- freely available
Sustainability 2016, 8(7), 622; https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070622
2. Methodological Approach
2.1. Analysis of Existing Frameworks for Waste Management
2.2. Description and Analysis of Specific Instruments for an Innovative Waste Policy Mix
- The development of a policy mix for a resource efficient economy requires a systematic identification of resource relevant policy fields as a first step. Based on pertinent literature on Environmentally Extended Input Output assessments , policy fields were selected according to their resource intensity  and complemented by an assessment of their potential to improve resource efficiency [9,10,11]. This paper focuses on the policy field waste management, a well-established and often very much end-of-pipe oriented policy field with strong interlinkages to production processes, resource use and the end-of-life phase of materials (see Section 4). Within the scope of waste management, three types of instruments were identified and linked to three pathways : The harvest of low hanging fruits (i.e., an easily implemented instrument with prospective low barriers), the introduction of severe market interventions (i.e., with influences on the market systems), and a systemic transformation of production and consumption patterns.
- For the purpose to design a policy mix, the single instruments were examined regarding their essential characteristics based on the policy mix concept developed by Rogge and Reichardt  characterizing instruments by their goals, types and design features.
3. Investigation of Present Policy Frameworks, Institutions and Outcomes in the Waste Sectors at a National Scale
4. Instruments for an Innovative Resource Efficiency Oriented Circular Economy Policy Mix
4.1. Instrument 1: Waste Targets for Resource Efficiency
- Recycling targets refer to the weight of waste and neglect the ecological rucksacks related to them alongside their life cycle. Weight-based targets make sense from the perspective of securing disposal capacities, but they lead to a focus on recycling heavy stuff instead of the environmentally most relevant waste streams.
- The current recycling targets focus on the input for waste treatment procedures and do not take into account quality aspects of the resulting secondary raw materials. Based on the legal definitions set out in the Waste Framework Directive, a product or waste stream is “recycled” when it enters a specific waste treatment operation like shredding, incineration, etc. Again, this makes sense for the purpose of reducing waste volumes but it does not indicate how much of the raw materials contained in the waste stream are actually recovered and how it can be fed back into the production processes.
- The comparison of targets and their consequences for waste treatment and waste generation clearly shows that waste policy has an impact on recycling but it fails to influence the generation or composition of waste so far—although this should be the top priority of all waste policy and infrastructure planning according to the Waste Framework Directive.
4.2. Instrument 2: Mandatory Ecodesign Standards for Reuse and Repair-Ability
- Widening the scope of the European Ecodesign directive to reuse- and repair-ability criteria: The implementation of mandatory ecodesign standards for reuse and repair through the existing European Ecodesign directive is proposed by several studies [26,30,31]. Since the directive is already in place the feasibility could be a main reason for applying the directive for promoting reuse and repair on a European level . On the other hand, Oehlmann and Herlédan  argue that the agreement procedure of the implementing measures takes too long and runs the risk to be quickly technically out-dated. On average, the procedure takes 55 month while the innovation cycle of electrical and electronic equipment is often shorter. In addition, the data quality is poor, since manufactures are not obliged to provide specific technical or economic information of their products. Also market surveillance is inefficient, due to too few employees, insufficient budgets, inadequate surveillance infrastructures and sanctions. Insufficient cooperation of Member States and within industry and the absence of standardised measuring methods are further reasons for the inefficient market surveillance. Obviously, implementing mandatory ecodesign standards for reuse and repair of electrical and electronic equipment through the existing European Ecodesign directive can be a promising approach but possibly not the most effective, as long as no flanking measures are being implemented.
- Measuring of reuse- and repair-ability: Appropriate parameters are required to practically measure the reuse-ability and repair-ability. According to Brünning et al.  determining technical criteria for the assessment of the reuse-ability of electrical and electronic equipment are the types and varieties of parts and materials used, suitability for disassembly, cleaning and testing. Ardente and Mathieux  have proposed a threshold for the time needed for the disassembly of the products’ components under a standardised procedure. Further parameters, for instance, can be a limited number of bolds, the avoidance of glue or welding of parts and the availability of spare parts.
- Demand for ecodesigned products: The throw-away culture in which a quick turnover of (often cheap) goods and a low acceptance of reused products (e.g., social stigma, distrust regarding quality and safety) has become a deeply routed barrier on the consumer side. This may contribute to a low demand for even ecodesigned products. According to a 2011 Eurobarometer survey, the most common reasons for not buying second-hand products were related to concerns about product quality and usability (58% of mentions) . However, some best practice examples (e.g., Kringloop in Flandern, Revital in Austria) underpin the fact that repair and reuse can be practiced successfully when there is a strong support of reuse activities (see, e.g., ). In this respect, the linking of mandatory product ecodesign standards with a strong support of reuse activities will contribute to a greater cost-effectiveness of repair, but also to awareness rising and growing demand for repair and reuse, thus leading to circularity compliant with the waste hierarchy.
4.3. Instrument 3: Individual Producer Responsibility
- Responsibilities on national, European and global level: If responsibilities are not directly assigned to the manufacturer, fragmented in the producing company or different from country to country, the effectiveness of the instrument will be hampered. Manufacturers may hesitate to optimise their material choices and the product design as long as such obligations are limited to the national market. Even if manufacturers are the obligated producers, problems may arise due to too little interaction between the managers responsible for the WEEE Directive compliance and those for the product design. Moreover, different national policies for the management of WEEE can result in less effectiveness, as highlighted in the WEEE Directive: “In particular, different national applications of the ‘producer responsibility’ principle may lead to substantial disparities in the financial burden on economic operators. Having different national policies on the management of WEEE hampers the effectiveness of recycling policies. For that reason, the essential criteria should be laid down at the level of the Union” .
- Administrative costs vs. maximum incentives for improved design: The costs to producers of the end-of-life phase of their products can be either based on return shares or the producer establishes an individual handling of the downstream operations. The costs of the discarded products based on return shares can be determined by random sampling or by sorting each product exactly by brand name. In general, administration costs associated with the product identification are often regarded as “expensive”, although there is little empirical evidence regarding the actual costs . Likewise, the use of innovative technologies, for example, optical bar codes, chipless tags or radio frequency identification (RFID)  used to minimize these costs can be hampered by several factors (e.g., RFID: sensibility regarding grime, reduced readability of RFID because of high amounts of metals, reduction of a person’s privacy, high resource use for the RFID tags).
- The issue of “orphan products” due to bankruptcy of producers: The incentive for producers with decreasing market sales to leave the financial system before a large portion of the products return (high costs in combination with lower sales) can also restrict the effectiveness of the instrument. The option of the producer’s participation in “appropriate schemes” for the financing of the management of WEEE must be defined in such a way that costs do not burden the remaining producers in the market or society in the event of bankruptcy , e.g., preventing orphan products by the implementation of financial guarantees.
- Unknown future benefits: In the context of the design for end-of-life and EPR programmes, producers may not favour incentive based legislation, as future benefits are uncertain and any current investments would not lead to significant net present value benefits for firms.
- The European regulatory framework for waste too weakly influences national waste management planning and institutional setting for pushing waste issues substantially forward and rather leads to a diversion of policy choices, which highlights uncertainty and knowledge deficits in the general transformation from waste to resource.
- The EU targets for waste are transposed into the national regulatory frameworks but the outcomes show that the implementation of EU legislation into national law and the targets themselves (i.e., weight based instead of considering material quality aspects) are not sufficient in order to manage waste as a resource.
- The aim of steering waste onto routes that save most natural and economic resources (waste hierarchy) is not tackled due to a lack of integrated environmental and economic assessments, monitoring and integrated planning with regard to potential detrimental effects on resource efficiency.
Conflicts of Interest
- European Commission. 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) 614/2; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Towards a Circular Economy: A Zero Waste Programme for Europe; COM (2014) 398 final; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Stahel, W.R.; Reday, G. Jobs for Tomorrow, the Potential for Substituting Manpower for Energy; Vantage Press: New York, NY, USA, 1981. [Google Scholar]
- EMF (Ellen MacArthur Foundation). Towards the Circular Economy. Economic and Business Rationale for an Accelerated Transition; Report 1/2012; EMF: Isle of Wight, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- EMF (Ellen MacArthur Foundation). CE100, 2015. Available online: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/ce100 (accessed on 13 June 2016).
- Eisenhardt, K.M. Building Theories from Case Study Research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14, 532–550. [Google Scholar]
- Distelkamp, M.; Meyer, B.; Meyer, M.; Beringer, T. On the road to a resource efficient Europe. Recent findings from POLFREE research. In Presented at the World Resource Forum 2015, Davos, Switzerland, 21–24 January 2015.
- Meyer, B.; Distelkamp, M.; Beringer, T. Report about Integrated Scenario Interpretation GINFORS/LPJmL Results. Deliverable D3.7a within the POLFREE Project; UCL: London, UK, 2015; Available online: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/polfree/publications (accessed on 7 January 2016).
- Wood, R.; Stadler, K.; Bulavskaya, T.; Lutter, S.; Giljum, S.; de Koning, A.; Kuenen, J.; Schütz, H.; Acosta-Fernández, J.; et al. Global Sustainability Accounting—Developing EXIOBASE for Multi-Regional Footprint Analysis. Sustainability 2015, 7, 138–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Hirschnitz-Garbers, M.; Tan, A.R.; Gradmann, A.; Srebotnjak, T. Key drivers for unsustainable resource use—categories, effects and policy pointers. J. Clean. Prod. 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Environment Agency. Environmental Pressures from European Consumption and Production—A Study in Integrated Environmental and Economic Analysis; EEA Technical report No 2/2013; EEA: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Bleischwitz, R.; Jacob, K.; Bahn-Walkowiak, B.; Petrusche, T.; Rennings, K. Ressourcenpolitik zur Gestaltung der Rahmenbedingungen; Ressourceneffizienz Paper 3.1 (MaRess); Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment, Energy: Wuppertal, Germany, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Rogge, K.; Reichardt, K. Going Beyond Instrument Interactions: Towards a More Comprehensive Policy Mix Conceptualization for Environmental Technological Change; SPRU Working Paper Series 2015-12; University of Sussex, 2015; Available online: https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=2015-12-swps-rogge-reichardt.pdf&site=25 (accessed on 23 March 2016).
- EEA (European Environment Agency). Waste Prevention in Europe—The Status in 2013; EEA Report No. 9/2014; EEA: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- EEA (European Environment Agency). Managing Municipal Solid Waste—A Review of Achievements in 32 European Countries; EEA Report No 2/2013; EEA: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Wilts, H.; von Gries, N. Europe’s waste incineration capacities in a circular economy. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Waste Resour. Manag. 2015, 168, 166–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilts, H.; von Gries, N.; Bahn-Walkowiak, B.; O’Brien, M.; Domenech, T.; Bleischwitz, R.; Dijk, M. Policy Mixes for Resource Efficiency. Deliverable D2.3 within the POLFREE Project; UCL: London, UK, 2014; Available online: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/polfree/publications (accessed on 7 January 2016).
- Jäger, J. A Vision for a Resource Efficient Economy—New Concepts and Paradigms for Policies for Resource Efficiency. Deliverable D2.2 within the POLFREE Project; UCL: London, UK, 2014; Available online: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/polfree/publications (accessed on 7 January 2016).
- European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe; COM (2011) 571 final; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- EEA (European Environment Agency). Waste Prevention in Europe—The Status in 2014; EEA Report No 6/2015; EEA: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Consultic. Verarbeitung und Verwertung von Kunststoffen in Deutschland 2011. 2012. Available online: http://www.bvse.de/10/5790/Consultic_Studie__Produktion__Verbrauch__Verwertung_von_Kunststoffen (accessed on 13 January 2016).
- NAPCOR (National Association for PET Cotainer Resources). The Case for Mandatory Content in Plastic Packagaing, 2011. Available online: http://www.napcor.com/pdf/RecycledContentPosition.pdf (accessed on 13 January 2016).
- Heyde, M. Recycling von Post-Consumer Kunststoff Verpackungen—Ein Beitrag zur nachhaltigen industriellen Ressourcenwirtschaft. In Presented at the Kreislaufwirtschaft im Fokus: Rohstoffe Sichern, Wettbewerbstärken, Iserlohn, Germany, 11 December 2012. (In German)
- Tischner, U.; Schmincke, E.; Rubik, F.; Prosler, M. How to Do Ecodesign? A Guide for Environmentally and Economically Sound Design; German Federal Environmental Agency: Berlin, Germany, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 Establishing a Framework for the Setting of Ecodesign Requirements for Energy-Related Products  L 285/10; EUR-Lex: Brussels, Belgium, 2009.
- Dalhammar, C. Addressing resource efficiency through the eco-design directive: A review of opportunities and barriers. In Presented at the 6th International Conference on Life Cycle Management, Gothenburg, Sweden, 25–28 August 2013.
- Irrek, W.; Tholen, L.; Franke, M. Task 3: Outlook on the Estimated GHG Emissions Reductions; Revised and updated final report; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Irrek, W.; Bartherl, C.; Jepsen, D.; Reintjes, N. Ecodesign Directive; Task 14, MaRess Project on behalf of BMU/UBA; BMU/UBA: Berlin, Germany, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Remmen, A.; Dalhammar, C. Addressing resource efficiency through the Eco-design directive. In Presented at the Conference on Ecodesign as a Tool for Resource Efficiency and Circular Economy, Brussels, Belgium, 3 June 2014.
- BIO Intelligence Service. Material-Efficiency Ecodesign Report and Module to the Methodology for the Ecodesign of Energy-Related Products (MEErP); Part 1: Material Efficiency for Ecodesign—Draft Final Report, Prepared for: European Commission—DG Enterprise and Industry; BIO Intelligence Service: Paris, France, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Ardente, F.; Mathieux, F. Integration of Resource Efficiency and Waste Management Criteria in European Product Policies—Second Phase; Report n° 2—Analysis of Durability (final), JRC Technical Reports; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Dalhammer, C.; Machacek, E.; Bundgard, A.; Overgaard Zacho, K.; Remmen, A. Addressing Resource Efficiency through the Ecodesign Directive—A Review of OOpportunities and Barriers; Nordic Council of Ministers: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Oehlmann, C.; Herlédan, L. Das Potenzial zur Ausweitung der Ökodesign-Richtlinie als Beitrag zu einer europäischen Kreislaufwirtschaft: Fortschreibung einer Erfolgsgeschichte? Z. Eur. Umw. Plan. 2014, 12, 204–214. [Google Scholar]
- Brünning, R.; Rosemann, B.; Enderle, B.; Schmidt, K.; Spengler, T. Re-use of WEEE. 2012. Available online: http://www.at-recovery.com/fileadmin/downloads/26-45-F-05-Bruening.pdf (accessed on 3 June 2014).
- European Commission. Eurobarometer Survey on Attitudes of Europeans towards Resource Efficiency; Flash Eurobarometer 316—the Gallup Organization: Brussels, Belgium, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Wilts, H.; von Gries, N. Reuse—One Step Beyond; Machbarkeitsstudie: Wuppertal, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- OECD. Extended Producer Responsibility: A Guidance Manual for Governments; OECD: Paris, France, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Monier, V.; Hestin, M.; Cave, J.; Laureysens, L.; Watkins, E.; Reisinger, H.; Porsch, L. Development of Guidance on Extended Producer Responsibility; Final Report for DG Environment; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Van Rossem, C.; Tojo, N.; Lindhqvist, T. Lost in Transposition? A Study of the Implementation of Individual Producer Responsibility in the WEEE Directive; Report commissioned by Greenpeace International, Friends of the Earth and the European Environmental Bureau (EEB); EEB: Brussels, Belgium, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Van Rossem, C. Individual Producer Responsibility in the WEEE Directive—From Theory to Practice? Doctoral Dissertation, Lund University: Lund, Sweden, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Dempsey, M.; van Rossem, C.; Lifset, R.; Linnel, J.; Gregory, J.; Atasu, A.; Perry, J.; Sverkman, A.; van Wassenhove, L.N.; Therkelsen, M.; et al. Individual Producer Responsibility: A Review of Practical Approaches to Implementing Individual Producer Responsibility for the WEEE Directive; A Report by the INSEAD IPR Network; INSEAD: Paris, France, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE)  OJ L197/38; EUR-Lex: Brussels, Belgium, 2012.
|Institutional set-up and incentives/programmes||Targets||Municipal solid waste (MSW) recycling target||1 if more ambitious than EU target/0 if EU target|
|End-of-life vehicle (ELV) recycling target||1 if more ambitious than EU target/0 if EU target|
|Regulatory framework||Existence of a waste prevention programme (WPP) in accordance with Art. 29 WFD|
|Number of waste management plans or concepts/Levels of target setting national/regional/local|
|Specific law for biogenic waste|
|Agencies and competences||Existence of an agency for environmental issues including waste issues|
|Policy instruments for waste management||Economic recovery programmes||1 if existent/0 if not existent|
|Waste charge systems||1 if exist 3 instruments/0.5 if exist 2 instruments/0 if exist 1 instrument|
|Extended producer responsibility (EPR) scheme on end-of-life vehicles (ELV)||1 if existent/0 if not existent|
|Waste prevention programme (WPP) instruments||1 if more than 50% regulativ and economic instruments/0.5 if more than 25% regulativ and economic instruments/0 if less than 25% regulativ and economic instruments|
|Technical set-up||Technical infrastructures||Municipal solid waste (MSW) incineration capacity per capita||1 if above 0.8 quintile/0.75 if above 0.6 quintile/0.5 if above 0.4 quintile/0.25 if above 0.2 quintile/0 if no MSW incineration capacity|
|Access separate bio-waste collection||1 if 100%/0.5 if partly implemented/0 if not implemented|
|End-of-life vehicles (ELV) treated per authorized treatment facility (ATF)||1 if above 0.8 quintile/0.75 if above 0.6 quintile/0.5 if above 0.4 quintile/0.25 if above 0.2 quintile/0 if no ELV facility|
|Outcomes||Municipal solid waste (MSW) recycling rate||1 if above the EU targets/0 if less than EU target|
|Biodegradable municipal solid waste (MSW) landfilling rate||1 if 0%/0.5 if less than EU target 2009/0 if above EU target 2009)|
|End-of-life vehicles (ELV) recycling rate||1 if above the EU targets/0 if less than EU target|
|Waste Prevention Programmes||Waste Management Plans||Specific Regulations on Bio-Waste|
|Stand-Alone Programme||Incorporated in WMP||WPP Not in Place, but Planned||National||Regional/Provincial||Local||Ordinance||Strategy||Covered in WMP|
© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).