Problems are going to arise and get worse in relation to that text
Caroline Jackson MEP
Speaking in Paris on Friday (September 19), Dr Jackson said that while she was pleased with many elements of the text – such as its energy efficiency formula for recovery plants and article on biowaste -other parts were “deeply unsatisfactory” and could lead to problems.
Dr Jackson was addressing a conference held by FEAD, the organisation representing the European Unions's waste management industry, and highlighted how differences between MEPs and the Council of European environment ministers could create confusion down the line.
In particular, she pointed to article 11 of the text, which states that member states should take the necessary steps “designed to achieve” recycling and reuse targets of 50% for household waste and 70% for construction and demolition waste by 2020, rather than merely “achieve” them as MEPs had wanted.
While claiming that she herself did not know the difference, Dr Jackson said: “The Council did not want to be too prescriptive…I'm sure there will be lawyers crawling all over it.”
Dr Jackson also criticised the target itself, which requires “by 2020 the preparing for re-use and the recycling of waste materials such as a least paper, metal plastic and glass from households or possibly from other origins as far as these waste streams are similar to waste from households, shall be increased to a minimum of overall 50% by weight”.
She explained that the wording could cause confusion because it was not clear if the 50% related to each material or them all together.
She said: “The legal advice I have heard it is that overall is the key word. But there are other problems which the Commission will need to clear up with member state governments… problems are going to arise and get worse in relation to that text.”
Karolina Fras, administrator for the European Commission's environment directorate general, which is currently looking at the proposals in detail, agreed that there was “some problems” with the 50% target as it was “complicated”.
She confirmed that it was not a target for each material, telling delegates: “”Its not a target for each of those waste streams. It's an overall target for the sum of the four as a minimum.”
Problematic
Dr Jackson claimed that the WFD text was particularly problematic because it was agreed at an informal trialogue meeting where there were no member state government representatives present and decisions were made in a hurry- with one suggestion even written on a napkin.
She said: “Our discussions went through critical parts of the text and we made quick off the cuff quick bargains… I don't think this is a good way at arriving at legislation.”
October
The revised Waste Framework Directive is not set to go before the Council of Ministers for rubber-stamping on October 20 before it is published in the Official Journal of the European Union three or four weeks later, when it will become law. Member states will then have two years to transpose it into domestic law.
The European Commission will monitor transposition in member states and produce guidance to the targets which will go to the European Parliament which is likely to be very influential in determining how the text is interpreted.
As a result, Dr Jackson urged those worried about the rules to take it up with the European Parliament because otherwise the guidance would be unlikely to be questioned, commenting: “If you are worried get the MEPs to drag it back”.
Ms Fras said: “It's a critical time in my view for the industry these two years.. if there are problems it would be very welcome if you signal them to us – especially over practical aspects.”
Subscribe for free