13th Plenary Session of the Congress 30 May - 1st June 2006

Local and regional waste management and the siting of landfills

Rapporteurs:
Joseph Borg, Malta,
Chamber of regions
Political group: EPP/CD
and
Valerio Prignachi, Italy,
Chamber of Local Authorities
Political group: EPP/CD

-------------

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction 3

2. Waste generation trends 4

3. Municipal waste 4

4. Waste management plans 5

5. Waste policy instruments 6

6. Waste management options and trends 7

7. The European Union landfill directive 9

8. The siting of landfills 10

1. Introduction

The initiative to prepare a Congress recommendation and resolution on waste management was founded upon the realisation of increasing difficulties that local and regional authorities must face when dealing with waste production and making the right decisions concerning the siting of landfills.

For most people, waste is the bags of household rubbish that leave their households every week. They know that it ‘goes somewhere’ – but few have actually seen a landfill site, a waste incineration plant or a recycling centre, and most of us do not even give it much more thought.

Household waste is in fact a small proportion of the mountain of waste generated every year. The problem is that this mountain is growing in step with Europe’s economy. Moreover, in many countries waste is still not being treated properly – biodegradable waste is being landfilled when it could be broken down biologically, for example, while heavy metals are leaking out of waste dumps into the environment.

Economic growth over the last decades has been matched by increases in the amount of wastes that society produces. Waste is an issue in every European country, and waste quantities are generally growing. Most waste streams will probably increase further over the years to come, as current predictions indicate a potential doubling of the generation of certain wastes by 2025.

The environmental and the socio-economic impacts of waste management can be significant and wide-ranging; thus waste management is central to the sustainable development agenda. Unfortunately, the lack of available and comparable data for many countries does not always allow reliable comprehensive assessment of waste-related issues.

The impact of waste on the environment, resources and human health depends on its quantity and nature. Environmental pressures from the generation and management of waste include emissions to air (including greenhouse gases), water and soil, all with potential impacts on human health and nature.

A study carried out in 2000 by the European Environment Agency concluded that three principal impacts of landfill and incineration were significant at the global level because of their potential for transboundary migration: organic micro-pollutants (dioxins and furans), greenhouse gases (methane) and volatile heavy metals. Other emissions from incinerators (hydrogen chloride, heavy metals and salts) and landfill sites (nitrogen, ammonia, organic compounds and heavy metals), if uncontrolled, have the potential to cause severe contamination problems due to the dangerous substances contained and emitted.

Most of the municipal waste in Europe is landfilled, leading to significant pressures on the environment, while too little is recycled. Minimisation of waste generation, reduction in the hazardous constituents of waste, especially those with the potential to cause adverse impacts on environmental quality and health, and adequate management of residual wastes are therefore the major challenges to be tackled in future years if these impacts are to be avoided.

The biggest policy challenge is to achieve prevention of waste generation. We need to cut the amount of waste we dump in the ground and increase recycling and re-use of materials. The role of local and regional authorities in reducing waste and reducing landfill is vital.

For these reasons the Committee on Sustainable Development of the Congress decided to prepare a draft recommendation and a draft resolution on the subject which were approved unanimously during its meeting of 31 April 2006 in Constanta (Romania).

2. Waste generation trends

Waste is generated by activities in all economic sectors and is generally regarded as an unavoidable by-product of economic activity (waste generated from inefficient production processes, low durability of goods and unsustainable consumption patterns). The generation of waste reflects a loss of materials and energy and imposes economic and environmental costs on society for its collection, treatment and disposal. Waste forms an increasing part of the total material flow through the economy.

It is estimated that more than 3 000 million tonnes of waste are generated in Europe every year. This equals 3.8 tonnes/capita in Western Europe, 4.4 tonnes in Central and Eastern Europe and 6.3 tonnes in the countries of Eastern Europe and the Caucasus.

Manufacturing industry, construction and demolition, mining, quarrying and agriculture are the main sectors that contribute to waste generation. Other important waste streams are municipal waste, hazardous waste, waste from end-of-life vehicles, sewage sludge, packaging waste and waste from energy generation. Different definitions in different countries can make comparisons of total amounts of waste extremely difficult.

3. Municipal waste

Municipal waste arisings in Europe are large and continue to increase. More than 306 million tonnes are estimated to be collected each year, an average of 415 kg/capita. The collection of municipal waste varies considerably between countries and lies in the range from 100 kg/capita to 700 kg/capita. Municipal waste accounts for approximately 14 % of total waste arisings in Western Europe and 5 % in Central and Eastern Europe. Landfilling is still the predominant treatment option in most countries throughout Europe.

The fifth environment action programme of the European Community had set a target of stabilising municipal waste generation in the European Union at 1985 levels (300 kg/capita) by 2000. This target has been significantly exceeded in almost all countries, in most cases by 75–100 %. In the sixth environment action programme agreed in 2002, no quantitative waste targets have been included. The landfilling of municipal waste has decreased from 67 % in 1995 to 57 % in 1999 in EU countries, while composting and recycling rates have increased. Biodegradable municipal waste makes up approximately 60 % of the municipal waste stream in Western Europe.

In Central and Eastern Europe, municipal waste collection rates are lower than in Western Europe, a result of different levels of economic resources and different consumption patterns, but also of different municipal waste collection systems. Many parts of Eastern Europe, particularly rural areas, are not served by municipal waste collection systems. In Central and Eastern European countries with available data, municipal waste generation, though currently lower than in other parts of Europe, is increasing.

In the Caucasian countries municipal waste landfills are often overloaded, improperly operated and maintained, and do not meet environmental and human health requirements. A similar situation is reported to a greater or lesser extent in several other Eastern European countries. Illegal dumping of municipal waste, in particular in rural areas, is also common in many countries.

Biodegradable municipal waste is generated by households and commercial activities and covers waste such as food, garden waste, paper and cardboard. In 1995, about 107 million tonnes of biodegradable municipal waste were generated in the EU and Norway, of which 66 % was landfilled. Biodegradable municipal waste is a major contributor to the generation of leachate, landfill gas, odour and other nuisances in landfills. Alternative treatment methods such as composting or anaerobic digestion, if properly controlled, can eliminate or significantly reduce the polluting and emission potential of biodegradable waste.

4. Waste management plans

Waste management planning is the cornerstone of any national, regional or local policy on waste management. Indeed, the establishment of a plan allows, taking stock of the existing situation, to define the objectives that need to be met in the future, to formulate appropriate strategies and identify the necessary implementation means.

According to EU legislation (Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste), all member States are required to produce one or more waste management plans. These must relate in particular to the type, quantity and origin of waste; its recovery or disposal; general technical requirements; special arrangements for particular wastes and suitable disposal sites or installations.

All EU countries have national waste management plans or regional strategies and the elaboration of national plans was part of the accession process in the case of the new member States. Several other Eastern European countries have formulated waste management plans and programmes; however, the general lack of resources is commonly quoted as a significant barrier to their satisfactory and timely implementation.

The EU directive requires member States to establish an integrated and adequate network of disposal installations. The network must enable the Community as a whole to become self-sufficient in waste disposal, and must reflect the fact that certain wastes, particularly hazardous waste, may not be generated in one country in sufficient quantities to warrant the establishment of a dedicated disposal facility in that country.

With an aim to assist national, regional and local competent authorities when preparing waste management plans, the Commission has published a methodological guidance note. The guidance is of non-binding nature and should promote more coherent and appropriate planning practices in the member States and accession countries, in compliance with the requirements of relevant EU legislation.

The cornerstones of the EU’s strategy to coping with waste are to:

Although the EU has a number of targets and Directives supporting these aims, the data is patchy due to a lack of consistency across the EU. What is abundantly clear, however, is that some of these targets are not being met.

To begin with, a wide range of different waste streams are increasing in volume, from consumers generating too much households waste to more wastewater treatment plants producing larger amounts of sewage sludge. What is more, waste disposal methods are not coping with the increased loads, with several countries increasing the amount of biodegradable waste sent to landfill.

Finally - and most importantly - waste generation is still linked to economic activity, meaning that, as Europe’s economy grows, the waste problem will grow with it.

5. Waste policy instruments

Command-and-control measures are widely used in all European countries especially for hazardous waste management. For non-hazardous waste, the use of economic or market-based instruments is on the increase. An important aspect is to make the polluters (i.e. the enterprises or households generating the waste) aware of the costs of their actions and to provide opportunities for alternative options. The costs are usually recovered through user charges that reflect the cost of collection and treatment of wastes, and through taxes. ‘Pay-as-you-throw’ schemes are gaining ground in several countries.

In Western European countries, producer responsibility has been implemented for various waste streams such as packaging, batteries, waste from electrical and electronic equipment, paper and tyres. Voluntary agreements between authorities and industry have also been set up to some extent (e.g. end-of-life vehicles, construction and demolition waste).

The most commonly used instruments in Central and Eastern Europe are user charges for the collection, transportation and treatment of municipal waste, and waste disposal charges. Several countries have introduced deposit-refund systems on beverage containers and product charges on batteries.

Most Eastern European and Caucasian countries operate various waste management and user taxes; however, the effectiveness of these instruments is generally limited (OECD, 2000). In overall terms, the OECD recommended a “comprehensive reform of economic instruments for environmental protection … in the context of achieving priority objectives and targets of environmental policies.”

Economic instruments should serve not only to indicate and penalise undesirable waste management practices, but also to complement, encourage or reward desirable practices, namely waste prevention, minimisation, reuse, recycling and recovery. However, the possible adverse impacts of incentives should also be taken into account when designing economic instruments. If the user charge or tax is too high, or an increase too abrupt, the risk of illegal dumping will increase.

A tax on the landfill of waste has become a widely used instrument and is now in use in many Western European countries. The tax has been applied for several reasons, including the stimulation of waste reduction, reuse and recycling; to raise revenue and to internalise landfill costs. More than EUR 1.7 billion is raised each year from this tax in Western Europe. While the influence of landfill taxes on reducing the generation of some waste streams (e.g. municipal waste) is questionable, landfill taxes do provide price signals which should stimulate the adoption of more sustainable waste management practices.

Perhaps the greater challenge is the development of sound and sustainable markets for recycled materials and products that will ensure the long-term viability of recycling systems. Technical and economic restrictions will need to be overcome in order to further stimulate the recycling of waste streams such as municipal and plastic waste. For compostable municipal wastes, a major step forward would be the creation of market opportunities and increased public acceptance of the use of compost.

6. Waste management options and trends

One of the barriers to the establishment of improved waste management planning, monitoring and enforcement in many parts of Europe is the lack of sound, reliable, comparable and available data. Reliable data are essential for the long-term prevention of illegal and polluting disposals and the use of unreliable data can lead to poor policy-making decisions and the establishment of inappropriate waste management infrastructure. Consequently, it is difficult to establish a full picture of waste generation and management in Europe.

With waste generation growing in almost all regions of Europe, there is significant scope for improvement. Waste prevention should be the primary initiative since reducing the generation of waste at source reduces the need for collection and treatment and the associated costs and environmental impacts. Furthermore, natural resources and materials are saved, bearing in mind that waste is ‘wasted’ raw material.

a. Prevention

Waste prevention translates into a need to design materials, goods and services in such a way that their manufacture, use, reuse, recycling and end-of-life disposal results in the least possible generation of waste. Particularly in growing economies, waste prevention is a heavy challenge in order to achieve decoupling of waste generation from economic growth.

However, waste prevention is only one element in the broader concept of cleaner production which has been promoted by the United Nations Environment Programme for some 15 years. As an additional approach, cleaner consumption has recently been promoted in tandem with cleaner production as a key to achieving sustainable development, through the adoption of a preventive approach to the entire product life cycle, incorporating design, manufacture, use and disposal.

Cleaner production and consumption policies and initiatives are supported and coordinated worldwide by national cleaner production centres and international and regional conferences and roundtables. Many policies, tools, instruments and activities are available to governments for the promotion and implementation of cleaner production and consumption policies.

b. Recycling

Figures for recycling are rather discouraging. The rate of recycling in many countries throughout Europe is minimal. In relatively few Western European countries, recycling of some waste streams has increased considerably during the past decade. In the EU, recycling (including composting) of municipal waste was 11 % during 1985-90, increasing to 21 % in 1995 and 29 % in 2000. By comparison, in the EU accession countries, an average municipal waste recycling rate of 8.6 % was reported during the period 1998- 2001.

There is thus plenty of scope for increasing the level of recycling in almost all European countries. A major challenge is to establish new and, to some extent, more comprehensive collection and recycling schemes. For some waste streams (e.g. construction and demolition waste) solutions may be fairly straightforward, while others (e.g. waste from electrical and electronic equipment) may demand a more complex system. There is a large potential for cooperation between countries.

Perhaps a greater challenge will be the development of sound and sustainable markets for recycled materials and products that will ensure the long-term viability of recycling systems. Technical and economic restrictions will need to be overcome in order to further stimulate the recycling of waste streams such as municipal and plastic waste. The creation of market opportunities and increased public acceptance is expected to dramatically increase the composting of separately collected green or biodegradable municipal waste.

c. Incineration

Incineration with energy recovery is another option to avoid landfilling. In Western Europe, 17 % of municipal waste was incinerated in 1995 and 18 % in 1999, whilst in Central and Eastern Europe the relevant figures are 2.3 % and 6 %. The operation of substandard incinerators is widely reported in Eastern European and Caucasian countries. In some countries the incineration of hospital waste is also reported, but often without any pollution abatement. Obviously, in such a case, a balance must be struck between the need to separate hazardous hospital waste from municipal waste and the need to avoid environmental pollution in the incineration of hospital waste.

d. Landfilling

Landfilling is the lowest ranking waste management option in the waste hierarchy, but remains the dominant method used in Europe. One of the reasons could be the reluctance of public opinion to accept incineration as a safe treatment/disposal option, as well as local conditions which eventually prohibit the sustainability of operation of incineration plants (i.e. geographical constraints, long transport routes). Some 57 % of municipal waste in Western Europe and 83.7 % in Central and Eastern Europe was landfilled in 1999. In the environmental outlook for the Caucasus (UNEP, 2002), the situation is described as “overloaded, improperly managed and maintained municipal waste landfills that do not meet minimum health and environmental standards”.

To meet the waste hierarchy, wastes should be diverted away from landfill to higher-ranking management options. It should however be noted that in many countries (especially in Eastern Europe), landfill capacity is unavailable and waste, including hazardous waste, is accumulating pending the availability of treatment or disposal options. In many instances, hazardous waste is stored under unsatisfactory conditions resulting in increased risks of industrial accidents, health impacts and environmental contamination.

Another challenge for the future is to raise the standards of landfills and close improperly managed and maintained sites. In the EU member States, compliance with the EU Directive on the landfill of waste is expected to significantly reduce the potential for environmental pollution from landfills. The Directive imposes stringent operational and technical requirements on landfilling and requires a reduction in the quantity of various waste streams entering landfills as well as treatment of all waste prior to landfill.

7. The EU landfill directive

Council Directive 99/31/EC on the landfill of waste entered into force in July 1999.  The objective of the Directive is to prevent or reduce as far as possible negative effects of landfills on the environment in particular on surface water, groundwater, soil, air and human health.

It imposes strict targets for the reduction of biodegradable municipal waste that may be disposed of to landfill, namely a reduction to 35 % by 2016 of the amounts going to landfill, taking 1995 as the starting point. Reaching the targets will require both reducing the fraction of biodegradable municipal waste which is landfilled and reducing the total amount of biodegradable municipal waste produced in the first place. This, in turn, will mean improving the collection of biodegradable municipal waste, allowing it to be separated according to how contaminated it is, and creating new markets and outlets for biodegradable municipal waste materials diverted away from landfills.

Source separation, separate collection, more incineration, more composting and limits and bans on landfilling are among the key instruments needed to reach this target.

The Directive lays down a standard waste acceptance procedure to avoid any risks:

The following wastes may not be accepted in a landfill:

The Directive sets up a system of operating permits for landfill sites. Applications for permits must contain the following information:

Member States must ensure that existing landfill sites may not continue to operate unless they comply with the provisions of the Directive as soon as possible.

8. The siting of landfills

A solid waste management crisis exists in many parts of Europe as a result of the inability to site new landfills to replace the consumed capacity of existing landfills. Municipal solid waste landfills can, and usually do, have a significant adverse impact on the individuals who own property in, reside in, or otherwise use, areas near the landfill.

Such adverse effects may include:

One of the most expedient ways that such problems can, in large part, be addressed in a rural setting is by providing an adequate landfill-owned land buffer between the landfill site and adjacent property owners' lands. The land buffer areas typically provided at landfills, however, are very limited, commonly a few hundred meters. The result is that those who own or use lands next to a landfill find that their use and enjoyment of these lands impaired because of the landfill.

This leads those who stand to be adversely affected by a landfill to take a justifiable “not in my back yard” position against it. The "bad neighbour" reputation of landfills was earned, in part, because those who generate the wastes placed in the landfills have not been asked, or required, to provide sufficient funds (e.g., in garbage disposal fees) to properly control many of the significant adverse impacts that are readily controllable in landfilling of municipal solid waste.

In the past and even today the approach that is used for siting landfills is to select one or more specifically rural areas as candidate sites and then through a contrived process, force one or more of those sites on those who own or use nearby properties. If those in the potential sphere of influence of the landfill, which is often several miles from its location, are sufficiently politically powerful or have sufficient financial resources to actively oppose the siting of the landfill in their
region, they can usually be successful in stopping the landfill from being sited in their area.

Some regions purport to involve the public in the site-selection process by appointing a "citizens advisory committee", which is then allowed to select and rank the parameters of concern with respect to the landfill. Based on an arbitrarily developed numeric scoring system, various potential candidate sites are ranked and those with the highest ranking are selected as the best available sites. While the site-selection process and the design of the landfill should be coordinated and concurrent activities, they are typically pursued sequentially which contributes to the unreliability of the process.

While this process appears superficially to have a technical aura about it, and public participation components in it, it is highly arbitrary and frequently capricious in its implementation. Rarely does this process lead to "the best available site" that would enable the development of a particular landfill at the particular location without a significant adverse impact on the current owners and users of nearby lands, future generations who may own or use those lands, and those who would use groundwaters hydraulically connected to the area at some time in the future.

Public involvement generally means that those potentially impacted are merely given the opportunity to express their views on why a landfill in their area is inappropriate. Rarely does such an expression result in any significant change in the landfill location or design. The landfill is still forced on those potentially impacted in the region where it will be sited. The potentially impacted public is rarely involved in the decision-making process in a meaningful way to ensure that the potential adverse impacts of the landfill are controlled and that appropriate compensation is made for the non-controllable impacts.

There is need to take a significantly different approach to landfill siting than is being used today. These include technically justifiable and achievable approaches with sufficient funding guarantees for preventing groundwater pollution at any time in the future and adequate land buffer zones. Appropriate financial compensation packages should be developed from increased garbage collection fees to compensate those in the sphere of influence of the landfill, to enable them to readily leave the area or to accept the non-health and environmental impact-related effects of the landfill, such as altered/degraded landscape.

Systems engineering provides a potential methodology for rigorous incorporation of the various factors that need to be considered in developing solid waste management capacity for a region. It needs to consider and evaluate a host of factors including: landfill design and alternatives, landfill operation, public health, air pollution, hydrogeology, use and potential future use of groundwaters hydraulically connected to the proposed landfill area, water pollution, natural habitat and open space, community impacts, site monitoring, post-closure use and cost.

It may not be possible to optimally satisfy all of these factors, but a landfill site is still an inevitable feature of our lifestyle, so tradeoffs and adjustment to priorities with detailed assessments made on alternative technologies and sites, and compensation of those affected should be a priority for local and regional authorities, and will require a major effort on the part of systems engineers and citizens’ advisory committees.