Renewable Matter #2 by Edizioni Ambiente

RENEWABLE MATTER INTERNATIONAL MAGAZINE ON THE BIOECONOMY AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY 02 | February 2015 Bimonthly Publication Edizioni Ambiente

Robert Costanza: Why This Growth Is Not Worthwhile •• Johan Rockström: Biomaterials to Keep within Limits •• Kate Raworth: A Fair and Safe Doughnut

Materials: A 50-Billion-Ton Waste •• James Clark: The Shortage Table •• EU’s U-Turn on Circular Economy ... While China is Getting Ready •• Waste Thieves

Filling up with Whisky Waste

Euro 12,00 - Download free online magazine at www.renewablematter.eu

•• Skateboard Sustainability •• Landfills: Two More Years before Shutting up Shop •• Agriculture’s Second Green Life

€500 Billion from the Sea •• Illegal Carrier Bags: Large Scale Retailers’ Responsibility

TYREFIELD. THE FUTURE OF FOOTBALL IS ON SOLID GROUND.

Atalanta’s future champions play on Tyreﬁeld, a ﬁeld created with recycled rubber from end-of-life tyres. Designed to withstand the test of time, the toughest clashes, the harshest climates, and the most insistent rain, as well as to cushion blows, Tyrefield is the next generation in fields, environmentally sustainable and safe. That’s why Atalanta has chosen it for the training and development of its brightest talents: the youth of Primavera.

The National Technology Cluster of Green Chemistry SPRING has the objective of triggering the growth and the development of biobased industries in Italy, through an holistic approach to innovation, aimed at revitalising Italian chemistry in the name of environmental, a holistic and economic sustainability and to stimulate research and investments in new technologies, in constant dialogue with the actors of local areas and in line with the EU’s most recent policies on bioeconomy.

www.clusterspring.it

Contents

renewablematter 02|february 2015 Free bimonthly magazine www.renewablematter.eu ISSN 2385-1562 Reg. Tribunale di Milano n. 351 del 31/10/2014

Editorial Director Marco Moro Contributors Nancy Averett, Emanuele Bompan, Mario Bonaccorso, Michael Carus, James H. Clark, Robert Costanza, Stefano Ciafani, Michael Delle Selve, Joanna Dupont Inglis, Aldo Femia, Marco Gisotti, Sara Guerrini, Giorgio Lonardi, Alessandro Marangoni, Ilaria Nardello, Michael Nettersheim, Carlo Pesso, Francesco Petrucci, Maurizio Quaranta, Kate Raworth, Roberto Rizzo, Johan Rockström, Johnson Yeh, Hendrik Waegeman

Think Tank

Editor-in-chief Antonio Cianciullo

Acknowledgments Erik Assadourian, Astrid Auraldsson, Federica Cingolani, Lorenza Gallotti, Federica Mastroianni, Greg Swienton Editorial Coordinator Paola Cristina Fraschini

Antonio Cianciullo

Europe’s Recovery Depends on Green Fuel

Robert Costanza

How the World’s Economic Growth Is Actually Un-Economic

By Emanuele Bompan

Rockström, “Biomaterials: A Viable Alternative to Fossil Fuels”

Kate Raworth

The Doughnut Economy

Aldo Femìa

Over 50 Billion Tons of Matter Wasted Every Year: Resources to Preserve

James Clark

Elemental Sustainability

Joanna Dupont-Inglis

Draught from Berlaymont Circular Economy: All Eyes on the Juncker Commission’s Next Move

Francesco Petrucci

Is Europe Changing Its Policy on the Circular Economy?

Mario Bonaccorso

The War for Biomass

Mario Bonaccorso

In Italy the Bioeconomy Is Worth €241 Billion

Antonio Pergolizzi

Waste Thieves

Johnson Yeh

Why China is Embracing the Circular Economy

Carlo Pesso

Kickstarting the Circular Economy in China

Hendrik Waegeman

The Bio Base Europe Pilot Plant

Editing Paola Cristina Fraschini Diego Tavazzi Design & Art Direction Mauro Panzeri (GrafCo3), Milano

Translations Laura Coppo, Laura Fano, Franco Lombini, Elisabetta Luchetti, Mario Tadiello Executive Coordinator Anna Re External Relations Manager (International) Carlo Pesso External Relations Managers (Italy) Anna Re, Matteo Reale, Federico Manca Press and Media Relations Silverback www.silverback.it info@silverback.it Contact redazione@materiarinnovabile.it Edizioni Ambiente Via Natale Battaglia 10 20127 Milano, Italia t. +39 02 45487277 f. +39 02 45487333 Advertising marketing@materiarinnovabile.it

Policy

Layout Michela Lazzaroni

Annual subscription, 6 paper issues Subscribe on-line at www.renewablematter.eu/subscribe This magazine is composed in Dejavu Pro di Ko Sliggers Published and printed in Italy at GECA S.r.l., San Giuliano Milanese (Mi) Copyright © Edizioni Ambiente 2014-2015 All rights reserved

Nancy Averett

Net Gain: Fighting Ocean Pollution

Case Histories Alisea

Roberto Rizzo

Eco-Friendly Playing Fields

Althesys Arbos

Case Histories

Assovetro

Sara Guerrini

Agriculture’s Second Green Life

Bio Base Europe Bureo Ecopneus

When Innovation and Recycling Go Hand in Hand

Maurizio Quaranta

Still Too Many Landfills, and They Will Only Last Two More Years

Marco Gisotti

Glass Recycling Is km 0

Ilaria Nardello

The Blue Yonder The Blue Economy Is Worth €500 Billion

Stefano Ciafani

Columns

Giorgio Lonardi

Novamont

Bieconomy and Environment In the Large-Scale Retail Trade, One Carrier Bag Out of Two Is Illegal

Partners

Supporters

Networking Partners

Cover Illustration by © Edward Carvalho-Monaghan / Kuvva

renewablematter 02. 2015

Editorial

R M Europe’s Recovery Depends on Green Fuel by Antonio Cianciullo

The game of material recovery is gaining momentum. Much hesitation at European level is proof of a conflict of interest caused by the technological, industrial and philosophical revolution’s disruptive capability revolving around the value of recycling. The curb put by Jean-Claude Junker – President of the European Commission – stopping the directive on circular economy prohibiting the dumping into landfills of recyclables and imposing the recycling of 70% of urban waste and 80% of packing waste by 2030 – is like déjà vu all over again. It is precisely in Rome that a certain government with little environmental education has long dismissed the potential of renewable sources, subsidizing clean energy, convinced as they were that it was a trifle, that sun and wind were good for the country properties of a few aged hippies but that they were unable to affect the interests of multinationals that have been controlling the oil scene for over a century in every possible way. We all know how it all ended up. Today one light bulb out of three is illuminated thanks to clean energy and this new sector has created tens of thousands of new jobs. And just when we were reaping the fruits of such choice (despite the intermittent incentives) a curb was put in place aimed at punishing rather than saving. Thousands of jobs have been lost. A setback has taken place just where leading countries are making headway, thus showing that the growth of renewable sources is irreversible. We carry on paying the bill for innovation but, unlike what is occurring in Germany, where the expenditure is similar and the path has been carefully planned, part of the benefits are being thrown away. Now it seems as if the same situation might be

Graphic re-elaboration of a detail from Atlas Holding the Celestial Sphere by Guercino (1646), image courtesy of NASA

repeated at a European level, by adding support to a far-sighted economy, that of material recovery. Behind schedule, Brussels recognizes the potential of the innovative economy and is afraid of the repercussions it might have on the old economy sectors. And yet, it was precisely the Commission’s experts that had put down in black and white the details of the potential of the bioeconomy, the central axis of material recovery: with a turnover of €2,000 billion, 9% of jobs, the opportunity to create further 130,000 jobs within 10 years, with a return of 10 euro of turnover per every euro invested in research by 2025. Will the far-sighted expert analyses be obnubilated by the desire not to disturb last century’s potentates? It will largely depend on the reaction ability of European citizens. If the pressure to shift the attention from financial speculations that occur in a fraction of a second to activities benefitting over the decades prevails, Europe’s hesitation could only be temporary. Losing leadership over the bioeconomy and the sharing economy can indeed prove fatal for the innovative ability needed for the recovery of the Old Continent. For example, worldwide, bioplastics are expected to grow by 500% between 2011 and 2016; the sharing economy gave a good account of itself with its remarkable achievement of the car sharing that, in 2014 was all the rage in Italy and is now growing rapidly the world over; in the EU28 50% urban waste target is worth 875,000 jobs. But this is not enough. The figures shown in this issue of Renewable Matter indicate that the current consumption trend of the planet contains an imbalance able to undermine the possibility of recovery and stabilization of the economy: a change of pace is needed at a global level. As Aldo Femia puts it, every year man moves

between 50 and 60 billion tons of rocks, stones, sand and gravel, which is double the amount of that erupted by ocean volcanoes, three time as much as that carried to the sea by all rivers, 60 times higher than that due to wind erosion. The fact that we turned the planet into a mine has an increasingly strong impact because the environment is devastated at the moment of the extraction of raw materials and the ecosystems are polluted at the moment of waste release. Such release often occurs in the atmosphere, used as a dump: the 36 billion tons of CO2 released every year alone are a good enough reason to raise the alarm for the climate calamity taking shape. Such damage could largely be avoided by feeding back into the cycle what is extracted, through a reconversion of the production system that can offer – and is already doing so – interesting results from an economic and environmental standpoint. In 2011 – as Antonio Pergolizzi reminds us in these pages – the Italian industry employed about 35 million tons of raw materials from waste recovery and in the last 10 years it has doubled the number of workers in recycling companies (from 12,000 to over 24,000). But a lot more could be done. The Italian balance in the field of the materials necessary to support the production system is still negative by 4.3 million tons, worth €2.2 billion: we throw away precious goods only to buy them again. Wasting is no longer acceptable. There is an opportunity for further growth in the recycling sector, acting as a driving force for an economy with a high level of innovation and social cohesion. One only needs to look in the right direction. To the future.

renewablematter 02. 2015

Think Tank

How the World’s Economic Growth Is Actually Un-Economic

by Robert Costanza

The real economy includes natural capital resources, namely everything given to us by nature that we do not need to produce. Looking at this economy, it emerges that globally since 1997 about US$20,000 billion per year were squandered on services for ecosystems, unrecorded. Such figures are higher than the USA’s GDP. The per capita GPI (Genuine progress indicator) has not moved since 1978, although the per capita GDP has more than doubled.

that support human well-being – is much larger than the market economy estimated by GDP. GDP was never designed as a measure of overall societal well-being and its continued misuse for that purpose needs to stop.2 Why GDP is not an Accurate Measure of Economic Growth

Robert Costanza is Professor and Chair of Public Policy at Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University.

The focus of the recently concluded G20 summit was economic growth. The final communiqué begins: “Raising global growth to deliver better living standards and quality jobs for people across the world is our highest priority”. The word “growth” is mentioned 29 times in the three-page document. Climate is mentioned only in article 19, out of 21. While the parties pledge to “support strong and effective action to address climate change”, this is clarified to mean support for “economic growth, and certainty for business and investment”. Yet there has been no real growth in the global economy for decades. The policies the G20 advocates will only exacerbate this unfortunate trend. Many people will question this claim and ask, hasn’t gross domestic product been growing consistently since the second world war with only the occasional downturn? We have had growth of GDP, but since around 1980 this growth has been “un-economic”. This is in the sense that human welfare per capita, adjusted for the costs of inequality, environmental damage and other factors that affect welfare, has not improved.1 The real economy – including all things

The real economy includes our natural capital assets – all of the gifts from nature that we do not have to produce – and the immensely valuable, but non-marketed, ecosystem services those assets provide. These services include climate control, water supply, storm protection, pollination and recreation. These natural assets have been estimated to contribute significantly more to human wellbeing than all the world’s GDP combined. But our cavalier overlooking of these contributions has led to massive depletion of these assets.3 Since 1997, we have lost at least US$20 trillion a year globally in non-marketed ecosystem services. This figure is larger than the GDP of the United States. We have also overlooked the contributions of social capital – all of our formal and informal networks, institutions and cultures – to supporting human well-being. G20 countries in particular have become much more unequal since 1980. This rising inequality4 has resulted in growing social problems, a poorer ability to build and maintain social capital, and lower overall quality of life. Most of the gains in GDP over the last several decades have gone to the top 1% of income earners. The remaining 99% have seen stagnant real incomes, in the context of deteriorating social and natural assets. Perhaps the most compelling conflict is how we

The full text of the G20 Leaders’ Communiqué Brisbane Summit, November 15-16, 2014 http://www.businessinsider. com.au/here-are-the-21key-points-of-the-g20communique-from-thebrisbane-summit-2014-11

1. I. Kubiszewskia et al., “Beyond GDP: measuring and achieving global genuine progress”, Ecological Economics, v. 93, September 2013; http://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/ S0921800913001584.

3. R. Costanza et al., “The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital”, Nature, v. 387, 15 May 1997; http://www. esd.ornl.gov/benefits_ conference/nature_ paper.pdf.

2. R. Costanza et al., “Development: time to leave GDP behind”, Nature, v. 505, f. 7483, January 2014; http:// www.nature.com/ news/developmenttime-to-leave-gdpbehind-1.14499.

4. B. Kerry, K.E. Pickett, R. Wilkinson, “The spirit level: why greater equality makes societies”, August 2010, http://www.unicef. org/socialpolicy/.

Robert Costanza

Think Tank

A New Indicator that Includes Social and Natural Costs

of natural capital depletion like air and water pollution. Globally, GPI per capita has not improved since 1978, even though GDP per capita has more than doubled. What this means is the world has been experiencing “un-economic growth” since 1978. Two states in the US, Maryland5 and Vermont, have adopted the GPI to help guide policy. Several others are considering the same. It is time for the rest of the world to realise the reality of our un-economic growth policies and practices and move to build a real economy that provides sustainable and equitable prosperity for all. The UN Sustainable Development Goals process is an important move in this direction.

One indicator that accounts for changes in social and natural capital is the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI). GPI adjusts personal consumption by income distribution, adds non-marketed services like volunteer and household work, and subtracts the costs

Perhaps at the next G20 summit, world leaders can discuss how to improve real economic performance – genuine progress – rather than merely increases in environmentally disruptive, inequitably distributed marketed goods and services.

talk about and deal with climate disruption. Climate is one of our key natural assets. Yet investing in and maintaining a stable climate is seen as a hindrance to economic growth. It should be regarded as protecting an asset that underlies the operation of the entire human enterprise. Climate disruption needs to be included as a cost to GDP growth that is at least as important as the loss of factories, roads and houses. Likewise, the depletion of social capital caused by rising inequality needs to be counted against any gains in GDP.

5. About Maryland’s GPI: http://www.dnr.maryland. gov/mdgpi/.

Courtesy by the conversation https://theconversation.com

Johan Rockström ©M. Axelsson/Azote

8 renewablematter 02. 2015

Think Tank

Rockström, “Biomaterials: A Viable Alternative to Fossil Fuels” The Finite Nature of our Planetary Resources, the Gravity of the Effects of Climate Change, the New Technological Paradigms That Keep us from Surpassing Nature’s Limits. A Conversation with the Author of the Latest Report to the Club of Rome compiled by Emanuele Bompan

Johan Rockström is Professor of Environmental Science with emphasis on water resources and global Sustainability at Stockholm University, and the Executive Director of Stockholm Resilience Centre.

Emanuele Bompan, journalist and urban geographer, has dealt with environmental journalism since 2008.

To identify and quantify planetary limits so that human activity does not cause unsustainable environmental mutations. This is the aim of the research carried out by Johan Rockström, Professor in Environmental Science and Sustainability at the University of Stockholm and Executive Director of the prestigious Stockholm Resilience Centre, one of the main research centres on the planet’s resilience. His research on limits started in 2009 through the analysis of nine parameters beyond which humanity should not venture in order to avoid tipping points, catastrophic and almost irreversible transformations. These limits include the thinning of the ozone layer, loss of biodiversity, climate change, chemical contamination, ocean acidification, change in the use of soil, flows of phosphorus and nitrogen, aerosols. This extremely sophisticated study provided Rockström with a complex and organic vision of planetary macro-transformations. His research is published in Bankrupting Nature (Routledge, 2012). Renewable Matter met him in Sweden to talk about planetary limits, starting from matter itself. Our ecological footprint surpasses the Earth’s absorption capacity. One of the less known elements of the planetary equation is the impact of the extraction of many raw materials. “Raw matter, from aluminum to rare earth, is strategically important, even when not directly correlated to the planet’s stability. If we emptied all these mineral reserves there would not be serious implications for the planet’s stability, with the exception of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas and coal, Ed), which are directly correlated to climate change and Earth’s stability. However, from a scientific point of view, things are very clear: every single report that we analyze shows an increase in resource exploitation and expropriation due not only to the scarcity of some mineral reserves, but also to the increasing global demand for raw materials. Many of these

materials can be recycled or reused. According to the European Resource Efficiency Platform, a platform that promotes a sustainable use of raw materials, there is ample space to rethink the reuse of these commodities in the productive system. It is therefore essential to make the efficient use of raw materials a priority in development policies.” However, if we introduce into the equation the negative externality of the impacts of the extractive sector – leaving aside fossil fuels – we will notice how the exploitation of raw materials has a direct impact on planetary limits, in terms of water contamination, deforestation and emissions. “Without a doubt deforestation, which is a fundamental problem in terms of absorption of CO2 emissions, is strongly incentivized by the continuous research for new types of minerals such as zinc and copper. Let’s just bear in mind the impact of the extractive sector in the Amazon, the Congo Basin and in Canada in the case of tar sands: the extractive sector remains a sector with important consequences and a series of domino effects. However, I would like to stress that in some developed economies sufficient regulation exists that monitors the impacts of the extractive sector.” In your book, you analyze in detail the role of another primary economic sector, agriculture, which, together with forestry, contributes to the production of nutritional commodities but also, in a growing trend, to industrial production: from energy (biofuels) to materials (bioplastics, wood, material derived from residues). Don’t you think that we might be shifting the use of agricultural soil too much towards non-food destinations, the result being an excessive extension of arable soils to the detriment of forests and prairies, together with a potential risk to food security in the least

renewablematter 02. 2015

developed countries – as we witnessed during the 2008 price crisis? “Our systems of analysis show that at a global level we have reached the point of no return for the expansion of agricultural soil. It is not possible to further increase the cultivated surface. These dramatic conclusions are confirmed by several studies, including research by Jonathan Foley (Director of the Institute on the Environment, IonE, of University of Minnesota, Ed), by UNEP and so on.1

Furthermore, 30% of reduction in per capita consumption must come from energy efficiency. There is no doubt this will be an important part of the general strategy to move beyond fossil fuels. It is a strategy that includes multiple solutions and technologies, that need to operate in an integrated way. At a European level, we need an ambitious energy scheme that can lead this transformation by controlling energy flows. As of today, we are lacking this collaboration in the Union, but we hope to see it tomorrow.”

There is very little fertile land that can be converted into agricultural areas. This clearly shows that a rapid expansion of biofuels cannot happen. We cannot use corn to produce ethanol, subtracting it from food consumption. However, biomaterials can become a sustainable and important resource, also in terms of replacing many fossil fuel derivatives such as plastics. In this respect, Italy is playing a leading role, using non-food plants to create bioplastics. There isn’t a black and white situation, it is more nuanced. Today we need to ask ourselves specific questions: are we risking not producing enough food for the least developed areas of the planet? Are we seriously considering the threat of the effects of climate change? In the next few years, drought and extreme weather phenomena will produce bigger and bigger shocks in agricultural production. With this in mind we need to consider carefully how to adapt agriculture to biomaterials.”

The missing variable to preserve planetary limits is therefore politics. We are missing an international vision even in relation to the challenge of climate change. In your book Bankrupting Nature you express an articulated critique of those obstacles that are blocking a global deal to stop CO2 emission, from lobbies to climate change deniers. “We find ourselves in a very discouraging situation. We have up to 5 to 10 years to stop the increasing curve of CO2 emissions. This cannot happen without an urgently needed international deal. Obviously in Paris (in December 2015, when 193 nations will try and reach an agreement on climate, after the Copenhagen failure in 2009, Ed) we will not get a binding agreement, but in 2014 we have seen big actors such as the USA and China show their willingness to reduce their own emissions. We are hopeful that this time we can at least reach an agreement.”

The issue of fossil fuels remains. They are the main energy source and have the most impact, both in environmental and health terms. What strategy should we use for a phase-out from oil and coal? “All analysts today agree that we can gradually live without fossil fuels, thanks to solar, wind, hydro and geothermic alternatives. Solar energy today has more and more competitive costs. Nuclear energy can also play a role in the transition, although it is not a solution. Finally, to reduce the effect of emissions we have to consider storing CO2 and incrementing biomass as carbon-sink methods. From a technological point of view, we need to invest in research and development of those technologies that are efficient in storing energy, in fuel cells and in electric vehicles.

1. TED Talks by Jonathan Foley, “The other inconvenient truth” http:// www.ted.com/talks/ jonathan_foley_the_ other_inconvenient_truth.

Think Tank

The Doughnut Economy Defining a Safe and Just Space for Humanity by Kate Raworth

The concept of a limit, especially of a physical one to human activities, is still heresy for the economic world. And even the political world seems to be subordinated to the orthodoxy of growth with no nuances or “fine distinctions”. In recent years though, the study of limits has gained new

significance, thanks to data analysis advances and the ability to highlight links between environmental, economic and social phenomena. Is this increasing awareness a gift from the present crisis? And what have doughnuts got to do with the space within which we must limit our activities?

Kate Raworth

Kate Raworth is a Senior Visiting Research Associate at Oxford University’s Environmental Change Institute, where she teaches at the Master’s in Environmental Change and Management. She is also Senior Associate of the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership and a member of the Club of Rome. The Guardian has named her “one of the top ten tweeters on economic transformation”.

Note: the article is an excerpt from the chapter written by Kate Raworth for the report State of the World 2013, Worldwatch Institute, Island Press, 2013.

renewablematter 02. 2015 Between Social Boundaries and Planetary Boundaries In 2009, a group of leading Earth-system scientists brought together by Johan Rockström of the Stockholm Resilience Centre put forward the concept of planetary boundaries (figure 1). They proposed a set of nine interrelated Earth System processes – such as climate regulation, the freshwater cycle, and the nitrogen cycle – that are critical for keeping the planet in the relatively stable state known as the Holocene, a state that has been so beneficial to humanity over the past 10,000 years. Under too much pressure from human activity, these processes could be pushed over biophysical thresholds – some on global scales, others on regional scales – into abrupt and even irreversible change, dangerously undermining the natural resource base on which humanity depends for well-being. Together the nine boundaries can be depicted as forming a circle, and Rockström’s group called the area within it “a safe operating space for humanity.” Their first estimates indicated that at least three of the nine boundaries have already been crossed – for climate change, the nitrogen cycle, and biodiversity loss – and that resource pressures are moving rapidly toward the

estimated global boundary for several others too (according to the latest estimates, the phosphorus cycle and the soil use – a “security” limit which has been trespassed due to deforestation – are added to the first three, Ed). The concept of nine planetary boundaries powerfully communicates complex scientific issues to a broad audience, and it challenges traditional understandings of economy and environment. While mainstream economics treats environmental degradation as an “externality” that largely falls outside of the monetized economy, natural scientists have effectively turned that approach on its head and proposed a quantified set of resource-use boundaries within which the global economy should operate if we are to avoid critical Earth System tipping points. These boundaries are described not in monetary metrics but in natural metrics fundamental to ensuring the planet’s resilience for remaining in a Holocene-like state. Yet even while the nuances of defining the nature and scale of boundaries are being debated, a critical part of the picture is still missing. Yes, human well-being depends on keeping total resource use below critical natural thresholds, but it equally depends upon every person having

Figure 1 | The Planetary Boundaries

Source: Rockström et al. (2009). Climate change

Environmental ceiling

es h us wate e r

e us d ge n La han c

n and Nitroge ycle orous c phosph

e on n Oz letio p de

aci Ocea n dif ica tio n

Biodivers ity loss

Atm o aero spheric sol lo adin g

l mica Che tion u poll

Think Tank a claim on the resources they need to lead a life of dignity and opportunity. Between the social foundation of human rights and the environmental ceiling of planetary boundaries lies a space – shaped like a doughnut – that is both an environmentally safe and a socially just space for humanity (figure 2). Combining planetary and social boundaries in this way creates a new perspective on sustainable development. Human-rights advocates have long highlighted the imperative of ensuring every person’s claim to life’s essentials, while ecological economists have emphasized the need to situate the global economy within environmental limits. This framework brings the two together, creating a space that is bounded by both human rights and environmental sustainability, while acknowledging that there are many complex and dynamic interactions across and between the multiple boundaries. Just as Rockström and the other scientists in 2009 estimated that humanity has already transgressed at least three planetary boundaries, so too it is possible to quantify human outcomes against the social foundation. A first assessment, based on international data, indicates that humanity is falling far below the social foundation on eight dimensions for which comparable indicators are

available. Around 13% of the world’s population is undernourished, for example, 19% of people have no access to electricity, and 21% live in extreme income poverty. Quantifying social boundaries alongside planetary boundaries in this way makes plain humanity’s extraordinary situation (figure 3). Many millions of people still live in appalling deprivation, far below the social foundation. Yet collectively humanity has already transgressed several of the planetary boundaries. This is a powerful indication of just how deeply unequal and unsustainable the path of global development has been to date. Dynamics Between the Boundaries What, then, is the biggest source of stress on planetary boundaries today? It is the excessive consumption levels of roughly the wealthiest 10% of people in the world and the resource-intensive production patterns of companies producing the goods and services that they buy. The richest 10% of people in the world hold 57% of global income. Cutting the resource intensity of the most affluent lifestyles is essential for both equity of and sustainability in global resource use. What are the implications, then, of this framework of social and planetary boundaries for rethinking

Figure 2 | A Safe and Just Space for Humanity

e us d ge n La han c

Social Foundation

h He alt

Resi lienc e

Gender equality l cia So uity eq

ice

e on n Oz letio p de

rgy

Atm

osph eric load aerosol ing

Jobs

l mica Che tion u poll

n and Nitroge ycle orous c phosph

Ene

The safe and just space for humanity – Inclusive and sustainable economic development

aci Ocea n dif ica tio n

Water

on cati Edu

Biodivers ity loss

Environmental ceiling

es h us wate e r

Around 13% of the world’s population is undernourished, for example, 19% of people have no access to electricity, and 21% live in extreme income poverty.

Source: Raworth; Rockström et al. (2009).

Climate change

Foo

renewablematter 02. 2015

Worldwide, 10% of children do not attend school and the rate illiteracy by 15 to 24 years is 11%.

the metrics needed to govern economies? The overriding aim of global economic development must surely be to enable humanity to thrive in the safe and just space, ending human deprivation while keeping within safe boundaries of natural resource use locally, regionally, and globally. Imagine if the doughnut-shaped diagram of social and planetary boundaries found its way onto the opening page of every macroeconomics textbook. So you want to be an economist? Then first, there are a few facts you should know about this planet, how it sustains us, how it responds to excessive pressure from human activity, and how that undermines our own well-being. You should also know about the human rights of its people and about the human, social, and natural resources that it will take to fulfill those. With these fundamental concepts of planetary and social boundaries in place, your task as an economist is clear and crucial: to design economic policies and regulations that help bring humanity into the safe and just space between the boundaries and that enable us all to thrive there. Under this framing of what successful economic policymaking looks like, the metrics for assessing the journey toward sustainable and equitable development must widen significantly. In line

with the recommendations of the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, at least four broad shifts are needed – and are under way – for creating a better dashboard of economic and social progress. The first shift is from measuring just what is sold to what is provided for free too. Second, we need to shift from a focus on the flow of goods and services to monitoring changes in underlying stocks as well. The third shift needed is from a focus on aggregates and averages to monitoring distribution too. Many economic indicators are either aggregates (national GDP, for example) or averages (GDP per capita). But it is the actual distribution of incomes, wealth, and outcomes across a society that determines how inclusive its path of development is. The final shift to create a better dashboard of economic and social progress is from monetary metrics to natural and social metrics too. Not everything that matters can be monetized, nor should it be. “Social metrics”, such as the number of hours of unpaid caring work provided by women and by men, and “natural metrics”, such as per capita footprint calculations for carbon, water, nitrogen, and land, must be given

Figure 3 | Falling Far Below the Social Foundation While Exceeding Planetary Boundaries

Source: Raworth; Rockström et al. (2009).

Climate change e us d ge n La han c

es h us wate e r

Water

d Foo

Environmental ceiling

The safe and just space for humanity – Inclusive and sustainable economic development

Social Foundation

l cia So uity eq

e on n Oz letio p de

Ene

rgy

Atm o aero spheric sol lo adin g

Jobs

l mica Che tion u poll

aci Ocea n dif ica tio n

Resilie nce

Gender equality

n and Nitroge ycle orous c phosph

He alt h

on cati Edu

Biodivers ity loss

Think Tank Interview

The Circular Economy Will Help Us Interview with Kate Raworth by Marco Moro

The first question is about the possible role of bioeconomy and circular economy as positive factor to reconnect economy to environment and society. Could the progress towards a bio-based economy – an economy increasingly based on a sustainable use of renewable resources – help to reach the “safe and just space for humanity”? Under which conditions? KR: If we want to stand a chance of getting into the safe and just space of the doughnut, we’d be smart to put circular economy thinking at the heart of our economies. Circular economy is one of the most direct – and dynamic – ways of bringing economic activity back within planetary boundaries. But if we want it to help bring us over the social foundation, we also need to think about the social implications of adopting circular economy business models and government policies. What would that look like? Seeking ways to meet the health, education, energy and food needs of low income communities through circular-economy approaches; involving local communities and minority groups in design; promoting job-creating approaches, and considering the distributional consequences of the circular-economy shift. These ideas are summed up in a briefing note I wrote for IIED in 2014: http://www.iied.org/tenways-secure-social-justice-green-economy.

more visibility and weight in policy assessments. This creation of metrics beyond GDP is crucial, but of course it brings new complexities and controversies. There is an ongoing dance (or a battle) back and forth between the metrics of economics and ecology to determine whose language, concepts, and measurements will define the emerging paradigm of development. Will economics subsume ecology, assigning a monetary value to all natural resources, complete with assumptions of shadow prices, substitutability, and market exchange? Will ecology predominate, proscribing a space for economic activity within safe boundaries

The second question is about the possible impact of a more resource-efficient economy (a circular economy). Could the development of an effective circular economy lead to a de-growth of the economies? Less consumption, less production, less jobs... Is it a real risk? Or will a positive interpretation of that trends prevail, leading to an additional demand and stabilising the economies? KR: If we want to see continued growth in high-income countries, then we first need to deeply rethink what we mean by growth because today’s rising GDP is in good part being generated through widening social inequalities and ecological degradation. More important than an ever-rising national income is a far better distributed national income, along with the regeneration of the social, human and natural capital on which all our wealth and wellbeing fundamentally depends. As the transition to a circular economy continues to take-off, we need to develop metrics that are fit for capturing the growth of this real wealth. Indeed, I believe that in today’s high-income countries, we have the chance to create economies in which the question of whether GDP is going up or down in any one year is no longer taken to be the critical sign of success – because we will have far richer and more relevant measures for the wellbeing that we ultimately seek.

designed to avoid critical natural thresholds, expressed and governed only through the evolving natural metrics of the planet? Or will it be possible to create a dashboard of indicators that incorporates the realities and insights brought by both approaches? If such holistic metrics can be created, they must be compiled and reported in ways that empower people around the world to hold policymakers to account. This change alone would provide governments, civil society, citizens, and companies alike with a far better dashboard for navigating humanity into a safe and just space in which we all can thrive.

The primary objective of global economic development must be prosperity in a space fair and safe, ending the overexploitation of natural resources.

renewablematter 02. 2015

Policy

Over 50 Billion Tons of Matter Wasted Every Year: Resources to Preserve Given the amount of materials that it mobilizes, the human species is now competing with the most important causes of geomorphological change. Our thirst for fossil fuels translates into a yearly extraction of 45 billion tons of dormant matter, of which only 14 billion are actually used as fuels. Human appropriation of biomasses has reached 27 billion tons, of which 5.5 billion are not used.

Aldo Femia is Senior Researcher at the National Institute for Statistics (ISTAT). An expert in satellite accounts, and in particular environmental accounts in physical terms, he has also worked at the Wuppertal Institut Für Klima Umwelt Energie and at OECD.

The surface of the Earth has always been in slow but constant movement: excavated by waterways and glaciers, eroded by winds, upset by mountain formation and volcanic eruptions, subjected to changes in vegetation and climate. From the 20th century onwards though, a new force of nature has appeared: the action of the human species. For the amount of materials that they use, human beings are now competing with all the most important causes of geomorphological change. Every year, human beings mobilize between 50 and 60 billion tons of rocks, stones, sand and gravel (including residues). About a third of these are used in the extraction of minerals for the metal industry and two thirds are used in other industries and construction. This amount is double what ocean volcanoes erupt, triple what all the world’s rivers bring to sea, quadruple what mountain formation moves, twelve times what glaciers transport and sixty times what winds erode. The involuntary soil movement caused by human action is even bigger, in particular that linked to erosion caused by agriculture: 80 billion tons. Our thirst for fossil fuels translates into a yearly

Illustration by ©Bazzier / Shuttersock

by Aldo Femia

extraction of 45 billion tons of dormant matter of which only 14 billion are actually used as fuels. Human appropriation of biomasses has reached 27 billion tons, of which 5.5 billion are not used. In the processes of production and consumption these materials are refined, combined, mixed with water and atmospheric elements. Water consumption at a global level has been quantified: it amounts to at least 4,000 cubic km. As far as the inputs from the atmosphere are concerned, the amount of oxygen, nitrogen and other used elements can be estimated at 30 billion tons at least. These huge amounts define the material perimeter of our relationship with nature. Their measurement – although in many cases extremely approximate – helps us understand how much matter is put in circulation every year by human activity to produce food, to fuel industries, and to redesign territory according to our needs. The downside of the extraction of these huge amounts of materials is their “consumption”, their progressive transformation into residues that go back into the environment or are accumulated in landfills. According to the different use and management of materials, an extracted material can transform into a residue immediately or after millennia, but inevitably, sooner or later, every used resource will be transformed into residue, with all the consequences in terms of natural equilibrium. Seven of the nine planetary boundaries identified by Rockström et al. are easily related to the use of materials.

renewablematter 02. 2015 A Huge Thirst for Materials, but What Do We Do With Them?

Forests provide 2.5 billion tons of wood and other products. The majority of biomasses end up in the atmosphere.

It is practically impossible to follow all the innumerable rivulets in which the flow of materials decomposes, recomposes, and turns into itself to end up who knows when, where and in which form, in the current immense sea of residues of human origin accumulated in the soil, water and atmosphere. Gathering reliable global data is also difficult, not only on minor flows or those considered less important, but also on big and qualitatively important flows such as waste flow. However, it is extremely important to acquire an approximate idea of all these figures. It is important for the economy and the environment, as in both cases they help us understand the magnitude of the problems we are facing and the resources available to help us resolve these problems. So where do the materials we extract end up? The shorter supply chains are those of unused materials, those extracted only in relation to used material and that immediately become waste: •• 5.5 billion tons of biomasses, of which 0.7 in Europe (80 million tons in Italy): they are partly left in the soil, to regenerate its fertility, partly burnt, partly collected and disposed of. They are attracting ever more interest from the energy industry and the growing industry of biobased products;

•• 42 billion tons of materials (gossans, drillings, excavations, residues of first selection...), of which 10% extracted in Europe (60 million tons in Italy), considered unfit for use, or non convenient, for example in construction works. Of the 14 billion tons of extracted useful energy minerals (0.8 billion in Europe), the majority is refined and then burnt, generating 32 billion tones of CO2 and 140 million tons of methane per year, to which we need to add the products of the combustion of residual impurities. Up to 15% of oil becomes bitumen or sulphur. A percentage of fossil fuels is used to produce the 265 million tons of plastics produced globally every year. With the remaining part, solvents and all sorts of chemical products are made. Most of the almost 22 billion tons of produced useful biomasses (2.7 billion tons in Europe and about 110 million in Italy) is made up of food for humans (8 billion tons) or for animals (11 billion tons). Forests provide 2.5 billion tons of wood and other products. The majority of biomasses end up in the atmosphere – either digested or burnt. A part however goes to wastewaters, and into waste. Food waste is estimated by FAO to be at least a third of the biomasses fit for human nutrition. Organic residues are often recovered from wastewaters as mud for depuration, which in turn ends up in landfills, or are destined to agricultural use or to incinerators. Extracted useful metal ore amounts to almost 8

Relation between the planetary boundaries of Rockström et al. and the use of materials Planetary boundaries

Drivers and/or pressures of materials use

Climate change

GHG Emissions due to combustion of fossil energy materials

Stratospheric ozone depletion

Emissions of ozone-depleting substances (such as CFCs and halons)

Ocean acidification

Emissions of chemical substances (such as nitric acid or sulphidic acid)

Biogeochemical flows: interference with P and N cycles

Phosphor influx due to agricultural activities; biomass extraction

Rate of biodiversity loss

GHG Emissions due to combustion of fossil energy materials; biomass extraction

Chemical pollution

Emissions of chemical substances based on abiotic raw materials

Atmospheric aerosol loading

Emissions of aerosols due to burning of fossil energy materials and biomass

Source: V. Stricks, F. Hinterberger, J. Moussa (2015), Developing targets for global resource use, IntRESS Working Paper No 2.3 (forthcoming publication on www.intress.info)

Policy

Materials intentionally mobilized by human activity in 2011 - both used and unused - by country and primary activity (billion of tons)

Source: www.materialflows.net 0 Used

OECD

Unused

Non-OECD

billion tons. Of these, only 170 million tons are extracted in the EU-27, the area where half a billion tons of metal concentrates and products are imported and from which 420 million tons of these manufactured products leave for the rest of the world. The balance – 250 million tons – is transformed on European soil into waste (often hazardous) and durable goods. The Atmosphere: Our Global Dustbin Let’s now observe the flows of global materials according to a “final destination” perspective. The atmosphere clearly appears as the most exploited global dustbin. Considering only the carbon contained in the emissions by fossil combustion and in cement production, in 2013 the annual flow has reached almost 10 billion tons, equivalent to 36 billion tons of CO2. To this figure we need to add: 1.5 billion tons of other gases – be they greenhouse gases or not; volatile substances and particulate; 3.5 billion tons from biomass combustion (most of the collected wood, part of agricultural residues); a similar amount coming from breathing of humans and animals (digestion transforms ingested food biomasses into CO2 and methane). A very recent study by the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado has estimated that the disposal of almost a billion tons of waste happens through combustion

OECD

Non-OECD high income Non-OECD medium-high income Non-OECD medium-low income Non-OECD low income

Biomass production and collection Fossil fuel extraction Extraction of industrial and construction minerals Metal ore extraction

renewablematter 02. 2015 Global material extraction and growth rates 80 Ores 70

+120%

60 Minerals

+202%

Billion tonnes

40 Fossil fuels 30

+66%

20 Biomass 10

+48%

0 1980

1985

Source: www.materialflows.net

Bibliography •• Global carbon budget 2014: http://www. globalcarbonproject. org/carbonbudget/14/ presentation.htm •• Biomasses combustion: https://engineering. stanford.edu/news/ stanford-engineers-studyshows-effects-biomassburning-climate-health and http://www.fao.org/ ag/againfo/programmes/ en/lead/toolbox/indust/ bioburea.htm •• Waste: http:// siteresources.worldbank.

1990

1995

2000

2005

in production sites (620 million tons) and storing sites (350 million tons). The product of this combustion contributes to the saturation of the atmosphere. The production of solid waste is mainly an urban phenomenon. According to a 2012 study by the World Bank, urban solid waste generated yearly in cities across the world amounts to 1.3 billion tons, while the International Solid Waste Association, which also takes into account the non-urban population, presents a figure of 1.84 billion

org/INTURBAN DEVELOPMENT/ Resources/3363871334852610766/What_a_ Waste2012_Final.pdf •• Plastics: http://www. unep.org/ietc/OurWork/ WasteManagement/ Projects/ wastePlasticsProject/ tabid/79203/Default.aspx •• I. Douglas, “Land use: the geomorphic and land use impacts of mining”, Sustainable mining practices – a global perspective, ed. V.

Rajaram, S. Dutta, K. Parameswaran, 60-80, Balkema, Leiden, 2005 •• H. Haberl et al., “Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation of net primary production in earth’s terrestrial ecosystems”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 104, n. 31, 2007, p. 12,942-12,947 •• R. LeB. Hooke, “On the history of Humans as geomorphic agents”, Geology, 28(9), 2000, pp. 843-846

2010

tons. Next figure shows the composition of the waste analyzed in the above mentioned World Bank study. These figures do not include a big part of industrial waste, in particular the residues of mineral extraction, as well as the unused part of cultivated or gathered biomasses. Referring to 2001, OECD (63% of world GDP) estimated that the total waste production in its member states amounted to 4 billion tons. UNEP, in a 2011 report, presented a figure of 11.2 million tons

•• M.L. Imhoff et al., “Global patterns in human consumption of net primary production”, Nature, v. 429, 2004, pp. 870-873 •• J.R. McNeill, Something New Under the Sun – An Environmental History of the Twentieth-Century World, W. W. Norton & Company, New York 2001 •• S.J. Price et al., “Humans as major geological and geomorphological agents in the Anthropocene:

the significance of artificial ground in Great Britain”, Philosophical Transactions A, v. 369, 2011, p. 1056-1084 •• J. Rockström et al., Water Resilience for Human Prosperity, Cambridge University Press, 2014 •• P.M. Vitousek (1986), “Human appropriation of the products of photosynthesis”, BioScience, v. 36, p. 368-373

Policy

of solid waste collected at a global level. According to some estimates, 20% of solid waste is generated in the textile sector. Electronic waste instead “only” amounts to 50 million tons, but it presents a specific level of danger, in addition to scarce recovery opportunities. Finally, all that is not given back to nature stays within the anthropic system in the form of infrastructures, buildings, machinery, durable goods. Among the latter we find: a percentage of the billion tons of processing wood which is extracted annually; oil derivatives such as bitumen and plastics; most of the 34 billion tons of minerals extracted every year for use in construction or industrial activities; the result of the processing of the 8 billion tons of metal ore. Obviously, the global estimates presented here are not totally exact or exempt from errors (mainly uncompleted data) and from the effect of divergent approaches between different authors and different sources. However, the type of analyses presented here (with all its limits related to global data) are of fundamental

importance in understanding how the concept of matter renewability can contribute to overcome the problems related to the use of material resources. A rational management of a huge quantity of existing products and matter stored in infrastructures, buildings and durable goods that are not useful anymore, will certainly be important in reducing metal extraction, excavation of inert materials, deforestation, cultivation on overexploited land, the search for new hydrocarbon deposits and polluting productions. Up to what point? For what materials and supply chains? At what geographical level? It is impossible to state it in general terms. More thorough and specific analyses will be useful tools in the search for answers, answers which cannot be provided only on the basis of the amounts given, but that certainly have to take them into account.

Global Solid Waste Composition

Source: World Bank, 2012.

Other 18%

Metal 4%

Glass 5%

Organic 46%

Plastic 10%

Paper 17%

renewablematter 02. 2015

Elemental Sustainability by James Clark

Today’s designers, industrialists and scientists can select virtually any chemical element to perform the specific function of their desire. As a result, modern technology makes use of practically the entire periodic table of elements as its tool box. Increasing use and lack of recycling of some of the more “critical” elements has raised concerns regarding their long-term availability. These concerns have reinforced interest in finding substitute materials as well as in the more draconian dematerialisation. While substitution may seem a reasonable course of action if we are to maintain or even increase our living standards, in most cases the potential for substitution has not been properly examined and other acceptable solutions need to be considered. In the long term we need to rethink our design strategy enabling a more closed loop approach to materials use, effectively keeping resources in circulation. However until that strategy is widely adopted we must both dramatically reduce materials losses through their lifecycle including the recovery of precious elements from waste streams.

Thus a policy based on greater efficiency across an increasingly circular resource life-cycle seems to be the most practical and socially acceptable way forward. The unique chemical and physical properties of metals mean that they are extensively utilised by industry in a huge variety of applications, including electronics, transport, materials, industrial catalysts and chemicals. The increased consumer demand from a growing population worldwide with rising aspirations for a better life has resulted in concerns over the security of supply and accessibility of many of these valuable elements. The long term security of elemental supply has become an important issue at local (industrial), national and regional levels with the EU being one of the most badly affected due to its relatively small known mineral reserves. The increasing scarcity of many elements is most dramatically illustrated using the instantly recognizable form of Mendeleev’s Periodic Table modified to show what is sometimes referred to as “Elemental un-sustainability” (figure 1). Elements are not “running out” or being destroyed, but rather are being dispersed

Figure 1 | Elemental un-sustainability – how we are running out of traditional mineral resources as seen by diminishing reserves through increased and different use patterns Remaining years until depletion of known reserves* 5-50 years 50-100 years

*Based on current rate of extraction

100-500 years

Source: based on an updated version of the original article in Green Chemical Engineering and Processing, J.R. Dodson et al., 2012, 69-78. Lanthanides Actinides

Policy Figure 2 | The different stages in a life-cycle of a metal starting from mining and then on to smelting and refining, then fabrication (Fab), Manufacturing (Mfg) and use, with the last step being waste management (Waste Mgmt). The outer circle shows the markets Imports/exports

Sl ag

es ss

d ine Ref

Mfg.

tal me

l fina l in ods go

Mat

a Met

Smelting

Use Stock

Scrap e

trat

Waste mgmt.

em Syst ndary u o b

fil

To other scrap market

life

Tai

-of-

Mining and milling

End

Recovered talings

cen

Con

ling

Too Complex to be Circular? A typical modern mobile phone contains over 40 different elements including arsenic, copper, gallium, gold, indium, magnesium, palladium, platinum, silver, tin and tungsten, all of which have been listed on the high current supply risk index by the British Geological Survey. They also have in common the worrying fact that the major suppliers and holders of reserves are outside the EU. Each generation of new phones seems to have an increased number of elements contained within them. Each year is also seeing an increase in the number of elements we use that we also consider to be at risk. We are making new ore discoveries but the rate of these new discoveries is going down and the average cost of extracting the elements is going up. According to the US Geological survey, the number of annual new ore discoveries halved between 2005 and 2010 yet we spent twice as much in 2010 on exploration. Like with petroleum we have used up most of the easy reserves and whats left is going to be in increasingly difficult places which we will only be able to exploit at high economic and environmental cost. The increasing complexity of modern articles is not only increasing the use of more and more elements, it is making their recovery more difficult. Ironically, the natural complexity of mineral

James Clark is Professor of Chemistry and Director of the Green Chemistry Centre of Excellence at the University of York. James has been at the forefront of green chemistry worldwide for 20 years: he was founding scientific editor of the journal Green Chemistry, and is senior editor for the Royal Green Chemistry book series, and President of the Green Chemistry Network. He has numerous recent awards including the RSC Environment Prize, the Society of Chemical Industry Chemistry for Industry award, and an honorary doctorate from Ghent University. He has authored over 400 articles and written or edited over 20 books.

Losses

Slag

For example, it is estimated that some 40 metric tonnes of platinum are lost each year during the mining stages with another 20 MT being lost during the downstream processing and use of the element. Despite the relatively high level of recycling and high value of platinum, we still lose over 50 MT per annum in waste management.

Fab. Refining

Many elements currently have low end-of-life recycling rates, and the overall efficiency of the recycling process is predominately dictated by the collection of waste metal directly after use. Both platinum and palladium already have well established recycling routes, as their use is dominated by the automobile catalyst industry. Their recovery after use is well understood, and collection is inherent in the current processes for dealing with end-of-life catalytic convertors. This is in contrast to the vast majority of elements which are much more difficult to recycle due to their low concentrations and dispersion in a wide range of waste streams. We make the problem greater by more wealthy regions exporting large volumes of metal-rich wastes to less wealthy countries where the limited availability of modern technologies and poor health and safety standards add to the environmental impact of the waste streams. By considering the social, economic and environmental impact of an element’s life cycle, it is possible to highlight opportunities for the implementation of green and novel technologies for the recovery of elements. Increased rates of recycling will help us move towards a circular economy and reduce reliance on element extraction and purification hopefully without having to impose a degree of dematerialization (reduce use of resource). A dematerialization policy might take the form of “critical element quotas” but society might be highly resistant towards this and it could be very difficult to implement (especially where living standards and personal expectation are rapidly rising). The different stages in a metal lifecycle are illustrated in figure 2.

throughout the technosphere, making recapture both highly problematic and often prohibitively expensive. These challenges must be tackled through the development of multidisciplinary partnerships, which adopt sustainable, holistic approaches consistent with recovery and reuse. Within this framework it is also important to consider the triple bottom line of sustainability, i.e. the environmental, societal and economic effects of these elements and their use.

Losses

Sem is

Source: courtesy of Dr Nedal Nasser, Yale University and based on a modified version of the diagram in B.K. Reck et al, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2008, 42, 3394-3400.

renewablematter 02. 2015 Figure 3 | National waste management patterns for municipal solid waste disposal in different countries % contribution to waste disposal 0

100

USA Japan Germany Netherlands Denmark France Italy Finland United Kingdom Ireland Portugal Slovenia Hungary Greece Czech Republic Poland Bulgaria

% landfill % incenerated % composted % recycled Source: based on data published in Green Chemical Engineering and Processing, J. R. Dodson et al., 2012, 69-78.

A typical modern mobile phone contains over 40 different elements including arsenic, copper, gallium, gold, indium, magnesium, palladium, platinum, silver, tin and tungsten all of which have been listed on the high current supply risk index by the British Geological Survey.

ores that contributes to the low efficiency and high environmental impact of metal extraction and purification is being repeated in our man made items. Ores that have taken millions to year to migrate close to the earth’s surface are highly complex; for platinum for example, the concentrations in mined ores is typically a few grams per metric tonne of rock (i.e. a few ppm) and it has to be separated from a plethora of other metals that can include copper, nickel, rhodium, iridium, ruthenium, tin, lead, arsenic and others. Having put so much effort into isolating the metals, it seems perverse that we then put so many of these into complex multi-element articles. This circle of complexity is reminiscent to what we do with our synthetic organic articles such as personal care products whereby we have effectively waited for nature to partially reduce the natural molecular complexity of biomass into fossil resources (essentially converting carbohydrates into hydrocarbons some of which have migrated towards the earths crust from where we extract them); our chemical industry than adds molecular complexity to these simple molecules so as to create the effects we desire, and then our process industries mix the resulting chemical compounds to create consumer products. In all cases, this man-made complexity makes any recycling of the resources in mineral and organic articles much more difficult. Not a Lot of Recovery Most of what we produce ends up in waste. The economic miracle of the 20th century that brought some one billion people into a comfortable lifestyle with high resource consumption was fed with non-renewable resources and based on a linear economic model of mine-process-consume-dispose,

and most of the disposal was into landfill sites (figure 3). Given the data in this article and information on the way we have treated resources, its hardly suprising to see that during this period of economic and consumption growth, we have not recycled many of our precious elements (figure 4). If we are running out of critical elements that are easily accessible and we are not recovering what we use then is clear that the growth in consumption resulting from an even larger number of people from developing countries cannot be supported by the same consumption model. But can we replace it with another linear model based on different earth-abundant elements? There has certainly been an increase in the research on alternatives. In the world of organic articles this is being driven by a combination of scarcity (diminishing traditional petroleum resources are used to manufacture over 90% of the articles) and legislation restricting the use of many compounds (due to increasing concerns over the toxicity and environmental impact of chemicals in common use including solvents, agrochemicals, flame retardants, surface coatings and numerous additives such as phthalates). For minerals the drivers are mostly scarcity driven and with the added concerns from regions with low natural virgin mineral resources. In both cases though for rather different reasons, the EU is taking the lead and it will be interesting to see if the EU completes the analogy by introducing legislation to restrict the use of what it now recognizes as critical elements. We should critically analyse the probability of success in finding alternatives for critical metals of which the platinum group metals are often considered to be the prime example.

Policy Platinum Group Metals Lets look at arguably the most famous group of metals, the platinum group metals (platinum, palladium, rhodium, ruthenium, iridium and osmium) or PGMs. PGMs possess an incredible array of physical and chemical properties that make them uniquely suited for a multitude of applications including automotive (including catalytic converters), catalysts in chemical and pharmaceutical production (many modern drugs are manufactured using process steps that use palladium in particular), petroleum refining, electronics (including hard disk drives), medical and dental (including anti-cancer drugs such as cisplatin) and ofcourse in jewellery. The value of these metals and the diversity of their applications has inevitably encouraged the consideration of (typically cheaper) alternatives but generally the alternatives that have been identified are themselves often, but not always other PGMs. For example for platinum the following alternatives have been proposed: •• Autocatalysis / Palladium; •• Electronic / Alloys of palladium; •• Medical / Some chromium alloys for some applications; •• Chemical catalysis / Other PGMs; •• Petroleum refining / Molybdenum. The relatively common suitability of other PGM alternatives is hardly suprising given the similarity in properties of this closely related group of metals. Where non-PGM alternatives have been proposed there are generally severe limitations including poor performance or the need for major

redesign of associated equipment, for example expensive chemical plant modifications when the alternative is not a drop-in replacement. In some cases there is no known adequate replacement; for example, in the enormous application area of automobile catalysis: despite thousands of other possibilities being tested, none can come close to the performance(s) of the PGMs. This application has a daunting set of requirements in terms of the chemical reactions the catalyst must promote (including the oxidation of carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons) and the poisons such as sulphur, that it needs to tolerate. This does not mean that the search for alternatives to critical metals and other important elements that are not readily abundant is in vain. In the world of chemical and pharmaceutical process catalysis for example, there have been some exciting research developments on using earth abundant metals rather than PGMs and other scarce metals as catalysts. In the same field, we have seen the growth of what are referred to as organo-catalysts that are completely metal-free. Of course, as with the growing concerns over some organic articles like solvents, we must not “throw the baby out with the bathwater”. We can and should expect to continue to use at least some metals and at least some solvents – we need them for too many important applications where in many cases there are not adequate replacements. But there are certainly many applications that are not so important and many cases where alternatives can be used with little added economic hardship or application value reduction. The number of successes is testament to this and once again proves the adage that necessity is the motherhood of invention.

Most of what we produce ends up in waste.

Figure 4 | Recycling rates of elements Current rates of recycling < 1%

25-50%

1-10%

> 50%

10-25%

No data available

Source: Courtesy of Dr Jennie Dodson, University of York.

Lantaanides Actinides

renewablematter 02. 2015

Columns Draught from Berlaymont

Circular Economy: All Eyes on the Juncker Commission’s Next Move Joanna Dupont-Inglis specialized in Environmental Sciences at University of Sussex and to that of Nantes. In February 2009 she has joined EuropaBio, the European Association of bio-industries, and from from April 2011 she directs the field of industrial biotechnology.

Shock waves created by the European Commission’s withdrawal of its circular economy and waste reform package have activated advocates of the initiative far and wide across the political spectrum. Both before and after the Commission’s formal announcement of its intention to remove and redraft its proposal, support poured in from industry, NGOs, the European Parliament and the member states. At a time when the EU is under immense pressure to tackle unemployment, a sluggish Eurozone economy, immigration, energy security and terrorism, the pressure to bump policies perceived as being “soft” or largely “environmental” down the agenda must be immense. But the message has come back loud and clear: this issue is anything but incidental to the EU’s future and to its economic recovery. The concept of the circular economy is about decoupling growth from resource consumption and maximizing the positive environmental, economic and social effects. It’s about designing products so that they are easier to reuse or recycle and making sure that every product ingredient is biodegradable or fully recyclable. In short, it’s a concept that is perfectly aligned with the development of the bioeconomy and the transition towards biobased rather than fossil based products. But if further compelling evidence is needed of the need for an EU circular economy strategy the figures are there – initial reports from the Ellen MacArthur foundation, first presented in Davos in 2012, showed an economic opportunity of US$ 630 billion per annum for EU manufacturing. The foundation reports that consumer goods account for approximately 60% of total consumer spending and 35% of material inputs. Perhaps even more striking, it reports that this sector absorbs more than 90% of our agricultural output, which in terms of potential implications for the system as a whole is staggering. It highlights the considerable amount of value that gets lost or overlooked in the current circular economy model, which fails to realize that an important proportion of what it treats as waste could in fact be potentially useful by-products. The Foundation’s latest report also highlights the fact that by designing better products from

the outset, as well as better processes and collection systems aimed at regeneration, it is possible to implement a model that can work long term, and unlock commercial opportunities along the way. This, in essence, is exemplified by the biobased value chain. The report goes on to highlight the fact that a tonne of domestic food waste, properly treated, can generate US$ 26 worth of electricity and US$ 6 worth of fertilizer but does not go further to consider the potential higher added material value of such a waste stream in the production of other, higher value, biobased products. However, it does highlight the benefits, both economic and environmental, of the circular model, which has the ability to re-generate rather than simply deplete. The development of the circular economy should represent the tipping point in the realisation that biobased products and the development of the bioeconomy play a central role in the transition towards a more sustainable future. A circular economy can only be achieved by breaking the linear fossil carbon based model of extraction, use and disposal/emission towards a use of renewable raw materials, increasingly based on residues and wastes. The European Commission promises to re-issue a new and improved circular economy package towards the end of 2015 with a greater focus on product design as well as recyclability and end of life. Now is the time to ensure that its proposal reflects our need to make the transition towards smarter, more sustainable, renewable and resource efficient feedstocks and processes to develop the circular economy of the future.

Policy

Knowing what the Commission’s agenda will be is one of the first things that European citizens and businesses want to know after the new elections.

Is Europe Changing Its Policy on the Circular Economy? by Francesco Petrucci

The withdrawal of an amendment package of the directives on waste (the so-called “directive on the circular economy”)1 by the new European Commission on 16th December 2014 caused quite a stir. The Commission announced that by 2015 a new and more ambitious bill on the circular economy would be passed, but would it?

Francesco Petrucci, environmental legal expert and a member of Edizioni Ambiente’s editorial staff on rules and regulations.

New elections not only introduce new faces in the assemblies but they often change policies and targets in line with the new political views of the winning alignment. The European Parliament elections that took place in the spring 2014 moved the political axis of European institutions slightly to the centreright, so changes in the environmental policies were to be expected too. The newly elected European Parliament has obviously caused a change in the European Commission, the institution in charge of introducing bills to the Parliament that will then have to be voted on, often in conjunction with the EU Council, the other EU body negotiating and adopting the European regulations together with the European Parliament (codecision procedure). The President of the European Commission is appointed by the European Council (the institution comprising the EU’s heads of state

1. The proposal for a directive of 2nd July 2014, COM (2014), 397 final, that amended directives 2008/98/EC on waste, 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, 1993/31/EC on landfills, 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles, 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators, and 2012/19/EU on waste electrical and electronic equipment.

and government which is not to be mistaken for the EU Council), whilst the Council, in agreement with the elected President, appoints the other Commissioners. The appointment of all Commissioners, including the President, is subject to the approval of the European Parliament. So, on the 22nd October 2014, the European Parliament approved the new Juncker commission which took over on 1st November 2014. This little reminder of what happens when European citizens elect their new representatives is useful for understanding both how much the new changed post-electoral political set-up influences the make-up of the European Commission (and its policies) and the importance of the Commission as the driving force of the European law and the new regulations that the Union decides to enforce. Indeed, the Commission presents a bill to the Parliament and the Council, manages the European Union budget, allocates the funds and monitors the implementation of European laws. In other words, knowing what the Commission’s agenda will be is one of the first things that European citizens and businesses want to know after the new elections. This is why the priorities of the new European Commission were much awaited. On 16th December 2014 the Commission announced

renewablematter 02. 2015 Regulations envisaged by the Barroso Commission, now scrapped by the Juncker Commission

From 2025

Ban on dumping recyclable waste in landfill

Mandatory Recycling

Recycling waste from packaging

its agenda for 2015, specifying the planned actions to be taken during the year “to make a real difference for jobs, growth and investment and bring concrete benefits for citizens. This is an agenda for change.” The new Juncker Commission emphasized political discontinuity compared to the previous Barroso Commission and stressed such discontinuity repealing 80 bills out of the 450 still awaiting a decision from the European Parliament and Council. As mentioned above, one of these bills was about the circular economy that, by amending the directives on waste, packaging, landfills, end-of-life vehicles, batteries and accumulators, outlined recovery and recycling ambitious targets (perhaps exceedingly so). According to the previous European Commission, the achievement on waste, as laid down by the directive on the circular economy, would have generated 580,000 new jobs, making Europe more competitive while reducing the demand for costly and dwindling resources. In particular, the directive envisaged the recycling of 70% of urban waste and 80% of packaging waste by 2030 and from 2025 the ban to dispose of recyclable waste in landfills. The economic model promoted by the directive is one where raw materials are no longer extracted, used only once and then discarded. In a circular economy, waste disappears and reusing, repairing and recycling become standard. The proposed directive was a step in the direction of a “plan towards a European efficiency in the use of resources” (communication of the Commission of 20th September 2011, n. COM (2011) 0571) falling within the flagship initiative on the Europe 2020 Strategy for the efficient use of resources. Why Did the New European Commission Presided by Juncker Decide to Withdraw it?

80%

According to a Commission’s press release, bills passed by the previous Commission presided by Barroso were withdrawn for one or more of the three following reasons: 1. They were not in line with the new Commission’s priorities; or 2. They had been lying for too long on the negotiating table between the EU Parliament and the EU Council; or 3. The original proposal had been so watered down during negotiations that it could no longer serve its initial purpose.

By 2030

Urban waste recycling

70%

We cannot imagine that the directive proposal on the circular economy adopted on 2nd July

Policy

2014 had been lying too long on the negotiating table or that the great political debate on it had watered it down (there was no time for the EU Parliament and the Council to discuss it). So, we are left with the third option: the directive on the circular economy was not in line with the Commission’s priorities for 2015. The Juncker Commission has highlighted that by the end of 2015 it will present a new directive proposal, even more ambitious than the previous one. But just the simple fact that for the whole of 2015 the EU Parliament will not discuss the circular economy speaks volumes about the

new Commission’s real desire to pursue specific environmental goals. Therefore, it seems that in 2015 the EU Commission will concentrate on promoting renewable energy, decarbonisation of the economy, reduction of energy dependence from non-EU countries while taking a pause for reflection on recycling, recovery and reuse of materials. Hopefully it will not be too long.

European Union: Who Does What Body

Function

The European Commission The Commission is composed of 28 members, one for each EU country. The Commission is the executive body of the EU. It represents and upholds the interests of the EU as a whole (and not those of single countries). The candidate for the presidency of the EU Commission is put forward to the EU Parliament by the EU Council taking into account elections’ results. The Commission as a whole needs the Parliament’s consent.

•• Proposing legislation which is then adopted by the co-legislators, the European Parliament and the EU Council. •• Enforcing European law. •• Setting objectives and priorities of EU’s action, outlined yearly in the Commission’s agenda and working towards delivering them. •• Managing and implementing EU policies and the budget. •• Representing the Union outside Europe (negotiating trade agreements between the EU and the rest of the world, for example).

The European Parliament It is elected by direct universal suffrage every 5 years. Members of the EU Parliament represent EU citizens. The Parliament together with the EU Council is one the main legislative institutions of the EU. Each country cannot have less that 6 and more than 96 MPs and the total number of MPs cannot exceed 751.

•• Debating and passing European laws, with the Council. •• Scrutinising other EU institutions, particularly the Commission, to make sure they are working democratically. •• Debating and adopting the EU’s budget, with the Council.

The Council of the European Union It is the place where Ministers representing each EU member state meet to adopt legislative acts and to coordinate policies.

•• Negotiating and adopting legislative acts, mostly with the EU Parliament through an ordinary legislative procedure also known as codecision procedure. In those sectors where the EU has exclusive competence or shared competence with other member states, the Council legislates, taking into account proposals presented by the EU Commission. •• Elaborating EU’s common foreign and security policy. •• Coordinating member states’ policies in specific areas. •• Concluding international agreements. •• Adopting the EU budget with the Parliament.

The European Council It is composed of the 28 EU member countries’ heads of state and government.

•• Setting the EU’s general political direction and priorities. It has no powers to pass laws but it is influential in setting the EU political agenda.

renewablematter 02. 2015

Elaeis guineensis. Franz Eugen Köhler, Köhler’s Medizinal-Pflanzen, 1887

The War for Biomass

by Mario Bonaccorso

After the wars for coal and oil, in the not too distant future, wars for biomasses are also to be expected. Such provocation – but is it really so? – was expressed last November in Düsseldorf by Heiner Grussenmeyer, director for R&D at Stora Enso – the Finnish/Swedish world giant pulp and paper manufacturer – speaking at Cluster Clib2021 International Conference. Oil prices volatility and limited fossil resources are pushing the chemical industry’s giants – but not exclusively – towards the use of alternative raw materials: food crops, agricultural waste and refuse. The key word is sustainability: not only economical but also environmental. Biomass is a renewable, albeit scarce resource, unevenly distributed in our planet. However, when it comes to food crops, its use for the industry clashes with the ever-increasing world food demand. This is why the European Union has virtually stopped the development of the so-called first-generation biofuels, those derived from the use of agriculture raw materials such as wheat and corn.

Mario Bonaccorso is a finance and economic journalist. He works for Assobiotec, The Italian Association for the development of biotechnology.

Nevertheless, are agricultural waste and refuse able to feed the whole bioeconomy? The global situation we are faced with at the moment is very complicated: on the one hand, the demand for biomass is on the rise not just for bioenergies but for the so-called biomaterials and biochemicals, on the other, there are countries offering great amounts of biomass to the bioeconomy’s world market such as Malaysia, Canada, Brazil, as well as countries of Northern Europe and Russia boasting huge forest resources. It’s no coincidence that Biochemtex, a company of the MossiGhisolfi Group, after the inauguration of the biorefinery for the production of second generation bioethanol in Crescentino (Vercelli, Italy), is planning to repeat the Italian plant in Brazil, China and Malaysia. The government in Kuala Lumpur has included biomass at the very core of its economic development plan for the next few years. In 2011, a National Biomass Strategy 2020 was presented, with a focus on palm oil, already contributing to 8% of GDP: almost 25.5 billion dollars (Malaysia is the world’s second largest producer and exporter of palm oil). The objective is to raise the bioeconomy’s contribution

Policy to GDP from the current 2-3% to 8-10% by 2020. Michael Carus, CEO of nova-Institut – a private research centre based in Hürth, near Cologne, Germany – has analysed this subject in quite some depth. Nova-Institut is regarded as a very prestigious institution and represents a benchmark in Europe and the United States, often quoting its research data in their support scheme to the bioeconomy “Biopreferred”. But what is the correct definition of biomass? Experts define it as the biodegradable fraction of products, waste and biological residue from agriculture (including plant and animal substances), from silviculture and deriving industries, including fishing and aquaculture as well as the biodegradable share of industrial and urban waste. According to Carus, nowadays the real problem is not so much its scarce availability but rather its “improper allocation”. Mostly in Europe. Overall, the bioenergy and biofuels should represent approximately 60% of the whole of renewable energies envisaged by the European Directive (RED, Renewable Energy Directive) and about 90% of the transport share by 2020. If those percentages were reduced to 40, 50 and 80 respectively, a significant amount of pressure would be lifted from biomass. Such regulation would be more useful compared to limiting the share of first generation fuels; indeed they can prove more efficient with regard to the employment of local resources as opposed to those of second generation. The missing percentage – as the German researcher suggests – could be obtained by a higher share of solar and wind power as well as other renewables. As to other biofuel percentages in the transport sector, it should be borne in mind that alternative means such as electric and carbon-dioxide powered cars are not yet sufficiently available on the market. They must nevertheless be adequately promoted in order to limit the use of biomass. Carus is one of the very few in Europe who strongly believes that the contrast between first and second generation biofuels is useless. In one of his studies – “Food or non-food: which agricultural feedstocks are best for industrial uses?” – the German physicist explicitly writes that “all types of biomass should be accepted for industrial use”. The choice should depend on how sustainable and efficient can the process to obtain biomass be. Political actions should not only distinguish between food and non-food crops, but they should rather employ criteria such as the availability of land, resources and land efficiency, optimization of by-products and emergency food reserves. There is an abundance of studies demonstrating

how many food crops are more efficient in the use of the local resources compared to non-food crops. This also means that less land for the production of a certain amount of fermentable sugar – crucial for biotechnological processes – is needed compared to the amount required to produce the same amount of sugar with the allegedly “non problematic” lignocellulosic second generation non-food crops. Carus explicitly criticizes the EU’s bioenergy and biofuels policy, as provided for by the ambitious objectives set by RED, because it entails systemic allocation of biomass for energy production to the detriment of materials. RED (in the future it will be linked to FQD – Fuel Quality Directive [Directive 98/70/EC] – in the transport sector) has triggered the development of national action plans and support systems for bioenergy and biofuels. And in turn this has caused both biomass prices and agricultural land lease to rise, making it more difficult for other sectors to get hold of biomass. There is improper allocation of biomass since this is blocking the development of “high value” materials such as chemical

Michael Carus, managing director of the nova-Institut

Carus is one of the very few in Europe who strongly believes that the contrast between first and second generation fuels is useless.

Malaysia is the world’s second-biggest palm oil producing country

Palm oil 8% of domestic income

US$25.5 billion

renewablematter 02. 2015 products and plastics. Therefore the development linked to RED will have a deep impact on the availability of biomass for the materials industry. An unfavourable regulatory framework combined with high prices and unsteady supply of biomass discourage investments in the chemical sector and in biobased plastics – even if they could generate a higher value and better resource efficiency. A new political framework for a more efficient and sustainable use of biomass is desperately needed.

Taking all this into consideration, Carus asks for a reform of RED into REDM, where “M” stands for materials. And he demands – followed more and more by the main actors of the European bioeconomy – a level playing field, that is equal opportunities for all sectors. Even OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) – as the nova-Institut highlighted in its latest report devoted to this issue and published last October – has emphasised how “generally biofuels enjoy much greater public support than biobased plastic and chemical products. This could jeopardize the development of the bioeconomy, making it unsteady and it could hamper the use of biomass for bioplastics and biobased chemical products. It could also limit the development and the operation of integrated biorefineries”. A new political framework for a more efficient and sustainable use of biomass is desperately needed. More specifically, it means equal opportunities for energy and materials industries. Until 5 or 6 years ago this was a worldwide problem, but nowadays

As far as biofuels are concerned, the EU is still stalemating First or second generation biofuels? After many years of animated discussion on this topic, last June EU energy ministers agreed on reducing the use of first generation biofuels for transport to 7% by 2020 and encouraging the transition towards second and third generation biofuels (which should represent at least 0.5% of the 10% goal). But the issue is far from solved: now an agreement must be found between the Parliament and the Council to reach a common position on the legislation. In September 2013, the EU Parliament set the upper limit of first generation biofuels from food crops to 6% in contrast with 5% previously suggested by the EU Commission.

it is manly a European issue. In America and Asia, the regulatory framework is much more favourable to biobased chemical products and plastics than in Europe. Consequently, the USA, Canada, Brazil, Thailand, Malaysia and China are attracting most of the new investments. For Europe, still grappling with the worst postwar economic crisis, this is not encouraging.

Interview

BASF: The Chemical Company becomes Biochemical Interview with Michael Nettersheim, investment manager at Basf Venture Capital

The Chemical Company is the simple and catchy slogan of BASF, a German company, world leader in the chemical sector. We are talking about a colossus that in 2013 had a turnover of €74 billion and employs 112.000 people worldwide. There is no chemical department where the Ludwigshafen Group is not present: chemical products, plastic materials, high performance products, agrochemicals, oil and gas. But for how long will all this be petroleum based? Oil prices and above all limited fossil resources are pushing even the chemical company par excellence towards the use of renewable raw

materials such as sugar and plant waste. Because even if in the coming decades the chemical industry will remain mainly petroleum based, due partly to the cost and the limited availability of biomass, there is an enormous potential for increasing the use of bio raw materials. According to OECD by 2030, 30% of all chemical products will be biobased. Is The Chemical Company destined to become The Bio-Chemical Company? Renewable Matter will discuss this topic with Michael Nettersheim, BASF Venture Capital investment manager, a pillar of its innovation strategy who has been given the task to find the world’s best start-ups.

Policy Mr Nettersheim, why did BASF decide to set up its own Venture Capital? In 2001 BASF decided to implement BASF Venture Capital. We invest in start-ups developing innovative technologies, based on new chemical materials as the relevant factor of success. Our goal is to facilitate access to for BASF new areas of technology. Consequently, our activities are very much focused on executing this strategic aspect. We do this by facilitating cooperation between BASF group and external partners – and of course by investing in promising start-ups. We invest preferentially in start-ups which have innovations for existing BASF Group activities, work in project areas of BASF New Business GmbH, or that are active within BASF Group growth and technology-fields. Is the bioeconomy a driver in the investment decisions of BASF Venture Capital? Industrial biotechnology, raw material change and agricultural products are technology fields of high relevance to BASF. Therefore, we closely look into these sectors. Over the years we have invested in several start-up companies that are active in these technology fields and develop innovative products and solutions. In addition, BASF cooperates with several external partners in order to develop new products and technologies.

In principle, the growth perspectives are positive. Leading companies such BASF and some of our competitors have significant operations in Europe. Academic players are also competitive with some room for improvement. Key challenges for many of the start-up companies are attracting experienced and skilled management as well as accessing venture capital especially in the early phases of development. Compared to the US this is the major bottleneck for emerging European high-tech companies. According to the OECD, in 2030 30% of all chemicals will be bio-based. How heavy is this provision in the strategic investment decisions of a chemical giant as BASF? In a very dynamic market environment we do see renewables also in the long term as one of several options in helping to ensure a sustained supply of products and are exploring new applications in many areas. Our customers are more and more requesting products from renewable resources. Therefore, this field is from a technology and investment point relevant for the Corporate Venture Capital activities of BASF.

Could you mention the start-ups you have invested in? BASF has made two investments in the bio-based chemicals area: Allylix and Renmatix. Both of these are US-based, Allylix (last November the company was acquired by Evolva Holding, a global leader in sustainable, fermentation-based approaches to ingredients for health, wellness and nutrition, editor’s note) has a platform technology for the production of complex molecules for the flavour and fragrance industry through a fermentation approach. Renmatix is developing a technology for the beginning of the chemical industry value chain, namely cost efficient and sustainably produced industrial sugars, which can be used as feedstocks for a vast array of fermentation processes. This technology, combined with upcoming fermentation technologies for the production of basic chemicals, monomers, complex molecules etc. will give cheap and green solutions for the chemical industry, both “drop-in” solutions and new bio-based alternatives. Indeed, this technology could be seen as providing the feedstock for the whole (bio)chemical industry. Crucially, the Renmatix technology is based on using non-food/feed competitive raw materials, e.g. wood.

It seems that your investments are focused on the US market. How do you consider the perspectives of growth of bioeconomy in Europe?

BASF steam cracker at Ludwigshafen, Germany

renewablematter 02. 2015

In Italy the Bioeconomy Is Worth €241 Billion The bank Intesa Sanpaolo presents the first private study on the bioeconomy. In the five major EU countries, the bioeconomy is worth more than €1.2 trillion employing nearly 7.5 million people.

by Mario Bonaccorso

We now know that in Italy the bioeconomy is worth €241 billion and employs approximately 1.6 million people. Such figures are provided by Intesa Sanpaolo Think Tank based on a thorough analysis carried out in Italy, Spain,

82 461

470 4,560

45,730

135

139 870

53 409

758

112

407

Spain

265,644

132,107

67 51

105,051

89,372

Tot. 186,671

27,162

7,401 13,603 13,696 1,574 1,574

344

Tot. 154,986 109,846

Germany

United Kingdom

3,520

Value of the production in Europe (million €, 2011)

2,756 504

643,143

390

EU 5

621

7,108 13,608 14,682 45,747

Italy

65,327

56,154

148

171,370

26,8

Tot. 330,484

123,165

Tot. 241,311

49,618

869

39,550

22,740

691 2,110

17,369 19,796 24,207

Value of the bioeconomy production in Europe (million €, 2011) and jobs (in thousands, 2011) in Europe

Tot. 1,208,765

277

Bioeconomy: jobs in Europe (in thousands, 2011) Agricolture

Wood

Forestry

Paper and pulp

Fishery

Bio-chemicals

Food

Policy

2,121 5,475

705

154,185

Tot. 330,484

78,813

10,709 17,803 28,854

France, Germany and the UK (the so-called EU 5 countries). It also provides the value of world exports (US$ 2.1 trillion in 2012) for the first time. In this special list of the European bioeconomy,

65 610

France

Bioeconomy: Jobs in EU 27 (in thousands, 2011) Tot. 18,720

10,955.80

503.80 261.50

4,820

1,090 654 436

Italy is in third position. Germany is first with a production worth €330 billion and France second with €295 billion. Spain is fourth (€186 billion) followed by the UK (€155 billion). In these five countries, the bioeconomy is worth €1.2 trillion and employs 7.5 million people (the total of people working in this sector in the EU-27 countries amounts to 18 million). But how has Intesa Sanpaolo Think Tank come up with these figures? According to Stefania Trenti and Serena Fumagalli, the two authors of the report, “The calculation of the value of the bioeconomy was carried out using available statistical data both on the value of production and employment and exports. As for agriculture, silviculture, fishing, wood, paper and food industries, official statistical information already provides the bulk of the data. Calculating the value of the chemical industry was rather more complex”. Such complexity derives from the need to understand which chemicals are already obtained from renewable sources. To this end, “The analysis was carried out with the help of a biotechnology expert working at the nova-Institut in Germany who was asked to identify chemical products that could be manufactured from renewable materials utilizing existing technologies. This list, based on the highest level of disaggregation available, enabled us to identify not what is currently produced with renewable materials but rather the economically sustainable potential production with currently available technology”. This has proved that biotechnology is already an important sector both in Italy and in Europe. It obviously takes into account the whole agricultural and food industry as well as silviculture, even if not all agricultural products or wood are used as biomass for the industrial sector. But this is what was taken into account by the EU when in 2012 it launched its biotechnology strategy, providing the first data for this meta-industry in the EU-27 countries: it has a total turnover of €2 trillion and employs 22 million people. “Our analysis,” the two authors continue “outlines the importance of the bioeconomy in Spain where it represents 9.8% of GDP employing 1.3 million people. This is mainly

Source: Intesa Sanpaolo estimates based on Eurostat data.

Europe’s Bioeconomy List: 1. Germany 2. France 3. Italy 4. Spain 5. UK

renewablematter 02. 2015 Weight of the bioeconomy on total GDP (%, 2011) Italy

Germany

France

United Kingdom

Spain

EU 5

7.6

6.6

8.1

4.8

9.8

7.1

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0.4

0.2

0.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

Source: Intesa Sanpaolo estimates based on Eurostat data.

Balance of trade

Tot. 646,970

Italy

Germany

France

United Kingdom

Spain

90,080 3,670 6,237

10 00

- 16.7

- 4.0

+ 9.0

- 33.2

+ 2.9

-10 -20 305,169

-30 Tot. 316,576

European exports in the bioeconomy (€ million, 2011)

10,894 168 538

Tot. 113,004

34,312 8,884 385

Tot. 44,409

Tot. 80,835

258 5,453 51,716

109 241 24,371 1,444 Bioeconomy % of the total economy 11.8%

6,048 6,742

Italy

14,633

10,894

441

168

518

538

19,221

21,419

388

1,164

2,966

4,277

26,194

6,635 15,800

1,851

18.9%

Germany

France

Total economy 428,501

Agricolture

Food

Forestry

Wood

Fishery

Paper and pulp

86,863

441

40,633

Total economy 1,058,897

157,360

Tot. 44,625

14,993

6,163 19,405

10.7%

Total economy 375,904

Tot. 33,704

9.3%

7,854

Unite Kingdom

20.3%

Spain

6,164

10,974 39,332 120,639 62,754 12.9%

14.8%

EU 5

Total economy 363,915

Total economy 220,223

Total economy 2,447,440

Bio-chemicals

Source: Intesa Sanpaolo estimates based on Eurostat data.

EU 27

Total economy 4,367,039

Policy

Source: Intesa Sanpaolo estimates based on UNCTAD Comtrade.

Global trade of biobased products (US$ billion and %)

% of the total

11.4%

11.5%

2,200 US$ billion

2,000

11.3%

10%

1,800

11.6%

1,600

9.8%

1,400 1,200 1,000

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

USA

Germany

Netherlands

France

China

Brazil

Canada

Belgium

Spain

Italy

Indonesia

Thailand

India*

0.0

Argentina

Biobased chemicals exporting countries (% on US$ billion)

Source: Intesa Sanpaolo estimates based on UNCTAD Comtrade.

2007

2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

2008 2012

12.0

due to the agricultural and food sectors, but Spain’s production of biochemicals is also higher than the EU-5 average. The bioeconomy plays a relevant role also in France where it represents 8.1% of GDP, again mainly due to the agricultural and food industry while the role of other sectors (paper, wood and biochemicals) is weaker than average. So France and Spain are the only two countries with a balance of trade for bioeconomy products.” It appears that it is always the agricultural and food industry that leads the way. What about Italy? How is the country that should supposedly base an important share of its economy on its food excellence doing? Here, the agricultural and food industry has a negative balance of trade. The UK is in the same position while Germany, at least as far as the food industry is concerned, has a positive balance of trade. In 2012, global exports of bioeconomy products (according to Intesa Sanpaolo Think Tank list) – “The last year with sufficient global trade statistical data” the authors highlighted –

*2009 instead of 2008.

amounted to $2.1 trillion, that is 11.4% of global trade, a rapidly expanding share compared to 8.9% in 2007. Food products, worth 1.85 trillion, represent 45% of total exports. As a whole, the agricultural and food industry makes up two thirds of the total, followed by biochemicals amounting to 16% of exports. These data put into perspective the growing importance of the industry’s use of renewable sources. The main players include the USA, Germany, the Netherlands, France and also China and Brazil, with shares higher than 4% of total global exports. “As seen in many other sectors”, Ms Trenti and Ms Fumagalli claim “even in the bioeconomy the role of mature countries seems declining in favour of emerging countries such as China, Brazil, India, Indonesia and Thailand that are winning larger shares of the global export market.” From an import point of view the picture is different: in 2012, the main global importing country was China – with a share nearing 10%

What about Italy? How is the country that should supposedly base an important share of its economy on its food excellence doing?

renewablematter 02. 2015

of total imports, rising steeply compared to 2008 data – followed by the G7 countries, the Netherlands and Belgium. As for the biochemicals global market, the two main players are the USA and Germany with high shares of global exports. Even despite their high imports, this enables them to enjoy a positive balance of trade. China ranks third, but it presents a negative balance of trade because it is the main global importing country of these products with a share of 13.7% in 2012. Belgium, the Netherlands and France rank very high amongst the exporting countries while Italy is only thirteenth with a market share of 2.6%

and a negative balance of trade equalling $4.7 billion in 2012. European statistical data also enabled Intesa Sanpaolo Think tank to estimate the value of the biofuel production in the EU 28 zone in 2013. A total of 8.5 million tons worth nearly €7 billion. In the same year, exports amounted to €351 million while imports came close to €1 billion, a negative trade balance just short of €600 million (865,000 tons). According to the two Italian researchers, “This sector is relatively closed to trade outside the EU 28, nearly all of its total production is destined to Europe and its characterized by a low import penetration”.

Export biochemicals (US$ billions)

Balance

Import biochemicals (US$ billions)

Share Export biofuels (US$ millions) Source: Intesa Sanpaolo estimates based on UNCTAD Comtrade.

Ranking Import biofuels (US$ millions)

+17.3

+4.9

-0.5

-1.4

-1.1

8.3

8.9

44.0

26.7

12.1

8.6

21.7

16.8

10.8

12.1

2.4%

12.7%

7.3%

2.5%

2.7%

6.3%

4.3%

3.1%

3.3%

Canada

USA

Perù

Argentina

+1,774.5 +401.0

-477.7

Spain

France

-1,024.9 -190.6

-477.5

-305.0

570

540

139

305

1,774

656

1,681

527

210

1.0%

5.8%

1.4%

0.0%

3.1%

18.9%

0.0%

7.0%

17.1%

0.5%

5.4%

0.2%

2.1%

Policy

Main players* in the global trade of biochemicals and biofuels (2012)

-38.7 +11.5

+8.7

-4.5

+7.2

+3.5

14.1

2.6

5.4

9.8

11.3

50.0

15.9

7.2

15.4

8.2

12.1

8.6

4.1%

0.7%

1.6%

2.7%

3.3%

13.7%

4.6%

2.0%

4.5%

2.3%

3.5%

2.4%

Saudi Arabia

India

China

Singapore

South Korea

Japan

Indonesia

+1,376.6

1,382

14.7%

0.0%

* Assessed according to total imports plus exports.

+7.2 +4.8

+9.5

-4.7

22.1

17.4

24.7

15.2

9.1

13.9

36.8

29.7

6.4%

4.8%

7.1%

4.2%

2.6%

3.8%

10.7%

8.2%

Belgium

Netherlands

Italy

Germany

Austria

Norway

Poland

-145.8 -587.3 -1,328.4

-33.2

-109.0 571

604

1,676

1,822

134

1,462

1,571

6.1%

6.2%

17.9% 18.6%

1.4%

14.9%

16.8% 10.0%

984

-75.4

-29.2

152

261

123

138

214

1.6%

2.7%

1.0%

1.3%

1.5%

2.2%

renewablematter 02. 2015

Waste Thieves

by Antonio Pergolizzi

Does ecomafia only mean burying hazardous waste illegally? Are we just talking about waste trafficking or about raw materials stealing as well? To answer these questions we need to start with some figures. According to the Italian National Statistical Institute (ISTAT), in 2011, the Italian industrial sector used about 35 million tons of secondary raw materials for its production cycles, i.e. materials from waste recovery. Over the last ten years, the recycling industry has soared at a phenomenal rate: the number of companies rose from 2,183 to 3,034 (+39%), the number of employees went from 12,000 to over 24,000.

Antonio Pergolizzi is a journalist and researcher. Since 2006 he has been the Coordinator of Legambiente’s Observatory for the Environment and Legality.

So, a substantial overall growth bolstered by many industries. In 2010, building sites recycled and used 51 million tons of inert waste and 22 million of scrap iron (equalling 77% of the iron and steel total national production). The Italian metallurgical sector relies on scrap metal. In 2011 Italy became the first EU country for the quantity of aluminium obtained from secondary raw materials, recycling as much as 927,000 tons. The lead industry depends on scrap (92% from used batteries), in 2010 as many as 165,000 tons were recovered. After the metallurgical sector, the paper one is the second relying the most on waste: in the same year, over 5 million tons of pulp paper were fed back into the production cycle, making up nearly 59% of the national output. Italy also ranks second in the EU for the amount of plastic waste recovered, about 1.7 million tons thanks to 200 polymer recycling companies treating over 400,000 tons of low

density polyethylene and 300,000 tons of low and medium density one, over 350,000 tons of polypropylene, 200,000 of PET and 100,000 of PVC. The glass industry too depends on recovery: of the 5.2 million tons produced in 2011, more than 2 million came from recycling. Nevertheless, Italy is still a secondary raw materials net importer. Against 7.1 million tons of imported materials, it exported 2.8 million: a negative balance of 4.3 million tons of materials, worth €2.2 billion. Therefore, despite the high recycling levels, there is still room for further growth. Such trend is confirmed by global data. Over the last ten years, international trade for iron and aluminium scrap and paper, plastic and wood waste has virtually doubled. As for scrap iron, it went from 61 million tons in 2000 to almost 108 in 2011 (an increase of 75%), while plastic waste soared by 260% (from 4.5 million tons of 2000 to 14.84 million of 2011). Monetarily, the overall trade of these five materials is worth more or less US$90 billion yearly. According to the Border Agency, in 2013 alone, the EU exported nearly 17 million tons of scrap metal, nearly 10 million tons of cardboard and paper, nearly 3 million tons of plastic and 329,000 tons of rubber. Within the EU, Germany is the top exporter of plastic – about 1 million tons (33% of the EU total trade) – while the UK is the biggest exporter of scrap metal – more than 4.7 million tons (28% of the EU’s total) – and of recycled paper and cardboard, about 3 million and 700,000 respectively (37%). France’s major export is rubber waste, nearly 82.000 tons per year (25%). Since these are strategic resources for the European manufacturing sector, in 2011

Policy Recycling sector’s trend over the last ten years 2004

2014 Number of companies

+39%

the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) stated that it even considered introducing “export duties to protect the EU from the risk of losing very useful materials”. In particular, claiming that “the EU should negotiate emergency solutions with the WTO, setting clear and transparent limitations or duties on strategically important waste materials”.

2,183

Number of employees

3,034

Waste Grabbing Today, waste is the new urban mine to plunder. For each material, there is a stock exchange with price quotations. In the case of recycled polyethylene-based materials, blue PET chips can cost up to €1,000 per ton. Recycled aluminium from cans and scrap copper fetch €1,500, discarded tyres €500, textile waste €280, scrap iron €168 (€400 if steel), vegetable oils €250, WEEE €300, medical waste €470 and so on. Much better than burying them in an olive grove! Therefore, the “new dealer” trades in materials with high economic and strategic value. This is particularly true in Italy, a country that boasts a long recycling tradition and one of the worst affected by the illegal drain of these materials towards foreign countries. As Duccio Bianchi1 notes, in 2010, while in Europe the industrial recovery of recyclables (metals, paper, plastic, glass, wood, textiles and rubber) amounted to 163 million tons, Italy recovered 24.1 million tons, the highest amount in Europe, ahead of Germany’s 22.4 million tons. In particular, Italy is the European leader in recycling ferrous metals, plastic and textiles. After the US and Japan, Italy is the third biggest recycler

+100%

12,000

of aluminium worldwide. Stopping the illegal trafficking means defending part of the green economy. So, instead of carrying on hunting the old local traffickers, we must now face up to this new breed: actual businessmen, brokers on the international market of raw materials, paying attention to stock market quotes, to the value of these materials and to individual country’s hunger for raw materials. Traffickers who run real mobs, in some cases Mafia-style organizations. Informal, flexible, non-territorial, situational criminal networks that differ from actual criminal enterprises because they are not necessarily characterized by structured organizations, shared values and established operating borders and hierarchy. Shifty Chinese shadows able to elude even the most expert investigators. These criminal networks fully understand that such materials are fundamental, especially for countries with well-established manufacturing industries, and scarce resources and advanced recycling systems such as Italy and Germany.

24,000

1. D. Bianchi, Riciclo ecoefficiente, L’industria italiana del riciclo tra globalizzazione e sfide della crisi, Edizioni Ambiente, Milan 2012.

Stopping illegal waste trafficking means defending part of the green economy.

renewablematter 02. 2015 Waste percentage seized by customs – by type, 2013

62.8%

14.1%

Metals

Plastic

0.5% WEEE (waste electrical and electronic equipment)

5.5%

Textiles (offcuts and used clothing)

Waste is the name of one of the most recent investigations on this front carried out last May. Investigators seized four semi-trailers bound for Iran and Libya containing ferrous waste, pieces of scrapped lorries, exhausted batteries, tyres and WEEE amounting to about 70 tons.

6.7%

Rubber and Tyres

2.3%

Other Waste

Source: The Italian Border Agency in Ecomafia 2014, edited by Legambiente, Edizioni Ambiente, Milan 2014.

3. Mercati illegali, edited by Legambiente and Polieco, February 2012. 4. Dossier Terre Rare, edited by ENEA, Ministero Sviluppo Economico, published on http://unmig. sviluppoeconomico.gov.it/ unmig/miniere/terrerare/ dossier_terrerare.pdf.

8.0%

Vehicles, engines and their parts

WEEE and Rare Earth Elements (REE)

0.0%

Glass

2. Ecomafia 2014, edited by Legambiente, Edizioni Ambiente, Milan 2014.

Eurostat data confirm that waste has already conquered the raw material market, following the footsteps of production delocalization and trade globalization. Between 2001 and 2009, legal exports of waste from EU countries to non-EU countries rose by 131%. Between 1999 and 2011, plastic exports amongst EU countries grew fivefold, from about 1 million tons to over 5 million. Metal waste exports followed a similar trend, over the same period they more than tripled. At the same time, illegal routes also grew as shown by the data of seizures carried out by Customs in Italian ports over the last two years: nearly 20,000 tons of waste (18,800 to be precise) bound for illegal export, above all plastic, paper and cardboard, scrap iron, end-of-life tyres (ELTs) and waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). An increase of about 35% compared to the 2008-2009 period when border seizures amounted to just over 12,000 tons. In 2012 alone, 59% of ELTs, 16.5% of scrap metal and over 14% of plastic waste exports were illegal and therefore seized by the Italian Border Agency.3

0.0%

Leather Goods

0.0%

Paper and Cardboard

Or countries with double-digit growth rates such as the BRIC – Brazil, Russia, India and China. All this triggers waste grabbing to satisfy raw materials hunger of old and new economic players; such demand is further accentuated by new sustainability policies incentivizing collection and recycling, especially in the EU. Recyclers struggling for the scarcity of supplies wonder where these materials have gone. The Border Agency is proving an answer though seizures at borders. In 2013, Italian Port Authorities checked 4,359 tons of waste, 69% was metals, over 14% plastic and then tyres, textiles, scrapped vehicles and WEEE.2 Desert

Traffickers’ most popular waste materials are WEEE, a treasure trove of materials and Rare Earth Elements (REE), 17 chemical elements of the periodic table used in hi-tech products (PC, monitors, mobile phones, etc.). To understand their value, one just needs to analyse the REE price chart. According to ENEA,4 their price has enjoyed a stable and constant growth rate from 2003 to date (despite a setback in 2013) following the strong demand for hi-tech products. Today, the demand of neodymium, praseodymium and dysprosium for the production of magnets keeps driving the market. In the future, the use of europium, terbium and yttrium for the production of phosphates could further increase their market value. In 2012, the worldwide mining production of these rare earth elements – with a demand that could overtake supply in the very near future – was estimated at 110,000 tons by the USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). China is the leading producer, it generates

Policy Rare Earth Elements (REE) in the periodic table

Alkali metals

Other metals

Noble gas

Alkaline earth metals

Other nonmetals

Actinides

Transition metals

Halogens

Rare Earth Elements (Lanthanides)

Scandium

Yttrium

Cerium Lanthanum

Neodymium

Praseodymium

Samarium

Promethium

97% of the demand and holds 55% of the reserves. A true monopoly. Italy does not yet have plants able to recover REEs from WEEEs. It thus loses an incredible resource that, as it can be imagined, traffickers and informal channels are ready to tap into: in Italy alone, waste dealers manage 900,000 tons of WEEs per year. Recently, one of the leading Italian association in this sector, Ecodom, has railed against their swindle, arguing that over 65% of this waste ends up in the illegal trade, bound for China and some African countries. According to General Director Giorgio Arienti’s analysis, trafficking trends reflect secondary raw materials prices: when they rise, illegal trafficking also expands and vice versa. The same applies to the rest of Europe. There is no production of REES, recycling amounts to a symbolic 1% while producing electrical and electronic equipment that

Gadolinium

Europium

Dysprosium

Terbium

Holmium

Erbium

Ytterbium Thulium

ends up as WEE. It is no surprise then that over the last 5 years, the EU has been a net importer of REE, metals and alloys for about 12,000 tons per year. Stopping illegal flows of these waste materials has become an ever more urgent question in order to prevent incalculable damage to the legal economy and the environment. The response must not be limited to repression because it is of very little use without innovating both processes and products. The best way to tackle ecomafias and environmental crime is to adopt brand new economic models envisaging a circular, shared and sustainable approach rather than the old linear one. As many years of studying rubbish traffickers’ routes have taught us, the best way to check their power is to change the market, starving their alibis and playing field of oxygen and blacking them out from history.

Lutetium

renewablematter 02. 2015

Focus China

Why China is Embracing the Circular Economy

by Johnson Yeh

The Chinese economy has grown rapidly and created tremendous wealth. Nominal GDP has grown 7.5 times between 2000 and 2013. Total household income has about doubled between 2005 and 2012 alone and stands to more than triple between 2012 and 2030. By 2030, the upper middle class will make up more than half of urban households. However, this rapid growth puts a tremendous strain on resources. China’s growth demands a strong supply of raw materials, water, energy, and food, among others.

Dr. Johnson Yeh joined the World Economic Forum in January, 2014, as the Associate Director in the Environment Team, leading the Circular Economy initiative.

One potential remedy to resource supply constraints and consequently high resource prices and volatility could be for China to further engage with the concepts and approaches of the circular economy. Engaging in circular economy practices helps decouple growth and resource needs. For example, refurbishing products, feeding functional components and recycled materials back into the appropriate value chains, and efficiently utilizing biological cycles, could significantly dampen not just China, but also the world’s hunger for untapped

resources, while sustaining economic growth. The Chinese government has already begun to embrace the ideas of the circular economy, first formalized in the country’s 2009 circular economy Promotion Law. As one of the first nations worldwide, China embraced the language of the circular economy and has seen a great deal of success on many fronts. Some examples are its eco-city and eco-parks, as well as, factories clusters with advanced industrial symbiosis practices. But circular economy requires a global level collaboration along different parts of the supply chain, and China needs to think about its role in the global supply chain and how it can make these changes of design to circularity with the international players together. The new circular growth model will be a great way for China to transition from a manufacturing dominated economy to a more service-driven economy. While the Chinese economy is much more known for manufacturing-intensive growth, rather than a strong service economy engine, circular economy service and capability needs play to some of China’s core strengths. One possibility is for Chinese companies to leverage

Total family income trend in China from 2005 to 2012 and estimates for 2030

¥ ¥ ¥ 2005

2012

2030

Policy

Worldwide, China has been one of the first nations to embrace the language of circular economy and has seen a great deal of success on many fronts.

their wide variety of manufacturing capabilities and strong local supply chain ecosystem to take a leadership position in remanufacturing and refurbishing space. This in turn could inform asset maintenance schedules and draw demand for effective reverse logistics services. Circular goods that are designed for circularity also means more frequent customer interaction, more possibility of upselling, and more opportunity to use maintenance as the main income stream for products. Furthermore, with China’s worldwide predominant manufacturing position and natural resource wealth, Chinese companies could set recycling standards and define future global supply chains with recycled materials and remanufactured parts. As the Chinese economy matures further, it will eventually make a shift away from a predominantly manufacturingcentric economy and more strongly develop the service economy one of its growth drivers. The circular economy can act as a beach head into the world of services. Since many of these services require only marginally more skills than original manufacturing, China could make the move without the need for massive re-education efforts, effectively just adjusting existing infrastructure and workforce capabilities to new targets. Moreover, the shift to the circular economy in China does not only apply to China as factory of the world, but also to China as the largest future global market. For example, growing consumption (private consumption share of GDP expected to rise from less than a third in 2012 to over half in 2030) could be met with asset-sharing, or performance over ownership business models. Successful examples of this globally include Zipcar, which allowed owners to lease out their car during idle times, and allowed customers with short term demand to pay a small amount for the short term need instead of having the need to own the asset in the long run. As consumer demands grow and develop, their preferences can still largely be shaped and adoption rates of new business models could actually be higher than in other economies. In addition, the sheer size and variation in income levels across China could allow for the sale of tiered products across various sub-markets. That means refurbished products could be sold in parallel to new products without noticeable cannibalization,

and could even potentially dampen the extent of the counterfeit market in China. China’s rapid build-out of cities across the country due to urbanization trends can be a perfect spawning bed for this transition to a circular economy. If properly designed, these new-built cities can showcase as a proof of concept for circular economy ideas as having strong economic and social benefits. China’s government has a strong track record of drafting and executing policy and infrastructure decisions. Therefore, China can be a great place for the resource revolution, starting with circular economy, to start.

Moreover, the shift to the circular economy in China does not only apply to China as factory of the world, but also to China as the largest future global market.

renewablematter 02. 2015

Focus China

Kickstarting the Circular Economy in China by Carlo Pesso

The turn of the century definitely marked a tipping point. In 2004, Pan Yue, China’s Deputy Minister for Environmental Protection, one among the greenest and most outspoken Chinese leaders stated: “China can no longer afford to follow the West’s resources-hungry model of development and it should encourage its citizens to avoid adopting the developed world’s consumer habits... It’s important to make Chinese people not blatantly imitate Western consumer habits in order not to repeat the mistakes by the industrial development of the west over the past 300 years”.1 Ten years down the road, his message has somehow trickled down and may soon become mainstream.

Carlo Pesso, Edizioni Ambiente Study Centre.

The task is daunting considering the pressing need to provide a growing population of 1.3 billion with a greater standard of living, while income disparities have reached a thirty-year record peak.2 Resources may simply not suffice and, in certain areas, the environmental carrying capacity is visibly being stretched (air and water pollution). Not surprisingly, the notion of circular economy – which remains strongly rooted in China’s rural practices – appears today as an essential instrument to achieve future quality development. However, in practice, the new effort is driven by the desire to secure resources rather than by environmental concerns. So until May 2010, when China’s National Development and Reform Commission and the Ministry of Finance unveiled a 5-year plan to develop pilot urban mining facilities in 30 cities, material recycling was a largely spontaneous business that contributed dramatically

1. Quoted in Environmental Solutions, Elsevier Academic Press, 2005 from the New York Times, 2004. 2. “Top 20% earns 10 times more than low-income society in China” in China Daily Europe, 24 December 2014, (http://europe. chinadaily.com.cn/ china/2014-12/24/ content_19153991.htm).

to rising levels of pollution. The plan aims at modernising “industrial metabolism” to reach, and possibly overtake, the best available international practices. This is best achieved if a few “champion” companies emerge, which is precisely what is happening. Hence, national and regional governments pooled their resources and teamed up to turn sloppy recycling areas into professionally managed eco/industrial/circular economy parks. At first, efforts were dedicated to 7 major existing sites with the objective of recycling 1.9 million tons of copper, 800,000 tons of aluminium, 350,000 tons of lead, and 1.8 million tons of plastic by 2015. Among these, the Tianying Recycling Economic Park on the outskirts of the city of Jieshou deserves some attention. Described by some sources as one of the ten most polluted cities in the world (the World Bank indicated that 20 out of the 30 most polluted cities are in China), it now harbours over 40 lead processing companies that are progressively substituting the primitive battery recycling and lead smelting technologies that were common until then. According to a 2006 Xinhua News Agency report, unregulated plants in Tianying treated 160,000 tons of lead. Overall, these efforts are highly appreciated by the media and authorities, although there is much debate among environmental NGOs about how serious and how thorough and effective remediation efforts are. In several cases, the main hurdle is due to increased treatment costs that incentivise the illegal trade for waste battery recovery. A recent report by Chinadialogue. net relayed an interview of Wan Xuejie, deputy president of Jitainli, who explained that his company had spent 200 million yuan

Policy Recycling objectives for 2015

Copper 1.9 million tons

Aluminium 800,000 tons

Lead 350,000 tons

Plastic 1.8 million tons

on importing and upgrading top of the range equipment from Italy to extract the acid and metals from the batteries. In order to make a profit his company needed to buy batteries at less than 4,000 yuan a tonne while smaller and environmentally damaging companies could pay 7,000 yuan and still make money.3 The other six industrial parks, namely the Ziya Circular Economy Industrial Park in Tianjin; the Jintian Industrial Park in Ningbo, Zhejiang; the Miluo Industrial Park in Hunan; the Huaqing Circular Economy Park in Qingyan, Guangdong; the Jinmai Industrial Park in Qingdao; and the Southwest Resource Recycling Industrial Park in Sichuan are faced with similar issues. Meanwhile a further 15 sites are earmarked for phase two of the urban mining initiative.4 Altogether, such efforts offer vast opportunities to foster international cooperation. These include technology transfer, as in the case of Italian Merloni Progetti that built a battery recycling plant and seven refrigerator recycling plants, each capable of treating a million fridges/ year, for Chinese giant home appliance producer

3. “Advancing sustainable business in China”, Chinadialogue, June 8, 2014 (https:// s3.amazonaws.com/ cd.live/uploads/content/ file_en/7127/business_ journal_final-web0709. pdf#page=34&zoom=au to,-164,601).

4. K. Someno, “Recycling and Economic Growth in China’s Interior”, The Tokyo Foundation, July 31, 2014 (http://www. tokyofoundation.org/en/ articles/2014/recycling-inchina-interior).

renewablematter 02. 2015

Haier.5 It also concerns eco-park planning and management as in the case of cooperation between Japan’s Kitakyushu “Eco-town” and its Chinese counterparts in Tianjin and Qingdao, and reaches out to include the development of waste recycling schemes such as those set up by United Kingdom’s Valpak packaging compliance scheme.6 An Emerging Champion: China Recycling Development Co

7. Quoted in “China’s plastic recycling rate falls to 22 percent”, Recycling Today, July 7, 2014 (http:// www.recyclingtoday.com/ china-plastic-recyclingrate-decline.aspx).

In “The Renewable Resources Industry Development Report of China”, covering events in 2013, China’s National Resources Recycling Association indicates that “there are over 100,000 institutions with 18 million employees involved in the recycling industry (...) and account for 160 million tons of material valued CN¥481.7 billion ($77.6 billion)”.7 Indeed, the Chinese recycling market appears to be crowded with small and medium sized companies; however, a few big players are emerging. Among these, China Recycling Development Co (CRDC) stands out as a leading company. Created in May 1989 with State Council and China Co-ops Group support, the company operates right across the country through more than 50 branches or subsidiaries and about 3,000 recycling stations. Its direct competitors operate in one or a few provinces at the most.

In 2010, CRDC sold more than 4,800,000 tons of recyclable materials and achieved a turnover of 15.8 billion yuan, and making a profit of 2.918 billion yuan. Moreover, CRDC operates five industrial recycling parks, namely: •• the Huaqing Circular Economy Park, which in 2005 was the first renewable resource enterprise in China equipped with wastewater treatment plant; •• the Changzhou Resource Recycling Industry Demonstration Base, which covers over 4 sqkms; •• Shandong Linyi Resource Recycling Industry Base, which claims to be China’s largest household appliances disassembly and recycling plant; •• the Luoyang Resource Recycling Industry Demonstration Base, which, at the moment, can only claim to be the smallest of CRDC’s parks; and, •• the giant Southwest Resource Recycling Industrial Park which already extends over 5 sqkms, and is literally “exploding” to include storehouses and store-grounds over 53 sqkms and a processing area covering just under 27 sqkms. The latter is impressive on more than one account. Recently, Kenji Someno, a Senior Research Officer at Japan’s Global Environment Bureau at the Ministry of the Environment, visited the Southwest Resource Recycling Industrial Park and gave a vivid description of his

Chinese recycling industry, 2013 Source: data from “The Renewable Resources Industry Development Report of China”.

Institutions 100,000

Employees 18,000,000

Materials / ton 160,000,000

Value in Yuan 481,000,000,000

Policy

5. J. Giliberto, “Sprint cinese per Merloni Progetti”, Il Sole 24 Ore, 15 aprile 2011 (http:// www.ilsole24ore.com/art/ economia/2011-04-15/sprintcinese-merloni-progetti-064137. shtml). 6. S. Shuoya, “Recycling Industry in China”, Valpak, March 21, 2012 (http://www. grontpunkt.no/files/dmfile/ RecyclingIndustryinChina.pdf).

National and regional governments pooled their resources and teamed up to turn sloppy recycling areas into professionally managed eco/industrial/circular economy parks.

experience. As often happens when looking at Chinese affairs, numbers and timing are striking: “(...) Construction at the Sichuan Recycling Park began on October 18, 2009. At the time, Tang Limin, the Communist Party chairman for Neijiang, announced that with this project, ‘We will bid farewell to our history of ill-disciplined development, characterized by high pollution and minimal added value, and move onto the stage of specialized, concentrated, industrial management development’. On March 9, 2011, the Neijiang government and CRDC signed an investment agreement in Beijing for the second phase of the project. The first construction phase was completed on June 5 that year, and the park became officially operational, as 120 companies moved in. Work subsequently began on phase two. (...) Plans required the recycling park in Niupengzi to recycle 1.85 million tons of resources a year

from 2 million electrical and electronic devices and 50,000 scrapped automobiles. It is hoped that this should generate sales of 10 billion yuan and profits of 200 million yuan, creating 1.9 billion yuan in tax revenue and jobs for 20,000 people.” Mr. Someno then goes on to describe the benefits stemming from the facility in terms of avoided environmental pollution, employment opportunities and overall improvement of surrounding activities. Mr. Someno concludes his account by briefly describing how, even in China, the economic structure of recycling is not as clear-cut as policy-makers, entrepreneurs and, ultimately, citizens would like. As much as reaching for a circular economy is necessary on more than one account, the issue of who is going to pay or make money from digging the waste resource still needs to be thoroughly investigated.

As often happens when looking at Chinese affairs, numbers and timing are striking.

renewablematter 02. 2015

The Bio Base Europe Pilot Plant An Open-Innovation Pilot Plant for Bio-based Products and Processes by Hendrik Waegeman

Hendrik Waegeman, PhD Business Development Manager, Bio Base Europe Pilot Plant.

Creating biofuels from whiskey waste. This is just one of Bio Base Europe’s pilot plant (see Box), the first open innovation and training centre for the biobased economy in Europe, born out of a collaboration amongst Belgium and the Netherlands. The aim of such a unique plant in the Old Continent is an ambitious one: to become a benchmark against which businesses can test their Made in EU products. Operational since 2011 within the Port of Ghent, nowadays the Bio Base Europe Pilot Plant is regarded as the cutting-edge centre in industrial biotechnologies, thanks also to official recognition awarded by the European Commission. In 2009, in the middle of the financial and economic crisis, Europe was awakened by the fact that it was losing industrial significance to emerging economies. To counteract, the European Commission launched the concept of Key Enabling Technologies (KETs), new technologies that should result in the reindustrialization of the Old Continent, stimulate competitiveness and generate jobs, growth and wealth in the economy. Six technologies were selected and among emerging technologies such as nanotechnology and micro-electronics, biotechnology was put forward as a cutting edge technology.

Case Histories

Figure 1 | Differences in funding strategies for research, development and demonstration between China, the USA and the EU 11%

Source: http://ec.europa. eu/enterprise/sectors/ ict/files/kets/hlg_report_ final_en.pdf 58% 24%

32%

The Death Valley In the framework of the KET assessment study, executed by a high-level expert group, the EC investigated what was hampering the implementation of industrial biotechnology in sectors such as the energy, chemical and food-industry. One of the main observations in that report: The Death Valley, i.e. the phase where many prototype processes or products fail when going from research level to market entry and the lack of public funding for scale-up and demonstration activities to avoid this Death Valley. Compared to the other two economic superpowers in the world, the USA and China, Europe was supporting hardly any scale-up and demonstration activities (figure 1). With the results of the assessment report in hand, the EC took action. Several new funding instruments were created, e.g.: •• Horizon2020, which in comparison to its predecessor FP7, in general will focus more on the collaboration between academia and industry; •• within Horizon, the special Public Private Partnerships BBI (Bio-Based Industry) and SPIRE (Sustainable Process Industry through Resource and Energy efficiency) with financial support for pilot and demonstration activities; •• also within Horizon, the SME instrument, a program to support small and medium-sized enterprises to get their developments faster to the market. Hence, so far, so good, the financial support from the EC for pilot and demo activities is available. What else is hampering industrial biotechnology and more in general the bio-based economy to take off? Well, although SMEs and large companies can obtain financial support to scale-up their processes, for many of these companies and especially for SMEs, piloting is not the core of their activities. SMEs typically do not have the infrastructure to accommodate pilot lines, nor have the skilled personnel to run the tests. To obtain faster learning curves and shorter time to market, these activities are better outsourced. To allow this outsourcing, the necessary pilot infrastructure should be readily available,

48% 2% 28%

Demonstration 92%

Applied research Basic research/FP7

In 2009, in the middle of the financial and economic crisis, Europe was awakened by the fact that it was losing industrial significance to emerging economies.

renewablematter 02. 2015 At BBEPP Celtic Renewables will test its process to turn whisky by-products into biofuel Celtic Renewables, a spin-out company from the Biofuel Research Centre at Edinburgh Napier University, signed last June an agreement with Bio Base Europe Pilot Plant to undergo next stage testing of its process to turn whisky by-products into biofuel that can power current vehicles. The partnership, which will allow the company to develop its technology at BBEPP, has been made possible by second round funding worth €1.5 million, including more than €1million from the UK Government, to help meet its ambition of growing a new €125 million-a-year industry in the UK. The Scottish company, which is the first company to trial biobutanol technology at the Belgian demonstrator pilot facility, has already proved the concept of producing biobutanol from draff – the sugar – rich kernels of barley which are soaked in water to facilitate the fermentation process necessary for whisky production – and pot ale, the yeasty liquid that is heating during distillation. It will spend the next few months seeking to replicate work done in its Scottish laboratory at an industrial scale.

Figure 2 | Pilot hall 2 with fermentation equipment up to 15,000 L scale

and companies should have easy access, without conflicts of interest with the organization or company that is running the pilot plant. Furthermore, the infrastructure available should be diverse and comprehensive, to allow the scale-up of a wide range of processes; finally, the pilot plant organization should have a critical mass of people to cover the many aspects of the bio-based economy. BBEPP This is exactly the philosophy the founders of Bio Base Europe Pilot Plant had in mind when launching their initiative in Ghent, Belgium in 2008. Not surprisingly in Ghent, the city where biotechnologists and pioneers Prof. Marc Van Montagu and Jeff Schell discovered the gene transfer mechanism between agrobacterium and plants, which meant the onset for plant engineering in the world and allowed Ghent to position itself as a hub for green biotechnology and later also for red and white biotechnology (respectively food biotechnology, pharmaceutical and industrial, ed.). With financial support from the Port of Ghent, The Province of East-Flanders, Flanders, The Netherlands and Europe, more than 20 million euro was invested in pilot infrastructure at Bio Base Europe Pilot Plant over the years. In general, Bio Base Europe Pilot Plant is there to close the critical gap between scientific feasibility and industrial application of new biotechnological and/or bio-based processes. It enables companies to assess actual operating costs, specific strengths and weaknesses of new processes and this before costly, large-scale investments are made. Bio Base Europe Pilot Plant is situated in the Port of Ghent, where an existing building was converted into a pilot plant. BBEPP functions as an open innovation pilot plant that covers the whole value chain from green resource to final product under one roof. With pilot equipment for pretreatment of biomass, fermentation, biocatalysis, green chemistry and downstream processing, it covers a very wide range of processes. The facility

Case Histories Info http://www.bbeu.org/

consists of three pilot halls, laboratories and a maintenance hall. The first pilot hall is dedicated to pretreatment and biocatalysis and has multiple reactors up to 8 m3 scale, the second pilot hall is the industrial biotechnology hall with fermenters up to 15 m3 scale (figure 2) and the third hall is an explosion proof or ATEX-conform pilot hall with chemical reactors and extraction equipment up to 5 m3 scale (figure 3). The different modules can be connected in a very flexible way, so that different pilot lines can be set up straightforwardly. BBEPP is involved both in publicly funded projects (e.g. Horizon2020 or national funding) partnering with research institutes and companies in larger consortia, as well as in privately funded projects collaborating on a bilateral basis with industrial partners. In 2013 and 2014, BBEPP carried out respectively 44 and 38 bilateral pilot projects for industry, as such giving an important boost to companies to bridge the valley of death. Award Winning The growth and success of Bio Base Europe Pilot Plant has not been unnoticed by the European Commission. In the framework of the multi-KET pilot line project, BBEPP has been awarded as demonstrator pilot line for the KET biotechnology. It shows that the open-innovation character and the concept of shared facilities, are to be seen as an example of how a pilot plant should be operated. As a strong believer in the bio-based economy, I sincerely hope that this acknowledgement demonstrates the significance of pilot infrastructure and that we, thanks to this support, will further enable the development of bio-based processes and products and boost the bio-economy sector as a whole.

Figure 3 | Pilot hall 3 with ATEX proof chemical reactors up to 5,000 L scale

renewablematter 02. 2015

Net Gain: Fighting Ocean Pollution by Nancy Averett

This story was produced in partnership with FUTUREPERFECT http://www.goethe.de/ins/ be/prj/fup/deindex.htm

Three American Entrepreneurs Fight Ocean Plastic Pollution by Upcycling Discarded Fishing Nets into Skateboards Ben Kneppers paused as he strolled around a music festival in Santiago, Chile. In front of him was a booth where local kids could repair damaged skateboards, making them ride-able again rather than throwing them away. Kneppers, an environmental consultant originally from Massachusetts, was impressed by the project. And as an avid boarder himself, he admired the kids gliding and kick-turning along a stretch of pavement with their refurbished boards. Then he got an idea. He and two friends had been talking for months about finding a way to address the issue of plastic pollution in the world’s oceans by starting a business making products out of that trash. “I thought, ‘Wow, maybe skateboards could be our product’”,

he says. “It would be a great tool for educating the younger generation on this issue.” Fast-forward 18 months, Kneppers and his business partners, Dave Stover and Kevin Ahearn, have started a skateboard company they named Bureo, which means “the waves” in Mapudungun, the language of the Mapuche, the native people of Chile. They recently shipped their first batch of skateboards, the Bureo Minnow Cruiser, to select shops in California, Chicago, and New York. What makes the Minnow different from dozens of other skateboards is the fact that it’s built from trash. The board’s 25-inch skatedeck is made out of recycled plastic fishing nets. What makes Bureo different from most companies is that it’s just as focused on its recycling mission as it is on selling its product. Kneppers, Stover, and Ahearn – who grew up

Case Histories near beaches in the United States – formed the company with a mission to do something positive to address the growing problem of ocean plastic pollution. “As surfers who have spent our lives around the ocean, we have a deep connection with the ocean”, Stover said. “We needed a product that would support our idea for a sustainable collection and recycling program and make a skateboard fit our mission to address this problem in a positive way.” The group decided to focus on recycling fishing nets because 10% of the ocean’s plastic waste comes from fishing gear and because the nets can harm marine life: dolphins, sea turtles and seals can get tangled in them and often die. Chilean fishers typically dump worn nets in the ocean because disposing of them is costly; landfills are privately owned in the country, and getting garbage to them requires paying for a truck to haul it away. Kneppers was quick to add that the net littering is not just a Chilean problem. “When we were doing our research”, he said “we talked to people in California and on the East Coast, and everyone’s admitted to doing it at times for convenience”. He and his business partners created a program they call Net Positiva, Chile’s first-ever fishnet collection and recycling system. They distributed collection bags in three villages and offered to compensate the local fishers’ organizations

for every kilo of recycled nets; the groups could then distribute the money to their members. “We collected over three tons in the first six months”, Kneppers said. “We hope to soon extend the program to three more locations, as the whole model is designed for scalability.” The idea for a recycling program came before Kneppers had his moment of inspiration at that music festival in Santiago. He and Stover were roommates while they were working in Australia in 2011. Both are avid surfers, and they often stayed up late talking about how to tackle plastic pollution in the oceans – something they were

Nancy Averett is a freelance science journalist who writes for a variety of national publications and is based in Cincinnati, Ohio.

renewablematter 02. 2015

Info http://www.bureoskateboards.com/ info@bureoskateboards.com

Bureo is not your typical startup – they’ve invented an incredible recycling program by rallying the fishing industry in Chile to turn plastic ocean waste into a great product.

reminded of each time they headed into the surf. (Ahearn, also a surfer, joined them later when they realized they needed a designer.) Once they had a product in mind, the hard part followed: how to actually make their dream a reality. They went to Kneppers’ alma mater, Northeastern University, which runs a program for potential entrepreneurs. The university provided them with a coach and some initial funding that allowed them to test the fishing nets to see if they would be durable enough to create a skateboard. From there, they applied for and received a grant from the Chilean government through a program called Start-Up Chile to help set up the net recycling program. Finally, they turned to Kickstarter, launching a campaign in April 2014 that quickly raised $64,000 – more than twice their $25,000 goal – which allowed them to start production on a large scale. The recycled nets are melted down and fed

into an injection mold that creates the skate decks, which have a fishscale pattern across their surface for better grip. But the sustainability of the boards doesn’t end there. The wheel cores are constructed from 100% recycled plastic, and the wheel exteriors are made from 30% vegetable oil. The company uses 100% recycled paper and cardboard for packaging and only transports the nets from the villages to the factory in Santiago on trucks that have brought other cargo to the villages and would otherwise return to the city empty. Outdoor clothing and gear company, Patagonia recently announced that it is investing in the company. “Bureo is not your typical startup – they’ve invented an incredible recycling program by rallying the fishing industry in Chile to turn plastic ocean waste into a great product”, Patagonia CEO Rose Marcario said in a press release. “We’re investing in Bureo’s vision to scale their business to a global level and make a serious dent in the amount of plastic that gets thrown away in our oceans.” Kneppers, Stover, and Ahearn’s commitment to sustainability goes beyond upcycling skateboards, however. The three recently spent the summer participating in beach cleanups in California as part of the 5 Gyres Plastic Beach

Case Histories Net Positiva Bureo’s fishnet collection and recycling program, Net Positiva, has been set up and running with support from the Chilean Government since 2013. In this time, the team has collected over 10 tons of fishnet waste, diverting the material from ending up in the Ocean, being burned on the beach, or placed in land fills. The fishnets are made from a multifilament Nylon 6 weave, which is a highly durable and highly recyclable material, which make them an excellent candidate for upcycling into new products. Bureo is working along the coastline of Chile in local fishing communities to provide an environmentally friendly disposal infrastructure for this waste. The nets are collected in the fishing ports, with money being returned to the communities to fund education and recycling programs. For every kilogram of nets received, Bureo pays an agreed upon price for the net material. Local workers are then contracted to assist in cleaning and preparing the nets for recycling. The nets are then loaded on “deadhead” trucks, that would be otherwise returning to Santiago empty, and delivered to the recycling and manufacturing facility in Santiago, Chile’s capital city. At this facility, the nets are shredded, spun, and repelletized for use in new products, the first of which being

Project, and at each stop they raffled off a Minnow board to volunteers who helped with the cleanup. They have also partnered with the Save the Waves Coalition and the Surfrider Foundation, which are working to clean and conserve coastlines around the world. In addition, they are planning a line of organic cotton T-shirts that will help fund Unidos Por Aguas Limpias, a nonprofit in Chile that works to preserve natural areas around surfing areas and has an annual beach cleanup project every March. “We believe the boards are just the beginning”, Ahearn said. “We want to continue innovating and finding solutions to ocean plastic pollution.” Kneppers says the local fishers were initially a bit suspicious of the three partners when they proposed this project. But that changed when they were able to hand out the finished product. “They have pride”, he says. “They loved grabbing and examining it.” Then, he adds, they handed the board to their children – who knew just what to do with it.

Bureo’s Minnow plastic cruiser skateboard. The decks are injection molded at the same facility in Santiago, after which they are shipped via Ocean freight to the Bureo headquarters in Southern California for final assembly and distribution. It can be very challenging for the fishermen to manage the disposal of their old nets, which is part of the reason why it makes up a significant proportion of the oceans’ plastic pollution. Our research found programs in other countries that were providing the fishermen disposal points for their old nets to eliminate the harmful waste before it pollutes the marine environment. In response, we pioneered “Net Positiva”. This provides an additional income and the incentive to make sure these nets are not ending up in the marine environment. Within the surf/skate community people have been really stoked on our program and the boards. We think we have opened some eyes for sure, and brought a new level of sourcing sustainable materials to the skate industry. We plan on continuing to contribute to the sustainability movement that is taking hold, and keep pushing the envelope with our designs and ideas. Bureo team

renewablematter 02. 2015

Eco-Friendly Playing Fields by Roberto Rizzo

There are those who play football to vent their stress built up at work, those wishing to emulate the exploits of TV champions and those who just enjoy their friendly games as an opportunity to exercise. But now even environmentalists can wear their cleats and take the field, seven-a-side or eleven-a-side, without feeling guilty about treading on (and partly ruining) a wonderful grass field. They can do so thanks to football pitches made with recycled rubber and synthetic turf. Such solutions guarantee playing performances equivalent to those of traditional fields and that, as illustrated below, has numerous environmental and economic advantages. Ecopneus – a non-profit Limited consortium whose members produce and import tyres and guarantee the tracking, collection, treatment and recovery of end-of-life tyres (ELTs) – promotes information on these new eco-friendly sports facilities. Every year, Ecopneus manages almost three quarters of the estimated Italian market of ELTs, i.e. 240,000 tons per year, roughly equivalent to 27 million car tyres. According to the target established by the law, the quantity of the recovered ELTs should equal that of the new tyres put on the market by the members the previous year. Moreover, Ecopneus dealt with some historic collections, accumulated before September 2011, as provided for by Dm 82/2011 regulating the sector.

Case Histories Steps of the ELTs Recovery Chain •• Collection and Storage. After having been removed from vehicles, ELTs are collected and transported to sorting centres where they are weighted and stored while waiting to be treated. •• Bead Breaking. Separation of the lip, the steel ring that seals the tyre to the rim. •• First Process. ELTs are shredded into strip-like pieces, to a size varying from 5 to 40 cm, that can be sent to energy recovery or undergo further processing. •• Second Process. The material is shredded into smaller pieces and divided into rubber, steel and textile material. Rubber is further shredded to produce rubber chips (20-50 mm), granules (0.8-20 mm) and rubber powder (< 0.8 mm). Steel and textile material are also obtained.

A Multi-Life Material Rubber is a thermoset and once vulcanized – namely after it undergoes a special thermochemical process making it elastic and mechanically resistant – cannot be industrially devulcanized. For the recovery of ELTs, therefore, shredding and grinding mills are used, thus obtaining the sizes required for the next utilization. In Italy there are about fifteen shredding plants for ELTs, separating textile, polymeric and metallic fractions. “Not only do we deal with proper management of end-of-life tyres, but we also stimulate the market by developing applications of examples of how to recover rubber” explains Daniele Fornai, in charge of the development of uses and regulations for Ecopneus. In Italy the most

popular granulometric class ranges from 0.8 to 2.5 mm and is mainly employed in sports facilities. Finer rubber granules are the so called rubber powders and are used to make new rubber mixes or as additives to road bitumen, while the granules bigger than 2.5 mm are used for shock-absorbing surfaces in children’s playgrounds, street furniture, curbs, sound-proof insulation and mats used for livestock farming. But more than half of the ELTs becomes fuel for highly energy-consuming industrial plants, in the form of 20 mm chips or bigger pieces of mulch. In particular this takes place in cement factories. ELTs-derived fuel has a calorific value comparable to that of pet coke or of a high-quality coal and CO2 emissions are lower compared to traditional fuels because almost 27% of tyres have a biogenic origin

Roberto Rizzo is a science journalist. He is specialized in energy and environmental issues and since 2010 teaches at Master’s of Scientific Journalism at Sissa of Trieste.

renewablematter 02. 2015 Info www.ecopneus.it

(natural rubber and fibres derived from cellulose) and the content of heavy metals and sulphur is low. Football Pitches

In Italy, between 700 and 800 full-size pitches have been made and an equivalent surface of smaller fields, and every year 10-12,000 tons of recycled rubber are used.

As outlined above, one of the most widespread uses of recycled rubber is for football fields: every year, all over the world, 500,000 tons of ELTs are used for this purpose. The first step to create a sports facility is the stabilization of the natural base for optimal water drainage. Then a sandwich made of the following layers, starting

from the bottom is put on the gravel: •• an elastic under-carpet that can be made in rubber co-extruded with EVA (Ethylene Vinyl Acetate) or bound with polyurethane glues. Rubber elasticity and the impermeability of such layers create both a resilient/elastic effect and allows the rain water to drain horizontally; •• a synthetic carpet with a density of the turf varying according to the end use. Generally, synthetic turf emerges for about 1 cm with a total length of about 8 cm; •• a layer of silica sand in order to stimulate the soil. It thickens the installation, stabilizes the weights and infills the synthetic turf; •• then a rubber performance infill is put on top of the sand in the turf, in order to create an elastic and resilient effect. The infill keeps the turf straight and helps going back to its normal position once walked over. In order to make a professional full-size football pitch it takes roughly twenty working days and 100-120 tons of recycled rubber for the infill, with a cost of €400,000/450,000, goals and line marking included. In Italy, between 700 and 800 full-size pitches have been made and an equivalent surface of smaller fields, and every year 10-12,000 tons of recycled rubber are used. A properly made field has a life expectancy of ten years and can be entirely recycled. The infill and the sand are removed in an automated manner and can be reused as they are, whilst the carpet is rolled up and kept aside for possible reuse. Typically, only the last centimetre of synthetic turf is damaged by the footballers’ boots studs: from the turf of a full-size field, after disposing of the upper layer, grass cover for a seven-a-side field can be easily obtained, or synthetic grass for road edges or roundabouts. Economic and Environmental Advantages While rubber was one of the first materials used as performance infill, over time market rules have brought about the occurrence of competing products, the most famous being the so-called “organic infill”.

What can be produced with ELTs from 1,000 cars? •• 6,000 m2 of sound insulation membrane •• 2 standard seven-a-side football pitches •• Enough rubberized asphalt to pave about 1 km of road •• 3.6 km of anti vibration material for public transport •• 6.5 tons of steel

Case Histories

Black layer: performance infill in ennobled rubber granules Ochre layer: silica sand infill Between the black layer and the next in ochre: non-woven textile layer infilled with artificial turf Black layer: recycled rubber mat with horizontal and vertical drainage First two grey layer: draining substrate

Such material is very popular with the end users because it is a blend of plant-based materials (cork, coconut fibres etc.), thus lending the synthetic turf a more natural appeal. Nevertheless, despite creating a natural ground cover, the organic infill can generate a few problems. Firstly, since it is a light organic material, in case of rain it floats on the water and tends to flow to the sidelines; the rubber, slightly heavier, is stable and stays in the turf. Secondly, to guarantee softness, organic materials must be watered and that, in addition to water consumption, can cause ice formation in cold climates. Rubber, on the other hand, does not need that, nor pesticides or antifouling agents. One of the greatest advantages of synthetic grass is without a doubt better playability of artificial installations. Indeed, natural turf is easily damaged and has strong wear and tear:

on a synthetic field it is possible to play up to 20 hours a day seven days a week, because the materials used are designed for heavy foot traffic. “Several football pitch managers convert to synthetic because it is always in good conditions while guaranteeing much lower working and maintenance costs” explains Daniele Fornai. “The typical amortization period when converting a football pitch from natural grass to synthetic turf is from four to five years. An interesting sign comes from Serie A prestigious club Atalanta. They are well known for their attentiveness towards younger generations of footballers and over the last few months decided to make a pitch with recycled rubber for its youth team.”

On a synthetic field it is possible to play up to 20 hours daily, seven days a week because the materials used to build it are designed to withstand heavy foot traffic.

renewablematter 02. 2015

Agriculture’s Second Green Life by Sara Guerrini

Sara Guerrini, an agronomist, has worked for over 10 years on developing biodegradable materials for agriculture and the sustainability of agricultural systems.

Plastic materials are widely used in agriculture, to the point that they have become a distinctive feature of some landscapes. Greenhouse covers, mulching, nets, irrigating hoses, pots for floriculture, silage covers: these are only some examples of the great versatility that has made plastics a precious ally of the farmer for over 50 years. Plastic materials contribute to higher and better yields, reduce the use of chemicals and water for irrigation, and modify the crop cycle so as to meet increasing production demands by the population. However, there is a downside, both for farmers and the environment: plastics must be, at the end of the cycle, properly collected and disposed of. Sometimes this can be difficult and inconvenient, the result being that, as of today, not all the plastics used in agriculture are recovered at the end of their usage, leading to uncontrolled dispersal in the environment. For all those applications of plastics in agriculture that are based on “rapid rotation” (mulching) or are single use

(supports for pheromones, mulching for multi-year crops), biodegradable materials represent an efficient alternative that respects the environment and produces zero waste. Plastic Films in Agriculture: Lights and Shadows In 2013, demand for plastic films in agriculture at a global level amounted to about 4 million tons, mainly in Asia (roughly 70%) followed by Europe (16%).1 Out of the 510,000 tons of agricultural films used in Europe, 40% are concentrated in Southern countries (Spain and Italy) for use in horticulture (greenhouse covers and mulching).2 Mulching is a widely used agricultural technique, mainly for growing vegetables, as it presents undoubted advantages such as the containment of weeds, a reduced use of herbicides and an improved quality of the product, a reduced amount of irrigating water, etc. Plastic mulch films are mainly made out of low density polyethylene (LDPE) and 80,000 tons are estimated to be used in Europe.2 Their average

Case Histories

useful life on the field varies in relation to the crop cycle: from a few months (lettuce) to a couple of years (strawberries). The film, at the end of the cultivation period, needs to be removed from the field and properly disposed of according to the general rules contained in European directives dealing with waste management (directives 99/31 EC, 2000/76 EC, directive 2008/98/EC). Some countries like France, Germany, the UK and Norway have organized voluntary schemes of collection and disposal of this specific waste; others like Austria, Belgium, Germany and Denmark have banned the disposal of plastic films in landfills.1 However, the flows of plastics that enter and exit the agricultural sector in Europe continue to diverge. According to the European project LabelAgriWaste, in Italy and Spain only up to 50% of used plastic films are recovered; out of this 50%, about half are sent to landfills.3 The most common types of illegal dumping of agriplastics include: burning on the field, dumping by the side of cultivated fields, in illegal dumpsites or alongside waterways, and burying in the soil.

This has to do with the timing and high costs of disposal for this kind of waste, due to the “rapid rotation” of its usage and it being very dirty (it is estimated that impurities in old films – soil or crop residues – represent up to 80% of the total weight of the material). Unfortunately, once again the consequences of this gap are borne by the environment. China, the biggest mulching user (20 million hectares) suffers many problems connected with the improper disposal of these films. Fragments of non-collected plastics have contaminated wide agricultural surfaces and it is estimated that the presence of these fragments in the most superficial strata of the soil have caused a reduction in production of about 20%. We can certainly state that “the plastics technology defined as ‘white

1. AMI, Agricultural Film 2014 – International industry conference on silage, mulch greenhouse and tunnel films used in agriculture, Barcelona, September 2014. 2. APE Europe, European non packaging agriplastics market survey, 2013; http:// www.apeeurope.eu/ statistiques.php. 3. LabelAgriWaste, European Project; https://labelagriwaste. aua.gr:8443/law/info. do?method=project Summary.

renewablematter 02. 2015 Definitions 4. “From China Plastic & Rubber, Fully biodegradable agricultural mulch films offer special advantages over conventional plastic films”, May 2014, Plastic Engineering, p. 24-27. 5. Y. J. Jiang et al., 2001, “Effects of remnant plastic film in soil on growth and yield of cotton”, Agro-environmental protection.

Biodegradation: degrading process caused by biological activity, especially enzyme action, which leads to a significant change in the material’s chemical structure. Biodegradable: organic substance that can be decomposed by the activity of living organisms. If this biodegradation is completed, it leads to the total conversion of the organic substance into non-organic molecules, such as carbon dioxide, water, methane (which are beneficial to the environment). In the definition of biodegradable, factors like the environment where biodegradation takes place and the temporal horizon need to be included. In other words, it is necessary to define in which conditions and in which time frame biodegradation is expected to take place. Without the definition of these elements the term biodegradable becomes vague and not very useful, as virtually every organic substance is biodegradable if we do not specify the time frame.

Table 1 | Some case histories of biodegradable mulch films Where

What

Italy: Piedmont

Gradual replacement of plastic mulch films with biodegradable ones in the fields of the Producers’ Organisation P Ortofruit Italia: 100% replacement in the lettuce sector; use of biodegradable films also for traditionally non-mulched crops: raspberry and blueberry

Italy: Campania

Ample commercial trials on under-tunnel strawberries. Optimal quantitative (even higher than traditional plastic films) and qualitative results (increment of sugar level and vitamin C content in fruit)

Greece: Peloponnese

On industrial tomatoes: with Pummarò (Unilever), gradual introduction of biodegradable mulch films over a wide area, to eliminate the likelihood of environmental impacts on soil from plastics; good yields and quality; it allows for mechanical fruit collection

Spain: Navarra

On industrial tomatoes: replacement of plastic mulch films; allows for mechanical tomato collection, not possible with plastic films; keeps soil clean at the end of the cycle (important for rented fields); same productivity as with traditional plastic films

revolution’ in some areas of the world has completely turned into ‘white pollution’”.4,5 Biodegradable Materials in Agriculture: a New Model at the Service of Farmers and the Environment In this scenario the importance of using biodegradable materials in agriculture is evident. These materials can stay in the environment where they end their cycle in optimal conditions without causing damaging effects. In particular, biodegradable mulch films allow us to tackle a series of problems in a very efficient way: they do not need to be removed from the soil, where after their usage they are biodegraded by soil microorganisms. This helps us save on costs and timing of collection and disposal and make differentiated agriplastics collection cleaner, thus eliminating very dirty and non-profitable materials in the recycling phase. A 2009 Italian study has carefully evaluated the environmental implications of moving from plastic mulch films to biodegradable ones, analyzing the cycle of products with an LCA approach (life cycle assessment). In relation to CO2 emissions, the use of biodegradable

Case Histories

mulch films allows for a saving of 500 kg of CO2 equivalent per mulched hectare (considering that 60% of a hectare is covered in film).6 In the last few years the usage of biodegradable mulch films has gradually increased. These materials have the same performance, management, agronomical and production characteristics as plastic films. The crops that benefit the most from biodegradable mulch films are those that have a medium-short agricultural cycle: vegetables and fruit such as courgettes, lettuce, tomatoes, pepper, melon and watermelon. As shown in Table 1, many companies such as Unilever and many territories in Italy and other countries have benefited from this shift. If biodegradable mulch films for horticultural produce are a growing reality, there are still new possibilities to be explored for these materials: mulching of deferred high-income crops such as vine, silage covers, nets, covers for round bales, packaging for fruit and vegetables. These are only some of the many possible uses that can be explored in the near future, thanks to ever more complex products with better performance indicators.

Much has been done in terms of research and development. However, some important steps have also been taken at a legislative level, an example being the recognition of biodegradable products as instruments of environmental sustainability in agriculture. In the 2007-2013 CAP, films for biodegradable mulching have been included in the environmental measures of the Common Market Organization (CMO) for horticultural crops in the most important European countries for fruit and vegetable production (Italy, France and Spain). The new CAP for 2014-2020, with its strong environmental and innovation-promoting orientation, will certainly provide important instruments of support to biodegradable plastics. It is hoped that in a few years the agricultural landscape will be less populated by those elements that are not only visually disturbing, but also degrading and polluting, and that have little to do with the role of food production and preservation of territory that should characterize agricultural activity.

Info http://www.novamont.com

6. F. Razza, F. Farachi, M. Tosin, F. Degli Innocenti, S. Guerrini (2010), “Assessing the environmental performance and eco-toxicity effects of biodegradable mulch films”, VII International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agrifood Sector Bari, 2010, p. 22-24. These data have been obtained by using an end-of-life scenario typical of the Italian context: 10% recycling, 14% incineration with energy recovery and 78% landfill disposal.

renewablematter 02. 2015

When Innovation and Recycling Go Hand in Hand by Giorgio Lonardi Giorgio Lonardi, is a financial and economic journalist.

Images from: www.perpetua.it www.arbos.it www.alisea.it

It is easy to recycle paper to produce other paper. Or plastic to obtain a different kind of plastic. But the game gets more interesting if the reuse of materials goes hand in hand with the search for new end markets and new products able to arouse consumers’ interest. In other words, marketing and real innovation must be taken into account. This trend is taking hold in Italy, where small and medium enterprises are experimenting with new systems and products. This phenomenon is also bound to expand the reusing market in its totality. Let us have a look at exercise books, notepads and diaries made from recycled paper. It is a well-established niche market. But it is also an industry that over the years has both played the design card and entered the promotional gadget market offering its expertise to brands in various sectors thus becoming a specialized contractor. This is how personalized stationery items and eco-friendly collections were created on behalf of Viviverde Coop and Emporio Armani respectively. Feltrinelli’s supplier has gone even further with diaries boasting not only recycled paper but also covers in recycled leather. In the paper sector, the choice made by Arbos (Solagna, Vicenza) is a case in point. Born as a company producing recycled office supplies, Arbos “invented” a brand new sector, that of children’s toys made with recycled paper and cardboard. This has proved a skilful move riding two converging trends. On the one hand, the growing interest of parents for natural products that do not cause environmental damage. On the other hand, the desire of parents to find an alternative to electronic gadgets so readily available even to small children. This is the very reason why Arbos decided to launch a product

Case Histories

such as “Gli abitanti del villaggio” (The Villagers) featuring 18 characters and 9 parallelepipeds in recycled cardboard that can be combined in different ways. The next step is even more ambitious. It is just a dawning trend but destined to a bright new future. It entails bringing into contact enterprises with waste materials that they are not able to use with those that have the ability and the inventiveness to do it thanks to a chain of specialized suppliers. This is the case of a pen produced as a gadget for a German carmaker recycling scrapped cars’ reflectors. Or Buffetti that makes its exercise books and diaries’ covers and holders using scraps from Gibus, a producer of sun awnings. If we focus on research, the panorama appears more problematic, mirroring Italy’s current situation. But something is changing even in this field. Alisea Arte & Object Design, the very company that managed the Gibus-Buffetti collaboration and the reflector recycling operation, seems to confirm this trend. In this case, the challenge was to recycle graphite deriving from the waste of Tecno Edm, a producer of electrodes. What could be done? The easiest option was to produce pencils. Unfortunately, today, all pencils are produced in China with wooden shafts and production costs are so low that any company based in the West cannot compete. The adopted solution was born from the collaboration between a team of researchers and designer Marta Giardini. This is how Perpetua (Everlasting) was created, a pencil with a shaft in Zantech, a new patented non-toxic chemical material made from recycled graphite (80%). The product has proved very successful (200,000 items sold in just a few months), but what is more important is the choice to transform recycling into innovation opportunities.

renewablematter 02. 2015

Still Too Many Landfills, and They Will Only Last Two More Years The Limits of Waste Management in Italy, a Sector Experiencing a Phase of Deep Change, Between Incoming EU Diktats and Prospects for Development by Maurizio Quaranta

Maurizio Quaranta is a journalist and jurist expert in environmental issues.

WAS – Waste Strategy, the think tank on waste and recycling of Althesys in collaboration with AMA, AMIU, HeraAmbiente, BASF, CIAL, CONAI, COREPLA, COMIECO, Ancitel Energia&Ambiente, FiseAssoambiente, Ecopneus, Nestlé, FederAmbiente, Ricrea, Montello, Rilegno – presented its WAS Annual Report 2014. Its aim was to provide, through a detailed analysis of urban waste management in Italy, its infrastructure and the evolution of national and EU legislation, a common vision, a general framework of the Italian waste management and recycling industry, while at the same time suggesting business strategies and systematic policies that

take into account environmental, social, industrial, economic, regulatory and technological aspects. In the last few years, in Italy the situation has improved thanks to a drop in waste production and an increase in separate collection. However, the objective of decoupling waste production from GDP growth has not been reached yet, despite some positive signs between 2010 and 2011. In the analyzed three-year period (2011-2013), the composition of waste management has changed, with an increase in separate collection (+4.6%), increments in quantities used for matter recovery (recycling +1.3%, composting +1.9%) and energy recovery (+1.3%), while the

GDP and Urban Waste trend 2009-2013

Source: ISPRA and Istat data elaborated by Althesys.

23.6

540

23.5 530

23.4 23.3 23.2 23.1

510

23.0 22.9

500

22.8 22.7

490

22.6 480

22.5 2009

2010

2011

Per capita production of urban waste (kg/inhab)

2012

2013 Per capita GDP (k euro/ab)

k€/inhab

Kg/inab

520

Case Histories Mix of urban waste management in some EU countries in 2012

Source: ISPRA and Eurostat data elaborated by Althesys.

100% 90% 80% 70% 60%

Matter recovery

50% 40%

Composting and anaerobic digestion

30%

Incineration

20%

Incineration without energy recovery

10%

Landfill

0% Germany Belgium

The Denmark Netherlands

France

EU 28

Italy

Spain

Romania

Relative investments by cluster 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4%

2011

2012

2013 Big multi-utility

Metropolitan operators

Medium-small utility

material sent to landfills has decreased (-5.2%). However, our country is still too dependent on landfills, which in some areas represent the final destination for over 70% of urban waste, and cannot make up the shortfall of incinerators. The Italian situation is not too different from countries with similar populations and economies – such as France and the UK – but still lags behind North European countries that have managed to drastically reduce, if not eliminate, the use of landfills, with an increased use of incinerators, with or without energy recovery. In these countries, incinerators do not represent an alternative to recycling, rather a complementary tool to achieve the aim of “zero landfill”, an option which is also financially viable when the heat recovered by district heating networks is used. In Italy, the waste management and recycling industry gathers a variety of very heterogeneous operators in terms of size, pool of expertise,

Medium-small multi-utility

Private

business field and results. The analysis of the main 70 players, collectively representing over half of the sector, shows how the best performances are those of the biggest and most integrated companies, such as the big multi-utilities that can oversee the whole supply chain. In 2013, these operators have accounted for about 50% of total investments and obtained an average relation Ebitda/Returns more than double the others (32.2%). Investments from the top 70 players almost reached a billion euros in the three-year period. However, in the framework of a strategy of strengthening infrastructure, these investments were mainly concentrated on extraordinary maintenance and modernization of plants, respectively for 44 and 42% of the total respectively. Under the title “New Plants” we only find 6% of investments, less than in 2011-2012. The investment trend in the waste management sector depends on a variety of factors: uncertainties over financing schemes

Our country is still too dependent on landfills, which in some areas represent the final destination for over 70% of urban waste.

renewablematter 02. 2015

To make things worse, there is the progressive exhaustion of the residual capacities of landfills: at national level, considering the same amount of waste sent to landfills last year, their residual life is estimated at less than two years.

for environmental services by local authorities, delays and inconsistencies in regional planning, lack of clarity in national legislation, and local opposition to plant construction, in particular incinerators. In this framework, marked by difficult emergency situations, the sector has carried out important efforts in efficiency improvement and investment: many companies, despite facing a constant reduction in urban waste production, are re-organizing their plants and future investment plans, showing an increasing interest in the phases of selection and treatment aimed at recycling and recovery of waste coming from separate collection. One of the main critical points, stressed on more than one occasion by the WAS study, remains the scarcity of infrastructure. In this case as well, the strengthening of infrastructure was stopped by the same factors that caused the drop in investments. The most important factor was probably an uncompromising and often manipulated opposition to the construction of new plants. Therefore there is still a strong dependence on landfills, which in some regions are the only solution. To make things worse, there is the progressive exhaustion of the residual capacities of landfills: at a national level, considering the same amount of waste sent to landfills last year, their residual life is estimated at less than two years. “In order to make the situation more sustainable” the study identifies two simultaneous solutions: on the one hand, an increase in the percentages of recycling and matter recovery to reduce the flows destined to disposal; on the other, an adequate provision of incinerators to treat the residual amounts of undifferentiated waste.

Info www.althesys.com

The WAS study expresses its interest towards the norm contained in the “Sblocca Italia”

Type of investments

Plant maintenance 42% New plants 6% Landfill expansion 6% New landfill 2% Equipment and tools 44%

decree, which simplifies the process for the realization of a national network of recovery and disposal plants. This regulation simplifies the procedures for the identification of sites and the construction of new plants, allowing existing structures to treat waste coming from other areas up to the saturation of their technical capacity. All this is happening while the whole regulatory framework on urban waste is going through an evolutionary phase, both at a European and national level. In particular, most European directives regulating the sector are being revised, i.e. the framework directive on waste (2008/98/EC), the directive on packaging (1994/62/EC) and the directive on landfills (1999/31/EC). These revisions should set new and more stringent objectives for 2030: 70% recycling, elimination of landfills, the introduction of new calculation methods and an increase in the recycling targets for packaging. To achieve such ambitious goals it will be necessary to stimulate the process of industrialization and consolidation of the whole sector, which today is still very fragmented. The WAS study is convinced that all this is worth it: a cost-benefit analysis has been carried out on the effects of the different waste management policies (recycling, composting and incineration), each one having different impacts on the country in environmental, economic and social terms, compared to the use of landfills. After devising two development scenarios related to the mix of urban waste management, according to the guidelines indicated by the European directives for 2025 and 2030, and estimating the amount of waste produced in the two scenarios based on population growth forecasts (source ISTAT), net benefits for the country of 3.5 to 6.6 billion euros for 2025 and 8.2 to 14.9 billion euros for 2030 have been calculated. All this was done by only taking urban waste flows into account; it is assumed that even bigger benefits could be obtained including the waste that, despite not being calculated as part of urban waste, has a wide development potential (used tyres, batteries, exhausted oils). Against this national backdrop, the strategic framework and potential repercussions, some policy avenues emerge from the study, together with the need for a proper long-term national strategy for waste, which values Italian industrial resources and know-how. Firstly, the sector needs regulatory clarity and stability, but also a legislative harmonization which avoids fragmentation of know-how and overcomes the current inconsistencies and difficulties of regional planning. New financing systems for environmental services need to be defined, as well as a revision of fiscal policies which incentivizes those

Case Histories Development scenarios of the mix in urban waste management in 2025 and 2030 Italy 2013

EU Directive 2025

EU Directive 2030

2% 38%

5% 25%

24%

30%

25%

42%

16% 25%

20%

Export and other Matter recovery

Composting and anaerobic digestion

“solutions at the top of the hierarchy in waste management”. Policies for infrastructures and plants are also necessary: EU objectives, be they short or long-term, demand a proper planning of investments and an optimization of the existing treatment and disposal capacities. Better synergies in the various phases of the supply chain are also desirable, so as to promote a closer collaboration with

20%

28%

Source: Ispra data elaborated by Althesys.

Incineration Landfill

the industrial and trade sectors and the achievement of an adequate critical mass for the realization of common investments. The introduction of only one regulatory body for the sector could be contemplated, which would allow us to overcome the current fragmentation of know-how and responsibilities.

Interview

Interview with Alessandro Marangoni Alessandro Marangoni, a business economist specialized in strategy and corporate finance, is Chief Executive Officer of Althesys, research and strategy consultancy firm.

Professor Marangoni, does the solution rest only in the hands of politics? Yes and no; in our country we often witness an alarming disconnection between central and local levels of politics, to the detriment of the application of the norm on the ground. The solution, as you say, is therefore in the hands of the public administration, defined as a structure made up of local authorities, public apparatus but also private institutions, the social fabric and local industry. In your study, opposition from local public opinion is one of the obstacles to infrastructure development. How necessary is correct information? Although the attention and sensitivity of Italians around environmental issues has definitely improved compared to the past, it is necessary to raise awareness among public opinion even through journals such as this. I also find the initiatives by multi-utilities, which open the doors of their treatments plants and incinerators to citizens,

very clever. I also believe it is necessary to organize visits to landfills to show the difference between them and the most advanced plants. At the Italian Ministry for Education they are debating whether to introduce environmental education in schools. Are you in favour? Certainly, as long as it does not take precedence over other important subjects and is presented as something attractive for young people but with a scientific foundation. What homework should we be assigned as citizens? All citizens can work at a “micro” level, within their household, carefully implementing recycling and teaching their children to follow it properly. Those in the field, journalists and researchers, can really help by explaining the reasons, the advantages and the enormous resources that could derive from widespread correct behaviour.

renewablematter 02. 2015

17 32

2 24

6 16

Glass factories in Europe Source: Feve.

Glass Recycling Is km 0 by Marco Gisotti

Marco Gisotti is a journalist and adviser. He heads Green Factor, an environmental communication and studies agency.

Imagine drinking from a glass that was previously used by Salvador Dalì. Imagine that even before that the same container vessel was used to placate the thirst of Paolina Borghese, Giordano Bruno or Dante Alighieri. And that even earlier it belonged to the Giulia Family: Tiberius, Octavianus, Julius Caesar, who perhaps got it from Cleopatra, who in turn had inherited from even more remote times. Glass has a very ancient origin. It seems that the first people who produced it were the

inhabitants of Mesopotamia, although the oldest fragments that we know of are from Egypt dating from 1500 b.C. Although very unlikely that a glass could travel so far, remaining intact all the time, the material could, from cycle to recycle, pass through centuries and turn into a glass again, a bottle or a jar exactly like the first day it was produced. Were we to look for the perfect element that represents the concept of circular economy, we could not find a better one than glass. We only need to quote the most recent data to understand how recyclable this material is.

Case Histories The glass packaging industry in the EU: how to make the circular economy effective

1. DESIGN

4. CONSUMPTION: USE AND REUSE

Glass is designed for the environment: glass bottles are 30% lighter today than 20 years ago while maintaining product preservation, recyclability and innovative design.

87% of Europeans prefer glass. Glass packaging indirectly contributes to a positive trade balance of €21 billion per year (2012). Glass can be recycled, refilled and reused. A reusable glass bottle can have up to 40 lives.

5. COLLECTION Over 70% of all glass bottles are collected for recycling annually. 2. PRODUCTION Production has increased by 39.5% in the last 25 year, and the industry mantains 125,000 direct and indirect jobs across Europe. The sector contribute €1 billion per year to public finance and €9.5 to the EU annual GDP. On average up to €610 million is invested per year – 10 % of operational and maintenance costs.

6. RECYCLING Glass is 100% infinitely recyclable in a bottle-to-bottle closed loop, with no loss of quality. Recycled glass is a precious raw material pemanently available for multiple recycling.

3. DISTRIBUTION

7. RAW MATERIALS

More than 50% of glass bottles and jars are delivered to customers within 300 km distance.

Using 1 ton of recycled glass saves 1.2 tons of virgin raw materials and avoid 60% of CO2. More than 70% of raw materials travel less than 300 km.

In 2012 the recycling rate in Italy reached 71%, higher than the European average (70%). For this reason, our country is the third in Europe after Germany and France. Every year we collect 1,673,000 tons of glass to be recycled and we surpass the European average even for residues used in bottles and jars, with 59% compared to 52% for Europe. These figures were underlined by a recent study – “The contribution of the industry of glass containers in Italy in social, economic and environmental terms” – carried out by Ernst&Young in the main European markets on

behalf of Feve, the European Federation of glass container producers, and presented by Assovetro, the national association of glass businesses, a member of Confindustria. In total, the companies that produce glass containers in Italy are 12, with 27 producing plants distributed along the peninsula. The North however presents the highest concentration: Lombardia is the region with the most productive unit (five). In 2012, the production of glass containers amounted to 3,400,000 tons, equivalent to a daily

Were we to look for the perfect element that represents the concept of circular economy, we could not find a better one than glass.

renewablematter 02. 2015

According to Italian parents safety is the major concern and glass guarantees it better than any other container.

Info www.assovetro.it

production of 9,600 tons of bottles and vases. Total consumption amounted to 3,562,000 tons and the products released for consumption on the national territory amounted to 2,212,000 tons: these data show the importance of the sector’s indirect exports. How does this translate in economic terms? “The supply chain of glass containers in its totality” states the study “contributes 1.4 billion euros to Italian GDP. The industry, for its part, generates more than 700 million euros of value added, to which we need to add almost the same amount (705 million) coming from the whole of the supply chain. As far as exports are concerned, glass containers follow the flow and volumes of the products they contain, in particular food and beverages. In 2012, the trade balance of products packaged in glass was positive, reaching over 5 billion euros. In terms of investments, in the last ten years the industry has mobilized an average of 89 million euros per year, 70% of which was used to make the plants greener, in particular installing mechanisms that could drastically reduce emissions and favour energy efficiency.” “This research”, explains Franco Grisan, president of the glass container section of Assovetro “shows the importance of the Italian industry of glass containers, not only in relation to the national economy, but also in the search for ever better and more efficient environmental standards. It is important that production plants are present on the whole of the Italian territory, thus generating value from North to South in terms of jobs, better proximity to the respective food industries and recycling of glass from used containers”. In addition to this, in terms of sustainability the glass industry is practically a local phenomen, or almost: thanks to a homogenous distribution of the producing plants across the territory, as explained by the study presented by Feve and Assovetro, alongside a production almost exclusively destined to the national market (88%) and the plants’ proximity to their customers (47% live in a 300 kilometer radius). Even raw materials do not have to travel far, as 81% of them are produced locally. The glass industry also offers an important contribution to green jobs: the whole glass supply chain employs 20,200 people. And the snapshot of the sector, widened to a European level, further shows

the opportunities offered by the circular economy of glass. We are talking about 160 plants in 23 countries, which provide work for 124,300 people, of which 46,000 in a direct form. All this produces a total of 40 billion bottles and jars, i.e. 20 Mt, 70% of which comes from recycled material. In financial terms, we are talking about a sector that, in the 27-member-Europe, every year invests between 500 and 600 million euros, of which only 10% are for operational and maintenance costs. Furthermore, the investments carried out in the period 2003-2012 mostly went on system upgrades, such as the replacement in ovens of traditional fuels like gas. They were also used for water filtering systems, which translated into better energy efficiency and fewer CO2 emissions. The glass container sector has generated a very important indirect contribution to the general economy of the Union. Suffice it to say that in 2012 the products that use glass packaging registered a positive trade balance of over 21 billion euros per year. But glass is no longer solely an economic factor. Maybe because it concretely synthesizes the concept of “transparency”, maybe because information now reaches all citizens, people love glass. In a recent survey, carried out in 11 European countries including Italy, by InSites Consulting on behalf of Feve, according to Italian parents safety is the major concern and glass guarantees it better than any other container. In the survey, “79% of interviewees state that they prefer food for children in glass and 62% of them avoid buying children food in plastic or materials other than glass”. “Glass” the study explains “is perceived by Europeans as the packaging material ‘exempt from dangerous migrations’; eight out of ten consumers – over nine in the case of Italy – believe that the interactions of chemical substances are a danger to health. According to the survey, Italians prefer glass to all other materials, both for food (consensus of 53% of interviewees) and beverages (76%).”

Case Histories The triple footprint of glass in the European Union Source: Feve, 2015.

Workers (full-time equivalent) 43,600 63,000 17,700

Direct workers

Social footprint

125,000 jobs

Indirect workers

140,000

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

Workers in dependent industries

Gross Value Added (M €) 4,000 4,400 1,000

Over € 9.4 billion of generated Gross Value Added (GVA)

Economic footprint

500 - 610 M€ / year Average of industrial investments

Incorporated residues 2012

Glass containers made with raw materials coming from a radius of less than 300 Km

300 km

Ecological footprint

Indirect GVA Dependent industries GVA

10,000

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

€ 0.75 – 1 billion / year from public financing

Direct GVA

Glass containers destined to customers living in a 300 Km radius.

300 km Over 12.5 million tons of glass residues mixed in ovens

52%

about 74%

about 56%

renewablematter 02. 2015

Columns The Blue Yonder

The Blue Economy Is Worth €500 Billion Ilaria Nardello is an Industry Research Specialist at the National University of Ireland, Galway. A biological oceanographer with thirteen years of research experience spent between the USA and EU, her interests are now focused on Industry-University collaboration for sustainable innovation, with a special interest in the marine bio-resources sector.

With the Blue Growth Strategy (2012), the EU Commission has clearly identified the seas’ and oceans’ great potential to contribute to Europe’s long term plan for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. According to the Commission’s Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG Mare), the “blue” economy represents roughly 5.4 million jobs and generates a gross added value of almost €500 billion a year. According to the Commission, sea-related industries and their services generated between 3% and 5% of Europe’s GDP, in 2007: spanning from the 1.2% of GDP of Ireland’s ocean economy; to 4.2% in the UK. The objective of our policies is to nearly double those values by 2020. More precise and detailed estimates are in fact needed when we wish to quantify the business volume that this sector generates. Accurate socio-economic data would be of use in the management of our development efforts and in the deployment of research and innovation resources. Any investment is only justified by the likely return it would generate, whether tangible or intangible. However, only a very small part of the vast trans-sectorial domain of the blue economy is currently inventoried, monitored and reported on. The tip of the blue economy iceberg is represented by the most traditional activities such as fisheries, aquaculture and maritime transportation. However, the most innovative activities, with their large growth potential, are usually unaccounted for. The lack of data on the marine biotechnology-driven economy is due to an actual difficulty to capture the trends of its business activities. As reported by the EU Interreg Atlantic Blue Tech project (ABT), this sector is mainly based on micro or small companies. The more innovative their business, the quicker their transformation and evolution is, with most companies being born and then passed on or dismantled, in the matter of a few years. A few EU countries have internalised the Commission’s directives by adopting a specific marine strategy. In Europe, these include Ireland and Portugal. Norway has also a long-established marine biotechnology research strategy. We can be certain that Europe’s vision for the role of the oceans

has transcended the European boundaries and likely inspired the policy of other countries, even with different development velocities, at the global level. From Canada, which called for “our oceans, our future”, already in 2002 and launched an Ocean Innovation conference in 2013; to the more recent plans of Bangladesh’s authorities to structure the use of their marine ecosystem and its services. The latter example becomes less surprising considering a concept paper on the “ocean economy”, prepared by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, according to which Bangladesh has an area of over 100,000 square kilometre of exclusive economic zone; and the Bay of Bengal is being considered as the most extensive of the world’s 64 Large Marine Econo-system (LME), as per the classification by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO. Given the growing attention that the seas are attracting, it is vital that the data collection is optimised for the monitoring of their ecological status as well as their socio-economic value. It is also important that the diversity of the blue economy domain, which exists beyond the traditional fishery and aquaculture sectors, gains representation in the Bioeconomy Observatory of the European Commission. However the two main strategies, underpinning blue growth on one side, and the bioeconomy on the other, seem to fail to refer to each other or to a common repository of data. A further effort is especially needed to capture the complexity of the productive activities driven by the utilization of our marine biological resources. In this respect, the hopes are high that the United Nations’ first World Ocean Assessment will provide an appropriate working model for the regular description of the status of all the world’s seas, along the environmental, social and economic dimensions, which are the three pillars of a sustainable development.

Columns

Bieconomy and Environment

In the Large-Scale Retail Trade, One Carrier Bag Out of Two Is Illegal Stefano Ciafani is national Vice Chairman of Legambiente. He was an advisor for the Commission’s enquiring committee on the waste cycle of the XIV legislature and member of the Steering Committee on the management of EEEW.

For further information please consult the file on this link: http://www. legambiente.it/contenuti/ dossier/sacchetti-illegali

Out of 37 carrier bags spotted in various large-scale retailers in seven regions, as many as 20, i.e. 54%, were not compliant with the law banning non-compostable carrier bags. This is the outcome of the monitoring campaign organized by Legambiente, thanks to its local associations and regional committees, between late November 2014 and the Christmas festivities. The objective was to assess abidance to a law that has been in force for many years now banning plastic bags in Italy. Unfortunately, carrier bags are still widely used. Illegal carrier bags were spotted in five regions: Campania (7 carrier bags), Basilicata (6), Apulia (3) and Lazio (1) while the carrier bags picked up in Lombardy and Veneto were all legal. At city level, the situation is as follows: Potenza (6 illegal carrier bags), Avellino, Bari and Naples (3), Vibo Valentia (2), Benevento, Catanzaro and Rome (1). Dividing the 20 carrier by large-scale retailer, the chart shows the following: Sigma (5 illegal carrier bags), A&O (3), Crai, Eurospin and Sisa (2), Conad, Despar/Eurospar, Eurocisette, Imagross, M.A. Supermercati/Gros, Maxisidis/Intersidis (1). Our monitoring unearths widespread illegality in the carrier bags business. This is clear despite our deliberate avoidance of small retailers and local markets where the situation is clearly worse, because of the widespread sale of some retailers selling, even online, illegal carrier bags. The ban on plastic carrier bags has been in force for many years. The law is extremely clear, providing for very steep fines since 2014. The law banning the marketing of non-biodegradable and non-compostable carrier bags was passed in December 2006 following an amendment of the then senator Francesco Ferrante to the 2007 Finance Act (n. 296/2006). After this, many regulations followed, the most important one being the decree law n. 2 of 25/1/2012, converted into Act n. 28 of 24/3/2012 detailing the ban. The proposal of an EU directive in the spring 2014, at the end of the last European term, drew inspiration from the framework of the Italian law on the ban of non-compostable carrier bags. The only marketable shopping bags in line with art. 2 of Act n. 28 of 2012 are: single use non-compostable carrier bags made with polymers in line with the harmonized rules

UNI EN 13432:2002, according to the certifications issued by the credited institutions; the reusable bags made with traditional plastic whose handles are not incorporated within the perimeter of the bag and over 200 micron of thickness if used for food purposes and 100 micron for other purposes; the reusable bags made with traditional plastic whose handles are integrated within the perimeter and with a thickness over 100 micron for food purposes and 60 micron for all other purposes. Moreover, in order to promote the reuse of plastics from separate waste collection, the reusable bags made with traditional polymers must contain at least 30% or recycled plastic for food purposes and at least 10% for all other purposes (art. 2 par. 3 of Act n. 28/2012). Those marketing bags not in line with the law or fake “bio-bags”, thanks to Renzi’s competitiveness decree, as from 21st August 2014 will be subjected to financial penalties ranging from €2,500 to €25,000. Such fine could be quadrupled (i.e. €100,000) if the quantity of carrier bags is large or in case the goods are worth over 20% of the offender’s turnover. It is high time everybody abided by a law allowing a reduction of pollution from plastic, an improved separate collection of the organic fraction of waste and the production of quality compost, while promoting industrial reconversion towards processes of green chemistry from renewables, as it is already happening in the industrial hub of Porto Torres for example. To stop such widespread illegality law enforcement agencies and the judiciary must take actions once and for all.

renewablematter 02. 2015

A smart chemistry for a smarter life in a smarter planet bioplastics a case study of bioeconomy in italy Edited by Walter Ganapini

free download from:

freebook.edizioniambiente.it/libro/77/Bioplastics_a_case_study_of_Bioeconomy_in_Italy Also available in French language

freebook.edizioniambiente.it

Columns

IN COLLABORATION WITH THE ITALIAN NATIONAL TEAM OF WATER POLO

IF YOU THROW AWAY USED OIL FROM YOUR CAR YOU POLLUTE SIX OLIMPIC SWIMMING POOLS. Sometimes it doesn’t take much to pollute: a change in your car’s oil thrown in a manhole or a field. A senseless act which could pollute a huge surface of 5000 square meters. Instead, if collected correctly, used oil is a precious resource: once it’s recycled it becomes a new lubricant. This way, we can save on importing oil and the environment will also benefit. Help us collect it, don’t throw away our future: toll-free number 800.863.048 - www.coou.it LET’S COLLECT USED OIL. LET’S DEFEND THE ENVIRONMENT.

THANKS TO CONAI, TRASH NO LONGER ENDS UP IN LANDFILLS, BUT IN SHOP WINDOWS. Steel, aluminum, paper, wood, plastic, glass. For over 15 years, Conai has coordinated and promoted the efforts of companies, municipalities and citizens to recycle packaging waste and give it new life. It’s a virtuous cycle that creates beauty and is economically sound. In Italy, in 2013, 77.5% of packaging from purchased

goods was recovered, with a recycling rate of 67.6%. With 3 out of 4 packages sent for recycling and recovery from all over the country, in 15 years, the Conai system has generated an environmental and economic gain to the tune of 15.2 billion euros, also reducing CO2 emissions by a total of 125 million tons.

Consortium for the recycling of packaging

THINGS BORN OUT OF THINGS. www.conai.org

A real sign of sustainable development.

There is such a thing as genuinely sustainable development.

Since 1989, Novamont researchers have been working on an ambitious project that combines the chemical industry, agriculture and the environment: “Living Chemistry for Quality of Life”. Its objective has been to create products with a low environmental impact. The result of Novamont’s innovative research is the new bioplastic Mater-Bi®. Mater-Bi® is a family of materials, completely biodegradable and compostable which contain renewable raw materials such as starch and vegetable oil derivates. Mater-Bi® performs like traditional plastics but it saves energy, contributes to reducing the greenhouse effect and at the end of its life cycle, it closes the loop by changing into fertile humus. Everyone’s dream has become a reality.

Living Chemistry for Quality of Life. www.novamont.com

Within Mater-Bi® product range the following certiﬁcations are available

284

The “OK Compost” certiﬁcate guarantees conformity with the NF EN 13432 standard (biodegradable and compostable packaging) 5_2014