DECLARATION / LTT FOR COMMISSIONER ON INCINERATION IN DK

 The transition to a circular economy stands as a crucial pillar within the European
Green Deal, encompassing the full spectrum of product design to their reintegration
into the economic system upon reaching the end of their lifecycle. The Waste
Framework Directive compels Member States to adopt imperative actions to safeguard
human health and the environment in waste management, while upholding the
principles of self-sufficiency and proximity. Embedded within this directive lies the
waste hierarchy, placing paramount importance on waste prevention, preparation for
reuse, and recycling, while relegating incineration with energy recovery to a
secondary, less preferable role, and reserving landfilling as the option of last resort.
 In order to enforce the waste hierarchy, Member States are required to adhere to
recycling objectives and obligations regarding separate collection. The waste
management practices of different Member States indicate that waste incineration
coupled with energy recovery on non-recyclable waste can have a role as a waste
treatment option. It can facilitate adequate waste handling, diminish landfilling, utilise
the energy present in waste, and apply the principles of self-reliance and proximity [1].
 Nevertheless, it is crucial to exercise caution when evaluating the deployment of
energy recovery facilities, so as to avoid any potential issues arising from excessive
treatment capacity for residual waste and the inadvertent creation of disincentives for
implementing waste reduction measures and promoting recycling.
 In this context, it is worth highlighting that Denmark incinerated 45.2% of its municipal
waste in the year 2020, surpassing the EU average of 26%. However, the recycling rate
for plastic packaging waste in Denmark was only 37.4% in 2019, falling short of the
50% target set for 2025. Therefore, additional endeavours towards separate collection
and recycling of municipal waste and packaging, diverting them from incineration, are
necessary to achieve the objectives laid down in the Waste Framework Directive and
the wider circular economy goals.
 Increasing capacities in incineration and residual waste treatment is not supported
with EU regional and cohesion funding apart from under specific exceptions (Art. 7 of
Reg. 2021/1058 on ERDF/cohesion refers to exceptions for outermost regions if duly
justified, and investment in technologies to recover materials from residual waste for
circular economy purpose). For the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), Regulation
2021/241 on RRF applies, as well as the Technical guidance on the application of ‘do
no significant harm’ under the Recovery and Resilience
Facility Regulation (2021/C 58/01), which does not allow support to incinerators with
the exception only for incinerating non-recyclable hazardous waste. However, no
specific EU provisions exist regarding a potential decrease of current installed
capacities, as described for Denmark.
 The Danish authorities hold the responsibility of evaluating the potential overcapacity
arising from the present circumstances and deciding on the appropriateness of
reducing capacity and restricting waste shipments into Denmark for disposal. Under
Article 11 of the current Waste Shipment Regulation (2006/12/EC), it is stated that the
authorities of a Member State have the right to oppose the reception of waste
shipments within the European Union that are intended for disposal, such as
incineration. This objection is subject to various conditions, including the requirement
that such shipments "do not align with the measures implemented to adhere to the
principles of proximity, priority for recovery, and self-sufficiency at the Community and
national levels, as outlined in Directive 2006/12/EC.
 The proposed revision of the Waste Shipment Regulation by the European Union
addresses this issue by introducing new and more stringent requirements for waste
shipments intended for incineration or landfill disposal. The aim is to restrict such
shipments to only exceptional and well-substantiated cases, as they are considered the
least favoured methods for waste management.