ASSOCIATION DES INDUSTRIES DE MARQUE
EUROPEAN BRANDS ASSOCIATION
EUROP0ISCHER MARKENVERBAND
AIM庐 POSITION PAPER
00/font>
00/font>
00/font>
00/font>
opTimal waste Management CALLS FOR FLEXIBLE CHOICE OF RECOVERY OPTIONS
00/font>
00/font>
00/font>
00/font>
NOVEMBER 1997
9 Avenue des Gaulois B-1040 Brussels Belgium
TEL +322 7360305 Fax +322 7346702 00/font> brand@aim.be
OPTIMAL WASTE MANAGEMENT CALLS FOR FLEXIBLE CHOICE OF RECOVERY OPTIONS
THE ISSUE
EU waste management policy is set out in a number of texts, the most relevant being the 1989 Community Strategy for Waste Management (reviewed in 1996), the EU Framework Directive on Waste (75/442 as amended by 91/156) and the 5th Environmental Action Programme (currently under review). All of these texts establish the hierarchy of waste management as:
1.Prevention
2.Recovery1, with a preference for recycling and reuse
3.Final Disposal.
In its opinion on the review of the 5th Environmental Action Programme, the European Parliament has called for a further differentiation between recovery methods, with reuse as the preferred method, followed secondly by recycling/ biomethanisation/composting and thirdly energy recovery.
Industry supports a waste management hierarchy based on prevention, recovery and final disposal. However, industry does not support a hierarchy of recovery options, as this would hamper environmentally effective integrated waste management (IWM), as outlined below.
Furthermore no scientific evidence has yet been found to justify a hierarchy of recovery options.
AN EU-WIDE RECOVERY HIERARCHY WOULD PREVENT DEVELOPMENT OF MORE EFFICIENT WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Europe00 waste management strategy should provide the basis for environmentally effective and cost-efficient waste management. This can best be achieved by developing and implementing integrated waste management systems which are based on an optimal mix of recovery options applied to all waste2. Such an optimal mix can only be achieved if the choice of recovery options is made at local level.
A strict recovery hierarchy, as called for by the European Parliament, would not allow for a flexible choice of recovery methods and would hamper the development of environmentally effective and economically efficient integrated waste management systems. It would also restrict consumer choice and industry00 ability to innovate.
WASTE RECOVERY CHOICES NEED TO BE MADE LOCALLY Scientific evidence and practical experience demonstrate that in order to optimise the environmental efficiency of recovery, waste management must be adapted to local conditions. Practical cost-benefit analysis points to maximum efficiency when each location defines its own recovery priorities. Waste management decisions need to take account of the nature and composition of the waste streams, the availability of recovery facilities and feasibility of using different recovery measures, the willingness of the population to support and participate in the proposed schemes, as well as geographic, demographic, economic and environmental considerations. Local authorities (and hence consumers) would face higher costs if prevented from choosing the optimal waste management solution in their particular local circumstances. This mix can change over time, depending on markets for materials, consumption patterns, seasonal changes in waste stream composition, etc. Therefore flexibility is crucial.A STRICT RECOVERY HIERARCHY WOULD BRING ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS...
Improvements to products and the processes and technologies we use (including waste management) depends on innovation - the adoption of new ideas. Putting all of Europe into the same "strait jacket" of a rigid waste management hierarchy will stifle innovation. A fixed hierarchy also narrows options for product diversification and new product development, because system changes are discouraged. Thus eventually consumer choice is restricted without achieving any net environmental gain.These conclusions are supported by:
Scientific studies initiated by the Commission3
Scientific studies initiated by the European Parliament4
Other scientific studies and publications 567.
Therefore00Recovery, as part of efficient integrated waste management, requires the application of the principle of subsidiarity. Local authorities need to make local recovery choices in order to manage their waste most effectively and efficiently. A flexible approach to waste management based on the hierarchy of prevention, recovery and final disposal allows them to make those choices.
(AIM) European Brands Association (ERRA) European Recovery
Avenue des Gaulois 9 & Recycling Association
B-1040 Brussels, Belgium Avenue E. Mounier 83, Box 14
Tel: (32 2) 736 03 05 B-1200 Brussels, Belgium
Fax: (32 2) 734 67 02 Tel: (32 2) 772 52 52
Fax: (32 2) 772 54 19
(CIAA) Confederation of the Food (EUROPEN) The European
& Drink Industries of the EU Organization for Packaging and
Avenue des Arts 43 the Environment
B-1040 Brussels, Belgium Avenue de Tervuren 113, Box 35
Tel: (32 2) 514 11 11 B-1040 Brussels, Belgium
Fax: (32 2) 511 29 05 Tel: (32 2) 736 36 00
Fax: (32 2) 736 35 21
1 Recovery includes recycling, reuse, energy recovery, composting and biomethanisation.
2 The case for integrated waste management, ERRA, 1996.
3 Cost-Benefit Analysis of the different municipal solid waste management systems; Objectives and instruments for the Year 2000, Coopers & Lybrand and Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE), March 1996.
4 The Recycling Industry in the EU: Impediments and Prospects, IPTS, December 1996.
5 Integrated Solid Waste Management 00A Life Cycle Inventory, Peter White, Peter Hindle and Marina Franke, 1995.
6 Assessing the Waste Hierarchy 00A Social Cost Benefit Analysis of Municipal Solid Waste Management in the European Union, Inger E. Brisson, April 1997 (DK).
7 Reuse Quotas and Product-specific Targets for Packaging, AIM-CIAA-ERRA-EUROPEN.
