Fédération Européenne des Activités du Déchet et de l’Environnement
European Federation of Waste Management and Environmental Services
Europäische Föderation der Entsorgungswirtschaft
FEAD VOTING RECOMMENDATIONS
REVISION OF THE WASTE FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE
KEY PRIORITIES for the FIRST READING
European Parliament – Plenary meeting - February 2007
In view of the upcoming plenary vote in first reading on the Revision of the Waste Framework
Directive, please find below FEAD voting recommendations on key priorities for the waste
management industry.
BY-PRODUCTS
FEAD supports the Commission’s on-going approach of developing guidelines supporting a case-by-case
approach based on present ECJ jurisprudence. Elaborating a definition on by-products, as suggested by
some industry sectors, is a very dangerous exercise and would require a proper assessment of any
potential negative environmental impacts on the environment. FEAD opposes any attempt to widely
declassify waste without the necessary environmental safeguards.
FEAD gave careful attention to amendments 107 and 121 requesting a legislative proposal on by-products.
The approach of a dedicated legislation aiming at more legal clarity has merit and is supported by FEAD.
However FEAD strongly opposes the proposed criterion “or there is a market for it as a product” in
paragraph 1(c). This criterion is excessively wide and therefore is extremely risky in term of environmental
protection. Additionally, this market criterion is not part of the criteria set by the European Court of Justice
and should therefore not be an argument for escaping the waste status.
Moreover, the other criteria set in paragraph 1 do not reflect entirely the criteria set by the European Court
of the Justice: the complete use criteria is missing and the criteria on the direct use without any further
processing (paragraph 1(b)) is now open to “normal industrial practice” which can be too widely
interpreted.
Considering the above, FEAD cannot support amendments 107 and 121.
FEAD calls for the rejection of amendments 107, 121 and 134(4a)
and supports amendment 7.
WASTE HIERARCHY
It is of great importance that the 5-step hierarchy is to be interpreted as a guiding principle for waste
management policy rather than as a rigid legal principle. The hazardousness of certain wastes, like clinical
waste, does not allow the strict application of the waste hierarchy.
FEAD fears that the proposed wording on Life-Cycle-Analysis and cost-benefit analyses does not provide
enough flexibility and furthermore that the hierarchy could be interpreted as legally binding. The life-cycle
approach should at this stage only complement established EU waste policy instruments and should be
used in an harmonised way across Europe.
FEAD calls for the rejection of amendments 14 and 118
and supports amendment 101.
APOH, Slovakia
ARS, Romania
ASELIP, Spain
AVFALL NORGE, Norway
AVFALL SVERIGE, Sweden
BDE, Germany
CAOH, Czech Republic
ESA, UK
FEBEM-FEGE, Belgium
FISE, Italy
FLEA, Luxembourg
FNADE, France
IWMA, Ireland
JLY, Finland
KSZGYSZ, Hungary
PASEPPE, Greece
PIGO, Poland
VA, Netherlands
VÖEB, Austria
FEAD aisbl – Rue Philippe Le Bon, 15 – B-1000 Brussels, Tel : +32 2 732 32 13, Fax : +32 2 734 95 92, Email : info@fead.be, Website : www.fead.be
SELF-SUFFICIENCY
The main reasoning behind the call for extension of the principles of self-sufficiency and proximity to waste
for recovery is the protection of national market structures. A national market regulation though does not
serve the environmental objective of the Waste Framework Directive or broader EU law and is misplaced
here. Furthermore, self-sufficiency rules for waste for recovery would splinter the internal market for the
recovery of waste in a context where open markets in the waste management industry have always been a
driver for high European environmental standards. The proposals jeopardise the achievements of decades
of successful European waste management policy and hamper the development of sustainable waste
management in Europe.
FEAD therefore calls for the rejection of amendments 39, 137, 154, 158 and 159.
RECOVERY
FEAD welcomes MEP’s amendments on the definition of recovery excluding the word ‘final’. It is essential
that interim operations, recognised in Annex II (e.g. R12 and R13) as recovery operations, are covered by
the definition of recovery in the Directive. FEAD also welcomes the re-wording of sub-paragraph 5 in
amendment 127 ensuring a practicable application of the definition.
FEAD opposes the proposed definitions of ‘use principally as fuel’ for recovery operations which comes
from the description of R1 ‘Use principally as a fuel or other means to generate energy’. The status of R1 is
already defined in the proposed amendments related to energy efficiency (see our position above).
Definition of ‘recovery’:
FEAD calls for the rejection of amendments 22, 157 and 163
and supports amendment 127 and 106.
Definition of ‘use principally as a fuel’:
FEAD calls for the rejection of amendments 156, 166 and 179.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
FEAD does not support the amendments introducing the energy efficiency criterion as a condition of a
permit. FEAD sees a major conflict between these amendments and the IPPC Directive. The latter requires
the application of Best Available Techniques Reference Documents (BREFs). Waste incineration facilities
are actually covered by a Waste Incineration BREF document. The IPPC and the Waste Incineration BREF
already cover the appropriate permit requirements for waste incineration facilities. It is therefore not the
role of the Waste Framework Directive to provide an arbitrary modification to this very technical aspect.
However, it is the role of the Waste Framework Directive to clarify the status of R1, i.e. to determine when
a waste treatment should be considered as a Recovery or a Disposal operation.
FEAD therefore strongly insists on having the formula on R1 in Annex II of the proposal.
FEAD calls for the rejection of amendments 39, 57, 83, 158, 136 and 139
and supports amendments 116, 133 and 135.
OTHER ISSUES
FEAD also calls for:
Rejection of
amendment 181: A mandatory general pre-treatment requirement before incineration
and landfilling for each single waste stream is not feasible.
Rejection
of amendments 167 and 185: FEAD calls for an integrated approach towards waste
management and therefore rejects bans on certain treatment operations.
Rejection
15, 122, 125 and 134: FEAD calls for
unexcavated contaminated soils and therefore supports amendment 102.
of amendments
***
a clear exclusion of