JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT debate -
Wednesday, 5 Jul 2006

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Chairman

Item No. 4 is scrutiny of EU documents, a new proposal on waste. Agenda item No. 3 deals with our previous decision of 15 February 2006 to scrutinise proposal reference COM (2005) 667 for a new directive on waste, a copy of which has been circulated to members, together with the original briefing from the Department and the Oireachtas policy adviser. Members will also recall the reference by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, at his recent attendances at the committee to the EU schematic strategy on waste prevention and recycling. He notified the committee of the strategy objectives to move Europe to a recycling society and improve the regulatory environment. Conclusions to the strategy debate were expected at the meeting of the Council on EU Environment on 27 June 2006.

I welcome the officials from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Mr. Tom O'Mahony, assistant secretary, environment division, Mr. Pat Macken, principal officer, waste prevention and recovery, Mr. Michael Layde, principal officer, waste infrastructure regulation, and Mr. Brendan O'Neill, senior adviser.

I draw attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but that the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside of the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Mr. Tom O’Mahony

I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to brief the committee on this proposal. Mr. Pat Macken heads up the section responsible for waste prevention and recovery, which includes the implementation of the various EU directives on producer responsibility initiatives. Mr. Michael Layde heads up the section dealing with waste regulation and infrastructure. Mr. Brendan O'Neill is a senior adviser in the Department's environment division. He will participate in the detailed technical discussions at EU level which will take place over the next year.

The proposal involves a substantial revision of the existing waste framework directive. Waste management was one of the first environmental sectors to be given a developed legal framework at European level and the original waste framework directive dates back to 1975. It was subsequently reviewed in 1991. The framework directive was followed by sector specific directives on waste oils, for example, and by directives setting the standards for landfill and incineration, In more recent times, several directives have aimed at boosting recycling from several priority waste streams such as packaging, end-of-life vehicles and WEEE.

The proposal will have the effect of amending and updating the 1975 directive. The European Commission believes it is time to spring-clean the accumulated legislation, focus on the key environmental impacts and embrace knowledge from new environmental thinking. Ireland was challenged by the requirements of the 1975 directive. It came at a time when our approach to waste management was best described as primitive with minimal recycling and waste disposal was to poorly managed landfill. However, the 1996 Waste Management Act, and the key policy statements which followed it, provided the basis for modernising the waste management system and complying with European law.

We now have in place a robust system of waste management planning delivered by local authorities largely operating in regional groupings. The Environmental Protection Agency operates a modern waste licensing system and also has a role in the planning of hazardous waste management. More recently, an Office of Environmental Enforcement was established to aggressively lead the fight against illegal waste activity. There is an ambitious set of national recycling targets bolstered by significant investment from the environment fund.

The purpose of the EU proposal is to revise the waste framework directive, integrate the hazardous waste directive into the new framework directive and repeal the directive on waste oils while retaining that directive's specific collection obligation in the revised proposal. The main amendments to the waste framework directive which are being proposed are the introduction of an environmental objective, taking into account the whole life cycle of resources and the clarification of the notions of recovery and disposal. The basis for the definition of recovery, for example, is the replacement of other resources which would have been used to fulfil the particular function. The introduction of a procedure at EU level to clarify when a waste ceases to be a waste for selected waste streams is proposed. The criteria to be developed will, hopefully, lead to better consistency in both interpretation and enforcement by the competent national authorities and introduce less regulation on materials that present a low risk to the environment.

The proposal involves the introduction of minimum standards, or a procedure to establish minimum standards, for several waste management operations. Where a poor substitution of resources is taking place, the operation will be likely to be classed as a disposal operation. There will be an introduction of a requirement on member states to develop national waste prevention programmes and set down the conditions under which those programmes should be developed.

Some of these changes are of significance but there are also many technical changes. It must be remembered the proposal is a framework directive and many of the criteria will fall to a technical adaptation committee to flesh out. We have carried out an initial assessment of the implications of the proposal for Ireland and these are for the most part positive. No new targets are being inserted, with much emphasis on the member state carrying out actions, most of which we are doing. There is greater clarity for member states on what constitutes a waste and when certain wastes can be declassified and deemed a secondary raw material or product, which will ease administration for the enforcing authorities and also users of such materials.

There will be greater clarity on what constitutes a waste recovery operation as opposed to a disposal one which will impact. For example, on waste to energy plants, those with higher efficiency levels will be deemed to be recovery operations. There will be greater emphasis on waste prevention, taking into account the life cycle of products and materials and not simply the waste phase, the aim being to break the link between economic growth and the environmental impacts associated with the generation of waste.

We anticipate that it will take a further 12 months for the new directive to be negotiated and two further years for it to enter into force. The Waste Management Acts 1996 to 2005, together with a range of regulations, transpose the existing directives into national legislation. The changes required will depend on the final negotiated text but should not be major in scope.

Chairman

I thank Mr. O'Mahony for his presentation which was most informative.

Senator Bannon

The presentation outlined the regulations in place. A scheme has been devised for plastic farm waste. That is where the people of rural Ireland, particularly farmers, feel let down. They paid substantial levies when they employed contractors to wrap bales and cover silage pits. That levy has been paid but throughout the country, with the exception of a few counties where a pilot scheme has been put in place, the plastic waste is lying in farmyards. People feel let down by the State, in particular the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Nothing seems to be happening, although some counties have taken the initiative in providing facilities to collect and dispose of such waste. I believe Offaly gave a lead in this regard. Such an initiative has worked very successfully. However, I know of farmers whose REPS plans are being threatened owing to inactivity on the part of the Department which should have ensured the scheme was fully implemented. This rings hollow when one speaks to people in rural areas who paid their contributions and levies in good faith.

Another problem was presented by cowboys selling plastic imported from Northern Ireland that did not carry the levy tag. In several instances, it was used by contractors. The State has failed to follow up on the issue of traceability to determine whence the wrap came. The Department must tackle this, since it has been aware of the question for some time. I have spoken to the Minister numerous times in the Seanad and before the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food but the Government has failed to address the issue. How can there be confidence when the Government's own legislation, rules and regulations are being broken wholesale in this regard? Perhaps the delegates might comment on what one might do to ensure such a situation does not arise again.

Mr. O’Mahony

The initiative to tackle the problem to which the Senator referred originates with the Department and the Minister. Since it is Mr. Macken's area of expertise, I will ask him to outline the position and how the problem is being solved.

Mr. Pat Macken

The scheme has been in place for several years following regulations made in 2001. Thereunder, manufacturers and importers have implemented a scheme through a company called the Irish Farm Film Producers Group. In other words, the producers are responsible for the scheme to collect farm plastic. It has worked successfully, despite certain difficulties that we acknowledge. It is based on a levy being paid when the plastic is marketed. Under the scheme, as with the Repak scheme for packaging, producers are not responsible for the full cost of collecting all the material put on the market. Usually, they must meet targets — in this case, 50%. Last year the target was exceeded quite quickly and they did not have enough funds to continue the scheme, meaning that the recycling rate was approximately 60%.

From autumn 2005 we took part in discussions with stakeholders to see what improvements might be made to the scheme. There were meetings between producers, farming interests and the Minister. We drew up revised proposals that envisaged the continuance of the levy but also the application of a collection charge in some cases to cover the very high costs of transport and collection. There was also the issue of backlogs, since the rate of collection has been uneven and inconsistent across the country. Some of the western counties, in particular, have gone a year or two without collections.

In response, with financial help from the environment fund, we arranged with local authorities for several open days to be held in five counties — Clare, Galway, Mayo, Offaly and Waterford — on a pilot basis. The western seaboard counties were most seriously affected. We wanted to gauge the extent of the backlog of uncollected plastic. However, we do not yet know the outcome, since those open days are still being held. However, as far as we can gather from our discussions with local authorities, farmers have responded very well. Local authorities are reporting to us that they are receiving very large volumes of plastic and that it is generally free from contamination, a particular problem when it comes to the collection of such waste. We have already stated we will analyse the matter and see to what extent we might roll the scheme out to other counties.

Our priority is to deal with the backlog. Although we do not know the full extent, we are trying to determine it. At the same time, we would like to put the scheme on a sounder footing financially through continuation of the levy. We have increased the targets that producers must meet. From 2008, they must recycle 60%. The scheme's characteristics and make-up will remain that it is predominantly producer-funded. It has been revised. We will continue to review it and decide whether further improvements are necessary.

I note the Senator's point on traceability and illegal movements of plastic. That has been a problem but part of the measures we agreed with the film producers was that they would examine improving the traceability of farm plastic placed on the Irish market, thus ensuring the scheme operates properly.

Senator Bannon

How soon will the scheme be extended elsewhere, given that there is a substantial backlog of plastic in farmyards throughout the country? As a midlands farmer who has talked to colleagues, I know the situation there. Farmers feel very frustrated because of the section in the REPS plan stipulating that they must dispose of such plastic. Many have cared for their farms very well but how long will they have to wait? I accept that it is a pilot scheme which seems, from speaking to farmers in County Offaly, to have worked very well. If that is the case, it should be extended immediately.

Mr. Macken

We must strike a balance to ensure that, while dealing with the backlog, plastic is also collected under the producer scheme. Otherwise, there might be an incentive for people to hold off on plastic until the backlog initiative deals with their county. We must analyse the figures which are not yet in. Several open days have still to be held and we will consider the issue over the summer, after which a decision will have to be made on the extent of the cost. As I said, we do not know the full cost. This will have to be weighed carefully, since there are many other demands on the environment fund. There are competing demands for other programmes and activities.

Deputy Gilmore

I welcome the officials from the Department. We are looking at a shifting of the goalposts regarding what constitutes waste, what is recoverable and what must be disposed of. I would like to get a sense of where the goalposts will end up.

I hope I do not summarise too crudely. As I recollect, when the director of the European Environment Agency came before the committee, she said the game was up on landfill sites in Europe. She indicated a benign attitude to incineration that surprised some members of the committee. However, she qualified her comments with a reference to the standard of technology that would be used. If I am reading this correctly, what is now taking place in the revision of the waste framework directive is this. There will be clarification of the notions of recovery and disposal. The basis of the definition of recovery will be the replacement of other resources that would have been used to fulfil a particular function. Does that mean if energy is generated, let us say, from incineration, the waste put into the incinerator will be redefined in terms of its replacement of other resources which might have been used to generate the same energy? Will it mean therefore, that waste which will go into an incinerator may end up not being classified as waste?

I am looking at what is being indicated to us as the implications of the waste framework directive, where it says there will be greater clarity for member states on what constitutes waste and what is deemed to be secondary raw material. I should like to hear somewhat more about what that means in the context of incineration and in particular of waste to energy. Again there is the bullet point on greater clarity as to what constitutes a waste recovery operation as opposed to a disposal one, which will impact, for example on waste to energy plants where those with higher efficiency levels will be deemed to be recovery operations. If we are to redefine waste in the context of recovery and disposal, perhaps I am two steps ahead, but it seems this is heading towards a redefinition of waste such that waste that goes into an incineration that is generating electricity will not be classified as waste.

We are at a stage in this country wherein the first municipal waste incinerator has yet to be built. What implications does that have? The delegation talked about a two-year timeframe for all this to kick in. This was just the framework and there would be directives and so on to follow. However, in terms of the programme, since the Department is in favour of building municipal waste incinerators, what implications does that have, if any? All this is very general and somewhat opaque. I should like to be able to see through it and to know what is on the other side.

Deputy McCormack

My point is exactly similar to what Deputy Gilmore is intimating. Greater clarity is being sought from member states as regards what constitutes waste. Certain material to be classified as waste is to be deemed secondary raw material product. There needs to be greater clarity on what constitutes a waste recovery operation. It is exactly as Deputy Gilmore is saying. It is very clear to me that this is couched in terms that say incineration will not be called that any more, but rather a waste recovery operation. It will have a fancy new name that suggests we will now recover energy from the waste so it will be waste recovery instead of incineration. Where now stand the regional waste management plans that were adopted by all the managers in the regions when they got leave for this two or three years ago? They included at the time plans for incineration in each of the eight regions plus a major landfill in each region. If, as today's presentation indicates, the European Commission believes it is time to spring clean the accumulated legislation, where do the regional waste management plans stand or is this just a new name for the same thing?

Deputy Cuffe

I am very glad the Commission is embracing new knowledge. We should all be doing this and I am glad that developments are proceeding and that a spring clean is occurring. I take the opportunity to ask a couple of general questions regarding waste that arise from the proposed new directive.

The first of my three questions asks how well we are doing if we set ourselves against the benchmarks from the rest of Europe. The benchmark I would use is the European Environment Agency's report. To be frank, the end of term report card was not good last year. We were close to the bottom of the league, among the worst countries for the production of waste and one of the worst for our percentage levels of recycling. Would the delegation go along with the European Environment Agency's snapshot of where Ireland stood a year ago. How well are we doing? That is the first question.

The second question is a very simple one. Is the European Court of Justice actively pursuing us on any waste issues at the moment? Perhaps that could be addressed in the reply. The final question is similar to those of Deputies Gilmore and McCormack on the reclassification of incineration for either recovery or disposal, given that we are at present considering a proposal for the largest municipal incinerator in Europe, just a mile or two down the road. At this stage can the delegation clarify whether the Commission would consider that to be a recovery or a disposal operation?

Mr. O’Mahony

There are quite a few questions there to be dealt with. I want to make some general comments and address a couple of the questions. As regards the more technical issues, which are much more, of course, but in terms of definitions, which are particularly relevant to Deputy Gilmore's questions, I shall refer to Mr. Brendan O'Neill who is involved in technical work at EU level. I shall also ask Mr. Michael Layde to come in as regards regional waste management planning and in relation to the main area in which there has been an EU judgment against us on waste.

In terms of a couple of general comments, it is very important to appreciate that going back to the original waste framework directive in 1975, the hierarchy has been clearly set out as a matter of EU policy as embraced in the directive. It starts with prevention and moves on to minimisation and recycling. We have cited this many times to the committee, almost to the point of boredom. Then comes incineration with energy recovery and then the very least-favoured option, straightforward disposal, whether it is landfill or incineration without energy recovery.

There is nothing new in a preference for energy recovery over landfill. I was here on the day that Professor Jacqueline McGlade from the European Environment Agency was before the committee. She recognised that it has been European policy for quite some time for a whole range of environmental reasons to move away from reliance on landfill. She made the point that there is now an enormously different level of environmental regulation in terms of thermal treatment or incineration as compared to in the past. I shall ask Mr. O'Neill in a moment to deal with the issues of definitions of recovery and so on. Given that I have mentioned the European Environment Agency, in terms of Deputy Cuffe's first question, again I was here with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, when he had a fairly robust debate with members of the committee on the EIA report.

It is not for me to cover all the ground that was covered at that meeting but the point that should be reiterated is that the EEA report focused on, for the purposes of presentation, a small number of environmental indicators. It homed in on fewer than 20 indicators out of approximately 300 in respect of which it had data. That data shows Ireland scoring poorly in comparison with most countries in terms of the amount of waste it generates. However, the recycling information in the report was somewhat out of date and it must be remembered that we have moved very quickly in a short period.

Before the Waste Management Act 1996 was put in place, we had minimal recycling and quite a primitive system. In 1998, municipal waste recycling was as low as 9%. The 2004 data, which is the latest available, shows it now stands at34%. This represents a massive change in a relatively short period. The latter can be set against the target, which might not now be regarded as challenging, of reaching a figure of 35% by 2013.

On packaging waste, the EU target was to reach 50% by 2005 but we were closer to 60% in 2004. While accepting that there are many areas of waste management where significant challenges remain to be addressed, the level of performance compares favourably with that in other countries. I refer here to performance by the Irish people and do not seek to give credit to any one actor in the play. Considering the issue in its entirety — namely, the way in which recycling has been embraced, the way in which local authorities and the State have made infrastructure available and the way the business community has embraced producer responsibility schemes — has led us to a situation where the statistics now compare favourably with other countries. This will be reflected in subsequent EEA reports.

With regard to the European Court of Justice, at any time there is, for Ireland and every other member state, a large number of areas in which the Commission has initiated proceedings. The Commission issued its quarterly press release on Monday last, which featured 24 of the 25 member states. With regard to Ireland, it announced that it is closing the case it had been taking against us in regard to delays in transposing the end-of-life vehicles directive because we have succeeded, after a number of difficulties, in putting regulations in place to allow us to transpose the directive. There is always a large number of cases but only a relatively small number reach the stage of court judgments against us.

There was a court judgment against us a couple of years ago in regard to a significant bundle of deficiencies in our operation of the waste system. Those deficiencies related to issues that arose between 1998 and 2000. When Mr. Layde addresses the question of where the regional waste management plans stand, he can update the committee on what is being done in this regard. First, I ask Mr. O'Neill to address the issues regarding the disposal and recovery directive and its implications for Ireland.

Mr. Brendan O’Neill

I will begin by dealing with the definition of waste. The Commission stated that it intends, before the end of 2006, to publish guidelines based on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice on the issue of when by-products should or should not be considered as waste. If an operator has materials left over, in the original directive the definition of waste was essentially material which the owner discards, intends to discard or is required to discard. However, a quarry owner might, for example, have surplus material that he could use to level off different galleries in his quarry. As he uses that material elsewhere to keep the operation going and needs it badly, he does not consider it waste. In other cases, operators might have surplus materials which they cannot use themselves but which others would like to use. Such materials would be regarded as valuable commodities rather than waste. Despite this, in such cases the authorities state that what an operator discards, is required to discard or intends to discard is waste.

A number of people have brought detailed cases to the European Court of Justice in this regard. The situation is complicated because the national judiciaries might have only referred one or two questions to the court, which would have been answered, so it is not as if one gets the full picture from these European Court of Justice judgments. However, the judges considered the cases and seemed to suggest that if the issue is not the mere possibility of material being used in a certain way but an absolute certainty that it would be so used and if another code, other than a waste code, is in place which guarantees an equivalent level of protection, then the material will be deemed to be used properly under the rules which give equivalent protection, as would the waste legislation. In that event, a view could be taken that the material has not been discarded and that the waste code would be superfluous.

The European Commission proposes in the thematic strategy to publish guidelines based on this jurisprudence, which will help member states to decide when products should or should not be considered waste. There have been representations from industry over the years suggesting that it would like to recycle more but is being hindered by administrative procedures. If there was clarity as to whether material is or is not waste, industry might not have to go through the waste code, which might allow it to use waste on a better basis and remove impediments to recycling and reusing waste. That is what is being discussed in terms of clarifying the question of the definition of waste and secondary raw materials.

The second question raised relates to the definition of recovery. The original waste directive contained two separate schedules. One was a schedule of generic disposal activities. The second was a schedule of generic waste recovery descriptions. The authorities would have interpreted these schedules and taken particular views. Some of these cases have gone before the European Court of Justice with a view to seeking clarity from the judges on what the European legislation states. Article 5 of the proposal refers to the concept of recovery as being that the material undergoes operations which result in it serving a useful purpose in replacing, whether in the plant or in the wider economy, other resources which would have been used to fulfil that function. The second criterion is to make sure that the material is used efficiently and in a proper fashion. The proposal refers to implementing measures in terms of energy efficiency criteria.

Based on members' questions, it seems that the major concern relates to waste energy plants. Annexe I of the proposal includes a long description of energy efficiency criteria. In the thematic strategy, the Commission explains that its purpose is to increase energy efficiency. It proposes to begin introducing the use of efficiency thresholds to classify waste treatment in municipal incinerators as either recovery or disposal.

In the main actions, there is reference to the fact that where incinerators are classified as disposal, they would essentially belong in the same category as land filling and that some local authorities might be tempted to use the cheapest land filling option which would, in turn, degrade the environment. Another concern of the Commission is that municipal incinerators with high energy efficiency are negatively discriminated against compared with co-incineration operations with similar energy efficiencies but less stringent emission controls.

The Commission proposes an amendment to the waste framework directive to include energy efficiency thresholds above which municipal incineration is considered a recovery operation. The thresholds take account of the recommendation in the BREF notes, which is a best available techniques reference document on waste incineration. The principle is that only high-efficiency operations that employ best available technique will be classified as recovery.

Deputy Gilmore

Annexe II provides formulae to be used in calculating what will constitute a recovery operation. In order to qualify as such, energy efficiency for incineration facilities dedicated to the processing of solid municipal waste must be equal to or above 0.6 if the application is made before the end of 2008. What is the situation in regard to Ringsend, given that the application for that facility will be submitted before that date?

Mr. O’Neill

Mr. Layde will answer that question as he is more familiar with the specifics in this regard.

Mr. Michael Layde

As members are aware, there is a proposal to construct a waste to energy facility at Ringsend. I assume Deputy Gilmore's question relates to how this proposal sits in reference to the proposal the Commission has brought forward. I will explain why we simply do not know the answer to that question.

The Commission has advanced certain thresholds as part of its proposal. As my colleague said, the purpose of this is not necessarily to reduce the role of incineration in waste management but rather to ensure that incinerators operate to a high standard so that, from an environmental efficiency point of view, they maximise performance. This is an ambition to which everybody subscribes and the Commission has set certain thresholds to give effect to it. However, industry and, more recently, the rapporteur of the European Parliament have taken a different point of view in regard to the means of achieving this ambition.

The detail of the proposal is being considered by the environment working group in Brussels and the Department is engaging in that process. However, we have not as yet taken a position because we have not had an opportunity to engage with the Commission in terms of hearing its perspective on why it took this course and, more particularly, why it proposes these specific thresholds.

The closest I can come to answering the Deputy's question is to say that the objective of this proposal is that incinerators should utilise best available technology. The newer an incinerator, the more likely it is to reach that standard. It may be the case that the regulatory authorities will demand that all future facilities achieve the standard. We cannot be certain, however, that there will be any implications for incinerators yet to be constructed. We will not know until the proposal runs its course and definitive thresholds are agreed.

Deputy Cuffe

The delegates suggested that a certain degree of lobbying and horse trading is taking place on this proposal at European level. In Ireland, meanwhile, a proposal for the construction of perhaps the largest municipal incinerator in Europe is being promoted by the largest regional authority in the State.

Given that the powers of elected representatives at local level have been sidelined on this issue, the Department has a central role in overseeing developments. It must have some idea as to the performance indicators or criteria that will be required as a result of the Commission's proposal. Notwithstanding the ongoing arguments in Brussels, the Department must have a clear notion of how the proposed output for Ringsend will measure up. Can the delegates give any indication in this regard?

Deputy Gilmore

I understand that the framework directive has not yet been agreed. The formulae in annexe II of the draft document seem to contain much gobbledegook that I do not understand. The energy efficiency threshold for facilities approved before 1 January 2009 is 0.6. It is to be expected that Ringsend will be well within that target date as the advertisements have already appeared in the newspapers.

It appears that the Commission's proposal will have significant implications for that facility in light of what the delegates said about the distinctions that will be made between recovery and disposal and what will and will not be defined as waste. I simply want to know whether anybody has examined the Ringsend proposal and calculated whether it will achieve the target of 0.6, as described and defined in annexe II.

Mr. O’Mahony

I will begin by making a general comment. I do not believe it is appropriate for us, as representatives of the Department, to comment on the specifics of the Ringsend proposal. This proposal was developed by a local authority——

Deputy Gilmore

The Department must know whether the Ringsend facility will come under annexe I or annexe II.

Mr. O’Mahony

There are several points to emphasise in this regard. First, nobody knows what will ultimately be contained in the waste framework directive. That will emerge only after the process Mr. O'Neill has described is completed. Second, it would not be appropriate for us to discuss the technical aspects of the Ringsend proposal, which will go through both the environmental and planning licensing processes.

In the context of national policy, what we are talking about here would always have been envisaged as recovery and not disposal. I understand that the proposal for Poolbeg is being promoted as waste to energy project and is also likely to include a district heating element that would further increase the environmental benefit from it. Government policy in this regard has always been based on the hierarchy I described from the original waste framework directive. This defined incineration with energy recovery as a form of recovery.

The issue which has now arisen is less that facilities that had not been classified as recovery previously will now be so classified, but more that facilities that were generally regarded as being recovery may, if they do not reach particular environmental standards, be regarded as being disposal. In so far as I can see, it is not a question that the Ringsend proposal might in some way be brought into a recovery loop. The question is whether the directive's requirements might end up being such that the Ringsend proposal would be declassified as recovery. However, from what we know generally of the Ringsend proposal and the way in which energy recovery is central to it, that possibility is probably quite unlikely. However, given that the Department is not its promoter, this is as far as we should go in terms of commenting on the specific proposal.

Deputy McCormack

There is much shadow boxing going on here in that members simply cannot get a definition. The committee must accept that it cannot get a definition as to what constitutes waste recovery. Does incineration constitute waste recovery if one can create energy from burning one's waste instead of recycling it or whatever? I received no response to my original question on the status of the eight regional waste management plans in this regard.

Deputy Gilmore

An incinerator was proposed for Ringsend. Questions then arose as to whether the proposed incinerator would be a mass burn model and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform spent some time deciding whether he was in favour of it. At present, it is deemed to be a waste to energy facility rather than an incinerator.

Someone must know the answer to the query to which I have not yet received a response. After the implementation of this directive, the material received by a plant will not be classified as waste if the latter's energy efficiency reaches 0.6. I referred earlier to goalposts being moved. This proposal relates to the redefinition of waste and the officials have informed the committee that if a certain defined energy efficiency is achieved, it is no longer classified as waste.

Mr. O’Mahony

That interpretation of our statements is incorrect and we will clarify matters. I will defer to Mr. Layde or Mr. O'Neill in this regard.

Mr. Layde

Waste will continue to be collected and it will be classified as waste. The question is whether the facility will be deemed to be a recovery facility. Two issues run through the questions' varied threads. If one leaves incineration aside, the first broad issue is whether the manner in which we view and define waste is being changed and the answer to that is yes. The trend within national policy is to begin to regard waste as a resource that should be reused, recycled and so on. Mr. O'Neill alluded to the fact that in certain circumstances the regulations in place actually run counter to such a policy and force people to treat as waste some items which could properly be reused. Hence, the generic issue in this regard is to devise a legal framework at EU level. This is still only a proposal and has a long way to go. Hopefully, however, the end product will contain a more rational definition as to what constitutes waste.

The issue of waste to energy plants and whether and when they should be regarded as recovery facilities as opposed to disposal facilities is a subset of the broader issue. Waste is taken to a facility and the question of whether this constitutes waste recovery or waste disposal depends on the nature of the facility in question. For example, it will depend on whether it is a landfill site or a waste to energy plant. In reality, this issue concerns the definition of what these facilities constitute. While my colleague's caveats prevent me from going further, I hope that this clarifies matters.

Deputy Cuffe

There is an elephant in the corner and members are asking the Department's officials whether it is of the African or Indian variety. It is difficult to induce the officials to ponder the elephant itself. The committee wants some simple answers regarding the Ringsend incinerator. I seek clarity in this regard, as does Deputy Gilmore. While the Ringsend project has been described in many different ways, it has been described as a waste to energy project. I understand that the energy aspect of the project is based on a district heating model.

Part of the answer to the question posed by members hinges, therefore, on whether this project provides surplus energy which may be harnessed usefully. Am I correct in stating that this factor relates to the answer to the question? Can the witnesses provide further clarification in this regard? Does the definition depend on the efficiency of the incinerator or lack thereof, or whether district heating will be provided? Can members get any closer to the heart of the question?

Mr. O’Mahony

I will answer in general terms. While I hope the Deputy will forgive me for so doing, I want to avoid the Department purporting to make definitive statements about the Ringsend proposal which, as stated, will go through processes.

Deputy Cuffe

I appreciate that.

Mr. O’Mahony

The directive must be negotiated and must emerge from a technical and political process. At the end of that process, formulae or values of some description will be produced. Obviously, when such formulae or values are applied to a particular proposal, the extent to which electricity is generated or district heating provided will be the issues which determine whether the proposal meets the formula.

I feel I should not go further than stating that while the Department is not the promoter of the Ringsend waste to energy plant, our understanding of the proposal is that it is completely consistent with Government policy, which favours waste to energy. Moreover, it is our understanding, particularly given that the proposal has just entered the licensing processes, that it is highly unlikely that the outcome will be a facility which will not meet whatever will be the definition of recovery, rather than disposal. However, this must all be negotiated through the various processes.

Deputy Cuffe

I thank Mr. O'Mahony.

Chairman

We can return to this issue when concluding our deliberations.

Deputy McCormack

I still have not received an answer to my question.

Chairman

The Deputy's question relates to the waste management plans. I must then call Senator Brennan, who has been very patient.

Mr. O’Mahony

I beg the Deputy's pardon. I had signalled that Mr. Layde would respond to that issue.

Mr. Layde

One of the members also asked a question regarding the European Court of Justice.

As for the issue of regional waste management plans, this proposal has no specific implications for regional waste management planning in Ireland. The issue of subsidiarity applies in this regard.

Deputy McCormack

As matters stand, they are a reality.

Mr. Layde

Yes. They have recently been reviewed and the plans are now in place. The plans conform with national policy. They respect the waste hierarchy and in different ways, having regard to local circumstances, they provide, for example, for thermal treatment — to a greater or lesser extent and over differing timescales, depending on the local circumstances — in the various regions. That is what the regional approach is meant to reflect because local circumstances should be taken into account. This constitutes another example of subsidiarity.

As for the directive, it will, following its adoption and transposition, become applicable some years from now. It will apply in this member state as it applies elsewhere within the European Union. At the time of its adoption, the relevant authorities will be obliged to comply with national and EU law in whatever form it takes in respect of the implementation of the regional plans. The directive will, therefore, have indirect implications for the regional plans. However, it will have no immediate implications in terms of the process, whereby the plans have been reviewed and adopted in all cases, that has just been completed. The implementation of the plans will continue.

Deputy McCormack

Nothing has been done about them anywhere. They have been adopted by the managers but I am not aware that anything has been done about implementing the regional waste guidelines anywhere.

Mr. Layde

One of the stipulations which will apply in this round, which is the second iteration of waste management planning, is that there be periodic reporting of progress on an annual basis.

Deputy McCormack

Or the lack of it.

Mr. Layde

Or the lack of it, if this is the case. Reporting of progress comprehends both success and failure. Approximately one year from now and annually thereafter, these reports will become known and we will then be able to assess the progress being made.

Deputy McCormack

Must they be spring cleaned as a result of this directive?

Mr. Layde

The proposal, and it is only a proposal, has no immediate implications for the plans.

Senator Brennan

In respect of market development, page 16 states that a number of respondents quoted a clean technologies centre which estimated that 30 jobs were created for every 10,000 tonnes of waste recycled in this country. If waste is a resource, how can we justify sending 90% of our recovered material for recycling abroad?

In respect of the cost of recycling services, flat fees range from €180 to €510 per household, while the amount is between €70 and €80 in some areas. The cost per bag ranges from €1.50 to €8. If waste is a resource, why does the Government not give grants and subsidies to enable people to make use of recycled waste in this country? I am referring to the figures quoted on page 16.

Mr. Macken

There are a number of issues relating to market development. We accept that the export of recycled material is quite high but recovered recycled material is a resource that can be traded. Given that Ireland is a member of the EU and the single market, people here are free to export this material, provided it complies with the normal shipping requirements.

In respect of developing markets in Ireland, the Government has established a market development group, which is composed of the various representative sectors, such as industry and public bodies involved. This group is drafting a national market development programme with a view to seeing how we can develop markets for recycled material. The opportunities for this will improve because of the large scale of recycled material we are now recovering. For example, with packaging, we moved from 15% in 1998 to 56% in 2004. Repak is reporting a figure of over 60% recycling.

Market development has prioritised three different waste streams — plastics, organics and paper. The market development programme will focus on these areas and the question of how we can develop markets. The Clean Technology Centre, which previously carried out a considerable amount of good work in this area, is a member of this group. We hope to complete the market development programme this year with a list of deliverables which we will then roll out over a number of years in the same way as our national waste prevention programme. It is a priority and we must think of the future when the international outlets for some of these materials, for example, the Chinese market, may not be as good as they are now.

Senator Brennan

If it is being marketed abroad, how does the benefit of this marketing come back to the consumer in respect of the prices charged?

Mr. Macken

Is Senator Brennan referring to——

Senator Brennan

I am referring to recycling services. If this waste or recyclable material is being marketed abroad, surely the benefit of this sale should come back to the consumer. The benefits to which I am referring relate to the prices consumers must pay to have their waste collected and recycled.

Mr. Macken

The costs relating to the packaging market are paid to a large extent by the producers who contribute to the Repak scheme. They must carry these costs. The prices of international commodities and recyclable materials influence their costs so this works its way through the cost of products. These things can be internalised into the actual markets for these commodities.

Chairman

The committee is considering a report on the recycling of household waste. Does the Department believe, having regard to waste management plans and new technology, that there will be too many incinerators in place if they are all brought into operation?

Mr. O’Mahony

We must stress the point which I understand was covered by Mr. Layde when he dealt with the regional waste management plans. Under our waste management planning structure, it is a matter for each waste planning region, of which there are nine or ten, to determine the appropriate infrastructural mix for its region. In determining this, they must take a number of factors into account. One of these factors is the proximity principle, which is essentially that waste should be treated, for the most part, in proximity to where it is generated. They must also take into account the viability of individual facilities. We must let these issues work through over a period of time in the regions. As Deputy Gilmore noted, there is no incinerator in place at the moment. However, a municipal incinerator has been approved and there are plans for other incinerators.

The Chairman is also aware that the Minister signalled in the Dáil that he is examining the question of the economic regulation of the sector. I believe he stated, in a reply to parliamentary questions, that he will propose to Government that a consultation paper on the economic regulation of the sector be published. Any move towards economic regulation must inevitably address factors around the regulation of the market, including the viability of individual facilities.

There are a number of issues which must be determined at local level and possibly through some future regulatory process. It is a roundabout answer to the Chairman's question but I believe it is the appropriate one for me to give at this stage.

Chairman

As expected. I thank the members of the delegation for their contribution to the meeting and for assisting us with our examination of this proposal. The meeting has served as a useful exchange of views. I do not know whether members of the committee wish to put a line in our report to the Houses to the effect that the committee expressed concern at the possible implications of this directive for the waste-to-energy project at Ringsend. What does Deputy Cuffe think of this proposal? Is it necessary?

Deputy Cuffe

One has to be careful with the wording of this. If we mentioned the applicability of the directive to the Ringsend project and expressed concerns, it might cover the range of views around the table. I think we all agree that we want to see higher standards and better application, although we may differ on how these standards might be met.

Chairman

So if Deputy Cuffe was to include a line in it, he would suggest——

Deputy Cuffe

I would include a line stating that the committee discussed the implications of the proposed directive on the Ringsend project and agreed that any project would have to meet the highest environmental standards. Would this suffice?

Chairman

Yes. Are members happy with this?

Senator Brennan

Could the question of incineration in regional waste management plans also be taken into consideration to broaden it within the context of all the regions?

Chairman

We probably need to go into private session to thrash out this issue. I thank the delegation for its contribution.

The joint committee went into private session at 4 p.m. and adjourned at 4.19 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 19 July 2006.