If the dominant economic system could speak, it would describe itself in more or less these terms: “I take what I need (from wherever I can find it), I produce (under conditions that suit me), I sell (as much as I can to the greatest possible number of purchasers) thereby maximising my profit. I use advertising to define consumers’ needs and I programme obsolescence into my products. Anything that is old and no longer usable goes to landfill, but that’s not my problem. I’m not bothered if I pollute, I’m even allowed to pay carry on. As for nature, it’s my hunting ground, it’s there to be exploited. Leave it to the poets to wax lyrical about its beauty and to the pessimists to worry about its future. My model is linear, it has proved its worth over three centuries, leave me in peace to get on. And long live freedom!”
In the 1960s, the economists who took into account the finite nature of the earth’s resources, the immense degree of the pillage, surplus and waste in all senses of the word as well as the impact of industrial activities on the atmosphere and the climate were still very much in the minority. In 1972, the Club of Rome began to issue warnings about the natural limits to growth. More radically, some began to look into the possibility of a viable and global alternative model. Thus was the principle of the circular economy born: reducing energy consumption, increasing the life-cycle of products, designing production on the basis of ecological criteria limiting the use of raw materials and doing away with toxic polluting substances, increasing the repair and refurbishment of second-hand goods, building with clean and sustainable materials or radically renovating buildings, reducing waste and treating it in such a way that it is able to return to the production circuit. This approach had the obvious advantage of being good for the climate and diversity.
As early as 1966, the economist and philosopher Kenneth Boulding took this line of reasoning, making the case for bringing our ‘spaceship’, the Earth, into harmony with the biosphere. Others, of Anglo-Saxon and then continental backgrounds, took up the baton, fleshing out the arguments in favour. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation, set up in 2009, has taken on the mission of promoting the circular economy internationally.
And yet it was not until the middle of last decade that the concept made an appearance in the circles of the European Union. It did not feature in the ‘EU 2020’ strategy adopted in 2010, which spoke only of intelligent, inclusive and sustainable growth.
Even so, there were some early positive signs in the framework of European environment policy, albeit only partial: the directives and regulations on packaging and packaging waste (1994), drinking water (1998), on the landfill of waste (1999), end-of-life vehicles (2000), air quality (2003), environmental responsibility (polluter pays principle) (2004), the protection of groundwater from pollution (2006), illegal transfers of waste (2006), the evaluation and management of flooding risks (2007) and water quality standards (2008). The framework directive on waste of 2008 was an important step forward, as was the directive on eco-design applicable to energy-consuming devices, adopted in 2009 and modified in 2012 to increase energy efficiency. In 2011, the regulation on construction products was adopted and the European Commission published a Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe. One year later, the institution adopted a “bioeconomy strategy”, then a recommendation on the single market for green products (2013).
Finally, in July 2014, by initiative of the European Commissioner for Environment, Janez Potoćnik, specialist NGOs and a number of pioneer cities, the idea made its debut in the vocabulary of the EU: the Commission Communication entitled ‘Towards a Circular Economy’ (see EUROPE 11113/9) contained a highly illuminating programme and making an enthusiastic, convincing case. A legislative package set out to amend the directives on waste. However, the ‘Juncker’ Commission, which took up office in the November, withdrew the package, pledging a new and better one. Eleven countries, including France and Germany, expressed their opposition to this move via their environment ministers (see EUROPE 11208/5). Similar disappointment was also voiced at the European Parliament and among NGOs.
It would be nearly a year until the Commission Communication ‘Closing the Loop – an EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy’ was published (see EUROPE 11444/5). The package of 3 December 2015 set out to improve upon its predecessor’s treatment of the production dimension; it was more geared towards the role of businesses and the potential for growth. It contained many relevant recitals and announced a contribution from the European ‘Horizon 2020’ research programme for flagship circular economy projects, with an envelope of 650 million euros. As for legislative proposals, however, it put forward the same ones as in 2014, with slimmed-down specific objectives, for the recycling of municipal waste or packaging and the reduction of quantities of waste going into landfill. It was a further blow to the environmental NGOs. Although it expressed its regrets at the absence of any impact assessment, the EU Council approved it.
The proposed directives embarked on their journey through the institutions. In March 2017, the European Parliament, meeting in plenary, adopted a more ambitious position. An agreement with the Council was reached in December (see EUROPE 11928/4), paving the way for the simultaneous adoption, on 30 May 2018, of the new framework directive on waste and its counterparts on end-of-life vehicles, electrical and electronic waste, packaging and landfill. Although built on the existing legislative body referred to above, the result was progressive and would turn out to be the greatest achievement of the legislative period.
Again in 2018, the Commission proposed a directive to reduce the consumption of lightweight plastic bags and then, the following year, a complementary package, with the proposed directive on the recycling of electrical and electronic equipment. The Council, for its part, reasoned in terms of the priority industrial sectors in which to apply circularity. But the pressure was building on the EU to do something to reduce the quantity of micro-plastics polluting the oceans and poisoning aquatic life.
It was the turn of water in early 2018. In January of that year, the Commission adopted a package on the use of plastics (see EUROPE 11940/11) with a proposed directive that would attract much attention and would be adopted on 5 June 2019. In February, a modification of the 1998 directive on drinking water was proposed, following up on the first successful European citizens’ initiative. In May, a proposed regulation was published to facilitate the reuse of used and treated urban waters for agricultural irrigation purposes.
During this period, Commission adopted a monitoring framework for the circular economy in the EU, the Council took on board the concept, judging by the official priorities of its successive rotating presidencies, and the European Economic and Social Committee put its head above the parapet, calling for the consumer to be regarded not as just a citizen of the city, recycling his or her domestic waste, but to be put at front and centre of the embryonic circular economy. The year 2019 ended with a damning report by the European Environmental Agency concluding that the circular economy was still very much in its infancy – no doubt prompting the ministers to call for the EU to redouble its efforts, prioritising construction, infrastructure, food, textiles and transport. Additionally, dashing the hopes that had been placed in the directives on water (2000 to 2008), a report published by the Commission in December noted that “less than half” of the EU bodies of water were in good condition.
It was against this backdrop that, almost immediately after entering into office, the ‘von der Leyen’ Commission would propose the European Green Pact, which was resolutely in favour of the circular economy. (To be continued).
Renaud Denuit