APPENDIX 6: VISIT TO BELGIUM
Members of the Sub-Committee taking part in the visit
were: Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan (Chairman), Lord Haskel, Lord
Howie of Troon, Lord Methuen, Earl of Selborne and Baroness Sharp
of Guildford.
In attendance: Professor Stephen Evans (Specialist
Adviser) and Miss Sarah Jones (Clerk).
21 April 2008
OVAM (Public Waste Agency of Flanders)
Welcome by Mr Rudy Meeus (Head of Waste Management)
Mr Meeus welcomed the Committee to OVAM (Openbare
Vlammse Afvalstoffenmaatschappij), the public waste agency for
the Flemish region. He explained that administrative responsibilities
for waste were divided between the federal government and three
regional governments covering the Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels
regions. Whilst the federal government dealt with nuclear waste
and waste transit, the regional governments were responsible for
translating all EU environmental directives into law and reaching
EU targets. The three regions did not always enact exactly the
same legislation, nor did they always implement directives at
the same rate. The result was that businesses in Belgium had to
be aware of waste policies dictated at the European level as well
as variations in implementation between different regions.
Presentation by Mrs Mieke De Schoenmakere
(Staff Member, Europe Office)
Mrs De Schoenmakere provided a brief summary
of the work of OVAM which employed around 400 people. The Flemish
region covered approximately 13,500km2 and was home
to around 6 million inhabitants. OVAM was responsible for policy
making as well as planning for, monitoring and enforcing EU legislation
on waste prevention, management and soil remediation. Waste collection
and treatment activities were contracted out. Within Flanders,
around 10 per cent of the total waste stream was produced by households,
which amounted to around three million tonnes per year. The collection
and treatment of this was organised by 308 municipalities which
worked together in 25 associations. The other 90 per cent was
commercial and industrial waste and responsibility for this lay
with the private sector.
Over the last decade, the amount of household waste
sent to landfill in the region had decreased significantly. This
was partly because prevention had been encouraged but mostly because
more waste had been recycled. Recycling had also helped to divert
industrial waste from landfill but a growing proportion of industrial
waste was being recovered due to changes in the regulatory framework.
In 1998, a new system had been introduced which allowed materials
previously classified as waste to be used as secondary materials.
If certain criteria were met, the "waste" label could
be removed from these materials which made it easier to store,
transport and use them, thus diverting resources away from recycling
or landfill. Whilst this had allowed greater resource efficiency,
the specified criteria only applied within the Flanders region
and different regulations had to be met in the other two Belgian
regions.
The disposal and management of waste was influenced
by a number of factors. OVAM had developed a series of waste management
plans which addressed the treatment and disposal of waste within
particular sectors. Selective collection and recycling systems
had been implemented at the kerbside, in recycling parks and at
retailers to encourage the separation of different types of waste
at source. Households were charged for the waste they produced;
in some areas the charge was calculated according to the volume
or weight of the waste. Extended producer responsibility legislation
obliged producers to take back and dispose of their products appropriately.
In addition, OVAM had implemented a landfill ban for unsorted
household and industrial wastes, wastes which had been selectively
collected for the purpose of recovery, wastes that could be recovered
because of their nature, quantity or homogeneity, combustible
residues from the sorting of household or comparable industrial
waste, and waste pharmaceuticals. Furthermore, it was forbidden
to incinerate selectively collected wastes that could be recycled
(except for some high calorific wastes for renewable energy purposes),
unsorted industrial wastes and unsorted household wastes. The
costs of landfill and incineration had been set to promote recycling
and incineration above landfill, and to encourage the use of treatment
options which had the lowest environmental impact.
Presentation by Mrs Katrijn Siebens (Head
of Waste Prevention)
OVAM's long-term goal was to reduce waste and its
environmental impacts to an unavoidable minimum and to decouple
economic growth from the environmental pressures which resulted
from increasing consumption. OVAM had been particularly successful
at engaging with the business community to promote waste prevention.
Mrs Siebens said that OVAM had begun its prevention work
in 1991 and had made good progress at raising awareness within
industry as well as embedding prevention measures within the legal
system. Nevertheless, she acknowledged that it was difficult to
measure the effectiveness of their waste prevention policies because
there were no clear targets and there was a complex division of
competencies between the national and regional authorities.
To promote waste reduction amongst small companies,
OVAM had conducted a number of Prevention Stimulation (PRESTI)
programmes in which particular sectors were studied, pilot companies
were encouraged to implement waste prevention measures, and the
experiences and knowledge gained were disseminated and shared
to other SMEs. As part of the programme, research bureaus and
environmental organisations could receive funding to establish
projects which encouraged businesses to embrace waste prevention
principles. Since 2006, OVAM's Eco-efficiency Scanprogramme also
encouraged SMEs to invest in eco-efficient policies to combine
environmental profit with economic advantage. Over a period of
three years, the programme had a budget of €2.6m and aimed
to assist 1,000 Flemish SMEs. The programme was voluntary and
involved three steps: an initial audit (the eco-efficiency scan),
a follow-up review after six months and another audit after one
year. These audits were carried out by external consultants, were
free for the SME and strictly confidential. The audits identified
areas which businesses could improve upon and some of the most
common were processes (waste prevention, energy use and transport),
valorisation of waste (optimisation of the waste separation) and
management (monitoring and communication).
Ms Siebens noted that SMEs did not always have a
clear idea of where their waste was due to poor recording systems.
SMEs often reported that the scan "questions what we consider
as obvious" and "opens the eyes." The programme
demonstrated that SMEs often had a large potential for improvement
and most businesses acted almost immediately after the scan, but
follow-up was crucial in ensuring that practices were sustained.
OVAM had developed a piece of software known as Mambo, whose name
was derived from the assertion that "less waste means more
profit for the company." This tool allowed companies to calculate
the costs of their waste. It demonstrated that the true costs
could be up to 10 times higher than the visible costs of disposal,
and the mean value of total waste costs could amount to up to
five per cent of the production costs of a business.
To promote eco-design, the agency had developed a
simple instrument to assess materials based upon an internationally
accepted method for calculating life-cycle assessments. The "ecolizer"
tool gave an "eco-indicator" score which allowed designers
to compare the emissions and resource inputs of different materials.
Being simpler than full life-cycle assessments, the scores allowed
designers to easily compare the environmental impacts of different
materials, production processes and products. Eco-design awards
had also been developed which recognised both students and professional
designers who pushed the boundaries of sustainable design. Furthermore,
OVAM had employed benchmarking techniques to encourage businesses
to become more sustainable. Its Inspiration database included
over 250 examples of companies which exhibited good practice at
designing for sustainability and which implemented successful
waste reduction practices. An internet based tool had also been
developed to enable local authorities to assess their procurement
policies and consumption patterns.
The next challenge was to address production and
consumption within society. OVAM had developed sectoral implementation
plans and aimed to promote the waste reduction message to retailers
and consumers next. The government of Flanders had pledged to
promote sustainability as much as possible through its procurement
activities. OVAM favoured a collective approach towards tackling
waste, encouraging manufacturers, retailers, consumers, environmental
organisations, government agencies, marketing sectors and research
institutions to all play a role in addressing consumption in order
to reduce waste.
Niko
Meeting with Mr Joseph De Backer (Owner of
the Niko Group and Chairman of the Board) and Mr Werner Verberckt
(Director of Operations)
Mr De Backer introduced the company, which manufactured
a range of electrical switches, sockets, light controls, door
and video phone systems. In the past the company had implemented
environmental projects on an ad hoc basis, but in 2000 the company
decided to take a more strategic approach, signing up to an industrial
charter produced by a local authority which committed them to
implementing environmentally friendly processes which were also
financially beneficial. The charter was voluntary but signing
up to its aims was a symbolic act which encouraged businesses
to change their practices. Along with the local authority, the
business selected a number of environmental issues to focus on
and so far all the changes had proved to be economical. In general,
waste reduction strategies led to long-term cost savings but new
technologies might require a significant initial investment. The
pay-back time was therefore crucial. As a large company, Niko
could afford to invest in strategies which might take many years
to return a profit, but many businesses, especially SMEs, were
reliant on banks for loans to implement new technologies and if
the pay-back time was lengthy, banks would often be reluctant
to fund them.
Environmental considerations had influenced the whole
ethos of the company. Sensors had been installed so that lights
were only turned on when people were present and light intensity
was low. No conventional air-conditioning or heating systems were
used within the buildings and novel heat exchange systems had
been installed instead. A number of factors had acted as a catalyst
to implement waste reduction practices. The company itself had
been keen to establish an environmentally friendly ethos, but
it had also seen indications from local authorities that this
matter was to be taken seriously. The company was aware that legislation
would be developed to oblige manufacturers to reach certain environmental
criteria, so it had decided to make use of the incentives offered
to reach these criteria ahead of the game. Legal requirements
had to be met regarding the use of chemicals or hazardous substances
within products, which the company discussed in detail with its
suppliers. The company integrated a "care for the environment"
message throughout its design processes and communicated its environmental
objectives both within the company and externally. Niko was constantly
looking for materials which could be re-used, preferably within
the company, but also outside of the company if not. However,
the aesthetics of products sometimes limited what could be achieved
through design alone.
Tour of the factory
During a tour of the factory the Sub-Committee viewed
both manual assembly lines, used to manufacture small numbers
of a specific product, as well as large automated production lines,
used for mass manufacturing items. A "hot runner" system
had been employed in which a heated manifold precisely distributed
molten plastic into moulds during the production of plastic units.
This prevented the formation of a plastic "runner" which
often resulted in other factories after excess plastic was left
in the cavity between heated nozzle and mould. The resulting pieces
of wasted plastic were only small but, when there were hundreds
of thousands of them, collectively they could constitute a large
material and financial cost. Niko therefore saved a substantial
amount of money, energy and material by implementing the "hot
runner" system.
Delhaize
Presentation by Mr Phillipe-Henri Heymans
(Architect and Technical Director)
Mr Heymans began by introducing the Delhaize
Group, a large food retailer founded in Belgium in 1867, which
operated a variety of supermarkets and smaller stores within seven
countries across North America, Europe and South-East Asia. Mr Heymans
outlined the waste policy of Delhaize Belgium which focused on
prevention, a message which was promoted throughout the supply
chain to suppliers, procurers, distributors and staff within Delhaize
stores.
Delhaize Belgium had asked its suppliers to consider
the design of packaging, questioning whether it could be removed,
reduced, re-used, recycled or made of renewable or biodegradable
materials. The company also planned to teach its procurement staff
about the relative costs and benefits of reducing packaging and
educate them about the environmental reasons for reducing waste.
To ensure that it met its legal requirements for recycling and
disposal, Delhaize was a member of Val-I-Pac, a not-for-profit
organisation which co-ordinated the management of industrial packaging
waste and ensured companies complied with the regulations. Re-usable
boxes for fruit, meat and vegetables were used in warehouses and
could be washed and returned after use, allowing a completely
closed loop system. Other useful alternatives to store and transport
products included re-usable pallets, small trolleys and special
re-usable trays for fish and potatoes.
The company also collaborated with Fost Plus, a voluntary
body formed by private companies which aimed to develop a co-ordinated,
sustainable solution to reduce household packaging waste in co-operation
with industry, consumers, municipalities, local authorities and
recycling companies. The company claimed to be a pioneer in Belgium
and had been offering re-usable packaging and carrying solutions
since 1994. From July 2007, Delhaize stores had stopped offering
disposable plastic bags to customers, which would save an estimated
720 tonnes of plastic each year. Since the distribution of these
bags had stopped, the use of re-usable bags had tripled. The company
also ran a deposit scheme for glass wine bottles which, from May
2008, would offer 30 cents to customers for every bottle returned.
The bottles were collected in stores, sent to a sorting centre
where they were washed and then re-used.
Mr Heymans acknowledged that there were problems
to overcome. Some of these were internal as it took time to alter
processes and educate staff, but others were external. Customers'
perceptions needed to be addressed as they did not always understand
the arguments for and against various types of packaging. If energy
consumption was considered for the whole supply chain of a food,
the energy used in growing, harvesting and cooking food usually
far outweighed any energy used in the production of packaging,
but as packaging was often the most visible part to customers,
they could be disproportionately worried about its environmental
impacts. Furthermore, it was difficult to compare the environmental
benefits of various types of packaging as many different factors
had to be considered, such as weight, product safety and the raw
materials and energy used during its manufacture. A life-cycle
analysis would be needed to consider all of these different aspects
fully but it was not realistic to conduct such an analysis for
every piece of packaging and customers would not understand the
results anyway. In the future it would be important to continue
to improve the design of packaging to reduce its environmental
impacts, but it would also be important to address the concerns
of customers and provide easy to understand information about
different types of packaging.
22 April 2008
Environment Directorate-General, European Commission
Meeting with Ms Karolina Fras (Policy Officer),
Mr Jakub Wejchert (Legislation Policy Officer) and Ms Rosalinde
Van der Vlies (Sustainable Production and Consumption Unit)
Discussion focused on environmental legislation developed
at the European level. The Waste Framework Directive was in the
process of being revised and it was hoped that articles specifying
criteria for end-of-waste and by-products would help to clarify
the legal position of waste materials and lift regulatory burdens
so that a greater number of materials could be recycled, reprocessed
and re-used. The term "waste" often had negative connotations
so it was thought likely that the removal of this label from some
materials would help to promote the re-use of resources. Criteria
for defining end-of-waste would only be specified for particular
sectors though, where it was felt there was a need to do so. The
inclusion of national waste prevention plans and recycling targets
in the Waste Framework Directive was a point of contention during
the revision process. The Commission was not in favour of setting
goals and targets for prevention and recycling at the community
level because it felt that they should be supported by firm data
and set with reference to the circumstances of individual Member
States.[69]
The Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive
required industry to reduce its pollution and waste and was in
the process of being recast alongside six other directives, as
part of a proposal to develop a coherent directive on industrial
emissions. When developing legislation, the Environment Directorate-General
worked alongside governmental departments and environmental agencies
from Member States in an open, consultative process, inviting
opinions from relevant stakeholders. In this way, it was hoped
that new legislation always took the views of industry into account.
However, it was acknowledged that some pieces of legislation sometimes
conflicted with each other and the difficulty of implementation
lay in the detail. It was hoped that future reviews of legislation
such as the WEEE Directive and RoHS Directive would help to address
any difficulties experienced by businesses.
The Sustainable Consumption and Production Action
Plan promoted the development of environmentally friendly products,
and it was noted that improvements in resource efficiency could
reduce industry's dependence on virgin raw materials. The Action
Plan could provide the basis for the introduction of differential
taxation for products of differing environmental performance,
but such changes to the taxation system would need unanimous agreement
between Member States. As part of the Action Plan, the Commission
was also considering setting dynamic product benchmarks. These
would oblige certain products in all Member States to meet particular
criteria, but individual Member States could set higher standards
if they wished. Whilst such standards had already been developed
for energy-using products, there was scope in the future to develop
them for a broader range of products and for other environmental
aspects such as resource efficiency or recyclability.
Orgalime
Presentation by Ms Sigrid Linher (Environment
Manager)
As an engineering association which spoke for 35
different trade federations, Orgalime represented around 130,000
companies in the mechanical, electrical, electronic and metalworking
industries in 23 European countries. Ms Linher noted that businesses
faced many different pieces of environmental legislation and the
complexity of various regulations often overwhelmed them. In the
past, she felt that legislation had largely focused on end-of-life
disposal or production standards, citing examples such as the
WEEE and RoHS Directive, or on the emissions produced during production
processes. But the development of the EuP Directive appeared to
signal a new approach, where sustainability and life-cycle thinking
were considered in legislation. The challenge was to achieve consistency
between different pieces of legislation to ensure that all regulations
steered businesses in the same direction.
The association monitored the implementation of the
WEEE and EuP Directives and assessed the ways in which they impacted
upon businesses. Shortcomings in Member States' transpositions
of the WEEE Directive had been recognised and a global perspective
was needed to address these. Orgalime felt that the EuP Directive
was an example of good regulation because it considered both the
needs of the product, such as safety, fitness for purpose, convenience
and appearance, as well as environmental needs. The directive
also recognised that environmentally conscious design involved
more than just design for recycling, but required consideration
of energy efficiency, the raw materials used and waste. Such a
holistic approach in legislation was vital to avoid adverse environmental
effects. Waste reduction was important, but it must be considered
alongside other environmental aspects and it was crucial that
legislators, businesses and consumers all adopted life-cycle thinking
in the future.
Toyota Motor Europe
Meeting with Mr Tadashi Arashima (President),
Mr Graham Smith (Senior Vice-President), Mr Steve Hope
(General Manager of Production Engineering), Mr Willy Tomboy
(Director and Environmental Officer of the Environmental Affairs
Group), Mr Stephan Herbst (Senior Manager of the Environmental
Affairs Group) and Mr Alex Burnett (Senior Specialist in
External Affairs)
Presentation by Mr Smith
Mr Smith introduced Toyota's operations within
Europe, noting that in 2007 the company made up 5.6 per cent of
the market share and sold 1,238,638 vehicles. Toyota owned nine
manufacturing plants and one design centre in Europe and employed
around 80,000 people directly and through retailer channels.
Presentation by Mr Hope
Mr Hope outlined Toyota's environmental performance
and commented that by 2007 the company had already reached its
2010 targets for energy consumption, water use, emissions of volatile
organic compounds and waste reduction. Manufacturing plants in
the UK had managed to reduce their waste by 67 per cent between
1994 and 2006. The company was therefore in the process of resetting
its targets to achieve even greater environmental savings. Toyota
valued the ISO 14001 standard and all of its European manufacturing
plants had obtained the standard. The company also strongly encouraged
sustainability amongst its suppliers and had developed green purchasing
guidelines which it used when selecting suppliers. In the past,
they had previously stopped working with suppliers who had not
obtained the ISO 14001 or which did not participate in the EU
Eco-Management and Audit Scheme. This provided a strong incentive
throughout the supply chain to take environmental concerns seriously.
The company also made use of benchmarking exercises to compare
its performance against other automotive companies and Mr Hope
reported that the company was the top performer in Europe when
it came to waste reduction, energy consumption and water use.
The company had adopted the principles of the waste
hierarchy in all its processes, choosing to focus its attention
on the top and middle levels which involved refining, reducing,
re-using, recycling and recovering waste. Their philosophy was
that bad quality materials or products should never be passed
from one stage of a production process to the next. It was important
to recognise that materials often had value, so they should be
refined, segregated and re-used wherever possible. Toyota's manufacturing
plant at Burnaston, in the UK, had been the first to achieve "zero
waste" and since 2005 had sent no waste to landfill. Waste
was reduced as much as it could be, but where waste did arise
at the plant it was segregated at source and recycled where possible.
The sludge water content was removed from waste and incineration
provided an opportunity to recover energy. Following the example
of this plant, all Toyota's European manufacturing plants had
reduced their waste and now managed to send zero waste to landfill.
In addition, all plants were set the challenge of reducing the
total amount of waste created and to move up the waste hierarchy,
increasing their recycling to recovery ratio.
The company had adopted the Kaizen process which
involved continuous improvements. It also made use of "just
in time" and "lean production" strategies to detect
problems in production processes and correct any defects or problems
quickly. Alterations in the design process had led to the development
of products which were easier to deal with at end-of-life. For
example, a soft instrument panel had previously been made from
three different types of materials, only two of which were recyclable,
but after the Kaizen process the decision had been taken to manufacture
it with just two types of recyclable materials. The company had
recognised that waste reduction measures led to significant cost
savings and therefore made good business sense. Toyota's goal
was to reduce waste whilst incurring minimum cost, transportation
and administration. There were difficulties to reducing and re-using
waste, many of which stemmed from the legal definitions of waste
and differing legislation between countries. Furthermore, the
market did not always favour diversion from landfill. Compared
to incineration and landfill, the recycling and re-use of materials
was often more expensive, the facilities were limited and the
price of recyclable and re-usable materials was variable.
Presentation by Mr Tomboy
Mr Tomboy commented that there was a shared
responsibility for the recycling and disposal of vehicles and
outlined the obligations that the ELVs Directive placed upon owners
and producers of vehicles, treatment operators and local authorities.
The directive stipulated that by 2015 Member States should have
reached the target of re-using and recovering 95 per cent of the
weight of vehicles and re-using and recycling 85 per cent. Toyota
felt that the ELVs targets had helped to encourage manufacturers
to design for re-use and recycling, but commented that they were
already taking steps in this direction anyway as they had recognised
that waste reduction led to financial savings. In order to increase
the rate of recycling and re-use, Toyota had employed a range
of strategies including the development of dismantling technologies,
improvements to recycling and recovery technologies, the use of
recycled materials, the use of renewable resources, increased
utilisation of used parts, the reduction of hazardous substances
and the development of recyclable vehicle structures. The establishment
of the International Dismantling Information System had provided
a useful source of information for vehicle manufacturers and enabled
identification of component materials which allowed end-of-life
vehicles to be dismantled and treated effectively.
Mr Tomboy outlined the Japanese Automobile Recycling
Law which had been effective at promoting recycling, encouraging
proper treatment and preventing the illegal disposal of vehicles.
He added that the law was effective in Japan and suited their
production processes and market economy but it would not be fair
to make direct comparisons between the Japanese law and the ELVs
Directive.
69 Since our meeting, an agreement on the text of the
Waste Framework Directive has been reached between the European
Parliament and Council of Ministers. This does include targets
for re-use and recycling, which Member States must aim to achieve
by taking necessary measures. Member States must also establish
waste management plans and waste prevention programmes with prevention
objectives five years after the Directive comes into force. Back
|
