters;
- although the UK believes that anaerobic digestion
should normally be the preferred option for the management of
wet biodegradable wastes, and is seeking to increase its use,
this is currently limited; however, the separate collection required
is expensive, and Member States should be free to make their own
decisions, where this is supported by sound research, including
life-cycle assessments (though it would be helpful if the Commission
were to clarify the level at which such assessments should be
used, since this will affect their feasibility and the validity
of the results).
Conclusion
7.10 This Green Paper provides a useful over-view
of the issues which arise in relation to the management of bio-waste,
and of the various options facing the Community and Member States,
and, for that reason, we are drawing it to the attention of the
House. However, we note that it is intended primarily to stimulate
discussion, and that the Commission proposes to present later
this year an analysis of the responses it receives, together with
proposals for a Community strategy in this area, if that is thought
to be appropriate. We also note that the Government regards the
Green Paper as providing a fair summary of the issues involved,
and has itself put in various comments to the Commission.
7.11 In view of this, we do not believe that any
further consideration of this document by the House is required
at this stage, and we are therefore clearing it.
41 (29405) 5421/08: see HC 16-xiii (2007-08), chapter
1 (27 February 2008). Back
42
Such as a plant's size, the technology used, geological conditions,
the cost of locally available energy, and transport costs. Back
|
