Waste prevention continues to be the primary objective in the EU’s waste management policy. The overall approach is based on three main principles: reduce, reuse and recycle. Nonetheless, the waste management business is considered to be particularly vulnerable to corruption. Thus, there is an increasing need for more transparency in this sector across the EU.
Come May, the European Commission is set to review EU waste legislation. Policymakers have been looking at different ways to enhance transparency in this field. Particular emphasis is also laid on the economic aspect of waste management. The idea behind this is that greater transparency will lead to a better circular economy. If better performance is ensured, municipalities and business can get more benefits out of the materials that enter the market. This would entail more benefits for consumers and the environment.
The current goals are to reach 50 per cent recycling of all household waste and to end landfilling by 2020. The Commission is also pushing for a binding target to increase resource efficiency by 30 per cent by the year 2030. This is expected to face opposition by certain member states and some top EU civil servants who will be mainly preoccupied by the short-term costs of the measure.
While transparency remains one of the major obstacles in the waste management industry, there are also huge discrepancies between member states in terms of data. Not all member states disclose the same level of information regarding waste management and recycling figures and this hinders the EU from acquiring full knowledge of the sector.
We should aim for an economy where our waste is reused as secondary raw material as much as possible
In a number of member states, the producer responsibility organisation (PRO) system applies. Here, the company releasing the product pays the PRO to take on the responsibility of ensuring appropriate waste disposal on their behalf. The PRO then deals with the municipality which collects the waste from consumers. This system emerged from a concept known as extended producer responsibility (EPR), where the company is responsible for the products it sells throughout the entire life cycle.
The idea behind an EPR system is to recover waste management costs and thus alleviate some of the burdens on taxpayers. If one takes into consideration the complexity of public procurement contracts it is evident that there are numerous avenues through which money can vanish. For this reason, the recent EU report on corruption has regarded waste management as one of the sectors which are most prone to corruption.
Increasing transparency in the EPR system will lead to improved cost efficiency and a reduction in the taxpayers’ burden. In places where the system is not functioning correctly, corruption is costing taxpayers money and/or leading to inefficient trash collection services.
Money that has been paid to PROs by manufacturers which is then supposed to flow to public officials and, finally, to rubbish collection services is getting lost in the process. This causes taxpayers to be charged for the remaining costs of rubbish collection, a job that is rendered as a public service.
Having an efficient system means that costs be reduced for all parties involved. With a new, more competitive and well-enforced system in place, both taxpayers and companies will rest assured that their money is being used efficiently and not just to fulfil a full range of diverse interests.
An efficient system will provide incentives for industries to innovate and become more environmentally friendly and for consumers to reduce, reuse and recycle. In the long run, we should aim for an economy where our waste is reused as secondary raw material as much as possible. This can be achieved not only by setting ambitious targets but also viable ones.
Another problem with the current system is the vast difference in PRO costs for companies that manufacture similar products. A study that was conducted by the European Commission found that average fees charged to manufacturers vary from €14 to €200 per ton for the same mix of packaging streams.
Perhaps one should consider looking at the benefits of comparative advantage in this situation. If some member states pay lower costs for certain materials, there might be something that makes it cheaper to collect that material in that particular member state versus one where the cost is significantly higher. Allowing for fair competition at an EU-level among those in the waste management chain should lead to lower compliance costs for the industry and, therefore, consumers.
As experts would argue, it is only by enhancing efficiency and transparency in the waste management business that the EU would be more likely to reach its resource efficiency goals.
David Casa is a Nationalist MEP.