A workable waste legislation to not waste opportunities
Today, the European Plenary adopted the reports of MEP Simona Bonafè on Commission proposals amending the 2008 Waste Directive, the 2012 Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive and the 2006 Batteries and Waste Batteries Directive. These legislative proposals were part of the EU Circular Economy Package, announced in December 2015.
Plastic waste Photo credit: Fotolia
Says CECED Director-General, Paolo Falcioni: “The reports adopted by the Plenary set the scene for the future negotiations with the Council and for the future of waste management in Europe.”
CECED welcomes the few safeguards introduced by the Parliament to ensure that extended producer responsibility obligations, set within the Waste Framework Directive, do not override the producer obligations already set in specific waste stream legislation. A one-size-fits-all approach is not feasible when it comes to waste legislation. Producers can only be financially responsible for aspects under their control or influence. The home appliance industry must be entitled to take an active role in fulfilling its legal obligations, to control compliance costs and to ensure that treatment is undertaken correctly. We therefore encourage the Council to further secure and strengthen such safeguards in the proposals.
This is complemented by an emphasis in the voted text amending the Waste Framework Directive on the roles and responsibilities of all actors handling waste in the Waste Framework Directive. In the WEEE Directive obligations for Member States, measures have been introduced to ensure that data from all actors collecting or treating WEEE are reported. We strongly encourage the Council to take on board the Parliament proposals related to this.
While we support the clarification of the preparing for re-use definition by the European Parliament, the introduction of a new article on re-use raises concerns for the home appliance industry. The definition of preparing for re-use, as confirmed today, does not create a mix between products and waste. Re-use is not a waste management operation. The second-hand market cannot be regulated, as it is not possible to monitor the actors active on these markets due to their diversity and their multiplicity. In this respect, CECED asks the Council to maintain the concept of recognised “preparing for re-use operators” as proposed by the Commission, confirmed also by the Parliament and asks for careful attention on the future discussions on reuse.
Paolo Falcioni concludes: “The Parliament has shared views on the topic. It is now up to the Council to ensure that the upcoming proposals will safeguard the Single Market by not introducing product design measures in waste legislation and allowing for subsidiarity, ensure coherency between the Waste Directives and other EU pieces of legislation, increase separate collection of waste and introduce mandatory compliance with EN standards on collection, logistics and treatment of WEEE in order to boost the market of secondary raw materials. CECED members have a longstanding experience with waste management and look forward to further collaborating with Member States, the Parliament and the Commission to secure a workable solution.”
This content is published by the Parliament Magazine on behalf of our partners.
On September 11, a debate took place on the EU Emissions Trading System at the European Parliament Plenary session in Strasbourg.
Corina Crețu Interview, Clean Energy, EU-Brazil trade, Biotech Week, Antimicrobial Resistance, Jobs and Growth, Copyright Reform, German Elections, 5 questions with Merja Kyllönen and more.
A Parliament Magazine special supplement in association with PA International on ending the impending threat caused by antibacterial resistance.
How to tier and where to tier? These are the key ETS reform questions that need answers, says Jacob Hansen.
To achieve a real circular economy, the EU must take measures to ensure that materials embedded in products are properly recovered and recycled, writes Annick Carpentier.
MEPs have a golden opportunity to fix ETS indirect carbon costs compensation, but achieving their ambition will require that they go the extra mile, write Guy Thiran and Gerd Götz.