Discussions on the draft Climate Resilience Act continue, and it would be timely to revisit the circular economy provisions as well. It remains unclear why the circular economy is still equated with the reuse and recovery of objects. Years ago, when the concept of the circular economy first reached us, such a reading was understandable. Following the adoption of circular economy standards, however, it would be sensible to reconsider established assumptions and recognise that the circular economy concerns the circulation of resources — not the management of waste, and not environmental governance. If, through the Climate Resilience Act negotiations, we could achieve a shift in this understanding, one might say that even the public sector is capable of breakthrough innovation. Within the waste reform framework, this is no longer achievable, as the bill amending the Waste Act, the Packaging Act, and related legislation is moving inexorably towards enactment. Nevertheless, in the context of climate change mitigation and adaptation, it would be reasonable to align our concepts and approaches with international norms.
The waste reform has attracted the greatest public attention through the obligation it imposes on waste holders to collect waste in separate fractions. Since this directly affects all of us, it is understandable that everyone has an opinion, and in debates it is easy to be branded with a dismissive label — for example, a hysteric.
Waste management is governed by the “polluter pays” principle, and in the broad regulatory picture, the state’s objective is to collect as much separately sorted waste as possible in order to meet the national commitments set by separate collection targets. Against this backdrop, however, one aspect has been entirely overlooked: what makes the waste reform a reform is not the obligation of separate collection but the obligation to transfer ownership of waste. The reform certainly has its merits, but it is equally certain that we cannot agree that we are implementing the world’s best possible solution, developed in our shared interest and the interest of the planet.
Looking back at the waste reform, I want to begin with a question: what would happen if businesses were not required to hand all their waste over to the local municipality? What if a company could retain ownership of certain materials? The answer: the circular economy would emerge — in precisely the way the circular economy standards describe it. Since that possibility does not exist today, and will not be created by the waste reform either, the circular economy will not emerge in our corner of the global village. This is analogous to the teaching of Soviet-era geography that, owing to the peculiarities of the state system, gullies do not form. In the same way, the circular economy will not form in Estonia as a result of the bill amending the Waste Act, the Packaging Act, and related legislation. It will come eventually — just as gullies eventually formed — but we are not talking about the forces that will bring it about.
Whereas previously waste could, loosely speaking, belong to almost anyone, under the reform the local municipality becomes the owner of all waste. Everyone else becomes a waste holder — a “paying polluter” — obliged both to sort waste, to transfer separately collected waste to the municipality, and to pay the municipality for doing so. Whereas today businesses can still transfer certain materials to recovery organisations, after the new legislation comes into force those too must be handed to the municipality. Not to the state, not to another business, but to the municipality. A prominent theme in the waste reform debates has been the idea that waste is a resource. If that is so, who will profit from it?
I do not believe, fear, or claim that municipalities will generate substantial revenue from waste and grow wealthy. More likely, I believe, the ring of “circular economy centres” that state subsidies — framed as circular economy support — will establish across Estonia will prove problematic. It seems fairly probable that once the initial enthusiasm fades, the fixed costs of these centres will burden municipal budgets, and fees charged to households and businesses — the polluters — for waste collection and management will be increased to cover the shortfall. Certainly, some small repair workshops will emerge at these centres and some garments will be mended. But that is extending the lifespan of waste, not transitioning to the circular economy.
Waste is not a resource. Materials are a resource. Waste is discarded movable property that may only be dealt with under specific and strict conditions. In the circular economy, waste is not the focus, because the circular economy’s objectives are defined in terms of resources, not waste. In this sense, the Waste Act has set off swimming against the current. The draft Climate Resilience Act does articulate the goal of the circular economy — reducing the use of primary raw materials — but then forces the entire topic into a net-zero tunnel vision. Greenhouse gas emission reduction targets are set for all sectors, and these are tied exclusively and entirely to energy use. This is despite the fact that closing resource loops and increasing resource security is an equivalent measure for both mitigating and adapting to climate change, on a par with reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
During the past year Estonia transposed all international circular economy standards, and next year the European standardisation body is expected to publish technical guidance on their implementation. The circular economy standards family ISO 59000 comprises seven standards in total, and their adoption means that standard-compliant concepts and approaches will be used across all directives and regulations related to the green transition. The first signs of the problems this could create in Estonia emerged during the debates on translating the standard. Specifically, it is required that we use Estonian waste management terminology. But the concepts needed for the circular economy either do not exist in that terminology, or are used in a different context.
The Waste Act establishes waste recovery operations, and the new legislation makes no changes to these. On the one hand, this represents the continuation of long-standing waste treatment practices. On the other hand, it reinforces the understanding that the circular economy is simply a new name for waste management. The waste recovery operations permitted by law are recycling and reclamation. But we are saving the planet through the green transition — not the Estonian economy! And from a global circular economy perspective, it does not matter which operations have been used to recover value from waste. What does matter is that all businesses face a thorough reorganisation of product development and production processes, because maintaining competitiveness will require learning to use materials derived from natural resources and from waste on an equal footing.
The principles being carved into the future through Estonia’s waste reform do not support the circular economy, and for three reasons. First, waste is not a resource — it is rubbish. Second, waste must be handed over to the local municipality as a legal obligation, yet neither the new owner nor the state is assigned any obligation related to the production of recovered resources. Third, all national support measures intended to implement the EU’s Circular Economy Action Plan are directed towards waste management improvement and towards supporting local municipalities as the state’s partners in that activity.
While there is still time before businesses feel compelled to use circular economy standards in product and process development, the need to use the digital product passport will arise within the next couple of years. This is the most important digital tool supporting the circular economy. The digital product passport is not simply a code attached to a finished product to inform the consumer. It is a fundamental change in product development, supply chain management, and production processes through which the unambiguous and measurable principles of circularity are applied across the entire supply chain. Those principles — reduced raw material use, modularity, long product lifetime and repairability — along with their metrics, are established by the circular economy standards.
The new waste management rulebook can no longer be substantially revised. What the Climate Resilience Act could be, however, is the place where the need and the means to reduce resource use are enshrined in law in a way that genuinely supports Estonia’s transition to the circular economy. Only in that case would it be possible to achieve the primary raw material reduction target that the Act intends to adopt.
This article was published in Eesti Päevaleht on 15 December 2024: Anu Kull: jäätmetest tulebki rääkida kui prügist, sest jäätmed ei ole väärtuslik materjal — Eesti Päevaleht (delfi.ee)