The original Court ruling was made in February 2003 concerning an incinerator in Luxembourg and a cement kiln in Germany. It was decided that disposing of packaging waste in the cement could be defined as recovery, but that disposing of material in a municipal waste incinerator was primarily for the purposes of disposal, not recovery.
Liberal Democrat MEP Christopher Huhne then asked the Commission in March to clarify its position over the Court's judgement, with regard to the 1994 Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive.
The Commission response, which has just been issued by environment commissioner Margot Wallstrom, said that if the Court judgement was taken as a precedent altering the definitions of the European Waste Framework, the terms of the 1994 Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive would mean that packaging waste would not count towards a Member State's recovery targets if incinerated in a dedicated municipal incinerator.
Only co-incineration power plants, where waste is used as a fuel along with another fuel, and cement kilns, could count towards recovery targets.
Mrs Wallstrom wrote: “Energy recovery defined as 'the use of combustible packaging waste as a means to generate energy through direct incineration with or without other waste and with recovery of the heat' is excluded from the concept of recycling as it is defined in Directive 94/62/EC.
“On this basis, to achieve the overall recovery target, Member States have either to increase recycling or to recover energy from the combustible fraction of the packaging waste stream through co-incineration in cement kilns or power plants, which have been recognised by the Court as recovery operations,” she added.
Concerns
However, the Commission is still reflecting on whether the alteration of the Waste Framework is needed. Mrs Wallstrom said: “For the time being, the Commission is still evaluating the consequences that the Court judgement could have on the decision of the competent authorities concerning the waste treatment technologies.”
The Commission is understood to have concerns that refusing to allow recovery of packaging material through energy from waste plants could affect “obligations to divert large amounts of biodegradable waste from landfills”.
The ruling may also have implications for other forms of waste under the End of Life Vehicles Directive and the Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment Directive.
In the UK, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency are looking at the recovery issue as well as the recent European Court ruling on steel packaging in the Mayer Parry case (see letsrecycle.com story). They hope to provide clarifications to the existing guidance by September or October.
Speaking to letsrecycle.com, Jeff Cooper, the Environment Agency's producer responsibility policy manager said that the issue would not affect this year's packaging waste recovery note (PRN) market, but could have implications on next year.
“The implications need to be looked at by the Environment Agency and DEFRA before a joint decision is made on the various categories of energy from waste operation,” he said. “We're looking at the Mayer Parry decision as well, and will probably issue changes to the existing guidance in both areas by September or October. It may affect next year's [PRN market], but that's something we will have to look at very closely.”
While some in the waste industry have said the European ruling could have major implications on PRNs and recovery rates in the UK, one expert told letsrecycle.com: “There is likely to be a strong case made that recovering energy from waste is more beneficial than simple disposal to landfill.”
The recovery issue will be of major interest at a European Commission meeting with Member States and stakeholders on July 7-8, 2003.
- Click here for the written question asked by Christopher Huhne MEP.
- Click here for the response from environment commissioner Margot Wallstrom.
Register for free to comment