La lecture en ligne est gratuite
Read Download

Share this publication

You may also like

Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green
Growth
Final Report
European Commission DG ENV
29 November 2011
Project description

European Commission DG ENV CLIENT:
A project under Framework Contract: ENV.G.4/FRA/2008/0112

REPORT TITLE: Draft Final Report

PROJECT NAME: Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth
PROJECT CODE: CEENVFWCSMR_1002

DATE: 29 November 2011

AUTHORS:
Ms. Véronique Monier, BIO Intelligence Service
Mr. Mathieu Hestin, BIO Intelligence Service
Ms. Clementine O’Connor, BIO Intelligence Service
Ms. Gina Anderson, BIO Intelligence Service
Mr. Alexander Neubauer, Ecologic Institute
Mr. Stephan Sina, Ecologic Institute
Mrs. Gesa Homann, Ecologic Institute
Mr. Hubert Reisinger, Umweltbundesamt

KEY CONTACTS: Shailendra Mudgal
+ 33 (0) 1 56 20 28 98
Shailendra.Mudgal@biois.com
Or

Véronique Monier
+ 33 (0) 1 56 20 28 98
Veronique.Monier@biois.com

Please cite this publication as:
BIO Intelligence Service (2011), Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth, Final
Report prepared for European Commission DG ENV

Photo credit: cover @ Per Ola Wiberg
©BIO Intelligence Service 2011

2 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth


Table of Contents
PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS 3
LIST OF TABLES 6
LIST OF FIGURES 9
ABSTRACT 10
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 11
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 14
1.1 Background 14
1.2 Objectives of the study 15
1.3 Methodology and task structure 15
CHAPTER 2: BENEFITS OF BETTER WASTE POLICY IMPLEMENTATION 17
2.1 Overview of EU waste legislation and levels of implementation 17
2.1.1 EU waste policy and provisions addressed 17
2.1.2 Summary of levels of policy implementation 20
2.1.3 General barriers and drivers of policy implementation 21
2.2 Economic (including financial) and social benefits of better waste
management implementation 24
2.2.1 Approach 24
2.2.2 Cost-Benefit Analysis 28
2.3 Value of complete compliance for the EU waste management sector and for
other EU Industries 35
2.3.1 Value of complete compliance for the EU waste management sector 35
2.3.2 Value of complete compliance for EU industries 36
2.4 Case studies demonstrating benefits of better waste implementation 42
CHAPTER 3: BARRIERS IN BETTER WASTE POLICY IMPLEMENTATION 48
3.1 Overview of barriers in better waste policy implementation 48
3.2 Detailed description of barriers in better waste policy implementation 49
3.2.1 Barriers for European Commission and associated bodies 49
3.2.2 Barriers for Member States 52

Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 3

CHAPTER 4: TASKS NEEDED TO STRENGTHEN IMPLEMENTATION AND
ENFORCEMENT OF EU WASTE POLICY 57
4.1 Overview of tasks needed to strengthen implementation and enforcement of
EU waste policy 57
4.2 Detailed description of tasks 59
4.2.1 EU 61
4.2.2 Member States 76
4.2.3 Both EU and MS 81
4.3 Feasibility assessment of tasks 84
CHAPTER 5: POLICY OPTIONS 88
5.1 Policy Option A: ‘New and extended tasks for the Commission’ 89
5.1.1 Short characterisation 89
5.1.2 General description 89
5.1.3 Cornerstones of a regulatory framework 94
5.2 Policy Option B: ‘New and extended tasks for the EEA’ 97
5.2.1 Short characterisation 97
5.2.2 General description 98
5.2.3 Cornerstones of a regulatory framework 99
5.3 Policy Option C: ‘EU Waste Agency’ 102
5.3.1 Short characterisation 102
5.3.2 General description 102
5.3.3 Cornerstones of a regulatory framework 103
CHAPTER 6: IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR SELECTED POLICY OPTIONS 105
6.1 Problem definition 105
6.2 Objectives of the impact assessment 105
6.3 Policy options 106
6.4 Analysis of the impacts (environmental, social and economic) of the different
options defined 106
6.4.1 Impacts on timeliness of implementation and the efficiency and aptitude of each body for
supporting policy implementation 107
6.4.2 Environmental, economic and social Impacts 115
6.5 Comparison of the options 117
BIBLIOGRAPHY 120
ANNEX A: POLICY IMPLEMENTATION OVERVIEWS 131
ANNEX B: CASE STUDIES 158
Port of Rotterdam: Waste Shipment Regulation Enforcement 158

4 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth

Context 158
Economic impacts 159
Social benefits 161
Summary of barriers and drivers 163
Cyprus: Landfill Directive implementation 165
Context 165
Economic impacts 166
Social benefits 167
Summary of barriers and drivers 168
Naples: Waste Management Crisis 170
Context 170
Economic impacts 171
Social benefits 173
Summary of barriers and drivers 175
Brandenburg: Landfill Closure and Containment 177
Context 177
Economic impacts 179
Social impacts 180
Summary of barriers and drivers 180
Ireland: Benefits of Strengthening Implementation & Enforcement of Waste
Legislation 182
Context 182
Economic impacts 186
Social impacts 188
Summary of barriers and drivers 188
REFERENCES: 192
ANNEX C: REFERENCES FOR 2.2 AND 2.3 195
ANNEX D: SCENARIOS OF YEAR 2020 EU-27 WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 200







Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 5

List of Tables
Table 1: Economic and environmental benefits of full implementation 11
Table 2: Selected tasks for supporting better implementation of EU waste legislation 12
Table 3: Summary of impact assessment for policy options 13
Table 4: EU waste policies and provisions addressed 18
Table 5: Summary of policy implementation levels, based on specific provisions 20
Table 6: Barriers for implementation by waste policies 24
Table 7: Summary of scenario parameters 25
Table 8: Targets considered in scenario B 26
Table 9: Difference between waste, material and energy flows as well as greenhouse gas
emissions of scenario B and scenario A in the year 2020 27
Table 10: Recovery of secondary raw materials in the year 2020 in Mt 28
Table 11: Total micro-economic costs of waste management in the year 2020 (without
containment and repatriation costs) 30
Table 12: Total macro-economic costs/benefits of waste management in the year 2020 31
Table 13: Turnover of waste management and recycling, as well as jobs in Scenarios A and B for
the year 2020 32
Table 14: Year 2008 EU-27 waste generation by economic sector (based on:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database) 37
Table 15: Benefits of full implementation of EU waste legislation to the industry 41
Table 16: Barriers to full implementation for EU Commission and for Member States 49
Table 17: Overview of tasks to strengthen implementation and enforcement of EU waste policy58
Table 18: Barriers, tasks and tools to strengthen implementation of EU waste policy 59
Table 19: Legend for task assessment table 84
Table 20: Assessment of tasks at EU level 85
Table 21: Assessment of tasks at MS level 87
Table 23: Short characterisation of policy option A: ‘New and extended tasks for the Commission’
89
Table 24: Short characterisation of policy option B: ‘New and extended tasks for the EEA’ 97
Table 25: Short characterisation of policy option C: ‘EU waste agency’ 102
Table 26: Indicators and assessment scale for impact assessment 108

6 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth

Table 27: Impact assessment table for timeliness of implementation 110
Table 28: Impact at table for aptitude for iation activities 112
Table 29: Impact assessment table for efficiency of implementation 114
Table 30: Summary of environmental, social and economic impacts 116
Table 31: Summary of impact assessment 119
Table 32: Costs of waste management in Brandenburg 2009 (MUGV 2010b). 179
Table 33: Collection of valuable substances in Brandenburg in kt (kilo-tonnes) 2009 (MUGV
2010b). 180
Table 34: Household waste generation and management 2001-2007 (thousand tonnes) 187
Table 35: Per capita net environmental impact of municipal waste management in Germany
(IFEU 2005) 203
Table 36: EU-27 waste generation in BIOIS et al. (2011) scenario by country in Mt 206
Table 37: EU-27 waste generation in BIOIS et al. (2011) scenario by material type in Mt 207
Table 38: Overview for alternatives in waste management for 2004 in EU-27 (Prognos 2008) 207
Table 39: Targets considered in Scenario 2 of Prognos (2008) 208
Table 40: Greenhouse gas emission reduction by the recycling/incineration with energy recovery
of 12 selected waste streams (Prognos 2008) 210
Table 41: Greenhouse gas emission by the landfilling/incineration without energy recovery of
residual municipal solid waste (Prognos 2008) 210
Table 42: Scenario Parameters for the year 2020 212
Table 43: Frame assumptions for the year 2020 scenarios 214
Table 44: Scenario A – Waste generation, treatment, recycling, material and energy recovery and
(avoided) greenhouse-gas emissions 216
Table 45: Scenario B – Waste generation, treatment, recycling, material and energy recovery and
(avoided) greenhouse-gas emissions 217
Table 46: Detailed scenarios for WEEE, Batteries and ELV 218
Table 47: Recovery of secondary raw materials in the year 2020 in Mt 219
Table 48: The balance of full European waste legislation implementation - Difference between
macro economic values/costs of Scenario B and Scenario A in the year 2020 219
Table 49: Typical composition and heating value of residual waste from Bavarian households
(Weigand & Marb 2006) 220
Table 50: Specific metal mobilisation during landfilling on landfills for reactive waste (Belevi &
Baccini 1989; Buwal 1995; Fehringer et al. 1997, Umweltbundesamt 2001) 223
Table 51: Mobilisation of selected heavy metals through leachate (Scenario A assumption: 50 %
of MSW landfilling is on non-compliant landfills) 224

Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 7

Table 52: Year 2020 particulate matter emissions and health damage costs of tilting construction
and demolition waste in Scenarios A and B. 224
Table 53: Total year 2020 health impact costs related to particulate matter emissions from waste
225
Table 54: Scenarios on emissions of ozone depleting substances 228
Table 55: Scenarios on flows of pollutants with environmental impacts and landfilling area
consumption 229
Table 56: Factors for monetarising environmental impacts 229
Table 57: Costs of environmental impacts 229
Table 58: Frame assumptions for the calculation of landfill gas energy recovery 230
Table 59: Economic value of landfill gas energy recovery 231
Table 60: Frame assumptions for calculating the costs of brownfield containment 231
Table 61: Costs for the containment of non-compliant landfills 231
Table 62: Estimation of repatriation costs for illegally exported WEEE, batteries and ELVs 232
Table 63: Frame assumptions for calculating turnover and jobs in waste management and
recycling 233
Table 64: Turnover, jobs and costs of the sectors ‘waste management’ and ‘recycled materials’ in
scenarios A and B for the year 2020 233
Table 65: Total micro-economic costs of waste management in the year 2020 (with containment
of all non-compliantly landfilled waste and repatriation of all exported ELV/WEEE/batteries)
234
Table 66: Total micro-economic costs of waste management in the year 2020 (without
containment and repatriation costs) 235
Table 67: Total macro-economic costs-benefits of waste management in the year 2020 237




8 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth


List of Figures
Figure 1: Methodology 15
Figure 2: Costs in Germany's production industry in % of gross production value (Schmidt 2009)
38
Figure 3: World primary raw material production (USGS 2001, 2010) 39
Figure 4: Mixed copper, steel, lead, tin, zinc price index (CRB 2011) 40
Figure 5: Municipal Waste Treatment Options 2008 (Source: RPS, 2009) 189
Figure 6: Advertised Landfill Gate Fees including levy, 2010 (Source, RPS, 2009) 191
Figure 7: Biodegradation of landfilled waste (Bilitewski et al. 2000) 220
Figure 8: Solubility of heavy metals as function of pH-value (Weißenbach 1999, Seel 1973) – Limit
values from Austrian Off-Water-Emission-Ordinance “Landfill-Leachate” 2003. 221
Figure 9: Composition of landfill gas and leachate during the life-time of a landfill (Bilitewski et al.
2000, Umweltbundesamt 2001) 222


Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth | 9

Abstract
his report aims at providing an in-depth analysis of the expected benefits of better
implementation and enforcement of EU waste legislation, and the means with which this T
can be achieved.
A five-step methodology was used in pursuit of this goal. Firstly, the current state of
implementation and potential benefits of full implementation were quantified and evaluated.
Secondly, barriers to better implementation at the level of the EU and of the MS were identified.
Thirdly, concrete tasks for the EU and for the MS to overcome these barriers and to improve
waste legislation implementation were defined. Fourthly, three policy options were developed, in
which the key implementation tasks are led under three different institutional settings: Option A
allocates the tasks to the European Commission, principally extending current activities but
adding audit responsibilities concerning national inspections provided inspection standards are
adopted at EU level. Option B provides the EEA with all suggested tasks except legal
enforcement tasks allocated to the Commission under the Treaty and the proposed inspection
audits, which would be tasks for the Commission. Option C proposes the creation of a new
specialised waste agency, which would execute all tasks with the same exceptions as in Option B
Finally an impact assessment was performed on the three policy options. The assessment
involved two parts: first, impacts of each option on timeliness, aptitude and efficiency of
legislation implementation were assessed; then, environmental, economic and social impacts are
analysed. The impact assessment suggests that given the comparatively low administrative cost
needed to implement option B and the high expected performance, option B presents a
reasonable proposition to improve the implementation of EU waste legislation.




10 | Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth