3 EU legislation on waste
| Committee's assessment
| Legally and politically important |
| Committee's decision | Not cleared from scrutiny; for debate in European Committee A with the Commission Communication on a Zero Waste Programme for Europe (36209), 11598/14 + ADDs 1-10, COM(14) 397
|
| Document details | Amendments to EU legislation on waste
|
| Legal base | Articles 114 and 191(2) TFEU; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Business, Innovation and Skills
|
Summary and Committee's conclusions
3.1 In its Communication[11]
on the development of a zero waste programme for Europe, the Commission
has identified a number of ways in which amendments might be made
to various EU legislative measures relating to waste, and this
draft Directive accordingly proposes a number of changes, notably
to Directive 2008/98 on waste, Directive 94/62/EC on packaging
and packaging waste, and Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill
of waste. These include more stringent targets for the recycling
of waste, and of packaging and packaging waste, as well as provisions
which would restrict the quantity of waste sent for landfill.
3.2 The Government says that, given the long-timescale
involved, and the various technical and financial uncertainties,
it is very difficult at this stage to give a precise estimate
of the likely cost, and that further work is underway to fully
assess the implications for the UK. In the meantime, preliminary
estimates suggest that the net total discounted costs for recycling
municipal waste and the associated measures on landfill could
range from the high hundreds of million to the low billions of
pounds. It has also expressed concern that proposals to set out
more stringent criteria for the application of producer responsibility
are not supported by sufficient evidence and do not comply with
the principle of subsidiarity.
3.3 This is clearly a wide-ranging and significant
piece of legislation which seeks to give effect to the proposals
set out in the Commission's Communication for achieving a zero
waste economy for Europe, and we note the Government's comment
that many of the key assumptions in the Commission's impact assessment
are simplistic, and underestimate the true costs of implementing
the proposals. In particular, we have been told that DEFRA economists
provisionally indicate that, in addition to the costs of maintaining
the levels required from the existing 2020 targets, the net discounted
costs solely for the municipal waste recycling target and associated
landfill bans arising from the need to invest in new recycling
capacity and to modify collection and treatment systems could
range from the high hundreds of millions to the low billions of
pounds.
3.4 We also note that the Government has
suggested that a proposed new Annex to the Waste Framework Directive,
which sets out for the first time stringent criteria which Member
States choosing to apply extended producer responsibility would
be obliged to meet, does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity
(in contrast to the current Directive, which enables Member States
to choose the content of the scheme, resulting in a variety of
schemes across the EU, which are appropriate to local circumstances).
3.5 In view of this, we have considered carefully
whether these concerns justify recommending that the House should
issue a Reasoned Opinion under Protocol 2 to the Treaty on Functioning
of the European Union. However, we have concluded that this would
not be justified at this stage on the grounds that the proposal
amends existing legislation is an area where there is long-established
EU intervention; the Commission's impact assessment provides some
evidence of environmental benefit and its internal market justification
is ostensibly credible; the Government's objection relates simply
to extended producer responsibility, which is a relatively small
element in the overall package; the amendment would still give
Member States discretion whether to impose extended producer responsibility
and to apply the minimum rules taking into account both the technical
feasibility and the economic viability of doing so; and the objection
to requiring extended producer responsibility to cover the entire
cost of post-consumer waste treatment appears to be more a question
of how the objective should be achieved, rather than whether it
should be addressed at EU level.
3.6 Having said that, we are clear that this proposal
raises a number of other important issues, and that it should
be debated in European Committee A. However, as the measures in
it feature prominently in the Commission's Communication on the
development of a zero waste programme for Europe, we would be
content for the two documents to be debated together.
Full details of the documents:
Draft Directive amending Directives 2008/98/EC on waste, 94/62/EC
on packaging and packaging waste, 1999/31/EC on the landfill of
waste, 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles, 2006/66/EC on batteries
and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators, and 2012/19/EU
on waste electrical and electronic equipment: (36209), 11598/14,
+ ADDs 1-10, COM(14) 397.
Background
3.7 We are reporting separately on a Commission Communication
which sets out a zero waste programme for Europe, intended to
encourage the development of a so-called "circular economy",
which seeks to retain added value in products and to eliminate
waste. This identified a number of areas in which amendments might
be made to existing EU legislation related to waste, and this
draft Directive accordingly proposes changes to:
· Directive 2008/98 on waste;
· Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging
waste;
· Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of
waste;
· Directive 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles;
· Directive 2006/66/EC on batteries and
accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators; and
· Directive 2012/19/EU on waste electrical
and electronic equipment.
DIRECTIVE 2008/98/EC
3.8 This is commonly known as the Waste Framework
Directive, and is the principal EU instrument dealing with waste.
Its main provisions include:
· key definitions, notably of "waste"
and "hazardous waste", "prevention", "re-use",
"treatment", "recovery", "recycling"
and "disposal";
· the establishment of a waste hierarchy,
with priority being given to prevention, followed by preparation
for re-use, recycling, other recovery, and disposal;
· provisions to determine when a product
ceases to be waste (thereby achieving "end-of-waste"
status), and hence is not included in various statutory recovery
and recycling targets;
· introduces the concept of extended producer
responsibility, enabling Member States to require producers to
accept returned products (and any waste remaining after their
use), as well as financial responsibility for their subsequent
management;
· requires Member States to take the measures
necessary to ensure that waste undergoes recovery, is re-used
and recycled, or, if disposed, is done so in a way which protects
human health and the environment consistently with the relevant
provisions of the Directive;
· sets out responsibilities for waste management
by producers or other holders, and the principles of self-sufficiency
and proximity;
· contains provisions relating to hazardous
waste, waste oils and bio-waste;
· sets out the basis on which Member States
should issue permits for establishments carrying out waste treatment
(including exemptions for those recovering waste or disposing
of their own non-hazardous waste on site), enables the Commission
to set technical minimum standards for treatment activities requiring
a permit, and requires a register to be kept for certain undertakings
which are not subject to permit requirements;
· requires Member States to ensure that
their authorities establish waste management plans containing
specified information on the content and level of waste, and the
measures being taken to deal with it, as well as waste prevention
programmes; and
· sets out provisions regarding inspections,
record keeping, and enforcement and penalties, together with requirements
on Member States to provide the Commission with information on
the Directive's implementation.
3.9 It also sets out the basis for the Commission
to introduce detailed implementing measures under the regulatory
procedure with scrutiny applying at that time.
3.10 This proposal would amend Directive 2008/98/EC
by:
· defining "municipal waste",
"food waste", "construction and demolition waste",
"backfilling", and what constitutes a "small establishment
or undertaking";
· clarifying that end-of-waste materials
used as fuels or for backfilling, and material rejected from recycling,
should not be counted towards a re-use or recycling target;
· strengthening the provisions on extended
producer responsibility by requiring Member States to encourage
the design of products to reduce their environmental impact, and
in particular by requiring them to comply with a minimum set of
requirements (which are set out in a new Annex to the Directive)
when they operate such schemes;
· requiring Member States to take appropriate
waste prevention measures, and introducing an aspirational (non-binding)
target for reducing food waste by 30% between 2017 and 2025;
· setting a target whereby 70% of municipal
waste would be recycled by 2030;
· establishing an early warning system to
identify under-performing Member States, and to require them to
submit to the Commission additional measures to meet the targets;
· introducing a provision to track hazardous
waste by means of an electronic reporting system;
· introducing a requirement for bio-waste
to be separately collected, and for the Commission to assess the
opportunity to draw up end-of-waste quality criteria for compost
and digestate;
· allowing Member States to extend exemptions
from the requirement to have a permit for the collection, transport,
disposal or recovery of waste to establishments collecting and
transporting non-hazardous waste, and to exempt small businesses
collecting or transporting small quantities of non-hazardous waste
from the need to register;
· proposing that national waste management
plans should include information on collection schemes, installations
and special arrangements for certain waste streams, littering,
and planning requirements: and that waste prevention plans should
cover food waste;
· extending the record-keeping requirements
from hazardous waste facilities to producers of all wastes;
· requiring penalties to imposed for illegal
waste dumping;
· increasing from once every three years
to annually the frequency with which Member States must report
to the Commission; and
· empowering the Commission to adopt delegated
and implementing acts for a range of activities to supplement
the proposed Directive, thus implementing amendments to the Lisbon
Treaty.
PACKAGING AND PACKAGING WASTE DIRECTIVE (94/62/EC)
3.11 This was introduced in 1994 in order to harmonise
national measures in this area, with the dual aim of reducing
the impact of packaging on the environment and of underpinning
the internal market. It requires Member States to ensure that
measures are taken to prevent the production of packaging waste,
that packaging is re-used, and that systems are established to
provide for the return of used packaging from the consumer or
from the waste stream so as to channel it into the most appropriate
waste management alternatives.
3.12 It also set Member States a number of initial
targets for the recovery of packaging waste and material, and
made provision for the Council to establish subsequent targets.
The Directive was accordingly amended by Directive 2004/12/EC,
which in particular required Member States to achieve by the end
of 2008 an overall recovery and recycling target (expressed as
a percentage by weight) for all packaging, with separate minimum
sub-targets for specific materials contained in packaging waste
(glass, paper and board, metals, plastics and wood). It also introduced
the concept of producer responsibility and of promoting energy
recovery where this is economically and environmentally preferable
to recycling.
3.13 The Commission has now proposed that the relevant
definitions in Directive 94/86/EC should be aligned with those
in Directive 2008/98/EC; that the process by which Member States
report annually to the Commission should be simplified; that Member
States should take appropriate measures to encourage the design
of packaging to reduce its environmental impact, and the development
of packaging which is suitable for multiple use; that the way
in which recycling is measured should be changed so as to net
off reprocessing losses; that the way in which material flows
are measured should be changed; and that changes should also be
made to ensure compliance with the human and environmental protection
aspects of Directive 2008/98/EC. However, the main change is that
the Commission has proposed the following extended targets for
2020, 2025 and 2030 (which will now cover "re-use and recycling",
rather than "recycling and recovery"):
| Target type
| At present
| 2020
| 2025
| 2030
|
| Total packaging | 60%
| 60% | 70%
| 80% |
| Plastics | 22.5%
| 45% | 60%
| None stated |
| Aluminium | —
| 70% | 80%
| 90% |
| Ferrous metal | 50%
| 70% | 80%
| 90% |
| Glass | 60%
| 70% | 80%
| 90% |
| Paper/cardboard | 60%
| 85% | 90%
| None stated |
| Wood | 15%
| 50% | 65%
| 80% |
LANDFILL DIRECTIVE (1999/31/EC)
3.14 This measure was introduced in order to regulate
landfill throughout the EU, so as to prevent (or reduce as far
as possible) its environmental impact, particularly as regards
pollution of surface and ground water, soil and air (including
greenhouse gas emissions), as well as any risk to human health,
during its whole life cycle. More specifically, it:
· requires landfill to be classified according
to whether hazardous, non-hazardous, or inert waste is involved,
and only the appropriate waste to be accepted for any specified
class;
· requires Member States to reduce over
a period of 15 years the quantity of biodegradable municipal waste
going to landfill to 35% of the level obtaining in 1995, and to
prevent landfill being used for liquid waste, for waste which
is explosive, corrosive, oxidising or highly flammable, for hospital
and clinical wastes, and for tyres;
· sets out various provisions relating to
an application for a landfill permit, the conditions for issuing
such a permit, and its content;
· requires Member States to ensure that
the costs of setting up, maintaining and closing a landfill site
(including its aftercare) are covered by the price which the operator
charges for the disposal of waste to it; and
· sets out procedures governing the acceptance
of waste at a landfill site, control and monitoring during the
operational phase, and closure and aftercare.
3.15 This proposal would:
· align various definitions with those in
the Waste Framework Directive, introduce a definition of "residual
waste" and clarify the definition of "biodegradable
waste";
· prohibit Member States from accepting
for non-hazardous landfill after 1 January 2025 recyclable waste,
including plastics, metal, glass, paper and cardboard, and other
biodegradable waste;
· require Member States to limit from 1
January 2025 the quantity of waste in non-hazardous landfill to
25% of the total amount of municipal waste generated in the previous
year;
· require Member States to endeavour to
accept only residual waste in landfill for non-hazardous waste
by 1 January 2030, so that the total amount going to such landfills
does not exceed 5% of the total amount of municipal waste generated
the previous year;
· prohibit Member States from accepting
municipal waste to be deposited in landfills for inert waste;
· require the Commission to assess the feasibility
of introducing restrictions on the landfilling of non-residual
waste in landfills for inert waste, and to present its conclusions
by 2018, including a legislative proposal, if appropriate; and
· introduce an early warning system.
OTHER DIRECTIVES
3.16 In the case of the End of Life Vehicles Directive
(2000/53/EC), the Batteries and Accumulators and Waste Batteries
and Accumulators Directive (2006/66/EC) and the Waste Electrical
and Electronic Equipment Directive (2012/19/EU), the Commission
has proposed relatively small amendments, including aligning the
definitions in them with those in the Waste Framework Directive
and simplifying reporting requirements placed on Member States.
The Government's view
3.17 We have received a very comprehensive joint
Explanatory Memorandum of 25 July 2014 from the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson) and the Minister of State at
the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Matthew Hancock).
3.18 They observe that this is a complex review of
waste legislation which will potentially affect a number of national
measures, and that some of the impacts could have a cumulative
effect as they introduce new targets, whilst amending the definitions
and calculation methods needed to achieve those targets. Although
they have provided an initial assessment of the policy implications,
which makes it clear that there will be costs on business, they
say that, given the long timescale involved and the various technological
and financial uncertainties, it is at this stage very difficult
to give a precise estimate, and that further work is underway
to fully assess the implications for the UK.
3.19 In the meantime, they note that the impact
assessment produced by the Commission is Europe-wide and does
not give figures for the impact on individual Member States: and
that, although the issues involved are very complex, many of the
key assumptions are simplistic, leading to an analysis which underestimates
the true costs of implementing the proposals, particularly as
no attempt is made to quantify the costs to householders. However,
they note that preliminary estimates by DEFRA economists —
which they stress should be treated with considerable caution
and could change substantially once more robust costings are available
— indicate that the net total discounted costs solely for
the municipal waste recycling target and associated landfill bans
arising from the need to invest in new recycling capacity and
to modify collection and treatment systems could range from the
high hundreds of millions to the low billions of pounds, in addition
to the costs of maintaining the levels required from the existing
2020 targets.
3.20 The Ministers also address at some length the
question of subsidiarity. They note the Commission's view that
the proposal conforms with the subsidiarity and proportionality
principle set out in the Treaty on the European Union, and that
it is essentially limited to amending existing EU level targets
and definitions, whilst leaving Member States free to decide about
precise implementation methods. They also acknowledge that, for
most Member States, EU targets have been a key driver in changing
waste management practices and developing meaningful waste management
plans, whilst the establishment of an EU-wide waste market has
been important in developing recycling and recovery processes
and providing a level playing field for the waste management sector
and addressing transnational environmental issues.
3.21 However, they express the view the Commission's
proposal to add a new Annex to the Waste Framework Directive setting
out for the first time stringent criteria which Member States
which choose to apply extended producer responsibility would be
obliged meet — including some "rigorous" new burdens
on business and individuals, where a lighter touch regime may
be more locally appropriate — does not comply with the principle
of subsidiarity, and could threaten waste management over a whole
country. They note that this is in contrast to the current Directive,
which enables Member States to choose the content of the scheme,
including any new burden imposed on businesses or individuals,
and to impose producer responsibility requirements to differing
extents, resulting in a varied set of producer responsibility
schemes across the EU, which are appropriate to local circumstances.
In particular, they say that the Commission has not set out sufficient
evidence to support its assertion that the proposal is necessary
to "ensure a level-playing field and avoid obstacles to the
functioning of the internal market", and they maintain that
there will be a level playing field so long as Member States comply
with the minimum requirements of the Directive.
3.22 A more detailed analysis of the proposals affecting
the Waste Framework, Packaging and Packaging Waste and Landfill
Directives, and their implications for the UK, is set out in the
Annex.
Previous Committee Reports
None.
11 (36203) 11592/14: see Chapter 2 of this Report. Back
| 
