EU WASTE FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE
17 June 2008 update
Overview of the Commission proposal








Europe generates over 1.8 billion tonnes of waste each year. This amount is growing
faster than GDP and less than a third of it is recycled. There are huge discrepancies
among Member States when it comes to recycling. Some Member States landfill
90% of their municipal waste, others only 10%.
In December 2005, the Commission proposed revisions to the Waste Framework
Directive and produced a Thematic Strategy on Waste Prevention and Recycling, of
which the new EU waste Directive is a key element. The text reviews and
streamlines existing legislation within a single comprehensive framework. This
proposed directive will replace 3 other directives: The Waste Framework Directive,
The Hazardous Waste Directive and the Waste Oils Directive.
The overall aim is an overhaul of the 1975 Waste framework Directive, largely to lay
down rules on recycling and to require Member States to draw up binding national
programmes for cutting waste production.
The Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste initially identified 3
main reasons for undertaking a revision of the 1975 Directive.
Firstly, a number of definitions were not clear, leading to variation and uncertainty in
the interpretation of these key provisions in Member States. Partly as a consequence
of this, a significant number of cases have required an interpretation from the
European Court of Justice. This has led to difficulties for economic operators and
competent authorities. The issues where there is a lack of legal certainty concern
principally the definition of waste and the distinction between recovery and disposal.
The proposal for the revision of the Waste Framework Directive put forward clearer
definitions and/or a mechanism to clarify the issue at the EU level as appropriate.
Secondly, the Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste introduces
a new approach to waste policy that is better adapted to a situation where most of
the significant waste management operations are now covered by environmental
legislation. The Waste Framework Directive should be adapted to this approach. This
requires a number of changes. The most significant is the introduction of an
environmental objective. Most environmental Directives now have such an objective,
which helps to orient the entire Directive towards a specified aim. In the case of this
proposal, the environmental objective focuses the Directive on the reduction of
environmental impacts from waste generation and management, taking into account
the whole life-cycle. It takes this focus from the Resource Strategy.
Another important part of this strategic change is the move to a more standards
based approach. This proposal reinforces standards in a number of areas through
the application of minimum standards, clear recovery definitions and the use of end
of waste criteria.
European Parliament's First Reading Plenary Vote


13th February 2007, MEPs backed the proposed waste legislation.
The Commission's original proposal had called for a 3 step hierarchical system that
didn't prioritise between reuse, recycling and recovery. MEPs voted in favour of a
five-step hierarchy that gives priority to prevention, reuse and recycling over landfills
and lays down the order of preference for waste options while giving manufacturers



the option to submit lifecycle assessment reports and cost-to-benefit analyses, if an
alternative treatment option is better:
1. Prevention and reduction of waste;
2. Reuse of waste;
3. Recycling of waste;
4. Other recovery operations;
5. Disposal
MEPs voted to set binding targets for reuse and recycling. By 2020, 50% of
municipal solid waste and 70% of waste from construction, demolition, industry and
manufacturing must be reused or recycled.
The majority voted to half the growth in waste generation in Europe at 2008 levels
from 2012, with Member States required to draw up national waste prevention
programmes.
On incineration MEPs voted to delete the formula that the European Commission
had proposed which would re-brand incineration as ‘recovery’. The parliament called
upon the Commission to propose a Directive on Biowaste by 2008.
Commission and Council reaction








EU Environment Ministers agreed on the insertion of the 5-step hierarchy suggested
by the Parliament into the proposal.
Both the Commission and the EU Environment Council argue that this hierarchy
should be applied "flexibly".
Environment Ministers chose to defer discussions on the issue of specific recycling
targets. The Environment Council supported the Commission's view that a "broad
definition" of recycling is the most appropriate, allowing Member States more room to
reach recycling targets set in future.
The Parliament has stated though that it intends to remain firm on the issue of
recycling targets.
The Member States reached a political agreement on 28 June 2007 during a
meeting of the Environment Council.
The outcome includes: Adoption of the five-stage hierarchy as a 'guiding principle'
in waste prevention and management. Adoption of the Commission's proposed
energy efficiency formula for reclassifying municipal waste incineration as recovery
operation, pushing it further up the waste hierarchy, giving it a cleaner image but
added the ability to opt-out based on 'local climate conditions'. The Parliament had
rejected the efficiency formula. Allowing Member States to block imported shipments
of waste destined for recovery if it can be proved that the shipment would result in
domestic waste being diverted to disposal or landfill.
So far the separate Biowaste Directive (called upon by the Parliament) is not
supported by the Commission.
Furthermore, they did not attempt to reach agreement on the recycling and
prevention targets proposed by the EP in its First Reading, resulting in policy that
does not back up the waste hierarchy and promotes more waste incineration.
Second Reading in the European Parliament

In April 2008 the Environment Committee adopted its recommendations for the Parliament's
second reading with 42 votes in favour and 14 abstentions. MEPs want tougher waste
recycling targets and incinerators subjected to efficiency criteria when burning waste for
energy 'recovery' purposes. The Committee voted to reinstate most of the Parliament's first
reading amendments that were not taken by the Environment Council.
Binding targets for waste stabilisation, re-use and recycling
 MEPs call for total waste production to be stabilized by 2012, compared to the 2009
position. Member States are asked to establish waste prevention programmes not later
than five years after the revised directive's entry into force and to determine appropriate
specific targets to achieve the 2012 target and further significant reductions in waste
generation by 2020.
 MEPs also call for targets for reuse and recycling. By 2020, re-use and recycling rates
should be increased to a minimum of 50% by weight for household waste and a minimum of
70% by weight for construction and demolition waste and manufacturing and industrial
waste. Member States with less than 5% recycling in either category or no official figures
would be given an additional 5 years to reach the targets.
 By 2015 the Member States would have to set up separate waste collection schemes for at
least the following: paper, metal, plastic, glass, textiles, other biodegradable wastes, oils and
hazardous wastes.
Incineration
 For MEPs, a crucial aim is to reduce the amount of landfill and incineration, both of which
cause pollution. Members were divided over whether incineration should be regarded as a
"disposal" or a "recovery" operation. During the vote they backed the Commission and
Council position that it should be categorised as recovery, provided it meets a certain
energy efficiency standard (energy efficiency formula in annex to the directive).
Amendments seeking to delete the energy efficiency formula were rejected in a close vote
(24 votes to 29). But MEPs voted for the formula to be reviewed within two years of the
directive's entry into force (28 votes to 27).
 At the first reading, a majority of MEPs had rejected the idea that incineration should be
regarded as recovery and had deleted the energy efficiency formula.
MEPs want Member States to stick to binding five-stage waste hierarchy
 MEPs want to make the application of the five-stage waste hierarchy, which is designed to
prevent and reduce waste production, more certain and comprehensive. The hierarchy also
lays down an order of preference for waste operations: prevention, re-use, recycling, other
recovery operations and, as a last resort, safe and environmentally sound disposal.
 MEPs want to move the article on the waste hierarchy to a more prominent place in the
directive and want Member States to treat it "as a general rule", rather than as a "guiding
principle" as proposed by Council. Departing from the hierarchy may be possible where it is
justified by "life cycle" thinking on the overall impacts of the generation and management of
such waste.
Compromise deal with Council reached

On 3 June the Commission, Council and European Parliament managed to come to a
compromise on the proposed waste framework directive. The compromise reached pushes
the waste prevention objective back to 2014, at which date recycling targets are to be
reviewed.

While MEPs called for all member states to be required to meet re-use or recycling levels of
at least 50% of household and similar waste, and 70% of construction and demolition,
manufacturing and industrial waste by 2020, the text agreed provides for a non-binding
target of 45% for certain household waste (glass, paper, plastic, metals) and 65% for
construction and demolition waste, with no target for manufacturing waste.
Final compromise approved by the Parliament - key points

The compromise deal reached with the Council was debated and voted on by the
Parliament as a whole on 17 June. While the compromise was approved there were
concerns that the compromise was too weak: no binding waste prevention target is included
and the targets for recycling and reuse ought to have been tougher.

Inclusion of targets for re-use and recycling
MEPs managed to include in the directive a new article on re-use and recycling targets. This
was not foreseen either by the original Commission proposal or by the Council. The
compromise states that Member states "shall take the necessary measures designed to
achieve the following targets":
- by 2020 for re-use and recycling of waste materials such as paper, metal glass from
households and similar waste streams: 50 %
- by 2020 for non hazardous construction and demolition waste: 70 %
A special target for manufacturing and industrial waste, as demanded by MEPs is not
included in the compromise but the Commission has to examine the targets by 2020 and
eventually reinforce them or consider setting targets for other waste streams.


Waste prevention is reinforced - targets to be considered in the future
Member States are obliged to establish waste management plans and waste prevention
programmes with waste prevention objectives 5 years after entry into force of the directive.
The compromise includes a new article on waste prevention whereby the Commission shall
propose - if appropriate - by the end of 2014 the setting of waste prevention and decoupling
objectives for 2020.

Incineration
Members were divided over whether incineration of municipal solid waste should be
regarded as a "disposal" or a "recovery" operation, the latter one being a better option
regarding the waste hierarchy. In the vote, MEPs backed the Commission and Council
position that it should be categorised as recovery, provided it meets certain energy
efficiency standards.
MEPs also managed to include into the compromise a revision after 6 years of the energy
efficiency provisions.

Member States to stick to binding five-stage hierarchy
The five-stage waste hierarchy, which is designed to prevent and reduce waste production,
is made more certain and comprehensive and moved to a more prominent place. The
hierarchy lays down an order of preference for waste operations: prevention, re-use,
recycling, other recovery operations and, as a last resort, safe and environmentally sound
disposal. Member States shall treat it "as a priority order", in waste prevention and
management legislation rather than as a "guiding principle" as proposed by Council.
Departing from the hierarchy may be possible where it is justified by "life cycle" thinking on
the overall impacts of the generation and management of such waste.
The directive includes a definition on by-products and of the "end-of-waste" status. It
introduces an extended producer responsibility and asks Member States to take measures
to encourage the separate collection of bio-waste.
In 2005, 49% of EU municipal waste was disposed of through landfill, 18% was incinerated
and 27% recycled or composted.
Waste in Scotland
The Facts






Around 650,000 tonnes of food waste is thrown out by Scottish households each year.
About a third of the food bought is thrown in the bin and at least half of this could have been
eaten.
Over £800 million worth of food is wasted by consumers in Scotland each year. That’s an
average of £366 per household.
The average household in Scotland produces 1,197 kg (or 1.197 tonnes) of waste. The
waste that is produced is increasing by around 2% each year.
The average person living in the UK throws away their own body weight in waste every
seven weeks.
Scotland has increased the amount of waste that it recycles and composts from 4.5% in
2000/01 to 29.8% in 2006/07. The latest recycling/composting rate for municipal waste in
Scotland (SEPA) is 29.8%. Municipal waste is largely household waste although about 15%
is business waste collected by local authorities.
The existing National Waste Plan (NWP)



This was published in 2003 by SEPA and the previous Scottish Executive. The NWP is the
keystone to implementing the National Waste Strategy. It outlines how Scotland can achieve
increased levels of recycling and an overall reduction in the amount of waste we produce by
2020.
Currently there is a dependence on landfill as a means of waste disposal. The plan outlines
how Scotland can move towards a culture of reducing, reusing and recycling waste.
It sets the following targets for waste reduction and recycling in Scotland: By 2008 - recycle
or compost 30% of MSW; By 2010 - stop the annual increase in the amount of waste
produced; By 2020 - collect waste materials for recycling from 90% of households; By
2020 - recycle or compost 50% of MSW.
The Scottish Government - the New Vision for Waste
 In January 2008, the Scottish Environment Secretary Richard Lochhead announced the
Government’s new direction on waste, plan for a “zero – waste” strategy and proposed to
consult on new targets, including targets aimed at increasing recycling and cutting down on
waste sent to landfill and limiting incineration.
 The amount of Municipal waste (MSW) being recycled or composted is to be increased to
60% by 2020 and a new target of 70% by 2025.
 Landfill from MSW is to be reduced to 5% by 2025.
 No more than 25% of MSW is to be used to generate energy by 2025 and large, inefficient
incinerators are to be rejected.
 Keeping the existing challenging target of stopping the growth in MSW by 2010.









A Funding of £7.5 million for community projects was also announced as part of the strategy
for investment into community recycling projects over the next 3 years. (£2.5m per year and
working in conjunction with the Community Recycling Network for Scotland.).
A call for an increase on the focus on waste prevention-food wastage, reusing carrier bags,
home composting etc.
The Government also highlights the responsibility of retailers such as reducing packaging
and the responsibility of businesses in waste reduction.
The setting up of a new Zero Waste think tank to ensure Scotland benefits from the best
expertise as the Government develops a new National Waste Management Plan for
Scotland over the coming year.
A Zero waste fund will amount to £41.1 million in 2008/9, £54.4 million in 2009/10 and £58.7
million in 2010/11.
Large inefficient incinerators are to be rejected In favour of smaller, more efficient plants
combining heat and power (recommended by the Sustainable Development Commission).
Both COSLA and SEPA have backed the recovery of energy from "appropriate" wastes.
Energy-from-waste is a safe, tried and tested way to deal with waste that cannot be
recycled, and is commonly used across Europe. Energy from waste is not an alternative to
recycling - it is just one component of a sensible and practical waste strategy.
The Sustainable Development Commission urged the Scottish Government to review
recycling targets and push them above and beyond 55% by 2020, stating this "would
certainly be possible". However, it was critical of some local authorities, which it claimed
were failing to take seriously the need to recycle and reduce waste. It said: "While some
local authorities are making good progress on recycling, it is clear that others are finding this
difficult and do not see recycling or activities further up the waste hierarchy as a core part of
their waste management duties."
In March 2008 Fife Council announced that it planned to exceed government requirements
by ensuring all household waste was either recycled, composted or sent to waste treatment.
Fife had one of the worst figures for recycling in 2002 when only 2% of waste avoided
landfill. Already that has increased to about 38%. The first target is to increase that rate to
47% by 2010/11. That figure will then need to increase to 64% by 2012/13.