European Federation of Waste Management and Environmental Services Pierre Rellet President

FEAD MEMBERS More than 400 incinerators More than landfills More than composting sites More than recycling plants 70 % share of Municipal Solid Waste in Europe 75 % of Industrial and Commercial Waste (incl. hazardous waste) €45 billion Member Associations Companies Employees Turnover

Considerations from the waste management industry:  The creation of a “third” legal category within the WASTE Framework Directive (WFD) will not lead to more legal certainty (impossibility to cover all potential industrial waste streams within a generic definition)  Any attempt to “freeze” the legal certainty to the present jurisprudence will fail as it will not prevent the ECJ from further interpretation of such a definition  A reference to by-products in a WFD will create a legal loophole and lead to potential deregulation of industrial waste streams including hazardous waste. By-products – Enforceability/Implementation

By-products – Enforceability/Implementation (2)  Any definition on by-products :  requires a proper assessment of any potential negative impact on the environment and human health.  should be interpreted in a strict way taking into account the precautionary principle and complying with the main aim of the WFD being the protection of the environment and human health  will create “grey zones” with legislation applicable on products. By-products qualifying for deregulation under the waste regime should become subject to requirements under REACH.

Considerations from the waste management industry  Measures including environmental and quality criteria are considered as “non-essential” elements of this directive which ” may” be adopted in accordance with the comitology procedure with scrutiny. The differences of interpretation within the Member States will lead to distortions of the internal market.  The Waste Management Industry supports the Commission guidelines as the best way to proceed in order to deal with by-products and supports the European Parliament call for a dedicated directive on by- products by 2010 if deemed necessary By-products – Enforceability/Implementation

FEAD position:  Understanding of the need for a proposal to clarify the “end-of-waste” status in exceptional cases but opposition to any modification to the definition of waste as such.  The definition of waste must be interpreted in a broad way taking into account the precautionary principle in order to ensure that its effectiveness is not undermined and that its main goal - being the protection of the environment and human health – is ensured.  One of the aims of the revision of the WFD was the harmonisation European Standards and a level-playing field in waste policy. However, the CCP texts foresees that “in absence of criteria set at Community level, Member States may decide on a case by case basis whether certain waste has ceased to be waste taking into account the applicable case law”. This is a very unclear provision and will again lead to differences of interpretation across the EU-27. End-of-waste/ Enforceability - Implementation

End-of-waste/ Enforceability – Implementation (2)  The list of priority waste streams eligible to an end of waste status should be subject to the co-decision procedure because of the political dimension of such decision  The recital (22) of the Council Common Position’s text stating that “the Commission may adopt guidelines to specify in certain cases when substances or objects become waste -WEEE – put in question the whole precautionary principle

FEAD:  Welcomes the possibility to consider municipal waste incinerators as recovery operations. The energy efficiency criterion should be accessible under the conditions prevailing in all EU Member States and threshold should be based on energy efficiency performances that are achievable when using the Best Available Techniques.  Article 20 point 4 (issue of permits) stipulating that “It shall be a condition of any permit covering incineration or co- incineration with energy recovery that the recovery of energy is to take place with a high level of energy efficiency” is a recipe for legal uncertainty as it will cause different interpretation across the EU-27 member states. Criteria applying to recovery

Criteria applying to recovery (2)  Belief that the approach of the EP in elaborating a set of criteria in order to define « recovery » will not create more legal certainty and therefore support of the definition suggested by the Council  Important that the interim recovery operations are covered by the defintion of recovery and that the substitution of resources can take place in the plant or in the wider economy.  Supports of the European Parliament’s call on the Commission to adopt implementing measures in order to set environmental and efficiency criteria based on best available techniques on the basis of which final operations listed in Annex II may be considered to have resulted in a recovery operation

Recycling targets FEAD supports the principle of recycling targets: “by 2020, an overall re-use and recycling level of 50% for municipal solid waste and 70% for construction, demolition, industrial and manufacturing waste. Member States with less than 5% recycling…another 5 years.” The waste management industry however underlines the need for harmonized definitions in order to ensure comparable data an a harmonized methodology of calculation The concept of Municipal Solid Waste is interpreted differently from one member state to another.  Target to be calculated on which basis?: numerator (waste collected/treated for recycling/put on market) ? denominator (waste generated/managed) ? (imports/exports) ?

FEAD:  Supports the European Parliament in its rejection - during first reading – of an extension of application of the self-sufficiency principle to waste destined for Recovery. FEAD considers that internal market rules should apply to waste for recovery  The Council Common Position’s text integrated a derogation from the Waste Shipment Regulation stating that Member States can limit incoming shipments for waste for recovery if national waste would be disposed or if these were incoherent with their national waste management plan. It is questionable how this provision will work in practice; the burden of proof lies within the member states limiting the incoming shipments. Proximity Principle

Rue Philippe Le Bon, 15 B – 1000 BRUSSELS Tel: Fax: aisbl