40%ONLY

O F M AT E R I A L S A R E

RE-USED ORRECYLEDI N E U R O P E [ 4 ]

MEASURINGAND MONITORINGRESOURCE EFFICIENCYThe planet’s natural resources are in everything we consume, from our phones and furniture to our food. However, Europe’s model of consumption has become unsustainable. On average Europeans are eating up resources at twice the speed the planet can renew them. This is true for mineral resources (such as metals) as well as living goods (such as ecosystems).

What’s more, Europe consumes an unequal share of the world’s resources. European countries are disproportionately represented

among the 20 highest consuming countries in the world which consume 75% of the materials consumed globally [1].

As the rest of the world, with an ever growing share of the planet’s population, tries to catch up with European living standards, demand for a shrinking supply of resources will increase. Europe must reduce its absolute natural resource consumption to reduce import dependence and ensure it stays within the limits of what the planet can provide.

The EU is heavily dependent on importing natural resources, many of which are critical materials for the proper functioning of the economy. Despite the publishing of numerous strategy documents, including a European Commission roadmap [3], the EU has not put forward concrete actions to deal with resource efficiency yet.

Decoupling resource consumption from GDP is taking place in Europe, allegedly [5]. However, this ‘resource productivity’ indicator is based on Domestic Material Consumption (DMC) which does not take into account the impact of mining raw materials in countries outside the EU before they are imported into Europe. If the same calculations were made using Raw Material Consumption (RMC), or even better, Total Material Consumption (TMC), the picture would look different [6]. For example, using the TMC indicator, Europe consumes more than double what the DMC indicator suggests [7].

WHAT IS THE SITUATION?REAL PRICES FORCOMMODITYRESOURCESH A V E R I S E N B Y

300%SINCE 1998 [2]

1998 2011

300%

4 INDICATORS NEEDED ON TOP OF TMCTO MEASURE RESOURCE CONSERVATION

LAND CARBON WATER BIODIVERSITY

However, increasing resource efficiency does not equate to reducing our overconsumption of natural resources in absolute terms, nor does it address the impact of resource extraction on the environment. For a comprehensive picture to develop about our consumption of resources, we should set absolute reduction targets and make use of three consumption-based indicators (carbon, water and land impact) and a fourth, a biodiversity preservation indicator, on top of TMC to properly measure the impact of resource extraction.

OTHER TAXES

Unequal consumption of regions in world [8]

False incentives through taxation [10]

EU dependence on imports (2008) [9]

Urban mining potential: what we can recycle from e-waste [11]

FACTS AND FIGURES

FOR MORE INFORMATIONEuropean Commission – http://ec.europa.eu/environment/resource_efficiency/index_en.htm Friends of the Earth Europe – www.foeeurope.org/resource-useSeri – http://seri.at/en/resource-use

8 765432 1

01000 2000 3000 4000

Glob

al h

ecta

res p

er p

erso

n

Population (million)

Asia-PacificAfrica

Latin-AmericaMiddle East/Central Asia

Europe non-EUEurope EU

North America

Since 2003, JAPAN uses two key indicators to measure resource use.The first one is ‘resource productivity’

calculated as GDP divided by Direct Material Input. Japan has set itself a 40% improvement target for 2010 with the year 2000 as a baseline.

A A second indicator is the cyclical use of resources, calculated as the amount of reused material over

the total material use (that is direct material input + reused material). Japan had set a 40% improvement for

2010 on the base of 2000 achievements.Since 2010, Japan has decided to investigate whether to start using of Total Material Consumption (TMC) as an indicator to take into account hidden flows [12].

For its 12th five year plan (2011-2015), CHINA set itself an objective of a 15% improvement in resource productivity. This is the headline indicator

China is using to measure progress towards a circular economy [13].

• Set a minimum 30% binding EU resource productivity improvement target by 2030 compared to 2010 levels, based on GDP and Raw Material Consumption (RMC), which serves as a headline indicator on progress in resource efficiency

• Develop a harmonised methodology to document Total Material Consumption (TMC) at EU and national level

• Set a longer term (2050) indicative goal of 50% resource productivity improvement, based on Total Material Consumption

• Develop a dashboard of key indicators with harmonised calculation methodologies for land, water and carbon footprints, and a biodiversity preservation indicator, with targets on absolute reduction of related impacts for 2030 and 2050

• Require all above indicators to be measured in EU policy impact assessments and incorporate them as part of the European Semester

• Re-balance taxation on resource use relative to labour to incentivise resource-efficient business models

TAX REVENUE

IN EU2014

53.3%

41%

5.7%

LABOUR

TAXATION ON

TAXATION ON

ENVIRONM

ENT

GOL

D MINE PC C

IR

CUIT BOARDS

CELL

PHONES A

C

B

D

1500

100

Mill

ion

tonn

es

BiomassIMPORT IMPORT IMPORTEXPORT EXPORT EXPORT

Manufactures Fuels/mining products

193 221

1384

203207126

ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF GOLD IN:

5g/tonne

200-250g/tonne

300-350g/tonne

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

CASE STUDIES

HAZARDOUSSUBSTANCESThe presence of toxic substances in products is one of the greatest obstacles for developing a cost effective, resource-efficient, circular economy. If the full health and environmental cost of any toxic materials in a product were included in the price, that product would probably never reach the market. Today, however, these societal costs are

never fully accounted for in the price consumers pay. The result is that recycling or repair activities are hampered by the presence of toxic substances in certain products. It is therefore crucial that both products and recycled material are toxic-free. This will help encourage the take-up of re-used and recycled material.

Today more than 100 million chemical substances have been identified [1], with more than 100,000 of them expected to have been released into the European environment, including flame-retardants in computers, preservatives in foods and softeners in plastics. Hundreds of synthetic chemicals are found in human breast milk and even in the umbilical cord of newborn children [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Although some tests have been conducted on some of these substances before entering the market, many harmful properties are only revealed after a certain amount of time by measuring their impact on large segments of the population or ecosystems. This underlines how important tackling hazardous substances is for a circular economy where materials get re-used many times.

Risks to people and environment should therefore be mitigated if we want to create a circular economy.

First, substances identified as hazardous should not be included in a product. This should be addressed at the design stage. If the substance is not substitutable, it should be removable from products and materials at the end-of-life stage. If an authorisation is granted, review periods should be as short as possible.

Second, there should not be a trade-off between hazardous materials and recycling. Removing toxics from our economy should take priority over recycling as prevention is better than cure.

Third, there should be a strengthening of the hazard-based approach with a long-term perspective when looking at toxic substances in recycled material. The precautionary principle must prevail. Hazardous, brominated flame retardants coming from recycled plastic have been found in recycled kitchen appliances that we put to our mouths [7]. This must be stopped, as materials will be reused several times in a circular economy without knowing exactly how many times when they are introduced for the first time on the market.

Finally, hazardous waste, when unavoidable, must be treated in specific facilities. Too often, local authorities allow the burial of hazardous material in conventional, non-hazardous landfills or their burning in conventional incinerators. This prevents the proper elimination or consignment of hazardous waste, creates problems for human health and the environment and must come to an end.

WHAT IS THE SITUATION?

FACTS AND FIGURES A

EUWASTE2012 (4 % OF THE TOTAL) CLASSIFIED AS

HAZARDOUS WASTE200 kg

200KGHAZARDOUS WASTEPER CITIZEN IN THE EU

MILLIONTONNES100.7

AN INCREASE OF

3.3%COMPARED TO

2010 [9]

= =

Number of hazardous substances Hazardous waste generated and treated in EU member states and Norway

FOR MORE INFORMATIONThe European Environmental Bureau, Friends of the Earth Europe, CHEM Trust and Zero Waste Europe – ‘Circular economy and REACH, an essential partnership’ – www.eeb.org/index.cfm/library/the-circular-economy-and-reach-an-essential-partnership

In 2012, DENMARK decided to ban four industrial chemicals linked to disruption of the human

endocrine system (DEHP, DBP, DIBP and BBP). These phthalates are linked to reduced sperm

count, causing male sterility, and are thought to bring about puberty early in young girls. Among other harmful effects, they cause liver

cancer in rats.Nevertheless, in 2014, Denmark decided

to scrap its national ban on the four phthalates after the European Commission considered that this ban would be against EU rules, even though safer alternatives are available. This refusal by the Commission to restrict the four phthalates creates a problem for the future when recycling will take place and these used substances could be inserted into virgin material.

The FRENCH SENATE has approved a ban on the use of bisphenol A (BPA) in all food and drink packaging

since 2015, and since the beginning of 2013 for foodstuffs intended for children under 3 years of age. The

legislation also establishes special labelling for packages containing BPA

and intended for pregnant women or children, a category considered especially vulnerable. BPA is used in the manufacturing of plastics and resins. It is found in many everyday objects, like cutlery, kettles, coffee machines, food mixers, food packaging, toys and bottles. BPA helps to preserve the flavour of foods and protect them against contamination from microorganisms. Numerous studies have demonstrated the negative health effects of exposure to bisphenol A, particularly

for the reproductive system, the mammary glands, the kidneys and the liver. There are safer alternatives available. The European Commission has now recognized BPA as reproductive toxicant [11] and it is now up to member states to now take action to make sure the French ban

becomes the rule rather than the exception in order to ease recycling and avoid future legacy problems.

• Speed up chemical safety assessment, the identification of substances of very high concern in the REACH candidate list and eventual restrictions to help designing hazardous chemicals out of products

• Ensure a systematic disclosure of chemical contents in products, notably substances of very high concern, through a publicly easy-to-access product database that fulfils the ‘right to know’ principle

• Use Ecolabel, Green Public Procurement rules and corporate purchasing guidance to reinforce the market uptake of clean products

• Require the same rules and hazardous substance thresholds in recycled material as for virgin materials to avoid re-injecting toxic substances into the economy through recycling

• Limit authorisations for hazardous substance use to the few cases where no substitutes are available yet. Impose a clear marking of those authorised products to allow traceability, quick detection and good sorting along the supply chain

• Eliminate derogations which allow hazardous waste to be disposed of in conventional landfills or incinerators. Hazardous waste must be disposed of in purpose-built incinerators or landfills which can safely destroy or embed the hazardous material

CONCERN

VERY

HIGH CONCERN

B C

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

CASE STUDIES

TODAY, THE EUHAS IDENTIFIED

4,522HAZARDOUSSUBSTANCES

1,400SUBSTANCES WITHPROPERTIES OFV E R Y H I G HCONCERN[8]

In a 2015 report, the European Environmental Agency (EEA) highlights what appears to be a GROWING GAP between the AMOUNT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATED and the HAZARDOUS WASTE THAT IS TREATED. This suggests there are potential ‘leakages’, sub-standard treatment and non-notified exports of hazardous substances to other countries [10].

120

100

80

60

40

20

02006

Total hazardous waste treatment

1KG OUT OF 5 KGNOT PROPERLY TREATED

2008 2010 2012

Mill

ion

tonn

es

GAP GAP GAP GAP

Treatment GAP

>20%

WHY DESIGN MATTERSEurope has to import many of the materials found in its consumer products. The extraction or production of these materials also has a damaging impact on the environment. As worldwide demand for these resources grows, through improved living standards and an increasing global population, it makes sense to find ways to recover these materials. Above all, it is important to find ways to reuse the components and products in which these materials are embedded for as long as possible.

Cutting resource consumption in the EU requires a comprehensive policy on all of our products. As one of the fastest growing sectors, and one which consumes many of the critical raw materials that the EU imports, electric and electronic products should be looked at as a priority. However, the principles of better product design to keep products in circulation for longer could be applied to materials such as textiles and furniture.

Beyond voluntary Ecolabelling schemes as well as legislation on chemicals and safety, product design decisions have mostly been regulated at EU level under the Ecodesign Directive, which addresses energy-related products. However, efforts to date within this policy have focused on reducing energy consumption during the use phase of these products, with resource use aspects covered in only isolated cases like lamps and vacuum cleaners. In recent years different studies by the European Commission, Denmark and the European Environmental Bureau [1] showed that the Ecodesign Directive, coupled with strong waste management policies, can foster better product design and encourage the creation of new business models for a more circular economy.

A pragmatic approach could unlock significant material savings in current production and consumption patterns. The EEB report identified three ways in which the Ecodesign Directive can deliver more resource-efficient products: first it can be used to support better repairability and durability of products. This would be strongly supported by consumers, as a Eurobarometer survey on among EU citizens on greener products confirms [2]. Secondly, Ecodesign can ensure that selected components or materials embedded in the product are more easily re-used, re-manufactured or recycled. Last but not least, problematic or hazardous substances which hamper repair or recycling could be marked or removed, depending on an assessment of that specific product group.

WHAT IS THE SITUATION?

FACTS AND FIGURESThe manufacturing stage of a laptop’s life, including extraction of the raw materials, causes more CO2 emissions than the product’s use stage. When taking

into account impacts on other natural resources, such as land and freshwater use, the environmental footprint of the production stage is even greater.

Depending on the indicator used, the environmental impact of producing a laptop as a share of the product’s entire lifecycle varies, but it is almost always the highest

part of the product’s lifecycle [4].

EMBODIED CARBON IN LAPTOP COMPONENTS [3]

A

DISPLAY360 kg CO2e/kg

CAMERA370 kg CO2e/kg

PLASTIC5 kg CO2e/kg

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% GlobalWarmingPotential

Land use Cumulativeraw material

demand

Freshwater

Cumulativeenergy

demand

Prod

uctio

nLi

fecy

cle

with

out p

rodu

ction

B

The study to establish the EU ECODESIGN WORKING PLAN 2015-2017 concluded that every 3-month extension to the lifetime of smartphones would

reduce overall resource consumption by more than 1 0 % per year [7]. Today the value of many of the materials used in a phone can be recovered [8], as long as the phone’s design allows it. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation found that the cost of re-manufacturing smartphones would decrease by 50% per device if they were easier to take apart and were returned by customers. In a scenario where only 50% of phones are collected from their owners, Europe’s cost savings on manufacturing material costs could add up to more than USD 1 billion. [9]

A WASHING MACHINE FOR LIFEThe James Dyson Foundation and the French Agency for the Promotion of Industrial Creation

rewarded the concept of ‘L’increvable’, developed b y Julien Phedyaeff, for its durability [10].A water tank replaces the traditional 30 kg of cement ballast. This tank is automatically filled during the first use of the machine. This means that the machine can be made lighter again when it needs to be moved. The most common maintenance operation is carried out directly Under the countertop of the machine. The washing machine communicates its maintenance needs via a clear and reliable interface.The machine can be adapted technically to meet evolving standards, either by means of software updates that integrate new programs or by replacing certain components.End of life: the washing machine is designed for a fifty-year lifespan. Once that cycle ends the machine is sent back to the factory: the panels are re-painted and even re-shaped, the glazed panel of the door is cleaned...and then the machine is sold for another fifty-year cycle.

The design features of the FAIRPHONE 2 make it easy to be taken apart, upgraded, repaired and finally recycled. Typical smartphone components

cost less than what recyclers pay workers to disassemble all the parts that are glued together. But

with the Fairphone 2, reuse and recycling organisations can take them apart quickly and sell every little bit.

• The European Commission should systematically investigate the possibility of minimum product design standards which would improve the resource efficiency of energy-related products under the EU Ecodesign Directive. It is imperative to look into design decisions that enable better reparability, durability, upgradability and recyclability. There must also be better information about the product’s properties and materials

• Vary Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme fees according to the environmental impact of a product. The fees should be lower for manufacturers that make it easier to re-use, re-manufacture and recycle products

• Set up EU-wide schemes to develop and test product design approaches for non-energy related products like furniture or textiles

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

CASE STUDIES

PROLONGINGTHE LIFETIMEOF A PRODUCTthrough feasible design options

+1MT PER YEARREDUCTION INGHG EMISSIONS

477,000 CARSOFF THE ROADFOR ONE YEAR

Carrying out a range of simple, already feasible design options to extend the lifetime of laptops, printers and washing machines in the EU could lead to savings in

greenhouse gas emissions of over 1 million tonnes per year, which is the equivalent of taking 477,000 cars off the road for a year [6].

C D

BETTERREPAIRABILITY

AND DURABILITYof products

HIGHERRECYCLABILITY

of materials

REMOVALOF HAZARDOUS

SUBSTANCES

80%OF A PRODUCT’SENVIRONMENTALF O O T P R I N TIS DETERMINED AT THEDESIGN STAGE [5]

ON AVERAGE,80%

GHG

FOR MORE INFORMATIONDanish Environment Agency – http://mst.dk/service/publikationer/publikationsarkiv/2015/feb/ecodesigndirective-version-20/Products That Last – http://productsthatlast.nlEuropean Environmental Bureau – www.eeb.org/index.cfm/news-events/news/cutting-resource-use-it-s-in-the-designEuropean Commission – https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/new-method-assess-resource-efficiency-products

PRODUCTS THAT LASTThe useful lifetime of many consumer products – i.e. the amount of time between buying and getting rid of them – is getting ever shorter [1]. When a consumer has decided to discard a product, a large part of the resources that make up that product get buried in the ground or burnt, even though most of the components are still usable. Recycling is one solution to recover a product’s resources.

But why break something up when only one of the parts is defective? If something is broken, it can be fixed rather than thrown away. Other parts can be refurbished or even upgraded. Some products can be remanufactured to a state that is as good as new or even better. As long as the product is still operational, it can also be re-used by others. [2]

Today, electrical and electronic waste alone is growing at 3 to 5% per year across the EU. It is expected to hit 12 million tonnes yearly before 2020 according to the European Commission [3]. This is creating huge pressure on our ecosystems and is depleting available natural resources.

If products were to last longer and be repaired more easily, households would have to spend less of their income on replacing everyday consumer goods that fail early. The job creation potential in repair activities is enormous. These are labour-intensive services which require both manpower and skills and which

are less likely to be sent outside of the EU. One difficulty repair services face today is the absence of repair manuals and spare parts associated with the product. But there are regulations for the automotive sector which demand that manufacturers make repair information and spare parts available for all service providers. A solution could be to extend these regulations to household goods covered by the existing EU Ecodesign Directive. [4]

Remanufacturing a product goes one step further than repair. By disassembling a product and returning it to an ‘as-good-as-new’ state, it can be sold again on the market as a new product, thereby extending the lifetime of most of its parts. Re-manufacturing is currently working in Business-to-Business markets, but it can, and should be, scaled up to consumer products. [5]

B E T W E E N20% AND 35% OF THE MATERIAL CONTENTOF A PHONE IS LOSTWHEN THE PHONE IS SHREDDEDAND MELTED DOWN FOR RECYCLING[6]

YOUR SMARTPHONECONSUMES ENOUGH ENERGY DURING MANUFACTURING TO POWER

WHAT IS THE SITUATION?

FACTS AND FIGURES

A B

20%LOST 1,200

60-WAT TLIGHT BULBSFOR AN HOUR [6]

'THERE IS 3-5% MOREELECTRICAL/ELECTRONICWASTE EVERY YEAR IN THE EU'

FOR MORE INFORMATIONWRAP – www.wrap.org.uk/node/18473RREUSE – www.rreuse.org/making-repair-cheaper-and-easier-through-eu-policy/IFIXIT – http://ifixit.org/rightZero Waste Scotland – www.zerowastescotland.org.uk/RemanufacturingReport

Furniture Re-use NetworkThe Furniture Re-use Network (FRN) in the UK has a take back scheme in partnership with corporate retailers including IKEA, John Lewis, DHLE and Dixons.

More than 78,000 quality, reusable items, supplied by the corporate retailers, went to people living in poverty through the take-back scheme. • 2,818 sofas provided by IKEA in the past year helped save

households £845,400• 254 tonnes of furniture collected from the John Lewis FRN take-

back scheme in 2014 prevented over 125 tonnes of CO• from being emitted into the atmosphere [8]

Re-manufacturing set-top boxesMillions of Europeans use set-top boxes. These items provide access to cable or satellite TV and the internet. After being used, many of them get tested,

repaired or even re-manufactured to then re-enter t h e market as new products. The social and environmental benefits of this process are wide-ranging: apart from creating skilled jobs, the re-manufacturing process causes 15 times less greenhouse gas emissions than the creation of a new product using virgin resources. Re-manufacturing of the same set-top box can also take place 7 times. [9]

• Strengthen the EU requirements for product design to make them last longer and to ensure that it is easier to dis- and re-assemble them

• Ensure a minimum product lifetime through extending the legal guarantee beyond two years with the burden of proof on manufacturers where appropriate

• Develop an information or rating scheme that will guide consumers towards longer-lasting and repairable goods. Mandatory display of the warranty period on a related labelling scheme may stimulate further competition and market differentiation in this area

• Define a legal obligation to issue product passports and link them to an EU database to facilitate access to relevant information for different people along the value chain, as

well as procurement departments to consumers• Make repair manuals available in a standardised format and

ensure spare parts are also available. Require a mandatory warning on the product if they are not provided by the manufacturer. Make it easier for independent service providers to access product specifications and diagnostic tools from the manufacturer

• Incentivise return rates for used components and products; • Develop EU-wide standards or even a quality label for

remanufactured products to build trust and stimulate the demand side

• Set public procurement criteria for longer lasting, more repairable products and make them the default choice for procurement departments

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

CASE STUDIES

THE PROPORTION OF LARGE HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES SUCH AS WASHING MACHINES, FRIDGES OR DISHWASHERS WHICH HAVE BEEN REPLACED WITHIN LESS THAN 5 YEARS DUE TO A DEFECT ROSE FROM 3.5 % TO 8.3 % BETWEEN 2004 AND 2012 [7].

IN 2012, THE AVERAGE TV WAS REPLACED EVERY 5.6 YEARS. BY CONTRAST, THE AVERAGE DURATION OF CATHODE RAY TUBE TV’S FROM 2005 TO 2012 WAS BETWEEN 10 AND 12 YEARS [7].

A B

20043,5% 8,3%

<5Y5.6

YEARS

FLAT-SCREEN TV

10-12YEARS

CATHODE RAY TUBE TV2012

ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS FOR A CIRCULAR ECONOMYMoving to a circular economy requires reorienting market forces towards resource conservation. To do this, the EU and its Member States can incentivise practices that encourage less waste and penalise those which are more wasteful. Different economic instruments, such as taxes or financial incentives,

can fulfil this role based on the impact that producing and consuming a certain good has on human health and the environment. By sending clear price signals to both producer and consumer, circular economy-friendly business models are more likely to emerge and become mainstream faster.

Economic instruments are used to varying degrees for waste management across Europe but they are not used systematically or to their full potential everywhere. Some regions or countries have taxes on landfilling and incineration which aim to discourage these practices. Others make use of pay-as-you-throw schemes to reduce the generation of waste. There are also deposit-refund systems which increase collection rates of specific products. Extended Producer Responsibility schemes monetise the environmental impact of a product at the end of its life and this cost is added to the product’s price when it is purchased. There are also other types of rewards for citizens who choose to make environmentally-friendly purchases, such as eco-cheques or rebates for energy-efficient appliances. But the EU and its member states could make better use of the tools at their disposal to encourage more resource-efficient activities.

These economic instruments are primarily set up and used by member states, not the EU. Although member states should retain a certain flexibility over these tools, the EU should be setting minimum rules to operate them.

First, this would help counter the trend that smaller member states do not have the strength or resources to design these sorts of tools themselves or resist pressure from large companies. Second, there are missed opportunities across the EU where better results could be achieved, if a more harmonised single market approach were to be reinforced. For example if a landfill tax rate is too low, it will not encourage initiatives that try to increase the level of waste that gets collected separately. Likewise, if producer responsibility schemes do not cover the full cost of proper collection, treatment or recycling, municipalities will not be able to set up the full infrastructure themselves. The EU needs to set the right framework conditions for these economic instruments to operate successfully.

WHAT IS THE SITUATION?

FACTS AND FIGURES

There is a clear correlation between taxes on landfill and landfill rates of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) [1] A120

100

80

60

40

20

0

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Landfill tax rate (€)

POLAND

MSW* landfilled (% of MSW generated)

100908070605040302010

0

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Landfill tax rate (€)

UK

MSW* landfilled (% of MSW generated)

(*) MSW = Municipal Solid Waste

Differences in Pay-As-You-Throw schemes across Europe [2] Differences in fees paid by placers on the market/producers in EPR schemes [3]

FOR MORE INFORMATIONEuropean Commission – http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/final_report_10042012.pdf European Commission – http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/target_review/Guidance%20on%20EPR%20-%20Final%20Report.pdfOECD – www.oecd.org/environment/waste/extendedproducerresponsibility.htmGreen Alliance – www.green-alliance.org.uk/resources/Reinventing%20the%20wheel.pdf

ITALY The introduction of Pay-As-You-Throw schemes in parts of Italy has led to a clear decrease in the amount of waste that isn’t separated (residual waste) and an increase in the separation of recyclable and compostable material. The scheme has delivered results both in small towns and large cities [4].

DOGLIANI, NORTH-WEST ITALY: A town of 5,000, Dogliani has seen dramatic improvements in separate collection with a pay-as-you-throw scheme.

FRANCE has Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes for different product types such as electrical or electronic waste, packaging, furniture and paper. This means it integrates a fee, which

covers the cost of disposing a product, into the purchase price paid by the user. The schemes are adjusted based on

how recyclable the product is: the more recyclable the material, the lower the fee. This is, essentially, an incentive for manufacturers to design their products

so that they are more easily recyclable. For example, manufacturers who

place vacuum cleaners with brominated flame retardant plastics on the market pay 20% more than manufacturers who don’t use this hazardous substance [5].

• Require the setting of economic instruments in national waste management plans before they can be notified as required by article 28 of the Waste Framework Directive. The Commission should not approve a national waste management plan if economic instruments are not used and adhering to minimum EU standards

• Set minimum requirements for EPR schemes to operate and deploy them for waste streams beyond electric and electronic equipment waste and packaging. Define EU-wide criteria that help to determine how fees should vary according to the properties of the product (e.g its toxic content) and its repairability, recyclability or durability. The requirements must be set at EU level so the manufacturer complies with one set of rules, not 28 different ones

• Require 100% of the net cost of collection, treatment and

recycling to be covered by producers• Encourage and set guidance on deposit refund systems in

order to support returnable or reusable packaging schemes and increase the collection of recyclables

• Require mandatory Pay-As-You-Throw systems for municipal solid waste to reduce the waste that is not sorted at source

• Call on EU Member States to progressively increase taxes on landfill and incineration in countries where combined landfill and incineration levels of residual waste are higher than 20%.

• Set a reduced VAT rate for repair and reuse activities and increase taxes on non repairable products or non economically recyclable material

• Allocate European funding to innovative economic instruments such as waste performance contracts or practices encouraging circular business models (e.g. leasing, sharing)

B C

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

CASE STUDIES

17EU MEMBER STATESEMPLOY PAY-AS-YOU-THROW SCHEMES

BUT ONLY AUSTRIA, FINLANDAND IRELAND HAVE ROLLEDO N E O U T T O A L L T H E I RM U N I C I P A L I T I E S €8.37 €175

ROMANIA GERMANY €0.40 €80FINLAND POLAND

€4.80 €260.93FRANCE LITHUANIA

Total wasteUnsorted residual wasteSelective collection

1,4

1,2

1,0

0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

0,02001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Kg/in

habi

tant

*day

[4]

Waste prevention has generally not been tackled as comprehensively as other steps in the waste treatment hierarchy. This is due to two main factors. First, prevention tends to result from a series of small-scale actions. Secondly, economic models based on reducing waste are mostly used in niche areas.

But since December 2012, EU member states are required to set up waste prevention programmes [3]. Efforts to turn Europe into a circular economy now offer the opportunity to set up a system of incentives and obligations to design waste out of the economy.

Prevention, through reuse, creates more jobs than recycling or waste disposal [4]. It also leads to fewer greenhouse gas emissions [5]. Defining reduction targets, using an EU-wide methodology for calculating waste reduction and the use of more economic incentives would lead to increased job numbers and reduced environmental impacts.

WASTEPREVENTIONOn average European citizens produce 480kg of municipal solid waste per capita every year [1]. Yet this amount is less than 10% of the total waste generated in Europe if we include waste from economic activities. The total amount of waste produced every year is actually closer to 6 tonnes per person [2].

To tackle these gigantic amounts, the first step is to look at how some of this waste could be prevented and only afterwards examine what could be recycled. Simply put, the best way to deal with waste is not to produce it in the first place.

WHAT IS THE SITUATION?

FACTS AND FIGURES

MOST

PREF

ERRE

D

LEAST

PREF

ERRE

D

PREVENTIONPreparing for re-use

Recycling

incineration and other recovery

DISPOSAL

Waste in marine environments [6] Food waste reduction [7] BA

REDUCING THE AMOUNTOF GENERATED WASTE

206 kgOF WASTEARE DISCHARGED INTO

THE OCEANEVERY SECOND

60%REDUCTIONIN FOODWASTEBY 2030

REDUCEEUROPE’SBURDENOF LAND-USE

€73 BILLIONHOUSEHOLDSAVINGS

80 MtAVOIDEDGREEN-HOUSEGAS EMISSIONS

W A S T EPREVENTION

FOR MORE INFORMATIONZero Waste Europe – www.zerowasteeurope.euFriends of the Earth Europe report – https://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/resource_use/2015/preventing_waste_0.pdf European Environmental Bureau: “Tips and advice on how to create an efficient waste prevention programme”European Week for Waste Reduction – http://www.ewwr.eu/en/project/main-features

Preventing waste slashes greenhouse gas emissions [8]

Some Member States have already set prevention targets for themselves:

FRANCE wants to achieve 7% municipal solid waste generation less per capita by 2020 compared to 2010 [9] ITALY wants to reduce non hazardous waste by 5% and hazardous waste by 10 % per unit of GDP by 2020 compared to 2010 [10]

Certain municipalities and regions have signed up to a zero waste goal and have managed to significantly reduce

their municipal waste generation. The Gipuzkoa region in Spain has reduced its

generation of waste by 7% over 4 years while Ljulbljana has reduced its waste generation levels by 15% over 10 years [11].

• The Waste Framework Directive should include binding waste prevention targets for municipal and commercial waste at least for food waste

• Set specific objectives for preparation for reuse, distinct from recycling, for furnitures, textiles and electrical and electronic equipment, and ensure prior access to waste collection points to accredited reuse centres

• Agree on a set of prevention indicators to be deployed by all EU states as part of their national prevention programs

• Help the development of packaging-free goods and reusable packaging through tax rebates (e.g: use of VAT Directive)

• Set a marine litter prevention target based on a harmonised methodology to measure littering in marine environment

• Require waste prevention plans and industrial symbiosis activities in permitting industrial facilities

• Set minimum requirements and market incentives schemes (e.g rewards and penalities) for products placed on the European market to avoid waste generation (life extension, reparability…), beyond electrical and electronic products already covered by the Ecodesign Directive

• Allocate structural cohesion funding for waste management along the waste treatment hierarchy: more towards prevention than towards recycling, and none for landfill or incineration

• Support projects on waste prevention and resource conservation (e.g through EU funding available in Horizon2020), continue support for European Waste Prevention Week and move towards innovative business models and territorial approaches that promote waste prevention

C

MINERAL WASTE

Kilo

tonn

es o

f CO

2 eq

uiva

lent

avo

ided

pe

r ton

ne o

f was

te p

reve

nted

(eve

n w

ith a

100

% re

cycli

ng ra

te)

165186

82 80

18

91

FOOD WASTE

PLASTIC WASTE

PAPER WASTE

GLASS WASTE

METALLIC WASTE

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

CASE STUDIES

MUNICIPALITIES PUSHING FOR

0

GHG

ZEROWASTE

Both incineration and landfill are regulated at the European level [2]. In addition, they are also discussed in order to set Best available Techniques Reference documents (BREFs) which aim to standardise requirements for such facilities in Europe and limit their environmental impacts.

However they are not evolving the same way. Between 2009 and 2013, incineration of municipal solid waste has increased even quicker than recycling while landfilling has been constantly reduced. This means landfill diversion has so far benefited incineration more than recycling [3].

Current policies are further tipping the scales towards incineration. In 2012, 20 Member States introduced a landfill tax, while only 8 targeted incineration [4]. Charges for it were lower than landfill taxes across the board, creating further incentives for burning waste. As a consequence several reports indicate a risk of incineration overcapacity at European level [5].

What we need now is a clear restriction on waste – particularly recyclable, compostable, and untreated waste – being sent to landfill or incinerated, even if energy can be recovered from it.

INCINERATION& LANDFILLThe bulk of EU household waste is not recycled: in 2013 around 57% of household municipal solid waste in the EU was sent to disposal [1] – an average of 275 kg per person per year. There are two main disposal routes: landfilling and incineration (with or without energy recovery).

While both options are at the bottom of the waste management hierarchy, energy from waste - ie certain forms of incineration - comes above landfill. This is used by some to justify burning waste for energy, yet it still fails to keep resources in the economy.

It also produces highly concentrated toxic fumes, and leads to bottom ashes that still need to be treated or landfilled. It also creates lock-in effects, as plants must operate with a constant supply of residual waste for 20 to 30 years to break even.

From a circular economy perspective, both landfilling and incineration represent clear failures to keep materials in our economy, to significantly reduce our import dependency on materials and also fail to lever job creation potential and alternative business models.

WHAT IS THE SITUATION?

FACTS AND FIGURES

More than 90% of materials currently disposed of in incinerators and landfills can be reused, recycled and composted. [6]

Plastic recycling is endangered by disposal capacity, being incinerators or landfills. More incineration also represents an obstacle for increased plastic recycling.

Recycling rate Energy recovery rate Landfill rate

B

A ATLUDECHNLSEDKBE

NOFIIE

EEITSLCZFRPLSKPTLT

ROHUUKESLV

BGHRGRCY

MT

0%Plastic packaging recycling and energy recovery rate by country 2014(Referred to post-consumer plastics waste) Source: Consultic

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

90%

FOR MORE INFORMATIONBREF-setting process for incineration – http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/wi.html BREF-setting process for waste treatment – http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/wt.html Zero Waste Europe – www.zerowasteeurope.euThe Potential Contribution of Waste Management to a Low Carbon Economy; Hogg and Ballinger;Eunomia; October 2015Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives – www.no-burn.org

A landfill ban alone is not enough. [9]Landfill bans have been introduced in seven European countries. There is consistent evidence that such measures have led to increased waste-to-energy incineration rather than boosting recycling. They have also failed to promote waste prevention and reuse, particularly where supply-dependent contracts were set, where municipalities are obliged to provide a minimum quantity of waste to the incinerator. In Austria and Norway, landfill bans even brought decreases in recycling rates.

The best way to limit landfill and incineration is to set a cap on residual waste amountsThe Flemish Government has successfully promoted reuse and

recycling through restrictions on landfilling and incineration by increasing tariffs and levies for them. At the same time,

Flanders introduced bans for landfilling and incineration of separated waste streams and unsorted waste [10]. These restrictions led to the highest recycling and

composting rates in Europe, and to ever-decreasing amounts of residual waste [11]. The region has achieved

its legal goal of maximum of 150kg of residual waste per capita per year, which is the strictest in Europe. The next legal target is 141kg by 2022 [12]. These measures open up possibilities to further reduce this amount and therefore reduce the disposal of waste in landfills and incinerators.

• Introduce a ban on landfill and incineration of untreatedwaste by 2020, with treatment meaning at least stabilisationof organic waste and sorting of mixed municipal waste, andthe prohibition of landfilling and incineration of recyclable andcompostable waste by 2025

• Set a target on maximum residual waste per capita in a stagedmanner between 2020 and 2030, aiming at less than 50 kg percapita per year by 2030

• An obligation for Member States to gradually increase taxes onlandfill and incineration as part of the notification process fornational waste management plans by the European Commission

• No EU funding for new landfills and incineration facilities• More stringent BREFs for landfills and incinerators• Prohibit the possibility of supply-dependent contracts in public

procurement for disposal and waste treatment facilities• Prevent Member States from using energy recovery from

untreated waste to account for any part of their renewableenergy achievements

• Guidance on multi-source district heating, in particularrecovering industrial heat, and no EU funding for districtheating relying only on waste to energy supply

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

CASE STUDIES

Re-use and recycling creates many more jobs than incineration and landfilling. [7]

Ultra-fine particles, including those produced in incinerators such as PCBs, dioxins and furans, cause an estimated 2 million deaths worldwide every year. [8]

C D

Durables reuseRecycling manufacturing

Recycling sortingLandfilling

Incernation

0Jobs per 10,000 tons of materials

Jobs creation: Recycling & Reuse vs Disposal

10 20 30 40 50

Residual waste per capita per year

60 70

X2Million

/year

% Difference between the amount of waste incinerated /recycled in the year before introduction of the ban and in 2013

Waste incinerated Waste recycled

125

100

75

50

25

0

-25AT BE DK DE NL SE CHNO

1995 2000 2014 2022 2030325 kg 191 kg 146 kg 141 kg ? kg

BOOSTING RECYCLINGTHROUGH AMBITION AND STANDARDISATION

The amount of waste generated per person in the EU amounted to 481 kg in 2013. The share of this waste that is recycled or composted has steadily increased from 18% in 1995 to 43% by 2013 [1]. This would not have been possible without legally-binding targets.

Recycling remains only the third-best option in the waste treatment hierarchy – preventing waste and preparing it to reuse are paramount, and should be the focus of a circular economy. However, the benefits of recycling compared to

disposing and extracting new virgin resources for products are huge. They include reducing impacts on human health and environment and providing more job opportunities. Grasping this full potential requires recycled material to be of highest quality to be re-injected in the economy.

Boosting recycling relies on setting ambitious targets, and making sure countries across the EU consistently use the right methodology to record recycling rates.

The EU’s 43% recycling rate in 2013 hides a more complex picture: recycling rates vary widely between Member States. In some countries the rate is over 60%, while it stands at less than 20% in others [2]. According to the existing 2008 Waste Framework Directive, all countries must achieve at least a 50% recycling rate for Municipal Solid Waste by 2020. However, this figure is also currently undermined by national governments being able to pick and choose between four different calculation methodologies.

For example, some Member States report recycling rates based on only plastic, paper, metal and glass – and only for household waste. More comprehensive calculations, based on all waste across whole municipalities such as those conducted by Eurostat show these to

be artificially high. For example, the 43% recycling rate claimed by Lithuania is twice as high as the rate calculated by the more thorough Eurostat methodology [3].

Crucial also is the level of ambition of the targets. All reports, including the European Commission’s own impact assessment [4], show that the higher the target, the better the outcomes for our economy, job creation and mitigating climate change.

All things considered, there is a need for setting ambitious recycling targets, associated with quality standards and based on a consistent, comprehensive methodology such as the one performed by Eurostat.

WHAT IS THE SITUATION?

FACTS AND FIGURES

A BIN 2013 THE EUGENERATED 2.5 BILLION TONS OF WASTE

M O R E T H A N 5 0 %OF THIS WAS INCINERATED OR LANDFILLED [1]

57%

43%

?% = NOT RECYCLABLE

RECYCLING IS GOOD FOR JOBS:A H I G H

70%

COULD BRING 1/6 UNEMPLOYED YOUTHI N T H E E U BACK INTO WORK [5]

INTENSIVEREUSEACTIVITIESRECYCLING TARGET

7 % 50 % 39 %

Waste Reported rates using weaker calculation methodology

More comprehensive methodology (Eurostat)

Countries can artificially boost their recycling rates using weak methodologies [6]

FOR MORE INFORMATIONEuropean Commission - http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/ ACR+ http://www.acrplus.org/index.php/en/ Friends of the Earth Europe - https://www.foeeurope.org/materials-and-waste

It is possible to boost very low recycling rates to ambitious levels above the EU average in a decade.

In under ten years Ljubljana has become a frontrunner in recycling, sitting at 20% above the overall EU recycling

rate and 10 % above the bloc’s 2020 targets [8]. In 2004 it had no proper separate

collection in place, and its waste management operator SNAGA is now committed to halving the

amount of residuals and increasing separate collection to 78% by 2025. On average 61% of waste is separated at source, while only 121kg of non-recyclable waste is generated per inhabitant per year. EU-wide averages are 42% and 285kg respectively. All this would have been impossible without ambitious targets.

Measurements matter – France monitors real recycling.

True recycling means what is actually recycled and re-injected into the economy, without any

residues. At the moment, EU Member States only have to report what is sent

to recycling, instead of what comes out of it. Some Member States even report what is collected and sent to sorting

plants, even if a proportion of this is removed at the sorting stage and sent

to landfill or incinerated.

The difference between these ways of measuring recycling is large. In France, which monitors the difference between waste collected and waste that is fed into the recycling process, it was found that a third of the waste was lost during the sorting process in 2012. France also monitors what is actually recycled and re-injected in the economy – without the residues from the recycling process [9].

• Maintain high recycling targets for all, making sure the EU and more advanced Member States effectively support the less advanced ones. The higher the level of ambition, the higher the economic and environmental benefits across the board

• Define a unique harmonised calculation and reporting method at EU level to ensure proper monitoring and comparability between Member States

• Ensure this methodology means a true representation of what recycling is – with the goal of cutting waste. For example, the residues of sorting plants which are sent to landfill and incineration should not be counted. Instead what should be measured is the output of recycling processes – the truly recycled material that is re-injected into the economy

• Define European quality standards for what can be accounted as legal recycling achievement as close as possible to virgin materials

• Recycling must take place in installations certified to operate according to best available technologies (BREFs standards) defined at EU level, including recycling operations performed outside Europe

• Account for the environmental benefits of recycling, particularly CO2 savings in the EU Emissions Trading System

• Consider economic incentives and tax rebates for products that integrate recycled content – particularly high-quality recycled plastics

C D

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

15% 59%

61%

CASE STUDIES

THE EFFECT OF USINGDIFFERENT METHODOLOGIESFOR RECYCLING RATE REPORTING

Recycling materials saves huge amounts of energy compared to extracting virgin resources [7]

95%

40%

24%

70%

5-30%

60%

Alu

min

ium

Pape

r

Card

boar

dPl

asti

cs

Gla

ssSt

eel

MT23 %

SE

62 %

UK

43 %

WASTE RESIDUAL WASTE

RECYCLING RATEL J U B L J A N A 2004-2014

CZ

49,6 %17 %

HU

39,8 % 22 %LT

43 % 21 %IT

38,5 % 33 %

REFERENCESINTRODUCTION[1] UpdatedversionoftheProgressReportontheRoadmaptoaResourceEfficientEurope.EuropeanCommission:2014/15.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/pdf/Progress-report-roadmap.pdf[2] Towardsacirculareconomy:azerowasteprogrammeforEurope.EuropeanCommission,2014:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52014DC0398[3] Studyonmodellingoftheeconomicandenvironmentalimpactsofrawmaterialconsumption.EuropeanCommission,2014:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/resource_efficiency/pdf/RMC.pdf[4] Towardsthecirculareconomy–economicandbusinessrationaleforanacceleratedtransition.EllenMacArthurFoundation,2013:

http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/Ellen-MacArthur-Foundation-Towards-the-Circular-Economy-vol.1.pdf[5] EconomicGrowthPotentialofMoreCircularEconomies.WRAP,2015:

http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/circular-economy-study-identifies-3-million-jobs-across-europe

MEASURING AND MONITORING RESOURCE EFFICIENCY[1] Greeneconomiesaroundtheworld?Implicationsofresourceusefordevelopmentandtheenvironment.MonikaDittrich,StefanGiljum,StephanLutter,ChristinePolzin,2012:

http://seri.at/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/green_economies_around_the_world.pdf[2] Mappingresourceprices:thepastandthefuture.Ecorys/EuropeanCommission,2012:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/resource_efficiency/pdf/summary_mapping_resource_prices.pdf[3] TheEUincludedresourceefficiencyinitsstrategyforEurope2020.ActiononresourceefficiencyisalsopartoftheEU’s7thEnvironmentalActionProgramme(7EAP)

andtheEuropeanCommissionlauncheditsRoadmaptoaResource-EfficientEuropein2011[4] Eurostat,2012:http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Waste_treatment,_2012_lb.png[5] Resourceefficiencybriefing,EuropeanEnvironmentalAgency,2015:www.eea.europa.eu/soer-2015/europe/resource-efficiency[6] Economy-widematerialflowindicators.SERI:www.materialflows.net/background/accounting/indicators-on-the-economy-wide-level/[7] Materialresources,productivityandtheenvironment,OECD:

www.oecd.org/greengrowth/MATERIAL%20RESOURCES,%20PRODUCTIVITY%20AND%20THE%20ENVIRONMENT_key%20findings.pdf[8] SeeEuropeanEnvironmentAgencyindicators:

www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/ecological-footprint-of-european-countries/ecological-footprint-of-european-countries-2[9] SeeEuropeanEnvironmentAgencyreportSOER2015:www.eea.europa.eu/soer/synthesis/synthesis/chapter4.xhtml[10]SeeEUtaxreport2015:

[11]Recyclingoftechnologymetals:Opportunities&limitations.Dr.ChristianHagelüken,2010(p.12):http://www.umicore.com/storage/migrate/2010CMD_Recycling.pdf[12]Decouplingnaturalresourceuseandenvironmentalimpactsfromeconomicgrowth,UNEP2011:

www.unep.org/resourcepanel/Publications/Decoupling/tabid/56048/Default.aspx[13]Seewww.gov.cn/zwgk/2013-02/05/content_2327562.htm(inChinese)

WASTE PREVENTION[1] Analysisoftheevolutionofwasteproductionandthescopeofwasteprevention.EuropeanCommissionDGEnvironment,2008:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/prevention/pdf/report_waste.pdf[2] WastepreventioninEurope.EuropeanEnvironmentagency,2014:www.eea.europa.eu/publications/waste-prevention-in-europe-2014[3] Seearticle29ofthe2008WasteFrameworkDirectivehttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/framework_directive.htm[4] Recyclingmeansbusiness.ILSR,2002:https://ilsr.org/recycling-means-business/[5] AdvancingResourceEfficiencyinEurope.EuropeanEnvironmentalBureau,2014:www.eeb.org/EEB/?LinkServID=4E9BB68D-5056-B741-DBCCE36ABD15F02F[6] SurfriderFoundation:www.surfrider.eu/en/surfrider-foundation-europe-celebrates-20-years-of-ocean-initiatives/[7] AdvancingResourceEfficiencyinEurope,EuropeanEnvironmentalBureau,2014:www.eeb.org/EEB/?LinkServID=4E9BB68D-5056-B741-DBCCE36ABD15F02F[8] Analysisoftheevolutionofwasteproductionandthescopeofwasteprevention.EuropeanCommissionDGEnvironment,2008:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/prevention/pdf/report_waste.pdf[9] Programmenationalpourlapréventiondesdéchets(page15).Ministèredel’Écologie,duDéveloppementdurableetdel’Énergie,2014:

www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Programme_national_prevention_dechets_2014-2020.pdf[10]Italianprogrammeforwasteprevention(page7),2013:www.minambiente.it/sites/default/files/archivio/normativa/dm_07_10_2013_programma.pdf[11]ZeroWasteEuropeCaseStudies:www.zerowasteeurope.eu/zw-library/case-studies/

INCINERATION AND LANDFILL[1] Eurostat,2015:http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/6757479/8-26032015-AP-EN.pdf/a2982b86-9d56-401c-8443-ec5b08e543cc[2] TheLandfillDirectivefrom1999andtheIndustrialEmissionsDirectivecoverincineration.See:http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/landfill_index.htm[3] Eurostat,2015:http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/6757479/8-26032015-AP-EN.pdf/a2982b86-9d56-401c-8443-ec5b08e543cc[4] Useofeconomicinstrumentsandwastemanagementprocedures.EuropeanCommissionDGEnvironment,2012:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/final_report_10042012.pdf[5] Seeforexample:Europe’swasteincinerationcapacitiesinacirculareconomy.VonGries,N&Wilts,H,2015:http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/doi/full/10.1680/

warm.14.00009[6] StopTrashingtheClimate.ILSR,Eco-Cycle&GAIA,2008:https://ilsr.org/stop-trashing-the-climate/[7] RecyclingmeansBusiness.InstituteforLocalSelf-Reliance,2002:https://ilsr.org/recycling-means-business[8] ProposedRingaskiddyWaste-to-EnergyFacility.Prof.BrianBroderick,2009:http://www.durhamenvironmentwatch.org/Incinerator%20Health/CVHRingaskiddyEvidenceFinal1.pdf

[9] Eurostat,2015:http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/6757479/8-26032015-AP-EN.pdf/a2982b86-9d56-401c-8443-ec5b08e543cc[10] GoodpracticeFlanders:Landfill&IncinerationPolicy.2014:

www.regions4recycling.eu/upload/public/Good-Practices/GP_OVAM_incineration-and-landfill-policy.pdf[11] OVAMdata:http://www.ovam.be/inventarisatie-huishoudelijke-afvalstoffen[12] OntwerpUitvoeringsplanhuishoudelijkafvalengelijkaardigbedrijfsafva.OVAM,2015:http://www.ovam.be/sites/default/files/atoms/files/Ontwerp%20uitvoeringsplan-

LR.pdfBOOSTING RECYCLING THROUGH AMBITION AND STANDARDISATION

[1] Eurostat,2015:http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/6757479/8-26032015-AP-EN.pdf/a2982b86-9d56-401c-8443-ec5b08e543cc[2] Municipalwastestatistics.Eurostat,2015:http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Municipal_waste_statistics[3] “ThereportedlevelofachievementundertheWFDtargetcanbemorethan3timeswhatisreportedtoEurostat”–EuropeanCommissionimpactassessment,2014

(p33):http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/target_review/ImpactAssessment.zip[4] See[3]andEuropeanCommissionaccompanyingdocument,2015:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52015SC0259&from=EN[5] AdvancingresourceefficiencyinEurope.EuropeanEnvironmentalBureau,2014:http://www.eeb.org/EEB/?LinkServID=4E9BB68D-5056-B741-DBCCE36ABD15F02F[6] Wastemanagementimpactassessment.EuropeanCommission,2014(p.34):http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/target_review/ImpactAssessment.zip[7] ThePriceofVirtue.TheEconomist,2007:http://www.economist.com/node/9302727[8] ThestoryofLjubljana.ZeroWasteEurope,2015:http://www.zerowasteeurope.eu/downloads/case-study-5-ljubljana/[9] Déchets,2015(p.51):http://asp.zone-secure.net/v2/index.jsp?id=6878/9267/59195

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES[1] CASregistry:www.cas.org/content/chemical-substances[2] APresentforLife.Greenpeace&WWF,2005:http://wwf.fi/mediabank/1093.pdf[3] ToxicChemicalsFoundinMinorityCordBlood.EnvironmentalWorkingGroup,2009:

www.ewg.org/news/news-releases/2009/12/02/toxic-chemicals-found-minority-cord-blood[4] Bodyburden:thepollutionofnewborns.EnvironmentalWorkingGroup,2005:

https://noharm-europe.org/sites/default/files/documents-files/51/Body_Burden_in_Newborns.pdf[5] Breastmilkcontainsflameretardantswithexposurepatternssimilartophased-outPBDEs.EnvironmentalHealthNews,2011:

www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/hbcd-flame-retardants-in-breast-milk-in-uk[6] LópezEspinosaMJ,GranadaA,CarrenoJ,SalvatierraM,Olea-SerranoF,OleaN.OrganochlorinepesticidasinplacentasfromSouthernSpainandsomerelated

factors.Placenta2007:28:631-638. FernandezMF,PareraJ,ArrebolaJP,MarinaLS,VrijheidM,LlopS,AbalosM,TardonA,CastañoA,AbadE,OleaN.Levelsofpolychlorinateddibenzo-p-dioxins,dibenzofuransanddioxin-likepolychlorinatedbiphenylsinplacentasfromtheSpanishINMAbirthcohortstudy.SciTotalEnviron.2012Dec15;441:49-56.doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.09.075.Epub2012.Nov4.PubMedPMID:23134768 CasasL,FernándezMF,LlopS,GuxensM,BallesterF,OleaN,IrurzunMB,RodríguezLS,RiañoI,TardónA,VrijheidM,CalafatAM,SunyerJ;INMAProject.UrinaryconcentrationsofphthalatesandphenolsinapopulationofSpanishpregnantwomenandchildren.EnvironInt.2011jul;37(5):858-66.

[7] OccurrenceofbrominatedflameretardantsinblackthermocupsandselectedkitchenutensilspurchasedontheEuropeanmarket.Samsonek&Puype,2013: www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19440049.2013.829246

[8] EuropeanChemicalsAgencyclassification:http://echa.europa.eu/addressing-chemicals-of-concern/harmonised-classification-and-labelling/annex-vi-to-clp[9] Eurostatwastestatistics,2015:http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Waste_statistics#Hazardous_waste_generation[10]HazardouswastereviewintheEU-28,Iceland,Norway,SwitzerlandandTurkey.EuropeanEnvironmentAgency,2015:

http://scp.eionet.europa.eu/Hazardous%20waste%20working%20paper_FINAL_19.6.2015_published.pdf[11]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_so_E1WfvMzJAGEPtgWWztH8QCy73FnX31LaeEcUanw/edit?usp=sharing

ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS FOR A CIRCULAR ECONOMY[1] Useofeconomicinstrumentsandwastemanagementprocedures.EuropeanCommissionDGEnvironment,2012:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/final_report_10042012.pdf[2] Useofeconomicinstrumentsandwastemanagementprocedures.EuropeanCommissionDGEnvironment,2012(p.6):

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/final_report_10042012.pdf[3] Useofeconomicinstrumentsandwastemanagementprocedures.EuropeanCommissionDGEnvironment,2012(p.7):

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/final_report_10042012.pdf[4] ComuneofDogliani:www.comune.dogliani.cn.it/comune-online/ufficio/ufficio-raccolta-differenziata/[5] DesignforEnvironmentIncentivesfromExtendedProducerResponsibility.OECD,2015:

www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=ENV/EPOC/WPRPW(2014)6/FINAL&docLanguage=En

PRODUCTS THAT LAST[1] C.A.Bakker,M.C.denHollander,E.vanHinte,Y.Zijlstra(2014):ProductsThatLast-productdesignforcircularbusinessmodels.TUDelft.

Realitycheck:Obsolescence.Oeko-InstitutestudyfortheGermanFederalEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(UBA),2014: www.oeko.de/en/press/press-releases/archive-press-releases/2015/reality-check-obsolescence

[2] Thevalueofconsumerelectronicsfortrade-inandre-sale.WRAP,2013www.wrap.org.uk/node/18473[3] WasteElectrical&ElectronicEquipment(WEEE).EuropeanCommission:http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/index_en.htm[4] Improvingproductreparability:PolicyoptionsatEUlevel.RREUSE,2015(p.3):

www.rreuse.org/making-repair-cheaper-and-easier-through-eu-policy[5] CircularEconomyEvidenceBuildingProgramme–RemanufacturingStudy.ZeroWasteScotlandetal,2015:www.zerowastescotland.org.uk/RemanufacturingReport[6] Recyclingisn’ttheAnswer;It’stheLastResort!IFIXIT:http://ifixit.org/recycling.

InternationalResourcePanelspecialreportonMetalRecycling–Opportunities,Limits,Infrastructure.UNEP,2013: http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel-old/Publications/MetalRecycling/tabid/106143/Default.aspx

[7] Realitycheck:Obsolescence.Oeko-InstitutestudyfortheGermanFederalEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(UBA),2014: www.oeko.de/en/press/press-releases/archive-press-releases/2015/reality-check-obsolescenc

[8] CorporateretailerspartnerwithreusecharitiestosupplypeoplelivinginpovertyintheUKwithquality,reusableitems.Furniturere-usenetwork,2015: www.frn.org.uk/frn-news/345-press-release-corporate-retailers-partner-with-reuse-charities-to-supply-people-living-in-poverty-in-the-uk-with-quality-reusable-items.html

[9] Greenhousegasemissionsinventory.Anovo,2014:www.anovo.com/uploads/files/INR.COR.QD.001_2014_ANOVO_CarbonFootprintReport.pdf

WHY DESIGN MATTERS[1] Deliveringresourceefficientproducts:howEcodesigncandriveacirculareconomyinEurope.EuropeanEnvironmentalBureau,2015:

www.eeb.org/index.cfm/news-events/news/cutting-resource-use-it-s-in-the-design EcodesignDirectiveversion2.0-fromEnergyEfficiencytoResourceEfficiency.Danishgovernmentstudy,2015: http://mst.dk/service/publikationer/publikationsarkiv/2015/feb/ecodesign-directive-version-20/ Newmethodtoassesstheresourceefficiencyofproducts.EuropeanCommissionJointResearchCentre,2014:https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/new-method-assess-resource-efficiency-products

[2] FlashEurobarometer367–AttitudesofEuropeansTowardsBuildingtheSingleMarketforGreenProducts.EuropeanCommission,2013: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_367_sum_en.pdf.

[3] Acirculareconomyforsmartdevices.GreenAlliance,2015: www.green-alliance.org.uk/a_circular_economy_for_smart_devices.php

[4] Deliveringresourceefficientproducts:howEcodesigncandriveacirculareconomyinEurope.EuropeanEnvironmentalBureau,2015: www.eeb.org/index.cfm/news-events/news/cutting-resource-use-it-s-in-the-design

[5] HowEcodesigncanhelptheenvironmentbymakingproductssmarter.EuropeanCommission: http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/5187/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native

[6] SeeEuropeanEnvironmentalBureaustudy‘DeliveringResource-EfficientProducts’(2015): www.eeb.org/index.cfm/library/report-delivering-resource-efficient-products/

[7] StudytoestablishtheWorkingPlan2015-2017fortheEUEcodesignDirective.Oeko-Institutetal,2015:www.ecodesign-wp3.eu/documents[8] Materialflowanalysisandenergyrequirementsofmobilephonematerialrecoveryprocesses.Navazoetal,2014:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11367-013-0653-6#/page-1[9] TowardsacirculareconomyVol.1and2.EllenMacArthurFoundation,2012/13:www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications

Specificdataonsmartphonecollection:http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/interactive-diagram/in-depth-mobile-phones[10]L’increvable.JamesDysonFoundation,2015:www.jamesdysonaward.org/projects/lincrevable