1 European Federation for Waste Management and Environmental Services Fédération Européenne des Activités du Déchet et de l’Environnement Europäische Föderation der Entsorgungswirtschaft

2 REVISION OF THE WASTE FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE Hubert de CHEFDEBIEN Unico van KOOTEN FEAD TF on WFD

3 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”

4 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”

5 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 Which Principles for environmentally sound waste management ? To be really decoupled 1 st rank Just tools

6  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 Saving of Resources

7  DG ENV (workshop 11 th March 2005) : “Recovery is or leads to substitution of natural resources in the economy”  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? Definition of Recovery

8 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 Recovery Definition according to FEAD

9  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? Effective use

10  The credit of recovery : not belong to a single actor The recovery chain includes : the citizen who sorts his waste, waste collection, pre- treatment 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 Recovery chain → Treatment operations

11 LCA (Life Cycle Analyses)   Material Recycling → Energy saving  Energy Recovery → Material saving Material Recovery ↔ Energy Recovery 1. CRUDE OIL NATURAL GAS COAL LIGNITE + URANIUM

12  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. End of Waste status

13  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 Other End of Waste related Problems

14  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 Conditions for ceasing to be a Waste

15 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 Hazardous waste

16  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 In summary

17 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 Conclusion