Transcript Document

European Federation for Waste Management and
Environmental Services
Fédération Européenne des Activités du Déchet et de
l’Environnement
Europäische Föderation der Entsorgungswirtschaft
1
REVISION OF THE WASTE
FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE
Hubert de CHEFDEBIEN
Unico van KOOTEN
FEAD TF on WFD
2
Which extent of revision is needed ?

FEAD supports the existing legislation on waste



which has proven good environmental and health protection
However, a few points require improvement
FEAD agrees with most of the issues identified by DG Env




“Lack of precision/clarity in the WFD text”
“No clear statement of what are the aims of the Directive, and
how it should be applied”
“Some definitions and other legal issues not working well”
“Need of the WFD to do more in some areas”
3
How to make the revision ?
 FEAD agrees with most of the principles as given by DG Env
“Introduce the new approach : life cycle thinking, focus on
environmental impact
 Tackle real problems – end of waste, recovery and disposal,
recycling
 Modernise, simplify, clarify where useful
 Leave elements that work untouched”
 “Conclusion – a moderate revision, retaining the framework
approach”
4
Which Principles for environmentally
sound waste management ?
1) The PURPOSE of a WASTE POLICY is
to solve the problems caused by waste
Must be clearly stated in the Waste Framework Directive
2) Two environmental principles
 Nuisance control and
 Saving of resources
Two possible methods
 prevention of waste production
 waste treatment or co-treatment
5
Saving of Resources
RECOVERY is
 a tool for achieving and evaluating ‘Resource
saving’
Essential to define clearly what it is, what it is not, what
its aim is, when it is really done and how to quantify it
when necessary
RECOVERY does not
 address ‘Nuisance control’ as such
 include the result of a general LCA conclusion
6
Definition of Recovery
 DG ENV (workshop 11 March 2005) :
“Recovery is or leads to substitution of natural
resources in the economy”
th
FEAD proposes the following definition :
“Recovery is a group of actions which results
in the effective direct or indirect saving of
natural resources including materials, organic
and non organic matter and energy”
Why?
7
Recovery Definition according to FEAD
FEAD :
 Recovery is not an operation but a group of actions
 Waste legislation should apply to the recovery chain as a
whole
 Recovery requires a ‘proven effective use’
(real and traceable environmental result)
 “Saving” is preferred to “Substitution”
in order to avoid new court cases because of lack of clarity (what has been substituted?)
 Both direct and indirect saving must be taken into
consideration
8
Effective use
 Today the meaning of “recovery” is such that something which is
‘recovered’ may be used or could as well be disposed of (paper or plastic
bales to landfill)
 Something which is “effectively used” really contributes to resources
savings
 Clear distinction is essential between ‘Usable’ and ‘Effectively used’ in
order to avoid “Sham recovery”
 Confusion between ‘Usable’ and ‘Effectively used’ : one source of the
problems encountered with the notion of Recovery
 The definition proposed by DG ENV does not really tackle this problem
FEAD: Could DG ENV clarify which new elements in the
WFD ensure adequate traceability to stop sham recovery?
9
Recovery chain → Treatment operations
 The credit of recovery : not belong to a single actor
The recovery chain includes : the citizen who sorts his waste, waste collection, pretreatment if any, treatment, post-treatment if any, and ends up with effective use in
an industrial process or other, e.g. for compost)
Every link of this chain : an actor of recovery
 ‘Recovery operations’ ↔ ‘Disposal operations’
 Inadequate distinction
 ‘Treatment operations’ most often lead to
 Recover a part of the waste
 Dispose of the other part
 Deletion of Annex IIA AND IIB
 Medium term objective
10
Material Recovery ↔ Energy Recovery
1. CRUDE OIL
777.000
2. NATURAL GAS 265.000
3. COAL
151.000
+ LIGNITE
+ URANIUM
LCA (Life Cycle Analyses)

 Material Recycling
→ Energy saving
 Energy Recovery
→ Material saving
11
End of Waste status
 Should not
 lead to a general declassification from the waste status
now or in the future
 lead to less stringent environmental standards
 occur before waste is actually reincorporated into a
regulated production cycle
However, for a few specific waste streams,
not requiring downstream production cycles
such as compost,
ceasing the waste status after standardisation could be
considered.
12
Other End of Waste related Problems
 Determining the end of waste requires to solve a
number of issues
 The control of non waste when sent to developing countries
 The temptation for the waste holder to perform under lower
environmental standards through bypassing waste regulations
 The temptation for Member States to decrease artificially their
waste production by waste declassification
 The situation of non waste if a plant stops activities with ‘non waste’
stock piles
 The situation where mixed waste streams can become a non waste
13
Conditions for ceasing to be a Waste
 Any waste material allowed to become a non waste:
 must be processed under conditions which fully ensure the current
high standards of environmental and health protection being
achieved under the waste legislation
 must comply with quality requirements set on a European level as
well as user’s requirements. Potentially mixed wastes streams
should be excluded except under certain circumstances
 must achieve an effective recovery, i.e. certainty that the substance
has been used as foreseen;
(cf. Court judgments C-9-00 & C-114/01)
This requires traceability
14
Hazardous waste
FEAD position
 maintain a dedicated Hazardous waste directive
Haz. waste require specific strict rules
 All types of hazardous wastes treatment
installations under the IPPC regime with a permit
 Separate or dedicated collection of hazardous
wastes. In particular for
small quantities of household hazardous wastes
waste oils
 Provision to avoid declassification from hazardous
to non hazardous
15
In summary
 Recovery answers to the “Resource saving” principle;
this requires EFFECTIVE RECOVERY
A proof of recovery is needed at the end of the waste management
operations chain
 Recovery does not answer as such to the “Nuisance
reduction” principle
A high level of environmental and health protection must be
achieved as well for Disposal and for Recovery in accordance
with the installation’s permit
 End of waste must be limited to few waste streams and bound
to EFFECTIVE USE which ensures traceability and resources saving
16
Conclusion
FEAD has a great deal of experience of difficulties
caused by unclear waste-related definitions and their
ensuing confused use at Member State level.
We have every interest in ensuring that this WFD
revision successfully adopts clear, environmentally
sound definitions and we are open to discussing this
further
17