On 8 April the European Parliament’s Environment Committee adopted its amendments in second reading to the waste framework directive. As rapporteur I was apprehensive that not enough MEPs would back my proposals for recycling and waste prevention targets, and that incineration/energy from waste would attract undue criticism and obstruction. I was therefore delighted by the outcome of the vote.
The second reading is the Parliament’s opportunity to amend the ‘common position’ (Euro-speak for first reading) of the Council of Ministers. Once adopted in committee the report goes to the plenary session where amendments need the support of more than half the total MEPs. After that, if there are points of dispute between Parliament and Council, ‘conciliation’ ensues. Here, delegations of MEPs and Ministers meet to negotiate until they reach a commonly agreed text. A variation on this is the ‘second reading agreement’ which allows both institutions to negotiate after the second reading in committee, so that by the time the plenary is reached (in this case in June 2008) they are able to put before it a ‘second reading agreement’ which sews up the loose ends without going into conciliation.
One of the most important points in the committee vote was the waste hierarchy. Here the Parliament insisted on the five-stage hierarchy, from prevention and reduction to disposal, and wants it to be followed as a ‘general rule’ rather than the Council’s ‘guiding principle’. We will have to see whether this really matters to the Council. The question of how departures from the hierarchy would be sanctioned was an important one. I wanted to follow the Council in basing such departures on ‘life cycle thinking’ and this was adopted by the committee, while the green/left alternative – ‘life cycle assessment’ – was rejected.
Opposition to incineration was pretty vociferous, but I noticed that people were concerned that without the energy-from-waste option we would be failing to use a potential fuel, and probably sending more waste to landfill as the only other option available. I was, therefore, delighted when the centre-right groups plus some socialist freethinkers defeated amendments designed to delete the energy efficiency formula (in Annex II, R1). This formula is the criterion which energy-from-waste plants must reach if they are to attain the designation of ‘recovery’ rather than ‘disposal’ operations – and the recovery designation has important commercial and public relations consequences.
I believed that we must also ensure that recycling was not disadvantaged, so I inserted recycling and waste prevention targets in the directive. We voted to set a 50% recycling target for household waste and a 70% target for construction and demolition waste by 2020. My colleagues added industrial and manufacturing waste to the 70% target, but we shall have to see whether this is technically feasible. We also voted to stabilize waste production at 2009 levels by 2012.
These were the three big themes, but other important amendments were adopted. The Council had accepted the idea that the directive should define by-products in a lengthy article 4. This was deleted by MEPs, against my advice, on the argument that it would lead to greater confusion and to the undesirable classification of waste as by-products. It remains to be seen whether the Council will try to persuade us to put it back.
We adopted my amendment to article 5 requesting that the Commission come forward with proposals to clarify when a list of items ‘ceases to be waste’ – compost, aggregates, paper, glass, metal, end of life tyres and waste textiles. We reinforced the safety provisions for dealing with hazardous waste. We adopted new provisions for biowaste and said that we wanted separate collection systems for such waste, to be developed within the next three years. We rejected the idea of a Waste Consultative Forum, believing that its tasks would duplicate the work done through the European Parliament.
Now the question is whether we can agree in the areas where there are differences between the Council and Parliament – notably on the recycling and prevention of waste targets, to which the Council is opposed. Will agreement on the directive be a final bouquet for the Slovenians? Or will it flow over into the French Presidency? My impression is that MEPs are going to be so busy with the climate change package that they will want to get rid of the waste framework directive as soon as possible. Not perhaps the best of motives, but it may produce a good result.
 |
Caroline Jackson is the Member of the European Parliament for the South West of England
caroline.jackson@europarl.europa.eu
