POSITION PAPER. on the European Commission s Circular Economy Package. Brussels, February / 8

Transcription

1 POSITION PAPER on the European Commission s Circular Economy Package Brussels, February 2016 The Verband kommunaler Unternehmen (VKU) represents over 1,400 local utilities in Germany in the sectors of energy, water/waste water and waste management. With over 245,000 associated employees, the members of VKU achieved a turnover of over 110 billion euros in 2012, in which year they also invested over 8.6 billion euros. In the end-customer segment, the VKU s member companies have a market share of 46 percent in electricity, 59 percent in natural gas, 80 percent in drinking water, 65 percent in heating supply and 26 percent in waste-water disposal. They also dispose of 31,500 tonnes of waste each day and make a vital contribution towards ensuring the highest recycling rates in Germany compared to any other EU member state with some 65 percent. Verband kommunaler Unternehmen e.v. Invalidenstraße Berlin Fon Fax info@vku.de 1 / 8

2 Key measures: Cease disposal of biodegradable waste as well as recyclable waste and waste suitable for energy recovery in landfills, in order to reduce climate damaging emissions Defining municipal waste in consistency with the OECD definition i.e. only in terms of qualitative and not quantitative criteria so that waste coming from (small) commerce will not be excluded from the recycling targets Introduction of a provision for an obligatory certification scheme for recycling facilities, in order to ensure high quality recycling processes and to prevent an incorrect application of calculation methods for recycling targets through falsely labeled procedural steps Adaptation of provisions for extended producer responsibility with the aim to ensure the financing of all steps of a product s lifecycle (including the elimination of misthrows and littering) Prompt review of the Ecodesign Directive as well as the European Ecolabel provisions, in order to enhance the reparability and recycling of products and to offer consumers a clear choice of resource efficient alternatives Establishment and sponsorship of a knowledge platform for the European Circular Economy that provides and allows for the exchange of Best Practice examples between all member states, especially on a regional and municipal level Recognition of the Roadmap Exploiting the Potential of Waste to Energy under the Energy Union Framework Strategy and the Circular Economy published by the EU Commission in February 2016, which should also be considered in the context of the Circular Economy Package 2

3 I. Background The management of municipal and similar waste is a typical field of services of general interest and therefore a responsibility of public administration. Thereby the cities, municipalities and counties and their local public utilities play a central role, because they guarantee proper waste management at all times independently of short-term trends such as the economic trend. This is an essential factor both for human health and the protection of the environment as well as for a strong and efficient economy. They are active with regard to all five steps of the waste hierarchy. Through the separate collection of waste they contribute substantially towards the national and European waste policy goals. With the aim to support the prevention of waste, 145 local actors took part in approximately 280 different campaigns during the European Week of Waste Prevention in 2014, which is carried out by the VKU in Germany. Cities, municipalities and counties and their local public enterprises are able to make an important contribution to the European Circular Economy. Municipalities and their enterprises looked at from a spatial perspective are closest to citizens and hold a key position in terms of implementing an efficient resource management and economy locally. Therefore, it is acknowledged with great pleasure that the Commission in its package of measures concerning the European Circular Economy refers to the local, regional and national public bodies [as] the actual driver of the circular economy 1. There are considerable differences in waste management amongst the member states of the European Union. While some member states have introduced a strict restriction on landfilling of waste (especially in light of the biogenic content and heating value of the waste), there are other countries which still find themselves in the development of a proper waste management all over their territory. Also in this context it is rewarding to have a look at the underlying structures, because it can be observed that notably EU member states with strong municipal structures (such as Germany, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg or Scandinavian States) have high recycling rates (see graphic in attachment). As regards member states with less developed waste management systems, there should be an emphasis on experience and knowledge exchange with states which have developed more advanced systems. Especially regions and municipalities which do not possess the financial and human resources for such an exchange should be financially supported by the EU Commission to allow them to take 1 Cf. Closing the loop An EU action plan for the Circular Economy, page 2. 3

4 part in such a program. In this regard, European umbrella associations of the local and regional level as well as of the waste management sector can take a supportive role. All in all, the proposed package of measures for the European Circular Economy contains positive and correct propositions. However, the VKU still allow themselves to point out some central points that have a vital influence on whether or not a real European Circular Economy can be implemented in due time. II. A ban on landfill of recoverable and bio-degradable waste (Art. 5 Landfill Directive) The VKU demands a prompt ban on the landfilling of bio-degradable waste as well as for all other waste suitable for high-quality recycling or energy recovery. The introduction of such a landfill ban must be pursued coherently in all European member states, because this way the prevention of waste, reuse, recycling and other reutilization methods is fostered. A mere limit on quantity, as is proposed in the current proposal for Art. 5 of the landfill directive, is not sufficient. Instead, there is a need for additional qualitybased requirements as well as suitable penalty mechanisms in order to guarantee a coherent implementation. Some European member states have already implemented extensive landfill restrictions, such as Germany, Belgium, Finland and Austria. For example, the ban of putting untreated municipal waste in landfills that was introduced in Germany in 2005 and achieved a reduction of methane emissions of between 70% and 80% as compared to This comes down to a contribution of about 10% of the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions achieved overall in Germany. The disposal of untreated municipal waste, especially of biodegradable waste, in landfills is the main source of the environmentally harmful emissions in the waste management sector, while at the same time it impedes the extension of recycling capacities and other options of high quality recovery. In order to allow all EU member states a quick exit from landfilling, there could be the option of using the treatment capacities of other member states, which do not use their full potentials. This approach however should be realized within a clearly stated framework, which means that the utilization of available capacities in other member states should only be used as a geographically and timely restricted exception with 4

5 regard to the principles of proximity and self-sufficiency. The shipment of such waste across boarders within the EU must not have ecologically negative impacts. To this end, the existing leeway as presented by the European Waste Shipment Regulation shall be fully exploited or adaptations could be made. In this context, the VKU welcomes the announcement of the European Commission, made in form of the Roadmap Exploiting the Potential of Waste to Energy under the Energy Union Framework Strategy and the Circular Economy, which was published in February 2016 and in which the Commission announced to further explore the potentials of Waste-to-Energy within the European Energy Union framework. 2 III. Definitions oriented towards recycling goals and developing further specifications in liaison with stakeholders (Art. 3 WFD) The VKU appreciates the uptake of clear definitions in the European legal framework as proposed by the EU Commission. We welcome that the definition of municipal waste as foreseen in the amendment to the EU Waste Framework Directive is strictly aligned with the definition of the European Waste Catalogue and the OECD definition of The criterion of quantity as proposed in Art. 3 Nr. 1 a to distinguish municipal waste from other waste would however cause much uncertainty in establishing the discretion for waste collection in the Member States and furthermore would add much more red tape without any added value (e.g. in the light of statistical documentation or the direction of waste streams). More importantly, such a quantity criterion would exempt certain quantities of commercial waste from the new recycling targets, the recycling performance on the whole would therefore be considerably reduced. The same applies for the definition of biowaste in Art 3 Nr. 4 WFD. Therefore, the quantity criterion in Art. 3 No 1a lit. b) in the WFD should be deleted. In addition to that, the current proposal foresees a myriad of delegated acts aiming to render more concrete certain definitions, amongst these the definition of the final recycling process. The following issues are regarded as crucial by the VKU: On the one hand, it is essential to ensure utmost coherence among the definitions. On the other 2 Cf. European Commission Roadmap: Exploiting the Potential of Waste to Energy under the Energy Union Framework Strategy and the Circular Economy, URL: 5

6 hand, the option of an open comitology process involving all relevant stakeholders should be chosen for the reasons given above and to ensure a practical quality of the respective clauses. IV. Calculation process for recycling quota ( Art. 11a WFD, Art. 6a Directive on packaging and packaging waste) The VKU basically welcomes the chosen approach for the calculation of recycling rates (entry of input waste into the final recycling process) as a reasonable compromise between the pure input-based calculation (based on collection quantities) and an output-based calculation (based on the recycled output). A drawback of this intermediate solution, however, is that the at times substantial processing losses after to the sorting (of up to 60% with regard to plastics-recycling) are not taken into account. This can lead to an exaggerated statistical recycling performance. In addition there is a risk that in order to attain the recycling targets easily - certain procedural steps such as the separation of contraries or the splitting of synthetics into different types are deliberately moved to the final recycling process step while they technically are to be considered sorting. Art. 3 Nr. 17a appears too vague to counteract this danger. In order to establish well-working markets for secondary raw materials, we need dependable information about the real recycling performances. On the other hand, a detailed regulation consistently covering all procedures and materials would not be feasible. VKU therefore suggests only recognising those quantities in calculating recycling rates that are processed in the final recycling step in certified installations. The aim would be to gauge the real output coming from Member States of materials that are suited to be reinserted into the production cycle and to prevent an abusive labelling of processing steps as recycling. Plus, it does not appear logical that the inclusion of recycling quantities of metals gained from waste incineration is a matter of choice of the Member States. V. More precise determination process for extended producer responsibility (Art. 8, 8a WFD) The VKU welcomes the introduction of minimal standards of extended producer responsibility systems while leaving free choice to the Member States to make use of 6

7 those schemes. However, some precisions appear necessary to prevent misinterpretations of Art. 8a WFD. Amongst those is the stipulation dealing with coverage of costs and the relation between the organisations implementing producer responsibility and public waste management operators that are possibly involved in waste collection. Therefore, there is a need to clarify in Art. 8a paragraph 2 sentence 2 that the member states may prescribe the use of waste collection systems. Also, in Art. 8a paragraph 3 letter b it needs to be clarified that the extended producer responsibility can also consist in mere payment obligations. Furthermore the VKU believes that Art 8a paragraph 4 needs further elaboration on the extended producer responsibility concerning the total costs of the waste management of a producer s product. This includes not only the removal of the littering caused by the products having become waste but also the costs that these products cause when they are left in / part of residual waste. Additionally, in article 8a of the WFD, the criterion to assess the costs for producers, in case the waste management service is provided by public waste management systems, is rather subjective. If the costs are determined on the basis of optimized costs, only such institutions would get full refinancing that generate the lowest costs. However, the clause should rather just aim at excluding institutions from full recompensation that work in a particularly uneconomic way. This result could be achieved by taking the average as a basis. VI. Preventing waste, optimising product cyles (Actionplan for the Circular Economy) Waste prevention has been put on top of the waste hierarchy for good reasons. Consequently, improved product design should be part of it. Improved product design determines the whole material-based life-cycle of a product, prolongs the life of a product and considerably facilitates its later recycling. The fact that accumulators cannot be removed from specific mobile phones not only impairs for instance the further use, e.g. of spare parts, but brings with it a fire risk in sorting installations while there is no added value for the functionality of the product. An adaptation of EU law in this respect is thus urgently called for in order to improve the recyclability and reparability of products in the long term and in a legally binding manner. An overhaul of the EU Ecodesign Directive appears to yield the highest potential in this regard. Therefore, the revision of the directive as announced in the action plan for a circular economy has to be pursued ambitiously; the declaration of intentions voiced so far should be made operative by concrete objectives of preparation, adoption and implementation. Furthermore, the VKU would welcome further development and simplification of the EU 7

8 Ecolabel Regulations aiming at a clear and dependable choice of resource-efficient products for customers. Compliance with the Ecolabel Regulations has to be substantiated by producers. Attachment RECYCLED WASTE IN SELCTIVE EUROPEAN MEMBER STATES IN 2012 (in kilograms per inhabitant) D CH DK B S A UK EU I F E CZ P PL RO Resource: Eurostat VKU