El aprendizaje termina cuando no se crean nuevos agrupamientos.

4.1.1 Introduction

Any proposal of a set of EU-wide end-of-waste criteria should be accompanied by a precise definition of the scope of the materials that would be subject to such criteria. For example, the type of pollutants to be routinely monitored in compost/digestate as part of the quality criteria should not only depend on their possible adverse environmental impacts but also on the probability of occurrence in the input materials.

During the study, several options for the definition of the scope have been suggested by the expert stakeholders and were the subject of intense debate. An overview of these scope options is given below, together with a discussion of their main advantages, drawbacks and less distinct features, based on the expert feedback.

4.1.2 Option 1: Broad scope with strict output material quality criteria This scope proposal is based on an approach in which the output material criteria are predominant, with a relatively tolerant stance towards the used input materials for the composting/digestion process.

It enables the use of a large series of input materials, provided these are on a positive list of allowed materials and provided the output material meets strict quality criteria. In this proposal, compost/digestate materials derived from sewage sludge and mixed MSW may be eligible for end-of-waste, but certain highly polluted input materials are banned.

Advantages

 Level playing field. The same standards apply across the EU for all compost and digestate materials derived from biodegradable waste, offering simplicity and clarity to producers and consumers of compost/digestate, as well as the derived materials such as food crops.

 Technology neutral. This option provides the most neutral stance towards all existing and future composting/digestion technological systems operating on the market, as it judges mainly on the product quality. At the same time it stimulates competition and technological innovation, especially for technologies that currently experience difficulties in meeting the product quality criteria.

 Legal certainty. By setting strict product quality criteria, authorities and industries can make informed decisions on possible composting/digestion options, facilitating long- term investment planning.

Drawbacks

 Subsidiarity principle at risk. The proposed scope tends to neglect the specificities of national markets by forcing them to accept a broad range of materials, including materials that were previously not allowed.

 Sudden and large disruptions of existing markets. A majority of the MBT and sewage

sludge based materials currently being produced across the EU would not be able to meet the strict quality standards. Nonetheless, many of these materials currently enjoy national product(like) status. Hence, the introduction of EU legislation with strict standards would result in large amounts of material suddenly shifting from a product status to a waste status, with sudden and important financial impacts for the concerned authorities and producers of these materials. Nevertheless, this scope option would in principle allow authorities and producers to adapt their collection systems and installations in order to improve the quality of the output material in order to meet the quality criteria and therefore allow them to recover from the temporary impacts.

 Possibly decreased consumer confidence. Many experts argued that an introduction on

the EU market of materials previously not allowed in certain Member States (e.g. MBT compost) would result in decreased consumer confidence and rejection by the consumer of all compost/digestate types.

 Likely compliance cost increase. If a vast spectrum of input materials is allowed, it becomes necessary to screen for many pollutants whose presence is likely in any of these input materials. This in turn may lead to an increase of the costs for analytical measurements related to product quality compliance testing. The ultimate changes in analytical costs will depend on the existing elements of the testing programs that are already in place at national level and of the pollutant concentration level of the material.

 Difficulties with positive list. The TWG expert discussions indicated that for many types of input materials, different views existed about their eligibility for inclusion on the positive list of allowed materials. Hence, it would be very difficult to establish a positive list that is agreed upon by all experts, even if the focus in this approach is on the output material quality and a more tolerant stance towards input materials can be taken. Moreover, updating the positive list would be a complicated and time-consuming process that may hamper the rapid evolutions on the market.

Neutral

 Indirectly encourages separate collection of bio-waste. By imposing strict product quality criteria, which are readily achievable for most systems based on source separate collection of input materials, this scope proposal indirectly stimulates Member States' measures to encourage separate collection of bio-waste with a view to composting and digestion, as required by Article 22(a) of the Waste Framework Directive.

This proposal was outlined in Working Document 1 and 3. A detailed overview of the proposed end-of-waste criteria from the 3rd Working Document is given in "Annex 20: Proposed end-of- waste criteria from 3rd Working Document".

4.1.3 Option 2: Broad scope explicitly prohibiting certain input materials This scope proposal is based on an approach in which input material criteria are seen as the key tool to ensure the quality of the output material. It acknowledges the advantages of separate collection of biodegradable waste with the aim to produce valuable compost/digestate materials, as set out in recitals 28 and 35 and articles 10, 11 and 22 of the Waste Framework Directive, by excluding certain compost/digestate types from end-of-waste status both at

national and EU level.

It enables the use of a number of input materials, provided these are on a positive list of allowed materials. The output material must also meet several quality criteria, although these will generally be less extensive than in Option 1. At the same time, it explicitly excludes several materials from receiving end-of-waste status at EU or national level, regardless of their quality. In this proposal, compost/digestate materials derived from sewage sludge and mixed MSW are not considered to be eligible for end-of-waste status, neither at national, nor at Community level. Furthermore, certain highly polluted input materials are banned.

Advantages

 Encourages separate collection of bio-waste. This scope proposal stimulates Member States' measures to encourage separate collection of bio-waste with a view to composting and digestion, as required by Article 22(a) of the Waste Framework Directive.

 Possibly reinforced consumer confidence. Several experts argued that by reducing the eligible input materials to those for which the output material has a proven track record of quality in many Member States will help in establishing consumer confidence for compost/digestate. This is especially the case for emerging markets, many of which are developing in the EU-12 Member States, where consumers are little acquainted with compost and digestate materials from biodegradable waste.

Drawbacks

 Subsidiarity principle at risk. The proposed scope tends to neglect the specificities of certain national markets and technologies by explicitly excluding certain materials from end-of-waste status even if they are currently enjoying product(like) status at national level.

 Sudden, large and possibly irreversible disruptions of existing markets. A majority of the MBT and sewage sludge based materials currently being produced across the EU would suddenly be excluded from end-of-waste status, regardless of their current status at national level. This would have important, sudden and possibly irreversible impacts for the concerned authorities and producers of these materials, as the only remaining option would be to handle these materials under the waste regime.

 Not technology neutral. Preventing MBT and/or sewage sludge based compost/digestate

materials from receiving end-of-waste status at any level, national and EU, regardless of their product quality, was perceived by certain experts as discriminatory. Excluding these materials from the product market will most probably constitute a considerable barrier against further investment and innovation for these technologies.

 No level playing field. Different rules apply to different kinds of compost/digestate types, therefore abolishing the level playing field.

 Severe difficulties with positive list. The TWG expert discussions indicated that for many types of input materials, different views existed about their eligibility for inclusion on the positive list of allowed materials. In view of the important consequences for materials being excluded from the positive list, it would be very difficult to establish a positive list that is agreed upon by all experts. Moreover, updating the positive list could be a complicated and time-consuming process that may hamper the rapid evolutions on the market.

Neutral

 Restricted compliance cost. If only a limited number of input materials are allowed, the number of possible pollutants to screen for remains relatively low. This limits the costs for analytical measurements related to product quality compliance testing. Nonetheless, certain costs may be incurred due to the introduction of an EU-wide end-of-waste system. The changes in analytical costs will depend on the existing elements of the testing programs that are already in place at national level and of the pollutant concentration level of the material.

 Partial legal certainty. By limiting the allowable input materials and technologies,

authorities and industries can make informed decisions on possible

composting/digestion options, facilitating long-term investment planning. However, existing systems that become excluded from end-of-waste status through the introduction of new EU legislation may experience legal difficulties through the sudden and irreversible change from product to waste status.

This proposal was outlined in Working Document 2. A detailed overview of the proposed end- of-waste criteria from the 2nd Working Document is given in "Annex 19: Proposed end-of- waste criteria from 2nd Working Document".

4.1.4 Option 3: Narrow scope excluding certain input materials

This scope proposal is a variation on Option 2. It is based on an approach in which input material criteria are seen as the key tool to ensure the quality of the output material. It acknowledges the advantages of separate collection of biodegradable waste with the aim to produce valuable compost/digestate materials, as set out in recitals 28 and 35 and articles 10, 11 and 22 of the Waste Framework Directive, by excluding certain compost/digestate types from end-of-waste status at EU level. However, contrary to Option 2, it does not immediately exclude other compost/digestate types, such as MBT and sewage sludge based materials, from receiving national end-of-waste or similar product status.

This option provides Member States with the possibility and time to adapt their national compost and digestate production chains. Authorities and industries may then decide to replace certain technologies on the long term or to invest in technological improvements with the aim to request future eligibility for currently excluded compost/digestate materials within the EU end-of-waste framework. In the latter case, it will be necessary to demonstrate the improved and constant output quality of certain technologies, with the bulk of the produced materials meeting the envisaged EU output quality requirements, and to provide thorough scientific evidence on the safe use of the materials, especially with regard to the fate of the pollutant compounds and their possible breakdown products. Future decisions on the possible end-of-

waste status of current non-scope materials may therefore depend on proven technological advancements in the coming years, or conversely, the lack thereof.

Advantages

 Subsidiarity principle respected. The proposed scope acknowledges the specificities of

certain national markets and technologies, while providing a Community framework for compost and digestate produced from source separated input materials.

 Limited sudden disruptions of existing markets. A majority of the MBT and/or sewage

sludge based materials currently being produced across the EU would retain their current status within the national legal framework and technology changes could be implemented gradually. Moreover, markets for compost/digestate from source separate collection are likely to benefit on the long run from the recognition provided by the EU- wide end-of-waste status.

 Positive list can be avoided. By limiting the scope for EU end-of-waste materials, while concurrently allowing national systems to be maintained, the establishment of a single EU positive list of allowed input materials for end-of-waste compost/digestate production becomes less crucial. Moreover, in absence of a commonly agreed EU positive list, the update mechanism is clearly facilitated. Future new candidate materials can be introduced in the EU end-of-waste compost/digestate market after examination and confirmation by the competent national authorities that a material falls under the scope for EU end-of-waste compost/digestate.

 Encourages separate collection of bio-waste. By limiting EU wide end-of-waste status

to materials from source separate collection, this scope proposal stimulates Member States' measures to encourage separate collection of bio-waste with a view to composting and digestion, as required by Article 22(a) of the Waste Framework Directive.

 Possibly reinforced consumer confidence. Several experts argued that by reducing the eligible input materials to those for which the output material has a proven quality track record in many Member States will help in boosting consumer confidence for compost/digestate. This is especially relevant for emerging markets, many of which are developing in the EU-12 Member States, where consumers are little acquainted with compost and digestate materials from biodegradable waste.

Drawbacks

 No full level playing field. Different rules apply to different kinds of compost/digestate types for this scope option, yet product status is not exclusively attributed to materials from source separate collection. Hence, the level playing field is not fully established, but a high level of competition is still ensured.

Neutral

 Restricted compliance cost. If only a limited number of input materials are allowed, the number of possible pollutants to screen for remains relatively low. This limits the costs for analytical measurements related to product quality compliance testing. Nonetheless, certain costs may be incurred due to the introduction of an EU-wide end-of-waste system. The changes in analytical costs will depend on the existing elements of the testing programs that are already in place at national level and of the pollutant concentration level of the material.

 Partial legal certainty. Systems based on separate collection will benefit from clear legal certainty in this approach. However, by allowing EU-wide and national product

systems to co-exist, authorities and industries may lack a clear view on possible future composting/digestion options. This may hamper long-term investment decisions in technologies that are currently excluded from EU-wide end-of-waste status.

 Partially technology neutral. This option allows different composting/digestion

technological systems to operate on the market, albeit at different levels. At the same time it stimulates competition and technological innovation, especially for technologies that currently experience difficulties in meeting the proposed EU product quality criteria such as sewage sludge composting and MBT.

4.1.5 Proposed scope definition

A summary overview of the different discussed scope options and their likely impacts, based on expert feedback, is given in Table 12.

It should be stressed that the above proposed scope options are obviously not exhaustive. New scope options may be developed by adapting elements of the different options and by proposing modifications to lessen the possible negative impacts while preserving or improving the positive impacts. Moreover, Table 12 mainly lists the individual impacts of every option, but no weighing factors have been attributed to each impact. Hence, preference for a given option may depend as well on the overall weighted appreciation of each option. Moreover, several experts had different opinions on the individual impacts, with some experts estimating certain impacts to be more negative while others estimated certain impacts to be more positive.

Table 12: Summary overview of likely impacts from different possible scope options (++ = very positive, + =positive,0 =neutral, - =negative, -- = very negative)

Option 1: Broad scope with strict output quality criteria

Option 2: Broad scope explicitly prohibiting certain input materials Option 3: Narrow scope excluding certain input materials Limiting compliance cost

-

0

0

Promoting consumer confidence

-

++

+

Facilitating listing and updating of allowable input materials

-

--

++

Encouraging separate collection

+

++

+

Providing legal certainty

++

0

0

Ensuring a level playing field

++

--

-

Avoiding disruption of existing markets

-

--

+

Respecting subsidiarity

-

--

++

Being technology neutral

++

--

0

Certain experts also suggested other impacts that could not be retained because they did not reflect any techno-economic aspects of end-of-waste criteria, but were related to e.g. general waste management policy.

Both options 1 and 2 failed to receive extensive support from the Technical Working Group. Each option had its distinct proponents. Nevertheless, stakeholders from the markets that were likely to suffer most from the negative impacts associated to a certain option clearly voiced their objections. In this respect, it should be noted that some experts advocated leaving the development of end-of-waste systems at the decision of the individual Member States, claiming a likely overall negative impact to local markets from possible EU end-of-waste criteria.

Option 3, as presented in the Background Paper and discussed at the Third Workshop in Seville (26 February 2013), received relatively widespread support from the TWG as an acceptable compromise solution, with less explicit objections being formulated.

Given the overall preference for Option 3, it has been retained in this document as a basis to formulate a set of proposed end-of-waste criteria.

More specifically, it is proposed to define the scope for possible EU legislation on end-of-waste criteria for compost and digestate as follows:

(1) The scope includes hygienised and stabilized compost and digestate materials obtained through a biological waste treatment process using input materials exclusively originating from:

a) the separate collection of bio-waste and/or; b) manure and/or;

c) living or dead organisms or parts thereof, provided the latter are unprocessed or processed only by manual, mechanical or gravitational means, by dissolution in water, by flotation, by extraction with water, by steam distillation or by heating solely to remove water, or which are extracted from air by any means and/or;

d) processed living or dead organisms or parts thereof other than c), as well as biodegradable packaging materials, provided all such materials are certified biodegradable according to EN 13432, EN 14995 or equivalent and 90% biodegradability in 6 months has been demonstrated in a single or combined composting and/or anaerobic digestion process and/or;

e) any material listed in points a), b), c) and/or d) that has previously been composted and/or digested;

In document Razonamiento evidencial dinámico : Un método de clasificación aplicado al análisis de imágenes hiperespectrales (página 63-68)