They say that no publicity is bad publicity. For good or bad, the term 'circular economy' has achieved an ignoble buzzword status in Brussels over the last few months.
Whatever the history, it’s now important to get the EU walking the talk to ensure this crucial concept gets into the DNA of EU policy. But rather than an obvious call for more regulation, why do we not tap into one of the EU’s most successful existing framework directives?
It’s a hard fact; Europe is import-dependent for many of the critical materials that we use in our everyday consumer goods. But there is more to it in terms of environmental impacts - laptops, for example, consume 270kg of raw materials for every final kg of product.
Our recycling rates have improved but we still send large volumes of valuable resources to the dump entombed in a black sea of discarded products. At the same time European manufacturing firms spend on average 40 per cent of their costs on raw materials.
Without setting EU-wide product standards and improving information schemes on resource use, the single market and industrial competitiveness would be damaged.
"For good or bad, the term 'circular economy' has achieved an ignoble buzzword status in Brussels over the last few months"
What can the EU do about it? Sit down for this news, Mr Timmermans - in this field we green groups recommend making better use of existing regulation, not creating new ones.
Rather than devoting political capital to postpone action into the future, the European commission should tap up one of the most powerful policy tools already at its disposal.
Since 2005, the ecodesign directive has delivered tremendous improvements in energy efficiency across an array of products. It should now explore flexible incentives and rules for manufacturers to deliver both energy and material savings.
We issued a report recommending three ways a new circular economy package could make better use of the ecodesign directive.
Firstly, it should set design requirements that make products more repairable and longer lasting. Consumers would support this, as a recent Eurobarometer survey testifies.
Secondly, ecodesign should ensure that key product components can be more easily extracted for reuse, remanufacturing or recycling of critical materials.
Finally, it should ensure that products become free of hazardous or problematic substances that can hamper creating non-toxic material cycles and thus discourage the use of recycled content in new products.
Additionally, getting manufacturers to provide information about disassembly and repair instructions as well as on end-of-life treatment of their products would trigger a move towards a circular economy.
Relevant information could be provided to the consumer together with the product when it is purchased. For downstream users, like repair services, re-use centres or recycling companies, it could be made easily accessible via a standardised electronic format.
"Clever use of the EU ecodesign directive should therefore be a key pillar of the commission’s new proposal"
This way, innovative business would have a better chance of keeping that product’s components and materials on the market and in circulation.
Through growth in the circular economy we would not only cut down our waste of natural resources but provide an important opportunity to tackle some of the employment challenges that Europe is currently facing.
Clever use of the EU ecodesign directive should therefore be a key pillar of the commission’s new proposal.