Industry calls for less rigid waste strategy

Date: 07/03/1996

By Michael Mann

THE European Commission's strategy for limiting the environmental damage caused by waste has come under fire from industry, which says its approach lacks vision and is too rigid.

The Commission's draft policy document for the next five years reiterates its belief that “prevention of waste shall remain the first priority, followed by the recovery and finally by the safe disposal of waste”.

It intends to build on a strategy first introduced in 1989, despite pleas from industry for a much more flexible approach.

The European Recovery and Recycling Association (ERRA), representing some of Europe's biggest packaging and beverage manufacturers and supermarket chains, has launched its assault on the eve of the Commission's final consultations with member states on its Community Strategy on Waste paper.

ERRA's Managing Director Jacques Fonteyne claims the Commission's preferred approach is “based on a lack of information”, adding: “It wants to impose templates which half of the member states will disagree with. It's simply not possible to say that prevention is always better than recycling. There is no magic formula for waste control.”

The association accepts the need for a general hierarchy of priorities, but insists there must be more room for local flexibility, claiming that while landfill might be inappropriate in most cases, it could be a valid solution for particular circumstances.

But member state officials and environmental groups have been quick to reject such criticisms.

One diplomat reacted incredulously to ERRA's claim that there was no absolute proof that the three-stage hierarchy of priorities devised by the Commission was the best approach. “You don't need documentation. It's obvious that it's best to prevent waste arising, and that recycling is better than dumping.”

A Greenpeace official said it was “good news that the Commission has stuck to the existing hierarchy, but now it's time to really start implementing it”. Green lobbies had been anticipating that the Commission might water down its approach.

“The EU still doesn't pay enough attention to waste prevention. The Commission should try to get away from the idea of keeping open the internal market for waste. It's not a commodity you can trade in,” she added.

But ERRA insists that while overall control must come from Brussels, national and local authorities should be allowed the flexibility to fit the best management system to local conditions. It also argues the Commission has based its assumptions on insufficient research. It has kept faith with its established hierarchy although it only now “intends to develop a reliable data collection system in all member states”.

According to Fonteyne, the Netherlands is alone in having a convincing waste management policy based on solid and reliable research. Dutch legislation has now been drawn together into a ten-year plan.

ERRA is also concerned at what it regards as the short-sightedness of the Commission's plans. “A five-year strategy is far too short when you're calling for the establishment of a vast infrastructure and a complete cultural change,” said Vice-Chairman Walter Brinkmann.

While the group is evidently nervous that the Commission has chosen to put much of the onus on waste producers, British Socialist MEP David Bowe feels the Commission has “stopped short of going further down the prevention road. We're at the stage when we could begin introducing a product policy, where the producer is obliged to look at the whole life of the product.”

But Bowe is not surprised by the Commission's lack of ambition, partly because there remains a large body of legislation which still needs to be put on to the statute books, not least the long-delayed proposal for a landfill directive.

EU governments are to meet the Commission on 12-13 March to give their final views on the draft document, before DGXI (environment) begins work on finalising the paper for its planned adoption before the June meeting of environment ministers.