Is the circular economy in danger of flat lining?

Matthew Farrow
25 June 2015

Twitter FacebookLinkedIn

Print

Topics 

Environment

Politics has lost its enthusiasm for waste recycling, says Matthew Farrow. The next five years are critical.

For much of the past 20 years, there has been a good measure of consensus on the direction of travel in waste and resources policy. 

The mid-90s saw the adoption of EU legislation such as the Landfill Directive and the original Waste Framework Directive. 

The UK is currently struggling to stay on track to meet the 50% recycling target for 2020 set out in the Waste Framework Directive. By the time of the next Election, it should be clearer whether that 50% represents the summit of UK ambitions, or is seen as a staging post towards a decisive break with the linear economy of the past.

The late 90s saw the introduction of the landfill tax and then its ‘escalator’ – often regarded as the most effective green tax ever, and in 2002 MORI reported that ‘the public is supportive of recycling, re-use and composting and recognises that these are ‘good’ activities’. Policy innovations such as recycling reward points schemes were developed while devolution added an element of friendly competition between policy makers. 

 The recycling rate surged from a derisory 10% back in 90s to over 40% - a significant achievement.

This consensus lasted roughly until the first year or so of the Coalition Government. New Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman announced a review of waste policy on the basis that the Labour Government had not been ambitious enough.

When it came though, the Waste Review was more a fine-tuning of existing policy than a ratcheting up of ambition. Spelman’s successors left waste policy alone, and it was striking that by the 2015 election, while both the Greens and Lib Dems has lengthy manifesto sections on waste policy with a further upping of targets and vision, the Conservative and Labour documents were largely silent.

Meanwhile, the European Commission was also abandoning its leadership role in this field. The original 2014 ‘circular economy package’ was green business as usual – higher targets (70% recycling by 2030), landfill bans and reuse aspirations. But with the Eurozone economies still stagnating the new Commission was looking to establish its pro-business credentials and this policy area took the hit.

Within the waste and resources world itself, it seems to me there has also been a divergence of views. The think tanks and seminars are still abuzz with thoughtful analyses of the scope for a truly circular economy, how we make eco-design the rule not the exception. On the frontline though, across the transfer stations, MRFs, and reprocessing facilities, more focus is on sorting out the messy regulatory implications of ‘loss on ignition testing’ of waste samples, definition of Refuse Derived Fuel and other policy interventions. 

"The European Commission may recover its circular economy mojo, but even then the EU Referendum will create uncertainty."

All of which makes the next five years a critical time for waste and resources policy. Cities like London and Cardiff have seen recycling rates dropping (albeit marginally) for the first time for decades, and it is not clear (at least in England) where leadership to wrestle with these challenges will come from. The European Commission may recover its circular economy mojo, but even then the EU Referendum will create uncertainty. Liz Truss has not so far shown much appetite for this agenda, though the new Waste Minister Rory Stewart certainly has the chance to make a mark here if he wants to. 

The UK is currently struggling to stay on track to meet the 50% recycling target for 2020 set out in the Waste Framework Directive. By the time of the next Election, it should be clearer whether that 50% represents the summit of UK ambitions, or is seen as a staging post towards a decisive break with the linear economy of the past.

Matthew Farrow is executive director of the Environmental Industries Commission