international review of waste management policy: annex 65 ... · dr dominic hogg, dr adrian gibbs,...

International Review of Waste Management Policy: Annex 65 to Main Report - Exports and Imports of Waste

Authors:

Eunomia (UK), Tobin Consulting Engineers (Ireland), Öko-Institute (Germany), Arcadis (Belgium), Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza (Italy), TBU Engineering (Austria), Eunomia New Zealand (New Zealand)

29th September 2009

International Review of Waste Policy: Annex 65 - Exports and Imports

Report for:

Mr. Michael Layde, Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Ireland

Prepared by:

Dr Dominic Hogg, Dr Adrian Gibbs, Ann Ballinger, Andrew Coulthurst, Tim Elliott, Dr Debbie Fletcher, Simon Russell, Chris Sherrington, Sam Taylor (Eunomia), Duncan Wilson (Eunomia New Zealand), Sean Finlay, Damien Grehan, Mairead Hogan, Pat O’Neill (Tobin), Martin Steiner (TBU), Andreas Hermann, Matthias Buchert (Oko Institut), Ilse Laureysens, Mike van Acoyleyn (Arcadis), Enzo Favoino and Valentina Caimi (Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza)

Approved by:

………………………………………………….

Joe Papineschi (Director)

Contact Details

Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd 62 Queen Square

Bristol

BS1 4JZ United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0)117 9450100 Fax: +44 (0)8717 142942

Web: www.eunomia.co.uk

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the Steering Group for this project and to those who contributed to the Consultative Group meetings. Several organisations also made submissions in writing and we are very grateful to them for the time spent doing so, and the insights provided.

Disclaimer

Eunomia Research & Consulting has taken due care in the preparation of this document to ensure that all facts and analysis presented are as accurate as possible within the scope of the project. However Eunomia makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the use of any information disclosed in this document, or assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of, or damage resulting in any way from the use of any information disclosed in this document.

29/09/09

i


Contents 1.01.01.01.0 Legal Frame for Import and Export of WasteLegal Frame for Import and Export of WasteLegal Frame for Import and Export of WasteLegal Frame for Import and Export of Waste........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1111

1.1 International Frame: Basel Convention and OECD Decision ...............................1

1.1.1 Basel Convention .............................................................................................1

1.1.2 OECD Decision C(2001)179 FINAL.................................................................2

1.2 European Frame: Regulations 1013/2006 and 1418/2008.............................4

1.2.1 Basic Legal Framework ...................................................................................4

1.2.2 Grounds for Objections against Waste Shipments........................................8

1.2.3 Export Ban ......................................................................................................11

1.2.4 Export to Non-OECD Countries ......................................................................12

2.02.02.02.0 CountryCountryCountryCountry----specific Characteristicsspecific Characteristicsspecific Characteristicsspecific Characteristics ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 14141414

2.1 Import and Export Restrictions ............................................................................14

2.1.1 Ireland .............................................................................................................15

2.1.2 Austria .............................................................................................................15

2.1.3 Belgium ...........................................................................................................16

2.1.4 Bulgaria...........................................................................................................17

2.1.5 Croatia.............................................................................................................17

2.1.6 Cyprus .............................................................................................................17

2.1.7 Czech Republic ...............................................................................................18

2.1.8 Denmark .........................................................................................................18

2.1.9 Estonia ............................................................................................................18

2.1.10 Finland.........................................................................................................18

2.1.11 Germany ......................................................................................................19

2.1.12 Greece .........................................................................................................20

2.1.13 Hungary .......................................................................................................20

2.1.14 Italy...............................................................................................................20

2.1.15 Latvia ...........................................................................................................20

2.1.16 Luxembourg ................................................................................................21

2.1.17 The Netherlands..........................................................................................21

2.1.18 Norway .........................................................................................................21

2.1.19 Poland..........................................................................................................22

2.1.20 Romania ......................................................................................................22

2.1.21 Slovakia .......................................................................................................23

ii

29/09/09

2.1.22 Slovenia ...................................................................................................... 23

2.1.23 Sweden ....................................................................................................... 23

2.1.24 United Kingdom.......................................................................................... 23

2.1.25 Other ........................................................................................................... 24

3.03.03.03.0 Key Organisations Involved in Implementation and ManagementKey Organisations Involved in Implementation and ManagementKey Organisations Involved in Implementation and ManagementKey Organisations Involved in Implementation and Management........................................................................................ 25252525

3.1 Waste Agencies/Competent Authorities............................................................. 25

3.1.1 International and European Bodies ............................................................. 25

3.1.2 Competent Authorities .................................................................................. 25

3.1.3 Major Non OECD External Trade Partners................................................... 26

3.2 Inspection ............................................................................................................. 27

4.04.04.04.0 State of Affairs and Market TrendsState of Affairs and Market TrendsState of Affairs and Market TrendsState of Affairs and Market Trends........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 29292929

4.1 Ireland ................................................................................................................... 29

4.1.1 Important Waste Streams............................................................................. 29

4.1.2 Border Effects with Northern Ireland........................................................... 33

4.1.3 Inspections of Exports................................................................................... 34

4.1.4 Inspections of Packaging Material............................................................... 35

4.2 Trends in Other Member States.......................................................................... 36

4.2.1 The Presence of Specific Industrial Sectors................................................ 36

4.2.2 The Effect of Specific Policy Measures on Waste Treatment..................... 37

4.2.3 General Market Driven Trends ..................................................................... 40

4.3 Case Study: Flemish Statistics and Trends on Import and Export of Waste. ... 54

5.05.05.05.0 Self Sufficiency and Proximity Principles and the Availability of Final Treatment Self Sufficiency and Proximity Principles and the Availability of Final Treatment Self Sufficiency and Proximity Principles and the Availability of Final Treatment Self Sufficiency and Proximity Principles and the Availability of Final Treatment CapacityCapacityCapacityCapacity .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 63636363

5.1 Realising Self Sufficiency..................................................................................... 63

5.2 Case Study: Fly-Ash .............................................................................................. 63

6.06.06.06.0 The Relationship between Quality and Export of Waste for RecyclingThe Relationship between Quality and Export of Waste for RecyclingThe Relationship between Quality and Export of Waste for RecyclingThe Relationship between Quality and Export of Waste for Recycling ................................................................ 65656565

7.07.07.07.0 Inspection StrategiesInspection StrategiesInspection StrategiesInspection Strategies ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 67676767

7.1 Quality of Evaluation of Notification.................................................................... 67

7.2 Registration of Actors........................................................................................... 68

7.3 Pre- and Post Shipment Notifications and Bank Guarantees........................... 68

7.4 Border Inspections ............................................................................................... 69

7.5 International Guidelines ...................................................................................... 69

8.08.08.08.0 RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 72727272

1


1.0 Legal Frame for Import and Export of Waste

1.1 International Frame: Basel Convention and OECD Decision

1.1.1 Basel Convention

The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal is described as the most comprehensive global environmental treaty on hazardous and other wastes.1 It has 170 member countries and aims to protect human health and the environment from the adverse effects which result from the generation, management, transboundary movements and disposal of hazardous and other wastes.

The Basel Convention was negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme in the late 1980s. It was adopted in 1989 and entered into force in 1992.

Because hazardous wastes pose such a potential threat to human health and the environment, one of the guiding principles of the Basel Convention is that, in order to minimize the threat, hazardous wastes should be dealt with as close to where they are produced as possible. Therefore, under the Convention, transboundary movements of hazardous wastes or other wastes can only take place if prior written notification is sent by the State of export to the competent authorities of the States of import and transit (if appropriate). Each shipment of hazardous waste or other waste must be accompanied by a movement document from the point at which a transboundary movement begins to the point of disposal. Hazardous waste shipments made without such documents are illegal. In addition, there are outright bans on the export of these wastes to certain countries. Transboundary movements can take place, however, if the state of export does not have the capability to manage or dispose of the hazardous waste in an environmentally sound manner.

Second, the Convention obliges its Parties to ensure that hazardous and other wastes are managed and disposed of in an environmentally sound manner. To this end, Parties are expected to minimize the quantities that are moved across borders, to treat and dispose of wastes as close as possible to their place of generation and to prevent or minimize the generation of waste at source. Strong controls have to be applied from the initial generation of hazardous waste to the storage, transport, treatment, reuse, recycling, recovery and final disposal.

The Convention applies to ‘waste’, which covers substances or objects which are disposed of, or are intended to be disposed of, or are required to be disposed of, by the provisions of national law. “Disposal” (as oddly defined by the Convention)

1 www.basel.int

2

29/09/09

includes operations resulting in final disposal and operations which may lead to resource recovery, recycling, reclamation, direct re-use or alternative uses. This corresponds with the word ‘discard’ in the European definition of waste, which makes both definitions equal.

Important additional elements are:

� The Basel Protocol on Liability and Compensation: This protocol was adopted at the Fifth Conference of Parties of the Basel Convention (COP-5 on 10 December 1999). The Protocol was founded in response to the concerns of developing countries about their lack of funds and technologies for coping with illegal dumping or accidental spills. The objective of the Protocol is to provide a comprehensive regime for liability, as well as adequate and prompt compensation for damage resulting from the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes and other wastes, including incidents occurring because of illegal traffic in those wastes. The Protocol addresses who is financially responsible in the event of an incident. Each phase of a transboundary movement, from the point at which the waste is loaded onto the chosen means of transport to their export, international transit, import, and final disposal, is considered;

� The Basel Ban: At the Second Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP – 2) in March 1994, Parties agreed to an immediate ban on the export from OECD to non-OECD countries of hazardous wastes intended for final disposal. They also agreed to ban, by 31 December 1997, the export of wastes intended for recovery and recycling (Decision II/12). As a result of discussions over whether the decision was legally binding or not, it was proposed that the Ban be formally incorporated in the Basel Convention as an amendment (Decision III/1). Decision III/1 does not use the distinction OECD/non-OECD countries. Rather, it bans hazardous waste exports for final disposal and recycling from what are known as Annex VII countries (Basel Convention Parties that are members of the EU, OECD, Liechtenstein) to non-Annex VII countries (all other Parties to the Convention). The Ban Amendment has to be ratified by 75% of the Parties who accepted it in order to enter into force. 65 parties have ratified yet, the ban was translated into EU legislation (see Section 1.2.3) and is therefore in force for all EU Members.

1.1.2 OECD Decision C(2001)179 FINAL

Since March 1992, transboundary movements of waste destined for recovery operations between Member Countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have been supervised and controlled under a specific intra-OECD Control System.

This Control System, established by the Council Decision C(2001)107/FINAL, which replaced the old Council Decision C(92)39/FINAL and its predecessors, aims at facilitating trade of recyclables in an environmentally sound and economically efficient manner by using a simplified procedure as well as a risk-based approach to assess the necessary level of control for materials. Wastes exported outside the OECD area, whether for recovery or final disposal, do not benefit from this simplified control procedure.

3


The major differences with the Basel Convention are the exclusive focus on recovery operations, and the scope of facilitating trading of recyclables.

Compared to the Basel Convention, it gives a simplified and more explicit means of controlling such movements of wastes. It also facilitates transboundary movements of recoverable wastes between OECD member countries in the case where an OECD member country is not a Party to the Basel Convention (e.g. the United States of America).

The developments under the Basel Convention, in particular the adoption of two detailed lists of wastes (the A-list for hazardous waste and the B-list for non-hazardous waste), gave impetus to revise the OECD Decision in order to harmonise procedures and requirements and to avoid duplication of activities under the Basel Convention. Provisions of the revised OECD Decision have been harmonised with those of the Basel Convention, in particular with regard to the classification of wastes subject to control2. However, certain procedural elements of the original OECD Decision C(92)39/FINAL, which do not exist in the Basel Convention, such as time limits for approval process, tacit consent and pre-consent procedures, have been retained.

The OECD Control System is based on two types of control procedures:

� Green Control Procedure: for wastes that present low risk to human health and the environment and, therefore, are not subject to any other controls than those normally applied in commercial transactions; and

� Amber Control Procedure: for wastes presenting sufficient risk to justify their control.

The former, more stringent, Red Control Procedure has been abolished.

Wastes subject to these control procedures are listed in the renewed OECD Green and Amber lists of wastes. The controls of waste shipments are carried out by national competent authorities and Customs Offices as appropriate, through the use of notification and movement documents.

As OECD Council Decisions are legally binding for member countries, the OECD Decision C(2001)107/FINAL has to be implemented in member countries through the enactment of national legislation. This has been done for the European Union through Regulation 1013/2006/EC.

2 The A-list and B-list from the Basel Convention have been taken over in the OECD convention, but some definitions have been altered and some codes from the old OECD green, amber and red lists have been added.

4

29/09/09

1.2 European Frame: Regulations 1013/2006 and 1418/2008

1.2.1 Basic Legal Framework

The European Union has set up a system to incorporate the Basel Convention and the OECD Decision into European legislation, for the supervision and control of shipments of waste within its borders and with external countries.

Directive 84/631/EEC, which organized the supervision and control of transfrontier shipments of hazardous waste, was replaced by the Council Regulation 259/93/EEC on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community. In turn this was later replaced by Regulation 1013/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste.

The Regulation regulates the supervision and control of shipments of waste in a way which takes account of the need to preserve, protect and improve the quality of the environment.

The Regulation covers shipments of waste, both within, and into or out of, the European Union (EU), waste transported between Member States but routed through one or more third countries, and waste transported between third countries but routed through one or more Member States.

A system is set up of prior authorisation for the shipment of waste. This system draws a distinction between:

� Waste for final disposal (landfill or incineration); and

� Waste for recovery (recycling, or other activities such as incineration where specific criteria for e.g. energy efficiency are met).

As far as waste for recycling is concerned, the Regulation distinguishes between:

� The green list of waste (Annex III of the Regulation), for non hazardous waste, largely based on the Basel B-list, amended with some definitions from the OECD green list; and

� The amber list of waste (Annex IV of the Regulation), for waste with hazardous properties, or waste whose handling requires special care, largely based on the Basel A-list amender with some definition from the OECD amber and red list.

Green listed waste shipped for recovery needs to be accompanied by a standardised identification form and a contract which is effective from when the shipment starts and is held between the person who arranges the shipment, and the consignee for recovery of the waste. The contract must include an obligation to take back the waste in case the recovery cannot be affected. It must be at the disposition of inspection services.

Waste shipped for disposal, or amber listed waste shipped for recovery, is submitted to a common, compulsory notification system along with a standard consignment note for shipments of waste.

The notifier (the original producer, the holder, or the person designated by the laws of the State of dispatch in the case of waste imported into or in transit within or through the Community) must apply for authorisation to the competent authorities of

5


destination and send a copy of the application to the authorities of dispatch, transit or destination.

All of them must consent, and tacit consent is allowed only for the transit countries. Any changes involving the main aspects of the shipment (quantity, itinerary, etc.) must be the subject of a new notification, except in cases where all the competent authorities grant the notifier an exemption from this obligation.

The notifier must conclude a contract with the consignee for the disposal of the waste. The contract must oblige:

� The notifier to take the waste back if the shipment has not been completed or if it has been affected in violation of this Regulation; and

� The consignee to provide a certificate to the notifier that the waste has been disposed of in an environmentally sound manner.

Where the waste in question is subject to a notification requirement, the contract must include financial guarantees.

Waste which does not comply with the provisions of the current measures regarding its shipment must be returnable to the notifier or, if this is not possible, otherwise disposed of or recovered in an environmentally sound manner.

Exports of waste intended for disposal outside the EU or the EFTA (European Free Trade Association) countries which are party to the Basel Convention.

Exports of hazardous waste intended for recovery are prohibited, except if directed to countries to which the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) decision applies (see Section 1.2.3).

All exports of waste to non–OECD countries are submitted to procedures requested by the country of destination (see Section 1.2.4).

Imports of waste for disposal into the Community are prohibited, with the exception of imports from countries which are party to the Basel Convention. Imports from a non-EFTA country are permitted only on the basis of an application from the exporting country stating that it does not have the capacity to dispose of the waste in an environmentally sound manner.

Imports of waste for recovery into the Community are prohibited except those from countries to which the OECD decision applies or countries which are party to the Basel Convention.

Member States must take the necessary steps to inspect, sample and monitor waste shipments.

From 12 July 2007, Regulation EC/2006/1013 entered into force, changing the existing Regulation EC/259/93 after a long and difficult review process and extensive search for compromises. The result is a Regulation that is definitely easier to understand and to enforce, as it reduces the range of different administrative procedures. However, some difficulties are still not resolved, and some new articles are not easy to enforce. The Regulation consists of 64 articles and 98 pages.

The more essential changes in the legislation are:

6

29/09/09

� Exclusion, from the application of the Directive, of waste from armed forces or relief organisations. This change gives legal security issues e.g. on American military waste for which import to Flanders was refused;3

� Exclusion, from the application of the Directive, of waste defined as animal by-products not intended for human consumption, thus avoiding duplication with Regulation EG/1774/2002, and solving existing obscurity on the statute of this kind of waste;

� A clear definition of who can be notifier, and who is therefore responsible, for a waste shipment. A hierarchy has been developed that includes the original producer all the way to the broker. This enhances transparency of applications and clarity in responsibilities;

� Although different procedures still exist, they are more closely aligned with each other and fewer in number;

� Silent consent, that caused confusion and lack of clarity in the accompanying documents, has been abolished, except in the case of transit countries. This makes it impossible for a notifier to hide a negative decision from a Member State, and requires that only positive decisions are recorded from another Member State when a waste shipment is controlled;

� More clarity is created in the code lists by replacing the OECD-green list by the Basel B-list, the OECD-amber list by the Basel A-list, and by deleting the OECD-red list. Nevertheless some exemptions and alterations in the Basel lists are introduced which makes the lists sometimes difficult to consult;

� Two so-called “waiting lists” are to be filled up by comitology procedure:

• Annex IIIa for named mixtures of green listed waste which do not appear elsewhere for which the procedure of article 18 (green list procedure) is applicable instead of the procedure for not named wastes; and

• Annex IIIb for candidate green list waste, waiting for their adoption in the Basel B-list, for which the green list procedure is also available.

This system makes consultation of lists more difficult and the lists themselves less stable. Both lists are empty for the time being4. On 15th January 2009 the Technical Adaptation Committee approved, in comitology, a list of four mixtures to be put on IIIa5. This list is likely to be published in the Official Journal in May 2009;

3 Files BE265568 to BE265576.

4 Ireland has introduced a request to add ‘Biodegradable garden and park waste’ to the annex IIIb.

5 A mixture of B1010 (Metal and metal-alloy wastes in metallic, non-dispersible form) and B1050 (Mixed non-ferrous metal, heavy fraction scrap).

7


� The reasons for negative decisions are expanded (see Section 1.2.2), e.g. for mixed municipal waste, or for waste movements that repeatedly did not fulfil all reporting obligations in the past. This extends the possibilities for effective enforcement;

� The new Regulation proposes a solution for the problem of pre-treatment of waste. It tries to create certainty on the standards for final treatment, even when a waste is pre-treated before in a third country. The solution in the regulation however is of a certain administrative complexity. It creates both opportunities for, and difficulties for, more effective enforcement;

� A major change is introduced for non-hazardous waste (green list) for recovery. A contract, between the person who arranges the shipment, and the consignee who recovers the waste, is requested, and each shipment has to be accompanied with a standardised document. This should ease enforcement and create greater transparency;

� The Commission has the possibility to create uniformity in the financial guarantees in order to ease the cooperation between Member States, but this has not been implemented thus far;

� Uniform and clearer rules have been developed for ‘take back’ operations, for example, where a shipment does not comply with the agreed criteria and the shipment cannot be completed as intended, or in the case of an illegal shipment;

� An important issue, both for administration and for enforcement, is the possibility to notify each individual shipment through electronic means. This allows projects like EUDIN6 to be taken forward. EUDIN is based around international e-government on shipment of waste and would accelerate the speed of data availability for enforcement;

� The Regulation addresses enforcement directly and creates a better frame for effective enforcement. Member States must make provision for the organisation of checks throughout the entire waste shipment and waste recovery/waste disposal process.

A mixture of B1010 and B1070 (Waste of copper and copper alloys in dispersible form).

A mixture of GB040 (Slags from precious metals and copper processing for further refining) and B1100 (Metal-bearing wastes arising from melting, smelting and refining of metals) limited to hard zinc spelter, zinc-containing drosses, aluminium skimmings excluding salt slag, wastes of refractory linings, including crucibles, originating from copper smelting.

A mixture of GB040, B1070 en B1100 limited to wastes of refractory linings, including crucibles, originating from copper smelting.

6 See www.eudin.org or http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/enterprise_policy/charter/gp/index.cfm?fuseaction=practice.detail&gp_pk=450& for the EUDIN project on electronic exchange of information on transfrontier shipments of waste, between Belgium, Austria, The Netherlands and Germany.

8

29/09/09

1.2.2 Grounds for Objections against Waste Shipments

Article 11 and 12 of the Regulation allow countries of dispatch, transit or destination to raise reasoned objections, based on a limited set of grounds. Article 11 contains a larger set of grounds to object in the case of transboundary shipment for the purposes of disposal, Article 12 contains a smaller set in cases where waste is shipped for recovery or recycling. A major difference between them is the non-applicability of the proximity and self sufficiency principles of waste shipped for recycling.

The use in practice of these grounds for objection constitutes the playing field on which a Member State can develop policy strategies on import and export of waste.

1.2.2.1 Objections to Shipments for Disposal

The grounds mentioned in Article 11, on shipments for disposal, are:

a. The shipment or disposal is not in accordance with measures taken to implement the principles of proximity, priority for recovery and self-sufficiency. Both at Community and national levels, general measures may be applied to prohibit generally, or partially, or to object systematically to shipments of defined waste streams. These kinds of measures need immediately to be notified to the Commission, which shall inform the other Member States;

b. The shipment or disposal is not in accordance with national legislation relating to environmental protection, public order, public safety or health protection. This can only be applied to actions (like treatment, shipment…) taking place in the objecting country itself;

c. The notifier or the consignee has previously been convicted of illegal shipment, or some other illegal act, in relation to environmental protection. All shipments involving the person in question may be refused;

d. The notifier or the treatment facility has repeatedly failed to comply with obligations on pre-notification, post-notification and treatment certification;7

e. The Member State wishes to exercise its right pursuant to Article 4(1) of the Basel Convention. As a general rule a Member State can prohibit the import for

7 Pre-notification means the obligation to inform the involved competent authorities of an intended shipment, at least three days before the shipment takes place, by handing over a copy of the filled in shipment form.

Post-notification means the obligation to inform the involved competent authorities of the arrival of a shipment at the consignee, at least three days after arrival of the shipment, by handing over a copy of a further completed shipment form.

With treatment certification is meant the obligation to certify the sound treatment or disposal of the shipped waste by the treatment facility, at least one year after arrival of the shipment, by handing over the final completed and signed shipment form.

9


disposal of hazardous wastes, wastes collected from households, or residues arising from the incineration of household waste;

f. The shipment or disposal conflicts with obligations resulting from international conventions concluded by the Member State or the Community;

g. The individual shipment or disposal concerned is not in accordance with the provisions in the Waste Framework Directive:

• regarding self-sufficiency at Community and national levels;

• regarding the proximity principle for waste disposal at the same tier of the waste treatment hierarchy;

• to ensure that shipments are in accordance with waste management plans;

Geographical circumstances or the need for specialised installations for certain types of waste need to be taken into account when applying this ground for objection;

h. The waste is treated in a facility which does not apply best available techniques;

i. The waste is mixed municipal waste collected from private households (EWC code 20 03 01). For this waste type, shipment can always be objected to without further reasons;

j. The waste is not treated in accordance with legally binding environmental protection standards in relation to disposal operations established in Community legislation.

The competent authorities of transit may raise reasoned objections based only on grounds b, c, d and f.

1.2.2.2 Objections to Shipments for Recovery

Reasoned objections may be based on the following grounds, mentioned in Article 13:

a. The shipment or recovery is not in accordance with the Waste Framework Directive, in particular the provisions on the waste hierarchy (Article 4), protection of human health and the environment (Article 13), the prohibition of abandonment, dumping or uncontrolled management of waste (Article 36.1), the provisions of waste management plans (Article 28) or the provisions in waste management permits (Article 23);

b. The shipment or recovery is not in accordance with national legislation relating to environmental protection, public order, public safety or health protection. This can only be applied on actions (such as treatment, shipment) taking place in the objecting country itself;

c. The shipment or recovery is not in accordance with national legislation on recovery in the country of dispatch. An objection can be made where the recovery would take place in a facility which has lower treatment standards for the particular waste than those of the country of dispatch. This could become important for shipment to third world countries, but exporting countries are not obliged to use this opportunity for refusal. On the applicability of this interesting

10

29/09/09

but far reaching ground, several exemptions have been defined. It cannot be applied if:

• There is corresponding Community legislation, and the requirements in the country of destination are at least as stringent as those laid down in the Community legislation;

• The recovery operation in the country of destination takes place under conditions that are broadly equivalent to those prescribed in the national legislation of the country of dispatch. One cannot impose more stringent conditions on foreign installations than on its own installations; or

• The national legislation in the country of dispatch has not been notified in accordance with Directive 98/34/EC, which is a more formal incentive for Member States to notify their legislation;

These kind of objections need to be reported to the Commission. The Member State of dispatch shall inform the Commission and the other Member States of the national legislation on which these objections may be based, and shall state to which waste and waste recovery operations those objections apply;

d. The notifier or the consignee has previously been convicted of illegal shipment or some other illegal act in relation to environmental protection. All shipments involving the person in question may be refused;

e. The notifier, or the treatment facility, has repeatedly failed to comply with obligations on pre-notification, post-notification and treatment certification, as defined above. This can be a powerful tool as these kinds of notification are usually lacking when shipments to non-OECD countries take place;

f. The shipment or recovery conflicts with obligations resulting from international conventions concluded by the Member State or the Community;

g. The ratio of the recoverable and non-recoverable waste, the estimated value of the materials to be finally recovered or the cost of the recovery and the cost of the disposal of the non-recoverable fraction do not justify the recovery, having regard to economic and/or environmental considerations. The above mentioned arguments amount to it being unclear that genuine recovery would take place as opposed to disposal;

h. The waste shipped is destined for disposal and not for recovery;

i. The waste is treated in a facility which does not apply best available techniques;

j. The waste is not treated in accordance with legally binding environmental protection standards in relation to recovery or recycling operations established in Community legislation;

k. The waste is not treated in accordance with waste management plans drawn up pursuant to the Waste Framework Directive with the purpose of ensuring the implementation of legally binding recovery or recycling obligations established in Community legislation.

11


The competent authorities of transit may raise reasoned objections based only on grounds b, d, e and f.

Export and import restrictions and Member State specific measures are described in Section 2.1.

1.2.3 Export Ban

The export ban, or Basel ban, is described in Section 1.1.1 as an amendment on the Basel Convention, which bans hazardous wastes export for final disposal and recycling from EU and OECD members and Liechtenstein, to all other Parties to the Convention.

On top of this, Article 4 of the Basel Convention states in its point 5: “A Party shall not permit hazardous wastes or other wastes to be exported to a non-Party or to be imported from a non-Party.”8 The export ban is substantiated in Article 36 of the Regulation.9

The export of hazardous waste from OECD-Decision countries to all other countries for which the OECD Decision does not apply is prohibited. OECD-Decision countries are the EU Member States10 (with exception of Bulgaria, Romania, Malta, Cyprus and the Baltic countries11), Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey.

Although the amendment of the Basel Convention has not yet entered into force, Article 36 of the Regulation is in force in all EU-Member States.

Wastes submitted to the export ban are summarised in Annex V of the Regulation. Part 1 of this Annex contains the A-waste list and the B-waste list of the Basel convention.

When a waste is on the A-list, it is deemed to be hazardous and export is forbidden under the export ban. When a waste is listed on the B-list it is not hazardous and not subject to the export ban.

8 Export to the United States is allowed, although they are not yet a party in the Basel Convention. Together with Haiti and Afghanistan, the USA is the sole country that has signed but not ratified the Convention. However, export is allowed under the OECD Decision, and this Decision is considered as a multilateral agreement as described in article 11 of the Convention: ‘Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 4 paragraph 5, Parties may enter into bilateral, multilateral, or regional agreements or arrangements regarding transboundary movement of hazardous wastes or other wastes with Parties or non-Parties provided that such agreements or arrangements do not derogate from the environmentally sound management of hazardous wastes and other wastes as required by this Convention.’

9 See also Article 34, where export of any waste for disposal is prohibited except to EU-Member States or EFTA countries; Liechtenstein, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland.

10 As mentioned above, in the Basel amendment Liechtenstein is added to this list.

11 Export to Bulgaria, Romania, Malta, Cyprus and the Baltic countries is allowed, even if they do not belong to the OECD Decision countries. This export is regulated under application of title II of the Regulation, ‘shipments within the Community’ and not under title IV, ‘exports from the Community to third countries’. Article 36 belongs to this title and is thus not applicable.

12

29/09/09

When a waste is neither on the A-list nor on the B-list, part 2 of Annex V needs to be consulted. This part contains the EWL (European Waste List, Decision 2000/532/EC). All entries with an asterisk are to be considered as hazardous and as falling under the export ban.

When a waste is not mentioned in this list, part 3 of Annex V needs to be consulted. This part contains among others:

� Y46 Waste collected from households, unless appropriately classified under a single entry in the EU-green waste list (Annex III);

� Y47 Residues arising from the incineration of household wastes; and

� A set of entries from the old OECD amber and red list.

Wastes listed in Annex V as a non-hazardous waste are covered by the export prohibition if they are contaminated by other materials to an extent which increases the risks associated with the waste sufficiently to render it appropriate for submission to the procedure of prior written notification and consent, when taking into account its hazardous characteristics, or prevents the recovery of the waste in an environmentally sound manner.

1.2.4 Export to Non-OECD Countries

Article 37 regulates the export of green-listed waste to non-OECD Decision countries that are party to the Basel Convention. The Commission has written a letter to all countries asking for written confirmation if they would accept EU waste for recovery, and if so, which control regime they would consider for such exports. Countries can choose between:

� A prohibition;

� The standard procedure of prior written notification and consent;

� The information obligation as requested for export of green listed waste for recovery between Member States, i.e. an identification form and a contract. (Article 18 of the Regulation); and

� Other control procedures will be followed in the country of destination under applicable national law.

When a country has not responded, the procedure that is applied is prior written notification and consent.

In Regulation 1418/2007/EC responses from the following countries have been incorporated: Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Chile, China, Chinese Taipei, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Egypt, Georgia, Guyana, Hong Kong (China), India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Macau (China), Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Moldova,

13


Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Russia, Seychelles, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Ukraine, Vietnam.

As this is a Regulation which is directly applicable, the requests from the non-OECD countries have the force of law. DG-Trade keeps track of incoming reactions and offers information in an online database12. The Regulation 1418/2007 will be updated on a regular basis. Indeed, Commission Regulation (EC) No 740/2008 of 29 July 2008 has already amended Regulation (EC) No 1418/2007 as regards the procedures to be followed for export of waste to certain countries. This regulation deals with the export of green waste for recovery to non-OECD countries for example China/India.

Several Member States also make summary tables on the different regimes for different countries, specifically in order to assist exporters of green list waste.

12 http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/global/environment/waste.htm

14

29/09/09

2.0 Country-specific Characteristics

2.1 Import and Export Restrictions

The Country Fact Sheets published on the website of the Basel Convention secretariat13 contain the latest information available, as of April / May 2008, on export and import restrictions applied by Member States. Parties need to report whether they have introduced general export and import restrictions, shown in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1: Export and Import Restrictions Applied by Member States

Restriction on transboundary movements Restriction on transboundary movements Restriction on transboundary movements Restriction on transboundary movements of wasteof wasteof wasteof waste

ReferenceReferenceReferenceReference

Amendment to the Basel Convention, i.e. export ban to non-OECD Countries

Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No. 1013/2006 imposes the export ban, even when a Member State has not yet ratified the Amendment.

Restrictions on export for final disposal

Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No. 1013/2006 prohibits the export of waste for disposal outside the EU except to EFTA (European Free Trade Agreement) States, which are Parties to the Basel Convention.

Restrictions on export for recovery

Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No. 1013/2006 prohibits all exports for recovery of waste as listed, to countries to which the OECD Decision does not apply. Exports of green listed waste are subject to the agreement of the Non-OECD decision countries.

Restrictions on import for final disposal

Article 41 of Regulation (EC) No. 1013/2006 only permits the importation of wastes for final disposal from countries Party to the Basel Convention and countries with which bilateral agreements exist.

Restrictions on import for recovery

Article 43 of Regulation (EC) No. 1013/2006 permits the importation of waste for recovery from countries to which OECD Decision applies, other countries which are parties to the Basel Convention or which have concluded bilateral agreements with the EC or the individual Member State Or from other areas during situations of crisis or war.

Restrictions on transit

Articles 31, 32, 47 and 48 of Regulation (EC) No. 1013/2006 regulates the shipment of waste within the Community for disposal and recovery with transit via third countries and transit of waste for disposal and recovery through the Community from and to third countries.

13 http://www.basel.int/natreporting/cfs.html

15


Next to these EU-wide measures, Member States can imply national strategies or measures for transboundary movement reduction as demonstrated in the following Sections.

2.1.1 Ireland

Ireland ratified the Basel Convention, which regulates the transboundary movements of hazardous and other wastes applying the “Prior Informed Consent” procedure (shipments made without consent are illegal). Shipments to and from non-Parties are illegal unless there is a special agreement in place. Each Party is required to introduce appropriate national or domestic legislation to prevent and punish illegal traffic in hazardous and other wastes.

The Convention also obliges its Parties to ensure that hazardous and other wastes are managed and disposed of in an environmentally sound manner (ESM). To this end, Parties are expected to minimize the quantities that are moved across borders, to treat and dispose of wastes as close as possible to their place of generation and to prevent or minimize the generation of wastes at source. Strong controls have to be applied from the moment of generation of a hazardous waste to its storage, transport, treatment, reuse, recycling, recovery and final disposal.

Regulation (EC) No.1013/2006 is supported into Irish law through Statutory Instruments under the Waste Management (Shipments of Waste) Regulations, S.I 41914. These Regulations provide, inter alia, for the designation of Dublin City Council as the sole competent authority responsible for the implementation of the Waste Shipments Regulation (EC) No. 1013/2006 in Ireland with effect from 12 July 2007. Prior to this Regulation, the competent authorities for exports of waste were 34 local authorities, with the competent authority for imports and movements through the State being the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Regulations also revoke the Waste Management (Transfrontier Shipment of Waste) Regulations, 1998.

The National Hazardous Waste Management Plan of 5 July 2001 recommends that Ireland strives for self-sufficiency in the recovery and disposal of hazardous waste. As infrastructure for the disposal (in particular) of hazardous waste is developed, the quantity of hazardous waste being exported is expected to decrease.

Ireland has until now only limited capacity for the recovery/disposal of hazardous waste. The National TFS Office issues consent to properly completed TFS notifications, subject to the decisions made by the Competent Authorities of Destination. Active and completed shipments are closely monitored.

2.1.2 Austria

The Federal Waste Management Plan 2006 statutes the principle of self-sufficiency for final disposal. Based on this principle objections are raised in case of exports for final

14 EPA, “Transfrontier shipment of waste” Website http://www.epa.ie/whatwedo/resource/hazardous/tfs/

16

29/09/09

disposal provided there is a suitable disposal option in Austria. Export to other Member States of EFTA countries for disposal can be allowed only if there is no adequate disposal option in Austria.

The plan also restricts the import of hazardous wastes and other wastes for final disposal based on self-sufficiency. Objections can be raised in case of imports for final disposal provided there is insufficient capacity for domestic wastes in Austria.

The following wastes are also submitted to an amber waste procedure:

� Paper rejects (mixtures of plastics and paper and some metal);

� Excavated soil (even if explicitly not contaminated);

� Mixed construction and demolition waste;

� Ferro-concrete wastes and fibre cement wastes;

� Bio-wastes and wastes from kitchen, restaurants and catering services; and

� Separated plastics from WEEE known to contain higher amounts of prohibited brominated flame retardants (e.g. plastics from backside housings of televisions, monitor housings, housings of printers, faxes, electro-power tools); and

� Compliance with the restrictions on PBDE in case of recycling in the electronics sector (ROHS-Directive - 0,1% in total for Penta-, Octa and DecaBDE) or in other sectors (EU Chemicals Legislation: 0,1% each for Penta- and OctaBDE) must be monitored (specific pre-treatment or thermal recovery or disposal method required).

2.1.3 Belgium

The Walloon region has suggested, for public health reasons, that the waste with OECD code GM140: “waste edible fats and oils of animal or vegetable origin (frying oil)” be included in Annex III of the Basel Convention i.e. as an A-listed waste.

The main policies for the Walloon region are as follows:

� To ban imports and exports of wastes for disposal except where:

• The waste cannot realistically be dealt with in an environmentally sound manner in, or in closer proximity to, the country of origin, and the country of destination has the technical capacity and the necessary facilities in order to dispose of the wastes in question in an environmentally sound and efficient manner;

• The treatment capacity in the country or origin is saturated, taking into account regional/national self-sufficiency; and

• The transboundary movement concerns small quantities of hazardous waste for which it would be uneconomical for the country of origin to provide its own facility. This specific case requires cooperation between countries concerned.

� To allow all imports for recovery except where:

17


• Large quantities of unrecoverable residues are derived from recycling/recovery operations, which must be landfilled;

• The import would obstruct a particular facility to use its capacity to deal with wastes from Walloon Region sources; and

• The waste in question does not comply with the specification set out in the authorisation for the treatment facility. This specific case requires cooperation between countries concerned.

� To allow all exports for recovery except where:

• The country of destination prohibits the import of the waste in question; and

• The Walloon Region has the regulatory and technical infrastructures necessary to deal with waste which is being exported.

2.1.4 Bulgaria

Until 31 December 2014, all shipments to Bulgaria of green listed waste for recovery shall be subject to the procedure of prior written notification and consent, according to Article 63.4 of the Regulation.

Until 31 December 2009, the Bulgarian competent authorities may raise objections in conformity with the grounds for objection on shipments for disposal (Art 11) for certain waste types shipped for recycling, thus derogating from Article 12. A list of set of waste types is included in Article 63.4.

By way of derogation from Article 12 of the Regulation, the competent authorities shall object to shipments of waste for recovery destined for a facility benefiting from a temporary derogation from certain provisions of IPPC Directive 96/61/EC during the period in which the temporary derogation is applied to the facility of destination.

2.1.5 Croatia

Croatia is a candidate Member State, with its own legislation in force instead of the Regulation.

According to Article 53 of the Croatian Waste Act, a company cannot export non-hazardous waste before registering, and obtaining the certificate of registration, in the Register of Non-Hazardous Waste Exporters. Each shipment of non-hazardous waste which is exported from the Republic of Croatia needs to be accompanied by the confirmation of registration into the Register of Exporters of Non-Hazardous Waste, and with the accompanying form.

The import of hazardous waste is prohibited.

A person importing non-hazardous waste must obtain an approval as prescribed by Articles 48 and 49 of the Croatian Waste Act.

2.1.6 Cyprus

The import of hazardous wastes for final disposal is not permitted, as there are no facilities for this purpose.

18

29/09/09

2.1.7 Czech Republic

The Czech Republic considers some amber listed wastes as ‘not hazardous’ even if they are subject to notification and prior consent when moved for recovery. Examples of such wastes are: used blasting grit, surface active agents (surfactants), liquid pig manure, faeces and sewage sludge.

The Green listed wastes exported for recovery into some new EU Member States (BG, LV, MT, PL, RO, SK) are temporarily subject to notification and prior consent.

The export of wastes is prohibited (both for recovery and for disposal) where the competent authority of dispatch has reason to believe that it will not be managed in an environmentally sound manner in the country of destination.

All imports of waste (both hazardous and non-hazardous) for final disposal are prohibited. The Act on Waste No. 185/2001 Coll. as last amended by Act No. 34/2008 Coll. states:

“Waste generated in the Czech Republic shall be preferentially disposed of in the Czech Republic. Transboundary movements of waste to the Czech Republic for the purpose of disposal shall be prohibited. Waste generated in the Czech Republic shall be preferentially recovered in the Czech Republic, unless it is recovered in other EU Member States”.

In the amendment of the Act on Waste by Act. No 314/2006 Coll., improved measures for combating illegal trafficking (amended obligations for the police, increases in the level of fines, etc.) were enacted.

According to the Waste Management Plan of the Czech Republic (Government Decree No. 197/2003 Coll.) the export of wastes for the purpose of disposal shall be permitted only if there is insufficient capacity in the Czech Republic for the environmentally sound disposal of the specific kind of waste.

2.1.8 Denmark

Paragraph 10 in the Danish Statutory Order no. 799 on the shipment of waste includes a general prohibition on the import and export of waste for disposal. This prohibition is in accordance with EU Shipment Regulation 1013/2006 Article 11.1 (a)

2.1.9 Estonia

Estonia has no restrictions above the stipulations in the Regulation.

2.1.10 Finland

The amendment 747/2007 to the Finnish Waste Act (1072/1993), which came into force on 12 July 2007, sets regulations on how the principles of self-sufficiency and proximity are to be implemented in waste management. Its Section 47 stipulates that imports of all wastes to disposal operations D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, D11 and D12 are totally prohibited. Imports of all wastes to disposal operations D8, D9 and D10 are prohibited with certain exceptions. The implied restrictions concern both hazardous and non-hazardous wastes.

19


According to Article 30 of the Regulation (EC) 1013/2006, Member States may conclude bilateral agreements, making the notification procedure for shipments of specific flows of waste less stringent in respect of cross-border shipments to the nearest suitable facility located in the border area between the two Member States concerned. Such border-area agreements are currently being drafted with both Sweden and Norway and will be formally approved in the near future. There will be some further exceptions defined in disposal of certain waste streams in respect of the communal cooperation in the border areas.

2.1.11 Germany

Germany requires special consideration for the following unlisted waste(s) when subjected to transboundary movement:

� Sludges and rejects from the production of paper and cardboard;

� Cable waste;

� Soil and stones;

� Off-specification batches;

� Street cleaning residues;

� Wastes from the preparation of water; and

� All kinds of mixed wastes.

All wastes are subject to notification for export to Latvia until December 2010, Poland until December 2012, Slovakia until December 2011, Bulgaria until December 2014 and Romania until December 2015.

Germany has set some bilateral agreements:

� Zimbabwe, 31.05.1994 - Import of waste into Germany (all wastes for recovery);

� Afghanistan, 09.11.1992 - Import of hazardous wastes from Afghanistan for the purpose of disposal according to environmental requirements;

� Kosovo (arrangement with the commander of the NATO Kosovo Force (KFOR)), 15.02.2000 - Export of wastes generated in Kosovo during deployment of KFOR/NATO troops to Germany for environmentally sound management.

In Germany a working group of the competent authorities on waste, including waste shipment, of the Länder has developed an enforcement guideline for the Regulation and for the German AbfVerbrG “Vollzugshilfe zur Abfallverbringung” from 20.2.2008.15 The Länder in Germany are responsible for the enforcement of the waste shipment regulations. The precautionary principle is not mentioned explicitly in the guideline.

15 Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Abfall – LAGA

20

29/09/09

National waste plans can be considered as objections to waste shipment regarding Art. 11 and 12:

� To raise objections according to Art. 12 j (waste concerned will not be recovered in accordance with legally binding environmental protection standards, second case) and Art. 12 k (waste concerned will not be treated in accordance with waste management plans) it is necessary that binding obligations with respect to EU recovery and recycling obligations are listed in the national waste plans; and

� The principle of self-sufficiency is expected not to be a reason for objection if the disposal of waste outside Germany is addressed in the waste plan.

Germany implements the principle of self-sufficiency when waste is destined for disposal operations, pursuant to Art. 3 of the German Waste Movement Act. 10 Federal States have implemented an obligation for delivery of certain wastes to public facilities within Germany.

2.1.12 Greece

Greece has no restrictions above the stipulations in the Regulation.

2.1.13 Hungary

According to Hungarian Legislation, residues arising from the incineration of household wastes (Y47) are hazardous wastes.

The import of hazardous waste into Hungary for final disposal is banned, based upon Act XLIII of 2000 on the Waste Management, and the Governmental Decree No. 180/2007 (VII.03).

The import of waste is restricted if processing/recycling capacity is lacking. A permit from the National Inspectorate for Environment and Water (KFf) is necessary for the import. The permit application shall be submitted by the importer to KFf together with the notification form.

2.1.14 Italy

Italy has set one bilateral agreement:

San Marino; 26.10.2001 ; All imports of wastes for disposal into Italy are allowed except those containing, or contaminated with, PCB, PCT or PBB at a concentration level of 50 mg/kg or more.

2.1.15 Latvia

Until 31 December 2010, all shipments to Latvia of green or amber listed waste for recovery shall be subject to the procedure of prior written notification and consent, as stated in Article 63.1 of the Regulation.


21


The Waste Management Law of 01.03.2001 prohibits the import into the territory of the Republic of Latvia of any waste for disposal or long-term storage.

It is permitted to import hazardous waste for recovery only if there are hazardous waste recovery facilities in operation in the territory of the Republic of Latvia, the owner of which has obtained a permit for the recovery of the relevant hazardous waste, and as long as the necessary capacity is available.

2.1.16 Luxembourg

A special authorization is required by the modified Waste Management law of 17th June 1994 for the export of waste to non-EC countries.

Since December 2006 the restriction in the Waste management law on the import of hazardous waste has been abolished. The notification procedures for waste transport are, however applicable.

2.1.17 The Netherlands

Since May 2003 the national policy on waste has been set out in the Waste Policy Plan 2002-2012. This plan indicates the restrictions for all types of waste. The restriction covers all countries/regions and all waste. In general, the Netherlands objects to the export of all kinds of waste for final disposal and does not allow imports for disposal.

According to the European Shipment Regulation, Article 7, Section 4a, 5th indent, the Netherlands will object to an import of waste if the amount of waste recovered is relatively small in relation to the total amount (i.e. if the majority has to be disposed of).

The Waste Policy Plan includes a framework to check the transboundary movement of waste against the policy. Furthermore, the plan contains a specific part with 34 defined waste streams. The chapter on each waste stream contains a paragraph on the policy related to transboundary movement of that waste for disposal or recycling.

A multilateral agreements exist with all EU overseas provinces (incl. Aruba, Netherlands Antilles); 27.11.2001 - 27.11.2011 (LGO-decision 2001/822/EG).

A supplementary bilateral agreement has been drawn up with Netherlands Antilles; 29.08.2005– 29.08.2007.

2.1.18 Norway

Although Norway is not an EU Member State it has implemented the EU Regulation 1013/2006/EC.

Norway requires special consideration for the following waste(s) when subjected to transboundary movement: waste containing some flame retardants (pentabromdifenyleter, oktabromdifenyleter, dekabromdifenyleter, tetrabrombisfenol A, heksabromsyklododekan) are classified as hazardous waste in Norway. It is a requirement that disposal of such waste ensures the destruction of the flame retardants. Export for recycling is therefore usually not accepted.

22

29/09/09

The Norwegian goal for treatment and disposal of hazardous waste is that practically all hazardous waste is to be dealt with in an appropriate way, so that it is either recycled or given sufficient treatment capacity within Norway.

2.1.19 Poland

The following unlisted wastes are submitted to an amber waste procedure:

� 19 12 10 combustible waste (alternative fuel).

Until 31 December 2012, all shipments to Poland of green listed waste for recovery shall be subject to the procedure of prior written notification and consent, according to Article 63.2 of de Regulation.

Until 31 December 2012, the competent authorities of Poland may raise objections in conformity with the grounds for objection on shipments for disposal (Art 11) for certain waste types shipped for recycling, thus derogating from Article 12. A list of set of waste types is included in Article 63.2.


2.1.20 Romania

According to Article 32 point 4 of the Emergency Government Ordinance no. 195 / 2005, approved by Law no. 265/2006, the export and transit of hazardous wastes may take place in accordance with agreements to which Romania is a party. In the case of exports, the responsible operator must ensure that international obligations are observed and that the consent of the recipient country has been obtained.

The import of any kind of wastes for final disposal is prohibited until the agreement has been reached on the transition period obtained for the landfill of waste by the Treaty concerning Romania’s adherence to EU law.

Romania has obtained transition periods for the implementation of the Shipment Regulation. The country has requested a transition period until 31st December 2015, for the notification to the competent authorities of all shipments to Romania of waste for recovery.

Until 31st December 2015, all shipments to Romania of green listed waste for recovery shall be subject to the procedure of prior written notification and consent, according to article 63.5 of de Regulation.

Until 31st December 2011, the competent authorities of Romania may raise objections in conformity with the grounds for objection on shipments for disposal (art 11) for certain waste types shipped for recycling, thus derogating from Article 12. A list of waste types is included in Article 63.5.

By way of derogation from Article 11 and 12 of the Regulation, the competent authorities shall object to shipments of waste for recovery destined for a facility benefiting from a temporary derogation from certain provisions of IPPC Directive 96/61/EC, the LCP large combustion plants Directive 2001/80/EC, and Directive

23


2000/76/EC on incineration of waste, during the period in which the temporary derogation is applied to the facility of destination.

2.1.21 Slovakia

Competent authorities will object to consignments of wastes destined for recovery, destined for nine named facilities under temporary exemption from IPPC provisions.

The Slovak Republic is controlling green listed wastes as amber wastes until the year 2011 (import for recovery operations), according to Article 63.3 of the Regulation.

2.1.22 Slovenia

The Competent authority will object to import from all countries and regions for disposal if the shipment is not in accordance with national operation plans for the management of waste. The Competent authority will also object to import for R1 operations (incineration with energy recovery) if the waste generated in Slovenia will have to be disposed of, or if its management will not be in accordance with national operation plans for the management of wastes. Some exceptions are identified according to Article 11 (1) (3). of Regulation (EC) No. 1013/2006.

2.1.23 Sweden

The Swedish Ordinance on Transboundary Movements of Waste (SFS 1995:701) assures that imported waste is accepted only if the receiving plant has all relevant permits to treat the waste.

2.1.24 United Kingdom

The UK Management Plan for Exports and Imports of Waste 1996 (which came into effect in June 1996, and which was revised in 2007) prohibits the export of waste for disposal, and most imports, in keeping with the principles of self-sufficiency and proximity, whereby waste should be disposed of in, or as close as possible to, the country of origin:

The UK prohibits the export of all wastes for disposal.

The UK Management Plan for Export and Imports for Waste (June 1996) sets out, amongst other things, the UK's policy on the import of waste for final disposal. The general presumption is that wastes should not be imported for disposal in the UK and imports of all wastes for disposal are prohibited, except in limited circumstances.

Imports of waste for some disposal operations are banned without exception. These are: release into water bodies (oceans, sea beds, rivers etc), incineration at sea, permanent storage and temporary storage. For some other disposal operations (landfill, biological, chemical or physio-chemical treatment, and incineration) exceptions are allowed where:

� The exporting country does not have, and cannot be expected to acquire, suitable facilities, and where imports of wastes cannot realistically be dealt with in an environmentally sound manner in, or in closer proximity to, the country of origin;

� Imports for high temperature incineration, from Ireland and Portugal; and

24

29/09/09

� Imports of hazardous wastes for high temperature incineration from any country, in cases of emergency.

Additional prohibitions applying by virtue of Regulations made under UK health and safety legislation are as follows:

� Imports of amphibole asbestos into the UK are prohibited by Regulation 3 of the Asbestos (Prohibitions) Regulations 1992;

� Imports into the UK, other than from another Member State of the European Economic Area, of the following substances and articles are prohibited under Regulation 4(2) of The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994 namely: 2-naphthylamine, benzidine, 4-aminodiphenyl, 4-nitrophenyl, their salts and any substance containing any of these compounds in a total concentration exceeding 0.1 percent by mass; and

� Matches made with white phosphorus.

When illegitimate export of waste has occurred, the Environment Agency of England and Wales contacts the producer of waste and encourages them to take back the waste. This will lead to the generation of a new notification to cover movement back to England or Wales. If this does not happen, the Agency will pay to repatriate the waste and then will try to recover the costs from the courts.

2.1.25 Other

No country fact sheets are available from the Basel Convention website, or no other sources could be consulted for following Member States: Malta, Lithuania, France, Spain, and Portugal.

25


3.0 Key Organisations Involved in Implementation and Management

3.1 Waste Agencies/Competent Authorities

3.1.1 International and European Bodies

The major international and European bodies involved in transfrontier shipment of waste are

� The Secretariat of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, 13-15 chemin des Anémones, 1219 Châtelaine - Geneva, Switzerland, tel. +41 22 917 82 18 / fax +41 22 797 34 54, e-mail : [email protected] - www.basel.int

� Basel convention regional centres are installed around the world.16

� OECD, environment directorate, WGWPR (Working Group Waste Prevention and Recycling), Henrik Harjula, 2, rue André Pascal, F-75775 Paris Cedex 16, France tel +33 1.45.24.82.00, Fax: +33 (0)1 44 30 61 79, [email protected] - www.oecd.org

� EU, DG-Environment, Avenue de Beaulieu 5, 1160 Brussels (postal address: Environment Directorate-General, European Commission -1049 Brussels), tel 322 296.23.79, [email protected] - http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/index.htm

� EU, DG-trade, C1 Sustainable Development and SPS issues, +32 2 2962496 [email protected] - http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/global/environment/waste.htm

� IMPEL-TFS, European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law, Transfrontier Shipment of Waste, Gulledelle, 100, 1200 Brussels, Belgium, IMPEL-TFS Secretariat: Ms. Nancy Isarin, tel: (+351) 289 701 354 [email protected] - http://ec.europa.eu/environment/impel/impel_tfs.htm

3.1.2 Competent Authorities

Competent authorities can be found on following sites:

� DG-Environment website, list of competent authorities: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/pdf/competent_authorities.pdf

16 Basel Convention, regional and coordinating centres, 27 Mai 2008, on www.basel.int

26

29/09/09

This list includes all competent authorities, even where the competence is attributed to a regional or local level. In France all 95 departments plus 10 supplementary authorities are identified as competent authorities. In Germany the 16 Bundesländer, divided into 31 Bezirksregierungen or Landesamten, are the competent authorities17. The competent authorities in Italy are the 48 provinces or regional authorities and in Spain they are the 18 regional authorities.

The other Member states opt for a centralised approach with one competent authority, or a division between large regional units (e.g. UK: England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland; Belgium: Flanders, Wallonia, Brussels).

Until 2007 Ireland had 34 competent authorities for export of waste from Ireland. Since 12th July 2007, a single competent authority for export, import and transit was nominated – Dublin City Council.

� OECD Database on Transboundary Movement of Wastes destined for Recovery Operations http://www2.oecd.org/waste/

� Basel Convention, list on competent authorities of the parties: http://www.basel.int/PARTIES%20(CA).doc

3.1.3 Major Non OECD External Trade Partners

ChinaChinaChinaChina: According to the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Prevention and Control of Environmental Pollution by Solid Waste, it is forbidden for solid waste from abroad to be dumped, stored or disposed of in the territory of China. China also forbids the import of solid waste that cannot be used as raw materials or utilized in environmentally friendly way. Solid wastes that can be used as raw materials are managed through a restricted import and automatic-licensing scheme.

The State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA) of China is the designated authority. It issues an import licence or SEPA-licence to the consignees of the waste shipment.

The General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) of China administers the registration scheme of the overseas supplier enterprises of imported solid waste as raw materials and authorizes relevant institutions to conduct pre-shipment inspection of solid waste imported for use as raw materials. It issues an AQSIQ-licence to the exporters as proof of registration. The pre-shipment inspection institution, authorized by AQSIQ, issues a Pre-shipment Inspection Certificate for the intended shipment.

� State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA), 115 Xizhimennei Nanxiaojie, Beijing 100035, China, Tel: (861 0) 66 55 62 56/65 18/62 57, fax: (861 0) 66 55 62 52/65 13, mail [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

17 As is often the case for federalised countries, the competent authority in Germany for the transit of waste is the national Environmental Protection Agency (Umweltbundesamt - UBA)

27


� AQSIQ: 马甸Road, Haidian District 9, Beijing 100088 http://www.aqsiq.gov.cn/

IndiaIndiaIndiaIndia: According to Regulation 1418/2008/EC India allows import of certain types of metal scrap (B1010) and certain types of textile waste (B3030) only when a specific procedure has been followed18. The importer of unshredded metal waste needs to be registered by the Indian Directorate General of Foreign Trade. All import consignments of metallic waste and scrap must be accompanied by a pre-shipment inspection certificate stating that is does not contain arms, munitions or radio active material, and that the waste can be classified as metallic waste, scrap, defective or second hand material. The Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce is responsible, and appoints the agencies authorised to issue pre-shipment inspection certificates.

� Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, CGO Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi 110 003, India, tel: (91 11) 24 36 07 21 or 24 36 18 96, fax: (91 11) 436 06 78, mail: [email protected]

� Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Directorate General of Foreign Trade, Udyog Bhawan, H-Wing, Gate No.2, Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi -110011. tel: 011-23061562, fax: 011-2306 2225, mail [email protected] , site http://dgft.delhi.nic.in

� The Indian and foreign agencies that can issue a pre shipment inspection certificate can be found on: http://164.100.9.245/exim/2000/apndxftp0809/indexapnd-0809.htm

3.2 Inspection

The European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law (IMPEL) is an international non-profit association of the environmental authorities of the Member States, acceding and candidate countries of the European Union, and EEA countries. The expertise and experience of the participants within IMPEL make the network qualified to work on certain elements of the technical and regulatory aspects of EU environmental legislation, within which the import and export of waste is especially emphasised.

The Network’s objective is to create the necessary impetus in the European Community to make progress on ensuring a more effective application of environmental legislation. It promotes the exchange of information and experience and the development of environmental legislation. It provides a framework for policy makers, environmental inspectors and enforcement officers to exchange ideas, and encourages the development of enforcement structures and best practices.

18 B1010 limited to Iron and steel scrap, copper scrap, nickel scrap, aluminium scrap, zinc scrap, tin scrap and magnesium scrap, B3030 limited to used rags, scrap twine, cordage, rope and cables and worn out articles of twine, cordage, rope or cables of textile.

28

29/09/09

In the Waste Shipment Regulation 2006/1013/EC Article 50.5 introduces a new obligation upon Members to cooperate, bilaterally or multilaterally, with one another in order to facilitate the prevention and detection of illegal shipments. The IMPEL Cluster TFS is encouraged by this new provision to continue and intensify the cooperation of European environmental authorities in combating illegal shipments.

On the IMPEL-site the list of members/local inspection agencies can be found on:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/impel/members.htm

29


4.0 State of Affairs and Market Trends

4.1 Ireland

4.1.1 Important Waste Streams

4.1.1.1 Waste for Recycling / Recovery

Due to its lack of domestic treatment capacity, Ireland exports large amounts of waste for recycling and recovery. Table 4-1 shows a list of Irish waste material streams that are recovered or recycled, and the percentage of recovery or recycling that took place abroad in 2007.

Table 4-1: Percentage of Recovery of Several Irish Materials Taking Place Abroad

MaterialMaterialMaterialMaterial % Recovered % Recovered % Recovered % Recovered

AbroadAbroadAbroadAbroad

RDF 100

Ferrous Metals 99.8

Paper and Cardboard 99.4

Other metals 88.2

Glass 83.3

Aluminium 78.4

Plastic 76.6

Textiles 75.9

The United Kingdom continues to be the principal (initial) destination for recyclable waste (see Table 4-2). A total of 526,611 tonnes of paper was exported in 2007 for reprocessing, predominantly to the UK (44%) and to Asia (24% - including China and India). A total of 782,028 tonnes of metal was exported in 2007, mainly to Spain and Portugal (57%) and to the UK (37%). As in 2006, refuse derived fuel (RDF) was exported for energy recovery to Sweden and the UK in 2007. As in previous years, it remains apparent that a certain proportion of Irish recyclable waste exported to other EU countries is bulked before shipping onwards to countries within and outside the EU.

30

29/09/09

Table 4-2: Destination of Recyclable Waste Streams Exported in 2007 (tonnes)

Source: EPA (2009) National Waste Report 2007.

Pa

pe

r &

P

ap

er

&

Pa

pe

r &

P

ap

er

&

Ca

rdb

oa

rdC

ard

bo

ard

Ca

rdb

oa

rdC

ard

bo

ard

Gla

ssG

lass

Gla

ssG

lass

Pla

stic

Pla

stic

Pla

stic

Pla

stic

Me

Me

Me

Me

tals

tals

tals

tals

Wo

od

Wo

od

Wo

od

Wo

od

Text

iles

Text

iles

Text

iles

Text

iles

Org

an

ic

Org

an

ic

Org

an

ic

Org

an

ic

Wa

ste

Wa

ste

Wa

ste

Wa

ste

RD

FR

DF

RD

FR

DF

Oth

er

Oth

er

Oth

er

Oth

er

Tota

lTo

tal

Tota

lTo

tal

UK 231,656 122,607 50,831 286,323 13,111 5,194 8,697 7,151 293 725,864 Spain/ Portugal 446,350 446,350 Holland 82,002 2,516 380 122 1 1,061 142 86,223 Asia 77,095 4,256 81,350 China 39,811 3,443 35,906 79,159 Europe 66,102 937 67,040 Sweden 25,544 191 25,735 France 16,030 2,069 6,558 24,658 India 11,690 11,690 USA 1,907 169 2,076 Belgium 275 1,246 1,522 Germany 318 694 12 1,024 Unspecified 4,570 4,570

Total 526,611 122,607 64,496 782,028 13,233 5,195 9,758 32,695 638 1,557,260

31


Ireland relies heavily on material recycling facilities abroad. Only 24% of waste recycling took place within Ireland on 2006. An increase in the amount of plastic waste being recycled in Ireland was noted – in 2007, 23% of plastic recycling took place in Ireland compared to 12% in 2006. There are an increasing number of small companies granulating waste plastics in Ireland. A number of these companies have found markets in Ireland for the plastic granules and the remainder is exported. The percentage of glass recycled in Ireland continues to increase, largely due to activities at one facility.

4.1.1.2 Hazardous Waste

The Irish Environmental Protection Agency informs the EEA that export of hazardous waste increased up to the latest reported year (see Table 4-3). This is principally industrial waste and predominantly from the chemical and pharmaceutical sectors. Furthermore, the amount of contaminated soil exported is high. In 2006 according to the National Hazardous Waste Management Plan 2008, 48% of Irish hazardous waste was exported for treatment and disposal abroad, mostly for thermal treatment (incineration and use as fuel), but also for metal recovery, solvent recovery and landfill. The figure was the same in 2007 according to EPA data.

Table 4-3: Summary of Hazardous Waste Management 2001-2007 (all data in tonnes)

Category Category Category Category 2001200120012001 2002200220022002 2003200320032003 2004200420042004 2005200520052005 2006200620062006 2007200720072007

On-site treatment

95,566 86,328 88,409 82,732

Off-site treatment

48,013 55,952 60,872 91,240

Exported 115,366 109,545 170,678 165,498 146,811 134,904 147,542

Total 258,945 307,778 284,184 304,941

Source: EPA (2009) National Waste Report 2007.

Commercial incineration as a waste treatment option for waste is not available in Ireland. In November 2005, the EPA granted licences for two commercial incinerators, none of these facilities are operating as of end- February 2009.

An estimated 29,888 tonnes of hazardous waste was ‘unreported’ in 200619. That is, it is not recorded as having entered the formal waste management industry. The source of this waste is primarily small business, households and farms. The estimated generation of ‘unreported’ hazardous waste fell by 36% in the period 2004-2006, and this reduction is principally attributed to a reported reduction in the use of sheep dip (and its subsequent disposal on land).

Table 4-4 shows an overview of the principal waste types exported for the various treatment options. It is likely that some hazardous waste that is exported could be treated,

19 EPA, 2008 “National Hazardous Waste Management Plan 2008-2012”.

32

29/09/09

or at least pre-treated, at existing indigenous facilities – for example solvents, electrical equipment, photochemicals, acid/alkali waste (subject to licence and waste acceptance restrictions at existing facilities).

Considerable quantities of Irish waste are exported for use as fuel. This predominantly means the combustion of waste solvents in cement kilns or other combustion plant. Cement kilns currently are in operation in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland and could potentially use certain hazardous wastes as a substitute for existing fuels. However not all operations would necessarily be suitable, nor available, for using waste as fuel. Much greater quantities of hazardous waste are exported for incineration20.

Table 4-4: List of Dominant Waste Streams Exported for Various Treatment Techniques, 2004

Hazardous Waste Hazardous Waste Hazardous Waste Hazardous Waste Treatment Category or Treatment Category or Treatment Category or Treatment Category or

TechnologyTechnologyTechnologyTechnology

2004200420042004 Principal Waste Types Principal Waste Types Principal Waste Types Principal Waste Types

ExportedExportedExportedExported

2006200620062006 Principal Waste Types Principal Waste Types Principal Waste Types Principal Waste Types

ExportedExportedExportedExported

Incineration Solvents (69%)

Other industrial waste (17%) Other chemical waste (6%)

Solvents (32%) Other industrial waste (56%) Other chemical waste (4%)

Use as Fuel Solvents (67%)

Other industrial waste (11%) Other chemical waste (7%)

Solvents (71%) Other industrial waste (17%)

Waste oil (7%) Solvent Recycling Solvents (97%) Solvents (99%)

Metal Recovery Equipment (43%) Batteries (34%)

Photochemicals (8%)

Equipment (39%) Batteries (33%)

Photochemicals (18%)

Physio-chemical treatment

C & D waste (38%) Other industrial waste (36%)

Sludges (12%) Acid/alkali (10%)

Other industrial waste (69%) Acid/alkali (31%)

Landfill Asbestos (68%) Sludges (19%)

Other industrial waste (13%)

Asbestos (54%) Other industrial waste (23%)

Sludges (19%)

Inorganic material recovery

Other industrial waste (42%) Sludges (19%)

Acid and alkali waste (20%)

Other industrial waste (58%) Solvents (22%)

Contaminated packaging (11%)

Acid/base regeneration Acid and alkali waste (75%) Solvent-based waste (25%)

Acid and alkali waste (100%)

Organic substance recovery

Solvents (67%) Other Industrial waste (26%)

Paint, ink, varnish waste (54%) Other industrial waste (18%)

Equipment (8%) Other chemical waste (8%)

20 EPA, 2008 “National Hazardous Waste Management Plan 2008-2012”.

33


4.1.2 Border Effects with Northern Ireland

Illegal disposal of waste in Northern Ireland is a serious issue in terms of its potential to damage the environment and the local economy, as well as from the involvement of organised criminals. Illegal importation of waste into Northern Ireland displays a number of patterns, the most lucrative operation being the illegal disposal of waste (mainly household and municipal waste) from the Republic of Ireland in illegal dump sites in Northern Ireland. Waste is also transported from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland under the guise of recycling. Instead of recycling, the waste is landfilled, either in legal or illegal sites in Northern Ireland.

The Environment and Heritage Service (EHS) of the Department of the Environment (DOE) in Northern Ireland formed a dedicated Environmental Crime Team, now the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, which uses a multi-strand approach to tackle illegal waste management in Northern Ireland. When instances of illegal waste management are detected and sufficient evidence can be gathered, EHS submits cases to the Public Prosecution Service. The Department investigated 1,256 cases of illegal dumping in 2004 and 1,167 cases in 2005. Up to March 2006, a further 202 investigations were being conducted (Organised Crime Taskforce, 2006).21

In 2005, BBC and RTE Primetime investigations indicated that contractors in the Republic of Ireland can be paid up to £2,500 to dump a 20 tonne load of waste, and in Northern Ireland landowners were allegedly offered money to allow this waste to be dumped on their land. Later that year the EPA’s Office of Environmental Enforcement (OEE) published a report on “The Nature and Extent of Unauthorised Waste Activity in Ireland”. The report found that illegal cross border movement of waste had reduced significantly. Concerted actions led by the OEE/police and undertaken by the enforcement authorities against suspected illegal operators, both north and south of the border, resulted in a significant reduction in illegal cross-border movement. The OEE has used the information gathered during the course of this investigation to deal with unauthorised waste activity in Ireland.22

However some border county local authorities have expressed concern about the potential reappearance of cross-border illegal dumping from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland. Monaghan County Council recently found one site which contained illegally dumped material believed to have originated in Northern Ireland. This is the first incidence of its kind in several years. However it has been proposed that the Gardaί, Customs and Excise and the Revenue Commissioners will be setting up cross border inspection points to counteract all cross border illegal dumping activity. The senior engineer for Monaghan County Council said “this could be a sign of things to come, due to the economic downturn

21 Organised Crime Task Force (OCT), 2006, Website: http://www.octf.gov.uk/index.cfm/section/article/page/Dumping

22 EPA, 2005 “The Nature and Extent of Unauthorised Waste Activity in Ireland”.

34

29/09/09

people are looking for ways of disposing their waste and also due to the significant collapse of prices in the recyclate market”.23

4.1.3 Inspections of Exports

Staff from the National TFS Office are authorised to carry out inspections of any intended consignments of waste prior to dispatch and any consignments of waste entering Ireland. On- and off-site inspections are carried out throughout the State in order to prevent illegal shipments and to ensure that the shipment recovery or disposal of waste is managed in an environmentally sound manner for the protection of the environment and human health. They carry out inspections on a daily basis in accordance with the RMCEI Environmental Inspection Plan submitted to the EPA. The NTFSO works closely with the National Port and Customs Authorities. Cooperation between the NTFSO, other Local Authorities and An Garda Siochana is ongoing for the purpose of carrying out inspections at checkpoints. The NTFSO participates in joint enforcement activities with EU Competent, Port and Customs Authorities through the auspices of Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law (IMPEL).

At present, figures for the proportion of shipments inspected are not available in relation to the total number of amber-listed and green-listed shipments of waste carried out on an annual basis.24 A certification system applies in relation to the completion of notified and consented Amber waste shipments under the recovery/disposal operation and in accordance with the contract. The authorised destination facility must send signed copies of the movement document to the competent authorities concerned and to the notifier containing a certificate which certifies that the waste consignment has been completed.

The National TFS Office introduced, in 2008, a pre-notification system for the export and import of green-listed waste from and into Ireland. The person who arranges Green waste shipments, whether a broker or dealer involved in the export and import of waste, is required to provide information to the National TFS Office by email on a monthly basis regarding any shipments proposed for the next business month. Green waste moved under Annex VII must be shipped under a contract entered into between the person who arranges the shipment and the consignee for the completion of the waste shipments. The Annex VII form must be signed by the recovery facility when the waste in question is received.

It is not legally or otherwise possible for the National Transfrontier Office (NTFSO) to carry out an audit of a facility located in another jurisdiction. This office works very closely with EU and international competent and environmental authorities in connection with TFS supervision and processes, including operations carried on at waste facilities.

A small number of Green waste shipments have been returned mainly due to the incorrect classification of the waste stream, and for non-compliance with Regulation (EC)

23 Mr. Ciaran Duffy, Senior Engineer, Monaghan County Council.

24 Mr .Frank Melia, TFS, Dublin City Council.

35


1418/2007 in respect of shipments of waste to non-OECD countries.25 In relation to contaminated waste, a small percentage has been returned to Ireland, e.g. used farm plastic.

Since there has been a significant drop in the recyclate market, demand now appears to be for higher quality materials and Irish exports tend to be of poor quality. However an “Action Group on Recyclate Markets” was set up in December 2008 and they agreed that a high quality material was required for access to the key Chinese market and this has had implications for some operators’ current collection and treatment systems. Greyhound Waste Ltd (a nationwide waste management service in Ireland) indicated that it may have secured a contract in recent days though at a reduction of up to 80% on previous price with China. This may mean that more exports will be sent to China as its thought they will continue to require material given the volumes used in its manufacturing industry. It was suggested by the Action Group that the NTFSO should have a greater focus while inspecting the quality of materials sent for exports.26

4.1.4 Inspections of Packaging Material

Repak also carry out inspections to ensure that the packaging material exported is legitimately recycled. Consignments are generally single material consignments/ homogeneous materials (of, for example, glass, cullet, plastic bottles, cardboard on their own). For mixed papers, which may contain some light packaging materials, Repak insist that compositional analysis studies are completed for each Material Recovery Facility (MRF) and each contractor/collector to identify the exact packaging element of such a mix. Repak will only pay for the packaging element of the sorted streams. These studies are carried by independent consultants. Contractors also involved in shipments generally need to photograph consignments when they are a quarter, half and three quarters full before they are sealed on site and shipped to a recycler. These photos are then usually sent with the consignment to the end recycler.

All subsidy claims to Repak must be accompanied by proof of recycling. This is generally proof of delivery, such as delivery dockets to an approved end recycler (e.g. Rehab delivery docket of glass cullet to Quinn glass in Northern Ireland), and then an audit is carried out to ensure the invoices issued match delivery dockets, and therefore match the claim for subsidy to Repak. Repak audits contractors in Ireland and end-recyclers, including in China, and they inspect outlets/recyclers for packaging material. Repak will not pay a subsidy on material unless legitimately recycled.27

25 Mr .Frank Melia, TFS, Dublin City Council.

26 Action Group on Recyclate Markets, 2008, “1st Report”.

27 Mr. Darrell Crowe, Sales and Marketing Manager, Repak.

36

29/09/09

4.2 Trends in Other Member States

4.2.1 The Presence of Specific Industrial Sectors

The industrial production sector is indicative of the major streams involved in transboundary movements of waste that are observed.

In Austria and Germany, recycling of paper and card products within the country is preferred as they are both producers of large quantities of paper. Germany produces and uses the greatest amount of paper products. Austria is second only to Germany for consumption but has the highest recycling rate with 70 % of the paper mills’ output being recovered paper. Therefore, Austria is a waste paper importing country.

Belgium attracts metal bearing slags and ashes from across the globe, these being imported by an extensive non-ferrous recycling industry. The quantity and nature of waste that is attracted is, however, dependent on the market for refined copper and zinc. Figure 4-1 illustrates the export figures for Australia in 2001. The large arrow, representing exports to Belgium, is primarily explained by exports of metal containing slags and wastes.

Figure 4-1: Export of Hazardous Waste from Australia in 2001 (figure Basel Convention)

Member States with an extensive cement industry often act as a sink for high calorific, often sludgy or liquid waste that requires a high treatment temperature, as an alternative for hazardous waste incineration. Similarly, some wastes which are exported for recovery are exported to incinerators at which there is surplus capacity. In the light of the revised Waste Framework Directive, such movements might be more restricted to those facilities which meet the R1 threshold as established by the Directive. At the same time, the availability of such capacity might be expected to be less available for wastes from outside the country where the facility is located if the country hosts a mix of incinerators which are classified as recovery and disposal. This is due to the fact that Member States would be

37


expected, other things being equal, to encourage the utilisation of capacity at recovery facilities rather than disposal ones.

Countries which produce hazardous waste, but which have limited specialist treatment capacity are more likely to be exporters of such waste, and may have to make special arrangements with others. Ireland is an example of such a country.

4.2.2 The Effect of Specific Policy Measures on Waste Treatment

The waste management system is somewhat like a balloon, which when squeezed, bulges in other areas. When policy measures focus on one part of the system, waste streams tend to shift towards another solution, either within the country concerned or abroad. A first example of policy effects focuses on the exchange between landfill and incineration of waste. A second example focuses on a shift between incineration and recycling. A third example focuses on a shift in waste quantities being exported for recycling.

4.2.2.1 The Effect of Landfill Bans

With the approval of its Landfill Ordinance of 2001, Germany imposed a general ban on the landfilling of untreated waste. The deadline for the landfilling of untreated waste was set for 1st June 2005. Landfill operators knew in advance of the final date for the introduction of this ban. They started offering lower prices for landfilling mixed waste, in order to maximize the use of their remaining capacity before the ban took effect. As a result, German waste was attracted to the landfills, and away from incineration plants.

Foreign waste could not be attracted to the German landfills because of the proximity and self sufficiency principles, and general reluctance on the part of many other states to sanction exports of waste destined for disposal (see Section 2.1). On the other hand, German incineration plants were generally considered as recovery facilities in the context of the existing law. They were able to attract foreign waste to compensate for the loss of German waste, by offering competitive prices for Belgian, Dutch and even Italian waste.

From Figure 4-2 a substantial rise in the total quantity of Flemish waste being exported can be observed. In Figure 4-3 the German figures show a trend on the import side which mirrors the trend in Flemish exports. In 2005, when the German landfill ban came into force and the German incineration plants obtained enough German waste, it can be seen that the Flemish export and German import figures dropped.

38

29/09/09

Figure 4-2: Import and Export in Flanders under Application of the Regulation 1013/2007/EC (blue: import, red: export)

Figure 4-3: Import and Export in Germany

In Flanders a comparable landfill ban for unsorted household and industrial wastes was introduced in June 2004. It did not cause a comparable effect. Unlike German legislation, Flemish legislation was not announced far in advance, and Flemish legislation offered the possibility for landfill operators to ask for individual exemptions from the ban, in the light

39


of, on the one hand, the nature and the quantities of the waste material flows supplied, and, on the other hand, the available treatment capacity. The effect was that, when the landfill ban came into operation, alternative treatment capacity was not already in place. Landfill operators chose to apply for exemptions where possible instead of filling their remaining capacity at higher speed, and no downward pressure was exerted on incineration prices.

4.2.2.2 The Effects of Green Energy Policies

The waste treatment hierarchy, as described in Article 4 of the Waste Framework Directive, has to be applied by Member States as a priority order in waste prevention and management legislation and policy, other than where exceptions are justified on the basis of life-cycle thinking on the overall impacts of the generation and management of such waste. Recycling of waste is classified one step above other recovery operations, including energy recovery.

With the introduction of tradable certificates for CO2 neutral energy, incineration of waste or other techniques to recover energy from waste can become financially more attractive than certain forms of material recovery and recycling of waste. In particular, high calorific waste fractions become interesting from the perspective of energy recovery. This can cause a partial shift, at the margin, from recycling to energy recovery, which can be translated in shifting transboundary movements. The effects are clear where one of the solutions (either recycling or energy recovery) can be a local option and the other is a cross border option. This implies that the energy policies of foreign countries can influence the destination, and nature of treatment, of waste streams. This highlights the need for incentives to be compatible with the overall environmental consequences of waste management options. For example, it is entirely consistent to implement taxes on incineration and other energy recovery options even where the energy delivered is subject to some form of market price support (either through fixed feed-in tariffs, or tradable certificates, or other forms of preferential treatment).

4.2.2.3 The Effects of Changing Control Regimes for Export

A similar effect on transboundary movement of waste, in the field of recycling, can be expected on export of cable scrap to China. With the introduction of Regulation 1418/2007/EC, China changed the control regime for cable scrap B1115. It is submitted to the procedure described Section 3.1.3.

According to the older Regulation 1547/99/EC, cable scrap was interpreted as being submitted to the common, compulsory EU notification system along with a standard consignment note for shipments of waste. One effect of this is that the export of cable scrap has now become administratively simpler, and exports might increase for that reason.28 This will not be seen any more in the official statistics (see, for example, Figure

28 Export can increase, depending on market situation and the Chinese demand for metal scrap. The economic crisis and the dropping prices for metal raw materials might influence this effect.

40

29/09/09

4-16 below), and Member States will have fewer administrative tools through which to guard the application of Article 36(g) of the Regulation on the export ban for

‘wastes which the competent authority of dispatch has reason to believe will not be managed in an environmentally sound manner in the country of destination concerned.’

Cable scrap is sensitive for sub-optimal treatment and for local trading in China and treatment by small local companies or home-workers offering the cheapest solution.

4.2.3 General Market Driven Trends

4.2.3.1 Increasing Transboundary Movement of Waste

The Secretariat of the Basel Convention states that the amount of waste on the move is increasing rapidly. Reports of the Parties suggest that between 1993 and 2001 the amount of waste moving across the globe increased from under 4 million tonnes to more than 15 million tonnes (see Figure 4-4). Unfortunately data on waste movements are incomplete – not all countries report waste movements to the Basel Convention, and not all waste movements are subject to the Basel Convention. The Basel convention merely focuses on hazardous waste.

Figure 4-4: Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste According to the Basel Convention

The increase of transboundary movement of waste appears to have continued well after 2001, as can be shown by figures compiled by the European Environmental Agency (Figure 4-5 and Figure 4-6), and by the Flemish figures in Section 4.3.

Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands are the most important exporters, followed by Austria, Denmark, France, Ireland and Italy.

41


4.2.3.2 Trends for Notified Waste Shipments

The term ‘notified waste shipment’ is used to refer to the import and export of waste under the application of the common compulsory notification in Regulation 1013/2006/EC. Included within the definition are waste shipments for disposal, or amber listed waste shipped for recovery. Also included in the definition are shipments of green listed waste for recycling in non OECD-countries if these countries request a notification. Excluded from the definition are all other shipments of green listed waste for recycling or recovery, and illegal shipments.

Transboundary shipments of waste have increased significantly during the last decade. Indeed, they may have multiplied tenfold. This increase applies not only to shipments of hazardous, problematic and non-hazardous wastes, but also for illegal shipments and shipment of non notified waste.

In 200329 about 8.6 million tonnes of hazardous and problematic waste were shipped across European boundaries (see Figure 4-5). Over 90% of this waste was shipped to other EU countries (see Figure 4-6), and about 80% of the material was destined for recovery and 20% for disposal (see

Figure 4-7). The total generation of hazardous waste was 55 million tonnes in 2003, so the shipped amount accounts for approximately 15%. This is a sign that the EU is acting more and more as a single market in relation to treatment of hazardous and problematic waste.

Figure 4-5: Export of Notified Waste from the EU-15 countries (EEA based on data from EU Commission, 2007 and SBC, 2007)

29 Figures quoted from EEA (2008).

42

29/09/09

Figure 4-6: Import of Notified Waste from the EU-15 countries (EEA based on data from EU Commission, 2007 and SBC, 2007)

Figure 4-7: Treatment of Notified Waste Shipped within and out of EU-25 in 2003 (EEA based on data from EU Commission, 2007 and SBC, 2007)

4.2.3.3 Trends for Non Notified Waste Shipments

The main data source which has been consulted for non notified waste shipments is the Eurostat trade statistics database, COMEXT. Data concerning the export of green listed

43


waste can be found in the database. However some inconsistencies or data gaps can occur:

� External trade statistics apply a ‘transaction threshold’ system. Transactions below a certain value, or quantity, do not have to be reported by the Member States. For extra-EU trade statistics, this threshold is set at 1,000 EUR or 1,000 kg. For intra-EU trade statistics the threshold value is 200 EUR;

� The definitions used in COMEXT do not correspond completely with the A or B classification of waste in the Basel Convention or the European EWL-codes; and

� Waste might be included in some broader categories together with non-waste products.

As total figures for export of non-notified waste cannot be retrieved, due to the above mentioned reasons, the export of plastic waste is used as a representative example to show general trends. Plastic waste is defined in COMEXT in Table 4-5 and graphically displayed in Figure 4-8 to Figure 4-10.

Table 4-5: Definition of Plastic Waste using CN-Nomenclature

CNCNCNCN----codecodecodecode DescriptionDescriptionDescriptionDescription

3915 1000 Waste, parings and scrap, of polymers of ethylene

3915 2000 Waste, parings and scrap, of polymers of styrene

3915 3000 Waste, parings and scrap, of polymers of vinyl chloride

3915 9011 Waste, parings and scrap, of polymers of propylene

3915 9013 Waste, parings and scrap, of acrylic polymers

3915 9018

Waste, parings and scrap, of addition polymerization products (excl. that of polymers of ethylene, styrene and vinyl chloride and propylene)

Definition used since 2004

3915 9019

Waste, parings and scrap, of addition polymerization products (excl. that of acrylic polymers, polymers of ethylene, styrene and vinyl chloride and propylene)

Definition used until 2003

3915 9090

Waste, parings and scrap, of plastics (excl. that of addition polymerization products)

Definition used since 2004

3915 9091 Waste, parings and scrap, of epoxide resins


3915 9093 Waste, parings and scrap, of cellulose and chemical derivatives thereof


3915 9099

Waste, parings and scrap, of plastics (excl. that of addition polymerization products, epoxide resins, cellulose and chemical derivatives thereof)


44

29/09/09

The main conclusions are that export of plastic waste from EU-15 countries30 to non-EU countries is increasing dramatically and almost exponentially. Export within the EU is growing as well, but this growth is at a much slower rate. The growth of exports as a whole can be expected as a consequence of higher availability of separated or sorted plastics from the EU-15. Cellulose and its derivates are exported the most, followed by a general category of ‘plastics’. China, either directly or through Hong Kong, is, by far, the major destination for plastic waste. Anecdotal evidence from Flanders shows that India is an important destination for plastic film, which is pre- treated in Indian free trade zones and shipped to further countries like Bangladesh. This trend however cannot be observed in the COMEXT statistics.

Figure 4-8: Export of Plastic Waste from EU-15 Countries to Non-EU Countries, by Category of Plastic

Export waste plastics from EU-15 (1)Eurostat Comext data

0

500.000

1.000.000

1.500.000

2.000.000

2.500.000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

ton

3915 9099 other plastics (old def)

3915 9093 cellulose plastics (odd def)

3915 9091 epoxide resins (old def)

3915 9090 other plastics (new def)

3915 9019 other addition polymers (old def)

3915 9018 other addition polymers (new def)

3915 9013 polyacryl

3915 9011 polypropylene (PP)

3915 3000 polyvinylchloride (PVC)

3915 2000 polystyrene (PS)

3915 1000 cellulose and derivatives

30 Reliable figures for the total export from EU-25 or EU-27 are unfortunately not available in COMEXT.

45


Figure 4-9: Export of Plastic Waste from EU-15 Countries to Non-EU Countries, by Country of Destination

Export of plastic waste from EU-15 (2) Eurostat comext data

0

500.000

1.000.000

1.500.000

2.000.000

2.500.000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

ton

otherhong kong

chinaindia

Figure 4-10: Export of Plastic Waste from EU-15 Countries to Other EU-15 Countries and Non-EU15 Countries

Export of plastic waste fom EU-15 (3)Eurostat comext data

0

500.000

1.000.000

1.500.000

2.000.000

2.500.000

3.000.000

3.500.000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

ton extra EU-15

intra EU-15

46

29/09/09

The EEA states that amounts of non-notified waste have increased significantly, in a similar way to shipments of notified waste. From 1995 to 2005 shipments of waste paper within the EU-15 increased from 6.3 to 8.9 million tonnes and shipments out of the EU-15 increased by a factor of more than 6 from 1.2 million tonnes to 7.8 million tonnes. Shipments of waste plastics have increased significantly, mainly out of the EU-15. Shipments amounted to about 250,000 tonnes in 1995 and 1.6 million tonnes in 200531, whereas shipments within the EU-15 countries were stable at about 0.9 million tonnes. An increase in shipments of waste metals is also observed. Shipments of waste iron and steel out of the EU-15 increased from 6.7 million tonnes in 1995 to 8.1 million tonnes in 2005. Total shipments of waste iron and steel from the EU-25 amounted to 8.8 million tonnes in 2005, whereas shipments within the EU-25 reached almost 23 million tonnes.

The Öko Institut reports quantities of certain waste types generated in the EU, compared with the quantities exported to China. The quantity of waste generated is retrieved from the official Eurostat statistics, as reported by the Member States in the waste statistics regulation 2150200EC, and from the study ‘Waste Streams and Secondary Materials in the EU’, prepared by Institut für Umweltforschung (INFU) / Prognos AG, Nov 2007.

For paper, as an example, figures reported to Eurostat refer to the availability of separately collected paper waste (see Table 4-6). Figures from INFU/Prognos are derived from estimations of paper waste in other waste streams as well (e.g. mixed municipal or industrial waste, construction and demolition waste, end of life vehicles).

Table 4-6: Data on Generation of Waste in the EU, Compared with Quantities Exported to China

31 And as the updated figures show to 2.3 million tonnes in 2007.

47


Table 4-6 shows that according to the Öko Institut 19% of the separately collected paper, 74% of the separately collected plastics and 45% of the separately collected metal waste was being exported to China. When looking at the amount of waste generated, regardless of the collection, the percentages are less high but still significant.

4.2.3.4 Trends for Illegal Waste Shipments

The EEA applies a broad scope to its definition of illegal shipments, encompassing both the unintentional breach of law caused by, for example, an administrative error, as well as the intentional, and often highly organised, illegal waste shipments. Based on cases reported by the IMPEL network the following examples of illegal shipments can be defined; each case requires different enforcement approaches by the authorities:

� Transporting any waste subject to the Basel Export Ban out of the EU or the OECD;

� Transporting amber listed waste within the EU without notifying the authorities of source and destination;

� Falsifying any documentation as regards waste loads or not declaring wastes on documentation;

� Mixing certain wastes, misrepresenting or hiding waste in containers;

� Shipping green list waste outside the EU without complying with the requirements of the country of destination as defined in Regulation 1418/2008/EC;

� Classifying waste as green list when it in fact is amber list, or as B list where it is A list;

� Classifying waste as green list when mixed or contaminated with other wastes e.g. some mixtures of plastics, or paper mixed with plastic, etc.;

� Shipping green list waste under false pretences i.e. stating the shipped items are going to be repaired and reused in other countries whilst knowing they will, in reality, be dumped; and

� Shipping waste claiming what is being shipped is ‘second hand goods’ and therefore not subject to waste controls.

The EU Member States have reported on the cases of illegal transboundary shipment, according to "Commission Decision 99/412/EEC of 3 June 1999 concerning a questionnaire for the reporting obligation of Member States pursuant to Article 41 (2) of Council regulation (EEC) No 259/93” (see Table 6 in the questionnaire). Quantitative data on the amount of waste shipped is difficult to retrieve, even for illegal shipments that have been discovered. However trends can be observed, both from the reporting by Member States and from the cases observed by the IMPEL network:

� The number of cases reported is rather limited, but is increasing;

� Only a limited number of Member States are reporting on illegal shipments;

� Over half of all the illegal shipments reported were import cases from other EU countries. The export cases were primarily related to Africa and Asia;

� Countries with big harbours like Belgium, the Netherlands and United Kingdom have more cases regarding export to non-OECD countries. The IMPEL network

48

29/09/09

identifies Belgian and Dutch ports as hub ports for (legal and illegal) waste shipments within and outside of the EU32;

� Mixtures of plastic and paper waste tend to be shipped to Asian countries (both East and West Asia);

� Refrigerators and CFC products tend to go to Africa, particularly to Western Africa;

� End-of-life vehicles go to Africa, and also to Eastern Europe; and

� Electronic and cable waste goes to West and East Asia.

4.2.3.5 Driving Factors for Transboundary Waste Shipment

The EEA states that economic factors are the most important driver behind the shipments of waste. Other factors of importance are legislative factors, technical factors, and differences in demography and infrastructure.

4.2.3.5.1 Economic Factors

Key economic factors driving transfrontier shipments are outlined below:

� Differences in Differences in Differences in Differences in ‘‘‘‘gate feegate feegate feegate fees’s’s’s’: different prices for treatment or disposal of waste can create incentives for transboundary movement, especially when the savings associated with the difference in gate fee compensate for the higher costs of shipment. This is especially applicable for gate fees in neighbouring countries, so that gate fees in Northern Ireland have the potential to influence the transboundary movement of waste with the whole of Ireland, or in instances where the costs of shipment are low due to market conditions.

The effect of this differential in gate fees for disposal (and some forms of recovery) can be nullified when the self sufficiency principle is applied (see Chapter 5.0);

� Differences in demand for Differences in demand for Differences in demand for Differences in demand for secondary secondary secondary secondary materialsmaterialsmaterialsmaterials: depending on various factors, including the cost and the availability of virgin raw materials in countries of destination, transboundary movement of waste to use as a secondary raw materials or as a source of energy may occur. China and India are major centres for the production of secondary raw materials but since they do not yet dispose of sufficient sources of metal ore domestically, and since they do not yet produce enough metal scrap to fulfil the needs of the inland economy, so demand for imports of metal-containing wastes, such as WEEE, or cable scrap, or ferrous and non ferrous metal wastes is strong.

Part of this difference in demand is an indirect consequence of differences in the relative costs of labour and materials. In particular, where labour costs are lower, and the relative value of materials (whose value tends to be determined – increasingly, owing to the increases in shipments occurring – internationally) is

32 IMPEL-TFS, Threat Assessment Project, 2005.

49


higher, it is more economically attractive to deploy recycling techniques which are more labour intensive.

In the EU context, this latter effect may be nullified if the country of dispatch considers the treatment method for disposal or recycling not to be aligned with the best available technique (BAT) (see Section 1.2.2.1 and Section 1.2.2.2 points h and i), or if the recycling technique uses lower standards than in the country of dispatch (see Section 1.2.2.2 point c). This is only applicable for shipments to which a prior consent procedure applies;

� The costs of the shipmentcosts of the shipmentcosts of the shipmentcosts of the shipment relative to the value of the materialrelative to the value of the materialrelative to the value of the materialrelative to the value of the material have to be taken into account when comparing differing costs in the country of dispatch and the country of destination. Bulky, low value waste streams are often treated close to the region of origin, like bio-waste and construction and demolition waste. The low costs for shipment to the Far East (back-hauling of otherwise empty containers) have played an important role in the rise of waste export, and as long as material values have justified the costs of export, so waste has continued to be exported.

The newspaper, The Economist, published on 28 February 2009 a special report on waste. On the importance of export for recycling due to differences in treatment and shipping costs they gave following illustration:

“To recycle glass back into bottles it needs to be sorted by colour. In general, the narrower the categories into which recyclables are sorted and the more meticulous the separation, the easier they are to process and the higher the price they fetch. White office paper is worth more than mixed paper, for example, and bottles made from a single kind of plastic are worth more than an assortment. That is where the economics start getting tricky. Manual sorting is expensive in the rich world, which is why recyclables are often shipped to places with low labour costs. It helps that there are lots of almost empty container ships sailing back to Asia after unloading consumer goods in Europe and America: they will usually carry second hand paper and plastic for a song. After preliminary sorting at Pier 96, for example, many of San Francisco’s salvaged materials are loaded straight into containers bound for China, where they will be combed over much more thoroughly before being recycled.

The biggest American exporter by volume is a firm called American Chung Nam. In 2007 it sent off 211,300 containers of waste paper for recycling, almost all of them to its sister company in China, Nine Dragons Paper. There were six other recycling firms among the 20 biggest exporters. In 2006 CyclOpe estimated the value of the international trade in recyclables at well over $100 billion.”

� Other economic drivers identified by the EEA are: fluctuating rates which may have an impact on the price of exports and imports, national taxes on landfill and

50

29/09/09

incineration that provide an incentive to seek alternatives (either transfrontier disposal33 or recovery), trade barriers (tariffs, quotas) could act as barrier to trade;

� An important driver for the increasing shipments of used products out of the EU is inequality in wealth, which implies that discarded products in the EU have a value for people in other parts of the world;

� Another important factor, not mentioned by EEA, is the worldwide trend of consolidation and internationalisation of the waste markets. Economic power is concentrated in fewer large companies offering an integrated waste solution or service. Often these big companies have to work on a multinational scale because home markets are too small. This generates transboundary waste movements.

The Economist describes the reasons for consolidation, and why the market evolves towards stable large companies as follows:

“For big, integrated firms, waste is a very stable business. Although households and businesses produce somewhat less rubbish in tough economic times, the decline in volume is usually only a percentage point or two, says Mr Parker of the National Solid Wastes Management Association. And contracts often run for long periods. Four Winds Capital Management, an investment firm that is setting up a waste-industry fund, reckons that the average length of a collection contract is seven years; of a disposal contract, nine years; and of an integrated contract, 17 years. No wonder that the big firms’ earnings are still growing nicely. Shares of listed waste firms have also suffered less than most in the recent downturn”.

33 The Flemish legislation of levies for landfilling and incinerating waste has foreseen a special levy for waste which is exported out of the Flemish region in order to be landfilled or incinerated. The levy is as high as the levy for landfilling or incineration minus the levy that might be imposed on these activities by the country of destination. The weak point in this stipulation is the uncertainty on the amount of waste or recycling residue landfilled or incinerated after a first treatment in the country of destination, and the impossibility for Flemish government to control this abroad.

51


Figure 4-11: Global Waste Management Suffering Less from Recession than Average Industry (figures quoted by The Economist, 29 February 2009)

4.2.3.5.2 Legislative Factors

� Rules and standards imposed by the EU: Waste legislation in the EU has a different scope depending on the articles of the Treaty34 on which they are legally based. This can be Article 114 (ex article 95) or Article 192 (ex Article 175.1)35. Article 114 regulates measures for the approximation of the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States which have as their object the establishment and functioning of the internal market. Article 192 regulates measures to preserve, protect and improve the quality of the environment, protecting human health, prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources, promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems.

34 Consolidated version of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, Official Journal of the European Union, 9.5.2008, C 115/49.

35 Regarding the recycling directives: the Batteries Directive has a double reference to both articles. WEEE and ELV directives refers to the old article 175(1), RoHS to the old article 95 and the Packaging Directive to the predecessor of this article 95 (article 100a in the treaty establishing the European Community). The RoHS and WEEE Directives can be considered as one directive, split up over article 95 articles (RoHS) and article 175(1) articles (WEEE). The Waste Framework Directive refers to Article 175(1).

52

29/09/09

Rules and standards imposed under application of Article 114 are meticulously kept equal in all Member States, thus allowing free transboundary movements of waste, without favouring or harming any individual Member State. Rules and Standards imposed under Article 192 are minimum requirements. Each Member State can deviate from them, for environmental policy reasons. This might cause differences between Member States that could incentivise transfrontier movements of waste. It is difficult to counteract such a movement. If the recycling technique uses lower standards than in the country of dispatch, but still according to the European minimum standards, point c in Article 13 cannot be used as a ground for objection (see Section 1.2.2.2);

� Recycling objectives: The recycling directives (packaging waste, WEEE and RoHS, batteries, ELV) and the new waste framework directive impose recycling targets for specific waste streams. Next to this several Member States impose stricter targets or targets for other waste streams. This could lead to a shift from disposal operations, which are to be realised in the Member State based on the self-sufficiency principles, to recycling operations, for which to a certain degree a free market is installed. This could lead to more transboundary movement. A perverse effect might be the shipment of waste for recycling to countries in the Far East where the risk on recycling under low environmental and human conditions is possible;

� Waste management planning: the impact on the available waste treatment capacity, and the possible transboundary waste streams that are generated or avoided by it, is often connected with national or regional waste planning. Planning documents often have a legal binding status for the governments, which they have to respect when judging on environmental permitting for waste treatment installations. Waste planning could also lead to government investments or PPP for the provision of waste treatment capacity or waste collection and separation programmes.

Other legal drivers identified by EEA are business regulation and tax levels, having impact on, amongst others, the ease of starting a new business, selective bans on trade and court rulings, which can go further that the provisions in the Basel ban and the Regulation, WTO trade negotiations and the promotion of free trade.

4.2.3.5.3 Technical Factors

The major technical factor influencing transboundary waster streams is the presence or absence of both specific waste generating industrial sectors and waste treatment installations. This is further illustrated and worked out in Section 4.2.1.

Peculiar factors identified by EEA are the present technical knowledge and levels of education, the possibility to make investments and the access to start-up capital, the penetration of internet use, which facilitates trade, but which makes it easier to set up illegal contacts as well.

The introduction of internet markets for waste facilitates the transboundary movement of waste. These systems help waste generators and waste traders or treatment plants to communicate. The systems however are purely market based and are leading to the cheapest solution for the waste problem, often without guarantees on environmentally sound treatment or treatment at a high level in the waste treatment hierarchy.

53


Government funding or participation in these kinds of internet markets should be guarded with care. Figure 4-12 shows a screenshot from the internet waste market, set up by the Belgian Ministry of Economy, on which a trader asks for all kinds of electronic scrap, printed circuit boards, price and shipment to be discussed (no.2.9.1711-BW). The possibility of export to China is high. Another, probably well meaning user asks on this waste market for second hand material for export to Haiti. He might become unwillingly involved in illegal waste shipment. (no.2-9-1675-RBG, no.2-9-1661-RBG)

Figure 4-12: Screenshots from the Internet Waste Market from the Belgian Ministry of Economy

54

29/09/09

4.2.3.5.4 Demography and Geography

� Population density: geographical concentration and higher population density can lead to greater export pressure, especially in smaller countries that do not have in place a full set of waste treatment infrastructure.

� Length of border lines and proximity to sea can lead to lower transport costs to export.

� The activity of environmental pressure groups, and the societal concern of the public can lead to greater awareness of the issue, and thus lesser export and import of waste.

4.3 Case Study: Flemish Statistics and Trends on Import and Export of Waste.

Belgium is one of the largest importers and exporters of waste under application of the Regulation. In absolute figures, it is the second largest exporter after the Netherlands, and the second largest importer, after Germany, of the EU-27. This makes Belgium, and Flanders, which imports and exports by far the largest part, an interesting case through which to consider European trends in the field of transboundary movement of waste. Table 4-7 shows that the geographical position of a country and the presence or absence of large waste collection and recycling or treatment infrastructure largely influences transboundary shipment.

Table 4-7: Import and Export of Waste to/from EU Member States under Application of the Regulation in 2004 (figures Basel Convention)

CCCCountryountryountryountry Import (tonnes)Import (tonnes)Import (tonnes)Import (tonnes) Export (tonnes)Export (tonnes)Export (tonnes)Export (tonnes) Austria 517.154 102.761 Belgium 925.354 696.224 Bulgaria - 18.707 Cyprus 4.324 - Estonia 1.095 3.198 Finland 67.714 36.975 France 474.183 429.338 Germany 697.019 5.196.410 Greece 2.045 1.996 Hungary 32.092 127 Ireland 339.786 439 Italy 622.672 134.636 Latvia 3.697 36.043 Lithuania 5.225 106 Luxembourg 311.032 35.490 The Netherlands 1.635.304 559.680 Poland 4.047 5.329 Romania 2.106 - Slovakia 184 67.895 Slovenia 17.458 17.334 Spain 71.729 59.374 Sweden 69.855 278.239 UK 68.590 126.171

55


Figure 4-13: Import of Waste to EU Member States

Import of waste under application of Regulation 1013/2007/EC (tonnes)

0

200.000

400.000

600.000

800.000

1.000.000

1.200.000

1.400.000

1.600.000

1.800.000

The N

ether

lands

Belgium

Germ

any

Italy

Austri

a

Franc

e

Irelan

d

Luxe

mbo

urg

Spain

Sweden UK

Finlan

d

Hunga

ry

Sloven

ia

Lithu

ania

Cypru

s

Poland

Latvi

a

Roman

ia

Greec

e

Estonia

Slovak

ia

Bulgar

ia

Figure 4-14: Export of Waste from EU Member States

Export of waste under application of Regulation 1013/2006/EC (tonnes)

0

100.000

200.000

300.000

400.000

500.000

600.000

700.000

800.000

900.000

1.000.000

Germ

any

Belgium

The N

ethe

rland

s

Franc

e

Sweden Ita

ly UK

Austri

a

Slovak

iaSpa

in

Finlan

d

Latvi

a

Luxe

mbo

urg

Bulgar

ia

Sloven

ia

Poland

Estonia

Greec

e

Irelan

d

Hunga

ry

Lithu

ania

Cypru

s

Roman

ia

5,196,410

56

29/09/09

The figures for Flanders are not derived from the amounts of waste for which export and import is permitted, but they are based on the quantities that actually have been shipped, taking into account the quantities registered on the pre-notification, post-notification and treatment certificates (see footnote 7).

Figure 4-15 shows a steady and steep increase of waste shipped under application of the Directive can be observed, continuing until today.

Figure 4-15: Import and Export in Flanders under application of the Regulation 1013/2007/EC (blue: import, red: export)

Wastes shipped in the largest quantities are sludge, metal-containing waste, ashes, and liquids and wastes which are not mentioned on the lists, and therefore are submitted to a notification procedure. Of particular interest is the fact that the same kinds of waste are important both in the figures for import, and for export (see Table 4-8 and Table 4-9).

57


Table 4-8: Top Ten Export Waste Materials into Flanders under Application of Regulation 259/93/EEC for the Period 2000-2006

Old Old Old Old OECD OECD OECD OECD CodeCodeCodeCode

DescriptionDescriptionDescriptionDescription 2000200020002000 2001200120012001 2002200220022002 2003200320032003 2004200420042004 2005200520052005 2006200620062006

Red list procedure for waste

non mentioned ion the OECD lists

52,17 62,37 69,04 113,30 282,59 196,92 150,35

AC270 Sewage sludge 79,61 131,82 82,03 48,24 38,68 39,30 20,46

AD160 Municipal/household wastes 95,41 44,83 16,85 22,96 13,65 15,92 0,29

AC170 Treated cork and wood wastes 38,94 13,22 33,28 53,54 162,22 102,81 74,35

AA010 Dross, scalings and other

wastes from the manufacture of iron and steel

70,11 33,64 38,84 69,94 69,22 64,38 56,44

AC030 Waste oils unfit for their originally intended use

41,11 61,15 49,70 39,14 40,27 44,99 42,83

AD110 Acidic solutions 70,25 26,75 29,79 34,98 33,96 34,22 35,20

AB020 Residues arising from the

combustion of municipal/household wastes

26,69 77,58 84,61 59,42 64,34 71,55

AA070

Ashes and residues containing metals or metal compounds

not elsewhere specified or included

24,94 23,12 26,51 30,68 35,14 32,75 37,95

58

29/09/09

Table 4-9: Top Ten Export Waste Materials into Flanders under Application of Regulation 259/93/EEC for the Period 2000-2006

Old Old Old Old OECD OECD OECD OECD CodeCodeCodeCode

DescriptionDescriptionDescriptionDescription 2000200020002000 2001200120012001 2002200220022002 2003200320032003 2004200420042004 2005200520052005 2006200620062006

Red list procedure for waste

non mentioned ion the OECD lists

5,09 24,17 63,41 312,27 447,40 234,59 323,93

AC170 Treated cork and wood wastes 95,24 144,98 185,72 190,89 145,52 118,48 182,21

AA030 Lead ashes and residues 26,84 25,38 31,03 31,66 80,16 38,44 30,59

AA070

Ashes and residues containing metals or metal compounds

not elsewhere specified or included

49,63 45,07 44,95 39,91 25,33 24,54 26,98

AA170 Lead-acid batteries, whole or crushed

37,38 35,49 39,39 42,05 42,56 38,06 39,08

AA040 Copper ashes and residues 21,84 27,15 29,47 28,12 27,85 29,80 33,43

AD110 Acidic solutions 23,99 22,87 40,94 14,20 12,49 9,10 13,02

AD060 Waste oils/water,

hydrocarbons/water mixtures, emulsions

0,63 12,52 13,33 13,72 19,22 17,58 15,21

Polluted soil under amber list procedure

22,94 54,42 55,16 34,41 10,10 40,09

AA020 Zinc ashes and residues 19,46 13,98 9,66 12,16 18,80 13,06 14,12

These figures and waste streams can be compared with data reported by the waste producers. They reported on any kind of waste, thus including waste classified as green listed waste as well. Only those waste streams which are treated for more than 10% in foreign countries are included in Table 4-10 below.

59


Table 4-10: Location of Waste Treatment for Waste Generated in Flanders in 2005

GGGGenerated enerated enerated enerated

in 2005in 2005in 2005in 2005 % % % % TreatedTreatedTreatedTreated…

Flanders Wallonia Brussels Foreign

counties

Total waste 35,080.20 84.6 5.9 1.3 8.30

Non-hazardous waste 32,205.40 74.3 13.5 1.6 10.70

Hazardous waste 2,874.80 85.5 5.2 1.3 8.00

Primary waste 24,949.10 89.7 3.7 1 5.60

Secondary waste from waste treatment 10,131.10 69.6 12.1 2.1 16.20

Waste from flue gas treatment 103.4 28.1 1.5 0 70.40

Film and celluloid waste 2.8 32.2 0 0 67.80

Metal oxides and metal containing process baths

375.2 20.6 17.5 0 61.90

End of life vehicles 57.2 50.6 0.2 0 49.10

Liquid fossil fuels 7 55.1 0.1 0 44.80

Finished catalyst waste 8.9 60.9 0.2 0 38.90

Waste from photo chemicals 17.1 63.8 3.3 0 32.80

Acids and bases 31.9 37.4 34.4 0 28.20

WEEE 55.5 59.3 4.3 11.7 24.60

Batteries 42.6 46.2 3.9 25.6 24.40

Packaging waste 661.9 66.5 7 2.6 24.00

Plastic waste 402.6 69.6 6.8 0.4 23.20

Textiles 122.4 61.4 18.5 0.1 20.00

Glass 172.5 72.6 8.7 0 18.70

Paper and cardboard excluding packaging

2,033.1 80.3 1.6 0.7 17.40

Metal waste and scrap 2,071.7 65.1 14.2 4.7 16.00

Ashes and slags 1,800.9 83.6 1 0 15.40

Cyanide containing waste 2.2 81.6 4.7 0 13.70

Wood waste 1,396.4 79.3 7 0.3 13.40

Bio-waste 1,528.7 78.6 7.9 0.6 12.90

Waste from paint, varnish and other coatings

47.3 51.9 35.6 0 12.40

organic solvents 143 68.2 19.9 0.3 11.60

waste from mineral and synthetic oils 202.7 70.4 19 0 10.60

filtration and absorption materials 52.7 64.4 25.1 0.1 10.40

60

29/09/09

The mort important waste importing industrial sectors in the period 2000-2006 have been:

� The waste treatment sector;

� Production of ferrous metals;

� Chemical industry;

� Metal processing industry; and

� Wood processing industry.

The most important waste exporting industrial sectors have been:

� The waste treatment sector (by far the most important);

� Production of ferrous metals;

� Chemical industry;

� Sewage water treatment;

� Municipalities;

� Metal processing industry; and

� Production of non ferrous metals.

In 2006 waste was shipped mainly to countries shown in Table 4-11.

Table 4-11: Countries of Dispatch and Destination for Import and Export of Waste under Application of Regulation 1013/2006/EC in 2006

IMPORTIMPORTIMPORTIMPORT tonnestonnestonnestonnes % of % of % of % of TTTTotal otal otal otal IIIImportmportmportmport

The Netherlands 548,751 66.3%

France 120,478 14.6%

Germany 69,732 8.4%

United States 13,342 1.6%

Ireland 13,224 1.6%

EXPORTEXPORTEXPORTEXPORT tonnestonnestonnestonnes % of Total Import% of Total Import% of Total Import% of Total Import

Germany 275,505 40.62%

The Netherlands 207,290 30.57%

France 120,346 17.75%

Sweden 17,741 2.62%

China 17,309 2.55%

61


Import and export mainly occurs between bordering countries, but for specific import or export streams, worldwide movements become important. Exports to non-OECD countries is increasing at a rapid rate.

Wastes shipped from Ireland to Flanders include:

� Lead containing accumulators to Campine;

� Mercury containing waste (fluorescent tubes) to Indaver Relight;

� Liquids and sludges (including wastewater treatment sludge) to Shanks for physico-chemical pre-treatment, or to Indaver for treatment and incineration;

� Various hazardous wastes to Indaver for incineration;

� Pharmaceutical wastes to Indaver for incineration;

� Waste mineral oils to RD recycling;

� Solvents for recycling at De Neef Chemical processing;

� Metal containing waste to different metal producers; and

� PCB to SITA decontamination.

Figure 4-16: Exports from Flanders to Non-OECD Countries, Under Application of the Regulation 1013/2006/EC and 1418/2007/EC.

Export from Flanders to non OECD countries

in application of Regulations 1013/2006/EC and 1418/2007/EC

0

10.000.000

20.000.000

30.000.000

40.000.000

50.000.000

60.000.000

70.000.000

80.000.000

90.000.000

100.000.000

Pakistan 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.500.000 0

Malaysia 5.600.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Indonesia 2.000.000 2.000.000 0 0 0 0 0 0

India 11.880.000 19.280.000 25.280.000 37.180.000 21.942.000 22.560.000 35.460.000 71.400.000

China 200.000 0 0 0 20.100.000 42.400.000 52.975.000 0

Bangladesh 0 0 1.250.000 0 150.000 0 150.000 0

Angola 0 0 25.000 500.000 0 0 0 0

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

unknown

62

29/09/09

Table 4-12: Waste Streams from Ireland to Flanders Under Application of Regulation 1013/2006/EC, Permitted between 2005 and 2008, in tonnes

NotifierNotifierNotifierNotifier Treatment plantTreatment plantTreatment plantTreatment plant CCCCodeodeodeode 2005200520052005 2006200620062006 2007200720072007 2008200820082008

Atlas Environmental, Laois Campine Recycling R04 700 2640

Avr Safeway Ltd, Cork Indaver Relight R04 10 10 50 50

Avr Safeway Ltd, Cork Shanks Vlaanderen Divisie

Roeselare D09 1000 1000

Cara Environmental Technology Ltd., Dublin

Shanks Vlaanderen Divisie Roeselare

D09 66

Cara Waste Management Ltd., Rathcoole


D09 1500

Cedar Resource Management Ltd., Dublin


D09 1660 300

Enva, Cork Campine Recycling R04 220

Enva, Laois Campine Recycling R04 2640 2640

Enva, Laois R.D. Recycling R04 1300 1500

Enva, Shannon, Co. Clare Misa Eco R06 350

Indaver Ireland, Cork Apparec R04 3600

Indaver Ireland, Cork Chemogas D10 40 150

Indaver Ireland, Cork De Neef Chemical Processing R02 700

Indaver Ireland, Cork Indaver D09 1824 580 300

Indaver Ireland, Cork Indaver D10 23970 23300 17398 19950

Indaver Ireland, Cork Indaver Relight R04 380 108 54

Indaver Ireland, Cork Shanks Vlaanderen Divisie

Roeselare D09 3000 440 1200

Indaver Ireland, Cork Sita Decontamination R04 100 80

Metal Processors Ltd., Clondalkin-Ballymount

Metallo Chimique R04 100 250 250

Metal Processors Ltd., Clondalkin-Ballymount

Metallo-Chimique R04 150 250

Onyx Environmental Services, Dublin

Machiels D10 500

Rilta Environmental Ltd., Rathcoole

Rezinal R04 350 475 380

Veolia Es Technical Solutions Ireland Ltd, Dublin 10

Indaver Medical Services D10 602

63


5.0 Self Sufficiency and Proximity Principles and the Availability of Final Treatment Capacity

5.1 Realising Self Sufficiency

The principles of proximity and self-sufficiency can be applied as a ground for objections against waste shipments for disposal only. However Member States may be tempted to use it as well for recovery, or apply it in a way that is protecting national installations. In Austria, approval for waste shipment is issued only if there is no treatment capacity available in the country. However, transport distance is considered as well. So if Tyrol wants to treat its domestic waste in Munich (200 km distance) although there would be treatment capacity in an incinerator in Upper Austria (400 km distance), it should receive a notification for export to Germany. In practice, however, the way in which the question might be resolved may depend upon who has the stronger lobby, and Austrian operators (the Austrian economy) have a stronger influence on the National Ministry than foreign players.

5.2 Case Study: Fly-Ash

In Austria, fly ash and bottom ash and other flue gas cleaning residues from waste incinerators are disposed of in a former salt mine in Germany. Medium sized countries like Austria and Ireland do not necessarily maintain a complete set of functions in many areas, even in sensitive ones such as national safety or education36. It can be questioned if it is necessary for environmental and organisational reasons that every European country (except the smallest micro-states) maintains all the functions of supply, disposal, recycling in a waste treatment chain. Waste incineration capacity in a medium sized country might depend upon the waste disposal capacity for fly ash in a neighbouring country.

This might conflict with the intention of the principle of self sufficiency for disposal, although it is in accordance with the letter of the Regulation. Article 11.1a and g (i) of the Regulation state that Member States can prohibit, generally or partially, or object systematically, to shipments in breach with the self-sufficiency principle. When local disposal capacity is available, the waste cannot be shipped to foreign disposal operations.

These articles do not impose on the Member States a requirement to develop domestic disposal capacity for waste generated in the country. Preamble 20 of the Regulation refers, however to the Waste Framework Directive 98/2008/EC. Article 16 of the Directive regulates the application of the self-sufficiency principle for disposal of mixed household waste. It requires that the Community as a whole becomes self-sufficient in waste disposal

36 Austria hired military air-crafts for traffic control for considerable time from Switzerland, and does not foresee in the full curriculum of university degrees.

64

29/09/09

and in the recovery of mixed municipal waste collected from private households, and seeks to enable the Member States to move towards that aim individually37.

Member States shall take appropriate measures, in cooperation with other Member States where this is necessary or advisable, to establish an integrated and adequate network of waste disposal installations and of installations for the recovery of mixed municipal waste. Member States can take into consideration geographical circumstances or the need for specialised installations for certain types of waste.

If Ireland was to install waste incineration plants, it would not be obliged to provide landfill capacity for the fly-ash from these plants. Fly ash is not considered mixed municipal waste, even when originating from the incineration of this kind of waste. The obligation to move towards self-sufficiency, even in a larger geographical context (together with Northern Ireland) as stipulated in Article 16 of the Directive, is therefore not applicable. However, if capacity in Ireland or nearby (in Northern Ireland) exists for landfilling fly ash, the proximity and self sufficiency principles need to be applied and the waste cannot be exported for landfilling overseas. Furthermore, were capacity for incineration to increase significantly, and if the quantity of ash was to increase as a result, then receiving Member States could object to the export to the extent that it jeopardised their own self-sufficiency.

37 It is important to note that incineration without energy recovery is considered as disposal (D10) and that only incineration with energy recovery which reaches efficiency above a specified level is considered recovery (R01).

65


6.0 The Relationship between Quality and Export of Waste for Recycling

As described in Section 4.2.3 shipment costs as well as treatment costs play an important role in the destination of waste where it is to be sent for recovery.

Three main treatment options can be considered. The quantity of waste generated remains stable of augments, but the balance between the treatment options evolved due to market driven trends:

� Recycling in the country or in neighbouring countries (member States)

� Recycling in the far east or non-OECD countries

� Disposal or use for energy recovery

Local recycling involves high technology installations and aims at generating a high quality recycled product, or raw material, usually with relatively low input of manual labour. It tends to be more cost competitive when high prices are obtained for the high quality recycled raw material.

Until 2007, the recycling industry flourished. Because treatment of low quality waste required manual sorting, which is expensive, the domestic recycling industry usually was not interested in treating these waste fractions, and so the waste recycling industry developed a secondary business in waste trading. They effectively became brokers, with high quality waste recycled in domestic installations, and lower quality waste is exported to non-OECD countries.

Recycling in non-OECD countries involves low investments in infrastructure and a high level of manual labour. It is favoured when high prices are obtained for medium to low quality recycled raw material. It is negatively affected by the long transport distances which are often implied by transport from EU countries. Until 2007, the recycling industry in non-OECD countries flourished due to low shipment prices and abundant shipment capacity, generated by returning containers in which goods have been imported in Europe. Poor working conditions and low environmental costs increased the profitability of recycling even for low quality waste streams. Waste was distributed through international waste trading (by independent traders or by the European waste collection and recycling industry). Often waste is handed over to local traders finding the cheapest and most profitable solution for waste recycling.

Disposal or energy recovery involves large investments in infrastructure. It benefits from low prices for recycled products, or raw materials, and price support for energy from waste that may be classified as green energy. Disposal benefits from relatively low treatment costs compared to recycling, especially where these are not corrected by levies seeking to internalise environmental damages. When the value of waste becomes negative, disposal is competitive with recycling activities. Disposal accepts mixed waste and low quality waste.

When prices are low for raw materials, as has been the case since the second half of 2008, recycling becomes more expensive. Domestic reprocessors will request an even higher quality of waste material to make recycling profitable, and recycling in non OECD-

66

29/09/09

countries might become interesting for a broader scope of waste quality, on the condition that cheap waste shipment remains available, and with lower quality shipments finding it more difficult to find a useful home. Recycling of the lowest quality of waste can become non-profitable even for certain non-OECD countries. A shift from India to Bangladesh or from the east coast of China to the western inland could be expected.

Since there has been a significant drop in the recyclate market, demand now appears to be for higher quality materials. Irish exports tend to be of poor quality. However an “Action Group on Recyclates Markets” was set up in December 2008 and they agreed that a higher quality material was required for access to the key Chinese market and this had implications for some operators’ current collection and treatment systems. Greyhound (a nationwide waste management service in Ireland) indicated that it may have secured a contract recently though at a reduction of up to 80% on previous price with China.

67


7.0 Inspection Strategies The following strategies are used to oversee the quality of the permitted transboundary waste flows:

� The quality of evaluation of notification;

� The registration of actors;

� Pre- and post shipment notifications and bank guarantees; and

� Border inspections.

7.1 Quality of Evaluation of Notification

Inspection starts with an a priori phase when requests for transboundary movement of waste are evaluated within the notification procedures of Regulation 1013/2006/EC. The evaluation serves two goals:

� To check if the information given is correct, and sufficient to make a correct judgement of the situation. In this phase, the content and the Annexes of the notification need to be scrutinised. The following questions are posed:

• Is the producer really the producer, or are they a collector or a trader? Is the collected waste coming from the country of dispatch? Can the collector guarantee the composition and the uniformity of the waste shipped?

• Are supplementary actors involved in the procedure who are not mentioned in the notification? Who has bought, or requested, the notification form? Who has posed the bank guarantee, and why?

• Is the suggested treatment method realistic? What is known about the treatment company? Is it really recycling, recovery or potentially a means of disguising disposal?

• What is likely to happen with the recycling residues? How much recycling residue will there be?

• Do the description and the code used contain enough information to judge the nature of the waste?

• Are the annexes to the notification form consistent, or contradictory, to the form and to each other?

• Will a logical transport route be used?

• Are all documents duly signed? Do the actors take legal responsibility?

• What is known about the actors (permits, registrations, legal allowances, etc.)?

• Does the waste type correspond with the nature of the activities of the producer?

68

29/09/09

• Does the waste treatment type correspond with the nature of the activities of the treatment installation?

• Is the treatment installation treating the waste itself (this is important for shipments to the Far East, where treatment plants often play the role of local traders, and pass on the waste to other installations - often, Chinese waste treatment plants can be found on internet under commercial registries for trading companies)?

• Has the treatment installation enough capacity to cope with the waste?

• What are the antecedents of the waste shipment? What happened with earlier waste shipments?

• Is the proposed solution economically realistic or credible? If not, the real scenario might differ from the scenario in the notification.

� To check if the situation is in line with the desired waste policy. In this phase the grounds for objection, as included in Articles 11 or 12, are to be evaluated (see Section 1.2.2).

7.2 Registration of Actors

Member States use different registration systems to record the actors involved or to authorize them for certain activities. Often these registrations and authorizations are based upon the IPPC and the Waste Framework directives.

The person who arranges the shipment of green listed waste in Ireland must be registered with the National Trans Frontier Shipment Office (NTFSO) under the Waste Management (Registration of Brokers and Dealers) Regulations 2008, and is required to provide summary information on a monthly basis to the NTFSO regarding any shipments proposed for the next business month.

Several registration and reporting obligations occur in other Member States as well.

7.3 Pre- and Post Shipment Notifications and Bank Guarantees

A pre-notification is requested at least three days before each individual shipment allowed under the notification procedure from the Regulation. The goal of this pre-notification is to inform competent authorities of the shipment, and allow them to organise an inspection of it.

A post notification is requested at least three days after arrival of the waste at its destination. This post-notification often contains higher quality information on the amount of waste shipped, as it is filled in when the waste has passed the weighbridge at the destination. It serves a dual goal for the purposes of both inspection and for the generation of statistics.

A certificate of final treatment is requested at least a year after arrival of the shipment.

The non-compliance with these pre- and post-notifications hampers inspection and can constitute grounds for objection for successive waste streams.

Enforcement of this obligation is carried out in the Netherlands based upon the bank guarantee. The competent authority of the country of dispatch is the only actor legally

69


allowed to lift the bank guarantee (Regulation Art 6). This cannot be done until all certificates of final treatment have been received. This can be extended to the reception of all pre- and post-notifications as well.

The Flemish competent authority follows the same policy, but the effectiveness of the process depends upon the quality check on, and the approval of, the bank guarantees. Often they include an illegal statement that the guarantee ends automatically after a certain time, which is in breach with the sole competence of the authority to lift the guarantee.

7.4 Border Inspections

The most often used form of inspection consists of border inspections or random inspections on the road. Inspections are often led by customs services, who have to consult environmental inspectors in cases where the situation under investigation is unclear, e.g., in cases of whether a good is to be considered a waste, or used product.

This is a generic issue relating to the definition of waste. Generally it is up to the holder of the material to determine whether it is waste, or a second hand good. In the UK there are no specific provisions for distinguishing between ‘waste’ and ‘second hand goods’ in relation to the export of material. If the material is not ‘waste’ (i.e. it is a second hand good), then no transfrontier shipment requirements apply. Several Member States issue guiding documents on this issue, e.g. the ‘Guide to when electrical and electronic equipment is considered waste and the controls that apply’ published by the Environment Agency in the UK, or a similar guidance on WEEE and ELVs destined for export, produced by the Flemish agency, OVAM38.

In Ireland, the NTFSO carries out inspections on a daily basis in accordance with the RMCEI Environmental Inspection Plan submitted to the EPA. By arrangement, the NTFSO organises and coordinates concerted actions with the NIEA. The office works closely with the National Port and Customs authorities. Cooperation between the NTFSO, other Local Authorities and An Garda Siochana is ongoing for the purpose of carrying out inspections at checkpoints. The NTFSO participates in joint enforcement activities with EU Competent, Port and Customs Authorities through the auspices of IMPEL.

7.5 International Guidelines

Transfrontier movement of waste is par excellence a topic that needs to be covered in a multilateral or international context. The quality and effectiveness of inspection is benefiting from organised cooperation (as achieved through the IMPEL-network) and from the application of internationally accepted guidelines. These guidelines do not, however, prevent a Member State from adopting tighter rules, and they offer a minimum baseline standard.

Several guidelines have been developed:

38 Export naar niet-OESO landen zoals o.m. Afrika en het Verre Oosten, www.ovam.be

70

29/09/09

� The secretariat of the Basel Convention provides technical guidelines, guidance manuals and training manuals on several issues. Important are:

• Guidelines on environmentally sound management of waste containing several hazardous substances, such as POPs, PCBs, DDT, dioxins, furans, hexachlorobenzene, pesticides;

• Guidelines on identification and sound management of plastic waste, on sound management of ship dismantling, used tyres, lead acid batteries, metals and metal compounds;

• Guidance papers on hazard characteristics like H6.2 (infectious substances), H11 (delayed or chronic toxicity) and H12 (ecotoxicity);

• Technical guidelines on selected hazardous waste types, such as solvents, oils, biomedical and healthcare waste;

• Technical guidelines on the treatment of household waste; and

• Technical guidelines on environmentally sound landfill, incineration, oil refining, physico chemical treatment, and biological treatment;

� The IMPEL network develops supporting instruments to help Member States enforce regulations regarding transboundary waste movements, alongside internationally coordinating enforcement initiatives and organising exchange between national enforcement agents:39

• The IMPEL TFS threat assessment project: highlights the threats from illegal transfrontier shipments of waste, and provides methodologies for Member States to assess these threats;

• A TFS workgroup focuses on threat assessment on the export of end of life vehicles to various destinations, particularly in Africa and Eastern Europe, including the development of a common procedure and classification of these vehicles in order to improve the enforcement related to this particular waste stream. A.O. Ireland applies the IMPEL-criteria for establishing the classification of vehicles as waste or non-waste.

• A pilot study to develop a database to register interpretations of the Waste Shipment Regulation and related legislation and information. This encountered several problems and the Steering Committee of IMPEL-TFS decided that even though a consistent interpretation is required, it is not the right time or initiative to carry forward the project and the project will be stopped;

� Under application of Article 54 of the Regulation, Member States and the Commission have designated one or more correspondents responsible for informing or advising persons or undertakings making enquiries. The Commission

39 Seaport project I and II, verification of notified waste destination project I and II.

71


correspondent forwards to the correspondents of the Member States any questions put to them which concern the latter, and vice versa. The correspondents’ meeting has agreed upon a common understanding of how the Regulation should be interpreted. The guidelines it has developed are not legally binding, as the binding interpretation of Community law is the exclusive competence of the European Court of Justice. The following guidelines have been issued:

• Revised Correspondents' Guidelines No 1, on shipments of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE);

• Correspondents' Guidelines No 2, concerning information on imports into the Community of waste generated by armed forces or relief organisations;

• Correspondents' Guidelines No 3, on a certificate for subsequent non-interim recovery or disposal;

• Correspondents' Guidelines No 4, on classification of waste electrical and electronic equipment and fly ash from coal-fired power plants;

• Correspondents' Guidelines No 5, on classification of wood waste under entries B3050 or AC170 – ‘Untreated cork and wood waste’ and ‘Treated cork and wood wastes’; and

• Correspondents' Guidelines No 6, on classification of slags from processing of copper alloys under entries GB040 and B1100 (‘Slags from precious metals and copper processing for further refining’ and ‘Metal-bearing wastes arising from melting, smelting and refining of metals’).

� Several Member States have adopted these guidelines.

72

29/09/09

8.0 Recommendations The policy recommendations are as follows:

� Ireland should use all legitimate instruments included in Article 11 and 12 of the Regulation to steer transfrontier waste shipments to the highest quality of waste treatment. The aim should be to avoid eco-dumping of waste based on lesser environmental or social conditions or less stringent control. The National TFS office currently only issues consent in the wake of properly completed TFS notification subject to the decision made by the competent authorities of destination. Active and completed shipments are closely monitored, but there is an argument that the reliance on paper work is currently too strong;

� Develop a guidance document on applying and interpreting all bullet points mentioned in Articles 11 and 12, possibly based upon, for example, the detailed German Vollzugshilfe zur Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1013/2006 und zum abfallverbringungsgesetz (LAGA 2008);

� Apply the precautionary principle in cases where notification and documentation are insufficient to guarantee a sound waste treatment abroad, or if any source of doubt still occurs;

� Implement, within the national waste management plan, sufficient elements that would allow application of Article 11 point g iii) or Article 12 point k;

� Seek cooperation in the transnational bottom-up initiative EUDIN on electronic exchange of pre- and post-notification between Member States. Ireland’s current notification process is fully paper based which is time consuming and fault sensitive. A digitised application such as EUDIN could create a single way of communication between competent authorities;

� Prohibit as a general rule, under application of Article 4(1) of the Basel Convention, the import for disposal of hazardous wastes, wastes collected from households, or residues arising from the incineration of household waste, in order to safeguard the treatment capacity (existing or to be developed) for Irish waste. This could enhance the self-sufficiency principle and reduce dependence on export for Irish waste. According to the National Hazardous Waste Management Plan 2008-2012 it is recommended that Ireland should strive for greater self sufficiency in hazardous waste management where this is technically and economically feasible.

� Include in the legislation, or in the waste management plan, that waste cannot be exported if a higher quality of waste treatment is available in Ireland. Higher quality means higher on the waste treatment hierarchy, subject to environmental considerations, or covered by more stringent environmental conditions. This is not currently set out within Irish legislation although recommended in good practice. It may give greater security to investments within Ireland;

� As in the Netherlands, foresee a framework for checking the transboundary movement of waste against the policy of the waste management plan. In a national waste plan, consideration should be given to the inclusion within the plan a specific part concerning defined waste streams. The chapter on each waste stream should

73


contain a paragraph on the policy related to transboundary movement of that waste for disposal, recovery or recycling;

� Keep track of illegal acts of specific actors, or on the compliance with obligations of earlier waste exports. All documents relating to a notified shipment are currently kept for at least three years from the date when the shipment is starts by the notifier, the NTFS office, the consignee and the facility which receives the waste. A specific list to keep account of specific actors, or of events of non-compliance with obligations of earlier waste exports may be beneficial;

� Foresee a stringent distinction between ‘waste’ and ‘second hand goods’. The export of second hand goods that are near to entering the waste phase, to countries where a sound treatment of the waste cannot be secured should be avoided (e.g. electrical or electronic equipment or second hand cars). With regard to ELV’s, Ireland applies the Implementation & Enforcement of Environmental Law (IMPEL) criteria for establishing for classification of vehicles as waste or non- waste A take-back responsibility for exporters of these goods should be in place. Stricter definitions, and more frequent inspections of, these wastes should be implemented to sharpen the distinction between ‘waste’ and ‘second hand goods’ and ensure that wastes are not exported as ‘second hand goods’.;

� Foresee more stringent follow up of export streams to non-OECD countries, even if a control regime under application of Regulation 1418/2007/EC would allow a more free movement of waste.40 At present figures for the proportion of shipments inspected are not available in relation to the total number of amber listed and green listed shipments of waste carried out on an annual basis. Therefore it appears more stringent follow up of export streams to non-OECD countries is needed;

� Classify plastics possibly containing certain flame retardants as hazardous, as in Norway, and avoid export to non-OECD countries. This is important for Ireland;

� In the context of proposals in the Main Report for increased recycling targets and increased levies on residual waste, additional care regarding the nature and the quality of recycling operations is required. These measures are likely to give rise to additional pressures to export, especially low quality recyclables;

� Keep internet-based waste market systems under control by requesting a permit for these market systems, and by applying controls to oversee the legality and desirability of all waste solutions offered; and

� Use the international guidance documents as a baseline for Irish inspection and policy strategies, but go further where this is judged appropriate or necessary.

Our understanding is that the TFS already uses the bank guarantee as an instrument to enforce the full application of pre-notifications and post-notifications, as well as certificates for final treatment. Before any shipment takes place a financial guarantee to

40 For example, consider, and guard against, the risks of export of e.g. cable scrap to China, or plastic foil to India.

74

29/09/09

cover the cost of transport, disposal or recovery for up to 90 days and any costs incurred due to illegal or incompleted shipments. Subject to compliance with all other relevant provisions of the regulations the export of waste cannot be effected unless a certificate had been issued by the National TFS office confirming that there is an adequate financial guarantee in force to cover the proposed shipment. The financial guarantee is released when the National TFS office receives certified confirmation of the completion of the final recovery or disposal operations.

75


A.1.1 Literature

Basel Convention Country Fact Sheet Austria

Basel Convention Country Fact Sheet Belgium

Basel Convention Country Fact Sheet Croatia

Basel Convention Country Fact Sheet Cyprus

Basel Convention Country Fact Sheet Czech Republic

Basel Convention Country Fact Sheet Denmark

Basel Convention Country Fact Sheet Estonia

Basel Convention Country Fact Sheet Finland

Basel Convention Country Fact Sheet Germany

Basel Convention Country Fact Sheet Greece

Basel Convention Country Fact Sheet Hungary

Basel Convention Country Fact Sheet Ireland

Basel Convention Country Fact Sheet Italy

Basel Convention Country Fact Sheet Latvia

Basel Convention Country Fact Sheet Luxembourg

Basel Convention Country Fact Sheet Norway

Basel Convention Country Fact Sheet Poland

Basel Convention Country Fact Sheet Romania

Basel Convention Country Fact Sheet Slovakia

Basel Convention Country Fact Sheet Slovenia

Basel Convention Country Fact Sheet Sweden

Basel Convention Country Fact Sheet The Netherlands

Basel Convention Country Fact Sheet UK

Basel Convention, brochure regional and coordinating centres

Basel Convention, Vital Waste Graphics

Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal

BIPRO, Organisation of awareness-raising events concerning the application and enforcement of Community legislation on shipment of waste, 2007

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1418/2007 of 29 November 2007 concerning the export for recovery of certain waste listed in Annex III or IIIA to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council to certain countries to which the OECD Decision on the control of transboundary movements of wastes does not apply, consolidated version

EC DG-environment, List of issues relevant for adding new wastes to Annex IIIB, Biodegradable garden and park waste.

Embassy of India, Note Verbale addressed to the EC, DG-trade, 7 February 2007

EPA Ireland, National Waste Report 2007

76

29/09/09

ETC/RWM Transboundary shipments of waste in the EU, developments 1995-2005 and possible drivers, Technical Report 2008/1

EUROSTAT, External trade statistics, Metadata in SDDS format: Summary Methodology

IMPEL-TFS, Threat assessment project: the illegal shipment of waste among IMPEL member states. Project report, 2005

IMPEL-TFS, Waste interpretation database, 2007

Institut für Umweltforschung (INFU) / Prognos AG, Waste streams and secondary materials in the EU, prepared by, Nov 2007

LAGA, Mitteilung der Bund-/Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Abfall 25, Vollzugshilfe zur Abfallverbringung, 2008

Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce, Government of India, Handbook of Procedures (Vol. I) 1st September 2004 - 31st March 2009

OECD, Decision of the Council C(2001)107/final concerning the control of transboundary movements of wastes destined for recovery operations, as amended by C(2004)20

OECD, Guidance manual for the control of transboundary movements of recoverable wastes

Öko institut, assistance EDC waste 2008 final report

OVAM, Bedrijfsafvalstoffen. cijfers en trends voor productie, verwerking, invoer en uitvoer, January 2008

OVAM, Export naar niet-OESO landen zoals o.m. Afrika en het Verre Oosten, on www.ovam.be

People’s Republic of China, Reply to the Questionnaire Relating to Regulation (EC) No. 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Amended on 17th July, 2007)

Prognos, European Atlas of Secondary Raw Materials, 2004 Status Quo and Potentials, Jan 2008

Regulation (EC) no 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (consolidated)

SEPA, List of Waste Used as Raw Materials under Automatic-Licensing Import Category in China (No. 5 SEPA Announcement 2005)

Umweltbundesamt Deutschland, Zeitreihe zur grenzüberschreitenden Abfallverbringung ab Inkrafttreten der EG-Abfallverbringungsverordnung

Websites:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/impel/impel_tfs.htm (IMPEL-TFS)

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/index.htm (DG-environment)

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/global/environment/waste.htm (DG-trade)

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/newxtweb/ (comext)

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=3155,70491033,3155_70521316&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL (EUROSTAT data centre on waste)

http://www.basel.int/ (Basel Convention)

http://www.basel.int/natreporting/cfs.html (Basel country fact sheets)

http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/waste/ (vital waste graphics)

http://www.oecd.org/document/52/0,3343,en_2649_34395_2674996_1_1_1_1,00.html (OECD waste shipment)

http://www.ovam.be

http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/abfallwirtschaft-e/abfallstatistik/index.htm

international review of waste management policy: annex 65 ... · dr dominic hogg, dr adrian gibbs,...

Documents