Conflict of objectives between environmental protection and circular economy

The legal definition of what is waste counteracts the EU's goal of a circular economy. This is highlighted in a new thesis in law at Luleå University of Technology. The author of the thesis therefore conclude that the definition may need to be rewritten, or that the regulation of waste management should be changed.

According to some estimates, we will need three planets by 2050 if current consumption and production patterns continue. A circular economy, which significantly reduces waste and increases recycling, is therefore essential for a sustainable future. Many observers consider that the legal framework on waste, which is largely regulated by the EU Waste Framework Directive, is an obstacle on the road to a circular economy in the EU.

- The Waste Framework Directive is a piece of protective legislation that aims to protect against the negative impacts of waste. Waste is surrounded by many rules, including on storage, transportation and consumption. There is a risk that the protective legislation makes it more difficult, and thus more expensive, to reuse valuable materials, which results in the industry preferring to market, for example, newly produced iron than scrap iron, explains the author of the thesis Oskar Johansson.

What is meant by waste?

The thesis analyses the criteria for when the Waste Directive is applicable, what is meant by "waste" and under what legal circumstances an object goes from being an object of value to being considered waste and vice versa. The criteria for changing from waste to non-waste include the existence of a market for it, which can lead to an object remaining waste because the holder cannot demonstrate a market. However, the very fact of being classified as waste carries a stigma which affects demand. Thus, the object cannot cease to be waste because there is no market, and the market in turn does not exist because the object is a waste.

- The criteria for when something ceases to be a waste are much stricter than the criteria for being considered a waste. The eye of the needle into the waste definition is large, the eye of the needle out is small.

Reuse should be enough

Johansson believes that it should be enough that the object is put back into use for it to no longer be considered waste, as there is other legislation that protects against hazardous products. The criteria should be treated as a basis for interpretation rather than requirements. Redefining the legal concept of "waste" would make it easier to recycle objects that are wasted under current legislation. However, a redefinition risks undermining the in dubio pro natura principle: if there is uncertainty about whether or not something is harmful to the environment or human health, the decision should be made in favour of the environment and human health.

One option is to change the legislation on waste management. But even that option carries risks according to Oskar Johansson. The item will still be considered waste in the legal sense, which brings with it administrative costs and the stigma attached to waste, which in turn reduces the interest of industry in recycling it.

- Ultimately, it is about balancing different risks, interests and values against each other, such as local environment against global sustainability goals," says Oskar Johansson.

The thesis also includes three case studies of sewage sludge, landfill recycling and mining waste recycling.

• Full text of the thesis External link, opens in new window.