Draft II (Do Not Quote)

2016 04 226 draft_CEOE

2016 04 226 draft_CEOE 20 April 2016

*** Draft II (do not quote) ***

KEY MESSAGES

This paper contains BUSINESSEUROPE preliminary views on the proposals of the European Commission amending Directive 2008/98/EC on waste and Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste. It includes number of concrete recommendations to revise the proposals as for the following key points:

1.  …………….

2.  ……………

3.  ……………

(This part will be elaborated as the points below will be consolidated)

BUSINESSEUROPE COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. RECYCLING

a) Definitions

BUSINESSEUROPE positively evaluates the objective of harmonising the existing framework through an alignment of definitions among Member States and with other Directives under revision.

Industry sector expressed the following considerations on some key-definitions as enlisted below.

“Municipal waste” (Art. 3, par.1a)

It is desirable to have a clear definition of Municipal waste, as functionally related to calculation and reporting on the EU recycling targets in respect of the three criteria of nature, composition and quantity.

A clear distinction between municipal waste (as household and similar fractions), commercial waste and industrial waste from production is nevertheless required, in order to get Member States to report in a harmonized way and achieve comparable statistics.

Additionally, BUSINESSEUROPE positively values the clarification on the neutrality of the definition contained in recital 6 “The definition of municipal waste in this Directive is neutral with regard to the public or private status of the operator managing waste”. This provision should be even more reinforced: to incorporate it in the legislative prescription would make it binding and allow its uniform application across the EU.

BUSINESSEUROPE recommendations
To clarify the proposed definition of Municipal Waste in Art. 3, Par. 1a,:
- Introducing a direct reference to the European Waste Catalogue and hazardous waste list that came into force on1 January 2002, as for section 20 on “Municipal waste (household and similar commercial, industrial and Institutional wastes) including separately collected fractions”, as derived from the Commission Decision 2000/532/EC;
- Making clear that Municipal waste does not include waste arising from industrial processes as well as waste deriving from commercial activities;
- Ensuring relevant figures and proper statistics on WEEE and waste batteries as included and collected in mixed waste;
- Making legally binding the principle of neutrality of Municipal Waste with regard to the public or private status of the operator managing waste;

“Preparation for re-use” (Art. 3, par.16)

To have a definition of “preparation for re-use” is important in order to ensure a proper calculation of recycling/preparation for re-use level. Yet, BUSINESSEUROPE believes the new definition should be clarified to avoid any confusion between “re-use”, which occurs before a product becomes waste, and “preparation for re-use”, which takes place when the product has become waste. The Waste Framework Directive only regulates waste, not products.

“Final recycling process” (Art. 3, par.17a)

A clear definition of final recycling process as proposed by the Commission is welcomed, but clarifications are required on mechanical sorting operation and production process. The term “mechanical sorting is too narrow as it does not take into account other forms of sorting/separation other than mechanical. In addition, it does not reflect the case where the output of a sorting operation is reported for recycling (Art. 11a, par. 3). Therefore, it would be appropriate to replace “mechanical sorting” by “separation and sorting”. In addition, the term “production process” should be replaced by “recovery operation”, a legal term already established in Art. 3 par. 15 of the Waste Framework Directive.

b) Calculation methodology

BUSINESSEUROPE acknowledge as significant step forward the objective of elaborating harmonised rules for calculating the achievement of the same targets among Member States. The present lack of reliable data in all EU Member States prevents comparisons, which are pre-requisites to monitor improvements and to develop meaningful policy approaches.

BUSINESSEUROPE believes that the calculation method for recycling targets must be clear and appropriate for each waste stream.

In this sense, the definitions and calculation methods should be streamlined and harmonized. Similarly, the impact of new calculation method on MS’s ability to reach the targets should be thoroughly assessed.

The measurement point for any quantities recycled must be stable and identical for all Member States to ensure harmonization.

ANNEX further information for the clarification on Art. 11 par. 3b on 10% of impurity

TO BE DISCUSSED
BUSINESSEUROPE supports the input of waste going to the final recycling process (Art. 11a par.1) as appropriate calculation method. It supports the objective of high quality recycling. However, products and components prepared for re-use should not be included, as the Waste Framework Directive laying down rules for the treatment of wastes is not designed to regulate the re-use of products.
As an alternative calculation method, the output of any sorting operation (Art. 11a par. 3) should be possible as for certain waste streams this is easier to calculate. This is the case if due to specific sorting processes, the waste entering the final recycling process consists of a mix of various waste streams (not only municipal waste). The output method would also allow including wastes exported out of the EU directly after sorting.

c) Targets

Recycling/reuse targets can be ambitious but must be economically, environmentally and socially viable and achievable. In a sequential logic, the level of targets depends on the calculation methodology that will be finally applied and the Member States performance that will be measured.

Unrealistic targets ultimately lead to a mandatory recycling with a poorer quality of the recycled material, having no further application in practice. Therefore, stronger attention should be given to quality requirements standards and best available technologies.

BUSINESSEUROPE recommendations
-  To include in Art. 11 par. e, a prevision of revision of the targets by 2020 after analyzing and documenting the impact of the new calculation methodology;
-  To strengthen the link between the level of targets and recycled materials meeting quality requirements

2. By-products/end-of-waste

BUSINESSEUROPE positively looks at the greater harmonisation and simplification of the legal framework on by-products and end-of-waste status aimed by the new legislative proposal. Lessons learnt from different national end-of-waste or by-product criteria could be collected and their suitability for EU wide usage examined.

To uniform conditions on by-products and end-of-waste is important, as a number of MS have introduced their own criteria, which may cause problems when these materials are being shipped across borders. The Commission should put in place a monitoring mechanism of current situations in all MS, in order to act whenever internal distortions are identified, which might be an obstacle to the single market.

TO BE DISCUSSED
The proposed procedure of establishing detailed criteria by adopting delegated acts would give the Commission extensive powers, whereas Art. 290 of the Treaty only allows “to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of the legislative acts”. Therefore, the Directive itself must lay down essential elements of criteria of by-products and end-of-waste.
The Commission should evaluate specific cases and problems in close cooperation with Member States. Following the example of the Commission Communication 2007/59 on waste and by-products, interpretative guidelines could be elaborated.

3. Extended Producer Responsibility

NOTE: CEOE welcomes minimum requirements, and they must be binding. This is a key issue

Minimum standards on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes, with their transparency and cost efficiency improved, is welcomed while making sure they do not put into question the existing well-functioning schemes in some Member States.

To secure an efficient allocation of resources, the EU guidance framework of how Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes operate should be based on the transparency and polluter-pays principles and evolve according to new market realities. We think it is positive the scope of the financing responsibility accepted by producers being tied to compliance with recycling targets through efficient processes. To this end, mMinimum performance requirements for EPR schemes, along clear definitions as well as roles and responsibilities, should be ensured.

In this respect, EPR policy should be conceived as a shared responsibility: companies cannot be liable for events that take place outside their sphere of influence/remit, such as littering.

The decision of when to apply the EPR model must be taken in a case by case basis. It is essential to make prior analysis of technical, economic and environmental viability. The solution must be always the one resulting more efficient, as the aim is the optimal use of resources.

In particular it is necessary to conduct this study before extending the RAP to other waste as textiles, furniture, etc, as there is risk of incurring disproportionate costs such as collection from individual households.

The minimum requirements for EPR should be defined according to the principle “as few criteria as possible” and in close cooperation with relevant stakeholders.

TO BE DISCUSSED
As art. 8 WFD does not oblige Member States to establish EPR schemes. The decision of when to apply the EPR model must be taken in a case by case basis. It is essential to make prior analysis of technical, economic and environmental viability, the minimum criteria (art. 8a) should be non-binding as well. As an alternative to art. 8a, the Commission could establish guidelines on minimum standards for EPR schemes.

4. Landfilling policy

By reducing the amount of waste streams from households, going to landfill the EU would make better use of its raw material potential. It would facilitate more recycling and energy recovery of these wastes thus contributing to a more efficient use of resources.

For industry, it is key that untreated wastes from households are not landfilled. The treatment of these wastes (mechanical-biological, incineration, co-incineration) substantially reduces the quantities going to landfill. In order to achieve this reduction, an increase of treatment capacities (recycling, energy recovery) is essential.

The possible extension of the landfill reduction target to non-hazardous waste other than municipal waste (art. 5 par. 7 Landfill Directive) must not cover wastes from industrial production processes. These wastes undergo thorough pre-treatment processes. However, residual amounts will remain that cannot be recovered otherwise. In this case, landfilling is the only viable option.

BUSINESSEUROPE comments on the legislative proposals on waste and landfill of waste

20 April 2016 – DRAFT II (Do not quote) 2