Obligation of return of waste for the building : where are the deals ?

STATE OF THE PREMISES. Six months after the entry into force of the obligation of recovery of waste from the building by the business, the FNBM made the point on the involvement of its members. A very large majority says it is concerned but very few sites have, to date, a recovery solution in its own right. The distributors of materials to invoke many difficulties.
Since the January 1, 2017, businesses are obliged to take back waste from construction sites. A decision is experienced as arbitrary by those professionals who put forward many explanations for a certain slowness in the ignition. According to figures from a survey conducted by the Federation of the Trading of Timber and construction Materials (FNBM) and among its approximately 1,200 members, only 300 points of sale, over 3,000 have so far of a recovery solution on-site, 13% of respondents.
read also

  • Construction site waste : the plan Démoclès into phase 2


Not the means, not the place, not including…


This would imply that the 87 % remaining have necessarily entered into an agreement with a waste collection, public or private, located within a radius of 10 km around. Yet, only 274 members of the FNBM have adopted the model of recognition proposed by the federation, 23 % of the total. The other (65 %) thus have difficulty to comply with the obligation of recovery. They evoke first of all the inadequacy of their financial resources, the absence of a garbage dump nearby, or the lack of land available to install the bins recovery. In a second time, the businesses also argue that a lack of knowledge of the texts, the refusal of some centres to take back the materials from the sites, or a prohibition to do so, linked to the PLU/POS.


Carl Enckell, lawyer specialised in environmental law, explains : “to Organize the recovery is not take the waste back, nuance. It is necessary to play the intermediaries to bring together the businesses and the world of waste. It is in the general interest“. A step that should also be in link with the communities in the framework of plans for the prevention and management of construction waste in the building. Because the deposits are very important : excluding public works projects, including the volumes are without common measure, it is estimated that the building alone generates around 40 million tonnes of waste per year. A quantity, which requires to establish a network for collecting very dense or to find recovery solutions upstream, including through the collection on construction sites in the “big bags”, while trying to reduce the volumes through phases of more detailed studies. Denis Michel, a member of the Environmental commission of the French Federation of the building reveals : “The construction sector to large difficulties in managing its waste. Find an outlet additional thanks to the businesses is a good thing“.


A need for dialogue and support
read also

  • The application that wants to help artisans in the CONSTRUCTION industry to manage their waste
  • The CONSTRUCTION industry is making progress in the recycling of waste


However, waste management is a business of professionals, as underlined by Jean-Marie Lane, president of the commission Environment, health & Safety to the FNBM : “This is a profession, which is not that of the traders. Providers should therefore help us in the training of the personnel in the administrative aspects (permits, etc) and in the funding“. The know-how already exist, as demonstrated by some use sectors-specific, related to concrete, wood or plaster. “The challenge is to build a supply because there are issues of cost-effectiveness that come into play, “says Florence Collot, managing director of Praxy, a network of companies specialised in the recycling. It would be even possible to make the constraints of commercial opportunities, such as advance, Nicolas Garnier, general delegate of the association Primer, which evokes the issuance of coupons or discounts for customers who bring their waste to sites in the business volunteers. For Jean-Yves Burgy, of the office Recovering, the situation is simple : “You must do what needs to be done. The range of possibilities is quite broad with the solution of contractual arrangements of private partners, “he replied. It recognizes the need for accompaniment by a third-party, not involved in the recycling, and considers that the entry ticket remains relatively undemanding : “With two containers and a controlled access, the invoice is for €10,000“, he says.


Concerning the agreements with the collection centres nearby, financed by the businesses which do not have the necessary surface area for the collection of materials, Hervé Biancarelli, president of the Economic commission of the FNBM, tactile : “The criterion of 10 km for all is not relevant in the Creuse or in Lozère, where 30 km would be sufficient, while in Île-de-France, 3 km would be required given the density of population“. He therefore pleaded, with many members of the federation, to a development of the device, a solution that does not exclude the representatives of the Directorate-general of risk prevention at the ministry of the ecological Transition, and solidarity. Nicolas Garnier continues : “no one disputes the importance of the subject, nor with the difficulties. But the PLU is not necessarily blocking : it is necessary to bring together the actors of the territories. The 10 km radius will not necessarily be strict, but left to the discretion of the prefects“. The general delegate of Primer, however, is critical of the businesses that have not yet done their work to meet the obligation. And Carl Enckell, lawyer, reminds us that violators will be subject to criminal sanctions with a maximum of 2 years imprisonment and € 75,000 fine. Of sentences, which, however, should not reach these heights, especially as the controls are not yet carried out. There remains, however, that the trend must go to the sorting and recycling and that businesses, by their number and the density of their mesh, can address this problem.

Leave a Reply