Evidences from the File Note on Circular Economy
Package for the Territorial Impact Assessment
Workshop
Framework Contract CDR/DE/191/2011, Order form 5163
Francesca Montevecchi,
Hubert Reisinger
Territorial Impact Assessment Workshop, 9 September 2014, Brussels
Background
• On 2 July 2014, the European Commission adopted the Circular Economy Package.
• Proposal for a Directive (COM (2014)397).
This package, among others, reviews:
• recycling and other waste-related targets in the EU Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC,
• the Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC
• the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive 94/62/EC.
Revised targets on waste
Impact on EU regions
Focus
• What is the overall EU picture concerning waste management and evidences on impact of current
legislation on regions?
• What will be the impact of revised targets on regions?Will some regions suffer more than others in
acieving the targets?
• What should be the focus of the TIA workshop?
Scope
• Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), Packaging Waste
• Landfilling, Recycling and Reuse
• EU Member States and Regions
State of implementation: MSW Recycling
Waste Framework Directive (Directive
2006/12/EC) :
• 50% by 2020 (preparation for reuse and
recycling)
Revised target :
• 70% by 2030
Two thirds of EU countries have recycling
levels below 40% in 2012
 extraordinary effort in order to achieve
the 2020 and 2025 targets
State of implementation: packaging waste recycling
Packaging Directive (Directive
94/62/EC ):
• 70 % by 2020
Revised target :
• Increase packaging waste
recycling/re-use to 80% in 2030
with material-specific targets.
 One third of EU Member States
have already achieved, or are on their
way to achieving the EU’s 2020 and
2025 targets (overall packaging)
 Data calculated based on all
packaging waste generated per year.
State of implementation: packaging waste recycling
 Problem: plastic waste, wooden waste
Possible barriers towards
full implementation include:
• failures in the collection system,
• lack of market demand for recyclates
• technical limitations of the recycling
process
• lack of end of quality criteria for recyclates
Landfillling directive the Landfill
Directive 1999/31/EC:
• 35% biowaste to landfill reduction
compared with the last 15 years
Revised target :
• phase out landfilling by 2025 for
recyclable waste (including
plastics, paper, metals, glass and
bio-waste) in non-hazardous
waste landfills, corresponding to a
maximum landfilling rate of 25%
 Half of the EU Member States still
landfill more than 50% of generated
waste, with peacks over 80%
 Landfilling bans and taxes
generally seems to have had a good
impact on increasing recycling
State of implementation: Landfilling of MSW
Impact of current waste targets
 At regional level the material recycling/composting/digestion rates of the majority of the regions ranged
from as low as 5% and as high as 70%.
 Two situations can be identified:
(1) MS with high rates of landfilling (> 70%) and low recycling rates:
 no substantial differences in recycling among regions, indicating implementation issues at a national
level and lack of local policies
 scarce implementation of EU directives into national legislation, sometimes lack of transposition of EU
legislation
(2) MS with low rates of landfilling and higher recycling rates:
 national recycling rates are generally not reflected at regional level, where recycling rates can vary on a
broad range (e.g. Austria, Belgium, Germany, and the UK).
 Wider differences in recycling rates among different regions
 Differences manly due to variations in the recycling of materials and bio-waste.
Implementation of waste management practices has different potential and
impacts depending on regional characteristics.
Impact of current waste targets
Regions with difficulties in implementing current targets:
• High-density urban areas have lower recycling rates and problems in implementing recycling systems (e.g.: Brussels,
Vienna, Hamburg, London, Paris). even cities with more than 20 years of experience in separate waste collection and
recycling systems seem to have difficulties in achieving recycling rates of more than 50% (lack of space for installing
all the bins for the separate collection)
• Low and population density may be a limiting factor for achieving high recycling rates mainly due to specific costs
for collecting and transporting municipal waste
• Municipalities with less than 10.000 inhabitants are more likely to achieve the 70% recycling targets (with peaks of
80%), although positive results are reported for urban aggregates with population between 1.000 and 20.000
inhabitants.
• A minimum per capita GDP of 20,000 €/year seems to be necessary to achieve material recycling rates above 40%.
However, a per capita GDP above 20,000 €/year does not guarantee a high recycling rate
• Regions with an early uptake of internet access show some tendency towards higher recycling rates
Outlook : overview of expected impact of revised waste targets on EU regions
 European Commission expects positive outcomes (financial, external, social, environmental) and
substantial jobs creation  Impact Assessement.
 At the current growth rate the EU as a whole would only reach MSW recycling targets in the year
2035. However, some deceleration must be expected when approaching higher recycling rates.
 Many regions in “pioneer” countries (e.g. Germany, Belgium) do not manage to achieve recycling
rates at the level of the new targets  doubts with respect to EU regions with less experience in
waste management.
Outlook : overview of expected impact of revised waste targets on EU regions
 At a regional level, less affluent, sparsely and very densely populated areas are constrained in meeting high
municipal waste recycling rates.
 Without additional supporting measures, the new targets could cause undesired effects on the territories,
such as:
• increase of incineration practices (both legal and illegal),
•
increase of illegal landfilling,
•
increase of traffic to transport waste to waste management facilities,
• decrease of quality of recycled material,
• market saturation
•
competition of primary material suppliers
• increase in the amount of hazardous substances dissipating from the economy to the environment.
Revised waste targets and jobs
 The EC Impact Assessment document: more than 180.000 direct jobs related to waste
management could be created by 2030
 Creation of jobs can be expected in the area of:
• waste collection, materials handling and processing of manufacturing products (e.g.
waste collection, sorting and reprocessing)  in territories with low recycling rates and
lacking waste treatment plants
• material re-manufacturing, material reuse, repair and upcycling (ex: second hand
markets, repair centres, etc)
• research (technological development)
Impacts on incineration practices
 Target for banning the landfilling of most of the plastic and non-recyclable fractions  increase in
incineration in the short term.
 Regional differences in waste management  Increased waste transport between regions lacking
in incineration capacities and regions with over-capacities may be the consequence.
 Excessive waste management costs for smaller islands  Illegal landfilling and non-compliant
waste incineration .
Conclusions
 Different degrees of applicability, feasibility and expected impacts, varying from country to country but
also from region to region.
 Some regions will suffer more than others in achieving waste targets  regions which have difficulties to
achieve high recycling rates today will probably not reach the new recycling targets until 2030.
 A target of activating the full waste prevention potential in all economic sectors in all the EU in only 10
years has to be qualified as extremely ambitious.
 Need for a systemic approach: strong policies able to influence products design and purchase, market
development, awareness, motivation and education of waste generators.
Conclusion: regions for the focus of the workshop
• Typ1: Metropolitan Regions (High density and city size)
• Typ2: Sparsely populated regions with population density of less than 12,5
inhabitants per km2
• Typ3: Islands under 1 Mil inhabitants with a large tourism sector (>15.000
overnight stays per 1.000 inhabitants)
• Typ4: Regions below 20.000 GDP/capita
• Typ5: All "problem" regions combined
• Typ6: Regions with positive prerequisites for waste management (GDP>20.000,
medium density, no touristic island)
Thank you
Reference:
- Montevecchi Francesca, Reisinger Hubert. File Note on Circular Economy Package for the Territorial Impact
Assessment Workshop. Framework Contract CDR/DE/191/2011, Order form 5163. Committee of the Regions,
2014, and Annexes .
Reference document and annexes can be consulted on :
http://cor.europa.eu/en/documentation/studies/Pages/studies.aspx
Contact Authors:
Francesca Montevecchi
Institute for Managing Sustainability, Vienna University of Economics and Business
www.sustainability.eu
francesca.montevecchi@wu.ac.at
Hubert Reisinger
Umweltbundesamt GmbH
www.umweltbundesamt.at
hubert.reisinger@umweltbundesamt.at