1 / 14

Revision Waste Framework Directive

Revision Waste Framework Directive. FEAD Conference Athens 19 October 2007 Hans Blokland MEP. Content. Revision of the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) Evaluation of the Council Common position Expectations for the second reading. Why revision of WFD?. Waste volumes continue to grow;

lesley-crawford
Télécharger la présentation

Revision Waste Framework Directive

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Revision Waste Framework Directive FEAD ConferenceAthens 19 October 2007 Hans Blokland MEP

  2. Content • Revision of the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) • Evaluation of the Council Common position • Expectations for the second reading

  3. Why revision of WFD? • Waste volumes continue to grow; • Too much waste is landfilled • Too little waste is re-used or recycled; • Too big differences between member states • Illegal (cross-border) waste shipments; • Waste management itself generates emissions to air, water and soil; • Legislation is missing for certain important waste streams; • Waste legislation is in many cases poorly implemented and/or enforced; • Ongoing discussions on definitions (e.g. waste, recovery and disposal)

  4. Procedure in EP and Council • Blokland report thematic waste strategy • Adopted with 672 votes in favour, 17 against and 3 abstentions • Is non-legislative: process finished • Jackson report on the revision of the waste framework directive adopted • In first reading adopted with 647 votes in favour, 21 against and 19 abstentions • 28 June 2007: Political agreement in the Council • 2008: second reading and (after a possible conciliation procedure) final adoption of the new legislation

  5. Aim of EU waste policy Paragraph 2 of EP resolution on waste strategy: Stresses the substantial aim for waste management of achieving a high level of protection of the environment and human health rather than facilitating the functioning of the internal market for waste recovery;

  6. Evaluation of the Council Common position Positive: • principles of proximity and self-sufficiency re-affirmed • five step waste hierarchy is accepted • waste definition itself is not changed Main discussion items for second reading: • by-products • end of waste criteria • implementation of the waste hierarchy • split between disposal and recovery

  7. 1. By-products EP and Council added new article on by-products, with following conditions: • Certain use without further processing • Use in production process or market demand for the by-product • Further use is lawful

  8. 2. End of waste criteria • Have undergone a (qualified) recovery operation • Product is commonly used for specific purposes • Market demand exists • ‘product’ meets technical requirements • No adverse environmental and health impacts

  9. 3. Waste hierarchy • the prevention and reduction of waste, • the re-use of waste, • the recycling of waste, • other recovery operations, • the safe and environmentally sound disposal of waste.

  10. Flexibility waste hierarchy EP: When life-cycle assessments and cost-benefit analyses indicate clearly that an alternative treatment option shows a better record for a specific waste stream, Member States may depart from the priorities Council: departing from the waste hierarchy of specific waste streams is justified by life-cycle thinking on the overall impacts of the generation and management of such waste

  11. 4. Recovery and disposal • Ongoing discussion on the interpretation of definitions, mainly focussed on the status of waste incineration • In February 2003 the ECJ has judged in two cases (C-228/00 en C-458/00) • The new waste shipment regulation sets: • Precautionary principle (article 28) • Shipments of MSW are regarded as destined for disposal (article 3, part 5)

  12. R1/D10 discussion not yet finished • Commission has proposed energy efficiency as criterion (formula in Annex II, R1) • EP is divided: • Alternative proposals are rejected • Formula is deleted • EP position means status quo: • Current waste framework directive • Judgements of the ECJ February 2003 (C-228/00 and C-458/00) • Council followed Commission line • EP can act in second reading

  13. Solution ? • Revision of the waste incineration directive (WID): • Same stringent emission limit values for co-incineration • Concrete criteria for energy recovery (in the current WID is only mentioned that the energy must be recovered as far as practicable) • Landfill bans for combustible waste (adopted by EP in resolution, but not in the waste framework directive)

  14. Questions More information: http://europa.eu/comm/environment/waste www.europarl.europa.eu www.eurofractie.nl

More Related