Waste Management: The Influence of EU law on Domestic UK law - Term Paper Example

Waste Management a) Influence of EU law on domestic UK law The EU has passed several directives and regulations on waste management. A number of themhave been entrenched in the country’s laws while others have been used as guiding principles for local environmental situations (Barrett et.al., 2004). The Council directive 91/556/EEC makes member states’ primary objectives for waste management quite clear. It outlines the need to minimize waste production through well proven methods like recycling and reuse. These strategies have been taken up by various UK businesses as well as residential establishment. It also requires individuals to strive for self sufficient in waste management, access to energy sources and outlines the important of recycling and recovery. Member states are also expected to have waste management plans (Izrael and Semenov, 2005). Such an approach is helpful in outlining some of the basic principles of waste management. It assists members to have an idea on where they need to go with regard to this matter. It also specifies some of the strategies that may be used. One can also find the definition of waste in this directive, such that member states can speak a common language. Case law demonstrates the effect of this directive on member stated (Ulph, 2001). In 1992, a landmark ruling was made concerning environmental damage that stems from waste disposal; the case is now famously called the Wallonia Waste case. It was decided that individuals will rectify the damage at the sourced. This decision was made regardless of the fact that it contradicted certain free trade laws. This case illustrates that the EU places the principle of waste management at the top of its list. The case also laid bare the fact that waste recovery needs to take place regardless of the boundary crossings (Ranganathan, 1998). The landfill directive known as 1999/31/EC has also had a tremendous influence on management of solid waste in the United Kingdom. It has harmonised landfill site standards in the region (Helm, 2000). This is possible through specification of allowable quantities of toxins such as methane. The UK currently is following the EU requirements on biodegradable municipal solid waste. It was stated that member states must work towards reaction of the municipal solid wastes to 50% by 2009. Northern Ireland is the only country that has an exception as it has been given extra time. Its overdependence on this form of waste disposal means that it requires more time to achieve these goals (Johnson, 2011). In the latter directive, landfill capacities have also been defined and the nature of hazards is also known. The United Kingdom has already implemented some of the landfill banning timescales that have been set by the EU. For instance, explosive and flammable wastes were supposed to have been eliminated by 2009, and several other wastes will be eliminated in subsequent years. The main idea is to get people to take control of their municipal solid waste as this has the potential to cause excessive damage to the environment (UNEP, n.d.). Analysts state that the landfill directive is useful because unlike other EU laws, this is one is quite prescriptive. The body took such an approach because it needed to protect the environment from cheap landfills which tend to attract more waste and keep products away from well run landfills. Furthermore, it was necessary in order to minimising global warming that stems from these fills. The directive target market distortions, and thus shows how the EU perceives environmental matters in terms of the free market (Birnie and Boyle, 2002). This landfill directive has achieved what would have been almost impossible to do f all member states were considered. It set minimum standards for protection of the environmental within all EU destinations. If the EU focused on all local rules, lengthy and cumbersome comparisons would need to be done in order to deal with different case. However, now a level playing field exists for all nations including the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is also subject to a series of other EU directives such as the End of vehicles directive, which dwells on recovery of scrap vehicles. Others include the Waste Incineration Directive 2000/76/EC, which deals with incineration of waste and its effects on the environment. The Directive is general in nature and requires member states to abide by emission limits (Johnson, 2011). Since members of the United Kingdom have the ability to move from their country of origin into different EU member states, EU laws have been critical in controlling disposal of waste from this country into others. The Waste Shipment Regulations 259/93 is one such directive. It classifies waste moving within the EU as either recovery or disposal related. In shipment of waste for disposal, the concerned person must get consent from the target government (Johnson, 2011). In waste shipment, individuals that are doing it for recovery also must abide by certain laws as specific in the directive. They must determine whether the concerned product falls within a certain list of hazardous waste. This may either be the red list, amber list, or grey list. As the names imply, red refers to those highly toxic waste products like asbestos, lead and PCB. Amber consists of moderately toxic waste like household waste while the green lost consists of products that are the least harmful to the environment. The above directive has been helpful in creating order during the transmission of products from the UK into other countries and other countries into the UK (Pearce, 2005). This ensures that entrepreneurs go about their business responsibly even when this may involve trans-border movement. The latter is quite useful to the country because it ensures seamless transportation of goods between borders in the European Union. Aside from the EU, a series of other international laws and agreements have influenced UK waste legislations. The Rio declaration occurred in 1992 owing to the United Nations. It stated that member states were obligated to protect the environment if a threat of irreversible and serious damage was likely to occur (Rio Declaration, 1992). These precautions were to be taken irrespective of the absence of full scientific certainty. Most nations had formed the habit of postponing actions until perceived threats were actually likely to occur (Gillespie, 1997). This declaration is rather general in nature and subject to interpretation depending on the priorities of the member states. In the UK, the Home Office has outlined certain protocols that revolve around genetic engineering. Since this practice can expose animals to dangerous viruses, it may be perceived as harmful in this regard. Therefore, the UK government adheres to strict standards when giving genetic engineers licences. Care will be taken to ensure that the persons, sites and the procedures do not put animals in harms ways (Johnson, 2011). Several business players often put profit before the environment and human health. They tend to make environmentally proactive choices only when there is a strong link between the substances they dispose and the harm it may cause. However, owing to the Rio Declaration, now UK entrepreneurs are able to limit introduction of hazardous substances even when direct links have not yet been established. b) Costs and benefits of good waste management practices to organisations Some companies lack the expertise needed to engage in positive waste management practices. Sometimes this may involve hiring staff that understand the environmental implications and how to merge it with their processes. More often than not, some facilities may be reluctant to invest in this extra labour (Shah, 2002). Financial constraints may also become a challenge with regard to the capital investments needed to become environmentally sustainable. Such organisations are unmotivated by the long term returns of such investments because the payback period is simply too long. Some may not be willing to stay in their line of work for such lengthy periods (Spencer, 2003). Usually, when organisations want to take on an environmentally sustainable path, they may also be confronted by other business obligations. Sometimes the company may be considering investments in certain business processes or products. Essentially, their target is to come up with a better quality product. These conflicting goals may make it difficult for such individuals to enter full-heartedly into environmental matters (Durwood et. al., 2005). Furthermore, because most companies are run by a board of directors, it is likely that they may not be overly enthusiastic about environmental management. Technology breakthroughs are often coming up and new ways of waste reduction are being introduced. However, certain business leaders may be too preoccupied with the well being of their organisations that they may not learn about existing technologies that can either eliminate or minimise their waste streams. It is for this reason that a number of organisation may not take on this challenge. Lack of knowledge may also be manifested through poor measurement of target levels as well as objectives. Once companies do not understand these dynamics then they may not be able to achieve full outcomes from the respective needs (Sands, 2003). Companies that choose to supersede these obstacles have a lot that they can gain from commitment to waste management practices. The law of diminishing returns indicated that economic growth will decline when the quality or quantity of the factors of production reduce. These factors may include land, capital and labour. Therefore, if organisations do not invest in environmentally sound practices today, it is likely that the quality of land may reduce and this they outputs they can receive from it. Irrigating, application of fertiliser and use of efficient technology may be ways of persevering the quality of land. Persons who engage in these practices will have better chances of getting future returns (Kytle and Ruggie, 2005). Businesses that rely on natural resources like timber, precious metals or oil have a lot to gain from proper waste management. They will preserver future people’s ability to draw these resources because they will still be available at that time in the future. Some organisations may presume that diminishing returns may not occur in their lifetime. However, if abuse of the environment has been going on long enough, it is likely that some firms may witness the dwindling of these resources during their lifetimes (Yarwood, 1998). Companies that employ good waste management practices are also more likely than their counterparts to subscribe to a demand driven economy. Previously, organisations would produce their goods and then supply them to consumers. This would result in excessive inventory and wastefulness and supply would outstrip demand. However, through the service extension model, companies may not focus on consumer demand. This allows them to become more profitable as they do not have to spend a lot of time focusing on unnecessary resources. Reduction of waste also causes companies to use better technologies which lead to the availability of smarter goods. These organisations are able to improve product functionality and this sell their commodities at a greater price due to their enhanced valued. Eco efficient innovations do not simply result in less waste; they also introduce an economic value that may be manifested during the organisation lifecycle (Tietenberg, 1996). Businesses may also gain through savings. This approach to waste management minimises the need to engage in costly end of pipe methods. Processes will be enhanced in order to improve their outcomes. Furthermore, these firms will utilise new knowledge in order to boost old products thus becoming resource efficient (Wiedmann and Lenzen, 2006). Resource usage is also likely to be enhanced among persons who carry out these environmentally sound waste management processes. They are likely to direct their waste into other industries which may use them as raw materials. This enhances collaboration among companies and pushes them to become better at the provision of services. They can thus form networks in which assets are shared across. Not only is this good for business but it also leads to better and enhanced outcomes for society (Vigon, 2004). References Barrett, J., Birch, R., Cherrett, N., & Simmons, C., 2004. An analysis of the policy and educational applications of the ecological footprint. Stockholm: Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). Birnie, P., and Boyle, A., 2002. International law and the environment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Durwood, Z., Kaniaru, D., & Kruzikova, E., 2005. Making law work: environmental compliance and sustainable development. London: Cameron May. Gillespie, A., 1997. International law, policy and ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Helm, D., 2000. Environmental policy: objectives, instruments and implementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Izrael, Y.A., and Semenov, S.M., 2005. Critical levels of greenhouse gases, stabilization scenarios and implications for the global decisions. [online] Available at: www.stabilisation2005.com/16_Yu_A_Izrael.pdf [Accessed 11 February 2013] Johnson, A., 2011. The development of waste management law. Belmont, WA: Eastern Metropolitan Press. Kytle, B., and J.G. Ruggie, 2005. Corporate social responsibility as risk management: a model for multinationals. Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Pearce, F., 2005. Clearing smog has led to ‘global brightening’. [online] Available at: www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn7346 [Accessed 11 February 2013] Ranganathan, J., 1998. Sustainability rulers: measuring corporate environmental and social performance: sustainable enterprise perspectives. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Rio Declaration, 1992. Principle 15 – the precautionary approach. [online] Available at: www.gdrc.org/u-gov/precaution-7.html [Accessed 11 February 2013] Sands, P., 2003. The principles of environmental law (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shah, A., 2002. Carbon sinks, forests and climate change. [online] Available at: www.globalissues.org/envissues/globalwarming/forests.asp [Accessed 11 February 2013] Spencer, T., 2003. Talking about social responsibility: liability for misleading and deceptive statements in corporate codes of conduct. Monash Law Review, 29, pp. 297–315. Tietenberg, T.H., 1996. Managing the transition to sustainable development: the role for economic incentives. In P. May, & R.S. Da Motta (Eds), Pricing the planet: economic analysis for sustainable development (pp. 123–138). New York: Columbia University Press. Ulph, A., 2001. Environmental policy, international agreements and international trade. Oxford: Oxford University Press. UNEP, n.d. About UNEP: the organization. [online] Available at: www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=43 [Accessed 11 February 2013] Vigon, B.N., 2004. Life-cycle assessment: inventory guidelines and principles. London: Lewis. Wiedmann, T., and Lenzen, M., 2006. Sharing responsibility along supply chains – a new life-cycle approach and software tool for triple-bottom-line accounting. The Corporate Responsibility Research Conference 2006, 4–5 September 2006,Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. Yarwood, J.M., 1998. Implementing design for the environment – a primer. In J.M. Yarwood, & P.D. Eagan (Eds) Design for the environment toolkit – a competitive edge for the future. London: McMillan. Read More