Targets proving “problematic” in EU waste directive talks

But, the disagreement over new waste prevention and recycling targets could prove a sticking point between the two sides negotiating the directive – MEPs and environment ministers from Member State governments within the EU Environment Council.

A position on the directive, which is to set out the general ground rules of waste management in Europe to update the 1975 Waste Framework Directive, was agreed by the Member States in June 2007 (see letsrecycle.com story). Europe's Parliament had agreed its position back in February this year (see letsrecycle.com story).

Now, a common position between the two sides could be adopted this December, which would then have to be given a second reading in the Parliament, anticipated to be January or February.

Sending a message to the European waste industry's annual conference in Athens on Friday, environment commissioner Stavros Dimas said: “2008 is going to be an important year for the future of waste policy in the European Union – the nature of the Waste Framework Directive, and the next steps in both recycling policy and wider sustainable production and consumption policy will be outlined.”

Prevention

Mr Dimas told the FEAD event that he was pleased that the MEPs and the Member States had accepted the use of waste prevention programmes by Member States as well as the need to clarify when a fully-recovered waste might be no longer considered a “waste” in EU law.

Highlighting the forthcoming second reading within the European Parliament, Mr Dimas said: “The key point for discussion is likely to be the different positions of Council and Parliament on whether to have new recycling and waste prevention targets in the Directive.”

Karolina Fras, from Mr Dimas' environment directorate in the Commission, said during the conference: “We are aiming for a second reading agreement – we think this is possible, but it will be very, very hard work.”

Ms Fras suggested that the term “targets” might be abandoned in favour of the term “benchmarks” concerning waste prevention, but warned that because Member States wanted softer requirements for their waste prevention programmes than the MEPs, the working of the legislation could be that programmes “may contain” certain measures, rather than “should contain” them.

Commenting on Mr Dimas' message, Pierre Rellet, FEAD president said: “The compromise will need to involve the preventative objectives and will need to work on the recycling targets – that's the most important thing as far as Mr Dimas is concerned.

“Work should be based on many products' life cycles – the Commission is really hammering that through, and quite rightly so,” added Mr Rellet, who is also chairman of the French waste industry association FNADE.

“Problematic”

However, Petros Varelidis, environmental attaché of the permanent representation of Greece to the European Union, said that the waste prevention programmes continued to be a “very problematic point” for the Member States.

“There are quite a few Member States that think waste prevention programmes are quite useless,” he said. “It's not that they are against prevention, but they feel it should be attached to sustainable consumption and production policy, not waste policy. It's too late to reduce waste once it's already been produced.”

Mr Varelidis said he thought a “good agreement” could be reached, but he revealed: “This is a political message the MEPs want to give out – they don't mind that nothing will really happen in real life. We hope that Parliament can understand how useless this is – although I doubt it.”

Dr Caroline Jackson, who is leading the Parliament's revision of the Waste Framework Directive, said there was a danger of prevention and recycling targets being “brushed aside” by the Council. But she said: “My aim in the second reading, amongst other things will be to make sure that the Council does realise that these are there.”

Dr Jackson suggested that the members of the Council might have to concede to MEPs on the recycling and prevention targets if they wanted MEPs to support Council priorities such as the reclassification of the most efficient incinerators as “recovery” plants.

Meanwhile, with pressure within European institutions for a separate Biowaste Directive to be developed – so far not supported by the Commission – Mr Dimas did state that the Commission would now “initiate the assessment of new legal measures for biowaste treatment”.