Eca –
According to a report by the European Court of Auditors published today, there are little signs of the EU transitioning towards a circular economy. EU measures and billions of euros have had a modest impact on the transition in the Member States, especially as regards the circular design of products and production processes. In this context, we conclude that achieving the EU’s target of recycling twice as much recycled materials in this decade as in the previous decade will be like squaring the circle.
Overall, the EU has made very modest progress in transitioning to a circular economy. Between 2015 and 2021, the average circularity rate for all EU-27 states increased by only 0.4 percentage points. Seven of them – Lithuania, Sweden, Romania, Denmark, Luxembourg, Finland and Poland – have even taken steps backwards. We therefore conclude that the EU’s ambition of doubling the proportion of materials recycled and reintroduced into the economy by 2030 appears very difficult to achieve.
“Conserving materials and minimizing waste is essential if the EU is to use resources efficiently and achieve the environmental objectives of the Green Deal,” said Annemie Turtelboom, Member of the European Court of Auditors. “But the actions taken by the EU so far have been ineffective and the transition to the circular economy is almost at a standstill in many European countries.”
A circular economy preserves the value of products, materials and resources for as long as possible and minimizes waste. To contribute to the circular economy, the European Commission has prepared two action plans: the first, from 2014, contained 54 specific actions, the second, from 2020, added 35 new actions and set targets that double the circularity rate, i.e. the share of material recycled and reintroduced into the economy, for 2030. These plans were not binding, but aimed to help Member States increase circular economy activities in recent years. Until June 2022, almost all EU countries had or were developing a national strategy for the circular economy.
The EU has made significant funding available, allocating over €10 billion between 2016 and 2020 to invest in green innovation and help businesses be at the forefront of the transition to a circular economy. Instead, Member States have spent the vast majority of these funds on waste management rather than preventing its generation through circular design, which would likely have had a greater impact.
The EU plans also included a number of measures to facilitate innovation and investment. We found little evidence of the effectiveness of these measures in contributing to the circular economy, the impact of which has proved to be only modest in helping companies to produce safer products or to access innovative technologies that make production processes more sustainable. The auditors also highlight the problem of planned obsolescence, the practice of artificially limiting the useful life of a product to make it necessary to replace it. The European Commission concluded that it was not feasible to detect planned obsolescence, but that it is clearly essential to eliminate it in order to have more sustainable products.
The “circular economy” approach has significant advantages in terms of sustainability. For citizens, it means products that last longer and/or are easier to repair, upgrade, remanufacture, reuse or recycle. At the firm level, this approach offers a number of potential benefits, including greater efficiency in the use of resources and less exposure to price volatility. About 80% of a product’s environmental impact depends on its design.
Special report 17/2023 “Circular Economy – Transition in Member States progresses slowly despite EU action” is available on the Court’s website.
We also took into account the findings expressed in the 2020 report on ecodesign and energy labeling, the 2022 report on synergies between Horizon 2020 and cohesion policy funds and the 2023 review on EU actions to deal with hazardous waste.
