MINISTERIUM FÜR UMWELT UND VERKEHR BADEN-WÜRTTEMBERG

_

Ministerium für Umwelt und Verkehr Baden-Württemberg, Pf. 10 34 39, 70029 Stuttgart

Kernerplatz 9 Telefax Zentral / Pressestelle �-Vermittlung: (07 11) 1 26 – 0 Hauptstätter Straße 67 Telefax 70182 Stuttgart (07 11) 1 26 – 28 81 / 28 80 X400: s=poststelle, o=uvm, p=bwl, a=dbp, c=de 70178 Stuttgart (07 11) 1 26 – 10 99 S-Bahn: Haltestelle Hauptbahnhof E-Mail: poststelle@uvm.bwl.de S-Bahn: Haltestelle Stadtmitte U1, U2, U4, U9, U14, Bus 42: Haltestelle Staatsgalerie Internet: www.uvm.baden-wuerttemberg.de U1, U14, Bus 44: Haltestelle Österreichischer Platz Elektronische Fahrplanauskunft: www.efa-bw.de

D-175-00086

Frau Marianne Klingbeil Europäische Kommission GD Umwelt (BU-5 5/167) B-1049 Brüssel

Stuttgart, Durchwahl (0711) 126-

Aktenzeichen:

27.11.2003 2677 Herr Reinhardt 24-0123.4-05/32 (Bitte bei Antwort angeben!)

Commission Document “A thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste (COM (2003) 301) Enclosures 5

Dear Frau Klingbeil,

dear Ladies and Gentlemen ,

The Ministry for Environment and Transport Baden-Württemberg (UVM) welcomes the

Commission’s initiative (COM) to discuss the options for a future EU waste manage-

ment policy in the framework of a consultative document. The UVM agrees with the

COM critical analysis of the current waste management policy and agrees in principle

with the options of action presented therein. Of special note, and to be strongly sup-

ported, is the commission’s intention to work towards a sustainable EU waste policy

involving closely related policies such as the policy for industry (IPPC), chemicals policy

(REACH) and product policy (IPP). The UVM believes that success in waste manage-

ment policy is dependent on these policies being closely linked and harmonised in

terms of both time and factual content as well as being supported by market based in-

struments.

2

I. The essential key points of a thematic strategy as seen by the UVM

The UVM’s opinion is that the following important points must form a major part

of the new EU waste policy:

- Improving the legal framework for waste management, especially

o clarifying waste definitions especially the development of objective

criteria to establish that recovery of certain wastes has been com-

pleted,

o the separation of waste disposal from waste recycling by setting ob-

jective criteria,

o setting uniform EU quality standards for recycling processes,

o introducing objections to circumventing national recycling standards

for waste generation („eco-dumping“) as long as no EU standards

exist.

- In order to improve recycling, in addition to setting recycling quotas, other re-

gulations should be taken into consideration, for example, also in the area of

products and legislation (restrictions on the use of certain hazardous materi-

als).

- A close dovetailing of waste and product policies is desirable.

- Necessary monitoring systems must follow a unified system throughout the

EU and be relatively easy to use.

- No fixed recycling quotas for the EU as a whole.

- Environmental identification labels are suitable instruments for providing in-

formation on the impact products have on the environment. The environ-

3

mental identification label could be improved by taking the product’s life-cycle

into account.

- With the proposed REACH system, success in qualitative waste prevention

can be achieved.

- No waste prevention plans

- Within the framework of the Seville process, the implementation of industrial

waste prevention as an integral part of production processes and the exten-

sion of the development of the BREF document must be carried out. Expan-

sion of the IPPC directive to cover additional or even all waste treatment

plants must be critically, or rather sceptically examined in the light of previous

experience.

- No community-wide introduction of landfill tax and waste-producer charges.

- EU-wide introduction of a disposal ban or treatment requirement for untreated

waste.

- As the central element of a sustainable waste and product policy, product re-

sponsibility should be consistently developed and extended.

- No tradable certificates

- Enterprise related environmental management systems should be promoted

as an instrument of waste prevention and resource protection.

An improved legal framework for waste management is a priority, ideally to coin-

cide with COM, as achievable legislation is required but also best promising in the

fight against eco-dumping and unfair competition. Simply producing a detailed de-

4

scription of the processes in annex II A/B of the waste framework directive (WFD)

would not appear to achieve the objectives, because legal clarity and obligation can

only be achieved through legislation. Improvement of the legal framework is there-

fore best achieved by changing the legislation of the waste directives.

Baden-Württemberg

The Ministry for Environment and Transport is the highest authority of waste law en-

forcement in Baden-Württemberg. Baden-Württemberg is one of 16 Federal

“Länder” of the Federal Republic of Germany and is the third largest state (after Ba-

varia/ Bayern and North Rhine Westphalia/ Nordrhein-Westfalen) in terms of area

and population. Baden-Württemberg has a population of 10.6 million (June 2002)

which represents a population density of 297 inhabitants per km².

The employment structure of Baden-Württemberg is clearly identified by the large

percentage of people working in manufacturing. Of particular importance are me-

chanical engineering, electrical engineering and vehicle manufacture. Due to its

economic structure, Baden-Württemberg is heavily orientated towards export. If one

measures the gross national product in purchasing power, Baden-Württemberg’s

economy is comparable with that of The Netherlands or Belgium and is roughly dou-

ble that of Portugal.

Baden-Württemberg is a member of the cooperation "Four Motors" in Europe (to-

gether with Rhone-Alpes, Lombardia and Catalonia).

II. General comments

1. With a new strategic direction in EU waste management it must be possible to

avoid ever increasing and more complex detailed regulations which at present

5

are hard to understand as well as implement and administer with justifiable

administration costs. Rather, simple, general, comprehensible and, in par-

ticular, EU-wide uniform framework conditions have to be established to

produce the desired persuasive effect. An integrated strategy has to be de-

veloped which leads towards the smallest environmental effect at the maxi-

mum benefit for the economy and entailing the smallest possible burden to

the economy respectively.

For example, if waste were to replace coal in a heating plant, stricter emission

levels would automatically apply even though this would not always be neces-

sary due to waste specific risks. This may mean that effective energy utiliza-

tion from waste is not realised, resulting in an economic loss to the environ-

ment because primary raw materials (e.g. coal) are used instead of waste and

obvious resource protection does not occur. Regulations which are advanta-

geous to the environment as well as to the economy should consist in stipulat-

ing equivalent emission limits, necessary on environmental grounds, for

similar processes, irrespective of whether waste or regular fuel, i.e. primary

raw material is used. In the case of energy production processes, the similar-

ity of the processes is determined by the energy efficiency. The end effect is

that emission loads must not rise.

2. In the proposed realignment of the EU waste management policy, the princi-

ple of subsidiarity must be taken into consideration. In each case, it must be

considered whether an EU regulation is really necessary and meaningful or

whether a national or local measure can be taken up to meet an EU rule.

3. The disposal of waste from private households is an important part of

services of general interest and is carried out by the municipalities in an en-

vironmentally correct and reliable manner. The organisation of such duties

lies with each individual Member State and is included in the principle of sub-

sidiarity.

6

4. A major objective of every waste policy is the prevention of waste which in-

cludes promoting environmental protection and sustainable product concept

and other product related measures. A policy of waste prevention is there-

fore also product policy. Such a product policy is resource efficient when it

results in products being manufactured, utilized and disposed of using fewer

primary resources (in some cases by using more secondary resources) and

with less environmental impact.

5. Protecting resources and the related de-coupling of economic growth from

the consumption of resources is one of the main objectives of the State of

Baden-Württemberg.

For over 10 years, Baden-Württemberg has been involved in successful pro-

jects to reduce the consumption of raw materials in industrial processes and

to promote environmentally-friendly recycling. The main industrial target

groups are small and medium-sized companies.

In the field of municipal waste, a clear reduction in the quantity of disposable

waste was achieved through a consistent policy of separating waste. The total

amount of waste has remained relatively constant (approx. 400kg/resident)

over the last 10 years despite clear economic growth. Municipal waste in-

cludes waste from private households as well as waste for disposal from other

sources, especially commercial waste. Of the waste from private households,

in total approx. 340 kg/resident, over 50% is recycled (bio-waste 41

kg/resident, reusable material 150 kg/resident). Further information regarding

waste generation in Baden-Württemberg is to be found in enclosure 1.

6. In order to identify relevant waste streams and answer the related question of

establishing binding prevention and recycling objectives, reliable and com-

parable data is required. At present, however, neither data on municipal

waste nor data on industrial waste is comparable between the European

countries. Data about type and quality of waste treatment plants is only avail-

able for isolated cases. In particular, the standard of recycling plants in Euro-

7

pe varies greatly. It’s not a question of obtaining volumes of highly detailed

data on waste but rather little, reliable, comparable key data for the whole of

Europe.

An improvement in this unsatisfactory situation regarding waste statistics will

not be achieved until 2008, when the second Member States report based on

the EU Waste Statistics Regulation will be presented.

7. The quantity of waste is generally an indication of resource consumption.

Waste generation is, however, also a sum-total parameter comprising many

single events (industry structure, consumer behaviour, life-style). Waste gen-

eration may suffice as an indicator to provide a general waste strategy de-

scription, but not to establish individual measures. For this, statistical effects

must be taken into account, and the fact that some of the waste will be gener-

ated due to environmental considerations.

o Statistical effects: Large quantities of waste can also be an indicator of

efficient collection systems, well-recorded statistics on quantity and a

lower incidence of fly-tipping. Statistics on waste for recycling are re-

corded in a different way to statistics on waste for disposal, which is why

there may be distortions in the analysis.

o Waste from environmental protection measures: Large quantities of

industrial waste (e.g. filter dusts, industrial sludges) as well as sewage

sludge are, to some extent, an indicator of efficient measures to protect

the media of air and water, as long as there is no integrated technology

for prevention available.

8. Waste recycling makes sense when there are ecological and economic bene-

fits. The recycling of mixed waste with a low content of reusable material or

hazardous waste may be ecologically questionable.

Example of municipal sewage sludge: Municipal sewage sludge may

sometimes have a high heavy metal content. Recent studies confirm that

sewage sludge increasingly contains biologically active concentrations of

8

hormones or hormonal substances which have a proven negative effect on

aquatic bio-systems, and to some extent, on humans too. The recycling of this

waste in agriculture would therefore seem to be increasingly questionable.

Therefore, treatment (e.g. thermal treatment) is often the more ecologi-

cally sound solution.

9. Eco-efficiency analysis for evaluating ecological and economic aspects of

treatment processes are being discussed, which, compared to pure eco-

accounts (LCA), should also include costs/benefit aspects. However, the ap-

plication of cost/benefit analysis presupposes a long-term balanced market

and so hides weaknesses, especially in waste management: The treatment

and raw material markets are subject to both considerable and rapid fluctua-

tions from time to time. A more permanent measure than the market price is,

for example, the cumulated energy requirement (CER) in accordance with

the VDI guideline 4600. The CER balance sheet, like the cost/benefit analy-

sis, is a single-parameter method and therefore fundamentally free from sub-

jective evaluations. It is one method to objectively evaluate the consumption

of resources on the basis of an energy balance of the whole process and

thereby includes an economic aspect.

The principle of equal emission limits for equivalent processes means that the

CER balance normally leads to the same result as the more extensive and

subjective eco-balance (LCA) evaluation because the resource management

process would be the most economically friendly. We refer to the correspon-

dence with attached study („Bewertung der Umweltverträglichkeit von Ent-

sorgungsoptionen“) „Analysis of the environmental impact of disposal options“

on the basis of the CER balance compared to the eco-balance (enclosure 5)

of 09.12.2002, Az.: 26-8974.00-07/25, sent to the European Environment

Agency (Mr. Dimitrios Tsotsos) and the European Commission (Ms. Marianne

Klingbeil) (enclosure 5).

9

III. Our comments on individual chapters of COM are given below:

Chapter 4.2 waste prevention

A reduction in the quantity of waste from industry, commerce and households is

one of the main challenges facing the EU and Member States. At the same time

it is the most difficult task to solve in the waste policy.

Regarding industrial waste, changes in production processes are required to

make more efficient use of input resources or substitute input materials to totally

avoid certain problematic waste. To make these changes, an entrepreneur only

invests in new technology if it is cost-saving and at the same time safety and reli-

ability are proven.

However, our experience in Baden-Württemberg also shows that in many

branches of industry, technology which can make a considerable contribution to-

wards the prevention of waste as well as reduce costs is available. Especially in

small and medium-sized companies (SME) these opportunities are simply un-

known or the preconception exists that resource-management technology has a

negative effect on product quality or doesn’t offer the required safety and reliabil-

ity.

Against this background, one route which promises to be successful in spreading

resource-management technology is a co-ordinated information campaign and

targeted support for resource-management technology in small and medium-

sized firms within the Member States. Suitable materials for this are:

• branch-specific technological information focusing on integrated production

measures,

• targeted support program for industrial branches with high waste relevance in

each Member State,

• fostering information exchange and dialogue between European States,

10

• establishing advice centres and cleaner production centres.

As an example of such a campaign, we would like to briefly mention the Baden-

Württemberg program „prevention and reduction of hazardous waste“, which

was carried out from 1991 to 1997 (further details about this program and addi-

tional examples can be found in enclosure 3 (hazardous waste management in

Baden-Württemberg, developments 1990 – 2000, booklet 68 series on waste,

publisher UVM) Sonderabfallwirtschaft in Baden-Württemberg, Entwicklung 1990

– 2000“, Heft 68 der Reihe Abfall, Herausgeber UVM )and enclosure 4.

In Baden-Württemberg, between 1991 and 1997, a hazardous waste charge (50

– 150 €/t hazardous waste) for the generation of hazardous waste was intro-

duced by law. Part of the money raised (5 Mio. € per year) was used to finance

the program.

Based on a representative study of hazardous waste generation in Baden-

Württemberg, it was possible to identify the most important hazardous waste

streams and the most important branches of industry. The most significant

branches were: metal-working firms, casting works, electroplating plants, paint

shops, plants for producing coatings, printing works, photo laboratories and x-ray

departments.

For each of these branches, a reference study was carried out in which the best

possibilities for preventing waste using internal production measures and waste

recycling were described, in other words a sort of BREF for this branch from a

waste point of view.

At the same time a support program was developed giving priority to supporting

SMEs during the introduction of innovative waste prevention technology. During

the period of the support program, a total of 45 projects in every main branch of

industry were carried out. The projects all led to a definite reduction in the

11

quantity of waste in these firms and to reduced running costs through sav-

ings in raw materials and a decrease in disposal costs.

The whole project was led and coordinated by the state’s own ABAG- Abfall-

beratungsagentur (waste consultancy agency), Stuttgart-Fellbach (today:

ABAG-itm GmbH). This agency served as a centralised point for technological in-

formation and by intensive public relations work and a range of seminars brought

companies attention to the possible ways of preventing waste by using integrated

technology. The reference studies and results of the support measures were ma-

de public and the companies made accessible.

The most important results of the campaign were:

• In each of the companies where financial support was given, there was a

clear reduction in waste (sometimes over 80 %) linked to a clear reduction in

costs. The pay back period for the integrated production measures generally

lay below two years.

• New integrated production measures, especially in spray-finishing technology

and metal working were adopted by many other firms working in the same

field.

• It was possible to share the knowledge gained with many other companies by

publishing the reference studies and through other public relations work, es-

pecially branch-specific seminars.

Chapter 4.3 Recycling targets

Simply setting recycling quotas does not guarantee success in achieving the goal of

qualitative improvements in recycling. Instead, total systematic regulation should be ai-

med for as follows:

12

- Restricted use of environmentally dangerous or difficult-to-recycle materials in ac-

cordance with legal regulations,

- Setting emission limits in accordance with the resource efficiency of the process,

- Product norms to prevent the accumulation of hazardous or difficult-to-recycle pol-

lutants,

- Setting minimum resource efficiency levels to separate disposal from recycling,

In addition to such regulations, the introduction of material-specific recycling regulations

does not seem to be necessary and in some circumstances may even be counterpro-

ductive. Cross-sector, material-related targets would bring into question the environ-

mentally, political, meaningful, close link between waste disposal policies and pro-

duct policies which in many cases can only be product-specific. The introduction of

material related, cross-product group recycling legislation would mean high administra-

tive costs and tends to suggest a disregard for the producers’ (manufacturers’) structure

and development potential for product conception and manufacture. The manufacturers’

and distributors’ product responsibility is a central element to sustainable waste man-

agement and should be used consistently to achieve more eco-efficient and market-

suitable solutions.

At present, recycling quotas for individual waste streams have been fixed (e.g. for

packaging waste, waste electrical equipment, end of life vehicles). For these waste

streams, some expensive recycling structures and monitoring systems were set up.

These structures have now become established and shouldn’t be suddenly brought into

question again.

Regarding the monitoring of recycling quotas, only general rules were drawn up in

the previously adopted regulations. Each Member State has considerable freedom to

estimate, calculate or measure the quantities used. It can therefore be expected that

each Member State develops its own monitoring system and that the resulting recycling

quotas will not be comparable between Member States. Required monitoring sys-

tems must therefore follow a Europe-wide standardized system which is relatively

13

easy to implement. In setting quotas, rules regarding the investigation of quotas have

to be worked out in order to implement a standardized certification system Europe-wide.

The UVM is strongly opposed to considering setting recycling targets covering only the

EU as a whole and allowing exceptions in individual Member States. To proceed in this

manner would only serve to strengthen unfair competition across the Member States.

Arising from this, the future EU waste policy objective must be to produce equal com-

petitive conditions which guarantee a high level of environmental protection.

On several occasions the COM has mentioned the considerablely large field of con-

struction and demolition waste as a possible field of EU activity. C/D waste recy-

cling has been very successfully carried out in Baden-Württemberg as in other German

States; the recycling quota in Baden-Württemberg lies around 75%!. An EU-wide bind-

ing regulation regarding the recycling of C/D waste seems, therefore, neither called for

nor, on the grounds of subsidiarity, necessary.

Conclusion:

- To improve recycling it is important to consider further regulations, e.g. also in

the areas of products and legislation (restricted use of certain materials that

can’t be recycled) in addition to establishing waste quotas.

- A close link between waste and product policies is desirable.

- Necessary monitoring systems must follow an EU-wide standardised system

and be easy to conduct.

- Recycling quotas for the EU as a whole should not be set.

Chapter 5.2 Instruments to promote waste prevention

Quantitative prevention:

In the industrial field, Baden-Württemberg has shown that a combination of information

and financial support in the area of waste prevention works:

14

- Information leaflets and internet platforms (technical handbooks and guidelines) pro-

viding branch-specific information on qualitative and quantitative prevention technol-

ogy.

- Development grant programs for the initial introduction of qualitative and quantitative

prevention technology

- Support for the introduction of material flow management systems in firms.

- Support and financial help for entrepreneurial networks to introduce environmental

management systems (EMAS, ISO 14 000).

An effective set of consumer-orientated measures must be appropriate to the specific

characteristics of the group requesting information. Two types of requests for informa-

tion can be distinguished:

- From private end-users

- From companies

Pilot projects on integrated product policy in Baden-Württemberg have shown that the

environmental label in the form of a blue angel or the European environment sym-

bol are suitable instruments for informing the end-user about the environmental impact

of products. The disadvantage of the existing environmental labelling is that information

about the product history is missing. In addition, the confusing number of product identi-

fication marks should be reduced. Ideally, there should be a few simple, easily under-

stood, environmental symbols.

In addition, an environmental label should be developed which combines the advan-

tages of the ISO type 1 with the related ISO type III (product life cycle). It would

seem that a sensible concept delivers clear information to the consumer, such as type I,

on the one hand, while on the other hand, type III information which guarantees a prod-

uct life cycle approach as well as the certification of the data.

As far as companies are concerned, differentiated information is required. So, cur-

rently, there are several initiatives running on environmental-related declarations (Envi-

ronmental Product Declaration, EPD) in a wide range of fields. EPDs provide impor-

15

tant information for the customer. EDPs can be developed from existing product data

leaflets and by further developing product-related environmental information as well as

information on disposal. In this way, all important ecological data is made available for

the procurement department in the company as well as for product labelling. This would

also support the expansion of producers responsibility which is being considered by

the Commission.

Qualitative prevention:

The UVM agrees with the opinion of COM to achieve qualitative waste prevention

through chemical law. The REACH system may provide a step towards better risk ma-

nagement and also take into account the aspect of qualitative waste prevention.

Other possible measures to prevent waste:

- Waste prevention plans (voluntary or legally binding) are not, in our opinion, suit-

able as waste management instruments and should therefore be rejected. The per-

sonnel and time required for developing, negotiating, producing and then controlling

a waste prevention plan bears no relationship to a measurable, or rather insignificant

success.

Positive results within the framework of such plans would require a business man-

agement self-interest, or economic incentive, which alone should be already suffi-

ciently effective. Through such waste prevention plans, achievable, insignificant, ad-

ditional gains would be faced with disproportionately high administrative costs.

- We agree with the KOM estimations, that within the framework of drawing up

papers regarding the best available technology in Europe, the so-called Sevil-

le-process, the subject of on-site waste prevention has so far had too little at-

tention. The involvement of the European network IMPEL in this subject

would, therefore, be positively received, but doesn’t seem to be far-reaching

enough. The subject would have to be given additional support from waste

experts when creating the BREFs, because this work is still currently domi-

16

nated by the areas of emission protection and water protection. Here, on the

one hand, Member States are invited to make appropriate expert knowledge

available, while, on the other hand, the Seville offices should work more spe-

cifically with this subject. The objective must be the lasting implementation of

the area of industrial waste prevention as an integral part of production

processes and its consideration when BREFs are drawn up.

Conclusion:

- Environmental labels are suitable instruments for providing information about

the environmental impact of products. The environmental symbol should be

improved by giving consideration to product-life-cycle.

- Success in qualitative waste prevention could be achieved with the planned

REACH system.

- No waste prevention plans

- Within the framework of the Seville process, implementing industrial waste

prevention as a integral part of the production process and extending the

drawing up of the BREF document must be carried out

Chapter 5.3 Instruments to promote waste recycling

- The increasing of the costs for depositing waste in landfill by the introduction of

landfill tax may lead to an increase in waste prevention and recycling. Neverthe-

less, the community-wide introduction of landfill tax on the grounds of sub-

sidiarity is not regarded as meaningful. A harmonized landfill tax, set at the same

level in every Member State, does not take the differing income and cost structure

in each individual State into consideration. The basic admissibility of the introduction

of landfill tax in the individual States remains unaffected by this.

The level of disposal costs is heavily dependent on the technical level of the landfill

site; the higher the standard of the site, the higher the costs. So, instead of a landfill

17

tax, first of all, a higher standardised level of landfill technology in every Member

State should be implemented as quickly as possible and the realistic costs of landfill

be adopted. In addition, the deposition of waste to landfill must be restricted with a

deposition ban for untreated waste (e.g. biological waste that can be decom-

posed, waste that can be recycled for material or energy use). Indeed, according to

article 6a of the landfill directive (1999/31/EG) of the Member States, measures must

be taken to make sure that only treated waste is dumped. However, the deposition

of insufficiently treated waste remains widely possible within Europe. In Germany a

ban on depositing such waste is in place and is expected to become law by 2005. A

ban on dumping or requirement to treat should be applied across the EU as soon as

possible.

- Producers’ responsibility is a meaningful instrument for promoting the develop-

ment of environmental-friendly products and for forcing material and energy recy-

cling. Manufacturers’ responsibility is seen to be meaningful especially for complex

products (cars, electric and electronic equipment) as well as for voluminous relevant

waste streams. Collecting of the old product must be simple and easy for the con-

sumer, otherwise there will be little acceptance. From experience, applying produc-

ers responsibility will not work without legislation.

The UVM pleads for a consistent further development of product responsibility.

Product-related regulations have the advantage of directly developing product-

specific recycling potential and including every industrial step as well as the distribu-

tion, also for imported products, with a legal requirement for returning and recycling.

- Tradable certificates are not a suitable means of pushing through recycling targets

and must therefore be rejected. Practical experience that is robust and can be eva-

luated is not available (with the exception of the unrepresentative knowledge in GB

on the implementation of packaging regulations). The introduction and monitoring of

environment certificates are associated with high administrative costs and, in the

light of the large number of waste streams to be considered, seem impractical.

18

- From experience gained in Baden-Württemberg, environmental management sys-

tems in companies represents an ideal instrument to develop environmental pro-

tection systematically in firms. Environmental management, e.g. according to EMAS,

clearly identifies where the greatest potential for saving resources lies in firms. In

almost every case, the waste sector is one of these. Information provided by many

firms, showed it was possible to achieve clear cost saving by systematically separat-

ing and preventing waste. A positive ecological side-effect was a reduction in waste

generation, a large part of which was recycled.

Supporting environmental management system on company level and resource pro-

tection is therefore strongly supported.

- For some time now in Baden-Württemberg, local communities have estab-

lished, producer-related waste charges. The experience in the munici-

palities is good, the inhabitants accepted the principle of waste charges

and the legal position has been strengthened. There is, therefore, no rea-

son at EU level to want to introduce a community-wide producer-related

waste charge. The principle of subsidiarity flies in the face of such an idea.

Conclusion:

- No EU-wide introduction of landfill tax and producer-related waste charges.

- EU-wide introduction of a ban on deposition of or requirement to treat un-

treated waste

- Product responsibility is to be consistently developed and extended as a cen-

tral element of a sustainable waste and product policy.

- No tradable certificates

- Company environmental management systems is to be promoted as an in-

strument of waste prevention and resource protection.

19

Chapter 5.4 A level playing field for recycling

There are no Europe-wide standards for recycling technology. In the IPPC directive,

which expects an emission reduction in line with the best available technology, only cer-

tain plant for recycling hazardous waste of over 10 tons (Mg) per day are listed. As

there are no uniform technical plant standards, waste streams are transferred to

cheaper plants with lower environmental standards, whereby plants with higher stan-

dards are competitively disadvantaged. In order to eliminate this competitive disadvan-

tage, it is necessary to set standard requirements for treatment plants. This can be

achieved by the appropriate extension of the IPPC directive and by the introduction of

BREFs for treatment plants. The lack of rules to promote quality recycling (high qual-

ity) means that down cycling is encouraged. This applies in particular to plastic recy-

cling. Example: the use of shredder light fraction in furnaces versus recycling to re-

granulate. Both recycling processes, in the framework of the WEEE directive, contribute

to the recycling quota, and are therefore treated equally. The objective should be to

strengthen high-quality processes and to promote their introduction onto the market.

One way to do this could be by including recommendations in the BREFs about allocat-

ing certain types of waste to certain recycling processes. A second way is to support the

market introduction of high-quality technology by providing support for recycling net-

works between manufacturer and recycler..

Extending the area of validity of the IPPC directive can, therefore, for one thing,

promote uniform Europe-wide environmental standards in waste treatment and thereby

help to avoid the trend towards environmental dumping. But, at present there is not suf-

ficient experience of national regulations based on this directive to then be able to judge

their effectiveness. Not until 2007 will plants, to which the directive applies, be required

to conform to the directive. In particular, experience with these regulations in the Mem-

ber States must first be sought and studied before extending the area in which they are

valid. In this case the directive provides for the use of reports according to article 16 (3).

The German report is currently available to the COM for 2003, the next report will be

submitted in 2006. After evaluating the results of the report in 2006, the discussion

20

about extending or indeed restricting the area in which the IPPC directive apply should

be carried out.

Special note should be taken that in Germany most of the work is carried out by the re-

gional administrative centres and any extension of the scope of applicability will lead to

a considerable increase in administrative costs with, at the same time, dwindling re-

sources. The COM has also acknowledged these facts in their communication, „auf dem

Weg zu einer nachhaltigen Produktion“ (towards sustainable production) (see par. 7.3).

The proposal to extend IPPC to all waste treatment plants without further detail-ing/differentiation, must be looked at critically.

• Not every plant has the environmental relevance that an IPPC plant has, so that they would have to be formally approved in a special administrative process. For example, such a situation might apply in the case of intermediate storage of non-hazardous waste or landfill sites for inert waste.

• The demands on these plants are amply covered by national waste, water and emission protection laws. Processing BREFs for these plants, on the other hand, take a lot of time and are less binding than the national environmental regulations named above.

• Not all the processes listed in D 1 to D 5 and R 1 to R 13 of the waste framework directive are connected to a process in accordance with IPPC. In addition some of the processes in Germany are not (longer) up-to-date or permitted (D2, D11).

• The Commission proposes various measures which should improve conditions for recycling, all of which should be tested for their contribution towards prevent-ing eco-dumping, including:

o taking waste prevention into consideration in BREFs, o setting minimum standards of quality for recycling (Annex II B of the EG

waste framework directive). In particular, the final measure mentioned above would lead to direct requirements on recycling, and its contribution to preventing eco-dumping would be considered more significant than extending the IPPC-directive. Therefore, the UVM proposes that instead of an expansion of IPPC to other waste treatment operations, priority should be given to setting concrete minimum quality standards for recycling plants (see chapter 5.5). Conclusion:

21

- An extension of IPPC to further, or indeed, all waste treatment plants must be looked at critically, or rather sceptically, while taking previous experience into consideration.

Chapter 5.5 Accompanying measures

1. Improving the legal framework for waste management

- Parts of the waste definition in the directive 75/442/EWG were more clearly

defined by EuGH jurisdiction. In particular, there are no clear rules that an-

swer the question about when the waste becomes a product: which criteria

must be met for waste, that has undergone treatment, so that it can be

classed as a product or a secondary raw material. For important economic

branches such as the building industry or the steel sector the answer to this

question has far-reaching implications.

As objective criteria in making decisions, Baden Württemberg take the following

points into consideration:

o a positive market price for the treated material,

o maintaining specific quality criteria,

o no typical waste hazard potential and

o the same direct use in production processes as primary raw mate-

rial.

Minimal hazardous material content of the treated and marketable material does not

prevent removal of the material from the waste regime if a good, expert, monitoring sys-

tem guarantees the proper use of the manufactured material.

Therefore, in directive 75/442/EWG the existing waste definition to be clarified, es-

pecially the end of waste characteristics, is a matter of setting objective criteria.

22

- The recycling and disposal processes listed in the annexes to the waste fra-

mework directive are very general and allow a relatively wide leeway for inter-

pretation. To ensure a high level of environment protection and quality Euro-

pe-wide and a uniform implementation of Community regulations, clarification

of definitions of disposal and recycling in the directive 75/442/EWG is re-

quired. So, objective distinguishing criteria, including the calorific value of the

waste to be incinerated and the energy efficiency of the process must be ta-

ken into consideration in, for example, distinguishing between the disposal

process „incineration on land“ (D 10) and the process of energy recovery

(R1), (the most recent EuGH-ruling on distinguishing disposal processes form

recycling processes did not raise any objections to this).

As European law regarding recycling or disposal of waste has totally different legal

implications, the clear indisputable classification of disposal measures is of elemen-

tary importance in the implementation of European law in the Member States. The

community autarky principle requires each Member State to have sufficient capaci-

ties for waste treatment. Without a clear legal distinction between recycling and dis-

posal, the Member States run the danger that through a wide, sometimes limitless,

interpretation of recycling processes waste which should be incinerated for ecologi-

cal reasons is, in fact, recycled. Such a trend harms the environment and leads to

considerable costs for the Member States. Therefore, in directive 75/442/EWG, the

distinction between waste disposal and waste recycling must finally be settled

by setting clear and enforceable objective criteria..

- The objective of the Community waste policy is to achieve a level playing field for

treatment processes and for competition for the economy across the EU. For this it

is necessary to set a certain minimum standard of quality for recycling processes.

For example, a process in which only a small percentage of the waste is indeed re-

cycled, would not be able to be classified as recycling.

The setting of uniform EU quality standards for recycling processes is also neces-

sary in order to achieve a high level of environmental protection and be able to ef-

fectively avoid eco-dumping and thereby competition distortions.

23

In Community law, binding Community responsibilities for recycling processes, es-

pecially minimum quality criteria, must be set.

Until uniform EU quality standards for recycling processes are set, the Member Sta-

tes are entitled to set their own standards within the framework of directive

75/442/EWG. Consequently, the EU-waste shipment regulation has to be changed

to the effect that the authorities of the originating states can raise an objection if the

planned waste treatment would lead to the evasion of standards or responsibilities of

the originating state („eco-dumping“).

2. Research and development

The UVM foresees the following main areas for future research:

• Development, testing and evaluation of automatic sorting technology and con-

cepts to separate mixed waste fraction.

• Evaluation of recycling alternatives for individual waste fraction using an inte-

grated ecological and economic balance (especially for evaluating material recy-

cling compared to energy recycling).

Conclusion:

- Improving the legal framework for waste management, especially

o clarifying the definitions of waste , especially in the light of the end

of waste characteristics as well as

o distinguishing between waste recovery and waste disposal by set-

ting objective criteria,

o setting uniform EU standards of quality for recycling processes,

o introducing an objection to avoidance of national recycling stan-

dards in waste treatment („eco-dumping“), as long as there are no

EU standards.

24

If you have any questions or require further information, please don’t hesitate to contact

us.

With kind regards,

Dr. Rittmann Ministerialdirigent

Enclosure 1 Waste generation in Baden-Württemberg

Each year the Ministry for Transport and the Environment publishes a waste balance

sheet for collected and disposed of waste from private households in town and county

districts (a total of 44 districts) and disposed waste from commerce, industry and public

utilities. The most recent waste balance sheet for 2002 (see enclosure 2) provides the

following key data:

a) Waste from private households

Household waste/bulky waste 1,612 m. t, equivalent to 152 kg/resident

Biowaste 0,437 m. t, equivalent to 41 kg/resident

Material for recovery 1,596 m. t, equivalent to 150 kg/resident

total 3,645 m. t, equivalent to 343 kg/resident

b) Waste for disposal from other sources (e.g. commercial waste)

Commercial/building site waste* 0,401 m. t, equivalent to 38 kg/resident

Residues 0,124 m. t, equivalent to 12 kg/resident

Total 0,525 m. t, equivalent to 50 kg/resident

a) and b) total 4,170 m. t, equivalent to 393 kg/resident

*)excluding C/D waste, road construction and excavation waste

2

Further details and statistics about the waste situation in Baden-Württemberg can be

obtained from the enclosed waste balance sheet 2002.

The amount of hazardous waste generated in Baden-Württemberg in 2002 was approx.

0,7 m t. This is equivalent to 66 kg/resident.

Enclosure 4

Title of the initiative Program of quantitative and qualitative prevention of haz-ardous waste State

Germany, Baden-Württemberg

Period 1991 - 1997 Objectives • Qualitative and quantitative prevention of hazardous waste from the most im-

portant industrial branches in Baden-Württemberg. • Support for the development of new, production integrated technology. • Improvement of technological standards. • Strengthening innovative power of small and medium-sized firms. • Publication and circulation of technical information to reduce the amount of

hazardous waste generated by industry. Target group Companies in Baden-Württemberg, especially electro-plating, metal working, paint-ing, casting works, printing works, photo laboratories. Types of waste Electro-plating sludge, cooling lubricants, solvents, lacquer and paint waste, waste containing oil, acids, alkalis, waste from casting works.

Description of the initiative Between 1991 and 1997 a hazardous waste charge was introduced in Baden-Württemberg (50 – 150 €/t hazardous waste). Part of this money (approx. 5 M. € per year) was used to finance the program. In preparation, a representative study of hazardous waste generation in Baden-Württemberg was carried out. From this study the most important hazardous waste and the most important fields of industry were identified. An audit was carried out in each of these fields and the most significant ways to prevent waste by on-site production measures and recycling were described (a sort of BREF for waste). At the same time a support system and a funding program was launched to sup-

2

port, in the first instance, SMEs in introducing innovative waste prevention technol-ogy. During the period of the support system, a total of 45 such projects, in as many industrial fields as possible, were carried out. All the projects led to a clear reduction in the quantity of waste generated in firms and to a reduction in costs through savings on raw materials and reduced disposal costs. The whole project was run and coordinated by the State’s own ABAG-waste-consultancy agency. The audits and the results of the support measures were published and the com-panies made accessible. Results • Necessitated by higher disposal costs, the quantity of hazardous waste for dis-

posal fell considerably, with part of this reduction being due to external recy-cling.

• The support projects carried out in the companies all produced a reduction in waste generation (at times over 80%) and were linked to an obvious cost sav-ing. The amortisation time for the integrated production measures lay, in most cases, under two years.

• New integrated production measures were adopted by other companies espe-cially in the field of spray-coating technology and metal working.

• It was possible to share the knowledge gained with many other companies by publishing the audits and through further public activities, especially branch-specific seminars.

Evaluation of the initiative: The increase in disposal costs through hazardous waste charges caused a clear reduction in the quantity of hazardous waste disposed. Certainly, the reduction in quantity was also the result of more recycling, at times there was a problem of sham recycling here. The measures to support production-integrated environmental protection were suc-cessful throughout, both ecologically speaking and economically speaking. This support program showed that there is a wide range of measures to reduce hazard-ous waste which are also economically advantageous. Economic aspects of the initiative The economic advantages of integrated production measures are evident, on the one hand, in savings in raw material costs (e.g. paint) and, on the other hand, in the reduction of disposal costs (e.g. in the case of waste containing oil). Essentially, in every field of industry studied, obvious savings were made.

3

Further information

info@abag-itm.de Contact person ABAG-itm, Jürgen Schmid, Stauferstr. 15, 70736 Fellbach, Tel: ++48/ (0)711/951911-26; FAX: -20 E-Mail: schmid@abag-itm.de, URL: www.abag-itm.de

4

Title of the initiative Voluntary agreement to reduce the amount of waste foundry sand generated. State

Germany , Baden-Württemberg

Period 1992 - 1996 Objectives • Reduction in the quantity of waste foundry sand to be disposed of • Further development and introduction of on-site recycling of waste foundry sand • Evaluation and improvement of external recycling of waste foundry sand • Development and introduction of casting technology using less sand Target group All casting works (foundries) in Baden-Württemberg Types of waste

Waste foundry sands

Description of the initiative To carry out these plans, a voluntary agreement was reached between the State of Baden-Württemberg and the Federation of Casters. In the agreement, the casting industry committed itself to reducing the amount of waste foundry sand by 70% within four years. This project was led and coordinated by the State’s own ABAG waste consultancy agency. Linked to the initiative was the State support for innovative recycling technology for the on-site recycling of waste foundry sand. The results of the grant measures were published and the companies made accessible. Results • By 1996, the amount of waste foundry sand to be disposed of had been re-

duced by 80%. • The reduction in waste was primarily achieved by on-site reprocessing of waste

sand (on-site recycling). • In some cases external reprocessing was used, mainly in cement works and

brickworks. • The main motivation came from rising costs for depositing waste sand in landfill

and financial support for innovative technology for on-site recycling which came

5

from money provided by hazardous waste charges. Evaluation of the initiative: Because of rising landfill charges up until 1997, the amortisation period for invest-ment costs of on-site recycling plants was short. There was, therefore, an eco-nomic incentive. The support system allowed optimisation of technology for on-site recycling so that the necessary plant safety and reliability could be guaranteed. Since 1998, the price for disposal has fallen, sometimes dramatically. Neverthe-less, in most firms the recycling plants are still in use. Economic aspects of the initiative The economic advantages of on-site recycling are closely linked to landfill prices and restrictions there (especially permitted maximum organic matter content). Further information

info@abag-itm.de Contact person ABAG-itm, Jürgen Schmid, Stauferstr. 15, 70736 Fellbach, Tel: ++48/ (0)711/951911-26; FAX: -20 E-Mail: schmid@abag-itm.de, URL: www.abag-itm.de

6

Title of the initiative Pilotproject Material flow management

State

Baden-Württemberg, Germany

Period 2000 – on-going Objectives

• This demonstration project should show that the methods of material and en-ergy flow analysis are suitable instruments for reducing material and energy consumption in industry and, in addition, for identifying cost saving potential.

• Identification and evaluation of electronic tools for carrying out material and en-ergy flow analysis in industrial companies.

• Prevention of waste and emissions in air and water. • Comparison of technical standards in industrial companies with the regulations

from the BREFs. • Publication of information for material and energy flow analysis. Target group

Representative companies from appropriate branches of industry (e.g. printing works, spray-finishing works, chemical industry, plant builders, casting works) in Baden-Württemberg were chosen for the demonstrations. Types of waste

Branch-specific industrial waste

Description of the initiative In a preliminary study, electronic tools suitable for carrying out material and energy flow analysis in an industrial context were investigated.

During the second stage, companies from different fields were selected, their par-ticipation being voluntary. For each participating company, specific key areas for study were set (water, energy, resource consumption).

Material and energy flow analysis and the implementation of electronic tools was carried out by experts whose costs were met by public funding.

The process was carried out in five stages: 1. Process analysis and producing the material flow models 2. Collection of relevant company data (material, energy and volume streams) 3. Carrying out of material and energy flow analysis and identifying the poten-

tial for improvement 4. Comparison of the current situation with BAT (Best Available Technologies)

7

5. Developing eco-efficient measures for the business in question (reduction of material and energy consumption, reduction of running costs, etc.)

The most important experiences and potentials for improvement identified were published in brochures. Results It was possible to identify distinct potential for improvement for the projects com-pleted at that time. Using the method of material and energy flow analysis is, there-fore, an appropriate instrument for improving firms’ environmental situation. In addi-tion, it was possible, in some cases, to uncover considerable potential for cost-saving. During the investigations in the printing works, possible ways of significantly reduc-ing VOC emissions, paper and printing ink consumption were identified. Evaluation of the initiative: The introduction of this method was successful in every company. It was possible in some cases to identify considerable potential for cost saving and improvement. The greatest expenditure involved in setting up this method was the data collection and processing. To support the companies, experience from the project was regularly publicized in the form of studies and handbooks. The publications can be found under the URL (see below). Economic aspects of the initiative The cost-saving potential identified during the printing works investigation was ap-prox. 50.000 € /year. Links and further information

Project report and further information: http://www.lfu.baden-wuerttemberg.de/lfu/abt3/industrie_und_gewerbe/stoffstrom_management/index.html Contact person ABAG-itm, Jürgen Schmid, Stauferstr. 15, 70736 Fellbach, Tel: ++48/ (0)711/951911-26; FAX: -20 E-Mail: schmid@abag-itm.de, URL: www.abag-itm.de

8

Title of the initiative EMAS-convoy project State

Baden-Württemberg, Germany

Period Start 2000 – on-going. Objectives • Extension of the eco-audit in smaller and medium-sized companies (SME) and

the public services. • Reduction of energy and resource consumption. Target group Small and medium-sized companies in terms of the EU definition, public services. Types of waste

Industrial waste and waste similar to household waste.

Description of the initiative In Baden-Württemberg EMAS has become widespread. Small and medium-sized companies as well as administrations are under-represented. The main problem of SME is the organisation of the process to satisfy the requirements for validation (data collection, documentation and implementation of adequate management sys-tems). The idea of these support programs is for 3 to 10 companies or administrations to carry out this process together in a convoy. An external consultant organises work-ing-group meetings. In addition, he/she coordinates a partially standardised work-ing program in which the implementation process through to validation is staged in roughly 8 to 10 working units. For each convoy, appropriate help is made available to implement EMAS.

Results The most important result is that the convoy works. During implementation, coop-eration and exchange of information between the participants contributed consid-erably to solving problems, which otherwise often lead to a breakdown when com-panies are left alone. The division of the EMAS process into visible working units helped the companies and the public services to carry out the work required step by step, in the correct order and successfully.

9

There are only a few drop-outs from this convoy project. Successes in terms of waste prevention, of course, vary. Evaluation of the initiative: Small companies and also public services are well-able to fulfil the requirements of EMAS. Nevertheless, it is often difficult for small companies to fulfil the high re-quirements, especially in terms of the documentation. It would be helpful in view of the continuation of the EMAS directive to give the KMU situation more serious con-sideration.

Economic aspects of the initiative The move from EMAS helps SME especially in the introduction of a transparent and fully-operational (environment) management system. This is a prerequisite for an improvement in economic and ecological efficiency. Links

Handbooks and guidelines: http://www.lfu.baden-wuerttemberg.de/lfu/abt2/oaudit/ Contact person Ministry for Transport and Environment Baden-Württemberg, Kernerplatz 9, 70182 Stuttgart, Frau Sybille Hepting-Hug, E-Mail: sybille.hepting-hug@uvm.bwl.de Herr Stefan Frey, E-Mail: stefan.frey@uvm.bwl.de Tel.: O711/126-0, Fax: 0711/126-2881