Title: DRAFT REPORT on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste (COM(2005)0667 – C6-0009/2006 – 2005/0281(COD)) 
Resource Type: document --> policy documents 
Country: European Union 
Year: 2006 
Availability: Draft Report 2005/0281(COD). PR\618638EN.doc PE 374.384v01-00 
Author 1/Producer: European Parliament 
Other Authors/Producers: Jackson, Caroline 
Author / Producer Type: Agency, regulator or other governmental or inter-governmental body 
Publisher: European Parliament 
Report / download web link (=direct link): http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/p ...  
Format (e.g. PDF): PDF 
Size: (e.g. 20mb) 0.2 
EUGRIS Keyword(s): Brownfields
Contaminated land-->Contaminated land overview
Contaminated land-->policy and regulatory
Contaminated land-->Remediation options-->Ex situ treatment technologies
Contaminated land-->Remediation options-->Excavation
Contaminated land-->Remediation options-->Recycling/reuse
Contaminated land-->Remediation options-->Remediation options overview
Sediments
Soil-->Soil Overview
 
Short description: The report reviews the Waste FD and proposes revisions on an article by article basis 
Long description: Jackson's explanatory statement This Directive carries forward the debate begun by the first EU Waste Directives in the 1970s and given greater focus by the Landfill Directive of 1999. The questions for our times are how do we reduce the amount of waste that our increasing prosperity encourages us produce, and how do we now need to change our policies so that we deal with waste primarily as a resource from which value can be extracted, rather than as a residue that can only be stored in a landfill. Given the number of Court of Justice cases that have arisen on the interpretation of EU waste law to date, the first thing we should try to ensure is that whatever law we finally adopt establishes certainty - about definitions and policy intentions. This is why the rapporteur has suggested a number of additions to Article 3 and a consolidation there of definitions appearing elsewhere in the Directive. The rapporteur has received many representations about the need for the Directive to contain a reference to the waste hierarchy in its fullest - 5 stage - form. It is important to remember that the hierarchy has no legal force. However stating it sends out a signal about priorities and, in the case of this directive, resolves what is rather a confusingly drafted Article (Article 1). It is, however, immediately clear that allowance must be made for departures from the hierarchy when conditions demand it. The question is: what conditions? The rapporteur's suggestions are contained in the last part of the amendment to Article 1. There seems to be a consensus that departures should be based on life-cycle thinking/analysis/assessment, and a cost-benefit analysis has to fit in there somewhere. The question is how rigorous a clearance/ approval on this basis would have to be: would a Member State operate clearance procedures on a case-by-case basis? Would there be a reference to the Commission each time? Perhaps, the best course - or at least one suggestion - is contained in the rapporteur's idea that the Commission might establish guidelines as to how life cycle analysis might work. Then there is the question of what happens next. We need further action to determine which waste streams will be covered by the provisions of Article 11 and moved from categorisation as waste to classification as a product. The rapporteur's amendment to Article 11, new paragraph 3a, sets out an agenda for future action by the Commission. On the question of procedure, the rapporteur concludes that there is far too great a reliance in the directive on the use of the comitology process, as set out in Council Decision 1999/468/EC. The Directive contains 11 references in various articles to decisions that are to be referred to the comitology process. But a distinction needs to be made between using comitology for technical adaptations, and mis-using it to take decisions of a more general, highly political nature, that are best taken through the co-decision process. For this reason, the rapporteur is suggesting that we move to the co-decision procedure in article 5 (to establish efficiency criteria), in article 11 (to establish criteria for when waste becomes a product) and in article 21 (minimum standards for permits.) Changes to the Comitology process are certainly under discussion but the rapporteur is not optimistic that they will add up to more powers for MEPs to veto a decision, or to more involvements by outside interests. It suits the Member States and Commission to keep the process as closed as possible. That is why we must resolutely resist its inappropriate encroachment on democratic decision taking. The Directive encompasses the existing directives on hazardous waste and waste oils. The rapporteur considers that it does this adequately and safely: she would be resistant to reversing the process of simplification to re-build these directives in their entirety. She has, however, included one amendment to article18 in the direction of the promotion of waste oil regeneration. The question of what will qualify under the Directive as a recovery process and what will qualify as a disposal process is a vital one. The Directive introduces a qual ification based on efficiency criteria in article 5. The criteria are set out in Annex II, section R1. Neither the Directive, nor the thematic strategy nor the impact assessment attached to it gives any details at all of the likely economic and social impact of the application of these criteria. Yet they are vital: an incinerator that qualifies as a recovery operation can deal with imported waste, and can be part of a strategy for meeting recovery targets in such EU legislation as the packaging Directive. An incinerator that qualifies as a disposal operation has no such options. Given the short time scale before the new standards are supposed to apply, it seems unlikely that existing operators could adjust their processes in time. The new criteria are highly likely to cut across existing contracts and may damage jobs and local authority waste plans. Evidence from France suggests that out of a total of 85 existing plants, only 14 could satisfy the recovery criteria chosen. Before the Committee votes it needs to know more details of the impact of what is proposed. It cannot be right that at a time when the air is thick with suggestions for making impact assessment more efficient, we should miss such an assessment out completely on this crucial aspect of the Directive. Finally, the Directive contains two sets of proposals for waste plans and programmes. The rapporteur's amendments retain the overall objective of encouraging planning for waste plans and prevention programmes. But the changes proposed make the detailed requirements less bureaucratic and better matched, in tune with the principle of subsidiarity, with differing local conditions. We should also ask what precisely the Commission is going to do with the plethora of plans and programmes that it will now have to monitor. Such continuous monitoring is better left to the work of the European Environment Agency. The Agency is not mentioned in the Directive but should surely play a key role in ensuring that Member States are broadly in step with each other in the war against waste and for the better use of resources. Taken from Resource Recovery Forum News http://www.resourcesnotwaste.org/ 
Link to News Items(s):   Draft Report of the European Parliament on the Waste Framework Directive
Submitted By: Professor Paul Bardos WhoDoesWhat?      Last update: 13/07/2006