conformity with the provisions of the Landfill Directive. Also, landfilling means an irrecoverable loss of resources. Food waste disposers14 could constitute an alternative method, especially in places where separate collection of food waste is not possible or feasible and where an individual sewer system and waste water treatment installations allows for their use. However they do not solve the problem of food waste but transfer it to the waste water treatment plant. As their feasibility depends on local conditions the decision of promoting/banning should not be taken at the EU level but left to national/regional or even local authorities. Therefore they are not covered by this analysis. In a number of Member States, the management practices for bio-waste are not optimal: EU-wide, 36 million tonnes (40%) of this waste are still landfilled15; in some Member States this amount still exceeds 90%. The massive use of landfilling for bio-waste management violates the “hierarchy” of waste management options which is a binding legal requirement for national waste management policies16 as it disregards better alternatives such as prevention and recycling. It also represents a risk of non compliance with the Landfill Directive, notably its provisions for diverting biodegradable waste and managing landfill gas. EU legislation indeed already bans landfilling of an increasing part of biodegradable waste (Box 3). While the Landfill Directive does not impose specific treatment on bio-waste diverted from landfills, Member States are obliged according to the requirements of the Waste Framework Directive to optimise treatment with a view to sustainable resource use, avoiding negative impacts on the environment and human health according to their specific conditions. This includes notably the requirement to develop national policies in support of waste prevention and recycling. Failure by many Member States to respect in practice the "waste hierarchy" principles leads to significant losses of material and energy resources, unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts, e.g. on groundwater quality. The EU as a whole is therefore missing out on the economic and environmental opportunities offered by directing bio-waste to the most appropriate management techniques17. For example, recycling of bio-waste accounts for only 1/3 of its overall potential18, although seemingly cheaper alternatives have been shown to be more expensive when taking into account their financial, environmental and social costs. It is estimated that by improving bio-waste management and make it conform to the principle of the "waste hierarchy" notably by increasing prevention and recycling efforts: • Significant financial savings could be made by citizens. For example, one third of food bought by UK households (approximate value of €19 billions) becomes waste19. Up to 60% of this waste 14
15 16
17 18 19
EN
Device, usually electrically-powered, installed under a kitchen sink which shreds food waste into small pieces to pass through plumbing. Data for the year 2008 - source: Arcadis/Eunomia report Article 4 of the WFD includes a precise definition of the waste management hierarchy: the prevention of waste is defined as the best option, followed by re-use, recycling and energy recovery. Disposal (landfilling, incineration with low-energy recovery) is defined as the worst environmental option Box 2 outlines the bio-waste management options Source: Orbit/ECN Source: "The Food We Waste" report for the "Waste Resources Action Programme (WRAP) – UK" – April 2008
12
EN