The EU Commission has kept its word. After the controversial withdrawal of the circular economy package put forward by the previous Commission, the new team announced a changed, more “ambitious” package for later in 2015. The package, which was made public on 2 December, consists of a so-called “communication“ (a kind of manifesto), an action plan and four proposals for the revision of six waste directives, and covers all aspects of the circular economy quite extensively. “The plans will extract the maximum value and use from all raw materials, products and waste, fostering energy savings and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The proposals cover the full life cycle, from production and consumption to waste management and the market for secondary materials,” states the Commission in a press release. The economic aspect in particular is emphasised repeatedly. The press release goes on to state: “The circular economy package gives a clear signal to economic operators that the EU is using all the tools available to transform its economy, opening the way to new business opportunities and boosting competitiveness.“ The broad measures for changing the full product life cycle go beyond a narrow focus on the end-of-life stage and underline the Commission’s clear ambition to transform the EU economy and deliver results. However, the word „ambitious“ in this case also means realistic. Thus the Commission writes: “The aim of the plan is to focus on issues where EU-level action brings real added value and is capable of making a difference on the ground.”
The Commission reveals that recent results in product design do not correlate with their agenda. From their point of view, the interests of producers, users and recyclers are not aligned. The Commission is therefore looking to provide incentives for better product design. The Ecodesign Directive, which had primarily focused on energy efficiency, has been revised in terms of reparability, durability and recyclability. As a first step, the Commission will submit mandatory requirements for product design and marking requirements for electronic displays to make it easier to dismantle, reuse and recycle them. The action plan includes a corresponding Ecodesign working plan for the next two years. Furthermore, the Commission proposes the differentiation of financial contributions paid by producers under an Extended Producer Responsibility scheme, based on the end-of-life costs of their products. This change is intended to create economic incentives to design products that can be more easily recycled or reused.
The Commission also wants to win consumers over to sustainable consumption via the costs. Incentives or taxes are intended to ensure that product prices better reflect environmental costs. Furthermore, green claims are put to the test to provide more security for customers. The sector for repair and reuse is likely to be strengthened – not least because the Commission regards it as very promising in terms of job creation. To make repair easier in the future, the Ecodesign work plan will cover the availability of spare parts and repair information. New business and consumption models of the “sharing economy”, which are often developed by businesses and citizens at regional or local level, will be supported through Horizon 2020 and Cohesion policy funding. The Commission will also develop a European agenda for the collaborative economy.
The call to reduce the volume of household waste, which is also included, is of less significance. This task is delegated at national and local levels – the Commission merely wants to support it. Public procurement is also encouraged to consider criteria relevant to the circular economy, although only on a voluntary basis.When it comes to waste management, it is almost always about rates. These are now slightly lower than in the previous version of the package. By 2025, 60 per cent of municipal waste has to be either reused or recycled. This target is scheduled to go up to 65 per cent by 2030. 70 per cent of construction and demolition waste has to be recycled by 2020. The basis for calculating recycling targets is the input of the final recycling process. According to the Commission, the final recycling process begins “when no further mechanical sorting operation is needed and waste materials enter a production process and are effectively reprocessed into products, materials or substances”. In order to avoid additional administrative work, exceptions can be made under strict conditions. In this case, rates can be calculated based on the output of sorting facilities. The Commission explicitly emphasises that products and components processed for reuse and metals extracted from incineration are also taken into account in calculating the recycling targets. However, no explicit differentiation has been made between reuse and recycling.
There are separate recycling targets for packaging waste. By 2025, 65 per cent of all packaging waste has to be recycled. The target goes up to 75 per cent by 2030. The Commission also proposes separate targets for various materials: wood, 60 per cent by 2025 and 75 per cent by 2030; ferrous metals, aluminium, glass, paper and cardboard, 75 and 85 per cent respectively. The different recycling targets for ferrous metals and aluminium are new. The Commission expects “significant economic and environmental benefits”, especially from the increased recycling of aluminium. There is a 55 per cent target for plastic, but no separate target for 2030. However, it is explicitly mentioned that recycling targets have been set taking into account what is technically feasible at the present time and that targets for 2030 may be revised, depending on the success of the member states, technological development, types of plastic on the market and the demand for recycled plastics. Organic waste has to be collected separately in general.The Commission has announced in advance that it will consider the varying development of waste management from one member state to the next. Member states with recycling targets for municipal waste below 20 per cent will be given five additional years to meet the new targets. This exception applies to Estonia, Greece, Croatia, Latvia, Malta, Romania and Slovakia. These states are required to notify the Commission at least two years in advance if they want to make use of this provision. They are also required to submit a detailed plan outlining measures to increase rates of recycling and reuse.
Disappointingly, the package does not include a general ban on landfilling. The ban only applies to waste that is collected separately, especially organic waste. Apart from that, landfilling has to be reduced to 10 per cent of the total amount of municipal waste generated. The aforementioned extended period for some member states applies here as well. Generally, the Commission stresses the need to improve collecting and sorting to meet recycling targets.
Since collecting and sorting systems are often financed by extended producer responsibility schemes, the Commission will make a proposal on minimum standards in terms of transparency and cost-effectiveness for these systems. The member states are encouraged to extend schemes to include additional waste streams, such as textiles and furniture. In addition, the Commission wants to eliminate obstacles specifically in waste management, such as lack of administrative capacity, lack of investment, or the insufficient use of economic instruments.
The installation of overcapacities has to be avoided. For that reason, any new investments in the waste sector must be in line with the waste hierarchy. Therefore, additional funding for landfilling will be granted only in exceptional cases. Funding for new facilities for treating residual waste, such as incineration or mechanical biological treatment, will be granted only in limited and well-justified cases, where there is no risk of overcapacity. The Commission plans to spend 5.5 billion euros on waste management from the current funding program.In addition to improvements in waste management, which are, from the Commission‘s point of view, significant for the quantity and quality of secondary raw materials, further measures to strengthen the markets need to be taken. For some material streams, the Commission wants to establish quality standards in cooperation with the industry. In addition, the criteria for the end of waste status will be harmonised and clarified. In order to facilitate cross-border trade in secondary raw materials, the Commission intends to make increased use of electronic data transmission. Financial incentives to create demand are not included in the package. Here, the Commission intends to rely on the market and especially the private sector, without offering any support in detail. Public institutions are also expected to stimulate demand, albeit without binding targets.
Some topics require special attention from the Commission’s point of view, including plastics. The aforementioned strategy will be “addressing issues such as recyclability, biodegradability, the presence of hazardous substances in certain plastics and marine litter”. The further development of the Ecodesign Directive, higher quality standards and the facilitation of cross-border trade are expected to additionally promote plastics recycling.
Another focus is on food waste, although the Commission remains rather vague on this point. Measures will be taken, including a common measurement methodology, improvement of “best before” labels and tools needed to achieve the global sustainability objective of reducing food waste by half by 2030. However, it acknowledges that the exact extent of food waste is not known – and so far it is not clear as to what halving the amount actually entails. The opportunities to donate food to charities and the use of food in animal feed are also to be improved.
To improve the recovery of critical raw materials, the Commission attaches great importance to raising e-waste recycling rates. Improvements are mainly to be achieved through product design, but there is also a need to enhance the economic viability of recycling processes. In addition, the Commission sees the need to improve the exchange of information regarding the materials concerned.Apart from establishing consistent standards for the efficient recycling of e-scrap, there is a lack of concrete action. The largest material flow, i.e. waste from construction and demolition activities, is once again explicitly mentioned. In addition to the recycling targets mentioned, the Commission wants to identify obstacles and factors that influence the recycling of these materials by carrying out a study. Moreover, the Commission has announced a „recycling protocol“ for 2016, which can be used by the industry on a voluntary basis.
The fact that the system‘s transition to a circular economy costs money seems abundantly clear to the Commission. The work program „Horizon 2020“ already includes a project „Industry 2020 in the circular economy“ for the next two years, which provides more than 650 million euros for innovative projects in the circular economy. In addition, financing is to be made available from the ESI fund. Moreover, the previously mentioned 5.5 billion euros will be provided for waste management. The Commission also makes it clear that it expects investments both from the public as well as from the private sector at local and national level.The European associations were generally pleased with the new package. The European Recycling Industries Confederation (Euric) has welcomed the package, but still sees room for improvement regarding recycling targets and their calculation methods, stricter measures to phase out the landfilling and incineration of recyclables and also a boost for the secondary raw materials markets. „The revised package has raised huge expectations among recyclers at a time when the recycling industry is enduring difficult economic times,“ said Euric President Dominique Maguin. „The action plan to close the loop through a number of measures, including Ecodesign to facilitate the recyclability of products or ‘market-driven initiatives’, is a positive step forward. However, a lot more needs to be done.”
The European Federation of Waste Management and Environmental Services (FEAD) comes to similar conclusions. In particular, the emphasis on better implementation of waste legislation, the new recycling targets, the Ecodesign working plan, and the linking of funding to the waste hierarchy meets with the approval of the Association. However, FEAD President David Palmer-Jones criticises the lack of measures to promote secondary commodities markets. „If Europe truly believes in the wider economic, environmental and social advantages of a circular economy, it must recognise that market forces and supply-side measures alone will not deliver it,“ he explained. „Europe‘s economy can only be truly circular if strong markets are available for the secondary raw materials the recycling and reprocessing sectors produce. The current markets are unstable and disincentivise secondary raw material production and uptake by Europe’s industry.“
Positive feedback comes from the Confederation of European Paper Industries (CEPI). “Our expectations have been met. This major policy initiative has correctly identified the synergies needed to find real solutions. The package has reached a level of ambition rarely seen in policymaking,” says Marco Mensink, CEPI Director General. Plastics Europe also welcomes the package, but considers the recycling targets for plastic “extremely ambitious”. “This holistic approach, together with the Commission’s decision of taking the entire life cycle of products into account, not just the end-of-life, will help make Europe more sustainable and resource-efficient,” Karl-H. Foerster, Executive Director, points out.On the other hand, Plastics Recyclers Europe (PRE) complains about a lack of concrete action. “Recycling targets have been weakened, a landfill ban is no longer foreseen, the recycling calculation method remains ambiguous, waste exports are not covered and waste sorting and quality is not tackled. Waste management needs clear guidance in order to perform efficiently and this facelifted package is lacking concrete actions,” says PRE Director Antonio Furfari.
Moreover, the package does not do anything to appease the environmental organisations. Friends of the Earth Europe says it was a „wasted year for the circular economy“. Director Magda Stoczkiewicz explains: „Under the guise of Better Regulation, the Commission has totally undermined claims of ‚ambition‘ by watering down binding measures and giving member states a free pass to shy away from tackling our overconsumption crisis. Compared with the previous one, this package is not Better Regulation but short-termist Bad Regulation.”
The European Environmental Bureau also criticises the Commission harshly. “The Commission has failed to deliver on its promise to come up with a more ambitious proposal. The addition of some nice initiatives does not offset the fact that the legally binding core of the package, notably the waste targets, is weaker than in last year’s proposal,” says Stéphane Arditi, Policy Manager for products and waste. “Lowering the recycling targets compared to last year’s proposal means that more waste will be sent to landfill or incineration plants. This is a missed opportunity because recycling creates more jobs and causes fewer emissions than either landfill or incineration.”
However, the package was well received by the incinerators‘ associations. CEWEP would have liked to see a more ambitious approach regarding the ban on landfill, but sees the ten-per-cent cap as a step in the right direction. The creation of consistent quality criteria for secondary raw materials as well as the harmonisation of the rate calculation system meets with the approval of CEWEP. The European suppliers of waste-to-energy technology (ESWET) are particularly pleased about the fact that no limitations on waste incineration are included in the package. However, ESWET had also hoped for more ambitious requirements for landfill. The association welcomes the fact that the Commission wants to improve the quality of recycling.Is the new package really more ambitious than its predecessor? Frans Timmermans had the foresight never to explain what ‘more ambitious’ really meant. Looking at the recycling targets alone, the conclusion is obvious: No, the new package is not more ambitious, but that conclusion alone definitely does not suffice. The high recycling targets contained in the old package were one of the main criticisms. It is understandable that the Commission wanted to defuse this criticism. In addition, the sense of high recycling targets is questionable if the majority of member states is unable to realistically achieve them. It is also understandable to make some concessions to member states that are lagging behind, especially in waste management. Eventually, the package will have to be adopted by all member states. Seen in this context, the reduction of landfill to 10 per cent also makes sense. It is not the complete ban many had wished for, but at the moment it is a realistic step.
Looking at the package in its entirety, the claim to be more ambitious is much more justified. While the package of the Baroso Commission still predominantly focused on waste management, the new package now covers the entire circular economy, including producers and consumers. However, much remains vague and too often the Commission has confined itself to encouraging member states to be more proactive. In the past, we have seen that when it comes to implementing European standards at national level, strange things can happen. If there are no specific requirements, the results are likely to remain modest. In this respect, one could have hoped for a little more determination on the part of the Commission.
It remains to be seen what will happen with the package going forward. In this process, debates about whether recycling targets are five per cent higher or lower should be subordinate to the overall concept of a circular economy. Not everyone may like the package – and there are some legitimate reasons for criticism. Nevertheless, it is definitely a step in the right direction – and that is something that cannot often be said about decisions taken in Brussels.
