Renewable Matter #6-7 by Edizioni Ambiente

RENEWABLE MATTER INTERNATIONAL MAGAZINE ON THE BIOECONOMY AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY 06-07 | October-December 2015 Bimonthly Publication Edizioni Ambiente

Bill McDonough: The “Virtuous Circle” of Matter •• Friedrich Hinterberger: Will the Facebook Generation Lead Dematerialization? •• Guido Viale: The Invention of Waste •• Panzeri: Communicating Sustainability

Collective Systems: Economic Development Drivers •• Waste Boundaries •• The Circular Economy: Work in Progress •• Bioeconomy: €1 Invested Today Will Generate €10 in 10 Years •• Aluminium? It’s in Cities

700 to Support the Bioeconomy

Euro 20,00 - Download free online magazine at www.renewablematter.eu

•• How to Measure a Product’s Circularity •• Sustainable and Productive •• 60 Billion “Bricks” Are on Their Way

Expo: A Tale only Partly Told •• In Iceland, with Cods Nothing Goes to Waste

REALIZING

SUSTAINABLE MEDITERRANEAN SOCIETIES

THE MEDITERRANEAN REGION NOW USES APPROXIMATELY TWO AND A HALF TIMES MORE NATURAL RESOURCES THAN WHAT ITS ECOSYSTEMS CAN PROVIDE. The unique geography and rich history of the Mediterranean region set it apart from the rest of the world. Unsustainable consumption and development trends, however, threaten the unique ecological assets that are the Mediterranean region’s most valuable sources of strength. Global Footprint Network’s Mediterranean Program provides tools to guide the management of natural resources, economic development and sustainable consumption patterns. Our Ecological Footprint accounting framework and Net Present Value Plus (NPV+) tool can help cities, states and nations more accurately measure their ecological reserve or deficit, identify challenges and opportunities, and forecast and monitor the impact of different policies. Learn more at www.footprintnetwork.org/med

Remake è un’esclusiva carta ecologica con forte personalità e inaspettatamente liscia al tatto. La qualità tattile e l’aspetto naturale della carta sono il risultato di un processo di riuso creativo di sottoprodotti del cuoio che sostituiscono 25% di cellulosa FSC. Le fibre del cuoio sono visibili in modo variabile creando effetti unici sulla superficie dell’intera tavolozza dei colori.

Remake is a high-end, eco-friendly, uncoated paper with a pulpy look which is unexpectedly smooth to the touch. The special touch and the natural look of the paper is due to the up-cycling process which includes leather residues to substitute FSC cellulose to the tune of 25%. The leather fibres are visible to a greater or lesser extent on the surface of the paper depending on its colour and weight, giving a fashionable twist to the colour palette.

www.favini.com

WE HAVE TAKEN AN ASTONISHING WEIGHT O F F T H E S H O U L D E R S O F T H E F U T U R E.

At Ecopneus, we have recovered 1 million tonnes of end-of-life tyres, the weight of 8 cruise ships, in just 4 years. And we have transformed them into something more. Thanks to ethical and transparent work, 100 million end-of-life tyres have made many athletes sweat and have fun becoming basketball courts, tennis courts and football fields. They have reduced noise in offices, transforming themselves into sound-absorbing walls. They have protected thousands of children as shock absorbent rubber on playgrounds. They have covered kilometres of roads with rubberized asphalt and mitigated the vibrations of numerous tramway lines. They have given sustainable energy to companies in Italy and abroad. But most of all, they have done something priceless: they have made our country a more liveable place for future generations.

Partners

ADI Design Index 2015 Selection

Media Partners

RENEWABLE MATTER Networking Partners

Supporters

Technical Partners

Printed by Geca Industrie Grafiche using mineral oil free vegetable-based inks. Geca production system does not produce exhaust and all waste of our manufacture is introduced into a process of collection and recycling. www.gecaonline.it

Printed on Remake Oyster by Favini. The special touch and natural look of this high-end paper is created by up-cycling leather residues and substitutes 25% of FSC certified tree cellulose. Cover: Remake Oyster 250 gsm. Text: Remake Oyster 120 gsm. www.favini.com

Editorial

Athens’ Mistake

Top: Palagi’s Head (Head of Athena Lemnia, replica of a statue by Phidias), pentelic marble, 15 BC – 15 AD, ca. Photo: Bologna’s Sailko, Museo Civico Archeologico

by Antonio Cianciullo

The 5th Edition of The States General of the Green Economy will take place on 3rd and 4th November 2015 at Ecomondo Rimini Fiera, www.statigenerali.org and www.ecomondo.com.

Two thousand five hundred years ago, a small Greek city, the first democracy on the planet, worked wonders in organizing its resistance against the Persian army, the most powerful empire of the time. For more than 10 years, just a few thousand hoplites kept in check and then defeated armies coming from Africa and Asia. And nearly simultaneously, the same city, Athens, went through a golden age of knowledge and beauty, the splendour of classical art par excellence. Nevertheless, at the apex of its power, Phidias’ city did not manage to extract from its territory the resources it needed for its development. Its growth was unsustainable, as we would describe it today: difficulties in managing ecosystems – together with a too narrowminded idea of citizenship – contributed to slowing down its expansion and setting in motion its demise. Athens was the first city to lose its food self-sufficiency. Massive deforestation of Attica, with soil erosion already described by Plato, anticipated a problem that can now be found on a planetary scale. Excellent at exploring philosophy and art, Athens was not able to find the same balance in its relationship with nature. Twenty-five centuries later, can we really consider that lesson learnt? Can we tackle the current crisis in the knowledge that we must take matter into account, since even the virtual world needs a screen and energy to function? And that the growing importance of financial activities in the economic system – the escape from reality – is wreaking havoc? This issue focusses on a problem that looks rather technical. Even the words used by experts (i.e.: compliance schemes, that is programmes to involve manufacturers in the collection of their goods once they become waste) keeps the masses away. Yet, we are talking about something that we see every day. Something that has an impact on our wallets. Something affecting the quality of the air we breathe and of the water we drink. The problem is that this “something” is difficult to define because it is a double-faced entity. Sometimes it looks like a good: a resource, a raw material that feeds our industry. Sometimes it looks like waste: a burden to get rid of. But problems arise if we consider this sequence in fixed and irreversible temporal order: a good that suddenly becomes waste creating problems of supply and disposal. But there must not

necessarily be a before and an after. We can see matter as a cycle passing from one form to the other, from one function to another, from one object to another. Goods become waste, waste feeds a new production cycle that generates more waste which is transformed into other goods. Not ad infinitum, but for a long time. There seems to be much debate about the circular economy, but its application is still limited. How could it be otherwise in a country where everyone talks about separate waste collection but few people take an interest in the destiny of these materials so laboriously and costly selected? In a country where what matters is the political benefit gained by brandishing an increase in organic waste, paper or plastic collection while no one cares about guaranteeing the basic conditions for the construction of treatment plants for such materials. In doing so, we run the risk of leaving the country, especially the South, at the mercy of gangs making money by selling off public health with illegal landfills and boycotting an advance waste management system. Against all odds, in just a few years, public awareness campaigns, our laboratories’ research abilities and the brave actions of some entrepreneurs have made Italy a leader in the field of bioeconomy, boasting some very successful pilot experiments. Now we must keep up this excellence and feed it with the necessary matter. Matter that must not be taken away from other precious uses, such as food, but obtained by reducing wastage, finding ad hoc solutions for each area, creating jobs that cannot be delocalized and continuing to invest in research. This is a challenge requiring advanced technology and system innovation. The debate on collective systems on this issue, published to coincide with The States General of the Green Economy and Ecomondo, is intended as a contribution in this direction. We explore this topic by tackling it both from a technical and a layman’s side in order to build a bridge between these two worlds. Italy has got a good hand, now it must play its cards well.

R M

06-07|October-December 2015 Contents

RENEWABLE MATTER INTERNATIONAL MAGAZINE ON THE BIOECONOMY AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY

Editor-in-chief Antonio Cianciullo Editorial Director Marco Moro Contributors Catia Bastioli, Luigi Bechini, Duccio Bianchi, Josko Bobanovic, Gianfranco Bologna, Emanuele Bompan, Mario Bonaccorso, Danilo Bonato, Anna Bruno Ventre, Alessandro Canovai, Marco Capellini, Dirk Carrez, Stefano Ciafani, Marco Codognola, Roberto Coizet, Giovanni Corbetta, Joanna Dupont Inglis, Eugenio Eger, Aldo Femìa, Sergio Ferraris, Paola Ficco, Pasquale Fimiani, Friedrich Hinterberger, Jørgen Vig Knudstorp, William McDonough, Nathalie Moll, Achille Monegato, Ilaria Nardello, Yahya Sergio Pallavicini, Mauro Panzeri, Federico Pedrocchi, Carlo Pesso, Emanuele Rappa, Roberto Rizzo, Edo Ronchi, Loren Shuster, Giancarlo Spada, Guido Viale, Paolo Tomasi, Marie Wheat

Think Tank

Free bimonthly magazine www.renewablematter.eu ISSN 2385-2240 Reg. Tribunale di Milano n. 351 del 31/10/2014

Acknowledgments Ingrid Cadoret, laria Catastini, Kira Gould, Giulia Rognoni, Stefania Maggi, Michele Posocco, Giancarlo Spada, Stefano Stellini

Antonio Cianciullo

Athens’ Mistake

edited by Emanuele Bompan

Upcycle and the Atomic Bomb Interview with William McDonough

edited by Carlo Pesso

The Facebook Generation Will Lead Dematerialization Interview with Friedrich Hinterberger

Guido Viale

The Birth of Waste

edited by Antonio Cianciullo

Islam: The Third Way Interview with Yahya Sergio Pallavicini

Mauro Panzeri

Fair Competition

Marco Moro

From Nowhere to COP21

Roberto Coizet

Compliance Schemes: Drivers of Economic Development

Aldo Femia

Technical Effectiveness of Extended Producer Responsibility Schemes: What Do Data Reveal?

Pasquale Fimiani

Natural Capital and the Circular Economy: Two Sides of the Same Coin

Giovanni Corbetta

Why Waste is Not Treated in the Same Way

Edo Ronchi

Packaging Management System: Assessing a Tree by its Fruits

Paola Ficco

Waste Boundaries

edited by Antonio Cianciullo

WEEE: One Problem, Multiple Solutions Interview with Danilo Bonato

Duccio Bianchi

The Treasure Hidden in “the Mines”

edited by Joanna Dupont-Inglis

New Products for New Markets Interview with Marie Wheat

Managing Editor Maria Pia Terrosi

Editing Paola Cristina Fraschini, Diego Tavazzi Design & Art Direction Mauro Panzeri (GrafCo3), Milano Layout Michela Lazzaroni Translations Isobel Butters, Erminio Cella, Paola Cianfrone, Laura Coppo, Valentina Gianoli, Franco Lombini, Richard Nybakken, Mario Tadiello

Policy

Editorial Coordinator Paola Cristina Fraschini

Danilo Bonato

The Circular Economy: A Work in Progress

Mario Bonaccorso

Bioeconomy: An Investment of 1 Euro Today Will Reap 10 Euro in 2025

Columns

Case Histories

Paolo Tomasi

100

Metamorphosis of a Consortium in a Changing Waste Economy

Roberto Rizzo

104

How to Turn a Plastic Cup into a Scooter

Mario Bonaccorso

108

The Future of Lego Bricks is Bio-Based

Marco Capellini

111

How Circular Is Circular?

edited by Mario Bonaccorso

114

Pushing the Limits of Technology, Recognizing the Limits of Natural Resources Interview with Catia Bastioli

Sergio Ferraris

118

A Question of Fibre

Sergio Ferraris

126

Paper: Sustainability Enters the Production Cycle

Emanuele Bompan

130

We Recyle Oil

edited by Mario Bonaccorso

134

700 for the Bioeconomy Interview with Nathalie Moll

Ilaria Nardello

138

Gianfranco Bologna

139

Executive Coordinator Anna Re External Relations Manager (International) Federico Manca, Carlo Pesso External Relations Managers (Italy) Federico Manca, Anna Re, Matteo Reale 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 Annual subscription, 6 paper issues Subscribe on-line at www.materiarinnovabile.it/moduloabbonamento This magazine is composed in Dejavu Pro by Ko Sliggers Published and printed in Italy at GECA S.r.l., San Giuliano Milanese (Mi) Copyright ÂŠ Edizioni Ambiente 2015 All rights reserved

The Blue Yonder In Iceland, Cod is king Natural Capital Earth Conundrum: +83 Million -15 Billion

Stefano Ciafani

140

Green & Circular Matter Must Be Renewed, Not Incinerated

Federico Pedrocchi

141

Innovation Pills Expo: A (Partially) Untold Story

Cover Mauro Panzeri, Flower Power, digital collage, 2015

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

Upcycle and the

ATOMIC BOMB Interview with William McDonough William McDonough talks about his last book and reflects on how we became an unsustainable civilization. And how a solid circular economy, based on good design, can save us all. edited by Emanuele Bompan

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

Elliptical, philosophical, rarely obscure and always enlightened with solid, simple concepts. Talking for more than an hour with one of the XXI century design guru is a revealing trip in everything that was wrong with past-century design and economic discourse. What if a global trauma, like the Hiroshima-Nagasaki atomic bomb erased not only two major Japanese city but also our bond with Nature’s equilibrium? And how can we rethink everything – the way we use natural resources, the way we produce – in an organic, circular way? William Andrews McDonough, designer, philosopher, and author, is known for his seminal Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, co-authored with chemist Michael Braungart. In his latest book, The Upcycle: Beyond Sustainability — Designing for Abundance, McDonough takes sustainability beyond the simple reuse of materials, to regeneration,

Think Tank

Charles Levy, atomic bombing of Nagasaki on August 9, 1945

William McDonough

William McDonough is a leading figure in the field of sustainability, in the disciplines of planning and sustainability philosophy in general. In his activity, the designer has produced some of the most important works of sustainable architecture. He is also a teacher and advisor and is one of the most sought-after speakers at international meetings and events worldwide. His many publications include some fundamental texts such as Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way we Make Things, co-authored with Michael Braungart. In 2013, also with Braungart, he published The Upcycle. Beyond Sustainability – Designing for Abundance (North Point Press).

proposing a world in which everything we do improves the environment. (He takes a long pause before answering the first question). “The Upcycle is literally an extension of Cradle to Cradle. If we want to use a metaphor we have to look at Cradle to Cradle as the fulcrum and The Upcycle is the leverage. Cradle is the rock where we can raise leverage to human design. In the ‘fulcrum’ we outlined very straightforward pre-condition.”

we thought with ‘the next mentality,’ and instead of producing hazardous waste – which means that products were hazardous – we designed safe products with an output (water) that can become something you can sell to the local garden club. This makes us think: why would a business want to lose such an opportunity? Why would a company poison water? Do we open business so we pollute rivers? Asking the right questions is key. Last precondition is social fairness.”

Which are? “Materials are seen as biological or technical nutrients for safe, continuous cycling. Nature has no waste, nothing goes unused. This is why we need material reutilization: maintain continuous flows of biological and technical nutrients. Things have to go back for human utility and back to the natural realm safely. Think as a base for new business model. Renewable Energy is fundamental. Power all operations with 100% renewable energy. We have seen this coming. Especially from Italy, among others. Water Stewardship: water is regarded as a precious resource. Today when clothing factories have finished washing textiles, they collect this water and make clean drinking water. That’s because we changed the chemistry in the dyes,

This is something that many businesses forget. “We must celebrate all people and natural systems. People should be treated with respect in the whole process. This is extremely important (he takes another long pause). That is Cradle to Cradle. The book The Upcycle intends to make things better because you understand the concept in Cradle to Cradle. We collect so many examples to make the world better. For instance, it starts narrating a big company understanding what it means to say ‘we will become 100% clean powered.’” Design plays a central role. “Design is the first signal of human intention. Without the intention actions don’t necessarily

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

begin. So the first act is to represent your values. Human values. Such as ‘we will not destroy the planet for future generation, because we believe in a healthy and safe world.’ And you apply those to your business: This is the upcycle. Deciding to become 100% good. And mean it. “Look at chart of constant improvement (see figure 1). You decided, ‘yes I want to be less bad,’ but being less bad is not being good. It is being bad, just less so. Upcycling, instead, is being less bad and at the same time being more good. Typically, upcycle is a qualification, not just a quantification (such as ‘I do less bad stuff’). Recycle is not upcycle because the transformation is not really improving the quality, making it more complex and less able to be beautiful. Downcycling: mix it with something that can’t be recovered cleanly. Upcycling: bring it back into the system for next use and increase the quality. Putting it back in the world. This is upcycle. Something that is better than before.”

Figure 1 | The Upcycle Chart: Continuous Improvement 100% GOOD

100% BAD INVENTORY

Goal

Source: MBDC, LLC 2015. ASSESS

OPTIMIZE

Traditional societies always have designed their ecosystem in a balanced, sustainable way. Why modern societies, in particular capitalist societies, have become so unsustainable? “A small Italian farmer has been doing upcycling for thousands of years. Brilliant, because what he has been doing was essentially upcycling soil, following how nature work. But I want to take the answer to a larger scale. Have you ever tried to solve the Einstein’s equation E=mc2? I was sitting once by the fireplace in New England and I was in deep thoughts about energy. The Universe is entropy; everything is going to chaos, never to revert. What is the opposite? I went to the library to find about negative entropy. Everything has an opposite. Where is the order? And then a flash: E=mc2. We have E that is physics and m that is chemistry. The question is: Where is biology? Negative entropy is not physics, it is biology. The log burning is entropy, the log growing is negative entropy, it is order, and so you realize the Earth is a living thing that needs growth and open system of chemical to guarantee reproduction to organism. So biological life negates entropy. When you see that you realize what farmers have been doing for thousands of years. Life is creating order out of chaos, they support the soil with nitrogen and carbon from the atmosphere, and they are grazing the vitality of the planet. “Again, think about E=mc2. When I was a child, at 5, I was exposed to Hiroshima. I remember the cover magazine on the table with pictures of the atomic explosion. And I was thinking: why humans do this

Think Tank

Ferdinand Schmutzer, Albert Einstein, 1921

it deliciousness, beauty. Gods is in the details. These are drivers. On the other hand, we have specialist learning more and more of less and less, for them devil is in the details, a detail that can debunk a theory. It is not the wonderment, it is a focused understating. Something that can change design and the business is asking the right question: how can something beautiful destroy children’s health? Or the planet? If I make the finest silk in a factory and pollute the river, you can’t say I am providing the fashion industry with the most beautiful silk.”

What has changed the way we look at the world? The atomic bomb. [...] We started living, as there were no tomorrow.

to each other, how is this possible to make a city disappear in seconds? In college I asked a professor how a city can disappear in seconds. He told me to look at the E=mc2 (relativity theory give birth to the nuclear bomb, Editor’s Note). What has changed in the way we look at the world? The atomic bomb. In the midst of last century humankind created a situation where people’s understanding of the world was that the world could end tomorrow. We started living, as there were no tomorrow. We started throwing things away, make things and use them. Because the world can end tomorrow.” Like with climate change. “Exactly. Enjoy your life while you can, don’t worry about it. If the world ends will make no difference. We lost our sense of intergenerational connectivity and we create a kind of global tyranny of hopelessness.” A culture of waste born, imbued of consumer capitalism. How can we shift this approach and say: upcycle? “Designers are terribly optimistic about things. The world of the arts is looking with intensity at details, they see things deeply. It’s the wonder,

We need more regulation and control to protect us from harm? “Regulating design has a cost. We need to eliminate regulation. That is what cradleto-cradle design does. By producing good design you eliminate the need for regulations, for paperwork, you eliminate costs, fear, and concern from customers. This is the chance to rise up and upcycle your business. This changes the fundamental question of business itself. How much can we give for what we get? “Today green and clean techs are booming. But new technology, branded and environmental friendly, or marketed as so, aren’t always based on good design. Think. Today many things are still releasing carbon in the atmosphere. We have to ask: are you emitting toxins? Carbon is not a toxin. Our food is carbon, our trees are carbon, and children are carbon. We see carbon as something that surrounds us. The problem is having carbon in the wrong place, which is where it becomes toxin. Toxins are material in the wrong place. Lead in computer is behaving as a transmission; lead in child’s brain is a neurotoxin. Carbon is only toxic in the atmosphere, at this point of history. It is like putting lead in a child’s brain. So when we see clean tech that puts something in the wrong place – like carbon in the atmosphere – that is not good. So for example when we talk about biofuels we are still talking about carbon going in the atmosphere. So we have to ask ourselves: is this intelligent? I think you have to look at the equation quite carefully. When you use palm oil you lose all the carbon sequestered in the forest. “Watch out for things that are not as green as they are labeled. Efficiency is usually a good place to start. But the search for new technique that respect the point said is the most exciting thing.” In the book you often make the case about a typical wittgensteinian issue. The way we use concept can be a limit. How is relevant

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

The circular economy is a resourceful economic system and innovation engine, providing continuous benefits to society in the present and the future. […] In essence, the circular economy puts the ‘re’ back into resources.

to find new meaning to new material innovation? “We replace concepts in a strange way. For example we use space to define our relations. Where is it, instead of utility, ‘what is it?.’ Think: we throw things ‘away.’ We put in the water and goes ‘away.’ For the person downstream it is not away. This idea of away is odd; we forgot that we are somebody else’s away. We started as gatherers, in a world where there’s no ‘away.’ When we became farmers we created here and away. In China sewage was considered sacred. When you were having dinner at someone’s, you where leaving you ‘deposits,’ your faeces because your were returning their nutritious. Now we throw those ‘away.’ If we move towards the concept of utility, than we can can talk use. “You can’t say drink my urine or drink my sewage, they say ‘throw it away,’ but if you stress use and say ‘how can I design to reuse sewage that contain H2O,’ you use your brain thinking about use. “Earth is here for a use. And instead we are abusing it. Language becomes important.” In the book you describe how can we upcycle soil. “China has declared that 19,4% of farmland is polluted with toxic metals, and toxic to food. Current farming techniques expend the Earth’s natural resources without ‘giving back.’ In the past 200 years, the US have depleted 75% of its topsoil due to ‘modern’ agricultural techniques such as monoculture, over-tilling and salinization of soil due to over-watering. The yearly loss of topsoil in the United States alone continues at an estimated $150 billion

annually. One hundred and fifty years ago, the Iowa prairie had 12 to 16 inches of topsoil, as well as the carbon stored in the deep roots of prairie plants, which were as much as 15 feet deep. Now the topsoil is down to 6 to 8 inches. Soil production takes significant time; it can require from 100 to 500 years to create one inch of topsoil. With those kinds of numbers, human beings have little to no hope of catching up. We should go and fix it. Upcycle it.” You travel across the world, do you see a change in mentality, do you see people applying Cradle-to-Cradle concepts? “We are seeing changes today. I am Chairman of World Economic Forum for the council of circular economy. It is interesting they put a designer do chair the group. Circular economy is spreading.” How would you define the circular economy? “The circular economy is a resourceful economic system and innovation engine, providing continuous benefits to society in the present and the future. It is designed, Cradle-to-Cradle, to endlessly recirculate clean biological and technical materials, energy, water and human ingenuity. In essence, the circular economy puts the ‘re’ back into resources. Our goal is a delightfully diverse, safe, healthy and just world – with clean air, soil, water and power – economically, equitably, ecologically, and elegantly enjoyed. Otherwise the future will bring a global nuclear desert.”

Think Tank

The Facebook Generation Will Lead Dematerialization Interview with Friedrich Hinterberger The language of dematerialization is commonly used in the business community, but this is not the case within the policy making circle. The influence of the sharing economy and young peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s consumption trends on the transition towards a dematerialized economy. edited by Carlo Pesso

Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI), seri.at/en/.

The fifth issue of Renewable Matter includes an interview with economist Mariana Mazzucato that reviews the current engines of innovation. She describes how public and private governance models have progressively shifted, to the point that they can no longer deliver innovation. She then goes on to suggest how to set innovation on the right track again. In this issue of RM we called on the Austrian

economist and founding president of the Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI), Friedrich Hinterberger to give us his perspective. While essentially agreeing with Mazzucatoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s analysis, he provides a different view on the current drivers of change: one that takes into account the priorities and trends emerging within the Facebook generation.

renewablematter 06-07. 2015 Friedrich Hinterberger, Austrian economist, is the founding President of SERI. 1993-2000 leader of the working group Ecological Economics and Ecological Economical Policy at the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy. Board member of the Austrian Chapter of the Club of Rome.

Friedrich Hinterberger

[...] Absolute figures in material consumption are still rising at the global level. And this is happening whether you look at it globally, or you consider it on a sectoral basis.

Carlo Pesso, Edizioni Ambiente’s Study Centre, Former OECD administrator for Sustainable Product Policies, Environment Directorate, and Environmental Management, Directorate Territorial Development and Perspectives.

Nearly 20 years after issuing (Friedrich H., L. Fred, S. Marcus, Ökologische Wirtschaftspolitik: zwischen Ökodiktatur und Umweltkatastrophe, Birkhäuser Verlag, Auflage, 1996), how much progress has been made in achieving the dematerialisation you were advocating then? “Indeed, since Friedrich Schmidt-Bleek forged the concept much progress was made. Particularly over the last ten years. Mostly under the impulsion of the EU and the action of Commissioner Janez Potočnik. What is remarkable is that the language associated with dematerialization has become commonplace within the business community, i.e. among those who make the best use of the related concepts. Unfortunately and somewhat paradoxically, the policy-making arena cannot boast a similar success. In this field, the language has mostly remained confined to experts. Furthermore, the ongoing debate over climate change has captured most of the attention. So much so that, more recently, the Commission appears to be hesitant, and it is yet not too clear whether the circular economy package will effectively move things forward. In other words, attention for dematerialisation has died down, or better, it is no longer rising. On the other hand, by deciding to prioritise decarbonisation and curbing the use of coal and oil, the G7 has recently shown that dematerialisation is still on the agenda and that things are moving.” So your feeling is that, while the policy arena pays little attention, the business community is moving forwards. “Today businesses are handling dematerialisation, although the issue

is vastly overshadowed by the debate over climate change. If you take GRI indicators and criteria, for instance, there is a single indicator for materials while you have many for greenhouse gases. Another way to look at it in practical terms, is to look at the debate on dematerialisation as lagging behind discussions over climate change by over twenty years. In that sense, there is still very much to do. If you look at the figures, what you see is that the early-industrialised economies of Europe, North America and Japan, have dematerialized by diminishing direct inputs of resources. However, absolute figures in material consumption are still rising at the global level. And this is happening whether you look at it globally, or you consider it on a sectoral basis.” Which policy instruments have been most successful and which do you feel should be developed? “Let us take a European perspective. In the EU recycling is still negligible, except in a handful of countries. In fact, over the last 20 years most of the debate has concerned packaging, which, of course, represents a considerable fraction of the materials displaced by EU economies. At the end of the day, few products are recycled and even fewer products are effectively made of recycled materials. For instance, even for PET that enjoys a very considerable recycling rate, most new plastic bottles are made with virgin feedstock. Hence, the use of recycled materials, especially within products of common use, is lagging behind. This is because the process is looked at mostly from the backend, i.e. the output side is considered rather than product inputs.

Think Tank

We still must make a complete U-turn in product are design to improve key factors such as the durability of products, their service intensity and their sharing capacity.

We still must make a complete U-turn in product’s design to improve key factors such as the durability of products, their service intensity and their sharing capacity. Apart from being preferable for the environment, such a trend would have the further positive effect of increasing the usage intensity of products: greater and more thorough product use contributes to the creation of greater overall wealth. However, although there is considerable advocacy to make progress in this direction, in practical terms, little has been done to render it effective. In fact, today the trend is marginal in terms of quantities, but highly promising in terms of perspective developments. It is comparable to the diffusion of the first cars, or to the diffusion of the first mobile phones. It initially appears to serve only a niche market before becoming commonplace. “Another point made twenty years ago and that has not changed to this day is that prices are not ‘right,’ i.e. they do not reflect the true costs because they are developed as instruments of environmental policy. What I mean is, for instance, that taxes deal with carbon emissions rather than overtly curbing the use of raw materials. So, they end up affecting car drivers, i.e. consumers, thus affecting industry only indirectly. This is not enough.”

economy, upon the dematerialisation of the economy? “Something we really had not envisaged 20 years ago are the far reaching changes in consumption patterns of the younger generations. These changes are partly driven by economic factors. We are going through a fundamental economic crisis, which is by no means limited to the financial markets. All of the classic economic drivers have fallen through pointing at the systemic nature of the present crisis. This means that people have less and less money. Hence an increasing part of the population is adopting solutions such as those provided by AirB&B for lodging as a matter of necessity, since they cannot afford hotels or other classic forms of accommodation. This of course is no impediment for the development of new semi-commercial solutions to emerge through such novel channels. This raises all sorts of new problems, such as the perception of unfair competition with the previously existing solutions and the consequent displacement of jobs. Furthermore, whenever they can, young people are more attentive at picking quality food; many become vegetarian, etc. Overall, they are adopting a more environmentally conscious attitude without necessarily adopting an environmentally militant outlook.”

What are the effects of other trends, such as the upsurge of the sharing

Between policy instruments targeting material usage and changing consumption

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

Companies, particularly SMEs in which there is a generational change, citizens, local territorial initiatives are going to move more effectively and, probably, much faster than governmental institutions.

trends among the younger generations, which do you feel holds the greatest probability to bring about the transition towards a dematerialised economy? “Already 20 years ago, it was felt that all the measures necessary to advance the issue are mutually reinforcing. Ideally, in order to achieve maximum positive impact, they should be implemented together. Although, in practice, this does not imply they should all be adopted at the same time. In reality, the measures are being adopted progressively. As I mentioned earlier the changing consumption patterns among the younger generation is affecting the market and new businesses are emerging. This in turn may affect the contents of policy programs that are prepared for local and national elections. Moreover, why not, as things evolve some companies may even start lobbying in favour of resource taxation rather than labour taxation. This because many of the activities related to product maintenance and refurbishment are labour intensive. It is clear that these combined measures have far-reaching effects that go well beyond their environmental purpose: more importantly, they have strong positive economic and social effects by providing new labour opportunities.” In your view, since we are approaching COP21, which are the most urgent measures that need being adopted? “Again, it is very hard to indicate any particular route, since dematerialisation comes from a combination of different measures and trends. A better taxation regime is highly desirable, but turns out to be useless if companies are not able to deliver appropriate solutions. Moreover, it may well happen that taxes are collected without any noticeable effect upon products. This unless complimentary actions are conceived, as is the case in Flanders, where consultants help companies devise new solutions. Another very important aspect lays with media and the way they can relate what is happening among young people. In Austria, today, most young people do not even consider the idea of getting a driver’s licence. There is no interest in driving a car. People of my generation hold a very different attitude. In France, the buyer of a new car is, on average, 50 years old.” In this context, what are the goals and the actions of the Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI) you created in Vienna in 1999? “Our main objective is to convey a simple message: ‘Useless is worthless.’ In practice, we work with companies to help them apply and communicate this concept. Accordingly, we help identify hotspots and principal

effects and then implement corrective actions or create new solutions. Once this work is done, we ensure that the consumers are adequately informed of the efforts made, so that the progress achieved may be rewarded through consumer preferences. Furthermore, we provide companies with material throughput accounting tools that facilitate material flow management in terms of avoided impacts, CO2 reduction, etc. Furthermore, these are useful when they draw up their sustainability reports. Finally, SERI assists policy makers in developing new policy tools.” An economist by training, you often refer to the work of economist Walter Eucken, one of the fathers of the post-WWII German economic recovery. Can you tell us why his work has inspired you? “Indeed, Walter Eucken, and the group of economists linked to him, stand behind the German economic miracle. He developed the concept of social-market economy. It comprises very liberal aspects that support the free-market approach, and highly social aspects that, for instance, take into account distributive issues. However, the most distinctive characteristic of his work is that he clearly called for a very rigorous setting of the boundary conditions. In other words, he advocated the establishment of strong frameworks within which markets should evolve freely. Overall, this concept establishes a particular brand of ‘continental’ capitalism that is clearly distinct and perhaps opposed to the anglo-saxon brand of laissez-faire capitalism. This, perhaps, is what also characterised, to a certain extent, Italian and central European western economies. At the end of the 80’s and the beginning of the 90’s, in Austria, the concept extended and muted into eco-social market economy. Although initially it took care of generic environmental concerns, rather than specific resources and climate change, it somehow represented an extension of conservative thinking. It enabled to embrace social and environmental concerns within mainstream economic thinking. Accordingly, the mantra of economic growth now includes the setting of the most appropriate boundary conditions to achieve it. However, over the last 20 years, these concepts were swept away by the neo-liberal approach only to be resumed in 2008 when the ongoing economic crisis set in. Today analysis of the boundary and framework conditions has gained new legitimacy. “It is interesting to note that this new legitimacy does not stem from universities nor from major economic think tanks – vastly colonised by neo-liberal economic thinking – but from

Think Tank the younger students that are calling for ‘a plurality of opinions in economics.’ Today, students ask to be given the opportunity to access truly different economic theories and analysis, and to able to compare them through a pragmatic non-ideological approach. Recently, the de-growth movement, born in France and Italy and diffusing across Europe, has been nourishing the debate with fresh ideas and priorities. This has brought the German parliament to start an enquiry into ‘Growth and well-being’ which has brought parliamentarians and experts to discuss the issue for two years. The Dutch, who pursue the concept of transition economics, have launched another very valuable complementary stream of analysis. It is particularly interesting because it is deeply pragmatic and closely linked to militant activities who walk the talk allowing for useful cross-fertilisation between theory and practice.”

very much, at least at the policy level. Mind you, the big institutions, the bureaucracies – such as the EU – will continue doing their job and some progress will be made. However, change and innovation are much more likely to be driven through a bottom-up approach. Companies, particularly SMEs in which there is a generational change, citizens, local territorial initiatives are going to move more effectively and, probably, much faster than governmental institutions. I insist on the younger generation because, while they are less likely to be radical, they are familiar with environmental concerns. In this sense, I may say that I am optimistic. Even the fact that the crisis will go on, may, at the end of the day, have a positive effect, since materials will become more valuable thus incentivising dematerialisation.”

How do you feel these issues are going to evolve over the next few years? “Well, I am not too confident things will evolve

Secession, Vienna. Photo by Tony Hisgett

[...] Today, young students ask to be given the opportunity to access truly different economic theories and analysis, and to able to compare them through a pragmatic non-ideological approach.

Adriana Varella and Nilton Malz, Digital DNA, Palo Alto (California), 2005. Photo by Wonderlane, graphic elaboration

20 renewablematter 06-07. 2015

The BIRTH of WASTE

Think Tank

by Guido Viale

In preurban cultures, waste was ontologically a continuum between man and his environment and could re-enter natural biological cycles. However, the advent of industrial society changed the terms of this problem radically: today we are searching for “empty spaces” where to dump all that can no longer be used. And at the same time, nature is only seen as a “reservoir” of resources to be exploited for production. Guido Viale, a sociologist and essayist, worked for several research, advisory and designing companies in the economic, social and environmental fields and has collaborated as a freelance journalist. He dealt with waste for Amici della Terra association, Enea and the Ministry for the Environment. As an expert, he writes for the most important national newspapers on the environment, economy and development models.

Nature does not generate waste: evolution has promoted such a circularity and an interdependence between different forms of life that the waste of a process – or of part of it – feeds further or parallel processes. Man’s departure from this trophic circularity has been neither sudden nor linear. For a long time, and undoubtedly in all preurban cultures, waste – or rather excrements and waste generated by the manipulation of everyday objects – did not pose a big problem. This was because its amount and, above all, the fact that it was made up of organic or inert material, determined a sort of ontological continuum between man and his environment: a close integration between cycles that promoted social expansion and those characterizing the natural world. The first break of this continuity was probably the burials that man used for his deceased, instead of giving the bodies back to the environment. The problem of taking away waste from everyday environment started with urbanization and only in so far as cities’ streets, irrigation ditches and gardens were not able to absorb naturally human activities’ waste. Something that preindustrial city dwellers probably understood too late. Nevertheless, the advent of industrial

society marked a general metamorphosis of this problem. a) First, it drastically increased the number of people generating waste. Population growth characterizing the modern world is a recent phenomenon. It began in the Western world thanks to the increased availability of food starting in the mid-18th century. b) Secondly, it also increased the pro-capita waste generation. This is first taken from the environment and it is then given back as waste: the epoch-making transformation caused by the industrial revolution does not affect only resource extraction but also, more or less with the same intensity and with a time gap destined to shorten over time, the use of the environment to dump discarded materials and products. c) Thirdly, it changed waste composition. For thousands of years man used, and thus discarded, organic materials that nature was perfectly able to re-introduce in its biological cycles; or inert materials that did not alter the balance neither before or after man’s use. But starting with the development on industrial scale of metallurgy first and of carbon chemistry and petrochemistry later and eventually of new synthetic and composite materials – the performance of these materials is mainly linked to the irreversibility of the processes through which they are produced – have caused a reduction of the organic fraction of the total amount of waste in favour of the non-biodegradable fraction. d) Finally, goods are no longer totally used; capital goods, that is means of production, are characterized by an obsolescence period that does not coincide with their wear and tear cycle. But above all, consumer goods have undergone a radical transformation, increasingly pushing them towards the “disposable” realm. In order to accommodate all this waste we need space, but it must be “empty” space – land, water or air – where we can dump everything we do not want to see. The common thread

renewablematter 06-07. 2015 Lewis Hine, Power house mechanic working on steam pump, 1920

Waste, which is somehow the excrements of society, has attracted in its orbit biological excrements and not vice versa.

of both responsible (through specific technologies) and irresponsible (that is simply “abandoning” waste, counting on natural processes such as rain, wind, currents and spontaneous biological processes to get rid of it) waste disposal is that the environment is seen and can be used as an empty space available to society for dumping what it deems no longer possible or useful to keep or use. This way of looking at the environment is as widespread, rooted and characteristic of the modern spirit as the notion that the world is a mine of resources available for the development of productive forces. This is why waste, before clogging and fouling the external world,

polluted the mind as phenomenology of spirit. In addition, it has taken over because it equates to an approach to the world characterized by the development of technological domination in the modern world: this is exactly what has happened to the progressive transformation of nature into a mere reservoir of resources. The crucial conditions for this cultural mutation has been the construction of the cosmos, and in particular of the environment where we live, as a geometric space, defined by the three dimensions and by the calculations that can be done on them. This vision has taken hold though the triumphs of modern physics and its mechanistic paradigm, that is through the “transition from organism to machine as a dominant metaphor binding together the cosmos, society, and the ego in a sole cultural reality” (Merchant C., The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and The Scientific Revolution, San Francisco, Harper San Francisco, 1980). Empty geometric space governing the removal of waste – in whichever form or physical state it might be – is the same concept allowing us to consider whatever fills it just as a stockpile of materials available for new uses. In reality, resources and waste are strictly complementary: waste and its infinite growth potential is fed by the same infinite availability of natural resources. And vice versa: the transformation of nature in resources, that is the availability of all reality to be used in new ways, would never have reached such universal proportions in the modern world if it had not been guaranteed not only a privileged way in through goods in the realm of human activities but also a way out from this realm once they have lost their usefulness. As a proof, suffice it to look at the way the world of waste has progressively expanded to include anything not seen as a resource. First, waste, which is somehow the excrements of society, has attracted in its orbit biological excrements and not vice versa. This first involved human dejecta, in the past used as fertilizer or collected in septic tanks where they were converted into humus and given back to the environment. However, with the introduction of sewage systems, and above all of flushing, they have been dumped into rivers and eventually seas, counting on their ability to contain them all.

Publicity photo from Charlie Chaplin’s The Kid, about 1921

Think Tank

We produce to replace: but the implicit assumption of such behaviour is that everything that is replaced can and must be thrown away.

Nevertheless, the process of transforming excrements into waste has gone further, including most of animal dejecta that are dumped into rivers and are now amongst the factors contributing to eutrophication in many lakes and seas. In this change, a vision of the environment as a mere available empty space where what is no longer economically viable to treat or use can be dumped, has replaced the concept of excrements as an essential link in the interexchange between organisms and the environment. Secondly, it has become natural that all goods produced are not made to last. We produce to replace: but the implicit

assumption of such behaviour is that everything that is replaced can and must be thrown away. The throwaway society – the result of consumerism, that is a social organization perpetuated through the proliferation of goods, because without such increase the links (trade) binding it together would disappear and through the means with which it guarantees its members’ livelihood (occupation as a privileged access to income) – is based both on the assumption of infinite resource extraction and that of endless accumulation of waste. Finally, with the progressive extension of the resource realm from produce to the whole creation, including man who expected to dominate this process in the name of his right to use nature (this is why we refer to “human resources”), the realm of waste also progressively expanded, including not only what in the past was not waste because it belonged to the “natural” relations of exchange between man and his environment, but man himself, who invented the notion of waste. In different historical eras, the words “human waste” or “social waste” were used to isolate and remove from society and its processes all those individuals that the dominant culture no longer considered, or was no longer able to see, as resources, that is criminals, the handicapped, the antisocial, and the long-term unemployed. The history of this process is the other side of a general notion of social relations that selects and values individuals on the basis of their ability to produce and their contribution to production. In this case as well, we are faced with a unique process: to increase productivity, we have deeply tapped indiscriminately into human faculties, selecting and using them according to pre-established objectives – the very essence of exploitation – because there is the possibility, when they are no longer usable, of throwing them away, together with the individuals, the wretched vessels of such faculties. However, what has happened to waste since we developed technologies to treat it, to make it harmless, to recycle it and no longer leave it to itself as it happened for many years and it is still happening in many parts of the world? Those technologies, and the laws that supported their development and adoption, have transformed waste into the privileged

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

Waste is the obscure side of goods. Legislators subject waste to ever more rigorous rules in an attempt to keep as unchanged as possible the freedom of those who legally enjoy goods.

recipient of a generalized “management.” The same detailed directions do not apply to what can be considered the forerunners of the realm of waste, that is goods and their production. This is even more so if we go back to the dawn of the reflection on the world of goods. It is the essential nature and destiny of goods, and not of waste, “to be left to their own devices,” that is to the free play of the forces of demand and supply and the process of circulation – both social and physical – triggered by it. Laissez-faire, laissez-passer are the mottos printed on the flags of market idolizers according to whom independence within civil society and legal regulations is achieved through the production of goods, in a period when the market is imposing itself as the privileged environment for social development. No one would ever dream, or has ever dreamt, to claim the same mottos for the production of waste, even if, in reality, this has been and still is a widespread practice. De facto and legal freedom enjoyed by the market and the circulation of goods in society, the autonomy of trading relationships, as a means of social cohesion no longer based on blood or community ties, do not tally exactly with the restrictions and the rules governing waste. It can no longer be “abandoned”

without obstructing and making unusable both the physical and social space where the freedom of goods takes place. Waste is the obscure side of goods. Legislators subject waste to ever more rigorous rules in an attempt to keep as unchanged as possible the freedom of those who legally enjoy goods. Or vice versa, goods produce an immense amount of waste on which legislators must intervene, because the law and above all the market ideology allow its production. Legislators intervene on waste, followed by hordes of experts, conventionees, authorized and illegal treatment plant builders and thousands of profiteers of what society is not able to recognize and accept as part of its functioning because it if forbidden or it believes it is forbidden to act on goods, their composition, their production processes and their use. However, waste is just the perceptible manifestation – to the eye, to the touch, to the nose and so on – of the freedom enjoyed by goods.

Abu Dhabi Mosque

Think Tank

ISLAM: The Third Way

Interview with Yahya Sergio Pallavicini Between forced modernization and atavistic violence, a proposal to meet modernity head-on, focusing on the environment and an economy of reuse. An interview with Yahya Sergio Pallavicini, Vice President of Co.Re.Is. (Comunità Religiosa Islamica, the Italian Islamic Religious Community): “The Caliphate has no legal or spiritual legitimacy.”

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

edited by Antonio Cianciullo

Stato Islamico: nascita di un format (Islamic State: Birth of a Genre), a documentary by Riccardo Mazzon, Antonio Albanese, and Graziella Giangiulio (produced by Todos Contentos Y Yo Tambien and Magnolia).

The imposition of an uneven, forced modernization, on the one side; the retribution of archaic, systematic violence, on the other. In the Islamic world, a third way between these two extremes is slowly taking shape, a path that combines respect for the environment as taught by the Qur’an with the potential for cultural and economic rebirth driven by an emphasis on the reuse of resources, minimization of waste, attention to efficiency, and social stability. Its proponent is Yahya Sergio Pallavicini, Vice President of Co.Re.Is. (Comunità Religiosa Islamica, the Italian Islamic Religious Community) and Chair of the ISESCO Council for Education and Culture in the West. You speak of two extremes, but the brutal expansion of the Islamic State demonstrates a sort of underlying synthesis, a hidden truth illustrated in Nascita di un format, the documentary by Riccardo Mazzon, Antonio Albanese, and Graziella Giangiulio that examines two years of video clips put online by the foot soldiers of the black flag. On the one hand, there is a Caliphate that wants to turn back the clock on 1400 years

of history, erasing the progress and evolution of cultures and sensibilities achieved over these 14 centuries and flaunting its disdain for the modern world. And on the other hand, there is also a Caliphate that uses propaganda techniques copied from the United States, employing more than one hundred Western media experts: the very essence of the modernity that the Islamic State claims to want to destroy. “In any case, from a theological point of view the Caliphate has no legal or spiritual legitimacy,” Pallavicini responds. “The word shares the same root with khilafah, which literally means vicar, or guardian. Man has been put on Earth to administer a land that is not his, but God’s: he is God’s vicar and the guardian or steward of the Earth. This is important because it precludes the possibility that man may pursue activities that damage a precious resource that does not belong to him: if he does this, he has failed at his task.” This concept is very similar to that of the Catholic Church, which sees man as a guardian of all creation. “This is true. I would go even further: on environmental questions there is a substantial degree of consensus among many faiths and the lay world. We saw this just last year, with the march organized in Rome to urge the signing of an agreement at the UN conference in Paris in December, which will discuss the future climate of our planet.” You have said that the Caliphate has no legitimacy, but its leaders claim to be fulfilling a tradition.

Sheikh Zayed Mosque, decoration

Yahya Sergio Pallavicini, Vice President of Co.Re. Is. (Comunità Religiosa Islamica, the Italian Islamic Religious Community) and Chair of the ISESCO Council for Education and Culture in the West.

Yahya Sergio Pallavicini

Pages from the Koran

Think Tank

On environmental questions there is a substantial degree of consensus among many faiths and the lay world.

“This tradition runs from the time of the Prophet to the beginning of the 20th century, until the First World War. With the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, the co-existence of temporal and spiritual power – to use the terms also employed by the Catholic Church – was no more. And so the Muslim sages declared the era of the Caliphate to be definitively over.”

Let us grab the bull by the horns: A significant portion of the Islamic world feels oppressed by a modernity that rained down upon them from outside, and that in many cases has exacerbated social divides rather than accelerating the creation of a middle class. In addition, throughout the Middle East this forced modernization appears to have a single, indisputable driving force: Oil. Is its use – or rather, its abuse, in terms of quantity – reconcilable with the doctrine of the Qur’an? “The traditional Islamic world found itself unprepared for the consequences of the rapid modernization you mentioned. The process revealed contradictions that cannot be ignored: there are entire generations that were born and live in anger. The power of money has prevailed over that of faith, and has created a natural world that barely resembles the original state of nature. This type of industrial revolution has demonstrated an arrogance that must be reined in because of its impact on both society and the environment. We must return to the teaching that views man as the steward of the Earth, by slowing our consumption of resources and returning to a less artificial way of living.” In your opinion, are the Arab countries ready to reduce oil consumption? There are a few signals in that direction: investments in solar energy, for example, which constitutes an abundant resource

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

The moment has come for a great alliance of all the faiths – the three monotheistic religions, as well as Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism – to defend the planet. This is an ecumenical model that we all can agree upon.

at those latitudes, or pilot experiments like the city of Masdar, a jewel of green technology under construction 17 km outside of Abu Dhabi. And yet the drills haven’t slowed their pace. “It’s true, we are witnessing the damage caused by a shrivelling of consciences and a neglect of our mission in the world. Nevertheless, in the non-Arab part of the Muslim world, where the vast majority of the faithful reside, there is a perceptibly greater sensitivity and closeness to nature. And on the other hand in many Christian countries, too, the environment has also suffered greatly. This is why the moment has come for a great alliance of all the faiths – the three monotheistic religions, as well as Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism – to defend the planet. This is an ecumenical model that we all can agree upon.” What role can Islam play in this dialogue? “A very important role, I hope, with a significant push from European Muslims to trace a scenario in which modernity can play a positive role. In any such scenario the environmental question occupies centre stage.” The environmental question is an expression that needs to be fleshed out

these days. Declarations of principles must be accompanied by concrete decisions: there are choices that can no longer be avoided because the acceleration of climate change is becoming obvious and alarming. One frequently hears talk of renewable energy sources and energy savings, which is a central axis of the cultural and technological revolution that is underway, but there needs to be a greater emphasis on the recovery and reuse of materials, the need to put a limit on the mining that is devastating half the planet while filling the other half with heavy and frequently toxic wastes. Are there parts of the Qur’an that speak to this issue? “In the Islamic world everyone thinks of the Qur’an in terms of verdant images of paradise, with an abundance of wellsprings to satisfy the thirsts of the blessed. Water as a sacred element. Justly so. But few remember that in the ritual ablutions that a good Muslim completes five times a day before prayers, we are asked to take great care to avoid spilling even a single drop: this care comes directly from the teachings of the Prophet. The same rule applies to food: We must eat not as much as we can, but as much as we need, filling one-third of the stomach

Think Tank

with food and one-third with water. The final third should be left empty. These are teachings designed to avoid excess, and to provide a proper sense of proportion.” In the era when the Islamic faith was coming into being, the concept of waste existed, but not that of recycling: it was something that was taken for granted. Today this is no longer so. “For the Bedouin there was no such thing as waste. Everything had to be recycled. Minerals were used and reused to make weapons, utensils, and implements for tending to their herds. Every vegetable fibre found multiple uses that changed over time until the fibres were completely used up. And the life cycle of plants, such as the olive from tree to fruit to oil, had and still has a great symbolic value.” A culture that limits waste is a culture that has a sense of its limits. “‘I can’ does not necessarily mean ‘I must’: it is not wise to translate every possibility into practice.”

Let us conclude this conversation with an exchange. I’ll remind you of a popular Arab tale that describes the origins of desertification, and you recount one to me that offers hope. Here is mine. “In the beginning the entire world was a flourishing garden. Allah, creating man, said: ‘Every time you perform a bad act I will drop a grain of sand upon the earth.’ But man, who was wicked, paid no heed. What did one, one hundred, even one thousand grains of sand mean in such an immense flourishing garden? Years passed, and the sins of man grew: torrents of sand flooded the world. And so deserts were born, which grew larger and larger every day. Still today Allah warns man by saying, ‘Do not reduce my flourishing world into an immense desert.’” “Very good. Here is mine: ‘Children of Adam! Wear resplendent clothing to every time and place of prayer: eat and drink. But not to excess, because Allah does not love those who waste.’ Buona giornata!”

“Children of Adam! Wear resplendent clothing to every time and place of prayer: eat and drink. But not to excess, because Allah does not love those who waste.”

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

FAIR

Competition University students of Communication are working on a project to create magazines devoted to “sustainability.” A fuzzy concept containing eight surprises that we are more than willing to share with readers. by Mauro Panzeri

Mauro Panzeri is art director and publishing graphic designer (of this magazine as well). He teaches at the European Institute of Design. In 2013, he published La grafica è un’opinione, Ledizioni.

The use of the cover images herewith published has been authorized, where not produced autonomously, for teaching purposes.

The results of the graphic work presented herewith are editorial artefacts, produced in only one copy and on paper, magazines (Issue 0) in their own right, as a result of a workshop carried out between March and July 2015 at Polytechnic University of Milan, in a Higher degree in Design of Communication. The workshop has a blurry name (see information sheet) as is often the case with government denominations. In fact – to put it more simply – over thirty students (some foreigners, others absolute beginners in the publishing industry), divided into groups, worked in close collaboration and under the supervision of their teachers, with great passion and equal motivation to create such projects. The editorial paper products are certainly to be considered artefacts and complex systems, as those in the know would realize, but today they are perceived as old in that they are written on paper, mainly because they are designed in digital first-oriented training environment. Some teachers, though, pursue such objectives, in the conviction that building a publishing project activates many and varied competences, often not adequately practiced: research and argumentation, organization of textual and visual contents, writings and images, sometimes produced ad hoc, and last but not least, narrative sequences and definition of readership. A combination of varied tools and objectives, which can be used not just in the publishing industry, but in many other domains: video, multimedia products and applications, to name but a few. A graphic project as direction of scenes and sequences, from editing, to dialogues and titling. We will publish the end result of this workshop, not the whole procedure: covers, obtained after a careful elaboration of the internal pages and then effective abstracts of their respective contents. As usual, students are given a theme as a source of reflection, this year it was “sustainability.” A theme that is often misinterpreted and only marginally

present in school training. Students have tackled the problem by diversifying the identity of their projects in sub themes. Each group (and so every magazine) dealt with a different aspect: sustainability and culture-nature, an anthropological and photographic approach; sustainability and ecodesign, with particular attention to materials and innovation; sustainability and reuse, for processes and productions; tourism, in its components of environmental compatibility; the theme of survival, read without a catastrophic attitude; pop culture within and outside sustainability; lifestyle, namely sustainability and everyday behaviour; sustainability and fashion design, seen through unusual parameters. Eight completely different projects but with a common heading: SOS, cultures for the Environment. Projects turned into paper publications, showing how much the graphic project is an essential part of the expression of contents and narration, when it enhances taste and style. This particular one is much more than a mere exercise.

Think Tank

Top, left and left page: SOS ECODESIGN Anna Cont Rossella De Vico Manuel Impellizzeri

Course Polytechnic University of Milan Higher Degree Course in Design of Communication 1st year, second term Academic year 2014/2015 Workshop of Artefacts and Complex System Design Professors: Mauro Panzeri, Pier Antonio Zanini Subject expert: Marco Moro, Editorial Director of Renewable Matter Guests: Dr. Roberto Coizet, Chairman of Edizioni Ambiente; Prof. Stefano Caserini, D.I.C.A., Polytechnic University of Milan

SOS CULTURE-NATURE Alessandra Accardo Alessandra Borgonovo Margarida Ferreira Rebecca Squires

renewablematter 06-07. 2015 SOS FASHION Camila Borrero Garcia Vanessa Cervini Rios Eyleen Carolina Camargo Higuera Natalia Duarte Maldonado

Think Tank Left and bottom: SOS REUSE Rachel Bullock Giada Casella Sara Pizzardo Sara Poljak

SOS SURVIVAL Elena Corbari Verzeletti Martina Granello Elena Pockay

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

Left, bottom and right page: SOS LIFESTYLE NicolĂ˛ Bindi Mattia Losa Giulia Ponzetta Emanuele Sciolto

SOS TOURISM Pietro Cedone Francesco Colombo Juan Sebastian Forero Hernandez Giovanni Rabuffetti Top: Project Layout SOS TOURISM

Think Tank

Left and bottom: SOS POP CULTURE Chiara Bonsignore Ana Raquel Da Costa Silva Alessandra Fargnoli Adelina Mihaylova

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

From NOWHERE

to COP21

In Paris the art mobilises on climate change.

Think Tank by Marco Moro

Marco Moro is editor in chief at Edizioni Ambiente.

ArtCOP21 A global festival of cultural activity on climate change, www.artcop21.com.

ArtCOP21. The acronym implies an agenda of cultural events in Paris that is paving the way for the 21th round of negotiations about climate and is going to animate the capital of France as long as the summit will last. The “artistic mobilization” was promoted from COAL and Cape Farewell and aims not only at raising awareness and disseminating the knowledge of the phenomena that are changing the ecological balance of the planet, but also at saying how significant is the role played by art art in the building of knowledge itself. Besides, the initiative in Paris merely promotes and increases the presence of art on environmental topics and their cultural and social significance. This trend manifests itself at the international level and it will be constantly reported by Materia Rinnovabile on its pages. Now in its sixth edition, the prize promoted by the Coalition for art and sustainable development saw the participation of 389 proposals from 51 countries; the response itself confirms the proposition above, at least numerically.

In addition to the main competition dedicated to art and environment, a special prize for works inspired by the situation of the oceans has been awarded this year, focusing particularly on the unique and seriously threatened environments as that of the coral reefs. The selection of the proposals ended before the summer and it saw the designation of 10 projects for the COAL Prize Art and Environment: Alex Hartley (UK), Nowhere Island; Collective Disaster (Belgium), Temple of Holy Shit; FICTILIS (Timothy Furstnau and Andrea Steves, USA), True Market Cost; Julie Navarro (France), Droséra; Livin Studio (Katharina Unger and Julia Kaisinger, Austria), Fungi Mutarium; Mare Liberum (USA), Mergitur sed Regurgitat; MELD (with Shaun Gladwell, USA, Australia and Greece), Climate Change Hip-Hop Opera; Monte Laster (USA-France), CO-OP; Stéfane Perraud with the writer Aram Kebabdjian (France), Soleil Noir; Yesenia Thibault-Picazo (France), Craft in the Anthropocene. Six works were short-listed for the Special “Oceans” Prize: Hortense Le Calvez and Mathieu Goussin (France), Corals 2.0; Nicolas Floc’h

Alex Hartley, NOWHERE ISLAND Collection of tracks and objects, of the commons from “no man’s land” that remain outside the jurisdiction of the 196 nations of the world. Nowhere Island is a temporary exhibition that wants to denounce as borders exacerbate global emergencies such as climate change, poverty, and hunger today. The idea of extraterritoriality is the only way of considering humanity as united and at peace with the environment, too.

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

COAL The COAL association, the Coalition pour l’art et le développement durable, was created in 2008 in France by a group of professionals experienced in the concern of contemporary art, sustainable development and research, aiming at encouraging the emergence of a culture of ecology. By a multidisciplinary and innovative approach COAL intends to mobilize artists and cultural operators on the major environmental and social challenges, working together with NGOs, scientific institutions and companies in order to support the unique role of culture and creativity in stimulating

collective awareness and inspiring the implementation of concrete solutions. COAL plans and manages contemporary art expositions and events on the issues of sustainable development, in addition to the annual award of the COAL Prize Art and Environment, whose importance is currently recognized at the international level. From 2010 to 2013 COAL took part in the definition of a national strategy on these issues as part of a collaborative relationship with the Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy. It also participates in several other national and European initiatives.

COAL Coalition pour l’art et le développement durable, www.projetcoal.org/coal/.

Collective Disaster, TEMPLE OF HOLY SHIT Disaster builds the temple that celebrates our ability to contribute to soil fertility. We humans are the real alternative to chemical fertilizers.

Think Tank

Hortense Le Calvez and Mathieu Goussin, POSIDONIA Posidonia Oceanica is an endemic species in the Mediterranean sea, which has the characteristic of multiplying by cloning, reproducing always identical to itself and maintaining an unchanged genetic heritage for thousands of years. Some theories hold that “accidents” or “errors” may, however, occur during the cloning process. The project reflects on how the pollution of the seas could affect these mutations unforeseen. The sculptures are placed on the seabed for the time needed to dive and picture them. Their shape evolves with the currents.

(France), Structures productives; Jérémy Gobé (France), MOSE/Latistellata; Elsa Guillaume (France), Cosmographie corallienne; Henrik Håkansson (Sweden), The Coral Sea; Mrugen Rathod (India), Untitled. The jury, chaired by the French Environment Minister Ségolène Royal, was composed of Agnès B. (designer); Claude d’Anthenaise, head curator of the Musée de la Chasse et de la Nature; Élodie Bernollin, head of communications of Tara Expeditions; Philippe Cury, oceanographer, head of research at the IRD; Anne Ged, director of APC (Agence Parisienne du Climat) and Emma Lavigne, director of the Centre Pompidou in Metz. At a ceremony at the Musée de la Chasse et de la Nature on September 17th, the Prix COAL Art et Environnement 2015 was awarded to Alex Hartley’s Nowhere Island and – for the prize COAL Spécial Océans – to Elsa Guillaume’s Cosmographie corallienne, an imaginary map of the underwater world of coral reefs inspired by medieval cosmographies.

Cape Farewell Cape Farewell is a project engineered by artist David Buckland in 2010 in order to stimulate a cultural response to climate change. Nowadays the project turned out to be an international non-profit initiative, based in London (University of Arts) and Toronto (MaRS Centre). Cape Farewell links designers, scientists and information professionals, too, by promoting the use of creativity to innovate and involving artists for their ability to communicate the urgency of the climate challenge at the “human scale.”

Cape Farewell Art & Climate Change, www.capefarewell.com/ art/past-projects/art-andclimate-change.html.

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

Elsa Guillaume, COSMOGRAPHIE CORALLIENNE The project is a work in progress resulting in the creation of a map of the – unique and severely threatened – underwater world of the coral reefs. The face of real submerged continents and archipelagos will be enriched by the depiction of a wildlife observed and imagined, as happened in the maps of the 15th century, whom the work is inspired to. The work of Elsa Guillaume, an artist and explorer, will develop during her participation in an oceanographic expedition dedicated to these environments (oceans.taraexpeditions.org).

Right: FICTILIS (Timothy Furstnau and Andrea Steves, USA), TRUE MARKET COST In the market of FICTILIS goods are sold at their real price, integrating the social and environmental costs of their production, processing, distribution and consumption. That is what we currently persist in calling “externalities.”

Think Tank

Julie Navarro, DROSÉRA A travel through the aesthetics of the relationship between man and landscape, in the peat bogs of the Limousin, a real “sink” of carbon acting as a natural regulator of the climate.

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

Jérémy Gobé, CORAL RESTAURATION A design of structures able to “patch up” and restore the geometric pattern of coral formations.

Livin Studio (Katharina Unger and Julia Kaisinger), FUNGI MUTARIUM A prototype of culture of mycelium can biodegrade toxic waste turning them into edible biomass, a consideration on how climate change can overturn the laws of consumption and living.

Think Tank

Left: Yesenia Thibault-Picazo, CRAFT IN THE ANTHROPOCENE The geology of the future in a “plastic sediment,” an image of the soil and of the populated resources of the future.

Bottom: Stéfane Perraud with writer Aram Kebabdjian, SOLEIL NOIR The “Black Sun” is a pièce of futuristic science fiction, a cooler to counter the effects of climate change. A projection of a likely future that aims at considering the ambivalent scientific utopia and our uncertain relationship with energy.

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

Focus: Waste

Compliance Schemes: Drivers of Economic Development

Public concern turning into an economic opportunity. The new waste economy is on its way, driven by widespread environmental responsibility, technological innovation and the need to reduce the use of basic resources. by Roberto Coizet

It used to be an emergency, a public concern, a cost for the community. It is now becoming a resource, a shared benefit, an economic and employment opportunity. Waste is changing. Its nature, meaning and value are changing and such transformation may be one of the most significant turning points of the third millennium, redesigning the relationship between production and raw materials, changing industrial processes and leading to comprehensive

Policy

Roberto Coizet is President of Edizioni Ambiente and Coordinator of the “Development of Ecosystem Services” team of States General of the Green Economy.

In this Focus: Waste issue, Paola Ficco pinpoints some regulatory contradictions stemming from the notion of “discarding,” in particular related to the issue of reuse.

environmental and social consequences. What has led to this shift? How has waste – one of the most serious and expensive concerns of Western economies in the second half of last century – turned into a possible driver of economic development? The starting point is simple: in the last ten years, some types of waste have increasingly proven to have higher market value than the relevant collection and management costs. In many cases, after paying for deposit, collection, transport, treatment, recovery, fees envisaged for compliance with regulations, controls and possible certifications, final materials can still be sold to achieve appealing profit margins. In said cases, waste plays the opposite role. Waste management is not only a need for the community. It becomes a “self-supporting” activity, which can back the industrial supply chain and meet most innovative companies’ raw material needs. Obviously, as in all structural transformations, economic shifts are neither simple nor linear. Serious concerns still exist, making this market unpredictable and elusive. For instance, flow discontinuity and the volatility of their commercial value. Waste flows are discontinuous because – except for compliance schemes that will be dealt with later – collection is fragmented and uncoordinated. Several collectors/ managers compete for the same customers (businesses and local bodies) and each of them independently decides the waste end-use, selecting the cheapest solution on a caseby-case basis, occasionally acting illegally. Consequently, waste recovery and recycling operators – alleged recipients of the flow – are forced to improvise and find different sourcing procedures with no guarantees, which prevents them from planning investments and rationalizing production. Furthermore, the commercial value of many fractions may significantly vary. Sometimes the value of some materials may increase, unleashing optimistic euphoria (and the exponential growth of businesses operating in treatment and recycling), but subsequently drop. In the last ten years, the price of waste, including plastic, packaging cardboard and battery lead, lubricant mineral oil, has experienced fluctuations of up to 100% and even more. Such fluctuations are often linked to the fluctuation of raw materials prices: when they go up, the “secondary materials” market accelerates and vice versa, when they go down, but they are also linked to mere availability of materials (recycling businesses need secondary materials to keep their plants operating and they may compete on prices).

Another transversal issue adding to the previous one is “traceability,” that is the possibility to know exactly the amount and type of waste produced, treated, recipients it is transferred to and the relevant use. Data are exasperatedly vague, not only in Italy, with its environmental mafias, but also throughout Europe. With its two-faced identity, risk/cost and opportunity/profit, waste disappears in very different directions, disguised sometimes as goods and other times as stringent regulatory fulfillments. Indeed, European and national regulations have played a central role in designing the new waste economy, both as accelerators and as limiting factors. They have acted as accelerators, since the early Eighties, in that they have imposed stringent rules and clear targets for waste elimination. Such constraints have led to new activities and professions and the market has well adapted to this change, creating some specialized businesses. However, those rules are now somehow rigid. This is partly shown by the notion of waste – created in 1991 in Directive 91/156/EEC – intended as “any substance or object which the holder discards, intends to discard or is required to discard.” The term “discard” refers to something that cannot be used or that is vaguely unpleasant, which can be reasonably given to sanitation services and not to economic operators who can make profit from it. It is as if waste was still semantically and operationally shrouded in a halo of uselessness it can only be freed of, with specific and laborious treatments, which possibly turn it into “recycled” material. And several regulatory contradictions and procedural complexities stem from this vision. However, in spite of instability and stall, the new waste economy is on its way, driven by the push of increased environmental responsibility, technological innovation and the need to reduce use of raw materials. The new – urban or industrial – mines already exist and they are waiting to be exploited by adequate professionals. From Responsibility to Economic Benefits Who are the most adequate professionals for this task? How should the production system be organized to allow for such a rapid transition, while keeping under control the most unstable factors? First of all, supply chains need to be “harmonized,” making material flows sufficiently consistent and continuous to rationalize industrial processes. In other terms, to face such issue, companies must unite, sector by sector and in some cases, material by material.

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

Compliance schemes contribute to the “environmental democracy,” as Pasquale Fimiani reports in this Focus: Waste issue, as the right to participate in decision-making processes – a standard to assess democracy – is achieved in this case via a sort of public/private “co-administration.”

In this Renewable Matter issue, Paolo Tomasi illustrates the reasons of the gradual operating shift adopted by COOU, Consorzio italiano per gli oli minerali (Italian Consortium for Waste Oil).

In this Focus: Waste issue, Danilo Bonato, interviewed by Antonio Cianciullo, presents an interesting analysis of WEEE collection and recovery in Europe.

And this could be fostered by the very same European policy that we earlier on described as slow in regulatory terms. Indeed, Europe has adopted Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and has proposed a specific tool to implement its rules, the so-called compliance scheme. EPR envisages for goods producers to be in charge of management of waste stemming from their production system. Compliance schemes associate companies operating in the same sector, aimed at reclaiming waste put on the market by affiliated companies. This formula has immediate effects, in that it innovatively distributes public needs and private interests. Public bodies, indeed, establish operating principles and targets, in compliance with environmental priorities and resource optimization; businesses fix economic principles to achieve targets established. Collective schemes therefore prove to be a functional invention managing to impose benefits for the community, as one of the variables of business. Between the Eighties and the Nineties, said schemes were disseminated in Europe, in supply chains where they could be more easily implemented: some particular types of waste (mineral oils, lead batteries, tyres, etc.) and two large sectors related to commodities (packaging and WEEE). The issue of management – entrusted to businesses, as previously mentioned – is dealt with in different ways and changed on different occasions. Two models prevail: “centralized” systems, envisaging one single collective scheme gathering and coordinating all national businesses and “multiple” systems, envisaging several collective schemes operating on the national market, having more or less the same functions. Except for some very few cases, such schemes involve voluntary membership. Businesses decide to entrust their duties concerning waste to collective schemes, as this is a cheap and functional solution freeing them from direct responsibilities. Businesses delegate responsibilities by becoming members and by paying a fee reflecting the amount and type of waste generated. If several collective schemes exist, businesses can select the best offer. So far the number of variables is so high that even the European Commission is disoriented. For mineral oils, collective schemes have been created in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Finland and Greece. In the other European countries, management follows more or less organized free market formulas: in Germany, waste is collected by oil regenerating companies, whereas in France, the Governmental Environmental Agency monitors data related to all operators.

For WEEE, some collective schemes have been created in France, Italy, United Kingdom, Ireland, Belgium and Holland. The Belgian scheme is “centralized,” whereas in Italy and the United Kingdom, schemes are “multiple,” involving 17 and 41 authorized systems respectively. More and different schemes have been created for management of packaging waste, as provisions contained in the Directive (94/62/EC) have fostered their development in Member States. Currently, in the 28 countries, there are 161 collective schemes for managing solid waste (and the scenario is constantly evolving). Some of them are “centralized,” as in France, Italy, Spain or the Czech Republic, whereas in others, collective schemes have reached bewildering numbers: Germany 17, United Kingdom 22, Lithuania 40. This constant transformation is also due to second thoughts or international disputes on schemes adopted. Countries having “centralized” schemes claim their decision is effective, as it can harmonize the conduct of all national operators, but they are sometimes accused for their poor flexibility or even of abuse of a dominant position. Countries having “multiple” schemes reflect the free market, but their fragmented actions sometimes make prices and fees volatile, besides leading to issues in traceability and continuity of material flows. There is very lively debate around these two types of schemes, even though it is clear that this shift, complemented by new guidelines and objectives of the circular economy, requires reformulation leading to flexible results that can simultaneously be supervised. Collective schemes cannot reject their mission in environmental resource protection and they therefore require coordination in supervising all necessary operations, even when they may be, so to say, “unprofitable.” On the other hand, they cannot get stuck in a self-conservatory power system, which cannot adjust to the evolution of technology and new markets. Though being free-market systems, “multiple” schemes should not be governed by profit-making logics (benefits achieved should go to affiliated businesses and never to the system) and this requires voluntary adoption of rules and principles going beyond regulatory compliance. Regardless of the evolution of compliance schemes, when they exist, compliance schemes have achieved unprecedented performance in terms of recovery and recycling, as well as economic results and employment, compared to cases when they do not exist. This formula works and this particular public/ private tool also opens an important political outlook: environmental protection areas

Policy

becoming economically independent and not involving any costs for the community may start to be managed privately, creating “new delegations” to companies, as the protagonists of the economy, but also of social agreements and civil actions stemming from the economy.

Giovanni Corbetta, in this Focus: Waste issue, reflects on ethical criteria that may be adopted by compliance schemes to play their twofold public and private role.

Different Perspectives

Aldo Femia, in this Focus: Waste issue, presents some data on material flows reclaimed by European compliance schemes.

Empire State Building. Photo by Aniruddhags

What happens to fractions that have not yet found the relevant compliance scheme? In the last few years, several supply chains have exceeded the threshold separating waste from renewable materials. In particular, two main flows are going to exceed said threshold: organic matter waste and waste stemming from construction and demolition works. Evidently, in those cases, the same schemes cannot be used for packaging or used tyres. The organic matter supply chain involves a number of fragmented parties, which does not allow automatically levying a fee to “all” those who sell their products, including small farmers growing vegetables. It is necessary to identify flows where they are consistent, probably in industrial production and large distribution. It is important to value said matter, which is potentially very rich, giving it back to the land or making it available for industrial production of new biominerals. A similar approach should apply to waste stemming from construction/demolition works. Once again, it is impossible to apply extended producer responsibility to the letter. For instance: when the Empire State Building, built between 1930 and 1931, turns into waste, it will be impossible to find “initial producers.” It will therefore be more reasonable to refer to “initial waste producers” (even though it is not always easy to clearly identify them), rather than to goods producers. New roles and new responsibilities must be created. However, this is not a big issue: constant dialogue with the operators of each sector may lead to find a solution. Stall and disputes emerge when money to be spent and especially those who have to spend it come into play. Notwithstanding, the economic shift initially mentioned can give a thrust to such inactivity. Nowadays, compliance schemes are not created so that someone bears costs in the name of the community: they are created because the system can already – or tends to – redistribute economic benefits to all stakeholders of the supply chain. The new mines of the planet are exploited operating in a scenario envisaging fair profits in the future.

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

Focus: Waste

Technical Effectiveness of Extended Producer Responsibility Schemes: by Aldo Femia Aldo Femia is first researcher at ISTAT (Istituto nazionale di statistica, National Institute of Statistics). He is an expert in satellite bookkeeping, and particularly of environmental bookkeeping in physical terms and he worked at Wuppertal Institut Für Klima Umwelt Energie and at OECD.

EU web pages devoted to waste: ec.europa.eu/ environment/waste/.

1. www.zerowasteeurope. eu/2015/03/and-theeuropean-wastechampion-is-belgium/.

What Do Data Reveal? In Europe, 2,5 billion tonnes of waste are produced every year, but only 600 million tonnes are recycled or reused. How and how much they contribute in the various EU countries and EPR systems to closing waste/resources loop. In the EU, according to the web pages dedicated to waste, we currently use 16 tonnes of material per person per year, of which 6 tonnes become waste. In 2012, total waste amounted to 2.5 billion tonnes and only a limited share of this total was recycled. The rest was landfilled or burned, of which some 600 million tonnes could be recycled or reused. Indeed, despite the ongoing improvements, the European economy continues to lose a significant amount of potential “secondary raw materials” present in the waste streams, such as metals, wood, glass, paper, plastics, organic matter and inert materials. Despite acknowledging the unsatisfactory situation, policies do not seem to follow at the right pace. Indeed, figures confirm a trend that ZeroWasteEurope defines as “worrying”:1

recycling continues to stagnate. Official Eurostat data (see figure 1) show that landfilling and disposal into water bodies have increased since 2008, overtaking even recovery in 2012, while incineration is stable. This clearly is not the wisest approach to deal with the flows of products at the end of their life cycle. EPR Systems: Streams Under Control One of the policy concepts that can help closing the waste-resources loop and that is increasingly being used around the world – as can be seen in figure 2 – is Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). EPR as a policy stems from the polluter-pays principle, which is a pillar of EU environmental policy. It is defined in the 2001 OECD Guidance as “an environmental policy approach in which a producer’s responsibility for a product is extended to the post-consumer

Policy Figure 1 | Landfill, incineration and recovery 2009-2013, EU28, 2004-2012

60% 50% Landfill

Disposal (D1-D7, D12)

40% 30% 20%

Recovery other than energy recovery

10% 0% 2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

Source: Eurostat.

Incineration

Figure 2 | Progression of EPR adoption through time, 1970-2013

Number of policies adopted

350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

Source: OECD Issues Paper, The State of Play on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): Opportunities and Challenges, Global Forum on Environment: Promoting Sustainable Materials Management through Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), 17-19 June 2014, Tokyo, Japan.

stage of a product’s life cycle.” There are several types of EPR policies, the most widespread being take-back, Advance Disposal Fees (ADF) and deposit/refund schemes. Very often, the obligations set in legislation, or the targets set voluntarily by the producers themselves, are pursued through waste-stream-specific Producer Responsibility Organisation. When not exclusive, these operate in competition; self-compliance by the individual producers is usually a viable option as well. EPR as a policy approach in the EU is adopted in the End of Life Vehicles (ELV) Directive of 2000, in the Waste of Electric and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive of 2012 and in the Batteries Directive of 2006. EPR is widely used in EU Packaging and Packaging Waste policy (1994 Directive). Finally, the Waste Framework Directive of 2008 sets some principles for the implementation of EPR. And indeed, in many member states, EPR policies or voluntary agreements have been put in place for products not covered by EU legislation, as can be seen in table 1. Key aspects to consider for assessing how successfully these policies are implemented concern the technical performance (quantities put on the market, waste generated, collection and treatment, steering of innovation towards enhanced recyclability) – which is represented through: •• collection (CR – ratio of collected quantities to quantities put on the market); •• recycling rates (RR – % of recycled materials on collected waste); •• economic performance (costs, their coverage, etc.). Here, we will concentrate on the technical aspect. Let us see what data and statistical

Figure 3 | EPR by product type, 2013

20% Other

17% Packaging

17% Tyres 35% Electronic equipment

11% Car batteries

Note: electronic equipment includes mobile phones, rechargeable batteries, thermostats and switches; packaging includes drinks containers; “other” includes oils, paints, pesticides, chemicals and other less common products.

Source: OECD, The State of Play on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): Opportunities and Challenges Promoting Sustainable Materials Management through Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), 17-19 June 2014, Tokyo, Japan.

renewablematter 06-07. 2015 Table 1 | Overview of all existing EPR schemes in the EU-28 in 2013

Batteries

WEEE

Packaging

ELV

Tyres

Graphic Paper

Oils

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta

N/A

Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Sweden Slovakia Slovenia Spain United Kingdom Croatia Total

2. “Development of Guidance on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) – final report” European Commission – DG Environment, 2014. Study carried out by Bio-Deloitte.

3. The detailed factsheets are available on sites.google.com/a/eusmr.eu/guidance-on-epr/ documents.

analysis tell about materials covered by EU or national policies. Different Performances in Different Countries A recent study2 funded by the European Commission to examine waste management systems in sixteen EU member states (MS) found that official Eurostat data on waste streams, collection and recycling are not that reliable: “Even after extensive investigation, there is a severe lack of comparable information available for economic and technical performance.” In order to overcome the inconsistencies, the authors carried out an in-depth study of 36 cases (specific waste streams in particular countries), including the four products covered by EU legal acts (ELV, WEEE, batteries, packaging), plus two others for which EPR schemes are present

in several European states (graphic paper and oils).3 The evidence thus collected is sufficient for the authors to argue in favour of strengthening EPR policies, as these led to “undeniable improvements in waste recycling and recovery performances in all MS.” However, they confirm that technical performances are highly variable throughout Europe. •• Batteries (about 1.7 million tonnes of waste produced): In the analysed cases, portable batteries CR ranges from 36% (France) to 72% (Switzerland). These figures are higher than the EU target for 2012 (25%) and in most cases also beyond the target for 2016 (45%). As for industrial and automotive batteries, having market value, in all cases CR is near 100%. According to Eurostat data, however, in Malta it is as low as 5%. •• ELV waste – 9 million tonnes – shows high recycling rates in all studied countries, between

Policy

Medical Waste, old/unused medicines

Agricoltural film

Other EPR Scheme Disposable plastic kitchenware; photo-chemicals Takeback obligation but no PRO Product fee legislation/ Governamental fund Fluorinated refrigerant fluids; pharmaceuticals; lubricants; textiles; infectious healthcare waste; furniture; dispersed hazardous waste; plant protection product; packaging and unused products; fertilizer and soil amendment packaging; sedd and plant packaging; mobile homes, office equipment ink cartridges

Window panes Packaging of medical waste, old medicines; packaging of phytopharmaceuticals

Waste form hazardous pesticides, graveside candles

Waste containing asbestos

Source: BIO-Deloitte, Development of Guidance on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) – final report, Study for the DG Environment of the European Commission.

83% (Finland, Netherlands) and 92% (Germany), all near or beyond the ELV directive targets for 2015 (85%). Eurostat data give an average recycling of materials from light vehicles varying from 64% in Malta to 96% in Germany. •• Paper (47 million tonnes of waste produced): a much more mixed picture emerges, recycling rates vary greatly: from 43% (France) to 87% (Finland) and 94% (Sweden). The gap would mostly be explained by the higher market value of collected waste paper in Scandinavian countries. No data are provided by Eurostat for recycling of this waste stream. •• Most EPR schemes for used oils – about 5.2 million tonnes – cover exclusively mineral-based lubricant (industrial, non-edible) oils. The quantities collected vary significantly: from 2.7 kg/cap./year (Portugal) to 5.6 kg/cap./ year (Germany). Regeneration rates range between 69% (Spain) and 91% (Belgium). The Italian scheme is said to achieve fairly high

regeneration rates (around 89%) but to be much more expensive for producers. Also for this waste stream, no Eurostat data on recycling are available. •• The studied EPR schemes for packaging waste – 80 million tonnes – have different scopes: in some MS, they cover only household packaging waste, whereas in other countries it also covers commercial and industrial packaging. For the fractions covered, however, they all achieve the recycling targets set by the corresponding Directive in all the studied cases, among which the lowest in the UK (all packaging, 61%) and the highest in Belgium (household packaging, 85%). Eurostat data tell packaging CRs go from 47.5% in Malta to 97% in Belgium. •• WEEE (approximately 7.5 million tonnes in 2012): recycling rates across the studied countries are fairly homogeneous. All schemes achieve the targets set by the WEEE Directive. High discrepancies arise with regards to

renewablematter 06-07. 2015 Table 2 | Mineral waste from C&D and non-metal minerals domestic consumption in Europe, by country (millions of tonnes) Mineral waste from construction and demolition

Waste Generation (a)

Total waste treatment (b)

Recovery other than energy recovery â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Backfilling (c)

Recovery other than energy recovery â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Except backfilling (d)

Domestic consumption nonmetallic minerals and deriving products (e)

EU28

321.2

295.5

18.2

234.6

3,196

Belgium

6.2

14.8

0.0

14.5

Bulgaria

0.7

0.5

0.0

0.1

Czech Republic

3.0

3.5

1.1

2.1

Denmark

2.6

0.0

2.3

Germany

78.3

75.6

6.0

63.9

554

Estonia

0.5

0.1

0.4

Ireland

0.1

0.3

0.1

0.2

Greece

0.6

0.0

Spain

27.4

4.3

18.7

185

France

62.2

61.8

4.7

36.3

389

Croatia

0.3

0.0

0.1

Italy

33.9

30,9

0.2

29.8

272

Cyprus

0.1

0.0

0.1

Latvia

0.4

0.2

0.0

0.1

Lithuania

0.6

0.5

0.1

0.3

Luxembourg

0.6

0.5

0.0

0.5

Hungary

3.3

1.9

0.2

1.3

Malta

0.5

0.0

0.1

Netherlands

23.1

21.6

0.0

21.6

Austria

6.3

0.0

5.8

105

Poland

3.5

3.0

0.7

2.0

317

Portugal

0.9

0.4

0.0

0.3

109

Romania

1.3

0.8

0.0

0.5

325

Slovenia

0.2

0.3

0.0

0.3

Slovakia

0.5

0.4

0.0

0.2

Finland

15.8

4.4

0.0

0.5

106

Sweden

1.0

0.6

0.0

0.5

United Kingdom

47.2

35.1

0.8

32.1

195

Countries with EPR

159.3

144.6

11.2

120.7

1,089.2

Countries without EPR

161.8

150.8

7.0

113.9

2,106.6

For the population at large, a fascinating transformation in behaviour occurs with the introduction of incentives to recycle.

the collected quantities: they range from 2.0 kg/cap./year (Latvia) to 17.5 kg/cap./year (Sweden). According to Eurostat, WEEE CRs vary from 1.2 kg/cap. (BG) to 17.2 kg/cap (BE), the average being 6.6 kg/cap. As general conclusions, the study highlights that the best performing schemes are not, in most cases, the most expensive, that the fees paid by the producers vary greatly for all product categories and that no single EPR model emerges as the best performing and the most cost-effective. Each material stream has its own characteristics, and local conditions

greatly influence the efficiency of EPR schemes. All that can be said is that, on average, where such schemes are in place, the European waste management hierarchy is complied with better than where the market does not have a specific institutional framework and is left to auto-organisation. The latter often leads to the same results, but it is often required for the right solutions to emerge and there is still plenty of room for free-riding and cheating. Interesting conclusions are also drawn by other in-depth studies, investigating the functioning of EPR schemes in the context of various non-European OECD countries, such as

Policy

Collection rate CR (b/e)

Recycling rate RR (d/b)

Demand satisfaction rate d/(d+e)*

79%

21%

98%

17%

12%

60%

87%

14%

85%

10%

75%

74%

Ranking on d/e

15%

68%

16%

59%

51%

11%

96%

10%

45%

96%

74%

11%

99%

10%

65%

24%

19%

49%

100%

33%

92%

68%

74%

67%

91%

39%

12%

79%

18%

91%

14%

13%

83%

10%

76%

e.g. of Japan’s WEEE Recycling Act (Tasaki et al., 2007), finding that collection of manufactured goods have enjoyed mixed success (due to illegal disposal and exports), but the recycling of collected goods has performed well. The most interesting results of the enforcement of comprehensive recycling laws in Japan are in the advance of innovation in environmental technologies, and these contributed to an increased level of recycling. A statistical study on U.S. households’ attitude towards plastic water bottle deposit/refund (Viscusi et al., 2011), concludes that “for the population at large, a fascinating transformation in behaviour occurs

* This indicator represents the domestic demand satisfaction rate of construction materials from recycled sources (d/(d+e)).

Source: author’s elaboration on Eurostat’s data, 2012.

with the introduction of incentives to recycle,” since “the change in the recycling rate exhibits a jump as people shift from being nonrecyclers to diligent recyclers.” Also Batson and Eggert (2012) find that in the U.S. there is a substantial difference in recycling rates between states without a deposit/refund (roughly 30%) and those with a deposit/refund (roughly 70%), regardless of the deposit rate. Kaffine and O’Reilly (2015) carried out, on behalf of the OECD, a wide review of similar empirical studies, finding that: •• policies such as deposit/refund are likely to be more efficient than advanced disposal fee;

renewablematter 06-07. 2015 •• collective PROs may be attractive as they take advantage of economies of scale and reduce the need to monitor individual firms, but care should be taken that market power is not exploited; •• EPR policies provide an implicit incentive in favour of “products’ design for the environment,” although policies that directly target product characteristics (weight, recyclability, etc.) are more effective; •• EPR policies can achieve their environmental goals, but the open question is which policies are economically more efficient (lowest costs).

4. See Renewable Matter issue 3 and 4.

Also country-specific conditions and local factor – including cultural and behavioural ones – have a great influence on performance, as the great discrepancies in CRs and RRs between countries that have similar schemes show. One important general conclusion that can be drawn from the empirical studies on EPR scheme, which is worth underlying here, is that the presence of compliance schemes raise the ability of the countries where they are in place to achieve collection and recycling targets. Kaffine and O’Reilly label this ability “Environmental effectiveness of EPR,” and state that “the general consensus in the academic and non-academic economic literature is that mandates such as take-back requirements and recycling content standards do increase the amount of material recycled and the recycling rate.”

An important feature investigated in the literature concerns the quality of materials collected. Here the evidence is scarcer and definitely not conclusive. E.g. Acuff (2013) finds that while collection methods, like single stream recycling, have positive aspects such as increased diversion rates (more material sent from households to recycling centres), they also increase contamination rates and the amount of residual material ultimately diverted to landfills by the recycling centres. An issue paper by the International Solid Waste Association (ISWA, 2014) provides further references to relevant studies and highlights other aspects to which attention should be paid in designing EPR compliance schemes. Outside EPR, Streams are Hardly Studied Waste streams that are not (yet?) widely targeted by EPR policies are, unfortunately, not very much studied in this context, although the studies often aim at clarifying why and how new compliance schemes should be set up. Biomasses are a case in point.4 In the EU-28, 1.7 tonnes of biomasses are collected each year and a further 0.7 million tonnes of biomass is derived from such production as waste by-product. In addition, 0.17 billion tonnes are imported, including exclusively or mainly biomass and a little less than 0.15 billion tonnes are exported. Overall, biomasses, including cutting, harvesting and cultivation by-products that each year are turned into waste, EU’s waste water or emissions amount to approximately 2.4 billion tonnes. Another one is construction and demolition (C&D) waste. While the waste framework directive provides for a target of reuse, for this kind of waste, recycling and other forms of material recovery of 70% by 2020, it does not envisage specific instruments. C&D waste is also usually not addressed in national EPR policies, as member states are still in the process of integrating the European target into national legislation. In 2012, according to a report for the DG Environment (IEEP, BIO et al., 2012), EPR schemes were in place (in some cases as voluntary producers’ initiative) in Austria, Ireland, Germany, Malta, Spain and the UK; and since then, some more may have been created, whose effects would not alter the analysis of the latest available data. The bad news is, however, that there are many other reasons why data should be handled with care, knowing that any possible conclusion should require confirmation. C&D waste includes many different materials. This implies that the concept of “quantities put on the market” becomes difficult to apply to C&D material streams. In principle, quantities put on the market should be calculated

Policy

One important general conclusion that can be drawn from the empirical studies on EPR scheme, which is worth underlying here, is that the presence of compliance schemes raise the ability of the countries where they are in place to achieve collection and recycling targets.

Bibliography •• Acuff K. L., Cashing in on trash: Internalizing the external benefits from recycling – PhD Dissertation, Colorado School of Mines, 2013 (phdtree.org// pdf/23462766-cashingin-on-trash-internalizingthe-external-benefitsfrom-recycling/). •• BIO-Deloitte, Development of Guidance on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) – final report, Study for the DG Environment of the European Commission, 2014 (ec.europa.eu/ environment/waste/ pdf/target_review/ Guidance%20on%20 EPR%20-%20Final%20 Report.pdf). •• BIO-Deloitte, Review of the Producer Responsibility Initiative model in Ireland – Working paper on European PRIs, study for the Government of Ireland, 2014 (www.environ. ie/en/Publications/

by broad product categories, i.e. for groups of products used in construction determined according to the materials they are made of. Moreover, the life cycle of C&D materials being much longer than a year, the concept of collection rate loses some of its usefulness, as C&D waste produced (maximum limit for C&D collected) in a given year may come only for a minor fraction from materials used in construction activities in the same year. Let us therefore concentrate on a fraction of C&D waste, namely to that of mineral waste, excluding metallic minerals. Their amount can be compared to that of the apparent consumption of minerals (and deriving products) used in construction. Eurostat data (see table 2) on C&D waste provide an interesting starting point. However, it must be pointed out that on some occasions data comparison seems rather arbitrary: as mentioned before, at row level, data suffer from imperfections affecting comparability and at column level, because national mineral consumption accounts for mineral raw materials extracted from the domestic market, instead of the domestic manufacturing of products derived from them. But, since it adds product imports and subtracts exports, these data can be considered an acceptable approximation of quantities placed on the market. In the suggested table, next to indicators equal to collection (b/e) and recycling rates, we included a particularly significant indicator,

“the satisfaction rate of domestic demand for construction materials from recycled sources (d/d+e). As it appears, only one of the 19 countries not reaching 5% of such indicator is amongst the 6 claiming to have EPR systems in place. This is Malta, whose EPR system we were not able to verify through operational data; nor does it seem to deal with waste one of the 6 authorized C&D authorized collection systems, listed on the Malta Environment and Planning Authority web page. In the bottom part of the table the average indicators of countries with a compliance scheme have been calculated, comparing them with indicators of those without them. The better performance of the former is mainly due to the higher ratio between treated waste and quantity of minerals placed on the market (columns b/e), rather than to high recycling rates (column b/d). Within the limited significance of data regarding the effects of compliance schemes, the evidence is positive. Admittedly, it is only an indication, but something nonetheless.

Environment/Waste/ WasteManagement/ FileDownLoad,38367, en.pdf). •• BIO-Deloitte, Screening template for Construction and Demolition Waste management in Italy, Ongoing study for the European Commission, 2015 (ec.europa.eu/ environment/waste/ studies/deliverables/ CDW_Italy_Factsheet_ Final.pdf). •• European Commission, webpages on waste (ec.europa.eu/ environment/waste), Eurostat database (ec. europa.eu/eurostat/data/ database), 2015. •• European Environment Agency – European Topic Centre on Resource and Waste Management, EU as a Recycling Society – Present recycling levels of Municipal Waste and Construction & Demolition Waste in the EU, 2009 (scp.eionet.europa.eu/

DG Environment – Study for the DG Environment of the European Commission, 2012 (ec.europa.eu/ environment/waste/pdf/ final_report_10042012. pdf). •• ISWA – International Solid Waste Association, Issue Paper on Extended Producer Responsibility, 2014 (www.iswa.org/ index.php?eID=tx_ iswaknowledgebase_ download&document Uid=4202). •• Malta Environment and Planning Authority (www.mepa.org.mt/ wastemanagement facilities). •• Perchards-SagisEPR, The collection of waste portable batteries in Europe in view of the achievability of the collection targets set by Batteries Directive 2006/66/ EC – Study on behalf of the European Portable Battery Association (EPBA), 2013 (www.epbaeurope.net/

publications/wp2009_2/ wp/WP2009_2). •• Government of Malta – Ministry for sustainable development, the environment and climate change, Waste Management Plan For The Maltese Islands – A Resource Management Approach 2013-2020 (gov. mt/en/Government/Press Releases/Documents/ PR2346a_Waste Management Plan 2013-2020, Consultation Document October 2013.pdf). •• Kaffine D., P. O’Reilly, What have we learned about extended producer responsibility in the past decade? A survey of the recent EPR economic literature, OECD document ENV/EPOC/ WPRPW(2013)7/FINAL, 2015. •• IEEP, BIO et al. (2012), Use of economic instruments and waste management performance,

documents/Perchards_ Sagis-EPBA_collection_ target_report_-_Final. pdf). •• Tasaki T., A. Terazono, Y. Moriguchi, An Evaluation of the First Five Years After Enactment of the Japanese Wee Recycling Act and the Current State, Proceeding Sardinia 2007, 11, International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, 2007 (drive.google.com/file/ d/0B0LFEkPytiOcaEtRa HZabERyWmM/ view?pli=1). •• Viscusi, W. K., J. Huber, J. Bell, “Alternative Policies to Increase Recycling of Plastic Water Bottles in the United States,” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, volume 6, issue 2, summer 2012, pp. 190-211 (reep.oxfordjournals.org/).

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

Focus: Waste

NATURAL CAPITAL and the CIRCULAR ECONOMY: Two Sides of the Same Coin The circular economy must be viewed as an indirect form of natural capital’s preservation in addition to integral and balanced protection.

by Pasquale Fimiani

The traditional juxtaposition of environmental and common good’s issues stimulates some considerations on a possible systematic approach to the two themes within the general principles of a legal system. This is not an easy process for two reasons. On the one hand, it is becoming increasingly clear that there is a tendency to define as common good broader and more varied aspects of human activities including, besides the environment, culture, schooling, artistic resources, urban spaces, the web, justice etc. This is a phenomenon in line with the plurality of ways and manifestations of interpersonal relationships, but it runs the risk

of relegating the concept of common good to a mere atmospheric and evocative realm, lacking specificity, essentially characterized by vagueness and haziness. Legal Theory of Common Good On the other hand, the debate on environmental issues has undergone an evolution of two basic elements regarding matter – the value to preserve (the ecosystem) and the parameter to guarantee such conservation (the so-called sustainable development) – into two concepts, that of “natural capital” and that of “circular economy,” widely debated in the scientific-economic world, but still marginal topics in legal discussions. The former identifies Earth’s natural goods

Policy

Pasquale Fimiani, Deputy Chief appeal court prosecutor (Via Court of Cassation), has always dealt with crimes regarding pollution and the environment. He was professor of Environmental Law at several universities. He has also authored several publications dealing with different aspects of environmental issues.

The status of “common,” in all its various aspects, is in any case always attributed to a good, a context or a service to highlight its peculiar value for a fundamental aspect of human existence.

(soil, air, flora and fauna) and their relative ecosystems’ services, as an essential value for human life, to be preserved and guaranteed both from a qualitative and quantitative point of view. In turn, the “circular economy” refers to an alternative economic model to that inherited from the Industrial Revolution based on “take, produce and throw away.” The basic idea underpinning such system – natural resources are always available cheaply and easily disposed of – is about to enter troubled waters and we hope for a transition to a system whose products keep their added value as long as possible, while waste is reduced to a minimum and, in any case, reused and recovered. These two concepts represent the two sides of the same coin. Not only does the prominent position attributed to environmental issues highlight the importance of environmental pollution but above all that of the indiscriminate exploitation of natural resources and aims to give a monetary value to the services they offer that must be taken into account in management and protection laws, both for private and public sectors. The transition toward the circular economy aims to promote the achievement of such a result, through “changes in value chains, from product’s designing to market and business models, from waste-into-resource transformation models to modes of consumption” (Communication “COM/2014/0398” from the Commission to the European Parliament, to Council, Economic and Social Committee and to the Regions’ Committee, “Towards a Circular Economy: A Zero Waste Programme for Europe”). After identifying the two concepts on which the environmental debate has been remoulded, in order to contextualize them in the common good legal theory, we must begin with a general observation. The status of “common,” in all its various aspects, is in any case always attributed to a good, a context or a service to highlight its peculiar value for a fundamental aspect of human existence (for example, health, information, participation). In this way, a concept of relation is established, since this status depends on the relationship with the individual, or more precisely, with one of the several aspects of its personality recognised as a fundamental right. Since it is a fundamental and not a particular right, it belongs to all humans. In other words, it is an essential characteristic of all individuals as ruled by advanced democracies’ Constitutions and by international charters of fundamental rights. Since it is a “common” asset of all those

involved, so are the goods enabling its fulfilment. This bilateral fulfilment good/individual, essentially of values and ethical nature, must be impregnated with content since only with specific rules and regulations it can become effective and acquire significance within the legal system. Thus, the concept of “common good” acquires full legal value through to a two-step scheme. The first aims to provide an act of acknowledgment of the relationship between a good or service and the fundamental right and a justification function of exercising the right in a context recognised as common good, as well as conferring possible special faculties intrinsic to it. This first step only focusses on the relation common good/fundamental right and aims to identify the legal basis to back it. Therefore, it does not include detailed descriptions and the definition of further relationships, aspects that instead belong to a second, but equally essential, system’s level. In fact, for a certain context to have legal importance as common good, it is not enough to connect fundamental rights to goods and services necessary for their full enjoyment and to justify, based on this connection, the rightsholder’s exercise. This relation must be regulated and/or protected by specific rules and the activity of other interested actors must be regulated, besides the fundamental right holder, as subjects contributing to the fulfilment or protection of the very goods, or those who can jeopardise them or compromise their collective fruition in any way. Why Natural Capital is a Common Good Based on these considerations, it can be said that “natural capital” is a legal common good. As a matter of fact, the following characteristics can be identified: 1. a direct relation between the fundamental right belonging to each member (to environmental salubrity and landscape conservation) and natural resources that jointly make up the natural capital; 2. the deriving justification to exercise the right (i.e.: the action to get compensation for damages due an environmental pollution incident, or to get an injunction against activities harmful to human health); 3. attribution of special powers connected with the right itself (attributions – concisely expressed by “environmental democracy” – regarding access to information, public participation to decision-making processes and to justice in environmental matters, as recognized by the Aarhus Convention and ensuing national implementation measures such as Law n. 108/2001 in Italy);

renewablematter 06-07. 2015 In this way, it [the Italian Constitutional Court] recognizes and legitimises an ambit of natural capital protection focussed on the identification of an allowed risk area for a company, represented by the legally authorised ambit, within which the legal system “tolerates,” within set limits, some forms of environmental assault.

4. structured sector rules and regulations aiming to give effect to and protect that relation and regulate the activity of all those involved (private and public). Confirmation that natural capital is a legal common good stems also from another consideration. Common good legal theory also recognizes the novelty of such concept, compared to the traditional regulatory system of goods classification, based on the concept of ownership and the ensuing dichotomy between public and private, since it is a notion that disregard ownership because its fundamental characteristic is the collective and “metaindividual” function of the good, regardless of the proprietary system. This approach to natural capital has already been anticipated both by lawmakers, in special sectors such as public use (having deep roots in the history of feud and collective property)

and legal system when it came to resolve the doubt about the ownership of public use of goods such as fishing valleys in the Venice lagoon – in this case, Civil Court of Cassation with “United Sections” (extended panel of nine judges) n. 3665/2011, according to which “from the direct implementation of articles 2, 9 and 42 of the Italian Constitution, we can derive the principle of protection of human legal status and its correct application in a welfare state, also in relation to the environment, with specific reference not only to goods that, according to the legal-code classification, are state property or stateowned assets, but goods that, regardless from a previous identification by lawmakers, thanks to their intrinsic nature or purpose, are, based on an interpretation of the whole regulatory system, functional to the pursuit and fulfilment of collective interests and that, for their use to the realization of the welfare state, must be considered common, regardless of title of ownership, thus the status of state property becomes secondary to the function of the good with regard to collective interests.”

John van Nost the Younger, The Justice, Dublin. Photo by J. H. Janßen

Environment: Balanced and Integral Protection A mature legal theory of natural capital as common good requires a further step forward. As a matter of fact, we must ascertain whether within this organic notion it is necessary or useful to carry out further classifications owing to the plurality of resources ascribable to the concept of natural capital and their ecosystem services. The necessary solution seems modulation. In fact, from the point of view from which the issue is examined, we can come up with diversified classifications (for example, as is the case with using parameters of the supplied service, or of the territorial context, or of the resource in question). As to the regulatory approach to this topic, the distinction cannot be made according to the regulatory technical aspects on the subject. So, two forms of regulation of activities impacting on the natural capital and its ecosystem services emerge, referable to the notions of “balanced” and “integral” environmental protection. The former relates to the industrial activity and concerns the totality of means (such as standards, authorizations, emission quotas, agreements) aimed to find a balance between production and environment’s needs. This protection technique was used by the Italian Constitutional Court in its famous ruling 85/2013 concerning the special integrated

Policy environmental authorization granted to Ilva pursuant to Decree-law n. 207/2012 and passed by law n. 231/2012, qualified as “the means, according to legislators’ intentions, leading to the identification of a balance concerning the acceptability and management of risks deriving from the activity requiring authorization,” with the specification that “once reached such balance, the verification of the rules’ effectiveness is crucial.”

For further details on the theory of integral environmental protection as a distinctive element of protected areas’ management, see Di Plinio G., P. Fimiani (eds). Aree naturali protette. Diritto ed economia, Giuffrè, Milan 2008, chap. 1, 5 and 8.

In this way, it recognizes and legitimises an ambit of natural capital protection focussed on the identification of an allowed risk area for a company, represented by the legally authorised ambit, within which the legal system “tolerates,” within set limits, some forms of environmental assault. This tolerance is based on the recognition, as reasonable, of the “balancing between fundamental rights protected by the Italian Constitution, in particular to health (art. 32 Const.), from which derives the right to salubrious environment, and to employment (art. 4 Const.), from which derives the constitutional interest concerning the maintenance of employment levels and the duty of public institutions to explain efforts to this end,” considering that “all fundamental rights protected by the Constitution are connected by a mutual integration relation and therefore it is not possible to identify one as having absolute prevalence on others. Their protection must always be organic and not fragmented into a series of non-coordinated rules that can enter into conflict with each other. If this were not the case, there could be an unlimited expansion of one right, which would become a tyrant in relation to other legal situations, recognised and protected by the Constitution, and representing, in their entirety, the dignity of the human person” (Ilva ruling reads). On the other hand, the notion of “integral” protection has been used in the field of protected areas and represents the need for integral protection of the environment and its ecosystems. This means that “any activity transforming the environment within a protected area must be assessed according to the primary requirement to protect the naturalistic interest understood as having prime importance on any environmental or economic policy, so as far as protected areas are concerned, we should not talk about sustainable development – that is economic exploitation of the ecosystem consistent with the need to protect it – but, with reverse perspective, of sustainable protection. The use of such terminology intends to summon the economic advantages for the community and to recognize the coordination between the integral protection interest and other interests only

within the narrow limits in which the use of a park does not alter significantly the goods included in the protected area” (Consiglio di Stato, VI, n. 1269/2007). So, the reversal of perspective compared to “balanced” protection is clear: there is not a focus on a company in order to regulate its activity within certain limits of permitted risk, but the fundamental point of reference is the protected area’s assets before which any economic activity must be given up, since only compatible ones are allowed. In this case, we can also talk about “prevailing” protection, because there is no mediation: the whole system is based on the paramount importance and supremacy of the natural area’s assets and the search and implementation of means to protect them. Characteristics of this different kind of environmental protection, that can be intended as the protection of landscape, as a synthesis of cultural and aesthetic values expressing the natural beauty of protected areas, are: •• territorial limits: the recognition that only in some specific areas there are peculiar naturalistic assets, the economic system could not tolerate a general and total limitation; •• autonomous organization of the protected area’s management, free from links and influences by other parties (technical and political) managing other areas of the country; •• presence of powerful planning and managing tools. On closer inspection, these two types of natural capital protection and its ecosystem services integrate a sort of direct protection of natural resources, through the identification of: •• in the “balanced” protection, limits to business activity to reduce environmental impact (both in quality – pollution of industrial origin – and quantity – direct exploitation of natural resources); •• in the “integral” protection, types of special protection of ecosystem services within specific and limited areas, according to their peculiarity (park or landscape). The Third Pillar of Protection On the contrary, the circular economy – offering a development model based on the appraisal of products’ quality according to their durability, their reuse, the prevention of waste production and anyway of their recovery – represents a type of indirect protection of natural capital, since it uses an economic system (alternative to the traditional one) that creates the conditions for the minimum usage of non-renewable resources. Thus, the circular economy is not a common good, since this recognition goes to

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

it shapes a different economic system whose actors do not carry out aggressive activities against the environment, but produce goods characterized by durability and reusing, in other words, they take care of recovering the waste deriving from such products. In substance, business interests coincide with environmental interests.

the natural capital, but identifies the third pillar for protecting the natural capital and its resources, in addition to those of integral and balanced protection. As a matter of fact, it shapes a different economic system whose actors do not carry out aggressive activities against the environment, but produce goods characterized by durability and reusing, in other words, they take care of recovering the waste deriving from such products. In substance, business interests coincide with environmental interests. Thus, voluntary tools, added value given to agreements, fiscal and procedure incentives, alleviation of sanctions are to be preferred to financial responsibility activities. From this point of view, it is symbolic the evolution of collective systems operating on different streams of waste, set up according to the extended producer responsibility (in Italy, they basically coincide with the national system of recycling consortia). These are private companies, so they are obviously profit-oriented, but with a public interest function based on a framework in which the law indicates methods and objectives. To follow and achieve them, companies voluntarily adopt private law tools. This is a regulatory device in line with the systemic organization of the circular economy as third pillar of environmental

protection and with the indirect nature of such protection. On the one hand, the status of protection tool justifies the imposition of the legal duty to achieve a goal and to adopt a method; the creation of collective systems because of such instrumental function is not due to an autonomous and voluntary decision, but depends on the legislators’ choice. But on the other hand, the indirect nature of environmental protection, characteristic of the circular economy’s tools and the lack within the circular economy of a sharp conflict of interests between businesses and the environment, justify the peculiarity of such obligation, bound by the if and not by the how, set up a typical purpose obligation. In other words, the crucial thing is the result achieved while the method used is irrelevant. This is the distinctive characteristic compared to the balanced protection method normally based on the imposition of strict management obligations, restricted and pre-established in all aspects. Eventually, allowing some decisional autonomy, albeit with a pre-established result, granting collective systems the active role in determining regulations and procedures, has some effects on the concept of environmental democracy. And thanks to such provision, the right to partake in environmental issues decision processes, a basic aspect of environmental democracy, is not only carried out in the mere non-binding consultation of involved communities to adopt specific plans and projects, but it also involves a truly active participation to the defining process of the working “methods” of some important sectors of the circular economy. We are then witnessing the emergence of a sort of private/public “co-management,” a structure that represents a reasonable balance point in a plurality of proposals concerning common goods, the role of the public administration, since it is half way between a solution contemplating a mere regulatory function in a laisser-faire market environment and another, on the other hand, bestowing on it strong and exclusive powers, along the lines of “state socialism” experiences, already tried in the past with negative results (it is in this context that the so-called notion of “goodscosumerism” has recently been theorised).

Policy

Focus: Waste

WHY Waste

is Not Treated in the Same Way Different management approaches for different waste flows. An ethical code proposed for compliance schemes.

by Giovanni Corbetta

Giovanni Corbetta is Ecopneus General Director and a member of the Chairman’s Committee of Fondazione Sviluppo Sostenibile.

1. Management of waste flows implies the concept of supply chain, to be intended of a dedicated network, including operators who have specific skills and responsibilities to carry out all activities in sequence, from the assumption of waste to inception of reuse/ recycling of derived materials and energy produced.

To regularly ensure the best environmental results and the lowest costs for citizens, adequate waste treatment – from collection or where waste is generated, up to the end of the treatment process – not only requires a number of efficient and effective (physical) operations, but also, when it is not economically self-sustained, careful management based on a constant supply chain vision,1 planning and monitoring of activities, operators supervision and flow tracing. For these to reflect a modern and liberalistic economic approach, operations should be entrusted to one of the numerous skilled, expert, specialized and oftentimes multicode companies operating on the Italian market. Said companies, operating in a free competition environment, can ensure the best results in terms of costs and service level. A more delicate step lies in defining the national framework for management of the different

flows, also depending on the type of waste, that is: •• originated from public domain or road sweeping; •• urban waste, generated by households; •• special waste, generated in industrial sites, small-owner operated companies, commercial sites. The industry creating waste, its origin, as well as “the environment” waste belongs to, lead to extremely different flows, which, in their turn, not only require different operating treatments, but also different management approaches. The Four Basic Approaches The basic framework must be established by the Ministry of the Environment, as the highest decision-maker in the country that, directly or via an Agency, may alternatively:

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

Diagram of responsibilities

CENTRAL STRATEGY AND CONTROL

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

AGENCIES

OPERATING COMPANIES, following free market rules

control and tracing: need for ethic filter

SUPPLY CHAIN PLANNING,

CONSORTIUM

PAPER/ CARDBOARD

TYRES

MINERAL OILS

PLASTIC

BATTERIES/ CELLS

HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES

Policy

For most flows, non-municipal waste and industrial waste, extended producer responsibility (EPR) is considered as a rewarding approach (as confirmed by the EU Legislature).

1. directly report to all management operators. This approach may only work if citizens and businesses have profound civil conscience, but especially if the central Authority, in charge of the system operations, can ensure excellent governance and supervision. This may be defined as an individual responsibility approach for operators or the free market, involving competition-driven costs and service levels; 2. hold local authorities accountable for management, as they can partially operate directly and indirectly. This approach requires competent and efficient public administration (PA), having large organization, management and executive skills. This is a PA responsibility approach, involving costs depending on taxation and service levels imposed; 3. hold a representation of supply chain operators accountable for planning and supervision. This is a supply chain responsibility approach, involving costs, service levels and operations depending on the constant compromise between different interests and priorities; 4. hold manufacturers accountable, according to the principle of extended responsibility of producers, which are the ones that, more than anyone else, aim at limiting costs for citizens and providing the highest service level. Extended Responsibility: The Most Rewarding Approach

2. Models based on extended producer responsibility (EPR) envisage that the fee required for waste treatment is an integral part of the price and that said fee is visible and included in the final price. Indeed, selling prices, in a producer responsibility regime, must correspond to everything producers ensure to their customers: design complying with prevailing regulations, state-of-the-art production, proper selling procedures, guarantee against manufacturing defects and treatment of end-of-life products.

For most flows, non-municipal waste and industrial waste, extended producer responsibility (EPR) is considered as a rewarding approach (as confirmed by the EU Legislature). Indeed, it is intrinsically successful, as producers: •• are committed to managing waste to prove that their products do not harm the environment or human health; •• are stimulated to decrease selling prices as much as possible (environmental fee)2 and to consequently design goods and products that can be more easily recycled, eliminating construction materials and solutions that increase costs for waste recovery; •• are motivated to ensure good service levels in downstream production, distribution facilities and to consumers; •• are excluded from the different steps of waste management, having more opportunities, on the one hand, of ensuring supply chain independence and integration and on the other, of facilitating role distribution, thus significantly reducing conflicts of interest; •• are interested in returning derived products to the market (basic concept of the circular economy).

Furthermore, extended producer responsibility (EPR) facilitates dissemination in public services of the efficiency culture typical of business. On the other hand, the public administration maintains its original rights to represent citizens, establishing targets and monitoring progresses made towards them. The Essential Principles of EPR Organizations For organizations based on extended producer responsibility (EPR) to be successful, some essential principles must be complied with. They could be summarized as follows: •• management bodies must be independent, having adequate legal entity, totally committed to achieving their aims and being excluded from other activities; •• Statutes must be specifically approved by the Ministry of the Environment; •• no direct or indirect (via shareholding) profit making must be permitted; •• bodies in charge of management must exclusively include producers/importers, that is parties that put goods on the market; •• Boards of Auditors must include one appointed member of the Ministry; •• Statutes must include procedures of reporting to the Ministry of the Environment, both in compliance with ministerial provisions and to aim at achieving complete traceability of flows managed; •• top representatives must sign a voluntary “Ethical Code,” possibly fostered in cooperation with the Ministry of the Environment; •• the entire national territory must be served, for all types of waste included in the framework of the relevant management mandate; •• operations must not be entrusted to companies owned, subsidiaries or companies controlled directly or indirectly. Contracts must be assigned by open tendering in which all companies having minimum requirements may participate; •• transparency must be ensured, via the publication on the Internet of relevant information and data (organization model, members, partners, financial statements) envisaged by the Ministry of the Environment; •• the relevant fee must be established in proportion to global management costs and must not take into account any commercial or financial aspects. Documentary evidence of calculation of said fee must be provided to the Ministry of the Environment. Weaknesses of non-EPR organizations Different management approaches, other than EPR, may be adequate for certain types

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

of waste flow. However, they involve some delicate issues: •• the “Public Administration responsibility” approach involves two relevant concerns: the conflict of interest between the controlling party (the PA as administrator) and the controlled party (the PA as representative of service recipients) and the mismatch between tools available (established to manage public resources) and tools required to ensure high efficiency and effectiveness; •• currently, the “free market” approach is not in line with civil conscience of citizens, businesses and other stakeholders and with the PA’s possibilities to carefully and frequently monitor and supervise; •• the “supply chain responsibility” approach involves distribution among the relevant representatives of production materials supply, goods production, collection, transport and treatment of waste and use of derived materials. A self-referential hub risks being created, which must constantly achieve a delicate internal balance. Indeed, supply chain stakeholders have conflicting operating and economic targets and often tend to favor their representatives and not citizens/consumers.

The proposal envisages for organizations willing to obtain and keep the authorization given by the Ministry of the Environment to manage a waste supply chain, to mandatorily deliver their Statute, but also their Ethical Code.

It is often reported that the aforementioned three types of approaches involve waste of resources, inefficiencies, increasing costs, unsatisfactory service, non-transparent conduct. Therefore, if such approaches were implemented, it would be necessary to make some amendments. Ethical Code For Compliance Schemes: a Draft to Be Discussed The proposal envisages for organizations willing to obtain and keep the authorization given by the Ministry of the Environment to manage a waste supply chain, to mandatorily deliver their Statute, but also their Ethical Code, signed by the top management members (chairman, CEO, general director), envisaging at least the following commitments: 1. Incorporate/maintain organizations with independent management: •• completely and exclusively dedicated to the waste supply chain, as identified in their Statute and having the sole aim explicitly described (e.g.: planning, control and tracing of flows; management of current activities, of development and of communication; administration of the relevant fee); •• involving activities limited to those strictly required to achieve their aim and not any other activity, in particular operating activities, to avoid any conflicts of interest with their role as impartial supply chain managers;

•• constantly based on objectivity, transparency and non-discrimination. 2. Avoid any related marketing activities for the organization and avoid any potentially disruptive competitive conduct, regarding management of both waste and products generating it. Ensure the highest confidentiality to all members, both inside and outside the organization. 3. Exclusively accept membership of companies selling specific goods/materials that will be part of their management scope, once at the end of their life. Ensure all members fair treatment. 4. Facilitate the involvement and activity of a member appointed by the Ministry in the Board of Auditors. 5. Avoid transferring any direct or indirect economic benefit to the other members. 6. Outsource individual operating activities that cannot be carried out by companies owned, subsidiaries or companies controlled directly or indirectly, to companies selected via tendering procedures open to all companies having minimum requirements declared. 7. Ensure that the entire national territory is served, for all types of waste included in the scope envisaged by regulations, with no discrimination in terms of collection and treatment. 8. Constantly disclose to members opportunities to put on the market goods/ materials that can be more easily recycled, redesigning products and eliminating construction materials and solutions that increase costs of waste recovery. 9. Ensure citizens actual transparency on all activities conducted, via the publication on the Internet of relevant information and data (organization model, members, partners, profit and loss account, development projects). 10. Immediately report to the Ministry of the Environment any changes made to the Statute and to the Ethical Code after they are approved.

Policy

Focus: Waste

Packaging Management System: Assessing a Tree by its Fruits Starting over 15 years ago, the Italian CONAI System has enabled Italy to double the waste collected from packaging intended for recovery and recycling. It now amounts to about 8 million tonnes, equivalent to 68% of packaging placed on the market. Going through the journey taken over the years, one can better identify the next steps necessary to define new models for managing various types of waste. by Edo Ronchi

In 1997, 80% of Italian urban waste was disposed of in landfills: an amount equal to about 22.3 million tonnes. In the same year, in Italy, the national average separate collection amounted to 9%: 17% in the

North, 6.3% in the Centre and 1.4% in the South. Even the most popular fractions of packaging were collected in small amounts: 782.000 tonnes of paper and cardboard, 643.000 tonnes of glass

renewablematter 06-07. 2015 Edo Ronchi, since 2008 is Chairman of Fondazione per lo Sviluppo Sostenibile. He was XIII legislature’s (1996-2000) Environment Minister.

and just 96.000 tonnes of plastic. In 1997, the total amount of separate waste collection came to 2.5 million tonnes. In 1998, its first year of activity, the CONAI chain consortia recovered 3.57 million tonnes of waste from packaging, equal to 34% of packaging placed on the market. In 2013, the Italian disposal of waste in landfills went down to 36.8%, the quantity also halved compared to 1997; 10.9 million tonnes even if the production of urban waste increased to about 29.6 million tonnes. In 2013, the national average separate collection grew to 42.3%: 54.4% in the North, 36.6% in the Centre and 28.8% in the South. Fractions collected separately have grown considerably: 3.05 million tonnes for paper, 1.6 million tonnes for glass and 945.000 tonnes for plastics. In total, the separate collection of urban waste has risen to 12.5 million tonnes. In 2013, a staggering 7.6 million tonnes of packaging (8 millions in 2014) were recovered and recycled through the CONAI Chain System, amounting to 68% of packaging placed on the market. Basically, since it started, the CONAI System has more than doubled both the percentage and the amount of waste recovered from packaging. Although not all the problems have been solved, especially in some areas of Southern Italy, these numbers clearly indicate that an important change has taken place in Italy thanks to the waste management reform introduced in 1997: a positive change like very few others in the environment panorama, undoubtedly influenced by the activity of the CONAI Chain Consortia System. It directly contributed to it with about 8 million tonnes of waste from packaging sent to recovery and recycling – the most important waste flow from separate collection – and indirectly because over the years, thanks to its environmental levy, CONAI has supported separate collection at local level. In my opinion, on the debate about the implementation of producers’ extended responsibility, a basic standard must be borne in mind: a system must be assessed for the results it has produced, it produces and is able to produce. Moreover, we must start from numbers

Separate waste collection trend in Italy, 1997 and 2013

1997

Separate waste collection 17%

6.3% 1.4%

Urban waste disposal in landfills Separate waste collection: national average 9%

and not from preconceptions. It is impossible not to see that CONAI’s chain consortia have been extremely successful. This system was designed to “achieve global objectives of recovery and recycle and to guarantee a necessary link with the separate collection carried out by municipalities,” reads Legislative Decree 22/1997 that set it up. Obviously, the packaging directive had to be implemented, but I remember very well that when the system was designed, we broadened its scope to include the necessity to significantly increase urban waste recycling and to cut landfill disposal and how to implement and extend to all municipalities separate collection, a non-existent or symbolic reality at that time. So the CONAI System was designed: •• to guarantee the collection of most selected waste coming from separate collection that would have never been developed if all over Italy municipalities had not been sure to be able to place collected fractions and get paid for them; •• to achieve mandatory European quantity goals on recycling and recovery of packaging, both general and for specific materials;

80%

National packaging consortium, www.conai.org.

Policy

2013

Separate waste collection

consideration its results, we must recognized that it has worked and this is due precisely to its goals and characteristics, clearly spelled out by Legislative Decree 22/1997.

54.4%

36.6% 28.8%

Separate waste collection: national average

Urban waste disposal in landfills

42.3%

Legislative Decree 5th February 1997 n. 22, “Implementation of directives 91/156/EEC on waste, 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste and 94/62/CE on packaging and packaging waste,” www.reteambiente.it/ normativa/290/.

36.8%

•• to ensure, thanks to a controlled and controllable system, that packaging waste collected through separate collection was effectively sent to recovery and recycling by legal and qualified waste salvagers or recyclers (and did not end up in a landfill or feeding the illegal management in a country where illegality in this sector was widespread and well-known); •• to promote good quality separate collection in order to increase recycling performance and cut the amount of waste to be disposed of; •• to ensure separate collection’s covering of expenses, organized according to efficiency and effectiveness criteria (not encouraging inefficient management), planning, if the return was not enough, to cover the expenses of recovery and recycling and even the delta of these costs by sharing expenses amongst packaging producers and users; •• to organize, and thus fund, awareness campaigns promoting citizens’ participation in the new system. Obviously, any system can be improved, and this system has not been free from limitations, but if it is assessed taking into

Some maintain that the Italian system is characterized by little competiveness and rather closed to the market. In Italy, there are millions of packaging producers and users: ensuring their effective involvement and reducing to the minimum the risk of environmental levy avoidance were the main objectives. That is why their joining CONAI was made compulsory, valuing its autonomy as an incorporated organization with its own Charter subject to the approval of the Ministry of Environment, and at the time also that of the Ministry of Industry. Once general obligations were defined so that the system could work, we tried, without distorting it, to make it more flexible by establishing that packaging producers could meet their obligations not only by joining one of CONAI’s chain consortia for each type of packaging material (paper, glass, plastic, aluminium, wood and steel) but also by organizing autonomously the management of their packaging waste, or implementing a mandatory deposit and return system. Another objection: why not multiply chain consortia? More consortia for paper, plastic and glass? It so happens that while there are just a few dozens tyre producers and a few hundred electrical and electronic device manufacturers, there are several millions packaging producers and users: the free and effective access for a multitude of subjects in individual packaging chains would lead to the creation of dozens of consortia (or equivalent organizations). A system with many dozens of chain consortia, competing amongst each other, would be difficult to control and manage, it would increase environmental levy avoidance through the creation of shell consortia, it would destabilize the relation with municipalities and make meeting European targets on recovery and recycling very problematic.

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

Focus: Waste

Waste Boundaries The moment when waste can be considered as such is increasingly postponed. But national and EU regulations must comply and support this new trend.

by Paola Ficco

Paola Ficco, environmental law expert, lawyer, Director of “Rifiuti – Newsletter on legal information.”

The hierarchy of waste management priorities has been in place – both at EU and national levels – for several years now. Against this legal framework, prevention is top of the list, but its implementation appears rather complex, because it requires a coordinated set of concerted efforts amongst all social players. Today, however, such actions take place in a clumsy way and focus on the formal rather than the substantial aspect. Indeed, there is a tendency to modify, by moving forward, the moment when a waste item can be regarded as such (end of its life cycle and no longer end of the usefulness cycle for some – “to discard”). To put it simply, this is how waste ceases to exist, without a coordinated framework similar to that of recycling plants. This is only a lexical but very powerful nuance. It is merely another name, rather than a substantial difference. So, what has always systematically been waste, where the concept of “discarding” rules, today it is being converted (with regard to management) into something

other than waste because its life cycle is extended. In order for it not to be considered waste, all we have to do is talk about reuse and make sure that “former waste” is not dumped in an authorized waste-to-energy plant, but in another location that, although essentially a recovery facility (waste sorting, for instance is an operation occurring before recovery – code R12 – that must be authorized);1 formally, it behaves as if it were not. So, no compliance with all those practices pertaining to waste management (authorizations, forms, registers, bank guarantees, systematic dealings with the public administration, safety in the workplace etc.) to the great detriment of fair competition amongst businesses which disintegrate under the pressure of higher-level needs such as social solidarity initiatives and the re-emergence of the desire to mend everything and not to throw away anything (do it yourself, Fixer, Repair café, etc.). Therefore, we need to understand if and how EU and national relevant legislations

Policy

support this new trend, while at local level there seems to be a proliferation of prevention plans, with reusing as their core belief. So, nowadays non-waste reusing and waste recycling seem to be on an irreversible collision course, where, in order to eliminate wastefulness (and therefore waste), many things are about to exit the control cycle of the public system – supported by this very mechanism – changing the notion of waste as a matter of fact.

1. See Attachment C, part IV, Legislative Decree 152/2006, note 7 to R12 operation: “In the absence of another suitable R code, it can include the preliminary operations before recovery, including pre-treatment as well as sorting, selection, compaction, pelleting, drying, crushing, conditioning, reconditioning, separation, grouping before one the above-mentioned operations from R1 to R11.”

From Waste to Resource 2. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice, 15th June 2000 ((C-418/97 e C-419/97, ARCO), articles from 36 to 40; Ruling of the Court of Justice, 18th April 2002 ((C-9/00, Palin Granit Oy), article 23: “The EU policy on environmental issue aims at a high level of protection and is based on principles of precaution and preventative actions. As a result, the notion of waste cannot be interpreted in a restrictive sense.” In this framework, the Italian Court of Cassation (Third Criminal Section), 19th January 2007, n. 1340 decided that in the definition of waste the fact that the dumping occurs through disposal or recovery is irrelevant; that is according to the interpretation of the decisions by the EU Court of Justice, directly applicable at national level, stating that the notion of waste must not be intended in a way as to exclude substances and objects subject to economic reuse, since human and environmental health would be compromised if the application of the EU directives in this field were subordinated to the mere intention (which could or could not be accomplished according to the various situations) of excluding or not economic reusing by third parties of substances or objects they elected to discard or were made to discard.

Waste and wastage are an environmental concern, but also a crucial economic problem. Besides, regardless of legislative definitions, waste is a resource in the wrong place. Preventing waste generation means dissociating economic growth from the environmental impacts derived from it. So, there is a need for a new approach taking into account the whole life cycle of products in order to replace the throwaway culture with the circular economy model, so that products can go “from cradle to cradle” rather than “from cradle to grave.” But the circular economy is not achieved by renaming what is currently defined waste by law. In order to put back into the cycle resources and restart the production process, there is a need for a cultural revolution in its own right, with appropriate amendments to the legal notion of “waste” (at EU level, of course). Or, it will be necessary to consider each instance separately. As the EU Commissioner for the environment said in an interview by Sole 24 Ore of last 26th May, “We aim at proposing more country-specific recommendations, so as 3. Supreme Court of Cassation, Criminal to improve the adoption of Section III, 9th May 2013, n. 19955 reiterated policies at local level. So, we that it is wrong to ascribe to Ministerial will have to pay close attention th Decree 5 February 1998 general application to law infringement, which is that in essence does not possess, because essential to guarantee actual it refers to “recovery operations subject to implementation.” a simplified procedure” not including those authorized following the regular procedures. Europe, therefore, seems to embrace the “case by

case” approach. Italy is at an unprecedented crossroads, where the complexities and costliness of a waste management system clashes with the need to recover resources without too many obligations and restrictions. The basic ambiguity of the definition of “waste” is old, but it has been overcome by the EU Court of Justice.2 Currently, the problem of the lack of regulations – clear and equal for everyone – has magnified with economic globalization accompanied by the increasingly and destabilizing financialization of capitalism and the world’s economy. Today, the very tangible risk is that – the material being equal – the enforced solidarity becomes a means to by-pass the regulations, to the detriment of those who take on this duty. The Applicable Discipline and the Fundamental Paradigm of Definitions The regulations on the subject of recycling and recovery are laid down in the “Environmental code” (articles 208, 214, 216) and Ministerial Decree 5th February 1998 (for the subsidized recovery of non dangerous waste),3 in the Ministerial Decree of 12th June 2002, n. 161 (for the subsidized recovery of dangerous waste where energy recovery is not included) and in the Ministerial Decree 17th November 2005, n. 269 (for the subsidized recovery of dangerous goods from ships). It is extremely clear how the relevant legislation (Legislative Decree 152/2006) deals with the reuse of waste not involved in a preparation process for reuse rather than products than, albeit repaired/cleaned, do not enter a preparation process for reuse. This is because Legislative Decree 152/2006 regulates waste management activities only and not the use of goods and products not covered by the definition of waste, which must lead us to understand what waste is. The ageold dilemma goes back to the meaning of the verb “to discard” but, despite the EU Court of Justice’s above-mentioned actions, local actions at national level are often very far from the Eu acquis,4 above all when it comes to social solidarity projects. Within a EU perspective: •• the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation – Third Criminal Section – 2nd December 2014, n. 50309, has highlighted the irrelevance of other people’s perspectives in the exploitation of the good, in order to avoid the recurrence of the concept of “discarding.” It stated that in order to establish if a residue constitutes waste or not, it is necessary to see things from the producer’s perspective (who owns it) and not from those with an interest in its use. For this reason, the Court of Justice confirmed the ruling for non-authorized waste management against a business owner who

renewablematter 06-07. 2015 used to buy defective pallets, unusable as they were, from third parties in order to repair them and resell them. The Supreme Court highlighted that the term “discarding,” as envisaged by the official definition of waste, includes objects that have become useless and bound to be disused, even by juristic act, therefore it ignores the interest that a third party may have in the exploitation of a good no longer useful for its owner, “since such interest does not convert waste into something different.” Because the intended reuse of a good (pallets in this case) is not certain from the start, it is not up for debate whether it could be used as a by-product or not. Its reparation, therefore, constitutes waste recovery and must be authorized by law; •• the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation, Criminal Section III, 19th December 2014, n. 52773, issued a definitive sentence establishing beyond any reasonable doubt that nurserygardening waste material, placed unrestrictedly in a State-owned area, is objectively to be considered waste. Indeed, irrespective of the different doctrine and legal positions on the definition of “waste” (article 183, Legislative Decree 5. On such occasion, on the basis of 152/2006), the Supreme previous laws, the Supreme Court pointed Court is “absolutely sure out that the crime for waste dumping that, according to the well(article 256, paragraph 2, Legislative established general principles, Decree 152/2006) is attributable to anyone every subjective evaluation dumping waste within a de facto business, regardless of formal requisites of the on the nature of materials to subjects or the company’s. be classified waste or not is unacceptable.”5 4. The term EU acquis is used within the European Union with reference to the set of EU rules and regulations that have been applied up until now. The term also refers to the legislation covered in the Schengen Agreement, before its integration with the legislation of the Amsterdam Treaty, where reference to the Schengen acquis is made. During the process of EU enlargement, the acquis has been divided in 31 chapters for the negotiations between the EU and applicant states for the fifth enlargement (the ten that joined in 2004 plus Romania and Bulgaria). The environment is one of these chapters.

As to (other) definitions, it is worth pointing out that article 183, paragraph 1, Legislative Decree 152/2006 provides the following: s) treatment, recovery or disposal operations, including preparation before recovery or disposal; t) recovery, any operation whose main result is to enable waste to play a useful role, replacing other materials that would otherwise be used to fulfill 6. Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 245 of 18th a particular function or October 2013. to prepare to fulfill such function, within a plant or the economy in general...” (so waste has not been a liability for a long time); u) recycling, any recovery operation through which waste is treated to obtain products, materials or substances to be used for their original function or other purposes. It includes organic material treatment but excludes energy recovery and re-treatment to obtain materials to use such as fuels or in fill operations (so recycling is a recovery operation).

It has already been highlighted that the waste protocol does not deal with products. For this reason “preparation for reuse” has been coined from where products that can be “reused” may derive. Such operations are also defined in article 183, paragraph 1, Legislative Decree 152/2006: q) preparation for reuse, checking, cleaning, disassembling and repairing operations, through which products and components of products that have become waste are prepared so that they can be utilized without further pretreatment; r) reuse, any operation through which products or components other than waste are reused for the same purposes as they were initially intended for. Even the systematic profile (reuse – see letter r – follows preparation for reuse – letter q) confirms that it is reusable as “non waste” only what comes from preparation for reuse, since it is preparatory for reusing. The national waste prevention plan as laid down in Directorial Decree 7th October 20136 in the field of reusing is rather confusing and refers everything to future Ministerial Decree as per article 180-bis, paragraph 2, Legislative Decree 152/2006 which will have to define the operational requirements for the creation and support of accredited repairing/reusing centre and networks, including the definition of simplified authorising procedures and of an illustrative catalogue of products and waste which can be subjected to reuse or preparation for reuse respectively. The Nature of Regulations On Waste Regulations on waste are public law rules, since they are about the organization of the state and other public bodies and the relationship where the state and other public bodies can have an authority over citizens; so, they cannot be waived by private law regulations. So, we believe that the institution of gift does not change the nature of waste disposed into dumpsters with a sticker reading “gift” on them. Waste has also commercial value but the system wanted to maximize control, traceability and in the case of used clothes and hygiene as well before they can be put back into the commercial circuit or reuse, as laid down in Ministerial Decree 5 February 1998. Moreover, regulations on waste have strict interpretations, so in case of doubt, the interpreter cannot attach to regulations a restrictive or detrimental meaning of the fundamental rights inscribed in them. This is why regulations envisaging special situations (i.e. byproducts) include “regulations of an exceptional and derogative nature compared to the usual regulations on waste. As a consequence, as this Court has stated many times, the burden of proof about the existence of legal grounds must be carried out by the individual requiring its

Policy application” (Criminal Cassation, Criminal Sec. III 27th June 2012 n. 25358).7 So, the rigidity of the definition of “waste” always imposes proof of the opposite by the subject even in the case of reuse. Dispensations 7. Conf. ex multis, Sec. 3, n. 9794, 8th March; Sec. 3, 37280, 1st October 2008; Sec. 3, n. 35138, 10th September 2009; Sec. III, n. 17126, 17th April 2015.

Directive 2008/98EC promotes a “recycling society” and not a reuse one. This is further proof that reuse comes after preparation for reuse, which is a recovery operation and, as such, must always be authorized. Strangely enough, when talking about circular economy, everybody always try to get rid of the concept of waste. Waste, however, is the source of the circular economy and we must tackle it, even from an administrative viewpoint, reminding always the public administration that it only has executive power and not exclusive legislative authority with regard to the environment.

Strangely enough, when talking about circular economy, everybody always tries to get rid of the concept of waste. Waste, however, is the source of the circular economy and we must tackle it.

It has already been mentioned that laws are not flexible. When they meant to be so, they did it in an explicit and direct way, without any ambiguity. Let’s see how and when: 1. it explicitly excluded some things from the waste protocol application – art. 185, Legislative Decree 152/2006 exclusion from the field of application (i.e. agricultural material used to produce energy); 2. law 426/1998 art. 4, paragraph 21 (waste deriving from precious metals’ processing sent for metal refining do not fall within the definition of waste as per article 6, paragraph 1, letter a), of Legislative Decree 5th February 1997, n. 22 and therefore, only for this regulation, cannot be subjected to such rules. With the term “refining” mentioned in this paragraph, all the operations carried out on precious metals helping metals to get rid of substances altering their purity or preventing their use are included; 3. it explicitly prevented something to cross the boundaries into waste, but not by “disguising” it as product, but rather creating a law that did not include the notion of “discarding” with law 155/2003 (so called of the good Samaritan) with regard to food products. Other shortcuts, based on personal readings of the notion of waste inevitably lead to inequalities of treatment producing events with no sense of direction, sanctioned by the “solidarity” passport, where waste (with its burden of commitments, duties, financial guarantees, authorizations, checks, worries and uncertainties) simply does not exist. Clarity is needed, which cannot be achieved by simply stretching the links of the “good Samaritan law”; otherwise, a sense of loss could permeate our fragile waste management system where waste is seen as a resource.

A Major Breakthrough The circular economy marks a historic transition, which can be regarded as a bold passage but also as an inevitable one. We have to go back up a path where the milestones have been removed or mixed up and the exact boundaries have been lost. Waste must be freed from the cumbersome definition of “discarding,” going back to the notion of neglect and res nullius; it must be liberated from the EU legal grip imposing a restrictive interpretation of such notion. This is the most difficult step, where unexpected challenges are looming ahead, with insufficient knowledge and depth cannot change the rules of the game. And yet it must be done because the geometric flow of reality is simple: waste must be only what reaches landfills. All the rest is a resource. If this solution seems too “bold” or “unseemly” it will be necessary, at a later stage, to clarify that the reuse is only what derives from the preparation for reuse. This will be a possible and perfectly viable solution to revive the powerful (and never fully comprehended) national recycling industry. If the market is truly free, rules must be all the more clear and equal for everyone. Otherwise, the circular economy will have to grapple with interpretative conundrums, due to current definitions, which implies even greater risks, in light of the new law on environmental crimes (68/2015). But until we shy away from words and come up with falsely cautious regulations, we will witness unfair competition by absolutely legal “non waste” collection and recycling systems (where minimal investments and low labour cost) against equally legal systems that (with a perennial “dialogue” with the public administration, investments in works and means, with specialized staff constantly retrained and supported by trade unions) work with “waste.” As mentioned before, it is not a question of matter, but of denomination. A virtuosity. After all pecunia non olet. This will be yet another very complicated testing ground for policy makers.

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

Focus: Waste

WEEE:

One Problem, Multiple Solutions

Interview with Danilo Bonato

edited by Antonio Cianciullo

Every year, globally, 40 million tonnes of electrical and electronic waste are produced and they keep on rising at a rate of 7-10% yearly. In Europe there is a variety of solutions to manage this refuse heap and all of them have to take into account environmental protection, service quality and the market.

Danilo Bonato is ReMedia general manager, a leading consortium in the eco-sustainable management of technological waste.

What we are holding in our hands is the latest technology, poised between our love for cutting-edge innovations and the anxiety for the temporal fragility of such ephemeral extraordinariness, bound to age and disappear within a few seasons. More and more multitasking handheld computers, tablets ready to transform into PCs, PCs resembling tablets, watches miniaturizing the Web, portable doctors monitoring your pulse as you run. Or items with a less developed dialogue but whose performance is still very high: home appliances of which we analyse carefully the energy performance, ready to feel inadequate if they are not high enough and that add to our climate responsibility; lamps whose quality of light we constantly analyse comparing it with the cost on the bill;

heaters that have to constantly boast record performances. So – as we know – all these wonders keep their shine for an increasingly shorter time. Their current fate is gloom: after a brief glorious season they are turned into objects “on probation,” potentially hazardous waste, items coveted by organized crime. However, it is not a predetermined fate. They can be born again: immediately, through an advanced remanufacturing operation or, at a later stage, recovering materials and assembling them in a new way. The future of this category of objects called WEEE (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment) is emblematic. Because of their

Policy

Danilo Bonato

growth rate (7-10% a year globally) and the strategic nature of the sector, they represent an important group requiring maximum organizational effort for their recovery. But what is the best way to go about it? What is the best organizational solution? “There is a host of possible solutions and more than one can be valid,” replies Danilo Bonato, ReMedia general manager, one of the leading WEEE recovery consortia. “It is all about taking into account various needs: being on the market, meaning lowering costs without compromising on the quality of the service offered, avoiding the risk of pollution, in other words recovering even where it is not economically viable because the quantity is low and transport is too costly. For goods such as TV sets, refrigerators

and lamps, costs for adequate disposal is still three times higher compared to what can be obtained through the sale of materials from the recovery process, while for consumer electronics and large household non-refrigerating appliances profits can be made.” So, there are several options. Let’s have a closer look at them with Bonato. The European Union is divided into two main blocks: on the one hand, there is France and Ireland with the model of compulsory waste management to producers’ collecting systems and on the other the majority of countries follow the so-called all actors policy, with a variety of subjects that share the market according to competition rules. Apparently, there is an almost ideological divide between a central and government-based vision and a market one, in fact each viewpoint deals with a different aspect of the problem: so the objective is to combine the two needs as best as we can. Competition works when prices are profitable, namely when the numbers allow paying for the costs of collection, disassembling and securing of materials with a potentially high environmental impact. When dealing with the recovery of limited quantities of dangerous

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

The target of the European Directive is to reach 65% of collection in weight of WEEE compared to the total products introduced in the market, so that they can be reutilized or recycled by 2019.

substances that, if abandoned, would produce pollution, we need to find a mechanism allowing carrying out such operations at a loss, by finding economic compensation elsewhere. “Basically we need some sort of guidance to direct the operations of the collection systems and from this point of view the countries of Northern Europe are leading the way, while Spain, and Greece are lagging behind,” Bonato adds. “The problem is that in Italy, a mere authorization from the Local Authority is enough to deal with WEEE and the checks are not adequate: this is why the Coordination Centre for WEEE recommends, in addition to ARPA’s inspections, a technical monitoring carried out by auditors trained at the Coordination Centre based on European standards.” As seen above, Europe does not sing from the same song sheet. Germans rely on the direct role of producers who are ultimately responsible for the goods (they have to organize the recovery service): the collection quality is generally low. The English have no restrictions with regard to numbers or coordination systems: there are 41 of them, far too many (in Italy there are 17 and there is a heated debate on how to introduce quality requirements), so much so that corrective actions are underway

to curb the rise in costs. In Belgium there is only one consortium, created 20 years ago, which has stayed the same ever since. In Holland, the existing sole consortium, after 15 years, was forced to open up to competition. “I believe that such experiences can teach us something,” Bonato adds. “Competition enhances efficiency and innovation, but too many actors cause the implosion of the system. It is all about finding the right balance with clear rules that can be easily applied: consortia must guarantee minimal collection quotas, real checks are needed as well as capital requirements and non-profit objectives. Amateurs must be eliminated as well as those trying to make a profit, grabbing materials when prices are high and disappearing when they go down and those not honouring the dual economic and environmental commitment.” Despite all these limitations, the European Union is still the best (in fact, Turkey and Russia are studying it to implement a model of their own). But the process has only just started and now we have to speed it up and make a breakthrough to a circular economy. One of the possible way forward – as Bonato puts it – is to make producers pay different contributions according to the quality of their eco-design, as they are trying to do in France. Those selling goods with easily uncoupling materials, with recycled plastic, without using flame retardants, pay less. Another viable solution would be to multiply the collection points where, prior to certified technical procedures, reusable endof-life products that can be sold. Another one is remanufacturing. The target of the European Directive is to reach 65% of collection in weight of WEEE compared to the total products introduced in the market, so that they can be reutilized or recycled by 2019. For Italy (230,000 tonnes per year collected in a Coordination Centre together with a grey area beyond consortia quantifiable around 300,000 tonnes) it means increasing collection by 30-40% in four years. A demanding but not impossible target. But we have to be clear about what is at stake. In Europe, according to most recent data, about 11 million tonnes of WEEE are produced every year, about 40 million worldwide. “Ten years ago, only the costs of such systems were visible, but today it is clear that recovering such materials can be a profitable activity, we only have to overcome current limitations and develop a modern and efficient system, inspired by the principles of the circular economy” Bonato concludes.

Policy

Focus: Waste

The Treasure Hidden in “the Mines” by Duccio Bianchi

This article is condensed from the study Le miniere urbane dell’alluminio (Urban Mining of Aluminium) produced by CiAl – Consorzio imballaggi alluminio (Aluminium Packaging Consortium) (forthcoming).

Illustration from the play Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, 1913

The Good News: In Italy, Aluminium is Now Produced with 100% Recyclable Materials. The Bad News: 40% of Aluminium Used in Urban and Industrial Areas is Discarded.

renewablematter 06-07. 2015 The great mines of secondary aluminium – industrial scrap on one side, post-consumer wastes on the other – possess an intrinsically high economic and environmental value.

•• refining and remelting for the production of secondary aluminium (in billets, plates, slabs, molten liquid); •• manufacturing of malleable semi-fabricated aluminium (extrusion, lamination, forging) – which is recorded alongside refining and remelting – and casting with production of ingots (later transformed into finished products).

Duccio Bianchi is the President of ASM Pavia, a full service business in the environmental sector. Previously he was Director and CEO of Ambiente Italia, one of the major national environmental planning and advisory companies. He has also worked as a consultant and researcher on environmental policy, providing analysis and reporting on the life cycle, planning, and management of waste.

After Germany, Italy is the second largest producer of aluminium in Europe. Italy is also the leader in the production of secondary – that is, recycled – aluminium. And yet the “urban mines” of discarded aluminium are still to exploit. Historically, Italy’s production of aluminium is based on scrap, and as of 2013 the country produces only secondary aluminium. Of the 1.15 million tonnes of ingots produced that year, some 42% was secondary aluminium from smelters and 58% secondary aluminium from refiners (with a high ratio of post-consumer recycled materials). The manufacturing of semi-fabricated products is made up of 44% castings, 30% laminates, and 26% extrusions and drawings. The aluminium is used in engines and transportations (primarily castings), construction (particularly extrusions), the production of sheet and packaging (laminates), products for the home or office, and in machinery. Most, if not all, semi-fabricated and finished products come from secondary aluminium alloys, the nation’s only aluminium manufacturing. The manufacturing chain for aluminium recycling in Italy consists of the following activities: •• recovery of scrap (differentiated waste collection, sale, processing of post-consumer waste of national origin);

Overall, the combined value of production in these three phases surpasses 7 billion euro, and employs approximately 24,000 workers. There are three types of scrap that fuel the production of secondary aluminium. 1) Post-Consumer Scrap is made up of old waste, including filings or other fragments and scrap derived from demolition, discarded products, or differentiated waste collection. It is estimated to constitute approximately 400,000 tonnes, of which less than 70,000 are derived from urban waste (2013 data). 2) Pre-Consumer Scrap (commercial) is made up of cleaned and new ingots, both from the production of semi-fabricated product and manufacturing by-products (turnings, cuts, not to spec or rejected materials). As of 2013, this was estimated to constitute 475,000 tonnes of pre-consumer scrap. 3) Internal Scrap (non-commercial) from production processes, constituted by the recovery of dross and salt cake left over from the production of ingots, laminates, and extrusions in integrated processes; these flows are statistically irrelevant and are estimated at 485,000 tonnes in 2013. Only a portion of these secondary materials is collected domestically: in fact, Italy is also a major importer of aluminium scrap. So much so that, in 2013, the country’s trade balance in this sector registered a deficit of more than 340,000 tonnes and 426 million euro. But even now the great mines of secondary aluminium – industrial scrap on one side, post-consumer wastes on the other – possess an intrinsically high economic and environmental value. If manufacturing (“pre-consumer”) waste is almost completely reused, it appears more difficult – currently – to reconstruct the flows of post-consumer waste. It should also be kept in mind that there is a large “grey” area of recovered

Policy The aluminium tree: how much matter is lost every year?

LOST MATTER 40%

LOST MATTER 58%

LOST MATTER over 33%

recycled 3-6% recycled 79.5%

99,000 tonnes

recycled 68%

63,000-81,000 total tonnes

RI PACK GID AGIN G

7,000 tonnes

SE PA MI-R CK IG AG ID IN G

65,000 tonnes

h N W IO S G T E RA C NE DU I C RO IN T P A TH

FLE PACKXIBLE AGIN G

CLED

RECY

70-90 kg OF ALUMINIUM IN EACH AUTOMOBILE

42,700 total tonnes

171,000 total tonnes

ING

AUTO

MOBI

LES

AST

AN W

URB

MER ONSU PRE-C RAP SC

475,000 tonnes

-C SC ONS RA UM P ER

400,000 tonnes

INT E SCRRNAL AP

485,000 tonnes

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

On the basis of available data there appears to be a loss of aluminium equivalent to approximately 99,000 tonnes/year, equal to 58% of the waste produced.

and sold material that eludes measurement for tax reasons. One indicator concerns the quantitative dimension of post-consumer waste, estimated today to lie between 400,000-500,000 tonnes annually. The post-consumer waste and scrap that comes from various applications includes 100% aluminium products (for example packaging or wire) as well as components of other products (like automobile parts or electronic appliances). Not all these wastes – on the surface, at least – are actually recovered. Indeed, the “urban mines” of aluminium still seem to be quite full.

Bulky waste and WEEE: how much matter is lost every year?

Separate waste collection and the sorting and recovery of residual waste accounts for approximately 65,000 tonnes recycled every year, around only 38%. Additional recovery of aluminium flows outside urban waste chains – from furnishings, for example – may be higher, but this is impossible to ascertain or to verify. Then there are the approximately 7,000 tonnes of aluminium that are subject to incineration, directly or via SRFs (Solid Recovered Fuels), producing 11 GWh. Thus, on the basis of available data there appears to be a loss of aluminium equivalent to approximately 99,000 tonnes/year, equal to 58% of the waste produced.

LOST MATTER 22.2%

70,000 tonnes

20,000 tonnes

LD EHO US DS O H O GO

E ST WA Y LK ND E BU A AST E-W

E-W

90,000 tonnes

The overall loss of aluminium from urban and industrial areas is estimated at around 40%. But in certain realms it is higher still: including 58% of all urban flows, 40% of packaging, and 33% of automobiles at the end of their life cycle. Significant waste and loss of material can be found above all in urban contexts: only a small portion of aluminium foil or other flexible and semi-rigid packaging are ever recycled; the story is the same for furniture and other household goods, as well as components of other waste like electrical appliances and electronics or aluminium dross from incineration. Urban waste contains some 171,000 tonnes of aluminium, of which less than one half is made of up packaging. The amount recorded under “hygiene and household use” also includes small amounts typically from furnishings and bulky items.

According to data from the CiAl, the recovery of aluminium packaging – not including its separation into an appropriate receptacle – is equal to approximately 42,700 tonnes, which can be attributed almost completely to urban recycling. The reuse of material from aluminium packaging (estimated on the basis of data from the CiAl, which represents 25% of waste collected) is composed of 97% of packaging from differentiated waste collection and the remainder from the separation of residual waste (in TMB – Thermal or Mechanical-Biological treatment – and dross). If the rate of recovery of post-consumer waste is very high in terms of cans and rigid packaging (79.5%) or even semi-rigid (68%) it is decidedly low with respect to flexible packaging (3-6%), which is not reused either because it is not collected separately or because it is not adequately sorted by ECS technology (Eddy Current Separators) on conveyor belts of mixed

Policy

materials or other mechanical-biological treatment processes. All told – and also considering the recovery of dross and the energy conversion of some aluminium – it turns out that 40% of the material contained in packaging and other products is still to recover. But, above all, the recovery of other flows present in urban waste is very modest.

A great deal of material is also lost from automobiles – one of the primary sources of recovered aluminium.

Bulky waste and e-waste make up less than 20,000 tonnes gathered annually, compared with an annual consumption of approximately 70,000 tonnes of household goods (distinct from packaging and foil) and roughly 20,000 tonnes/ year contained in e-waste. Here the losses are even greater: apparently some 76% of aluminium in discarded household goods is lost, as is 68% of aluminium contained in e-waste. Another source of loss can be found in dross: the effective current capacity recovered is equal to a little more than 10% of its theoretical potential. A great deal of material is also lost from automobiles – one of the primary sources of recovered aluminium. The amount of aluminium that goes into automobiles has continued to increase over the years. Estimates from the 1990s – the period when the averaged junked vehicle was manufactured – indicate that each automobile contains

approximately 70-90 kg of aluminium. As a result, the theoretical content of all vehicles scrapped in 2012 can be estimated to be in the range of 63,000-81,000 tonnes. Compared to this theoretical total, the sum of all non-ferrous scrap (including copper and lead) recorded as being recycled is equal to only 10,591 tonnes. Even considering the amount of undefined recycled scrap (69,000 tonnes, of which, by analogy with countries like Germany, France, or Spain, we might estimate to contain approximately 60% of non-ferrous metals), the total of non-ferrous scrap can be estimated at around 53,000 tonnes, of which nearly 80% is aluminium, equivalent to roughly 42,000 tonnes per year, between one-half and two-thirds of the estimated total. Though based solely on estimates, the amount of waste here appears to be very significant, and marks an important potential unexploited aluminium flow, somewhere on the order of 40%. Thus, the recovery of aluminium waste also presents great potential for other sectors in addition to packaging (where more than 70% is recuperated today).

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

New Products for New Markets Interview with Marie Wheat In 2013, the bio-based industry contributed $359 billion to the US GDP, creating nearly 4 million jobs. The USDA BioPreferred® Program’s results and challenges commented by Marie Wheat, USA Department of Agriculture.

edited by Joanna Dupont-Inglis

EFIB2015 speaker, Marie Wheat of the United States Department of Agriculture, talks to Joanna Dupont-Inglis about the challenges and successes of developing the USDA BioPreferred® Program.

Marie Wheat, Industry Economist/Operations Manager, USDA BioPreferred® Program.

What was the original aim of the BioPreferred® Program? “The idea behind it was to create new markets for bio-based products and to add value to home-grown commodities thus supporting the economy in rural America. It also contributed towards increasing energy security because this is a way of using US produced renewable raw materials rather than imported fossil carbon to produce industrial products.” How did the USDA BioPreferred® Program first begin? “The program was first authorized in the 2002 Farm Bill by the United States Congress, reauthorized in the 2008 Farm Bill, and then again in the 2014 Farm Bill. BioPreferred® has two parts. First, there is the Federal Preferred Procurement side that designates certain

Marie Wheat

Policy products as preferred for federal purchasing by government agencies. So far we have 97 product categories designated for purchase representing around 14,000 individual products. The second part is a voluntary label, which companies can apply for by having tested their products certified in an independent lab which checks the bio-based content of the product. After certification and approval, companies are then able to use the ‘USDA Certified BioBased Product’ label which also shows the percentage of bio-based, or new carbon, content in the product.” In the US you’ve seen great results in terms of jobs and economic growth generated by biobased industries and supported by the BioPreferred® Program. Can you tell us more about these? “In June 2015 an economic impact analysis of the US bio-based products industry was published showing that in 2013 the US bio-based industry contributed a total of $359 billion to US GDP and around 4 million jobs. Furthermore, the study forecasts that an additional 500,000 jobs will be created by the biobased products industry over the next five years. The study shows that the direct effect of people employed by biobased industries is 1.52 million jobs,

the indirect effect is 1.11 million and the induced effect is 1.39 million contributing in total to the figure of just over 4 million. Similar projections were done with GDP and with the value added and this helps show the cumulative power of the US biobased products industry. (see figure 1).” EU renewables-based industries are hoping to follow the US’s lead in developing public procurement for bio-based products. What lessons can be learned from your experience? “It’s a multifaceted process and that, in itself, is a challenge – so there won’t be a one size fits all solution. However, what I would say is that having leadership is a game changer in terms of creating new markets, jobs and growth for biobased products. Where leaders are talking about biobased procurement and are encouraging their development and commercialization, we can make real progress. For example, in the US, a new Executive Order was issued in March 2015 entitled ‘Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade’ promoting bio-based purchases by Federal Agencies. This will mean that starting in 2016, until an agency achieves at least 95% compliance with the biobased purchasing requirements, they must establish an annual

Joanna Dupont-Inglis specialized in Environmental Sciences at University of Sussex and to that of Nantes. In February 2009 she joined EuropaBio, the European Association of bio-industries, and since April 2011 she has directed the industrial biotechnology field.

Figure 1 | Total employment and value added to the US economy from the biobased products industry in 2013

4.50

400

369.30

4.02 4.00

350 300

3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50

1.52

1.39

Billion Dollars

Million full- and part-time jobs

3.50

250 200 150

1.11

125.75

126.01

117.54

100

1.00

0.50

0.00 Employment

Direct Effect

Induced Effect

Indirect Effect

Total Effect

Value Added

Source: Golden J. S., R. B. Handfield, J. Daystar, T. E. McConnell, An Economic Impact Analysis of the US Biobased Products Industry: A Report to the Congress of the United States of America, United States Department of Agriculture, 2015 (www.biopreferred.gov/BPResources/files/ EconomicReport_6_12_2015.pdf).

renewablematter 06-07. 2015 How to spread BioPreferred® principles: NASA’s example In April, the NASA/Kennedy Space Center invited the United Soybean Board (USB) and USDA BioPreferred Program to conduct biobased training for staff and key contractors. Kennedy Space Center also hosted six biobased manufacturers as a part of their Earth Day 2015 events. Their goal was to further introduce their staff and key contractors and area stakeholders to biobased products that were readily available for their use in a variety of operations. As a result, Kennedy Space Center is planning to expand its biobased product uses. In September 2015, they are installing 300 yards of Signature Accord’s biobased carpet in their Visitor’s Center. The carpet is designated by the BioPreferred program (a “qualified” product for preferred Federal Government purchasing). NASA and Kennedy Space Center are demonstrating that Federal Agencies are working to meet the mandatory acquisition requirements and showcasing the benefits of biobased products that visitors and members of the public can see and touch.

STS-124, 2008. Courtesy NASA

Policy

Success stories are a big help in adding credibility and capturing the imagination of many people and we have several on our website.

Usda BioPreferred® Program, www.biopreferred.gov/ BioPreferred/.

target for the number of contracts to be awarded with biobased criteria and a dollar value of bio-based products to be delivered and reported under those contracts in the following fiscal year. This kind of measure sends a clear signal that when the US government is talking about sustainability, it considers bio-based to be a key component. This is a critical factor in building investor confidence in biobased. “Outreach and communication is also key and we do it constantly. While it may be second nature to those who work in the field, biobased is still an ‘unknown’ to a great many people. Reaching an increasingly broad audience with the benefits of biobased products is one of the things that the BioPreferred® Program has done very effectively through many different channels. For example, we recently conducted training via live web streaming and satellite downlink, specifically for US procurement officials across a wide range of agencies around the world. Participants could download a link to join the training, ask questions and access the guidelines. Procurement is the kind of thing where training can make a big difference. We provide real, concrete guidance on how to implement a biobased public procurement. We are active in all levels of education, from explaining to a consumer what a bio-based product is, right through to explaining the technical details of federal procurement to a federal official. To increase knowledge of the program and its value, we meet with stakeholders from emerging and expanding industries on a continuing basis. “We communicate across the various sectors such as biobased chemicals, bioplastics, biobased cleaners, biobased lubricants, etc. We communicate with the people producing the products and help them understand how to get certified and receive the label so that they become part of our education outreach and can also use the label to help educate consumers. Plus, we make effective use of the BioPreferred website to educate all audiences. So it’s a plethora of activity around leadership, training and outreach and trying to do as much as we can to make the process as easy as possible.” What other tools do you find particularly effective in raising awareness on the availability of biobased? “Success stories are a big help in adding credibility and capturing the imagination of many people and we have several on our website. In addition, we are continually finding novel ways to reach new audiences and inform them about the biobased opportunity. Recent initiatives include work with NASA (the Kennedy Space Centre), the Department of Transportation and the Department of the Interior. Having products to touch and see makes

a big difference for many people and helps make biobased products ‘real’ for them.” In the EU we know that farmers are often unaware of the potential of biobased products to add value to their production. How do you tackle this at the USDA? “USDA has officers in the Rural Development Programme in every state across America who are dedicated to informing farmers of this potential and for explaining the BioPreferred® Program. In addition, and again this goes back to effective leadership, whenever possible our leaders ensure that they mention the Program at high level events where primary producers will be present.” What, in your view, is the next greatest opportunity for the BioPreferred® Program and what is the greatest challenge to be overcome? “The greatest opportunity is to create more markets on a global scale. It is an unbelievable potential waiting to be captured worldwide. In terms of the pitfalls or challenges for the EU to be aware, it’s really important to have both labelling and public procurement systems ready to go at the same time. Having one label indicating that the product bearing it should also be federally procured really helps simplify things for everyone involved. In the US, as our labelling system came online after our public procurement system, we had lists of items that were designated for procurement with no label. Initially this presented a hurdle to a quicker adoption and acceptance of the program.” Your enthusiasm for the program and for its potential is clear. What is it that you enjoy most about your job? “I love the idea that I work every day to create greater economic opportunity for people around the world using biobased products. Right now we have companies from 42 countries participating in our Program and applying for our label. To me this speaks volumes about how we are adding value around the world and I’m glad to be part of that.”

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

The Circular Economy: A WORK IN PROGRESS Today 90% of European manufacturing revenue comes from linear industrial processes. There is only one alternative: rethinking the concept of waste with models that maximize the reuse of goods through disassembling and recycling.

Policy

by Danilo Bonato

For Europe, 2014 was supposed to be the year of the circular economy: a new paradigm to project development models for society and industry from now to 2050. Those hopes were doused at the end of last year by the new European Commission under Jean-Claude Juncker, who decided to cut a long list of programmes believed to be ineffective or too expensive. Unfortunately, the circular economy package was among them. However, in 2015, the disconcerted reactions of stakeholders and the disapproval of many member states forced the Commission to review its position, and it subsequently declared that the withdrawal of the first circular economy package was in fact designed to make room for the proposal of a broader and more decisive strategic initiative. Is that really the case? What is certain at this point is that the Commission’s first package contained many holes and focused primarily on waste management, with little or no concern for all the other fundamental components of this new economic paradigm, such as remanufacturing, the sharing economy, or the bioeconomy. With this context in mind, a conference was held last June, where the European Commissioners Frans Timmermans and Jyrki Katainen solemnly pledged to make a more resolute commitment in support of the circular economy, calling it a “fundamental strategy” for the development of the continent. Thus Brussels has resumed its intensive efforts to put forward a Circular Economy package, which should be ready by the end of the year. But this remains to be seen. However, expectations are

higher this time around because investment in the circular economy will have to sustain the development of the European industry and at the same time contribute to achieving the goals that will emerge from the COP21 conference in Paris on the fundamental challenges posed by climate change. The Circular Economy: The Only Possible Alternative But what should we expect, exactly? The experts working on programmes in support of the circular economy begin by noting that, at present, around 90% of European manufacturing revenue (without even considering manufacturing worldwide) come from linear processes of procurement, production, consumption, and discarding of waste. There is, however, widespread acknowledgment – in words if not yet in deeds – that the only real option to provide an opportunity for future generations lies in the rapid transition to industry and manufacturing based on the circular economy: encouraging businesses to rethink production cycles in such a way that they eliminate the concept of waste with processes that maximize the reuse of products and materials through disassembling and recycling. Such processes will have to distinguish between the different issues that surround consumables and durable goods. With respect to the former, the EU intends to push the use of natural and non-toxic materials that can be safely reintegrated into the biosphere. For durable and semi-durable goods, however, the emphasis will be on ensuring very high rates of reuse and recycling, both to prevent their components from potentially damaging the environment and to maximize efficiency in the use of raw materials. The competitive advantages that the experts

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

We know that Europe generates 2.7 billion tonnes of waste per year, and that only 40% of this waste – limited primarily to a few flows – is captured and processed for reuse, recycled to recover energy, or composted. There are thus significant margins for improvement […].

in Brussels seek to exploit through the repositioning of European manufacturing are thus closely linked with the goal of decoupling the extraction and use of natural resources – which has risen from 12 billion tonnes in 1980 to 22 billion today – from the economic growth necessary to guarantee the continent’s continued development and prosperity. This is an enticing prospect, which would allow Europe to tamper the price volatility of critical raw materials, creating greater stability in key industries and reducing risk in terms of procurement. In economic terms, the Commission estimates that by 2025 savings in raw materials for manufacturing due to the circular economy could reach at least 14% of output, a percentage equivalent to approximately 400 billion euro. For Italian industry, this would represent a savings of at least 12 billion euro. Adoption of circular processes could also encourage the creation of new business chains, providing a stimulus to consumption and encouraging job growth.

Disownership The concept of disownership that resides at the roots of the emerging sharing economy represents one of the most innovative and interesting aspects of the circular economy. The sharing economy reduces the environmental footprint of manufacturing activities, creates jobs, and increases the value of human capital by turning the sale of goods into increased public use and access to services with value added. In this particular context the new business models that are based on the sharing economy create interesting job opportunities tied to the development of modern service networks, technical assistance, consulting, financial services, and logistics. In Europe and throughout the world there is a shift underway in consumer preferences toward access to services on a pay per use basis, as an alternative to permanent individual ownership of durable goods. This transition offers substantial advantages to businesses from the point of view of the productivity of their assets, in that it allows them to create economies of scale, optimize the use of productive and service infrastructure, and hire highly specialized personnel. Several European countries have led the way in this transition. Sweden, for example, is fine-tuning a 12 billion euro investment plan for the circular economy, which places an emphasis precisely on the idea of a society of sustainable services.

European Industry Has Already Begun In some ways, European manufacturers have anticipated Brussels’ move. Several leading industrial groups have already begun transitioning their own manufacturing and maintenance systems toward greater “circularity.” This is happening because the most innovative companies have understood that the adoption of manufacturing processes based on the circular economy encourages business growth and create value for shareholders. The most commonly employed strategies range from remanufacturing of end-of-life products, to the refurbishing of in-service products to fit into the sharing economy or zero-waste policies, all the way to the restructuring of production processes to work in symbiosis with their partners in the supply chain. The European Commission has declared its intention to incentivize and speed up investments in businesses that adopt forms of the circular economy, privileging the most virtuous actors. We shall see if these intentions are transformed into concrete measures that can push this experimental phase towards a so-called “mainstreaming,” where the most widely adopted manufacturing processes will all be essentially based on circular economy concepts. What the European “Package” Means for Italy A solid package of measures to support the adoption of the circular economy would also be extremely important for Italy, where all the ingredients to do well are already in place

Jean-Claude Juncker © David Plas

Policy Remanufacturing Remanufacturing is a model based on processes organized and optimized to transform old products – whether used or discarded – into new ones, restoring them to their same or in some cases an even higher level, while providing warranties for their use to consumers. Several European countries have invested heavily in remanufacturing. For example, the United Kingdom has a plan to increase sales in this sector from the current 3.4 billion euro to 7.8 billion euro by 2030, a development that would lead to the creation of at least 20,000 new jobs.

A solid package of measures to support the adoption of the circular economy would also be extremely important for Italy, where all the ingredients to do well are already in place but the culture of and investment in innovation are sometimes slow in developing.

but the culture of and investment in innovation are sometimes slow in developing. This is not a concern solely for this transitional phase, which must be carefully managed, but it also represents a risk in terms of Italian manufacturers’ ability to attract investment from abroad. In fact, global enterprises that have already committed to the circular economy could possess an extra incentive of their own to express skepticism toward Italy. It is thus urgently necessary for Italy also to begin creating a more favourable context for the development of new industrial processes inspired by the circular economy, eliminating

the impediments that could well end up penalizing the country: starting with the deficit in skills within the worlds of business and government, and consumers’ scant sensitivity to environmental issues, all the way up to the lack of a holistic vision necessary to develop a modern recycling sector. For this reason the circular economy package soon to be offered by the European Commission may provide the necessary tools to tackle and remove these current obstacles. Italy needs measures designed to favour businesses that invest in the design of products, services, and processes that demonstrate a systemic vision of innovation, with a particular focus on small and medium sized businesses. To this end, it will be important to identify them, study their strategies, and make available stimulus mechanisms that are both fair and effective. Incentives for businesses that commit to refurbishing in-service products, for example, maintaining ownership of the goods they sell in order to manage the end of their life cycle more effectively, in part through the introduction of financial services capable of responding to the specific needs of consumers. Furthermore, stimulus measures for the circular economy could be inserted into a much broader revision of fiscal policy to support the green economy and eco-innovation. The Circular Economy and Waste The circular economy package should also come up with innovative and organic solutions for products life cycle management. We know that Europe generates 2.7 billion tonnes

Yearly recycling percentage and flow in Europe

40%

captured waste

Reuse

Recycled

2.7 billion tonnes of waste

Energy recovery

Composted

60%

lost waste

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

The new European circular economy package will focus on the development of entrepreneurship and a culture of innovation through the support of more decisive interventions regarding education both theoretically and in the field.

of waste per year, and that only 40% of this waste â&#x20AC;&#x201C; limited primarily to a few flows â&#x20AC;&#x201C; is captured and processed for reuse, recycled to recover energy, or composted. There are thus significant margins for improvement, especially in Italy, where the situation is worse compared to the European average. Much waste escapes and end up being exploited abroad, and frequently, even when processes for recovery and recycling are in place, the raw materials are subjected to downgrading compared to what can be achieved today with the best technology available. Italyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s collection systems are in general expensive and inefficient, and do not help businesses to abandon traditional linear manufacturing processes or the treatment of finished products recovered after consumption. The Commission is assessing the possibility of introducing further simplifications to encourage increasing efficiency in collection systems, integrating them with upstream industries that make use of recovered components and raw materials from products at the end of their life cycles. Another topic Brussels intends to address is that of the development of professional networks specializing in the refurbishing of end-of-life machines that can be returned into production cycles for further use, thus avoiding the creation of waste and encouraging the development of new technical skills that can also be advantageous in terms of job creation. We thus expect that the circular economy package will contain more effective strategies than those of the past with respect to encouraging demand for materials from the reuse and recycling of end-of-life products. By now it is clear to the experts on the Commission that the generation of demand by industrial chains downstream from production processes that generate scrap with the potential to be

transformed into resources for reuse, is perhaps the best way to feed a virtuous cycle inspired by the circular economy. It is not a coincidence that in the last 24 months, Europe has witnessed the birth of several enterprises that have created brokerage models able to connect supply and demand for secondary raw materials or end-oflife products, creating benefits for the market and significant profits for investors. From this perspective, the new package of measures will seek to encourage the creation of new industrial chains based on a greater integration of enterprise on a Europe-wide scale, exploiting modern information and communication technologies more efficiently to reduce asymmetries in knowledge that can throttle trade and the development of cooperative processes. European Funds for Innovation and Skills Development It is imperative that the European strategy for the circular economy fully exploits the available assets in European funds for eco-innovation (Horizon 2020 and other structural funds) in order to support the investment necessary to create a critical mass in certain high-profile industries. It is worth emphasizing how, here, Italy possesses several strong points that could be exploited, which could allow the country to pursue leadership positions on the international level if they can be sustained by targeted investments in innovative businesses. It would thus behove Italy to focus on very specific skills in areas where it has a real opportunity to step forward and where contemporary Italian industries already appear to possess a real vocation. One might, for example, encourage the development of hydrometallurgy and biometallurgy for the recovery of precious metals

Policy and rare earths as an alternative to the great pyrometallurgical plants of Northern Europe. These plants employ innovative technologies with low environmental impacts (in comparison to the “old” technologies that work with very high temperatures), an area where Italy could play an important role. From this point of view it would appear important for Italy to represent itself in Europe with a clear vision, submitting robust and credible project proposals to pursue the necessary funding. In this realm, one might identify certain “champions” that are capable of leading a network of partners toward the realization of a new industrial system reinforcing the integration of the circular economy. The new European circular economy package will almost certainly focus on the development of entrepreneurship and a culture of innovation through the support of more decisive interventions regarding education both theoretically and in the field. As previously noted, the Commission is well aware that the lack of skills and professional development in government and enterprises hinders a brake on the adoption of innovative models of circular economy. Simplify to Innovate Let us hope, then, that the package from Brussels manages to modernize the regulatory environment. In modern economies, the environment represents an essential resource to be protected, but not solely and not especially through a formal approach of binding agreements, compliance rules, and other onerous obligations. Rather, we must understand how to measure, in a more precise and efficient way, environmental externalities (environmental

costs tied to the use of ecosystems by private parties), penalizing those who do not act to reduce them and incentivizing those who manage their business in such a manner as to mitigate their impact on the ecosystem. Today, such efforts are very often undermined by a rigid and obsolete regulatory framework, which sees “waste” as an exclusively environmental problem and not as an opportunity to create value throughout the manufacturing process. A Question of Priorities As we await the details of the circular economy package, which will acknowledge the input of consultations with stakeholders (a process that just concluded), it seems that the time has come for the Commission to define certain priorities, indicating which high-potential sectors Europe should focus on. With respect to goods with lengthy life cycles (construction and infrastructure, for example), one might undertake interventions with greater potential over the long term, while in the short term the most interesting initiatives could concern consumer durables, particularly more complex products like machinery, electrical appliances and electronics, furniture, machine tools, motors and vehicles. The annual sales attributed to these types of product are approximately 2.6 billion euro, testifying to the importance of the recovery of raw materials from them at the end of their life cycle. If we assume that the cost of raw materials makes up an average of 25% of a product’s price, we might expect the economic value of the theoretical complete recovery of such materials to amount to at least 500 billion per year, a figure that is certainly food for thought for the Commission’s decision makers. Only time will tell...

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

BIOECONOMY:

An Investment of 1 Euro Today Will Reap 10 Euro in 2025 A proposal to relaunch the European economy: To get started some 400 billion euro are available in the European Fund, 315 in the Juncker Plan, and another 3.7 from public-private partnerships. by Mario Bonaccorso

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

European Commission: The Horizon 2020 Programme www.horizon2020news.it.

An investment of one euro in 2010 will generate a return of 10 euro in 2025. An investment of 35,000 euro into research and development over the same time frame will create one full-time job. This is the tremendous growth potential offered by the bioeconomy in the European Union, according to estimates by the European Commission made public in 2012 upon the launch of its strategy “Innovating for Sustainable Growth: A Bioeconomy for Europe.” From such perspective, the recipe for economic growth in the next few decades seems obvious: invest in the bioeconomy. But, for a European Union still in the grip of the most severe economic-financial crisis in history and a policy of austerity that leaves little room for manoeuvre, the primary issue is finding the money to invest – within a defined strategy that is eco-friendly and avoids needless waste, wherever possible.

So, there’s really only one simple question: Where is the money? The answer, however, is not so simple, because to understand how to finance the bioeconomy one must wade into a sea of programs, funds, and public-private partnerships. Let us proceed in order, then. First, there is the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 programme, which puts more than 70 billion euro on the table for research and innovation from 2014-2020. Another 80-100 billion euro will be invested in infrastructure, logistics, and the socalled drivers of innovation through the European Regional Development Fund. Yet another 70 billion euro from the European Social Fund will be devoted to investments in innovation and social integration, employment services, ongoing education, and entrepreneurial development. More than 100 billion euro will be made available for rural areas from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, and for marine

Policy

and aquatic investment from the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. Finally, 66 billion will be available for environmental initiatives and the creation of trans-European transportation networks. Overall, approximately 400 billion euro. These structural funds are joined by the “Bio-Based Industries Joint Undertaking,” a public-private partnership that from 2014-2020 forecasts an investment in the biobased manufacturing sector of roughly 3.7 billion euro. Of these, 975 million will be made available by the EU, out of Horizon 2020 funds, while the BIC (the Bio-Based Industries Consortium of related businesses) will contribute 2.73 million euro. Having said that, in this initial phase the partnership is currently funding ten programmes: seven in the research stage, two in demo, and one flagship project. The latter is called First2Run, coordinated by Novamont, the only company so far to have been allocated funds. Last June, the BIC assigned the project, a collaboration with four businesses and one university, some 17 million euro in block grants. The project is designed to demonstrate the technological, economic, and environmental sustainability of a highly innovative integrated bio-refinery, in which low-input oilseed cultures (like thistle) cultivated in arid and/or marginal zones are used for the extraction of vegetable oils to be converted through chemical processes

into bio-monomers (principally pelargonic and azelaic acids) and esters for the creation of bioproducts including biolubricants, cosmetics, plasticisers and bioplastics. The by-products of the manufacturing process will be used in the production of animal feed, other value-added chemicals, and energy from scraps to maximize the sustainability of the value chain. Standardisation, certification, and dissemination of the results will be key parts of the project, along with a study of the social impact of the products derived from renewable resources. The project supports the redevelopment of existing industrial plants and to date has received investments from private partners totalling more than 300 million euro. The Bio-Based Industries Joint Undertaking was formed by its partners to create jobs, particularly in rural areas, offering European citizens new, sustainable and locally-made products. Biobased industries will increase the competitiveness of EU countries through re-industrialization and sustainable growth, with the generation of new value chains through the interconnectivity of various sectors. Growth and Sustainability at the Heart of the Juncker Plan Economic growth, environmental sustainability, and job creation are precisely the same objectives declared by the President of the European

Public Private Partnership: “Bio-Based Industries Joint Undertaking” www.bbi-europe.eu.

renewablematter 06-07. 2015 Video “The Juncker Plan for Investment in Europe: What is the EFSI?,” tinyurl.com/njnkmas.

Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, upon his inauguration. To achieve these ambitious goals the Commission presented its Investment Plan for Europe in Strasbourg on 26 November 2014. The so-called Juncker Plan is articulated in three directions: 1) the establishment of a European Fund for Strategic Investment (EFSI); 2) the creation of a reserve of viable projects and a program to support direct investment of funds where they are most needed; 3) the drafting of a program to make Europe more attractive to investors and remove regulatory bottlenecks. The EFSI will be endowed with 21 billion euro: 16 guaranteed by the EU budget and 5 by the European Investment Bank (EIB). Based on conservative estimates drawn from historical experience, it is forecast that the Fund will unlock investments with a leverage effect equal to 15 times its initial endowment: at least 315 billion euro in 2015-2017. The basic concept is that the initial impulse provided by the Fund will mobilize the liquidity that is already present in the financial system but not currently being used for investment because of the uncertain economic climate.

The Bioeconomy Investment Summit will be held in Brussels on November: tinyurl.com/q9tgpvp.

In addition to the resources created by the EFSI, 20-35 billion euro in investment could be injected into the real economy by maximizing the leverage of structural funds and European investments from 2014-2020. Last June, the EU Commission signed an agreement with the European Bank for the investments to establish and govern the Fund, confirming in its guidelines for national contributions that national promotional banks (NPBs) will serve as platforms for investment and co-financing, which will be excluded from deficit calculations as a one-time exception. To date, nine countries have decided to set up an NPB: Italy, France, Germany, Poland, Great Britain, Spain, Luxembourg, Bulgaria, and Slovakia.

It was also confirmed that financing through the EFSI will not be considered state aid, while the co-financing activities of member states will undergo assessment, albeit through a fast-track process that aims to complete everything within six weeks. The European Parliament has been entrusted with oversight and supervision, along with the European Court of Auditors (ECA). But how will all of this affect the bioeconomy? According to John Bell, the European Commission’s director of the Bioeconomy Directorate, “the EFSI fund is also available for investments in the bioeconomy, and thus provides for substantial opportunities in addition to the funding available for the Bioeconomy via Horizon 2020.” Bell adds that, “as part of the investment plan also an ambitious roadmap will be implemented to make Europe more attractive for investment and remove regulatory bottlenecks.” Brussels’ challenge is to maintain legislative simplicity, not doing more than is strictly necessary to achieve its political objectives, and to avoid superimposing several different levels of regulation. To surpass this challenge it has come up with REFIT (the Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme), which works to define a clear, stable, and predictable regulatory framework for workers, businesses, and citizens. Just as representatives of European industry have repeatedly requested. Under REFIT, the Commission will review its entire legislative corpus on a rolling basis to identify regulatory burdens, conflicts, and inefficiencies, as well as the appropriate corrective measures. Some of the sectors of interest in the bioeconomy that have already undertaken REFIT protocols include waste legislation and food safety. A Simpler and More Logical Regulatory Framework is Needed The European strategy entails financing for the bioeconomy on one side, and on the other the creation of a simple, stable, and predictable regulatory framework to attract those investments that experts say have recently been flowing toward the United States, India, and China. It is in this context that the Bioeconomy Investment Summit convened by the European Commission is set to take place in Brussels from 9-10 November. “This will be an opportunity to set out a high-level agenda for further investment in the bioeconomy,” Bell argues. “The aim of the event is to create political momentum and consensus in the Commission and where possible in member states for the necessary policy and regulatory decisions that will encourage investment in innovation in the bioeconomy.” Which in turn should help to better realise the potential of the bioeconomy to create new jobs and economic growth, including in rural and coastal areas.

Policy Interview

The Bioeconomy is the Future Driving Horse of the EU Economy Josko Bobanovic, Sofinnova Partners

Today, the bioeconomy companies front an unprecedented opportunity on the business front thanks to the innovation they are bringing to the market.

“If the bioeconomy is not recognised as the future driving horse of the EU economy, then we risk decisions that could impede its growth. On our micro-scale that probably results in a situation where we continue developing new start-ups based on technologies coming out of EU, but industrialise them elsewhere, which needless to say would represent a major loss for the EU economy in the long run.” To say it – in this interview with Renewable Matter – is Josko Bobanovic, partner of the Sofinnova Green Seed Fund dedicated to seed activities in renewable chemistry and bio-energy. Sofinnova Partners is an indipendent venture capital firm based in Paris. With Bobanovic we talk about the investments in the bioeconomy, the role of the venture capital in supporting the growth of new companies, the European policies to develop the sector. Why can investing in the bioeconomy companies be profitable today? “At Sofinnova, we look at investments exclusively through the profitability lens with the clear understanding that all new technologies follow certain paths to profitability. Today, the bioeconomy companies front an unprecedented opportunity on the business front thanks to the innovation they are bringing to the market. Customers are looking for new performances, improved materials and solutions and a lot of these have been made possible by recent bioeconomy solutions, notably through advances in biotechnology but also through ability to produce using different, often cheaper and price-stable, raw materials. Similarly, petrochemical processes have been optimized and every single cent of

margin has been already squeezed. All of a sudden, the bioeconomy opens the door to new processes with higher margins or profitability on a smaller scale, thus making them extremely attractive when compared to existing solutions. One of the clear examples in our investment portfolio is BioAmber (NYSE:BIOA), leading producer of bio-based succinic acid, that thanks to its fermentation technology opened up a whole suite of new applications for the succinic acid due to its favourable economics.”

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

If the bioeconomy is not recognised as the future driving horse of the EU economy, then we risk decisions that could impede its growth.

What are the most important investments made by Sofinnova in the bioeconomy companies in the last two/ three years? “Always difficult question to answer – like asking parents which child they prefer, but let me bring up one example that in our view has potential to dramatically change the face of the entire bioeconomy. “Comet Biorefining is a Canadian company producing high-quality glucose from ligno-cellulosic biomass (wood, agricultural waste, etc.) that has demonstrated its process at 10 t/day scale and is currently preparing to build its first commercial-scale facility. Sugars, notably glucose, represent a key raw material for most fermentation-based processes. Today these sugars are obtained from food sources such as corn or sugar cane. It has been generally established that early phases of the bioeconomy development will be based on edible sugars, but its growth is predicted thanks to access to cheap ligno-cellulosic sugars in order to address ‘food vs. fuel debate’, but more importantly to eliminate high volatility of commodity pricing. Comet offers a solution based on standard equipment that is economically viable at modest plant size (40 kt/year), therefore lower CapEx, while producing high quality sugars below $250/t. Once proven on a commercial scale, in our view, this technology enables a whole downstream

fermentation industry to switch away from food-based sugars, thus fullfilling the true bioeconomy dream.” What are the parameters that you consider a priority when you decide to invest in a company? “Venture capitalists invest in people. We look for true entrepreneurs willing to move mountains to build their dream company. We often say that poor team will destroy a great technology, but a great team will make a mediocre technology a success. Their ambition is always built around highly differentiated and well protected technologies that can be built to industrial scale with reasonable capital investment and are addressing large markets.” How do your choices affect the political environment? “The political environment does not drive our choices – we always base our decisions on economics that exclude any direct government intervention (e.g. subsidy). A clear example of the danger is solar industry in the past few years. That being said certain elements of the political environment clearly help our companies reach commercial scale more rapidly. These may include grants, loans or loan guarantees, tax incentives, regulatory decisions or mandates. In some parts of the world, there is a clear competition between different levels of government (national, regional and municipal) to promote conditions favourable for bioeconomy build out and these are taken very seriously by our portfolio companies when choosing where to industrialise their technologies.” As an investor, how do you consider the austerity policy pursued by the European Union? Could it have negative effects on the development of the bioeconomy? “We are globally interested in growing economies – how this growth gets realised and what kind of policies or macroeconomic measures lead to it is clearly beyond the scope of our expertise. By the same token, we recognize that single currency is a new experiment and that we are collectively learning to work with it. In the short-term, we look for the recognition that different sectors of the economy – notably the bioeconomy – do not have the same long-term potential, and once that realization has been made, appropriate policies in any kind of economic environment will follow. Consequently, if the bioeconomy is not recognised as the future driving horse of the EU economy, then we risk decisions that could impede its growth. On our micro-scale that probably results in a situation where we continue developing new startups based on technologies coming out of EU, but industrialise them elsewhere, which, needless to say, would represent a major loss for the EU economy in the long run.”

Policy Next 9-10th November, in Brussels, the European Commission will organize the Bioeconomy Investment Summit. Could you tell us three points that you would like to bring to the attention of the summit to promote the development of investments in the bieconomy? “Globally, the EU is in a privileged position to have the largest population base in a common market with very clear affinity for a biobased economy while building on equally attractive agricultural, forestry and industrial potential. Through various programs, the Commission has historically done a decent job in supporting innovative research and its pre-commercialisation. On a broader scale, what we find lacking is the ability to accelerate industrial scale up of various technologies through non-dilutive financial support that will, alongside our strong commitment, help see the companies through this financing gap. In a way, the EU has an infinite balance sheet

and should use it strategically to diversify risk in scaling up technologies that represent the future for the continent. Second, one of the key mechanisms for promoting the growth of the bioeconomy is through investment in venture capital funds that specialise in the field and ideally we would see many more emerge in Europe in the coming years. Third, there is a need for incentive mechanisms for large companies looking to take the expansion risk into the bioeconomy and team up with start-ups bringing new technologies to the market. At the meeting, Sofinova will be represented by Denis Lucquin, our president, who will participate in the discussion on how the EU mechanisms can promote further investment in the bioeconomy.”

Interview

Access to Finance is a Critical Issue Dirk Carrez, Biobased Industries Consortium

The BBI is about using Europe’s biomass and wastes to make high value products and bring them to market.

“Access to finance is a critical issue. In the past, not many dedicated funds existed. Today a variety of different funds can be accessed including the European Investment Bank (EIB), Horizon 2020, the BBI JU, European Structural and Investment Funds, private banks, without forgetting the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) or the so-called Juncker Investment Plan. Access and effectiveness remain an issue. Synergies are being sought between different EU funds, but the reality is that the funding scene is overly fragmented with different procedures across institutions, regions, organisations making the whole application experience very lengthy and complex.” It is what Dirk Carrez, Executive Director of the Biobased Industries Consortium, says in this interview with Renewable Matter. With Carrez we talk about the Biobased industries Joint Undertaking and the EU plans to finance the bioeconomy. What is exactly the Biobased industries Joint Undertaking? And why is it important to support the European bioeconomy? “The Bio-based Industries Joint Undertaking (BBI JU) is the legal entity established in 2014 to administer and manage the €3.7 billion public-private partnership on Bio-based Industries. The European Commission and multi-sector industry group, the Bio-based Industries Consortium, joined forces to de-risk an emerging sector and effectively

deploy Europe’s bioeconomy through annual calls for proposals and ensuing research and innovation projects, including demonstration and first-of-a-kind production plants. The BBI JU is a relatively new instrument at the European level. Until recently, much of the research and development funded by Europe was deployed in other regions of the world. European Framework Programmes, and especially the new Horizon 2020 programme, went some way in tackling this with an enhanced focus on innovation. JUs like the BBI are thus going further in the innovation and deployment chain. The BBI will not stop at the research or pilot phase, but will continue with demonstration projects, the creation of small scale production plants, which can then be used to explore elements such as proofof-concept, sustainability and competitiveness. Even so-called ‘flagship projects’ will be integrated, which will see funding for new innovative first-of-a-kind production plants in Europe. Of course, this funding will be made available for the innovative aspects of such plants, and not the entire infrastructure. While this approach already exists in many other parts of the world, it is entirely new in Europe. The BBI is about using Europe’s biomass and wastes to make high value products and bring them to market. Advanced biorefineries and innovative technologies are at the heart of this process, converting renewable resources into sustainable bio-based chemicals, materials and fuels, allowing the EU to reduce its dependence on finite fossil resources. It is important to support such an initiative at European level because it de-risks

renewablematter 06-07. 2015 an emerging sector and creates the framework conditions required to leverage Europe’s renewable resources, innovative technologies and industrial know-how. So Europe has finally developed a tool that can be used to keep deployment within its borders.” In this context, what is the role of the Biobased industries Consortium? “The Bio-based Industries Consortium (BIC) is the private partner in the Public-Private Partnership on Bio-based Industries. BIC supports the BBI JU with a contribution of €2.7 billion, of which €975 million is used to support research and innovation activities, and another €1.7 is provided in the form of additional activities, such as investments in infrastructure. BIC is made of a unique mix of sectors including agriculture, agro-food, biotechnology/technology providers, forestry/pulp and paper, chemicals, energy and end-users. BIC was established in 2012 to collectively represent the private sector in the BBI. To date, BIC has close to 80 full industrial members (large, SMEs, SME clusters) and about 150 associate members (RTOs, universities, associations, technology platforms). One of BIC’s fundamental roles is to lead the development of the annual BBI JU’s Work Programmes, all in partnership with the European Commission. BIC is also increasingly involved in advocacy activities aimed at creating a favourable policy and financing environment for bio-based industries. Mainstreaming the concept of ‘bioeconomy’ is essential for investments and public acceptance, and BIC is therefore constantly looking for new partnership opportunities to promote the benefits of the bioeconomy across EU member states, regions, sectors, investors and consumers.” What projects have been awarded the first funds? And what are your plans for the future? “The BBI JU has approved in June 2015 the funding of 10 projects totalling €120 million as result of the first call launched in July 2014. Seven funded research projects will tackle specific value chain challenges such as sustainability, technology and competitiveness. Two demonstration projects

will demonstrate the technological and economic viability of biorefinery systems and processes for making chemicals from wood, and for making high value products for detergents, personal care, paints and coatings and composites from sugar beet pulp. Finally, the industrial scale flagship project will make use of cardoon, an under-utilised oil crop grown on arid and marginal lands, to extract vegetable oils to be further converted into bio-based products (bio-lubricants, cosmetics, bio-plastics). By- and co-products from the process will also be valorised for energy, feed for animals and added value chemical production. “This first round of BBI projects sees a leverage effect of €70 million in private investments for €50 million of EU public money. And this is only the beginning. In May 2015, the BBI JU has launched a €100 million Call for Proposal dedicated to ‘flagships’ focusing on lignocellulosic feedstock, valorisation of cellulose and innovative processes for sugar recovery and conversion from Municipal Solid Waste. On 25th August, the second part of the 2015 call was officially published, now with a focus on research and demonstration actions. The budget allocated for this call is €106 million: €28 million for Research and Innovation Actions, €12 million for Innovative and efficient biorefinery technologies, €64 million will be allocated for Demonstration Actions, and €2 million for Coordination and Support Actions.” In the European Union, there are different funds to support the bioeconomy. How can

Mainstreaming the concept of “bioeconomy” is essential for investments and public acceptance.

Policy it is clear that whether this direction will be either with our without policy incentives, stability is the key to attracting investment, and that is the same for all bio-based products. Supporting the demand for bio-based products through public procurement can certainly be a positive driver. However, copying the US Biopreferred Programme at EU level will – in my opinion – not have the same impact as in the USA, as every European member state or region has its own procurement system. So we have to analyse which system could be a good incentive to support the demand for bio-based products in Europe. Such an analysis is taking place today within an Expert Group on Biobased Products, coordinated by the European Commission’s DG GROW. This should hopefully result in a good model for the EU.”

Supporting the demand for bio-based products through public procurement can certainly be a positive driver.

we reconcile all in order to avoid waste of money and significantly support the bioeconomy? “Access to finance is a critical issue. In the past, not many dedicated funds existed. Today a variety of different funds can be accessed including the European Investment Bank (EIB), Horizon 2020, the BBI JU, European Structural and Investment Funds, private banks, without forgetting the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) or the so-called ‘Juncker Investment Plan.’ “Access and effectiveness remain an issue. Synergies are being sought between different EU funds, but the reality is that the funding scene is overly fragmented with different procedures across institutions, regions, organisations making the whole application experience very lengthy and complex. The situation in the USA, for instance, is much simpler, often leading to a competitive advantage over Europe. It will therefore be critical for the EU, governments, regions and other funding organisations to put these theoretical synergies into practice to make investing in Europe a seamless process.” As far as you’re concerned, how important is the support to the demand for biobased products through a system of green public procurement? Could the US Biopreferred Programme be a real model for Europe? “I think the market is certainly a significant challenge. Today, there is an important market within the bioeconomy for biofuels, which has been created and stimulated by policy incentives. However, the policy is not stable and has recently been subject to a major policy u-turn for first generation biofuels. Many companies that have launched investments now face having to halt production because it is unclear how things are going to progress. From this,

How do you consider the austerity policy pursued by the European Union? Could it have negative effects on the development of the bioeconomy? “For now, I don’t expect negative effects. First of all, the budget of the BBI JU is not affected at all, and in addition the new Investment Plan should provide additional opportunities for those companies that want to invest in innovation or production facilities in the bio-based area. Today, several of our members are discussing with the European Investment Bank to obtain loans or guarantees for future investments. This means that there is a willingness from our industry to invest in the European bioeconomy, and this should be seen as a very positive signal.” The European Commission will organize next November 9-10 in Brussels the Bioeconomy Investment Summit. Could you tell us three points that you would like to bring to the attention of the summit to promote the development of the bioeconomy? “My first point is the fragmentation of public funding and the complex and lengthy procedures, as already mentioned above. “My second point is about regions. More EU regions need to start thinking about the opportunities they have concerning their feedstock such as waste, agricultural crops or forestry. Europe’s regions should explore how they can use regional development funds and other finances to attract investments, and how they can develop new products and new markets, and as such, create new jobs. “Finally, it is important to involve more the ‘unconventional’ stakeholders. Good examples are industrial sectors that are not so familiar with the bio-based area today, such as the food industry. There are plenty of opportunities to convert their waste into useful bio-based (non-food) products. Cities and municipalities are another good example. They can co-invest in innovative facilities to convert their municipal waste into high added-value products. In all these cases, new value chains and partnerships have to be explored and set up.”

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

Microplastic in the environMent Sources, Impacts & Solutions ber 2015 m e v o N 4 2 3 2 many r e G , e n g lo o C s, Maternushau

Goals

Confirmed speakers from

Scope

• Identify sources of microplastics and quantify the amount ending up in nature • Reveal impacts on marine ecosystems and human beings • Propose solutions for current problems, such as prevention, recycling and substitution with biodegradable plastics & other materials

University of Plymouth (GB), Mepex Consult (NO), COWI (DK), HYDRA (DE / IT), TU Berlin (DE), University of Bayreuth (DE), BUND – Friends of the Earth (DE), nova-Institute (DE), Plastic Soup Foundation (NL), OWS (BE), Jan Ravenstijn Consulting (NL), University of Stuttgart (DE)

The event will provide plenty of opportunities for discussion between producers, consumers, scientists, environmental organisations, governmental agencies and other interested stakeholders.

0 +++ More than 20 expected +++ participants are

www.microplastic-conference.eu Your contact Dominik Vogt +49 (0)2233 4814 - 49 dominik.vogt@nova-institut.de

nova-Institut GmbH Chemiepark Knapsack Industriestr. 300 50354 Huerth, Germany

Policy

+++ WPC & NFC Newsticker at: +++

www.wpc-conference.com

Sixth WPC & NFC Conference, Cologne Wood and Natural Fibre Composites 16 – 17 December 2015, Maritim Hotel, Germany

World’s Largest WPC & NFC Conference in 2015! Market opportunities through intersectoral innovation in Wood-Plastic Composites and Natural Fibre Composites

Programme, Sponsors: Dr. Asta Eder, asta.eder@nova-institut.de Organisation, Communication, Exhibition: Dominik Vogt, dominik.vogt@nova-institut.de

New applications – huge replacement potential in plastics and composites! ■ The international two-day programme, taking place in English

Organiser:

■ The world’s most comprehensive WPC exhibition ■ Vote for „The Wood and Natural Fibre Composite Award 2015“ ■ Gala dinner and other excellent networking opportunities

nova-Institut GmbH

Chemiepark Knapsack Industriestraße 300 50354 Hürth Germany

100

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

METAMORPHOSIS

of a Consortium in a Changing Waste Economy Over the last 30 years, the ability to face changes has resulted in the collection of more than 5 million tonnes of used oil, the regeneration of 2.5 million tonnes of base oil, â&#x201A;Ź3 billion saved on petrol imports, and the avoidance of 1.1 million tonnes of CO2 emissions. Such results have been achieved thanks to the ability to change.

by Paolo Tomasi

Paolo Tomasi is an engineer and has been Chairman of COOU (Consorzio Obbligatorio degli Oli Usati, Mandatory Consortium for Used Oils) since 2003.

Since its creation over 30 years ago, one of the Italian Mandatory Consortium for Used Oilsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; assets has been the choice of its legal structure. The COOU has a private-law corporate structure, binding all major players in the lubricant industry: from large oil companies to the businesses regenerating used oils and trading lubricants. The Consortium is publicly controlled by the Italian Ministries of the Environment, the Economic Development, the Economy and Finance and Health, each having its own representatives in the Board of Directors. It is a setup where competences, compulsoriness, and non-profit purpose, combined with a mandatory, sound, transparent management at an economic and industrial level, have been able to create an effective synergy, successful in achieving the objectives defined by law. Since the beginning, the COOU has been granted extensive competences, such as guaranteeing oil collection even in unfavourable market conditions, or monitoring and reporting the

overall national performance to the supervisory authorities. In addition, the Consortium is in charge of spreading information and awareness regarding environmental issues among citizens and operators. The collection of used lubricants aims not only at preventing them from damaging the environment, but also at bringing them back into the economic, industrial and consumer cycle in the most advantageous way for the national community. Basically, it consists in collecting as much oil as possible, recycling and reusing it through the most cost-effective processes and minimizing the amounts and types of polluting residues by disposing of them safely and in full compliance with all regulations. The environmental performance of the Consortium can be clearly seen in figure 1, where a comparison is made between the numbers regarding the used oil allegedly produced in Italy and the actual amount collected from 1984 to 2008. A few numbers: over the last thirty years of activity, 5.238 million tonnes of used oil have

Case Histories

According to 2014 figures, collection, treatment and reuse of used oil have saved Italy approximately €3 billion on petroleum products imports.

been collected and completely recycled. By regenerating this quantity, 4.341 million tonnes have been turned into lubricant or gas oil and bitumen (83% in 30 years, 91% in the last 10 years), 0.565 million tonnes have replaced fuel and coal for combustion, and 0.028 million tonnes of irreparably polluted oil have been incinerated. The regeneration has produced 2.592 million tonnes of base oils, used in the formulation of 27% of the lubricant oils used in Italy. According to 2014 figures, collection, treatment and reuse of used oil have saved Italy approximately €3 billion on petroleum products imports. However, the other – and more important – side of the coin is the sustainability of our path, as proved by lower CO2 emissions and reduced consumption of water, matter and soil. In particular, there have been total savings of 2.3 billion cubic metres of water, 6.4 million tonnes of virgin raw materials, 1.1 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent climate-changing emissions and,

lastly, 7,306 hectares of land that kept their original use. Knowing When it is Time to Change Most of these achievements are not the result of the circumstances or luck, but of the key strategy to conceive the Consortium as a flexible structure able to face change when necessary. Since I was appointed Chairman in 2003, the COOU has strengthened its support to the supply chain by making available its experience and skills to the sector’s businesses in order to carry out – in a joint effort – the metamorphosis required by the industry and market changes. In those years, our industry was also being affected by the big change characterizing the waste management at the beginning of the third millennium. Many material flows were beginning to have attractive characteristics and qualities for the market and some of them were worth more than the cost of their collection, which determined a series of important changes within the waste economy. After years of stability,

Figure 1 | Annual production of used oil and amount collected by the Consortium 350

Tonnes x 1,000

280

210

140

0 ’84 ’85 ’86 ’87 ’88 ’89 ’90 ’91 ’92 ’93 ’94 ’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12 ’13 ’14 Production of used oil

Oil collected by the Consortium

Source: COOU.

101

102

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

the substantial changes affecting the regulatory profiles, market organization and structure of this sector’s businesses were such as to alter the scenario dramatically. Consequently, a strategic redeployment and a reformulation of the operational structure of the Consortium were necessary. If on the one hand the stress was on the organizational inefficiencies determined by the high costs, operating time of collection and storage of used oil, on the other, there was room for the Consortium to improve the fulfilment of its institutional task. In order to do this, the most radical, and yet safest way, was chosen: rethinking all activities by undertaking a BPR study (Business Process Reengineering). The old modus operandi and choices were challenged, aiming at rethinking the Consortium’s structure in a way more suitable to meet the needs of a rapidly evolving environment. Therefore, the sector targets and communication policy were revised and the necessary structural changes (staff, organization, and IT system) were examined. 2009: A Turning Point In September 2009, the Decree Law 135/2009 was promulgated to redress the European Commission’s remarks on Italy – including the subsidized excise duty on energy products obtained through the regeneration of used oils. the Decree considerably increased the Consortium’s competences. Besides standardizing the excise duty on all lubricant, virgin or regenerated oils to €750 per tonne, the Decree reiterated the obligation of the Consortium to regenerate all oils suitable for this purpose – by paying refineries for the processing, an unprecedented event – and to combust all used oil which cannot be regenerated. The reference framework underwent a second important change because of the drastic drop in the consumption of lubricants, converted into used oils at the end of their life cycle. Since 2000, the consumption of lubricants has decreased by 40% (260,000 tonnes less). Far from being marginal, this fact is shocking because it is related to a structural phenomenon rather than the current economic situation. Consequently, it has been necessary to rethink the overall context by speeding up the rationalization of the supply chain, thus giving businesses new competitiveness in a market opened to foreign operators. In fact, the scenario has been complicated by the latter’s interest in the Italian used oil. The Consortium has faced

the new challenge of distributing the collection of used oil for regeneration among non-Italian operators too. This has disturbed the uneasy balance achieved by the supply chain and jeopardized the important environmental and economic results achieved. The oil collection, already declining sharply, would not be sufficient to keep the economic balance of Italian refineries. The Italian Ministry of the Environment was asked to interpret the provisions of the European directive on the matter. As a response, the Circular 0023876 dated 26th March 2013 GAB was issued, where the environmental appropriateness of blocking the exports of Italian used oil was analyzed in detail. But more importantly, the Circular went beyond the targets of environmental protection by offering businesses of the used oil supply chain enough technical time to rethink their future, i.e. to reorganize themselves in size, in macro rather than micro terms. Unfortunately, not all businesses immediately understood how farreaching this change was: skills and experience were no longer enough and it was also necessary to deal with globalization. But there is a third and equally important issue to tackle, namely that the Consortium, which is basically handling all Italian used oil, could be a market distortion factor. Indeed, with its dominant position, it has to distribute used oil among all requesting companies, binding them to collect amounts of used oil,

Info www.coou.it

Case Histories

Many material flows were beginning to have features and qualities attracting the market and some of them were worth more than the cost of their collection, which determined a series of important changes within the waste economy.

Italian Antitrust Authority, www.agcm.it.

which are not only fixed, but also decreasing because of the sharp decline of the Italian lubricant market. Therefore, in this complex situation, not only has the “used oil supply chain” changed its operational profile, but also all the economic balances related to it. The system, unchanged for many years, seems about to enter troubled waters. The COOU started to think that, under certain conditions, it could stop being the only buyer of the used oil collected in Italy. The analysis of the guidelines confirms that the role of the Consortium is guaranteeing and boosting collection, by encouraging the transition to freedom of contract among the operators of collection and regeneration and helping buying and selling used oils at the same time. In order for the system to remain balanced in any condition, the Consortium committed itself to intervening in a subsidiary way in case of market failure to ensure the universal service entrusted to it by the law. With this new model, it is up to the market to decide when it is necessary for the Consortium to play its subsidiary role in the collection and regeneration processes. However, it is possible to predict variations well in advance. Therefore, the Consortium modified its management structure. With the growing market freedom, regenerators slowly started competing

for used oil, which was no longer equally distributed among all requesting operators. When imposed by the existing economic circumstances, collection will be assured by a buyer of last resort. In November 2014, the hearing in the Italian Senate of Professor Pitruzzella, president of the Italian Antitrust Authority (AGCM), confirmed that the right choice had been made. “... a possible solution, balancing the needs to respect the competitive principles and comply with public service obligations, could result from the reorganization of the consortium system towards a last resort model. Eventually, this seems to be happening in the used oil market. Here, there has been a change from the Mandatory Consortium model – taking oil from collector businesses to guarantee its regeneration – to a system where the direct contact between collecting businesses and regeneration facilities prevails. Here, the Consortium acts as a ‘last resort intermediary,’ meaning it intervenes only when the market cannot self-regulate...”

103

104

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

How to Turn a PLASTIC CUP into a SCOOTER In just 45 minutes, plasmix is transformed into granules used in the building industry, scooter and electric vehicle components. Recycling mixed plastics rather than dispatching them to energy recovery produces a little more than a tenth of climate-changing emissions. by Roberto Rizzo

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

Separate waste collection is similar to a football game. In the first half, the good is produced and consumed and then, if possible, it is sent to separate waste collection. In the second half, the selection of the materials suitable for recycling, the recycling itself and the placing on the market occur. However, in Italy, we tend to look at the result already at the end of the first half and we pay less attention to what happens in the second half. In other words, we concentrate on the percentage of separate waste collection, while it is only when the secondary raw materials are placed on the market that we know who the winner is. Revet Recycling is committed to make recycling win in the critical sector of plasmix, the post-consumer mixed plastics such as yogurt tubs, disposable plates and cups, punnets, cling film, net bags and carrier bags (55% of the total plastics used), which are the most difficult to recycle. In this way, we avoid plasmix to go down the road of energy recovery, as it almost invariably happens in Italy and abroad.

“Our products are in high demand because the global economy’s engines – China being the leader – require large quantities of them” Alessandro Canovai, Revet Recycling Chairman explains. “The market is therefore strongly expanding and exceeds by far our production capacity of 15,000 tonnes a year. At the moment, we only process packaging coming from this region – adds Canovai – and let me underline the fact that our experience has a high technological value for the development of Tuscany. Today, the waste cycle managers in Tuscany and Revet’s members are fully committed to taking the whole LCAs of the recycling system to optimal and industrially-sustainable levels: as far as we are concerned, we endeavour to improve the development of the market potential of our products.” Material Selection In 2013 in Pontedera (Pisa), Revet Recycling opened a new production site where granules and, according to market demand, a densified substance which is a byproduct of the production process, are manufactured. This plant, which cost a little over €5 million,

Case Histories

to think of our Refill 14 granule, made on average with 10% of propylene with a 5% tolerance and with 55% of low-density polyethylene, with the same 5% tolerance. A 5% tolerance margin for such products, from mixed plastics recycling, is a remarkable confidence interval. One of the company’s most impressive achievements over the last two operational years has been the standardization of the product placed on the market: clients purchasing Revet granules know that the variations from one month to the next will be negligible.” The Production Process

Revet Recycling committed to making recycling successful in the critical sector of plasmix, the postconsumer mixed plastics such as yogurt tubs, disposable plates and cups, punnets, cling film, net bags and carrier bags (55% of the total plastics used), which are the most difficult to recycle.

processes the plastics selected by Revet Spa, a company collecting 80% of Tuscan waste and that together with Refri SRL is one of Revet Recycling’s share holders. In the initial selection, plastics are divided by polymer or sometimes by colour so that they can be sent to the relevant recycling channels through the Conai system, while mixed plastics are dispatched to Revet Recycling, which carries out a further selection according to polyolefin-based polymers (polyethylene and polypropylene). “It is not possible to create a plant where any polymer is processed, because each and every one of them has different melting points and processing parameters” Emanuele Rappa explains, Revet Recycling’s CEO. “The selection of the material is twofold: the first one is dry, through optic selectors, and is carried out by Revet; the second, ours, occurs in pre-washing pools, where the heavier material sinks and is expelled from the production process, while the lighter one, which floats, can be recycled. The recycling process is calibrated on polyethylene and polypropylene-based polymers and the chemical-physical composition of the end product has a good tolerance level. Suffice it

The time elapsed between Plasmix entering the production process and the end granule is 45 minutes, with slight variations according to the characteristics of the source material. The production line has a linear development of about 120 metres and is able to process between 1,500-2,000 kilos of plasmix per hour, a total of about 15,000 tonnes a year. In sum, the production process of granules can be divided in four phases: crushing, washing, heating and drawing. In the first phase (crushing) plastics are loaded onto a conveyor and are processed by two twin crushers, fragmentizing them into pieces smaller than two centimetres. Then, the material is dipped into a first pre-washing pool, where it gets rid of the heavier fraction (debris and polyester) while the floating part is sent to two centrifuges separating material from washing water and solid pollutants and finally into a proper washing pool for purification. The heating phase is carried out through two centrifugal driers and two presses, to wring the material out even more. From here, plastics enter a densifier where the melting temperature reaches about 200 °C, producing a sort of toothpaste. Lastly, after going through a final filter removing further impurities, the melted material is drawn into spaghetti, then cut by a rotating blade. “The process is anything but simple and requires a series of secondary equipment in conjunction with primary ones” Emanuele Rappa explains. “In particular, a water purifier is involved in the process. Part of the water is reused in the production process and part is discarded. But the most innovative element of our industrial

105

106

renewablematter 06-07. 2015 process is not so much represented by the machineries but rather by the know-how we have developed to obtain the end product. In particular, I am referring to the types of materials we use to feed the plant and to the ratios to make the mixtures. We boast lastgeneration equipment: just a few months ago we purchased a new extruder – the heart of the production cycle – from a leading manufacturer in Reggio Emilia. Italy holds the world record for excellence in mechanics applied to recycling of materials.”

Sustainable and short-distributionchain public parks in Tuscany: the park furniture is made with mixed plastics obtained through separate waste collection in Tuscany and recycled by Revet Recycling.

The End Products

Info www.revet-recycling.com

Revet Recycling does not produce generic granules, but it manufactures a variety of mixtures, defined by the needs of its clients. The price of the end product varies considerably because it depends on the type of products, if it is coloured or not, or by the purchased quantities. “One of the first experiences that comes to my mind is with the Tuscany-based company Roofy. With our granules they make products for the building industry, such as light covering materials suitable for making or renovating any type of rooftop, gardens, with tiles for walkways and outdoor areas paved with Roofy Floor” Rappa says. “We have developed a product able to meet the needs of the building industry applications: it must not discolour in the sun and must withstand extreme cold or hot temperatures. The fact that these products can also be found in the large-scale retail trade, in the Leroy Marlin retail stores, means that the end consumers are interested in recycled goods.

Three-time sustainable composters: they help to reduce waste management and to produce compost to be used in vegetable gardens and parks without using virgin polymers.

“Another important project was the collaboration with Piaggio. On this occasion, our polymer has been used, in conjunction with others, to make some parts (internal as well as external) of a hybrid scooter: saddle holder, shield, filter holder, registration plate holder, top box and pedals. It has been a significant collaboration, even if it has now ended, thanks to which we showed that starting from adequatelyprocessed mixed plastics we managed to obtain a mixture able to meet the highest technological standards.” Revet Recycling has been collaborating with Sei Toscana for a few months now. It is a company dealing with Southern Tuscany’s waste collection (Arezzo, Grosseto and Siena), in order to make electric vehicles used in the waste collection in these cities’ historical centres. “With such a project we have come full circle: citizens see before their eyes how the plastics they had previously collected have been used.” Besides granules, on request, Revet Recycling can produce a densified substance, a by-product of the procedure. It is the material coming out of the production process before granulation: it is employed to make sections in all shapes and sizes, used as a replacement for wood to create city furniture. This production niche enjoyed some success a few years ago when the previous Regional Committee of Regione Toscana opened two bids for tender to fund the purchase of recycled-plastic city furniture. “We hope that the new regional committee will carry on in this direction,” Rappa explains. “Local authorities

Case Histories Ten Times Less Greenhouse Gases Before creating the production plant for granules from plasmix, Revet had commissioned to a third party (E-cube) the calculation of the ecological footprint of the two mixed plastics processes can face: mixed plastics recycling (as it occurs on Revet Recycling’s site) and the dispatching of such plastics to energy recovery. From the assessment, it emerged that recycling entails climate-changing emissions ten times lower compared to energy recovery. Taking into consideration the combustion phase, the total emission linked to the “Preparation to energy recovery” scenario (fuel production from waste, FPW) are 37,358.8 tCO2e/yearly (2,400 kgCO2e per tonne of treated waste), while in the “Matter Recovery” scenario (granules and sections production), emissions amount to 4,585.6 tCO2e/yearly (290 kgCO2e per tonne of treated waste). Exactly 12.3% compared to those produced by energy recovery.

in Tuscany are particularly sensitive to public administration’s green purchases compared to other regions, but not enough. The Tuscan Municipalities’ interests are still random and I think it is important that local authorities have this kind of awareness because they are amongst the most important figures in charge of separate waste collection and they have a duty towards citizens, so they should be the first to purchase products made with recycled materials. As to the legal aspect, it would be necessary to take action on those materials, such as plasmix, more difficult to recycle. While Pet is a material that has been recycled for years and does not need incentives, plasmix recycling is instead in great need of incentives, exactly like it happened with renewable energies. In Italy mixed plastics recycling suffers some distortions that go the opposite direction compared to what stated by European institutions, that favour matter recovery as opposed to energy recovery.” Openness towards Foreign Countries Today, half of Revet Recycling’s production is sold in Italy and the other half is exported, mainly to the Far East and Europe. “We have an important client in China, a large industrial company with a very diversified production” Rappa adds. “People often think, wrongly, that Chinese companies pay little attention to quality. But our Chinese client

Emissions comparison (tCO2/year) Energy Recovery Transport

Grinding

Washing

Energy Recovery (without combustion)

380.8

471.91

521.35

83.15

Treatment 3a Densification (continuous + discontinuous)

Granulation

FPW production

FPW Transport

Extrusion

FPW Incineration

1,269.66

1,179.77

2,595.2

271.2

134.83

52,815.4

Granules and Sections 10 Transport

12.95

Other (forklift, suction)

Source: E-cube, 2012.

Matter Recovery

889.25

TOT 56,062.6

TOT 3,247.2

chose us also for a series of chemical and physical analyses that accompany our supplies and every month they crosscheck our analyses on our products.” “Currently – Alessandro Canovai explains – we operate at international level to try and reach markets with a strong demand for our granules, with better purchasing prices. This led us to carry out some commercial scouting. Revet Recycling’s ambition is to embrace foreign markets, but first of all we have to sort out a few elements internally: the production plant was created two years ago and the industrial figures have to be measured over the long run. It is vital for us to keep on investing in Research&Development,” Canovai concludes. “The research phase, funded partly by Regione Toscana, culminated in the creation of the Pontedera production plant started in 2010, an ongoing project thanks to the collaboration with the Universities of Pisa and Florence.”

TOT 4,562.9

107

108

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

The Future of Lego Bricks is

BIO-BASED An environmental about-face for the world’s largest toy manufacturer. Forsaking its partnership with Shell, the Lego Group now wants to reduce its environmental impact and use sustainable materials.

by Mario Bonaccorso

Lego bricks of the future will be bio-based. The world’s largest toy manufacturer has decided to invest in research and development to find new, sustainable materials for the production of its famous bricks and their packaging. The company, which was founded in 1932 in Billund, Denmark, and has enchanted millions of children worldwide since 1949 with its colourful interlocking bricks, announced last June that it would invest one billion Danish kroner (approximately 135 million euro) and recruit more than 100 new employees for its new Lego Sustainable Materials Centre as part of its goal to make its products completely sustainable by 2030, a plan that will become effective by the end of 2016. It is the beginning of a new era for the toy industry, starting with the Lego Group’s declared intention to reduce its environmental impact on the planet. The plan marks a major environmental turnabout for Lego, following the end of its partnership with Shell, which the company announced in October 2014 after an online protest campaign against Arctic drilling launched by Greenpeace. A video that quickly went viral online showed an Arctic landscape made of Lego bricks being exploited by a Shell extraction platform until the entire diorama – including animals and people – were completely submerged in oil. Every year, more than 60 billion Lego bricks are produced around the world, using 6,000 tonnes of ABS (Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene),

a polymer derived from fossil fuels – benzene and ethylene for the styrene, butane for the butadiene, and ammonia and propylene for the acrilonitrile. How Lego Bricks Are Made Until 1963, the only material used to make Lego bricks was cellulose acetate. The decision to replace that polymer with ABS plastic was made because the latter was considered to be a more stable compound. ABS, the experts say, is non-toxic, less subject to warping and colour fading, and provides greater resistance to heat, acids, and other chemical agents. The bricks made after 1963 still maintain their shape and colour even after 50 years, and to this day can be used with any other bricks made by Lego. Such durability has given them a very strong brand identity and recognition in the marketplace. But is it possible today to use renewable sources to produce ABS? Several chemical and biotech firms are already trying. Among those searching for a renewable bio-butadiene are Genomatica with Versalis (the chemical division of the Italian petroleum giant ENI) and Novamont; LanzaTech with Invista; Global Bioenergies with Synthos; the French tire manufacturer Michelin with Axens and IFP Energies Nouvelles; and Amyris with Kuraray. Others trying to produce a bio-benzene include Anellotech, a New York biochemical firm that uses a proprietary process (CFP, or Catalytic Fast Pyrolysis), which it foresees licensing for industrial applications beginning in 2019. As for acrilonitrile, the major player trying

Case Histories

Jørgen Vig Knudstorp

Video: “Shell is polluting our children’s imaginations” tinyurl.com/pqrrhrt.

to come up with a bio-based acrylic acid is Cargill, which recently acquired OPX Biotechnologies, a Colorado (USA) based company that had announced it expected to begin commercial production of a bio-acrylic in 2017-2018. If one turns to the precursors to acrilonitrile, research into bio-based propylene is at a very advanced stage. In this field, we might single out Grand View Research (after its acquisition of Cereplast), Braskem, Dow Chemicals, and Biobent Polymers, a small American company founded by Battelle – the largest nonprofit research and development enterprise in the world – and Univenture with the goal of selling a polypropylene that is 10-40% bio-based. Searching for New Materials One of the jobs of the Lego Sustainable Materials Centre, which will be headquartered in Billund, will be precisely to establish partnerships with several of these projects already underway. “This is a major step for the Lego Group on our way towards achieving our 2030 ambition on sustainable materials,” said Jørgen Vig Knudstorp, CEO and President of the Lego Group. “We have already taken important steps to reduce our carbon footprint and leave a positive impact on the planet by reducing the packaging size, by introducing FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) certified packaging and through our investment in an offshore wind farm. Now we are accelerating our focus on materials. “The testing and research we have already done has given us greater visibility of

109

110

renewablematter 06-07. 2015 the challenges we face to succeed on this agenda,” he continued, “and we respond by adding significant resources in order to be ready to move into the next phase of finding and implementing the sustainable materials.” As part of its aim to develop a strategy for sustainable materials, the Danish company had previously signed a “Climate Savers” partnership with the World Wildlife Fund back in 2013; In Spring 2015, it announced a new collaboration with the WWF to assess the overall sustainability and environmental impact of new bio-based materials for Lego elements and packaging.

Info www.lego.com smc@LEGO.com

“There is no common definition of a sustainable material,” Knudstorf cautioned. “Several factors influence the environmental sustainability of a material – the composition of the material, how it is sourced and what happens when the product reaches the end of its life. When we search for new materials all of these factors must be considered.” “What we announce today is a long-term investment and a dedication to ensuring the continued research and development of new materials that will enable us to continue to deliver great, high quality creative play experiences in the future, while caring for the environment and future generations.” Innovation Goes Hand in Hand with Growth

Photo by Dirkb86, graphic elaboration

Meanwhile, on the market the Scandinavian company’s growth seems unstoppable; in 2014,

Lego dethroned the American giant Mattel to become the largest toy manufacturer in the world. In fact, its growth is so impressive that Lego ended the first half of the year with net profits up 31% to 3.55 billion kr. (476 million euro), while earnings grew by 23% to 14.14 billion kr., spurred on by the strong US dollar. Discounting currency valuations, sales were up 18%. “While all our regions experienced double digit growth during the first half of 2015, it is particularly satisfactory that Asia saw the highest growth rates given the considerable investments we are making there to further the company’s globalisation,” Chief Commercial Officer Loren Shuster said. By the end of the year, Lego will open its first plant in China, near Shanghai, where it will package products made elsewhere. In the first six months of 2015, the Lego Group began a new wave of recruitment on a global scale, increasing its total number of employees to more than 15,000. Since 2010, the Danish company boasts growth of more than 50% in its workforce. “Our innovation program, connecting consumer insights to design and through to engineering and ultimately to sales, has performed tremendously this calendar year,” explained Executive Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer Julia Goldin. “We had more than 300 different Lego sets on the market during the first half of 2015. These ranged from the heroic Ninjas of Lego Ninjago™ to the immaculately detailed Lego Technic mobile crane to the adventurous fantasy theme Lego Elves. This enables us to bring engaging products and stories into the hands of children across different ages, interests and geographies – yet all are based on the Lego system and the endless creative potential of the Lego brick.” Over the years, Lego bricks have withstood the rise of videogames and newer high-tech toys, fully deserving its title as the greatest toy of all time, bestowed upon it by many industry experts thanks to its combination of fun, creativity, and quality-price ratio. Oh, and just for the record: second place went to Scrabble, third place to Action Man (made first by Politoy and later by Hasbro). Finishing just off the podium: Frisbee and Monopoly.

Case Histories

How Circular Is CIRCULAR? The extremely rapid spread of this term calls for the adjustment of instruments enabling companies and users to provide and receive effective information on the “circular” performance of a product.

by Marco Capellini

Marco Capellini was one of the first people in Italy who worked on design for sustainability. He is Matrec’s CEO – Sustainable Materials & Trends, and a freelancer at his own study MarcoCapellini | sustainable design & consulting.

In recent years, the circular economy has drawn increasing attention, so much so that today it has become a sort of slogan/symbol to describe environmentallyfriendly changes made (or to make) to a product. The debate at EU level – and the ensuing deadline of 28th August regarding public consultation – led businesses, associations, consortia and European and non-European public administrations to discuss the kind of approach to adopt. And the ways in which different types of products/waste should be considered as far as recovery and recycling are concerned. Beyond this heated and open political debate, that by the end of the year should lead to an EU Commission guidance document, we still must contextualize the adopted measures with means able to monitor

the introduced actions and their achieved and achievable results. This can only be done through checks at different levels – from single companies to EU level – and using instruments and methods able to “measure” the real action undertaken to increase a product’s circularity. Otherwise, we run the risk of starting political and environmental actions in the field of the circular economy without clear objectives and without the guarantee that this is the most effective way to safeguard natural resources and to start a real market of recycled materials. Focussing our attention on how to quantify or measure a product’s circularity, this issue must take into account – albeit being delicate and complex – a series of aspects including: •• the use of sole indicators on the mass flow of materials to achieve a single result, measurable

111

112

renewablematter 06-07. 2015 Basic Level 90 Materials Kg Recycling Kg Landfill Kg

8 2

INPUT Production

Packaging

Maintenance 71

21 5 2

OUTPUT Production

Packaging

15%

INPUT

Approach flexibility surely encourages the spread of this method, while leaving to businesses the possibility to define the level of analysis/ improvement to advance.

Maintenance

End of life

85%

OUTPUT

How much matter is given back out of the total extracted from the system?

and comparable amongst different types of products; •• the differentiation of resource types used: raw materials from renewable and non-renewable sources, recycled and permanent recycled materials; •• the determination of a time limit within which a material can be defined as coming from a renewable source; •• social aspects of the supply chain; •• the active involvement of consumers in choosing to buy a virtuous product through simple and clear communication. Following the circular economy’s basic principles – in a nutshell, the safeguard of natural resources and the maximum exploitation of used materials through re-using and recycling – we must now define how to assess and measure actions and their results. A viable solution could be to carry out a mass balance (material balance) to quantify the input and the output in terms of resources

characterizing a product’s life cycle. It means measuring the quantity of material (Kg) extracted to make a product compared to the quantity (kg) given back when such product reaches the end of its life cycle. Taking into account also complementary material resources used for transportation, use and maintenance (for example for packaging). The difference between inputs and outputs of resources enables us to calculate a material balance for the circularity of a product: the closer the quantities of output material recovered and recycled are to the input value, the higher the product’s circularity. In this way, the maximum circularity of product is 100%, while its partial circularity varies from 1 to 99%. There are different levels with which we can quantify the material balance, taking into account different parameters. As an example, they include:

Case Histories

The circular economy can become an action strategy useful in safeguarding natural resources only if applications are able to measure the real performance of a product and take into account the real abilities of a company to undertake monitoring and improving actions.

Info www.matrec.com

•• Basic Level: mere quantification of used resources; •• Intermediate Level: quantification of used resources divided by types of materials; •• In-depth Level: quantification of resources used divided both by types of materials and origin: from renewable and non-renewable sources, recycled and permanent recycled materials. These three levels of measuring a product’s circularity enable businesses to apply a personalized balance according to the objectives to meet and sector’s requirements. For example, the in-depth level can be even more specific through the identification of certifications characterizing materials (from renewable sources and/or recycled), or biodegradable and/or compostable materials. In other instances, companies close to the basic level can include in their material balance the division into materials from renewable and non-renewable sources. Such approach flexibility surely encourages the spread of this method, while leaving to businesses the possibility of defining the level of analysis/improvement to advance. Companies without an end-of-life management policy clearly present the most difficult criticalities in assessing a product’s circularity. In this case, they must understand which strategy to adopt in order to avoid their products to have 0% circularity. Those companies that already participate in collection and recovery systems of their products through chain consortia or those that

have autonomous recovery systems do have an advantage. This is a revival opportunity for chain consortia since they manage and hold products’ output data. The results achieved using one of the three levels of measuring a product’s circularity can become a means of communicating with the market. Particularly, with consumers, for example using a label highlighting a product’s circularity and the choices made by a company. Moreover, the application of this calculation method to a series of companies within a certain area could encourage aggregation and lead to economy-of-scale results, from municipal to national level. The circular economy can become an action strategy useful in safeguarding natural resources only if applications are able to measure the real performance of a product and take into account the real abilities of a company to undertake monitoring and improving actions. Italy, like many other countries whose production panorama is characterized by small and medium enterprises, cannot hope to achieve useful results without actively involving such companies. First and foremost, a gradual and above all voluntary approach is needed.

113

114

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

Pushing the Limits of TECHNOLOGY, Recognizing the Limits of NATURAL RESOURCES Interview with Catia Bastioli Technology can make a difference in the attempt to overcome the culture of waste. The initiatives of the Fondazione Cariplo to support research in the fields of the bioeconomy and circular economy. edited by Mario Bonaccorso

Case Histories

Catia Bastioli

Catia Bastioli is CEO of Novamont and European Inventor 2007 for bioplastics. Putting into practice her idea of the bioeconomy as a way of regenerating local areas through integrated biorefineries that combine chemistry, agriculture and the environment she transformed her research into a leading industry in the development and production from renewable sources of bioplastics and biochemicals. Since 2013 she has been a board member of the Fondazione Cariplo with responsibility for scientific research. In 2014 she became President of SPRING, the National Technological Cluster of Green Chemistry, and Chair of Terna.

Ager project – Agribusiness and research, progettoager.it.

“Being able to live well within natural limits is the great challenge of our century and it requires a change in development model. We must adopt a habit of production and conservation, leaving behind dissipation and waste. We must overcome our technological boundaries to be able to live within the limits of available resources, having a clear sense of responsibility for our actions on changes in nature and of the fundamental importance and centrality of natural resources for humanity. Knowledge and technologies, if at the service of a shared project of development, can make a difference. “We need to think of the bioeconomy in terms of a circular economy and integrated, interrelated and interdisciplinary supply chains, where the land, its quality and biodiversity and the efficient use of resources – while always respecting human dignity – become the centre of a cultural regeneration as well as an industrial, environmental and social one. This type of culture is formed on the field, sharing local projects where the fact of constructing and learning together builds trust and respect, as well as wealth for many, without waste. “Research allows you to create knowledge and develop new widespread entrepreneurship, new models of interaction between industry, agriculture and the environment. Training combined with increased scientific research also makes it possible to overcome ingrained habits and to understand that each of us can contribute effectively to the challenge, creating new job opportunities while respecting the environment and local traditions.”

During a period of dramatic cuts in spending on research in Italy, private entities such as bank foundations play an essential role. As an adviser for the Fondazione Cariplo (Italy’s largest banking foundation) with responsibility for scientific research, can you tell us about the main initiatives to support research in the field of bioeconomy and circular economy? “Over the years Fondazione Cariplo has developed a virtuous system of tenders and project selection using the same system of evaluation as that of the European Union, and this allows the best proposals to be rewarded. It is also trying to promote the widespread patent culture with initiatives that enable the Fondazione to follow the different projects as they evolve. Moreover, because the Fondazione is very familiar with the territory in which it operates, each project has a significant systemic effect, as well as being a model and stimulus for other areas. In the field of bioeconomy Ager was a significant project: an initiative to develop knowledge in the food chain, promoting the study of related technologies and the transformation of waste into resources. The project involved as many as 18 foundations and territories. “Following the success of Ager we decided to continue, allocating 1.5 million euro to support research projects in the aquaculture sector, with the aim of limiting production costs, reducing the environmental impact of farming and improving the quality of the finished product. Two point five million

115

116

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

A new tender on green jobs is coming out which aims to raise awareness of young people about the opportunities offered by green jobs.

euro, then, went on projects in the olive oil sector for the improvement of production systems and extra virgin olive oil and the reuse of by-products. In addition, together with the French foundation Agropolis, we brought forward a number of projects carried out in collaboration with scientists from Italy and France and developing countries, involving rice and cereals as part of the integrated supply chain. And, finally, a number of projects to support young researchers or school-work initiatives, and for university researchers to enable them to compete at European level for grants from the European Research Council. These initiatives, often co-financed by the Lombardy Region, are particularly relevant.” Research aside, what initiatives of the Fondazione Cariplo support or intend to support the bioeconomy and circular economy in the future? “Interaction between the Fondazione’s Environment sector and that of Scientific Research will become increasingly important in the field of bioeconomy. This is because the bioeconomy is interdisciplinary and interconnected and it needs site-specific projects where research is at the service of an increasingly efficient use of resources, while at the same time protecting biodiversity and ecosystems.”

The Environment tender on resilient communities assigned priority to projects that increased employment opportunities in the green jobs sector. Are there any other initiatives of the Fondazione aimed at creating “green” jobs? “As part of the collaboration between Environment area and Research area a new tender on green jobs is coming out which aims to raise awareness of young people about the opportunities offered by green jobs, improve training opportunities in line with the skills required by the green economy and facilitate the matching of supply and demand. It is an initiative on which you can build by working with other foundations and parts of the country. Decisive interaction with companies particularly interested in the topic will be possible, creating training projects dealing with aspects specific to green jobs. In this case a public-private partnership expanded to the maximum could generate employment and entrepreneurial work on a considerable scale. We are working hard on this.” Technology transfer is a topic linked to scientific research and the creation of new job opportunities. What needs to be done in Italy to improve the relationship between the academic

Info www.fondazionecariplo.it/it/index.html

Case Histories world and industry? What role could a foundation such as Fondazione Cariplo play in this? “As a lever for growth and employment it is necessary to help create an ecosystem based on innovation that derives an advantage ‘from the intersection of knowledge’ between traditional enterprises (SMEs and large companies), social enterprises, cultural enterprises, schools, training institutions, informal education environments (museums, FabLabs), incubators/accelerators, universities, research centres and technology clusters etc. “The green jobs project, for example, connects academia and industry through practical projects and this is the best way to grow together and create solid bridges based on real needs. Equally important are formally established platforms to liaise between technical schools and companies looking for graduates with technical and soft skills, as well as other local institutions such as universities and associations. The purpose is to facilitate entry into the jobs market of school-leavers with technical skills. “Fondazione Cariplo has pledged €1million to the best examples of school-work alternation and soft skill training planned by the Lombardy platform. The Lombardy Region, also involved in the contract, has provided €2million from

What is still lacking [...] is a definition of the bioeconomy expressed through the concept of sustainable regions, one based on regional regeneration and the integrated supply chain, able to create new models of production and consumption.

the fund for young people to companies affiliated with the platform who take on the high school graduates at the end of their training. “More generally, the Fondazione can help validate a new model of innovation, unlike the traditional triple helix model based on the (often poor) interaction between public, private and academic sectors, where the third sector and civil society act as catalysts to engage the various stakeholders in research and innovation that will result in social innovation.” The interest of a grant making foundation does not end with the selection and approval of projects. How are the results of the funded initiatives monitored and nurtured? “This latter point is crucial for Fondazione Cariplo, considering the principle of public utility that lies at the basis of its activities. To do this, the Fondazione adopted a policy of open access some time ago to promote the dissemination of knowledge and the democratic use of the results of the funded research. There is also a policy on intellectual property protection which aims to encourage the economic value of innovation in respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and obliges the recipients of grants who have been awarded a patent/licence for a project funded by Fondazione Cariplo to re-invest the proceeds – possibly generated by its application – on further research and development.” In conclusion, a reference to today’s situation: how do you feel about the resolution approved by the European Parliament last July on the circular economy? What – if anything – needs improving in your opinion? “The resolution is a positive sign because it shows how today’s Europe is in agreement over the need for a model that focuses on the efficient use of resources. What is still lacking, and which I hope will find space in a new and more ambitious European initiative, is a definition of the bioeconomy expressed through the concept of sustainable regions, one based on regional regeneration and the integrated supply chain, able to create new models of production and consumption. A bioeconomy that starts from marginal land, fallow and poor in fertility, from crops exploitable from every point of view, from industrial sites that are no longer competitive, redeveloping areas while respecting their specificities and their biodiversity and even linking up with the more traditional economy through new prospects for innovation. The point, in short, is to really impact on the greatest weaknesses of the EU turning them into engines of this new development, within the limits of natural resources.”

117

118

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

A Question

OF FIBRE

Paper production involves recycling as well as considering other materials. For instance, if you are now reading us on paper, you are holding leather.

Case Histories The graphic styles in the next pages are taken from Remake’s promotional booklet, developing creative reusing, waste and by-products “up-cycling”. Left page: Images by Andreas Scheiger.

by Sergio Ferraris

Sergio Ferraris, an environmental and scientific journalist, is director of QualEnergia.it.

Not all fibres were made equal. With regard to paper, we are used to “noble” wood-derived cellulose, that a few decades ago came from virgin sources, but over the last few years has been increasingly recycled – up to seven times – in percentages reaching 65%. In Italy, because of the lack of forests suitable for this purpose, paper recycling has been an almost unavoidable solution. In order to increase the sustainability of the paper industry, new technological and scientific methods have been experimented. These are not just hypotheses, but wellestablished industrial processes that brought new products to market. This is what happened to Favini, a long-established paper factory dating

back to 1736, whose products include three types of paper, featuring alternative materials as opposed to classic – virgin or recycled – cellulose fibre. Favini started exploring alternative “ingredients” 25 years ago. To be more precise at a time when, in order to produce paper, the company came up with the idea of using the huge amount of algae – present in the Adriatic Sea due to marine eutrophication – instead of traditional cellulose. Alga Carta – as the product was named – was a success. 10 years later, such smash repeated itself with Carta Crush, utilizing food processing by-products. “And the commercial as well environmental success,” as Eugenio Eger – Favini’s CEO – explains, “was not long in coming. Obviously, the time elapsed was necessary in order to find all those actors with a vested interest in the concept of matter recovery.” Sustainable Use Here, the replacement of tree-derived cellulose reaches 15% by using waste matter that otherwise would have been used to supplement animal fodder, as fuel for incinerators or sent to landfills. And the vast array of waste products used as raw materials ranges from coffee to corn, including cherries, hazelnuts, almonds, olives, kiwi, citrus fruits and lavender, all crops being GMO free. “Our intention was to introduce an all-around sustainability concept involving the whole production process,” Eger claims. “Besides recovering matter and the absence of GMOs, our products contain 30% of recycled

119

120

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

fibre, boast an FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) certification, namely an independent international certification guaranteeing adequate and sustainable management of forests and product traceability) and are manufactured using 100% renewable energy.” Considering the LCA (Life Cycle Assessment), all this produces a 20% reduction of CO2 emissions, without increasing the production

Right: Illustration by Jakob Hinrichs.

costs, since the raw materials’ management is identical to that of quality paper obtained through traditional raw materials. But our target is to make a difference from a commercial viewpoint. Carta Crush – sold in 25 countries – is used to print leading companies’ sustainability reports. Such paper is also used for Veuve Clicquot’s packaging, that for its Naturally Line, decided to use

Case Histories

in the industrial processes other than the paper industry.”

Eugenio Eger

From Waste to High-End Product

Carta Crush – sold in 25 countries – is used to print leading companies’ sustainability reports. Such paper is also used for Veuve Clicquot’s packaging, that for its Naturally Line, decided to use a cardboard box obtained from 25% of grape pulp. So, here the medium becomes a communication vehicle for sustainability, and this is no small thing.

a cardboard box obtained from 25% of grape pulp. So, here the medium becomes a communication vehicle for sustainability and this is no small thing. But the company’s reusing challenge does not stop here. Our readers holding the paper edition of this issue touch with their hands a truly unique product of its kind: a paper that is made with 25% of fibre derived from by-products obtained from leather processing, thus expanding the potential of reusing waste materials and achieving something that is more than just a qualitative leap. In this way, two different supply chains merge: the paper and leather industries. “The new paper, produced with an innovative mix between vegetable and collagen fibres, represent what we define upcycling, i.e. the creative reusing of waste material,” Eger says. “And this is the first result of our ongoing research and experimentation in the use of waste by-products obtained

Remake – such is the name of the new paper – is made with waste of the leather industry using only leather obtained through vegetable tanning, to avoid heavy metal and chromium residues. This could encourage the leather industry to adopt greener and less polluting methods – producing a high-quality paper suitable for luxury packaging. “It is an important step for us involving the production process” Eger claims. “Leather contains a fibre that must bind together with the wood one, rather than acting as a filler as it happens with algae-derived flour or food waste. This is why leather should not be micronized, but defibrized, which constituted one of the most difficult challenges we faced in defining, to the best of our abilities, the production process.” The new paper is 100% recyclable and compostable, thanks also to the choice of “waste” from vegetable tanning only, while the content is derived 25% from the leather processing and the remaining 75% is obtained 30% from recycled cellulose fibre and 45% from virgin sources, both FSC certified. Communicating Sustainability Through Remake, Favini’s objective is to offer support to sustainability communication to those who have recently embraced the world of ecology, first and foremost the fashion industry, with the Italian, German, French and Japanese markets being the leaders. Not to mention the Chinese market, which is sending interesting signals. The expected production volume should reach 150 tonnes in its first year, stepping up to 300 tonnes in its second. “It’s not just about the technological production aspect that we have mainly already dealt with during our industrialization and quality tests phase,” Eger concludes. “We are working on the product communication to place it correctly, with an evocative graphic image as well. Indeed, only too often those involved in the ecology field use only numbers, which as much as they are essential, do not take into account that innovative and sustainable economies, operations and lifestyles need to contain a strong empathic message in order to spread. Perhaps touching a sheet of paper produced in a different way can be the first step.

121

122

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

Right: Illustrations by Robin Dean. Bottom: Illustrations by Christian Northeast.

Top: Photo by Max McMurdo – Reestore.

Carta Remake in numbers •• Leather industry waste 25% •• FSC-certified post consumer recycled cellulose 30% •• FSC-certified virgin cellulose fibre 45% •• FSC total 75% •• Expected production for the first year: 150 tonnes •• Expected production for the second year: 300 tonnes

Case Histories

Remake advantages •• 25% saving of virgin raw materials (cellulose from trees), which also implies energy use, air and water pollution and greenhouse gas emissions •• Elimination of waste disposal costs •• Introduction into the paper market of a material that enriches paper with better compostability characteristics •• Encouragement to abandon metals and chromium in the tanning industry, in favour of more eco-friendly systems Bottom: Illustration by Ian Bilbey.

Right: Illustration by Harriet Russell.

Left: Photo by Max McMurdo – Reestore.

123

124

renewablematter 06-07. 2015 Interview

Paper Ethics Achille Monegato, Favini’s R&D manager

During our visit at Favini we met Achille Monegato – Research and Development manager – who has been with the company for the past 18 years and has worked in the paper industry for 27. We asked him a few questions on the types of paper made with waste-derived matter. What is the rationale behind the creation of such types of paper? “Basically we believe that there is more to ecology than recycling and that it is necessary to prepare for raw material shortage. From this perspective, Italy is very vulnerable, since we import 98% of virgin cellulose fibres. This is why we are convinced that it is necessary to research into new raw materials.”

Info www.favini.com

So, you came to Remake – leather-derived paper – following this path? “Yes, but, from an R&D point of view, saying that Remake is made from leather is not the whole story. Actually, this paper is made with collagen – a quaternary structure fibre – formed by about thirty different types of fibre twines. Such fibres are morphologically very similar to cellulose, and I reckon that this experience will pave the way for new fibre combinations.” What kind of challenges did you encounter in this R&D activity? “Essentially two. First, the research of raw materials, the by-product. Such research is divided in three steps: identification and production; transformation in order to make the raw material suitable;

its usage in the production process. These are all issues to tackle in the R&D phase. Second, the cultural barrier leading us not to consider as raw materials things that were not seen as such in the past. It is a ‘psychological’ barrier that, once overcome, allows us to access a whole new realm of possibilities. As far as we are concerned it was a problem linked to a process culture that must be put aside in order to move forward in the direction of sustainability.” How did you optimize the industrial processes for these new products? “As to micronization, we introduced a new processing plant, so today the only challenge is to have dry material that does not deteriorate before its processing. While, as to leather, a defiberization plant was necessary. Our basic philosophy is that, once the product viability from a commercial point of view has been ascertained, all processes must be internalized.” What are your R&D trajectories? “We have two research trajectories, the new micronized materials and new fibres with two common denominators: total rejection to even consider materials for human consumption and the choice not to use GM crops. For instance, we did not consider soy because we did not have enough evidence that it was not free from GMOs, while we used Italian corn and bran because we can be sure they are. This has been particularly appreciated by Barilla in order to draw

Case Histories

Illustration by Mick Marston.

The cultural barrier leading us not to consider as raw materials things that were not seen as such in the past. It is a “psychological” barrier that, once overcome, allows us to access a whole new realm of possibilities.

its sustainability reports and Accademia Barilla’s packaging used our Carta Crusca developed with their R&D department. So, ‘natural packaging’ bran from grain becomes packaging for pasta. Basically, bran as a natural shell protecting the grain enjoys a new life in a low-impact packaging, marking a second meeting between bran from packaging and Academia Barilla pasta’s durum wheat.” What new developments are in the pipeline? Are there still unexplored frontiers? “Yes, as to the agribusiness waste by-products, we are still looking into at least ten possible sources, but we are not excluding industrial waste, such as rubber and glass. Urban waste collection

is also another possible source that people in our sector may decide to use.” What problem does the spread of such practices face? “The underlying issue is still cultural. Until we are not able to see as resources what we currently consider waste, finding new opportunities will be complicated.”

125

126

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

PAPER:

Sustainability Enters the Production Cycle Photo: Vincenzo Dragani

How to combine product quality, process flexibility and sustainability. Cutting costs and energy consumption. An example of how to redesign the whole production cycle.

by Sergio Ferraris

Sustainable processes. It is not just a question of matter and energy, but often of methods and processes as well. This is a new approach taking hold in the management of industrial activities and often entails the choice of sustainable raw materials and the reuse of industrial waste. All these aspects are little known to the public at large and often to ecology experts as well. Geca – a printing company founded in 1979 near Milan employing 35 workers and with a €5.5 million turnover in 2014, nearly half of which deriving from publishing – decided to follow the sustainability path. A non-specialized company that in 2009, partly to respond to the economic downturn, decided to bet both on production and process quality. “First of all, we deeply analysed our production process, especially in the light of new technologies. To be used not to reduce our employees’ work, but to make the most of it, without compromising on quality,” Luigi Bechini, Geca’s marketing manager, explains.

First, we completed the production cycle by internalizing both bookbinding and cover finishing. Then, we invested a lot on specializing in catalogues and books that, despite the economic crisis, are still seeing an increasing demand.

127

Luigi Bechini

Case Histories

Info www.gecaonline.it/index.php

The company was able to stand apart from its competitors by reducing its production times, this has also enabled it to increase its process sustainability.

“We created a production cycle based on a maximum length of 3 days, all included, completely optimizing our production.” The company’s challenge was to combine quality, process flexibility and sustainability in a period of economic downturn. “After withdrawing from the art and photo books’ market, now mainly printed in the East, we moved into commercial catalogues and book publishing,” Bechini continues. “But for the latter we had to offer something better than our competitors. First, we completed the production cycle by internalizing both bookbinding and cover finishing. Then, we invested a lot in specializing on catalogues and books that, despite the economic crisis, are still seeing an increasing demand.” Problem Solving This is how the company was able to stand apart from many of its competitors, cutting processing times, which has also enabled the improvement of its process sustainability. In fact, thanks to the reduction of processing times, Geca offers the opportunity to solve two of the biggest

problems of the book industry: returns and warehousing. Returned unsold books are often sent for pulping; reducing the first run enables publishing houses to cut the number of volumes destined to this inglorious end, thus cutting considerably costs and waste of raw materials. “The reduction of printing times enabled us to offer efficient solutions for an ad hoc tailoring of the first run,” Giancarlo Spada, sales manager, explains. “In this way, when publishers run out of stock, they can supply distributors with reprints within 48/72 hours, while if this does not happen, they do not have a surplus and this enables them to save money, transport and paper.” And the company is exploring this flexibility even further thanks to digital printing that has now reached a good quality level comparable to offset printing that, until 2010, was the only solution available to customers. “To reprint using offset printing is pure folly due to set-up costs, while with digital printing it is possible to print even a small amount of copies,” Spada claims. “The idea is to move towards zero warehousing.

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

ink residues – half a barrel every two year – amounting to 55 litres per year or 150 ml per day. If referred to the company’s turnover, €5.5 million per year, we could say that Geca produces only 1 litre of ink waste every €100,000 of turnover. A very important sustainability indicator.

Giancarlo Spada

128

At the moment, we are in the region of small runs, 150-200 copies. But this number can be reduced even further.” FSC Paper Playing the Leading Role

Xquote, this is the name of the system, can tell a client which format to choose to avoid wasting paper or which weight to prefer.

As far as more “traditional” sustainability is concerned, that regarding raw materials, Geca was one of the first printing works to use FSC paper. “At the beginning, we had to work hard to promote this paper, as it happened with recycled paper, because it was seen as low quality,” Bechini continues. “And back then we were amongst the first to report the abuse of the FSC seal, even by big publishing houses. An issue that was discrediting sustainability in the paper sector. Today, 30% of our products carries the FSC seal, but in reality the percentage is a lot higher.” As it happens, books are printed on FSC paper, but clients do not want to use the seal. It has nothing to do with costs – the seal is free – but it is due to cultural legacy, including underestimation of the value of such certification, even from a commercial point of view. Or the belief that the FSC logo clutters a product’s graphic. “Now things have improved, but at the beginning it was very hard to get the FSC logo accepted. Today, 90% of the paper we buy is FSC certified, but we also promote various kinds of recycled paper, some of which present excellent printing quality” Bechini says. This is an interesting incident that says a lot about how the value of sustainability is perceived outside the environmental world. Almost Zero Waste Geca paid as much attention to industrial waste as it did to production optimization. The only special waste produced is that deriving from the cleaning of printing machines. Besides solvents for cleaning printing cylinders and rubber rollers (their use is defined by the standard cleaning procedures indicated by the machines’ manufacturer), there are

In the printing process, nearly all the water used is recovered and nearly all inks are vegetable based. “These are high performance inks, you can’t tell the difference, that contain no mineral oils, have better drying times and excellent rub resistance. They also maintain these qualities with more difficult papers,” Bechini assures us. “They basically cost the same as other inks but they make printed paper more sustainable and easier to recycle.” While, as far as paints are concerned, only water-based ones are used and their residues are not even considered special waste. Geca’s attention to the whole supply chain led it to take care also of what lies upstream, the production “gateway”: quotes. For over two years, companies and publishing houses interested in using Geca’s services have been able to ask for a quote online, thanks to a system able to satisfy, through a sophisticated algorithm, even the most complex and detailed printing requirements. “This was a key element of our success:

Case Histories

Lighting: having chosen a factory with excellent natural lighting has enabled us, from the first year, to reduce our electricity bill by 26% while maintaining the same turnover and number of machines.

an instrument devoted to professional customers that we created when we started catering for the needs of publishing houses. The system is extremely specialized in books and catalogues budgeting and provides quotations optimizing costs, thus enabling to obtain prices that are some of the best on the market,” Spada adds. “Xquote, this is the name of the system, can tell a client which format to choose to avoid wasting paper or which weight to prefer. It has enabled us to expand our customer base since it has improved our budgeting ability.” Xquote can also advise customer on saving and efficiency and on how to optimize downstream production processes. Geca invested on this budgeting system with the aim of reaching all Italian publishers (about 1,500); Xquote enabled the company to increase tenfold the number of customers in the publishing world, providing thousands of quotes that it would have be impossible to manage with human resources. Foolproof As if this were not enough, the budgeting system also reduces to a minimum errors during the production management, since all data contained in the quote are foolproof and sent to Geca’s internal production chain. So, only what clients asked for in their order

is produced, thus drastically reducing time, materials and resource waste. Once again, thanks to proper and accurate process management overall sustainability can be increased. As for energy conservation, the company did something very simple: it changed its factory, a wise choice. “Since we work on smaller orders, our need for space also decreased, this is why we could choose a smaller factory, thus reducing energy consumption.” Lighting: having chosen a factory with excellent natural lighting has enabled us, from the first year, to reduce our electricity bill by 26% while maintaining the same turnover and number of machines. “The next step will be to move to LED lighting,” Bechini adds. “But there is another detail that I would like to highlight. The disincentive on using blueprint process on paper that we have replaced with digital forms that can be sent online. Printing, but above all blueprint process ‘logistics’ has thus been removed, further reducing costs and resource usage.” But Geca has something really unique: attention to details and professionalism of all its employees. Indeed, during our visit, we noticed that all workers are totally devoted to the product, be it a book or a magazine, and thorough checks are carried out at every stage, up until when the book ends un in the warehouse, ready to be shipped.

129

130

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

We Recyle

Illustrations by freepick.com, graphic elaboration

OIL

Recycling and upcycling waste require a supply chain, in which collection is often the weak link. In Italy one of the industrialization models of collecting and transforming waste comes from used oils. A look at a virtuous example of circular economy. by Emanuele Bompan

In the circular economy one of the most controversial sticking points is the supply of material to recycle or regenerate. As William McDonough outlines in this issue of Renewable Matter, waste should not be considered necessarily and only as a negative externality with a powerful effect on environment and health. Rather, it needs to be seen as a “raw” material of great value, scarce (in terms of economics) and subject to strong competition for its use. Hence, supply is a key factor and it requires clever design of the whole supply chain. Often, though, collecting “quality” refuse is anything but simple. Renewable Matter analyses several case studies in order to show how, in different sectors, industry

Case Histories

In Italy, over 90% of lube oils are used to produce regenerated bases re-introduced on the market. Re-refined products are considered on the same level as those from primary refineries, thus creating positive competition between the two worlds.

is getting equipped to create an industrialized supply chain. That of used oil regeneration is a model of success. Italy is the leader in this sector, with over 90% of lube oils collected and used to produce regenerated base oils re-introduced on the market. Re-refined products are considered on the same level as those from primary refineries, thus creating positive competition between the two worlds. The remaining 10% is not regenerated and is used as fuel for cement factories, while a minimum amount undergoes thermal destruction. Lubricant oils used for combustion are â&#x20AC;&#x153;non-renewable matter,â&#x20AC;? with pollution levels that prevent them from qualifying under the strict laws governing the chemical properties required by used oil if it is to be regenerated.

131

132

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

The regeneration process greatly reduces the impact on the environment, lowers the amount of raw material (crude oil) consumed, thereby cutting emissions produced in the extraction phase and the need for transportation and refining. One ton of regenerated lubricant base produced using advanced technology reduces CO2 emissions by at least 40% compared to first refinement. Data for several European countries give an idea of the extent of the regeneration supply chain of used oils, revealing at the same time significantly different performance rates. In France, about 70% of all oil used is regenerated, about 60% in Spain, while Germany, the heart of heavy industry and car manufacturing, regenerates only half the oil it collects. In Italy, in 2013, out of 171,000 tonnes of waste, a good 155,000

Info www.viscolube.it

was reintroduced on the market in the form of regenerated base oils. A little known all-Italian primacy. Undoubtedly, these results were aided by the regeneration law: according to COOU, the obligatory consortium on used oils, it is a fundamental lever for the circular economy. National legislation as regards the handling of used oils is the result of how EU rules are received. All lube oil collected is analysed and Italian law promptly establishes the criteria that determine its destination. In Italy, therefore, the legislation that regulates the sector also decides how it is used. While this is undoubtedly a positive factor, alone it is not enough to determine the success of collection. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Over 20 years, the lubricant market has diminished

Regeneration in Europe

50%

70%

90%

Regeneration of total used oils collected Non-regenerated oils compared to the total used oils collected

60%

Case Histories

by 40%. The effect of this trend has been a considerable reduction in the availability of used oil,” explains Marco Codognola, engineer and director of the Environment, Purchasing and Business Development Division of Viscolube, Italian leader in used lube oil re-refinement. This reduction in supplies has shifted the attention to the waste supply chain for one essential reason, namely that the flow of renewable used oil to the refineries has to be constant.

Where there are examples of excellence to demonstrate the fact you can run industry and manufacture quality products using regeneration, spreading the habits of a circular economy and recycling is everyone’s duty.

“Supply stability in terms of type and quantity,” comments Codognola, “is a key factor if we are to optimize the regeneration process of used oil and maximise efficiency and quality of recycled products.” The industrial and economic situation is a factor that can affect the supply system of waste: a decline in domestic industrial production corresponds to a proportional decrease in the availability of used lube oils. This is a well-known phenomenon at Viscolube, which had to face the severe economic and industrial crisis of 2008-2014. On the one hand, the closure of many Italian companies and the general decline of industrial production (in Italy it decreased by almost a quarter from 2008 to 2013) have reduced the amount of used oil available. On the other, the car industry, another source of strategic importance to re-refining companies such as Viscolube, saw the introduction of increasingly efficient engines with reduced consumption of lubricant. At the same time, there has been a general reduction in car use. Oil is changed less frequently, and, finally, we are using more vehicles with lower oil consumption (such as electric cars). “For us, as for many companies that use waste as a raw material, there needs to be a suitable purchasing process at the base of a complex industrial process. So we considered it strategic to take part in this stage of the process,” adds Codognola. “With our fifty years’ experience in the management and regeneration of used oil – and thanks to the know-how of the companies that collect it – Viscolube decided to move into the collection and management of hazardous waste.” To achieve this, we created Viscoambiente, a business unit dedicated to the collection, management and treatment of hazardous waste. Viscoambiente’s goal is to integrate hazardous waste management, offering its customers the widest choice of environmentally sustainable services. “Consolidation of the Italian sector of hazardous waste through the construction and optimization of a domestic player with increasing capabilities for collection, logistics and recycling is part of our plans,” says Codognola. “In this perspective, Viscoambiente ensures the group’s refineries

a part of the waste they need. The unit started in 2013 and has so far acquired five companies, while others are under negotiation. We have collection companies in Piedmont (Settimo Torinese), Veneto (Vittorio Veneto and Verona), in Friuli (Palmanova) and Emilia Romagna (Bologna). The quantity of used oil obtained in this way now represents about 12% of the total amount we receive. The remainder is bought by all the other companies operating around the country.” Today, Viscoambiente has a turnover of around €25million. The basic idea is to have an industrial structure for the collection: without this, the process is less integrated and more complicated. Finally, as far as supply sources are concerned, Codognola states: “The Italian quantity of used oil is not always sufficient to guarantee optimal plant functioning. Therefore we recover a part from France and other countries. About 10% of the total amount of used oil regenerated by our refineries comes from areas abroad where regeneration capacity is lower than the quantity of used oil collected. Each member state of the EU, however, has specific legislation and given that it is hazardous waste, we prefer to obtain the raw material locally, following the principle of proximity.” Favouring supply based on resources produced locally is doubly effective economically and environmentally since it reduces costs and emissions from transport. Therefore, recycling of used oils is a field of excellence but with problems yet to overcome. “Certainly, one of these being a lack of awareness of the priority the Commission affords to the regeneration and recycling of waste in the hierarchy established by the Waste Directive. It is a hierarchy that should be strictly applied in all countries, with no exceptions, allowing the indiscriminate burning of oil.” And as for the Italian market? “We believe that where there are examples of excellence demonstrate that manufacturing quality product using regeneration is possible, spreading the habits of a circular economy and recycling is everyone’s duty, first and foremost that of the public administration, which could comply more strictly with the directive on Green purchasing.”

133

134

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

700 for the

BIOECONOMY Interview with Nathalie Moll European, national and local policies, technological innovation, industrial projects and research programmes. All these topics will be discussed at the European Forum on industrial biotech and bioeconomy in Brussels. An opportunity to put face to face society, economy and politics. edited by Mario Bonaccorso

Promoted and organized by EuropaBio, representative association of European biotech and biobased industry, EFIB (European Forum on Industrial Biotech), has reached its eighth edition. This event, occurring at SQUARE Congress Center in Brussels, will develop this year a very peculiar edition, considering the huge growth of focus on bioeconomy and circular economy sectors. European, national and local policies, technological innovation, industrial projects and research programs: everything moving in a strategic

Nathalie Moll, Secretary General EuropaBio, for Renewable Matter.

Case Histories

SQUARE Congress Center in Brussels

The eighth EFIB Forum â&#x20AC;&#x201C; European Forum for Industrial Biotechnology and the Bioeconomy â&#x20AC;&#x201C; will take place in Brussels on 27-29th October 2015.

135

136

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

EFIB creates a meeting space for EU industry and policy makers to learn more about the latest success stories within the bioeconomy, enabled by industrial biotechnology.

area for sustainability of European economies will find at EFIB an important moment of updating, and more importantly debating, issues between society, economy and politics. Renewable Matter has interviewed Nathalie Moll, Secretary General of EuropaBio to outline and discus the details of EFIB’s edition, occurring while in Brussels important (we hope so) decisions are being made, to support the development of this sector. First of all, could you explain how the idea to organize EFIB was conceived and what its goals are? “EFIB does two crucial things for EU industrial biotech and biobased industries. Firstly, it brings together the entire value chain, from primary producers, to processors, technology providers, big brand names and civil society. This is crucial to understanding the different needs and perspectives of a diverse group of sectors seeking to make the transition towards a renewables-based industry. Secondly, it creates a meeting space for EU industry and policy makers to learn more about the latest success stories within the bioeconomy, enabled

by industrial biotechnology, and to discuss how to overcome remaining obstacles in the path towards greater competitiveness, economic and environmental benefits.” What are the most important innovations of this edition compared to the previous ones? “A lot has happened in one year and, consequently, there will be many innovations from around the world to choose from. EFIB has always had a strong focus on innovation and this year we have four tracks dedicated to this area. We will hear from speakers who are making important breakthroughs in both product and process development enabled by industrial biotech for a number of sectors, including pulp and paper, automotive, plastics, waste management, packaging and personal care products. Each year we have the thankless task of selecting the very best presentation from our innovation tracks to receive our John Sime award so you will need to watch this space.” Who participates in EFIB? “This year we are expecting over 700 participants from around the world from a great number of different sectors involved in industrial biotech

Case Histories

What about participation by countries outside from Europe? “Despite its name, a third of EFIB’s audiences come from outside of Europe, particularly from the US and Canada. We have a number of speakers also joining us from the US this year, including Ron Buckhalt of the USDA and Dr E. William Radany, CEO of Verdezyne. Additionally, in one of our pre-conference workshops, on the valorization of waste, we are welcoming Tony Duncan of Circa Group all the way

Floral carpet, Gran Place, Brussels, 2008. Photo by Wouter Hagens

Info www.europabio.org www.efibforum.com

and biobased products. We will have high-calibre speakers from the Ellen Macarthur Foundation, FrieslandCampina, Jaguar Land Rover, Akzo Nobel and Deinove as well as from Carlsberg and the WWF. Hosting the event in Brussels means that we hope for record numbers of policy makers and we are delighted to confirm our opening keynote of Director General of the European Commission’s DG Environment, Daniel Calleja Crespo. We will also be joined by an array of CEOs from companies such as Corbion, Metsa Fibre and Sodra. Our aim is to make the discussions as inclusive, colourful and dynamic as possible and we are always seeking to broaden participation from all walks of biobased life.”

The trouble for emerging biobased industries is often that they are so busy trying to establish themselves, often with limited resources that they don’t have the time, space and audience to demonstrate why they are doing what they’re doing. EFIB provides a showcase for these industries.

from Australia! Previous editions of EFIB have also seen attendees from South Africa, Malaysia, Thailand, China and Brazil.” From your point of view, do you believe that the European public is aware of the role the bioeconomy plays in terms of securing economic eco-sustainable development in Europe? “No, I think we have a lot more work to do to make our voices heard. There are so many good examples of how industrial biotech is providing considerable benefits on many levels for the EU and its citizens but we need to do more to get them out there. It’s a big challenge and if all sectors of the value chain play their part we can make a real impact. The trouble for emerging biobased industries is often that they are so busy trying to establish themselves, often with limited resources that they don’t have the time, space and audience to demonstrate why they are doing what they’re doing. EFIB provides a showcase for these industries and we are immensely proud to see how it has grown from being a gathering of 80 people in 2008 to an international event welcoming 700 participants in the past few years.” And what are the major industry advances in the bioeconomy? “The launch of the €3.7 billion BBI Joint undertaking between the European Commission and the whole bioeconomy value chain is a landmark as is the creation of the European Bioeconomy Alliance which brings together many of the different sectors to call for new supportive measures in this area. In addition, we are looking towards market stimulation measures, such as public procurement, and to maximising supportive measures for industrial biotech as a mitigation tool for climate change. There have also been some major new plant scale ups of commercial biorefineries around the world one of which also in Europe in the Cristal Union and Global Bioenergies IBN-One joint venture to build and operate the first plant in France converting renewable resources into isobutene.” Why is EFIB focused also on the circular economy this year? “The circular economy is a burning issue in Brussels, partly because clean tech has been identified as a European asset in the quest for the creation of jobs and growth and also because the European Commission is currently preparing its proposal on this topic. Biotech and biobased will play a key role in delivering on the promise of the circular economy as they enable the transition towards renewables and enable more efficient use of resources. We would like to create a clear link between the circular economy and the bioeconomy and we look forward to discussing how industrial biotech can benefit both at EFIB this year.”

137

138

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

Columns The Blue Yonder

In Iceland, Cod is king 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.

Iceland Ocean Cluster, www.sjavarklasinn.is/en/.

On September 24, Icelanders will celebrate “Cod Day” for the first time. Organised by Iceland Ocean Cluster and Ocean Cluster House, the event reminds us about the large potential that our natural resources hold, beyond traditional exploitation practices. “While in typical North Atlantic fisheries, the head, gut and bones of every cod are discarded, in Icelandic fisheries we have become used to making money out of many of these by-products,” says Dr. Thor Sigfusson, CEO of the Iceland Ocean Cluster. Their analyses indicate that Icelanders are able to utilise over 80% of each cod, while many neighbouring countries, such as Norway and Canada, still throw half of the fish away. The study indicates over 500 thousand tonnes of cod are discarded, at sea, or as waste, in the Barents Sea region, and across the North Atlantic, from Newfoundland to Norway. “Cod Day is held both to celebrate the success of tech companies which have found ways to utilise more from each fish; and to remind us all in the North Atlantic about the potential value in utilising more of this fantastic natural resource.” Cod historically fuels one of the main industrial sectors of Iceland. Not only the country has threatened wars on neighbouring countries fishing in their waters; the Icelandics have self-imposed very restrictive measures to cod exploitation when the population of Gadus morhua started to decline globally. Today, global data offer no consolation to the damage inflicted by overfishing this incredible resource, also named “the beef of the sea,” for its ability to feed and sustain the human population in the North Atlantic: the decline continues. However, a closer look shows that the waters in the Eastern regions of the basin, such as around Iceland and Norway, are still very productive; and those countries are enjoying a healthy fishery. Scientific data of 2013 show spawning cod at their highest levels in almost 50 years. The Icelandic self-imposed practice of reducing fish quota in years of low population has allowed their cod population to recover and restore Iceland’s fisheries to pre-crisis value. It is understandable, then, and even desirable, that Icelanders protect their cod stock through

sound management practices, of which they are proud representatives; and, that this incredible resource even plays a political role. In facts, Iceland started considering EU membership, in 2009, when the country, badly shaken by an economic crisis which decapitated three of its banking institutions and halved the value of the Icelandic krona, became the first (albeit not the last) western country to appeal to the International Monetary Fund for economic support, since the times of World War II. In those difficult years, the eurozone and EU membership appeared as an attractive prospect. The Country, however, dropped its bid to join the EU in the spring of 2015. Although never openly discussed, a debate over the national trade offs in respect to fishing quotas may have been an unsolvable obstacle to negotiations. On Cod Day, the Icelandic companies take the stage to show how their efforts, imagination and fish stock management practices allows cod to still make history and remain a fundamental ingredient in Icelandic economy, supporting skin care, nutritional supplements, pharmaceutical, processing technology and even fashion industry, as well as the traditional food sector.

Columns

Natural Capital

Earth Conundrum: +83 Million -15 Billion Gianfranco Bologna is Senior Advisor at WWF Italy. He is Secretary General of the Fondazione Aurelio Peccei, which represents the Club of Rome in Italy, and was also a member of the Club of Rome. In 2013 he wrote Sostenibilità in pillole (“Sustainability in pills”) (Edizioni Ambiente) and Natura Spa. La Terra al posto del PIL (“Nature Ltd. The Earth instead of GDP”) (Bruno Mondadori editore).

2015 Report Revision of World Population Prospects published by the United Nations, esa.un.org/unpd/wpp.

Crowther T. W. et al., 2015, “Mapping tree density at a global scale,” Nature 525; 201-205, tinyurl.com/p82t48t.

World Resources Institute, www.wri.org Global Forest Watch, www.globalforestwatch.org.

In July 2015, the total number of the world’s human population reached 7.3 billion. According to the expected average growth variant projections by the UN – correct up until now – Earth’s human population will hit 9.7 billion by 2050, with an increment of 83 million people a year. Even assuming a decline in fertility rates, global population will reach 8.5 billion by 2030, 9.7 billion by 2050 and 11.2 billion by 2100, compared to the average variant projections. And even if fertility decline should speed up, population growth until 2050 will be virtually inevitable. But that has not always been the case. Actually, for very long periods of time, human population grew very little, stabilizing below 100 million up until around 2000 BCE. According by several scholars’ authoritative calculations, at the beginning of the Christian era, 225 million people lived on the planet. It was not until 1820 that the population reached the first billion. Then, in just a little over a century, in 1930, it hit 2 billion. Growth has been quite considerable since then and in thirty years, from 1930 to 1960, the population grew to 3 billion; then 4 billion in 1974, 5 billion in 1987, 6 in 1999 up to 7 billion in 2011. Today, in Africa, there are 1 billion and 186 million people that – according to the UN report – will become 1 billion and 679 million in 2030, 2 billion and 478 million in 2050 and 4 billion and 387 million in 2100. Asia is now populated by 4 billion and 393 million individuals, expected to rise to 4 billion and 923 million in 2030, 5 billion and 267 million in 2050 and 4 billion and 889 million in 2100. Today, population growth and our production and consumption processes have a shocking impact on natural capital and ecosystem services that people use daily and free of charge and this will make itself increasingly felt in the future. Also, the extraordinary natural capital of the world’s forests is increasingly at risk due to our growing and ongoing impact. Nature’s cover was about the scientific work that divulged the first numbers Earth’s trees. By reminding us how important it is to know the global extension and distribution of trees and forests to fully grasp earth’s biosphere

and its precious role as a source of fundamental ecosystem services (from oxygen and carbon biogeochemical cycles, to water cycles, soil maintenance etc.), scholars estimated that there are 3.04 trillion trees on the planet, of which approximately 42.8% is in tropical or subtropical forests, 24.2% in northern areas and 21.8% in temperate ones. According to their estimates, 15 billion trees are cut every year: it is thought that since the dawn of human civilization the total number of trees on the planet has shrunk by 46%. The World Resources Institute, with its Global Forest Watch, highlighted that the 2014 world’s deforestation data have soared again, as it has been the case since 2012. In essence, over 18 million hectares have been lost, an area double the size of Portugal, of which 9.9 million hectares – a surface equivalent to South Korea and equal to more than half of 2014 total deforestation – in tropical countries. According to data provided by the 2015 Global Forest Resources Assessment carried out by FAO, since 1990, 129 million hectares have disappeared through clear-cutting, an area the size of South America. If 25 years ago – in 1990 – there were 4.128 billion hectares of forests, in 2015 we have about 3.999 billion hectares. Moreover, today around 7% of the total is covered by forests planted by man. It is fundamental – both for our generation as well as future ones – to keep this extraordinary natural capital and its natural wealth of biodiversity in good health. Therefore it is imperative that we strongly commit ourselves to achieving Zero Net Deforestation and Forest Degradation as soon as possible and no later than 2020-2030.

139

140

renewablematter 06-07. 2015

Green & Circular

Matter Must Be Renewed, Not Incinerated 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.

After the green light given to the new oil drilling, it is now the turn of the draft of the Council of Ministers Presidential Decree (DPCM) on the creation of new incineration plants. Those who thought that with Sblocca Italia (Unlock Italy) decree, the hydrocarbon extraction and the new large and useless constructions, the government had hit rock bottom with its environmental policies, were very much mistaken. The latest confirmation came with the blueprint of the DPCM on waste incineration in compliance with article 35 of Sblocca Italia providing for 12 new incinerators in Italy in addition to the existing ones, which are not going to be shut down, not even those in need of decommissioning (quite a few). It is a draft we must reject for obvious reasons. First, once again, the government pretends not to see that the bone of contention is missing, namely the quantity of waste. The waste to be burnt is overestimated because it is calculated on 65% of separate waste collection already exceeded in several regions. And neither the national prevention programme (can Minister Galletti remember that he set up a scientific committee chaired by Professor Andrea Segré for its implementation?) nor the fact that some cementers are trying to burn Secondary Solid Fuels (CSS) in their plants are taken into account. Besides, the most recent plants such as that in Parma, are encountering difficulties because thanks to separate waste collection and weight-based tariffs they no longer receive waste from the surrounding areas and are forced to look for them in other regions. In other words, with regard to incineration, the government has gone crazy. The second reason is that once again the interests of a few companies are served instead of those of the whole country. It is a decree draft that stemmed from the summation of the single requests by companies – mainly from the multiutilities of the North – that have not understood that there is no more room for new incinerators. An option that must go in the direction of the circular economy. Italy would need other plants, useful both to citizens and their pockets. In Central and Southern Italy in particular, it is necessary to create plants to treat the separate organic waste fraction (recovering energy through biomethane),

which instead keeps on being transported by road for thousands of kilometres, wasting money in polluting means of transport. It is necessary to build a solid and widespread network of plants to maximize recycling (eco-districts, materials factories etc.) and to prepare for waste reuse. In short, plants are necessary and plenty of them are needed throughout the country, but not those that listed city waste disposal companies, like A2A, Hera and Iren have in mind. Third, such DPCM draft is only shifting the attention to a complicated level for political (Regions have said “No, thanks”), social (what are the areas willing to accommodate such plants?) and economic reasons. The potential waste management prices of the new plants are not, as it happens, competitive with the existing incinerators, starting from those in Northern Europe, oversized and built in the 90s, guaranteeing very low prices which no Italian incinerator, old or new, can match. Unfortunately, all this will make us waste even more time, which, especially in some critical regions (Sicily, Apulia and Lazio), we have not got. So, if the government truly intends to tackle the issue of waste management it must eliminate this DPCM draft and replace it with a new text on the circular economy. A revision of the principle of economic rewards and sanctions in the waste cycle would be enough to change things. Landfills must be hard hit by the taxman, the incentives for power generation from incineration must be deleted and the prevention, reuse and recycle sectors must be promoted. If, on the other hand, the government will go ahead with the aforementioned DPCM, the result will be total impasse, favouring once again the many landfill lords who keep on making money and governing the waste cycle thanks to non existent sector policies.

Columns

Innovation Pills

Expo: A (Partially) Untold Story Federico Pedrocchi is a science journalist. He directs and presents the weekly programme Moebius broadcast by Radio 24 – Il Sole 24 ore. He supervises Triwù, a web TV devoted to the culture of innovation in Italy. He also teaches New Media at the Master’s Degree in Science Communication and Sustainable Innovation at Bicocca University in Milan.

A spectacular, detailed discussion of the themes dear to this journal when it comes to all matters related to food: a dedicated space on these matters, so fundamental for the earth’s energy balances – that would have been nice.

I visited Expo 2015 four times, and naturally I went with an awareness of the various arguments raised in the debate over what the universal exhibit should have been, and what actually is. Critics like to begin by noting the absence of a coordinated message addressing the great global crises concerning the world’s food supply. In fact, such questions do receive attention here and there at Expo, and one must keep in mind that the event is spread out over five months, but it is true that there is no dedicated framework designed to emphasize them. It is worth wondering, however, which media platform should have been used to communicate this neglected story. Then there is another issue, that of the event’s sponsors, who allegedly are the source of Expo’s “business oriented” approach. What is there to say? It seems unnecessary to me at this point to discuss the need for sponsorship – with a few exceptions, obviously – partly beacuse I believe that in the controlled chaos of an event like Expo, with 200,000 visitors every day, the actual visibility of any individual sponsor is decidedly rather low: amid a great flood of people, the “mark” of a sponsor is lost. As an aside, at the French pavilion (one of the most interesting in terms of sustainability, among other things) visitors were visibly perplexed when, in a case of infelicitous arrangement, they found themselves suddenly confronted with a great display of female undergarments – some of them for sale – which was difficult to reconcile with the rest of the pavilion. It was, of course, the sponsor. I do not believe that more direct marketing in the vein of specific exhibits related to world hunger would have achieved the critics’ objectives. The public that attends a world’s fair is tuned in to other frequencies. A spectacular, yet accurate, discussion of the themes dear to this journal when it comes to all matters related to food: a dedicated space on these matters, so fundamental for the earth’s energy balances – that would have been nice. Then there is a fact that is difficult to avoid: Expo is a magnificent whirl of faces of all shapes and colours, the music of a hundred different languages, different clothes, hairstyles, shoes (I think it’s only right to also notice these

details that distinguish the many tribes of our species). Well, in these times that are so precarious for everything other than us, this great concentration of diversity sends a vitally important, if unconscious, message. Now, when darkness falls at Expo, thousands of people gather around the Tree of Life in the Italian pavilion to watch a spectacle of light and sound. This is a moment that could have been used to narrate the great themes, both common – that is, touching all of us – and emotionally resonant, something that speaks to the present and future, tracing positive and optimistic visions, even, beginning with the things that we all can do. Five months of little mini-gatherings of global communities, with the power of multimedia to transcend linguistic barriers – it is possible, there are many fine examples – or to revolve around our many differences; that would have been an extremely valuable contribution. By way of conclusion, a suggestion to those in charge of the Italian pavilion. In the small hall dedicated to explaining how human existence might have unfolded without Italy, there is a bas-relief map of Europe where the boot and its islands are all missing. The room is a monument to a tragic and incomprehensible notion. That said, they also left out Malta, down there alongside Lampedusa and Pantelleria. They should put it back. Or, better still, they should close down altogether.

141

PASSIONATE ABOUT. PHILANTHROPY! Discover our activities 2015. www.fondazionecariplo.it

Philanthropy Means Supporting a Project with Passion. Making it grow strong until it produces its fruits for the common good. Modern philanthropists are not an ATM but organizations made up of competent men and women with a vision for the future and social innovation. Fondazione Cariplo Has Engaged in Philanthropy for over 20 Years. We are passionate about art, culture, scientific research, social commitment and the environment and we are increasingly focusing on supporting young people, community welfare and peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s wellbeing. Always behind non-profit organizations. Always there.

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.

FSC ® C007287

Marta,

Communication Manager environmental organization

RESPECT THE VALUES YOU BELIEVE IN. CHOOSE GECA INDUSTRIE GRAFICHE FOREST-FRIENDLY CATALOGUES, MAGAZINES AND BOOKS

Your sustainable printed communication. Geca is the printer that helps you create tools for the success of your projects. We print on FSC® certified or 100% recycled papers only, with vegetable-based inks. I N D U S T R I E

www.gecaonline.com

ISO 9001:2008 QUALITY SYSTEM

G R A F I C H E

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. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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