European Economic and Social Committee
NAT/676
Circular economy
Brussels, 21 January 2016
WORKING DOCUMENT
of the
Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment
on the
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Closing the loop - An EU
action plan for the circular economy – COM(2015) 614 final
Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive
94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste - COM(2015) 596 final – 2015/0276 (COD)
Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive
2008/98/EC on waste - COM(2015) 595 final – 2015/0275 (COD)
Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive
1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste - COM(2015) 594 final - 2015/0274 (COD)
and on the
Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives
2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles, 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste
batteries and accumulators, and 2012/19/EU on waste electrical and electronic equipment COM(2015) 593 final - 2015/0272 (COD
_____________
Rapporteur: Mr Cillian Lohan
_____________
To the members of the Study Group on the Circular economy
(Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment)
N.B.:
This document will be discussed at the meeting on 28 January 2016 beginning at 9.30 a.m.
Document submitted for translation: 12 January 2016
Administrators: Mr Versmann
Mr Porcher
NAT/676 – EESC-2016-00042-00-00-DT-TRA (EN) 1/12
Rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 99 — 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel — BELGIQUE/BELGIË
Tel. +32 25469011 — Fax +32 25134893 — Internet: http://www.eesc.europa.eu
EN
Study Group on
Circular economy
President:
Martin Siecker (NL – II)
Rapporteur:
Cillian Lohan (IE-III)
Members:
Brian Curtis (UK - II)
Jan Dirx (NL – III)
Dorota Gardias (PL – II)
Ioannis Kolyvas (GR – III)
István Komoróczki (HU–I) (Rule 62 – Dubravska)
Tellervo Kylä-Harakka-Ruonala (FI- I)
Thierry Libaert (FR – III)
Luís Mira (PT-I)
Antonello Pezzini (IT-I) (Rule 62 – Reale)
Josep Puxeu Rocamora (ES-I)
Mário Soares (PT-II)
Elżbieta Szadzińska (PL-III)
Catalina Ana Vicens Guillén (ES-II)
Experts:
Walter Stahel
NAT/676 – EESC-2016-00042-00-00-DT-TRA (EN) 2/12
On 22 December 2015, the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council decided to consult
the European Economic and Social Committee, under Articles 43(2) and 304 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union, on the
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Closing the loop - An EU
action plan for the circular economy – COM (2015) 614 final
Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive
94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste - COM(2015) 596 final – 2015/0276 (COD)
Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive
2008/98/EC on waste - COM(2015) 595 final – 2015/0275 (COD)
Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive
1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste - COM(2015) 594 final - 2015/0274 (COD)
Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives
2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles, 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste
batteries and accumulators, and 2012/19/EU on waste electrical and electronic equipment COM(2015) 593 final - 2015/0272 (COD)
The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on ...
At its ... plenary session, held on … (meeting of ...), the European Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by ... votes to ... with ... abstentions.
*
*
*
1.
Conclusions and recommendations
1.1
This point will be drafted following the discussions at the first study group meeting.
2.
Introduction
The following is a copy-paste from the info-pack
NAT/676 – EESC-2016-00042-00-00-DT-TRA (EN) 3/12
2.1
Switching from a linear extract-transform-use-throw away economy to a circular one where
waste can be turned into resources is generally seen as a positive move. It makes the economy
more sustainable and reduces its environmental footprint through better resource
management, reduced extraction and pollution; it also enables businesses to gain a
competitive edge thanks to a better management of raw materials, while making the economy
less dependent on imported – potentially critical and rare – materials; it also provides new
economic opportunities and new markets, within and outside Europe, and leads to the creation
of new local jobs. Policies in favour of a more circular economy typically cover all the
product lifecycle, from conception to disposal, with a focus on design, waste prevention,
repair, re-use and recycling.
2.2
On 2 December 2015, the European Commission unveiled a revised package on the circular
economy. The proposals include:


a non-legislative section including a Communication Closing the loop – An EU action
plan for the Circular Economy focusing more on the production processes, including in a
number of targeted industrial sectors; it also comprises of a specific timeline for proposed
measures up until 2017;
a legislative section: more specifically a series of modifications to the European existing
legislation on waste treatment and recycling.
2.3
The new proposals replace the previous package which the European Commission headed by
José Manuel Barroso issued in July 2014 in the framework of the EU2020 Flagship Initiative
"A Resource Efficient Europe". This 2014 package introduced proposals to – among others –
modify the legislation on waste by raising the recycling targets (70% for municipal waste and
80% for packing waste by 2030 with intermediate steps), ban landfilling of recyclable and
biodegradable waste and phase out landfilling of all recoverable materials; it also included a
reduction of food waste by 30% by 2025 and a green action plan for SMEs.
2.4
However, the Commission led by Jean-Claude Juncker and First Vice-President
Frans Timmermans decided to withdraw the package from the legislative agenda in its 2015
work programme and committed to come forward with a more ambitious and country-specific
one by the end of 2015. The new package's preparation within the Commission was
coordinated by First Vice-President Frans Timmermans, in charge of Sustainability, and
Vice-President Jyrki Katainen, responsible for Growth, Jobs, Investment and
Competitiveness, associating closely Commissioners Karmenu Vella (Environment, Maritime
Affairs and Fisheries) and Elżbieta Bieńkowska (Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship
and SMEs)
NAT/676 – EESC-2016-00042-00-00-DT-TRA (EN) 4/12
3.
General comments
3.1
Importance of the transition to a circular economy for:




3.2
General assessment whether recommendations of the NAT/651 opinion 3 on the previous
circular economy package have been followed:






3.3
1
2
3
Decoupling economic progress from the use of (non-renewable) natural resources.
Long-term sustainability and resilience of the EU economy, creating jobs and growth and
improving competitiveness.
Benefits of the circular economy according to EllenMacArthur/McKinsey, Club of Rome.
Implementation of SDGs (in particular SDGs number 7 on affordable and clean energy,
8 on decent work and economic growth, 9 on sustainable industrialisation and innovation,
12 on responsible consumption and production, 13 on climate action, 14 on marine
resources and 15 on ecosystems and biodiversity) and the 7th Environment Action
Programme1 as well as the Commission Resource Efficiency Roadmap2.
The new circular economy package is more comprehensive. There is less focus on waste.
It provides more measures "upstream" the life-cycle. In particular, it provides an action
plan with clear timeline, process and some information about budgets (as asked for in 1.3
NAT/651). One of the key provisions of this action plan foresees the creation of an EUwide market for secondary raw materials, as recommended by the previous EESC opinion
(6.2).
On the other hand, the proposals for amendments of the legal framework on waste
treatment and recycling have been weakened (or made more realistic as regards the
required approval by Member States).
In other words: a strengthened action plan and weakened legal proposals.
Has the integration into other EU policies been improved? (1.4 NAT/651). At least this
should be the case since the new package was led by FVP Timmermans and VP Katainen.
But has this had a substantial impact on the outcome?
Have the measures concerning employment been made more specific?
Waste hierarchy: the new action plan provides more measures on waste prevention, re-use
and preparation for re-use. However, these measures seem not to be very efficient.
This will be part of the discussion at the first study group
The Commission should be asked to provide more clarity about the different action plans
issued over the past years and their interrelation: the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe,
the Decision 1386/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on a General
Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 and the EU action plan for the Circular
Decision 1386/2013/EU.
COM(2011)571 final.
NAT/651, http://webapi.eesc.europa.eu/documentsanonymous/eesc-2014-05002-00-00-ac-tra-en.doc.
NAT/676 – EESC-2016-00042-00-00-DT-TRA (EN) 5/12
Economy. Many of the activities brought forward by the recent action plan have already been
mentioned in the previous initiatives. For some of these activities it would be important to
know what progress has been made. For other activities it would be important to know why
they deviate from activities previously mentioned.
3.4
The Commission should clarify where the Circular Economy Package fits in to the hierarchy
of action plans and other initiatives. There should be some clarity as to the extent to which
future legislation and action plans from a variety of Directorate Generals will have to be
cognisant of the Circular Economy Action Plan, and how it can be ensured that other
initiatives from the Commission are not formulated in a vacuum without giving due regard to
the objectives of the principles of a circular economic model at all levels.
3.5
The action plan clearly goes in the right direction. However, the critical question is: is the sum
of the measures sufficient to shift European economies from the current development path
(which will also increase resource efficiency) to a truly circular model which would decouple
economic prosperity from the use of natural resources (absolute decoupling) and multiply
economic and social benefits (MacArthur Foundation, Growth within: A circular economy
vision for a competitive Europe4, p. 32, p. 39, the resource-benefit curve)? In other words: is
the action plan suited to address the underlying systemic challenges and does it create a
sufficient framework to start the transition? For systemic challenges, see European
Environment Agency, The European environment — state and outlook 2015 5 , synthesis
report, 2015, p. 141.
3.6
In the Questions and Answers information pack published by the Commission in tandem with
the Circular Economy Package there is a recognition that "we have to use our resources in a
smarter, more sustainable way. It is clear that the linear model of economic growth we relied
on in the past is no longer suited for the needs of today's modern societies in a globalised
world". Are the measureable targets and strategies set out in the package that followed
sufficient to deal with such a clearly identified problem of a need to urgently redefine our
linear, take-make-use-dispose, model for economic prosperity?
3.7
For the legislative proposals on waste the Commission has provided an impact assessment6.
Has the non-legislative action plan been based on an evidence-based assessment of the
benefits and cost of a transition to a circular economy and an assessment of the most effective
and proportionate measures to achieve this objective?
Examples: Ellen MacArthur Foundation, McKinsey, Growth within: A circular economy
vision for a competitive Europe, p. 34, table 1, selected literature on the macroeconomic
4
5
6
http://www.mckinsey.com/client_service/sustainability/latest_thinking/growth_within__a_circular_economy_vision_for_a_competitive_europe
http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/pdf/analytical_note_swd_259_en.pdf
NAT/676 – EESC-2016-00042-00-00-DT-TRA (EN) 6/12
impact of the circular economy, including Circular Economy & Benefits for Society7, report
by the Club of Rome, October 2015 (EN).
3.8
The Committee acknowledges the efforts of the Commission to involve a broad range of
stakeholders and experts, as called for in the opinion NAT/6528, paragraph 1.3. The transition
to a circular economy is a long-term process and needs ownership at all levels and sectors.
However, how will it be ensured that the political momentum will be kept, coordination
between various governmental and non-governmental partners will be ensured and required
partnerships created? A board/platform is missing, such as the Resource Efficiency Platform9.
In the Communication, the Commission underlines its intention to actively engage
stakeholders in the implementation of the action plan10 – but how? More precise information
is needed. In the opinion NAT/652 the Committee offered to actively promote networks of
civil society players advocating the transition to a circular economy model and also explore
the setting up and management of a European platform for the circular economy.
4.
Specific comments
4.1
Production
4.1.1
In previous publications (resource efficiency roadmap, chapter 5) mobility, housing and food
have been identified as being responsible for 70 - 80% of the adverse environmental impact.
In the action plan the Commission announces the development under the Ecodesign Directive
product requirements relevant to the circular economy. However, this directive only applies to
energy related products. Does the Commission intend to propose an extension of the directive
to other product groups with high relevance to other environmental impacts, in particular
resource consumption? Clear deadlines for the activity are missing.
4.1.2
So far, extended producer responsibility has contributed to the establishment of separate
collection and take-back schemes for waste, but not resulted in a substantial change of the
product designs and business models towards a circular economy. How will it be ensured that
the new EPR incentives will work into that direction?
4.1.3
Increased use of industrial by-products as raw materials for other industries (industrial
symbiosis) shall contribute to a more efficient use of resources. Information is lacking on how
the Commission will use the amended Art 5 of the Directive on waste in order to achieve this
objective.
7
8
9
10
http://www.clubofrome.org/?p=8851
http://webapi.eesc.europa.eu/documentsanonymous/eesc-2014-05003-00-00-ac-tra-en.doc.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/resource_efficiency/index_en.htm.
COM(2015)614/2, p. 20.
NAT/676 – EESC-2016-00042-00-00-DT-TRA (EN) 7/12
4.1.4
The Commission announced a Horizon 2020-funded activity on "possible planned
obsolescence practices". Is this sufficient to combat planned obsolescence or should it address
this critical issue as soon as possible in its revision of the Eco-design Directive?
4.1.5
The Commission also announced the creation of a "European Resource Efficiency Excellence
Centre", with a particular focus on resource utilisation in SMEs. This was already included
into the previous circular economy package and has led to some activities funded under
COSME in 2014. What are the next steps for the creation of this Centre and what objectives
will it have?
4.2
Consumption
4.2.1
Responsible consumer choices require meaningful consumer information. Therefore the
development of a product environmental footprint methodology is to be welcomed. However,
testing was already mentioned in the resource efficiency roadmap 2011 (chapter 3.1). What
progress has been made in the past years and when will be methodology be published?
4.2.2
As the Commission has repeatedly stressed, putting the prices right and internalising
environmental cost is a basic requirement to influence consumer behaviour. There is a need
for strong leadership and the identification of practical incentives to ensure that this happens
in practice. Products that are priced to reflect their true cost in terms of each of the pillars of
sustainability, social, environmental and economic, will drive behavioural change.
4.2.3
The role of the Sharing Economy in promoting a Circular Economy must be included as part
of any strategy aimed at affecting behavioural change amongst consumers. In this field
previous EESC opinions should be considered.
4.2.4
With regard to the latest Annual Growth Survey the project of greening of the European
Semester seem to have been abandoned (no mentioning of progress in the introduction of
environmental taxes or the phasing out of environmental harmful subsidies).
4.2.5
Boosting reuse and repair schemes could be a good example for the use of economic
instruments. Has the Commission thought of applying reduced VAT fares to reuse and repair
activities? Does it envisage provisions to boost support for these sectors, be it at regulatory
level (e.g. Eco-design Directive) or at financial level (e.g. Horizon 2020 or COSME)?
4.2.6
Green public procurement is an important driver to promote sustainable consumption. What is
the current share of GPP compared to the total public consumption and what are the
Commission targets for 2020?
NAT/676 – EESC-2016-00042-00-00-DT-TRA (EN) 8/12
4.3
Waste management
4.3.1
The legislative part of the circular economy package amending various directives on waste
has clearly been weakened compared to the proposal made in 2014. The Commission should
be asked for the reasons. The Commission proposal is also not matching the ambitious targets
on waste prevention and recycling called for by the European Parliament in July 2015 (A80215/2015).
4.3.2
The proposal of an obligation of Member States to introduce economic instruments to
promote the waste hierarchy (Art 4(3) Directive 2008/98) and to take waste prevention
measures (Art 9 Directive 2008/98) is to be appreciated. However, it is not clear whether
Member States will have to revise existing waste prevention programmes with regard to the
new provisions (Art 29).
4.3.3
Waste prevention: whereas the Parliament had called for prevention targets for municipal,
commercial and industrial waste, the legislative proposal does not provide any of these. The
Commission says legislative approaches in these fields are not suitable and favours soft law
options such as the Best Available Techniques reference documents (BREFs)11.
4.3.4
The 30% food waste reduction target of the previous proposal has been replaced by a referral
to the food waste reduction target in the SDGs.
4.3.5
The recycling targets for municipal waste and packaging waste for 2030 have been reduced
compared to the previous proposal, although the accompanying staff working document12
comes to the result that higher recycling targets are associated with greater financial savings
and societal and environmental benefits (p. 13, 15 and 17). However, slightly less ambitious
targets might be justified if compensated by a realistic perspective of implementation. It has
to be acknowledged that the Commission has set up an elaborated and realistic
implementation strategy addressing the specific circumstances of individual Member States
and combining the measures with financial instruments of the EU Cohesion Policy and other
instruments13.
4.3.6
Separate collection of waste streams seems indispensable in order to ensure closing loops
with high quality secondary raw materials (this applies at least for paper, glass and biowaste). Art 11(1) of Directive 2008/98/EU on waste requires separate collection schemes for
at least paper, metal, plastic, glass by 2015. The previous proposal completed that by
introducing separate collection for bio-waste by 2015. Instead of these strict separate
collection requirements the new proposal only entails a "soft" – and in practice less effective provision requiring separate collection "where technically, environmentally and economically
11
12
13
http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/.
SWD(2015) 259 final.
Commission staff working document SWD(2015)260 final.
NAT/676 – EESC-2016-00042-00-00-DT-TRA (EN) 9/12
feasible and appropriate". The Commission should be asked why it intends to refrain from a
strict separate collection requirement.
4.4
From waste to resources
4.4.1
With the uncertainty about the quality of secondary raw materials and the legal uncertainties
in the interaction of legislation on waste, products and chemicals the Commission is
addressing major obstacles for a functioning of the secondary raw materials market. The
Commission does not evaluate why the vehicle of the current Directive 2008/98 on waste, the
establishment of "end-of-waste" criteria has not proven to be successful.
4.4.2
As for measures to increase the demand for secondary raw materials the Commission had
committed in the resource efficiency roadmap to more ambitious measures, such as assessing
the introduction of minimum "recycled material rates" for key products. The Commission
should explain why these initiatives have not been followed up in the action plan. Improving
the use of secondary raw materials in the production of new goods might also be a field for
public-private partnerships at EU level. Some European sectors seem to be ready for
commitments on circular economy. E.g. the European paper industry recently announced that
they will commit to increasing the current paper recycling rate of nearly 72%14.
4.5
Priority areas
The Commission should be asked about the evidence base for the selection of these priority areas. In
previous publications (resource efficiency roadmap, chapter 5) mobility, housing and food have been
identified as being responsible for 70 - 80% of the adverse environmental impact.
Plastics
4.5.1
The Commission says it will shortly come forward with a "strategy on plastics in the circular
economy addressing issues such as recyclability, biodegradability, the presence of hazardous
substances […] and marine litter"15.
4.5.2
The 2014 Communication on the circular economy included a 30% reduction target for the
10 most common types of litter found on beaches by 202016. The 2015 Communication has
nothing similar but suggests that work is ongoing towards this objective regardless of the
previous package's withdrawal. What progress has been made so far and is a new objective
for marine litter reduction envisaged in the strategy on plastics?
14
15
16
http://www.cepi.org/pressrelease/CircularEconomyDec2015.
COM(2015) 614/2, p. 14.
COM(2014) 398, p. 12.
NAT/676 – EESC-2016-00042-00-00-DT-TRA (EN) 10/12
4.5.3
In parallel, the Commission is expected to deliver on the highly sensitive issue of regulatory
definitions and criteria for endocrine disruptors (which are probably one of the "hazardous
substances" the Commission refers to) after the publication of an impact assessment, probably
in 2016. The Plastics sector is certainly one of the most endocrine-disruptor-intensive
industries; recycling it appropriately might require standards in terms of public health in light
of new scientific knowledge on persisting pollutants in general and new criteria for endocrine
disrupting substances in particular. How will the strategy on plastics in the circular economy
take these health-related aspects into consideration?
Food waste
4.5.4
The Committee is currently preparing an exploratory opinion Towards more sustainable food
systems NAT/677. This opinion will probably also touch upon some measures mentioned in
the circular economy action plan. Coherence should be ensured when preparing the two
opinions.
Critical Raw Materials
4.5.5
What are the specific actions that will lead to innovation and investment by the business
sector in mining for CRM's from electronic devices such as smartphones?
Construction and demolition
4.5.6
Housing belongs together with mobility and food to the areas with the highest environmental
impacts. This is not only due to the energy consumption but also to the use of other natural
resources. Construction and demolition waste is in tonnage by far the biggest waste stream.
Closing loops with high quality recycling is therefore imperative. However, the legislative
proposal leaves the current target of 70% recycling and backfilling of construction and
demolition waste by 2020 untouched. This does not contribute to reaping the huge resource
potential of this waste stream. At least there targets should be differentiated for high quality
recycling and backfilling operations.
4.5.7
The previous circular economy package entailed a Commission communication on Resource
efficiency opportunities in the building sector. Already this communication provided hardly
any action plan, apart from plans for further assessment and analysis which are repeated in the
recent action plan. The Commission should be asked to report on progress with its analytical
works.
Biomass and Bio-based Products
4.5.8
Small scale family owned and run artisan food production businesses often already operate on
the principles of a circular economy model. Family run farms which are small to medium
sized across many Member States have high levels of re-use of resources and maximise
NAT/676 – EESC-2016-00042-00-00-DT-TRA (EN) 11/12
multiple uses from their initial energy or resource inputs. Their role, and the role of food
production in general needs to be considered in a transition to a circular model. There must
also be a tie-in with the EU Forest Strategy 2013.
4.6
Innovation, investment and other horizontal measures
4.6.1
There is a clear commitment to providing funding of over EUR 650 million for innovative
projects that support the objectives of the circular economy through the Horizon 2020 work
programme 2016-2017. Some analysis of the successes and failures of the circular economy
related aspects of the 2014-2015 work programme of Horizon 2020, specifically on "Waste: a
resource to re-use, recycle, and recovery raw materials" should be provided.
4.7
Monitoring progress towards a circular economy
4.7.1
In the previous circular economy package17, the Commission had announced assessing the
recommendation of the Resource Efficiency platform to introduce a headline target for
resource efficiency in the review of the Europe 2020 Strategy. This would be a way to
integrating this aspect into key policy sectors. The Commission should be asked about the
outcome of these assessments and whether such a headline target is still intended.
4.7.2
There is a need for an oversight and implementation body at the highest level to both ensure
implementation at an EU level to ensure coherence for other action plans and communications
coming from the Commission
_____________
17
COM(2014) 398, p. 14.
NAT/676 – EESC-2016-00042-00-00-DT-TRA (EN) 12/12