Framework Contract CDR/DE/191/2011, Order form 5163 Francesca Montevecchi, Hubert Reisinger Territorial Impact Assessment Workshop, 9 September 2014, Brussels Evidences from the File Note on Circular Economy Package for the Territorial Impact Assessment Workshop

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 Backgrou nd

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

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: MSW 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 State of implementation: packaging waste recycling

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

 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 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 and 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 Impact of current waste targets

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 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.

 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. Outlook : overview of expected impact of revised waste targets on EU regions

Revised waste targets and jobs  The EC Impact Assessment document: more than 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)

 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. Impacts on incineration practices

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  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 (> overnight stays per inhabitants) Typ4: Regions below 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

Contact Authors: Francesca Montevecchi Institute for Managing Sustainability, Vienna University of Economics and Business Hubert Reisinger Umweltbundesamt GmbH 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 Committee of the Regions, 2014, and Annexes. Reference document and annexes can be consulted on :