Framework Contract CDR/DE/191/2011 , Order form 5163 Francesca Montevecchi , Hubert Reisinger

1. 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

2. 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. Impact on EU regions Revisedtargets on waste

3. Focus • Whatistheoverall EU pictureconcerningwastemanagementandevidences on impactofcurrentlegislation on regions? • What will betheimpactofrevisedtargets on regions?Willsomeregionssuffermorethanothers in acievingthetargets? • Whatshouldbethefocusofthe TIA workshop? Scope • Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), PackagingWaste • Landfilling, Recycling andReuse • EU Member States andRegions

4. State ofimplementation: MSW Recycling • Waste Framework Directive(Directive 2006/12/EC) : • 50% by 2020 (preparationforreuseandrecycling) • Revisedtarget : • 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

5. State ofimplementation: packagingwasterecycling • PackagingDirective (Directive 94/62/EC ): • 70 % by 2020 • Revisedtarget : • 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 calculatedbased on allpackaging waste generated per year.

6. State ofimplementation: packagingwasterecycling •  Problem: plasticwaste, woodenwaste 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

7. Landfilllingdirectivethe Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC: • 35% biowaste tolandfillreductioncomparedwiththe last 15 years • Revisedtarget : • 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 ofthe EU Member States still landfillmorethan 50% ofgeneratedwaste, withpeacksover 80% •  Landfilling bans and taxes generally seems to have had a good impact on increasing recycling State ofimplementation: Landfillingof MSW

8. Impact ofcurrentwastetargets • 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%. • Twosituationscanbeidentified: • MS with high ratesoflandfilling (> 70%) andlowrecyclingrates: • no substantial differences in recycling among regions, indicating implementation issues at a national level and lack of local policies • scarceimplementationof EU directivesinto national legislation, sometimes lack oftranspositionof 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.

9. Impact ofcurrentwastetargets 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

10. Outlook : overviewofexpectedimpactofrevisedwastetargets 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.

11. Outlook : overviewofexpectedimpactofrevisedwastetargets 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.

12. 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 processingof 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) Revised waste targets and jobs

13. Impacts on incinerationpractices • Target forbanningthelandfillingofmostoftheplasticand non-recyclablefractionsincrease in incineration in theshortterm. • 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 .

14. 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.

15. Conclusion: regionsforthefocusoftheworkshop • 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)

16. Thankyou

17. 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 documentandannexescanbeconsulted on : • http://cor.europa.eu/en/documentation/studies/Pages/studies.aspx ContactAuthors:Francesca MontevecchiInstitute for Managing Sustainability, Vienna University of Economics and Businesswww.sustainability.eufrancesca.montevecchi@wu.ac.atHubert ReisingerUmweltbundesamt GmbHwww.umweltbundesamt.athubert.reisinger@umweltbundesamt.at