Governments rubbish new waste disposal plans

Date: 09/10/1997

By Simon Coss

ENVIRONMENT Commissioner Ritt Bjerregaard is likely to face a rough ride when she presents her new proposals for handling much of the EU's domestic waste to ministers next week.

Many member states are unhappy with the plan, which is essentially designed to reduce the amount of rubbish buried in landfill sites across the Union.

Landfill is generally considered to be one of the least environmentally friendly methods of waste disposal, accounting for 32&percent; of the 'greenhouse' gas methane produced in the EU.

Bjerregaard's plan has been extensively redrafted after the European Parliament last year rejected an original landfill proposal dating back to 1991. MEPs objected to the fact that roughly half the EU's territory would have been exempted from complying with this first set of draft rules.

But in her efforts to please the Parliament, Bjerregaard is likely to upset many member states who now feel the proposed directive is too stringent.

Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal have already voiced concern about the proposed reduction in derogations, amid worries about the cost of complying with the directive. “These countries feel the directive is now too far-reaching and want further exemptions,” explained an expert. Particular obstacles include the Commission's plan for specific waste reduction targets and its suggestion that waste is sorted and treated before disposal.

London has also been a vocal opponent of EU-wide laws on landfill as the practice forms a central plank of its national waste-disposal strategy. “The UK does not have a particular problem with the exemptions issue, it just feels the directive as a whole is too wide-ranging,” said one official.

Indeed, one of the reasons why Bjerregaard took a relatively long time to draw up her new plans was because of objections from British Commission colleague Sir Leon Brittan.

Another controversial aspect of the scheme concerns the management of landfill sites once sealed. A sealed site will continue to pollute the surrounding area for decades and the Commission is suggesting that member states should pay for the 'after-care' of such facilities for at least 50 years.

The basic problem for all member states is that they do not feel the Commission has explained how such after-care should be carried out.

But while the landfill issue is set to be contentious, environment ministers are expected to agree draft rules governing the quality of the Union's drinking water at their meeting next Thursday (16 October).

They are also likely to finalise the EU's negotiating stance ahead of this December's international climate change conference in Kyoto, Japan. While some divisions remain over the exact cuts each member state must make, ministers are likely to stick with an agreement made earlier this year that the Union will press the industrialised nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 15&percent; before the year 2010.

“Burden-sharing will always be a problem but the framework agreement on 15&percent; is probably good enough to go to Kyoto with,” said one expert.