Sorting out a strategy for waste

Date: 29/05/1997

By Michael Mann

AS EUROPE continues its unceasing quest for growth, one of the greatest environmental problems it faces is the ever-increasing volume of waste generated by industry and householders alike.

But such is the ingenuity of the business sector that even the unwanted cast-offs of a consumer society provide the more resourceful with tremendous opportunities.

This has made EU policy-makers acutely aware of the vital need for a reliable legislative framework to ensure both the safe disposal of refuse and the maintenance of a level playing-field to allow fair competition across the Union.

Last year's review of the 1989 waste strategy affirmed the European Commission's commitment to a three-fold hierarchy of principles governing the Union's approach, with waste prevention the first priority, followed by recovery and finally by safe disposal.

But differences remain over how these principles should be applied. Some countries favour the recovery of materials before disposal. Others believe it makes more sense to encourage energy generation from the incineration of refuse.

The Commission calculates that Europeans produced around 390kg of domestic waste per person in 1992 and predicts that waste creation will increase by around 30&percent; between 1985 and 2000, despite its goal of fixing the rate at the 1985 level. These figures are even more worrying given that household refuse makes up just 20&percent; of total EU waste.

The revised strategy stresses more strongly than ever before that one of the main ways to cut down on the build-up of waste is to ensure producers are responsible for what they manufacture right up to its final disposal.

But it has, up to now, proved far from simple to put the idea of 'producer responsibility' into practice.

For months, Environment Commissioner Ritt Bjerregaard has been struggling to force through plans which would eventually increase the proportion of car parts recycled from 75 to 95&percent; in the face of determined resistance from EU industrial lobbies.

Other pieces of follow-up legislation have proved more successful.

After an often acrimonious battle with Trade Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan, Bjerregaard finally muscled through a revised proposal for a new directive covering landfill sites, where much of the Union's rubbish ends up buried underground.

But her plans, which have yet to be discussed by EU environment ministers, had to be changed significantly before finally being approved by the Commission.

Initially, Bjerregaard wanted to limit the amount of organic matter - the cause of serious methane pollution - allowed in landfill sites to 20&percent; of the total.

But following pressure from the UK, which still relies heavily on burying waste, the plans were amended towards a gradual reduction over the next 15 years.

The need for a new draft was the clearest reflection yet of a new awareness of the dangers of burying waste underground and hoping that the problems it poses will simply go away.

The Commission was forced to rethink its approach after MEPs threw out an earlier draft, claiming it provided for too many exemptions from the rules and would continue to allow hazardous waste to be buried with less dangerous everyday refuse.

This new sensitivity to the risks from mixing different classes of waste has inspired the Commission to look at how to extend the existing hazardous waste directive so that dangerous substances are separated out before final disposal.

But initial consultations with industry have revealed problems caused by widely varying traditions in different parts of the EU.

Several countries (generally in the north of the Union) already require the sorting of batteries, solvents, paints and bleaches; others have no arrangements on which to base such a system.

Although they have sent a shudder through local councils across the Union, the proposals have been seized upon by some as a tremendous investment opportunity.

“Rubbish sorting could easily be taken care of by the likes of us. We have appropriate sorting installations and can supply the necessary at a reasonable cost,” claims Dieter Vogt of the European Federation of Waste Management and Environmental Services, which represents 3,000 firms with an annual turnover of 50 billion ecu.

But disputes over other pieces of waste legislation pale into insignificance next to the intensive lobbying which accompanied the adoption of the 1994 directive on packaging and packaging waste. Intended to reduce the overall environmental impact of packaging waste while removing obstacles to the single market, the legislation set firm targets for recovery and recycling in 2001.

Its short life has been riven with controversy, in particular thanks to an ongoing dispute between Bonn and the Commission over German laws requiring 72&percent; of drinks sold in the country to be packaged in refillable containers.

Manufacturers in other countries see the German model as discriminatory and an attempt to maintain the dominance of domestic products.

In what is clearly a test case for the sector, they regard the Commission's unwillingness to challenge Germany in the courts as a threat to the whole system which could make a mockery of the hallowed dream of a barrier-free single market.