Europaudvalget 2018
KOM (2018) 0656
Offentligt
1942224_0001.png
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 24.9.2018
SWD(2018) 416 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
The early warning report for Estonia
Accompanying the document
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE
COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE
COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
on the implementation of EU waste legislation, including the early warning report for
Member States at risk of missing the 2020 preparation for re-use/recycling target on
municipal waste
{COM(2018) 656 final} - {SWD(2018) 413 final} - {SWD(2018) 414 final} -
{SWD(2018) 415 final} - {SWD(2018) 417 final} - {SWD(2018) 418 final} -
{SWD(2018) 419 final} - {SWD(2018) 420 final} - {SWD(2018) 421 final} -
{SWD(2018) 422 final} - {SWD(2018) 423 final} - {SWD(2018) 424 final} -
{SWD(2018) 425 final} - {SWD(2018) 426 final}
EN
EN
 kom (2018) 0656 - Ingen titel
1942224_0002.png
1. Introduction
This early warning report is part of the Commission's overall implementation report and aims
to assist Member States at risk of failing to meet the 2020 target of 50 % preparation for re-
use/recycling of municipal waste set out in Article 11(2)(a) of Directive 2008/98/EC. It builds
on previous support provided by the Commission to help Member States comply
1
with EU
law in the area of municipal waste management. This resulted in country-specific roadmaps
2
being drawn up for the relevant Member States.
The assessment underpinning the early warning report is based on a collaborative and
transparent process involving the Member States concerned and an in-depth analysis of their
most recent policy developments. This also involved extensive consultation with the
authorities in charge of waste management.
The possible actions identified during this process are based on the existing best practices and
aim to help Member States in meeting the 2020 municipal waste preparation for re-
use/recycling; they therefore focus on policy measures that can be taken forward in the short
term. These actions should be seen as complementary to those recommended in the roadmaps
that were drawn up as part of the preceding compliance promotion activities and to the
recommendations made in the Environmental Implementation Review
3
.
2. Key findings
In 2016, Estonia’s municipal waste recycling rate (including composting) reported
to Eurostat
was 28 %, while its landfilling rate was 10 %. Based on an analysis of existing and firmly
planned policies in the area of waste management, Estonia is considered at risk of missing the
2020 target of 50 % preparation for re-use/recycling of municipal waste.
The assessment
4
that underpins the early warning report concludes that there are some
structural problems in Estonia leading to slow progress in recycling. These structural
problems include regulatory barriers that cause uncertainty (for example, the fact that
municipalities can choose between tendering for the market and competition in the market)
and the lack of effective instruments in place to force municipalities to comply with the
recycling targets. Separate collection is not yet being carried out efficiently, the extended
producer responsibility (EPR) schemes for packaging are not sufficiently integrated with
municipal collection services, and there are insufficient incentives for households to separate
waste. Moreover, there is no incineration tax to shift waste disposal towards recycling.
The table below lists possible actions to support Estonia's efforts to improve its performance
in waste management..
1
2
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/support_implementation_1st_phase.htm
Roadmap for Estonia:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/pdf/EE_Roadmap_FINAL.pdf
3
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eir/country-reports/index2_en.htm
4
Eunomia Research & Consulting
et al.
8 Stud to ide tif Me er States at risk of o
-compliance with
the 2020 target of the Waste Framework Directive and to follow-up phase 1 and 2 of the compliance
pro otio e er ise. The earl war i g report: Esto ia. .
1
 kom (2018) 0656 - Ingen titel
1942224_0003.png
O
VERVIEW OF POSSIBLE ACTIONS TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE
Economic incentives
1)
Setting mandatory targets at municipal level either for recycling or potentially for
residual waste (depending on the availability of data) with financial penalties for
municipalities that fail to meet the targets.
2)
Removing regulatory uncertainty around the potential ways in which municipalities can
operate waste services. This would help the municipalities implement waste recycling
targets. Different solutions will be required in the ‘free market’ approach where
households can choose the waste collection
company, and in the ‘tender-based’
approach where all households within one municipality are served by one contractor
selected via tender.
3)
Implementation of a residual waste tax to increase costs of disposal and provide a clear
economic incentive to introduce recycling services. The tax should include landfill,
incineration and any other mixed waste treatment activity in order to support re-use,
preparation for re-use, recycling and composting of separately collected bio-waste.
Extended producer responsibility
4)
Clear distribution of responsibilities for the management of packaging waste between
municipalities and producer responsibility organisations (PROs). The contractual
arrangements between them should allow the municipalities to influence decisions
regarding the packaging collection systems’ performance (which is the responsibility of
the PROs).
5)
Ensuring the fees paid by producers cover the full cost of collection of packaging waste.
This will provide the price signal to those running the collection service to increase
recycling performance, and thus avoid taxes on residual waste (implemented in line
with action 3).
Separate collection
6)
Further implementation of pay-as-you-throw through national legislation. Research
studies and trials should be carried out to ensure the most effective schemes are
designed and operated.
7)
Development of national minimum service standards for waste collection to specify, for
example, the type and volume of containers, frequency of collection and type of vehicle
used, taking into account the type of housing stock, how rural the area is, typical
climate, etc.
8)
Setting up civic amenity sites (using national/EU funds), starting in municipalities
where the collection service is most advanced (for example, where door-to-door
separate collection is becoming well established) to maximise the likely effectiveness of
the sites. This would also allow best practices to be identified and used as a model for
other municipalities.
2
 kom (2018) 0656 - Ingen titel
1942224_0004.png
Communication and awareness-raising programmes
9)
Development of a set of national communications materials addressed to the public for
use at local level, with clear and consistent messages. These materials should be used as
part of awareness-raising campaigns, in leaflets, and at civic amenity sites.
Technical support to municipalities
10)
Development of a system at national level that provides technical support for
municipalities, specifically in the following areas:
a.
choosing collection services;
b.
service procurement;
c.
service management;
d.
communication campaigns;
coupled with active sharing of good ideas and practices that can improve efficiency in terms
of cost reduction and improvement in performance.
3