Opportunities to improve the EU framework for waste management Otto Linher,

DGENV G.4 15/09/05 Slide: 1

European CommissionDG EnvironmentSustainable Production and Consumption

Opportunities to improve the EU framework for waste

management

Otto Linher,European Commission DG [email protected]:/europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste



Why is waste a problem? Continued growth of the waste mountain

around 1500 Mt of waste (excluding agricultural waste)

3.5 tonnes per capita and year 1995-98 growth by 15% while GDP grew by 10% around 240 Mt of municipal waste

540 kg per capita and year

Environmental impacts of waste Air pollutants and greenhouse gases Leachates Long term heritage of landfills and contaminated

sites Disamenity (noise, odour etc.) Resource loss and avoidable impacts of virgin

materials production



Why do we need Community policy on waste? Isn’t waste a local issue?

National and local authorities remain the key actors to implement good waste management

However, good waste management is difficult if other regions offer lower quality waste management at cheaper prices

If we want to improve waste management effectively, the same standards need to apply everywhere



Community waste legislation today: Basic rules

Waste Framework Directive 75/442/EEC Hazardous Waste Directive 91/689/EEC Waste lists (Decision 2000/532/EC) Waste Shipment Regulation 259/93

Waste disposal installations Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC Waste Incineration Directive 2000/76/EC

Waste stream specific legislation Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive 94/62/EC End of Life Vehicles Directive 2000/53/EC WEEE 2002/96/EC and RoHS 2002/95/EC Waste Oils Directive 75/439/EEC Batteries Directive 91/157/EEC Sewage Sludge Directive 86/278/EEC PCB/PCT Directive 96/59/EC



What have we achieved and what do we need to improve? - 6th Environment Action Programme (1)

We have managed to significantly reduce environmental impacts of waste managementNo overview available but:

Waste Incineration Directive will reduce dioxin emissions from waste incineration by more than 99% (if fully implemented)

Landfill Directive will reduce methane emissions and leachates to soil to a small fraction of earlier levels (if fully implemented)

Recycling Directives achieve significant resource savings and reduction of environmental impacts related to production of virgin material and waste disposal



What have we achieved and what do we need to improve? - 6th Environment Action Programme (2)

However, we have not managed to reduced waste generation... link to production and consumption patterns what goes into the economy sooner or later comes out as

waste …hence the need for more focus on resource

management Thematic Strategy on Resources

why is resource use a problem? the use of which resources is a problem? what priorities to set and with which measures to achieve

objectives/targets to be set? Integrated Product Policy

how can we improve production and consumption patterns? what products/product groups to prioritise?



Thematic Strategy on Waste Prevention and Recycling

Waste prevention

What works and what does not work?

Prevention targets?Link to Integrated

Product Policy

Recycling

Improve the legal framework for recycling (definitions, recycling standards etc.)

How to follow up producer responsibility



Thematic Strategy on Waste Prevention and Recycling

Modernise Simplify (end of waste, definition of recovery) Reinforce where needed: waste prevention

actions and recycling standards Explanation provided in: (short) Communication

+ (long) Impact Assessment, + a ‘story book’ Immediate action:

Revise waste framework Directive Integrate hazardous waste Directive Repeal waste oils Directive



How does this link to producer responsibility (1)?

Recycling targets and producer responsibility obligations have proved to be an important factor to create stable financing for recycling

Still, much needs to be done to implement recycling programs and to achieve the targets set

...

A Decade for Change

Inc/co-inc emission limits

Hazardous waste landfills

WEEE + ELV targets

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2015 2016

IPPC permits

Pckg targets

Non-haz waste landfills

Final ELV targets

Landfill diversion

Final landfill diversion

PCBs destroyed

Landfill:- Tyres Ban- Acceptance criteria

2005: Thematic Strategy

DGENV G.4 15/09/05 Slide: 11


How does this link to producer responsibility (2)? ...

Therefore, for the moment the focus is on implementation rather than setting or revising legislation

In the long run, material specific approaches and targets at Community level may be options for simplification and more market orientation

DGENV G.4 15/09/05 Slide: 12


The Planned Commission Report on the Implementation of the Packaging Directive:

Evaluation of impact on environment and Internal Market

Prevention: essential requirements, packaging environment indicator, prevention plans

Re-useProducer responsibilityHeavy metals and other hazardous substances

DGENV G.4 15/09/05 Slide: 13


The preparatory work for the Commission Report: ECOLAS/PIRA study on the implementation of the Packaging

Directive and options to strengthen prevention and reuse http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/studies/packaging/

050224_final_report.pdf (main report) http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/studies/packaging/

050224_final_%20report_annexes.pdf (annexes) http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/studies/packaging/

implementation_background.htm (information on the stakeholder consultation, including the comments received on the draft final report).

Perchards/FFact study on the progress of the implementation and impact of the Packaging Directive on the functioning of the Internal Market

http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/environment/reports_studies/studies/report_packaging_direct.pdf

EEA pilot study on the effectiveness of packaging waste management systems in selected countries

Covers Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, United Kingdom, available on: http://reports.eea.eu.int/eea_report_2005_3/en

DGENV G.4 15/09/05 Slide: 14


The impact of the Directive on packaging recovery and recycling

Packaging recovery and incineration at waste incineration plants with energy recovery increased from 31.0 Mt in 1997 (53%) to 41.4 Mt in 2002 (62%)

Packaging recycling increased from 27.2 Mt in 1997 (46%) to 36.1 Mt in 2002 (55%)

All of the 75 applicable recovery and recycling targets for the various Member States were met in 2002

DGENV G.4 15/09/05 Slide: 15


The 2003 recovery and recycling ratesRecovery

50%Recycling

25%Glass15%

Paper15%

Metals15%

Plastics15%

Austria 77 64 83 82 56 31

Belgium 92 74 96 79 93 33

Czech Republic 59 51 63 62 37 38

Denmark 89 54 95 60 41 17

Finland 67 41 61 63 50 14

France 64 48 57 69 57 16

Germany 86 71 86 81 82 53

Greece (2002) 33 33 24 68 10 3

Ireland (2002) 35 35 48 35 35 17

Italy 58 51 53 58 55 24

Luxembourg 87 60 90 64 70 24

Netherlands 92 62 81 69 83 21

Portugal (2002) 50 36 35 50 53 9

Slovak Republic 47 36 27 49 37 12

Spain 48 43 38 57 45 20

Sweden 76 47 92 64 48 17

United Kingdom 53 47 38 65 41 18

DGENV G.4 15/09/05 Slide: 16


The effects of packaging recovery and recycling on the environment

Positive effects on most environmental parameters, including:Savings of around 10 million tons of oil

equivalent around 1 million as a direct result of the packaging

directiveSavings of around 25 million tons of CO2

equivalent around 0.6% of total EU15 greenhouse gas emissions in

2002around 3 million as a direct result of the packaging

directive

DGENV G.4 15/09/05 Slide: 17


The costs of packaging recovery and recycling

Total cost of packaging waste managementNo recovery: 6.17 bn €Baseline scenario: 6.6 bn €Packaging Directive 6.8 bn €

of which: financing need for recycling 3.7 bn € gross cost 5.3 bn €revenue from sale of secondary material 1.6 bn €

Cost for incineration with energy recovery 0.55 bn €Cost for disposal of remaining packaging waste 2.3 bn €

Additional cost as a result of the Packaging Directive: 227 m €

DGENV G.4 15/09/05 Slide: 18



Costs of packaging waste management

01234567

ZeroRecycling

2001

bn

€

Recycling

Incineration w.e.r.

Disposal

DGENV G.4 15/09/05 Slide: 19



Current packaging recycling is not substantially more expensive than costs of alternative disposal

However: Costs vary significantly between materials and

applications for some materials and applications recycling is clearly cheaper

than disposal for some materials and applications recycling is disproportionately

expensive in the middle ground recycling costs are comparable to disposal

costs Packaging recycling policy has stabilized

recycling where it was previously almost profitable and/or characterized by fluctuating commodity prices for secondary material

DGENV G.4 15/09/05 Slide: 20


Is packaging recycling a cost-efficient instrument for environmental protection?

Cost of reducing 1 ton of CO2-equivalent through packaging recycling is estimated as rising from 12 €/t in 1997 to 23 €/t in 2001 This compares to a current market value of around

22.7 €/t However, these figures are very sensitive to variations

in recycling and disposal costs They vary significantly depending on materials and

applications The cost does not only relate to reductions of

greenhouse gas emissions but also to reductions in other environmental impact categories

Costs for packaging recycling are in the same order of magnitude as the cheapest alternatives to achieve the same environmental benefit

DGENV G.4 15/09/05 Slide: 21


The impact of national policies on packaging prevention

Member States have used various concepts to encourage packaging prevention enforcement of essential requirementspackaging prevention plansstrong producer responsibility obligationsprevention targetsawareness-raising programmes etc.

DGENV G.4 15/09/05 Slide: 22


The impact of national policies on packaging prevention

In most Member States, there seems to be some relative de-coupling of packaging waste growth from GDP these prevention policies may have contributed to

this de-coupling but it remains uncertain how much is due to market forces and how much a result of policy

however, none of the applied policy instruments has achieved a dramatic change in packaging put on the market

none of the instruments seems to be clearly better than the other instruments

DGENV G.4 15/09/05 Slide: 23


The impact of the Directive on packaging prevention

Generation of packaging waste has increased from 59.8 Mt in 1997 to 66.3 Mt in 2002 (+10.9%)

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Year

Ind

ex (

1997=

100)

Packaging waste generation - Index (1997=100)

GDP in fixed prices - Index (1997=100)

DGENV G.4 15/09/05 Slide: 24


The impact of prevention plans on packaging prevention

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Year

Inde

x (1

997=

100)



90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Year

Inde

x (1

997=

100)



90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Year

Inde

x (1

997=

100)



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Year

Inde

x (1

997=

100)



90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Year

Inde

x (1

997=

100)



Spain

Netherlands

EU 15

Belgium

Italy

DGENV G.4 15/09/05 Slide: 25


The impact of the enforcement of essential requirements on packaging prevention

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Year

Inde

x (1

997=

100)



United Kingdom EU 15 France

0%20%40%60%80%

100%120%

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Year

Inde

x (1

997=

100)



90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Year

Inde

x (1

997=

100)



DGENV G.4 15/09/05 Slide: 26


The impact of strong producer responsibility on packaging prevention

95

100

105

110

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Year

Inde

x (1

997=

100)

Packaging waste generation GDP

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Year

Inde

x (1

997=

100)



Germany EU 15 Austria

9095

100105110115

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Year

Inde

x (1

997=

100)

Packaging waste generation GDP

DGENV G.4 15/09/05 Slide: 27


The potential use of a packaging environment indicator

Conceptual tool to measure the environmental impact of packaging

Advantages Gives guidance on key indicators to analyze the life-cycle

impact of packaging Provides simple tools to companies with no previous use of life-

cycle instruments Encourages life-cycle thinking

Disadvantages Ignores close relationship between packed good and packaging Sales packaging is part of a packaging system (including

transport and grouped packaging) Unable to provide unequivocal numbers

Dependence on underlying assumptions for which there is no universally valid answer (e.g. sources of electricity generation)

Dependence on distribution scenarios which cannot be known before packaging is put on the market

DGENV G.4 15/09/05 Slide: 28


The further planning:

Adoption of the 2005 Commission report to Council and Parliament

Wait for the reactions from stakeholders, Council and Parliament

Any further decisions will be taken at a later stage

DGENV G.4 15/09/05 Slide: 29


Thank you for your attention!

Opportunities to improve the EU framework for waste management Otto Linher,

Documents