Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (36) (remove)
Document Type
- Report (18)
- Peer-Reviewed Article (11)
- Working Paper (4)
- Part of a Book (2)
- Contribution to Periodical (1)
Division
- Kreislaufwirtschaft (36) (remove)
Addressing food waste prevention is one target of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and a major task for the UN Environmental Programme and the European Commission. It is promising in terms of its environmental saving potential. However, it also leads to consumers being able to save money, which they then are likely to spend, thus again causing a negative environmental impact. This dimension of the so-called indirect rebound effect, which prevents the desired ecological benefits from being achieved, is investigated in this paper. By using a single-region environmentally extended input-output model from a production perspective, the indirect rebound effects from food waste prevention in Germany are analysed. Any political action needs to consider not only a differentiation in income class, but also alternative concepts such as the principles of sufficiency in order to achieve all ecological benefits and specifically the third target of SDG 12.
Renewable energy targets in the European Union (EU) have raised the demand for timber and are expected to increase dependence on imports. However, EU timber consumption levels are already disproportionally high compared to the rest of the world. The question is, how much timber is available for the EU to sustainably harvest and import, in particular considering sustainable forest management practices, a safe operating space for land-system change, and the global distribution of "common good" resources. This article approaches this question from a supply angle to develop a reference value range for the current as well as future sustainable supply of timber at the EU-27 and global levels. For current supply estimates, national-level data on forest area available for wood supply, productivity in that area, as well as the rate available for harvest were collected and aggregated into three potential supply scenarios. For future supply estimates, a safe operating space scenario halting land use change, a sensitivity analysis, and a literature review were performed. To provide both a comparison of global versus EU sustainable supply capacities and to develop a benchmark toward evaluating and comparing levels of consumption to sustainable supply capacities, per capita calculations were made. Results revealed that the per capita sustainable supply potential of EU forests is estimated to be around three times higher than the global average in 2050. Whether a global or EU reference value is more appropriate for EU policy orientation, considering both strengthened economic and cultural ties to the forest in forest-rich countries as well as the need to prevent problem shifting associated with exporting land demands abroad, is discussed. Further research is needed to strengthen and harmonize data, improve methods for modeling future scenarios and incorporate interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder perspectives toward the development of robust and politically relevant reference values for sustainable consumption levels.
Seit einigen Jahren erfährt die Abfallwirtschaft unter dem Schlagwort "Kreislaufwirtschaft" einen massiven Perspektivwechsel: Nach den Vorstellungen der Europäischen Kommission, die 2015 ihren Aktionsplan Kreislaufwirtschaft vorgestellt hat, sollen Abfälle in Zukunft in erster Linie als potenzieller Rohstoff gesehen werden; sowohl die in einzelnen Produkten enthaltenen natürlichen Ressourcen als auch deren ökonomischer Wert sollen am Ende der Nutzungsphase möglichst optimal erhalten bleiben. Angesichts der Rohstoffarmut in Europa sollen die Abfälle recycelt und wieder in den Produktionsprozess zurückfließen, um so auch langfristig die europäische Wettbewerbsfähigkeit sicherzustellen.
Damit geraten jedoch auch neue Fragen in den Fokus: Was genau passiert eigentlich mit unserem Müll? Wo bleibt er, und in welchen Teilen der Welt wird er recycelt? Und wer hat dann Zugriff auf die Rohstoffe, die aus ihm zurückgewonnen werden?
With the introduction of the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe (2011) and the more recent commitment of The Action Plan towards the Circular Economy (2015), the European Commission (EC) has expressed its fundamental interest to substantially improve the resource efficiency of the European economy and enable the transition towards the Circular Economy (CE). This policy push has meanwhile been complemented by some quite ambitious national programmes for RE and CE and institutional advances but it is not yet bound to targets or mandatory reporting.
Against this background, the objective of this paper is to give a comprehensive overview of the current policy frameworks at EU and a selection of MSs and provide insights into the elements shaping policy processes. The analytical framework relies on three essential interconnected components: the policy framework, the economic incentive system and economic side policies which are relevant in the context of RE and CE and actor constellations. The paper does this looking at the interface between EU-MSs. The analysis is based on different empirical surveys in which the policy development is observed and discussed (EEA 2011, 2016a, 2016b, EIO 2013, 2014, 2016) and a comprehensive review of legislative and policy frameworks at the EU and selected MSs, undertaken as part of the project POLFREE (Policy option for a Resource-Efficient Economy) (Domenech et al., 2014, Bahn-Walkowiak et al., 2014). The analysis reveals that policy frameworks for RE/CE are complex and fragmented as competing goals and visions reduce effectiveness of measures. The paper makes recommendations as to how EU and MS policies could improve RE in a coordinated way, but recognizes that achieving such coordination will be challenging in the current political context.
This report examines the role of waste management in the context of a circular economy transition. Key challenges relate to moving beyond the perception of "waste as a problem" to "waste as a resource". To this end high levels of cooperation are needed between the waste industry and enterprises engaged in circular economy business models. Collecting high quality waste streams for re-use, remanufacturing and recycling also requires citizen engagement and integrated infrastructure development from the municipal to the EU level. Ultimately, both waste prevention as well as a widespread growth in circular economy activities will require a coherent and holistic approach that takes recovery options into account at every stage of the product life cycle. Co-benefits will include reducing environmental burden as well as creating both high-skilled and low-skilled jobs for an inclusive, green economy. In concrete terms, this report examines five waste streams identified in the EU's Circular Economy Action Plan: municipal waste, packaging waste, food waste, bio-waste and critical raw materials. It looks at the current state of policy development, presents trends and data comparing Member State performance, reviews the state of technological development, and assesses employment opportunities relevant to each waste stream in the overarching context of assessing progress toward the circular economy transition in the EU. Case studies of specific options for collecting and treating waste based on experiences in Denmark, Italy and Slovenia complement the more macro-level analysis of trends. Finally, key policy options are identified, in particular focused on ways to prevent waste, align circular economy and waste management objectives and improve the quality and reliability of indicators toward more robust monitoring.
The paper undertakes a closer look on the relation of institutions and policy mixes within the multi-level scope of the European Union in the policy field of resource efficiency and maps out different configurations. Based on an extensive analysis of scope, foci, instruments and especially the distribution of institutional responsibilities in 32 EU countries, the paper aims to amplify the categorisation of policy mix characteristics developed by Rogge and Reichardt by considerations on the institutional background of policy mixes. It specifically brings into question the potential impact of different institutional settings on the consistency and coherence of approaches in this evolving policy field. Resource efficiency is an eminently cross-cutting policy concept and a specific interesting unit of analysis due to the observable heterogeneity of implementation approaches. However, it is still mainly disconnected from energy issues and, at the same time, EU policy has shifted to the circular economy approach, indicating further need for streamlining with the resource efficiency approach. The paper stresses the need to include institutional and multi-level governance issues for policy design and the development of policy mixes, especially in the context of the now refocused resource efficiency agenda to the transition to a circular economy.
Germany's waste management system is one of the world's most advanced - its primary objective is to dispose of waste in a way that is safe for both people and the environ- ment. However, only about 14 per cent of the raw materials used in industry are derived from recycling processes; the remainder are still sourced from primary materials. The circular economy is not yet being implemented on a large enough scale. Recyclates or recycled materials, i.e. secondary raw materials recovered from waste, are being fed back into production and usage processes at volumes that are far below what is possible. If this system were to be improved, loss of value, dependence on volatile commodity markets, lower resource productivity, and externalities in the form of environmental pollution could be avoided. A drive towards digitalisation in industry and the waste management sector could make this happen. A study by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB) indicates that no other lead market in the environmental sector stands to benefit from digitalisation more than the circular economy - and that, at the same time, no sector has ever been so poorly positioned.
Aufgrund der perspektivisch insbesondere mit dem benötigten weiteren Ausbau der erneuerbaren Energien verbundenen weiter zunehmenden Auswirkungen der Energiesystemtransformation auf Landschaft und Ökosysteme erscheint es angemessen, dass Politik und Gesellschaft die Naturverträglichkeit der Energiewende bzw. ihrer konkreten Ausgestaltung stärker in den Blick nehmen als bisher. Denn eine angemessene Berücksichtigung und darauf aufbauende weitest mögliche Minderung der negativen Einflüsse von Energiewende-Maßnahmen auf die Natur ist aus verschiedenen Gründen von Bedeutung: Zum einen ist die gesellschaftliche Akzeptanz für das Gelingen der Energiewende entscheidend und eine weitgehend naturverträgliche Ausgestaltung der Energiewende kann diese Akzeptanz befördern. Zum anderen sind intakte Ökosysteme für das menschliche Wohlergehen von hoher Bedeutung und es kann darüberhinaus argumentiert werden, dass ihnen unabhängig vom Wert für den Menschen auch ein intrinsischer Wert zugesprochen werden sollte. (Zusätzliche) Ökosystemstörungen sollten folglich so weit wie möglich vermieden werden.
Vor diesem Hintergrund hat der Naturschutzbund Deutschland e.V. das Wuppertal Institut beauftragt, in dem vorliegenden Bericht mögliche Maßnahmen zu identifizieren und zu beschreiben, die sowohl wesentliche Beiträge zur Erreichung der Ziele der Energiewende leisten können, deren Umsetzung gleichzeitig aber nach derzeitigem Wissensstand keine oder nur geringe negative Auswirkungen auf die Natur hätte. Der Bericht soll dabei helfen, die Aufmerksamkeit auf gegenwärtig nicht ausgeschöpfte, von der Energiepolitik und auch von vielen vorliegenden Energiewende-Studien nicht oder wenig beachtete aber wahrscheinlich naturschutzgerechtere Klimaschutzoptionen zu richten und diese Optionen besser zu verstehen.
Digitalisation is in full swing and it is changing and influencing the world of the 21st century as no other dynamics of change has done before. Dealing with its impacts and at the same time shaping digitalisation itself is therefore a core task for achieving a globally sustainable transformation (German Advisory Council on Global Change - WGBU, 2019). But which direction should digitalisation take to ensure that it makes e ective contributions to globally sustainable development? And what is the specific approach needed to steer digitalisation in the right direction?
