DRAFT CEEP PROPOSALS FOR AMENDMENTS ON THE DRAFT INITIATIVE REPORT “ON RESOURCE
EFFICIENCY: MOVING TOWARDS A CIRCULAR ECONOMY” (2014/2208(INI))
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
Rapporteur: Sirpa Pietikäinen
Full report:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML%2bCOMPARL%2bPE-552.085%2b01%2bDOC%2bPDF%2bV0%2f%2fEN
Text proposed in the Draft Report
Article
12. Urges the Commission to take other relevant
actions to ensure that products are easy to reuse,
refit, repair, recycle and eventually dismantle for
new resources;
Amendments
Article
12. Urges the Commission to take other relevant
actions to ensure that products are easy to
reuse, refit, repair, recycle and eventually
dismantle for new resources;
Justification:
“Reuse, refit, repair, recycle and dismantle” are an enumeration of possible treatments.
The use of the word ‘eventually’ is a restriction of the enumeration.
A result could be that “dismantling” will not be implemented.
14. Urges the Commission to submit the announced
14. Urges the Commission to submit the
proposal on the review of waste legislation by the
announced proposal on the review of waste
end of 2015 and to include the following points:
legislation by the end of 2015 and to include
setting extended producer responsibility
the following points: setting extended
requirements; endorsing the ‘pay-as-you-throwproducer responsibility requirements;
principle’ prioritising separate collection schemes
endorsing the ‘pay-as-you-throw-principle’
in order to facilitate the development of business
prioritising separate collection schemes in
based on the reuse of secondary raw materials;
order to facilitate the development of
increasing recycling targets to at least 70 % of
business based on the reuse of secondary
municipal solid waste, based on the output of
raw materials; increasing recycling targets to
recycling facilities, using the same harmonised
at least 70 % of municipal solid waste, on all
method for all Member States with externally
waste streams based on the output of
verified statistics; introducing a ban on landfilling
recycling facilities using the same
recyclable and biodegradable waste by 2025 and
harmonised only one method for all Member
a ban on all landfilling by 2030; introducing fees
States with externally verified statistics; a
on landfilling and incineration;
reporting obligation should be introduced
for commercial and industrial waste
quantities which are sorted and recycled; an
obligation for recyclers to report on the
“input” quantities of waste going into the
sorting plants as well as on the “output”
quantity of recyclates coming out of the
sorting plants; implementation of resource
and climate protection targets by limiting
landfill; introducing a ban on landfilling
recyclable and biodegradable waste; the
gradual reduction in landfill must be binding
and should be implemented in coherence
with the requirements for recycling and set
in three stages (2020, 2025 and 2030); by
2025 and a ban on all landfilling by 2030;
introducing fees on landfilling and
incineration;
Justification:
Recyclable waste should no longer be landfilled by 2025. All kind of recyclable waste should be banned from
landfilling by 2030. ‘On all waste’: this is a request that the Waste Framework Directive addresses all waste as is
intended, and not only municipal waste. If commerce and industry are required to report their waste and
recycled quantities, a much greater proportion of the overall waste stream (not only municipal waste) will be
addressed.
Only one calculation method should be used in every Member State which also stipulates that the point of
calculation is after sorting. In order to ensure that all recycled quantities are counted and included in the
national data-set and to render the data comparable at European level, a reporting obligation should be
introduced for commercial and industrial waste quantities which are sorted and recycled.
The end of landfilling of recyclable waste can only be achieved by increasing recycling and efficient energy
recovery. Recycling processes always need to have the priority in all the cases in which they actually bring an
ecological advantage, enable the production of high-quality goods and are economically viable, for instance
when there is a demand from the manufacturing industry for secondary raw material.
The list of types of waste authorised for landfill should be limited. Waste excluded from landfilling should
include untreated municipal waste and other non-inert waste. Landfill restrictions should be implemented
through quality requirements, not volume limitations. In order to guarantee the achievement of this crucial
step towards a more circular economy, the gradual reduction in landfill must be binding. It should be
implemented in coherence with the requirements for recycling and set in three stages (2020, 2025 and 2030).
In this context, the Circular Economy Package should also take into account the evolution of waste-to-energy
technologies in Europe. In the medium and long-term investment should be guided towards sustainable
solutions in all Member States. The whole EU framework, including a restriction of funding possibilities to new,
resource-efficient technologies, must be adapted accordingly.
A strict landfill ban for waste streams eligible for material or energy recovery is preferable over an increase in
landfill taxes. Both the landfill ban and the prevention targets shall contain an effective penalty mechanism
(law enforcement). Waste Prevention objectives in our understanding do not necessarily imply a clearly
quantified reduction of waste but could be defined in various modes.
23.
Calls on the Commission to establish a permanent
resource-efficiency platform to encourage and
facilitate the application of the latest research
findings, the exchange of best practices and the
emergence of new industrial synthesis and
industrial ecosystems;
23.
Calls on the Commission to establish a
permanent resource-efficiency platform
which includes actors from all sectors, both
public and private as well as civil society, to
encourage and facilitate the application of
the latest research findings, the exchange of
best practices and the emergence of new
industrial synthesis and industrial
ecosystems;
Justification:
The previous resource-efficiency platform membership was made up of primarily representatives of
multinational enterprises. Any future platform should be an equal mix of large enterprises, SMEs,
representatives of municipalities, regions and Member States and NGOs. Without this, a balanced approach to
resource-efficiency cannot be assured.
25.
Stresses that all EU funding, including funding
through EFSI, Horizon 2020, cohesion funds and
the EIB, must be mobilised to promote resource
efficiency and urges the Commission to abolish all
environmentally harmful subsidies;
25.
Stresses that all EU funding, including
funding through EFSI, Horizon 2020, cohesion
funds and the EIB, must be mobilised to
promote resource efficiency and urges the
Commission to abolish all environmentally
harmful subsidies; a restriction of funding
possibilities to new, resource efficient
technologies, must be reformed accordingly.
Justification:
EU Member States still dumping substantial quantities of unprocessed or recyclable wastes in landfills must be
expected to upgrade to the higher levels of the waste hierarchy as quickly as possible. These states could, as a
transitional arrangement, use the waste treatment capacities in other Member States while they build their
own high-quality recycling capacities. This phase should be of limited duration. Moreover, the cross-border
shipment of untreated wastes within the EU must not be ecologically disadvantageous in the overall balance. It
should only be regarded as an option in individual cases for specified periods and locations, i.e. as a limited
exception to the general principles of self-sufficiency and proximity. The EU should do all it can, if necessary by
providing funding, to support the application of these principles and, to this end, promote know-how transfer
between Member States.
Waste streams that cannot yet undergo high-quality treatment should only be shipped to facilities outside the
EU if it can be demonstrated that the waste treatment providers in the importing countries apply the ecological
and social standards required in the EU.
26.
Urges the Commission to examine whether
existing legislation is hindering the circular
economy or the emergence of new business
models, such as a lease economy;
26.
Urges the Commission to examine whether
existing European legislation , e.g.
competition law, is hindering the circular
economy or the emergence of new business
models, such as a lease economy; ;
Justification:
The legislation referred to here is European therefore it must be clear. Competition law can get in the way of
innovative ideas which change the structure of the economy and this should be taken into account by any
forward-planning document on the creation of a circular economy.
Explanatory Statement
4. Extended producer responsibility means that
producers are responsible for the end-of-life
management of their products. Retailers could be
considered to only sell the services provided by the
products – the product remains in the producers’
ownership, and at the end of its life, it is their
responsibility to manage the product in accordance with
existing regulations.
4. Extended producer responsibility means that
producers are responsible for from the design
phase until the end-of-life management of for their
products. The legislation should spell out more
clearly the importance of the lifecycle perspective,
i.e. an approach that also encompasses production
and use phases. The decision on which group of
substances will be covered by extended producer
responsibility should, as envisaged, be left to the
individual Member State. Retailers could be
considered to only sell the services provided by the
products – the product remains in the producers’
ownership, and at the end of its life, it is their
responsibility to manage the product in accordance
with existing regulations.
However, a list of possible types of systems - such
as tax and levy systems, monopoly systems,
competitive systems or deposit systems – should
be added to the Directive. The legislation should
also provide for appropriate remuneration
arrangements to combat littering.
Justification:
Extended producer responsibility aimed at improved product design, use and disposal should be welcomed. It
is important to emphasise the positive potential of eco-design. Intelligent, reusable or recycling-friendly
products can bring about reduced waste volumes and help to mitigate or prevent environmental impacts, save
valuable raw materials, achieve benefits for business and the wider economy, and implement the waste
hierarchy. The legislation should spell out more clearly the importance of the lifecycle perspective, i.e. an
approach that also encompasses production and use phases.
In practice, attention has often focused solely on the financing function. The challenge of creating appropriate
financing systems varies greatly from one Member State to another. This is why the decision on which group of
products will be covered by extended producer responsibility should, as envisaged, be left to the individual
Member State. However, a list of possible types of systems - such as tax and levy systems, monopoly systems,
competitive systems or deposit systems – should be added to the Directive. The legislation should also provide
for appropriate remuneration arrangements to combat littering.