Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Draft Council Regulation (EC) on waste management statistics'
17. 11. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 329/17 Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Draft Council Regulation (EC) on waste management statistics’ (1999/C 329/07) On 5 July 1999, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the above-mentioned draft Regulation. The Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 14 July 1999. The rapporteur was Mr Vasco Cal. At its 366th plenary session on 22 and 23 September 1999 (meeting of 22 September 1999), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 108 votes to one, with two abstentions. 1. Introduction 1. 1. On 24 February 1997, in view of the major legislative, economic and technical progress made in the field of waste policy since its resolution of 7 May 1990 (1), giving guidance to national and Community authorities and economic oper- ators and consumers, the Council adopted a new resolution calling for a Community strategy for waste management (2). In this resolution, the Council: — emphasised the role that statistics can play in identifying waste-related problems, assessing management priorities and formulating and achieving realistic objectives within the framework of waste management policies; — stressed the need for the production on a regular basis of adequate waste-related data coherent with Community legislation; — invited the Commission to establish, in cooperation with the European Environment Agency and Member States, a Community-wide reliable system of data collection for waste, which should be based on common terminology, definitions and classifications and should operate at the lowest public and private cost; — invited the Commission to promote and the Member States and economic operators to establish and pursue quantitative targets of an indicative nature which aim to achieve significant reductions in the amount of waste generated and increased levels of reuse, recycling and recovery; — requested that the Commission collect information on those environmentally dangerous substances and materials in waste which cause special problems in Member States and to bring forward, as appropriate, recommendations for measures to deal with these problems. 1. 1. 1. In the same resolution, the Council expressed con- cern ‘at the large-scale movements within the Community of waste for incineration with or without energy recovery’ and invited the Commission to consider the scope for adjusting Community legislation on the incineration of waste with energy recovery and to make proposals accordingly. The most recent Community statistical programme (3) 1. 2. referred, under its ‘Environment’ title, to the four-year pro- gramme (1994-1997) on the environmental component of official statistics (4), which it stated had been designed ‘to meet the needs for statistics together with the information from the European Environment Agency’. On the same subject it read: ‘ongoing work will be 1. 2. 1. continued to fill important data gaps relating to waste and recycling statistics, water use and discharges, use of hazardous and scarce materials, as well as environmental expenditure. A set of satellite accounts for the environment linked to the national accounts will be developed covering the stocks and use of the main natural resources, flows of materials, emissions and environmental expenditure’. 1. 3. The European Parliament In its resolution of 14 November 1996 (5), the Euro- 1. 3. 1. pean Parliament called for a clear definition in Community legislation of the concepts of ‘waste’ and ‘product’ on the basis of the relevant Court of Justice rulings (Zanetti and Wallonia cases). Furthermore, invited the Council and the Commission: the European Parliament — to put forward proposals for cutting the volume of waste as well as reducing the presence of hazardous substances in waste such as chlorine, mercury, PVC, cadmium and other heavy metals; — to formulate targets in the waste management plans for cutting the volume of waste in such a way that they can be assessed and adjusted every two years on the basis of their results. (1) OJ C 122 of 18. 5. 1990. (2) OJ C 76 of 11. 3. 1997. (3) OJ L 42 of 16. 2. 1999. (4) OJ L 328 of 20. 12. 1994. (5) OJ L 362 of 2. 12. 1996. C 329/18 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 17. 11. 1999 1. 3. 2. In the same resolution, the European Parliament supported the Commission’s view that much better waste statistics were needed and called on the Member States to work together with the European Environment Agency and Eurostat. 2. 2. The Commission is to be assisted by the Statistical Programme Committee and, within three years of the regu- lation’s entry into force and every three years thereafter, must submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the statistics compiled and, in particular, their quality and the burden on business. 1. 4. The Committee of the Regions 1. 4. 1. The Committee of the Regions, in its opinion of 16 January 1997 (1) on the Communication from the Com- mission to the Council and the European Parliament on the review of the Community strategy for waste management, regretted ‘the limited statistical base available on waste at a Community level’ and expressed the opinion that a better base could be secured through ‘better cooperation among the local and regional authorities’. 1. 5. The Economic and Social Committee 1. 5. 1. Point 2. 1 of the Committee’s opinion of 19 Septem- ber 1990 (2) on the proposal for a Council Decision adopting a four-year programme (1990-1993) to develop regular official statistics on the environment (3) reads: ‘The Committee realises that progress in compiling specific statistics on the environment varies widely among national statistics offices and that the task of developing for the main sectors about one hundred uniform and reliable basic statistical indicators, each representing the culmination of the process of gathering and processing thousands and tens of thousands of physical, technical, economic and social data, is a methodologically complex one. ’ 2. The Commission’s draft regulation 2. 1. The draft regulation is designed to establish a frame- work to oblige Member States and the Commission to produce Community statistics on the management of waste generated by businesses and households. The following areas are covered: — waste production and recovery by economic activities; — household and similar waste collection by businesses and municipal collection schemes; — waste incineration, composting and disposal by businesses and municipal authorities. The financial 2. 3. EUR 450 000 for the years 1999, 2000 and 2001. impact is estimated at a total of 3. General comments on the Commission document The Economic and Social Committee welcomes the 3. 1. proposed regulation aimed at establishing a Community-level statistical framework for the management of waste generated by business and households. It should provide Eurostat with reliable and comparable data, collected and processed in good time to provide a basis for the progressive harmonisation of waste management in the European Union. The Committee calls on the Council to adopt the 3. 2. proposed regulation forthwith. It will be an important weapon in the environmental policy armoury, in particular for pre- venting illegalities in the management of waste collection and incineration. 3. 3. The Committee is pleased to note that the proposal will pave the way for effective cooperation between Eurostat and the European Environment Agency (EEA) which was set up in 1996. The European Waste Catalogue (EWC) established by Commission Decision 94/3/EC (4) provides a classification system which will henceforward serve as a basis for the collection, in all the Member States, of all waste-related data. 3. 3. 1. The Committee welcomes the fact that a ‘memor- andum of understanding’ is being drawn up between the EEA and Eurostat. The Committee hopes that this memorandum will make for better and more rapid coordination between these two bodies. It particularly wishes to see an end to overlaps and oversights. The Committee asks whether it would not be possible 3. 4. to shorten the transition period of three years referred to in Article 4. It is aware, however, that the staff shortages and financial constraints facing national statistical offices add weight to the argument in favour of a period to enable Member States to adjust gradually to Community requirements. 3. 5. However, the Committee would stress that Community policy on the collection, recovery and/or elimination of waste is universally welcomed and approved by the Member States. It is, therefore, up to them to provide the necessary means for optimal implementation. (1) OJ C 116 of 14. 4. 1997. (2) OJ C 332 of 31. 12. 1990. (3) This programme was never adopted. The legislative procedure of which this Committee opinion is a part led to the adoption by the Council of the 1994-1997 programme referred to in point 1. 2. (4) OJ L 5 of 7. 1. 1994. 17. 11. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 329/19 3. 6. The Committee again draws attention to the import- ance of high quality statistics to back up national and Community policies. It notes, however, that national statistical offices often suffer from the belt-tightening that has been and is still required for the implementation of the EMU and the stability and growth pact. 4. 2. In Annex I, Section 2, paragraph 3, numbers 14 (non- ferrous metal scrap excluding packaging), 26 (textile waste), and 43 (construction and demolition waste) should not lead to confusion since from a legal point of view these materials are regarded as waste, even if technically they can be used as raw materials. The Committee would query the case for limiting the 3. 7. compulsory surveys provided for under Article 3 to enterprises with more than nine employees. Nevertheless, while main- taining that criteria based on quantity of waste would have been preferable, the Committee accepts the wisdom of the to avoid discouraging the Commission-proposed criteria, micro businesses that are so important for job creation, particularly since enterprises generating dangerous waste are governed by other measures. 3. 8. The Committee proposes that the financial statement accompanying the proposal should be extended to include partial Community funding for Member States that are lagging a long way behind in the area of waste statistics (following the lead of the Environment DG on statistical projects in Member States). Negotiations should be initiated right now with those countries applying to join the EU in order to help their statistical offices to meet the requirements laid down in this regulation. 3. 9. The Committee fears that statistical data collected on the basis of the proposed regulation will not provide a clear reflection of waste ‘flows’. It may be necessary to review the system in due course to provide a picture of ‘flows’, to further the battle against the improper elimination and illegal export of certain types of waste. 4. Specific comments In Article 2 (a) there should be a reference to Com- to Direc- 4. 1. mission Decision 96/350/EC (1) tive 75/442/EEC. as well as (1) Commission Decision of 24 May 1996 adapting Annexes IIA and IIB of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste. OJ L 135 of 6. 6. 1996. Brussels, 22 September 1999. 4. 3. In the same Annex, it can be difficult to distinguish between the products mentioned under numbers 25 (other wood waste) and 43 (construction and demolition waste). Products covered by number 43 cover 90 % of the total and are by far the most damaging to the environment. 4. 3. 1. should continue to be subject to special arrangements. The Committee considers that dangerous waste 4. 4. Although the monitoring of codes 121 (quantity of waste internally recovered) and 123 (quantity of secondary waste resulting from recovery or incineration) in Section 3 of Annex I would appear to be unjustified, the Committee accepts the explanation given by the Commission representative, whereby these codes enable a more precise record to be kept of the elimination of waste and thus improve the monitoring system. 4. 5. With regard to Section 2 of Annex II, the Committee would question whether numbers 16 (composite packaging), 17 (mixed packaging), and 19 (clothes and textiles) are sufficiently clear. 4. 6. Annex III, Section 6, paragraph 1 reads ‘For each type of operation listed. , Member States will indicate the percent- age to which this activity is covered by data collection. The coverage can be estimated by external criteria such as employment or amount of waste input. Minimum requirement for the coverage is 90 % for each type of operation. ’ The Committee is not totally convinced of the legitimacy of this minimum percentage and considers that, for dangerous waste in particular, a coverage rate of 100 % would be more appropriate. 4. 7. In Annex III, Section 7, the distinction between ‘dis- posal’ and ‘recovery’ of waste is not sufficiently clear in the table specifying the waste, incineration, composting and disposal operations. The Committee proposes amending as follows the sub-headings in the table so as to distinguish clearly between the different operations: ‘Recovery, including composting and incineration with energy recovery’ and ‘dis- posal’. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI