Final report - IMPEL-TFS NCP Exchange Days 2011

IMPEL-TFS NCP Exchange Days 

28 - 29 September 2011 

Final report: January 2012

Introduction to IMPEL 

The European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of 

Environmental Law (IMPEL) is an international non-profit association of the 

environmental authorities of the EU Member States, acceding and candidate 

countries of the European Union and EEA countries. The association is registered 

in Belgium and its legal seat is in Bruxelles, Belgium. 

IMPEL was set up in 1992 as an informal Network of European regulators and 

authorities concerned with the implementation and enforcement of 

environmental law. The Network’s objective is to create the necessary impetus in 

the European Community to make progress on ensuring a more effective 

application of environmental legislation. The core of the IMPEL activities concerns 

awareness raising, capacity building and exchange of information and 

experiences on implementation, enforcement and international enforcement 

collaboration as well as promoting and supporting the practicability and 

enforceability of European environmental legislation. 

During the previous years IMPEL has developed into a considerable, widely 

known organisation, being mentioned in a number of EU legislative and policy 

documents, e.g. the 6th Environment Action Programme and the 

Recommendation on Minimum Criteria for Environmental Inspections. 

The expertise and experience of the participants within IMPEL make the network 

uniquely qualified to work on both technical and regulatory aspects of EU 

environmental legislation. 

Information on the IMPEL Network is also available through its website at: 

www.impel.eu 

IMPEL-TFS NCP Exchange Days FINAL Report 2/46 

28- 29 September 2011 – Berlin, Germany January 2012

Title report: 

IMPEL-TFS NCP Exchange Days 2011 

Project manager: 

Jenny van Houten (Netherlands) 

Authors: 

Jenny van Houten (Netherlands) 

Number report: 

20 2011/14 

Report adopted at 

IMPEL General 

Assembly: 

7-8 June 2012, 

Copenhagen 

Number of pages: 46 

Report:25 

Annexes: 21 

Project team 

Jenny van Houten (Netherlands), Harald Junker (Germany), Nancy Isarin 

(IMPEL TFS Secretariat) 



Executive summary: 

The fifth NCP exchange days meeting took place on 28 and 29 September 2011 

in Berlin, Germany and was hosted by the German Federal Environment 

Agency. At the meeting, 35 people represented 25 environmental authorities in 

21 European countries, the IMPEL-TFS Steering Committee and the IMPEL 

secretariat at the NCP Exchange Days. The main goals of the exchange days are 

to strengthen the network of NCPs involved in the enforcement of the WSR, to 

exchange enforcement information, working methods and experiences 

informally and to inform participants on new developments. 

On the programme were practical waste shipment enforcement experiences 

from Finland, Serbia and Bulgaria, an interactive session about used goods in 

second hand cars, the Italian national waste shipments tracking system ‘SISTRI’ 

and an enforcement exercise about shipments of waste tar containing asphalt 

granulate (TAG). The Scottish authorities presented their plans for the IMPEL- 

TFS Enforcement Actions III Project. The group was furthermore updated on 

running projects within the IMPEL TFS cluster. The new IMPEL chair of the 

Board Ms. Zofia Tucinska joined the session and introduced herself to the NCPs. 

The IMPEL-TFS NCPs were recommended to gather and describe practical 

ship dismantling cases in each country in order to prepare an overview of 

(anonymous) ship dismantling cases in Europe in one document, collect the 

questions from the TFS network about the End of Waste criteria and to share 

the concern of the implementation and compliance with regulators and the 

European Commission and t take up the invitation for comments on the issues 

that were discussed during the WSR Correspondent meeting. 

The IMPEL-TFS Steering Committee was asked to support the preparation of 

a document with a collection of practical (anonymous) ship dismantling cases to 

share with the international actors who are involved in improving the control on 

this situation and preventing illegal shipments, to support the preparation of a 

document with a collection of questions from the TFS network about the End of 

Waste criteria and to prepare a new draft of the internal rules of IMPEL-TFS. 

IMPEL was invited to support the project proposals of the TFS cluster including 

all involved actors in the WSR enforcement field and the new internal rules (to 

be developed) of the TFS cluster. 

The European Commission was invited to support the TFS cluster on the 

issues that are raised by NCPs on topics such as ship dismantling, used items in 

second hand vehicles etc., to create clarity on the policy for transboundary 

shipments of shredded fridges plastic scrap with high and low ODS 

contamination in the isolation foam and to assist the TFS network in dealing 

with the End of Waste criteria in practice. 

Disclaimer: 

This report is the result of a project within the IMPEL network. The content does 

not necessarily represent the view of the national administrations or the 

European Commission. 



CONTENTS 


28- 29 September 2011 – Berlin, Germany January 2012 

Page 

1 Introduction ______________________________________ 1 

2 Programme _______________________________________ 3 

3 Outcomes ________________________________________ 5 

3.1 Experiences Finland __________________________________5 

3.2 Experiences Serbia ___________________________________6 

3.3 Experiences Bulgaria__________________________________7 

3.4 IMPEL-TFS Enforcement Actions III Project Scotland_________9 

3.5 Interactive session Germany __________________________10 

3.6 Artificial stream and pond system field trip _______________11 

3.7 Waste Shipment Regulation enforcement exercise__________11 

3.8 Feed back meeting IMPEL-TFS Waste Sites Project _________12 

3.9 Discussions on four WSR topics ________________________13 

3.10 NCP Interviews ___________________________________15 

3.11 Introduction Italy _________________________________15 

3.12 IMPEL Chair of the board ____________________________16 

3.13 IMPEL-TFS Doing the Right Things Project ______________16 

3.14 Outcomes of the WSR Correspondent meeting ___________17 

3.15 ToRs of the proposed IMPEL-TFS Projects for 2012________17 

3.16 Structure of the TFS cluster, outcomes of the questionnaire_18 

4. Development of the NCP network____________________ 19 

5. Recommendations _______________________________ 20

1 INTRODUCTION 

This is the report of the NCP exchange days that took place on 28 and 29 

September 2011 in Berlin, Germany. This was the fifth time that the NCP 

Exchange Days took place. In this meeting, 35 people represented 25 

environmental authorities in 21 European countries, the IMPEL-TFS 

Steering Committee and the IMPEL secretariat at the NCP Exchange 

Days. For the first time, Italian authorities have joined an IMPEL-TFS 

activity. The IMPEL-TFS Steering Committee joined the NCP session for 

half a day and had a separate meeting afterwards. 

International cooperation and alignment is very important for the 

enforcement of the European Waste Shipment Regulations (WSR) 

1013/2006. Previous IMPEL-TFS projects showed that the enforcement 

deficit of the WSR is serious and can be tackled only by joining 

enforcement forces on an international level and create an equal 

counterpart for the global waste trade industry. Environmental criminals 

who are involved in transboundary illegal waste shipments sabotage the 

legitimate trade and this has to be minimised. 

To improve the collaboration and alignment of enforcement, frequent 

interaction between the enforcers in different countries is necessary. 

Therefore it is very helpful when enforcers have structural, personal, 

informal and frequent contact during which they can strengthen their 

network, exchange experiences and best practices and align their WSR 

enforcement activities together. 

This IMPEL-TFS NCP Exchange Days Project focuses on the National 

Contact Points (NCPs) of the IMPEL network cluster Transfrontier 

Shipment of waste (TFS) and the main goals of the exchange days are: 

• Strengthen the network of NCPs involved in the enforcement of the 

WSR, 

• Exchange enforcement information, working methods and experiences 

informally, 

• Inform participants on new developments. 

The overall goal is to improve compliance and enforcement activities of 

the European Waste Shipment Regulation 1013/2006 and to stimulate 

consistent application of its provisions. To reach these objectives, the 

IMPEL-TFS NCP Exchange Days are organised every year. Furthermore 

the NCPs attend a separate meeting of half a day prior to the annual 

IMPEL-TFS conference. The specific role of the NCPs is described in detail 

in a separate document that has been developed by the IMPEL-TFS 

cluster. 

The exchange days covered the latest experiences of several countries in 

waste shipment enforcement in practice, updates about relevant TFS 

activities and a field trip to the Artificial Stream and Pond System of the 

federal German authorities. Furthermore, the participants took part in an 

interactive enforcement exercise and four ‘specialist discussions’ that 

were introduced by the participants themselves. The Steering Committee 

shared the latest TFS developments and (project) plans for 2012 and the 

IMPEL-TFS NCP Exchange Days FINAL Report 

1/46 


new Chair of the IMPEL Board introduced herself to the NCPs. During the 

NCP Exchange Days the participants interviewed one another to get to 

know each other better (and to earn a fabulous prize). 

The agenda and the participants list are included in Annex I and II of 

this report. More details about this project can be obtained via the IMPEL- 

TFS Secretariat or the project management of the IMPEL-TFS NCP 

Exchange Days. 


2/46 


2 PROGRAMME 

On the first day, the participants were welcomed by Ms. Susann Krause, 

deputy head of the waste management section of the German Federal 

Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt-UBA). The UBA hosted the 

meeting in Berlin. The day started with a short introduction, a reminder 

of the project goals and the results of the ‘NCP morning’ at the TFS 

Conference in Kassel, April 2011. Practical waste shipment enforcement 

experiences were then shared with the participants by Finland, Serbia 

and Bulgaria. Also, the NCPs received an assignment to interview one 

another and write a short article to compete for a first and second prize. 

The winner was announced on the second day. Furthermore, Scottish 

authorities, the new project manager of the IMPEL-TFS Enforcement 

Actions III Project, presented their plans for the follow up of this 

important European WSR enforcement project. Then Germany led an 

interactive session about used goods in second hand cars that are sent to 

Africa on a daily base. A field trip to UBAs Artificial Stream and Pond 

System closed the official program of the day. 

On the second day, the participants started with an enforcement exercise 

about shipments of waste tar containing asphalt granulate (TAG) in four 

subgroups. The exercise was led by the Latvian and Dutch authorities. 

Then, the Portuguese representative shared a brief overview of the 

outcomes of the IMPEL-TFS Waste Sites Project meeting that took place 

on 26-27 September 2011 in Frankfurt. Subsequently, Ireland, Slovenia, 

England and Wales and Norway introduced their topics for a good 

discussion with the participants. 

Then after lunch, the winners of the organised contest were announced. 

The first prize was for the Swedish NCP who interviewed the Bulgarian 

representative. Second prize was for Ireland who wrote an article about 

the Norwegian NCP. During the final afternoon of the meeting, members 

of the IMPEL-TFS Steering Committee (Malta, the Netherlands, England 

and Wales, Sweden, Denmark and Germany) joined the session for the 

necessary exchange of information with the NCPs. The Italian colleagues 

introduced themselves and their national waste shipments tracking 

system ‘SISTRI’. The new IMPEL chair of the Board (May 2011) Ms. Zofia 

Tucinska joined the session and introduced herself to the NCPs. Then, 

four topics were presented and discussed by the Steering Committee: 

• the IMPEL-TFS Doing the Right Things Project (DTRT) that was 

developed by IMPEL cluster ‘Permitting, Inspections and 

Enforcement’ which will now be applied to the European Waste 

Shipment Regulation 1013/2006, 

• the outcomes of the WSR Correspondents meeting in July 2011, 

Brussels, Belgium, 

• the Terms of References of the proposed new TFS projects for 

2012 that will be discussed and decided upon in the next IMPEL 

General Assembly on 24-25 November 2011 

• The outcomes of the questionnaire that covered the structure of 

the TFS cluster. 

The meeting was closed after a short summary of the outcomes and a 

friendly farewell and thank you to the project manager (2007-2011). 


3/46 


All presentations and relevant documents are available on the protected 

web area ‘Basecamp’ that can be reached through the website of IMPEL 

www.impel.eu (link in the right top corner of the home page). A login and 

password can be obtained (for environmental enforcement authorities 

only) through the Secretariat of IMPEL-TFS. 


4/46 


3 OUTCOMES 

3.1 Experiences Finland 

The Finnish Environment Institute ‘SYKE’, represented by Ms. Hannele 

Nikander, presented their experiences with a large and complicated waste 

ship dismantling case. The case concerned a vessel ‘C-Express’ (’66) that 

was moored in Vaasa port since 2005 and blocked in 2007 by the 

authorities in Finland after they had discovered that the ship was 

destined for dismantling in Pakistan. This dismantling is taking place 

under very primitive conditions and this transboundary movement is in 

violation with the European WSR, the Basel Convention and the Hong 

Kong Convention. After an inventory of hazardous components, the ship 

was classified as hazardous waste in Annex I and III under the Basel 

Convention. 

After several years (and many 

changes of plans) the ship was 

renamed ‘Onyx’ and was finally 

allowed to leave Vaasa port to be 

used again as ship (and not 

scrapped) in Dubai. The ship left 

in November 2009 but was 

stranded in Brest, France and 

then the plans were changed 

again and it seems that the 

information that was originally 

provided to the Finnish 

authorities was incorrect. The destination was changed to a shipyard in 

Piraeus, Greece and the ship left Brest in February 2010, heading for 

Gibraltar. Due to bad weather the ship took shelter in Lisbon, Portugal 

and then the destination was changed again to Limassol, Cyprus. The 

Onyx continued her journey in March 2010, stopping at Malta for 

refuelling. However, the ship passed Cyprus, transited the Suez Canal 

and lowered her anchor in Dubai (port-Rashid) in April 2010 where she 

was sold and renamed ‘M/S Kaptain Boris’. The new owner sailed the ship 

to Gadani Beach, Pakistan, where she was beached for scrapping in May 

2010. SYKE sent an information request to the competent authority 

under the Basel Convention of Pakistan in May 2010: 

1. SYKE asks the authorities to take the necessary actions for health 

and environmental protection in case the vessel is in Pakistan; 

2. Being aware of the negative effects of dismantling of ships, SYKE 

would highly appreciate Pakistan being among the countries 

signing the IMO Hong Kong convention for the safe and 

environmentally sound management of ships. 

Unfortunately, there was no answer from the authorities until present. 


5/46 


In the discussions after the presentation it became clear that most 

countries with seaports have similar experiences and that they all find it 

very hard or impossible within their organisations (and a lack of available 

legal powers) to take appropriate actions. Sometimes the enforcers even 

feel that the organisations who are at least trying to take action against 

ship breaking and ‘stick out their head’ are blamed for the whole case in 

the situation when they can not prevent the illegal shipment. 

This case illustrates that it is very difficult for competent authorities to 

prevent and control such a shipment and that authorities have to work 

together to make a stand against the organisations who intend to ‘beach’ 

a vessel. The control on a (illegal) waste shipment is as strong as the 

weakest link. It seems that, due to unclear responsibilities, a lack of 

communication, the high political risk and extensive cost for disposal and 

complicated legal situation, authorities are faced with a very difficult task 

to prevent this type of illegal waste shipments. Unfortunately, authorities 

are sometimes blaming each other when the problem is shifting from one 

port (and country) to another even though everybody is facing the same 

challenge. 

Countries that indicated to have experience with ship dismantling cases 

and its difficulties are: the United Kingdom, Portugal, Norway, the 

Netherlands and Bulgaria. The idea was proposed to prepare a document 

with a (anonymous) collection of ship dismantling cases to illustrate the 

situation in practice, to support each other and to help to improve the 

situation on an (international) level by sharing this document. 

3.2 Experiences Serbia 

Mr. Branislav Galesev of the Serbian Ministry of Environment, Mining and 

Spatial Planning (MEMSP) represented the Republic of Serbia and 

explained the waste management regulations and waste shipment 

enforcement experiences in Serbia. In Serbia, a national Waste 

Management Law has been implemented and several parts of relevant 

legal requirements are still to be transposed. As a non EU member state, 

the European Waste Shipment Regulation is not directly applicable in 

Serbia. Under the national Law of Waste Management, five separate legal 

acts are now regulating the transboundary shipments of waste. Following 

the provisions in the Serbian Law of Waste Management, every import, 

export and transit of waste requires a permit from the Serbian MEMSP. 

There is exclusion for waste aluminium and transit of non hazardous 

waste. 


6/46 


Serbia is an EU candidate country and has been collaborating with 

neighbouring and other EU countries since several years. One of the main 

activities has been a Twinning project with Austrian authorities 

‘Umweltbundesamt’. The title of the project was ‘Strengthening the 

Serbian Environmental Inspection and Relevant Stakeholders’ and the 

main goals were to improve the quality of the natural environment and 

the health of the population through the effective enforcement of 

environmental regulations and to improve the capacity and effectiveness 

of the Serbian Environmental Inspection (EI) at republic, province and 

local levels and improve cooperation with relevant stakeholders. 

In Serbia controls on waste shipments are usually made by MEMSP 

before issuing the permit, then controls can be made on the road, on the 

cross border point, in the office and also by the Republic inspectors. The 

Serbian authorities work closely together with the relevant partners such 

as customs, the police, non governmental organizations, neighbouring 

countries such as Romania and of course the IMPEL TFS network. The 

inspectors have sufficient powers to take actions against any unwanted or 

illegal waste shipments. To raise more awareness on waste shipments 

several actors in the waste shipment and enforcement chain have been 

educated. These actors are: public prosecutors and judges, customs 

officers, waste shipment operators, local governments and non 

governmental organizations. 

One of the cases that were dealt 

with in Serbia was a shipment of 

used equipment for a bakery. 

The equipment was not 

complete and essential parts 

were missing. There was too 

much physical damage that 

would impair its functionality or 

safety. Also, the packaging for 

protecting it from damage 

during transport and loading and 

unloading operations was insufficient and the further use of the 

equipment was not certain. After investigation it also became clear that 

the testing documents that were provided were false. The shipment was 

considered to be an illegal waste shipment and was sent back to the 

country of origin. The importer was sent to court. 

3.3 Experiences Bulgaria 

Mr. Martin Ganyushkin of the Ministry of Environment and Water (MoEW) 

in Bulgaria presented the results of a twinning project on waste 

management in Bulgaria that took place in 2009-2010. Furthermore, the 

experiences of inspections in Bulgaria were shared with the participants. 

The main aim of the twinning project was to achieve integrating and 

sustainable waste management through improvement and higher quality 


7/46 


of the enforcement actions implemented by different authorities (e.g. 

MoEW, customs, and police) in the field of waste shipments. 

The strengthening and improvement of the existing administrative 

capacity at the authorities took place through: 

• an inspections methodology; 

• the training of relevant personnel concerned and external 

stakeholders in waste management sector; 

• a standardised assessment of the results of inspections (statistics) 

and further steps especially in case of infringements; 

• the strengthening of the coordination among the different waste 

management enforcement bodies; 

• a program for regular waste management inspections. 

This approach resulted in a number of things: 

1. changes in existing national legislation for shipments of waste for 

introduction of institutional and procedural requirements in line with 

the EC Regulation 1013/2006 (into force June 2010); 

2. the establishment of regular co-operation between the different 

national administrative bodies and the competent authorities in the 

neighbouring countries; 

3. the publication of an updated guidance/manual on waste 

classification; 

4. the publication of guidance/manual on inspections and reporting the 

inspection results; 

5. several training seminars for the enforcement bodies and other target 

groups; 

6. joint TFS inspections. 

A complete update of the manuals on classification 

of waste took place, especially the list of states and 

the common introduction were completely renewed. 

The other parts were amended partially and the 

consolidated list of wastes was elaborated. The 

manual consist of two parts: Performance of checks 

of transboundary shipments of waste and 

Performance of checks at plants and facilities. 

In Bulgaria, a number of different types of 

inspections have been carried out such as 

practical checks at borders, railway stations and 

the harbours of Varna and Ruse with participation 

of representatives of competent Bulgarian 

authorities and authorities of the neighbouring 

countries such as Macedonia, Serbia and Greece. 

Eleven border checks 

have been performed in cooperation with these 

competent authorities. As a result of the checks, 

inspections at companies have been performed 

and the competent authorities in the relevant 

countries have been informed on illegal waste 

shipments (e.g. unsorted contaminated textile, 


8/46 


used ovens, metal scrap and plastic scrap). The authorities have been 

requested to take back the waste and to take action against the 

responsible companies on their territory. Most cases concern the illegal 

import of waste into Bulgaria. Prosecution is hard because this is carried 

out in the regions and evidence is difficult to obtain. Because of the 

enforcement projects, a better cooperation with police is established. On 

a regular base the Bulgarian authorities have a case together with the 

Greek authorities, lots of them concern metal scrap. Out of enforcement 

experience the following practical recommendations were made by the 

Bulgarian authorities: 

• regular training sessions for customs and police (sometimes with 

local authorities) on the WSR, identification and classification of 

waste; 

• keep regular contact with police and customs (phone, email) to solve 

questions and to exchange information on new developments in the 

field of waste shipments; 

• concentrate on certain waste streams to be checked efficiently; 

• performance of common checks with participation of customs, 

police, MoEW, environment agency (samples) and with participation 

of the neighbouring country; 

• regular meetings and contact with authorities in other countries and 

international cooperation in the field of transboundary waste 

shipments within IMPEL-TFS projects; 

• report on the results of checks to all authorities concerned; 

• performance of checks at the involved companies if an illegal 

shipment is detected; 

• performance of further checks at other companies, who are active in 

the same (waste) sector; 

• if appropriate: further investigations by police and customs. 

3.4 IMPEL-TFS Enforcement Actions III Project Scotland 

As the new project managers of the 

Enforcement Actions III Project Mr. 

Adam Liddle from the Scottish 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(SEPA) explained the approach of the 

project and the planned activities. 

The following topics were 

presented: 

• Timeline 

• Priority waste streams 

• Risk profiling 

• Penalties 

• ‘Snapshot’ of activity 

• Partnership working 

• Contact 


9/46 


The project will commence with a start 

meeting in February 2012 in Edinburgh, 

Scotland and will be finalised with a 

report of all the inspection results and a 

closing meeting in the spring in 2014. 

The participants are asked to choose 

their priority waste streams and to move 

towards a risk assessment of waste 

shipments. Therefore, a questionnaire 

will be developed and countries are 

asked to produce a risk matrix for the use in inspections. The aim is to 

identify which factors of the inspections will have an impact on the 

likelihood or the severity of a WSR offence. In this project SEPA will look 

for possible partners such as for example Europol. The Project Steering 

Committee will exist of Northern Ireland, the Netherlands, Malta, 

Germany and Scotland. Project communication will take place through 

Basecamp. 

3.5 Interactive session Germany 

The final item on the agenda before the field trip covered an interactive 

session with the participants led by Mr. Harald Junker from the hosting 

organisation UBA. Several pictures of items loaded in used cars being 

sent to Africa (from Germany mostly to Nigeria) were an incentive for the 

discussion. Questions like ‘Is this waste or not?’ and ‘How would the 

authorities deal with this shipment in your country?’ were leading for the 

conversations. It became clear that European countries have different 

points of view and different policies with regard to a similar shipment. 

Several important details for finding out if the materials in question were 

shared such as the two tires pressed into one tyre, which makes the tires 

unusable. 

It is also clear that Africa countries have different rules for import of 

these materials as well. There are countries that have a ban on all waste 

types, other countries have free import and most require a control 

procedure under the Basel Convention. The first important question in 

these cases is if the receiving countries consider this to be waste or not 

waste. These differences are a big challenge for countries that need to 

solve a case together and when a return shipment is required by one of 

the parties. 


10/46 


3.6 Artificial stream and pond system field trip 

In the afternoon, the participants visited the UBA artificial Stream and 

Pond System. In this facility, the influence of certain chemicals on the 

aquatic system and the flora and fauna within is tested. Therefore they 

have set up a large testing area and laboratory for water streams and 

fish. They can use different sources of (contaminated) water to predict 

the effects of a spill in an aquatic system. The facility is run by fifteen 

experts from the UBA. 

3.7 Waste Shipment Regulation enforcement exercise 

Ms. Lilija Dukalska from Latvia and Mr. Huib 

van Westen from the Netherlands presented 

an exercise for the participants about waste 

shipments of tar containing asphalt 

granulate (TAG). The exercise was based on 

real cases of waste shipments from the 

Netherlands to the Baltic states (Lithuania 

and Latvia). The documents were made 

anonymous because of the ongoing 

investigations and shared with the 

participants who were divided in four 

subgroups. Then the participants were then asked to solve the case as far 

as possible and to share the solutions with the audience. There were six 

questions that were posed to the subgroups: 

1. Was it possible to ship the waste to Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania 

only accompanied with Annex VII during 2009 if we consider this 

material as non-hazardous waste? 

2. How would you classify particular material - waste/not waste, 

hazardous/non-hazardous? 

3. What would you consider to be ‘recovery’? 

4. Can this material be used without any treatment or recovery for 

road construction purposes? 

5. What is your position concerning person who arranges the 

shipment – does it have to be under jurisdiction of country or 

dispatch or it can be under jurisdiction of any country? 

6. Are there similar cases or experiences in your country with asphalt 

granulate? 


11/46 


The case proved to be a difficult one where it was hard to prove that the 

shipments in question consisted of hazardous waste materials. In Latvia 

the material is considered B2130 under the Basel convention Annex IX 

and 17 03 02 under the European Waste Catalogue. Further requirements 

are: 

• The concentration of benzol(a)pyrene should not be 50 mg/kg or 

more (i.e. asphalt waste must be included in „green list”); 

• Asphalt waste can be shipped in Latvia only for recycling 

(recovery) purposes; 

• For the reloading at the port the appropriate permit for polluting 

activities must be obtained; 

• For the recovery facility the appropriate permit for polluting 

activities must be obtained; 

• The standards used in road construction must be reached for the 

recovered material. 

The contracts and documents also have proven to be falsified by the 

companies in question. The subgroups had similar outcomes of the 

questions. In practice, the countries that were involved had different 

opinions about the materials and what should happen with it. Due to 

close cooperation between the sending and receiving countries it was 

possible to solve the case and investigate and prosecute the companies 

who were involved. 

3.8 Feed back meeting IMPEL-TFS Waste Sites Project 

Directly prior to the NCP Exchange Days another IMPEL-TFS meeting took 

place in Frankfurt, Germany. The project concerned is the IMPEL-TFS 

Waste Sites Project that is being led by the regional German authority in 

the province of Hessen. Several of the NCPs are participating in this 

project and were also present at this project start meeting. Mr. Pedro 

Santana from the Portuguese authorities gave a short impression of the 

meeting and the most important outcomes. The project has an upstream 

approach where the origin of most waste shipments, the waste facilities, 

are the core of the project. By taking this approach, authorities hope to 

prevent illegal waste shipments from taking place in the first place. A 

guideline for the inspection of waste facilities will be tested in the project 

by performing inspections at waste facilities in the participating countries. 

More information on the project can be obtained via 

http://impel.eu/projects/waste-sites or at the IMPEL secretariat. 


12/46 


3.9 Discussions on four WSR topics 

Four national contact points of IMPEL-TFS contributed to the programme 

by proposing a topic for discussion amongst the participants: 

• Ms. Evelyn Wright (Ireland) 

• Mr. Bojan Pockar (Slovenia) 

• Mr. Thor Henriksen (Norway) 

• Mr. Richard Gray (England and Wales) 

These topics are connected to situations where inspectors are struggling 

with in the field or where they are expecting problems in future 

enforcement activities. They are looking for smart ideas, partners and 

solutions from other WSR enforcement practitioners in Europe. The NCPs 

each introduced their topic with the help of a short document that was 

prepared by them in advance and discussed it with the participants. The 

four topics are described in Annex III. 

The first discussion focused on the end of waste criteria. These criteria 

are applicable in the EU from October the 9 th onwards. The criteria are 

valid for metal, waste paper, glass and compostable materials. There was 

a lively discussion about this topic and a lot of concern was expressed by 

the NCPs. One of the remarks of the participants is that none of the 

countries are ready for implementing this huge change. The change has a 

big impact on the waste industry and the authorities that are monitoring 

the activities. Enforcers have difficulty in trusting the certification for end 

of waste and they expect it will create big problems in practice since 

there are lots of possibilities for fraud and it is up to the enforcement 

authorities to prove this. Also the big difference with regulations such as 

the Basel Convention and requirements in non OECD countries will create 

a big problem. The idea was shared to collect the questions from the TFS 

network about this topic and to share the concern with regulators and the 

European Commission. Also the idea was posed to prepare a new IMPEL- 

TFS project about this topic. 

The second topic concerned the way authorities have to deal with 

mixtures of waste and the required information that should be 

available on the accompanying documents (in box 10) that describes the 

composition of the waste. In Slovenia the legal advisors are discussing 

this matter and the question was posed how other countries are dealing 

with this. In most countries they have solved this matter by describing 

the percentages and the different waste codes where the materials exist 

of in the shipment. This is accepted by the authorities in these cases. On 

the document there is extra room to add this to the details and this way 

it works in practice for other authorities. Hopefully this is an option that 

works for other countries as well. 

The third topic concerned a discussion about waste materials that are 

contaminated with chemicals that are regulated by under other 

European regulations such as ozone depleting substances (ODS) and 

mercury. This creates challenges for the authorities to decide how to deal 

with these shipments when there are enforcement activities taking place 

that involve such a shipment. 


13/46 


During the discussion it became clear that there are several countries 

who dealt with a case of shredded plastic from fridges in which they have 

a different opinion than the country who requested a return shipment 

(NL). In these cases the Netherlands is of opinion that since the trade in 

ODS is prohibited, therefore the materials are waste because they have 

to be disposed of. According to Dutch policy it is even hazardous waste. 

The trade in ODS contaminated waste materials is therefore also 

prohibited and in violation with European ODS and waste shipment 

regulations. 

The sending countries in these cases (Norway, Finland and UK) are of the 

opinion that environmental shipment authorities cannot use one 

regulation as the starting point to enforce another one in the shipment 

field. The question of whether the waste should be coded as Green or 

Amber, should still be resolved. Ireland supported this point of view. 

According to the analysis of the pre-treated and shredded fractions of 

plastic ODS waste, the common threshold of hazardous waste is not 

exceeded 1 . Norway found that this would indicate a Green waste, and 

that only non-treated ODS waste is hazardous and Amber (the 

corresponding Norwegian hazardous code is 7157). 

Because this is a discussion that has occurred with the Netherlands three 

times, it was proposed that this matter was taken up and discussed with 

the NCPs of the involved countries, and possibly a question to the 

European Commission helpdesk can be posed to make the common 

regulations framework more clear in the future. Hopefully this will reduce 

differences of opinion about difficult cases like this. 

The last discussion concerned shipments of end of life vehicles. In 

practice this type of shipments creates a huge amount of problems for 

multiple European countries because of the export from end of life 

vehicles to countries like Nigeria, Senegal and Benin. There are numerous 

traders and parties involved (often individuals from Africa) who are 

shipping vehicles in different conditions. Sometimes the cars are in good 

shape but also complete wrecks are shipped for dismantling and the sale 

of car parts or even metal recycling. In most situations the waste 

shipment regulations and other environmental legal requirements are 

ignored. Many countries and also IMPEL-TFS have invested in educating 

the involved actors but the illegal shipments still occur on a regular base. 

Of course also here it is not always clear when something is waste or not 

and countries differ of opinion. Most countries who are a logistic part of 

the shipping route from Europe to Africa and countries where the end of 

life vehicles originate from have similar problems with end of life vehicles 

(UK, BE, NL, DE, PL, PT, MT, LT, SE, IE etc.). Some countries have to 

deal with return shipments of thousands of cars which can each be owned 

by different people or companies. In many cases the salvage companies 

are hold responsible to make enforcement possible. The European 

correspondent guideline can provide some support for the determination 

of the shipment but this does not reduce the amount of work that is 

1 The common hazard threshold is 0,1 % ODS whereas some countries (AT) use 0,2 % 


14/46 


equired to arrange return shipments and the enforcement and 

prosecution of the violations. 

3.10 NCP Interviews 

The NCPs were asked to interview one 

of their NCP colleagues (preferably 

someone that they did not know so 

well) during the Exchange Days and as 

an assignment, to write a short 

summary or article about the interview, 

to compete for a first and second prize. 

On the second day there were 18 

persons who handed in a short article 

about their NCP counterpart. The 

articles were very enjoyable and 

surprising to read and it was nice to see 

that the NCPs took such interest in each other. The scanned articles are 

available on the protected area ‘Basecamp’ but not part of this report 

because of the private nature. The first prize was for the Swedish NCP 

who interviewed the Bulgarian representative. Second prize was for 

Ireland who wrote an article about the Norwegian NCP. Sweden kindly 

accepted the first prize and has agreed to organise the NCP Exchange 

Days with the Netherlands in 2012. This is very much appreciated by the 

NCP network. 

3.11 Introduction Italy 

Because this was the first time that the Italian authorities joined an 

IMPEL-TFS activity they gave a short presentation to introduce 

themselves and their organisation to the NCPs. Also their national waste 

transport system SISTRI (www.sistri.it , Italian only) was explained to 

the participants. In Italy, the Ministry of environment is responsible for all 

national environmental regulations and laws and setting the waste policy. 

The notifications and permitting is being executed by the twenty regions 

or provinces in Italy. Enforcement is the responsibility of the military 

police, the ‘Carabinieri’. The two representatives that were present at the 

meeting are working for the ministry. 

Since 2009, there is a national 

system of waste traffic 

licensing and a transport 

tracking system in Italy. The 

trucks that are transporting 

waste (hazardous and non 

hazardous) have to be 

equipped with a black box. By 

checking this device, the 

transport can be followed 

around Italy. This SISTRI is a 

national system and it is not 

used outside Italy but they 


15/46 


would like to see that other countries will start using it too so that we can 

have a uniform approach in Europe. From February 9 th onward trains and 

boats also have to comply. There was a lot of interest from the 

participants to work with their colleagues in Italy. At the end of their 

introduction the Italian participants emphasised the importance of the 

work that IMPEL-TFS is doing and indicated that they would like to 

participate in IMPEL-TFS activities from this year forward. 

3.12 IMPEL Chair of the board 

Ms. Zofia Tucinska from Sweden introduced herself to the participants as 

the new Chair of the IMPEL Board. She is working at the EPA in Sweden 

and originates from Poland. She worked in Brussels for the European 

Commission for a while so this is a well known territory for her. The 

IMPEL Chair stressed the importance of the work that IMPEL and the 

cluster of TFS is doing and she will support the further development of 

the network in cooperation with strong partners such as the Basel 

Convention Secretariat (SBC) and the European Commission. She already 

has been to Geneva to meet the executive secretary of the SBC Ms. 

Katharina Kummer Peiry to talk about the memorandum of understanding 

between the SBC and IMPEL-TFS. Unfortunately also IMPEL is facing 

budget cuts so this will translate itself to the projects and the financial 

possibilities of the network. This does not mean that we can do less but it 

means that we have to come up with smart solutions to execute our 

plans. She wishes the TFS network a lot of good luck and success in their 

work. 

3.13 IMPEL-TFS Doing the Right Things Project 

Ms. Marina de Gier (the 

Netherlands) explained the plans 

for a project that will provide a 

practical tool to improve the 

organisation and implementation of 

waste shipment inspections. The 

Doing the Right Things system was 

developed within IMPEL under 

cluster Permitting, Inspections and 

Enforcement and will now be 

applied to the European Regulation 

1013/2006, the WSR. The guidance 

book was developed in the light of 

the Recommendations of the 

European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 providing for 

minimum criteria for environmental inspection in the Member States 

(2001/331/EG, RCMEI). This will contribute to a more consistent 

implementation and enforcement of Community environmental law in all 

Member States. The participants of the project are now asked to give 

their comments on the draft guidance book and to share their 

experiences with the project team. Furthermore, the participants are 

asked to fill in the questionnaire before the 1 st of November 2011. In 


16/46 


2012 the project team will organise a training workshop on how to use 

and work with the guidance book. 

3.14 Outcomes of the WSR Correspondent meeting 

Ms. Annette Schneider (Denmark) from the Danish EPA shared the 

outcomes of the WSR Correspondent Meeting (July 2011) with the 

participants and focused on four main issues: 

1. New proposal regarding WSR enforcement – status; 

2. New guideline on ELVs; 

3. Transit countries (comments invited); 

4. Electronic data intercharge (comments invited). 

Furthermore, several other issues were discussed 

• Study on Annex VII and Articles 18, 49 and 50; 

• Helpdesk; 

• Financial guarantee, draft proposal (comments by end October); 

• WEEE guideline. 

The transit document that was discussed (issue number 3) was one of 

the products from an IMPEL-TFS NCP meeting in April 2011. It raised the 

issue of the difficult role of transit countries and how to work together 

more efficiently. The participants of the correspondent meeting all agreed 

on the need for guidance on the issue. Some of them supported a 

stronger role and more powers for transit countries and others objected. 

Some called for details regarding what information and documentation 

countries of transit and (and destination) need to provide prior to take 

back. Comments were invited so this is an opportunity for IMPEL 

members to share their opinions. 

The second topic where comments are invited was the issue about 

Electronic data intercharge (issue number 4). It was a Commission 

communication to the Member States on July 14, 2010 where a tool to 

support data exchange was highlighted (SEMIC.EU). Some of the 

correspondents called for a legally binding requirement on an ’e-system’ 

to ensure the investment and some called for a guide for users. Others 

called for an EU-wide solution on digital signature and database 

interchange. As mentioned above, comments were invited so this is 

another opportunity for IMPEL member to share their opinions. 

3.15 ToRs of the proposed IMPEL-TFS Projects for 2012 

The Chair of the IMPEL-TFS Steering Committee, Mr. Kevin Mercieca 

(Malta), Ms. Jenny van Houten (the Netherlands) and Ms. Nancy Isarin 

(IMPEL-TFS Secretariat) introduced the projects proposals that have been 

made by the IMPEL-TFS cluster for 2012. These Terms of References 

(ToRs) will be presented in the IMPEL General Assembly for approval at 

23-25 November 2011. Comments from NCPs on the ToRs were still 

possible and the draft ToRs had to be submitted at the end of October 

2011. The NCPs were called upon to inform their IMPEL coordinator to 

ensure the necessary support for the TFS projects in the General 

Assembly. The current proposals of running projects are: 

1. Enforcement Actions III (Scotland); 


17/46 


2. Doing the Right Things WSR (NL) 

3. Waste Sites Project (DE) 

4. NCPs Exchange Days (SE/NL) 

5. IMPEL TFS Conference 2012 (host country???) 

A new project will also be proposed. The Dutch Public Prosecutor Office 

will lead this project. The aims of the Public Prosecutors Project (NL) are: 

• Two day workshop covering 4 topics: 

1. Establishment of a European Prosecutors Network; 

2. Information exchange on WSR prosecution in practice; 

3. Explore possibility of environmental case law database; 

4. Share relevant developments. 

• Prepare a proposal for a pilot case law database; 

• Report results (network, workshop, database etc). 

The EU-Africa Collaboration and EU-Asia Collaboration Projects will also 

be proposed but it still has to be decided on how they will continue and 

who will lead these projects. At the end of this part of the programme the 

idea of an End of Waste criteria Project was discussed. The idea was 

supported and it could be a good option for a new project proposal for 

next year so that it can commence in 2013. 

3.16 Structure of the TFS cluster, outcomes of the questionnaire 

Ms. Nancy Isarin (IMPEL-TFS Secretariat)shared the outcomes of a 

questionnaire that was prepared for several aims: 

• The need for an update of the internal ‘rules’ of the TFS cluster 

(first ‘rules’ date from 2005) 

• Discuss the composition of the Steering Committee 

• Make a link between the NCPs and the Steering Committee 

• To gain the opinion of the NCPs 

In this questionnaire five 

questions were posed to 

the NCPs. The outcomes of 

the questions are enclosed 

in Annex IV of this report. 

The next steps will be a 

discussion within the 

Steering Committee on 

revised internal rules and 

to prepare a new draft of 

the internal rules. This draft 

will be discussed and 

approved by the NCPs and 

then proposed to the 

General Assembly for 

approval. 


18/46 


4. DEVELOPMENT OF THE NCP NETWORK 

This meeting was the fifth meeting of the NCP network. Again, there is a 

significant difference in interaction and participation amongst the NCPs. 

People are more comfortable to give their opinion and are more willing to 

assist in the programme with presentations or other activities than 

before. Also, it is noticed that the NCPs have more frequent contacts 

outside the meetings of IMPEL-TFS and they are actively cooperating 

when they are back at work in their own countries. More WSR cases are 

dealt with internationally and solved together and several authorities in 

participating countries have organised joint enforcement activities. The 

protected area ‘Basecamp’ is used actively for discussions and exchange 

of documents all throughout the year. During the informal part of the 

programme many of the participants discuss their own specific TFS 

matters and ‘have done businesses with their European colleagues face 

to face. The informal and personal contacts are extremely important in 

international collaboration and enforcement officers are more likely to 

contact their counterparts outside their own country when they have met 

them and talked to them on several occasions. It is also a matter of trust 

and understanding of the different situations in each member country of 

IMPEL-TFS. Enforcement officers have a better understanding about the 

possibilities (and difficulties) and needs of the colleagues in countries that 

they are dealing with. Furthermore, the contacts that authorities have 

with authorities in destination countries are shared and helped them to 

solve difficult cases of illegal shipments to for example the Far East or 

Africa. These results of the NCP Exchange Days are difficult to measure 

or show to the outside world but they are maybe the most important 

results of the exchange days. 


19/46 


5. RECOMMENDATIONS 

The recommendations that came out of the IMPEL-TFS NCP Exchange 

Days are listed per target group below: 

For the IMPEL-TFS NCPs 

• To gather and describe practical ship dismantling cases in each 

country in order to prepare an overview of (anonymous) ship 

dismantling cases in Europe in one document; 

• collect the questions from the TFS network about the End of Waste 

criteria and to share the concern of the implementation and 

compliance with regulators and the European Commission; 

• NL, NO, FI and UK to discuss and agree on approach for shipments 

of shredded fridges plastic scrap with high and low ODS 

contamination in the isolation foam and possibly pose a question to 

the helpdesk of the European Commission to prevent difficulties in 

the future; 

• Take up the invitation for comments on the issues that were 

discussed during the WSR Correspondent meeting. 

For the IMPEL-TFS Steering Committee 

• To support the preparation of a document with a collection of 

practical (anonymous) ship dismantling cases to share with the 

international actors who are involved in improving the control on 

this situation and preventing illegal shipments (maybe a small 

project for 2013?); 

• To support the preparation of a document with a collection of 

questions from the TFS network about the End of Waste criteria 

(maybe a small project for 2013?); 

• To check whether there is an interest for an End of Waste criteria 

Project and look for an TFS member who can lead this project; 

• Prepare a new draft of the internal rules of IMPEL-TFS. 

For IMPEL 

• To support the project proposals of the TFS cluster including all 

involved actors in the WSR enforcement field (e.g. police, public 

prosecutors, customs); 

• To support the new internal rules (to be developed) of the TFS 

cluster. 

For the European Commission 

• Support the TFS cluster on the issues that are raised by NCPs on 

topics such as ship dismantling, used items in second hand 

vehicles etc. 

• Create clarity on the policy for transboundary shipments of 

shreddedfridges plastic scrap with high and low ODS contamination 

in the isolation foam; 

• Assist the TFS network in dealing with the End of Waste criteria in 

practice. 


20/46 


Annex I 

Agenda

IMPEL-TFS National Contact Points 

NCP Exchange Days 

Project Management Ms. Jenny van Houten, the Netherlands 

jenny.vanhouten@minvrom.nl, +31 6 52595006 

Mr. Harald Junker, Germany 

harald.junker@uba.de, +49 340 2103 3045 

Wednesday 28 September 2011, Berlin, Germany 

09.30-09.45 

Welcome 

Welcome by Umweltbundesamt 

09.45-10.00 

Introduction 

Agenda, homework and feedback previous NCP exchange days (Jenny van 

Houten, The Netherlands) 

10.00-10.30 

WSR enforcement work in Europe 

Experiences in Finland on ship dismantling (Hannele Nikander, Finland) 

10.30-11.00 


Experiences in Serbia (Branislav Galesev, Serbia) 

11.00-11.30 

Coffee break 

11.30-12.00 


Experiences in Bulgaria (Martin Ganyushkin, Bulgaria) 

12.00-12.30 

IMPEL-TFS Enforcement Actions Project III 

The next step to international joint WSR enforcement and compliance (Adam 

Liddle, Scotland) 

12.30-13.00 

Items loaded in used cars destined for Africa 

Interactive session and discussion with participants (Harald Junker, Germany) 

13.00-14.00 

Lunch 

14.00-17.00 

Field trip to UBA Artificial stream and pond system (FSA) 

Gather at main exit for the bus at 14.00 

19.00-22.00 

Dinner

Thursday 29 September 2011, Berlin, Germany 

09.30-10.30 

Enforcement Exercise 

Enforcement case on shipments of TAG 

(Lilija Dukalska, Latvia and Huib van Westen, The Netherlands) 

10.30-11.00 

Coffee break 

11.00-12.30 

Discussion 

Topics for discussion introduced by: 

Evelyn Wright (Ireland) 

Bojan Pockar (Slovenia) 

Thor Henriksen (Norway) 

Richard Gray (England and Wales) 

12.30-13.30 

Lunch 

13.30-13.45 

IMPEL Chair of the Board 

- Introduction of the new Chair (Ms. Sofia Tucinska, Sweden) 

13.45-14.00 

IMPEL-TFS DTRT 

NCP input for the IMPEL-TFS Doing the Right Things Project (Marina de Gier, 

IMPEL-TFS Steering Committee) 

14.00-14.30 

WSR Correspondent Meeting 

Outcomes WSR Correspondent meeting 8 July 2011 (Annette Schneider, WSR 

Correspondent Denmark) 

14.30-15.00 

Coffee break 

15.00-15.30 

Structure of the IMPEL-TFS Cluster 

Outcomes IMPEL-TFS questionnaire (Nancy Isarin, IMPEL-TFS Secretariat) 

15.30-16.00 

New IMPEL-TFS Projects for 2012 

The projects’ Terms of References for the IMPEL General Assembly (Kevin 

Mercieca, IMPEL-TFS Steering Committee) 

16.00-16.30 

Outcomes of the IMPEL-TFS NCP Exchange Days 

List of actions and wrap up (Jenny van Houten, The Netherlands) 

19.00-22.00 

Farewell dinner

Annex II 

Participants List

NCP participants September 2011 

Country Title First name Last name E-mail 

1 Austria Mr. Christian Gesek christian.gesek@lebensministerium.at 

2 Belgium Mr. Tom Nuyts tom.nuyts@lne.vlaanderen.be 

3 Bulgaria Mr. Martin Ganyushkin mganyushkin@moew.government.bg 

4 Croatia Ms. Vlasta Pasalic vlasta.pasalic@mzopu.hr 

5 Czech Republic Ms. Jana Samkova jana_samkova@env.cz 

6 Czech Republic Ms. Jitka Jensovska jensovska@cizp.cz 

7 Denmark Ms. Maria Lauesen mrk@mst.dk 

8 Denmark Ms. Annette Schneider annsc@mst.dk 

9 Estonia Mr. Rene Rajasalu rene.rajasalu@kki.ee 

10 Finland Ms. Hannele Nikander hannele.nikander@ymparisto.fi 

11 Germany (PM) Mr. Harald Junker harald.junker@uba.de 

12 Germany Mr. Dominik Huber dominik.huber@uba.de 

13 Germany Ms. Gabrielle Hirth gabriele.hirth@hmuelv.hessen.de 

IMPEL-TFS 

14 

Ms. Nancy Isarin nancy.isarin@ambiendura.com 

Secretariat 

15 Ireland Ms. Evelyn Wright evelyn.wright@dublincity.ie 

16 Italy Mr. Eugenio Onori onori.eugenio@minambiente.it

17 Italy Ms. Lucia Mastacchini mastacchini.lucia@minambiente.it 

18 Latvia Ms. Lilija Dukalska lilija.dukalska@vvd.gov.lv 

19 Malta Mr. Alfred Sharples contact.tfs@mepa.org.mt 

20 Malta Mr. Kevin Mercieca kevin.mercieca@mepa.org.mt 

21 Netherlands Mr. Enes Srndic enes.srndic@minvrom.nl 

22 Netherlands (PM) Ms. Jenny van Houten jenny.vanhouten@minvrom.nl 

23 Netherlands Mr. Huib van Westen huib.vanwesten@minvrom.nl 

24 Netherlands Ms. Marina de Gier marina.degier@minvrom.nl 

25 Norway Mr. Thor Henriksen thor.henriksen@klif.no 

26 Poland Ms. Ewa Sawicka e.sawicka@gios.gov.pl 

27 Portugal Mr. Pedro Santana psantana@igaot.pt 

28 Serbia Mr. Branislav Galesev branislav.galesev@ekoplan.gov.rs 

29 Slovenia Mr. Bojan Počkar bojan.pockar@gov.si 

30 Sweden Ms. Zofia Tucinska zofia.tucinska@naturvardsverket.se 

31 Sweden Mr. Pär Kollberg par.kollberg@naturvardsverket.se 

32 Sweden Mr. Jon Engstrom jon.engstrom@naturvardsverket.se 

richard.e.gray@environment- 

33 United Kingdom Mr. Richard Gray 

agency.gov.uk 

34 United Kingdom Mr. Adam Liddle adam.liddle@sepa.org.uk 

35 United Kingdom Mr. Nigel Homer nigel.homer@environment-agency.gov.uk

Annex III 

Discussion Topics 

1. Ireland 

2. Slovenia 

3. Norway 

4. England and Wales

Discussion Topic 1 

DISCUSSION DOCUMENT: IMPEL-TFS NCP MEETING, SEPTEMBER 2011 

END-OF-WASTE CRITERIA 

Introduction 

A legal framework to govern end-of-waste status for specific waste types 

has been created under Article 6 of the Waste Framework Directive 

2008/98 EC. The benefits of this approach include supporting recycling 

markets, increasing recycling and improving the implementation of waste 

management law. 

The first Regulation to be adopted on end of waste status is the legally 

binding Council Regulation (EU) No. 333/2011, which establishes criteria 

to be applied in order to determine when iron, steel and aluminium scrap 

legally cease to be waste under Directive 2008/98/EC. This Regulation 

applies fully from October 9 th , 2011. The key issues are: 

• ‘End of Waste’ status can only be certified following fulfilment of 

specified criteria which include prescribed control, quality 

assurance, verification and administrative requirements 

• A Statement of Conformity (SOC) must be issued in respect of 

each consignment and a Quality Management System (QMS) must 

be in place 

Practical Implementation of EU ‘End of Waste Status’ Regulations 

and the need for an EU standard approach: 

1. Reporting requirements between facilities and regulatory 

Authorities – should Competent Authorities identify facilities 

producing such material and share this information electronically 

via an e-database on IMPEL Basecamp ? 

2. The EoW Regulations impose obligations on Member States to 

ensure independent verification /validation of the Quality 

Management System, however, in contrast, there is no analogous 

level of quality control on importation of EoW material into the EU 

from a third country – is there a role for IMPEL ? 

3. The Regulations do not specifically require a copy of the SOC to 

accompany EoW material as it is transported – there is an 

‘entitlement of the Competent Authorities to request a copy of the 

SOC’. Is there a benefit in IMPEL-TFS harmonising its approach 

and recommending the producer/exporter ensures that shipments 

are accompanied by the SOC certifying end of waste status – this 

could assist in cases where take back/repatriation is required. A 

further key issue is if the SOC should indicate the material 

destination. 

4. The Commission is developing a methodology for monitoring end of 

waste criteria for the purposes of (1) developing a monitoring 

scheme to track the use and acceptance of the EoW criteria by 

industry and (2) its implementation in Member States. There may 

be an opportunity for IMPEL-TFS to assist in the development of an 

EoW Database to include the following: 

- Identification of facilities in each MS, throughput etc…

- Amount of end of waste scrap generated 

- Number of companies that make use of EoW Regulations 

- Amount of end of waste scrap exported/imported 

- Environmental impacts


Topic for discussion at IMPEL NCP Exchange days in Berlin (September 

28th&29th): 

Mixtures of waste from Annex IIIA and completion of 

accompanying documents 

In the Official Journal of the European Union no. L 182 from 12th of July 

2011 was published Commission Regulation no. 664/2011 about including 

certain mixtures of waste in Annex IIIA of Regulation 1013/2006 on 

shipments of waste. 

In this regulation are listed mixtures of wastes that can be mixed 

together. Descriptions of mixtures are listed only in narrative form and no 

unique code for these mixtures exist. 

The problem faced by the supervisory authorities is how to recognize that 

sender actually sends (he is aware of this) the Annex IIIA wastes. There 

is no unique code used for the mixtures mentioned in Annex IIIA. 

The question we have is how to fulfil Annex VII document in box no. 10 

(waste identification) or notification and movement document in box 

no.14. which clearly indicates shipment of mixtures of waste from Annex 

IIIA? 

Questions we have about this topic: 

1. Have someone of you considered this as a problem? 

2. Did any of you at national level think about how to fulfil 

accompanying documents in case of shipment of mixtures of waste 

from Annex IIIA? 

3. What about proposal of change the legislation in near future 

(determination of codes for mixture of waste)?


Discussion at IMPEL TFS NCP Meeting September 2011, text base 

from Norway: 

Green Waste or not: classification issues due to diverging opinions or 

criteria at different CAs 

Background 

Some material on classification is already found by the FAQ site and the 

Correspondents’ Guidelines. But no guidance is given on cases of Green 

Waste, generally seen, and in particular on the possible interface to 

Illegal Waste, occurring in Europe or outside. 

Problem frames and cases 

The notion of Green Waste is given in the introduction of Annex III, 

Regulation (EC) no 1013/2006 on shipments of waste. There are 

mentioned two characteristics for negative identification of Green Waste 

materials, related to not acceptable contamination, which: 

• Increases the risks associated with the waste sufficiently 

• Prevents the recovery of the wastes in an environmental sound 

manner (ESM) 

Even so, there are differences in opinion among different competent 

authorities (CAs) on the choice of specific criteria for individual cases. 

Several of these are related to exports to far-away countries like China or 

India, using special Green Lists. Even specific shipment policies are 

used: like, tough at the start (pre-treatment) or tough at the end (total 

processing abroad)? 

In some cases certain regulations are used, taken from other 

environmental fields than waste shipment, like the dealing with ozone 

depleting substances (ODS), mercury, brominated flame retardants 

(BFR), light contaminations of radioactivity, explosive risk, etc. 

Some materials or objects typically discussed for classification are 

these: compressors, plastic from fridges, fridges, certain e-wastes, tires, 

pre-treated used cars, car parts, rare earth minerals, mixtures of wastes, 

catalysts, damaged items, illegally collected items, and materials with 

unclear end-of-waste status. 

Criteria groups 

The following criteria groups (valid or not) are identified on the base of 

known cases: 

• Objects that may be used for illegal/unwanted purposes abroad 

(like illegal ODS use) 

• Objects, parts or resources having very short remaining life span 

• Materials or objects that are badly processed according to known 

standards (BAT) 

• Contaminated materials that should not be used for recovery (or 

reclamation)

• Contaminations in materials above or below set maximum levels 

• Lightly (or not) contaminated materials for energy recovery only 

There are even more criteria groups, bordering to Amber Waste criteria, 

but these seems to be the most common. The adjoining notions of byproducts 

(see waste directive, and ECHA) and non-wastes are not 

discussed.


Richard Gray (England and Wales): 

The export of waste / damaged items sold over the internet /global 

market. 

ELVs and other wastes are routinely shipped either as non-waste or 

illegally by buyers from foreign markets, who then arrange for collection 

and shipping without regard to WSR EC/1013/2006 or other regulations. 

Scenario: 

A vehicle involved in an accident has been written off as “uneconomic for 

repair compared to the market value of vehicle” by the insurers. The 

owner must submit the vehicle’s Registration documents to the insurance 

company in settlement of the claim and the vehicle is collected by the 

insurers salvage company. According to the extent of the Damage – The 

insurers assign one of 4 categories upon the vehicle: 

Cat A - Only suitable for scrapping; 

Cat B - Suitable for dismantling and recovery of spare parts; 

Cat C - uneconomic for repair because of low market value of vehicle; 

Cat D - Repair is possible, but insurers decides to write the vehicle off. 

The registration documents (Log Book) may be returned by the insurers 

to the Vehicle Licensing Authority. The vehicle is regarded as no longer 

being roadworthy. 

Once the claim is settled, the Insurance company hands the vehicle over 

to the salvage company – with instruction on what is to be done with it. 

The Salvage Company may decide to dismantle or sell the damaged 

vehicle at auction. 

The auctioneers frequently make use of the internet to advertise auction 

car sales – which mean that successful bids can be received from buyers 

/ scrap facilities / auto repair facilities resident in other countries. 

The salvage companies make their own determination on whether the 

vehicle is waste – and often assess that Cat C & D vehicles are not waste. 

However, the registration documents (Log Book, Tax Disc, MoT 

Certificate) and vehicle Handbook may not be available to hand over to 

the perspective buyer at the time of sale. 

Foreign buyers often purchase several vehicles at auction, some of which 

are Cat B and others that are Cat C or D. However, the vehicles are 

specifically purchased for dismantling and recovery of spare parts. (In 

which case they must be regarded as waste vehicle). 

The buyer (non-natural or legal person) turns up with vehicle transporter 

to collect vehicle purchases. 

The car auctioneers are aware of the domestic waste controls and that 

waste may not be handed over to a third party who is not a UK registered

waste carriers – Although there may be an exemption for vehicles sold 

for export. 

The salvage company partially completes a Hazardous Waste Note for the 

removal of the vehicles from their premises under domestic waste 

controls and obtain signature from the purchaser / collector on a selfgenerated 

“buyers compliance certificate” which outlines to the purchaser 

that if there is any intention to export the vehicles, then they must 

contact the UK competent authority to obtain information on how this 

may be done and to get the relevant export documents / consents. 

The reality is – 

The purchaser / vehicle collector may not understand all the documents 

he’s signing. He may choose to ignore the advice of the salvage company 

because of time constraints on the collection and delivery of the vehicles 

Interception on route 

When such vehicle movements are intercepted, the assumption is that 

because the export has originated from the UK – the UK salvage 

company is responsible for the illegal shipment. 

Questions: 

1. Is this assumption about who is responsibility for the illegal 

shipment correct? 

2. Outline what practical measures can be taken to prevent the illegal 

export of the waste with out prior consent 

3. When is an export of a damage vehicle to be regarded as a waste 

movement? 

4. How does the recently published Correspondence guidance help in 

your assessment of this scenario

Annex IV 

Outcomes questionnaire IMPEL-TFS NCPs

1. Should the cluster have a set of 

rules? 

No 2 

Other 1 • Informal 

network 

versus 

formal rules 

3.Composition of the Steering 

Committee 

Other option 1 

Nominations by 

the NCPs 6 

Yes 9 

Geographical 3 

Rotatation 

alphabetical order 

0 

5.Main tasks of the Steering Committee 

Overseeing 

projects 11 

Preparation 

MAWP 11 

Preparation 

internal rules 9 

• Responsibili 

ties NCPs 

3 

• Applications 

5 

• Represent 

TFS at the 

General 

Assembly 

• Explore 

opportunitie 

s at EU level 

in which 

IMPEL could 

participate 

7 

2.Election and appointment of the 

Steering Committee and represent the 

NCPs? 

No 1 • NCPs are 

not official 

national 

representati 

ves 

Yes 10 

4.Do you want to be represented in the 

Steering Committee in the future? 

Other 3 

No 1 

Yes 6 

• Approval by 

the IMPEL 

General 

Assembly 

4 

• If comments 

are covered 

by IMPEL 

• Lack of staff 

• Depends on 

decision 

high level 

managemen 

t 

• Maybe in 

the future 

6

Annex V 

Terms of Reference IMPEL TFS NCP Exchange Days 2011

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR IMPEL PROJECT 

No Name of project 

2011/14 IMPEL-TFS NCP Exchange Days 2011 

1. Scope 

1.1. 

Background 

1.2. Link to 

MAWP and 

IMPEL’s role 

and scope 

1.3. Objective 

(s) 

• International cooperation and alignment is very 

important when it comes to the enforcement of the 

European Waste Shipment Regulations (WSR). 

(1013/2006); 

• Previous IMPEL-TFS projects showed that it is very much 

needed to work together as competent authorities. The 

enforcement deficit of the EU waste shipment regulation 

is serious. 

• To improve the collaboration and alignment of 

enforcement, frequent contact between the European 

enforcement authorities is necessary. Therefore it would 

be very helpful if enforcers have structural, personal and 

frequent contact moments where they can strengthen 

their network, exchange experiences and best practices 

and align their WSR enforcement activities together. 

• This project focuses solely on the exchange of 

information and experience by workshops, where the 

running IMPEL-TFS Enforcement Actions project intents 

to stimulate practical enforcement by joined actions, 

inspectors exchange-programmes and other activities. 

The target group overlaps partly. 

I. Capacity building: I.1 / I.4 / I.5 

III. Development of good practices: III.2 / III.3 

- strengthen the network of NCP’s involved in the 

enforcement of the WSR 1013/2006 

- exchange information, working methods and experiences 

- inform participants on new developments 

To improve enforcement activities of the Waste Shipment 

Regulation and stimulate consistent application of its 

provisions. 

1.4. Definition The objectives will be achieved by organising a 2 day 

workshop. The following (and other) topics can be in the 

programme: 

- experiences with enforcement of the Waste Shipment 

Regulation 1013/2006 

- a better view on the waste shipment industry 

- export of waste outside the EU (in relation to 

EC/801/2007) 

- generating input for the IMPEL-TFS Steering Committee

1.5. 

Product(s) 

2. Structure of the project 

2.1. 

Participants 

2.2. Project 

team 

2.3. Manager 

Executor 

2.4. Reporting 

arrangements 

2.5 

Dissemination 

of 

results/main 

target groups 

3. Resources required 

3.1 Project 

costs and 

budget plan 

- enforcement case studies 

This is different than the IMPEL-TFS Enforcement Actions 

Project which mainly focuses on the joint WSR enforcement 

activities and the enforcers itself 

1. 1 workshop of two days, (probably October 2011) 

2. Report 

National Contact Points (NCP’s) of IMPEL-TFS (or their 

representatives) 

- Germany (host country) 

- Netherlands (co-organizer) 

- IMPEL-TFS Secretariat (support) 

Mr. Harald Junkar, Germany and Ms. Jenny van Houten, 

Netherlands 

Report to the IMPEL-TFS Steering Committee and IMPEL 

plenary 

IMPEL-TFS NCP’s, enforcers of the Waste Shipment 

Regulations 

2011 

1. Overhead (organisation) cost (€): 

2 Project meeting costs (€:) 

Meeting 1 2 Workshop NCP’s 

No of Participants: 30 

Travel 3 :(500€) 15.000 

Accommodation 4 :, 3 nights 11.250 

(125€) 

Catering: (2 lunches, coffee 2.500 

breaks) 

Meeting venue: 2.000 

3. Other costs (€): 

Consultant: 3400 

Translation: 

Dissemination: 

Other (specify): dinner 1500 

TOTAL cost per year € 35.650 

TOTAL project cost € 35.650 

3.2. Fin. from 2. Project meeting costs (€): 30.750 

2 specify, like Review Group Meetings, Workshop etc. 

3 normative: €500/person 

4 normative: €125/person/night

IMPEL budget 

3.3. Cofinancing 

by 

MS (and any 

1. Overhead costs (€): as cofinancing 

contribution, committed by 

… 

other ) 3. Other costs (€):as co-financing 

contribution, committed by VROM 

Inspectorate (Netherlands) and 

Hessen State (Germany) for the 

consultant (3400€) and costs for 

diner will be financed by the host 

3.4. Human 

from MS 

organisation (1500€) 

1 Preparations + attending the workshop. 

4.900 

4. Quality review mechanisms 

Each workshop will include an evaluation. The Project manager will regularly 

report the process and outcomes to the IMPEL-TFS Steering Committee and 

the IMPEL-plenary . 

5. Legal base 

5.1. 

Directive/Reg 

ulation/Decisi 

on 

5.2. Article 

and 

description 

5.3 Link to the 

6 th EAP 

- European Waste Shipment Regulation (1013/2006) 

- Commission Regulation (EC) 1418/2007 concerning the 

export of certain wastes for recovery to NON-OECD 

countries 

The enforcement activities are based on the EC Regulation 

No 1013/2006 on the supervision and control of shipments 

of waste within, into and out of the European Community. 

This is directly applicable in all Member States of the EU. 

Article 50 requires Member States to enforce the regulation 

and to check shipments and to cooperate bilaterally or 

multilaterally with one another in order to facilitate the 

prevention and detection of illegal shipments. 

Articles 3(2) and 9(d) of the 6 th EAP. 

6. Project planning 

6.1. Approval 18-19 November 2010 at the 6 th IMPEL General Assembly in 

Brussels. 

(6.2. Fin. 

Contributions) 

6.3. Start January 2011 

6.4 Milestones 1. Project plan March 2011 

2. Workshop October 2011 

3. Final Report December 2011 

Project planning 

Phase 1 Adoption of this ToR IMPEL GA November 2010 

Brussels 

Phase 2 Project plan March 2011 

Phase 3 Workshop: October 2011

Phase 4 Final Report: December 2011 

Phase 5 Project report presentation: March 2012 (IMPEL 

plenary) 

6.5 Product Report in December 2011 

6.6 Adoption IMPEL-plenary March 2012? (depends on date of the 

General Assembly)

Final report - IMPEL-TFS NCP Exchange Days 2011

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?