Document added 18 Jan. by Izabela Stacewicz, 2degrees
A report published by the European Commission has recommended that the European Environment Agency is given a greater role in ensuring that member states properly implement and enforce EU waste law.
To download the document and join the conversation,
Join Now or Sign In
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green
Growth
Final Report
European Commission DG ENV
29 November 2011
2 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Project description
CLIENT: European Commission DG ENV
A project under Framework Contract: ENV.G.4/FRA/2008/0112
REPORT TITLE: Draft Final Report
PROJECT NAME: Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
PROJECT CODE: CEENVFWCSMR_1002
DATE: 29 November 2011
AUTHORS:
Ms. Véronique Monier, BIO Intelligence Service
Mr. Mathieu Hestin, BIO Intelligence Service
Ms. Clementine O’Connor, BIO Intelligence Service
Ms. Gina Anderson, BIO Intelligence Service
Mr. Alexander Neubauer, Ecologic Institute
Mr. Stephan Sina, Ecologic Institute
Mrs. Gesa Homann, Ecologic Institute
Mr. Hubert Reisinger, Umweltbundesamt
KEY CONTACTS: Shailendra Mudgal
+ 33 (0) 1 56 20 28 98
Shailendra.Mudgal@biois.com
Or
Véronique Monier
+ 33 (0) 1 56 20 28 98
Veronique.Monier@biois.com
Please cite this publication as:
BIO Intelligence Service (2011), Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth, Final
Report prepared for European Commission DG ENV
Photo credit: cover @ Per Ola Wiberg
©BIO Intelligence Service 2011
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 3
Table of Contents
PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS 3
LIST OF TABLES 6
LIST OF FIGURES 9
ABSTRACT 10
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 11
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 14
1.1 Background 14
1.2 Objectives of the study 15
1.3 Methodology and task structure 15
CHAPTER 2: BENEFITS OF BETTER WASTE POLICY IMPLEMENTATION 17
2.1 Overview of EU waste legislation and levels of implementation 17
2.1.1 EU waste policy and provisions addressed 17
2.1.2 Summary of levels of policy implementation 20
2.1.3 General barriers and drivers of policy implementation 21
2.2 Economic (including financial) and social benefits of better waste
management implementation 24
2.2.1 Approach 24
2.2.2 Cost-Benefit Analysis 28
2.3 Value of complete compliance for the EU waste management sector and for
other EU Industries 35
2.3.1 Value of complete compliance for the EU waste management sector 35
2.3.2 Value of complete compliance for EU industries 36
2.4 Case studies demonstrating benefits of better waste implementation 42
CHAPTER 3: BARRIERS IN BETTER WASTE POLICY IMPLEMENTATION 48
3.1 Overview of barriers in better waste policy implementation 48
3.2 Detailed description of barriers in better waste policy implementation 49
3.2.1 Barriers for European Commission and associated bodies 49
3.2.2 Barriers for Member States 52
4 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
CHAPTER 4: TASKS NEEDED TO STRENGTHEN IMPLEMENTATION AND
ENFORCEMENT OF EU WASTE POLICY 57
4.1 Overview of tasks needed to strengthen implementation and enforcement of
EU waste policy 57
4.2 Detailed description of tasks 59
4.2.1 EU 61
4.2.2 Member States 76
4.2.3 Both EU and MS 81
4.3 Feasibility assessment of tasks 84
CHAPTER 5: POLICY OPTIONS 88
5.1 Policy Option A: ‘New and extended tasks for the Commission’ 89
5.1.1 Short characterisation 89
5.1.2 General description 89
5.1.3 Cornerstones of a regulatory framework 94
5.2 Policy Option B: ‘New and extended tasks for the EEA’ 97
5.2.1 Short characterisation 97
5.2.2 General description 98
5.2.3 Cornerstones of a regulatory framework 99
5.3 Policy Option C: ‘EU Waste Agency’ 102
5.3.1 Short characterisation 102
5.3.2 General description 102
5.3.3 Cornerstones of a regulatory framework 103
CHAPTER 6: IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR SELECTED POLICY OPTIONS 105
6.1 Problem definition 105
6.2 Objectives of the impact assessment 105
6.3 Policy options 106
6.4 Analysis of the impacts (environmental, social and economic) of the different
options defined 106
6.4.1 Impacts on timeliness of implementation and the efficiency and aptitude of each body for
supporting policy implementation 107
6.4.2 Environmental, economic and social Impacts 115
6.5 Comparison of the options 117
BIBLIOGRAPHY 120
ANNEX A: POLICY IMPLEMENTATION OVERVIEWS 131
ANNEX B: CASE STUDIES 158
Port of Rotterdam: Waste Shipment Regulation Enforcement 158
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 5
Context 158
Economic impacts 159
Social benefits 161
Summary of barriers and drivers 163
Cyprus: Landfill Directive implementation 165
Context 165
Economic impacts 166
Social benefits 167
Summary of barriers and drivers 168
Naples: Waste Management Crisis 170
Context 170
Economic impacts 171
Social benefits 173
Summary of barriers and drivers 175
Brandenburg: Landfill Closure and Containment 177
Context 177
Economic impacts 179
Social impacts 180
Summary of barriers and drivers 180
Ireland: Benefits of Strengthening Implementation & Enforcement of Waste
Legislation 182
Context 182
Economic impacts 186
Social impacts 188
Summary of barriers and drivers 188
REFERENCES: 192
ANNEX C: REFERENCES FOR 2.2 AND 2.3 195
ANNEX D: SCENARIOS OF YEAR 2020 EU-27 WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 200
6 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
List of Tables
Table 1: Economic and environmental benefits of full implementation 11
Table 2: Selected tasks for supporting better implementation of EU waste legislation 12
Table 3: Summary of impact assessment for policy options 13
Table 4: EU waste policies and provisions addressed 18
Table 5: Summary of policy implementation levels, based on specific provisions 20
Table 6: Barriers for implementation by waste policies 24
Table 7: Summary of scenario parameters 25
Table 8: Targets considered in scenario B 26
Table 9: Difference between waste, material and energy flows as well as greenhouse gas
emissions of scenario B and scenario A in the year 2020 27
Table 10: Recovery of secondary raw materials in the year 2020 in Mt 28
Table 11: Total micro-economic costs of waste management in the year 2020 (without
containment and repatriation costs) 30
Table 12: Total macro-economic costs/benefits of waste management in the year 2020 31
Table 13: Turnover of waste management and recycling, as well as jobs in Scenarios A and B for
the year 2020 32
Table 14: Year 2008 EU-27 waste generation by economic sector (based on:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database) 37
Table 15: Benefits of full implementation of EU waste legislation to the industry 41
Table 16: Barriers to full implementation for EU Commission and for Member States 49
Table 17: Overview of tasks to strengthen implementation and enforcement of EU waste policy58
Table 18: Barriers, tasks and tools to strengthen implementation of EU waste policy 59
Table 19: Legend for task assessment table 84
Table 20: Assessment of tasks at EU level 85
Table 21: Assessment of tasks at MS level 87
Table 23: Short characterisation of policy option A: ‘New and extended tasks for the Commission’
89
Table 24: Short characterisation of policy option B: ‘New and extended tasks for the EEA’ 97
Table 25: Short characterisation of policy option C: ‘EU waste agency’ 102
Table 26: Indicators and assessment scale for impact assessment 108
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 7
Table 27: Impact assessment table for timeliness of implementation 110
Table 28: Impact assessment table for aptitude for implementation activities 112
Table 29: Impact assessment table for efficiency of implementation 114
Table 30: Summary of environmental, social and economic impacts 116
Table 31: Summary of impact assessment 119
Table 32: Costs of waste management in Brandenburg 2009 (MUGV 2010b). 179
Table 33: Collection of valuable substances in Brandenburg in kt (kilo-tonnes) 2009 (MUGV
2010b). 180
Table 34: Household waste generation and management 2001-2007 (thousand tonnes) 187
Table 35: Per capita net environmental impact of municipal waste management in Germany
(IFEU 2005) 203
Table 36: EU-27 waste generation in BIOIS et al. (2011) scenario by country in Mt 206
Table 37: EU-27 waste generation in BIOIS et al. (2011) scenario by material type in Mt 207
Table 38: Overview for alternatives in waste management for 2004 in EU-27 (Prognos 2008) 207
Table 39: Targets considered in Scenario 2 of Prognos (2008) 208
Table 40: Greenhouse gas emission reduction by the recycling/incineration with energy recovery
of 12 selected waste streams (Prognos 2008) 210
Table 41: Greenhouse gas emission by the landfilling/incineration without energy recovery of
residual municipal solid waste (Prognos 2008) 210
Table 42: Scenario Parameters for the year 2020 212
Table 43: Frame assumptions for the year 2020 scenarios 214
Table 44: Scenario A – Waste generation, treatment, recycling, material and energy recovery and
(avoided) greenhouse-gas emissions 216
Table 45: Scenario B – Waste generation, treatment, recycling, material and energy recovery and
(avoided) greenhouse-gas emissions 217
Table 46: Detailed scenarios for WEEE, Batteries and ELV 218
Table 47: Recovery of secondary raw materials in the year 2020 in Mt 219
Table 48: The balance of full European waste legislation implementation - Difference between
macro economic values/costs of Scenario B and Scenario A in the year 2020 219
Table 49: Typical composition and heating value of residual waste from Bavarian households
(Weigand & Marb 2006) 220
Table 50: Specific metal mobilisation during landfilling on landfills for reactive waste (Belevi &
Baccini 1989; Buwal 1995; Fehringer et al. 1997, Umweltbundesamt 2001) 223
Table 51: Mobilisation of selected heavy metals through leachate (Scenario A assumption: 50 %
of MSW landfilling is on non-compliant landfills) 224
8 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Table 52: Year 2020 particulate matter emissions and health damage costs of tilting construction
and demolition waste in Scenarios A and B. 224
Table 53: Total year 2020 health impact costs related to particulate matter emissions from waste
225
Table 54: Scenarios on emissions of ozone depleting substances 228
Table 55: Scenarios on flows of pollutants with environmental impacts and landfilling area
consumption 229
Table 56: Factors for monetarising environmental impacts 229
Table 57: Costs of environmental impacts 229
Table 58: Frame assumptions for the calculation of landfill gas energy recovery 230
Table 59: Economic value of landfill gas energy recovery 231
Table 60: Frame assumptions for calculating the costs of brownfield containment 231
Table 61: Costs for the containment of non-compliant landfills 231
Table 62: Estimation of repatriation costs for illegally exported WEEE, batteries and ELVs 232
Table 63: Frame assumptions for calculating turnover and jobs in waste management and
recycling 233
Table 64: Turnover, jobs and costs of the sectors ‘waste management’ and ‘recycled materials’ in
scenarios A and B for the year 2020 233
Table 65: Total micro-economic costs of waste management in the year 2020 (with containment
of all non-compliantly landfilled waste and repatriation of all exported ELV/WEEE/batteries)
234
Table 66: Total micro-economic costs of waste management in the year 2020 (without
containment and repatriation costs) 235
Table 67: Total macro-economic costs-benefits of waste management in the year 2020 237
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 9
List of Figures
Figure 1: Methodology 15
Figure 2: Costs in Germany's production industry in % of gross production value (Schmidt 2009)
38
Figure 3: World primary raw material production (USGS 2001, 2010) 39
Figure 4: Mixed copper, steel, lead, tin, zinc price index (CRB 2011) 40
Figure 5: Municipal Waste Treatment Options 2008 (Source: RPS, 2009) 189
Figure 6: Advertised Landfill Gate Fees including levy, 2010 (Source, RPS, 2009) 191
Figure 7: Biodegradation of landfilled waste (Bilitewski et al. 2000) 220
Figure 8: Solubility of heavy metals as function of pH-value (Weißenbach 1999, Seel 1973) – Limit
values from Austrian Off-Water-Emission-Ordinance “Landfill-Leachate” 2003. 221
Figure 9: Composition of landfill gas and leachate during the life-time of a landfill (Bilitewski et al.
2000, Umweltbundesamt 2001) 222
10 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Abstract
his report aims at providing an in-depth analysis of the expected benefits of better
implementation and enforcement of EU waste legislation, and the means with which this
can be achieved.
A five-step methodology was used in pursuit of this goal. Firstly, the current state of
implementation and potential benefits of full implementation were quantified and evaluated.
Secondly, barriers to better implementation at the level of the EU and of the MS were identified.
Thirdly, concrete tasks for the EU and for the MS to overcome these barriers and to improve
waste legislation implementation were defined. Fourthly, three policy options were developed, in
which the key implementation tasks are led under three different institutional settings: Option A
allocates the tasks to the European Commission, principally extending current activities but
adding audit responsibilities concerning national inspections provided inspection standards are
adopted at EU level. Option B provides the EEA with all suggested tasks except legal
enforcement tasks allocated to the Commission under the Treaty and the proposed inspection
audits, which would be tasks for the Commission. Option C proposes the creation of a new
specialised waste agency, which would execute all tasks with the same exceptions as in Option B
Finally an impact assessment was performed on the three policy options. The assessment
involved two parts: first, impacts of each option on timeliness, aptitude and efficiency of
legislation implementation were assessed; then, environmental, economic and social impacts are
analysed. The impact assessment suggests that given the comparatively low administrative cost
needed to implement option B and the high expected performance, option B presents a
reasonable proposition to improve the implementation of EU waste legislation.
T
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 11
Executive summary
he purpose of this report is to propose policy options to improve implementation of EU
waste legislation across the European Union.
After the introduction (chapter 1), the report is structured according to the methodology
used to achieve the project objective. This methodology involved five phases (chapters 2-6).
First, the current state of EU waste legislation implementation was assessed. Persisting
implementation gaps, such as illegal waste shipments and waste management contravening EU
legislation, create serious environmental damages, pose risks to human health and generate
economic costs. General barriers to better implementation were investigated and found to exist
in four categories: technical and market barriers, administrative barriers, knowledge barriers and
economic barriers.
A cost-benefit analysis, comparing the current state with a full-implementation scenario, shows
that not only the environment, but also society and the economy would strongly benefit from
improved legislation implementation across the EU. The study compares two scenarios for the
period 2008-2020 - one involving no progress in waste management and the other involving full
implementation of eight pieces of EU waste legislation - and concludes that full implementation
would mean cost savings of €72 billion per year (see table below). In addition, the study
concludes that by raising the level of the EU waste management sector to full compliance, the
turnover of waste management and recycling would increase by €42 billion per year and over
400,000 jobs would be created. This data has been derived from an economic scenario analysis as
explained in detail in Annex D.
Table 1: Economic and environmental benefits of full implementation
Impacts Full implementation
scenario compared to no
policy change scenario
Relative change compared
to no policy change
scenario
Environmental
Reduction in total waste generation -119 Mt -4%
Treatment:
Reduction in waste landfilling and
incineration without energy recovery
-931 Mt -48%
Increase in material recovery +686 Mt +72%
Increase in energy recovery +125 Mt +112%
Reduction in GHG emissions -215 MtCO2,e n/a
Economic
Reduction in total net costs
of waste management
1
w/out
externalities
-4.9 billion € -6%
with externalities -72 billion € -126%
1 Taking into account the economic value of reductions in GHG emissions including methane from landfills
T
12 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Case studies looking at Brandenburg, Cyprus, Ireland, Naples and Rotterdam were developed to
demonstrate that economic, financial and social benefits could be gained if Member States
correctly implement EU waste legislation. (Chapter 2)
Second, specific barriers to better implementation and enforcement for the European
Commission and for Member States (MS) were described in detail. A main barrier at EU level is
deficiencies in the knowledge base and in the reliability of data on waste streams, volumes and
management systems across the EU. This presents problems in the comparability and
monitoring of Member States' data, the harmonised implementation of legislation across the EU
and the development of targeted measures for improvement.
Moreover, a number of barriers at MS level, such as a lack of commitment and resources for
implementation control and enforcement in combination with structural, institutional and
constitutional constraints, further impede effective legislation implementation across the EU.
(Chapter 3)
Third, the report identifies and presents a number of concrete tasks which need to be carried out
in order to overcome the identified barriers and to enhance implementation of EU waste
legislation. 19 tasks were identified, thereof 14 at EU level, two at MS level and three at both EU
and MS level. All tasks were assessed in terms of their potentials to strengthen implementation.
Based on the assessment, nine tasks at EU level were selected for the development of policy
options for supporting better implementation of EU waste legislation (see table below). (Chapter
4)
Table 2: Selected tasks for supporting better implementation of EU waste legislation
Nb. Task
leader
Task
1.0 EU Development of a more systematic approach of identifying lacks in waste legislation
implementation
2.0 EU Improvement of the knowledge base for mapping Member States' implementation
performance, including analysis of
2.1 Member States' waste management plans
2.2 Implementation reports from Member States, institutions, NGOs and
stakeholders
3.0 EU More coherent tracking of the status of implementation in the Member States
(implementation monitoring)
4.0 EU Assistance and guidance to Member States on inspections and monitoring of
implementation
5.0 EU Training on inspections and enforcement, e.g. in cooperation with networks such as
IMPEL
6.0 EU Awareness raising on waste legislation implementation
7.0 EU Review and report on national inspection standards, based on agreed EU standards
(audits)
8.0 EU Technical and scientific assessments and advice concerning waste related data and
various information relating to the contents of EU waste legislation
9.0 EU Technical and scientific assessment of the practicality and enforceability of EU waste
legislation
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 13
Fourth, three policy options to support better waste legislation implementation were described
in detail. In Option A, the European Commission leads or carries out all the tasks selected in the
previous section. For this purpose, the Commission would mostly extend current activities and
tasks but also take on some new tasks, specifically monitoring and auditing national inspections
of waste management operations in Member States, provided .EU inspection standards are
agreed. In Option B, the EEA leads or carries out many of these tasks, extending its existing
waste data collection activities and taking advantage of its in-house waste expertise. The legal
enforcement tasks allocated to the Commission under the Treaty and the proposed auditing task
concerning MS inspections would be tasks for the Commission. In Option C, a specialised waste
agency would execute all tasks, with the same exceptions as in Option B. (Chapter 5)
Finally, an impact assessment was performed on the three policy options developed in the
previous section. The assessment was split into two parts; first, impacts of each option on
timeliness, aptitude and efficiency as regards supporting legislation implementation are
assessed, then, environmental, economic and social impacts are analysed. Except for the
baseline scenario, all options are expected to achieve full implementation in the long-term, and,
hence, the same environmental, economic and social benefits. However, the options differ in
terms of timeliness (the time needed until full implementation is realised), aptitude (capacity and
expertise of staff), efficiency (the administrative costs) of each structural settings for
implementation support. A comparative summary of the impact assessment suggests the best
overall result as option B. Compared to options A and C, this option could be implemented most
efficiently, i.e. at lower administrative cost, while still allowing for effective improvement of
waste legislation implementation. The impact assessment results are summarised in the table
below. (Chapter 6)
Table 3: Summary of impact assessment for policy options
Indicators Baseline scenario Option
A
Option
B
Option
C
Timeliness of implementation - ++ +++ ++
Aptitude for implementation activities 0 + ++ +++
Efficiency of implementation - -- - ---
Environmental impacts -- ++ ++ ++
Economic impacts - + + +
Social impacts -- + + +
Summary - + ++ +
‘+++’: very beneficial effect; ‘++’: substantial beneficial effect; ‘+’: slight beneficial effect; ‘-‘: negative effect, ‘--‘:
substantial negative effect; ‘---‘: very negative effect; ‘0’ no effect.
Introduction
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 14
Chapter 1: Introduction
In brief: The background, objectives and methodology of the study are presented here.
The purpose of this report is to propose policy options to improve implementation
of EU waste legislation in the MS. Five main tasks were defined to develop five
policy options, of which the three most advantageous were selected in order to be
assessed in terms of timeliness and efficiency of implementation and in terms of
the aptitude of the body to supporting policy implementation as well as in terms
of environmental, economic and social impacts.
1.1 Background
Ensuring an environmentally sustainable economic and social development has become a core
challenge globally. The United Nations defines green growth as a policy which “emphasises
environmentally sustainable economic progress to foster low-carbon, socially inclusive
development”.2 The European Commission’s new strategy for sustainable growth and jobs, “Europe
2020” incorporates the concepts of green growth and innovation.
Waste management was early recognised as an important issue for a sustainable development in
the EU. The first Waste framework directive was established in 1975, followed by a number of
additional directives addressing specific waste streams. However, serious gaps persist in the
implementation of the EU waste acquis due to a lack of priority in the MS, a lack of reliable data and
other impeding factors, which lead to great differences in the state and quality of implementation
between Member States. The widespread use of inappropriate waste management technologies,
such as landfills and other facilities that do not meet EU requirements, illegal waste shipments and
other aspects of insufficient implementation create not only environmental damages, but also
economic costs and harm to human health.
A more effective and consistent implementation of the EU waste acquis is therefore a core priority
to ensure sustainable development, within and across the borders of the EU. In order to achieve this
goal, the MS need institutional support from the EU. Departing from the AG Prognos study
“Resource savings and CO2 reduction potential waste management in Europe and the possible
contribution to the CO2 reduction target in 2020” and the “Study on the feasibility of the
establishment of a Waste Implementation Agency” previously commissioned by the European
Commission, the present study provides analysis and recommendations on improving
implementation and enforcement of EU waste policy, focusing on the economic, financial and social
benefits of this activity.
2
UNESCAP Green Growth Paths www.greengrowth.org
Introduction
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 15
1.2 Objectives of the study
The objective of this study is to present policy options for the European Commission that would
enable the Member States to benefit more fully from the exemplary waste policy already in place in
the European Union. This study will propose five possibilities for EU waste
bodies/structures/mechanisms to improve the implementation of the current legislation as well as to
calculate the expected economic and social impacts of the 3 most promising of these 5 actions,
leading to the selection of two final recommendations for bodies/structures/mechanisms to be
implemented by the European Commission. An economic, social and environmental assessment will
be carried out on the two final options, according to the Commission “Impact Assessment
Guidelines SEC (2009)(92)”, providing building blocks for an Impact Assessment to be prepared by
the European Commission.
1.3 Methodology and task structure
The objectives outlined above are realised through the analysis of existing policy, the industries
impacted, particular obstacles to better implementation (both at European level and in specific
national contexts) and the wide-ranging benefits that fuller implementation offers in economic and
social terms. This analysis lays the foundation for the identification of key tasks for policy
implementation and enforcement, for the selection of core elements to support such policies via a
regulatory framework, and for the detailed assessment of the two most promising policies that
conclude this study. The methodology proposed to achieve these objectives is outlined below.
Figure 1: Methodology
Introduction
16 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Phase 1 considered the current scope of EU waste policy, active challenges encountered in its
implementation across the 27 Member States, and the potential economic, social and financial
benefits of better enforcement. The approach involved a review of existing studies on waste policy
implementation across the EU, a quantification of the EU waste management sector and potential
implementation benefits, as well as practical examples of good as well as poor practices in waste
policy implementation at national and regional level.
Phase 2 presents the barriers to better implementation and enforcement on the side of the
European Commission and associated authorities and the key new tasks necessary to strengthen
implementation and enforcement.
Phase 3, based on the findings of Phase 2, develops concrete policy options for the organisation of
key tasks.
Phase 4 defines core components of a regulatory framework to support the three policy options.
Phase 5 Environmental, economic and social impact assessment of the policy options for setting up
or making adjustments to an existing EU body, mechanism or structure for carrying out the required
tasks, established in phases 1-4, to achieve fuller implementation and enforcement of EU waste
legislation.
An essential aspect of the study was the consultation of stakeholders (horizontal phase).
Stakeholders were consulted during two workshops organised in February and July 2011 and
through questionnaires. The interim results of the study were regularly uploaded on a dedicated
website: http://greengrowth.eu-smr.eu. The outcomes of these consultations have been integrated
in this report.
Benefits of better waste policy implementation
17 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Chapter 2: Benefits of better waste policy
implementation
In brief: Chapter 2 provides an overview of EU waste legislation and current state of its
implementation. Persisting implementation gaps, such as illegal waste shipments
and the use of inappropriate treatment technologies, create serious
environmental damages, pose risks to human health and produce economic costs.
General barriers to better implementation are investigated. They exist in four
categories: technical and market barriers, administrative barriers, knowledge
barriers and economic barriers. A cost-benefit analysis, comparing the current
state with a full-implementation scenario, shows that not only the environment,
but also society and the economy would strongly benefit from improved
legislation implementation across the EU. Case studies looking at Brandenburg,
Cyprus, Ireland, Naples and Rotterdam are developed to demonstrate benefits
and risks in EU waste legislation implementation.
2.1 Overview of EU waste legislation and levels of
implementation
This chapter looks at the current state of implementation of key legislation and the specific factors
that contribute to successful implementation.
2.1.1 EU waste policy and provisions addressed
Eight central policies in the EU waste acquis were examined. In this exercise, key provisions were
selected, their level of implementation was assessed, and the specific barriers and drivers for their
implementation were identified. The table below contains a summary of this analysis. The complete
policy analyses are available in Annex A and a synthesis of findings is provided here below.
Benefits of better waste policy implementation
18 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Table 4: EU waste policies and provisions addressed
EU waste policy Key provisions addressed in detail
Waste Framework Directive
The revised 2008 Waste Framework Directive
institutes a new approach to waste management
that focuses on limiting impacts on human health
and the environment. It introduces a waste
hierarchy that prioritises the prevention of waste,
and requires MS engagement through National
Waste Prevention Programmes. The Directive
extends producer responsibility for waste
generation, stimulates recycling and recovery
through the promotion of separate collection, and
sets objectives for specific waste streams.
1. Article 4 (1): The waste hierarchy
2. Article 10 (2): Separate collection of waste
3. Article 8 (1): Extended producer
responsibility
4. Article 23 (1): Permitting of waste
treatment
5. Article 22: Bio-waste
6. Article 21 (1): Waste oils
7. Articles 17, 18, 19 and 20: Hazardous waste
Landfill Directive
The 1999 Landfill Directive aims to prevent or
minimise the impacts of the landfilling of waste on
water, soil, air and human health. The Directive
covers the location and technical requirements for
landfills, such as water oversight, leachate
management, and methane emissions control. It
also sets targets for landfilling reductions.
1. Article 13: Closure of illegal landfills
2. Article 11: Waste acceptance criteria
3. Article 5: Bio-waste diversion targets
Incineration Directive
The 2000 Waste Incineration Directive sets
operational and monitoring conditions as well as
technical requirements and limits discharges to
water and emissions to air.
1. Article 4 (1): Permitting of incineration
plants
2. Article 7 (1): Air emissions limit values
3. Article 10 (1): Monitoring and surveillance
systems
Waste Shipment Regulation
The 2006 Waste Shipment Regulation transposes
the Basel Convention, which governs international
exports and imports of waste and transboundary
movements of waste in particular, into European
Law. The Regulation defines key terms in waste
shipment, sets harmonised rules for the
transboundary movements of waste for disposal or
recovery, and requires information from Member
States on waste shipments. The Waste Shipment
Regulation is closely linked with the Waste
Framework Directive, which both underline the EU
waste hierarchy for waste management options.
The Waste Shipment Regulation emphasises
environmental protection and self-sufficiency in
waste disposal (proximity principle), and focuses on
better enforcement and cooperation.
1. Article 50 (2): Inspections and spot checks
2. Article 8: Transportation of hazardous
waste
3. Article 25: Repatriation of waste
Benefits of better waste policy implementation
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 19
Batteries and Accumulators Directive
The 2008 Batteries and Accumulators Directive
requires the separate collection of batteries and
accumulators, limits their hazardous content in
terms of mercury and cadmium, and sets collection
and recycling targets.
1. Article 8: Collection schemes and free
take-back
2. Articles 10 and 12: Collection targets
End-of-Life Vehicle Directive
The 2000 End-of-Life Vehicles (ELV) Directive aims
to prevent vehicle abandonment and promote
vehicle and component reuse, recycling and
recovery, to minimise the landfilling of vehicle
waste and improve the environmental performance
of ELV waste management. The Directive
furthermore bans certain heavy metals from use in
vehicles to improve safe dismantling and
treatment, and requires national measures for the
collection and free take-back of vehicles.
1. Articles 5 and 6: Collection facilities and
free take-back
2. Article 7: Reuse, recovery and recycling
targets
Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive
The 2004 Packaging Directive aims to harmonise
MS packaging legislation, prevent and minimise the
environmental impacts of packaging waste, and to
ensure the efficient functioning of the internal
market. It requires measures to reduce packaging
waste and stimulate reuse, and sets targets on
recycling and recovery.
1. Article 9: Essential Requirements
2. Article 6 (1): Recycling and recovery
targets
3. Article 7 (1): Return, collection and
recovery systems
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment
Directive
The 2002 WEEE Directive prioritises the prevention
of WEEE and seeks to minimise its landfilling. The
WEEE Directive promotes ecodesign measures that
make WEEE easier to dismantle, refurbish, recycle
and recover, in particular through the reduction of
hazardous substances in electronic products. The
Directive also introduces producer responsibility for
WEEE and in practice implementation of this
Directive focuses on recycling and recovery of
waste products.
1. Articles 5 and 6: Obligation to adopt
measures for high level separate
collection
2. Article 7: Reuse, recycling and recovery
targets
Benefits of better waste policy implementation
20 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
2.1.2 Summary of levels of policy implementation
The aforementioned waste policies and specific provisions and their respective implementation
issues can be regarded in detail in the policy summaries in Annex A. The state of policy
implementation, based on the provisions examined, has been synthesised here, according to the
following broad conditions:
Green: Transposition has taken place, good evidence of implementation of
provisions addressed
Yellow: Encouraging signs but insufficient data, mixed results among MS
Red: Many provisions not yet implemented in multiple MS, infringement
proceedings underway
Table 5: Summary of policy implementation levels, based on specific provisions
Directive name
Date of
entry into
force
Date for
transposition
Level of
implementation
Key issues
Revised Waste
Framework Directive
(2008/98/EC )
12
December
2008
12 December
2010
Lack of emphasis on
prevention, unused potential
for recycling, varying
performance on separate
collection and bio-waste
management, various issues
with hazardous waste
management
Landfill Directive
(99/31/EC)
16 July 1999 16 July 2001 Remaining illegal landfills,
slow and sporadic
implementation of WAC,
varying performance on bio-
waste diversion
Incineration Directive
(2000/76/EC)
28
December
2000
28 December
2002
Effectively transposed by most
MS, many MS exceeding
required conditions
Waste Shipment
Regulation (EC
1013/2006)
14 June 2006 12 July 2007 Shipments of waste
increasing, including
hazardous waste
Batteries Directive
(2008/12/EC, amending
2006/66/EC)
26
September
2006
28
September
2008
Lack of data before 2012,
mixed results from MS so far
End-of-Life Vehicles
Directive (2000/53/EC)
21 October
2000
21 April 2002 Infringement cases pending,
some data missing
Packaging Directive
(94/62/EC)
31 December
1994
27 June 1996 Most targets met, but lack of
emphasis on prevention
WEEE Directive
(2002/96/EC)
13 February
2003
12 August
2004
Most MS have not met targets,
many infringement cases
Benefits of better waste policy implementation
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 21
This analysis demonstrates the range of issues that have not yet been well addressed. The
proceeding section will examine the predominant causes of poor policy implementation, and the
drivers for progress.
2.1.3 General barriers and drivers of policy implementation
Certain factors in the implementation of EU waste policy emerge recurrently in the analysis, either
as good practices that drive better implementation of numerous policies, or as elements that are
lacking and therefore blocking implementation. Each of these implementation issues is described
below.
TECHNICAL AND MARKET BARRIERS
Infrastructure and capacity building
Adequate capacity for separate collection and environmentally sound recycling and recovery
operations is an important factor in Member States' (MS)ability to comply with EU waste policy. A
balance between separate collection and treatment capacity is highlighted as an issue for bio-waste
management for example. Systems for WEEE collection, disassembly and treatment, furthermore,
are highly specialised and require capacity or funding for investment that may not currently be
available in all MS. Infrastructure and technical capacity are therefore fundamental issues to address
in ensuring waste policy compliance.
Market development
A level playing field for waste in terms of costs and taxes on treatment is critical to effective EU
policy implementation. Unless treatment availability costs, levies and incentives are standardised
across EU, waste shipments will continue in search of the most cost-effective waste management
option. The development of markets for separately collected waste products across the EU will
make the separate collection process and infrastructure more efficient and economically viable.
ADMINISTRATIVE BARRIERS
Administrative competency and capacity
A staff that understands the administrative requirements of EU waste policy and its reporting and
compliance procedures is critical to proper policy implementation. The maintenance of sufficient
staff capacity and appropriate training in the details of procedures are underlined here. Cooperation
or partnership between related bodies (for example between customs offices and police forces in
the case of waste shipments) supports coherence and consistency of implementation. Costs
associated with training on new regulations, administrative complexity in general and the
employment of sufficient numbers of employees are highlighted as obstacles here. Ineffective
reporting, resulting from a lack of administrative competency and/or capacity, leads to coherence
problems that make comparisons between MS difficult.
Benefits of better waste policy implementation
22 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Enforcement measures
The monitoring of policy implementation, surveillance of specific issues (such as illegal landfills), the
imposition of penalties and the prosecution of infractions contribute to better policy
implementation and deter violations. Some implementation reports however noted the high burden
of some monitoring, surveillance and reporting activities on small operations, plants or
municipalities.
KNOWLEDGE BARRIERS
GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE STATE-OF-IMPLEMENTATION
A main barrier at EU level is deficiencies in the knowledge base and in the reliability of data on waste
streams, volumes and management systems across the EU. This presents problems in the
comparability and monitoring of Member States' data, the harmonised implementation of
legislation across the EU and the development of targeted measures for improvement. New tools
are available for this purpose via recently revised EU legislation (e.g. waste management plans and
waste prevention programmes in the EU waste framework directive 2008/98/EC). The application on
the ground of EU waste requirements is not comprehensively documented. In order to make
effective progress with activities to strengthen implementation, such as inspections, guidance,
advice, training, awareness-raising etc., it seems necessary that this problem is first solved. For
example, inspections need to target implementation deficits and training should focus on
problematic areas.
Expertise and specialised skills
Staff with specific expertise are required for many aspects of EU waste policy implementation. Skills
required for WEEE disassembly and treatment are one example. Inspections staff are critical to
several key policies including the ELV Directive and Waste Shipment Regulation, but a lack of
capacity and of training has been highlighted as a problem. Investment in both training and capacity
building are drivers here.
Knowledge sharing
Cooperation between relevant bodies and the sharing of knowledge between MS have been key
drivers of effective implementation of many policies. Given the multiple stakeholder groups
involved in the generation, shipment, management and recovery of waste, specific knowledge
sharing initiatives can be particularly helpful. Examples include inspection exchange programmes
related to waste shipments, knowledge sharing among competent authorities related to the
packaging Essential Requirements or to the separate collection of bio-waste, and other means of
highlighting best practices in specific implementation contexts.
Awareness-raising
Awareness and understanding among the general public and the public authorities responsible for
policy implementation at local level are important factors to the success of many key policy
provisions. Understanding of separate collection practices and the waste products they relate to
Benefits of better waste policy implementation
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 23
(scope of bio-waste/green waste collection; which packaging products can be recovered) contributes
greatly to the efficacy of such systems. Communication campaigns to encourage participation in
return, collection and recovery schemes of all sorts, and in particular consolidated guidance to
households on how to deal with all of their waste products, impact behaviour and target
achievement.
ECONOMIC BARRIERS
Targets
Targets in most cases stimulate efforts to implement waste policy objectives, whether they are EU-
level targets on packaging or WEEE, MS targets for extended producer responsibility or separate
collection programmes, or targets for municipal level landfill reductions. A lack of quantitative
targets is frequently cited as a cause of under-implementation of policy. However, in isolated
examples, such as the End-of-Life Vehicles Directive, it is forwarded that the varying abilities of MS
to comply with EU level targets has not adequately been taken into account, presenting a barrier to
implementation that results in a low level of MS transposition of the Directive by the required
deadline.
Economic instruments
Increases in landfill gate fees, landfill taxes, penalties on municipalities not meeting targets, and tax
incentives for packaging recovery schemes are among numerous examples of economic instruments
identified as drivers of policy implementation.
Terminology is sometimes stated as an implementation issue, where lack of clarity can lead to
varying MS interpretations (the Essential Requirements of the Packaging Directive for example),
however this issue will not be considered by this study.
The direct application of these factors to the Directives analysed is summarised in the table below.
Benefits of better waste policy implementation
24 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Table 6: Barriers for implementation by waste policies
Implementation
factor
Revised
Waste
Framework
Directive
Landfill
Directive
Incineration
Directive
Waste
Shipment
Regulation
Batteries
Directive
End-of-
Life
Vehicles
Directive
Packaging
Directive
WEEE
Directive
(2008/98/EC) (99/31/EC) (2000/76/EC)
(EC
1013/2006)
(2008/12/E
C)
(2000/53/E
C)
(94/62/EC) (2002/96/E
C)
Infrastructure and
capacity building
X X X X X X X
Administrative
competency and
capacity
X X X X X X
Expertise and
specialised skills
X X X X X
Knowledge sharing X X X X X X
Awareness raising X X X X X X
Enforcement
measures
X X X X X X
Targets X X X X X X
Economic
instruments
X X X X X X
Market
development
X X X X X X
2.2 Economic (including financial) and social
benefits of better waste management
implementation
To assess economic and social benefits of better waste management implementation, two scenarios
were developed based on review of literature: one assuming no policy changes as compared to the
current institutional setting and one assuming an institutional setting allowing for full legislation
implementation as by the year 2020. The comparison of economic and social costs in 2020 of both
scenarios shows significant benefits for full implementation, such as, among others, reduction in
total waste generation by 119 Mt (-4% compared to the scenario with no policy change), a reduction
in waste landfilling and incineration without energy recovery by 931 Mt (-48%) and a reduction in
total net costs of waste management by 72 billion € (-126%).
Please see Annex D for complete details on the methodology used.
2.2.1 Approach
In order to quantify and illustrate the potential benefits of fully implementing the European Union
waste legislation two scenarios for the year 2020 were developed in the present study. The scenarios
are based on data derived from a literature review, specifically from investigations by Milieu et al.
Benefits of better waste policy implementation
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 25
(2009), Prognos (2008, 2009a) and BIOIS et al. (2011 (see Annex C). The year 2020 was selected as
reference year as at this time all existing provisions should and technically could be implemented.
The two scenarios are defined as follows:
Scenario A: No further development of waste management system as
compared to the year 2008
Scenario B: Full implementation of waste legislation.
The difference between Scenario B and Scenario A shows the incremental benefits from the 2008
state of implementation to full implementation of EU waste legislation.
A detailed description of:
the literature on which the scenario assumption was based
the scenario parameters
the impacts considered
and the scenario results
can be found in Annex D: Scenarios of year 2020 EU-27 waste management system.
A summary of the scenario parameters is shown in Table 7 and the targets taken into account in
Scenario B are illustrated in Table 8.
Table 7: Summary of scenario parameters
Parameter Scenario A Scenario B
General
description
No further development of waste
management system as compared to
2008
Full implementation of waste
legislation
Waste
generation
According to economic growth and
historic development (Not affected by
waste prevention)
Reduced waste generation due to waste
prevention
Waste treatment
capacity
Waste treatment capacity stays at 2008
level, additional waste is landfilled
Waste treatment capacity is extended
so that provisions of waste legislation
(see Table 8) are met
Benefits of better waste policy implementation
26 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Table 8: Targets considered in scenario B
Directive Targets considered
Waste framework directive
2008/98/EC art. 9 and 11
Decoupling of waste generation from economic growth by 2020
70 % recycling of C&D
50 % recycling of paper, metal, plastic and glass from households and
similar installations
Landfill directive
1999/31/EC, art. 5 and 14
35 % biodegradable waste landfilled as compared to 1995
Closing of non-compliant landfills
No landfill of tyres
Packaging directive
1994/62/EC
Recycling rates: 60 % glass, 60 % paper, 50 % metals, 22.5 % plastics, 15 %
wood
End-of life vehicles
directive 2000/53/EC, art. 6
85 % re-use and recycling of cars
95 % metal recycling
WEEE Directive
2002/96/EC, art. 5 and 7
Separate collection of 4 kg/capita/year
75 % re-use and recycling, 70-75 % recovery
Batteries Directive
2008/12/EC, art. 10, 12,
annex III
Battery collection rates: 45 %
Table 9 shows the main results of the scenario analysis, that is:
the reduced amount of waste generated in Scenario B (full implementation of
waste legislation) as compared to Scenario A (No further development of
waste management system as compared to 2008) due to waste prevention
the increased material and energy recovery
the prevented greenhouse gas emissions, due to reduced emissions from
landfilled waste and due to prevention of emissions in other sectors by
material recycling and energy recovery.
Benefits of better waste policy implementation
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 27
Table 9: Difference between waste, material and energy flows as well as greenhouse gas emissions
of scenario B and scenario A in the year 2020
Unit Scenario A Scenario B Difference (B-A) Difference (B-A)
in % of A
Waste generation
Total Mt 2,984 2,864 -119 -4
Treatment
Landfilling/Incineration
without energy recovery,
other disposal
Mt 1,927 996 -931 -48
of which MSW Mt 230 69 -161 -70
Material recovery Mt 951 1,637 686 72
Energy recovery Mt 106 231 125 118
Energy recovery PJ 1,544 3,288 1,744 113
GHG emissions
GHG emission avoided
by material and energy
recovery
MtCO2,e 209 324 115 55
GHG emission from MSW
landfilling
MtCO2,e 142 42 -99 -70
Total difference in GHG
emission
MtCO2,e 215
Table 10 shows the amount of secondary materials recovered from waste in Scenarios A and B. In
Scenario B, a total of 1,637 million tonnes of secondary raw material is recovered in 2020. This is 686
million tonnes more than in Scenario A (than without a full implementation of EU waste legislation).
Benefits of better waste policy implementation
28 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Table 10: Recovery of secondary raw materials in the year 2020 in Mt
Unit Scenario A Scenario B Difference (B-A) Difference (B-A)
in % of A
Glass Mt 9.6 17.7 8.1 83.7
Paper and cardboard Mt 33.0 59.4 26.4 79.8
Plastics Mt 3.8 9.2 5.4 141.1
Iron and steel Mt 76.9 101.7 24.8 32.2
Aluminium Mt 3.0 4.3 1.3 43.5
Copper Mt 0.8 1.3 0.4 51.6
Zinc Mt 0.6 1.3 0.6 99.8
Lead Mt 0.5 1.0 0.5 85.2
Other metals Mt 0.5 1.0 0.6 122.2
Waste Wood Mt 20.4 29.9 9.5 46.6
Textiles Mt 2.5 4.7 2.1 84.9
Rubber and tyres Mt 1.5 1.7 0.2 14.2
Bio-waste Mt 28.2 108.5 80.3 284.4
Oil containing waste Mt 2.0 2.8 0.8 40.3
Spent solvents Mt 0.4 0.6 0.2 67.4
Ashes and slag Mt 74.6 69.8 -4.8 -6.5
Mineral construction
material
Mt
692.1 1,222.2 530.1 76.6
Total Mt 951 1,637 686 72.2
2.2.2 Cost-Benefit Analysis
METHODOLOGY
The cost-benefit analysis considers micro- and macro-economic costs of waste management. The
calculation of both the micro-economic costs (costs for setting up and running the required waste
management infrastructure) and macro-economic costs and benefits (amounts and market value of
recycled materials and of recovered energy) was based on literature review. Annex C lists the
references for the literature review and Annex D provides a detailed description of the methodology
used and the calculations made for the cost-benefit analysis.
RESULTS
Based on the waste flows, emissions and amount of recovered materials and energy shown in Table
9 the costs and monetised benefits of Scenarios A and B are calculated on two levels:
The micro economic level (that is without externalities) as shown Table 11
The macro-economic level (including external costs and benefits) as shown in
Table 12
The costs and values shown refer only to one year (2020).
Benefits of better waste policy implementation
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 29
When looking only at the micro-economic level (see Table 11):
A full implementation of the waste legislation by 2020 requires an additional
financial input of 42.9 billion €/year as compared to a system which remains
at the implementation level of 2008. These additional costs result mainly
from the improvement of current waste management infrastructure, the
upgrading of treatment technologies and the enhancement of collection
systems (e.g. establishment of separate collection of different waste
streams).
However, the revenues from a fully implemented system are 47.8 billion
€/year higher than without further implementation, thanks to more efficient
recovery technologies and, consequently, increased amounts of recovered
energy and materials.
Hence, the net micro economic costs of a fully implemented waste management system are 4.9
billion € or 6 % lower than the year 2008 implementation level system.
In addition to the costs considered in the micro-economic analysis, the macro-economic calculations
take into account the externalities of waste management (see Table 12). On the cost side, these
externalities include:
the economic cost of GHG emission from MSW landfilling
the economic cost of Ecotoxicity of Zn emissions
the economic cost of Ozone depletion
the economic cost of Endangering species richness by land use
On the revenue side, the macro-economic externalities include:
the economic value of GHG emission avoided by material and energy
recovery
the economic value avoided acidification
the economic value avoided eutrophication
When taking into account all these macro-economic externalities (see Table 12):
A full implementation of the waste legislation requires an additional 10.5
billion €/year in gross costs as compared to a system which remains at the
implementation level of 2006.
However, the values generated by a fully implemented system are 82.3 billion
€ higher than without further implementation
Hence, a net macro-economic value of 71.8 billion €/year is generated by a
fully implemented waste management system as compared to a waste
management system which remains at the year 2008 implementation level.
Benefits of better waste policy implementation
30 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Table 11: Total micro-economic costs of waste management in the year 2020 (without containment
and repatriation costs)
Parameter Unit Scenario A Scenario B Difference (B-
A)
Difference (B-
A) in % of A
Base costs of waste
management
billion € 88.4 90.6 2.2 2.5
Base costs of recycling billion € 52.2 90.8 38.6 73.9
Costs of waste prevention billion € 0.0 2.1 2.1
Gross costs of waste
management
billion € 140.6 183.5 42.9 30.5
Revenues from recovered
materials
billion € 54.8 94.4 39.6 72.3
Revenues from recovered
incineration energy
billion € 6.5 13.8 7.3 112.3
Revenues from recovered
landfill gas energy
billion € 0.5 1.4 0.9 180.0
Total revenues billion € 61.8 109.6 47.8 77.3
Total net costs of waste
management
billion € 78.8 73.9 -4.9 -6.2
Benefits of better waste policy implementation
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 31
Table 12: Total macro-economic costs/benefits of waste management in the year 2020
Parameter Unit Scenario A Scenario B Difference (B-
A)
Difference (B-
A) in % of A
Base costs of waste management billion € 88.4 90.6 2.2 2.5
Base costs of recycling billion € 52.2 90.8 38.6 73.9
Costs of waste prevention billion € 0.0 2.1 2.1
GHG emission from MSW
landfilling
billion € 11.1 3.3 -7.8 -70.3
Ecotoxicity of Zn emissions billion € 23.3 0.1 -23.2 -99.6
Ozone depletion billion € 1.2 0.1 -1.1 -91.7
Endangering species richness by
land use
billion € 0.5 0.2 -0.3 -60.0
Gross costs of waste
management
billion € 176.7 187.2 10.5 5.9
Revenues from recovered
materials
billion € 54.8 94.4 39.6 72.3
Revenues from recovered
incineration energy
billion € 6.5 13.8 7.3 112.3
Revenues from recovered landfill
gas energy
billion € 0.5 1.4 0.9 180.0
GHG emission avoided by
material and energy recovery
billion € 16.3 25.3 9.0 55.2
Avoided acidification billion € 14.1 27.9 13.8 97.9
Avoided eutrophication billion € 27.7 39.4 11.7 42.2
Total value generated billion € 119.9 202.2 82.3 68.6
Total net costs of waste
management
billion € 56.8 -15.0 -71.8 -126.4
Not included in Table 11 and Table 12 are following cost categories:
Containment and repatriation costs as it is not clear what would be a realistic
assumption on how much of non-compliant waste would be contained and
how much of the exported waste (from electric and electronic equipment,
batteries and end-of-life vehicle) would be repatriated in Scenario A
Health damage costs as no realistic assumption on how many persons would
be affected by non-compliant waste management in Scenario A could be
made
Environmental damage costs from ecotoxic pollutants other than zinc, as no
realistic assumption could be made on how much heavy metals and organic
pollutants would be released in Scenario A
Health and environmental damage costs in countries outside the EU related
to material and fuel imports or waste exports
Benefits of better waste policy implementation
32 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Nevertheless, four very important conclusions can be made with respect to health damage and
containment/repatriation costs:
In areas where waste management does not exist at all the health damage
costs are 20 times higher than the gross micro economic costs of a fully
established, compliant waste management system would be
When taking into account the prevention of health damage costs in both
Scenarios A and B the benefits exceed the costs; in scenario B, however,
more than in Scenario A
If, in Scenario A all the non-compliantly landfilled waste were contained and
all the exported WEEE, batteries and ELV repatriated even the micro-
economic waste management cost of the European waste management
system in Scenario A would exceed those of Scenario B by more than 50 %
When health damage costs, all environmental damage costs, containment
costs and repatriation costs are taken into account the superiority of Scenario
B, that is of full implementation of waste legislation, over Scenario A further
increases
Table 13 shows the turnover and jobs in the waste management sector and recycled materials sector
created in Scenarios A and B. By raising the level of the European waste management sector to full
compliance the turnover of waste management and recycling increase by 42 billion €/a and the
number of jobs increase by 400,000.
Table 13: Turnover of waste management and recycling, as well as jobs in Scenarios A and B for the
year 2020
Parameter Unit Scenario A Scenario B Difference
(B-A)
Difference (B-
A) in % of A
Turnover in "waste
management" sector
M€ 90,200 92,400 2,200 2.4%
Turnover in "recycled
materials" sector
M€ 54,800 94,400 39,600 72.3%
Total turnover M€ 145,000 186,800 41,800 28.8%
Jobs in "waste
management" sector
1,434,900 1,469,900 35,000 2.4%
Jobs in "recycled materials"
sector
512,300 882,200 369,900 72.2%
Total jobs 1,947,200 2,352,100 404,900 20.8%
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS
The benefits of a full implementation of EU waste legislation in EU-27 by the year 2020 are as
follows.
By applying waste prevention measures the generation of waste can substantially be reduced. It is
estimated that some 4 % of waste can realistically be prevented.
By introducing and improving separate collection systems, by improving waste treatment, by
actively discouraging landfilling and by developing recycling markets the amount of waste recycled
Benefits of better waste policy implementation
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 33
and secondary material produced can be increased. This leads to a reduction of primary material
consumption and related environmental impacts. Biodegradable waste may be composted and, if
unpolluted, used as a fertiliser. It is estimated that material recycling can be increased by 72 %
(worth an additional 39 billion € per year in recovered materials) in order to fully comply with
European waste legislation.
By improved separate collection systems and waste treatment also the share of waste that may be
used as secondary fuel can be increased without polluting the environment. Waste can be
incinerated in specialised incineration plants with sophisticated pollution control and off-heat
utilisation. Biogas from biological treatment plants and landfill-gas may be collected and used as
fuel for power and heat generation. All options for recovering energy from waste, taken together,
increase the level of energy from waste by 113 %, and reduce the consumption of primary energy
(worth 8 billion € per year) and the related environmental impacts.
Waste prevention, increased recycling and improved treatment together reduce the amount of
waste to be landfilled by 48 %. Compliant landfill-systems tend to use landfills with a smaller specific
area consumption per tonne of waste landfilled. It is therefore estimated that the total area
consumption for the waste landfilled in the year 2020 in EU-27 in a fully compliant system is 64 %
smaller than in a system without increasing compliance above the year 2008 level. This in turn
results in a lower pressure on biodiversity.
Keeping biodegradable and other reactive waste from landfills and equipping landfills with base,
side and cover lining and leachate control additionally reduces the emissions of pollutants such as
heavy metals or soluble/volatile organic compounds from landfills into air, water and on soil and
reduces the emissions of dust and stench.
In a fully compliant system no waste and especially no hazardous waste such as waste from electric
and electronic equipment (WEEE) or batteries of end-of-life-vehicles (ELV), would be illegally
exported. If waste is exported, it is treated at the same environmental standards as if it would be
treated within the EU.
In total:
The impact of waste on human health for all EU-citizens is reduced to almost
zero, leading to increased life expectancies
The impact on animals and plants, on biodiversity and nature-protected-
areas is much reduced
Greenhouse-gas emissions are reduced within the waste management sector
and by replacing primary energy and materials in other sectors by an
estimated total of 215 Mt CO2
Zinc emission (as representative of emissions of ecotoxic substances) is
reduced by 28,900 tonnes annually
Acidification potential is reduced by 22.6 Mt SO2,e/a
Eutrophication potential is reduced by 9.3 Mt PO4,e/a
Ozone depletion potential is reduced by 7,000 tonnes CFC-11e per year
Benefits of better waste policy implementation
34 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
The related costs are reduced accordingly.
As the environmental and health impacts of non-compliant landfilling persist for many years after
the landfilling activities have stopped, containment and clean up of non-compliant landfills will be
necessary in future. When meeting all requirements of EU-waste legislation in a compliant waste
management system, such containment and clean up costs and activities will not be necessary.
Therefore full compliance will save containment and clean up costs on the long run.
The situation with illegal waste exports is similar. When the receiving country finds that the
environmental or health damage connected to the exported waste is unbearable it can make the EU
economy liable and force the waste to be taken back inducing high repatriation costs. Such costs will
not occur when the European waste management system is operated in full compliance with EU
waste legislation.
Full compliance may also be seen as a proof that European industries operate with low
environmental impact and thus enhance the image of the industries with the wider public and
consumers.
Recycling of materials and the use of energy from waste are valuable alternatives to primary raw
materials and energy for the European economy, increasing the security of supply, reserving
resources for future generations and dampening price volatilities (more on that in chapter 2.3).
Compliance with EU-waste legislation in all EU-27-regions ensures a level playing field for waste
management across the EU, hence preventing unnecessary transports, assuring investment
certainty and forming the basis for an efficient and effective waste management system (more on
this aspect of compliance can be found in chapter 2.3
According to the scenario, calculations of full compliance with EU-waste legislation show increases
in the annual turnover of the combined waste management and recycling sectors by 42 billion € or
29 %, creating an economic sector in Europe with a turnover of 187 billion €/year and 2.4 million
jobs. Compliance creates some 400.000 jobs. While some part of the jobs created may represent job
losses in other sectors, mainly the mining sector and in foreign countries, recycling is much more
labour intensive than primary raw material and fuel mining and thus creates many more jobs than
costs.
The need to expand the waste management system with expanding waste generation and to bring
non-compliant systems into compliance creates opportunities for innovation and market
penetration of efficient technologies especially in the focus-eco-industries. The gained knowledge
and developed technologies/techniques may later on support lower environmental impacts also in
other parts of the world to which the European economy is connected by high material and product
flows.
Overall, full compliance with EU waste legislation will in many ways contribute to an increased
quality of life for EU-citizens. It ensures an effective balance between environmental protection,
economic opportunities for the waste management sector and the EU industry as a whole, and
social development.
Enabling compliance in all EU-countries is an effective means of internalising external costs in a fair
way and therefore an important contribution to the sustainable development of the EU economy
from the environmental, economic and social point of view.
Benefits of better waste policy implementation
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 35
2.3 Value of complete compliance for the EU waste
management sector and for other EU Industries
In this chapter, the value of full implementation of EU waste legislation for the development of the
EU waste management system and for other industrial sectors is discussed.
2.3.1 Value of complete compliance for the EU waste
management sector
Within the EU, waste shipments to countries, which do not yet fully comply with all requirements of
EU waste legislation have increased over the last years. In non-compliant regions, waste dumping is
cheaper than the sophisticated treatment necessary for fulfilling EU legislation in an effective way.
This leads to increased transport of waste, which from an economic point of view is unnecessary and
causes environmental/economic harm in five ways:
Additional energy consumption and emission of pollutants are caused
The environmental impact of waste disposal in the receiving region is much
larger than the environmental impact of waste treatment would be in the
country of origin
Valuable materials and energy contained in the waste is lost
The drain of waste reduces the throughput for compliant waste treatment
installations as well as their economic turnover and ultimately can lead to
bankruptcies
Non-compliance in one region ultimately leads to non-compliance in all
connected regions and to a deflation of environmental standards.
Only the full implementation of all EU-waste legislation on equal terms in all parts of the European
Union (and the requirement that all waste exported to countries outside the EU is treated with high
environmental standards) enables a level economic playing field for the development of the
European waste management system. It is a precondition for sufficient security in high-level waste
management investments. It is a precondition that the waste management and recycling sector can
expand and provide its services to the European economy.
The 29% increase of the turnover of the waste management and recycling sector, calculated in the
scenario analysis, (see chapter 2.2) are only possible when:
A truly level playing field is created
The demand for low environmental and health impact waste management is
created
The same is true for the 400,000 jobs that are the estimated potential gain of full implementation of
EU waste legislation.
Benefits of better waste policy implementation
36 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
2.3.2 Value of complete compliance for EU industries
The value of implementation of EU waste legislation for the EU industry as a whole shall be
discussed from following perspectives:
Industries as waste owners
Industries as users of environmental services
Industries as affected by climate change
Industries as consumers of materials
Industries as consumers of energy
Industries as waste owners
The principle responsibility for waste and the damage it can generate lies with the waste producer.
Therefore, those economic sectors with high waste generation and especially high hazardous waste
generation (see Table 14 below) would be most affected by improper waste management and are
most interested in efficient waste management.If a waste-producing plant cannot find an enterprise
that is willing to take over the waste it would have to store and somehow contain the produced
waste on its own premises, while preventing dangerous reactions and harmful emissions. It has
proved to be much more efficient and economically appealing for most industrial plants to hand
over materials that cannot be used any further to professional specialised waste collection and
treatment enterprises.
The waste treatment enterprise, however, can provide its services only at reasonable prices if it has
enough security for its investments. If a non-level playing field persisted between the different
European regions due to varying degrees of implementation of EU waste legislation, waste
management enterprises would have to introduce risk premiums to cover for the increased
investment uncertainty, making waste management for European industries more expensive. Only a
level playing field, achieved by full implementation of EU waste legislation, in all EU regions can
allow for competition among waste management companies on equal terms and thus keep the
prices for waste management at a competitively low level. This in turn helps European production
industries to keep their production prices low and competitive.
Waste prevention measures foreseen in the EU Waste Framework Directive (Dir 2008/98/EC) may
also directly support European production industries in developing more economic, material and
energy efficient processes and products, providing a further edge competition in the world market.
When the industries can prove that their waste is treated in an efficient and environmentally friendly
way this can enhance the image of the industries with the wider public and the consumers. This is
especially important for eco-industries.
Benefits of better waste policy implementation
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 37
Table 14: Year 2008 EU-27 waste generation by economic sector (based on:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database)
NACE-Code Economic sector Year 2008 EU-27 waste
generation in kt
Share in %
Total waste Hazardous
waste
Total waste Hazardous
waste
A Agriculture, forestry and fishing 45 0.9 1.7 1.0
B Mining and quarrying 727 13.9 27.8 14.2
C10-C12
Manufacture of food products; beverages
and tobacco products
54 0.6 2.1 0.6
C13-C15
Manufacture of textiles, wearing apparel,
leather and related products
4 0.1 0.2 0.1
C16
Manufacture of wood and of products of
wood and cork, except furniture;
manufacture of articles of straw and plaiting
materials
29 0.3 1.1 0.3
C17_C18
Manufacture of paper and paper products;
printing and reproduction of recorded media
32 0.3 1.2 0.3
C19
Manufacture of coke and refined petroleum
products
6 3.5 0.2 3.5
C20-C22
Manufacture of chemical, pharmaceutical,
rubber and plastic products
53 7.3 2.0 7.5
C23
Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral
products
25 0.6 0.9 0.6
C24_C25
Manufacture of basic metals and fabricated
metal products, except machinery and
equipment
112 10.1 4.3 10.3
C26-C30
Manufacture of computer, electronic and
optical products, electrical equipment,
motor vehicles and other transport
equipment
22 2.6 0.8 2.7
C31-C33
Manufacture of furniture; jewellery, musical
instruments, toys; repair and installation of
machinery and equipment
7 0.3 0.3 0.3
D
Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning
supply
91 6.6 3.5 6.8
E
Water supply; sewerage, waste
management and remediation activities
167 14.4 6.4 14.7
E36_E37
_E39
Water collection, treatment and supply;
sewerage; remediation activities and other
waste management services
36 3.1 1.4 3.1
E38
Waste collection, treatment and disposal
activities; materials recovery
132 11.3 5.0 11.6
F Construction 859 20.2 32.9 20.6
G-U_X_
G4677
Services (except wholesale of waste and
scrap)
138 12.6 5.3 12.9
G4677 Wholesale of waste and scrap 24 1.0 0.9 1.0
EP_HH Households 221 2.1 8.4 2.1
Total 2,615 97.7 100.0 100.0
Benefits of better waste policy implementation
38 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
INDUSTRIES AS USERS OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Several industries need unpolluted environmental media, such as clean soil, clean water or clean air,
and fully developed environmental services (e.g. sufficient biodiversity, recreational areas,
unpolluted materials etc.) as input or basis for their products and services. This is especially true for
agriculture and the food industry. The recent contamination of eggs with dioxins is only one
example in which polluted input material has brought down a whole market (at least for some time).
In addition, the production of highly sophisticated technologies is much cheaper when it can start
with an unpolluted input. Therefore, also the lowering of environmental pollution which is achieved
by full implementation of the EU waste legislation provides necessary preconditions for a
competitive industry and a flourishing market.
INDUSTRIES AFFECTED BY CLIMATE CHANGE
The expected climate change which is caused by the increased level of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere will lead to increased erosion, changes in water patterns and quality and environmental
disasters which, by destroying infrastructures and industrial plants directly or indirectly will affect
also European industries. The reduced greenhouse gas emissions which can be achieved by the full
implementation of EU-waste legislation will help to avoid these effects.
INDUSTRIES AS CONSUMERS OF MATERIALS
The importance of raw material input for the European production industry may be illustrated by the
German case. In the German production industry, the cost of materials is by far the largest cost item,
being 100 % higher than the personnel costs and 20 times higher than the energy costs. In the
period 1995 to 2006, the share of the material costs on the overall production costs continuously
rose from 37.4 to 42.9 %. In the same period the share of the personnel cost decreased from 24.7 to
18.2 percent (see Figure 1)3.
Figure 1: Costs in Germany's production industry in % of gross production value (Schmidt 2009)
3 Schmidt (2009)
0
5
1
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Co
sts
in
%
of
gr
os
s p
ro
du
cti
on
va
lue
Year
Material
Personnel
Benefits of better waste policy implementation
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 39
Due to a strongly increased demand in the period 2000 to 2008, world primary metal production
increased by 95 % and world primary industrial mineral production by 27 %. In 2009, production
volumes for primary metal and primary raw materials , remained equivalent to 2008 levels (see
Figure 2) despite the economic downturns caused by the financial crises. In the future, further
increases in primary material demand and production are expected.
0
500
1
,
0
0
0
1
,
5
0
0
2
,
0
0
0
2
,
5
0
0
2000 2008 2009
W
o
r
l
d
p
r
i
m
a
r
y
r
a
w
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
M
t
Year
Metals Industrial minerals
Figure 2: World primary raw material production (USGS 2001, 2010)4
At the same time, primary metal mining shows a strong tendency towards monopolisation. In the
year 2008, out of 41 metals, more than 50 % of world production was concentrated in only 1 country
for 16 metals, and more than 80 % of world production was concentrated in only 3 countries for a
further 8 metals. China is the number one producer of 19 metals (USGS 20095, Weber & Zsak 20086).
The market position of China is further strengthened as it is also the main user for many metals.
The strong growth in world material demand has led to a substantial increase in price volatility for
raw materials. The economic downturn in 2009 brought only a short relief (see Figure 3).
4 Sources: USGS - U.S.Geological Survey fo the U.S. Department of the Interior (2001): Mineral commodity summaries 2001.
Washington D.C. USGS - U.S.Geological Survey fo the U.S. Department of the Interior (2010): Mineral commodity
summaries 2010. Washington D.C.
5 USGS - U.S.Geological Survey fo the U.S. Department of the Interior (2009): Mineral commodity summaries 2009.
Washington D.C.
6 Weber, L. & Zsak, G. (2008): World Mining Data - Minerals Production. BMWA - Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und
Arbeit, Volume 23, Wien
Benefits of better waste policy implementation
40 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
0
2
0
4
0
6
0
8
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
1
4
0
1
6
0
1
8
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
M
e
t
a
l
p
r
i
s
e
r
e
a
l
,
i
n
d
e
x
1
0
0
=
1
9
6
7
Year
Figure 3: Mixed copper, steel, lead, tin, zinc price index (CRB 2011)7
The scenario analysis (see chapter 2.2) has shown that full implementation of the EU waste
legislation leads to a substantial increase in the amount of recycled secondary materials available on
the market (see Table 9).This secondary material served as a valuable alternative for the European
production industries, helping to prevent monopolistic tendencies, increasing the security of supply,
helping to keep the price volatility at bay and helping to lower the prices of input materials. It also
helps to save primary raw material reserves for future use.
INDUSTRIES AS CONSUMERS OF ENERGY
The dependence of European production industries on energy can be characterised in a similar way
to its dependence on raw materials. Crude oil, natural gas and coal still are the most important
sources of energy, with very limited natural reserves within the EU and largely monopolistic supply
structures. The situation may be even more severe than with primary raw materials if forecasts by
the International Energy Agency (IEA 20108) come true, that is that world crude oil production
capacity has already passed its peak and that all economically deliverable crude oil reserves will be
spent in some decades. The fact is that crude oil priced in the last decade followed almost the same
pattern as shown for metal prices in Figure 3.
Therefore, the increased energy from waste, made available by the full implementation of European
waste legislation is a valuable alternative for the European production industries, helping to prevent
monopolistic tendencies, increasing the security of supply, helping to keep the price volatility at bay,
helping to lower the prices of required energy as well as helping to save primary energy reserves for
future use.
7 CRB - Commodity Research Bureau (2011): CRB-Spot-Inidces - Monthly Charts and Data.
http://www.crbtrader.com/crbindex/
8 IEA – International Energy Agency (2010): World Energy Outlook 2010. Paris. http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/
Benefits of better waste policy implementation
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 41
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS OF FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF EU WASTE LEGISLATION TO THE
INDUSTRY
The following table summarises the main benefits of full implementation of EU waste legislation to
the industry.
Table 15: Benefits of full implementation of EU waste legislation to the industry
Industry relation to
waste management
Benefits of full implementation of EU waste legislation
Industries as waste
owners
Availability of proper and compliant waste treatment services
Lower prices for waste treatment (due to even level playing field and
investment security)
Lower waste storage costs (due to available opportunities for outsourcing of
waste management)
Industries as users of
environmental services
Unpolluted environmental media (e.g. clean soil, clean water or clean air) as
input or basis for products and services
Fully developed environmental services (e.g. sufficient biodiversity,
recreational areas, unpolluted materials) as input or basis for products and
services
Industries as affected by
climate change
Reduced strategic and operational risks (e.g. risk of destruction of industrial
infrastructure true environmental catastrophes)
Industries as consumers
of materials
Increased amounts of recycled secondary materials available on the market
Increased security of supply
Lower price volatility for input materials
Lower prices of input materials
Saving of primary raw material reserves for future use
Industries as consumers
of energy
Increased availability of energy from waste
Increased security of supply
Lower volatility of energy price
Lower energy prices
Saving of primary energy reserves for future use
Benefits of better waste policy implementation
42 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
2.4 Case studies demonstrating benefits of better
waste implementation
This subchapter highlights five case studies demonstrating the economic and social benefits of
strengthening implementation and enforcement of EU waste legislation. Case studies were defined
with the Commission as the following:
Port of Rotterdam (NL): Waste Shipment Regulation Enforcement
Cyprus (CY): Landfill Directive Implementation
Naples (IT): Waste Management Crisis
Brandenburg (DE): Landfill Closure and Containment
Ireland (IR): Increasing Compliance with Waste Legislation
The case studies specifically focus on assessing the impacts of strengthening the implementation
and enforcement of EU waste legislation on the turnover of waste and related industries, financial
impacts, resource use, employment, and public health. A detailed description of each case study can
be found in the Annex. These descriptions include the following sections: context, economic
(including financial) impacts), social impacts, and barriers and drivers to implementation. The case
studies were prepared using Commission publications, relevant literature, news articles, Eurostat
data, and interviews with related parties and waste management experts.
Summaries of the five case studies, highlighting the benefits achieved through increased
implementation and enforcement of EU waste legislation, are presented in the boxes below.
Benefits of better waste policy implementation
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 43
Port of Rotterdam: Waste Shipment Regulation Enforcement
Context
Rotterdam is one of the main European ports and logistical hubs, boasting an annual cargo
throughput of 400 million tonnes in 2009. The primary drivers for Rotterdam focusing on
enforcement of the Waste Shipment Regulation are costly repatriation requests, increasing public
and political awareness of waste shipment issues, and Rotterdam’s position as a point of exit from
the EU.
Economic and Social Benefits
Stricter enforcement of the Waste Shipment Directive has primarily provided economic benefits in
the form of increased turnover of the waste management and recycling industries. Financial benefits
of increased enforcement include the avoidance of: illegal waste shipment fees (€500 to €1000 per
tonne), environmental clean-up costs (€152m in the Probo Koala incident of 2007), and waste
repatriation costs (€1.2 million for a shipment destined for Nigeria). In terms of benefits related to
resource use, increased enforcement could route potentially illegal waste shipments destined for
emerging economies into the legal treatment system, increasing materials available for waste-to-
energy treatment as well as ensuring maximum recovery rates for materials such as metals;
improper dismantling and recovery processes for illegal waste such as WEEE lead to recovery rates
of approximately 20% in developing countries while use of state-of-the-art recycling in the EU leads
to approximately 95% recovery. As a result of stricter enforcement on waste shipments in the Port
of Rotterdam, Nancy Isarin of the IMPEL-TFS Secretariat cited increased waste quality due to higher
quantities of waste routed through legal channels for recovery and treatment, hence leading to
optimised processes and better sorting techniques and consequently better access to high quality
raw materials.
Nancy Isarin also estimated that the stricter WSR enforcement has led to the creation of 22 jobs (12
public sector, 10 private sector) including positions for Customs officers, waste inspectors,
environmental coordination and waste treatment and recycling plants. The health impacts of
insufficient enforcement of the WSR are linked to the reception and improper treatment of waste,
particularly WEEE, in developing countries, which has long-ranging impacts including pollution to
air, water, soil and habitats as well as health risks for workers and citizens.
Barriers and Drivers
Barriers to better implementation and enforcement of the WSR in the Port of Rotterdam include
difficulty centralising information and validating shipment reporting as well as political
prioritisation. Drivers of better implementation and enforcement include coordinated control and
inspection activities, 24-hour availability of environmental inspectors and emergency numbers for
customs officers, and the sharing of guidance materials and databases across authorities.
Benefits of better waste policy implementation
44 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Cyprus: Landfill Directive Implementation
Context
Since the 1980s, Cyprus has experienced the opening of an increasing number of illegal landfilling
and dump sites. In 2004, the Ministry of the Interior commissioned a study on the identification and
risk assessment of illegal landfills, which located 113 unofficial and uncontrolled dump sites and
ranked their danger to the environment and health, in order to focus closure efforts on the most
problematic zones. This launched a programme of landfill closure and installation of state-of-the art
treatment plants, combined with the installation of green points for separate collection.
Economic and Social Benefits
The installation of new treatment plants has produced economic benefits of increased turnover for
the waste management and recycling industry; potentially higher gate fees for treatment and
disposal are a secondary impact of the installation of the new plants. Financial impacts avoided via
the closure of illegal landfills and the opening of new treatment plants include penalty fees and
prison sentences associated with illegal landfilling and incorrect waste management; maintaining
tourist revenue is an additional benefit, as official complaints were made by tourists about the waste
dumping situation in Cyprus. The closure and rehabilitation of illegal landfills in Cyprus has led to
increased usage of the legal collection, treatment and disposal system, and thus helped Cyprus
achieve benefits of more effective resource use; from 2003 to 2007 recycling increased from a
negligible percentage to 20%.
Dr. Costas Papastavros, of the Environmental Service of the Cyprus Ministry of Agriculture, Natural
Resources and Environment, estimated that due to the Cypriot government’s focus on illegal
landfilling and waste management over the past 10 years, 300 jobs have been created annually in
the waste management and recycling sector; the opening of the new treatment sites has also lead to
an increase in competencies for waste-specific processing. Negative impacts on public health
avoided via the closure of illegal landfills were assessed by the Cypriot study in 2004 as including:
groundwater pollution, soil pollution, underground transport of landfill gas, odour, landfill gas fires
and explosions, landfill fires incurred to reduce the volume of waste, and animal grazing as often
dumping sites are not fenced in.
Barriers and Drivers
Barriers to better implementation and enforcement of the Landfill Directive in Cyprus include
limited human resources and specialised knowledge, and a lack of public awareness on waste issues.
Drivers of better implementation and enforcement include tourist industry revenue concerns, an
increasing governmental focus on waste issues and increasing public and political awareness on
waste and illegal landfilling.
Benefits of better waste policy implementation
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 45
Naples: Waste Crisis
Context
Italy declared a state of emergency for waste in the Campania region, including Naples, in 1994, and
was ordered by the European Commission to clean up all illegal waste dumps and to develop a waste
disposal programme involving waste separation and recycling, which led to the establishment of a
Commissario Straordinario (Special Commissioner) to address the situation. In December 2007, the
Naples waste crisis began when municipal workers in charge of waste collection went on strike,
leading to a build up of waste in the street; ongoing efforts to manage waste volumes and
effectively implement Landfill Directive requirements have remained unsuccessful as facilities for
waste collection and treatment remain insufficient.
Economic and Social Benefits
Economic benefits lost due to ongoing failure of proper implementation of EU waste legislation,
include tourist revenue losses (estimated at €64 million in 2007), mozzarella di bufala revenue losses
(estimated at up to 50%) and in the long term potential revenue losses for other food production
and farming activities in the Naples region due to the entry of toxic waste into groundwater and soil
as a result of improper waste disposal. Financial impacts of the Naples waste crisis are primarily
linked to ongoing waste management and clean up costs; these include €400,000 per day, since
2007, for sending waste for incineration to Germany, €2 million for staff in charge of waste
management, €36,000 daily spending since 2007 on leachate waste disposal due to inadequate
draining systems at landfill and treatment sites, and required annual spending of €1.2 million to
protect the natural biodiversity of Vesuvius National Park due to the existence of waste dumping
sites within its borders. As reported by the Italian budgetary office, spending through the Special
Commissioner structure has increased exponentially over time, from on average €5 million annually
up until 2006, to up to €50 million across the 2 year period from 2007 to 2009. Additional financial
benefits lost in the Naples waste crisis are related to civil unrest and the continued police and
military presence necessitated by such unrest.
The ongoing waste situation in Naples negatively impacts employment in the tourist industry and
the agricultural sector, notably producers of mozzarella di bufala; employment impacts in the waste
management sector are difficult to assess. Health impacts of the build-up of waste in the streets, the
burning of waste by residents, the overfilling of full capacity landfills, and the improper treatment of
waste, especially toxic waste are multiple: increased rates of neoplasia, hepatic tumours, lung
tumours, stomach tumours, birth defects and mortality rates.
Barriers and Drivers
Barriers to effective implementation and enforcement of EU waste legislation in the Naples region
include lacking and misused infrastructure, surplus staff, management issues, corruption and
organised crime. Drivers to improved implementation and enforcement include taking political
responsibility, increasing citizen involvement, restricting funding, and counteracting illegal activity.
Benefits of better waste policy implementation
46 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Brandenburg: Landfill Closure and Containment
Context
After the reunification of East and West Germany, it was necessary for the region of Brandenburg to
restructure their waste management system especially to align with EU Landfill Directive
requirements. The majority of landfill sites were closed, contained and revegetated and 15 plants for
treatment and recycling of residual waste were installed, hence reducing the amount of waste
landfilled to 29% of the 730 000 tonnes produced per year.
Economic and Social Benefits
It is difficult to assess the impacts of the landfill closure and containment on turnover in the waste
management sector, but it is possible to cite that as of 2009, waste management costs in the
Brandenburg region, at 68 €/cap/annum, were 89% below the German average. Financial inputs for
the containment of non-central landfills programmes were €37 million; for the closure programme
of the central landfills, €113 million was spent, €47 million of which was funded by the European
Regional Development Fund (ERDF). For the creation of the 15 treatment plants approximately €300
million was invested and contributed to the achievement of an annual turnover of €100 M through
the plants. Benefits in terms of resource usage include the recycling of 31% of waste collected as
valuable materials and the recovery of an additional 288 kt of construction and demolition waste;
222 kt of waste collected was used for energy generation in Brandenburg in 2009.
Landfill closure and containment activities have had a positive impact on employment, leading to
the creation of 1600 temporary jobs related to the landfill containment project and 200 permanent
jobs through the restructuring of the waste management system as a whole. An increase in the life
expectancy of newborns in Brandenburg from 1991/1993 to 2007/2009, exceeding the Germany
average increase over the same period, by 1.8 years, serves as a potential indicator of positive health
benefits of landfill closure and containment efforts.
Barriers and Drivers
Barriers to landfill closure and containment include financial aid required at a regional, national and
EU level, the difficulty of initially convincing landfill operators and related organisations to
cooperate, and continuing illegal landfilling activities as of 2009 despite efforts to establish an
efficient and affordable waste management system. The primary drivers of better implementation
and enforcement of the Landfill Directive in the Brandenburg region were the necessity to reach
Western European environmental and economic standards as quickly as possible, and the possibility
for job creation and economic growth through the restructuring and upgrade of the waste
management system.
Benefits of better waste policy implementation
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 47
Ireland: Increasing Compliance with Waste Legislation
Context
In 1998, the Republic of Ireland undertook an aggressive programme entitled ‘Changing our Ways’
to enforce waste management legislation and modernise waste management infrastructure. The
programme involved awareness campaigns, the use of fiscal instruments, the introduction of stricter
enforcement legislation, particularly for illegal waste dumping, and the creation of waste guidance
documents. National prevention plans were established, targeting various audiences, such as
households, businesses, etc.
Economic and Social Benefits
Benefits of increased enforcement and implementation of waste legislation in relation to turnover in
the waste management sector include the creation of employment, reduced transportation of
waste, greater national self-sufficiency, and reinforced public confidence in the environmental
benefits of recycling. Financial impacts of increased enforcement include the reduction of clean up
costs for illegal waste dumping; investments made over the 2000-2006 period are estimated at over
€825.5 million with the Market Development Programme investment accounting for €14 million. In
terms of resource use, increased enforcement lead to higher recycling and recovery rates for a
number of materials, especially paper, cardboard and glass.
Job creation benefits have been experienced with the focus on diverting waste from landfill and
towards recycling and composting facilities; job creation is estimated at around 300 for municipal
waste management. Public health benefits are linked with improvement waste treatment methods
and a reduction in illegal waste dumping.
Barriers and Drivers
Barriers to improving waste legislation enforcement include a lack of development of waste
management infrastructure in parallel with continuous environmental improvements in national
requirements in the legal and enforcement framework as well as competition in waste management
sector. Drivers to increased enforcement include awareness raising and fostering behaviour change
in both business and consumers, the use of fiscal instruments, and further investments in waste
infrastructure.
Barriers in better waste policy implementation
48 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Chapter 3: Barriers in better waste policy
implementation
In brief: In this chapter, specific barriers to better implementation and enforcement for the
European Commission and for Member States are described in detail. A main
barrier at EU level is deficiencies in the knowledge base and in the reliability of
data on waste streams, volumes and management systems across the EU. This
presents problems in the comparability and monitoring of Member States' data,
the harmonised implementation of legislation across the EU and the development
of targeted measures for improvement.
Moreover, a number of barriers at Member State level, such as a lack of
commitment and resources for implementation control and enforcement in
combination with structural, institutional and constitutional constraints, further
impede effective legislation implementation across the EU.
3.1 Overview of barriers in better waste policy
implementation
Bad implementation of waste legislation is still significant in many Member States. This study
focuses on both structural and administrative barriers to good implementation in the Member
States. The table below summarises the barriers identified.
Barriers in better waste policy implementation
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 49
Table 16: Barriers to full implementation for EU Commission and for Member States
Implementation
body
Barrier
EU Commission Sources informing the Commission on bad implementation: erratic knowledge base
Member States Lack of interest and/or resources
Fear of high costs, lack of awareness of potential economic/financial/social benefits
Inadequacy of waste management structures
Complexity of the institutions: multi-level governments
Diffusion of responsibility for waste management
Environmental authorities do not have the power to tackle criminal offences
Constitutional constraints
Local particular situations
Special issue: criminal activities counteracting implementation
3.2 Detailed description of barriers in better waste
policy implementation
3.2.1 Barriers for European Commission and associated bodies
The following sub-chapters analyse the basic barriers for the European Commission to effectively
ensure enforcement of European waste law on the ground, i.e. in the Member States.
Sources informing the Commission on bad implementation: erratic
knowledge base
The European Commission does not have the general power to enforce European waste law directly
in the Member States. This is basically the prerogative of national, in fact often regional and local,
authorities. According to article 17 of the Treaty on the European Union, the Commission shall
promote the general interest of the Union and take appropriate initiatives to that end. Thereby it
shall ensure the application of the Treaties, and of measures adopted by the institutions pursuant to
them. It shall oversee the application of Union law under the control of the Court of Justice of the
European Union.
According to Art. 337 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU the Commission may, within the
limits and under conditions laid down by the Council acting by a simple majority in accordance with
Benefits of better waste policy implementation
50 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
the provisions of the Treaties, collect any information and carry out any checks required for the
performance of the tasks entrusted to it.
Art. 337 does not empower the Commission generally to carry out on the spot controls and
inspections if this is not foreseen by specific secondary law. Therefore, the EU Commission is on the
sole basis of the Treaty in general not authorised to carry out any pre-announced or not pre-
announced checks on the ground. The European Court of Justice has clarified that, where it is a
question of checking that the national provisions intended to ensure effective implementation of
e.g. the Waste Framework Directive are applied correctly in practice, the Commission does not have
investigative powers of its own on the ground and thus is largely reliant on the information provided
by complainants, by public or private bodies, by the press or by the Member State concerned9.
The fields where the Commission has such direct rights of execution by virtue of secondary law, are
competition, transport, anti-fraud action and agriculture. In the waste field this is not the case.
As regards the rights and obligations of MS with regard to the European level, the Member States
shall take any appropriate measure, general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations
arising out of the Treaties or resulting from the acts of the institutions of the Union. In turn, they
shall facilitate the achievement of the Union’s tasks and refrain from any measure which could
jeopardise the attainment of the Union’s objectives (see Art. 4III of the EU Treaty). This includes the
obligation to give all the information needed to the Commission to enable the Commission to fulfil
their obligations as a guardian of the treaty. In addition, where the Commission has adduced
sufficient evidence to establish certain circumstances in a Member State leading to suppose bad
implementation of waste legislation, it is for that Member State to challenge in substance and in
detail the data produced and the inferences drawn.10
Given that it cannot act as waste inspector and enforcement agency on the ground (e.g. intervening
in permitting procedures for waste-related activities and enforcing permitting conditions via
inspections and penalties, mapping illegal landfills in a country), the Commission currently depends
on information provided by Member States, citizens, NGOs and the concrete co-operation of
national authorities in order to ascertain whether European waste law is enforced to a satisfactory
extent in the respective MS.
In order to set priorities, the Commission needs to understand where the major problems in
enforcement and European waste law implementation lie in the EU. Upon this knowledge, the
Commission can then take the appropriate legal action to require the MS to improve their
enforcement and implementation performance.
Currently, the European Commission’s knowledge of the implementation status in every MS is
mainly based on the following pillars:
Implementation reports from Member State (3 year reporting periods for the
different waste-related directives and regulations) and from the IMPEL
network11;
9 See ECJ, C‑297/08, para. 101.
10 Ibid., para. 102.
11 IMPEL is a non-profit association of the environmental authorities of the European Union Member States. It is the
European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law. IMPEL’s purpose is to contribute
Barriers in better waste policy implementation
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 51
Waste management plans established by Member States according to Article
28 of the Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC).
Complaints by citizens sent to the Commission;
Inquiries of the European Parliament
Other implementation reports submitted by institutions, NGOs and
stakeholders.
As for the question whether new directives or amendments of directives have been correctly
transposed into national law, notification reports of transposing measures have to be sent by the MS
to the Commission. These reports describe how Member States have transposed new or amended
directives into national law. The notification reports are analysed by the legal unit of DG
Environment possibly with the help of external consultants. The issue of correct transposition of EU
waste law into national law is not focus of this report.
Regarding the question of factual implementation of waste law on the ground, the implementation
reports from the MS are a source, in addition to complaints, petitions or inquiries directed at the EU
Commission from citizens or the EU parliament. As for the relevant information contained in
complaints, petitions and inquiries, these are followed up by the policy officer in the EU Commission
charged to deal with the piece of legislation that seems to be improperly complied with in a MS. The
respective policy officer often cooperates with and is assisted by the legal unit of DG Environment,
especially if enough evidence could be gathered in order to send e.g. a formal notice of non-
compliance to the Member State.
Up to now, most complaints are issued by citizens (regarding e.g. illegal landfills, illegal waste
incineration, littering on the beaches, etc.) while very few complaints come from NGOs in the field
of bad waste management. While complaints from citizens or NGOs are a valuable source, they do
not necessarily point out the most important cases of non-compliance and much less do they bring
to the Commission’s notice all cases of non compliance. The implementation reports from the
Member States even thought they are required to answer to-the-point questions, are at times
incomplete and do not treat the decisive questions to a satisfying extent. As a result, the cases of
bad implementation that are identified are rather random and erratic. This impedes the systematic
identification of the gravest cases of infractions.
Another barrier is the possible involvement of organised criminal groups in waste management
operations in a Member State. Effective implementation and enforcement of waste legislation is in
these cases at times made even more difficult if such criminal activities can count on the tacit
consent of local authorities in place. Such issues would need to be dealt with by additional criminal
police forces.
Finally, the Commission has limited resources to follow up all cases of non-compliances. In order to
rationalise infraction procedures the Commission has taken to combine cases in the form of
‘horizontal cases’, which allows the Commission to collect different similar cases of infraction in one
MS and to handle them as one infraction case (e.g. hundreds of illegal landfills).
to a more effective application of EU environmental law by capacity building, awareness raising, sharing good practices,
providing guidance and tools, enforcement cooperation and giving feed back to lawmakers and regulators on the
practicability and enforceability of environmental legislation.
Benefits of better waste policy implementation
52 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
In sum, the main barriers to better implementation concerning the European Commission are:
Reluctance of Member States to give full information on the realities of waste
treatment; lack of co-operation with the Commission;
Lacking financial and data-gathering capacities in Member States; complex
data reporting requirements for often difficult to measure waste streams;
Capacities of DG Environment to follow up every complaint is limited (good
prioritisation needed)
The knowledge base on which the Commission identifies cases of bad
implementation is erratic and incomplete;
The activities of criminal groups in waste management in some regions
lessen the effectiveness of infraction procedures.
3.2.2 Barriers for Member States
While the European Commission cannot intervene in the Member States by undertaking controls
and inspections and therefore is hampered in guaranteeing good implementation of European
waste legislation, the Member States have the discretion, the duty and in theory should have the
means to implement waste law and ensure its enforcement be it on national or regional/local level.
Barriers in successful implementation of EU waste legislation on the MS side include diverse factors
ranging from inadequacy of waste management structures, diffuse responsibility for waste
management and environmental enforcement to organised crime. These barriers are presented in
the section below.
LACK OF INTEREST AND/OR RESOURCES
Implementation of waste legislation is mostly left to the regional or local governments in the
Member States with the national level often having a stake in devising general lines and
requirements in waste policy.
There are local governments and authorities, which tend not to dedicate a lot of resources to deal
with environmental problems in general and to prevent or improve negative environmental impacts
from waste management in particular. This can be explained by a lack of interest in these issues,
read: “nobody cares about waste as long as it is taken away and out of sight”. For example, in Italy
“grave inertia” of the administrative authorities has been identified in a (draft) report by the Italian
parliament as one cause for the completely inadequate implementation of waste law in some parts
of Italy, such as Sicily.12 In Greece, a strategy for diverting biological municipal waste (BMW) was
worked out in 2003, including concrete measures of diverting biological waste from landfills thereby
meeting the targets of the landfill directive. The competent ministry, however, did not perceive the
12 Commissione parlamentare di inchiesta sulle attività illecite connesse al ciclo dei rifiuti, Proposta di relazione sulle attività
illecite connesse al ciclo dei rifiuti, 2010, p. 392.
Barriers in better waste policy implementation
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 53
implementation of the strategy as a high priority.13 As a result, concrete measures to extract
biological waste from waste put in landfills confined itself to treating a small amount of municipal
waste in Mechanical-Biological Treatment Plants covering only about 30% of the required diversion
of biological waste, and paper recycling covering about 40%14. As a consequence Greece seemed set
to fail the deadlines of 2010 and also 2013 as regards diversion of biodegradable waste from landfills.
Closely linked to this is the lack of financial or personnel resources of the environmental authorities.
A major point that has been mentioned by Member States is the diminishing human resources
dedicated to public administration entrusted with overseeing waste legislation implementation.
Lack of manpower will affect the quality of controls and inspections needed before issuing an
authorisation for waste-related activities. It will also limit the frequency and quality of inspections
and controls needed to survey compliance of an activity with the conditions of the permit. The lack
of resources also hampers the design of elaborate waste management strategies (e.g. by
establishing separate collection schemes as appropriate for the respective locality). As a
consequence, waste management is often designed in the most primitive way (e.g. landfilling). As
has been reported in a parliamentary inquiry into the reasons for the very poor quality of waste
management in Sicily, preventive measures are only rarely taken by the authorities as they do not
have the manpower to consistently map and control the territory. Consequently, when repressive
action can be taken, a part of the environmental damage is already done.15
FEAR OF HIGH COSTS
Good implementation of waste legislation (especially the proper implementation of the waste
hierarchy) can also be hampered by the fear of regional/local politicians that sophisticated waste
strategies and concepts involving a high percentage of recycling could lead to higher costs and thus
higher waste fees for their constituents. Such fears can stifle any progress in proper waste
management. As a remedy, regional/local politicians need to be convinced that a clever waste
management concept with a high recycling target can lead to a decrease in cost, i.e. there are socio-
economic benefits.
Yet, the real or perceived high costs involving the transition from a very low level of waste
management have put off countries from implementing waste legislation, especially with regard to
moving up the waste hierarchy.16
A specific problem in this respect is also the public resistance against waste incineration. Waste
incineration could complement the recycling and recovery of other waste streams. If a country
comes from a situation where the lion’s part of waste was put in landfills, waste incineration
(respecting all legal conditions for waste incineration) could be one of a series of steps to improve
waste management. As waste incineration is seen critically in many Member States for reasons of
13 Lasairidi, K., Implementing the Landfill Directive in Greece: problems, perspectives and lessons to be learned, in The
Geographical Journal, December 2009, p. 269.
14
This phenomenon does not only concern waste authorities, of course, but large parts of the public administration.
15 Commissione parlamentare di inchiesta sulle attività illecite connesse al ciclo dei rifiuti, Proposta di relazione sulle attività
illecite connesse al ciclo dei rifiuti, 2010, p. 392.
16 See for Greece, Lasairidi, K., Implementing the Landfill Directive in Greece: problems, perspectives and lessons to be
learned, in The Geographical Journal, December 2009 p. 270.
Benefits of better waste policy implementation
54 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
cost and/or supposed risks to health and the environment, this can serve as an excuse to stick with
landfilling.
INADEQUACY OF WASTE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES
A specific problem can also be the inadequacy of waste authorities as such due to their structure,
competences or size. In Italy, specific organisations have been built, the ATOs (Ambienti Territoriali
Ottimali, sort of waste unions) that have at times not got the resources to guarantee proper waste
management and have not proven apt to run or organise operative waste management (the
formerly politically responsible municipalities have transferred to the ATOs the responsibility
without providing them with the adequate amount of money). For Sicily there were far too many
ATOs (27) not being able to deal with waste management resource-wise so that the ATOs were
reduced to nine in 2010. 17 A similar problem was observed in Greece where there were more than 40
WMA (waste management authorities) in 2006. Few of them were believed to be in a position to
provide integrated waste management services while most of them are facing problems of poor
technical, financial and institutional capacity.18
ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORITIES DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO TACKLE CRIMINAL
OFFENCES
The prosecution of violations of environmental law is a problem in many Member States. Either
prosecution of violations rarely takes place/takes place too late or fines are relatively low.
As a recent report on implementation underlined19, many environmental inspectorates do not have
the discretion to impose administrative fines nor have powers of criminal police20; therefore good
collaboration with the police is required to facilitate criminal prosecution. Collaboration with judicial
inquiries on the poor waste management standard in Sicily has for example been denied by l’ARPA
Sicilia (Agenzia Regionale Protezione Ambiente Sicilia) arguing that unlike criminal police they were
not allowed to do analyses or take waste samples.21
The judicial police themselves are often lacking the manpower or the interest to deal with
environmental issues, briefly it is often not a priority.
17 Commissione parlamentare, ibidem, p. 373.
18 Mavopoulos, A./Skoulacinou, S., Karkazi, A., Mentzis, A. , undated, Drivers and Barriers for the application of waste-to-
energy technologies in Greece, Blog contribution: http://www.scribd.com/doc/3212936/DRIVERS-AND-BARRIERS-FOR-THE-
APPLICATION-OF-WASTETOENERGY-TECHNOLOGIES-IN-GREECE.
19 See Mileu, Ambiendura and FFact, 2009, Study on the feasibility of the establishment of a Waste Implementation Agency.
20 Ibid., p. 42.
21 Repubblica, 8 October 2010, sezione Palermo, p. 4, “Percolato d’oro e business inceneritori “Le mani della mafia sui rifiuti
siciliani
Barriers in better waste policy implementation
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 55
LOCAL PARTICULAR SITUATIONS
Local and historical factors play an eminent role in conditioning the level and quality of waste
legislation implementation.
As a way of example, landfilling was favoured by the UK just because the territory featured many
holes from mining that needed to be filled and were thus used as cheap landfill sites.22
The situation of the EU-12 is of specific interest. These MS having acceded to the EU in 2004 or 2007
had at times to completely rehaul their waste management systems and to create infrastructure
from the scratch to adapt themselves to the environmental acquis of the European Union. These
efforts are especially directed at completing conclusive waste management plans and, achieving the
required minimum recovery and recycling targets of the different directives and complying with the
standards and objectives of the landfill directive. Especially, the observance of the waste
management hierarchy involves not only a change in collection and treatment infrastructure but
also an adaptation of mentalities of business and citizens whose help is needed to realise the
separate collection of waste streams needed for proper recycling. The necessary process of habit
change slows the process of environmental waste implementation in new Member States.23 In
addition, the prospect of higher costs associated with new waste management systems in line with
European law are a barrier to fully implementing it.24
With regard to recycling and recovery activities, a few EU-12 MS like Romania, Bulgaria and Malta
still feature a percentage of waste disposal of all waste resulting to over 90%.25 Other EU-12
countries like the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia or Latvia have, however, made considerable
progress in increasing recovery and recycling rates.26
SPECIAL ISSUE: CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES COUNTERACTING IMPLEMENTATION
Handling waste is a lucrative business. While in some Member States corruption is rampant
especially when it comes to awarding contracts to certain waste management firms (e.g. for the
construction and/or running of waste treatment plants) without foregoing compliance with
environmental law (‘normal’ corruption), in other Member States organised crime effectively
competes with the legally empowered authorities or firms. This can regard the collection and
‘treatment’ of waste or conditions the mode of waste management in a certain territory.
22 Preparing for the review of the Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste, Report from stakeholder
event - 22 June 2010, Brussels http://www.eu-smr.eu/tswpr/docs/meetings/stakeholder_meeting_note.pdf, p. 11.
23 See for this a study of the currents situation of waste management in Katowice (Poland) and the proposal of
environmental improvements involving stakeholder interviews on the barriers to an improvement, Bräuer, I., Neubauer, A,
2007, An actor-based impact assessment to analyse potential conflicts - 3 case studies,
http://holiwast.brgm.fr/Documents/Deliverables/Holiwast_D52_Final.pdf, p. 27.
24 See for this also Lasaridi, p. 271.
25
See COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the
Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste, undated, see
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/Commission%20Working%20Doc.pdf, p. 30.
26
Ibidem, p. 31.
Benefits of better waste policy implementation
56 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
A report from EUROPOL (30 August 2011) reports on a significant increases in criminal activities, in
particular organised crime, relating to illegal waste disposal and waste shipments27. The report
states, for example, that illegal waste disposal in the EU is organised by sophisticated networks of
criminals with a clear division of roles (e.g. collection, transportation, recovery or legal expertise).
Many of the brokers coordinating this activity are embedded in the legal waste management system
and also use their positions in legitimate waste brokerages or waste recovery/recycling plants in
their attempt to exert corruptive influence on key governmental authorities. According to Europol,
illicit waste trafficking is often facilitated through cooperation with legitimate businesses, including
those in the financial services, import/export and metal recycling sectors, and with specialists
engaged in document forgery to acquire permits. Permits are also obtained by means of corruptive
influence on issuing bodies. Europol has found evidence of corruption in both public and private
sectors. The conclusion is drawn that while mafia-type structures have sufficient resources to
participate in large scale illegal waste management, there is evidence that lower level groups are
engaged in illegal shipments of hazardous waste.
The draft report of a recent parliamentary enquiry into the waste sector in Sicily concluded that the
mafia is involved at three levels in the business of waste management (see report28, p. 384 ): (1) the
‘classical way’ by imposing an illegal ‘fee’(‘pizzo’) on waste management firms making them lose
money and not being able to fulfil their tasks; (2) by controlling/conditioning certain waste
management activities also via tacit or overt collaboration with the public administration, e.g.
landfills, waste transports, provision of waste-related devices; (3) direct control of the waste
management cycle, e.g. by running waste incineration plants or landfills (with the consequence of
the non-separate collection of waste and the disposal of as much waste as possible in landfills).
Criminal activity in waste management is rampant in some European regions. Criminal activity could
be combated by a concerted effort of environmental authorities and the criminal police. This is
made difficult by lacking manpower or environmental offences being a non-priority for the police.
Sometimes there is also a covert alliance between criminal organisations and local authorities and
firms.
MS stakeholders also note that corruption is an important barrier as a relevant form of organised
crime. Large differences between EU MS in the corruption perception index29 have been determined
by the European Topic Centre (ETC/SCP).
27 See http://migrantsatsea.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/octa_2011-11.pdf and
https://www.europol.europa.eu/content/press/europol-warns-increase-illegal-waste-dumping-1053
28 Commissione parlamentare di inchiesta sulle attività illecite connesse al ciclo dei rifiuti (2010) Proposta di relazione sulle
attività illecite connesse al ciclo dei rifiuti
29 Established by Transparency International
Tasks needed to strengthen implementation and enforcement of EU waste policy
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 57
Chapter 4: Tasks needed to strengthen
implementation and enforcement of EU
waste policy
In brief: This chapter presents concrete tasks to overcome the identified barriers and to
enhance implementation of EU waste legislation. 19 tasks were identified, thereof
14 at EU level, two at MS level and three at both EU and MS level. All tasks were
assessed in terms of feasibility, i.e. ease of implementation. Based on the
assessment, nine tasks at EU level were selected for the development of policy
options for supporting better implementation of EU waste legislation.
4.1 Overview of tasks needed to strengthen
implementation and enforcement of EU waste
policy
The key tasks needed to strengthen implementation and enforcement at EU and MS level were
discussed at the first stakeholder workshop organised during the course of this study and
subsequently through a written stakeholder consultation. The key tasks identified through this
process are summarised in the table below. These include operative issues such as increasing the
knowledge base through scientific assessment, training, awareness, and audits, as well as special
issues such as combating organised crime.
Since currently the European Commission carries out most of the existing tasks, the Commission
(Directorate-General for the Environment) is referred to in this chapter to simplify matters as the
potential body to carry out the tasks. It should be noted, however, that when dealing with the
different policy options, several of the tasks could also be carried out by e.g. the European
Environment Agency (EEA), or even a new EU mechanism in order to support the Commission. It has
also to be underlined that legal enforcement tasks allocated to the Commission under the Treaty
and the proposed inspection audits would be tasks for the Commission and not for other
institutions, such as the EEA and any new EU mechanisms. Chapter 5 of this report, on policy
options, contains the more detailed assessment of the possible institutional settings to carry out the
tasks outlined below.
Tasks needed to strengthen implementation and enforcement of EU waste policy
58 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Table 17: Overview of tasks to strengthen implementation and enforcement of EU waste policy
Nb. Task
leader
Task
1.0 EU Development of a more systematic approach of identifying lacks in waste legislation
implementation
2.0 EU Improvement of the knowledge base for mapping Member States' implementation
performance, including analysis of
2.1 Member States' waste management plans )
2.2 Implementation reports from institutions, NGOs and stakeholders
3.0 EU More coherent tracking of the status of implementation in the Member States
(implementation monitoring)
4.0 EU Assistance and guidance to Member States on inspections and monitoring of
implementation
5.0 EU Training on inspections and enforcement, e.g. in cooperation with networks such as IMPEL
6.0 EU Awareness raising on waste legislation implementation
7.0 EU Review and report on national inspection standards, based on agreed EU standards (audits)
8.0 EU Technical and scientific assessments and advice concerning waste related data and various
information relating to the contents of EU waste legislation
9.0 EU Technical and scientific assessment of the practicality and enforceability of EU waste
legislation
10.0 EU Direct on-the-spot controls by the Commission or a separate Waste Agency
11.0 EU Creation of waste unit in Europol
12.0 EU Combating corruption
13.0 EU Provision of financial incentives and develop effective system of waste charges in
accordance with the polluter pays principle (Article 18 of the EU waste framework directive).
14.0 MS Sufficient personnel and adequate waste management bodies to control and inspect
15.0 MS Improving inspections and monitoring of good implementation of EU waste legislation
15.1 Best practice on inspections
15.2 Strengthening the awareness of police and co-operation with the police
15.3 Compliance assistance/awareness raising
15.4 Promoting good practice cases
15.5 Adequacy of penalties
16.0 EU &
MS
An information and best practice sharing platform for knowledge sharing between MS
17.0 EU &
MS
Development of strategic partnerships
18.0 EU &
MS
Development of guidelines
Tasks needed to strengthen implementation and enforcement of EU waste policy
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 59
The different tasks and approaches outlined in the table are described in detail in the following
section.
4.2 Detailed description of tasks
A detailed description of the tasks identified as necessary for better implementation of EU waste
legislation are presented here. The table below summarises the barriers to implementation, the task
proposed to improve the situation, and the support tools for carrying out this task.
Table 18: Barriers, tasks and tools to strengthen implementation of EU waste policy
EU level
Barriers/Problems Task Tools
Limited resources and lack of consistent
procedure to identify gaps in waste
legislation implementation
1.0 Development of a more
systematic approach of
identifying lacks in waste
legislation implementation
Guidelines on prioritisation of non-
compliance cases
Lack of reliable information on state of
waste legislation implementation
2.0 Improvement of the
Commission’s knowledge
base
Specialised mechanism for complaints;
cooperation with stakeholders (NGOs,
citizens, environmental agencies etc.)
Lack of systematic monitoring of state of
waste legislation implementation in
Member States
3.0 More coherent tracking of
the status of
implementation in the
Member States
(implementation
monitoring)
Quality standards on reporting
Special implementation reports from
Member States
EU state of play reports on
implementation
Lack of systematic procedure for
analysing the state of implementation of
waste legislation across the EU
4.0 Assistance and guidance to
Member States on
inspections and monitoring
of implementation
Recommendation of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 4 April
2001 providing for minimum criteria for
environmental inspections
Guidance documents
Studies carried out by IMPEL
Great variance in quality of training
across Member States and lack of EU-
wide training standards
5.0 Training on inspections and
enforcement, e.g. in
cooperation with networks
such as IMPEL
IMPEL network as a training forum
Lack of awareness of issues related to
waste legislation implementation among
the general public and the public
authorities responsible for policy
implementation
6.0 Awareness raising on waste
legislation implementation
Training and awareness activities
No power for the Commission for direct
interventions in the MS, such as on the
ground inspections of national waste
management systems
7.0 Review and report on
national inspection
standards, based on agreed
EU standards (audits)
Audits aimed to verify effectiveness of
national control systems
Adopt corresponding secondary
legislation if necessary
Lack of reliable waste data and lack of
understanding of EU waste legislation in
authorities responsible for waste
legislation implementation
8.0 Technical and scientific
assessments and advice
concerning waste related
data and various
information relating to the
contents of EU waste
legislation
Improved collection and analysis of
waste flow data
Impact assessments
Comprehensive analysis of waste policy
and waste streams
Tasks needed to strengthen implementation and enforcement of EU waste policy
60 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Lack of reliable information on whether
current or new legislation is clear enough
or if additional legislatory work would be
needed to improve the MS’ ability to well
implement EU waste legislation
9.0 Technical and scientific
assessment of the
practicality and
enforceability of EU waste
legislation
Practicality assessments for new
legislation
No power for the Commission for direct
interventions in the MS, such as on the
ground inspections of national waste
management systems
10.0 Direct on-the-spot controls
by the Commission or a
separate Waste Agency
Establishment of central waste agency
with the power to control and assess the
inspection approaches, methods and
results of national authorities
Activities of organised crime in waste
management, specifically illegal waste
shipments
11.0 Creation of waste unit in
Europol
Establishment of specialised waste unit
within EUROPOL, which would be
responsible for:
exchange of information between
Europol and Europol Liaison Officers
provision of operational analysis and
support to Member States;
provision of expertise and technical
support
generation of strategic reports
Political and administrative corruption 12.0 Combating corruption Development of specialised waste unit
within EUROPOL
MS lack of financial resources for waste
legislation implementation
13.0 Provision of financial
incentives and application
of the polluters pays
principle
Alternative financing instruments
Public-private partnerships
Interpretation and application of the
polluter pays principle
MS level
Barriers/Problems Task Tools
Quantitative and qualitative lack of staff
and structural deficiencies in waste
authorities hindering the
implementation and enforcement of EU
waste legislation
14.0 Sufficient personnel and
adequate waste
management bodies to
control and inspect
Minimum standard for staffing and
equipping waste authorities
National networks of representatives of
waste authorities
Memorandums of understanding
between customs and enforcers
Absence of systematic national control
and enforcement procedures to ensure
implementation of EU waste legislation
and lack of awareness of implementation
issues and of expertise in waste
management and legislation
implementation
15.0 Improving inspections and
monitoring of good
implementation of EU
waste legislation
Best practice guidelines on model
inspection planning
Training of waste authorities staff
Awareness raising campaigns
national working groups for waste
implementation
Collection of data on use of penalties
EU and MS level
Barriers/Problems Task Tools
Transnational challenges in waste
legislation implementation (e.g. illegal
waste shipments)
16.0 A platform for sharing
information, knowledge and
best practices between MS
Trans-European working group for
waste legislation implementation
Stakeholder partnerships offer untapped
potential benefits in dealing with specific
enforcement problems
17.0 Development of strategic
partnerships
Trans-European working groups
Public-private partnerships
Lack of waste management expertise
and experience in the national and
international authorities and bodies
responsible for supporting, controlling
and enforcing EU waste legislation
implementation
18.0 Development of guidance Guideline documents
Please see chapter 4.3 for an assessment of the feasibility of these tasks.
Tasks needed to strengthen implementation and enforcement of EU waste policy
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 61
4.2.1 EU
4.2.1.1 OPERATIVE ISSUES
4.2.1.1.1 Development of a more systematic approach of identifying lacks
in waste legislation implementation
Problem to address
The European Commission currently has limited resources to consistently identify and follow up on
cases of poor compliance or outright non-compliance with EU waste legislation30. A possibility to
ensure the adequate handling of EU waste legislation infringement by MS could be realised by a
prioritisation of breaches.
The need for a prioritisation has also been highlighted in the Communication “A Europe of results –
applying community law” from 2007.31 The issue has been also addressed with a focus to
environmental law implementation in the Commission Communication on implementing European
Community Environmental Law of 2008.32
Description of the task
In order to concentrate better on the major and most hazardous cases of bad compliance or non-
compliance with waste legislation in Europe, a recommendable approach would be to prioritise
cases of bad compliance/non-compliance and distinguish those for follow-up and prosecution from
those that are only of minor importance or impact. As an example, the case of ‘mild littering’ such
as on holiday beaches is not as gravely important as major landfill sites or many smaller ‘municipal’
landfills which do not comply with the most basic technical requirements thereby posing a threat to
soil and ground water, constituting a major source for methane, and posing fire risks. However,
prioritisation does not mean that other minor cases would not be addressed at all. It just means that
certain cases would be dealt with more immediately and intensively.33
In the above mentioned 2007 Communication, the Commission highlighted that prioritisation
“should be attached to those infringements which present the greatest risks, widespread impact for
citizens and businesses and the most persistent infringements confirmed by the European Court of
Justice.” These categories cover:
Non-communication of national measures transposing directives or other
notifications obligations (suggested benchmark: 12 months that elapse from
30 The EU Commission has discretion over whether they follow up a citizen complaint. Citizens cannot reclaim the
Commission to act (no subjective rights to infringement procedures), see Lachmayer, K., Bauer, L., 2008, Praxiswörterbuch
Europarecht, p. 954 with references to jurisdiction e.g. ECJ, C- 141/02.
31 COM(2007) 502 final, pages 8ff.
32 COM (2008)2876.
33 COM (2007) 502, page 9.
Tasks needed to strengthen implementation and enforcement of EU waste policy
62 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
the sending of the letter of formal notice to the resolution of the case or
seizure of the Court of Justice);
Breaches of Community law, including non-conformity cases, raising issues of
principle or having particularly far-reaching negative impact for citizens, such
those concerning the application of Treaty principles and main elements of
framework regulations and directives;
Respect for Court judgements declaring the existence of infringements
(Article 288 TEC, now 258 and 260 TFEU) (suggested benchmark: an average
between 12 and 24 months is the equivalent period in proceedings to ensure
respect for an earlier judgment of the Court).
In its Communication on implementing European Community Environmental Law of 2008, the
European Commission has already elaborated these criteria further.34 These categories – that
generally apply to all environmental fields - could build the basis for the criteria on the prioritisation
of infringements in the waste sector. The criteria listed in the communication are the following:
Non-conformity with key legislation viewed as presenting a significant risk
for correct implementation of environmental rules and hence their overall
effectiveness.
Systemic breaches of environmental quality or other environmental
protection requirements presenting serious adverse consequences or risks for
human health and well-being or for aspects of nature that have high
ecological value.
Breaches of core, strategic obligations on which fulfilment of other
obligations depends.
Breaches concerning big infrastructure projects or interventions involving EU
funding or significant adverse impacts.
These list of criteria could be further developed; also with a specific view to the waste sector. A
major criterion could also be if an infraction is likely to set a visible bad example in Europe and if
there is a risk of faulty implementation taken up by other Member States (i.e. if a case of bad
implementation or non-implementation becomes notorious and is not prosecuted, how important is
the risk that this sets a bad example and non-implementation is imitated by other countries because
they know they will not be prosecuted).
The development of the guidelines would build on the current structure of the Commission’s
observation activities and would not require any legal action to provide for these guidelines. From a
financial and manpower point of view, there would not be any barriers to developing the guidelines.
34 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions on implementing European Community Environmental Law {SEC(2008) 2851}
{SEC(2008) 2852} {SEC(2008) 2876} /* COM/2008/0773 final */, pages 7ff.
Tasks needed to strengthen implementation and enforcement of EU waste policy
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 63
Support tools
Priorities have to be defined in a transparent and manageable manner. This could be realised
through the adoption of a set of guidelines that specify and explain the criteria to help personnel
prioritise cases of non-compliance in the waste sector. These guidelines would guide the different
scientific officers in charge of the different waste-related directives and help to ensure that the
limited resources are used in the best way for the environment and human health as a whole.
General guidelines for Commission staff would also counteract the problem that personnel in the
Commission’s services change position frequently and that consequently the approaches to waste
implementation control might change.
4.2.1.1.2 Improvement of the knowledge base
Monitoring and analysing information from Member States' waste
management plans and implementation reports from Member States,
NGOs and stakeholders)
Problem to address
As explained in the preceding chapters, the European Commission does not have its own services in
the Member States to assess the implementation situation in every Member State.
Thus, the Commission’s record of bad or non-implementation cases could be much improved if the
Commission had reliable cooperation partners in Member States who could be trusted to inform the
Commission of the most important cases of non-implementation.
Description of the task
NGOs and citizens are often the first to be aware of infringements, thus this task focuses on
harnessing their intelligence to improve waste legislation enforcement, both at MS and at EU level.
Complaints from civil society are a form of alert to compliance and enforcement authorities,
although not each complaint constitutes an actual infringement. An infringement is confirmed
where a Member State does not take effective action on the subject matter. Therefore, it should be
encouraged that complaints to the Commission should only be lodged after national authorities
have been alerted and Member States have been systematically unresponsive.
NGO networks can provide intelligence on specific waste issues that might otherwise be difficult to
access. For example, the Basel Action Network could provide information about the movements of
end-of-life ships. Other NGOs, e.g. those for nature and wildlife protection, could be called upon to
report massive littering in woods and the existence of illegal landfills. Thus, NGO networks could
and should be encouraged to report such cases consistently to the European Commission. A fluid
communication between the Commission and NGOs could be established in this regard and the
contribution of NGOs to an improvement of implementation of waste legislation increased.
The Commission, also partly dependent on the information about infringements by citizen groups or
single citizens, should ensure effective treatment of complaints regarding poor implementation,
through initial information exchange or cooperative problem-solving. So far, general enquiries are
handled through Europe Direct, Citizen's Signpost, and European Business Centres.35
35 COM (2007) page 7.
Tasks needed to strengthen implementation and enforcement of EU waste policy
64 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Support tools
A specialised mechanism for complaints on waste could be established. In order to improve the
involvement of NGOs and citizens, they should be encouraged to use the mechanisms available at
EU-level and national level to notify infringements by adequate means. This will be facilitated both
by certain European Commission and MS efforts. For instance, the Commission has to ensure that
EU environmental law and relevant information are available in all official languages. Moreover, an
effective investigation of complaints and petitions will foster the citizen’s participation in the
Community law implementation. MS could foster good cooperation with the public by means such
as confidential telephone lines, complaint handling procedures, enforcement oversight bodies and
ombudsmen.36
Intensifying communication with stakeholders and improving the knowledge base would not alter
the current structural setting of the Commission’s observation activities. Thus, those activities
would be in the framework of the Commission’s current approach to identify implementation gaps.
From a financial and manpower point of view, an increased communication with NGOs and civil
society will be relevant but not excessive.
Improving and intensifying the analysis and follow-up of national waste
management plans and implementation reports
Problem to address
The MS have to inform the Commission of their waste management plans under Articles 28-33 of
the Waste Framework Directive and submit implementation reports for the most important waste-
related directives based on structural questionnaires valid for all MS every three to four years. The
waste management plans must contain an analysis of the current waste management situation in
the MS and are therefore valuable tools to monitor and control the level of compliance with EU
waste legislation.
When analysing the plans and reports, it becomes apparent that either specific questions are at
times not answered with the necessary precision or MS report aspects in which they excel whereas
they are very short on aspects where they do not seem to have many positive things to report.
Description of the task
Given the noted weakness of reporting, the Commission should not only sum up the reports and
draw conclusions on the basis of the information provided but also analyse closely the information
given with a view to where implementation gaps are likely based on the information provided. On
this basis, MS that have not reported on all questions or have submitted implementation reports of
insufficient quality should be admonished and lacking information should be consistently reclaimed.
This would also imply a tougher approach by the EU Commission to follow up on missing
information and to not accept waste implementation reports of rather poor quality. Likely
implementation gaps should be pointed out to the MS, who should have a chance to provide further
information to exonerate themselves. If MS are unable to provide further information, the
Commission may have identified a case of bad compliance or non-compliance.
36 COM (2008) pages 6ff.
Tasks needed to strengthen implementation and enforcement of EU waste policy
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 65
Support tools
A tougher approach by the Commission to impose and enforce quality standards on reporting and
to follow up MS in the case of faulty or incomplete information would not exceed the Commission’s
current competences in ensuring good implementation of waste legislation. Additional efforts from
Commission staff to analyse and to follow up on information would be needed. A tougher approach
in assessing waste implementation reports all over the waste policy field could justify an additional
part-time policy officer in the Waste Unit. The approach also seems practical and effective.
4.2.1.1.3 More coherent tracking of the status of implementation in the
Member States (implementation monitoring)
Problem to address
In addition to the Commission’s permanent screening of the waste legislation implementation
situation in the Member States, the state of implementation of waste legislation within individual
Member States and across the EU should be analysed in a more profound and systematic routine
manner.
Description of task
Special reports at European level in addition to the annual report on the implementation of EU law
(which has a section of waste law as well) would enable more coherent intelligence on MS
implementation activities.37 This could be done in the framework of the EEA’s State of the
Environmental report or as a special report that is published with a higher frequency.
Member States should also be encouraged to collect and actively disseminate themselves key
information on implementation and enforcement. The Commission can assist by helping to identify
the key categories of information and providing support for effective information systems.
Support tools
The implementation reports of the Member States plus further information provided by Member
States could be used as a basis to create the special reports. The data transmitted by MS should be
put to good use and compiled so as to clearly depict the state of waste legislation implementation in
each MS.
Such a state of play report combining statistics and explanations of the waste management
development in MS would meet the Commission’s priority to have a high emphasis on full waste
legislation implementation. The completion of such a report would require additional resources in
the Commission or the EEA as regards gathering and processing of data. The extent of additional
staff needed depends on the frequency of the reports and the information to be gathered. The
corresponding work could also be done by consultants in close co-operation with the Commission.
The Commission could produce guidance on the establishment of effective active information
systems on waste implementation within Member States.
37 Available here: http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/infringements/infringements_annual_report_27_en.htm
Tasks needed to strengthen implementation and enforcement of EU waste policy
66 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
4.2.1.1.4 Assistance and guidance to Member States on inspections and
monitoring of implementation
Problem to address
MS are the competent authorities to ensure good waste legislation implementation. In contrast to
the Commission, they are entitled to control and inspect waste managers and waste treatment
installations directly. Thus, they are the primary enforcers of waste legislation and also the main
‘contact’ authorities that the waste managers in the respective territory have to respond to.
Description of task and support tools
In order to improve the effectiveness of MS as competent authorities for waste legislation
implementation, the EU Commission could produce guidance documents or use other means to help
authorities of the MS to rationally plan their inspection and control activities and set priorities. In
order to plan inspections well, the specific authorities also need to engage in a consistent
monitoring of waste legislation implementation in ‘their’ territory.
Such guidelines from the EU Commission should also make clear what material, training and
equipment is needed to carry out environmental waste-related inspections that comply with EU
waste law. This also includes the infrastructure of permitting authorities that each MS must have as
a minimum.
The guidance documents could be worked out in close co-operation with MS/the IMPEL network
(the European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law) and
could follow a risk-based approach (similar to the guidelines proposed above for the Commission’s
own screening of MS’ performance). The guidelines can build upon already very extensive work
done by the IMPEL network, such as in the “Doing the right things” project that produced a
guidance book to assist environmental authorities in planning inspections. In the “EasyTools”
project, a risk assessment tool for inspection planning has been developed. Moreover, the IMPEL
Review Initiative project has been designed to develop and test “a voluntary scheme for reporting
and offering advice on inspectorates and inspection procedures” in EU Member States. It offers peer
reviews of environmental authorities / inspectors meaning that they take part in inspections in other
Member States to explain how they have implemented the legislations in their responsibilities.38 The
IMPEL network also carries out a number of waste related projects, such as the “Doing the Right
Things for Waste Shipment Inspections (DTRT-TFS)” which looks at how DTRT could help
authorities improve their inspections related to the Waste Shipment Regulation.39 Also the
conclusions of the 2005 IMPEL project “Waste Permitting and Enforcement”40 and the 2003 IMPEL
project “Waste-related Conditions in Environmental Permits”41 can be used for this purpose and if
needed updated. The Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April
38 http://impel.eu/key-highlights/joint-european-commission-%E2%80%93-impel-seminar-on-environmental-inspections .
39 The project is still ongoing. See http://impel.eu/projects/doing-the-right-things-for-waste-shipment-inspections-dtrt-tfs.
40 This report describes the results of a project carried out by twelve EU Member States, aiming at improving cooperation
and information exchange on the permitting and enforcement of environmental conditions at landfills and waste
incineration plants within the framework of the Integrated pollution prevention and control Council Directive 96/61/EC
(IPPC) and the Waste incineration Directive (2000/76/EC), the Landfill of waste directive (99/31/EC).
41 The report compiles a number of good examples of permit conditions which address amongst others, measures to
minimise waste, substitution of raw materials, handling and disposal of waste as well as audits and assessments.
Tasks needed to strengthen implementation and enforcement of EU waste policy
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 67
2001 providing for minimum criteria for environmental inspections in the Member States could
also be a good basis for developing a guide specific for waste-related inspections.
Such guidelines addressed at the national level and to be used by national/regional/local authorities
could be modelled on the work/method done/used for the guidelines for waste shipment controls.
Such guidelines would not exceed the Commission’s current competences and would not require
high costs; they could be worked out by consultants for the Commission in close consultation with
Member States/IMPEL network and other stakeholders.
4.2.1.1.5 Training on inspections and enforcement, e.g in cooperation with
networks such as IMPEL
Problem to address
A recently published study assessed the current activities in training on waste legislation
implementation. The study revealed that no EU waste legislation specify requirements for training
of Member State officials. Training is offered in the EU and MS. The IMPEL network provides
workshops and inspector exchange programmes at EU level. An inquiry of Member States has
shown that the extent of trainings varies considerably across Member States. But these trainings are
not provided on the large-scale and based on general, EU-wide standards.42 The EU Commission is
advised to become more active in this field.
Description of task
The Commission could streamline training activities to promote application of best practice
permitting and inspection procedures in Member States.
Support tools
Staff with specific expertise are required for many aspects of EU waste policy implementation. Skills
required for WEEE disassembly and treatment are one example. Inspections staff are critical to
several key policies including the ELV Directive and Waste Shipment Regulation, but a lack of
capacity and of training has been highlighted as a problem. Regarding training, the IMPEL network
could be still more employed as a training forum for national authorities. The IMPEL network has
traditionally focused on Waste Shipment when it dealt with waste issues but could in the future take
up training specifically on such waste aspects as landfilling, compliance with the waste management
hierarchy, etc. With a view to issues beyond command and control, the IMPEL network is currently
carrying out a project entitled “Exploring the use and effectiveness of complementary approaches to
inspection for ensuring compliance”. The project description reads: “As part of the better regulation
agenda, there is an increasing interest in using complementary measures to traditional regulation
methods to deliver improved environmental outcomes, but little evidence of their effectiveness.”43
The issues discussed in this study will be useful to develop approaches complementing inspections
to foster good implementation in the Member States. Additional manpower would be used to carry
out the training, but the trainings can be done at project level. Training should also be provided to
judges that are in charge of environmental law, as it has been already pointed out by the
42 Milieu (et al.): Study on the feasibility of the establishment of a Waste Implementation Report, page 49.
43 http://impel.eu/projects/exploring-the-use-and-effectiveness-of-complementary-approaches-to-inspection-for-ensuring-
compliance
Tasks needed to strengthen implementation and enforcement of EU waste policy
68 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Commission in its 2008 Communication on implementing European Community Environmental
Law.44
4.2.1.1.6 Awareness raising on waste legislation implementation
Problem to address
Awareness and understanding among the general public and the public authorities responsible for
policy implementation at local level are important factors to the success of many key policy
provisions. Understanding of separate collection practices and the waste products they relate to
(scope of bio-waste/green waste collection; which packaging products can be recovered) contributes
greatly to the efficacy of such systems.
Description of task
The Commission carried out a series of awareness-raising events concerning certain key EU waste
requirements, covering all Member States, during 2006-201045. More communication campaigns
should be carried out to encourage participation in return, collection and recovery schemes of all
sorts, and in particular consolidated guidance to households on how to deal with all of their waste
products, impact behaviour and target achievement. Adequate means are media campaigns
(internet, poster, leaflets). A very good example is the Berliner Stadtreinigung (BSR Berlin City
Cleaning Company, Germany) that is known for its ambitious media campaign to inform consumers
about waste disposal. They won several prises on their campaign.
Support tools
Awareness raising in public authorities on the importance of a proper implementation can be carried
out inter alia by training and conferences and therefore related to the task described in the previous
section.
4.2.1.1.7 Review and report on national inspection standards based on
agreed EU standards (audits)
Problem to address
MS are responsible for enforcing and implementing EU waste legislation. The Commission has
generally no power to intervene directly and, for instance, to carry out inspections to control
whether legislation has been implemented properly.
Description of task
The Commission could be empowered to consistently monitor and assess the national inspection
standards as regards waste management activities by means of ‘audits’. As a rather moderate but
still effective approach compared to hypothetical direct interventions, the Commission services
would be authorised to review and audit the inspection performance of MS, including inspection
planning and frequency, inspection reports and technical approaches applied in inspections. On the
basis of the review, the Commission/staff engaged by the Commission could make proposals to the
44 COM(2008) 773 final, page 5.
45 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/reports.htm,
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/landfill_index.htm
Tasks needed to strengthen implementation and enforcement of EU waste policy
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 69
national authorities on how to improve their approaches and could impose an action plan to improve
the inspection performance, including the Commission’s power to control compliance and results of
the action plan.
Support tools
Review and audits of national inspections standards would support the European Commission
here. A similar approach is pursued by the ‘general audits’ of the DG SANCO’s Food and Veterinary
Office (FVO). The division FVO is in charge of ensuring effective implementation and enforcement
on food and veterinary related EU legislation within the EU and in third countries in relation to their
exports to the EU. This is done by carrying out audits and inspections aimed at verifying the
effectiveness of national control systems for enforcing the relevant Community standards in the
fields of food safety, animal health and welfare and plant health. For each year, a work programme
of inspections and audits is developed to identify priorities areas as well as Member States that will
be subject to audit and inspections. Not all facilities are visited; it is rather assessed how national
inspectors operate generally. All findings are presented in an inspection report, together with
conclusions and recommendations with a possibility for Member States to comment. Based on the
recommendations of the FVO, the competent authorities are requested to present an action plan to
the FVO for improvement. The action plan is assessed and its implementation monitored. As a last
resort, legal action under EU law may be taken by the Commission to ensure that Member States
meet their obligations under Community law.46
The work done by IMPEL in the context of the so called cluster 1 on “permitting, inspections &
enforcement” could serve as role model. Based on guidelines developed earlier by the clusterhead,
the Commission adopted Recommendation 2001/331/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 3 April 2001 proving for minimum criteria for environmental inspections (RMCEI).47 They
are being revised currently by the Commission. This recommendation could be further developed
with a view to waste installations. Also the IMPEL review initiative (see above) is a good pattern.
However, the Commission services could generally not proceed without a legal basis, according to
the principle of conferral laid down in Article 4 TFEU. The task of assessing national inspection
standards and enforce improvements would firstly, require that EU standards for inspections are
adopted. Secondly, this would require the EU law maker to adopt corresponding secondary
legislation on which basis the Commission could act in this regard.
An extension of Commission power would, certainly, require the Commission to contract new
internal or external personnel to carry out the review of inspection standards in the Member States.
46 See Food and Veterinary Office, Annual Report 2008, Available at
http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/annualreports/index_en.htm.
47 Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the review of Recommendation 2001/331/EC providing for minimum
criteria for environmental inspections in the Member States [SEC(2007) 1493] /* COM/2007/0707 final */.
Tasks needed to strengthen implementation and enforcement of EU waste policy
70 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
4.2.1.1.8 Technical and scientific assessments and advice concerning
waste related data and various information relating to the contents of
EU waste legislation
Problem to address
A part of implementation work has to be carried out by the European Commission. This concerns
cases in which the European Commission is responsible for adopting mostly technical details in the
context of a comitology procedure according to secondary EU legislation.
Description of task
For this technical assessments need to be done, e.g. studies on the current state and future
perspective for the management of waste (e.g. C&D Waste, food waste, plastic waste), technical,
environmental, economic studies to support Impact Assessments.
Support tools
Such technical and scientific assessments and advice concerning waste could involve both
quantitative and qualitative analysis and may take the following forms:
Analysis of waste flows
Such an analysis would involve assessing the quantity of a given waste stream, its material
flows, its potential environmental, economic and social impacts, its current treatment
methods and its future potential. This type of study could cover a waste stream currently
covered by legislation, under consideration for coverage by legislation or a transversal
stream, such as plastics. Examples of studies of this type include:
EC, Bio-waste generation and prevention indicators, 2011 (for DG ENV)
EC, Plastic waste in the environment, 2009-2010 (for DG ENV)
EC, Management of construction and demolition waste, 2009-2010 (for DG
ENV)
In the case of examining a waste flow covered by current EU legislation, the analysis
should assess its application in individual Member States as well as at the EU level,
identifying strong points and areas for improvement, as well as potentially focusing on
one aspect of the legislation, such as battery labelling in the case of the Batteries
Directive. An example of studies of this type is: EC (2008) Effective controls of waste
shipment, for DG ENV.
Impact assessment
Impact assessments can focus on analysing potential policy developments to understand
their possible impacts, or key waste streams to understand their environmental impacts
and involve comparative analysis of policy scenarios or material treatment options.
Impact assessments are intended to provide EU decision makers with a broad vision of the
potential environmental, economic and social impacts of modifying current legislation or
Tasks needed to strengthen implementation and enforcement of EU waste policy
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 71
introducing new legislation on waste, and inform the policy making process. Examples of
studies of this type completed by BIO and partners include:
EC, Comparative LCA of NiCd batteries used in cordless power tools (CPT) vs.
their alternatives NiMH and Li-ion batteries, 2010-2011 (for DG ENV)
EC, Study on elements for an impact assessment on proposed capacity
labelling of portable primary batteries, 2010 (for DG ENV)
EC, Extended impact assessment of different technical amendments for a
possible review of the IPPC (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control)
Directive (96/61/EC), 2007 (for DG ENV)
Comprehensive analysis of waste policy and waste streams
Such an analysis involves undertaking an assessment of the entire body of EU legislation
in relation to broader waste and resource related concepts such as resource efficiency,
eco-design, etc. This type of analysis could also be linked with larger strategy documents
in the EU waste acquis such as the Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of
waste or the Thematic Strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources. Examples of
studies of this type include:
EC, Analysis of the key contributions to resource efficiency, 2009-2010 (for
DG ENV)
EC, Preparatory study for the review of the Thematic Strategy on the
Sustainable Use of Natural Resources, 2009-2010 (for DG ENV)
EC, Analysis of the contributions of recycling, waste prevention and product
design policies to resource efficiency, 2009-2010 (for DG ENV)
The above types of technical and scientific assessments can involve a variety of methodologies, (e.g.
case studies, benchmarking, fact sheets, check lists, comparative tables, etc.) and a number of data
collection methods (e.g. literature review/desk research, direct measurement, direct observation,
stakeholder consultation, questionnaires, expert interviews, etc.). Such studies form an integral part
of the Commission’s policy design process, allowing politicians to make decisions in light of the best
available evidence.
4.2.1.1.9 Technical and scientific assessment of the practicality and
enforceability of EU waste legislation
Problem to address
In order to improve waste management performance across Europe, reliable information is needed
on whether current or new legislation is clear enough or if additional legislatory work would be
needed in order to improve the MS’ ability to well implement EU waste legislation.
Tasks needed to strengthen implementation and enforcement of EU waste policy
72 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Description of task
Waste legislation should be assessed in a scientific-technical way to find out if the legislation in force
is sufficiently clear to be implemented well by MS. These assessments are intended to show whether
legislation needs to be improved or complemented by additional legislation in order to enable MS to
implement the legislation correctly.
Support tools
The assessments can be done on behalf of the EU Commission or for example by IMPEL. Two
exemplary projects have been done by IMPEL on the practicality of new legislation:
Practicality of the WEEE Proposal 200848:
Practicability and Enforceability of the IPPC Recast Proposal: The report
highlights a wide range of P&E issues.49
4.2.1.1.10 Direct on-the-spot controls by the Commission or a separate
Waste Agency
Problem to address
MS are primarily responsible for implementing EU measures in national law (see Article 291
paragraph 1 and 192 paragraph 4 TFEU), which comprises the adoption of legal measures as well as
the administrative enforcement. The Commission has generally no power to intervene in the
implementation process of MS, notwithstanding the fact that EU inspections can be carried out in
the areas of competition, regional policy, fisheries and veterinary according to the conferral of the
corresponding power and are also carried out based the loyalty commitment of Member States in
Article 4 (3) TEU.50 Moreover, the EU Commission is able to control the application of EU legislation
on the spot in accordance with the obligation of Member States to cooperate in implementing any
EU legislation, especially in the context of single infringement procedures under 258 and 260
TFEU.51 Apart from this, Commission officials have participated in inspections in the MS when
invited by the MS representatives.52
The lack of direct inspections powers of the Commission in the field of waste has been identified as
an obstacle on effective implementation by stakeholders and by science.53
48 The project description reads “Based on the work of the IMPEL Better Regulation Cluster to develop and use a checklist
on the practicability and enforceability (P&E) of legislation, a working group carried out an assessment of the Recast of the
WEEE Directive. Initially, views from IMPEL members were collected via a questionnaire and on 27 April 2009 a workshop
was held to discuss the findings.”
49 http://impel.eu/projects/practicability-and-enforceability-of-the-ippc-recast-proposal
50 Kahl, Wolfgang in Callies/Rufert, EUV/AEUV, Kommentar, 4. Auflage, Artikel 4, Rn 61; Milieu (et al.): Study on the
feasibility of the establishment of a Waste Implementation Report, page 61.
51 ECJ cases C-33/90 Commission v. Italy [1991] ECR I-5987, para 18: C-375/92, Commission v. Spain [1994] ECR I-923, para
24ff; C-82/03, Commission v. Italy [2004] ECR I-6635, para 15.
52 See for example the case of waste emergency in Naples, ECJ case C-297/08, Commission v. Italy [2010], para 21.
53 Milieu (et al.): Study on the feasibility of the establishment of a Waste Implementation Report, page 61.
Tasks needed to strengthen implementation and enforcement of EU waste policy
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 73
Description of task
To improve the efficacy of the Commission’s enforcement of good waste legislation
implementation, the Commission’s powers could be modified with regard to the implementation of
EU waste legislation. In its most radical form, this would mean that the Commission or a separate
EU Agency would have the power to carry out on-the-spot controls in the Member States (e.g. in
waste treatment plants, in landfills, etc.) and could insofar act as substitute for the national
authorities. Such an expansion of the power of the Commission or the European level in carrying out
on-the-spot controls has been suggested and discussed by the recent study “Study on the feasibility
of the establishment of a Waste Implementation Agency” (2009).54
While such a modification of power could turn out to be very effective in certain cases and would
foster the Commission’s position vis-à-vis the Member States, there is also a number of sound
objections against this approach. First of all, the general principles of EU law set limitations
regarding direct interventions by the Commission services. The principle of subsidiarity as laid down
in Article 5 TEU says that in areas which do not fall within the exclusive competence of the EU, it
shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved
by the Member States. Since there are other, more moderate means available, an extension of the
Commission’s power to direct interventions in Member States would probably not be in accordance
with the subsidiarity principle. The same applies to the proportionality principle which says that the
content and form of EU action shall not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the
Treaties.
Moreover, this task would not be in line with general multilevel and multinational government
systems, in which responsibilities need to be allocated in different authorities to allow an effective
implementation. Not all tasks can realistically and pragmatically be executed by one single and
centralised authority (here European Commission) as by taking on administrative tasks better be
done by the regional/local level it would overexert itself. Tasks need to be shared and to be executed
by the authority that has the most immediate relation to the issue and the subject of the inspection
(here national/regional or local authority).
Support tools
The central authority, while not suited to direct intervention, could carry out a monitoring function,
controlling and assessing the inspection approaches, methods and results of national
authorities as discussed in the preceding task. Thus, the European Commission would retain an
overseeing and controlling role over the MS and their authorities while the MS would keep carrying
out the operative inspections exclusively. In addition, the European Commission could gain the role
of assessing and enforcing the improvement of inspection standards.
54 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/report_waste_dec09.pdf
Tasks needed to strengthen implementation and enforcement of EU waste policy
74 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
4.2.1.2 SPECIAL ISSUES
4.2.1.2.1 Creation of waste unit in Europol
Problem to address
Given that organised crime has a stake in non-compliance with EU waste law, police powers should
be involved in combating such cases of non-compliance. One of the major fields of activities for
organised crime is illegal waste shipment.
Description of task
One measure to combat organised crime, especially when it is operating transnationally, could be
the creation of a waste unit in EUROPOL.
Support tools
Europol (the European Police Office) has been set up to handle Europe-wide criminal intelligence.
Europol's aim is to help the EU Member States co-operate more closely and effectively in preventing
and combating organised international crime. Currently it deals in particular with drug trafficking,
immigration networks, vehicle trafficking, trafficking in human beings including child pornography,
forgery of money and other means of payment, terrorism, and trafficking in radioactive and nuclear
substances.
EUROPOL supports MS inter alia by
facilitating the exchange of information between Europol and Europol
Liaison Officers (ELOs);
providing operational analysis and supporting Member States’ operations;
providing expertise and technical support for investigations and operations
carried out within the EU, under the supervision and the legal responsibility of
the Member States;
generating strategic reports (e.g. threat assessments) and crime analysis on
the basis of information and intelligence supplied by Member States or
gathered from other sources.
Especially when it comes to providing expertise and technical support for investigations in the waste
field, a specialised unit familiar with the special circumstances of waste management is needed.
The creation of such a unit would require a re-organisation of EUROPOL and demand additional
personnel. Thus, such an additional department would also be accompanied with additional costs.
Yet, the large influence of organised crime in the waste sector is very important in some European
regions thus EUROPOL involvement would be called for.
Tasks needed to strengthen implementation and enforcement of EU waste policy
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 75
4.2.1.2.2 Combating corruption
Problem to address
Poor implementation of waste legislation is often due to political and administrative corruption.
Description of task and support tools
Authorities and bodies created to combat corruption also should set a focus on corruption issues
related to waste management. This may also make use of a special waste crime unit at EUROPOL.
4.2.1.2.3 Provision of financial incentives
Problem to address
Adequate implementation of the polluter pays principle55 – as laid down in Article 14 of the Waste
Framework Directive – has the potential to contribute to an effective application of EU waste
legislation. It can set financial incentives to comply with the relevant legislation and – on the other
hand – can help to provide the necessary financial resources for waste management. The polluter
pays principle is one of the classic EU environmental principles, as it was originally adopted in the
first action programme of the European Communities on the environment in 1973.56 Since then, the
principle has been included in EU primary law (see Art 191 paragraph 2 TFEU) and transposed by the
adoption of secondary legislation (e.g. Environmental Liability Directive57).The principle has been
part of the waste framework legislation since 197558 and was further strengthened in the 2008 Waste
Framework Directive.
Moreover, EU structural funds are relevant for establishing the necessary waste infrastructure in
many parts of the EU and their application should be examined in this context.
Description of task
One of the identified challenges in waste management and enforcement is the allocation of
sufficient resources, including the resources needed to meet inspection and enforcement costs. The
polluter pays principle in Waste Framework Directive in its Article 14 provides that the costs of waste
management are to be borne by waste producers or waste holders. It is proposed that the way in
which this clause is interpreted and operated be explored in more detail as it should provide a means
of securing the necessary resources for effective waste management carried out by Member States.
The Commission’s approach to align cohesion policy in the future more strongly with the objectives
of the Europe 2020 strategy is being welcomed by stakeholders; waste projects will take into
account the five-stage waste hierarchy, in other words, they will essentially give preference to
55 It basically says that “natural or legal persons governed by public or private law who are responsible for pollution must
pay the costs of such measures as are necessary to eliminate that pollution or to reduce it so as to comply with the
standards or equivalent measures which enable quality objectives to be met or, where there are no such objectives, so as to
comply with the standards or equivalent measures laid down by the public authorities.” See 75/436/Euratom, ECSC, EEC:
Council Recommendation of 3 March 1975 regarding cost allocation and action by public authorities on environmental
matters, OJ L 194 , 25/07/1975 P. 0001 – 0004.
56 Declaration of the Council of the European Communities and of the representatives of the Governments of the Member
States meeting in the Council of 22 November 1973 on the programme of action of the European Communities on the
environment, OJ C 112, 20.12.1973, p. 1–2.
57 Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with
regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, OJ L 143, 30.4.2004, p. 56–75.
58 See Art. 15 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39–41.
Tasks needed to strengthen implementation and enforcement of EU waste policy
76 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
recycling and recovery of materials from waste over landfill and incineration of waste. However, this
can only be done if projects are made accessible for private capital and knowhow.
Support tools
Policy-makers at European level can improve the framework conditions for alternative financing
instruments, in particular for public-private partnerships. In this way, cohesion policy can make a
contribution to disseminating high quality environmental standards rapidly across the entire EU.
Such an action would not impact EU personnel levels; a preparatory study could be completed by
outside consultants and the recommendations should be able to be executed by current staff. This
initiative would continue along the same lines of recent efforts to simplify and make more
transparent the process of fund distribution.59 Similar research could be carried out on options to
internalise costs in accordance with the polluter pays principle (such as innovative waste charging
systems) as well as on the potential of this principle as laid down in Art. 14 Waste Framework
Directive.
4.2.2 Member States
The following tasks on Member States are only illustrative as they will not be considered in the
context of the policy options in the further assessment. The policy options to be developed further
only focus on the structural changes that can be realised by the EU level. Nevertheless, also
enhanced MS efforts are needed to ensure the proper implementation of EU waste legislation.
4.2.2.1 SUFFICIENT PERSONNEL AND ADEQUATE WASTE MANAGEMENT BODIES TO
CONTROL AND INSPECT
Problem to address
In some MS, a quantitative and qualitative lack of staff in the waste authorities, preventing
authorities from organising waste management in a way completely compliant with EU waste
legislation, has been noted by many stakeholders. Closely associated with this problem is the issue
of structurally weak authorities, meaning that authorities are, due to their size or the territory that
they have to cover, are not able to ensure implementation and enforcement of EU waste legislation.
As regards lack of personnel, quantitative insufficiency means that there is simply not enough staff
to deal with all the waste-related issues in a given territory. Qualitative insufficiency means that the
staff available is not trained well enough to ensure full compliance with EU waste legislation. In
reality, quantitative and qualitative insufficiencies are combined and add up to both lack of staff in
general and lack of properly qualified staff in particular.
As regards the adequacy of waste management bodies and authorities, the Member States are
responsible for implementing EU waste legislation and have to set up authorities capable of
ensuring implementation. Moreover, as a way of example, Art. 34 of the Waste Framework Directive
lays down that establishments or undertakings which carry out waste treatment operations (...) shall
be subject to appropriate periodic inspections by the competent authorities. Yet, on the basis of
59 Financial Times (2 December 2010) ‘Europe’s hidden billions: cohesion for a reason’
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e594c934-fe52-11df-abac-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1KAoHy4xo
Tasks needed to strengthen implementation and enforcement of EU waste policy
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 77
stakeholder comments, it appears that in some Member States waste authorities (waste
management bodies as inspection authorities) are designed in a way that does not allow them to
carry out their tasks correctly. Some authorities cover too small a territory to allow them to make
use of, for example, economies of scale, leading them to resort to very primitive waste management
and enforcement patterns. Some MS do not provide sufficient financing for the waste sector as a
whole, which results both in poor material equipment for waste authorities and an insufficient
number of staff.
Description of task
As a remedy to this, Member States may:
design appropriately sized authorities for dealing with waste management
equip these authorities with qualified personnel which by its number are
sufficient to ensure compliance with waste legislation in a given territory
Support tools
One important strategy for promoting the adequate equipment of authorities is to make the
political and administrative decision makers (mostly on the regional level) aware of what resources
are as a minimum standard needed on the level of enforcement and implementation of waste
legislation. For this, abstract criteria should be developed to help regional/local decision makers to
plan and equip the waste authorities (waste management planning authorities, enforcement
authorities, permitting authorities) in a way that allows the authorities to complete their tasks
effectively. Here the capacities and competencies needed for the implementation of the different
waste-related directives/laws could be outlined (including the required qualifications that inspectors
must have), which could help decision makers to base their personnel planning on a solid base – this
is especially relevant for new Member States, which had or still have to design new waste permitting
and enforcement infrastructure in line with the EU legislation from scratch. Irish and Flemish
internal network models could serve as a Best Practice. They have been designed to bring together
waste practitioners doing different jobs (inspectors, prosecutors etc.) via a network approach. Also
memorandum of understandings have emerged as best practice in certain areas of waste
management, in particular liaison between customs and waste enforcers.
Such blueprints or draft organisational charts could be worked out by the Member States
themselves reflecting the specific waste-related administrative realities of the respective Member
States. Alternatively or additionally, a more basic blueprint could be worked out by the European
Commission in co-operation with Member States whereby better performing Member States should
be involved to a larger extent. Good basic work covering these issues has already been completed by
the IMPEL network.
New financial resources for waste management could be provided by an extended application of the
polluter pays principle (see above task ‘provision of financial incentives’).
Tasks needed to strengthen implementation and enforcement of EU waste policy
78 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
4.2.2.2 IMPROVING INSPECTIONS AND MONITORING OF GOOD IMPLEMENTATION OF EU
WASTE LEGISLATION
4.2.2.2.1 Best practice on inspections
Problem to address
In order to improve the effectiveness of their authorities for waste legislation implementation,
Member States have to rationally plan their inspection and control activities and set priorities. They
have to provide an infrastructure of authorities that are able to cope with the challenge of effective
inspections and mapping the status quo of the implementation of EU waste legislation.
Description of task
In order to plan inspections well, the specific authorities need to engage in a consistent monitoring
of implementation. In addition to this, they need to be aware of what material, training and
equipment is needed to carry out environmental waste-related inspections that comply with EU
waste law. This also includes the infrastructure that each MS must have as a minimum in equipping
its waste authorities (see preceding section).
Support tools
Member States could work out guidelines that would lay down a model permitting authority, a
model inspection planning and model site visits adapted to the different waste-related issues that
require inspections. Work from the IMPEL network exists on many of these issues, they should in
most cases, however, be adapted to the national situation, to the specific issues of waste legislation,
and need at times to be updated.
The completion of such guidelines will not generate considerable additional costs. In fact, a more
rational planning of inspections and controls could contribute to a better use of available staff,
thereby reducing costs in the long run. New guidelines are not likely to meet with much political
resistance.
4.2.2.2.2 Strengthening the awareness of police and co-operation with the
police
Problem to address
Member States should see to it that police forces (both criminal and municipal police) develop a
sensitivity for environment-related crime. Police need to understand the social importance of
combating environment-related crime. Wherever this applies, police need also to be aware that
systematic infractions of waste law is in specific circumstances related to organised crime which
needs to be fought with determination and by the competent and appropriately equipped
authorities.
Modelled on the area of waste shipment, where a good co-operation between waste authorities,
police and customs has been established in many Member States, good routine co-operation should
also be achieved in other areas of waste legislation implementation, e.g. with controls of landfills,
waste treatment plants, etc. A continuous exchange should be made possible. As responsibility for
waste controls and inspections is often at the local level, reliable contacts need to be formed
between local authorities and the relevant police forces. National level or inter-regional working
Tasks needed to strengthen implementation and enforcement of EU waste policy
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 79
groups can provide background information, training and good practice guidance on what the co-
operation should look like and what criteria, including training, such a partnership should include.
Description of task
As a consequence, the concrete task would be to:
Raise awareness within police forces of the importance of tackling waste-
related crime (e.g. via training, seminars, etc.)
Improve the day-to-day co-operation between police forces and waste
authorities including ‘rehearsals’ of joint inspections in order to facilitate
inspections and imposition of immediate enforcement measures
Involve criminal police in the fight against organised-crime related infractions
of waste law
Support tools
Such an improvement would not change the competences of neither the national waste authorities
nor the different police forces. Better training and awareness raising would entail additional costs;
however, these should not be too significant. It would be more difficult to recruit additional
personnel in the police forces given that political resistance is to be expected from both within the
police forces (which departments gets more personnel?) and from fiscal politicians. The effort to
involve police more in inspection and control activities is practical and could increase the efficacy of
inspections a great deal.
4.2.2.2.3 Compliance assistance/awareness raising
Problem to address
It is important that personnel in national authorities, responsible for controlling and permitting
waste management operators, has a solid knowledge and understanding of all actual EU waste
legislation.
Description of task
Member States should bring together and possibly train permitting authorities on interpreting the
current and new legislation so as to lay a common groundwork on which the permitting authorities
can operate. Key requirements of waste legislation should be discussed and experience with
implementation presented.
Support tools
Implementation problems should be presented and discussed in such working groups and common
solutions found.60
60 See for such an awareness raising event e.g. the Information Exchange and Awareness Raising Events on landfill of Waste
carried out by BiPRO: http://www.bipro.de/waste-events/doc/events07/si_presentation_1bipro_ns.pdf .
Tasks needed to strengthen implementation and enforcement of EU waste policy
80 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
4.2.2.2.4 Promoting good practice cases
Problem to address
In order to address any irrational political fear of exploding costs at the municipal level caused by
moving up the Waste Management Hierarchy (e.g. by raising the share of waste to be recycled), best
practice cases need to be presented to the municipalities. These best practice cases should prove
that moving up the waste management hierarchy does not necessarily cause (much) higher costs
and can be a basis for municipalities to develop their waste management strategies
Description of task
Such good practice cases could be prepared by national or regional level MS authorities or by the
European Commission in co-operation with Member States or the IMPEL network.
Support tools
Such best practice cases do not concern the actual waste legislation enforcement but rather the
design of waste management strategies, which are certainly a highly relevant aspect of
implementing EU waste legislation.
No high costs would be involved for the public or private sector. A specific problem is that obtaining
reliable costs for the different waste treatment options is difficult.
4.2.2.2.5 Adequacy of penalties
Problem to address
Each legislator, by laying down penalties for environmental misdemeanours/crimes, should strive to
put off people from engaging in this behaviour. Thus the concrete extent of penalties must be
effective with a view to discouraging people from this type of behaviour.
Description of task
In line with this, national legislators should review their penalty system and assess whether the
penalties in the environmental and specifically the waste field are adequate and effective. This is the
prerogative of Member States.
Support tools
Member states should collect data on the use of penalties to make them transparent and allow the
monitoring of compliance.
No persistent high costs for the public sector would be anticipated in connection with this task; No
large political resistance is to be expected.
4.2.2.3 EXCURSUS: SHARING OF COMPETENCES
When laying down or redefining the share of competences between the public sector and private
waste managers in waste collection and waste treatment, Member States should see to it that this
share does not too much complicate or even impede an effective enforcement of waste
management standards.
Rather negative experiences with regard to controlling the movements of waste flows have been
reported from those MS or regions that have chosen to fully liberalise the waste market with the
Tasks needed to strengthen implementation and enforcement of EU waste policy
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 81
effect that each household can choose its own waste collector and manager. As a consequence, it
has become very difficult for waste authorities to follow up and control the destination of waste
streams collected from households by a multitude of different, also very small waste companies, all
often competing for the lowest price.
While the issue of the share of responsibility between the private sector and the public sector is a
sensitive issue in Europe with MS taking up vastly different approaches, the issue of controllability
should be discussed when competences are defined. This could take the form of ensuring that
private actors regularly provide substantiated information to public authorities on quantities of
waste collected and treated, allowing public authorities to have a transparent picture of waste
management operations even when such operations are managed by the private sector. As MS take
vastly different approaches, it is anticipated that at the European level authorities can only share
positive or negative experiences.
4.2.3 Both EU and MS
4.2.3.1 AN INFORMATION AND BEST PRACTICE SHARING PLATFORM FOR KNOWLEDGE
SHARING BETWEEN MEMBER STATES
Problem to address
Implementation of EU waste legislation poses many trans-national challenges (e.g. illegal waste
shipments). The exchange of experiences and good practices in waste management and in
implementing EU waste legislation is a prerequisite to enhance implementation across the EU.
Description of task
A knowledge-sharing network, enabling MS to share experiences and data on practical
implementation issues, was considered helpful by stakeholders.
This may be particularly important for the Waste Shipment Regulation, which is dependent on cross
border cooperation, but could encompass the entirety of waste legislation. Such a platform could be
built on current projects managed by IMPEL, including the TFS network which runs joint inspection
activities, training and encourages knowledge sharing exchanges as well as Cluster 1 of IMPEL’s
activities focused on permitting, inspection and enforcement.61
Support tools
The creation of an information and best practices sharing platform is an initiative which could be
spearheaded either by MS or by the Commission, or by a partnership of both. It seems most likely
that such an initiative would require funding by the European Commission, but could be managed
independently by a working group of MS, similar to the EU Cradle to Cradle (C2C) network, which
brings together EU regions to share best practices and hosts targeted projects on subjects linked to
sustainable consumption and production.62 MS would need to be actively involved to orient
exchanges towards key challenges in implementation and enforcement and to benefit from the
61 IMPEL, Cluster 1 – Permitting, inspection and enforcement: http://impel.eu/cluster-1
62 Cradle to cradle network: http://www.c2cn.eu/content/project
Tasks needed to strengthen implementation and enforcement of EU waste policy
82 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
practical experiences of others. As many notifications on waste infractions come from citizens, an
information sharing platform could not only focus on sharing best practices, but could also underline
the possibilities for citizens to highlight enforcement failures, clarifying and publicising this process.
A number of key targets for such a working group/network could be set, with one of these targets
focused towards citizens and others focused on implementation and enforcement of specific waste-
related Directives, or thematic issues such as bio-waste, prevention, recycling, separate collection,
etc.
This initiative should not require additional staff on the part of the European Commission, as it
would presumably fall under a currently existing EU grant programme; however, the animation of
such a network/working group could be managed by an external consultant or by participating MS
themselves. Financial costs could be estimated at around 2.5 million Euros for a two-year period,
similar to the C2C network; however, costs involved would depend on the specific actions and tools
selected for sharing best practices and information. Political resistance is expected to be minimal.
4.2.3.2 DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS
Problem to address
Stakeholder partnerships can be effective in dealing with specific enforcement problems.
Description of tasks
Strategic partnerships between stakeholders involved in waste management and waste legislation
implementation should be developed.
Support tools
Regulatory bodies can work with the police, as well as customs and border agencies in dealing with
large scale waste crime. A lack of dialogue between environmental authorities and the police can
hamper effective enforcement; cooperation through defined working groups with an associated
budget and clear waste enforcement priorities can ameliorate this. Transnational links between
authorities are particularly important for such waste acquis as the Waste Shipment Regulation, the
WEEE Directive and the ELV Directive, due to potential waste export related issues.
The development of strategic partnerships could also involve building links between local and
regional waste authorities and private waste management companies or EU-wide associations;
public-private partnerships could be particularly relevant for waste product streams covered by EU
legislation involving extended producer responsibility clauses, such as WEEE, batteries, and ELV.
Partnerships between community organisations and local authorities with regulatory bodies can be
effective in dealing with local amenity issues or small scale illegal landfills or waste activities.
Similar to the development of a platform for sharing information and best practices, as discussed
above, an initiative for the creation of strategic partnerships would most likely involve funding by
the European Commission and management by MS or by an external consultancy. The development
of strategic partnerships for implementation and enforcement of EU waste acquis could strongly tie
in with current projects underway through knowledge exchange networks such as IMPEL. Strategic
partnerships should be focused on a well-defined issue related to waste legislation implementation
and enforcement (e.g. shipment of e-waste).
Tasks needed to strengthen implementation and enforcement of EU waste policy
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 83
Such an initiative should not require an augmentation in staff on the part of the European
Commission; however, the development of strategic partnerships would most likely involve the
financial support of the European Commission. In the case of local waste management authorities,
building a strategic partnership should not involve a large financial investment. It seems quite
possible that such an initiative could be the extension of IMPEL’s existing activities.
4.2.3.3 DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDELINES
Problem to address
Waste legislation implementation problems often arise from a lack of waste management expertise
and experience in the national and international authorities and bodies responsible for supporting,
controlling and enforcing EU waste legislation implementation.
Description of task
As mentioned above, many types of guidelines can be developed either by MS or by the EU
Commission or by both in co-operation. This regards, for example, criteria for a rational inspection
routine or criteria for robust waste authorities.
Support tools
Guideline documents constitute the most important support tool for this task.
Tasks needed to strengthen implementation and enforcement of EU waste policy
84 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
4.3 Feasibility assessment of tasks
This section provides an assessment of the tasks outlined above.
The tasks are assessed using a simple matrix system with the following assessment criteria:
does the task require legal changes and the set up of new
institutions/organisations at the European level;
would the task involve extra costs for personnel, equipment etc. and if so, to
what extent they. (broad assessment);
does the task seem feasible from a practical point of view.
Table 19: Legend for task assessment table
Colour Meaning
Yes
No
Highly recommend
Recommend
Do not recommend
The following conclusions can be derived from the assessment:
At EU level, tasks 1.0 to 9.0 prove to be most feasible. These tasks can be
comparatively easily implemented and are likely to produce an effective
impact/ Therefore, these tasks will be further considered in the definition of
the policy options.
Tasks 14.0 to 15.0 (MS level) and 16.0 to 17.0 (both EU and MS level) are all
evaluated as feasible. As the policy options will focus on institutional settings
at EU level to support MS in better EU waste legislation implementation,
these tasks will not be considered specifically in the policy options. However,
it is suggested that tasks 14.0 to 17.0 are implemented by MS (or jointly by
EU and MS) in parallel to the policy options.
The outcome of the assessment is presented in the tables below.
Tasks needed to strengthen implementation and enforcement of EU waste policy
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 85
Broad assessment of implications of the tasks
Table 20: Assessment of tasks at EU level
Nb. Task Possible with
current
framework
Requires new
organisation
Intensity of
work to
implement
instrument
Financial
Costs
Feasibility Recommendation
1.0 Development of a more systematic approach of identifying
lacks in waste
Yes No Low Low Yes ++
2.1 Improvement of the knowledge base for mapping Member
States' implementation performance, including analysis of
waste management plans, and )
Yes No Low Low Yes ++
2.2 Analysis of implementation reports from Member States,
NGOs and stakeholders
Yes No Quite personnel
consuming for
the Commission
and MS
Low to
medium
Feasible, but it
is time
consuming
++
3.0 More coherent identification of the status of implementation in
the Member States (implementation monitoring)
Yes No Might be quite
high for
European
institutions
(COM, EEA) and
Member States
if this involves
more frequent
and additional
reporting
Medium Yes ++
4.0 Assistance and guidelines to MS on inspections and monitoring
of implementation (Guidelines for Member States on inspection
routines)
Yes No Low Low Yes ++
5.0 Training on inspections and enforcement, e.g in cooperation
with networks such as IMPEL
Yes No Medium Medium Yes ++
6.0 Awareness raising on waste legislation implementation Yes No Medium Medium Yes ++
Tasks needed to strengthen implementation and enforcement of EU waste policy
86 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Nb. Task Possible with
current
framework
Requires new
organisation
Intensity of
work to
implement
instrument
Financial
Costs
Feasibility Recommendation
7.0 Review and report on national inspection standards, based on
agreed EU standards (audits)
No No Medium Medium Yes ++
8.0 Technical and scientific assessments and advice concerning
waste related data and various information relating to
contents of EU waste legislation
Yes No Low to medium Low to
medium
Yes ++
9.0 Technical and scientific assessment of the practicality and
enforceability of EU waste legislation
Yes No Additional
projects need to
commissioned
Low Yes ++
10.0 Direct on-the-spot controls by the Commission or a separate
Waste Agency
No No Intense High No -
11.0 Creation of a waste unit in Europol No Yes Intense Medium Yes +
12.0 Combating corruption Changes in the
priorities
needed
Yes Intense Medium Political
resistance likely
++
13.0 Financial incentives No No (but
changes
needed)
Medium Low Certain amount
of political
resistance is
likely
++
Policy Options
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 87
Table 21: Assessment of tasks at MS level
Nb. Task Possible with
current
framework
Requires new
organisation
Intensity of
work to
implement
instrument
Financial Costs Feasibility Recommendati
on
14.0 Sufficient personnel and adequate waste management
bodies
Yes No Low intensity of
work
Low Yes ++
15.1 Best practice on inspections Yes No Low to medium
intensity
Low Yes ++
15.2 Strengthening the awareness of police and co-operation
with the police
Yes No Low intensity Low Yes ++
15.3 Compliance assistance/awareness raising Yes No Low-intensity Low Yes ++
15.4 Promoting Best Practice cases Yes Yes Low intensity Low Yes ++
15.5 Adequacy of penalties Yes Yes Low intensity Low Yes ++
16.0 Information and best practice sharing platform for
knowledge sharing between MS
Yes No Low intensity Medium for the
Commission;
limited for MS
Yes ++
17.0 Development of strategic partnerships Yes No Low intensity Medium for the
Commission;
low to medium
for MS
Yes ++
Policy Options
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 88
Chapter 5: Policy Options
In brief: In this chapter three policy options to support better waste legislation
implementation are described in detail. These policy options are built on a
comprehensive assessment and development of current challenges and barriers
(see Chapter 2: and Chapter 3:) as well as on an in-depth analysis of three different
potential institutional settings to better support implementation of EU waste
legislation. Based on the input from discussions with stakeholders and the
Commission, the project team selected three key policy options or arrangements
for the implementation of tasks at European level. In Option A, the European
Commission leads or carries out the tasks selected in the previous chapter. For this
purpose, the Commission would mostly extend current activities but also take on
some new tasks, specifically the monitoring and auditing of national control and
inspection systems for waste management schemes in Member States. In Option
B, the EEA leads or carries out many of the tasks, extending its existing waste data
collection activities and taking advantage of its in-house waste expertise. Legal
enforcement tasks allocated to the Commission under the Treaty and the
proposed inspection audits would, however, be tasks for the Commission. In
Option C, a specialised waste agency would execute all tasks, with the same
exceptions as in Option B, excepting the audit task, which would remain with the
Commission. In this section, the policy options are further described briefly. It will
be explained how the tasks (new or existing) will be carried out in each policy
option. The main characteristics are pointed out by a table at the beginning of the
description of the individual policy tasks. Finally, cornerstones of a regulatory
framework for each policy option are developed.
Policy Options
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 89
5.1 Policy Option A: ‘New and extended tasks for
the Commission’
5.1.1 Short characterisation
Table 22: Short characterisation of policy option A: ‘New and extended tasks for the
Commission’
Main responsibility
Commission in cooperation with other existing bodies, such as the EEA, Eurostat, JRC and other relevant
national and EU entities
Main tasks
1.0 Development of a more systematic approach of identifying lacks in waste legislation implementation
2.0 Improving the knowledge base for mapping MS’ implementation performance
3.0 More coherent tracking of the status of implementation in the MS – implementation monitoring’
4.0 Assistance and guidance to Member States on inspections and monitoring of implementation
5.0 New task: Training on inspections and enforcement, e.g in cooperation with networks such as IMPEL
6.0 Awareness raising on waste legislation implementation
7.0 New task: Review and report on national inspection standards, based on agreed EU standards (audits)
8.0 Technical and scientific assessment and advice on waste related data and various information relating
to the contents of EU waste legislation
9.0 Technical and scientific assessment of the practicality and enforceability of EU waste legislation
Most relevant changes
Enhanced cooperation between relevant EU bodies
Strengthening and improvement of work done so far
New task: Review and report on national inspection standards (audits)
Most of the tasks suggested in this option expand activities already carried out by the Commission.
However, training on inspections and reviewing and reporting on national inspection standards
constitute new tasks, which require additional expertise and probably also additional personnel.
5.1.2 General description
This policy option aims to improve certain aspects on part of the Commission, especially regarding
its implementation monitoring work. The tasks (existing and new) identified by the study to monitor
the implementation of EU waste law are carried out by the Commission in cooperation with other
Policy Options
90 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
existing bodies, such as the EEA, Eurostat, JRC and other relevant national and EU entities.
Moreover, under this policy option, the Commission is provided with additional resources and an
extended margin for action.
This section summarises the tasks to be completed by the Commission under this policy option and
how this should be approached in practice.
Development of a more systematic approach of identifying lacks in waste legislation
implementation
A key task for the EU Commission under this policy option is the development of a more systematic
and priority-based approach for observing the implementation situation of waste legislation in the
Member States, especially the identification of non-compliance or bad compliance with EU waste
legislation in Member States. That would help to deal with the important cases more immediately
and intensively. The need for a prioritisation has also been highlighted in the Communication “A
Europe of results – applying community law” from 2007.63 The issue has been also addressed with a
focus to environmental law implementation in the Commission Communication on implementing
European Community Environmental Law of 2008.64 Both communications laid down a first set of
criteria on prioritisation, which could be further adapted to waste law. Guidelines one adequate
prioritisation criteria could be developed and provided to Member States as well as to the
responsible Commission staff.
Improving the knowledge base for mapping Member States’ implementation performance
In order to carry out a prioritisation, the Commission needs to improve its knowledge base on the
state of implementation, especially beyond the general reporting commitments of the Member
States. This includes the encouragement of civil society (NGO, citizen groups) to report bad
implementation of EU waste legislation, which can be facilitated by a number of means (fluid and
straightforward communication between Commission and Member States, effective and prompt
treatment of complaints in the context of easy complaint handling procedures, confidential
telephone lines etc). First of all, the Commission’s knowledge base could be extended and
strengthened by a more ambitious analysis and follow-up of national waste management plans and
implementation reports. Sufficient requirements for Member States reporting commitments have
already been adopted to a great extent. Waste management plans – as required by Art.28 of the
Waste Framework Directive – have to meet strict standards. These are more stringent than those
required by the previous legislation. For example, Member States must carry out an analysis of the
current waste management situation and present this in their plans. In this way, extended
information on Member States management of waste will be available. It is suggested that the
Commission – with the support of the EEA – takes advantage of this information in order to improve
its knowledge base.
More coherent tracking of the status of implementation in the Member States –
implementation monitoring
This should also be combined with a more centralised reporting by the Commission on the status of
the implementation of EU waste legislation). A comprehensive state of play report combining
statistics and explanations of the waste management development in Member States would meet
63 COM(2007) 502 final, pages 8ff.
64 COM (2008) 2876.
Policy Options
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 91
the Commission’s priority to have a high emphasis on full waste legislation implementation. Beside
the information from the Member State’s implementation, the compilation of sufficient data would
also require the cooperation with the EEA and Eurostat.
Assistance and guidance to Member States on inspections and monitoring of implementation
Based on this information, the EU Commission should offer concrete guidance on the proper
implementation of EU waste legislation to Member States; especially on the inspection of the
relevant waste-producing and waste-treating sites. This would be best realised by the production of
adequate standards and guidance documents. The Commission could build on the work done so far
by the IMPEL network (the European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of
Environmental Law).
Training on inspections and enforcement, e.g. in cooperation with networks such as IMPEL
Further guidance could be provided by training of Member States officials that are in charge of the
implementation of EU waste legislation. Training should be completed by exchange of best
practices on implementation of waste legislation, including inspections and enforcement of EU
waste legislation (in cooperation with national authorities, judges, prosecutors, ombudsmen,
IMPEL, and other relevant national, EU and international entities). The Commission should employ
or work closely with the IMPEL network to organise trainings and should build on the abundant work
that is available from IMPEL (such as from projects “Doing the right things” that produced a
guidance book to assist environmental authorities in inspections or the IMPEL Review Initiative
which is a voluntary scheme for reporting and offering advice on national inspections). In some cases
it will be sufficient to disseminate project results from IMPEL better among Member States to raise
awareness of those results. In other cases, the basic work would need to be specified and adapted to
waste-specific issues. This could help Member States to improve their inspections practice and the
implementation monitoring. Guidance and trainings could cover the following issues:
Model of well-performing waste authorities (number of staff, training,
equipment);
Model of best practice waste inspection planning including setting ex-ante
priorities for an optimal use of inspection staff;
Compliance assistance with EU waste law: here the main and basic
requirements of current and new EU waste law can be presented and any
problems related to implementation could be debated also with a view to the
specific Member State situation;
Promoting good practices of waste management that comply with all
prerequisites of EU waste law, including especially the waste management
hierarchy – this promotion should point out that good waste management is
also economically and socially affordable.
Awareness raising on waste legislation implementation
Training should also be accompanied by awareness raising campaigns on waste legislation
implementation, both to the general public and public authorities. This could be carried out by
comprehensive information campaigns that could also be addressed to stakeholders.
Policy Options
92 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Technical and scientific assessment and advice on waste related data and various information
relating to the contents of EU waste legislation and Technical and scientific assessment of the
practicality and enforceability of EU waste legislation’)
Implementation of EU waste legislation depends to a great extent on the technical knowledge on
the issues. This applies especially to cases in which the Commission is in charge of adopting
technical details in the context of comitology procedures.
The success of this policy option would therefore also benefit from an enhanced technical and
scientific assessment of both the practicability and enforceability of EU waste legislation as well as
the adequate collection and reporting of waste data. In that regard, the Commission will benefit
from a closer and more target cooperation with the EEA. Information on certain questions could be
provided by external experts. This policy option A should generally be combined with clearer
arrangements and enhanced co-operation, especially between the EU bodies involved in
overseeing/reviewing waste legislation implementation or documenting waste legislation
implementation (Eurostat, EEA, Joint Research Centre, Commission), which could be laid down in a
cooperation agreement. As regards the responsibilities of each of the four institutions, their fields of
activities intermerge at times. Eurostat is responsible for statistical waste data processing including
drawing conclusions from these data. The Commission inter alia assesses the waste legislation
implementation reports from the Member States and draws relevant conclusions which can lead to
the initiation of infringement procedures. EEA is inter alia responsible to draw up the European
State of the Environment Report including the picture in the waste field. Also the EEA provides
technical and scientific input in the waste field and carries out technical assessments. The Joint
Research Centre is responsible to provide technical and scientific studies, e.g. studies on end-of-life
criteria on different waste streams. Given that the four European institutions are all active in the
waste field including waste legislation implementation, conflicts of interests and overlapping
competences are likely. Thus, a cooperation agreement between those four institutions could better
define the roles and the limits of competences of these institutions to avoid double structures and
conflicts of interest. An improved cooperation should also include the judicial level. Cooperation
with responsible judges should be strengthened, especially through the European Forum of Judges
for the Environment and the Association of European Administrative Judges. Also a cooperation
with prosecutors could be beneficial. Another focus should be laid on clearer arrangements for
cooperation between national authorities, taking into account existing national frameworks which
bring together waste practitioners doing different jobs (e.g. Irish and Flemish network models for
inspectors, prosecutors etc.). Such cooperation mechanisms could be based on memoranda of
understanding (e.g. between customs and environmental authorities in the area of waste
shipments).
Review and report on national inspection standards, based on agreed EU standards (audits)
Most importantly, the Commission will be equipped with more power to oversee the
implementation of waste legislation in Member States. This is meant to guarantee the success of
this policy option. The new task will not include direct intervention of the Commission via on-the-
spot controls in the Member States, but focus on increased guidance, monitoring and review of the
Member States’ inspection activities. National inspections of the relevant sites and operators
(waste-producing, waste-treating etc.) are necessary means to enforce EU waste legislation. The
Commission would thereby gain a role as an ‘auditor’ of national authorities and their approaches,
similar to DG SANCO’s Food and Veterinary’s Office (FVO)’s “General Audits”. The Commission
would gain the power to review, assess and potentially enforce the improvement of national
Policy Options
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 93
inspection standards. This would require the development of common inspection standards, which
could build on the findings in the Recommendation on minimum criteria for environmental
inspections in the Member States as well as the corresponding Communication.65 The Commission
could issue audit programmes in accordance with the model of the FVO. After the review of national
inspections, the Commission could present the findings in special reports. In case of shortcomings,
Member States could be obliged to adopt action plans, which are assessed and monitored by the
Commission. In case of non-compliance with these procedures, the Commission could initiate
infringement procedures as last resort.
Establishment of a transnational network
In addition, a committee/network of the relevant national authorities and Member States
representatives focusing on the implementation of waste legislation could be set up in order to
discuss concrete problems of bad implementation of waste legislation. In its 2008 Communication
on implementing European Community Environmental Law, the Commission stated that it will,
following the adoption of major new environment directives, establish permanent networks
involving Commission officials and Member States contact points. 66
An informal Directors' group consisting of representatives from the Commission and the Member
States has been established by DG Environment in order to advance the current implementation in
the Member States. It has held five meetings so far during 2007-2011. Its tasks include ensuring
continuity and focused information exchange on implementation among officials at the appropriate
executive level; identifying priorities and bottlenecks in implementation and promoting actions at
MS level; receiving up-to-date information on concrete cases (for example: contributions made by
members of the IMPEL network); comparing performance of the various MS in the waste sector and
exchanging best practices; discussing implementation problems and possible solutions to prevent
any potential future infringement cases; and promoting the use of financial instruments for
improving compliance in the waste sector.
A more formalised approach based on specific EU legislation was set up in the water sector where
the meeting of national water directors and a so-called Strategic Co-ordination Group contribute to
the implementation of the EU Water legislation (the EU Waster Framework Directive). On a first
level, the Water Directors meet regularly and take strategic decisions. These are informal meetings
held semi-annually in the Member State currently holding the rotating EU presidency. These
meetings are organised and co-ordinated by the Commission. One primary objective of these
meetings in the water field has been proper implementation by the Member States of the Water
Framework Directive (WFD), whose objective is to have all community waters in good status by
2015. Since May of 2009, the Water Directors have been meeting jointly with the Marine Directors,
who are responsible for coastal and marine waters of Member States charged with implementation
of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive67. At a more technical level, the Strategic Co-ordination
Group supports the water directors by discussing technical issues related to EU Water legislation;
they comment inter alia drafts of guidance documents for different pieces of legislation. They
65
Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the review of Recommendation 2001/331/EC providing for minimum
criteria for environmental inspections in the Member States [SEC(2007) 1493]; COM (2007) 707 final.
66 COM (2008) 2876.
67 http://www.eutrio.be/informal-meeting-eu-water-and-marine-directors
Policy Options
94 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
prepare the basis for the decisions of the Water Directors. For each topic, a lead country is chosen
which is responsible for and finances the meetings. Few issues are financed by the Commission.
Another example of a good-working dialogue platform in the field of nature conservation between
national authorities, institutions and interested parties is the European Habitat Forum, which
contributes to the implementation of the Natura 2000 network on the basis of the Habitats Directive
(FFH Directive).
In addition, the existing IMPEL network could be encouraged to focus more on waste policy and
waste legislation implementation. The IMPEL cluster68 on permitting, inspections and enforcement
seems adequate for this. A specialised Committee consisting of high representatives of the waste
authorities in the Member States that discusses the major waste management problems and
potentially financed by the Commission plus the extension of the current foci of work of the IMPEL
network would be an effective, however low-key policy option to foster better waste legislation
implementation.
5.1.3 Cornerstones of a regulatory framework
Policy Option A aims at strengthening the Commission´s powers and responsibilities on the basis of
its competence related to waste enforcement. In principle, enforcement of EU law including waste
law is a Member State responsibility. However, as guardian of the Treaties, the Commission is
entitled to check whether the transposition measures of Member States conform to EU law and are
effectively applied on the ground.
Identifying gaps in waste legislation implementation, mapping Member State´s performance and
monitoring the status of implementation in the Member States are all intrinsic parts of this control
function, which may also include the more political issue of awareness raising on waste legislation
implementation. The same applies to the preparatory steps of technical-scientific assessment of the
practicability and enforceability of EU waste legislation as well as technical-scientific assessment
and advice on waste related data and various information relating to the contents of EU waste
legislation. Since these technical and scientific tasks are at the core of the EEA´s mandate (see
chapter 5.2.3), they imply an enhanced cooperation between the Commission and EEA.
Assistance and guidance to Member States on inspections and monitoring of implementation as
well as training on inspections in cooperation with the IMPEL network, on the other hand, are
measures of cooperation with Member States concerning their task to ensure enforcement of EU
waste law. As long as they do not impose duties on the Member States against their will, such
enforcement cooperation measures are compatible with the Commission´s mandate.
Some of these tasks require cooperation between the relevant EU institutions and bodies, whose
enhancement, e.g. by clearer arrangements for cooperation, is a task in itself. There is no uniform
legal instrument for cooperation between EU institutions and bodies. Besides contracts or other
forms of binding cooperation agreements, memoranda of understanding as a softer kind of legal
commitment could be used.
68 The Objectives of the Cluster are to develop new project ideas within the framework of the IMPEL Multi Annual Work
Programme, to act as a reference group, steering group or quality review forum for projects and to act as act a think-tank
for IMPEL primarily within the Cluster’s scope.
Policy Options
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 95
Thus, most of the tasks included in Policy Option A could be fulfilled within the current legal
framework.
In contrast, the new auditing task of reviewing and reporting on national inspections standards
would require new regulation. It is a prerequisite for this task to be carried out that common
inspection standards are agreed and adopted at EU level. Only after this has been achieved could a
possibility exist to review and report on how Member States inspections relate to the EU standards.
The legally non-binding Recommendation 2001/331/EC on Minimum Criteria for Environmental
Inspections69 may serve as a basis for common standards.70 Furthermore, for waste shipment,
regulated by Regulation 1013/2006/EC71, activities are under way to develop harmonised criteria and
requirements for waste shipment inspections72 which, when drafted or finalised, could be used as a
reference. According to the principle of subsidiarity (Article 5 TEU), the EU is entitled to set binding
criteria for inspections in Member States by EU legislation if the objectives of the proposed action
cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can be better achieved at Union level.
Thus, the EU would have to prove that the current enforcement of EU waste legislation by Member
States via inspections was not sufficient and could be better achieved by harmonised inspection
criteria.73
Auditing of inspections is currently conducted by the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) of DG Sanco
according to Regulation 882/2004/EC on official controls performed to ensure the verification of
compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules.74 Thereby, FVO experts
carry out general and specific audits in Member States according to an annual control programme.
The FVO reports on the findings of each control and makes recommendations if appropriate. The
competent authority of the country visited is given the opportunity to comment on the reports at
draft stage. If shortcomings are identified, the competent authority is requested to present an
action plan to the FVO addressing the shortcomings. Together with other Commission services, the
FVO evaluates this plan and monitors its implementation through a number of follow-up activities.75
That regulatory framework could serve as a model for corresponding audits in the field of waste
legislation implementation. When based on binding EU criteria for waste inspections, the auditing
would focus on national inspections being carried out conforming to these criteria. Thus, legislation
on auditing would be compatible with the control function of the Commission towards waste
legislation implementation conferred upon it by the Treaties.
69 Recommendation of 4 April 2001, OJ L 118 0f 27.4.2001, p. 41.
70 Milieu/AmbienDura/FFact, Study on the feasibility of the establishment of a Waste Implementation Agency, Revised Final
Report, 7 December 2009, p. 82.
71 Regulation of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste, OJ L 190 of 12.7.2006, p. 1.
72 Between 25 January and 12 April 2011 a public consultation was carried out on this subject,
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/Shipments/news.htm.
73 See on waste shipments BIO, Environmental, Social and Economic Impact Assessment of Possible Requirements and
Criteria for Waste Shipment Inspections, Controls and On-the-Spot Checks, Final Report, 4 June 2010, p. 5-6.
74 Regulation of 29 April 2004, OJ L 165 of 30.4.2004, p. 1.
75 See Articles 45 of Regulation 882/2004/EC and the overview in Milieu/AmbienDura/FFact, Study on the feasibility of the
establishment of a Waste Implementation Agency, Amended Final Report, 7 December 2009, p. 81 and Final Report:
Annexes, 7 December 2009, Annex V, p. 48.
Policy Options
96 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
While binding criteria for inspections could be laid down either in a directive or in a regulation,
depending on the margin of discretion left to Member States, audits of inspections should be
regulated by an EU regulation. Thus, both components may be included in a single regulation. In
addition, reference to this legislation by amendment of the Waste Framework Directive
2008/98/EC76 would contribute to highlighting its importance.
Finally, the establishment of a transnational network for waste legislation implementation could be
foreseen in the new regulation on waste inspections or by amendment of the Waste Framework
Directive. Such a network could also be established in an informal way, e.g. by extension of the
IMPEL network. This may however reduce its impact, e.g. in relation to the number of Member
States participating in the network.77
76 Directive 2008/98/EC of 19 November on waste and repealing certain Directives, OJ L 312 of 22.11.2008, p. 3.
77 See Milieu et al., p. 75.
Policy Options
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 97
5.2 Policy Option B: ‘New and extended tasks for the
EEA’
5.2.1 Short characterisation
Table 23: Short characterisation of policy option B: ‘New and extended tasks for the EEA’
Main responsibility
EEA providing technical support and assessments regarding all tasks
The Commission will carry out legal enforcement tasks in accordance with the Treaty, monitoring of MS
implementation and the proposed auditing of national inspections
Main tasks
EEA
1.0 Development of a more systematic approach of identifying lacks in waste legislation
implementation
2.0 Improving the knowledge base fin order to support the Commission's mapping of MS’
implementation performance
3.0 Support to the Commission's implementation monitoring: more coherent identification of the
status of implementation in the MS
4.0 Technical support to Member States on inspections and monitoring of implementation
5.0 Technical support to training on inspections and enforcement, e.g in cooperation with networks
such as IMPEL
6.0 Technical support to awareness raising on waste legislation implementation
8.0 Technical and scientific assessment and advice on waste related data and various information
relating to the contents of EU waste legislation
9.0 Technical and scientific assessment of the practicality and enforceability of EU waste legislation
Commission
7.0 Legal enforcement under the Treaty, monitoring of MS implementation and reviewing and
reporting on national inspection standards, based on agreed EU standards (audits)
Most relevant change
Strengthening of the work done so far
Increasing the technical expertise in the monitoring process on the implementation of EU waste legislation
Close cooperation between Commission and EEA
Legal enforcement and audit of national implementation measures by Commission
Policy Options
98 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
5.2.2 General description
Under policy option B, the European Environmental Agency (EEA) – the environmental agency of
the EU - would play a central role. The EEA is generally in charge of providing:
«(a) objective, reliable and comparable information at European level enabling them to take the
requisite measures to protect the environment, to assess the results of such measures and to ensure
that the public is properly informed about the state of the environment, and to that end;
(b) the necessary technical and scientific support.»78
Under this policy option, the work of the EEA on the waste sector is strengthened and improved. It
will be equipped with a number of new tasks.
The EEA would thereby not become a ‘political’ authority in this scenario as its tasks would be
limited to providing technical support and assessments for the Commission's implementation
monitoring and enforcement tasks. This would allow an effective identification of the
implementation gaps as regards EU waste legislation. The EEA should be a neutral agency with no
powers of legal enforcement or audits. This would help to develop a more systematic approach of
identifying lacks in waste legislation implementation. It could help to improve the Commission’s
knowledge base on infringements, especially by a comprehensive analysis and follow-up of Member
States’ waste management plans and implementation reports. It could offer assistance and
guidelines to Member States on inspections and monitoring of implementation, accompanied by
training and awareness raising campaigns. Moreover, it could carry out more technical assessments,
related to waste data as well as on the practicability and enforceability of EU waste legislation as
such. For this, it could built on the work of or even cooperate with the IMPEL network. On this basis,
the EEA could inform the Commission on the infringement cases, leaving the decision on the
concrete action to the discretion of the Commission. Thus, the political decision on who to
prosecute would still be up to the EU Commission as the Guardian of the Treaty.
The advantage of this option would be that the EEA with its relevant technical expertise could focus
on the technical issues of EU waste legislation implementation. The key tasks the EA would cover
are listed at the beginning of this subchapter and are described in detail in policy option A.
All executive and legal responsibilities (infringement procedures and other enforcement action) shall
stay with the Commission. The EEA would remain a scientific body dealing with waste data
gathering through Eionet and technical and scientific assessments in the waste sector, while taking
up or enhancing documentary implementation work.
In addition, the Commission could be equipped with the task relating to audits of national
inspections in Member States, provided EU standards have been agreed and adopted (see above).79
All policy options include the establishment of a transnational network. Thus, a committee/network
of the relevant national authorities and Member States representatives focusing on the
78 Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 401/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the European
Environment Agency and the European Environment Information and Observation Network, Official Journal L 126 ,
21/05/2009 P. 0013 – 0022.
79 Please refer to policy option A for the description of the task.
Policy Options
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 99
implementation of waste legislation could be set up in order to discuss concrete problems of bad
implementation of waste legislation and to exchange best practice.80
5.2.3 Cornerstones of a regulatory framework
Under Policy Option B, most of the powers and responsibilities mentioned under Policy Option A
would be allocated to the EEA. According to its mandate in Article 1 of Regulation 401/2009/EC81,
the EEA has to provide the Community and the Member States with technical and scientific support
in gathering information, assessing measures to protect the environment and informing the public
about the state of environment. Thus, in assessing measures to protect the environment, the EEA is
involved in the control of the implementation of EU environmental law by the Member States,
although, in an indirect way.82 However, it does not have enforcement powers, but is restricted to
preparatory measures of a technical and scientific nature, e.g. in reporting on the state of the
environment in the field of waste management.83 In particular, the EEA is coordinating the European
environment information and observation network (Eionet) in order to obtain inter alia comparable
environmental data from the Member States at European level84. However, apart from this
coordination role for Eionet, the EEA is not collecting data on waste, but using the data collected
from Eurostat according to Annex I.B (1) of Regulation 401/2009/EC. The EEA is an independent
body supporting the Community´s institutions as well as the Member States, as reflected in its
governance structure.85
The EEA does not only work closely with the Commission and other EU institutions, but also co-
operates with other EU bodies concerned with implementation issues. In particular, Regulation
401/2009/EC assigns special tasks for cooperation with the Joint Research Centre and with
Eurostat.86 The Regulation does not foresee a special kind of agreement for these co-operations,
except for the co-operation within Eionet, where contracts are highlighted by Article 5. The Eionet
group consists of the National Focal Points, the National Reference Centres, the European Topic
Centres and representatives of the Commission.87 Within the ‘Group of Four’, the EEA, DG
Environment, the Institute for Environment and Sustainability of the Joint Research Centre and
Eurostat agreed in 2005 on a division of tasks in environmental reporting and disseminating
80 Please refer to policy option A for the description of this option.
81 Regulation of 23 April 2009 on the European Environment Agency and the European Environment Information and
Observation Network, OJ L 126 of 21.5.2009, p. 13.
82 For the latter: Statement of Jock Martin, Head of Programme Integrated Environmental Assessment at EEA, of 26.8.2011.
83 See e. g. The European Environment State and Outlook 2010 – Synthesis with chapter 4 on natural resources and waste,
available at http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/synthesis/synthesis.
84 See the description of Eionet in http://www.eionet.europa.eu/about.
85 In accordance with Article 8 and 9 of Regulation 401/2009/EC, the Management Board of the EEA consists of one
representative of each Member State, two representatives of the Commission and two scientific personalities designated
by the European Parliament. The Management Board appoints the Executive Director as its legal representative on a
proposal from the Commission, http://www.eea.europa.eu/about-us/governance.
86 See Article 15 in connection with Annex I.
87 http://www.eionet.europa.eu/partners.
Policy Options
100 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
information.88 In particular, the four EU bodies set up Environmental Data Centres and thereby
conferred upon Eurostat the leading role for the Data Centre on Waste.89
Most of the tasks allocated to the EEA according to Policy Option B could be reconciled with the
EEA´s restricted competence under Regulation 401/2009/EC, at least to some extent. This holds
especially true for the primary tasks aimed at bridging the knowledge gap through, inter alia, the
assessment of new data from the Member States´ waste management plans. To the extent not
covered by Regulation 401/2009/EC, EEA´s mandate may be extended if compatible with EEA´s
general function as technical-scientific body. Otherwise, Policy Option B could be combined with
one of the other Policy Option, e.g. the remaining (parts of the) tasks may be conferred upon the
Commission.
In particular, improving the knowledge base for mapping Member States´ implementation
performance as a precondition for any further progress on implementation and enforcement of EU
waste policy is a core function of the EEA. Being responsible for the assessment on the state of the
environment according to Article 2 (e) of Regulation 401/2009/EC, the EEA is the best suited body
for the monitoring and analysis of Member States´waste management plans, which will be the main
source of information on Member States´ waste management available for the EU.90 The same
applies to the development of a more systematic approach to identifying gaps in waste legislation
implementation and a more coherent identification of the status of implementation in the Member
States, which may be fulfilled through the EEA´s State of the Environment reports. Equally,
technical and scientific assessment and advice on waste related data and various information
related to the contents of EU waste legislation are provided for inter alia by the EEA´s expert
reports. Furthermore, assistance and guidance to Member States on monitoring of implementation
is part of the tasks assigned to EEA.91
Assistance and guidance on inspections and training on inspections, e.g. in cooperation with the
IMPEL network, are not expressly mentioned in Regulation 401/2009/EC, nor is awareness raising on
waste legislation implementation. The latter may be considered to some extent as part of the
reporting duty of EEA according to Article 2 (e) of Regulation 401/2009/EC. As for the former, it
might be justified as advice to individual Member States on the development, establishment and
expansion of their monitoring systems if requested by Member States and compatible with the
further requirements in Article 2 (d) of Regulation 401/2009/EC. Furthermore, technical and
scientific support for Member States´ inspections and inspectors is compatible with EEA´s mandate
when confined to cooperation with the IMPEL network or other bodies in the exchange of
information. To assign these tasks in a clear and comprehensive way, however, Regulation
401/2009/EC would have to be modified accordingly.
As already mentioned, auditing of Member State´s inspections on the basis of agreed EU inspection
standards would clearly require legal changes, e.g. through a new regulation. New legislation could
assign to the EEA tasks related to audits of inspections to the extent compatible with the EEA´s
current mandate in Regulation 401/20097EC, or amend this regulation. In order not to change EEA´s
88 http://www.eea.europa.eu/about-us/key-partners;
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/waste/introduction.
89 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/waste/introduction.
90 See the information requirements in Article 28 (3) of Directive 2008/98/EC.
91 Article 2 (c) of Regulation 401/2009/EC.
Policy Options
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 101
nature as a technical and scientific Community agency, these new tasks should be confined to
providing the Commission with technical and scientific support for the audits, which should be
executed by auditors from the Commission. Thus, for example, the EEA could give support for
reporting requirements on national inspections according to the new binding EU criteria, advise
Member States upon their request on the best way to adapt their inspection systems to the new
inspection criteria and assess, and contribute to gathering, data on national inspections according to
the new EU criteria through Eionet.
The EEA may also cooperate with the transnational network described in chapter 5.1.2 according to
Article 3 (3) of Regulation 401/2009/EC.
Policy Options
102 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
5.3 Policy Option C: ‘EU Waste Agency’
5.3.1 Short characterisation
Table 24: Short characterisation of policy option C: ‘EU waste agency’
Main responsibility
New EU Waste Agency
Commission
Main tasks
1.0 Development of a more systematic approach of identifying lacks in waste legislation implementation
2.0 Improving the knowledge base for mapping MS’ implementation performance
3.0 More coherent identification of the status of implementation in the MS – implementation monitoring’
4.0 Assistance and guidance to Member States on inspections and monitoring of implementation
5.0 Training on inspections and enforcement, e.g in cooperation with networks such as IMPEL
6.0 Awareness raising on waste legislation implementation
7.0 Review and report on national inspection standards, based on agreed EU standards (audits)
8.0 Technical and scientific assessment and advice on waste related data and various information relating
to the contents of EU waste legislation
Most relevant change
Special EU agency with a clear focus on waste
Bundling of expertise
Appreciation of EU waste policy
5.3.2 General description
As a variation of the policy option B, a specific waste agency could be created that - while having its
own legal personality - would co-operate closely with the Commission. This new body would –
comparable to the EEA -- carry out the tasks described in detail on policy option A. The feasibility of
the establishment of such a body or agency has been assessed comprehensively by a study
published by Milieu et al. in 2009 (Study on the feasibility of the establishment of a Waste
Implementation Agency). The key advantages would be that the new agency would have a clear
focus on waste with a bundling of expertise. The waste sector would be gain more value and
attention; which would also increase the awareness and pressure of Member States to properly
implement and enforce EU waste legislation.
The main tasks of the agency are listed above and are described in further detail under policy option
A.
Policy Options
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 103
The waste agency would not be a political agency but rather an administrative and scientific-
technical agency with possible additional assignments as training body and information point.
However, the waste agency would not carry out audit activities. As in options A and B, the power to
audit national inspection systems would remain with the Commission (see also task “Review and
report on national inspection standards, based on agreed EU standards (audits)”). The study of
Milieu et al. suggests that the audit power should always be left to the Commission in order to
ensure the independency from Member States in any case.92
While the waste agency would consistently map the Member States’ implementation performance,
the final decision of which case to bring before court would still be up to the European Commission
to which the agency would report. As such, the waste agency would carry out very important
investigative and monitoring work to gather evidence for bad implementation, but it would be
finally the Commission as the Guardian of the Treaty that would initiate infringement procedures.
Again, as policy option A, policy option C shall include the ‘Establishment of a transnational
network’. Thus a committee/network of the relevant national authorities and Member States
representatives focusing on the implementation of waste legislation could be set up in order to
discuss concrete problems of bad implementation of waste legislation and to exchange best
practice.93
5.3.3 Cornerstones of a regulatory framework
Policy Option C requires the establishment of a new EU agency called ‘EU waste agency’. The
creation of EU agencies has no formal legal basis in the EU Treaties, but can be based on the
relevant Treaty provision governing the area in which they will operate.94 They are thus established
by secondary legislation. According to the ECJ´s judgment in the Meroni case, the delegation of
powers by EU institutions to European agencies is limited to the powers possessed by the delegation
institution under the Treaties and to executive powers, excluding discretionary powers.95
Meanwhile, this restrictive position may be outdated.96 Nowadays, European agencies are
considered a viable means to enable the Commission to concentrate on their political functions and
thus to provide for better regulation.97
It seems obvious that the tasks assigned to the EEA under Policy Option B could also be allocated to
a new Community agency established by European legislation. As mentioned above, the option to
establish a European Waste Agency has been assessed comprehensively and recommended by a
92 Milieu et al. page 115.
93 Please refer to policy option A for the description of this option.
94 See ECJ, Case 217/04, United Kingdom v. European Parliament and others, judgment of 2 May 2006.
95 Case 9/56, Meroni & Co., Industrie Metallurgische SpA v. High Authority [1958] ECR 133. Accordingly Regulation
58/2003/EC of 19 December 2003, OJ L 11 of 16 January 2003, p. 1.
96 Klaus Meßerschmidt, Europäisches Umweltrecht, München 2011, p. 468.
97 See COM(2002) 275 final, p. 5; COM(2002) 718 final, p. 2.
Policy Options
104 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
study published by Milieu et al. in 2009 (Study on the feasibility of the establishment of a Waste
Implementation Agency).98
According to the study, such an agency could fulfil or assist the Commission in executing a variety of
tasks including training, enforcement, guidance, support for updating and clarifying legislation,
improving information exchange and data gathering.99 However, the waste agency would not be
provided with the power to carry out audits of national inspections. This audit task would be
assigned to the Commission. New regulation would be required to empower the Commission to
carry out this new review and audit function (for a detailed discussion of the legislative changes
needed see chapter 5.1.3).
In providing for technical and scientific assessment and advice on waste related data and various
information related to the contents of EU waste legislation, the new agency would have to work
closely with EEA and other relevant bodies such as Eurostat100.
A transnational network could play an important role in supporting the new agency on several tasks,
e.g. information exchange on training and enforcement.101
The mandate of the European Waste Agency would have to be adapted to these tasks.102 As the
mission of such an agency, the Milieu study proposes the following statement:
“The European Waste Implementation Agency is dedicated to promoting uniform, effective
implementation and enforcement of EU waste legislation across the European Union in order to
protect human health and the environment. The Agency´s activities support the EU Member States
and European Commission in their respective roles.”103
The organisation of the new agency should be modelled on the governance of existing Community
agencies such as the EEA.104
98 Milieu/AmbienDura/FFact, Study on the feasibility of the establishment of a Waste Implementation Agency, Amended
Final Report, 7 December 2009.
99 Milieu et al., p. 10 ff., 71 ff.
100 See Milieu et al., p. 109.
101 Milieu et al., p. 115.
102 See Milieu et al., p. 116-117 in relation to the tasks described in that study.
103 Milieu et al., p. 116.
104 Milieu et al., p. 117-118.
Impact assessment for selected policy options
105 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Chapter 6: Impact assessment for selected policy
options
In brief: In chapter 6, an impact assessment is performed on the three policy options
developed in the previous chapter. The assessment is split into two parts; first,
impacts of each option on timeliness of implementation as well as efficiency and
aptitude of each body for supporting policy implementation are assessed, then,
environmental, economic and social impacts are analysed. A comparative
summary of the impact assessment shows the best overall result for option B.
Compared to options A and C, this option could be implemented most efficiently,
i.e. at lower administrative costs, while still allowing for effective improvement of
waste legislation implementation.
6.1 Problem definition
As outlined in chapter 2.1 of this report, serious gaps persist in the implementation of the EU waste
acquis. Even though performance in implementing the EU waste acquis heavily varies between MS,
some main implementation problems can be observed across the EU:
Many MS fail to meet recycling targets
Illegal landfills and illegal waste shipments persist in many MS
In general, MS do not meet reporting requirements and the quality of EU
waste data remains poor
Many infringement cases are pending
The waste hierarchy is poorly considered in national waste management
systems and many MS still landfill most of their municipal solid waste.
The present study identified environmental, economic and social benefits of a more consistent
implementation of the EU waste acquis. A full implementation would reduce total waste generated
by 4% and increase the amount of materials recovered from waste by 72% as compared to the
current state. Moreover, macroeconomic net costs of waste management would be significantly
reduced while the negative effects of waste on human health could be alleviated.
6.2 Objectives of the impact assessment
Different policy options exist that would enable the MS to more effectively and completely
implement EU waste legislation. Three policy options have been selected as the most promising ones
(see Chapter 5:). The aim of this impact assessment is to analyse and compare the environmental,
Impact assessment for selected policy options
106 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
economic and social impacts of these three policy options and thus to provide the basis to identify
the option, which would support the most effective and consistent implementation of the EU waste
acquis.
6.3 Policy options
As discussed in Chapter 5:, this study defined five policy options to strengthen implementation of EU
waste legislation. Three out of these five policy options were considered most promising in achieving
this purpose, i.e.:
Policy Option 0: Baseline Scenario
The baseline scenario reflects the current state. This option provides no policy change and no
change in the institutional setting to support implementation of EU waste legislation.
Policy Option A: ‘New and extended tasks for the Commission’
This option focuses at improving the Commissions work, particularly the implementation monitoring.
Under this option, the Commission would carry out the tasks identified by the study in cooperation
with other existing bodies, such as the EEA, Eurostat, JRC and other relevant national and EU entities.
This policy option requires that the Commission is provided with additional resources and an
extended margin for action.
Policy Option B: ‘New and extended tasks for the EEA’
This option attributes a central role to the EEA, which would carry out new and extended tasks, in
cooperation with e.g. the Commission. Auditing tasks remain with the Commission.
Policy Option C: ‘EU Waste Agency’
Policy option C suggests the creation of a specific waste agency that would be responsible for the
tasks listed in option A and closely cooperate with the EC. However, the tasks related to auditing
national inspections would remain with the Commission.
All three options are complemented by the set up of a network of relevant national authorities and
Member States representatives, which would discuss issues related to the implementation of the EU
waste acquis, such as concrete implementation challenges or best implementation practices. All
three options are described in detail in Chapter 5:.
6.4 Analysis of the impacts (environmental, social
and economic) of the different options defined
The impact assessment is split in two sections:
1. In the first section, the timeliness of implementation and the efficiency and aptitude of each
body for supporting policy implementation are assessed. It is important to note, that not the
implementation of the legislation as such but the execution of tasks to support the
Impact assessment for selected policy options
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 107
implementation of the EU waste acquis in the MS is assessed for this purpose. This is due to
the assumption made that all options achieve full implementation in the long-term.
However, they are likely to differ in terms of timeliness, efficiency and aptitude for the
defined implementation tasks.
2. In the second section, the environmental, economic and social impacts of the three options
are analysed. Once again, it is assumed that each option achieves full EU waste legislation
implementation in the long term. Therefore, for this assessment, the baseline scenario (no
further development of national waste management systems) is compared to the full
implementation scenario.
All impacts are assessed on EU level, i.e. in terms of effects on EU administration or in terms of EU
wide social, economic or environmental effects.
Where quantitative assessment is not feasible due to a lack of data or relevant information, a
qualitative assessment is made based on the following standard scale:
‘+++’: very beneficial effect; ‘++’: substantial beneficial effect; ‘+’: slight beneficial effect; ‘-‘: negative effect;
‘--‘: substantial negative effect; ‘---‘: very negative effect; ‘0’ no effect
6.4.1 Impacts on timeliness of implementation and the efficiency and
aptitude of each body for supporting policy implementation
In order to analyse timeliness, efficiency and aptitude of the body to support policy implementation,
each option is assessed against the criteria outlined in the table below.
Impact assessment for selected policy options
108 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Table 25: Indicators and assessment scale for impact assessment
Objectives Indicators Description Assessment scale
Timeliness of
implementation
Completeness of
implementation in
the long run
Measures the level of
implementation of the EU waste
acquis in the long run.
Qualitative assessment on a scale
from ‘+++’ (very beneficial effect, i.e.
full implementation) to ‘---‘ (very
negative effect, i.e. seriously
enhanced implementation problems)
Completeness of
implementation in
the medium run
Measures the level of
implementation of the EU waste
acquis in the medium run.
Qualitative assessment on a scale
from ‘+++’ (very beneficial effect, i.e.
full implementation) to ‘---‘ (very
negative effect, i.e. seriously
enhanced implementation problems)
Aptitude for
implementation
activities
Qualification of
personnel carrying
out
implementation-
assistance tasks
Measures the
specialisation/expertise in waste
management and policy of staff in
bodies responsible for execution of
tasks.
Qualitative assessment on a scale
from ‘+++’ (very beneficial effect, i.e.
significantly better qualification
compared to current state) to ‘---‘
(very negative effect, i.e. significantly
lower qualification level)
Capacity of
personnel to carry
out
implementation-
assistance tasks
Measures the availability of staff
for execution of implementation-
assistance tasks.
Qualitative assessment on a scale
from ‘+++’ (very beneficial effect, i.e.
significantly higher availability
compared to current state) to ‘---‘
(very negative effect, i.e. significantly
lower availability level)
Efficiency of
implementation
Costs to carry out
implementation-
assistance tasks
Measures the annual
administrative costs for execution
of implementation assistance
tasks for the involved bodies.
Quantitative assessment in Euros
Adaptability to
current legislative
structures
Assesses whether the
implementation of the option
requires changes in EU law.
Qualitative assessment on a scale
from ‘+++’ (very beneficial effect, i.e.
no legal change necessary) to ‘---‘
(very negative effect, i.e. complex
legal changes necessary)
Number of staff
members needed to
execute
implementation-
assistance tasks
Measures the number of staff
members needed per task
Quantitative assessment in number of
staff members per task per body per
year
Duration of
implementation
Measures time needed to achieve
full implementation
Qualitative assessment on a scale
from ‘+++’ (very beneficial effect, i.e.
very fast implementation) to ‘---‘ (very
negative effect, i.e. very slow
implementation)
Impact assessment for selected policy options
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 109
6.4.1.1 TIMELINESS OF IMPLEMENTATION
Timeliness of implementation is assessed in terms of how quickly each option can achieve full
implementation of the EU waste acquis. Thus impacts in the medium and in the long term are
analysed separately.
Completeness of implementation in the long term
Option 0 (baseline): The continuation of the current state is likely to lead to
an overall regress in the implementing EU waste legislation; current
implementation gaps will persist and extend, inappropriate treatment
technologies will stay in use and motivate more illegal waste shipments
across the EU.
Option A, Option B and Option C: All three options are assumed to achieve
full implementation in the long run.
Completeness of implementation in the medium term
Option 0 (baseline): Without any institutional changes, waste legislation
implementation is likely to regress in the medium term. Treatment
technologies will not improve while waste volumes increase. This situation
leads to an extension of current implementation gaps and many Member
States are likely to fail in meeting recycling and reuse targets set by European
waste legislation.
Option A: This option requires only minor legislative adaptations and is likely
to achieve positive effects on waste legislation implementation in the
medium run. However, due to a relatively low expertise and capacity for
implementation support in this option (see next section), only moderate
effects on implementation can be expected in the medium run.
Option B: The EEA already has a waste management unit in place and could,
therefore, benefit from synergies with existent specialised expertise for
setting up and performing the necessary activities to carry out the additional
implementation support tasks. Consequently, this option could effectively
enhance implementation in the medium run.
Option C: The set up of a new waste agency requires legislative changes.
Moreover, it takes time for the new personnel to set up the processes and
methods for carrying out the implementation support tasks. Therefore, even
though the new agency would dispose of a high expertise and capacity, in
sum, no significant effects on implementation are expected in the medium
term.
The table below summarises the impact assessment for the timeliness of implementation.
Impact assessment for selected policy options
110 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Table 26: Impact assessment table for timeliness of implementation
Completeness of implementation in the long term
Option Impact Explanation
Option 0 (baseline) - Persistent of current implementation gaps; continued use of inappropriate
treatment technologies; increase in illegal waste shipments; overall regress in
implementation performance.
Option A
+++ All options are expected to achieve full implementation in the long term. Option B
Option C
Completeness of implementation in the medium term
Option Impact Explanation
Option 0 (baseline) - Persistence of current implementation gaps; continued use of inappropriate
treatment technologies; increase in illegal waste shipments >> overall regress in
implementation performance.
Option A + Only minor legal changes required; priority based approach supports consistent
focus in implementation across MS; improved knowledge base >>
advancements in legislation implementation possible in the medium term
Option B ++ EEA benefits from synergies in terms of expertise and established methods and
processes >> enhancements in implementation in the medium term likely.
Option C 0 Set up of new agency requires legal changes; establishment and gaining
experience in activities in new agency requires time >> no effects on legislation
implementation in the medium term.
6.4.1.2 APTITUDE FOR IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
Aptitude for implementation activities is assessed in terms of the “expertise of personnel carrying out
implementation-assistance tasks” and the “capacity of personnel to carry out implementation-
assistance tasks”. Even though all three options are assumed to result in full implementation in the
long term, aptitude indicates how well suited each institutional setting is for providing support to
waste legislation implementation, given existing characteristics.
Expertise of personnel carrying out implementation-assistance tasks
Option 0 (baseline): In this option, the staff of the Commission Services
would continue carrying out its current implementation support tasks. No
additional personnel resources or staff trainings are foreseen in this scenario.
Therefore, option 0 has neither a positive nor a negative effect on the
expertise of the personnel carrying out the implementation assistance tasks.
Option A: This option suggests that most tasks would be carried out by the
Commission, and some tasks, specifically training and awareness raising, are
carried out by the Commission in cooperation with the EEA and IMPEL. As
the staffs of both the EEA and IMPEL have a high experience in waste
management and training activities, overall, the expertise of the personnel
carrying out implementation support tasks would be increased in this option.
Impact assessment for selected policy options
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 111
Option B: Most tasks would be carried out by the EEA, where a team of waste
and statistical experts is already in place. Therefore, in this setting, expertise
of personnel carrying out implementation support tasks would be
considerably increased.
Option C: The set up of a specialised waste agency would clearly have the
most significant positive impact on the expertise of the personnel carrying
out the implementation support tasks. The waste agency would employ a
complete team of specialists in waste management and in legislation
implementation, thereby combining all skills required to fulfil the
implementation support tasks.
Capacity of personnel to carry out implementation-assistance tasks
Option 0 (baseline): As this option provides neither structural changes nor
additional financial or personnel resources for the Commission, capacity for
implementation support remains unchanged.
Option A: This option foresees some additional resources and an extended
margin for action for the Commission, specifically to perform the new task of
monitoring national inspection systems. As a consequence, the capacity for
support of waste legislation implementation slightly increase compared to
the current state.
Option B: Under this option, the EEA receives additional resources for
carrying out the new tasks it would assume. Moreover, the EEA can rely on
existent expertise in environmental and waste management and benefit from
synergies with some of its actual activities such as waste data collection and
analysis105, conduction of waste policy effectiveness studies, country fact-
sheets on waste policies106 or integrated waste-related assessments107. Given
these additional resources in combination with internal synergies, this option
has a considerable positive effect on capacity for waste implementation
support.
Option C: As the new waste agency’s mandate would be to support and
enhance implementation of EU waste legislation, its staff could fully
concentrate on the proposed tasks. Hence, of all options this setting has the
highest capacity for implementation support.
The table below presents the impact assessment for the aptitude indicators.
105 The EEA currently maintains two indicators on waste that are regularly updated: ‘Municipal waste generation’ (see
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/municipal-waste-generation/municipal-waste-generation-
assessment-published-3) and ‘Generation and management of packaging waste’ (see http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-
maps/indicators/generation-and-recycling-of-packaging-waste/generation-and-recycling-of-packaging-2). Six more waste
indicators are currently under development.
106 http://scp.eionet.europa.eu/facts/factsheets_waste
107 http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/europe/material-resources-and-waste
Impact assessment for selected policy options
112 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Table 27: Impact assessment table for aptitude for implementation activities
Expertise of personnel carrying out implementation-assistance tasks
Option Impact Explanation
Option 0 (baseline) 0 Tasks currently carried out by Commission Service personnel; waste
management is not a core competence of Commission Services; no additional
resources foreseen to improve waste management expertise of Commission
Service personnel >> no improvements in expertise of staff.
Option A + Training and awareness raising activities carried out in cooperation with EEA
and IMPEL; additional resources foreseen, that could be used to contract
external experts for technical and scientific assessments >> slight improvement
in specialisation of staff.
Option B ++ Most tasks carried out by EEA, where a team of waste and waste statistical
experts is already in place >> high specialisation of staff
Option C +++ Agency would be specifically staffed with experts in waste management,
statistics and waste legislation implementation >> very high specialised
expertise of staff
Capacity of personnel to carry out implementation-assistance tasks
Option Impact Explanation
Option 0 (baseline) 0 No change in the current institutional setting >> no change in capacity
Option A + Some additional resources and extended margin for action for EC, specifically to
perform additional monitoring tasks; set up of new methods and processes to
carry out new tasks required >> capacity increases
Option B ++ Additional resources for EEA to carry out additional tasks; existent expertise in
environmental and waste management; benefits from internal synergies based
on existent activities related to waste management such as data collection and
analysis and country fact-sheets on waste policies or integrated waste-related
assessments >> high capacity
Option C +++ Agency’s main responsibility would consist in enhancement of waste legislation
implementation; agency staff could fully focus on respective tasks >> very high
capacity
6.4.1.3 EFFICIENCY OF IMPLEMENTATION
Efficiency of implementation is assessed in terms of the “adaptability of each option to the current
legislative structure” and the “administrative cost to carry out implementation-assistance tasks
(including including number of staff members needed to execute implementation tasks)”
Adaptability of the institutional setting suggested by each option to the current
legislative structure
Option 0 (baseline): As this option provides no structural or policy changes it
is perfectly compatible with the current legal framework.
Option A: The provision of the Commission with the power to audit national
inspection standards in Member States requires the adoption of
corresponding secondary legislation empowering the Commission to act in
this regard.
Impact assessment for selected policy options
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 113
Option B: As for option A, changes in secondary EU law are required to
empower the Commission to audit national inspection standards in Member
States. The assignment of the EEA with some of the new tasks would also
require legal changes to adapt the EEA’s mandate so as to cover the
extended and new tasks.
Option C: Implementing option C would imply several legislative changes;
first, the EU legislative bodies need to provide a legal basis for the
Commission to audit national inspection standards in Member States.
Second, the set up of a new waste agency constitutes an extension of the
European institutional structure and, therefore, requires respective legislative
adaptations. In sum, the implementation of option C would require most
changes to the current legal framework compared to the other options.
Administrative cost to carry out implementation-assistance tasks (including number
of staff members needed to execute implementation tasks)
Option 0 (baseline): The number of staff and administrative costs do not
change in this policy option as it involves no additional tasks or structural
changes.
Option A: This option assumes additional personnel for the Commission
Services to have enough capacity for the extended and new tasks, specifically
for the monitoring of the Member States’ control systems. Consequently, this
option implies clearly higher administrative costs compared to the current
state.
Option B: If the EEA would perform all suggested tasks except for the
monitoring of the national inspection systems, it would probably need to
employ additional personnel. However, as it can rely on synergies with some
of its existent activities (e.g. creation of country fact-sheets on waste policies
or integrated waste-related assessments), the number of additional staffs
required is expected to be lower than in option A. The audit of national
inspection systems would remain with the Commission, which would require
some additional personnel in the Commission Services (or additional financial
resources for outsourcing this task to third party audit-service providers). In
sum, this option implies slightly higher administrative costs compared to the
current state. But, thanks to potential synergies, option B involves still lower
administrative costs than options A and C.
Option C: As options A and B, option C requires additional personnel
resources at the Commission for performing the audits of national inspection
systems. In addition to this, the new agency would need to employ a
complete team of waste management and legislation experts. In sum,
implementing option C would require more additional personnel resources
and, as a consequence, highest administrative costs in comparison to all the
other options.
Impact assessment for selected policy options
114 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
The table below presents the impact assessment for the two efficiency indicators.
Table 28: Impact assessment table for efficiency of implementation
Adaptability to current legislative structures
Option Impact Explanation
Option 0 (baseline) +++ Compatible with current legislative structures >> no legal changes required
Option A - Provision of the Commission with the power to audit national inspection
standards in Member States >> legislative changes required
Option B - Provision of the Commission with the power to audit national inspection
standards in Member States requires legislative changes and assignment of
some of tasks to the EEA requires adaptation of EEA’s mandate >> legislative
changes required
Option C --- Creation of a new EU agency >> complex legislative changes required
Administrative cost to carry out implementation-assistance tasks (including number of staff
members needed to execute implementation tasks)
Option Impact Explanation
Option 0 (baseline) 0 No change in institutional setting >> no changes in administrative cost
Option A -- Additional personnel for Commission foreseen to carry out additional tasks,
specifically for auditing MS’ control systems >> Rise in number of staff at
Commission and increase in administrative cost
Option B - Additional staff required at Commission to carry out audits of MS control
systems; additional personnel resources for EEA foreseen to carry out additional
tasks; EEA can benefit from synergies with existing tasks (e.g. improving the
knowledge base) for carrying out new tasks, which reduces number of
additional staff required at EEA >> Rise in number of staff at Commission and
EEA, but benefit from existing expertise at EEA; in sum, increase in
administrative cost
Option C --- Additional staff required at Commission to carry out audits of MS control
systems; complete new staffing of new agency >> significant increase in number
of staff at new agency; some increase in Commission staff; therefore,
considerable increase in administrative cost
Impact assessment for selected policy options
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 115
6.4.2 Environmental, economic and social Impacts
Since each option is supposed to support full implementation of the EU waste acquis, all three
options are expected to have the same environmental, social and economic impacts. Hence, the
following two scenarios, which were developed in chapter 2.2, are compared:
Scenario A (baseline):
No further development of waste management system as compared to 2008
Waste generation according to economic growth and historic development (Not
affected by waste prevention)
Waste treatment capacity stays at 2008 level, additional waste is landfilled
Scenario B (full implementation):
Full implementation of waste legislation
Reduced waste generation due to waste prevention
Waste treatment capacity is extended so that provisions of waste legislation are met
For details on the methodology and data sets applied to calculate the two scenarios see chapter 2.2
and Annexes C and D. All three policy options are expected to result in the full implementation
scenario (scenario B) in the long term. However, as discussed in the previous sections, the effects on
implementation performance in the medium term might differ between the options. Since these
differences between the options’ effects on timeliness of implementation were already considered
in chapter 6.4.1, only long-term effects are assessed.
A description of the calculation methodology and input data for both scenarios are presented in
chapter 2.2 and in Annex D. The key results for the two scenarios are summarised in the table below.
MAIN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
As shown in the table below, a full implementation would reach a reduction in total waste
generation by 4% (i.e. -119 Mt) as compared to the baseline scenario. Amounts of waste landfilled or
incinerated without energy recovery could be reduced by 48% (i.e. -931 Mt). The amount of
materials recovered from waste would increase by 72% (+686 Mt) whereas the quantity of waste
processed for energy recovery would more than double to 231 Mt (+185%).
MAIN ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Taking into account all macro-economic costs of waste management, including health damage
costs, full implementation would significantly increase the value gained from waste management
(+69%) in terms of revenues from recovered materials, recovered incineration energy, recovered
landfill gas energy, GHG emission avoided by material and energy recovery, avoided acidification,
avoided eutrophication. Given only a slight rise in gross waste management costs (+5.9%) as
compared to the baseline scenario, full implementation would result in a reduction of
macroeconomic net costs by 126%. Moreover, 0.4 million more jobs (+21%) would be created in the
waste management and recycling sector. Full implementation would also reduce clean-up and
repatriation costs for illegal landfills and illegal shipments and foster innovation and growth in eco-
industries in Europe. Finally, a consistent implementation of EU waste acquis in all member states
Impact assessment for selected policy options
116 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
would create an even level playing field for waste management across the EU, i.e. equal competitive
and legal conditions for all waste management operators across Europe.
MAIN SOCIAL IMPACTS
By decreasing the amounts of waste produced and by using less harmful treatment technologies,
such as incineration with energy recovery, the negative impacts of waste on human health would be
reduced for all EU-citizens in the full implementation scenario, leading to increased life expectancies
and higher quality of life for all European citizens
Table 29: Summary of environmental, social and economic impacts
Impacts Scenario A Scenario B Absolute
change
(B-A)
Relative
change in %
(B-A)/A
Environmental
Total waste generation 2,984 Mt 2,864 Mt -119 Mt -4 %
Treatment:
Landfilling, Incineration without
energy recovery, other disposal
1,927 Mt 996 Mt -931 Mt -48 %
Material recovery 951 Mt 1,637 Mt 686 Mt 72 %
Energy recovery 106 Mt 231 Mt 125 Mt 118 %
GHG emissions
1
n/a Reduction by 215
MtCO2,e compared to
scenario A
-215 MtCO2,e n/a
Economic
Total net costs of waste
management
56.8 billion € -15.0 billion € -71.8 billion € -126%
Total value generated
2
119.9 billion € 202.2 billion € +82.3 billion € +69%
Gross costs of waste management
3
176.7 billion € 187.2 billion € +10.5 billion € +5.9%
Total turnover of waste
management and recycling
4
145.0 billion € 186.8 billion € +41.8 billion € +29%
Total jobs created
5
2.0 million 2.4 million +0.4 million +21%
Innovation & competition Clean-up and
repatriation costs for
illegal landfill
containment and illegal
shipments;
Uneven level playing
field
Reduction in clean-up
and repatriation costs
for illegal landfills and
illegal shipments;
Increased innovation
and growth in eco-
industries;
Even level playing field
for waste management
across EU
n/a n/a
Social
Health and quality of life Negative impacts of
waste on human
health, decreasing
quality of life
Reduced impact of
waste on human health
compared to baseline
scenario; increased life
expectancies and
quality of life for
European citizens
n/a n/a
1
Difference between total emissions avoided by material and energy recovery and total emission from MSW landfilling;
2
includes revenues from recovered materials, recovered incineration energy, recovered landfill gas energy, GHG emission
avoided by material and energy recovery, Avoided acidification, Avoided eutrophication;
3
includes costs of waste
management, recycling, waste prevention, GHG emission from MSW landfilling, Ecotoxicity of Zn emissions, Ozone
depletion, Endangering species richness by landuse;
4
includes turnover in waste management sector plus turnover in
recycled materials sector;
5
includes jobs created in waste management sector and in recycled materials sector
Impact assessment for selected policy options
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 117
6.5 Comparison of the options
The table below summarises the impact assessment for the baseline scenario and the three options.
The following conclusions and recommendations can be drawn from the direct comparison in Table
30 Table 30: Summary of impact assessment:
Option 0 (i.e. no policy change or adaptations of the institutional setting):
Options A, B and C are all assumed to achieve full implementation in the long
term and thus their positive environmental, economic and social impacts
would be equal. In contrast, the continuation of the current situation (option
0) is likely to lead to a regress in overall performance in waste legislation
implementation in the long term. Even though, option 0 implies the lowest
administrative costs, as no additional resources are needed to continue
working in the current setting, overall economic costs are highest in this
scenario. This is owed to the long-term macroeconomic costs resulting from
persistent implementation gaps, which clearly outweigh the short-term gains
in administrative expenditures. Moreover, option 0 may allow for serious
negative impacts on the environment and human health across the EU in the
medium and long term.
DUE TO THE LOW IMPLEMENTATION PERFORMANCE IN THE MEDIUM AND LONG TERM
AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RISKS INVOLVED, IT IS ADVISABLE TO
CONSIDER REVISING THE CURRENT INSTITUTIONAL SETTING IN ORDER TO SUPPORT A
BETTER IMPLEMENTATION OF EU WASTE LEGISLATION.
Option A: This option could be implemented at moderate administrative
costs. However, these costs would still be higher than in option B, where the
EEA could benefit from internal synergies to execute the extended and new
tasks. The aptitude of option A for implementation activities based on the
existing set up is likely to be lower than with options B and C. In contrast to
the personnel of the EEA or the potential new waste agency, the Commission
Services staff (DG Environment) does not generally recruit waste
management experts. The DG Environment staff often has a generalist
environmental management background. Moreover, regular rotation of
personnel between units at DG Environment can hinder the development of
in-depth expertise on specific issues (such as waste legislation
implementation) and the establishment of a systematic approach to waste
legislation implementation. Due to these factors, the capacity to carry out
implementation support tasks may be lower in the Commission Services than
in the EEA or in a specialised waste agency.
OPTION A IS CONSIDERED MORE COSTLY AND LESS EFFECTIVE THAN OPTION B IN THE
MEDIUM RUN.
Impact assessment for selected policy options
118 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Option B: The results from the impact assessment suggest that option B
provides, in sum, the most advantageous setting to support better waste
implementation. This can be explained by the fact that option B involves
relatively low costs and relatively high quality of implementation support at
the same time. Consequently, positive impacts on legislation implementation
are likely to become manifest within a comparatively short period. The EEA
has already a unit of waste experts in place and can benefit from synergies
with existent activities, such as the creation of country fact-sheets on waste
policies108, waste data collection and analysis or integrated waste-related
assessments109. It can rely on this specialised expertise and would require less
additional staff compared to options A and C to perform some of the new
tasks to support waste legislation implementation.
GIVEN THE RELATIVELY LOW ADMINISTRATIVE COST AND EFFORTS NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT
OPTION B AND GIVEN ITS HIGH APTITUDE FOR IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT, OPTION B
PROVIDES A REASONABLE PROPOSITION TO IMPROVE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF EU
WASTE LEGISLATION.
Option C: A specialised waste agency would benefit from the highest
aptitude for implementation activities, since such an agency would
purposefully be staffed with experts in waste management and waste
legislation implementation. The agency would have the highest capacity,
since, in contrast to the Commission and EEA, its sole responsibility would be
to support waste legislation implementation. However, the set up of a new
agency requires significant changes in the legal framework that may present
feasibility problems. The agency would need to hire a complete team, rather
than building on the work of existing employees, presenting greater
personnel than options A and B. Also, it would take time for the agency staff
to establish systematic processes and methods to carry out the new tasks and
to gain experience in performing these activities. In sum, these necessary
efforts may slow down the provision of implementation support early on
before presenting benefits, and consequently, limited effects on overall
legislation implementation performance are expected in the medium term.
IN COMPARISON TO OPTIONS A AND B, OPTION C CONSTITUTES A MORE COSTLY AND
LEGISLATIVELY COMPLEX INSTITUTIONAL SETTING FOR ENHANCING WASTE LEGISLATION
IMPLEMENTATION.
108 http://scp.eionet.europa.eu/facts/factsheets_waste
109 http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/europe/material-resources-and-waste
Impact assessment for selected policy options
119 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Table 30: Summary of impact assessment
Indicators Baseline scenario Option A Option B Option C
Timeliness of implementation - ++ +++ ++
Completeness of implementation in the long run - +++ +++ +++
Completeness of implementation in the medium run - + ++ 0
Aptitude for implementation activities 0 + ++ +++
Expertise of personnel carrying out implementation-assistance tasks 0 + ++ +++
Capacity of personnel to carry out implementation-assistance tasks 0 + ++ +++
Efficiency of implementation - -- - ---
Adaptability to current legislative structures - - - ---
Administrative cost of implementation (including number of staff members
needed to execute implementation tasks)
0 -- - ---
Environmental impacts -- ++
Waste generation -- +
Waste treatment (material & energy recovery, diversion from landfills) - +++
GHG emissions -- +
Economic impacts - ++
Macroeconomic net costs of waste management 0 +++
Job creation - +
Innovation & competition -- ++
Social impacts -- +
Health and quality of life -- +
Summary - + ++ +
‘+++’: very beneficial effect; ‘++’: substantial beneficial effect; ‘+’: slight beneficial effect; ‘-‘: negative effect, ‘--‘: substantial negative effect; ‘---‘: very negative effect; ‘0’ no effect; ‘>’: increase; ‘<’:
decrease.
Annex
120 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Bibliography
Amann, M.; Bertok, I.; Cabala, R. et al. (2005): CAFE Scenario Analysis Report Nr. 1 - Baseline
Scenarios for the Clean Air for Europe (CAFE) Programme. IIASA, Laxenburg.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/cafe/activities/pdf/cafe_scenario_report_1.pdf
Amt der Statistik Berlin Brandenburg (2010): Durchschnittliche Lebenserwartung Neugeborener des
Landes Brandenburg 1991 bis 2005. Berlin.
http://www.statistik.brandenburg.de/sixcms/detail.php/lbm1.c.222968.de.
Arcadis, Survey on compliance with Essential Requirements in the MS, 2009.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/packaging/pdf/report_essential_requirements.pdf
Arcadis, Vito, Umweltbundesamt & BIOIS (2010): Analysis of the evolution of waste reduction and
the scope of waste prevention. European Commission DG Environment, Antwerp.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/prevention/pdf/draft3_2.pdf
BAM – Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -Prüfung (2010): Increasing Materials Efficiency in
Industry – Best Practice Examples from the Germans Materials Efficiency Award. Proc. Eionet
Workshop, Berlin, 11.11.2010.
Barthlott, W., Mutke, J., Rafiqpoor, M. D., Kier, G. and Kreft, H. (2005): Global centres of vascular
plant diversity. Nova Acta Leopoldina 92, 61-83. http://www.nees.uni-
bonn.de/biomaps/worldmaps.html
Baumhakel, M.; Heger, J. & Nussbaumer, R. (2003): Zukunft mit verAntworten. Ökoprofit Graz
Auszeichnung 2002 - Ein Programm der Stadt Graz. Magistrat Graz, Umweltamt, 8010 Graz,
Kaiserfeldgasse 1/IV.
Belevi, H. & Baccini, P. (1989): Long-Term Behaviour of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. Waste
Management and Research 7 (1989). pp. 43–56.
Bilitewski, B.; Härdtle, G. & Marek, K. (2000): Abfallwirtschaft – Handbuch für Praxis und Lehre.
Springer, Berlin.
BIO Intelligence Service (2003) Impact Assessment on Selected Policy Options for the Revision of the
Battery Directive European Commission, Brussels.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/batteries/pdf/eia_batteries_final.pdf
BIO Intelligence Service (2010), Environmental, Social and Economic Impact Assessment of Possible
Requirements and Criteria for Waste Shipment Inspections, Controls and On-the-Spot Checks, Final
Report, 4 June 2010
BIO Intelligence Service (2011): Study on the waste management of construction and demolition
waste in the EU - requirements resulting from the Waste Framework Directive and assessment of
the situation in the medium term. Paris. In preparation.
BIPRO, Umweltbundesamt & Enviroplan (2009): Study on the calculation of recycling efficiencies
and implementation of export article (Art. 15) of the Batteries Directive 2006/66/EC. Consortium
ESWI. München, Wien.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/batteries/pdf/batteries090528_fin.pdf.
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 121
BIPRO, Umweltbundesamt & Enviroplan (2010): Exemption for the use of cadmium in portable
batteries and accumulators intended for the use in cordless power tools in the context of the
batteries directive 2006/66/EC - Replacement of Cadmium Batteries in Cordless Power Tools.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/batteries/pdf/cadmium_report.pdf.
BMU - Bundesministerium fuer Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (2007): Abfallwirtschaft
in Deutschland - Motor fuer Jobs und Innovationen. Berlin.
Bräuer, I., Neubauer, A, 2007, An actor-based impact assessment to analyse potential conflicts - 3
case studies, http://holiwast.brgm.fr/Documents/Deliverables/Holiwast_D52_Final.pdf, p. 27
Buchinger, B. (2004): Abfallbehandler und Deponien in Oesterreich 2004. WKO, Wien.
BUWAL – Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft (Hg.) (1995): Reststoffqualität von
stabilisierten Rückständen aus der Rauchgasreinigung von Kehrrichtverbrennungsanlagen. Umwelt-
Materialien Abfall, 44, Bern.
Cavallo, Roberto, ERICA, ‘Economie de la crise déchets { Naples,’ 16 December 2010
Commissione parlamentare di inchiesta sulle attività illecite connesse al ciclo dei rifiuti, Proposta di
relazione sulle attività illecite connesse al ciclo dei rifiuti, 2010, p. 392
Consortium ESWI, Services to support the IMPEL network in connection with joint enforcement
actions on waste shipment inspections and to coordinate such actions, 15 July 2009.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/impel_report_09.pdf
COWI and EC (2007), “Follow-up study on the implementation of Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill
of waste in EU-25” June 2007
CRB - Commodity Research Bureau (2011): CRB-Spot-Inidces - Monthly Charts and Data.
http://www.crbtrader.com/crbindex/
Curtis et al, 2010, Managing household waste in Ireland: behavioural parameters and policy options,
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, published 24 January 2011
DEFRA, Environmental Permitting Guidance: The Waste Framework Directive, October 2009.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/policy/permits/documents/wfd-guidance.pdf
Department of Trade and Industry, UK (2000) Analysis of the Environmental Impact and Financial
Costs of a Possible New European Directive on Batteries, Oxford.
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file30640.pdf
DESTATIS - Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland (2010): Lebenserwartung im Ländervergleich in
Baden-Württemberg am höchsten Pressemitteilung Nr.425 vom 18.11.2010.
http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/DE/Presse/pm/2010/11/PD10__4
25__12621.psml
Deutsche Umwelthilfe (2007), Hamburg – Gate to the world for illegal waste exports? Part 2 2007
DOEHLG, 2011, Waste Policy, http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/Waste
DOEHLG, 2011, Environment Bill 2011 draft, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local
Government
DOEHLG, 2010, a Draft Statement of Waste Policy,
http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/Waste/PublicConsultations/#New Draft Statement of Waste
Policy
Annex
122 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
DOEHLG, 2010, Commercial Food Waste Regulations
09/09/2010 - Regulations requiring the separation of commercial food waste
DOEHLG, 2004, Taking Stock and Making Change
Ecologic, A Report on the Implementation of Directive 75/442/EEC on Waste, 2009.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/reporting/pdf/Waste_Framework_Directive.pdf
Ecologic and IEEP, A Report on the Implementation of Directive 91/689/ECC on Hazardous Waste,
May 2009.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/reporting/pdf/Report_Hazardous%20Waste%20Directive.p
df
Ecologic & IEEP, A Report on the Implementation of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive
94/62/EC, May 2009.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/reporting/pdf/Packaging%20Directive%20Report.pdf
ECORYS (2009): Study on the competitiveness of the EU eco-industry. Brussels.
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/itemlongdetail.cfm?item_id=3769.
EEA (2005), Report, Effectiveness of packaging waste management systems in selected countries:
an EEA pilot study, Copenhagen, 2005. www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eea_report_2005_3
EEA, (2006), “Effectiveness of packaging waste management systems in selected countries,”
(Ireland was one of these )2006
EEA (2008), Transboundary shipments of waste in the EU: Developments 1995-2005 and possible
drivers.
http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-
circle/etc_waste/library?l=/working_papers/shipments290208pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d
EEA (2009). Waste without borders in the EU?,.
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/waste-without-borders-in-the-eu-transboundary-
shipments-of-waste
EEA – European Environment Agency (2009): Gate fees for landfilling municipal waste (excluding
tax and VAT). Copenhagen. http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/gate-fees-for-
landfilling-municipal-waste-excluding-tax-and-vat. accessed on 10.01.2011.
EEA (2009), Diverting waste from landfill: Effectiveness of waste-management policies in the
European Union, 2009. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/diverting-waste-from-landfill-
effectiveness-of-waste-management-policies-in-the-european-union/at_download/file
EEA (2009), ‘Developments in shipments of paper waste as an example of non-hazardous wastes out
and within the EU from 1995 to 2007’, 9 January 2009.
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/developments-in-shipments-of-paper-waste-as-
an-example-of-non-hazardous-wastes-out-and-within-the-eu-from-1995-to-2007
EEA (2010), The European Environment: State and Outlook 2010: Material Resources and Waste,
2010. http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/europe/material-resources-and-waste
EEA – European Environment Agency (2010): State of Environment Report 2010 – Part C Country
Assessments, Waste. Copenhagen. www.eea.europa.eu/soer/countries/
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 123
EMPA (2004), ‘Risk Assessment of E-waste burning in Delhi, India’.
www.empa.ch/plugin/template/empa/*/59242
Enterprise Ireland, 2011, Environcentre.ie, One stop industry environment support to include
industry guides on waste prevention /minimisation/management, resource efficiency and ecodesign
www.envirocentre.ie
Enviroplan S.A. & Cyprus Ministry of Interior (2007), “Risk Assessment and Evaluation of
Uncontrolled Landfill Sites in Cyprus” 2007.
ENVIROS; The University of Birmingham & DEFRA (2004): Review of environmental and health
effects of waste management; municipal solid waste and similar wastes. Defra publications,
London, 2004 (www.Hmso.gov.uk)
EPA, 2005, Nature and Extent of Unauthorised Waste Activity in Ireland, Office of Environmental
Enforcement, EPA
EPA, 2008, Hitting the Targets for Biodegradeable Municipal Waste: Ten Options for Change,
January 2008
EPA, 2009 Focus on Environmental Enforcement in Ireland (for year 2006-2008), Focus Report -
Environmental Protection Agency, Ireland
EPA, 2010, National Waste Prevention Programme publications:
www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/waste/prevention/, 2005 to date.
EPA, 2010, National Waste Prevention Programme Plan 2010-2012,
http://www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/waste/prevention/Prevention%20Plan%202009-
2012%20FINAL2.pdf
EPA, 2011, National Hazardous Waste and Waste Prevention Progammes, EPA Ireland,
www.epa.ie/whatwedo/resource/nwpp/
ESRI, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) Sustainable Development Model for Ireland
(ISus) to forecast national environmental emissions and resource use up to 2025
Eunomia, 2009, International Waste Review by Eunomia Consulting
European Commission (2002). Communication de la Commission. L'encadrement des agences
européennes de regulation. http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2002:0718:FIN:FR:PDF
European Commission (2002). Communication de la Commission. Gouvernance Européenne : Mieux
légiférer. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2002:0275:FIN:FR:PDF
European Commission (2003) : Extended Impact Assessment of the batteries Directive, 2003.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/batteries/pdf/exten_impact_assessment.pdf.
European Commission (2003), Extended Impact Assessment of the batteries Directive, 2003.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/batteries/pdf/exten_impact_assessment.pdf
European Commission (2005), Study on the implementation of the Packaging Directive and options
to strengthen prevention and re-use LDW, 2005.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/packaging/050224_final_report.pdf
European Commission (2005), Report from the Commission to the Council and the European
Parliament on the national strategies for the reduction of biodegradable waste going to landfills
Annex
124 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
pursuant to Article 5(1) of Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste, Bruxelles, March 2005.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52005DC0105:EN:NOT
European Commission (2005), Questions and Answers - Thematic Strategy on the prevention and
recycling of waste and the proposal for the revision of the Waste Framework Directive, 2005.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/faq.pdf
European Commission (2005), Report on Implementation of the Landfill Directive in the 15 MS of
the EU, Brussels, October 2005. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/report_a2.pdf
European Commission (2006), Report from the Commission to the Council and the European
Parliament on the Implementation of Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging and Packaging Waste and its
Impact on the Environment, as well as on the functioning of the Internal Market, 2006.
www.europen.be/download_protected_file.php?file=109
European Commission (2007). Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European
Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on
the review of Recommendation 2001/331/EC providing for minimum criteria for environmental
inspections in the Member States [SEC(2007) 1493] /* COM/2007/0707 final */
European Commission (2007), Follow-up study on the implementation of Directive 1999/31/EC on
the landfill of waste in EU-25, Final Report - Findings of the Study, Bruxelles, June 2007.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/study/cowi_report.pdf
European Commission (2007). Communication from the Commission. A Europe of results – applying
community law. http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/eulaw/pdf/com_2007_502_en.pdf
European Commission (2008). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament,
the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on
implementing European Community Environmental Law {SEC(2008) 2851} {SEC(2008) 2852}
{SEC(2008) 2876} /* COM/2008/0773 final
European Commission (2008). Commission staff working document accompanying the
communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on implementing European
Community Environmental Law preventing breaches of and addressing specific challenges in
implementing EC Environmental Law. http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SEC:2008:2876:FIN:EN:PDF
European Commission (2008), Green Paper on the management of bio-waste in the European
Union, 2008. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0811:FIN:EN:PDF
European Commission (2008): Commission staff working paper accompanying the proposal for a
directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste electrical and electronic
equipment (WEEE) (recast) - Impact Assessment {COM(2008) 810 final} {SEC(2008) 2934}.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SEC:2008:2933:FIN:EN:PDF
European Commission (2009): Impact Assessment Guidelines, Brussels, 15.01.2009,
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/docs/iag_2009_en.pdf, accessed on
04.12.2009
European Commission, Assessing legal compliance with and implementation of the Waste
Acceptance Criteria and procedures of the EU-15, Final Report, December 2009.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/report_wac.pdf
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 125
European Commission, Implementation of Community Waste Legislation - Period 2004 – 2006,
Brussels, 2009. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/reporting/pdf/waste_report.pdf
European Commission, IPPC permitting situation in the Member States, 2009.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/stationary/ippc/pdf/grids2.pdf
European Commission (2009): Report from the Commission to the Council, the European
Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions on
the Implementation of Directive 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles for the period 2002-2005.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0635:FIN:EN:PDF
European Commission (2009): Report from the Commission to the Council, the European
Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on
implementation of the community waste legislation Directive 2006/12/EC on waste, Directive
91/689/EEC on hazardous waste, Directive 75/439/EEC on waste oils, Directive 86/278/EEC on
sewage sludge, Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, Directive 1999/31/EC on the
landfill of waste and Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment for the
period 2004-2006 {SEC(2009)1586}. http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0633:FIN:EN:PDF
European Commission(2010), Environment: Commission takes Sweden to Court over missing
industrial permits, 28 October 2010.
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1412&format=HTML
European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document Accompanying the Communication
from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and
Recycling of Waste, undated,
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/Commission%20Working%20Doc.pdf
European Community (1999): Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste.
Official Journal L 182, 16/07/1999 P. 0001 - 0019
European Parliament (2010): End of life vehicles: Legal aspects, national practices and
recommendations for future successful approach. Brussels.
www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/studies/download.do?language=en&file=33075
Eurostat (2010): Generation of waste – total waste.
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=env_wasgen&lang=en. Accessed on
23.12.2010.
Fehringer, R.; Rechberger, H.; Pesonen, H.-L. & Brunner, P.H. (1997): Auswirkungen
unterschiedlicher Szenarien der thermischen Verwertung von Abfällen in Österreich. TU-Wien,
Institut für Wassergüte und Abfallwirtschaft, Wien.
Financial Times (2 December 2010) ‘Europe’s hidden billions: cohesion for a reason’
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e594c934-fe52-11df-abac-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1KAoHy4xo
Fischer, Christian et. al., Transboundary shipments of waste in the EU: Developments 1995-2005
and possible drivers, EEA: Copenhagen, 2008. http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-
circle/etc_waste/library?l=/working_papers/shipments290208pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d
Fittipaldi, Emiliano and Pappaianni, Claudio, L’Espresso, ‘Rifiuti che bluff,’ 25 March 2010
Annex
126 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Forfas, 2006, Forfas Waste Benchmarking Competitiveness Study for Ireland, 2006,
www.forfas.ie/media/forfas060613_waste_benchmarking_report.pdf
Forfas, 2008, Environmental Goods and Services Sector on the Island of Ireland Enterprise
Opportunities and Policy Implications, October 2008
Forfas, 2010, Waste Management in Ireland Benchmarking Analysis and Policy Priorities: Update
2010
GHK & BIO (2006): A study to examine the benefits of the End of Life Vehicles Directive and the
costs and benefits of a revision of the 2015 targets for recycling, re-use and recovery under the ELV
Directive, Final Report to DG Environment, A report submitted by GHK In association with Bio
Intelligence Service, May 2006. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/elv_study.htm.
Greyl, L.; Vegni, S.; Natalicchio, M.; Cure, S. & Ferretti, J. (2010): The Waste Crisis in Campania, Italy.
CEECEC, http://www.ceecec.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/CAMPANIA_FINAL_19-05.pdf
Hagelücken, Ch. (2010): Wir brauchen eine globale Recyclingwirtschaft - mit völlig neuen Ansätzen.
Proc. Wie sicher ist die Rohstoffversorgung für die Energietechnologien der Zukunft? Vienna,
11.10.2010.
www.nachhaltigwirtschaften.at/nw_pdf/events/20101011_rohstoffversorgung_christian_hagelueke
n.pdf
Hamon, L.; Serre, J. & Balez, A. (2010): Assessment of environmental externalities & Application to a
waste management case study. VEOLIA, Cycle 2010 - 03/05/2010.
http://www.cycle2010.org/presentation/Hamon(1050).pdf
Hannequart, J.-P. (2009): Quantitative Waste Prevention Benchmarks. ACR+. European Conference
on Waste Reduction, 24.-25.11.2009, Girona, Spain. http://www.ewwr.eu/international-conference-
girona-2009.
Hardacre, A. (2008) Better regulation – what is at stake? European Institute of Public
Administration, Maastricht.
http://www.eipa.eu/files/repository/eipascope/20080905132115_SCOPE2008-2_1_AlanHardacre.pdf
IEA – International Energy Agency (2010): World Energy Outlook 2010. Paris.
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/.
IFEU (2005): Beitrag der Abfallwirtschaft zur nachhaltigen Entwicklung in Deutschland - Teilbericht
Siedlungsabfälle. Heidelberg.
Irish Waste Management Industry Association, 2011, http://www.ibec.ie/iwma
Isarin, Nancy, IMPEL-TFS Seaport Project: European Enforcement Initiative to Detect Illegal Waste
Shipments, 2004. http://www.inece.org/conference/7/vol1/41_Isarin.pdf
Kahl, Wolfgang (2011). In Callies/Rufert, EUV/AEUV, Kommentar, 4. Auflage, Artikel 4, Rn 61
Kiayias, George, The EU Waste Shipment Regulation – Enforcement and Implementation European
Commission (PWP Presentation), Brussels, 2008. http://www.bipro.de/waste-
events/doc/events08/hu_pres_1_eu_gk.pdf
Kington, Tom, The Observer, ‘Naples burns as residents protest at garbage crisis,’ 27 May 2007.
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/may/27/italy.waste
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 127
Konz, R.J. (2009): The End-of-Life Vehicle (ELV) Directive: The Road to Responsible Disposal. Minn.
J. Int’l L. 431 (2009) p. 431-457.
http://www.law.umn.edu/uploads/BX/fw/BXfwZTM0VoxN2BtOQ7E2Vg/Konz-Final-Online-PDF-
03.30.09.pdf.
Kreutzberg, W. (2006): Abfallwirtschaft im Land Brandenburg - Eine Bestandsaufnahme. IHK
Frankfurt/Oder, 10 Jahr Kreislaufwirtschaft, 28.09.2006.
Lachmayer, K., Bauer, L., 2008, Praxiswörterbuch Europarecht, p. 954
Landesumweltamt Brandenburg (1996): Richtlinie zur Sicherung und zum geordneten Abschluss
von Abfalldeponien mit geringem Gefährdungspotenzial. Potsdam.
Lasairidi, K., Implementing the Landfill Directive in Greece: problems, perspectives and lessons to
be learned, in The Geographical Journal, December 2009, p. 269
LASA - Landesagentur für Struktur und Arbeit Brandenburg (2001): Programm zur Beseitigung oder
landschaftsgerechten Einpassung kommunaler Altablagerungen - Erste Ergebniss und Erfahrungen
unter Einbindung der Arbeitsförderung im Zeitraum 1998 bis 2000. LASA Dokumentation 10.
Potsdam.
Lynott, D., 2010, The Enforcement of Environmental Regulation by the EPA
Mavopoulos, A./Skoulacinou, S., Karkazi, A., Mentzis, A. , undated, Drivers and Barriers for the
application of waste-to-energy technologies in Greece, Blog contribution:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3212936/DRIVERS-AND-BARRIERS-FOR-THE-APPLICATION-OF-
WASTETOENERGY-TECHNOLOGIES-IN-GREECE
McCarthy, Michael & Phillips, John, The Independent, ‘Italy’s toxic waste crisis, the Mafia – and the
scandal of Europe’s mozzarella,’ 22 March 2008. www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/italys-
toxic-waste-crisis-the-mafia-ndash-and-the-scandal-of-europes-mozzarella-799289.html
MDP 07-11, Market Development Programme on Waste Resources 2007-2011, DOEHLG,
http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/Environment/Waste/WasteManagement/FileDownLoad,3550
,en.pdf
Mehlhart, G., Merz, C., Akkermans, L. & Jordal-Jørgensen, J. (2011). European second-hand car
market analysis. Final Report. European Commission - DG Climate Action . Accessed on the 19
September 2011 at : http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/1114/2011-005-en.pdf
European second-hand car market analysis. Data. Electronic Annex (2011). Accessed on the 19
September 2011 at:
http://www.oeko.de/publications/reports_studies/dok/659.php?id=&dokid=1116&anzeige=det&ITite
l1=&IAutor1=&ISchlagw1=&sortieren=&dokid=1116
Meßerschmidt Klaus, Europäisches Umweltrecht, München 2011
Milieu, AmbienDura & FFact (2009): Study on the feasibility of the establishment of a Waste
Implementation Agency. European Commission 7 December 2009.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/report_waste_dec09.pdf.
MLUV - Ministerium für Landliche Entwicklung, Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Brandenburg
(2007): Umweltdaten Brandenburg 2007 - Technischer Umweltschutz. Potsdam.
http://www.brandenburg.de/cms/media.php/2320/udat3_07.pdf
Annex
128 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Muentner, A. (2010a): Deponiesicherung im Land Brandenburg - Part 1. Ministerium fuer Umwelt,
Gesundheit und Verbraucherschutz, Potsdam, personal communication, 15.12.2010.
Muentner, A. (2010b): Deponiesicherung im Land Brandenburg - Part 2. Ministerium fuer Umwelt,
Gesundheit und Verbraucherschutz, Potsdam, personal communication, 17.12.2010.
MUGV - Ministerium fuer Umwelt, Gesundheit und Verbraucherschutz (2010a): Abfall und
Abfallwirtschaft. Potsdam. http://www.mugv.brandenburg.de/cms/detail.php/5lbm1.c.106470.de
MUGV - Ministerium fuer Umwelt, Gesundheit und Verbraucherschutz (2010b): Kurzfassung der
Abfallbilanz 2009 der öffentlich-rechtlichen Entsorgungsträger des Landes Brandenburg. Potsdam.
http://www.mugv.brandenburg.de/cms/media.php/lbm1.a.2320.de/bilanz09.pdf.
OECD, Seminar on Extended Producer Responsibility, EPR: Programme Implementation and
Assessment, December 2001.
Öko-Institut e.V., Socio-economic assessment and feasibility study on sustainable e-waste
management in Ghana, August 2010
Ökopol, IIIEE Lund University & RPA (2007): "The producer responsibility principle of Directive
2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)".
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/final_rep_okopol.pdf
Ökopol, Assessment of the application and possible development of community legislation for the
control of waste incineration and co-incineration, November 2007.
http://www.otersu.es/pages/docs/2.Estudios-
Publicaciones%20general/46.Estudio_incineracion_Okopol_2007.pdf
Papastavros, C. (2007), Cyprus Environmental Service, “The Cyprus Strategic Plan on Solid and
Hazardous Waste Management” April 2007
Preparing for the review of the Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste, Report
from stakeholder event - 22 June 2010, Brussels http://www.eu-
smr.eu/tswpr/docs/meetings/stakeholder_meeting_note.pdf, p. 11.
Prognos (2008): Resource savings and CO2 reduction potential in waste management in Europe and
the possible contribution to the CO2 reduction target in 2020. October 2008, Berlin.
http://www.prognos.com/co2-study.609.0.html.
Prognos (2009a): Study on the selection of waste streams for End of Waste Assessment. JRC
Scientific and Technical Report, Luxembourg.
http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/SelectionofwastestreamsforEoW-
FinalReport13_02_2009.pdf
Prognos (2009b): European Atlas of Secondary Raw Materials (Europäischer Sekundärrohstoffatlas).
Berlin. http://www.prognos.com/Sekundaerrohstoffatlas.664.0.html.
Repubblica, 8 October 2010, sezione Palermo, p. 4, “Percolato d’oro e business inceneritori “Le mani
della mafia sui rifiuti siciliani
RDC & Pira, Evaluation of Costs and Benefits for the Achievement of Reuse and the Recycling
Targets for the Different Packaging Materials in the Frame of the Packaging and Packaging Waste
Directive 94/62/EC, March 2003.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/packaging/costsbenefits.pdf
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 129
Romano, S., Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe (REC), ‘Municipal Solid
Waste Management Policies and Problems in Naples, 2009
RPS, 2009, Focus on Landfilling in Ireland, The Environmental Protection Agency, September 2010.
Schmidt, M. (2009): Ressourceneffizientes Produzieren in Betrieben - Potenziale, Hemmnisse und
Perspektiven. in: Baumgartner, H.; Biedermann, R.J. & Zwainz, M. (Ed.): Sustainable Management
for Industries - Öko-Effizienz - Konzepte, Anwendungen und Best Practices. Rainer Hampp Verlag,
München und Mering, Deutschland.
Seel, F. (1973): Grundlagen der analytischen Chemie. Verlag Chemie, Weinheim, Germany.
SETIS – Strategic Energy Technologies Information System (2010): Bionenergy – Power and Heat
Generation. http://setis.ec.europa.eu/newsroom-items-folder/bioenergy-power-and-heat-
generation, accessed on 08.01.2011.
Smoltczyk, Alexander, Spiegel Online, ‘In Naples, Waste is Pure Gold,’ 14 January 2008.
www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,528501,00.html
Stern, N. (2006): Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change. HM Treasury, London.
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm.
TU-Delft - Delft University of Technology (2010): The Model of the Eco-costs / Value Ratio (EVR) -
An LCA based decision support tool for the de-linking of economy and ecology.
http://www.ecocostsvalue.com/index.html. Accessed on 07.01.2011.
Umweltbundesamt (2001): Bewertung abfallwirtschaftlicher Maßnahmen mit dem Ziel der
nachsorgefreien Deponie (BEWEND). Monografien Bd. M-149. Umweltbundesamt, Vienna.
Umweltbundesamt (2010): Statusbericht 2009 zum Bundes-Abfallwirtschaftsplan. Klagenfurt, Wien.
www.bundesabfallwirtschaftsplan.at.
UNEP/Basel Convention, Global Trends in Generation and Transboundary Movements of Hazardous
Wastes and Other Wastes, Châtelaine, Switzerland, 2002.
http://www.basel.int/natreporting/trends2.pdf
UNEP (2010): Green Economy Report - Waste Chapter. Under preparation.
UNU, AEA, REC, Gaiker & TU Delft (2007): "2008 Review of Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical
and electronic equipment (WEEE)".
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/final_rep_unu.pdf
USGS - U.S.Geological Survey fo the U.S. Department of the Interior (2001): Mineral commodity
summaries 2001. Washington D.C.
USGS - U.S.Geological Survey fo the U.S. Department of the Interior (2009): Mineral commodity
summaries 2009. Washington D.C.
USGS - U.S.Geological Survey fo the U.S. Department of the Interior (2010): Mineral commodity
summaries 2010. Washington D.C.
Waste Framework Directive Unit Defra, Revised Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) -
Transposition/Implementation, London, 2008.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/strategy/legislation/documents/revised-wfd-
transposition-implementation-dates.pdf
Annex
130 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Watkiss, P.; Pye, St. & Holand, M. (2005): CAFE CBA (Cost Benefit Analysis): Baseline Analysis 2000
to 2020. AEA Technology Environment. Oxon, UK.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/cafe/activities/pdf/cba_baseline_results2000_2020.pdf
Weber, L. & Zsak, G. (2008): World Mining Data - Minerals Production. BMWA - Bundesministerium
für Wirtschaft und Arbeit, Volume 23, Wien.
Weigand, H. & Marb, C. (2006): Zusammensetzung und Schadstoffgehalt von Restmüll aus
Haushaltungen – Teil III: Physikalisch-chemische Eigenschaften und Schadstoffgehalte. Müll und
Abfall (2006) 05, p. 236-246.
Weißenbach, Th. (1999): Entsorgungstechnik 1: Chemisch-physikalische Behandlung von
gefährlichen Abfällen und Altölen. Montanuniversität Leoben, Austria.
Winiwarter, W. ; Trenker, Ch. & Höflinger, W. (2001): Österreichische Emissionsinventur für Staub.
Seibersdorf Research, TU-Wien. Vienna.
WHO-Europe (2007): Population health and waste management - scientific data and policy options.
Report of a WHO workshop, Rome, Italy, 29-30 March 2007.
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/91101/E91021.pdf
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 131
Annex A: Policy implementation overviews
Annex D contains a factsheet for each of the following EU waste legislation directives:
Waste Framework Directive
Landfill Directive
Incineration Directive
Waste Shipment Regulation
Batteries Directive 2006/66/EC
End-of Life Vehicles Directive 2000/53/EC
Packaging Directive
WEEE Directive 2002/96/EC
The factsheets present the state of implementation, barriers to implementation and drivers of
implementation for the main provisions of each directive.
Waste Framework Directive
Waste Framework Directive
Provision 1: Waste Hierarchy
Article 4 (1):
The following waste hierarchy shall apply as a priority order in waste prevention and management
legislation and policy: (a) prevention; (b) preparing for re-use; (c) recycling; (d) other recovery, e.g.
energy recovery; and (e) disposal
State of implementation
While all MS confirm having transposed the Directive into their national law, major differences exist in
the implementation of the waste hierarchy and the use of waste as a resource. The degree of
recycling/recovery varies both for waste in general and in respect to different waste streams. Increases
in recycling and recovery rates appear to be partly due to the implementation of the requirements of
the recycling directives and partly due to national waste management policies. Reports have shown
that a number of MS still overwhelmingly resort to waste disposal via landfilling, especially for
domestic waste; this situation is particularly true for new MS. Some MS, such as Denmark, the
Netherlands and Slovenia still employ waste incineration without energy recovery, accounting for
58%, 42% and 11% of waste disposal respectively. There is still significant unused potential for
recycling, leaving more than half of the existing resources embedded in waste completely
unexploited.
Annex
132 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Barriers to implementation
Prevention policy is progressing at differing rates, though this is likely to develop rapidly across the EU
as MS design National Waste Prevention Programmes by the 12 December 2013 deadline. A number
of MS, including Ireland and Finland, have already prepared National Waste Prevention Programmes.
The European Commission’s report on the Implementation of the Community Waste Legislation cites
a lack of enforcement methods and measures as a barrier to full implementation of the WFD, in part
due to the fact that the Waste Framework Directive and the Waste Hierarchy in particular set up a
waste management philosophy that does not foresee any mechanism to effectively prevent non-
compliance; instead waste stream-specific directives (such as the Packaging Directive, etc.) set
enforceable legally binding targets. [6]
Drivers of implementation
The introduction in the revised Waste Framework Directive of recycling targets as follows:
50% for household waste by 2020
70% for non-hazardous construction and demolition waste by 2020
creates enforceable targets, stimulating MS with very high levels of waste disposal in landfills to find
ways to improve their recycling rate, especially for domestic waste.
Provision 2: Separate Collection
Article 10 (2):
Where necessary to comply with paragraph 1 and to facilitate or improve recovery, waste shall be
collected separately if technically, environmentally and economically practicable and shall not be
mixed with other waste or other material with different properties
State of implementation
There remain significant deficiencies in waste management infrastructure for separate collection and
treatment. Problems remain notably in MS which joined the EU in 2004, where over 90% of waste
continued to be landfilled as of 2006. As of 2010, EUROSTAT reported that recycling accounted for
23% of waste treatment across the EU-27, while composting accounted for 17% of all treatment.
Separate collection of municipal and industrial packing waste is put in place in all MS, but to varying
degrees; for example, with municipal packaging waste, the systems established vary widely in their
extension and the materials focused on. Collection of WEEE across the EU-27 was at 22% in 2006.
Barriers to implementation
Barriers to implementation of separate collection include:
Lack of financial and regulatory incentives
Lack of collection infrastructure and processing facilities
Underdeveloped markets
Insufficient public and business awareness and commitment
Drivers of implementation
While the introduction of separate collection and treatment systems can be costly depending on the
waste infrastructure in place in a given MS, the possibility for reducing costs via the introduction of
separate collection in the long-term can serve as a driver for implementation.
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 133
Provision 3: Extended Producer Responsibility
Article 8 (1):
In order to strengthen the re-use and the prevention, recycling and other recovery of waste, Member
States may take legislative or non-legislative measures to ensure that any natural or legal person who
professionally develops, manufactures, processes, treats, sells or imports products (producer of the
product) has extended producer responsibility. Such measures may include an acceptance of returned
products and of the waste that remains after those products have been used, as well as the
subsequent management of the waste and financial responsibility for such activities. These measures
may include the obligation to provide publicly available information as to the extent to which the
product is re-usable and recyclable.
State of implementation
Extended Producer Responsibility has not been formally measured in MS hence making it difficult to
assess the state of implementation of the provision.
Barriers to implementation
Barriers to implementation include the lack of a successful collection system already in place as well as
motivating consumers to actively participate and separate end-of-life products. Unlike the Packaging
Waste Directive which specifies targets for recovery and the WEEE Directive which dictates targets for
separate collection and handling, the Waste Framework Directive does not set specific EPR-related
targets.
Drivers of implementation
An effective EPR scheme will internalise the true cost of waste management within the retail price of
the product and the company producing the product, hence making the producers financially
responsible and encouraging them to reduce these costs to remain competitive, in turn promoting
eco-design of products. EPR programmes with government enforcement against freeriders produce
higher collection and recycling rates than purely voluntary programs. Additionally programmes with
government-set goals or mandates for collection and recycling are able to produce higher results than
those without goals, unless other significant incentives exist for consumers to participate.
Provision 4: Permitting
Article 23 (1):
Member States shall require any establishment or undertaking intending to carry out waste treatment
to obtain a permit from the competent authority.
State of implementation
Overall MS appear to have put in place permitting systems; yet, it remains difficult to assess the
alignment of such systems with WFD permit specification requirements such as types of waste,
precautionary measures and monitoring.
However, IPPC permit reporting can serve as a proxy for strictly WFD-related permitting, as often the
requirements and permit systems are linked in MS. Over half of MS report above 90% compliance,
with 10 reporting 100% compliance on IPPC permitting requirements. A few MS lag behind; the
Commission has already taken 6 MS to court for infringements of the IPPC Directive and in October
2010 referred Sweden to the European Court of Justice for the continued operation of 26 installations
with permits that have not been updated.
Barriers to implementation
Administrative complexity, potentially long processing time required for permitting and a lack of
guidance documents on permitting procedures are potential barriers to implementation of a
permitting system in line with the Waste Framework Directive’s requirements. Lack of administrative
capacities for permit enforcement is an additional barrier to effective implementation for some MS.
Annex
134 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Drivers of implementation
Drivers for the effective implementation of permitting regulations laid out in the Waste Framework
Directive include the creation of national waste management plans, as required by Article 28 of the
WFD, efforts by national governments to minimise administrative complexity when putting in place a
permitting system, as well as the preparation of clear guidance documents on permitting for all
parties involved in the process.
Provision 5: Bio-waste
Article 22:
Member States shall take measures, as appropriate, and in accordance with Articles 4 and 13, to
encourage:
(a) the separate collection of bio-waste with a view to the composting and digestion of bio-waste;
(b) the treatment of bio-waste in a way that fulfils a high level of environmental protection;
(c) the use of environmentally safe materials produced from bio-waste.
State of implementation
There are large differences between Member States in MSW and bio-waste management. According
to the European Environmental Agency, three main approaches exist:
Countries relying heavily on incineration to divert waste from landfills, accompanied by a high level of
material recovery and often advanced strategies promoting biological treatment of waste
Countries with high material recovery rates but relatively low incineration
Countries relying on landfills, where landfill diversion remains a major challenge due to lack of capacity
The first approach is associated with Denmark, Sweden, the Flanders region of Belgium, the
Netherlands, Luxembourg and France while the second approach is linked with Germany, Austria,
Spain, and Italy. Those countries using the third approach are largely new MS.
In the EU, bio-waste typically constitutes between 30% and 40% (but ranges from 18% up to 60%) of
MSW, the majority of which is treated by options ranking low in the waste hierarchy. On average 41%
of MSW is landfilled, while in some MS this percentage exceeds 90%. However, due to the
implementation of national policies and the requirements introduced in the Landfill Directive
requiring the diversion of bio-waste from landfills, the average amount of landfilled MSW has dropped
from 288 to 213 kg/capita/year since 2000. Bio-waste recycling, including both composting and
anaerobic digestion, is supported by separate collection in certain MS including Austria, the
Netherlands, Germany, Sweden and parts of Belgium, Spain and Italy, while other MS, including the
Czech Republic, Denmark and France focus on composting green waste, collecting kitchen waste with
MSW.
The Green Paper on the management of bio-waste in the European Union, prepared by the European
Commission estimates the overall potential for separately collected bio-waste at up to 150
kg/inhabitant/year, or 80 Mt for the EU-27, including kitchen and garden waste from households, park
and garden waste from public estates and waste from the food industry. Approximately 30% of this
potential, or 24 Mt, are currently collected separately and treated biologically.
Barriers to implementation
Despite the fact that in all regions where separate collection has been introduced it is regarded as a
successful waste management option, many MS remain hesitant about the potential costliness and
complexity of putting in place a separate collection system for bio-waste.
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 135
Drivers of implementation
The binding Landfill Directive targets for biodegradable municipal waste combined with the target for
recycling of 50% of household waste by 2020, introduced in Article 11 (1a) of the Waste Framework
Directive, which can include bio-waste, incite MS to focus on bio-waste separate collection and
recycling mechanisms.
The introduction of a separate collection system for bio-waste as well as an assessment on the most
appropriate treatment option in a given MS are some of the first steps for increasing bio-waste
recycling and fulfilling this WFD provision.
Provision 6: Waste Oils
Article 21 (1):
Without prejudice to the obligations related to the management of hazardous waste laid down in
Articles 18 and 19, Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that:
(a) waste oils are collected separately, where this is technically feasible;
(b) waste oils are treated in accordance with Articles 4 and 13;
(c) where this is technically feasible and economically viable, waste oils of different characteristics are
not mixed and waste oils are not mixed with other kinds of waste or substances, if such mixing
impedes their treatment.
State of implementation
The previous Waste Oils Directive, 75/429/EEC of 16 June 1975 which was replaced by the revised
Waste Framework Directive, was fully transposed by all MS into national legislation, with appropriate
permitting and control mechanisms introduced to prevent the negative environmental and health
impacts from the management of waste oils. However, the Directive did not bring about expected
results as regards the promotion of regeneration of waste oils; despite a legal obligation to promote
regeneration, combustion has been the most popular option. Infringement cases were launched and a
study concluded that regeneration was environmentally and economically no more beneficial than
combustion, hence infringement cases were dropped and the article on Waste Oils in the revised WFD
does not give an absolute priority to regeneration [7].
Barriers to implementation
Barriers to implementation are minimal as the older Waste Oils Directive has been fully transposed
and ongoing EC reporting indicates implementation across the EU-27.
Drivers of implementation
Drivers of implementation include reporting requirements on waste oil collection and treatment.
Provision 7: Hazardous Waste
Articles 17, 18, 19 and 20 address control of hazardous waste, ban on the mixing of hazardous waste,
labelling of hazardous waste and hazardous waste produced by households.
State of implementation
Given that hazardous waste has been treated by a number of pieces of EU legislation since 1975,
making it one of the older issues in European waste legislation, the majority of countries have
completed the transposition of hazardous waste requirements into national law. Currently Germany
and Luxembourg attain the highest levels, of over 50%, for recycling of hazardous waste. Flanders
attains 42% while most other MS have much lower recycling rates.
However, ongoing reporting by MS on implementation indicates some cases where reporting is
insufficiently precise to validate proper implementation of hazardous-waste-related requirements.
Additionally, there remain doubts as regards the enforcement of the mixing ban and the related
Annex
136 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
exemptions from this ban as well as permit requirements [7]. The regularity of inspections was not
ensured by several MS and concerns exist on the enforcement of reporting requirements for
producers. Situations have arisen in some MS (Italy in particular) where the management of
hazardous waste is undertaken by illegal operations, leading to significant deficiencies in human and
environmental safety.
Barriers to implementation
While most MS have included requirements on hazardous waste reporting in national legislation,
ineffective enforcement of such reporting requirements on hazardous waste and producers of
hazardous waste make it difficult to validate the full extent of implementation. A lack of infrastructure
appropriate for the correct separation and treatment of hazardous waste in some MS is the largest
barrier to effective implementation.
Drivers of implementation
The inclusion of the waste hierarchy in the revised Waste Framework Directive serves as a catalyst for
MS to focus on prevention and recovery or recycling of hazardous waste.
Sources:
[1] Arcadis, Analysis of the evolution of waste reduction and the scope of waste prevention, October 2010.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/prevention/pdf/report_waste.pdf
[2] DEFRA, Environmental Permitting Guidance: The Waste Framework Directive, October 2009.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/policy/permits/documents/wfd-guidance.pdf
[3] Ecologic, A Report on the Implementation of Directive 75/442/EEC on Waste, 2009.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/reporting/pdf/Waste_Framework_Directive.pdf
[4] Ecologic and IEEP, A Report on the Implementation of Directive 91/689/ECC on Hazardous Waste, May 2009.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/reporting/pdf/Report_Hazardous%20Waste%20Directive.pdf
[5] European Commission, Green Paper on the management of bio-waste in the European Union, 2008.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0811:FIN:EN:PDF
[6] European Commission, Environment: Commission takes Sweden to Court over missing industrial permits, 28 October
2010.
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1412&format=HTML
[7] European Commission, Implementation of Community Waste Legislation - Period 2004 – 2006, Brussels, 2009.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/reporting/pdf/waste_report.pdf
[8] European Commission, IPPC permitting situation in the Member States, 2009.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/stationary/ippc/pdf/grids2.pdf
[9] European Commission, Questions and Answers - Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste and the
proposal for the revision of the Waste Framework Directive, 2005.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/faq.pdf
[10] OECD, Seminar on Extended Producer Responsibility, EPR: Programme Implementation and Assessment, December
2001.
http://www.cleanproduction.org/library/EPR_dvd/EPR_Implementation_OECD.pdf
[11] Waste Framework Directive Unit Defra, Revised Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) -
Transposition/Implementation, London, 2008.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/strategy/legislation/documents/revised-wfd-transposition-implementation-
dates.pdf
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 137
Landfill Directive
Landfill Directive
Provision 1: Closure of illegal landfills
Article 13 requires the closure of landfills when specific conditions are met or at the request of the
competent authority.
State of implementation
In 2005, 10 of the EU15 MS reported having zero illegal landfills, due to existing and well-enforced
national permitting systems. Belgium, France, Greece and Italy however reported significant numbers
of illegal landfills at that time)[1]. In the EU10, only two MS have inventories of illegal landfills (Cyprus
and Malta)[2]. Many MS are however aware of the number of closed landfills in their region, and that
an unspecified number of them are used as illegal dumping sites.
Barriers to implementation
Lack of information on number and impact of illegal dumpsites and landfills. A divergence in the
definition of illegal landfills also makes MS comparison difficult. Lack of efficient/comprehensive
national collection systems. Rising waste disposal fees exacerbate difficulties closing illegal sites. Lack
of consistent understanding of the Landfill Directive in local administrations hindering coherent
implementation. Closure of landfills can create illegal dumpsites without proper enforcement [2].
Drivers of implementation
Historic national legislation requiring the permitting of landfills and its enforcement appears to be a
key driver for MS reporting zero illegal landfills on their territory. Prosecution of infractions and high
financial penalties, along with physical barriers to sites and surveillance are cited as effective drivers.
Incentives for recycling and development of infrastructure for managing specific types of waste.
Curbside collection of bulky waste [1]. Inventories of illegal sites support coordinated national
response. Information exchange and awareness raising activity has increased understanding of policy
and supported its coherent application. Inclusion of illegal landfill sites in MS implementation
reporting may further increase awareness/understanding of the problem [2].
Provision 2: Waste Acceptance Criteria
The Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) set out in Article 11 of the Landfill Directive and accompanying
Council Decision of 2002 govern the entry of hazardous, non-hazardous and inert waste to landfills. It
includes lists of wastes accepted without testing, leaching limit values, procedures for specific types of
waste such as asbestos, and criteria for waste destined for underground storage, among other specific
provisions.
State of implementation
Mechanisms for acceptance of waste established in most EU15 MS. Slight variations in
implementation of acceptance procedures such as basic characterisation, testing and on-site
verification noted in Wallonia, Greece, Ireland and Spain. Some variation in transposition of
acceptance criteria was noted, where more or less stringent criteria were adopted [2]. The 2005 study
however had described the implementation of WAC as “slow and sporadic”, with some delays in
transposition [1].
Barriers to implementation
Discrepancies in the definitions and characterisation of wastes across MS have been a barrier to
implementation, as well as the transition to a new system from familiar and well-understood previous
systems [1]. Increased administrative burdens and costs associated with new requirements noted in
many MS. Preliminary standards for acceptance of waste missing in some MS, impacting effective
implementation of subsequent acceptance procedures. Criteria for physical stability and waste
Annex
138 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
bearing capacity, as well as for stability and non-reactivity of hazardous waste at class B landfills, were
under-addressed in transpositions by many MS [3].
Drivers of implementation
Awareness-raising and best practice sharing can support understanding and then application of the
WAC. Obligatory sampling procedures at continuous intervals can help generate reliable data on the
waste composition (as attempted in Germany and Austria).
Provision 3: Bio-waste diversion targets
Article 5 requires MS to reduce bio municipal waste going to landfill to 75% of 1995 levels by 2006, to
50% by 2009, and to 35% by 2016. Derogations for MS landfilling 80%+ of municipal waste in 1995.
State of implementation
In 2006, attainment of targets among MS varied significantly, with 7 MS meeting the 2016 targets
already, 8 MS meeting the 2009 targets, and 8 MS with derogation periods still far from meeting the
2006 targets. Greece, Ireland and Poland had the highest rates of landfilling of biodegradable waste in
2006 [6].
Italy’s performance in the separate collection and treatment of bio-waste varies widely by region, with
the southern regions far from meeting the 2006 targets, six regions meeting the 2006 target and
Lombardy having already reached the 2016 target [5].
Barriers to implementation
Infrastructure for separate collection is insufficient and being outpaced by creation of treatment
facilities for bio-waste in some MS. Variable quality of compost, lack of European recognised compost
standard (planned in 2008 EU Green Paper), related lack of well-functioning market for compost.
Drivers of implementation
Closing of sub-standard landfills has been an important driver in adoption of other methods of bio-
waste treatment. Building of new incinerators and expanding existing capacity. Effective quality
standard for compost developed in Finland, Flanders, Germany and Ireland. Increase in gate fees of
landfills (Finland, Flanders) and landfill taxes (Estonia, Finland, Flanders, Italy) have been effective
where the difference was significant. Some MS are applying severe penalties on municipalities who
fail to meet the targets [1]. Pay-as-you-throw systems can be effective where they effect behavioural
change among consumers and producers. Clearly defined waste management targets and
cooperation between regions are also helpful in meeting objectives [5].
Sources:
[1] European Commission, Report on Implementation of the Landfill Directive in the 15 MS of the EU, Brussels, October
2005.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/report_a2.pdf
[2] European Commission, Follow-up study on the implementation of Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste in EU-
25, Final Report - Findings of the Study, Bruxelles, June 2007.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/study/cowi_report.pdf
[3] European Commission, Assessing legal compliance with and implementation of the Waste Acceptance Criteria and
procedures of the EU-15, Final Report, December 2009.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/report_wac.pdf
[4] Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the national strategies for the reduction of
biodegradable waste going to landfills pursuant to Article 5(1) of Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste, Bruxelles,
March 2005.
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 139
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52005DC0105:EN:NOT
[5] EEA, Diverting waste from landfill: Effectiveness of waste-management policies in the European Union, 2009.
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/diverting-waste-from-landfill-effectiveness-of-waste-management-policies-in-
the-european-union/at_download/file
[6] EEA, The European Environment: State and Outlook 2010: Material Resources and Waste, 2010.
http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/europe/material-resources-and-waste
Annex
140 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Incineration Directive
Incineration Directive
Provision 1: Permitting
Article 4 (1):
Without prejudice to Article 11 of Directive 75/442/EEC or to Article 3 of Directive 91/689/EEC, no
incineration or co-incineration plant shall operate without a permit to carry out these activities.
State of implementation
The majority of MS have effectively transposed permitting requirements into national legislation. In
Latvia and the UK, incineration and co-incineration permitting requirements were transposed via the
IPPC Directive. Some MS put in place a date for a required update of permits to align with the
requirements in the Incineration Directive; others issued general permits requiring inspection only in
the case of significant equipment or operational changes. Stricter conditions than those required by
the WID have been imposed by 9 MS: Austria, France, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain,
Sweden and the UK.
Barriers to implementation
While the majority of MS report having put in place permitting requirements, reporting on inspections
or verification of permits issued is not available, indicating a potential area for improvement to ensure
full and effective implementation.
Drivers of implementation
Inspections and checks on permitting at a national level drive effective implementation of Article 4 of
the WID.
Provision 2: Air Emissions Limits Values
Article 7 (1):
Incineration plants shall be designed, equipped, built and operated in such a way that the
emission limit values set out in Annex V are not exceeded in the exhaust gas.
State of implementation
Overall, through the implementation of Best Available Technology (BAT), MS have achieved Air
Emissions Limits Values. The Czech Republic, Hungary, Finland, the Netherlands, Austria, Belgium,
Poland, Portugal, Sweden, the UK, France, Slovakia, and Germany all report plants having realised
BAT Air Emission Levels. France, Germany, Hungary, and the Czech Republic report the largest
number of plants having reached BAT Air Emissions Limits Values. Stricter air emission limit values
have been imposed on a number of plants and as a general rule for the incineration and the co-
incineration of waste in at least 4 Member States. Austria, the Netherlands, the UK and Luxembourg
have put in place Air Emissions Limits for other pollutants than those required by the Directive.
Barriers to implementation
Stakeholders in a study prepared by Ökopol GmbH, raised the point that measurement requirements
for air emissions may impose an unnecessary burden on plant operators in certain cases and that
further exemptions from these requirements are justifiable, thereby allowing discontinuous, instead
of continuous, emissions measurement..
Drivers of implementation
The measureable environmental benefits of reduced air emissions from incineration and co-
incineration plants serves as a driver for implementation as well as the complementary, and often
stricter, air emissions limits laid out in the IPPC Directive.
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 141
Provision 3: Monitoring and Surveillance Systems
Article 10 (1):
Measurement equipment shall be installed and techniques used in order to monitor the parameters,
conditions and mass concentrations relevant to the incineration or co-incineration process.
State of implementation
Monitoring and surveillance systems appear to be in place in the majority of incineration and co-
incineration plants across MS [1]. Romania reported technical problems regarding emissions’
monitoring, especially for metals and dioxins, while monitoring and measurements were cited by
Spain as a challenge in implementation of the WID. Monitoring and surveillance systems were cited by
multiple MS as a challenge for smaller plants. Exceptions for monitoring requirements on HCI, HF and
SO2 were most commonly reported by MS.
Barriers to implementation
The installation of monitoring and surveillance systems is difficult and costly for smaller plants or for
certain types of plants, for example, the Slovak Republic cited the high costs involved for effective
monitoring at hospital waste incineration plants. Many MS have cited monitoring requirements as
overly detailed, with some requirements appearing superfluous.
Drivers of implementation
Similar monitoring requirements in the IPPC Directive and the Incineration Directive, linked to
permitting standards, drive implementation of monitoring and surveillance systems.
Sources:
[1] Ökopol, Assessment of the application and possible development of community legislation for the control of waste
incineration and co-incineration, November 2007.
http://www.otersu.es/pages/docs/2.Estudios-Publicaciones%20general/46.Estudio_incineracion_Okopol_2007.pdf
Annex
142 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Waste Shipment Regulation
Waste Shipment Regulation
Provision 1: Inspections and Spot Checks
Article 50 (2) requires the undertaking of inspections of establishments and spot checks on shipments
of waste and on the related recovery or disposal.
State of implementation
Between 2002 and 2009, according to IMPEL, physical inspections increased to roughly 75% of
administrative inspections performed, the number of countries performing waste shipment
inspections increased from 17 to 22 and the average ratio of transfrontier shipments of waste out of
the total number of inspections completed increased from 16% to 19%.
IMPEL’s Seaport project uncovered approximately 20% of inspected waste shipments as illegal during
its initial phase from 2002 to 2004. In the second phase of the Seaport project, from 2004 to 2006,
participating countries carried out 175 inspections, comprised of a combination of custom document
checks, inspection of storage locations, traffic inspections and inspections of container vessels; 51% of
waste shipments checked were found to be illegal, with 43% of shipments detected with infractions,
such as missing or incomplete information. The IMPEL-TFS Enforcement Action II Project, spanning
2008 to 2011, completed a set of inspections from November 2008 to April 2009 during which 53
offenses were detected out of 94 control cases.
Barriers to implementation
Lack of infrastructure for the completion of inspections as well as lack of a clearly defined partnership
between the competent authority and other organizations such as the customs office, police forces,
etc., constitute a problem in many countries. Additional barriers to implementation include the
complexity of practical implementation of the WSR, difficulty centralising information, difficulty
validating shipment reporting, lack of training and diffusion of competencies on waste inspection, as
well as low political prioritisation in some MS.
Drivers of implementation
Participation in IMPEL-TFS and inspection exchange programs as well as the training of customs
officers and related authorities can improve the consistency and stringency of inspections and spot
checks. Awareness raising and provision of guidance and best practices on implementation of the
Waste Shipment Regulation.
Provision 2: Transportation of Hazardous Waste
Article 8 in the Preamble to the WSR states that shipments of hazardous waste are to be reduced to a
minimum, consistent with environmentally sound and efficient management of such waste.
State of implementation
Total hazardous waste generation in the EU25 increased slightly from 51 million tonnes in 1997 to 55
million tonnes in 2003; the EU15 generated 42 million tonnes in 2003, an increase of 28% since 1997
while the NMS-10 countries generated 13 million tonnes in 2003, a 29% reduction since 1997. The
amount shipped within the EU accounts for approximately 10% to 15% of the total generated amount
of hazardous waste, indicating the EU is increasingly acting as a single market for treatment of
hazardous and problematic waste. Overall intra-EU waste shipment is increasing due to a rise in
transboundary movement of wastes destined for recovery between EU countries, indicating further
progress to be made in relation to reducing transport of hazardous waste.
Barriers to implementation
Often shipping takes place because treatment or recovery activities are cheaper in certain EU MS than
in others; unless treatment availability and costs are standardised across the EU, hazardous waste
shipments will continue. Additionally, variations in the perception of the notification requirements
and the choices on how to report to the European Commission makes it difficult to track detailed
information on hazardous waste shipments.
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 143
Drivers of implementation
Efforts to even out the playing field in terms of pricing and taxes for hazardous waste disposal or
recovery are key to reducing shipments of hazardous waste.
Provision 3: Repatriation of waste
Article 25 of the Waste Shipment Regulation makes compulsory the repatriation of illegal waste
shipments, either by the person whose action caused the illegal shipment, or failing that case, by the
competent authorities of dispatch or destination.
State of implementation
A study prepared by the European Topic Centre on Resource and Waste Management indicates a
varying number of instances of repatriation of waste over time in the case of illegal shipments, with no
clear trend other than the majority of cases reported by the Netherlands and Belgium, both countries
with large seaports. Action in response to the discovery of an infraction or illegal shipment varies by
country, with for example, the United Kingdom giving levels of warnings, while Germany fines
shipments in violation.
Barriers to implementation
Requirements for repatriation as defined by the Waste Shipment Regulation may not be followed due
to confusion on the application of the Regulation or a lack of guidance materials available to customs
officers or police officers. Additionally, many countries do not have specific procedures defined for
notification and treatment of illegal or infringing waste shipments.
Drivers of implementation
Participation in the IMPEL-TFS project, the creation of partnerships between the competent authority
and customs officers or other stakeholders involved in monitoring or handling waste shipments, and
the creation at a regional or national level of a procedure for responding to WSR infringements can all
contribute to effective repatriation of illegal waste shipments. For countries with procedures already
in place, ongoing training and 24-hour availability of the competent authority can be important to
ensure effective handling of violations.
Sources:
[1] Consortium ESWI, Services to support the IMPEL network in connection with joint enforcement actions on waste
shipment inspections and to coordinate such actions, 15 July 2009.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/impel_report_09.pdf
[2] Fischer, Christian et. al., Transboundary shipments of waste in the EU: Developments 1995-2005 and possible drivers,
EEA: Copenhagen, 2008.
http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-
circle/etc_waste/library?l=/working_papers/shipments290208pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d
[3] Isarin, Nancy, IMPEL-TFS Seaport Project: European Enforcement Initiative to Detect Illegal Waste Shipments, 2004.
http://www.inece.org/conference/7/vol1/41_Isarin.pdf
[4] Kiayias, George, The EU Waste Shipment Regulation – Enforcement and Implementation European Commission (PWP
Presentation), Brussels, 2008.
http://www.bipro.de/waste-events/doc/events08/hu_pres_1_eu_gk.pdf
[5] UNEP/Basel Convention, Global Trends in Generation and Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Other
Wastes, Châtelaine, Switzerland, 2002.
http://www.basel.int/natreporting/trends2.pdf
Annex
144 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Batteries Directive
Batteries Directive 2006/66/EC
Provision 1: Obligation to introduce free-of-charge separate collection for batteries
Article 8:
Member States shall ensure that appropriate collection schemes are in place for waste portable
batteries and accumulators and for taking back waste portable batteries or accumulators at no
charge.
State of implementation
Reporting on the implementation of the Batteries Directive is not due for completion until September
2012. However, statements by EU Member States in various sources such as country-level waste
assessments in the European State of Environment Report (EEA 2010) convey the impression that the
implementation of the Batteries Directive is on a similar path as the WEEE Directive. In fact, in some
countries, the take-back systems of both seem to be merged to some extent. Most countries for
which information is available indicate that a collection scheme is already in place or in the process of
implementation.
Detailed information statements from MS are provided below.
Austria: The directive was transposed into national law and the corresponding collection and
treatment system, based on experience with voluntary agreements from the early 1990s, established
in 2008.
Cyprus: For batteries, an integrated management plan is already set up.
Estonia: The set of different policy instruments are in place and implemented – recovery and recycling
targets for WEEE, end-of-life vehicles (ELVs), batteries and accumulators.
Finland: Producer responsibility is included in waste legislation and covers inter alia WEEE, batteries
and ELV.
Germany: A joint return system for batteries, the Stiftung Gemeinsames Rücknahmesystem
Batterien (GRS Batterien) has been established.
Greece: A draft of the act to transpose the directive into national law is under preparation.
Hungary: Separate waste collection systems were established for wastes for which producers have
responsibility (batteries, WEEE…).
Latvia: Plans to carry out activities to improve the separate collection system for municipal waste up
to 2020. This will also help to achieve the targets for collection and recovery of batteries and WEEE.
Hazardous wastes are mostly recovered or exported. At present, waste streams such as lead batteries
are exported for treatment.
Romania: Waste laws, harmonised with the European Union legislation, have had a positive impact in
the last few years, but considerable efforts are still needed to ensure compliance with EU standards.
Slovenia: The Batteries Directive was transposed into national law. In 2008, regulations introduced
extended producer responsibility for waste batteries and accumulators. Environmental taxes were
also introduced for environmental pollution caused by for example ELV, WEEE and batteries.
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 145
UK: In response to the Batteries Directive, laws were introduced in February 2010 to enforce battery
recycling. Vendors of batteries weighing more than 32kg are required to take back used batteries from
the public, free of charge.
Barriers to implementation
Batteries are sold in many shops including grocery stores. Batteries are sold with and in cars, tools and
toys. Consequently the batteries market is characterised by a huge number of agents who put
batteries on the market and an even bigger number of consumers who use the batteries.
A system which provides free-of-charge take back at the point of sale and at waste collection centres,
and which successfully transfers the financial cost for collection and treatment from the producers to
the waste collectors and treaters requires a rather complex structure, especially when competing low-
cost subsystems exist. Monopolies may arise which need to be kept under close control in order to
avoid inefficiencies.
Even if a system of take back points is fully established, and even if the consumer may give back the
equipment at the point of sale free of charge, he/she must invest some effort to bring the equipment
to a collection location. Especially since batteries are often quite small, the waste bin frequently
seems to be the most convenient solution.
Drivers of implementation
A high price of the materials contained in batteries is a strong driving force for the separate collection
and recycling of the batteries and may finance part of the system. If primary raw material prices return
to lower levels a material tax should be considered.
A transfer of knowledge from EU-MS with longer traditions separate collection for batteries to
Member States which are new to this field may be of help.
It is necessary to establish many easily accessible give back/take back points and to motivate people
(again and again) to use them. Intensive information and motivation programmes are a necessity.
Provision 2: Minimum separate collection rate for batteries and minimum efficiencies for their
recycling
Article 10; Article 12, Annex III, Part B:
Member States shall achieve the following minimum collection rates for all batteries and
accumulators combined:
(a) 25 % by 26 September 2012;
(b) 45 % by 26 September 2016.
Recycling processes shall, no later than 26 September 2010, meet the recycling efficiencies
(a) 65 % for lead-acid B&A;
(b) 75 % for nickel-cadmium B&A;
(c) 50 % for other B&A.
State of implementation
A methodology for calculating recycling rates has been proposed by BIPRO et al. (2009).
Annex
146 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Battery recycling in Germany, Greece, and Malta has increased over time; according to reporting data
available, Germany, Greece, and Luxembourg have achieved collection rates above the minimum
collection rates required by 26 September 2016.
Eurostat has not yet published collection and recycling rates for batteries. However, the following
details on battery collection/recycling rates, as reported in the 2010 EEA report, can provide some
idea of developments/problems in selected countries:
Bulgaria: The amount of recovered batteries and accumulators decreased in 2008, to 8,283 tonnes.
The decrease was due to a decrease in treatment of end-of-life vehicles.
Cyprus: Is optimistic about meeting all the required targets of separate collection for 2016.
Germany: The proportion recycled has risen from 19% in 1999 to 92% by 2007, with the return and
recycling rate for car batteries at almost 100%. The new Battery Act (Batteriegesetz) which came into
effect in December 2009 lays down mandatory collection targets for ordinary batteries – 35% by 2012
and 45% by 2016.
Greece: Collection rates increased from 75% in 2007 to 77% in 2008.
Luxembourg: Up to 50% of old batteries and old accumulators are collected.
Malta: In 2006, 51 tonnes of batteries were shipped abroad for recycling.
Poland: In 2008, 42,211,319 batteries were recovered and 2,696,780 were recycled. More than 2
million nickel-cadmium batteries were recovered and recycled.
Barriers to implementation
Effective separate collection of batteries requires the establishment of many easily accessible give
back points at the premises of many different agents and the establishment of the chain from these
(well maintained) give back points to collection centres, sorting centres, treatment plants and
recycling-material-markets. Many shops only bring very small amounts of batteries onto the market
(frequently as part of electronic products). To include them in the battery collection system
substantially increases the organisational efforts required, to achieve only small gains.
As some battery types still contain considerable concentrations of mercury, an independent
treatment step for the separation of mercury is required. Changes in the market shares of different
battery types and new upcoming battery technologies may require new treatment steps. The system
requires a considerable capacity of specialised workers and organisational skills to optimise the
treatment capacities, materials flows and financial flows of the many different companies and
associations involved. Not all skills and capacities required may be available and fundable in the
different member states.
For some battery materials only few treatment facilities are available in Europe, heading leading to
additional transport costs. For some components of the lithium-ion-battery an efficient recycling
infrastructure seems not yet to have been established.
The biggest waste battery flow is the starter batteries in end-of-life vehicles. The loss of end-of-life
vehicles by their legal or illegal export draws on the amount of batteries available for recycling and on
the economics of the total recycling system.
On a statistical level, there are several barriers to realistically assessing the separate collection and
recycling rates: while the number of batteries separately collected is usually well documented, it is
difficult to provide the collection rate as a percentage of the total portable consumer battery waste, as
the quantities of batteries purchased are not typically tracked. When summing up all the consumer
batteries collected separately and the consumer batteries found in different waste types, the total
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 147
number could be 30% lower than the number of consumer batteries sold in a given year. It can be
assumed that some of the batteries sold in a given year are kept as a future stock by users. However, if
all the untracked batteries had remained with the final consumers over the past 10 years, this would
represent a phenomenally large volume of batteries.
Drivers of implementation
A high price of the materials contained in batteries is a strong driving force for the separate collection
and recycling of the batteries and may finance part of the system. If primary raw material prices return
to lower levels, a material tax should be considered.
An effective prevention of illegal exports of end-of-life-vehicles and waste from electric and electronic
equipment (containing batteries) substantially increases the amount of batteries available for
recycling and thus the economic appeal of battery recycling.
A transfer of knowledge from EU-MS with longer traditions in the separate collection batteries to
Member States which are new to this field may be of help.
It is necessary to establish many easily accessible give back/take back points and to motivate people
(again and again) to use them. Intensive information and motivation programmes are a necessity.
Abbreviations
B&A batteries and accumulators, waste from batteries and accumulators
Sources:
[1] BIO Intelligence Service (2003) Impact Assessment on Selected Policy Options for the Revision of the Battery Directive
European Commission, Brussels.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/batteries/pdf/eia_batteries_final.pdf
[2] BIPRO, Umweltbundesamt & Enviroplan (2009): Study on the calculation of recycling efficiencies and implementation
of export article (Art. 15) of the Batteries Directive 2006/66/EC. Consortium ESWI. München, Wien.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/batteries/pdf/batteries090528_fin.pdf.
[3] BIPRO, Umweltbundesamt & Enviroplan (2010): Exemption for the use of cadmium in portable batteries and
accumulators intended for the use in cordless power tools in the context of the batteries directive 2006/66/EC -
Replacement of Cadmium Batteries in Cordless Power Tools.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/batteries/pdf/cadmium_report.pdf.
[4] Department of Trade and Industry, UK (2000) Analysis of the Environmental Impact and Financial Costs of a Possible New
European Directive on Batteries, Oxford.
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file30640.pdf
[5] EEA – European Environment Agency (2010): State of Environment Report 2010 – Part C Country Assessments, Waste.
Copenhagen.
http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/countries/
[6] Extended Impact Assessment of the batteries Directive, 2003.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/batteries/pdf/exten_impact_assessment.pdf.
Annex
148 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
End-Of-Life Vehicle Directive
End-of Life Vehicles Directive 2000/53/EC
Provision 1: Adequate collection facilities and free take-back
Article 5 and 6:
Member States shall ensure the adequate availability of collection facilities within their territory and
that all end-of life vehicles are transferred to authorised treatment facilities without any cost for the
last holder of the car. ELVs are to be treated and de-polluted in an environmentally friendly way.
State of implementation
22 of the 27 EU MS reported on the state of implementation of the ELV-directive in 2009 (EC 2009).
All reporting MS stated that they had taken the necessary measures to ensure that economic
operators, in most cases the producers and/or importers of vehicles, set up systems for the collection
of end-of-life vehicles and (as far as technically feasible) of used parts removed during repairs and
considered as waste, as well as to ensure the adequate availability of collection facilities within their
territory. The number of authorised treatment facilities varies from 2 in Cyprus to more than 1,600 in
the United Kingdom. In all countries measures were taken to ensure that all end-of-life vehicles are
transferred to authorised treatment facilities.
All respondents indicated having adopted measures to ensure that end-of-life vehicles can be
delivered to authorised treatment facilities without any cost for the last holder or owner. In most
Member States the delivery of an end-of-life vehicle is not free of charge if it does not contain the
essential components or if it contains waste that had been added to it – an option in line with the
Directive.
In spite of this relatively positive reporting 9 infringement cases were pending in 2009, indicating that
directive 2000/53/EC not yet had been fully of correctly implemented in 9 EU MS (EC 2009). There is
evidence suggesting that ELVs are treated illegally in some cases. However, the situation seems to be
improving as the number of authorised treatment facilities since 2005 have increased significantly in
some MS (e.g. in the UK, Belgium, Greece) (EP 2010).
Barriers to implementation
The ELV-directive lists specific targets and minimum requirements for certain economic actors, but
fails to take into account varying abilities to comply. This has been reflected by the failure of many
Member States to accomplish transposition of the Directive into law by April 21, 2002. For example,
Ireland did not transpose the Directive until 2006.
Drivers of implementation
As take back systems of ELVs are mainly financed by the revenues from the recovered ELV-materials,
all measures which keep ELVs from leaving the country illegally and for increasing the rate of recovery
also provide incentive for a more complete/better implementation of the take back system.
An additional incentive could be provided by the introduction of a deposit-refund system.
Provision 2: Reuse, recovery and recycling rates for ELV
Article 7:
By 2006:
Rate for reuse + recovery = 85%
Rate for reuse + recycling = 80%.
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 149
By 2015:
Rate for reuse + recovery = 95%
Rate for reuse + recycling = 85%.
State of implementation
Most Member States transposed the targets set in the Directive literally. The Netherlands adjusted
their initially very ambitious date by which the targets of 95% reuse/recovery and 85% reuse/recycling
have to be met from 2007 back to 2015 as required by the Directive. In Bulgaria, a recovery target of
87% and a recycling target of 81% shall be attained by 31 December 2008; a gradual increase to 95%
for recovery and 85% for recycling is set for 2015. The Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia,
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and the United Kingdom made use of the possibility to set lower
targets for vehicles produced before 1 January 1980.
Concerning the rates of reuse/recycling and reuse/recovery, the 2006 figures are available for all
Member States except Ireland and Malta. In 2006, nineteen Member States (Belgium, Bulgaria,
Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, the
Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) met the
reuse/recycling target of 80%. The Czech Republic and France were close to meeting the target. The
reuse/recovery target of 85% was met by thirteen Member States (Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech
Republic, Germany, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland,
Portugal and Sweden). Spain was close to meeting the target.
In Germany, for example, in 2006 a reuse and recycling rate of 86.8% had been achieved. This,
however, affected only 16% of the cars which were removed from the vehicle register that year. There
is no information on how many of the exported ‘second-hand’ cars and of the missing cars were
actually re-used or recycled while meeting environmental protection standards.
In Slovakia the number of ELVs treated increased from 723 in 2004 to 67,800 in 2009.
Barriers to implementation
The core problem with the recycling of ELV can be visualised with the example of German statistics:
In 2006, two-thirds of the cars removed from the vehicle register were exported as used vehicles, 56%
went to EU countries, 8% to non-EU countries and only 16% were recycled as end-of-life vehicles
according to the Federal Statistical Office. The whereabouts of the remaining 20% cannot be
statistically verified. There may have been additional, statistically unrecorded, exports as well as
thefts or use on private land.
In Austria in 2008 some 26% of the cars removed from registration were treated within the national
territory. This phenomenon is not limited to the old EU MS. In Slovenia, for example, out of a total of
about 980,000 registered cars only 7,000 were treated as ELV in 2008 (though the reuse and recycling
rate lies above 80%).
ELV treatment companies who had invested in increased capacity based on the assumption that the
majority of the ELVs would have to be treated within the country (as was the case until some years
before 2006) now suffer from the low numbers of ELVs available for treatment. However, those ELVs
which are dismantled within the country are not always treated in an optimum way. Certain types of
fluids or components such as brake fluids, windscreen washer fluid, oil filters or shock absorbers are
not always removed or de-polluted. Usually little effort is put into the removal of components
containing heavy metals, such as mercury containing display backlights or switches (EP 2010).
Drivers of implementation
MS should support the establishment of sufficient capacity and skills for environmentally sound
Annex
150 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
recycling and recovery operations. This may be helped by knowledge transfer from more experienced
MS to less experienced MS. They also should increase their efforts in controlling the legal compliance
of car dismantlers and the quality of recovery operations. In order to prevent illegal export of ELVs,
inspections of transports within the EU and out of the EU should be intensified. When deregistering a
car, the next step of its life cycle (its further fate) should be documented.
On the legal level EU-wide binding rules for the distinction between ELVs and used cars may curb
illegal exports. It also should be considered if the export of used cars should only be allowed if a waste
treatment after use is guaranteed with environmental standards comparable to the EU standards.
On the statistical level improvements may be gained by the implementation of binding rules for the
classification of treatment operations for ‘recycling’, ‘recovery’ and ‘disposal’, data collection and
balancing methodology.
Abbreviations:
ELV end-of life vehicles
Sources:
[1] EC – European Commission (2009): Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the
European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions on the Implementation of Directive
2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles for the period 2002-2005. http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0635:FIN:EN:PDF
[2] EEA – European Environment Agency (2010): State of Environment Report 2010 – Part C Country Assessments, Waste.
Copenhagen. www.eea.europa.eu/soer/countries/
[3] EP - European Parliament (2010): End of life vehicles: Legal aspects, national practices and recommendations for future
successful approach. Brussels.
www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/studies/download.do?language=en&file=33075
[4] GHK, BIO (2006): A study to examine the benefits of the End of Life Vehicles Directive and the costs and benefits of a
revision of the 2015 targets for recycling, re-use and recovery under the ELV Directive, Final Report to DG Environment, A
report submitted by GHK In association with Bio Intelligence Service, May 2006.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/elv_study.htm.
[5] Konz, R.J. (2009): The End-of-Life Vehicle (ELV) Directive: The Road to Responsible Disposal. Minn. J. Int’l L. 431 (2009)
p. 431-457.
www.law.umn.edu/uploads/BX/fw/BXfwZTM0VoxN2BtOQ7E2Vg/Konz-Final-Online-PDF-03.30.09.pdf
[6] Umweltbundesamt (2010): Statusbericht 2009 zum Bundes-Abfallwirtschaftsplan. Klagenfurt, Wien.
www.bundesabfallwirtschaftsplan.at
[7] Mehlhart, G., Merz, C., Akkermans, L. & Jordal-Jørgensen, J. (2011). European second-hand car market analysis. Final
Report. European Commission - DG Climate Action . Accessed on the 19 September 2011 at :
http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/1114/2011-005-en.pdf
European second-hand car market analysis. Data. Electronic Annex (2011). Accessed on the 19 September 2011 at :
http://www.oeko.de/publications/reports_studies/dok/659.php?id=&dokid=1116&anzeige=det&ITitel1=&IAutor1=&ISchlag
w1=&sortieren=&dokid=1116
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 151
Packaging Directive
Packaging Directive
Provision 1: Essential Requirements
Article 9, the Essential Requirements, states that:
1. Member States shall ensure that three years from the date of the entry into force of this Directive,
packaging may be placed on the market only if it complies with all essential requirements defined by
this Directive including Annex II.
These essential requirements are designed to minimise the environmental impact of packaging,
focusing on prevention and minimisation at the source as well as ensuring that waste is recoverable,
or recyclable, or reusable.
State of implementation
According to a study by Arcadis on compliance with the Essential Requirements, a large gap between
the MS and industry exists in regards to the implementation of and compliance with the Essential
Requirements. The industry is very much in favour of the Essential Requirements, as they leave open
the option of technical solutions for minimising the amount of packaging, and regret that that so few
MS enforce implementation. Authorities, on the other hand, demonstrate minimal interest in
enforcing the Essential Requirements, leaving it up to industry to comply. Most MS do not have rules
or guidelines for companies to validate compliance with the Essential Requirements, other than
compliance with basic standards set out by the European Committee for Standardisation. Four MS,
the UK, France, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria, have implementation measures and an enforcement
procedure for all three Essential Requirements; however, none of these MS have set up systems to
assess the effectiveness of such enforcement mechanisms.
Other than occasional communication, company support and awareness raising, enforcement
measures focus primarily on the heavy metal content of packaging. However, even as regards this
requirement, inspections efforts could be improved and augmented. MS have expressed a desire to
exchange knowledge on how to organise on-the-ground inspections for heavy metal content as well
as awareness raising programmes enabling knowledge exchange between competent authorities. The
general and vague way in which the requirements are formulated and the way in which the standards
are defined by the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN standards) make enforcement of
the Essential Requirements difficult. However, this approach is perceived as necessary to cover the
diverse market of packaging solutions.
Barriers to implementation
The largest barrier to implementation is the lack of precision in the terms of the Essential
Requirements, which can be difficult for MS to translate into practical enforcement action. Authorities
cite other priorities, lack of staffing and a lack of understanding on how to assess compliance as
barriers to more full implementation and enforcement.
Additionally, the timing of consideration of the Essential Requirements remains an ambiguous point;
debate continues on whether they be considered during the design stage of the packaging or even
earlier before strategic discussions regarding the product and its packaging. Interpretation problems
with the definition of consumer acceptance and the concept of recyclability also hamper effective
implementation of the Essential Requirements.
Drivers of implementation
The key driver of implementation for the Essential Requirements is engagement and efforts on the
part of industry to incorporate the principles into their production processes. Additionally, knowledge
sharing among competent authorities appears to help implementation.
Annex
152 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Provision 2: Recycling and Recovery Targets
Article 6 (1):
In order to comply with the objectives of this Directive, Member States shall take the
necessary measures to attain the following targets covering the whole of their territory;
(a) no later than five years from the date by which this Directive must be implemented in
national law, between 50% as a minimum and 65% as a maximum by weight of the packaging
waste will be recovered;
(b) within this general target, and with the same time limit, between 25% as a minimum and
45 % as a maximum by weight of the totality of packaging materials contained in packaging
waste will be recycled with a minimum of 15% by weight for each packaging material;
State of implementation
By 2002, all EU15 countries met their 2001 targets for overall recovery and recycling. The Czech
Republic and Hungary met their overall recovery targets by the required 2005 date. Cyprus missed its
overall recovery and recycling targets, only reaching 11.1% for both by the required date of 2005,
however its recycling target was met by 2006. Malta missed its 2005 overall recycling target, only
achieving 10.8% by 2006, while Lithuania missed its overall recovery target only reaching 38.4% by
the required 2006 date.
By 2006, 13 of the EU-27 MS had already met their overall recovery target for 2008; of the remaining
MS, 4 had surpassed the 2001 target level and 10 had not yet reached the 2001 target level. In terms of
recycling targets, by 2006, 9 MS had already met their targets for 2008 and of the remaining MS, 17
had surpassed the 2001 level; only 1 had not yet reached the 2001 target level.
Out of the 66 million tonnes of packaging waste generated, around 36 million tonnes or 54% were
recycled in 2002, which compared with 1997, represents an increase of 9 million tonnes and an 8%
increase in the recycling rate. Packaging recovery and incineration at waste incineration plants with
energy recovery increased from 31 million tonnes or 52% in 1997 to 41 million tonnes or 62% in 2002.
In 2002, all of the 75 different targets applicable to the EU-15 were achieved.
While the overall goal of the Directive is prevention of packaging waste generation, MS typically focus
on recovery and recycling rates as they are more easily measurable and enforceable. Measures taken
to ensure implementation and achievement of the targets include, producer responsibility, mandatory
collection or a ban on landfilling of certain waste streams, as well as instruments that aim at
improving markets for secondary (recycled) materials. Producer responsibility is the most widely used
instrument, reflecting a larger European trend: nearly all countries have placed responsibility on
various parties in the packaging chain. However, the requirements and design of such systems vary
greatly among MS.
Barriers to implementation
The required interplay and cooperation between public authorities and the private sector has been
cited by some MS as causing a barrier to effective implementation and achievement of recovery and
recycling targets. Other MS cite the incompatibility between the overall goal of the Directive of
preventing packaging waste generation and its focus on recycling. A lack of relevant indicators to
track progress on prevention makes it difficult to quantifying packaging waste prevention.
Drivers of implementation
The pre-existence of national legislation and programmes on packaging waste prior to the entry into
effect of the Packaging Directive served as a driver to reinforce efforts in certain MS. A focus on
extended producer responsibility coupled with use of economic instruments to encourage
achievement of recycling and recovery targets has been a particularly effective approach.
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 153
Provision 3: Return, Collection and Recovery Systems
Article 7 (1):
Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that systems are set up to provide for:
(a) the return and/or collection of used packaging and/or packaging waste from the consumer, other
final user, or from the waste stream in order to channel it to the most appropriate waste management
alternatives;
(b) the reuse or recovery including recycling of the packaging and/or packaging waste collected, in
order to meet the objectives laid down in this Directive.
State of implementation
All MS have taken measures to ensure the creation of return, collection and recovery systems for
packaging waste. Most MS have set up producer responsibility systems requiring producers to take
back packaging waste, organise their own take back systems or participate in return systems for the
return, collection, reuse, recovery or recycling of packaging waste. The specific elements and
organisation of such schemes varies among MS. In all countries, industry has been involved in the
implementation and design of such systems. Approved collective systems to which producers can sign
up have been created in many MS; several MS have also created municipal or public schemes for the
return of packaging and packaging waste. Some deposit schemes have been put in place, particularly
for drinks packaging, to encourage the return of used packaging. Latvia offers tax relief to businesses
that put in place voluntary packaging management programmes.
The main impact of return, collection and recovery obligations on MS has been the stabilisation of the
internal market for collection and recycling, creating business opportunities and a number of new jobs
[2]. The impact of return, collection and recovery obligations on the direct and first round indirect
employment rate in the packaging recovery and recycling industry has been estimated by the
Commission at 42,000 full time job equivalents [2]. Differences in financing were levelled out to some
extent as all MS have put in place financing mechanisms to support packaging recycling systems [2].
Barriers to implementation
The potential complexity of setting up a return, collection and recovery system for packaging waste in
MS lacking an existing system is a barrier to implementation. Motivation of the public also contributes
to the effective implementation of such systems; lack of awareness or misunderstanding of such a
system by the public can lower its efficiency.
Drivers of implementation
Use of tax incentives or the creation of municipal or public schemes can encourage implementation.
The creation of approved collective systems to which producers can sign up reduces the complexity of
an individual producer putting in place such a system, thus encouraging participation. Communication
campaigns to encourage participation in return, collection and recovery schemes can also be a factor.
Sources:
[1] Arcadis, Survey on compliance with Essential Requirements in the MS, 2009.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/packaging/pdf/report_essential_requirements.pdf
[2] EC, Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the Implementation of Directive
94/62/EC on Packaging and Packaging Waste and its Impact on the Environment, as well as on the functioning of the
Internal Market, 2006.
www.europen.be/download_protected_file.php?file=109
[3] EC, Study on the implementation of the Packaging Directive and options to strengthen prevention and re-use LDW,
2005.
Annex
154 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/packaging/050224_final_report.pdf
[4] Ecologic & IEEP, A Report on the Implementation of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive 94/62/EC, May
2009.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/reporting/pdf/Packaging%20Directive%20Report.pdf
[5] EEA Report, Effectiveness of packaging waste management systems in selected countries: an EEA pilot study,
Copenhagen, 2005.
www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eea_report_2005_3
[6] RDC & Pira, Evaluation of Costs and Benefits for the Achievement of Reuse and the Recycling Targets for the Different
Packaging Materials in the Frame of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive 94/62/EC, March 2003.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/packaging/costsbenefits.pdf
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 155
WEEE Directive
WEEE Directive 2002/96/EC
Provision 1: Obligation to adopt measures for high level separate collection
Article 5 and 6:
Member States shall adopt appropriate measures in order to achieve a high level of separate
collection of WEEE. For WEEE from private households, systems shall be established allowing final
holders and distributors to return WEEE at least free of charge leading to a collection of 4
kg/capita/year by the end of 2006. Systems shall be established to provide for the treatment of WEEE
using best available treatment, recovery and recycling techniques
State of implementation
In the EU, MS systems for the separate collection and treatment of WEEE have been established.
However, especially in newer MS there seems to be potential for improving the system.
The collection target of 4 kg/capita/year had not been met by five Member States as of 2006 (two
other did not report) (EC 2009).
The average collection rate in the EU-25 was estimated at around 5.9 kg/capita/year in 2005.
In Germany and Austria the collection rate for WEEE from households is approximately 8
kg/capita/year.
In Luxembourg as much as 16 kg/capita/year of WEEE was collected separately in 2008 (as compared
to 6 kg/capita in 2005).
Barriers to implementation
A system which provides free-of-charge take back at the point of sale and at waste collection centres,
which transfers financial means for covering the collection and treatment costs from the producers to
the waste collectors and treaters requires a rather complex structure, especially when competing low-
cost subsystems exist on the market. Monopolies may arise which need to be kept under close control
in order to avoid inefficiencies.
Even if a system of take back points is fully established, and even if the consumer can return the
equipment at the point of sale free of charge, he/she needs to take invest some effort to bring the
equipment to the collection point. Especially for smaller goods the waste bin frequently seems to be
the most convenient solution.
Emerging electric and electronic equipment contains an ever increasing diversity of chemical
elements in low concentrations. For example, a mobile phone may contain as much as 43 different
chemical elements. Low concentrations and high diversity make a recovery of the different materials
less economically viable and hence generate less income for financing the separate collection system.
For some materials only few treatment facilities are available in Europe, leading to additional
transport costs.
Drivers of implementation
In countries which not yet have long experience with take back systems and their financing, a
knowledge exchange with experts from countries which already have well established systems may be
of help.
In all countries it is necessary to perform intensive motivation and information campaigns to:
Show private consumers the consequences of mixing WEEE with residual waste
Annex
156 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Show what possibilities they have to bring back WEEE in a convenient way
Motivate them to bring the WEEE back
This may be part of a wider campaign on motivating citizens about separate collection and food waste
prevention, performed primarily in schools but also targeted towards households and cleaning
personnel.
Driving implementation may also be based on local waste advisers. Though politicians usually are
reluctant to impose a deposit, this measure should be considered if no other measure leads to the
targeted results.
Provision 2: Reuse, recycling and recovery targets
Article 7: Following recovery (re-use+recycling) rates shall be achieved by 2006:
80 % (75 %) for large household appliances and automatic dispensers
75 % (65 %) for IT and consumer equipment (TV, radio….)
70 % (50 %) for most other electric/electronic equipment
(80 %) for gas discharge lamps
State of implementation
EERA (European Electronics Recyclers Association) estimates that the amounts of WEEE reported by
the EU Member States as being separately collected corresponds to 20 to 33% of the electric and
electronic equipment put on the market. The European Commission (EC 2008) finds that
33 % of the WEEE generated is separately collected and reported
13 % of the WEEE generated is landfilled or incinerated
and concludes that
the remaining 54 % of the WEEE generated are
- either separately collected and treated in a not compliant way
- separately collected and exported without being reported
- or deposited in illegal landfills
But even when neglecting the unaccounted loss of WEEE, only five Member States met all recycling
targets and merely four the recovery targets. In 2009, infringement cases for non-conformity with the
WEEE Directive were pending against fourteen Member States and another for failure to report
against one MS (EC 2009).
Barriers to implementation
Recycling of WEEE requires a very complex system of collection of many different gadgets and types
of gadgets, their disassembly, the compilation of similar components, and their transport and
treatment in specialised plants (parts of which are metallurgical). The system requires a considerable
capacity of specialised workers and organisational skills to optimise the treatment capacities, material
flows and financial flows of the many different companies and associations involved. Not all skills and
capacities required may be available and fundable in the different member states.
While 20 years ago a mobile phone contained some 12 chemical elements it now contains more than
40 in ever decreasing concentrations (Hagelücken 2010).
While existing WEEE recycling is already labour intensive (material recycling from waste creates 5 to 7
times more jobs than disposal by incineration and 10 times more jobs than disposal on landfills (EC
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 157
2008)) the increasing diversity of electric and electronic equipment and of the chemical elements
included in WEEE makes recycling even more labour intensive. Decreasing concentrations for some
chemical elements lead to thermodynamic borders, meaning that more resources have to be invested
than can be gained. Diversification of chemical elements and components and decreasing
concentrations lead also to a concentration of treatment towards the most economic elements and
the most abundant components, while less usual components cannot be recycled in an efficient way.
There also may be differences in determining the base figures for calculating the recovery and
recycling rates, which may require further standardisation.
Drivers of implementation
In principle, high raw material prices are the main drivers for recycling. If the market prices return to a
lower level, a raw material tax should be considered.
Higher volumes of WEEE separately collected and recycled make recycling more economically
appealing. Therefore any effort to increase the share of WEEE separately collected and treated in a
registered way also supports recycling. Important measures would be the effective prevention of
illegal WEEE exports, the elimination of non-compliant landfilling and the motivation of final
consumers to bring back WEEE to separate collection points.
The difference in the recycling rates between MS may be a hint that less successful MS may require
organisational support in financing and operating their WEEE collection and recycling system. It also
possible that more successful MS may provide some advice and support capacity building.
A more standardised collection of base data for calculating the recovery/recycling rates may make the
rates of the different Member States more comparable.
Sources:
[1] EC - European Commission (2008): Commission staff working paper accompanying the proposal for a directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) (recast) - Impact Assessment
{COM(2008) 810 final} {SEC(2008) 2934}. http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SEC:2008:2933:FIN:EN:PDF
[2] EC - European Commission (2009): Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on implementation of the community waste
legislation Directive 2006/12/EC on waste, Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste, Directive 75/439/EEC on waste oils,
Directive 86/278/EEC on sewage sludge, Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, Directive 1999/31/EC on
the landfill of waste and Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment for the period 2004-2006
{SEC(2009)1586}. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0633:FIN:EN:PDF
[3] EEA – European Environment Agency (2010): State of Environment Report 2010 – Part C Country Assessments, Waste.
Copenhagen. www.eea.europa.eu/soer/countries/
[4] Hagelücken, Ch. (2010): Wir brauchen eine globale Recyclingwirtschaft - mit völlig neuen Ansätzen. Proc. Wie sicher ist
die Rohstoffversorgung für die Energietechnologien der Zukunft? Vienna, 11.10.2010.
www.nachhaltigwirtschaften.at/nw_pdf/events/20101011_rohstoffversorgung_christian_hagelueken.pdf.
[5] Ökopol, IIIEE Lund University & RPA (2007): "The producer responsibility principle of Directive 2002/96/EC on waste
electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)". http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/final_rep_okopol.pdf
[6] Umweltbundesamt (2010): Statusbericht 2009 zum Bundes-Abfallwirtschaftsplan. Klagenfurt, Wien.
www.bundesabfallwirtschaftsplan.at.
[7] UNU, AEA, REC, Gaiker & TU Delft (2007): "2008 Review of Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic
equipment (WEEE)". http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/final_rep_unu.pdf
Annex
158 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Annex B: Case studies
Port of Rotterdam: Waste Shipment Regulation
Enforcement
Context
Since 1995, the Netherlands has put in place stringent environmental standards for waste recovery
and disposal, using monitoring and registration practices, introducing minimum standards for
permits procedures and the notion of producer responsibility, as well as applying market forces to
waste management110. Additionally, a landfill tax and local waste taxes have been introduced.
Separate collection is a hallmark of Dutch waste policy. While total waste generation in the
Netherlands grew from 47 Mt in 1985 to over 63 Mt in 2000, since 2000 waste volumes have
decreased and are currently at approximately 60 Mt111.
Since the introduction of the Waste Shipment Regulation (ECC regulation 259/93 of 1 February 1993
then 1013/2006), the Netherlands has addressed issues related to waste shipment notably through
the Port of Rotterdam, as part of their waste management plan. Rotterdam is one of the main ports
and largest logistical and industrial hubs in Europe, boasting an annual throughput of 400 million
tonnes of cargo in 2009112. Costly repatriation requests from Asia, leading to an increase in public
and political awareness of waste shipment issues, and the position of Rotterdam as a primary transit
hub and point of exit from the EU have been primary drivers of the focus on waste shipment issues
at the Port of Rotterdam. With the disappearance of the internal borders in the EU, Customs
Officers’ activities have been focused on the EU’s external borders, notably the Port of Rotterdam.
As reported by the European Environment Agency, transboundary shipment of waste increased
significantly between the period 1995-2005. In 2003, approximately 8.6 tonnes of hazardous and
problematic waste were shipped across European borders, with over 90% of this volume destined
for other EU countries, 80% for recovery and 20% for disposal.113 In addition to transboundary waste
exchanges in the EU, there is a trend towards waste exportation towards Asia and Africa. The
European Environment Agency cites paper and metal as comprising the main flows of non-
hazardous waste streams out of the EU in 2005, totalling around 8 and 10 million tonnes
respectively, with the vast majority destined for the Far East. Concerns over shipping to developing
countries are primarily the illegal export of hazardous waste and the shipment of electrical and
electronic waste falsely declared as second-hand goods.
110
“The Dutch Waste Profile 1999-2005” Waste Management Autority Senternovem, 2006.
111
EEA (2010) The European Environment – State and Outlook 2010
www.eea.europa.eu/soer/countries/nl/soertopic_view?topic=waste
112
Port of Rotterdam website
www.portofrotterdam.com/en/Port/port-in-general/Pages/default.aspx
113
EEA (2008) Transboundary shipments of waste in the EU: Developments 1995-2005 and possible drivers
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 159
The Netherlands and the Port of Rotterdam have taken a leading role within the EU on waste
shipment regulation enforcement, notably participating and acting as a leader in IMPEL, the
European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law, and their
Transfrontier Shipment network (TFS-network). The TFS network organises a number of activities
including exchange of inspectors and joint inspection activities. The Inspectorate for Housing,
Spatial Planning and the Environment is the competent authority for the enforcement of the WSR in
the Netherlands, but relies on a network of partners for effective enforcement: the National Police
Services (KLPD), the Tax and Customs Administration, the Transport and Water Management
Inspectorate (IVW) and the regional police forces. For the purposes of enforcing the WSR, a guide on
how to act when an infringement is detected has been prepared by the Inspectorate, known as the
VIP EVOA114.
Marina de Gier, Programme Manager for International Waste Affairs at the Inspectorate for
Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, highlighted the importance of the partnership
between the Inspectorate and the Customs Officers in enforcing waste shipment regulations in the
Port of Rotterdam115. Customs Officers are trained on illegal and hazardous waste concerns and a
convention has been put in place allowing Customs Officers to take immediate action on irregular
shipments. The Inspectorate deals with more difficult cases and has a telephone service for
information available for Customs Officers at all times. An extensive exchange of information
between the Customs Office and the Inspectorate allows the Inspectorate to identify risk profiles
each year based on waste streams or countries of import or export most likely to be problematic,
guiding the Customs Officers in their inspections.
The Netherlands and particularly the Port of Rotterdam have prioritised WEEE shipments as a
concern since 2004. Initial research on illegal WEEE shipments was completed in 2000 and 2001 and
additional projects focused on investigating the regional streams of WEEE, incentives for its illegal
shipment and parties involved. Carl Huijbregts of the Inspectorate for Housing, Spatial Planning and
the Environment underlined the importance of the use of a supply chain approach in this exercise;
inspections and investigations were completed for retailers, municipalities and traders, not just at
port locations116. This initial exercise led not only to the exposure of a major electronics retailer as
being at the root of much illegal WEEE shipping, but also to the creation of a guidance document on
WEEE shipments for use by Customs Officers and Inspectors. Additionally, the Inspectorate initiated
a number of projects with African and other developing countries to better understand the illegal e-
waste trade and create partnerships to reduce such trade.
Economic impacts
IMPACTS ON TURNOVER OF WASTE AND RELATED INDUSTRIES
Stricter enforcement of the Waste Shipment Directive would most likely impact the turnover of the
waste management and recycling industries. Increased stringency on the shipment of certain waste
114 “Inspectorate for Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment procedure on Regulation 1013/2006 VIP EVOA”, 1 January 2009.
115 Interview with Marina de Gier, December 2010.
116 Interview with Carl Huigbregts, December 2010.
Annex
160 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
streams can encourage usage of legal collection and treatment channels, hence increasing turnover
in the waste and recycling industries.
Carl Huijbregts, of the Inspectorate for Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, cited an
increase in the volumes of WEEE collected through official channels following on stricter inspection
of WEEE shipments since 2005, particularly for hazardous items such as refrigerators and
televisions. This shift led to a renegotiation between producers and the municipality of Rotterdam
on pricing and procedures for disposal leading to the creation of a more efficient system.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
Fines for illegal waste shipments in the Netherlands through the Port of Rotterdam range from €500
to €1000 per tonne, based on the content of the containers in question and their level of
hazardousness.
While environmental crises related to illegal waste shipment and dumping, such as the Probo Koala
incident in 2007, in which toxic waste was dumped in and around the city of Abidjan in Côte d’Ivoire,
causing around a dozen deaths and inciting nearly 100,000 citizens to seek medical attention, are
rare, environmental clean-up costs as well as longer term health care costs related to toxic waste
exposure and incorrect treatment can be quite high. In the Probo Koala case, clean-up costs paid by
Trafigura, the Dutch shipping company responsible for the dumping, to the government of Côte
d’Ivoire were approximately €152m. A settlement of €33m to 31,000 citizens of Côte d’Ivoire for
health concerns was also paid by Trafigura.
Due to the varying scale of dumping activities and the informal nature of illegal waste treatment in
developing countries, it is difficult to estimate the financial costs of the environmental and health
damage caused by illegal waste shipment activities. However, a study commissioned by the
Inspectorate of the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment of the Netherlands
and the Dutch Association for the Disposal of Metal and Electrical Products on WEEE management
in Ghana provides some indications of sources of financial costs linked to environmental and health
damage. In Ghana, the primarily populations impacted by illegal WEEE treatment are waste
collectors, recyclers and refurbishers. While collectors and refurbishers experience relatively minimal
health risks related to strain and lead exposure, respectively, recyclers are exposed to a number of
health risks due to open incineration practices for metal recovery and inappropriate dismantling
techniques117. While health risks are highest for the population of recycling workers, improper and
crude recycling techniques can lead to severe pollution including fumes or dust which can impact
entire communities leading to illness and premature mortality.
Legal fees and costs for repatriation of illegal waste shipments to their country of origin contribute
additional financial costs which could be reduced through stricter enforcement of the Waste
Shipment Regulation. While repatriation costs are paid by the company originally responsible for
the shipment, in the case of their default the countries involved in the shipment must take
responsibility for the costs of repatriation. Nancy Isarin, formerly of the IMPEL-TFS Secretariat,
cited repatriation costs as made up of shipment fees, container rental and required treatment
activities following on the return of the waste to its country of origin118. An instance of repatriation
117 Öko-Institut e.V., Socio-economic assessment and feasibility study on sustainable e-waste management in Ghana, August 2010.
118 Interview with Nancy Isarin, December 2010; now of AmbienDura.
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 161
of hazardous waste destined for Nigeria via the United States, under the Basel convention, led to
repatriation to Rotterdam costing €1.2 million.
The Waste Shipment Regulation, EC 1013/2006, implements the Basel Convention; however, some
key differences exist in the two documents. While the Basel Convention deals exclusively with
hazardous waste shipment, the WSR addresses transboundary shipment of waste in general.
However, the principles presented in the WSR are aligned with the Basel Convention, such as
environmentally sound management (ESM) and dealing with waste as close to where it was
produced as possible. The waste classifications and reporting procedures outlined in EC 1013/2006
are aligned with the Basel Convention. Additionally EC 1013/2006 incorporates OECD Decision C
(2001) 107 Final on transboundary movements of wastes destined for recovery operations.
IMPACTS ON RESOURCE USE
The use of waste as a resource via proper recycling and treatment could reduce the necessity of
using virgin materials as well as generate energy. Marina de Gier of the Inspectorate for Housing,
Spatial Planning and the Environment pointed out the possibility of a more robust market for the
sales and purchase of waste as a resource, achievable through a standardised EU-wide enforcement
of the Waste Shipment Regulation. According to the European Environmental Agency, reported
annual illegal shipments range from 6 000 to 47 000 tonnes, with an average of 22 000 tonnes, which
represents 0.2% of notified waste; however, it is expected that reported instances represent a
fraction of the actual number and that the actual number is considerable.119
Additionally, improper dismantling and recovery processes for materials, such as precious metals, in
developing countries lead to recovery rates of approximately 20% while state-of-the-art industrial
recycling methods available in the EU lead to much higher recovery possibilities, approximately
95%, hence achieving much more effective usage of resources120.
As a result of stricter enforcement on waste shipments in the Port of Rotterdam, Nancy Isarin of the
IMPEL-TFS Secretariat cited increased waste quality due to higher quantities of waste routed
through legal channels for recovery and treatment, hence leading to optimised processes and better
sorting techniques and consequently better access to high quality raw materials.
Social benefits
IMPACTS ON EMPLOYMENT
The impacts on employment and job creation of more effective enforcement of the Waste Shipment
Regulation would primarily be linked to the waste management and recycling sectors. Increased
strictness on waste shipments would lead to an augmentation of collection and treatment of waste
by legal routes thereby increasing business for recycling and treatment providers, in turn creating
jobs in this sector.
119 EEA, Waste without borders in the EU?, 2009.
120 Deutsche Umwelthilfe, Hamburg – Gate to the world for illegal waste exports? Part 2 2007.
Annex
162 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
The port of Rotterdam’s focus on WEEE shipments has, according to Nancy Isarin, led to the
creation of companies specialised in dismantling WEEE. Private sector positions linked to
environmental coordination and inspection have grown as a result of increased inspection and
enforcement of the WSR in the Port of Rotterdam. Also, additional positions have been created for
Customs Officers, Inspectors and government officials involved in waste shipment permitting and
inspection. Nancy Isarin, formerly of the IMPEL-TFS Secretariat, estimated that stricter
enforcement of the WSD in the Port of Rotterdam led to the creation of 22 jobs; 12 in the public
sector, including positions such as inspectors at the EPA and Customs, other law enforcement
bodies, permit writers and administrative support, as well as 10 in the private sector for positions
such as environmental managers at companies and increased staff at waste treatment facilities in
order to improve waste quality.
IMPACTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH
The shipment of waste can result in an increased level of environmentally sound recycling, as
recycling capacity is not necessarily located close to the place where recyclable waste is generated,
such as in the case of shipments from new MS to the EU-15 of old transformers containing PCBs, as
facilities for treatment in the countries of origin are inadequate. However, recycling standards and
capacity must be guaranteed in the country of destination, otherwise potential environmental
hazards are simply being exported to other parts of the world121. This issue was brought to light
notably by the Probo Koala dumping incident in Côte d’Ivoire in 2006, in which the dumping of
hazardous sludge led to the deaths of sixteen people and the poisoning of hundreds of others.
The impacts of illegal waste shipments for countries receiving them include pollution of air, water,
soil and habitats as well as health risks for workers and citizens, with the extent of the impacts
closely linked with the usage of proper or improper waste treatment techniques. The already toxic
nature of hazardous substances often can become an augmented risk due to a lack of personal
protection equipment or pollution control measures used in waste treatment in those countries
receiving illegal waste shipments. Improper treatment and disposal of waste materials in developing
countries leads to emissions of heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants, contributing to
global warming and ozone depletion, as well as posing long-term health risks for citizens. A study
completed by EMPA on WEEE burning in Delhi, India, found no risks of immediate intoxication for
populations around burning sites, but indicated the possibility for a higher-than-average risk of
cancer due to increased levels of chlorinated dioxins and furans; inhalation by children and food
preparation near the burning sites were cited as the most problematic forms of contamination which
could lead to long-term health risks122.
121
Milieu, AmbienDura, and FFact (2009) Study on the feasibility of the establishment of a Waste Implementation Agency
122
EMPA, ‘Risk Assessment of E-waste burning in Delhi, India,’ 2004. www.empa.ch/plugin/template/empa/*/59242
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 163
Summary of barriers and drivers
BARRIERS TO BETTER IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT
Barriers to better implementation and enforcement of the EC Regulation 1013/2006, the Waste
Shipment Regulation, in the Port of Rotterdam involve a number of factors, discussed below.
Difficulty centralising information
While the Netherlands has implemented a system of coordination for Customs Officers, Police
Officers and the Ministry of Environment, a lack of partnership and cooperation among
organisations within other MS as well as lack of coordination between MS on waste shipment issues
poses a challenge to effective centralisation of information123.
Difficulty validating shipment reporting
An ongoing issue in tackling waste shipment issues in the Port of Rotterdam is false information
reported by shippers. Information reported by shippers is difficult to validate and, if false, leads to an
inaccurate picture of the actual state of waste shipment.
Political prioritisation
Another barrier to enforcement is political prioritisation of waste shipment as an issue; the
importance assigned to environmental issues and specifically issues linked to illegal waste
shipments varies between the MS; this has shifted over time in the Netherlands.
DRIVERS OF BETTER IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT
Drivers of better implementation and enforcement of the Waste Shipment Regulation in the Port of
Rotterdam include a number of factors, outlined below.
Coordinated control and inspection activities
Focusing on coordinating control and inspection activities between political and judicial bodies
involved in waste shipment issues is a driver to more effective implementation.
24-hour availability of environmental inspectors and emergency numbers
for customs officers
On-call access for Customs Officers and front-line inspectors of waste specialists and competent
authorities can improve correct application of inspection procedures for waste shipments and more
stringent examination of questionable shipments.
The sharing of guidance materials and databases across authorities
123
“Study on the feasibility of the establishment of a Waste Implementation Agency” Milieu, AmbienDura, and FFact, 7
December 2009.
Annex
164 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
A more extensive sharing of guidance materials as well as databases on shipments, shippers and
waste across authorities in a given MS and across EU MS can improve profiling for questionable
shippers and shipments and drive more stringent enforcement.
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 165
Cyprus: Landfill Directive implementation
Context
Council Directive 99/31/3C of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste entered into force on 16 July
1999, with a deadline of implementation in Member States of 16 July 2001. The objective of the
Landfill Directive is to prevent or reduce as far as possible the negative environmental impacts of
landfilling of waste. The Directive includes regulations on landfill classification, permitting
procedures and disposal options for different types of waste as well as requirements on reporting
and closure of illegal landfill sites. In a follow-up study on the implementation of the Landfill
Directive prepared for the European Commission in June 2007, an illegal landfill is defined as: “a
landfill which is operated without permit”124.
Since the 1980s, Cyprus has experienced the opening of an increasing number of illegal landfilling
and dump sites. Municipality laws were introduced in 1985 and 2002 and Local Communities Laws in
1999 to 2002 to address waste management and landfilling. In 2002, the Law on the management of
solid and hazardous waste was put in place, declaring the disposal of waste in unauthorised sites as
illegal and defining enforcement as the responsibility of the Ministry of the Interior125. With the
introduction of this legislation, Inspectors from the Solid Waste Management Sector of the Ministry
of the Interior were given the authority to prosecute or to issue court fines for illegal landfilling and
improper waste treatment. From 2007, applicable fines ranged up to a maximum of CP 200
(approximately € 340); if the non-conformity for which the fine was issued is not rectified within 48
hours, then the fine is doubled and once again doubled if the problem is not resolved within another
48 hours. Following this period, in a situation of continuing non-conformity, a charge for appearance
in court is made.
Until 2005, seven disposal sites were officially in operation; however, none of these seven sites
fulfilled the requirements of the Landfill Directive126.
While the legislation on solid and hazardous waste put in place in 2002 mandated permits for
Cypriot landfills, as of 2004, there remained no procedure for the systematic identification and
closure of illegal landfills to enforce the permitting requirement. Hence, in 2004, the Ministry of the
Interior commissioned a study on the identification and assessment of illegal landfills. The study did
not include areas of ad hoc illegal waste disposal, only used on an occasional basis, but instead
focused on sites selected by local authorities for use as waste disposal sites, but which did not
receive the required permits. The study identified and recorded 113 unofficial and uncontrolled
waste dump sites; a geographic information systems (GIS) database with complete information for
124
COWI and EC, “Follow-up study on the implementation of Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste in EU-25” June
2007.
125
Ibid.
126 Cyprus joined the European Union on 1 May 2004.
Annex
166 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
each site was developed127. A risk assessment of the sites was carried out using a method of multiple
criteria decision analysis to select the ten most risky sites requiring immediate restoration. The
assessment focused on detecting sites serving settlements of at least 2,000 inhabitants and included
a literature search, interviews with local authorities, and on-site examinations of the disposal areas.
The risk assessment used multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA), considering the pollution
mechanism created between source, path and receiver, and hence analysing types of waste, waste
volume, distance of industrial zones from landfill, the path of pollution including precipitation,
distance from an aquifer and ground permeability as well as distance from sites related to water
use/protected areas.
The 2003 Strategic Plan for the Management of Solid and Hazardous Wastes governs waste
management in Cyprus, foreseeing four new landfill sites operational by 2009, to replace the
approximately 100 existing waste disposal sites. Implementation plans are in place for specific
districts in Cyprus: Paphos, Larnaca/Ammohostos, Lefkosia and Limassol. Following on an illegal
landfill closure, measures taken include monitoring landfill leachate, ground water and surface
water as well as monitoring of biogas for possible utilisation.
Delays in the initial timeline laid out for the closure, rehabilitation and after-care of identified illegal
sites, as well as the opening of all new sites planned, mean that Cyprus has not, by the expected
2010 date, completed all stated objectives in the 2003 Strategic Plan. Work remains ongoing; as to
date, approximately 60 illegal landfills still require closure and rehabilitation procedures, while an
upgraded sanitary station has been installed in the Pathos district, sanitary stations for the Nicosia
and Limassol districts remain in the planning stage. The current operating installations are not
capable of handling the high consumption and waste generation patterns observed in Cyprus, of
over 700 kgs of waste generated/capita/year128.
Charalambos Theopemptou, the Cyprus Commissioner for the Environment, cited getting citizens
to recycle as a linked issue; awareness campaigns on specific waste streams and the installation of
separate collection containers at civic amenity sites, called ‘Green Points’, have helped increase
awareness and participation in recycling activities129.
Economic impacts
IMPACTS ON TURNOVER OF WASTE AND RELATED INDUSTRIES
Both Charalambos Theopemptou and Dr. Costas Papastavros cited that illegal landfill closure and
the development of state-of-the-art ‘sanitary landfills’, comprised of a sorting line and treatment
plants for specific waste streams, has led to increased turnover for the waste management and
recycling industry. Currently, the ‘Green Points’ and sanitary landfills cover 85% of waste produced
in Cyprus, leading to the collect and treatment of 400,000 tonnes of recyclable material. Panagiotis
127
Enviroplan S.A. & Cyprus Ministry of Interior, “Risk Assessment and Evaluation of Uncontrolled Landfill Sites in Cyprus”
2007.
128
Dr. Costas Papastavros, Cyprus Environmental Service, “The Cyprus Strategic Plan on Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management” April 2007.
129 Interview with Charalambos Theopemptou, December 2010.
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 167
Frangkakis, a consultant at Enviroplan, cited potentially higher gate fees for treatment and disposal
of waste in the new integrated sustainable waste management facilities130.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
High penalty fees as well as potential prison sentences apply for violations on illegal landfilling and
incorrect waste management. Strict enforcement of usage of legal treatment and recycling routes
can transfer fines spent on infringement towards the waste management sector in support of proper
handling.
The tourist industry is a large financial driver in Cyprus; at various points tourists have made official
complaints about illegal dumping and inadequate waste management services. The closure of illegal
landfilling sites and the creation of state-of-the-art waste treatment centres reduce negative
environmental impacts on the island and the associated media attention that this can generate,
securing Cyprus as a safe and inviting tourist destination and potentially boosting revenues.
While no specific cases of exposure to toxic waste or unsafe drinking water have been reported in
Cyprus linked with illegal landfilling, by closing or rehabilitating illegal landfill sites, Cyprus has
averted long-term potential health costs of continued illegal landfilling.
IMPACTS ON RESOURCE USE
The closure and rehabilitation of illegal landfill sites in Cyprus has led to increased usage of the legal
collection, treatment and disposal system, and thus more effective resource use. The separate
collection points as well as the state-of-the-art sanitary plants installed in Cyprus allow for increased
recycling and waste recovery, with landfilling as a last resort. While in 2003 waste disposal in Cyprus
was nearly entirely landfill, by 2007, approximately 20% of waste was recycled.
Social benefits
IMPACTS ON EMPLOYMENT
Closure of illegal landfilling sites and the creation of state-of-the-art ‘sanitary landfills’, has led to job
creation at both intermediate sorting stations and larger recycling plants. Dr. Costas Papastavros, of
the Environmental Service of the Cyprus Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and
Environment, estimated that over the past 10 years, due to the Cypriot government’s focus on illegal
landfilling and waste management, 300 jobs have been created annually in the waste management
and recycling sector131.
The training and development of new competencies could also be cited as a social benefit of illegal
landfill closure and the opening of new sanitary landfill sites, especially for waste stream-specific
processing activities. Additional job creation could be expected in other public-sector functions
related to environmental issues and waste management such as the Ministry of the Environment,
130 Communication with Panagiotis Frangkakis, December 2010.
131 Interview with Dr. Costas Papastavros, December 2010.
Annex
168 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
local community councils, etc. Costas Kotziapashies, of the Ministry of the Interior, cited the
potential job creation resulting from the construction projects to put into place the ‘sanitary landfills’
as well as their operating staff132.
IMPACTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH
Closure or rehabilitation of illegal landfill sites has averted potential long-term public health issues
such as toxic waste exposure or unsafe drinking water. The Cypriot study on illegal landfills
completed in 2004 showed that serious environmental impacts have resulted over the years of
operation of the landfills. The major environmental and health concerns identified include:
Groundwater pollution
Soil pollution
Underground transport of landfill gas
Odour
Landfill gas fires and explosions
Landfill fires usually incurred to reduce the volume of waste
Animal grazing; as illegal landfills or dumping sites are not fenced in, it is thus
rather common for herds to enter waste disposal areas133
An impact assessment identified groundwater pollution, soil pollution and surface water pollution as
the three most high-risk environmental issues resulting from illegal landfill operation in Cyprus.
Summary of barriers and drivers
BARRIERS TO BETTER IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT
Barriers to better implementation and enforcement of the Landfill Directive in Cyprus involve a
number of factors, discussed below.
Limited human resources and specialised knowledge
Speaking in 2007, Dr. Costas Papstavros of the Cyprus Environmental Service cited limited human
resources at the government level as a barrier to the effective Cypriot adoption of EU waste
legislation. The “Follow-up study on the implementation of Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of
waste in EU-25”, prepared in 2007 by COWI and the European Commission, cited a lack of human
resources ensuring enforcement as a barrier to effective implementation of the Landfill Directive in
132
Communication with Costas Kotziapashies, December 2010.
133 COWI and EC, “Follow-up study on the implementation of Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste in EU-25” June
2007.
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 169
Cyprus as well as a risk of insufficient knowledge about waste management requirements, especially
in rural areas134.
Public awareness of waste issues
While the introduction of the 2003 Strategic Plan for the Management of Solid and Hazardous
Wastes and the completion of a risk assessment on illegal landfills in 2004 contributed to
improvements in waste management and the enforcement of the Landfill Directive, awareness
remains an ongoing issue. Charalambos Theopemptou, the Cypriot Commissioner for the
Environment, cited the ongoing difficulty of getting citizens to recycle and the importance of
expanding campaigns on the importance of recycling and correct disposal for various waste
streams135.
Drivers of better implementation and enforcement
A number of drivers, outlined below, contribute to the better implementation and enforcement of
the Landfill Directive in Cyprus.
Tourist industry revenue concerns
As the tourist industry accounts for a large portion of Cyprus’s economic activity, official tourist
complaints about waste management and concerns about lowered tourist revenues increased
political awareness of the issue and served as a catalyst for improved implementation and
enforcement of EU waste legislation, notably the Landfill Directive.
Governmental focus
A governmental focus on waste related issues due both to the creation of national waste legislation
and the preparation of a strategic plan for its implementation in 2003 and 2004 as well as the
required implementation of EU waste legislation following on Cyprus joining the in EU in 2004 has
served as an ongoing driver for waste management inspection and enforcement activities.
Increasing public and political awareness
The organisation of Information Exchange and Awareness Raising Events on the landfilling of waste
in Cyprus, with the cooperation of the EU, in both 2007 and 2009, has served as a method for
benchmarking progress, sharing good practices and encouraging continued planning and
enforcement. Additionally, Costas Kotziapashies of the Ministry of Interior cited increasing Cypriot
public awareness as a driver of better enforcement.
134 COWI and EC, “Follow-up study on the implementation of Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste in EU-25” June
2007.
135 Interview with Charalambos Theopemptou, December 2010.
Annex
170 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Naples: Waste Management Crisis
Context
Italy is progressively increasing the diversion of municipal waste from landfill, with a 50% diversion
rate in 2006. However, waste management performance is highly variable by region, with a separate
collection rate for bio-waste for example at 40% in the north, against a rate of 10% and 20% in the
south and centre respectively. Waste management, and particularly application of the Landfill
Directive, has historically been an issue in southern Italy, where local government has difficulty
maintaining authority and landfill capacity has been a problem since the mid 1990s.
Italy declared a state of emergency for waste in the Campania region, including Naples, in 1994,
leading to the establishment of a Commissario Straordinario (Special Commissioner) to address the
situation. In 1994, the Campania region was ordered by the European Commission to clean up all
illegal waste dumps and to develop a waste disposal program involving waste separation and
recycling136. As the regional plan previously put in place for waste management in Naples did not
appear to be working, the Special Commission offered a contract for tender for the period 1998-
2000. The integrated disposal plan for MSW which won the tender included the use of seven waste
plants and the construction of two incinerators by the end of 2000. The contract gave the
consortium who won the bid the power to select locations for the incinerators without consultation
of the local government or citizens, or the completion of an impact assessment, leading to the
selection of two locations next to each other, Acerra and Santa Maria La Fossa. The incinerator
specified in the 1998-2000 contract was not completed by the end of 2000.
Since 1994, waste management has improved in other districts in the Campania region. Salerno, the
district next to Naples, for example, launched a widespread awareness-raising campaign, imposed
severe fines for illegal dumping, put in place an effective separate collection system and improved
recycling rates137. Mariella Maffini, of the Special Commission, cited improved separate collection
rates across the region with 340 out of 551 towns reaching a 70% rate of separate collection, and
another 71 towns achieving between 25% and 35% of separate collection138. However, waste
management and the fulfilment of the Landfill Directive has remained an ongoing issue for the
Naples district.
The Naples waste crisis began in December 2007, when municipal workers in charge of waste
collection went on strike, leading to a build up of waste in the streets. Many factors contributed to
this crisis. In 2007, Naples produced 1,700 thousand tonnes of waste, out of which 1,300 thousand
were landfilled. Following the strike and resulting civil unrest, at the request of residents, at the end
of 2007, the government closed one of two major landfills near Naples. In order to ease the waste
136
Alexander Smoltczyk, Spiegel Online, ‘In Naples, Waste is Pure Gold,’ 14 January 2008.
www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,528501,00.html
137
S. Romano, Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe (REC), ‘Municipal Solid Waste Management
Policies and Problems in Naples, 2009.
138 Interview with Mariella Maffini, December 2010.
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 171
situation in Naples in the short-term, as of 2008, everyday a freight train carried 700 tonnes of
municipal waste from Naples to Hamburg for incineration with energy recovery139. In 2008, after
winning the national elections, the Italian President Silvio Berlusconi arranged for the removal of the
waste from the streets of Naples, as promised during his campaign. In May 2008, Mr. Berlusconi held
his first cabinet meeting in Naples, returning again in March 2009 for the inauguration of the new
incinerator in Acerra. However, the Acerra incinerator is reported to have never run at full
capacity.140
While recycling levels in the region are low, separate collection trials across the Campania region
have shown that it is not a social issue or the result of the opposition of communities to recycling.
Separate collection rates of between 50% and 70% have been achieved in the neighbouring
communes of Salerno and Caserta. Organisational and infrastructural problems stem from the
illegal import and dumping of often toxic waste, which constitutes a profitable business for the
Camorra, a major criminal organisation operating in the region. Illegal import and dumping of toxic
waste violates not only the Waste Shipment Regulation, but also the Landfill Directive’s stipulations
on permitting and correct disposal procedures for landfilling of waste, posing risks for surface water,
ground water, soil, air and human health. It was reported that Neapolitan landfills had been filled
with industrial and special waste from other parts of Italy, and that this has resulted in the lack of
capacity for local municipal waste141. In addition, it was further reported that a landfill 30km from
Naples, Parco Saurino #3, with a capacity of 400,000m3, was empty, although it had the capacity for
4-5 months of the total municipal waste generation of the Naples area142.
As of October 2010, the announcement by the government to build another, larger, landfill inside
Vesuvius National Park to hold 3 million metric tonnes of waste, led to protests and rioting, leading
once again to the build up of waste in the streets of Naples itself. While various measures have been
taken since the initial declaration of a state of emergency in the Campania region in 1994 and the
waste crisis in Naples in 2007, the situation has yet to be resolved. The Naples region remains in
violation of the Waste Shipment Regulation and the Landfill Directive, leading to financial,
economic, social and health-related losses.
Economic impacts
IMPACTS ON TURNOVER OF WASTE AND RELATED INDUSTRIES
Mariella Maffini cited the tourist industry as being the sphere of activity most impacted by the waste
crisis in the Naples region and the ongoing failure of proper implementation of EU waste legislation.
139
European Environmental Agency, ‘Developments in shipments of paper waste as an example of non-hazardous wastes
out and within the EU from 1995 to 2007’, 9 January 2009.
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/developments-in-shipments-of-paper-waste-as-an-example-of-non-
hazardous-wastes-out-and-within-the-eu-from-1995-to-2007
140
Emiliano Fittipaldi and Claudio Pappaianni, L’Espresso, ‘Rifiuti che bluff,’ 25 March 2010.
http://espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio/rifiuti-che-bluff/2123808
141 Interview with Roberto Cavallo in December 2010, President of ERICA, who conducted separate collection trials in
Campania in 2009.
142 Interview with Walter Ganapini in December 2010, Environmental Director to the Region of Campania until June 2010.
Annex
172 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Roberto Cavallo, at ERICA, quantified the impacts of improper waste management on the Naples
tourist industry in 2007 as a loss of €64 million, due an estimated loss of 650,000 tourists that year.
The entry of toxic chemicals into the groundwater and soil due to improper waste disposal creates
concerns for the agriculture sector around the Naples area, as the Campania region is a major
agricultural area. In 2008, the discovery of higher-than-permitted levels of dioxins in buffalo milk
herds in the Campania region, responsible for the production of regional speciality mozzarella di
bufala, led to the quarantine of 66 dairies, causing mozzarella sales to drop by as much as 50%143.
Antonio Pace, the president of the Association of Authentic Neapolitan Pizza-Makers expressed
concern about potentially reduced national consumption of pizzas, in most of which mozzarella is a
key ingredient. An estimated 33,000 tonnes, of a €300 million value, of Denominazione d’Origine
Protetta mozzarella is produced annually in Italy, employing around 20,000 people; ongoing high
levels of dioxin could lead to additional drops in sales and a loss of revenue for the sector, due to loss
of public confidence in the product144. The entry of toxic waste into groundwater and soil due to
improper waste disposal could create long-term impacts for farming in the region with impacts for
all agricultural products produced.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The ongoing costs of waste management and clean up appear to be the largest financial impacts of
the waste crisis in Naples. Mariella Maffini noted that the municipality has reported paying €2
million for staff in charge of waste management. Since 2007, Naples has been sending waste for
incineration to Germany, at a cost of €215 per tonne, or €400,000 in total per day, half of which
represents transport costs. Cost estimations for waste treatment within Italy are approximately
€290 per tonne, representing €120 for mechanical treatment, €20 for transport, and €150 for
temporary landfilling.145
Mariella Maffini noted that higher service fees paid, largely due to transport costs, for the
compostable portion of waste collection, handled by the Puglia region as part of an agreement
between the two regions, were another part of the Special Commission’s spending.
Furthermore, due to inadequate drainage systems for leachate at waste disposal sites in the
Campania region, each day 20 trucks transport the sewage liquid to treatment sites. The cost of
each round-trip leachate transport is €1,800, representing a minimal daily level of spending of
€36,000, adding up to over €20 million since 2007.146 Furthermore, the existence of waste dumping
sites within Vesuvius National Park is reported to require annual spending of €1.2 million by the
Ministry of the Environment to protect the natural biodiversity of the area.
A study completed by Alessandro Marangoni of Althesys estimated that the Naples waste crisis
required the payment of €1.1 billion above the average amount of waste management spending for
Italian regions. The same study by Mr. Marangoni estimates the total costs of the Naples waste crisis
at €18 billion, in addition to benefits lost from non-participation in Green Dot packaging systems
143
Michael McCarthy & John Phillips, The Independent, ‘Italy’s toxic waste crisis, the Mafia – and the scandal of Europe’s
mozzarella,’ 22 March 2008. www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/italys-toxic-waste-crisis-the-mafia-ndash-and-
the-scandal-of-europes-mozzarella-799289.html
144 Denominazione d’Origine Protetta or DOP indicates certain protection and quality guarantees.
145
Roberto Cavallo, ERICA, ‘Economie de la crise déchets { Naples,’ 16 December 2010.
146
Emiliano Fittipaldi and Claudio Pappaianni, L’Espresso, ‘Rifiuti che bluff,’ 25 March 2010.
http://espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio/rifiuti-che-bluff/2123808
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 173
estimated at €6.7 billion, resulting in an overall cost estimation of the Naples waste crisis at €24.7
billion. A report prepared by the Italian budgetary office cited the exponential increase in spending
through the Special Commission structure, from on average €5 million annually up until 2006, to up
to €50 million across the 2 year period from 2007 to 2009.147
In addition to waste management and clean-up costs, the financial losses due to civil unrest and the
continued police and military presence necessitated by such unrest represent a financial loss for
Naples and the Campania region. Ms. Maffini cited the burning of over 100 waste collection trucks,
at a price of €300,000 each and the ongoing presence of the army in the region as contributing to
costs. In extreme instances of trash build-up in the city of Naples, the army has been ordered in to
collect and dispose of trash, while salaries continued to be paid to waste management workers. The
burning of waste by residents as well as protesting and rioting have led to damages and required the
ongoing involvement of police and military forces. Due to waste-related spending, the Campania
region has built up a €300 million debt to the Italian government since 2008148.
If Italy does not address the ongoing crisis situation in Naples and the Campania region and their
non-compliance with EU waste legislation, and the European Commission refers the case to the
European Court of Justice for a second time, Italy will face fines of up to millions of Euros, calculated
as a percentage of GDP, with day-by-day penalties added to an initial lump sum149. Already, in 2007,
the European Commission withheld funds from Naples from the European Regional Development
Fund (ERDF), a decision reversed in May 2010.150
Social benefits
IMPACTS ON EMPLOYMENT
The ongoing waste situation in Naples and the surrounding Campania region negatively impacts
revenues and employment in the tourist industry as well as the agricultural sector, notably
producers of mozzarella di bufala.
While spending, particularly through the Special Commission, on waste management has increased
exponentially, presumably leading to job creation in the waste management sector, it is difficult to
assess the true impact of such spending. In their article in L’Espresso in March 2010, Emiliano
Fittipaldi and Claudio Pappaianni refer to an ongoing circle where citizens do not pay for services,
the municipality accumulates debt and the provincial associations inherit the debt and do not pay
employees wages. But on the other hand, the waste management structure in Naples and the
surrounding Campania region has been cited as being overstaffed.
147 Roberto Cavallo, ERICA, ‘Economie de la crise déchets à Naples,’ 16 December 2010.
148
Emiliano Fittipaldi and Claudio Pappaianni, L’Espresso, ‘Rifiuti che bluff,’ 25 March 2010.
149
EU Business, ‘Italy risks big fines over Naples trash crisis: EU,’ 26 November 2010.
www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/italy-waste-health.79f/
150
European Commission, ‘Judgment of the General Court of 6 May 2010 — Comune di Napoli v Commission,’ 6 May 2010.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:161:0039:0039:EN:PDF
Annex
174 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
IMPACTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH
Public health impacts in Naples and Campania, due to the build-up of waste in the streets, the
burning of waste by residents, the overfilling of full capacity landfills, and the improper treatment of
waste, especially toxic waste, are multiple.
An analysis of tumour deaths in towns near waste dumps in the Campania between 1994 and 2001
found the risk of stomach, kidney, liver, bladder and lung cancers were 50 to 100% higher than the
regional average, with a similar increase in birth defects151.
The five categories of risks for the population living near waste dumping sites in the Campania
region were assessed by the 11th annual national Italian public health conference, as the following:
Increased percentage of neoplasia (+1,5% for men, +1% for women)
Increased percentage of hepatic tumors (+4,3% for men, +6,6% for women)
Increased percentage of lung tumors for men (+1,9%)
Increased percentage of stomach tumors for men (+5,2%)
Increased percentage of birth detects (+13,8%) including for the urogenital
system, leading to increased mortality rates (+1,7% for men, +2,4% for
women)152
Risks are even higher for employees of landfill sites; the Maruzzella landfill, the first in San
Tammaro, serves as an example. In 1996 there were 20 workers, since, 5 have died of cancer and
another 3 are fighting cancer, leaving 12 workers.153
The municipality of Naples awarded €500 per person to 14 citizens and business owners in Naples
seeking damages for the health impact of the overrun of waste in their buildings, due to an ongoing
lack of waste collection services. While is it possible to ascertain that morality rates, particularly
from cancer, around Naples and in the Campania region are higher than national averages, linked to
illegal toxic waste dumping, Mrs. Maria Triassia, the Director of the Department of Hygiene and
Preventative Medicine at the private general hospital of Naples stated that it will take 10 years
before it is truly possible to evaluate the health damage resulting from the ongoing waste situation
in Naples. Additionally, Naples residents have reported a rise in the number of rats, pigeons and
seagulls; experts warned this could result in the rise of infectious gastrointestinal diseases.
Potential contamination of agricultural products in the Campania region also poses a potential
health risk. In 2008, the discovery of higher-than-permitted levels of dioxins in buffalo milk herds in
the Campania region caused alarm and impacted product sales; however, ongoing contamination of
agricultural fields and herds due to toxic waste dumping and improper waste treatment could
impact mortality rates in the long-term, not only in towns near waste dumping sites but also across
the entire Campania region.
151
Tom Kington, The Observer, ‘Naples burns as residents protest at garbage crisis,’ 27 May 2007.
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/may/27/italy.waste
152
Roberto Cavallo, ERICA, ‘Santé et la crise déchets { Naples,’ 27 December 2010.
153 Emiliano Fittipaldi and Claudio Pappaianni, L’Espresso, ‘Rifiuti che bluff,’ 25 March 2010.
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 175
An additional concern is that the landfill sites chosen by the government for collecting waste from
Naples and the majority of the cities in the Campania Region do not have adequate leachate
draining systems, necessitating their collection and transport to treatment sites and posing an
ongoing threat of overflow into nearby agricultural and grazing fields.
Summary of barriers and drivers
BARRIERS TO BETTER IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT
Declarations on the rapid or two week clean up of Naples have been made by the national
authorities, but the systemic nature of the waste build-up has not been addressed. EU Environment
Commissioner Janez Potocnik noted it would take at least “several years” to set up the
infrastructure required to handle the 7,200 tonnes of waste accumulating daily in Campania, avert
future waste crises, and bring the Naples region into line with EU waste legislation requirements.
Barriers to better implementation and enforcement of the Landfill Directive and Waste Shipment
Regulation in Naples and the surrounding Campania region involve a number of factors, discussed
below.
Lacking and misused infrastructure
Despite contracts for the construction of waste treatment plants commissioned prior to 2007, only
one incinerator is currently operational (Acerra), another remains under construction and 12
composting plants are in the process of being built as well. The incinerator at Acerra operates at a
third of its capacity.
Surplus staff
A number of employees were hired around 2007 to help address the waste crisis, however they have
remained on staff even though the need for such a large emergency staff has diminished. Salaries of
surplus staff represent a cost of €2,000 per month per employee to the Special Commission.
Management issues
The Special Commission, created in 1994, because of its ‘extraordinary’ and in principle temporary
nature, does not benefit from the usual checks and balances in government structures dealing with
waste management. Its spending has increased exponentially from €5m per year in 2006 to €50m in
the last two years154.
Corruption and organised crime
The involvement of the organised crime organisation, the Camorra, in the management of waste in
Campania, the consequent lack of proper controls in the handling of industrial, special and toxic
waste and the lack of adequate, functioning waste capacity is at the heart of the Naples waste crisis.
This is a complex problem in which billions of Euros of waste investment and management spending
is involved. It is a problem that needs to be handled by EUROPOL and the proper police authorities,
154 Roberto Cavallo, ERICA, ‘Economie de la crise déchets à Naples,’ 16 December 2010.
Annex
176 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
and without which, it is difficult to see how further investment or fines will improve the situation in
the long-term.
DRIVERS OF BETTER IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT
Drivers of better implementation and enforcement of EU waste legislation in Naples and the
surrounding Campania region are outlined below.
Taking political responsibility
Safe and reliable waste management in Naples will be supported by a regional waste management
plan that is not undermined by corruption or illegal forces, and one that is guaranteed by the local,
regional and national authorities in the long-term.
Increasing citizen involvement
Involving citizens in political decisions and keeping them aware of waste-related issues and progress
could reduce civil unrest and encourage participation in separate collection systems to reduce
pressure on landfills and increase revenues from recycling.
Restructuring funding
It must be ensured that funding for the management of the waste crisis does in fact resolve the
crisis, rather than becoming a continual and increasing source of revenue. Funding for the
construction of new infrastructure should be accompanied by conditions that guarantee that
projects will be completed on time and to a high standard. Infrastructure created needs to be
operated safely and correctly and fulfil EU permitting and treatment requirements.
Counteracting illegal activity
Organised crime and the persistent failures to put a lasting end to it is a root cause of the waste
crisis. This complex problem needs to be addressed with the appropriate tools; in this case,
EUROPOL and national police authorities. Other drivers of better waste legislation implementation
in Campania risk being impotent, if the foundational crime problem is not addressed effectively.
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 177
Brandenburg: Landfill Closure and Containment
Context
After reunification of East and West Germany it was necessary for the German region of
Brandenburg, from the economic and from the ecologic point of view, to restructure not only the
economy as a whole but also to restructure the waste management system. In order to meet the
requirements of the EU waste legislation provisions and specifically the provisions of the Landfill
Directive (99/31/EC), the majority of the sites for landfilling municipal waste in Brandenburg had to
be closed down, contained and revegetated. The remaining 7 landfill sites for municipal waste fully
meet the EU standards. This programme was complemented by the establishment of a waste
treatment system.
Brandenburg is a ‘Land’ (region) in Eastern Germany with 2.5 million inhabitants (MUGV 2010b).
Since June 1st 1990, waste regulations of the Federal Republic of Germany have been valid also for
the area of the former German Democratic Republic. In the period 1990 to 1992 a programme was
implemented to survey the landfill sites in the former GDR. This survey was also used as a job
creating initiative.
For the area of Brandenburg about two thousand sites where waste had been deposited up until
1989 were identified. While ordinary municipal waste had been landfilled at a smaller number of
central sites, the inhabitants of the communities used the two thousand less central sites for
disposing of mainly excavated soil, construction and demolition waste and garden waste. The
majority of the less central sites had been closed by 1990 but needed to be contained and
revegetated.
In the period 1990 to 1997, some 600 former landfills were contained and revegetated by the
municipalities, receiving €138 million of financial aid. As part of the programme “for the removal or
conform adaptation to the landscape of old communal deposits” (“zur Beseitigung oder
landschaftsgerechten Einpassung kommunaler Altablagerungen”), a further 775 sites were
contained and revegetated in the period 1998-2002.
Before launching the close down, containment and revegetation of landfill sites, the risk emanating
from the landfill sites was assessed in more than 1,200 cases.
Containment activities included the following:
Collection of bulky and similar waste which was deposited after 1989
Surface-covering
Adaptation to the surrounding area
Securing the landfill against unauthorised access (Muentner 2010a)
Of the 100 central landfill sites operating in 1990, 56 were still in operation in 1992. Of these, 35 were
upgraded to EU standards to extend their lifetime, such that by the year 2000 all 35 landfill sites
Annex
178 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
were still in operation. 21 sites had been closed down by May 31st 2005 and a further 9 by July 16th
2009. Thus the landfilling of residual municipal waste in Brandenburg has been concentrated in the 5
remaining sites.
After having finished the containment of the less central sites, the optimisation of the landfill
system focused on the close-down of central cites. This was mainly funded by the European
Regional Development Fund (ERDF) 2000-2006.
16 landfills were completely covered and sealed,
8 landfills partly or temporarily covered and sealed
2 landfills with a combined volume of 280,000 m³ completely removed
18 landfills equipped with active degassing
5 landfills equipped with passive degassing
1 landfill of 2.1 million m³ surrounded by a sealing wall
1 landfill stabilised by accelerated biological degradation.
430,000 tonnes of waste were recovered and consequently an additional 50,000 m² of ground made
available for other use.
In parallel to the closure of most landfill sites, 15 plants for the treatment and recycling of residual
waste were installed (Kreutzberg 2006), so that of 730,000 tonnes/year, only 29% or 212,000 tonnes
need to be landfilled (MUGV 2010b). The total amount of waste landfilled in Brandenburg was
reduced from 4 million tonnes in 1992 to 0.52 million tonnes in 2009 (MUGV 2010a,b). Nearly half of
the 4 million tonnes of waste landfilled in 1992 had been reactive waste. From the 523 kt of waste
landfilled in 2009, all waste was non-reactive, that is either construction and demolition waste or
secondary waste from mechanical-biological treatment (MUGV 2010b).
As a result, the greenhouse gas emissions from Brandenburg landfills are expected to decrease from
6 million tonnes of CO2 equivalents in 1996 to 1.4 Mt CO2 equivalents in 2010 (that is by 77%) (MLUV
2007).
The main reason for the containment project, however, was to limit the leaching of hazardous
substances from the existing landfills; as an example of the environmental effects of landfill
containment, the complete removal of 186,000 m³ (300,000 tonnes) of mixed waste from a landfill
site (that costed €8.3 M) can be taken. This transfer of waste from a site without bottom sealing to a
compliant landfill resulted in the lowering of volatile organic compounds (VOC) concentration in the
down stream ground water of the original site from 400 – 1.200 µg/l to 20-200 µg/l. While the latter
values are still high, as the downstream earths and rocks are still somewhat contaminated, the
removal of the waste has removed the source of contamination and brought down the groundwater
contamination by some 90% (Muentner 2010b).
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 179
Economic impacts
IMPACTS ON TURNOVER OF WASTE AND RELATED INDUSTRIES
Table 31 shows the costs and thus the turnover of the Brandenburg waste management system.
Table 31: Costs of waste management in Brandenburg 2009 (MUGV 2010b).
Costs in
million € Share in %
Collection and transport 73 43
Collection of hazardous substances 3 2
Treatment of residual waste 54 32
Recovery 24 14
Landfilling 8 5
Other management services 8 5
Total 169 100
With waste management costs of 68 €/cap/annum, Brandenburg lies 89% below the German
average of 610 €/cap/annum. Also the waste management costs per tonne of waste generated, at
115 €/t in Brandenburg, lie below the German average of 137 €/t (calculated from MUGV 2010b, BMU
2007 and Eurostat 2010 data).
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The financial aid for the containment of non-central landfills programmes was €37 million. More
than 1,600 persons were employed during this process.
For the closure programme of the central landfills, €113 million was spent, from which €47 million
was funded by ERDF (Muentner 2010b).
Through the commissioning of the 15 treatment plants:
about €300 million was invested
200 jobs were created
an annual turnover of €100 M € is achieved (Kreutzberg 2006).
IMPACTS ON RESOURCE USE
Of 1,469 kt of waste generated in 2008, some 456 kt (31 %) were collected as valuable materials for
recycling (see Table 32). An additional 288 kt of construction and demolition waste was recovered.
About 222 kt of waste was used for energy generation in Brandenburg in 2009 (MUGV 2010b).
Annex
180 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Table 32: Collection of valuable substances in Brandenburg in kt (kilo-tonnes) 2009 (MUGV
2010b).
Total
Paper/cardboard 183
Metals 3
Glass 63
Plastic packaging 86
Biowaste 98
Electronic equipment 15
Other valuable substances 9
Sum 456
Social impacts
IMPACTS ON EMPLOYMENT
The landfill containment project provided some 1600 temporary jobs (Muentner 2010b). The
restructuring of the waste management system as a whole create 200 permanent jobs (Kreutzberg
2006).
IMPACTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH
Life expectancy of newborns in Brandenburg increased from 73 years in 1991/93 to 79 years in
2007/2009 (Amt der Statistik Berlin Brandenburg 2010, DESTATIS 2010). While the average German
life expectancy also grew in this period, the increase in Brandenburg exceeded the German average
increase by 1.8 years. While the increase in life expectancy cannot be allocated to a single measure,
let alone to the changes in the waste management system, it is a strong hint that negative health
impacts on the Brandenburg economy receded and the environmental health increased.
Summary of barriers and drivers
BARRIERS TO BETTER IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT
The restructuring and upgrade of the waste management system could only partly be financed from
the waste levies in place. Additional funds from the regional and the national government and the
EU were necessary.
The 1998-2002 programme for the closure and containment of landfills had a relatively long start-up
phase during which only a few landfill operators cooperated with the programme. Only after good
experiences could be demonstrated did the programme gain speed (LASA 2001).
In spite of the efforts to establish an efficient and affordable waste management system, 6,500
tonnes of waste (or 0.4 % of the total waste generated) were still deposited illegally in the year 2009
in Brandenburg (MUGV 2010b).
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 181
DRIVERS OF BETTER IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT
A main driver for the containment and restructuring programme was the necessity to reach Western
European environmental and economic standards in the shortest possible time.
The restructuring and upgrade of the waste management system could be used for job creation
purposes and was seen as part of restructuring the whole economic system (LASA 2001).
List of Abbreviations
a annum, year
cap capita, inhabitant
ERDF European Regional Development Fund
GDR German Democratic Republic
kt kilo-tonnes = thousand tonnes
Mt Mega-tonnes = million tonnes
MUGV Ministerium fuer Umwelt, Gesundheit und Verbraucherschutz (Brandenburg)
t tonne
References
Amt der Statistik Berlin Brandenburg (2010): Durchschnittliche Lebenserwartung Neugeborener des Landes Brandenburg
1991 bis 2005. Berlin. http://www.statistik.brandenburg.de/sixcms/detail.php/lbm1.c.222968.de.
BMU - Bundesministerium fuer Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (2007): Abfallwirtschaft in Deutschland -
Motor fuer Jobs und Innovationen. Berlin.
DESTATIS - Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland (2010): Lebenserwartung im Ländervergleich in Baden-Württemberg
am höchsten Pressemitteilung Nr.425 vom 18.11.2010.
http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/DE/Presse/pm/2010/11/PD10__425__12621.psml
European Community (1999): Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste. Official Journal L 182,
16/07/1999 P. 0001 - 0019
Eurostat (2010): Generation of waste – total waste.
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=env_wasgen&lang=en. Accessed on 23.12.2010.
Kreutzberg, W. (2006): Abfallwirtschaft im Land Brandenburg - Eine Bestandsaufnahme. IHK Frankfurt/Oder, 10 Jahr
Kreislaufwirtschaft, 28.09.2006.
Landesumweltamt Brandenburg (1996): Richtlinie zur Sicherung und zum geordneten Abschluss von Abfalldeponien mit
geringem Gefährdungspotenzial. Potsdam.
LASA - Landesagentur für Struktur und Arbeit Brandenburg (2001): Programm zur Beseitigung oder landschaftsgerechten
Einpassung kommunaler Altablagerungen - Erste Ergebniss und Erfahrungen unter Einbindung der Arbeitsförderung im
Zeitraum 1998 bis 2000. LASA Dokumentation 10. Potsdam.
MLUV - Ministerium für Landliche Entwicklung, Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Brandenburg (2007): Umweltdaten
Brandenburg 2007 - Technischer Umweltschutz. Potsdam. http://www.brandenburg.de/cms/media.php/2320/udat3_07.pdf
Muentner, A. (2010a): Deponiesicherung im Land Brandenburg - Part 1. Ministerium fuer Umwelt, Gesundheit und
Verbraucherschutz, Potsdam, personal communication, 15.12.2010.
Muentner, A. (2010b): Deponiesicherung im Land Brandenburg - Part 2. Ministerium fuer Umwelt, Gesundheit und
Verbraucherschutz, Potsdam, personal communication, 17.12.2010.
MUGV - Ministerium fuer Umwelt, Gesundheit und Verbraucherschutz (2010a): Abfall und Abfallwirtschaft. Potsdam.
http://www.mugv.brandenburg.de/cms/detail.php/5lbm1.c.106470.de
MUGV - Ministerium fuer Umwelt, Gesundheit und Verbraucherschutz (2010b): Kurzfassung der Abfallbilanz 2009 der
öffentlich-rechtlichen Entsorgungsträger des Landes Brandenburg. Potsdam.
http://www.mugv.brandenburg.de/cms/media.php/lbm1.a.2320.de/bilanz09.pdf.
Annex
182 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Ireland: Benefits of Strengthening Implementation &
Enforcement of Waste Legislation
Context
This case demonstrates the before and after pros and cons of the Republic of Ireland (ROI) dramatic
improvements in waste management over the last 10-12 years. This is due to an aggressive
programme commenced in 1998 through the Changing our Ways policy to implement and enforce
waste management legislation and modernise waste management infrastructure. This has been
successful in enabling the achievement of key targets for waste diversion from landfill, recycling
rates, waste prevention / minimisation and a diverse, growing waste management market. This
demonstrates the transition from an unsophisticated and one dimensional approach to waste
management which is heavily dependent on landfill and suffered from poor enforcement, to one
which reflects the waste hierarchy and the polluter pays principle. It demonstrates the benefits
strengthening implementation and enforcement of EU and associated Irish waste legislation can
bring. However, gaps in infrastructure still exist and improvement opportunities at the top end of
the waste hierarchy still to be achieved. Aspects of the improvements to date have involved an ‘all
island’ approach to encompass economies of scale between ROI and Northern Ireland. For similar
size countries at an early stage of waste management enforcement, the case has key elements that
are transferrable.
The Irish waste management improvements have come from a mixture of policy and legislation
implementation, development of an active enforcement infrastructure, fiscal measures, national
programmes and pilot initiatives, infrastructure development to include Public Private Partnerships
and media campaigns to engage the public and business. A summary of the key developments and
current status of waste management for municipal and commercial streams is outlined below. From
an EU perspective much of the law in relation to waste management in Ireland derives from EU
waste management legislation to include the EU Waste Framework Directive, EU Landfill Directive,
Waste licensing and permitting legislation, EU Producer Responsibility legislation e.g. for
Packaging, Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) and End of Life Vehicles (ELV)
Directives respectively.
POLICY, LAW AND ENFORCEMENT MEASURES
Key waste implementation, planning and enforcement strengthening measures have been
introduced since 1998 by the Irish Department of the Environment and Local Government (DOEHLG)
in conjunction with local government and the Irish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These
include Changing our Ways (1998), Delivering Change (2002), Waste Management – Taking Stock
and Moving Forward (2004), National Strategy on Biodegradable Waste (2006). In terms of key
functions, waste management planning is managed through central (DOEHLG) and local government
(Local Authorities). Enforcement is through the EPA and Local Authorities. Control of waste is split
between the private sector and public sector, with the latter’s share continually decreasing. Other
stakeholders include waste management industry associations e.g. Irish Business and Employers
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 183
Confederation (IBEC), Irish Waste Management Industry Association (IWMA) and industry support
organisations Forfas and Enterprise Ireland.
Fiscal instruments have been and continue to be key instruments in the Irish waste management
strategy to include the Landfill Levy, the Environment Fund which uses landfill levy revenues for
waste management infrastructure development, Plastic Bag Levy (targets consumers by putting a 20
cent levy on carrier bags from shops) and Producer Responsibility (Packaging, WEEE, ELV, Batteries).
Further high profile awareness raising campaigns have been used to inform and engage both
business especially SMEs through Small Change and consumers through campaigns e.g Race Against
Waste (www.raceagainstwaste.ie) which has now completed. The National Waste Prevention
Programme is the current best practice programme focusing on behaviour change.
Waste dumping without authorisation was a significant problem early on because of increasing
landfill charges, in particular in Dublin and cross-border where there was trafficking of waste and
large-scale illegal dumping. To strengthen enforcement of existing waste legislation to prevent
illegal disposal of waste the Protection of the Environment Bill 2003 was passed strengthening the
powers of the key enforcement agencies (DoELG, EPA, Local Authorities). Most importantly, the
establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency’s IPPC and Waste Licensing regimes drove
immediate changes in the environmental performance in the waste sector. Further, the
establishment of the Office of Environmental Enforcement (OEE) within the EPA in 2003 and its
Environmental Enforcement Network (of local authority enforcement officers) was pivotal to
eliminating unauthorised dumping. Since 2000, over 150 cases have been prosecuted at District
Court level155. Further the establishment and operation of an inter agency national Environmental
Enforcement Network (to include the EPA, DOEHLG, Local Authorities and police)156, has effectively
targeted improvements on waste to include transfrontier shipment, illegal waste activities ,
packaging and farm plastics.
A National Waste Management Agency was proposed at that time and addressed in the Taking
Stock and Moving Forward policy document (DOEHLG, 2004), but never came to fruition, however,
centralised co-ordination was seen as adding value. For waste management specifically, the system
for Waste Licences/Permits for collection and processing of wastes in line with EU legal
requirements was developed.
To tackle hazardous waste the first National Hazardous Waste Management Plan was published in
2003 at the EPA. To drive waste prevention and recycling, the National Waste Prevention Programme
(NWPP) www.nwpp.ie was established by the Minister for the Environment to be led by EPA in
2004. Initiatives have targeted business (Green Business, Green Hospitality), households (Green
Home Programme), hospitals (Green Healthcare Project), retail (Green Retail Programme), packaging
(Packaging Waste Prevention Programme), and local authorities (Local Authority Prevention Network,
Stop Food Waste) to prevent waste generation. In 2008, the EPA published the revised National
Hazardous Waste Management Plan (2008-2012). This focuses on the prevention of hazardous waste
and seeks to promote the safe collection and domestic treatment of such waste. The 2009 EPA
155 http://www.epa.ie/whatwedo/enforce/prosecute/
156 http://www.epa.ie/whatwedo/enforce/network/
Annex
184 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
guidance on municipal solid waste pre-treatment should act as a significant driver in relation to pre-
treatment of waste prior to landfill and diversion to recovery/recycling. Waste research has been
part of the EPA’s programmes. Examples include a quality standard for compost derived from
source-separated biodegradable wastes, and research on the potential of mechanical biological
treatment (MBT) technologies. To increase recycling markets the national Market Development
Programme for Waste Resources (www.rx3.ie) was established in 2006.
BENEFITS OVERVIEW
The key benefits achieved from the waste management approach over the last decade are the
reduced environmental impacts of improved waste management job creation and economic growth.
The environmental improvements include diversion from landfill, fewer landfills in operation and at
much higher operational controls as well as a mixture of waste management options including
increased recycling and composting..
WASTE MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS
Over much of the last decade Ireland’s waste growth has tracked the growth in population and
economic performance. However, in 2008157 there was a decline in the generation of municipal
waste reflecting the fall in GDP. Household waste generation fell despite a rise in population,
indicating a leveling off in personal consumption. This suggests a decoupling of the link between
increasing municipal waste generation and population growth. Nevertheless, per capita waste
generation is still considered to be at a high level. A feature noted is that Municipal Sold Waste
(MSW) figures are not comparable across the EU as every country uses different ways of gathering
data/different definitions. This as noted as an area where improved harmony across Member States
would be beneficial. Irish data is considered very good in that all waste is weighed at the 29 landfills
left in operation.
Municipal Waste
As illustrated, the amount of municipal waste produced has increased steadily over the last decade
to approximately 3 million tonnes in 2008. However as the figure also shows, municipal waste
recovery has increased dramatically over the last decade with 37.5 % of this waste recovered as
distinct from landfilled in 2008 (EPA, 2010).
157 The 2009 EPA Waste Statistics report with 2009 data is due to be published by end Feb 2011. These updated figures can
be incorporated in the final report.
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 185
Biodegradeable Municipal Waste (BMW)
As illustrated, the quantity of biodegradable municipal waste disposed at landfill has started to
decrease to 1,196,044 tonnes in 2008. Increased home composting and kerbside collection of
organic waste are contributing to this trend. A further reduction of 280,000 t on the 2008 tonnages
is needed to reach the July 2010 EU Landfill Directive target (EPA, 2008 & 2010).
Packaging and WEEE
Ireland has been compliant with all statutory packaging recovery targets set since 2001. A recovery
rate of 65% is reported for packaging waste, exceeding the EU target of 60% due in 2011. In 2008 a
total of 51,964 t of WEEE was collected for recovery. This included 9 kg per capita of household
WEEE, exceeding the EU target of 4 kg per capita (EPA, 2010).
Construction & Demolition
The quantity of Irish construction and demolition (C&D) waste collected in 2008 was 13.5 million
tonnes. The mining and aluminum production sectors are the largest generators of non-hazardous
industrial waste (EPA, 2010).
Annex
186 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Hazardous Waste
The quantity of hazardous waste managed has been increasing in recent years and was 319,098
tonnes in 2008 (EPA, 2010). The treatment of hazardous waste on-site at industrial facilities is
declining in favour of the use of commercial hazardous waste treatment facilities in Ireland or
abroad.
Economic impacts
IMPACTS ON TURNOVER OF WASTE AND RELATED INDUSTRIES
A lack of a waste management infrastructure to support environmentally sound and cost effective
municipal and commercial waste generational nationally was an identified economic limitation prior
to improvements moving forward, but no quantified economic data for this has been identified in
the evidence base.
The Market Development Programme have identified in particular that a greater
indigenous recycling capacity in Ireland will lead to:
creation of employment;
reduced transportation (with its associated cost and environmental impacts);
greater self-sufficiency and ability to respond to global economic shocks or
market failures;
reinforce public confidence in the environmental benefits of recycling and
drive forward participation (MDP, 07-11).
For enterprise sectors, while the improved waste management infrastructure over the last decade is
associated with enabling economic growth in business, the increasing costs of waste management
over this time is noted as a barrier to competition (Forfas, 2010).
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
In the waste management improvements in Ireland over the last decade a polluter pays principal has
been used where costs are paid by both business and consumers. Costs to the householder have
increased to cover disposal, composting and recycling. As part of a review of waste policy in light of
international practice conducted in 2009, the costs of providing a household collection with reuse
and recycling (i.e. excluding the costs of disposal) were estimated as €200 per annum. This was seen
as very high in comparison to other EU Member States (Eunomia, 2009). Efficiencies of the order of
€50/household/annum (overall potential benefit for all Irish householders of €50 million/annum)
were also identified as being possible with a range of restructuring measures not designed to
adversely impact the reuse and recycling rates.
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 187
Other financial impacts associated with the original lack of an enforced waste management policy
and infrastructure include environmental clean up costs of illegal disposal. No total figure for this
was available. However from 2003-2006, the OEE Enforcement Network, noted as a key success
factor in reducing illegal waste disposal, cost over €7.4 million to operate (EPA, 2008). Capital
investments for waste management by central government in the 2000- 2006 period are estimated
at over €825.5 million with the Market Development Programme investment costing €14 million (07-
2011).
IMPACTS ON RESOURCE USE
In line with Irelands waste legal and infrastructure framework improvements over the last decade,
the recovery of materials for recycling has steadily increased. As illustrated in Table 33 household
recycling has increased from 75,000 tonnes/annum in 2001 to 425,000 tonnes/annum in 2007 (Curtis
et al, 2010). In terms of materials this increased recycling has encompassed paper, cardboard and
glass in the main. Considerable scope exists for other resource streams under utilised at present, in
particular organic waste and plastics. This is a key focus of the Market Development Programme for
Waste Resources who identified organics, paper and plastics as offering the greatest potential for
recycling activity in Ireland (MDP 07-11). However, market stimulation was seen as key to develop
markets if national recycling was to be successful.
Table 33: Household waste generation and management 2001-2007 (thousand tonnes)
From a resource perspective, currently, export is still a key feature of Irish waste management in
spite of the significant improvements over the last decade. These are mainly due to the remaining
limitations of national infrastructure, in particular for recyclables that would enable better resource
use. Based on 2008 data, 78.5 % of non-hazardous waste was exported to other EU Member States
for recovery. The reasons for this are largely due to scale, limited recycling infrastructure and
markets. In terms of scale the Irish market is small and as such it is difficult to develop a recycling
industry of sufficient scale that can economically compete with large facilities abroad. Further even
during the ‘boom’ economic times, enterprise did not invest sufficiently in infrastructure
development and this is even more unlikely in the recession.
Looking at the impact of the strong reliance on overseas recycling on raw materials, national
recycling facilities for streams e.g. plastic and paper could have economic advantage. However for
paper, the closure of the only Ireland based paper mill in 2005 requires new recycled paper markets from
low to high value to be grown. For plastics, the current use of recycled plastic in Ireland is estimated to
be in the range of 70,000 to 80,000 tonnes. Most is imported from France, Holland and the UK. In
2005, the Irish plastic manufacturing industry imported 220,000 tonnes of polymers. However,
barriers to growing the Irish market for recycled plastics include an unstable market subject to price
fluctuations and limited investment in infrastructure to date (MDP 07-11).
Annex
188 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Social impacts
IMPACTS ON EMPLOYMENT
Growth in the Irish waste management sector and associated job creation has been connected with
the improvements in waste management to divert waste from landfill in particular to recycling and
composting as well as improved hazardous waste management over the past decade. However not
all of these additional jobs will have arisen in Ireland in light of the export reliance for recycling and
some hazardous wastes. Those that have been identified for Ireland include:
Increases in the Recovery and Recycling sector that has developed which is estimated to be
worth €560m (based on 2008 data albeit this was noted as being based on limited data at that
time) (Forfas, 2008). The sector is comprised mainly of SMEs with a small number of large
enterprise and some foreign direct investment. It was seen as a growth sector in 2008, pre
recession.
Estimated jobs created only from the collection and sorting industries, and from the
composting and digestion of organic wastes, net of those lost in the residual waste/landfill
management are only 300 for the municipal waste changes alone (Eunomia, 2009).
If the additional waste management infrastructure planned for organic and additional
recycling waste streams come to fruition, these employment figures would be expected to
increase.
IMPACTS ON HEALTH
Qualitative improvements to public health have occurred in line with the waste legal and
infrastructure developments. These include:
Public health benefits of significantly reducing waste dumping, from improved household
collection and segregation of waste as well as from designated legally compliant civic amenity
centres for waste collection and recycling.
Landfill engineering , operational controls and management in line with waste landfill licensing
and guidance has brought health benefits for landfill employees. Key successes are that all
municipal waste is now landfilled in lined cells with gas and leachate collection. Odour
complaints from waste transfer stations have reduced almost three-fold (from just under 200
to 68) during 2006-2008 (EPA, 2009).
Summary of barriers and drivers
BARRIERS TO BETTER IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT
The key barriers to better implementation and enforcement include:
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 189
Lack of development of a waste management infrastructure in parallel with continuous
environmental improvements in national requirements in the legal and enforcement
framework;
Competition in waste management sector.
These are outlined below.
First barrier: Waste infrastructure still missing
The waste infrastructure in Ireland in 1998 was mainly based on using landfill which is not an
environmentally desirable option. At current national waste generation rates it is estimated that
there may be just enough residual municipal waste landfill disposal capacity to last to 2020. This
capacity is not distributed evenly and some regions are at a critical capacity shortage stage. Even
with some infrastructure developments now in place, Ireland is still dependent on export
arrangements for certain waste streams such as hazardous waste and a large proportion of
recyclables with 78.5 % of non-hazardous waste recovered abroad in 2008. Part of the barrier is
because Ireland is a small country and hence national recycling facilities are likely to find it hard to
compete economically with larger facilities abroad.
However, infrastructure developments have incorporated some waste recovery and recycling as well
as composting. Figure 4 illustrates municipal waste recovery options in Ireland vs a selection of other
countries as of 2008.
Figure 4: Municipal Waste Treatment Options 2008 (Source: RPS, 2009)
Overall recycling/recovery rates continue to climb steadily, particularly in the municipal, packaging
and Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) waste streams. Regarding incineration,
Ireland has no merchant municipal waste incineration capacity, nor does it have any merchant
hazardous waste incineration or hazardous waste landfill facility. As of 2008, landfilling still
represented 62 % of municipal waste in 2008 (a drop from 64 % % in 2007), but this is still
considerably above the EU average of 42% in 2007 (EEA, 2009).
Looking to the future, total volume of municipal waste is likely to increase substantially within the
coming decade requiring further future investment in waste management infrastructure. These
include enabling re-use, biowaste treatment, materials recovery and incineration (EPA, 2011). It is
anticipated that merchant municipal incineration capacity (under construction and expected to be
operational by end 2011), as well as waste recovery/treatment will become available in this period.
These developments in conjunction with the reduction in biodegradable municipal waste going to
Annex
190 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
landfill, are designed to enable greater diversion of resources to beneficial use, including waste to
energy (EPA, 2010).
Second Barrier: Lack of Competition
For business, a lack of cost competition in the Irish waste management options has been seen as a
barrier for some time. However, it was noted that in the recession this has not been seen as
competition between landfill operations has made recycling less economically attractive.
From an enterprise perspective, increased legislation (e.g. requiring waste separation and recycling),
to include the progressive increases in landfill levy and the new proposed waste facility levy are seen
as adversely impacting on the direct cost of businesses and putting jobs at risk (Forfas, 2010). Key
improvements identified to resolve this include:
Having clear, unambiguous policies rolled out in the targeted timelines
Providing a legal level playing field for public and private sector waste management service
providers
Ensuring policy promotes competition for, rather than competition in, the market such that
competition for the market delivers increased efficiencies and lower collection prices for
businesses and households.
Conclusions
The key conclusion from these barriers is that in addition to an effective waste implementation and
enforcement structure, a competitive waste infrastructure is needed. In particular, this needs to
develop in parallel and at the same timeline as waste legal compliance obligations to enable
continuous environmental improvements at the higher end of the waste hierarchy.
DRIVERS OF BETTER IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT
Key drivers for better implementation and enforcement have included:-
Awareness raising and fostering behaviour change in both business and consumers;
Use of fiscal instruments;
Waste Infrastructure investment.
These are outlined below.
First Driver: Awareness Raising in Business and Consumers
Ireland was the first EU MS to introduce the Plastic Bag levy such that plastic bags in retailers incur a
charge. A high profile national media campaign Race Against Waste and specific messaging on the
plastic bag levy in the media and in store were conducted in tandem and helped to improve
awareness on the litter, environmental , health and cost saving reasons behind better waste
management. The campaigns initially focused on shock tactics highlighting the health concerns of
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 191
excessive waste generation and running out of landfill space. This moved on to education on how to
recycling and compost plus local infrastructure information to facilitate use.
For business and in particular SMEs the Race against Waste Small Change (now complete) and
current NWPP Econcertive and Green Business/Hospitality programmes of behaviour change to
illustrate the business case and cost saving opportunities from more effective waste management
practices. Further this was integrated with capacity building supports e.g. guidance, financial
schemes (e.g. Enterprise Ireland EMS and waste management supports), waste clubs, pilot schemes
and published case examples.
Second Driver: Fiscal Instruments
For business, a policy of high and progressively increasing landfill charges for many years,
enforcement of legislation and improving availability of waste management recycling and
composting infrastructure in combination have been an effective driver to motivate business to
engage on improved waste management that has resulted in diversion from landfill and increased
recycling. In particular, the landfill levy has been a primary financial driver within this integrated
programme. Ireland has one of the highest net landfill fees in the EU and Figure 5 shows how Ireland
compares with a range of other countries.
Figure 5: Advertised Landfill Gate Fees including levy, 2010 (Source, RPS, 2009)
Further, a policy to introduce a waste facility levy for all waste treatment options was proposed in
the January 2011 draft Environment Bill 2011 (DOEHLG, 2011), specifying the following landfill and
waste facility charges for commercial waste:-
Landfill Levy: Maximum: €120 per tonne. Maximum increase of €50 per annum.
Waste Facility Levy: Maximum: €120 per tonne. Maximum increase of €50 per annum.
However, the future of this policy is now uncertain pending formation of a new Irish government at
the forthcoming election.
For consumers, the introduction of the infrastructure for separate household collection of dry mixed
recyclable and compostable food wastes (green and brown bin system) and charging by weight for
collection has been effective in driving householders to reduce the waste they generate and hence
would have to pay to have collected.
Annex
192 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Third driver: Waste management infrastructure
While the remaining limitations in Irish waste management structure described in 5.1.1 above are
seen as barriers, the significant investment in infrastructure coupled with legislation, enforcement,
fiscal tools and awareness raising has been a key driver. Significant increases in public and private
investment in waste infrastructure have been, and will continue to be, important in stimulating
growth in certain sectors of the market (Forfas, 2008).
Conclusions
The last decade has seen huge change in relation to how waste is managed in Ireland. The regulatory
regime imposed on the waste industry in this period has yielded significant and measurable
improvements in environmental protection. Ireland has moved quickly from a position of almost
total reliance on landfill for managing waste to a high level of recovery of certain recyclable
materials, albeit infrastructure limitations are still a barrier resulting in Ireland being reliant on waste
export markets to an unsustainable extent. A range of regulatory and market based instruments have
been utilised to achieve more sustainable waste management practices. These include levies (e.g.
landfill, plastic bags), source separated collection of biowaste, and pre-treatment and restriction of
particular waste streams to landfill. Proposals for a new waste facility levy are now in consultation.
Plans for continued infrastructure developments needed have been delayed but are still anticipated
going forward to enable the improvements achieved over the last decade to be maintained and
continue. EU legislation continues to be a significant driver of waste policy (e.g. Waste Framework
Directive, Landfill Directive and Producer Responsibility initiatives, etc).
REFERENCES:
Curtis et al, 2010, Managing household waste in Ireland: behavioural parameters and policy
options, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, published 24 January 2011
DOEHLG, 2011, Waste Policy, http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/Waste
DOEHLG, 2011, Environment Bill 2011 draft, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local
Government
DOEHLG ,2010 a Draft Statement of Waste Policy,
http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/Waste/PublicConsultations/#New Draft Statement of
Waste Policy
DOEHLG, 2010, Commercial Food Waste Regulations
09/09/2010 - Regulations requiring the separation of commercial food waste
DOEHLG, 2004, Taking Stock and Making Change
Forfas, 2006, Forfas Waste Benchmarking Competitiveness Study for Ireland, 2006,
www.forfas.ie/media/forfas060613_waste_benchmarking_report.pdf
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 193
Forfas, 2008, Environmental Goods and Services Sector on the Island of Ireland Enterprise
Opportunities and Policy Implications, October 2008
Forfas, 2010, Waste Management in Ireland Benchmarking Analysis and Policy Priorities:
Update 2010
EPA, 2011, National Hazardous Waste and Waste Prevention Progammes, EPA Ireland,
www.epa.ie/whatwedo/resource/nwpp/
EPA, 2010, National Waste Prevention Programme publications:
www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/waste/prevention/, 2005 to date.
EPA, 2010, National Waste Prevention Programme Plan 2010-2012,
http://www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/waste/prevention/Prevention%20Plan%202009-
2012%20FINAL2.pdf
EPA, 2009 Focus on Environmental Enforcement in Ireland (for year 2006-2008), Focus Report
- Environmental Protection Agency, Ireland
EPA, 2008, Hitting the Targets for Biodegradeable Municipal Waste: Ten Options for Change,
January 2008
EPA, 2005, Nature and Extent of Unauthorised Waste Activity in Ireland, Office of
Environmental Enforcement, EPA
EEA, 2006, “Effectiveness of packaging waste management systems in selected countries,”
(Ireland was one of these )2006
EEA, 2009, Diverting Waste from Landfill: Effectiveness of Waste Management Policies in the
European Union. EEA, Copenhagen
Enterprise Ireland, 2011, Environcentre.ie, One stop industry environment support to include
industry guides on waste prevention /minimisation/management, resource efficiency and
ecodesign www.envirocentre.ie
ESRI, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) Sustainable Development Model for
Ireland (ISus) to forecast national environmental emissions and resource use up to 2025
Eunomia, 2009, International Waste Review by Eunomia Consulting
Irish Waste Management Industry Association, 2011, http://www.ibec.ie/iwma
MDP 07-11, Market Development Programme on Waste Resources 2007-2011, DOEHLG,
http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/Environment/Waste/WasteManagement/FileDownLoa
d,3550,en.pdf
Lynott, D., 2010, The Enforcement of Environmental Regulation by the EPA
RPS, 2009, Focus on Landfilling in Ireland, The Environmental Protection Agency, September
2010.
Annex
194 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 195
Annex C: References for 2.2 and 2.3
List of abbreviations
As,e Arsenic equivalent – unit for risk from carcinogenic emissions into air
C&D construction and demolition waste
CFC-11, e CFC-11 (trichlorofluoromethane) equivalent – unit for ozone depletion
potential
CO2,e Carbon dioxide equivalent – unit for greenhouse gas potential
dm dry matter
ELV end-of-life vehicles
EU-27 European Union of 27 Member States
GDP Gross domestic product
GtCO2,e Giga tonnes (= billion tonnes) of CO2 equivalent
HH households
kt kilo-tonnes, thousand tonnes
M€ Mega Euro, million Euro
MSW municipal solid waste
Mt Mega tonnes, million tonnes
MtCO2,e Mega tonnes (= million tonnes) of CO2 equivalent
MW municipal waste
NACE Nomenclature statistique des activités économiques dans la Communauté
européenne (Statistical classification of economic activities in the
European Community)
PJ Peta-Joule (1015 Joule)
PM particulate matter
PM10,e Particulate matter smaller 10 µm equivalent – unit for health risk from
particulate matter
PO4,e Phosphate equivalent – unit for eutrophication potential
SO2,e Sulfur dioxide equivalent – unit for acidification potential
WEEE waste from electric and electronic equipment
WFD Waste frame directive (dir 2008/98/EC)
Annex
196 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Literature
Amann, M.; Bertok, I.; Cabala, R. et al. (2005): CAFE Scenario Analysis Report Nr. 1 - Baseline
Scenarios for the Clean Air for Europe (CAFE) Programme. IIASA, Laxenburg.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/cafe/activities/pdf/cafe_scenario_report_1.pdf
Arcadis, Vito, Umweltbundesamt & BIOIS (2010): Analysis of the evolution of waste reduction and
the scope of waste prevention. European Commission DG Environment, Antwerp.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/prevention/pdf/draft3_2.pdf
BAM – Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -Prüfung (2010): Increasing Materials Efficiency in
Industry – Best Practice Examples from the Germans Materials Efficiency Award. Proc. Eionet
Workshop, Berlin, 11.11.2010.
Barthlott, W., Mutke, J., Rafiqpoor, M. D., Kier, G. and Kreft, H. (2005): Global centres of vascular
plant diversity. Nova Acta Leopoldina 92, 61-83. http://www.nees.uni-
bonn.de/biomaps/worldmaps.html
Baumhakel, M.; Heger, J. & Nussbaumer, R. (2003): Zukunft mit verAntworten. Ökoprofit Graz
Auszeichnung 2002 - Ein Programm der Stadt Graz. Magistrat Graz, Umweltamt, 8010 Graz,
Kaiserfeldgasse 1/IV.
Belevi, H. & Baccini, P. (1989): Long-Term Behaviour of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. Waste
Management and Research 7 (1989). pp. 43–56.
Bilitewski, B.; Härdtle, G. & Marek, K. (2000): Abfallwirtschaft – Handbuch für Praxis und Lehre.
Springer, Berlin.
Bio Intelligence Service (2011): Study on the waste management of construction and demolition
waste in the EU - requirements resulting from the Waste Framework Directive and assessment of
the situation in the medium term. Paris. In preparation.
Buchinger, B. (2004): Abfallbehandler und Deponien in Oesterreich 2004. WKO, Wien.
BUWAL – Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft (Hg.) (1995): Reststoffqualität von
stabilisierten Rückständen aus der Rauchgasreinigung von Kehrrichtverbrennungsanlagen. Umwelt-
Materialien Abfall, 44, Bern.
Commissione parlamentare di inchiesta sulle attività illecite connesse al ciclo dei rifiuti (2010)
Proposta di relazione sulle attività illecite connesse al ciclo dei rifiuti
CRB - Commodity Research Bureau (2011): CRB-Spot-Inidces - Monthly Charts and Data.
http://www.crbtrader.com/crbindex/
EC - European Commission (2003) : Extended Impact Assessment of the batteries Directive, 2003.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/batteries/pdf/exten_impact_assessment.pdf.
EC - European Commission (2008): Commission staff working paper accompanying the proposal for
a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste electrical and electronic
equipment (WEEE) (recast) - Impact Assessment {COM(2008) 810 final} {SEC(2008) 2934}.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SEC:2008:2933:FIN:EN:PDF
EC - European Commission (2009): Impact Assessment Guidelines, Brussels, 15.01.2009,
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/docs/iag_2009_en.pdf, accessed on
04.12.2009
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 197
ECORYS (2009): Study on the competitiveness of the EU eco-industry. Brussels.
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/itemlongdetail.cfm?item_id=3769.
EEA – European Environment Agency (2009): Gate fees for landfilling municipal waste (excluding
tax and VAT). Copenhagen. http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/gate-fees-for-
landfilling-municipal-waste-excluding-tax-and-vat. accessed on 10.01.2011.
EEA – European Environment Agency (2010): State of Environment Report 2010 – Part C Country
Assessments, Waste. Copenhagen. http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/countries/
ENVIROS; The University of Birmingham & DEFRA (2004): Review of environmental and health
effects of waste management; municipal solid waste and similar wastes. Defra publications,
London, 2004 (www. Hmso.gov.uk)
Fehringer, R.; Rechberger, H.; Pesonen, H.-L. & Brunner, P.H. (1997): Auswirkungen
unterschiedlicher Szenarien der thermischen Verwertung von Abfällen in Österreich. TU-Wien,
Institut für Wassergüte und Abfallwirtschaft, Wien.
GHK & BIO (2006): A study to examine the benefits of the End of Life Vehicles Directive and the
costs and benefits of a revision of the 2015 targets for recycling, re-use and recovery under the ELV
Directive, Final Report to DG Environment, A report submitted by GHK In association with Bio
Intelligence Service, May 2006. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/elv_study.htm.
Greyl, L.; Vegni, S.; Natalicchio, M.; Cure, S. & Ferretti, J. (2010): The Waste Crisis in Campania, Italy.
CEECEC, http://www.ceecec.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/CAMPANIA_FINAL_19-05.pdf
Hamon, L.; Serre, J. & Balez, A. (2010): Assessment of environmental externalities & Application to a
waste management case study. VEOLIA, Cycle 2010 - 03/05/2010.
http://www.cycle2010.org/presentation/Hamon(1050).pdf
Hannequart, J.-P. (2009): Quantitative Waste Prevention Benchmarks. ACR+. European Conference
on Waste Reduction, 24.-25.11.2009, Girona, Spain. http://www.ewwr.eu/international-conference-
girona-2009.
Hardacre, A. (2008) Better regulation – what is at stake? European Institute of Public
Administration, Maastricht.
http://www.eipa.eu/files/repository/eipascope/20080905132115_SCOPE2008-2_1_AlanHardacre.pdf
IEA – International Energy Agency (2010): World Energy Outlook 2010. Paris.
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/.
IFEU (2005): Beitrag der Abfallwirtschaft zur nachhaltigen Entwicklung in Deutschland - Teilbericht
Siedlungsabfälle. Heidelberg.
Konz, R.J. (2009): The End-of-Life Vehicle (ELV) Directive: The Road to Responsible Disposal. Minn.
J. Int’l L. 431 (2009) p. 431-457.
http://www.law.umn.edu/uploads/BX/fw/BXfwZTM0VoxN2BtOQ7E2Vg/Konz-Final-Online-PDF-
03.30.09.pdf.
Kreutzberg, W. (2006): Abfallwirtschaft im Land Brandenburg - Eine Bestandsaufnahme. IHK
Frankfurt/Oder, 10 Jahr Kreislaufwirtschaft, 28.09.2006.
Milieu, AmbienDura & FFact (2009): Study on the feasibility of the establishment of a Waste
Implementation Agency. European Commission 7 December 2009.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/report_waste_dec09.pdf.
Annex
198 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Muentner, A. (2010): Deponiesicherung im Land Brandenburg - Part 1. Ministerium fuer Umwelt,
Gesundheit und Verbraucherschutz, Potsdam, personal communication, 15.12.2010.
Prognos (2008): Resource savings and CO2 reduction potential in waste management in Europe and
the possible contribution to the CO2 reduction target in 2020. October 2008, Berlin.
http://www.prognos.com/co2-study.609.0.html.
Prognos (2009a): Study on the selection of waste streams for End of Waste Assessment. JRC
Scientific and Technical Report, Luxembourg.
http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/SelectionofwastestreamsforEoW-
FinalReport13_02_2009.pdf
Prognos (2009b): European Atlas of Secondary Raw Materials (Europäischer Sekundärrohstoffatlas).
Berlin. Http://www.prognos.com/Sekundaerrohstoffatlas.664.0.html.
Seel, F. (1973): Grundlagen der analytischen Chemie. Verlag Chemie, Weinheim, Germany.
SETIS – Strategic Energy Technologies Information System (2010): Bionenergy – Power and Heat
Generation. http://setis.ec.europa.eu/newsroom-items-folder/bioenergy-power-and-heat-
generation, accessed on 08.01.2011.
Stern, N. (2006): Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change. HM Treasury, London.
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm.
TU-Delft - Delft University of Technology (2010): The Model of the Eco-costs / Value Ratio (EVR) -
An LCA based decision support tool for the de-linking of economy and ecology.
http://www.ecocostsvalue.com/index.html. Accessed on 07.01.2011.
Umweltbundesamt (2001): Bewertung abfallwirtschaftlicher Maßnahmen mit dem Ziel der
nachsorgefreien Deponie (BEWEND). Monografien Bd. M-149. Umweltbundesamt, Vienna.
UNEP (2010): Green Economy Report - Waste Chapter. Under preparation.
USGS - U.S.Geological Survey fo the U.S. Department of the Interior (2001): Mineral commodity
summaries 2001. Washington D.C.
USGS - U.S.Geological Survey fo the U.S. Department of the Interior (2009): Mineral commodity
summaries 2009. Washington D.C.
USGS - U.S.Geological Survey fo the U.S. Department of the Interior (2010): Mineral commodity
summaries 2010. Washington D.C.
Watkiss, P.; Pye, St. & Holand, M. (2005): CAFE CBA (Cost Benefit Analysis): Baseline Analysis 2000
to 2020. AEA Technology Environment. Oxon, UK.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/cafe/activities/pdf/cba_baseline_results2000_2020.pdf
Weber, L. & Zsak, G. (2008): World Mining Data - Minerals Production. BMWA - Bundesministerium
für Wirtschaft und Arbeit, Volume 23, Wien.
Weigand, H. & Marb, C. (2006): Zusammensetzung und Schadstoffgehalt von Restmüll aus
Haushaltungen – Teil III: Physikalisch-chemische Eigenschaften und Schadstoffgehalte. Müll und
Abfall (2006) 05, p. 236-246.
Weißenbach, Th. (1999): Entsorgungstechnik 1: Chemisch-physikalische Behandlung von
gefährlichen Abfällen und Altölen. Montanuniversität Leoben, Austria.
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 199
Winiwarter, W. ; Trenker, Ch. & Höflinger, W. (2001): Österreichische Emissionsinventur für Staub.
Seibersdorf Research, TU-Wien. Vienna.
WHO-Europe (2007): Population health and waste management - scientific data and policy options.
Report of a WHO workshop, Rome, Italy, 29-30 March 2007.
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/91101/E91021.pdf
Annex
200 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Annex D: Scenarios of year 2020 EU-27 waste
management system
Summary of reports on which the scenarios were
based
The following reports provide information on the development of the European waste management
system and its actual or potential impacts. They form the basis for the subsequent definition of the
scenarios on the EU-27 waste management system with/without full implementation of EU waste
legislation.
Milieu et al. (2009)
An estimated 2.9 billion tonnes of waste were generated in 2006 in the EU, over 6 tonnes per citizen,
and about 89 million tonnes of this waste is classified as hazardous.
The EU15 has at least 63,000 waste management facilities, and the EU12 at least an additional
7,400, according to data reported by Member States to Eurostat. These numbers are installations
requiring a permit under the Waste Framework Directive. The number of waste facilities and sites
are likely to be significantly higher due to the existence of a suspected large number of facilities and
sites lacking permits, which should be subject to enforcement measures.
Another issue is the dramatic increase in waste shipments in recent years, both within the EU and to
third countries. For example, between 1995 and 2005, EU15 exports of waste paper increased more
than five-fold and those of waste plastic, seven-fold. The rising number of shipments brings new
risks that illegal waste shipments are made. In recent years, media reports have highlighted illegal
exports of hazardous waste from the EU to developing countries that lack adequate waste
management facilities, as well as electrical and electronic waste illegally shipped as second-hand
goods.
The European Parliament, the Council and the Commission have set in place a comprehensive
system of over 60 legal acts (regulations, directives and decisions) aimed at ensuring that all waste
in the EU is managed so as to prevent harm to human health and the environment.
In 2006 and 2007, waste cases accounted for 19% of all new environmental infringement (non-
compliance) cases – the second highest category behind nature protection (26%).
Gaps in implementation and enforcement have given rise to significant problems in many parts of
the EU, notably:
illegal waste dumping at a significant scale,
large numbers of landfills and other facilities and sites that do not meet EU requirements
and a high level of illegal waste shipments.
Milieu et al. (2009) conclude that Protection of human health and the environment is not achieved.
Recommendations:
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 201
Installation of an EU Agency for waste implementation
European network of Member States to support agency
With total costs of 16 M€/a. (The proposed agency would require just under 50 professional staff
members and 11 management and support staff. Additional staff would also be needed by the
proposed body for carrying out direct inspections and controls of facilities and sites, possibly hosted
by the Commission/DG Environment: 20 new staff, including 15 operational staff for the body.
Additional staff would be added at the secretariat of the European network (2), Member State
governments (5), and EEA/Eurostat (1.75 combined). In addition to these annual costs, the agency
would require an additional 1.6 million Euros in estimated start-up costs in its first two years.)
Potential benefits:
Protection of human health and the environment is achieved
No illegal waste dumping
Landfills and other facilities and sites meet EU requirements
No illegal waste shipments
Better trained staff for controlling and monitoring of waste streams and treatment facilities;
better coordination among national bodies with responsibilities for inspections and controls;
better information for the planning/regulation of future waste management
Economic benefits:
Governments and taxpayers in some Member States would face a lower burden for
the future clean-up costs of illegal waste activities and sub-standard landfills.
Related health and environmental costs would be reduced.
lower greenhouse gas emissions.
level playing for European companies, lowering their costs;
create opportunities for innovation in waste management
increase access to valuable secondary raw materials.
UNEP Green Economy Report (UNEP 2010)
In the waste chapter of the UNEP green economy report (UNEP 2010) negative impacts of non
functioning waste management systems and possible benefits from fully functioning waste
management systems are analysed from the global view. Core findings are:
The increasing volume and complexity of waste are posing serious risks to ecosystems and
human health.
Annex
202 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Of all the waste streams, waste from electrical and electronic equipment containing new and
complex hazardous substances presents the fastest growing challenge in both developed and
developing countries.
Uncontrolled dumpsites are linked to many harmful health effects and losses of property
values or livelihoods (e.g. related to agriculture or tourism) around the landfill areas.
Consumer demand for materials and energy is growing while scarcity of these resources is
increasingly felt.
Proper waste management and recycling can solve these problems. E.g. in terms of resource
and energy saving, per tonne of paper recycling 17 trees and 50 % of water can be saved.
Recycling one tonne of aluminium saves 1.3 tonnes of bauxite residues, 15 cubic meter cooling
water 0.86 cubic meter process water, 37 barrels of crude oil, 2 tonnes CO2 and 11 kg SO2.
Stern Report (Stern 2006)
1.3 GtCO2,e greenhouse-gas emissions (that is 3 % of the total world greenhouse-gas emissions of 42
GtCO2,e) have been caused by waste worldwide in the year 2000. Agriculture accounted for 14 % and
buildings for 8 % of the global greenhouse gas emissions.
If no action is taken climate change will lead to major disruptions to economic activity, later in this
century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with World War I and II and the
economic depression of the first half of the 20th century. With 5 to 6 °C warming – which is a real
possibility for the next century – models estimate an average 5 to 10 % loss in global GDP. When
direct impacts on the environment and human health are taken into account, the cost of climate
change increases by a further 6 % of GDP. The social costs of carbon are estimated to lie with 85 $
per tonne (corresponds to 78 €2010/t).
The benefits of strong, early action considerably outweigh its costs. The earlier effective action is
taken, the less costly it will be. The cost for stabilising the atmospheric greenhouse-gas
concentration at 550 ppm by the year 2050 are estimated to lie at 1 % of global GDP (with a range
between – 1 % (net gains) and +3.5 %). The net benefits are estimated to lie with 2.5 trillion dollars
(2.3 trillion €2010).
In total, the cost-benefit ratio of early greenhouse-gas abatement seems to be at about 1:10.
IFEU (2005)
IFEU (2005) compares the German municipal waste management system of the years 1990 (limited
implementation of waste legislation), 2001 (advanced implementation of waste legislation) and
2005 (full implementation of waste legislation) and investigates following environmental impact
categories
Fossil resources
Mineral resources – recycling of iron
Mineral resources – recycling of phosphates by compost recycling
Greenhouse effect
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 203
Acidification
Eutrophication of soil
Eutrophication of water
Risk by the emission of carcinogenic substances
Risk by emitted small particulate matter (PM10).
The numbers in Table 34 show the impact of the municipal waste management sector minus the
avoided impacts by recycling of energy and materials in other sectors as determined by IFEU (2005).
For all environmental impact categories investigated but eutrophication of soil, a full
implementation of waste legislation provides a net negative impact. That means in almost all
environmental impact categories a full implementation of waste legislation brings a relief of
environmental impacts.
Table 34: Per capita net environmental impact of municipal waste management in Germany
(IFEU 2005)
Impact Unit
Year
1990 2001 2005
Fossil resources MJ/cap. -378.4 -1249.1 -1590.3
Mineral resources – recycling of iron kg/cap -3.0 -13.4 -16.1
Mineral resources – recycling of phosphates by
compost recycling kg/cap -0.03 -0.32 -0.32
Greenhouse effect kg CO2,e/cap 319.5 7.3 -54.6
Acidification kg SO2,e/cap 0.69 -0.05 -0.09
Eutrophication of soil kg PO4,e/cap 0.03 0.03 0.02
Eutrophication of water kg PO4,e/cap 0.21 -0.07 -0.09
Risk by the emission of carcinogenic substances mg As,e/cap 2355.9 -36.3 -36.4
Risk by emitted small particulate matter (PM10)
kg
PM10,e/cap 0.20 -0.30 -0.34
Hardacre (2008)
The administrative costs for implementing all public regulations within the EU are estimated to lie
with 600 billion €/year.
It is estimated, that 25 % of these costs can be referred to unnecessary administrative burdens such
as unnecessary reporting obligations of Businesses and citizens to legislation authorities.
Unnecessary administrative burdens:
Cause business and subsequently consumer costs
Inhibit competition
Damage primarily SMEs
Create barriers to entry into markets
Can prove to be expensive, if not impossible, to enforce
Annex
204 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
All of which reduces welfare in society.
The EU has started a better regulation programme for removing unnecessary administrative
burdens.
Better regulation is characterised by seven core principles:
Necessity
Proportionality (instruments used should be in proportion to the aims to be achieved)
Subsidiarity (objectives must be pursued at the most relevant level)
Transparency
Accountability (clear identification of responsibility)
Accessibility (regulation is consistent, comprehensible and communicated)
Simplicity.
BIOIS et al. (2011)
In BIOIS et al. (2011) a scenario on the generation of waste in EU-27 up to the year 2020 can be
found. Based on the reported development of the waste generation in the 27 EU Member States of
the years 2004, 2006 and 2008 the waste generation in these states of the year 2020 was
extrapolated for the following waste categories: household waste, mineral waste and “other” waste.
The resulting waste generation for the years 2008 and 2020 by country is shown in
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 205
Table 35 and by material type in Table 36.
Annex
206 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Table 35: EU-27 waste generation in BIOIS et al. (2011) scenario by country in Mt
Year 2008 Year 2020
Country Mineral
was
te
House
h
old w
a
st
e
Othe
r was
te
TOTA
L
Mineral
was
te
House
h
old w
a
st
e
Othe
r was
te
TOTA
L
Austria 37.7 3.8 14.8 56.3 49.7 4.5 16.3 70.6
Belgium 35.2 4.5 19.9 59.5 46.1 5.2 20.3 71.6
Bulgaria 278.0 2.9 5.2 286.1 290.9 2.7 4.6 298.3
Cyprus 1.0 0.4 0.5 1.8 1.6 0.7 1.2 3.5
Czech Republic 14.8 3.2 7.4 25.4 17.3 3.2 8.5 29.0
Denmark 7.1 2.5 5.6 15.2 8.0 3.4 5.5 16.9
Estonia 14.5 0.4 4.6 19.6 24.4 0.5 4.3 29.2
Finland 60.9 1.7 19.2 81.8 72.7 2.1 22.9 97.7
France 253.8 29.3 61.9 345.0 250.7 37.2 66.1 354.1
Germany 270.4 35.6 66.8 372.8 327.1 40.7 98.8 466.6
Greece 59.1 4.0 5.6 68.6 83.1 4.5 4.5 92.1
Hungary 11.6 3.5 5.3 20.4 15.2 3.4 5.7 24.3
Ireland 17.0 1.7 4.9 23.6 27.1 3.2 7.5 37.7
Italy 95.4 31.5 52.2 179.0 113.5 39.4 68.3 221.2
Latvia 0.2 0.6 0.7 1.5 0.3 0.6 0.5 1.4
Lithuania 0.8 1.4 4.7 6.8 1.0 1.3 4.7 7.0
Luxembourg 8.7 0.3 0.6 9.6 13.7 0.4 0.8 15.0
Malta 1.1 0.2 0.2 1.5 1.1 0.3 0.2 1.6
Netherlands 39.5 9.5 50.6 99.6 52.9 11.2 63.2 127.3
Poland 107.4 6.9 26.1 140.3 106.1 6.8 25.1 138.0
Portugal 6.9 5.2 24.4 36.5 6.8 7.0 27.3 41.2
Romania 155.1 8.5 25.8 189.3 153.2 8.7 24.9 186.8
Slovakia 4.5 1.8 5.2 11.5 5.7 1.9 6.8 14.4
Slovenia 1.7 0.7 2.7 5.0 1.6 1.0 3.7 6.3
Spain 85.9 24.5 38.9 149.3 84.9 27.6 39.4 151.9
Sweden 65.7 4.4 16.1 86.2 87.3 5.7 27.2 120.2
United Kingdom 180.6 31.5 122.0 334.1 178.5 33.8 147.3 359.6
EU-27 1,815 220 592 2,626 2,021 257 706 2,984
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 207
Table 36: EU-27 waste generation in BIOIS et al. (2011) scenario by material type in Mt
Year Mineral
Bio
waste Paper Plastics Glass Metals Wood
Chemical
waste Sludge Other
2008 1,815 188 94 45 31 98 65 52 61 178
2020 2,021 192 100 37 29 130 87 69 88 232
Prognos Studies
Prognos (2008) provides an overview of the share of 18 waste streams recycled or treated with
energy recovery in the year 2004. These 18 waste streams constitute 82.8% of the total waste
generated in 2004 in the EU-27.
Table 37: Overview for alternatives in waste management for 2004 in EU-27 (Prognos 2008)
Waste/material type
Generation
in Mt
Landfilling,
incineratio
n without
energy
recovery
and other
disposal in
Mt
Recycling
in Mt
Energy
recovery
including
MSW
incinerati
on in
waste to
energy
plants in
Mt
Total
recycling +
energy
recovery
in Mt
Rate of
recycling +
energy
recovery in
%
1 Glass 21.6 10.9 10.7 0.0 10.7 49.5
2 Paper and cardboard 79.5 25.5 44.2 9.8 54.0 67.9
3 Plastics 26.2 12.5 4.5 9.2 13.7 52.3
4 Iron and steel 102.6 24.9 77.7 0.0 77.7 75.7
5 Aluminium 4.6 1.5 3.1 0.0 3.1 67.4
6 Copper 1.4 0.5 0.9 0.0 0.9 64.3
7 Zinc 1.2 0.5 0.7 0.0 0.7 58.3
8 Lead 1.0 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.6 60.0
9 Other metals 1.2 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.5 41.7
10 Waste Wood 70.5 17.5 21.7 31.3 53.0 75.2
11 Textiles 12.2 6.0 2.8 3.4 6.2 50.8
12 Rubber and tyres 3.2 0.6 1.6 1.0 2.6 81.3
13 Biowaste 87.9 41.4 28.8 17.7 46.5 52.9
14 Solid replacement fuels 70.1 40.9 0.0 29.2 29.2 41.7
15 Oil containing waste 7.4 1.8 2.2 3.4 5.6 75.7
16 Spent solvents 1.6 0.1 0.4 1.1 1.5 93.8
17 Ashes and slag 131.4 48.5 82.9 0.0 82.9 63.1
18 Minerals 1,794.4 1,025.2 769.2 0.0 769.2 42.9
Total considered 2,418.0 1,259.4 1,052.5 106.1 1,158.6 47.9
Total generation 2,920.0
Share of total generation
considered in % 82.8
Annex
208 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Prognos (2008) calculates the avoided greenhouse gas emissions of the recycling/incineration with
energy recovery of the 12 most relevant waste streams plus the remaining greenhouse gas
emissions from the landfilling and incineration of municipal solid waste in 2004 and the emissions,
which would have occurred if the targets of different directives (Table 38) already had been fulfilled
in 2004 (Scenario 2).
Table 38: Targets considered in Scenario 2 of Prognos (2008)
Directive Targets considered
Landfill directive
Closing of non-compliant landfills
35 % biodegradable waste landfilled as compared to 1995
Used tyres ban on landfills
Packaging directive
Recycling rates: 60 % glass, 60 % paper, 50 % metals, 22.5 % plastics, 15 %
wood
ELV directive
85 % re-use and recycling of car
95 % metal recycling
WEEE directive
Separate collection of 4 kg/cap.a
75 % recovery
Waste frame work
directive
70 % recycling of C&D
50 % recycling of paper, metal, plastic and glass from households and
similar installations
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 209
Table 39 shows how much greenhouse gas emission had been already avoided by the
recycling/incineration with energy recovery of the 12 selected waste streams in the year 2004 and
how much would be avoided in scenario 2. Also shown is the distribution of recycling/incineration
with energy recovery between Municipal Solid Waste and other waste.
Table 40 shows how much greenhouse gas was emitted from the landfilling and energy-recovery-
free incineration of Municipal Solid Waste in the year 2004 and how much would be emitted in
scenario 2.
Annex
210 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Table 39: Greenhouse gas emission reduction by the recycling/incineration with energy recovery of
12 selected waste streams (Prognos 2008)
Waste/material type
Total recycling +
energy recovery in
Mt in 2004
Tonnes of CO2,e
emission reduction
per tonne of waste
recycled/energy
recovered
CO2 reduction in Mt
CO2,e
Year 2004 Scenario 2
Glass 10.7 0.180 1.926 3.086
Paper and cardboard 54.0 0.671 36.258 54.523
Plastics 13.7 0.323 4.425 8.282
Iron and steel 77.7 1.000 77.711 92.016
Aluminium 3.1 10.964 33.989 43.685
Copper 0.9 1.127 1.014 1.377
Waste Wood 53.0 0.440 23.342 29.831
Textiles 6.2 1.560 9.672 19.126
Rubber and tyres 2.6 1.353 3.519 4.297
Biowaste 46.5 0.013 0.617 2.224
Solid replacement fuels 29.2 0.453 13.214 37.309
Total 297.6 205.7 295.8
of these from MSW 96 66.4 104.4
of these from Non MSW 201.6 139.3 191.4
Table 40: Greenhouse gas emission by the landfilling/incineration without energy recovery of
residual municipal solid waste (Prognos 2008)
Emission factor
(Tonne CO2,e emitted per tonne of MSW
landfilled/incinerated without energy recovery)
CO2 emissions from landfilled/without
energy recovery incinerated MSW in Mt
CO2,e
Year 2004 Scenario 2
0.617 113.5 6.5
In 2004 in EU-27 some 206 MtCO2,e of greenhouse-gas emissions were already saved by recycling and
energy recovery. According to Prognos (2008) an additional 197 MtCO2,e (or 26 % of the EU
greenhouse-gas emission saving target for 2020) can be saved by fully achieving the targets shown
in Table 38. 90 MtCO2,e are saved by the replacement of primary raw materials and fuels and 107
MtCO2,e are saved by reduced greenhouse gas emissions from less landfilled and without-energy-
recovery-incinerated MSW. The remaining annual greenhouse gas emission in Scenario 2 from MSW
landfilling, incineration and fuel preparation was calculated to be 6.5 MtCO2,e instead of the 113.5
MtCO2,e in 2004.
Prognos (2009a) complements the Prognos (2008) data with more detailed information on the
origin of waste streams and market price data.
Prognos (2008, 2009a,b) provide a valuable basis for calculating the value of a complete
implementation of waste legislation. It, however, does not take into account expected future
increases in waste generation and effects of waste prevention initiatives. It also neither calculates
the value of the secondary raw materials and fuels nor gives estimates of environmental impacts
other than greenhouse gas emissions.
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 211
Therefore, for the purpose of this study, mainly based on Arcadis (2010), Prognos (2008) two new,
more comprehensive scenarios (Scenario A and Scenario B) of waste generation and treatment in
EU-27 for the year 2020 are developed.
Scenario definitions
In order to show the value of a full implementation of EU waste legislation, 2 scenarios for the EU
waste management system of the year 2020 are defined:
Scenario A describes a year 2020 EU-27 waste management system, which would prevail,
if no further implementation of the EU-waste legislation occurred which goes beyond
what was already implemented in the year 2008.
In Scenario B, waste legislation as defined by the waste framework directive
(2008/98/EC), the landfilling directive (1999/31/EC), the packaging directive (1994/62/EC),
the end-of-life vehicles directive (2000/53/EC), the Waste from electric and electronic
equipment directive (2002/96/EC), the batteries directive (2006/66/EC), the incineration
directive (2000/76/EC) and all regulations regarding the shipment of waste are fully and
effectively implemented in all EU-27 Member States. It is also assumed that effective
means have been found to prevent illegal waste shipments and the drain of valuable raw
materials.
The difference between Scenario B and Scenario 0 gives the total value of the full implementation of
EU-waste legislation.
The difference between Scenario B and Scenario A gives the incremental value of the full
implementation of EU-waste legislation as compared to the year 2008 implementation.
The main differences between Scenario A and Scenario B are:
In Scenario A all waste generated in 2020 in addition to the waste already generated in
2008 is landfilled at sites which correspond to the average year 2008 quality. No waste
prevention is undertaken. Recycling rates are not changed as compared to 2008.
In Scenario B much less waste is landfilled. The remaining waste is either treated for
material recycling (including composting) or energy recovery. There is effective waste
prevention. Recycling rates are increased. All waste is treated within EU-27.
The amount of waste generated in 2020 is taken respectively derives from BIOIS et al. (2011):
The waste generation in Scenario A correspond to the BIOIS et al. (2011) scenario shown
in
Annex
212 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Table 35.
In Scenario B it is assumed that some 4 % of the waste which is generated in the year
2020 in Scenario A can be prevented by the waste prevention measures which will be
taken be the EU Member States in addition to what already has been started till the year
2008. Experience with cleaner production centres in Germany has shown, that some 8 %
of waste generation can be prevented by supporting the enterprises through audit,
consulting and financing schemes (EFA 2010). It is assumed that this 8 % are a typical
waste prevention potential for all waste types. It is further assumed that half of this
potential can be activated and thus 4 % of the waste generation can be prevented by the
new waste prevention measures till 2020.
The resulting amounts of waste generated in 2020 together with the assumed recycling
rates for Scenario A and B are shown in Table 41.
Table 41: Scenario Parameters for the year 2020
Scenario A Scenario B
Parameter
Definition/value of
parameter
Source
Definition/value of
parameter
Source
General
description
Reference Scenario
Full waste
legislation
implementation
scenario
No additional waste
prevention;
treatment and
recycling capacity
for all waste types
stays the same as in
2008, the rest is
landfilled.
4 % waste prevented
Waste
generation in
EU-27 in Mt
2984 BIOIS et al. (2011) 2864
BIOIS et al. (2011)
minus 4 %
Treatment and
recycling
Landfilling
All non treated
waste on landfills,
share compliant/non
compliant same as
in 2008
Only non-reactive
waste landfilled,
only compliant
landfills in operation
(landfill directive
1999/31/EC)
35 % biodegradable
waste landfilled as
compared to 1995
(landfill directive
1999/31/EC)
Recycling of
construciton and
demolition waste
Same amount as
2008
70 % recycling of
C&D
(waste framework
directive
2008/98/EC)
Recycling of
paper, metal,
plastic and glass
from households
and similar
installations
Same amount as
2008
50 % recycling
(waste framework
directive
2008/98/EC)
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 213
Scenario A Scenario B
Parameter
Definition/value of
parameter
Source
Definition/value of
parameter
Source
Recycling rates
of packaging
waste
Recycling rates in % Recycling rates in %
Glass 52
Derived from historic
values (Prognos 2008,
2009a,b)
60
(packaging directive
1994/62/EC)
Paper and
cardboard
67 67
(packaging directive
1994/62/EC)
Metals 70 70
according to EU-
average 2006
(Prognos 2009)
Plastics 36 36
according to EU-
average 2006
(Prognos 2009)
Wood 15
(packaging directive
1994/62/EC)
End-of-life
vehicles
14 % separately
collected/recycled
in Germany 2006 only
14 % of ELV is actually
recycled (EEA 2010)
all ELV stay in the
country, 85 % re-use
and recycling of car,
95 % metal recycling
(ELV directive
2000/53/EC)
Waste from
electric and
electronic
equipment
26.5 % separately
collected/recycled
as estimated by EERA
(European Electronics
Recyclers Association)
for 2006 (reported in
EC 2008)
separate collection
of at least 4
kg/cap.a, 75 %
recovery
(WEEE directive
2002/96/EC)
Batteries
14 % separately
collected/recycled
coupled to ELV-
recycling (in Germany
2006 only 14 % of ELV
is actually recycled
(EEA 2010))
all ELV stay in the
country, 85 % of ELV
is recycled (ELV
directive
2000/53/EC); 45 % of
other batteries are
recycled
(batteries directive
2006/66/EC)
Used tyres No landfill
(landfill directive
1999/31/EC)
In the next step the total waste generated in Scenario A and Scenario B was broken down to the
different material/waste streams defined by BIOIS (2011) and Prognos (2008) (see Table 36 and
Annex
214 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Table 39), respectively. The resulting waste generations by material/waste type for Scenario A is
shown in Table 43 and for Scenario B in Table 44.
The amounts of waste recycled, recovered as secondary material and used for energy recovery for
Scenario A were taken from the year 2004/2006 scenarios of Prognos (2008 and 2009a). The balance
between generation and (recycling plus energy recovery) was calculated as being landfilled. The
resulting waste treatment flows for the year 2020 in Scenario A are shown in Table 43.
For Scenario B, recycling, material and energy recovery rates were taken from Scenario 2 of Prognos
(2008) (which also assumes a full implementation of existing EU waste legislation). The resulting
waste treatment flows for the year 2020 in Scenario B are shown in Table 44.
Taking the flows of recovered secondary material and of waste used for energy recovery for
Scenario A and B, and the energy contents of the different waste streams and the rates of “avoided
greenhouse gas emissions per tonne of waste recycled or energy recovered”, taken from Prognos
2008 and other sources and shown in Table 42 gives the:
Energy saved by recovery
Amount of greenhouse-gases saved by replacing primary raw materials and fuels
as shown Table 43 in and Table 44 for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively.
The differences in the mass and energy flows of Scenario A and Scenario B are shown in Table 47.
Within the scope of the main scenarios, the effect of waste prevention, and increased recycling and
of keeping the waste flows within the European Union for waste from electric and electronic
equipment (WEEE), batteries and end-of-life vehicles (ELV) was investigated in some detail. Table
45 shows the scenario assumptions and the resulting increase in secondary raw material recovery.
The resulting 5 billion € of secondary metals saved is part of the 40 billion € total secondary material
recovered in Scenario B over Scenario A shown in Table 46.
Table 42: Frame assumptions for the year 2020 scenarios
Frame Parameter Value
Damage costs of 1 tonne
greenhouse-gas emitted in €/
tCO2,e
1)
78
Value of energy recovered in
€/GJ
2)
4.2
Material/waste type
properties
Material actually used as
secondary raw material /
recycled material in %
3)
Energy contents
in GJ/t
4)
GHG-emission rates in
tCO2,e /t waste (recycled +
energy recovered)
5)
Glass 90.0 0.18
Paper and cardboard 74.7 10 0.67
Plastics 84.9 42 0.32
Iron and steel 99.0 1.00
Aluminium 96.4 10.96
Copper 91.9 1.13
Zinc 90.0
Lead 63.9
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 215
Waste Wood 94.0 15 0.44
Textiles 90.0 10 1.56
Rubber and tyres 93.6 42 1.35
Biowaste 98.0 10 0.01
Solid replacement fuels 10 0.45
Oil containing waste 90.0 10 0.45
Spent solvents 90.0 10 0.45
Ashes and slag 90.0
mineral C&D 90.0
other minerals 90.0
Sources:
1) (Stern 2006)
2) Heavy fuel oil price 2009, Austria.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/hfoforelec.html, accessed on
03.01.2011.
3) (Prognos 2009a)
4) http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html
5) (Prognos 2008)
Annex
216 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Table 43: Scenario A – Waste generation, treatment, recycling, material and energy recovery and (avoided) greenhouse-gas emissions
Generation 2020 in Mt Treatment in Mt
Energy saved
in PJ
GHG-
emission
saved in
MtCO2,e
GHG
emitted
from
MSW
landfilled
in MtCO2,e Total
of which
MSW
Landfilling/Incineration
without energy
recovery/other
disposal
Recycling +
energy
recovery Recycling
Material
recovery
Energy
recovery
Glass 29.0 18.2 19.4 10.7 10.7 9.6 1.9
Paper and cardboard 100.1 50.1 57.3 54.0 44.2 33.0 9.8 98.0 36.3
Plastics 37.1 18.2 24.1 13.7 4.5 3.8 9.2 386.4 4.4
Iron and steel 120.1 6.5 43.2 77.7 77.7 76.9 77.7
Aluminium 5.5 1.2 2.5 3.1 3.1 3.0 34.0
Copper 1.6 0.1 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.0
Zinc 1.6 0.1 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.6
Lead 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.5
Other metals 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5
Waste Wood 86.7 9.4 35.0 53.0 21.7 20.4 31.3 469.5 23.3
Textiles 12.5 6.6 6.6 6.2 2.8 2.5 3.4 34.0 9.7
Rubber and tyres 3.7 1.2 2.6 1.6 1.5 1.0 42.0 3.5
Biowaste 191.6 67.2 145.7 46.5 28.8 28.2 17.7 177.0 0.6
Solid replacement fuels 68.4 32.7 39.2 29.2 29.2 292.0 13.2
Oil containing waste 8.5 3.2 5.6 2.2 2.0 3.4 34.0 2.5
Spent solvents 2.6 1.2 1.5 0.4 0.4 1.1 11.0 0.7
Ashes and slag 130.8 56.2 82.9 82.9 74.6
Mineral C&D 2,020.8 1,328.7 769.0 769.0 692.1
Residual MSW 83.7 83.7 83.7
WWT sludge 23.0 23.0
Other fractions 54.7 54.7
Total 2,983.6 294.2 1,927.0 1,158.4 1,052.3 950.5 106.1 1,543.9 208.9 141.9
Annex
Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 217
Table 44: Scenario B – Waste generation, treatment, recycling, material and energy recovery and (avoided) greenhouse-gas emissions
Generation 2020
in Mt Treatment in Mt
Energy
saved in
PJ
GHG-
emission
saved in
MtCO2,e
GHG emitted
from MSW
landfilled in
MtCO2,e Total
of
which
MSW
Landfilling/
Incineration without
energy recovery / other
disposal
Recycling +
energy
recovery Recycling
Material
recovery
Energy
recovery
Glass 27.9 17.5 10.2 19.7 19.7 17.7 3.5
Paper and cardboard 96.1 48.1 19.1 97.1 79.5 59.4 17.6 176.2 65.2
Plastics 35.7 17.5 4.3 33.0 10.9 9.2 22.2 931.7 10.7
Iron and steel 115.3 6.2 13.6 102.7 102.7 101.7 102.7
Aluminium 5.3 1.1 1.0 4.4 4.4 4.3 48.8
Copper 1.5 0.1 0.3 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.5
Zinc 1.5 0.1 0.2 1.4 1.4 1.3
Lead 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0
Other metals 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0
Waste Wood 83.2 9.0 7.5 77.7 31.8 29.9 45.9 688.1 34.2
Textiles 12.0 6.4 1.0 11.5 5.2 4.7 6.3 62.9 17.9
Rubber and tyres 3.6 0.0 0.7 3.0 1.8 1.7 1.1 48.0 4.0
Biowaste 183.9 64.5 7.4 178.8 110.7 108.5 68.0 680.4 2.4
Solid replacement fuels 65.6 31.4 2.2 63.4 0.0 0.0 63.4 634.4 28.7
Oil containing waste 8.2 0.7 7.9 3.1 2.8 4.8 47.7 3.6
Spent solvents 2.5 0.1 2.5 0.7 0.6 1.8 18.4 1.1
Ashes and slag 125.6 55.8 77.5 77.5 69.8
Mineral C&D 1,939.9 717.8 1,358.0 1,222.2
Residual MSW 80.4 80.4 80.4
WWT sludge 22.1 22.1
Other fractions 52.5 52.5
Total 2,864.3 282.5 996.2 2,041.9 1,810.7 1,636.9 231.2 3,287.9 324.3 42.4
Annex
218 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
Table 45: Detailed scenarios for WEEE, Batteries and ELV
Waste
type Parameter Unit Scenario A Scenario B
Difference
Scenario B-A Scenario assumptions
WEEE
Total generation Mt 12.3 11.1 -1.2
Scenario A: EC 2008; Scenario B: 10% waste prevention mainly
by repair and life time extension.
separately collected/recycled Mt 3.3 7.7 4.5
Scenario A: same as 2006 = 26.5% as estimated by EERA
(European Electronics Recyclers Association) (reported in EC
2008); Scenario B: 70 % according WEEE directive 2002/96/EC
exported or in other waste streams Mt 9.0 3.3 -5.7
Batteries
Total generation Mt 1.9 1.7 -0.2
Assumption in 2020 EU per capita average corresponds to
German average of 2002 (EC 2003).
separately collected/recycled Mt 0.3 1.5 1.2
Scenario A: 14 % coupled to ELV-recycling (as in Germany 2006
only 14 % of ELV is actually recycled) Scenario B: all ELV stay in
the country, 85 % of ELV is recycled (ELV directive 2000/53/EC);
45 % of other batteries are recycled (batteries directive
2006/66/EC)
exported or in other waste streams Mt 1.7 0.3 -1.4
ELV
Total generation Mt 23.7 21.4 -2.4
Assumption in 2020 EU per capita average corresponds to
German average of 2006
separately collected/recycled Mt 3.3 18.1 14.8
Scenario A: as in Germany 2006 only 14% of ELV is actually
recycled (EEA 2010); Scenario B: all ELV stay in the country, 85%
is recycled (ELV directive 2000/53/EC)
exported or in other waste streams Mt 20.4 3.2 -17.2
WEEE+b
atteries+E
LV
In Scenario B additionally recycled
WEEE, battery and ELV
Mt 6.9 27.4 20.5
In Scenario B: additional metals won
from WEEE, battery and ELV recycling
Mt 4.8 19.1 14.4
70% of ELV is metals (EEA 2010): assumption that also 70% of
WEEE and batteries metals
In Scenario B: value of additional
metals won from WEEE, battery and
ELV recycling
M€ 1,679 6,702 5,023 Calculated as metal mix with 350€/t (Prognos 2009a)
Table 46 shows the amount of secondary materials recovered from waste in Scenarios A and B. In
Scenario B a total of 1,637 million tonnes of secondary raw material is recovered in 2020. This is
686 million tonnes more than in Scenario A (than without a full implementation of EU waste
legislation). Table 47 provides a direct comparison between the mass and energy flows of
Scenarios A and B.
Table 46: Recovery of secondary raw materials in the year 2020 in Mt
Scenario A Scenario B Difference (B-A)
Glass 9.6 17.7 8.1
Paper and cardboard 33.0 59.4 26.4
Plastics 3.8 9.2 5.4
Iron and steel 76.9 101.7 24.8
Aluminium 3.0 4.3 1.3
Copper 0.8 1.3 0.4
Zinc 0.6 1.3 0.6
Lead 0.5 1.0 0.5
Other metals 0.5 1.0 0.6
Waste Wood 20.4 29.9 9.5
Textiles 2.5 4.7 2.1
Rubber and tyres 1.5 1.7 0.2
Biowaste 28.2 108.5 80.3
Oil containing waste 2.0 2.8 0.8
Spent solvents 0.4 0.6 0.2
Ashes and slag 74.6 69.8 -4.8
Mineral construction material 692.1 1,222.2 530.1
Total 951 1,637 686
Table 47: The balance of full European waste legislation implementation - Difference between
macro economic values/costs of Scenario B and Scenario A in the year 2020
Scenario A Scenario B
Difference
(B-A)
Waste generation
Total Mt 4,854 4,463 -391
Treatment
Landfilling/Incineration without energy
recovery other disposal Mt 3,799 2,086 -1,713
of which MSW Mt 272 70 -202
Material recovery Mt 951 1,637 687
Energy recovery Mt 106 302 196
Energy recovery PJ 1,544 4,309 2,765
GHG emissions
GHG emission avoided by material and
energy recovery MtCO2,e 209 447 239
GHG emission from MSW landfilling MtCO2,e 168 43 -125
Total difference in GHG emission MtCO2,e 363
Impacts on human health
Emissions of Hazardous Substances from Landfills
Historically the necessity for a proper waste management system derives from the reactive
behaviour of waste. For example residual waste from households is a reactive, energy and
hazardous substances containing mix (see Table 48). When deposited organic (biodegradable)
compounds decompose to organic acids (see Figure 6), which lowers the pH of the deposited
from caustic (pH=8-12) to acidic (pH<7) and in combination with rain water at the low pH solves
the metals contained in the waste (see Figure 7 and Figure 8). Without proper waste
management the leachate containing not only the solved heavy metals but possibly also
hazardous organic substances spreads into the water system and contaminates ground and
surface water.
Table 48: Typical composition and heating value of residual waste from Bavarian households
(Weigand & Marb 2006)
Component/Parameter Unit Concentration/Value
Water g/kg 370
Carbon g/kg 220
Chlorine g/kg 4
Sulfur g/kg 2.5
Heavy metals g/kg 320
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAC) mg/kg 2.7
Chlorphenols µg/kg 170
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) µg/kg 70
Dioxine/Furane ng I-TEQ g/kg 5.5
Lower heating value MJ/kg 9.7
During the degradation of the reactive substances also malodorous landfill gas is formed, which
over time chances in composition (see Figure 8, top). Part of the landfill gas is CO2 and methane,
which are both active greenhouse gases. The methane together with the also occurring
hydrogen, however, may be used as energy carrier.
Amino acids
Sugar, Glycerine
Fatty acids
etc.
H2, CO2
Acetic acid
Propionic acid
Buttyric acid
Alcoholes etc.
Biomass
Carbohydrates
H2, CO2
Acetic acid
Landfill gas
(Methane, CO2,
H2S)
Ammonium,
Phosphate
Phase I: Hydrolysis Phase II: Acid formation Phase III-IV: Methane
formation
Figure 6: Biodegradation of landfilled waste (Bilitewski et al. 2000)
0
.
0
1
0
.
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1pH-Value
S
o
l
u
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
m
e
t
a
l
i
o
n
s
i
n
m
g
/
l
.
P
b
+
+
C
d
+
+
C
u
+
+
N
i
+
+
H
g
+
+
Z
n
+
+
C
r
+
+
+
L
i
m
i
t
v
a
l
u
e
:
P
b
,
C
r
,
C
u
,
N
i
,
Z
n
L
i
m
i
t
v
a
l
u
e
:
C
d
Limit value: Hg
Figure 7: Solubility of heavy metals as function of pH-value (Weißenbach 1999, Seel 1973) –
Limit values from Austrian Off-Water-Emission-Ordinance “Landfill-Leachate” 2003.
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
t
i
m
e
i
n
y
e
a
r
s
S
h
a
r
e
i
n
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
g
a
s
i
n
V
o
l
%
.
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
6
0
0
8
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
4
0
0
1
6
0
0
1
8
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
Phase
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
l
e
a
c
h
a
t
e
i
n
m
g
/
l
4
5
6
7
8
9
p
H
C
O
2
H
2
C
H
4
p
H
Metals
S
O
4
2
-
C
l
-
I II III IV V
Figure 8: Composition of landfill gas and leachate during the life-time of a landfill (Bilitewski
et al. 2000, Umweltbundesamt 2001)
If not covered, landfill waste may also be the source of heavy dust emissions.
Compliant landfills have a system
of keeping rain water from trickling through the landfill
of collecting and treating leachate (to achieve hazardous substance concentrations in
the leachate which are at or below the values of ordinary municipal sewage)
of preventing dust emissions
and of collecting the landfill gas.
The landfill gas may be either flared or used in a gas engine for producing electricity and heat.
This system together with the obligation to reduce the amount of biodegradable waste landfilled
to 35 % of the 1995 mass,
keeps metals separate from reactions which lower the pH and thus keeps landfilled
metals mostly at pH-levels where they are virtually insoluble
reduces the amount of rain trickling through the landfill body during the operation
time when the landfill is open and virtually stops rain water from trickling through the
landfill body after the landfill is covered
keeps all pollutants solved in the leachate beyond the set limit concentrations from
being emitted into the environment
and thus substantially reduces the amount of metals and hazardous organic compounds emitted
from landfills.
Table 49Erreur ! Source du renvoi introuvable. shows the mobilisation of selected heavy metals
(that is the solution of these metals into leachate) on landfills for reactive waste, measured on
actual landfill sites during the 1980s and 1990s. It is assumed that the mobilisation rates shown in
Table 49 are typical for non-compliant MSW-landfills, whereas in compliant landfills for MSW and
for other waste types, due to the measures described above and due to lack of pH-lowering
reactions on these landfills, the mobilisation rate is reduced by a factor 1,000.
The resulting mobilisation of the heavy metals iron, copper and zinc through landfill leaching is
shown in Table 50 for Scenario A (assuming that 50% of the MSW landfilling according to Table
43 would be on non-compliant landfills), and for Scenario B (assuming that all landfills are
compliant in this scenario and thus all iron and steel, copper and zinc shown Table 44 under the
column “Landfilling/ Incineration without energy recovery / other disposal” is landfilled on
compliant landfills).
It can be seen, that by the reduction of the landfilled waste and the full compliance with waste
legislation (Scenario B), the amount of heavy metals released into water should decrease by a
factor of at least 99% as compared to a scenario when all new landfilling capacity required would
be non-compliant (Scenario A).
Table 49: Specific metal mobilisation during landfilling on landfills for reactive waste (Belevi &
Baccini 1989; Buwal 1995; Fehringer et al. 1997, Umweltbundesamt 2001)
Metal
Substance concentration Mobilisation rate
in mg/kg dry waste in mg/kg dry waste in g/kg metal
Iron 50,000 30 0.6
Copper 400 4 10
Zinc 1,200 816 680
Lead 800 8 10
Cadmium 11 7.26 660
Mercury 1.8 1.08 600
Table 50: Mobilisation of selected heavy metals through leachate (Scenario A assumption: 50 %
of MSW landfilling is on non-compliant landfills)
Mobilisation of heavy metals in t/a
Difference B – A in
% Scenario A
Scenario
B Difference B-A
Iron 724 8 -716 -98.9
Copper 306 3 -304 -99.2
Zinc 29,108 169 -28,939 -99.4
Dust emissions
Winiwarter et al. (2001) report the tilting of dust raising wastes like construction and demolition
waste to be the main source of dust emissions from the waste management sector. They report a
dust emission coefficient of 20.82 g particulate matter emission per tonne of construction and
demolition waste landfilled. Watkiss et al. (2005) determined EU average health damage costs
for particulate matter emissions of 979 million € per thousand tonne (979 M€/kt) of emitted
particulate matter.
Applying these numbers to the tilting of the construction and demolition waste landfilled in
Scenarios A and B, results in 13.000 tonnes of dust less emitted and 12.5 billion Euro reduced
health damage costs for the year 2020 in Scenario B (full implementation of EU waste legislation)
over Scenario A (see table below).
Table 51: Year 2020 particulate matter emissions and health damage costs of tilting construction
and demolition waste in Scenarios A and B.
Scenario A Scenario B Difference B-A
Landfilling of C&D in Mt 1,329 718 -611
PM-emission in kt 28 15 -13
Related health damage costs in M€ 27,088 14,633 -12,454
But dust emission from the tilting of construction and demolition waste is not the only dust
emission affected by waste management. IFEU (2005) estimated the PM10 emission by municipal
waste management and the avoided PM10 emissions by the energy recovery from municipal
waste and recycling of secondary materials from municipal waste. These gave the German net
per capita PM10 emissions of municipal waste management for 1990 (limited waste
management), 2001 (advanced waste management) and 2005 (fully implemented waste
management) shown in Table 34. These values were extrapolated to the 495 million EU-27
inhabitants expected for the year 2020 to give the values in the middle row of Table 34 for
Scenarios A (extrapolated from Germany 2001) and Scenario B respectively (extrapolated from
Germany 2005). In Table 52 also the sum of the health impacts from C&D related and municipal
waste related dust emissions is shown.
Table 52: Total year 2020 health impact costs related to particulate matter emissions from waste
Unit Scenario A Scenario B Difference (B-A)
Health impact costs related to dust
emissions from landfilling C&D
Mio € 27,088 14,633 -12,454
Health impact costs related to dust
emissions of municipal waste and
avoided dust emissions by
energy/material recycling
Mio € -145,259 -164,523 -19,264
Total health impact costs related to
dust emissions
Mio € -118,171 -149,890 -31,718
All the numbers related to the health impact of dust emissions are connected to a very high level
of uncertainty. Therefore they are not used in the further analyses.
Total health impacts
Health impacts from particulate emissions are not the only potential negative effects of
unmanaged waste. Malfunctioning waste management systems are characterised by uncollected
waste, open waste fires and non-compliant landfills. These pose serious health and
environmental risks through the spread of disease and pollution of air, water and land. While few
studies exist, many health endpoints have been considered in epidemiological research for health
impacts from landfill sites and older incinerators, including cancer incidence, mortality, birth
defects and low birth weight (WH 2007). Uncontrolled dumpsites have been linked to many
harmful health effects such as skin and eye infections, respiratory problems in children and
adults, vector borne diseases like diarrhoea, dysentery, typhoid, hepatitis and cholera. A UNEP
study carried out in Kenya found that about 50 % of the children and adults living to an
uncontrolled dump-site head respiratory ailments and blood lead levels exceeding the
internationally acknowledged threshold of 10 microgram per decilitre of blood. A further 30 %
were confirmed to have a high exposure to heavy metal poisoning detected by red blood cell
abnormalities (UNEP 2010).
The impacts of the Italian provinces of Naples and Caserta may serve as an example for the
consequences of a mal-functioning waste management system on human health in Europe. In
these 2 provinces twenty types of tumours and 11 typologies of congenital malformation
described in the scientific literature were found and linked to the presence of dumpsites and
incinerators. An 84% increase of stomach and lungs lymphoma and sarcoma tumours was found.
Mortality rates increased 9 % with men and 12 % with women (Greyl et al. 2010). The latter
numbers suggest that the health damage costs of an economy without a waste management
system are 20 times higher than the costs of a fully developed waste management system.
Environmental impacts
In addition to
the greenhouse gas emissions already calculated in Table 43Erreur ! Source du renvoi
introuvable. and Table 44 above and the related climate change which not only affect
the human economy but also causes severe damage to the environment
the emissions of poisonous substances which not only damage human health but also
the health of animals and plants
also
acidification by the emission of acidic gases
eutrophication by the emission of nutritious substances
ozone depletion and
land use
affect plants, animals, microorganisms, biodiversity, eco-systems and nature protection areas.
Ecotoxicity
A measure for the ecotoxocity of the hazardous substances emitted from the waste
management system is the flow of zinc-emissions determined in Table 50.
TU-Delft (2010) determined for the Netherlands for the year 2010, among others, the “eco-costs”
of ecotoxicity in terms of zinc emissions. The “eco-costs” are defined as the marginal system
costs for achieving the set emission limits. When assuming that the emission limits are set at a
level where marginal prevention costs equal the damage costs, the “eco-costs” can be used as a
proxy for the damage costs. TU-Delft (2010) reports the “eco-costs” of ecotoxicity as 802 M€/kt
zinc emitted (see Table 55). Applying this factor on the zinc flows determined in Table 50 gives
the eco-toxicity costs of the waste management systems in Scenarios A and B shown in Table 56.
Acidification
Incineration of waste is related to the emission of the acidifying gases sulphur dioxide (SO2) and
nitrogen oxide (NOx), biodegradation of waste with the emission of ammoniac (NH3). On the
other hand, energy recovery and use of secondary materials from waste enable a reduction of
these compounds in other sectors, so that the total waste management system may have a
positive or negative acidification effect.
The main effect of the acidifying compounds is that they solve nutritious substances from soil
and by causing lack of nutrition lead to irreversible damage to eco-systems, plants and animals.
IFEU (2005) estimated the per capita emission of acidifying compounds from the German
municipal waste system of the years 1990 (limited waste management), 2001 (advanced waste
management) and 2005 (full implemented waste management) (see Table 34). The values from
2001 (advanced waste management) were multiplied by the expected number of inhabitants for
the EU-27 in the year 2020 to give the emission of acidifying compounds for Scenarios A. The
values from 2005 (full implemented waste management) gave the emission of acidifying
compounds for Scenarios B. The results are shown in Table 54 below.
Hamon et al. (2010) report acidification impact costs of 0.61 M€/kt SO2,e emitted (see Table 55).
The resulting costs of acidification due to damage of the environment are shown in Table 56.
Eutrophication
Emission of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and ammoniac (NH3) can lead to eutrophication of soils and
waters.
The calculation of the damage costs to the environment due to eutrophication follows the same
methodology as the calculation of the damage costs to the environment due to acidification. The
emissions of eutrophying compounds from the waste management system in Scenarios A and B
are derived from the German values shown in Table 34 reported by IFEU (2005). The resulting
eutrophying compounds flows for EU-27 in the year 2020 are shown in Table 54. These flows are
multiplied by damage costs of 1.26 M€/kt PO4,e emitted (or 3 M€/kt nitrogen emitted as reported
by Hamon et al. (2010)) to give the environmental damage costs due to eutrophication in
Scenarios A and B as shown in Table 56.
In scenario A and especially in Scenario B material recycling and energy recovery lead to a
reduction of nitrogen oxide and ammoniac emissions in other sectors which exceed the
emissions in the waste management sector, so that in these scenarios the waste management
sector is a sink for eutrophication.
Ozone depletion
Ozone depletion, caused by the reaction of tropospheric ozone with chloro-fluoro-gases, which
have been mainly used as coolants and insulators for cooling equipment, leads to increased UV-
radiation and which in turn causes skin cancer and growth inhibitions. While ozone depletion
affects both, human health and the environment, the impacts on both are estimated here.
EC (2008) estimates that without proper treatment of waste from electric and electronic
equipment some 6.7 kt of ozone depleting gases would be emitted annually (in the period 2011-
2020) causing an annual damage of some 1 billion €. It is assumed that this would be the ozone
depleting emissions in a Scenario 0. The according values for Scenarios A and B are calculated
based on the WEEE scenarios shown in Table 45 to give the results shown inTable 53.
In addition to the ozone depleting substances in WEEE there are also chloro-fluoro-gases in
foams of construction and demolition waste. BIO Intelligence Service (2011) estimates that 4.3
tonnes of chloro-fluoro-gases would be released in the year 2020 if these gases are not destroyed
by the proper incineration of the corresponding foams. For Scenario A it is assumed that 50 % of
the ozone-depleting substances from C&D is destroyed, for Scenario B that all is destroyed.
In Table 53 the total amount of ozone depleting substance emission from WEEE and from C&D
foam is calculated. Taking the 1 billion € damage costs per 6.7 kt of ozone depleting gases
emissions from EC (2008) results in the environmental impact costs from ozone depletion for
Scenarios A and B shown in Table 56.
Table 53: Scenarios on emissions of ozone depleting substances
Unit Scenario A Scenario B Difference (B-A)
Ozone depleting substances from WEEE kt CFC-11, e 5.78 0.91 -4.87
Ozone d depleting substances from C&D foam kt CFC-11, e 2.15 0.00 -2.15
Total emission of ozone depleting substances kt CFC-11, e 7.93 0.91 -7.02
Environmental impact of land use
Basically land-use can have following impacts on the environment:
Impacts on species richness and the rarity of ecosystems and vascular plants
Impacts on 'scenic beauty'
Impacts on production of food and biomass
Impacts on the water cycle.
Here we valuate only the first type of impacts, that is the impacts on species richness and the
rarity of ecosystems and vascular plants.
TU-Delft (2010) provides following formula for ecocosts of species richness:
Ecocosts of species richness in M€/km² = 4.7*S/1250
with
S = number of vascular plant species per 10.000 km²;
When assuming an EU-average of 1,500 vascular plant species per 10.000 km² (derived from
Barthlott et al. (2005)) follows:
Ecocosts of species richness = 5.64 M€/km² (see Table 55).
Non-compliant landfilling usually takes place at smaller sites, while in compliant systems, usually
larger landfills, with more height and resulting waste density are used. In the German province
Brandenburg, for example, a system of some 2.000 landfill sites in the 1980s (Muenter 2010) was
narrowed down to currently just 10 landfill sites158. Due to higher height and concentration
therefore compliant landfills usually have a lower area consumption per tonne of waste landfilled.
In Scenario A half of the landfilled MSW is assumed to be deposited on non-compliant landfills
and in Scenario B all landfilled waste goes on compliant landfills. The resulting area consumption
for landfilling is shown in Table 54and the costs of endangering species by the respective land-
use in Table 56.
158 http://brandenburg.de/cms/detail.php/lbm1.c.239262.de
Results of environmental impact assessment
The following tables summarise the environmental impacts (excepting the impacts from
greenhouse gas emissions) of the waste management system in Scenarios A and B:
Table 54 shows the pollutant emissions and land-consumption for landfilling of the 3
scenarios and their differences
Table 55 shows the factors used for monetarising the environmental damage caused
by these flows and land-use
Table 56 finally shows the resulting environmental impact costs.
Table 54: Scenarios on flows of pollutants with environmental impacts and landfilling area
consumption
Unit
Scenario
A
Scenario
B
Difference (B-
A)
Ecotoxicity of Zn emissions kt Zn 29 0 -29
Acidification kt SO2,e -23,150 -45,754 -22,605
Eutrophication kt PO4;e -21,980 -31,237 -9,258
Ozone depletion kt CFC-11, e 7.93 0.91 -7
Endangering species richness by landuse km² 87 31 -56
Table 55: Factors for monetarising environmental impacts
Impact factors Source
Ecotoxicity impact of Zn emissions in M€/kt 802 TU-Delft (2010)
Acidification impact of SO2 in M€/kt 0.61 Hamon et al. (2010)
Eutrophication impact of PO4 in Mio €/kt 1.26 Hamon et al. (2010)
Ozone depletion impact of CFC-11 in M€/kt 149 EC (2008)
EU-average ecocosts of species richness by land use in Mio €/km² 5.64 TU-Delft (2010)
Table 56: Costs of environmental impacts
Unit Scenario A Scenario B Difference (B-A)
Ecotoxicity of Zn emissions Mio € 23,300 100 -23,200
Acidification Mio € -14,100 -27,900 -13,800
Eutrophication Mio € -27,700 -39,400 -11,700
Ozone depletion Mio € 1,200 100 -1,100
Endangering species richness by landuse Mio € 500 200 -300
Economic and social impacts
In the wider sense, that is from the macro economic point of view, also the above shown health
impact and environmental impact costs are ‘economic costs’. In this subchapter, however, we
want to deal with micro economic costs and benefits, that is the costs which someone in the
economic system has to pay and benefits which someone may earn in terms of Euro.
These economic costs/benefits in the narrower sense besides:
The damage costs from climate change and greenhouse gas emissions
The saved costs from raw material and energy recovery during waste incineration
Which have already been determined above for scenarios A and B (see Table 43 and Table 44)
comprise:
Costs saved from the utilisation of landfill gas as energy carrier
Costs for the containment of the non-compliant landfills
Repatriation costs for illegal exports
And as largest point, the regular costs for the installation and operation of the waste
management system
In total the efforts for controlling the waste lead to a waste management system with a certain
annual turnover which creates jobs within the sector itself and for other industrial branches.
Utilisation of landfill gas
The calculation on the value of the energy recovered from landfill gas is based on following
assumptions:
for Scenario A that the same amount of landfill gas is used for energy recovery in EU-
27 as in the year 2007 (that is 126 PJ, see Table 58) and
for Scenario B that 50 % of the energy contained in the MSW landfilled in this scenario
is used by landfill gas utilisation.
The resulting energy flows are weighted with the price of the cheapest alternative energy carrier,
that is heavy fuel oil (see Table 57) to give the value of the energy recovered from landfill gas for
the 2 scenarios as shown in Table 58.
Table 57: Frame assumptions for the calculation of landfill gas energy recovery
Parameter Value Source
Landfill gas energy recovery in
2007 in PJ
126 SETIS (2010)
Landfill gas yield in PJ per Mt of
residual household waste
9.7 Weigand & Marb (2006)
Price of heavy fuel oil in M€/PJ 4.2
Heavy fuel oil price 2009, Austria.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/hfoforelec.html,
accessed on 03.01.2011.
Table 58: Economic value of landfill gas energy recovery
Unit Scenario A Scenario B Difference (B-A)
Landfill gas energy recovery PJ 126 334 208
Value of energy recovered from landfill gas M€ 529 1,401 872
Containment of non-compliant landfills
For calculating the costs of containing the waste deposited on non-compliant landfills following
assumptions are taken:
Scenario A: 50 % of the MSW landfilled need to be contained (while also the non-
compliant landfill of industrial and construction waste may require containment, the
mix of reactive biodegradable waste and metals make non-compliant MSW landfills
the most abundant candidates for containment)
Scenario B: All landfilled waste is deposited on compliant landfills. No containment is
necessary.
Containment costs comprise
The costs for uncovering and transferring the waste to a compliant landfill
The costs for depositing the recovered waste on a compliant landfill (see Table 59).
The resulting total costs of containing illegally deposited waste for the 2 scenarios are shown in
Table 60.
Table 59: Frame assumptions for calculating the costs of brownfield containment
Parameter Value Source
The costs for uncovering and transferring the waste to a
compliant landfill in M€/Mt
22.7 Muenter (2010)
The costs for a compliant landfill of MSW in M€/Mt 90 EEA (200)
The costs for a compliant landfill of mixed C&D in M€/Mt 35 Buchinger (2004)
The costs for a compliant landfill of mixed "other waste" in
M€/Mt
75 Buchinger (2004)
Table 60: Costs for the containment of non-compliant landfills
Unit Scenario A Scenario B Difference (B-A)
Containment of landfilled MSW Mt 115 0
Total containment costs M€ 12,964 0 -12,964
Repatriation costs for illegal exports
For calculating the costs of repatriating the waste illegally exported following assumptions are
taken:
For scenario A the difference between the WEEE, batteries and ELV exported or in
other waste streams between Scenarios B and A as shown in Table 61, that is an
amount of 24 Mt in the year 2020 is assumed as the waste which needs to be
repatriated.
In Scenario B no repatriation costs occur.
GHK & BIO (2006) estimate the costs for the depollution and dismantling of ELVs to be
approximately 410 €/t. Assuming that the collection of WEEE, batteries and ELVs in foreign
countries, their repatriation and treatment cost double that amount gives the total costs for
repatriating illegal shipment shown in Table 61.
Table 61: Estimation of repatriation costs for illegally exported WEEE, batteries and ELVs
Unit Scenario A Scenario B Difference (B-A)
Amount of WEEE, batteries and ELV to be repatriated Mt 24 0
Repatriation costs for exported WEEE, batteries, ELV M€ 19,900 0 -19,900
Turnover of waste management system and jobs created
ECORYS (2009) determined for the year 2008 the turnover and the number of jobs in the
European eco-industry. From these data the turnover and the number of jobs in the ‘waste
management’ sector (corresponding to NACE code O 90.02 “collection and treatment of other
(non-sewage) waste”) and the sector ‘recycled materials’ (corresponding to NACE code DN 37
“recycling”) is taken (see Table 62). These figures provide the basis for year 2020 turnover and
number of jobs in the ‘waste management’ sector and the sector ‘recycled materials’ of Scenarios
A and B. Following assumptions are applied:
Scenario A: In this scenario waste treatment and landfilling of MSW is frozen at the
year 2008 level. However, there is an increase in the landfilling of C&D and other
waste. These additional landfilling costs are added to the turnover of the sector ‘waste
management’ for the year 2008 and the number of jobs adapted accordingly.
Turnover and jobs of the sector ‘recycled materials’ are the same as given by ECORYS
(2009) data.
Scenario B: ‘Waste management’ sector: The waste management system of
Brandenburg (managing 0.73 Mt of waste per year) recently made fully compliant
achieves an annual turnover of 100 M€ (Kreutzberg 2006). For the year 2008, it is
assumed that 48 Mt of European waste was landfilled in not a compliant way. Taking
the same specific turnover as in Brandenburg, the turnover of a fully compliant
European system in 2008 should have been 6.575 € higher as reported by ECORYS
(2009), that is at about 90,575 M€. The number of jobs should have been 1.4 million.
The turnover and jobs in the "waste management" in Scenario B of the year 2020 are
increased from these values by the ratio waste generation 2020/2008; Turnover and
jobs in the "recycled materials" sector are increased from the year 2008 values by the
ratio (recovered material Scenario B)/recovered material Scenario A).
The resulting turnover and jobs for Scenarios A and B are shown in Table 63.
Table 62: Frame assumptions for calculating turnover and jobs in waste management and
recycling
Parameter Unit Value Source
Year 2008 turnover
Waste management M€ 92,200 ECORYS (2009)
Recycled materials M€ 54,800 ECORYS (2009)
Year 2008 jobs
Waste management 1,466,700 ECORYS (2009)
Recycled materials 512,300 ECORYS (2009)
Ratio total waste generation 2020/2008 in Scenario B 0.94
Ratio material recovery Scenario B/Scenario A 1.72
Table 63: Turnover, jobs and costs of the sectors ‘waste management’ and ‘recycled materials’ in
scenarios A and B for the year 2020
Parameter Unit Scenario A Scenario B
Difference (B-
A)
Turnover in "waste management" sector M€ 90,200 92,400 2,200
Turnover in "recycled materials" sector M€ 54,800 94,400 39,600
Total turnover M€ 145,000 186,800 41,800
Jobs in "waste management" sector 1,434,900 1,469,900 35,000
Jobs in "recycled materials" sector 512,300 882,200 369,900
Total jobs 1,947,200 2,352,100 404,900
Waste prevention costs
In accordance with findings of cleaner production projects (Ökoprofit Graz, Baumhakel et al.
2003), it is assumed that the waste prevention potential which is activated in Scenario B can be
activated by investments which have an amortisation period of 1 year. When we further
assuming that the lifetime of the waste prevention investment is 10 years, then the waste
prevention investment cost corresponds to 10 % of the costs saved by waste prevention. If we
further assume that in addition to the investments costs there are additional operation costs and
transfer costs (costs for the waste prevention programme) which each also correspond to 10 % of
the costs saved by waste prevention, the total cost of waste prevention corresponds to 30 % of
the waste management costs avoided. We get these waste management costs avoided by
dividing the total gross waste management costs of Scenario A (see Table 64) by the amount of
waste generated in this Scenario. This results in average waste management costs avoided of 42
€ per tonne of prevented waste. As the total cost of waste prevention corresponds to 30 % of the
waste management costs avoided, the total cost of waste prevention is 18 €/t of waste
prevented. Multiplying this with the 119 Mt of waste prevented in Scenario B as compared to
Scenario A results in total waste prevention costs of 2.1 billion €/year in Scenario B.
Total micro economic waste management system costs
As in the waste management sector cost covering tariffs are applied which contain only a small
profit margin it can be assumed that the base costs of the waste management sector correspond
to 98 % of the turnover of the waste management sectors as shown in Table 63.
For the recycling industry it is assumed that its revenues correspond to its turnover shown in
Table 63. The recycling system is more market driven than the core waste management sector,
the former requiring a higher profit margin. Therefore, in Scenario A a profit margin of 5 % and in
Scenario B (with its higher recycling being nearer to the revenue-cost equilibrium) a profit margin
of 4 % are assumed. The revenues minus the respective profit margin give the costs as shown in
Table 64.
In Table 64
to these base costs the above determined waste prevention costs, containment costs
and repatriation costs are added, to give the gross costs of waste management and
from the gross costs of waste management, the revenues from recovered materials
and energy are subtracted to give the total net costs of waste management.
Table 64: Total micro-economic costs of waste management in the year 2020 (with containment
of all non-compliantly landfilled waste and repatriation of all exported ELV/WEEE/batteries)
Parameter Unit Scenario A Scenario B
Difference (B-
A)
Base costs of waste management M€ 88,400 90,600 2,200
Base costs of recycling M€ 52,200 90,800 38,600
Costs of waste prevention M€ 0 2,100 2,100
Containment costs M€ 13,000 0 -13,000
Repatriation costs M€ 19,900 0 -19,900
Gross costs of waste management M€ 173,500 183,500 10,000
Revenues from recovered materials M€ 54,800 94,400 39,600
Revenues from recovered incineration energy M€ 6,500 13,800 7,300
Revenues from recovered landfill gas energy M€ 500 1,400 900
Total revenues M€ 61,800 109,600 47,800
Total net costs of waste management M€ 112,000 74,000 -38,000
However, it seems to be unrealistic that in a Scenario A, which does not even establish a fully
compliant waste management system, all the non-compliantly landfilled waste would by
contained and all the exported WEEE, batteries and ELV would be repatriated. As it is not
possible to fix a realistic value for containment and repatriation in Table 65 the total net costs of
waste management are calculated without containment and repatriation costs.
Table 65: Total micro-economic costs of waste management in the year 2020 (without
containment and repatriation costs)
Parameter Unit Scenario A Scenario B Difference (B-A)
Base costs of waste management M€ 88,400 90,600 2,200
Base costs of recycling M€ 52,200 90,800 38,600
Costs of waste prevention M€ 0 2,100 2,100
Gross costs of waste management M€ 140,600 183,500 42,900
Revenues from recovered materials M€ 54,800 94,400 39,600
Revenues from recovered incineration energy M€ 6,500 13,800 7,300
Revenues from recovered landfill gas energy M€ 500 1,400 900
Total revenues M€ 61,800 109,600 47,800
Total net costs of waste management M€ 78,800 73,900 -4,900
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Table 66 shows the net waste management costs when also external (mostly environmental)
costs and benefits are taken into account. Taking into account the externalities shown in Table 56
makes Scenario B a much more economic solution than Scenario A.
Table 66: Total macro-economic costs-benefits of waste management in the year 2020
Parameter Unit Scenario A Scenario B
Difference (B-
A)
Base costs of waste management M€ 88,400 90,600 2,200
Base costs of recycling M€ 52,200 90,800 38,600
Costs of waste prevention M€ 0 2,100 2,100
GHG emission from MSW landfilling M€ 11,100 3,300 -7,800
Ecotoxicity of Zn emissions M€ 23,300 100 -23,200
Ozone depletion M€ 1,200 100 -1,100
Endangering species richness by land use M€ 500 200 -300
Gross costs of waste management M€ 176,700 187,200 10,500
Revenues from recovered materials M€ 54,800 94,400 39,600
Revenues from recovered incineration energy M€ 6,500 13,800 7,300
Revenues from recovered landfill gas energy M€ 500 1,400 900
GHG emission avoided by material and energy
recovery M€ 16,300 25,300 9,000
Avoided acidification M€ 14,100 27,900 13,800
Avoided eutrophication M€ 27,700 39,400 11,700
Total value generated M€ 119,900 202,200 82,300
Total net costs of waste management M€ 56,800 -15,000 -71,800
Not included in
Table 66 are following cost categories:
Containment and repatriation costs as it is not clear what would be a realistic
assumption on how much of the non-compliantly waste would be contained and how
much of the exported waste (from electric and electronic equipment, batteries and
end-of-life vehicle) would be repatriated in Scenario A
Health damage costs as no realistic assumption on how many persons would be
affected by non-compliant waste management in Scenario A could be made
Environmental damage costs from ecotoxic-pollutants other than zinc, as no realistic
assumption could be made on how much heavy metals and organic pollutants would
be set free in Scenario A.
Health and environmental damage costs in countries outside the EU related to
material and fuel imports or waste exports.
Nevertheless, three very important conclusions can be made with respect to health damage and
containment/repatriation costs:
In areas where waste management does not exist at all the health damage costs are
20 times higher than the gross micro economic costs of a fully established, compliant
waste management system would be.
If, in Scenario A all the non-compliantly landfilled waste would be contained and all
the exported WEEE, batteries and ELV repatriated even the micro-economic waste
management cost of the European waste management system in Scenario A would
exceed those of Scenario B by more than 50 %.
When health damage costs, all environmental damage costs, containment costs and
repatriation costs are taken into account the superiority of Scenario B that is of full
implementation of waste legislation over Scenario A further increases.
29 September 2011
20-22 Villa Deshayes
75014 Paris
+ 33 (0) 1 53 90 11 80
http://www.biois.com