M. Stavros Dimas

Over the last ten years, Member States have made tremendous progress essentially driven by European legislation in waste management. Between 1995 and 2005, the municipal waste recycling rate in the 27 State Members have risen from 21% to 37% and the diminution of landfill disposal has accelerated over the last few years. At least 40% and up to 50% of paper, glass and metals produced in Europe are now composed of recycled material.

These are excellent news. But we must face it, challenges ahead are very critical. Waste production is very high and is increasing. We are still wasting huge amounts of resources by disposing of wastes in landfill sites or incinerating them without a real energy recovery.

The European Union should rapidly evolve towards a genuine recycling society that avoids producing waste whenever possible and takes the most out of resources contained in waste. We must implement concrete waste prevention policies while controlling and encouraging the recycling market.
 
How urgent do you regard issues of waste production prevention on the one hand and the recycling of waste on the other, issues that are at very heart of current changes to European regulations (Thematic Strategy and draft Framework Directive)?

 Waste production tends to increase alongside the economic activity. And when waste quantities seem to stabilise, worrying quality changes or transfer effects occur. For example, municipal waste contains increasing amounts of complex products such as electronic waste, which is a symptom of an increasing environmental impacts related to the use of natural resources. On the other hand, third countries’ increasing production of middle-market products imported by the European industry and of products destined for European consumers result in a greater generation of waste in originating countries. This of course is not without causing environmental damage due to waste management activities as well as to production activities themselves. We must take this into account in our policies.

A clear consensus has prevailed for many years about the importance of waste prevention but it has rarely translated into a resolute and efficient action. The Commission is now focussing on the necessity to implement concrete prevention policies at both EU and Member State level. At the European level, waste prevention is to be encouraged mainly by chemical policies, the promotion of eco-design and the circulation of the best available techniques. Member States, in their turn, avail of many instruments to make a culture of waste prevention emerge. We listed the essential ones in an appendix to the draft framework directive. The instrument we proposed, the waste prevention national programs, will induce a multiplication of initiatives from Member States to fight against waste production at central and local level. The French national plan for waste prevention is a good example of the kind of approach that we seek to follow – but specific measures must be designed for national and local realities.

Do you believe that this European regulation is moving in the right direction?

Political decision-makers often forget that recycling is not a merely local or national issue. Recycling is actually now a European if not worldwide market. Metals and paper are example of materials that circulate around the globe. But recycling and waste valorisation markets are often regional and, therefore, exchanges take place between neighbouring countries. In addition, the legal frame that applies to both national and regional markets rests on the same foundations – European legislation.

In this context, what is needed to encourage waste recycling and valorisation is a legal European framework and common rules. Too much of a national approach of recycling and valorisation would result in splitting markets and discouraging recycling. But the lack of clear environmental standards for recycling activities and recycled materials spells a risk of damaging the environment. And so the development of minimum standards to foster these markets, which are likely to bring about environmental progress, is presented as the best approach for Europe by the Commission.

Member States are encouraged to find an agreement on the European level for the multiplying effects such an agreement could have and environmental improvements it would encourage beyond their borders. For example, the incineration directive sets maximal dioxin emission standards that have caused this kind of emissions to fall drastically throughout Europe. Besides, the European regulation encourages synergies between Member States’ policies and allow recycling activities to exceed standards below which they are less competitive.
 
What is your perception of the various waste realities in the European area: in each of the Member States or between the different Member States?

Differences between local conditions are significant within the 27-member strong European Union. Several realities coexist with differences in the economic structure, the advancement of waste management systems, climatic conditions and local culture. The European approach towards environmental, social and economic problems is the common base for all these situations.

This requires a balanced approach. Clear orientations and strong measures at European level combined with national or possibly local approaches with a complementary dimension adapted to local conditions are needed.

What is your perception of the challenges posed by the social acceptability of waste and waste treatment plants: how should we inform the population? How should we involve the population?

This dimension of the debate is essentially local. While, generally speaking, European citizen are reluctant to accept the setting up of waste treatment or of any industrial facility in their near vicinity, the strength of the opposition voiced by them varies from one country to the other. A striking example is the diversity of reactions to composting facilities construction projects. Citizens’ attitudes depend on whether they live in a Member State that was late in implementing strict emission standards or in a Member State that was able to anticipate. Lessons are certainly to be drawn by many Member States: uncompromising standards are required to ensure a high level of environment and health protection and the credibility of attempts to invest in waste management facilities.

It is also the responsibility of project conceivers and local authorities to provide neighbouring populations with clear objectives and information in full compliance with European directives on environment-related information. A well-informed citizen will be in a better position to gauge projects’ benefits and disadvantages.

How do your country’s experience and stances benefit and/or contribute to a European policy on waste?

Waste policies often go through innovating channels. They often require to fine-tune approaches and to rely on experiences conducted on a small scale. Measures adopted at European level are quite often inspired from national experiences. They aim at generalizing time-tested solutions that can be transposed to other Member States. To some extent, national or regional policies sometimes play the role of pilot operations.