Waste Oil

European Commission (DG ENV)
A project under the framework contract

ENV.G.4/FRA/2008/0112
ANALYSIS OF THE KEY CONTRIBUTIONS

TO RESOURCE EFFICIENCY
Final Report
March 2011
In association with:
Contact BIO Intelligence Service

Shailendra Mudgal – Adrian Tan
℡ +33 (0) 1 53 90 11 80
shailendra.mudgal@biois.com
adrian.tan@biois.com
Project Team
BIO Intelligence Service

Mr. Shailendra Mudgal
Dr. Adrian Tan
Ms. Ana Maria Carreño
Mr. Alvaro de Prado Trigo
Ms. Débora Dias
Mr. Sandeep Pahal
IFF
Univ.-Prof. Dr. Marina Fischer-Kowalski
Mr. Willi Haas
Mr. Markus Heinz
VITO
Mr. Arnoud Lust
Mr. Ive Vanderreydt
Ms. Ann Van Der Linden
Ms. Katrijn Alaerts
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the following experts for their
assistance and comments during the course of the project: Dr. Bärbel
Birnstengel (Prognos, DE), Judit Kanthak (Umweltbundesamt, DE),
Hubert Reisinger (Umweltbundesamt, AT), David Pennington (Joint
Research Centre), Stefan Moll and Christian Heidorn (Eurostat), Dr.
Ester van der Voet and Dr. Lauran van Oers (CML, Leiden, NL), Dr. John
Barrett (Stockholm Environment Institute – University of York, UK) and
Arnold Black (Resource Efficiency Network, UK).
Disclaimer:
The project team does not accept any liability for any direct or indirect damage resulting from
the use of this report or its content.
This report contains the results of research by the authors and is not to be perceived as the
opinion of the European Commission.
European Commission DG ENV March 2011

2
Analysis of the Key Contributions to Resource Efficiency Final report
Contents
Abstract..................................................................................................................... 5
Executive summary .................................................................................................... 6
1. Introduction ................................................................................................ 12
1.1. Background ........................................................................................................... 12
1.1.1. The concept of resource efficiency ................................................................................... 12
1.1.2. Definition of material productivity ................................................................................... 14
1.2. Objectives ............................................................................................................. 16
1.3. Scope of this study ............................................................................................... 17
1.3.1. Material use and environmental impacts ......................................................................... 18
1.4. Report structure ................................................................................................... 21
2. Sources and methods ................................................................................... 22
2.1. Data sources ......................................................................................................... 22
2.1.1. Material flows and sectors ................................................................................................ 26
2.2. Method for calculating material savings .............................................................. 28
2.3. Method for calculating impacts............................................................................ 32
2.3.1. Land use ............................................................................................................................ 32
2.3.2. Ecological Footprint .......................................................................................................... 34
2.3.3. Environmentally Weighted Material Consumption (EMC) ............................................... 36
3. Recycling ..................................................................................................... 38
3.1. Recycling policies and targets set at EU level ....................................................... 39
3.2. Estimation of current contributions to material savings from recycling.............. 42
3.3. Estimation of contributions to material savings from recycling with all
current recycling targets fully reached................................................................. 48
3.4. Potential for improvement of the recycling targets ............................................. 49
4. Waste prevention ........................................................................................ 52
4.1. Definition of waste prevention............................................................................. 52
4.2. Waste prevention related policies ....................................................................... 53
4.3. The potential of waste prevention approaches ................................................... 55
4.3.1. Lean production ................................................................................................................ 55
4.3.2. Reuse................................................................................................................................. 56
4.3.3. Sustainable consumption behaviour ................................................................................ 59
4.4. Estimation of current contributions to material savings from waste
prevention ............................................................................................................ 60
4.5. Estimation of potential contributions to material savings from waste
prevention ............................................................................................................ 61
March 2011 European Commission DG ENV

3
Final report Analysis of the Key Contributions to Resource Efficiency
5. Product design ............................................................................................. 66
5.1. Definition of ecodesign ......................................................................................... 66
5.2. Ecodesign related policies .................................................................................... 67
5.3. The potential of ecodesign approaches................................................................ 69
5.3.1. Design for recyclability ......................................................................................................70
5.3.2. Product lightweighting ......................................................................................................71
5.3.3. Design for longevity...........................................................................................................75
5.4. Estimation of current contributions to material savings from design.................. 76
5.5. Estimation of potential contributions to material savings from design ............... 77
6. Overall implications ..................................................................................... 81
6.1. Overall material savings and material productivity gains..................................... 82
6.1.1. Recycling ............................................................................................................................82
6.1.2. Waste prevention ..............................................................................................................88
6.1.3. Product design...................................................................................................................91
6.1.4. Data uncertainties, relevance of assumptions and calculation uncertainties...................93
6.1.5. Summary of contributions to material productivity..........................................................95
6.2. Environmental impact reductions ........................................................................ 97
6.2.1. Environmentally-weighted Material Consumption ...........................................................97
6.2.2. Land use ..........................................................................................................................103
6.2.3. Ecological Footprint .........................................................................................................104
6.2.4. Discussion of results of environmental impacts..............................................................105
6.3. Economic and social impacts .............................................................................. 107
6.3.1. Employment impacts of material productivity................................................................108
6.3.2. Competitiveness due to material productivity ................................................................110
6.3.3. Scarcity and material security .........................................................................................112
6.4. General implications and consequences ............................................................ 113

4
ABSTRACT
This study is a first attempt to assess the extent to which recycling, waste prevention
and improvements in product design in the EU contribute to overall material use and
material productivity. Based on Material Flow Accounts (MFA) and waste statistics,
material savings for non-energy materials: biomass (excl. wood fuel), minerals,
metals and plastics, were analysed. Material savings were estimated for four
scenarios: (1) current policies and (2) policies with targets reached; (3) feasible
potential, and; (4) a theoretical 100% recycling rates. The study assumed identical
consumption patterns and population numbers when considering the different
scenarios. Besides the theoretical 100% recycling scenario, all the other scenarios
were based on material savings that could be achieved with little or no additional
costs (in some cases there would be cost benefits). For recycling the effects of
various EU policies were investigated based on waste statistics. For waste
prevention and product design, EU wide data was not available so estimates were
based on evidence from case studies. Here the effects of diverse strategies such as
lean production, reuse, sustainable consumption, design for recyclability, product
lightweighting and design for longevity were analysed.
The estimates for material savings range considerably depending on the source of
waste statistics and assumptions made. The study estimated that 7 - 18% of all non-
energy material consumption is saved or avoided due to current recycling, waste
prevention and ecodesign policies and practices. Recycling has by far the largest
contribution (accounts for over 75% of total contributions) compared to waste
prevention and product design. Waste prevention measures have considerable
potential to reduce waste and overall material consumption. In both cases product
design is the key to achieve greater amounts of recycling and waste prevention. The
future feasible potential for material savings from recycling, waste prevention and
ecodesign are estimated to be from 15% to 28% of all non-energy material
consumption. As material consumption is measured in weight, construction
materials represent the greatest share of materials saved (about two thirds of the
total materials saved). The recycling of metals, however, plays an important role in
material productivity as this represents both significant environmental impact
reductions as well as cost benefits. It was also shown that in general, increasing
material productivity can also significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions (3 - 5%
of total annual GHG emissions).

5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Natural resources are fundamental for the economy and prosperity. They provide
raw materials, energy, food, water and land, as well as environmental and social
services. However, our current patterns of resource use, production, consumption
and waste are unsustainable. The Earth has only finite resources, and the use of
these resources places increasing pressure on our natural environment resulting in
global warming, pollution and degradation of eco-systems and biodiversity. In order
to reduce the environmental impacts related to resource use in the economy, we
have to be efficient with the resources that we have.
Tracking the resource efficiency of economies is one way of understanding whether
we are progressing towards sustainable development. An indicator often used for
resource efficiency is the total amount of materials directly used by an economy
(measured as domestic material consumption [DMC]) in relation to economic
activity (measured as GDP). It provides an indication to whether decoupling between
the use of natural resources and economic growth is taking place.
The objectives of this study is to assess in quantitative terms the extent to which
recycling, waste prevention and improvements in product design together with
existing policies contribute to overall material use and material productivity.
Other economies
Product
Domestic environment design
policies
Domestic economy
Imports Exports
PRODUCTION
Recycling
Resource WASTE
use Domestic MANAGEMENT Domestic
CONSUMPTION
policies Extraction Processed
Output
Reuse
Waste Stock Recycling

prevention policies
policies
An overview of where the different resource efficiency policy areas contribute to

material flows

6
Specific objectives of the analysis performed in this study are:
1. to assess the material savings and material productivity of current measures;
2. to assess the potential of achieving existing targets and by the full
implementation of policies; and,
3. the potential of other possible methods, approaches and policies.
The study also considers the general environmental, economic and social
implications and consequences of possible actions to improve material productivity.
The resources investigated in this study are limited to non-energy materials: biomass
(excl. wood fuel), minerals, metals and plastics. Furthermore the study assumes
identical consumption patterns and population numbers when considering the
different scenarios (current policies and practices; policies with targets reached;
feasible potential, and; a theoretical 100% recycling rates) with and without
recycling, waste prevention and ecodesign measures.
Data sources and methodology
Waste statistics from Eurostat and the European Topic Centre for Sustainable
Consumption and Production formed the main source of data for the amounts of
recycling in the EU-27. This data was complemented with data from industry
associations and research institutions. There is a high degree of uncertainty in the
waste data, particularly for construction and demolition waste, which constitutes
the majority of waste in terms of weight. Estimates vary from 510 Mt to 970 Mt. The
recycling amounts from production statistics were generally significantly higher than
those reported in the national waste statistics, as the waste statistics do not capture
all waste streams and might miss out several flows, whilst production statistics
include internal material recycling flows. The data for waste prevention and product
design is limited. Based on their recent implementation, there is a lack of
measurement and no economy wide estimates exist. The estimates for waste
prevention and product design are mainly based on case studies of material savings
from local initiatives.
Material savings
In the investigation performed in this study of the contributions to material savings
and efficiency, recycling has by far the largest contribution compared to waste
prevention and product design. Waste prevention has not demonstrated any
significant effects on material savings yet, but it is assessed that through leaner
production and construction methods, more reuse and sustainable consumption
patterns this could hold significant material savings without a negative effect on
GDP. Design-oriented product policies have only showed limited material savings,
but there is evidence that both packaging and electrical and electronic equipment
has benefited considerably from ecodesign approaches. Ecodesign approaches show
promise to further reduce material consumption in the economy through
lightweighting, but also by supporting recycling and reuse.

7
Material savings contributions
1600
Amount in million tonnes (Mt)
1400
1200
1000 Product
design
800
Waste
600 prevention
400
Recycling
200
0
Current Current Ta rgets Ta rgets Fea s i bl e Fea s i bl e 100% 100%
pol i ci es , pol i ci es , rea ched, rea ched, potenti al , potenti al , recycl i ng recycl i ng
l ow hi gh l ow hi gh l ow hi gh ra tes , l ow ra tes ,
es ti ma te es ti ma te es ti ma te es ti ma te es ti ma te es ti ma te es ti ma te hi gh
es ti ma te
An overview of material savings due to recycling, waste prevention and product

design from current practices and policies as well as future potentials
Estimates for material savings range considerably depending on the source of waste
statistics and assumptions made for waste prevention, e.g. from 406 Mt to 1048 Mt
for material savings due to current policies and practices. This corresponds to 5 -
14% of total material consumption (including energy carriers). If only non-energy
material consumption was considered, then these material savings would
correspond to 7 – 18%.
Material savings in EU-27 compared to non-energy DMC and waste

6,000
Amounts in million tonnes (Mt)
5,000
4,000
3,000
Metals
2,000
Minerals
1,000
Fossil fuels
Biomass
0
DMC Current Current Ta rgets Ta rgets Fea si bl e Fea si bl e 100% 100% Wa s te
pol i ci es , pol i ci es , rea ched, rea ched, potenti a l ,potenti a l , recycl i ng recycl i ng
l ow hi gh l ow hi gh l ow hi gh ra tes , l ow ra tes ,
es ti ma te es ti ma te esti ma te esti ma te es ti ma te es ti ma te es ti ma te hi gh
esti ma te
Material savings in the EU-27 compared to non-energy related Domestic Material

Consumption (DMC) and waste. As less than 2% of fossil fuels are used for plastics,
this is almost not visible on the graph.

8
Future feasible potential for material savings from recycling, waste prevention and
ecodesign is estimate to be from 11% to around 21% of total material consumption
(including energy carriers). These potential material savings correspond to 15 – 28%
if seen in relation to total non-energy related material consumption. These
estimates do not take into account any additional savings arising from fossil fuel
savings from reduced transport or lighter vehicles.
Construction materials recycling is by far the most important activity relevant for
material savings. Metal recycling is important since it substitutes very material
intensive up-stream processes related to mining and refining. Wood, paper and
cardboard recycling has the largest contributions to biomass (forestry) savings.
Reductions from food waste prevention are very small compared to overall
consumption.
There is a high degree of uncertainly to the above values as the data they are based
on is not very robust and several general assumptions have been made in order to
perform the calculations. For some material streams the recycling data varies up to a
factor 5. Overall the difference between the conservative estimates and high
estimates is up to a factor 2.6. However, if controlled for the uncertainty of
construction and demolition waste the difference is about 30%.
Environmental impacts
Three methodologies for calculating environmental impacts were chosen as most
suited for the purposes of this study: land use, Ecological Footprint (EF) and
Environmentally Weighted Material Consumption (EMC). Although all methods have
their shortcomings, they are thought to provide a fair indication of different
environmental impacts in relation to the key contributions to material productivity.
Land use and EF caters more for biomass production and land use indicators, while
EMC has a broad application for all types of material streams and environmental
impact categories.
The reduction of land use in the EU due to material savings was only calculated for
biomass materials as there is no direct relationship between the other material
streams and land use. In any case the area of land taken for mining, production and
landfill sites is very small in the EU and changes to this are considered insignificant.
Regarding land use reductions for forestry and agriculture, the material savings from
wood, paper and food that could be achieved from best practices implemented in all
Member States would correspond to about 30 million ha of bioproductive area.
Most of this would be forest area.
Material savings go hand in hand with reductions in environmental impacts. The
Environmentally weighted Material Consumption (EMC) methodology was used to
calculate the achieved and potentials for environmental impact reduction. Here it
was calculated that 135 Mt of CO2 equivalent (based on the conservative estimate)
are current saved annually due to the contributions to material productivity from
recycling, waste prevention and product design. Plastics, biomass and metals are the

9
material streams with the highest contribution to reductions in this impact category.
If all the recycling policy targets identified are reached, 176 Mt of CO2 equivalent
would be saved annually. In the cases of the maximum recycling potential and 100%
recycling rates achieved, the annual amount of CO2 equivalent emissions saved
would be 278 Mt and 315 Mt, respectively. Plastics are the material stream with
higher environmental impact reductions in the current situation and also with the
highest improvement potential in the other three scenarios analysed. The reductions
in greenhouse gas emissions do not take into account any additional savings arising
from fuel savings from reduced transport or lighter vehicles.
Socio-economic impacts
The impacts of recycling, waste prevention and product design were analysed in
relation to employment and competitiveness. A review of the existing knowledge
was provided, but no direct relationship with increased material productivity could
be determined. In general, direct-employment in all EU-27 eco-industries in 2008
reached approximately 3.4 million whereas it was at 2.8 million in 2004139. Waste
management and recycled materials have important annual growth rates, 7.1% and
10.6% respectively, and usually in countries where the rate of waste recycled is high
(i.e. Germany), the rate of employment in this sector is also high.
However, the net jobs creation due to increasing material productivity should be
calculated accounting the number of jobs created and the possible job losses. The
assessment of direct job losses, transformation, and substitution is difficult to
determine because no data is readily available.
General implications and consequences
In the study it is estimated that recycling has by far the largest contribution to
material productivity (currently and also future potential), but it would seem that
waste prevention through reuse and consumption behaviour could contribute
significantly. In order for material productivity to increase, product design is the key
to achieve greater amounts of recycling and waste prevention.
Material
productivity
Sustainable
Waste
Recycling consumption
prevention
behaviour
Product
Reduce/eliminate
design
Design for toxic substances
recycling Product Design for reuse/repair/
lightweighting refurbish/remanufacture
How product design is key to achieving greater material productivity through
recycling and waste prevention

10
To increase resource efficiency through recycling, waste prevention and product
design policies, one must consider the various material streams and their
application:
• Construction materials constitute the largest material flow, but most go into
stock (buildings and infrastructure) for the benefit of future generations
• Waste prevention is most suitable for addressing food, whilst recycling and
product design can address the supporting systems surrounding the food cycle
(e.g. packaging)
• Rare metals play a critical role in high-tech products (incl. environmental
technologies), efforts should be made to ensure that these materials are never
wasted
Resource efficiency is an indicator that measures the input and output of natural
resources in the economy in relation to GDP. The EU’s Resource Strategy has the
dual objective of decoupling resource use from economic growth and decoupling
environmental impacts from resource use. This study has investigated the
contributions of recycling, waste prevention and eco-design polices and measures
that contribute to the overall resource efficiency and reduction in environmental
impacts. When considering whether targets for resource efficiency should be put
forth, as they have been done for energy efficiency, it should be noted that as
resource efficiency is based on the relationship of the input and output of resources,
the focus so far has been more on the economic aspects rather than the actual
reduction of overall resource use.
If the real goal of sustainability is to ensure that the non-renewable resources are
not wasted and the renewable resources are only exploited in a way that allows the
resource stock to regenerate itself and continue to fulfil the needs of future
generations, then the focus should be on the actual amounts of resources that enter
and leave the economy. Likewise resource efficiency cannot be used as a proper
proxy for reducing environmental impacts on for example biodiversity, as these
often depend on actual amounts of emissions locally. The amount of natural
resources we have and the endpoints of environmental impacts are absolute, whilst
resource efficiency is relative.

11
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. BACKGROUND
Natural resources are fundamental for any society and its prosperity. They provide
raw materials, energy, food, water and land, as well as ecological and social services.
Materials are needed in all human activities and form the basis of our economy. Raw
materials are extracted from nature to produce products and services that create
economic value. These are then consumed and finally returned to nature in the form
of waste and emissions.
Our current rate of extraction and depletion of natural resources is however
jeopardising the chances of future generations to meet their own needs. Some
renewable resources are already harvested beyond the planet’s reproductive
capacity and many non-renewable resources are becoming scarce. This depletion of
natural resources affects countries’ national incomes, international security,
employment, human health, and other quality of life issues. Furthermore the
associated environmental burden of resource extraction and use (e.g. pollution,
waste, soil degradation, habitat disruption), has its effects on the environment (e.g.
air, water, soil, biodiversity, landscape) and on the related life sustaining eco-system
services.1
The current EU strategy focuses on decoupling the benefits of resource use, such as
economic growth from the collateral damages, such as resource depletion and
environmental degradation. Increasing resource efficiency can contribute to the goal
of creating more value by using fewer resources.
1.1.1. THE CONCEPT OF RESOURCE EFFICIENCY

Resources can be defined as natural assets deliberately extracted and modified by
human activity for their utility to create economic value.2 As such, they can be
measured both in physical units (such as tonnes, joules or hectares), and in
monetary terms expressing their economic value. Resources can include the
following:
• Raw materials such as materials, minerals, fossil fuels, etc.
1
OECD (2008) Measuring material flows and resource productivity – Volume I. The OECD Guide,
Chapter 1, OECD, Paris.
2
Mudgal S., Fischer-Kowalski M., Krausmann F., Chenot B., Lockwood S., Mitsios A., Schaffartzik A.,
Eisenmenger N., Cachia F., Steinberger J., Weisz U., Kotsalainen K., Reisinger H., and Labouze E. (2010)
Preparatory study for the review of the thematic strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources.
Contract 07.0307/2009/545482/ETU/G2, Final report for the European Commission (DG Environment).
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/natres/pdf/BIO_TSR_FinalReport.pdf

12
• Flow resources such as wind and tidal energy sources, as well as other
renewable energy resources such as geothermal and solar energy;
• Land or space, with increasingly limited access and competitive uses, are
closely linked both to the demand of goods and commodities; and
• Environmental media such as air, soil, and water which are the basic
resources that support our ecosystems and their diversity.
The terms ‘resource efficiency’ and ‘resource productivity’ are often used to
specifically describe the amount of resources (energy and materials) used to
produce one unit of economic activity (generally Gross Domestic Product (GDP)3.
Overall the resource productivity (including fossil fuels) in the EU increased at an
average of 1.1% per year between 2000 and 2005 (see Figure 1-1).
Figure 1-1: Resource productivity in the EU (EUR/kg)4

The extent to which this happens varied a great deal among Member States: some
countries managed to achieve absolute decoupling of economic growth from
material consumption (total material consumption decreased while the economy
grew), while others only managed a relative decoupling (material consumption grew
slower than the economy) or no decoupling (material consumption grew faster than
the economy).
In the context of the present study, as only the resource efficiency of (non-energy
carrying) materials are considered, the term ‘material productivity’ will be used
forthwith.
3
This refers to the physical dimension of the economy where “it is conceptualised as an activity, as a
process of extracting materials from nature, transforming them, keeping them as society’s stock for a
certain amount of time and, at the end of the production-consumption chain, disposing of them again
in nature”.
4
Eurostat (2009) Sustainable development in the European Union. 2009 monitoring report of the EU
sustainable development strategy. Eurostat Statistical Books.

13
1.1.2. DEFINITION OF MATERIAL PRODUCTIVITY
Material productivity is a measure of the total amounts of materials directly used by
an economy in relation to its economic activity. In order to provide a quantitative
assessment of material productivity, economic growth and the consumption of
materials need to be quantified. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is a widely accepted
indicator to measure the economic activity in an economy. Regarding material
consumption, there is still no consensus on the best indicator to describe this.
Over the past decade, Material Flow Analysis (MFA) has established a framework for
documenting and analysing an economy’s material resource use. One of the main
strengths of MFA is its systemic approach: it seeks to cover all raw materials
extracted from nature, and follows them through their life cycle until they are finally
returned back to the environment.
MFA keeps track of all materials that enter and leave the economy within one year
applying the mass balance principle. MFA therefore provides a biophysical account
of the level of material flow in national economies analogue to the concept of GDP
in national economic accounting. These flows incorporate extracted or imported
materials to be used within the national economy, and all material released to the
environment as wastes, emissions or exports to other economies or added to
societal stocks. In MFA, the economy is usually treated as a black box where only
input and outputs are considered, as presented in Figure 1-2. However, net additions
to societal stocks are accounted for to redeem the mass balance equation and
recycling and reuse activities are highlighted here since they are relevant for this
study.
Rest of the world environment and economy
Domestic environment
Domestic economy
Total Material Requirement (TMR)
Imports Exports
Domestic Net Additions

to Stock
Material
Domestic Domestic
Input
Extraction Material Domestic
Used Consumption Processed
Output
Unused Unused
Domestic Domestic
Extraction Extraction
Stock
Figure 1-2: Material balance and flow schemes used in MFA5
5
Bringezu, S. & Bleischwitz, R. (editors) (2009) Sustainable Resource Management. Global trends,
visions and policies. Greenleaf Publishing.

14
The boundary of the physical economy6 is defined in a way that is compatible with
the system of national accounts (SNA) as far as possible to facilitate integrated
monetary and biophysical analysis7. A number of flow aggregates can be derived
from the MFA framework for a national economy and for a certain time period
(usually one year), expressed in metric tonnes8. In order to measure the resource
use of the EU at an aggregated level, an economy-wide material flow analysis can be
used to account for the material flows in the whole region. A set of indicators that
are already measured and reported in various sources will be used throughout this
report and their definitions are provided in Annex A.
Domestic Material Input (DMI) and Domestic Material Consumption (DMC) are
commonly analysed in the literature reviewed but they are restricted to
consumption of economically valued primary materials, without taking into account
unused domestic extraction9 or indirect flows associated with imports and exports.
Taking only these indicators as a measure of resource use can be misleading, as a
part of the resource use and environmental pressures in other parts of the world
might not be accounted for, shifting the consequences of domestic consumption to
other regions. Whenever it is possible, the use of Total Material Requirement (TMR)
or Total Material Consumption (TMC) is preferred as both indicators consider all the
materials extracted from the environment, even if those materials do not physically
enter into the economy. However, in a 2007 report from Eurostat10, GDP over DMC
is used as the main indicator for resource productivity, as there is not sufficient data
for TMC in all Member States and until such data becomes available DMC can be
used as a “proxy for the more relevant indicator TMC”. Eurostat has datasets of DMC
for EU-15 for 1990 – 2000 and for EU – 27 for 2000 – 2007.
Due to data availability and coherence with the Commission, in this study material
productivity is defined as the ratio between the economic activity and the annual
amount of raw materials extracted from the domestic territory, plus all physical
imports and minus all physical exports; or in other terms:
Material productivity = Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Domestic Material Consumption (DMC)
6
This refers to the physical dimension of the economy where “it is conceptualised as an activity, as a
process of extracting materials from nature, transforming them, keeping them as society’s stock for a
certain amount of time and, at the end of the production-consumption chain, disposing of them again
in nature”.
7
Eurostat (2001) Material use indicators for the European Union, 1980-1997. Economy-wide material
flow accounts and balances and derived indicators of resource use. Luxembourg, Eurostat. Prepared
by Bringezu, S. and Schütz, H.
8
Schandl, H., Grünbühel, C.M., Haberl, H. & Weisz., H. (2002). Handbook of Physical Accounting:
Measuring Bio-physical Dimensions of Socio-economic Activities (MFA-EFA-HNPP). Social Ecology
Working Papers. Vienna, IFF Social Ecology.
9
Unused domestic extraction is the part of the materials extracted that does not enter into the
economy.
10
Eurostat (2007) Measuring progress towards a more sustainable Europe. 2007 monitoring report of
the EU sustainable development strategy. European Commission.

15
In general, resource consumption changes very little over time11. The moderate
changes that have occurred tend to be closely related to economic downturns.
When comparing countries (see Figure 1-1), it becomes apparent that it is possible
to improve material productivity considerably12.
1.2. OBJECTIVES
The goal of this study is to assess in quantitative terms the extent to which waste
prevention, recycling and improvements in product design together with existing
policies contribute to overall material use and material productivity. Specific
objectives of the analysis carried out in this study are:
1. to assess the material savings and material efficiency of current measures
2. to assess the potential of achieving existing targets and by the full
implementation of policies and,
3. the potential of other possible methods, approaches and policies
The study also considers the general environmental, economic and social
implications and consequences of possible actions to improve material productivity.
Material
productivity
Waste
Recycling
prevention
Product
design
Figure 1-3: Key contributions to material productivity
There are a number of EU policies that aim to improve resource efficiency by
implementing strategies for reducing, reusing or recycling or setting targets to
increase these practices. In particular, three main policy blocks are considered to
contribute to resource efficiency: recycling, waste prevention and product design.
However, further analysis needs to be done to establish which areas are already
contributing to resource efficiency and to what extent, and to investigate which of
these contributions hold the greatest future potential.
11
Stephan Moll, Stefan Bringezu, Helmut Schütz (2005) Resource Use in European Countries. An
estimate of materials and waste streams in the Community, including imports and exports using the
instrument of material flow analysis. Wuppertal Institute for European Topic Centre on Waste and
Material Flows.
12
Stefan Bringezu & Raimund Bleischwitz (editors) (2009) Sustainable Resource Management. Global
trends, visions and policies. Greenleaf Publishing.

16
1.3. SCOPE OF THIS STUDY
The three key contributions to material productivity investigated in this study (waste
prevention, recycling and improvements in product design) are visualised in the
following material flow diagram (Figure 1-4). The study only considers non-energy
materials (e.g. biomass (excl. fuel), metals, minerals and plastics (made from fossil
fuels)). Furthermore the study assumes identical consumption patterns and
population numbers when considering the different scenarios with and without
recycling, waste prevention and ecodesign measures.
Figure 1-4: Contribution of waste prevention, recycling and improvements to

product design to material use
Waste prevention
Waste prevention encompasses a broad range of measures that aim to reduce the
quantity and hazardousness of waste by controlling the waste generation
throughout the life cycle of products13. In this way, waste prevention reduces
materials in the economy that could end up as waste. Waste prevention can cover
diverse strategies such as increasing the efficiency of the use of products; restricting
unnecessary consumption; extending product life (e.g. re-use, repair, refurbishment,
etc.). Hence waste prevention can affect the entire flow of materials by restricting
unnecessary materials from entering the economy or restricting materials from
leaving the economy as waste.
13
BIO Intelligence Service (2009) Guidelines on Waste Prevention Programmes, European Commission.

17
Recycling
After waste prevention and re-use, recycling is the next waste management option
in the EU waste hierarchy14. Recycling occurs when products and materials that have
been defined as waste are collected, sorted and processed into raw materials and
re-enter the material flow. Recycling takes place after consumption (post-consume)
or it can also occur during production (pre-consume), when leftover material from
industrial processes is recycled back into the production. Post-production material is
not always registered as waste, as it is either used within the same company’s
production processes or sold to other companies. This form of business resource
efficiency can contribute significantly to material savings in the economy, but is not
always accounted for in official statistics15. Recycled material from the waste
streams of other economies may also enter the domestic economy in the form of
imports; in the same way, recycled materials can leave the domestic economy as
exports. Both flows need to be accounted for in order to measure their contributions
to material use in the economy.
Product design
Although material productivity improvements in product design can be seen as a
waste prevention strategy, in this study they are considered independently as a
policy measure that could be applied under the Ecodesign Directive16. Product
design has the potential to:
• reduce or avoid the use of materials (i.e. avoiding certain materials from
entering the economy);
• increase the durability and reliability of products, as well as encourage the re-
use, repair and recyclability of products (i.e. avoiding materials from leaving the
economy).
In relation to the material flows, products are created from raw materials entering
the domestic economy during production, but they may also be produced in other
parts of the world and be imported and thus entering the economy during the
consumption phase. Alternatively, products created in the domestic economy can
also leave the material flow as exports to other countries.
1.3.1. MATERIAL USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

The quantities of material used are a major concern in relation to sustainable
management of resources. In addition to that, the impacts of the extraction and use
of each material on the environment need to be considered. Whilst it is generally
beneficial for the environment to reduce the consumption of resources, there is a
14
Waste Framework Directive (2006/98/EC)
15
Oakdene Hollins and Grant Thornton (2007) Quantification of the business benefits of resource
efficiency. A research report completed for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
16
Directive for establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related
products (2009/125/EC)

18
large difference in environmental impacts caused by different materials17. For
example, the environmental impacts of one kg of sand are much smaller than one kg
of animal fat (see Figure 1-5). When attempting to reduce resource use, it is
therefore more important to aim for the reduction of specific resources than
resource efficiency in general.
Another important element of sustainable management of resources is the Earth’s
carrying capacity: the ability of the planet to absorb the environmental impacts and
maintain its ecosystem services18, such as nutrient cycling, clean water, etc. Whilst it
is possible to relate the flow of materials through the economy with the associated
environmental impacts using life cycle inventory data, this only gives an indication of
the impact, not the actual damage caused, e.g. ecotoxicity is an environmental
impact indicator, but does not inform on the specific loss of biodiversity. Although
there is a relation between different impact indicators and the state of the
environment, these relations are not well understood.
Figure 1-5: The relation between consumption and environmental life cycle
impacts for various materials in the EU in 200019
In order to calculate the reduction of environmental impacts due to improved
material productivity, a link between material flows and the environmental impacts
have to be determined. As such, land use is not an environmental impact category
on its own, but it is an important indicator related to natural resources as it provides
17
CE Delft & CML, Delft (2004) Economy-wide material flows and environmental policy: an analysis of
indicators and policy uses for economy-wide material flow policy.
18
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. World
Resources Institute. Island Press, Washington, DC.
19
van der Voet, E., van Oers, L., Moll, S., Schütz, H., Bringezu, S., de Bruyn, S., Sevenster, M., Warringa,
G. (2005) Policy Review on Decoupling: Development of indicators to assess decoupling of economic
development and environmental pressure in the EU-25 and AC-3 countries. Institute of
Environmental Sciences (CML), Leiden University; Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and
Energy; CE Solutions for Environment, Economy and Technology.

19
an idea of the pressure put on land, but also on eco-system services and eco-system
functioning (e.g. biodiversity) by agriculture, forestry, mineral extraction,
construction, and infrastructure. Human land use is often in competition with
ecosystems and natural habitats. Likewise, it is not entirely correct to talk about
depletion of non-renewable resources, as many metals and minerals are not actually
depleted (i.e. they are not transformed into other materials), but merely dispersed
in products and constructions around the world. It is however an interesting factor
to consider in relation to resources as it provides an indicator for material security
and equity.
Biodiversity
The establishment of mines and quarries has direct effects on biodiversity through
habitat destruction. Sites can however be selected and managed in a manner that is
less harmful on the environment, but this depends on the country and the
regulation and enforcement in place. Likewise when new roads and infrastructure
are built, e.g. for example to access remote areas of agriculture and mining, this
furthermore results in loss of biodiversity as species are hindered in roaming.
Emissions to air and water of hazardous substances from the production of metals
and fossil fuels can also have severe ecotoxic impacts, which directly affect living
creatures and their ability to reproduce.
Currently there is no consensus on how to quantify the impacts of materials and
products on biodiversity, which is an area of protection. Many midpoint impact
categories that are used in LCA are indirect indicators of the impact on the loss of
species: acidification, euthrophication, ecotoxicity, land use, etc. The damage an
impact can cause depends on where it occurs. Some natural habitats and species are
more fragile than others and others are more abundant than others.
In a report on the environmental impact of natural resources trade flows to the EU20,
biodiversity was considered for a large range of commodities. In general, biodiversity
competes with land use for food, feed and fuel. As there is more biodiversity in
tropical and subtropical regions land use changes in these areas have a greater
impact on biodiversity loss (particularly when previously uncultivated land is used to
expand land for crops or when agricultural practices become more intensive). The
amount of biomass removed from the land (HANPP – Human Appropriation of Net
Primary Production)21 is a useful pressure indicator for biodiversity loss, but
unfortunately the availability of this type of data is limited. Monoculture of crops,
use of herbicides and pesticides reduce biodiversity in cultivated areas. The
20
Bates, J. and Dale, N. (2008) Environmental Impacts of Significant Natural Resource Trade Flows into
the EU. AEA Energy & Environment and Metroeconomica for the European Commission, DG
Environment.
21
Haberl, H., Gaube, V. Díaz-Delgado, R., Krauze, K., Neuner, A., Peterseil, J., Plutzar, C., Singh, S.J. and
Vadineanu, A. (2009) Towards an integrated model of socioeconomic biodiversity drivers, pressures
and impacts. A feasibility study based on three European long-term socio-ecological research
platforms. Ecological Economics 68.

20
processing of natural resources (e.g. palm oil, rubber) that occur close to where they
are grown can also have adverse effects on biodiversity due to untreated effluent.
Changes in land use can provide information on the effects of resource use in
biodiversity according to the concepts presented previously. For this reason, a
methodology to measure the extent of land use changes that can be attributed to
resource efficiency policies is defined in the following section.
1.4. REPORT STRUCTURE
This report is structured in five sections to present the main findings according to
the objectives of the study. The first section will introduce the sources and methods
defined to conduct the analysis, followed by a section where the main policy blocks
under study are analysed: recycling, waste prevention and product design. The last
section presents the overall results and general implications after carrying out the
study. A short description of the main sections is presented in the following:
Sources and Presents a state-of-the-art overview of existing studies, reports
methods: and relevant literature. The methodologies to estimate the
contributions to material savings and the economic, social and
environmental impacts of the three main building blocks under
study are defined.
Recycling: Presents the estimate of the total potential contribution of
recycling rates to material savings and efficiency under current and
possible policy measures.
Waste Presents the estimate of the total potential contribution of waste
prevention: reduction to material savings and efficiency under current and
possible policy measures.
Product Presents the estimate of the total potential contribution of product
design: design to material savings and efficiency under current and
possible product policy measures.
Overall Provides an overall map of potential material savings and material
implications: productivity gains for recycling, waste reduction and product
design under current and possible policy measures. Assess the
general implications and consequences (including economic,
social and environmental impacts) of possible actions to improve
material productivity.

21
2. SOURCES AND METHODS
This section identifies information and data sources that provide an overview of the
status and potential contributions of waste prevention, re-use and recycling and
product design policies to material productivity. Existing relevant publications are
used as a basis for material productivity trends and estimates. Information gaps are
complemented by contacting relevant experts. The methods used for estimating the
environmental, economic and social impacts are also derived from the evidence
presented in this section.
2.1. DATA SOURCES
Material Flow Analysis (MFA) takes into account all materials flows in the economy
(see Figure 2-1). Economy-wide material flow accounts are consistent compilations
of the overall material inputs into a national economy or a union of national
economies from the environment (domestic extraction) and from the rest of the
world economy (imports), the changes of material stock within the economy (net
addition to stocks) and the material outputs from the economy to the environment
(domestic processed outputs) and the rest of the world economy (exports).
Economy-wide MFAs cover all solid, gaseous, and liquid materials, except for bulk
water and air; the unit of measurement is tonnes per year.
Other economies
Domestic environment
Domestic economy
Imports Exports
Domestic Material Input (DMI)
Economic
processing
Domestic
Extraction Domestic
Processed
Output
Stock
Domestic Material Consumption (DMC) = Domestic Material Input (DMI) - Exports
Figure 2-1: Economy-wide material flow accounts and indicators22
22
Modified from: Matthews, E., Amann, C., Fischer-Kowalski, M., Bringezu, S., Hüttler, W., Kleijn, R.,
Moriguchi, Y., Ottke, C., Rodenburg, E., Rogich, D., Schandl, H., Schütz, H., van der Voet, E., Weisz, H.,
(2000) The Weight of Nations: Material Outflows from Industrial Economies. World Resources

22
Similar to the system of national accounts, material flow accounts serve two major
purposes. The detailed accounts provide a rich empirical database for numerous
analytical studies. They are also used to compile different extensive and intensive
material flow indicators for national economies at various levels of aggregation.
The current available material flow accounts for the EU by Eurostat23 tracks material
flow data (by weight) on:
• Fossil fuels (hard coal, lignite, crude oil, natural gas, peat, etc.)
• Minerals
− Metal ores
− Industrial minerals
− Construction minerals
• Biomass
− Biomass from agriculture
− Biomass from forestry
− Biomass from hunting
− Biomass from fishing
− Biomass from other activities (honey, gathering of mushrooms, berries,
herbs etc.)
As requested by the Commission, only non-energy carrying materials are considered
in this study. However, plastics (made from fossil fuels) and wood (biomass) are
considered. When data is available, a further breakdown of materials is provided,
e.g. ferrous and non-ferrous metals, concrete, sand, glass, stone, paper, food.
Eurostat has datasets of DMC for EU-15 for 1990 – 2000 and for EU-27 for 2000 –
2007. In Annex A the main material flows in the EU are presented.
In 2004, the EU-27 economies extracted 6,477 Mt of materials (most of it was
construction materials). A further 3,038 Mt of materials (half of this fossil fuels) was
imported, whilst 1,801 Mt was exported. This resulted in a domestic material
consumption (DMC) of 7,714 Mt of materials (half of this was construction materials,
a quarter fossil fuels and a bit less than a quarter metals). The total amount of waste
generated in the economy was 2,920 Mt (the majority mineral wastes).
Institute, Washington, D.C.

23
Eurostat (2001) Economy-wide material flow accounts and derived indicators — A methodological
guide, 2000 edition, Eurostat theme 2, economy and finance.

23
Main material flows in the EU-27 economy (2004)
8 000
7 000
6 000
5 000 Unidentified
4 000 Metals
3 000 Minerals
2 000 Fossil fuels
1 000 Biomass
0
Domestic Imports Exports DMC Waste
extraction
Figure 2-2: Quantitative description of input and output of material flows in the
EU-27 economy (Eurostat)
Material productivity would benefit from any reductions that could be made in any
of the material streams as long as these do not affect the economy negatively. An
alternative approach could be to analyse the impact of material productivity in
economic terms, accounting the price of the raw materials and the costs of recycling,
prevention and alternative design practices. However, even if this could allow an
interesting discussion, this would be beyond the scope of this study. Nevertheless,
this issue will be raised within the economic impacts assessment section.
Eurostat also provides data on waste flows, emissions and land use, which are used
in this study. This is complemented with other sources, such as the European
Environment Agency (EEA) / European Topic Centre on Sustainable Consumption
and Production and the Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC), in the case of
waste management data, or specific industrial associations, in the case of recycling
rates and improvements in design.
The majority data used in this study is taken from recent related studies
commissioned by DG Environment, such as:
• Arcadis, Eunomia (2009) Assessment of the options to improve the management
of biowaste in the European Union
• Arcardis, VITO, Umweltsbundesamt, BIO Intelligence Service (2010) Analysis of
the evolution of waste reduction and the scope of waste prevention.
• BIO Intelligence Service (2010) Study on management of construction and
demolition waste in the EU.
• BIO Intelligence Service, AEA, Umweltsbundesamt (2010) Preparatory study on
food waste across EU-27.

24
• BIO Intelligence Service, AEA Technology, and IEEP (2010) Plastic waste in the
environment.
Treatment of waste in EU-27

3500
2961
2914
3000
2622
2466 2397
2500 2353
2000
1500 2004
1262 1203
1170 1135
982 1097 2006
1000
2008
500
72 81 82 38 48 48
0
Total waste Total waste Disposal Other forms Energy Incineration
generated treatment of recovery recovery without
energy
recovery
Figure 2-3: Total waste treatment in EU-27 in 2004, 2006 and 2008 (Eurostat)
The total amount of waste generated in EU-27 in 2004 was 2,914 Mt (hazardous and
non-hazardous) of which 2,353 Mt was treated. This corresponds to over a third of
the materials consumed. Only a third of all waste (982 Mt in 2004) is recovered and
used in the economy again.
In addition to this data from alternative sources (e.g. publications from research
institutions, governmental organisations, trade associations, etc. internationally and
in different countries) were found as contrast in order to find and explain possible
inconsistencies. This is the case of waste collection and management data, where
amounts are different depending on the source and methodology of gathering the
information. For example, Member States differ in their reporting of municipal solid
waste (MSW); some include all packaging waste (generated by both households and
industries) in MSW, while others do not..24
The material shares in waste management data are based on assumptions of the
composition of the different kinds of waste treated, while the share of recycled
materials entering into the economy are based on data provided by industry
associations.
In Annex A, a summary of data sources is presented, with detailed sources used per
section of this study. Although there is more recent datasets for some materials and
24
EEA - ETC/SCP (2009) Europe as a Recycling Society- Present recycling levels of Municipal Waste and
Construction &Demolition Waste in the EU. Prepared by Christian Fischer and Mads Werge, ETC/SCP
working paper 2/2009.

25
sectors, the data and calculations used within this study have as reference the year
2004, as this is the most recent MFA complete data available when this study was
performed. When data for 2004 were not available, data from 2005 or 2006 were
used. In some cases a comparison with more recent data will be presented, in order
to discuss the trends in the EU-27. For example, the most recent waste datasets
available in Eurostat at the time of writing was for 2008, and the total waste
amounts arising in that year were around 2,600 Mt, 11% lower than in 2004.
2.1.1. MATERIAL FLOWS AND SECTORS

Building upon the gathered data and information listed in Annex A, the composition
of materials consumption (by weight) in each of the sectors (and subsectors, e.g.
automotive, packaging, paper, etc.) can be observed. The following illustrations are
trying to throw light on the main sectors examined in this study (construction,
agriculture, and industry).
100% 4%
90%
80%
55% 52%
70%
58% 60% 64%
73% 75%
60% 81%
69% 85%
50% 100%
95% 94% 96%
40%
8%
30%
45% 4% 48%
20% 38% 35%
27% 28%
10% 23% 21%
19%
15%
0% 0% 0%
es
um
ad
d
er
Tin
l
el
ium
in
cs
ee
on
Zin
oo
as
ck
pp
at
ol
Le
ti
ps
st
Gl
W
t
in
Ka
eg
as
Ni
es
Co
Gy
n&
um
Pl
gr
Lim
Ag
Al
Ir o
Construction Agriculture Industry Others
Figure 2-4: The distribution of materials according to the three main material
consuming sectors by weight25
The construction sector consumes the minerals as a major resource, in terms of
weight (see Figure 2-4). Metal and woods are of equal importance to the
construction sector. Plastics and glass, by contrast, play a less important role in
comparison with non-metallic minerals. Similarly, non-metallic minerals are the
principal resources contributing to the agriculture sector. The scope of this study
does not allow a systematic identification of wood, metal and glass contributing to
25
Source: Eurofer (2009), European Steel in Figures 2005 - 2009; World Steel Association, Steel
Statistical Yearbook 2009; Mineralinfo (www.mineralinfo.org); British Geological Survey (2009),
European Mineral Statistics 2004-2009 and 2000-2004; Eurostat (for_remov and for_basic); Plastics
Europe, Compelling Facts About Plastics 2009; Plastics Europe, Plastics: the Fact 2010; CPIV (Standing
Committee of the European Glass Industry), Statistics, available at: www.cpivglass.be/main.html

26
the agriculture sector, regardless of possible intermediate consumption. When it
comes to the industry, a more diversified composition of material consumption can
be discovered. Again, the non-metallic minerals account for nearly a half of materials
consumed in the industry, the lion’s share. Metal and wood represent roughly one
fifth each. Glass and plastics share the rest 13% material consumption in the
industry.
Whereas the above sectoral comparison shows the structure of material
consumption in each of the sectors, the following is trying to find out how each
material is consumed by different sectors and sub-sectors. This comparison comes
up with a general observation that metals are mainly consumed by the industry
(60%), followed by the construction sector (36%) (See Figure 2-5).
100%
7%
90%
24% 16%
80% 24%
70% 14% Others

14%
Industry (Other)
60%
4% Industry (Packaging)
31%
50% Industry (Engineering)
16% 36% Industry (E&E)
40%
Industy (Automotive)
30% 14% Construction
20% 38%
27% 23%
10%
0%
Steel Aluminium Copper
Figure 2-5: Distribution of industries that use metals (Fe, Al & Cu)26
A further breakdown of end-use market segmentation of major metals shows the
automotive, engineering and E&E (electrical and electronics) are the main sub-
sectors that use various metals. By contrast, packaging industry is one of the major
consumers of plastics, glass and woods (See Figure 2-6). Non-metallic minerals are
principally used by the construction sector. This is resulted from the use of
aggregates in the construction sector, which accounts for an overwhelmingly large
portion of minerals in terms of weight. Gypsum is a typical case in this regard as
well, 96% of which ends up in the construction sector. For limestone and kaolin,
about one fifth of each is used in the paper industry. Limestone has a multiple end-
use in the engineering industry and agriculture sector as well.
26
Source: DG ENTR (2009), Annex V to the Report of the Ad-hoc Working Group on Defining Critical
Raw Materials (DG ENTR); Eurofer (2009), European Steel in Figures 2005 - 2009

27
100% 4% 6%
90% 8% 19%
24%
7%
80% 36%
48% Others
7%
70% Industry (Other)
6% 33% Industry (Paper)
60%
Industry (Automotive)
50% 96% 21% 60% Industry (E&E)
16% 38% Industy (Engineering)
40%
3% Industry (Packaging)
30% 8% Agriculture
4% 48% Construction
20%
35%
28%
10% 19% 21%
0%
Gypsum Kaolin Limestone Glass Plastics Wood
Figure 2-6: Distribution of industries that use gypsum, kaolin, limestone, plastics,
glass and wood 27,28
2.2. METHOD FOR CALCULATING MATERIAL SAVINGS
Recycling, waste prevention and product design are all meant to enable production
and consumption with fewer materials than without employing such measures and
thereby increasing the material productivity. This section describes the methodology
developed for calculating material savings and material productivity improvements
due to recycling. The methodologies estimating material savings from waste
prevention and product design will be slightly different; however, they follow the
same principles. The methodology uses the framework of Material Flow Accounts
(MFA) described in the previous section.
Recycling induced material savings refer to a reduction in the economy wide
material flow accounts (MFA). More specifically material savings are the amount by
which Direct Material Input (DMI) of an economy is reduced by a specific measure.
DMI is the sum of all extracted raw materials (the Domestic Extraction, or DE) – and
all imports. Consequently, material savings finally are expressed in a reduction of
imports and/or domestic extraction.
At a conceptual level recycling does not alter exports since recycling can be seen as
an internal improvement of material management in an economy. Domestic
27
Source: UNECE, FAO, University Hamburg (2008), Wood Resources Availability and Demands (Part I):
National and Regional Wood Resource Balances 2005 (EU/EFTA Countries); Eurostat (2009), Forestry
Statistics; Plastics Europe (2009), Compelling Facts About Plastics; Plastics Europe (2010) Plastics: the
Fact; CPIV (Standing Committee of the European Glass Industry), 3 Points about the Glass Industry,
available at: www.cpivglass.be/main.html
28
Various sources: World Mineral Production (British Geological Survey);
business.highbeam.com/industry-reports/mining/kaolin-ball-clay; European Commission (2010)
Annex V to the Report of the Ad-hoc Working Group on Defining Critical Raw Materials. DG
Enterprise.

28
Processed Output (DPO) is not part of calculating DMC and material productivity,
therefore it is not considered here.
The first step in the calculation of material savings due to recycling is to link recycled
materials with imports and domestic extraction. The main assumption of this
methodology is that one unit of recycled material saves the amount of raw materials
necessary to produce one unit of material, i.e. 1 kg of recycled glass saves the
amount of raw material necessary to produce 1 kg of glass.
Other economies
EU-27 domestic environments
EU-27 economies
(f) (h)
Imports Exports
(a)
(b)
Part (g) Emissions to
Material
Extraction production Use Disposal Air, Water
production (c)
(e) & Assembly and Land
Recycling
?
(d)
Downcycling
(k)
(i) (j) (l)
Stocks
Figure 2-7: Recycling streams in the context of economy-wide material flow

accounts29, 30
A precondition to calculate material savings is data on the recycled material that
finally can replace materials used in the production of a similar product (c). The
calculation needs to follow the material flow up-stream to the point of imports (a)
and/or extraction (b) and to deduct the additional material extraction (e) and
imports (f) necessary for recycling.
To calculate the material savings the imports (a) and the extraction (b) have to be
considered in the case of recycling and no recycling. (a0) respectively (b0) is devoted
to the case without recycling and (aR) and (bR) in the case of recycling. The material
savings is then given by (a0) – (aR) plus (b0) – (bR).
“Downcycling” can be considered a special case. This refers to recycled material that
is lost from material-specific recycling through its mixing with other materials during
collection, insufficient liberation during separation, or incomplete sorting; it
becomes an impurity or “tramp element” in the dominant material with which it is
29
Graedel, T.E., Allwood, J., Birat, J.-P., Bucher, M., Hagelüken, C., Meskers, C.E.M., Reck, B., Sibley, S.F.,
Sonnemann, G., (2009) The Recycling of Metals: A Status Report.
30
JRC - Institute for Environment and Sustainability (2010) ILCD handbook. International Reference Life
Cycle Data System. General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance. European
Commission.

29
recovered (in analogy to Graedel et al. (2009)31). For the calculation of
“downcycling” it is a precondition to know which up-stream material flow it
substitutes (see question mark in Figure 2-7). If this information is available, material
savings can be calculated with the same methodology as for recycling.
A further issue that needs to be considered is that after manufacture, produce can
become stocks, like infrastructure, or it can become a consumer product, like food.
According to MFA conventions, all produce that is used up within a year is calculated
as a flow (use) and everything that lasts longer is calculated as an addition to stocks
(stocks). When the life time of stocks is over, it can be disposed, recycled or
downcycled. Stocks gain relevance the longer they last and the faster they grow, e.g.
the stocks on new buildings grow fast while per annum only a small number is
demolished. So the actual DMI is very high and the relevant waste flow of
demolished buildings relevant for recycling is relatively low.
At EU-27 level, the material savings can be counted at the point of “domestic”
material extraction (b) and at the point when imports cross the EU-27 border (a).
Material savings are a mix of saved raw materials (extraction within EU-27) and
materials imported from other economies. For the calculation of material savings it
is assumed in the first proxy that recycled material will replace imports and
extraction proportionally to the status quo in the respective year. Furthermore
imports can be raw materials, semi-processed materials or finished products. Again
it is assumed that the mix of imported raw materials and products will stay the same
and the reduction will be proportionally for each group. The employment of
proportional reduction is a simplified assumption.
More sophisticated methods could be developed. One example could be to find out
price structures and extraction capacities and to reduce the most expansive sources
with same qualities first (and up to its limits). However, such a method development
is time consuming. In this study we restrict ourselves to a sensitivity analysis to find
out how relevant these assumptions are for the overall material savings.
In summary this means that due to recycling (c) the material savings are imports (a0)
– (aR) – (f) plus domestic extraction (b0) – (bR) – (e).
In order to deal with the lack of data on recycling rates, a first rough estimation was
made in order to set priorities on which material streams should receive most
attention. As first step, for each material category a factor was estimated to link
pure material (recycled material) with the respective direct material inputs into EU-
27. These factors have to reflect the following issues:
• relation between domestic extraction, import of raw materials and import of
semi-finished/finished products since this is quite significant in the estimation of
material savings
31
Sonnemann, G., (2009) The Recycling of Metals: A Status Report.

30
• relation between pure material (recycled material) and raw material (e.g. with
metals the ore grade gives a first hint on the relation)
• relation between pure material (recycled material) and products in various

finishing stages
To illustrate this: If recycling material in the context of MFA just replaces imported
products made of metal the factor is 0.7 - 1, if it replaces domestic extraction the
factor for metal is between 2 and 50.
The factors were estimated with expert judgment and by looking at various data sets
(MFA, trade statistics) and studies32,33,34. Multiplying these factors with the available
recycling amounts35 gives a first priority list of material streams where further
attention must be given (see Annex B).
Based on these results the calculations were made for iron and copper. Since all
metals follow the same scheme, it was calculated for the other metals as well. As
aggregates from C&D waste have the highest recycling amounts this was given more
attention. For paper, the LCA based calculation was used. For glass, plastic and wood
a very simplified approach was used since they represent very small amounts
compared to the overall material savings.
In principle, the approach was to model the material streams for each material
category within the MFA framework as in the case of amount of extracted raw
material to recycled material. By modelling the material streams “backwards” it was
possible to calculate the additional amount of materials required, if no recycled
material was available. These additional material requirements for production
without recycling equal the material savings that can be contributed to recycling.
The approach used for estimating material savings in each type of material stream is
presented in Annex B.
Material savings and material productivity
Using the definition provided in section 1.1.2. , material productivity is GDP/DMC
(Domestic Material Consumption). Recycling induced material savings reduce the
necessary imports and domestic extraction while the exports will stay the same.
Therefore, DMC decreases due to recycling leading to higher material productivity.
The calculation used for the improvement of material efficiency therefore is:
32
Eurostat (2009) Economy-wide Material Flow Accounts. Compilation Guidelines for reporting to the
2009 Eurostat questionnaire (Version 01 - June 2009). European Statistical Office, Luxembourg
33
Sonnemann, G. (2009) The Recycling of Metals: A Status Report.
34
Allwood, J.M., Cullen, J.M., Milford,. R.L. (2010) Options for Achieving a 50% Cut in Industrial Carbon
Emissions by 2050.
35
Prognos (2008) European Altas of Secondary Raw Materials. 2004 Status Quo and Potentials.

31
Material productivityC (€/tonnes) = GDP/DMCC …. Current situation including recycling
Material productivity0 (€/tonnes) = GDP/DMC0 …. Scenario without recycling
Productivity increase (%) = Material productivityC / Material productivity0 – 100%
In an analogue manner the productivity increases for the four scenarios were
calculated by relating them to the material efficiency0 of the scenario without
recycling:
• Current situation in the year 2004 with the recycling situation as it was at that
time (material productivityc)
• Targets fully reached means that all present recycling targets are achieved
already in 2004 (material productivityt)
• Potential stands for maximum recycling rates according to expert judgement are
achieved in 2004 (material productivityp)
• 100% recycling is a hypothetical scenario and represents 100% recycling of the
respective waste stream in 2004 (material productivity100%)
2.3. METHOD FOR CALCULATING IMPACTS
The following three methodologies for calculating environmental impacts were

chosen as most suited for the purposes of this study: land use, Ecological Footprint
(EF) and Environmentally Weighted Material Consumption (EMC). Although all
methods have their shortcomings, they provide a fair indication of different
environmental impacts in relation to the key contributions to material productivity36.
Land use and EF caters more for biomass production and land use indicators, while
EMC has a broad application for all types of material streams and environmental
impact categories.
2.3.1. LAND USE

Land is a key resource and the use of land is closely interrelated with socio-economic
material flows. The availability of biologically productive land is the basis for the
production of biomass and the provision of food for humans, feed for domesticated
livestock, raw materials for manufacturing and industry and, increasingly, also for
renewable energy carriers. The EU-27 covers a territory of 4.3 million km². Of this,
roughly 45% is for agricultural use, and over 42% of the land is covered with forests
(about 30% is forests available for wood supply)37. Figure 2-8 shows the area and
36
Best, A., Giljum, S., Simmons, C., Blobel, D., Lewis, K., Hammer, M., Cavalieri, S., Lutter, S. and
Maguire, C. (2008) Potential of the Ecological Footprint for monitoring environmental impacts from
natural resource use. Analysis of the potential of the Ecological Footprint and related assessment
tools for use in the EU’s Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources. Ecologic,
SERI, Best Foot Forward and EnviroCentre. Report to the European Commission, DG Environment.
37
Eurostat (2009) Forestry statistics

32
distribution of different types of land in the EU. Land use for mining and quarrying is
estimated to amount to less than 0.5% of the total area in Europe38.
Forest
30% Water, coastal
flats and salines
3%
Grazing land
13% Built area
4%
Other natural
areas
17%
Cropland
33%
Figure 2-8: Land use coverage in EU-27 (2004)39

As in many other industrialised regions, the EU has experienced a long term trend of
declining agricultural areas.40 During the last ten years, an annual average of 10,700
km² was taken out of production and either reforested or taken by urban or
infrastructure land. As a consequence of declining agricultural areas, forests grew by
roughly 7,100 km² per year. Figure 2-9 illustrates this shift from intensively used
agricultural land towards extensively used woodlands in the EU.
Estimating the impact of material flows on land use is a complex issue41. As a key
resource, land has importance not only on the extraction of other resources (forests,
agriculture, and mining) but also as support of natural ecosystems and biodiversity.
However, it is not always considered as an impact category within the existing
methodologies, and it is not always clear what should be taken into account when
assessing the environmental impacts on land use. Nevertheless every human activity
produces environmental impacts on land, degrading or changing its possibilities to
be used. Whilst there is no consensus on the methodology to assess the impact of
resource consumption on land use, this study will attempt to estimate the
reductions land use due to material productivity in three different ways:
• Relating CORINE land use data with domestic material consumption of biomass
resources to estimate domestic land use reductions
38
Bleischwitz, R., Bahn-Walkowiak, B. (2006) Sustainable Development in the European aggregates
industry: a case for sectoral strategies. Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy &
College of Europe.
39
EEA, CORINE (Coordination of Information on the Environment) Land Cover database
40
Eisenmenger N., Cachia F., Steinberger J., Weisz U., Kotsalainen K., Reisinger H., and Labouze E.
(2010) Preparatory study for the review of the thematic strategy on the sustainable use of natural
resources. Contract 07.0307/2009/545482/ETU/G2, Final report for the European Commission (DG
Environment). http://ec.europa.eu/environment/natres/pdf/BIO_TSR_FinalReport.pdf
41
W.M.J. Achten et al. (2008) Proposing a life cycle land use impact calculation methodology

33
• Recalculating the EU’s Ecological Footprint with the reduced demand for
biomass resources to estimate global land use reductions
• Using the Environmentally Weighted Material Consumption (EMC) methodology

(which is based on Ecoinvent data) to estimate land use
For biomass resources the reduction of land use due to material savings is assumed
to be proportional.
Development of agricultural and forest land in the EU-27

400 000
350 000
300 000
Forest area
Area in 1000 ha
250 000
Permanent meadows
200 000 and pastures
Permanent crops
150 000
Arable land
100 000
50 000
-
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Figure 2-9: Development of agricultural and forest land in the EU-27 from 1998 to
200842
2.3.2. ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

The Ecological Footprint (EF) measures how much biologically productive land and
water area is required to provide the resources consumed and absorb the wastes
generated by a human population, taking into account prevailing technology. In
other words, it evaluates resource use in terms of demand of regenerative capacity,
calculating a virtual land area in order to translate carbon dioxide emissions. This is
measured by calculating the environmental impacts on land use and climate change,
excluding other impacts related to pollution e.g. stratospheric ozone depletion,
human health, eco-toxicity, photo-oxidant formation, acidification, eutrophication or
ionizing radiation. The unit of measurement is global hectares, a standardised unit of
measurement equal to 1 hectare of land with global average bioproductivity. EF
tracks the use of six categories of productive areas: cropland, grazing land, fishing
grounds, forest area, built-up land, and carbon demand on land. The data
42
FAOSTAT (2010) FAO Statistical Database. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

34
requirements for the indicator are material flows, land use and CO2 emissions which
are widely used and reported in several databases in the EU (see Figure 2-10)
The Global Footprint Network estimates that the EU’s Ecological Footprint per capita
in 2005 was 4.7 global hectares (see Table 2-1), which is much higher than the global
average of 2.7 global hectares43. This is over double its own domestic supply of
biocapacity, if calculated in global hectares (in real terms however, the EU is more
self-sufficient than this due to its highly productive and intensive agricultural
production44).
Figure 2-10: Structure of the national Ecological Footprint calculation methodology

based on Global Footprint Network45
The Ecological Footprint provides an indication that EU’s consumption is not
sustainable. It is particularly the amount of cropland and land for carbon
sequestration where the EU has a much larger footprint than its own global
biocapacity. The EU also has the highest shares of built-up area per person in the
world.
43
WWF, Global Footprint Network & ZSL (2008) Living Planet Report 2008.
44
Eurostat (2008) Food: from farm to fork statistics, 2008 edition
45
Von Stokar, T., Steinemann, M., Rüegge, B., Schmill, J. (2006) Switzerland’s ecological footprint. A
contribution to the sustainability debate. Swiss Statistics Series. Federal Statistical Insitute of
Switzerland et al., Neuchâtel, Switzerland.

35
Table 2-1: The Ecological Footprint of EU-27 in global hectares (a hectare of land
with world average ability to produce resources and absorb wastes)46
EU-27 (2005) Ecological Footprint Biocapacity Difference

Global ha Global ha Global ha Global ha Global ha Global ha
Land type %
per person (million) per person (million) per person (million)
Cropland 1.17 570.1 1.0 487.3 43.3% -0.17 -82.8
Grazing land 0.19 92.5 0.21 102.3 9.1% 0.02 9. 7
Forest 0.48 233.9 0.64 311.9 27.7% 0.16 78.0
Fishing ground 0.1 48.7 0.29 141.3 12.6% 0.19 92.6
Built-up land 0.17 82.8 0.17 82.8 7.4%
Carbon 2.58 1 257.2 -2.58 -1 257.2
Total 4.7 2 285.4 2.3 1 125.7 100.0% -2.4 -1 159.8
From the table it could be observed that according to the Ecological Footprint the EU
in 2005 had sufficient biocapacity in global terms of grazing land, forest and fishing
grounds to fulfil its own consumption of natural resources from these types of areas.
This is however contradictory to the fact that the EU is a net importer of fish, wood
and beef. It must be remembered that the Ecological Footprint is based on a global
average and does not take into consideration the specificities of local extraction and
consumption of resources.
The ability of land to uptake carbon is a major component of the Ecological Footprint
calculations. Whilst this study does not consider fossil fuels, the materials savings
due to recycling, waste prevention and product design also represent avoided CO2
emissions from the decrease in need for energy to extract, produce and transport
these materials. In this study, the contribution of the various components of
resource efficiency in terms of Ecological Footprint is calculated in the same manner
as the reductions in land use: the reduction of natural resource consumption is
considered proportional to the land needed to supply these resources. The yields,
yield factors between land types and the equivalence factors between national and
global land types remain constant in the estimation.
2.3.3. ENVIRONMENTALLY WEIGHTED MATERIAL CONSUMPTION (EMC)

The concept of Environmentally Weighted Material Consumption (EMC) was
developed in 2005 by van der Voet et al.47 to estimate the contribution of different
materials to environmental impacts. The apparent consumption of selected base
materials is combined with quantifiable impact categories by means of a multiplying
46
WWF, Global Footprint Network & ZSL (2008) Living Planet Report 2008.
47
van der Voet, E., van Oers, L., Moll, S., Schütz, H., Bringezu, S., de Bruyn, S., Sevenster, M., Warringa,
G. (2005) Policy Review on Decoupling: Development of indicators to assess decoupling of economic
development and environmental pressure in the EU-25 and AC-3 countries. Institute of
Environmental Sciences (CML), Leiden University; Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and
Energy; CE Solutions for Environment, Economy and Technology.

36
factor which is derived by using life cycle inventory data sets, i.e. it is a weighted
indicator of the environmental impacts of material consumption. It is then capable
of illustrating how data on material flows, such as Domestic Material Consumption
(DMC), is linked with data derived from Life Cycle Assessments (LCA), considering
the cradle-to-material and recycling-to-disposal pathways of materials. The potential
environmental impacts of different materials should be considered in relation to the
weight or volume of their use. In the end, it is the environmental pressures and
impacts which should be decoupled from economic growth, not their use per se.
EMC is defined as:
where Mi is material consumption of material i, Ei the cradle-to-grave environmental

impact of that material and k the number of impact categories included in the
analysis.
The impact categories covered by the EMC include land use, climate change,
stratospheric ozone depletion, human health impacts, eco-toxicity, photo-oxidant
formation, acidification, eutrophication, ionising radiation and the impact on
ecosystems and biodiversity. This broad coverage of environmental impacts make it
the most appropriate tool to integrate in a comprehensive manner most of the
environmental impacts assessed independently by other tools. The data
requirements for the indicator are material flows and production and trade
statistics. It also needs data on life-cycle emission inventories and environmental
impacts of different materials. In this study, the main environmental impact
categories (e.g. global warming, acidification, ecotoxicity) are calculated and
presented separately for each material stream.

37
3. RECYCLING
The main objective of this chapter is to investigate to what degree current recycling
practices contribute to overall material productivity and what increases in recycling
rates could be foreseen in the future. First the current recycling targets in the EU were
analysed. The relationship between the current recycling rates and the material flows
into the EU-27 economy was established for the main materials covered by current
legislation: ferrous and non-ferrous metals, minerals (including aggregates, concrete
and glass), plastics, biomass and paper. Subsequently, for each of these materials, the
total contribution of recycling target rates to material savings and material productivity
was estimated. These estimates were based on current material flows and recycling
rates as well as on the assumption that all current recycling targets are fully met. The
last section addresses the potential for improvement in the recycling targets and
identifies the barriers that could impede possible increases of recycling rates.
Recycling means different things for the various material streams. The following
options are currently the most common recycling options48:
• Metals: Most metals can be recycled any number of times without loss of quality.
• Minerals: Construction materials such as aggregates, concrete and asphalt can be
recycled either on site (in situ) or in a central plant (ex situ).
• Glass: Glass can be remelted to become new glass products without loss of
physical property or quality. The coloured glass cannot be turned into clear glass
products, but can be recycled into other coloured glass products. Otherwise
alternative uses of recycled glass are water filtration; fluxing agents in bricks and
clay pipes; shot blasting; and, aggregates.
• Plastics: Besides PET bottles, which can be recycled into their previous form
(closed-loop recycling), the recycling options for plastic usually involve down-
cycling, where polymers are turned into lower quality products.49 The main end-
applications of recycled plastics are films and bags for the distribution sector, fibres
to manufacture household goods, and building and construction materials. LDPE
and HDPE can be recycled from packaging applications. PVC is relatively difficult to
recycle, and there are currently no large-scale recycling schemes operating for
post-consumer PVC.
48
WRAP, www.wrap.org.uk/recycling_industry/information_by_material/index.html &
www.recyclenow.com
49
Arcadis & Eunomia (2009) Assessment of the options to improve the management of biowaste in the
European Union. Study for the European Commission, DG Environment.

38
• Wood: The recycling options of post-consumer wood depend to a large extent on
the quality of the wood (e.g. decay, impurities, contamination, etc.)50. Recovered
wood suitable for recycling is cleaned and processed to remove contaminants and
then shredded into wood chips that can be used different uses such as particle
boards, landscaping or animal bedding products51.
• Paper: Used paper and cardboard is repulped, which breaks it down into fibres and
then screened, cleaned and deinked. Depending on the quality of the recycled
fibres, the pulp can be used to make new paper and cardboard products, or mixed
with virgin fibres to produce better grades. Recycled fibres do deteriorate over
time and therefore cannot be recycled indefinitely, but have to be mixed with
virgin fibres.
• Biowaste: Biowaste (i.e. food and garden waste) is recycled by composting or
anaerobic digestion (which uses micro-organisms to produce biogas and
biofertilisers).
3.1. RECYCLING POLICIES AND TARGETS SET AT EU LEVEL
EU recycling targets are set in the Waste Framework Directive (2006/12/EC). Annex D
presents an overview of the waste and recycling legislation that make use of recycling
targets, the collection targets, reuse/recycling/recovery-targets and deadlines. The
following key definitions are included in the Waste Framework Directive:
• Preparing for reuse: checking, cleaning or repairing recovery operations, by which
waste products or components of products are prepared for reuse without any
other pre-processing.
• Recovery: any operation the principal result of which is waste serving a useful
purpose by replacing other materials in order to fulfil a particular function, or
waste being prepared to fulfil that function, in the plant or in the wider economy.
• Recycling: any recovery operation by which waste materials are reprocessed into
products, materials or substances whether for the original or other purposes. It
includes the reprocessing of organic material but does not include energy recovery
and the reprocessing into materials that are to be used as fuels or for backfilling
operations.
Further details are provided below about the requirements of the individual Directives,
including definitions of waste streams, deadlines for implementation, exceptions,
derogations and reporting mechanisms.
50
Merl, A.D. et al. (2007) Amounts of recovered wood in COST E31 countries and Europe. 3rd European
COST E31 Conference: Management of recovered wood.
51
www.wrap.org.uk/recycling_industry/information_by_material/wood/uses_for.html

39
Table 3-1 : Overview of rates related to reuse, recycling or material recovery
* **
Material/waste collection target deadline reuse recycling material energy recovery target deadline
recovery recovery
Waste Framework Directive separate collection 2015
• paper Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) x x ≥ 50 w% 2020
• metal MSW x x ≥ 50 w% 2020
• plastic MSW x x ≥ 50 w% 2020
• glass MSW x x ≥ 50 w% 2020
• Construction and Demolition (C&D) x x x ≥ 70 w% 2020
waste
End-of-life vehicles (ELV) Directive 100 w% x x ≥85 w% 2006
x x ≥95 w% 2015
x x ≥80 w% 2006
x x ≥85 w% 2015
Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment 4 kg/person 2006
(WEEE) Directive
***
65 w% of EEE put on 2016
market in two preceding
years has to be
separately collected and
fully sent to treatment
• large domestic appliances and automatic x ≥80 w% 2006
dispensers
***
x ≥85 w% 2011
• small domestic appliances, lighting x ≥70 w% 2006
equipment, electrical and electronic
tools, toys, leisure and sports equipment
and monitoring and control instruments
***
+ medical devices x ≥75 w% 2011
• IT and telecommunications equipment x ≥75 w% 2006
and consumer equipment
***
x ≥80 w% 2011
• discharge lamps x x ≥80 w% 2006
***
x x ≥85 w% 2011
• large domestic appliances and automatic x x ≥75 w% 2006
dispensers
***
x x ≥80 w% 2011

40
* **
Material/waste collection target deadline reuse recycling material energy recovery target deadline
recovery recovery
• small domestic appliances, lighting x x ≥50 w% 2006
equipment, electrical and electronic
tools, toys, leisure and sports equipment
and monitoring and control instruments
***
+ medical devices x x ≥55 w% 2011
• IT and telecommunications equipment x x ≥65 w% 2006
and consumer equipment
***
x x ≥70 w% 2011
Batteries Directive
• Portable batteries and accumulators 25 w% 2012
45 w% 2016
• Industrial and automotive batteries and 100 w% 2009
accumulators
• lead acid x > 65 w% 2010
• Ni-Cd x > 75 w% 2010
• other (button cells excluded) x > 50 w% 2010
Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive
• packaging waste x 50 - 65w% 2001
• packaging materials x 25 - 45 w% , min 2001
15 w% per type
• packaging waste x > 60 w% 2008
• packaging waste x 55 - 80 w% 2008
• glass x 60 w% 2008
• paper & cardboard x 60 w% 2008
• metals x 50 w% 2008
• plastics x 22,5 w% 2008
• wood x 15 w% 2008
As defined in Directive 75/442/EEC
**
Recovery/recycling targets for WEEE and waste batteries are expressed as a percentage of the total weight of WEEE/batteries that has to be separately collected and fully sent for
treatment and recycling.
*** 52
As proposed in COM(2008)810 final . Reuse in this case also includes the reuse of whole appliances. The 2006 target only covers component, material and substance reuse.
52
European Commission (2008) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) (Recast).

41
In Annex C, the current EU recycling targets are analysed in detail, taking into
account definitions of the waste streams, deadlines for implementation, exceptions,
derogations and links to the reporting requirements. Furthermore, the reporting
mechanisms and data sources are listed. However, it is necessary to bear in mind
that new Member States have transitional periods often negotiated in their
accession treaties.
3.2. ESTIMATION OF CURRENT CONTRIBUTIONS TO

MATERIAL SAVINGS FROM RECYCLING
The following recycling related waste streams covered by EU legislation were

analysed:
• Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
• Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste
• End-of-Life Vehicles (ELV)
• Waste from Electric and Electronic Equipments (WEEE)
• Waste batteries
• Packaging waste
Figure 3-1 shows the relative weight of the different waste streams analysed. Each
year just under 3 billion tonnes of waste are generated in the EU-2753.
WEEE
0.2%
ELV
0.7%
Packaging
10.1%
C&D Batteries
59.5% 0.1%
MSW
29.3%
Figure 3-1: Relative weight of waste streams under study

The waste streams analysed in this study account for 800 – 1,300 Mt (depending on
data source). The rest of the waste sectors (i.e. agricultural, industrial, mining waste)
are not accounted, not being directly affected by EU regulations related to the
53
Arcardis, VITO, Umweltsbundesamt, BIO Intelligence Service (2010) Analysis of the evolution of waste
reduction and the scope of waste prevention.

42
objectives of this study. Further information about assumptions and calculations
made in estimation of material savings can be found in Annex C.
Table 3-2 presents the estimates of the recycling amounts of the most important
material fractions based on waste statistics resulting from the various policies
currently in place. The C&D amounts per material fraction result from averaging the
ranges provided in Annex C and recalculating these values in order to obtain the
total C&D recycling amount reported.
Recycled C&D waste represents by far the largest amount in weight, particularly of
aggregates, but also important amounts of steel, plastic and wood are recycled.
Recycled municipal solid waste and packaging waste are the next largest
contributors to total recycling. Here paper and cardboard and bio waste (MSW)
constitute the majority of material, but also large amounts of metals, glass, plastic
and wood are recycled. ELV and WEEE contribute to quite important amounts of
metals. For battery waste the recycled amounts at the level of the main material
flows discussed in this study appear relatively small, but the contribution of recycling
to very specific flows as e.g. lead or cadmium may not be underestimated.
However, all amounts must be interpreted with caution: most of them are rough
estimates, based on the assumptions of the preceding paragraphs. Uncertainty also
remains regarding the amounts of packaging waste included in the MSW figures.
Therefore, the calculated row totals are expected to comprise some double
counting.
Table 3-2: Overview of estimates of current recycling amounts in the EU according
to material fraction
Material recycled under current situation for 2004 (ktonnes) - Data from EU
based waste statistics and other sources
Material MSW C&D ELV Packaging Battery WEEE Total
Metals 2 570 5 094 4 006 3 227 179 975 16 051
Glass 9 193 82 10 003 19 278
Concrete and masonry 138 278 138 278
Asphalt 36 389 36 389
Gypsum 728 728
Other mineral waste 13 343 13 343
Plastics 4 843 2 547 66 3 894 24 443 11 818
Paper & cardboard 17 545 23 793 41 338
Wood 2 965 7 278 4 883 15 126
Bio waste 22 290 22 290
Other 27 430 46 093 307 15 355 74 198
Total 86 836 249 749 4 461 45 814 203 1 773 388 836
Figure 3-2 shows the contribution of each waste policy area in relation to the total
amount of current recycled materials. C&D waste represents by far the largest

43
amount of recycled material. MSW and packaging are the two other main waste
streams that contribute with recycled materials are recycled.
Current share of materials recycled by policy
ELV
1.1%
Packaging
11.8%
Battery
0.1%
WEEE
0.5%
C&D
64.2%
MSW
22.3%
Figure 3-2: The contribution of each waste policy area to current recycling
The above estimates were then compared to a similar study done by Prognos on
resource savings54 (see Table 3-3). Here the recycling amounts and rates of 18 waste
streams were considered for EU-27. The study estimated that 1,051 Mt of material
was recycled in 2004 (out of a total of 2,417 Mt treated waste). This is much greater
amount than what was found in this study. Compared to the Prognos, the estimates
for amounts of recycled metals and minerals are severely underestimated. The
estimates for paper, wood and biowaste are more comparable, whilst glass and
plastic are estimated to be lower in the Prognos study. This might indicate that
packaging waste has been accounted for twice in MSW and packaging waste (due to
different reporting methods).
Data from production statistics and industrial associations is also presented in order
to provide a comparison of the recycling amounts calculated using the waste
statistics. The production figures have been taken from Eurostat database. The total
amount of recycled material is comparable to what was estimated in this study.
However the same trend of metals being underestimated, and glass and plastic
seems to be overestimated.
The deviations between these data sets are due to the different nature of the
sources and the uncertainties encountered during the process:
• Waste data is based on waste collection and treatment, while production data is
based on data reported by the industry.
• In production statistics, there is a risk of counting material amounts that never

become waste and are recycled by internal processes.
• Waste data are based on estimations of material composition of waste products.
54
Prognos (2008) Resource savings and CO2 reduction potential in waste management in Europe and
the possible contribution to the CO2 reduction target in 2020.

44
• Waste data for the EU-27 is calculated by extrapolation from MS figures based
on population.
• Production statistics are based on Eurostat data, and where data is not available
the recycling rate have been extrapolated from similar material streams.
• Waste from agriculture, mining and manufacturing are not included in the
present study, since no policy targets were identified.

45
Table 3-3: Recycling amounts from waste statistics compared to MFA/production data and their deviation, current scenario for 2004, amounts in
million metric tonnes (Mt), deviation in % (100% signifies that the same production data is used)
Data based on waste b) c)

a) Prognos study Data based on MFA statistics Data based on production statistics
statistics
Material Recycling Recycling Recycling Recycling Deviation to Recycling Recycling Deviation to Recycling Recycling Deviation to
categories rates amounts rates amounts waste statistics rates amounts waste statistics rates amounts waste statistics
Iron & steel 55% 13.9 76% 77.7 560% 55% 33.0 238% 47% 75.2 541%
Aluminium 52.1% 1.7 67% 3.1 185% 52% 2.4 140% 46% 4.7 276%
d)
Copper 47.5% 0.3 64% 0.9 269% 48% 0.9 256% 41% 2.4 800%
e)
Nickel - - - - 14% 0.01 40% 0.28
e)
Lead 14% 0.2 60% 0.6 392% 14% 0.04 29% 60% 0.98 490%
e)
Zinc - - 58% 0.7 14% 0.1 35%
Glass 43.2% 19.3 50% 10.7 56% 43% 6.7 35% 65% 11.1 58%
55
Aggregates 47% 187.5 43% 610.6 410% 47% 187.5 100% 50% 184 98%
f)
Plastic 32.6% 11.8 17% 4.5 38% 21% 5.2 44% 21% 5.3 45%
Paper 48.7% 41.3 56% 44.2 107% 49% 42.2 102% 48% 58.3 141%
Wood 40.5% 15.1 31% 21.7 143% 14% 9.34 62% 39% 11.4 76%
Biowaste 33% 22.3 33% 28.8 129% 33% 22.3 100% 25% 20.8 93%
Other 74.2 91.1 123%
Total - 388.8 44% 894.6 230% - 309.7 80% 374.4 96%
55
Two figures are given for recycling and recovery of mineral demolition waste for the year 2004 in the Prognos study: 769.2 Mt (p. 20) and 610.6 Mt (p. 127)

46
a) Sources:
- Eurostat
- European Topic Center on Resource and Waste Management (2009): EU as a Recycling Society - Present Recycling Levels of Municipal Waste and C&D Waste in the
EU
- BIO Intelligence Service (2010) Study on management of construction and demolition waste in the EU. Study commission by the European Commission, DG
Environment
- Umweltbundesamt (2008) Aggregates Case Study - Final Report
- European Commission (2010) Preparatory study for the review of the Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste.
- GHK and BIO IS (2006) A study to examine the benefits of the End of Life Vehicles Directive and the costs and benefits of a revision of the 2015 targets for recycling,
reuse and recovery under the ELV Directive ANNEX 2 : arisings and treatment of End of Life Vehicles
- EEA – European Environment Agency (2009): Statistics for member states for SOER part C waste. Copenhagen. Submitted on 10.02.2010
b) Prognos (2008) Resource savings and CO2 reduction potential in waste management in Europe and the possible contribution to the CO2 reduction target in 2020.
c) Sources:
- Eurostat
- EUROFER- European Confederation of Iron and Steel Industries
- Organisation of European Aluminium Refiners and Remelters
- EAA - European Aluminium Association
- EUROcopper- European Copper Institute
- Nickel Institute
- World Bureau of Metal Statistics
- European Commission (2010) Annex V to the Report of the Ad-hoc Working Group on Defining Critical Raw Materials. DG Enterprise.
- EPRO (2008) Plastic Waste Management in Europe
d) European Aluminium Association (2007) Aluminium Recycling in Europe: Production of recycled aluminium in 2004 (EU-25) 4.5 Mt. Recycling rates range from 90% for
transport and construction applications and about 60% for beverage cans.
e) Eurometaux (European Association of Metals): recycling efficiency of available non-ferrous metals is 60-90%
- 60% of lead used in Western Europe from recycled or reused material
- European Commission (2010) Annex V to the Report of the Ad-hoc Working Group on Defining Critical Raw Materials. DG Enterprise.
f) PlasticsEurope: Plastic waste generated EU-27 + CH & NO in 2008: 24.9 Mt; Post consumer plastic recycled: 5.3 Mt (recycling rate 21.3%)

47
3.3. ESTIMATION OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO MATERIAL SAVINGS
FROM RECYCLING WITH ALL CURRENT RECYCLING
TARGETS FULLY REACHED
Based on the same data sources as before, the calculations are reiterated, assuming
that all current recycling targets are fully met by each individual Member State. For
Member States that already meet or exceed the recycling targets, the current
recycling rate of the respective Member State is kept constant. Further information
about assumptions and calculations made in the below sections can be found in
Annex C.
Table 3-4 presents the estimates of the recycling amounts of the most important
waste fractions discussed in this study, under the assumption that all existing targets
are fully achieved. As before C&D waste and municipal solid waste are the areas
were the recycling amounts are the highest, followed by packaging waste. The other
waste streams contribute mostly to the metals fraction. The currently recycled
amounts of materials represent approximately 67% of the total amounts which
could be recycled if all targets set in EU legislation were fully reached. Hence, one
third of the recycling potential under current legislation still has to be realized. An
important contribution is to be expected from the recycling of C&D and municipal
solid waste.
Again, it must be noted that all amounts are to be interpreted with caution since
most of them are rough estimates, based on the assumptions of the preceding
paragraphs. Some double counting is expected to be present in the row totals, as
uncertainty remains regarding the amounts of packaging waste included in the
MSW.
Table 3-4: Overview of estimates of the recycling amounts in the EU under the
assumption that all current recycling targets are fully reached.
Material recycled with current recycling targets fulfilled (ktonnes) -
Data from EU based waste statistics and other sources
Metals 3,856 7,998 4,352 3,275 787 1,151 21,420
Glass 13,793 n/a 89 11,059 24,942
Concrete and
217,101 217,101
masonry
Asphalt 57,132 57,132
Gypsum 1,143 1,143
Other mineral
20,948 20,948
waste
Plastics 7,267 3,999 71 4,091 106 523 16,058
Paper and
26,326 23,975 50,301
cardboard

48
Material recycled with current recycling targets fulfilled (ktonnes) -
Data from EU based waste statistics and other sources
Wood 4,449 11,426 4,936 20,812
Bio waste 33,445 33,445
Other 41,157 72,367 333 15 173 419 114,463
Total 130,293 392,114 4,846 47,351 1,066 2,093 577,763
The total recycling amounts are still much less than what was estimated in the
Prognos study. The differences in amounts of the individual material streams are the
same as before: recycled metals, minerals and wood are estimated by Prognos to be
much higher; biowaste and paper are about the same; and, glass and paper are
estimated to be less than what this study indicates (possibly due to double counting
for MSW and packaging waste).
Table 3-5: Recycling amounts with targets achieved based on waste statistics
compared to Prognos study and their deviation, amounts in Mt, deviation in %
Waste statistics Prognos study
Material Recycling Recycling Recycling Recycling Deviation to
categories rates amounts rates amounts waste statistics
Iron & steel 71% 18.25 79% 81.5 447%
Aluminium 64% 3.17 79% 3.7 117%
Copper 67% 0.36 79% 1.1 306%
Lead 65% 0.71 79% 0.9 127%
Glass 56% 24.94 66% 14.3 57%
Aggregates 74% 294.42 78% 670.2 228%
Plastic 44% 15.06 30% 8.0 53%
Paper 59% 50.30 76% 60.2 120%
Wood 56% 20.80 80% 56.2 270%
Biowaste 50% 33.44 38% 33.7 101%
Other 116.31 261.8 225%
Total 577.76 1192.2 206%
3.4. POTENTIAL FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE RECYCLING

TARGETS
This chapter provides a brief overview of the available literature concerning the
improvement of recycling targets set in EU legislation. It summarises the results of
the current study and previous reports in light of the improvement potential for
each of these recycling targets. A more in depth analysis of the economic,
environmental, social and legislative factors influencing the desirability of such
improved targets is not intended, as this would be the subject of a detailed impact
assessment study.

49
Table 3-6 shows the potentially reused and recycled amounts for the most important
waste fractions discussed in this report if all recycling targets of section 3.4. were
fully reached by each Member State. The most important contributions to the
recycling potential on a weight basis can again be found in the C&D waste, the
municipal solid waste and the packaging waste categories. Also for WEEE, significant
contributions are to be expected, especially for the metals fraction. Of course, it
must clearly be stated that these conclusions are derived from weight-based
recycling amounts. However, the importance of the contributions of other waste
streams to the recycling of more environmentally hazardous fractions or scarce
resources as e.g. rare metals cannot be neglected. Additionally it must be noted that
all amounts are to be interpreted with caution since most of them are rough
estimates, based on the assumptions of the preceding paragraphs. Some double
counting is expected to be present in the row totals, as uncertainty remains
regarding the amounts of packaging waste included in the MSW.
Table 3-6: Overview of estimates of the recycling amounts in the EU according to
material fraction, under the assumption that all potential recycling targets are fully
reached.
Future potential for amount of material recycled based on best practice
(ktonnes) - Data from EU based waste statistics and other sources
Metals 5,013 9,800 4,597 3,382 843 2,819 26,454
Glass 17,931 n/a 94 15,532 33,557
Concrete and masonry 265,994 265,994
Asphalt 69,998 69,998
Gypsum 1,400 1,400
Other mineral waste 25,666 25,666
Plastics 9,448 4,900 75 6,501 113 1,281 22,319
Paper and cardboard 34,223 24,346 58,570
Wood 5,784 14,000 9,335 29,119
Bio waste 43,478 43,478
Other 53,504 88,665 352 15 187 1,025 143,747
Total 169,381 480,422 5,119 59,112 1,143 5,125 720,302
This study estimates the future potential for recycling amounts in EU-27 with current
best practices implemented to be about 720 Mt. In their study Prognos56 estimated
the future potential to be much higher: 1,300 Mt (see Table 3-7).
Table 3-7: Future potential recycling amounts based on waste statistics compared
to Prognos study and their deviation, amounts in Mt, deviation in %
56

50
Waste statistics Prognos study
Material categories Recycling Recycling Recycling Recycling Deviation to
rates amounts rates amounts waste statistics
Iron & steel 82% 22.45 94% 96.2 429%
Aluminium 76% 2.52 87% 4.0 159%
Copper 100% 0.41 87% 1.2 294%
Lead 64% 0.71 87% 0.9 128%
Glass 76% 33.56 85% 18.4 55%
Aggregates 90% 360.72 85% 728.5 202%
Plastic 60% 22.32 42% 11.1 50%
Paper 69% 58.57 85% 67.9 116%
Wood 78% 29.12 90% 63.1 217%
Biowaste 65% 43.48 42% 37.3 86%
Other 146.46 271.5 185%
Total 720.30 1300.1 180%
Compared to the Prognos study, the amounts of recycled metals, minerals and wood
are severely underestimated in this study, whilst glass and plastic are overestimated
(possibly due to double counting for MSW and packaging waste).

51
4. WASTE PREVENTION
The main objectives of this section are to provide an overview of waste prevention
measures and policies and to estimate the total potential contributions of waste
prevention to material savings and productivity. Most of the data that this is based
on are derived from recent studies performed for the Commission on waste
prevention57,58.
The EU policy framework that first included waste prevention as a means to avoid
waste generation was the “Thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of
waste” adopted by the European Commission in 2005. Following this, the Waste
Framework Directive59 (adopted in 2008) introduced a new vision on waste
management, encouraging the prevention of waste and the setting of recycling
targets. It also required Member States (MS) to develop national waste prevention
programmes by December 2013. Other EU policies that address waste prevention
such as the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive, the End-of-Life Vehicles (ELV)
Directive, WEEE (Waste from Electric and Electronic Equipment) Directive, RoHS
(Restriction of the use of certain Hazardous Substances) Directive, Environmental
Technologies Action Plan (ETAP) and EMAS (Eco-Management and Audit Scheme)
are also assessed in order to estimate their current impacts on material use, and
their contributions to material savings.
4.1. DEFINITION OF WASTE PREVENTION
The definition of waste prevention for this study is consistent with the Waste
Framework Directive59, where prevention means:
Measures taken before a substance, material or product has become waste,
that reduce:
(a) the quantity of waste, including through the re-use of products or the
extension of the life span of products;
(b) the adverse impacts of the generated waste on the environment and
human health; or
(c) the content of harmful substances in materials and products.
57
IEEP, Ecologic, Bio Intelligence Service, Umweltsbundesamt, Arcardis, and VITO (2010) Preparatory
study for the review of the Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste. Study
commissioned by the European Commission, DG Environment.
58
Arcardis, VITO, Umweltsbundesamt, and BIO Intelligence Service (2010) Analysis of the evolution of
waste reduction and the scope of waste prevention. Study commissioned by the European
Commission, DG Environment.
59
Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC)

52
From a quantitative point of view, waste prevention means preventing or limiting
waste generation. This can be achieved through a greater duration of the use of
products, substances or materials (notably through re-use and the production of
products with extended life spans that replace the need for new products) or merely
through less use of materials (reducing material intensity). From a qualitative point
of view, waste prevention means preventing or limiting environmentally harmful
waste, in particular hazardous and/or toxic substances.
In the context of this study, a distinction is made between waste prevention and
product design measures that lead to material productivity60. Typically ecodesign is
seen as a possible waste prevention measure, but in order not to double-count the
contributions to material productivity, a clear distinction is made. In many cases
ecodesign supports certain waste prevention measures, e.g. by improving product
durability to prolong product life, etc. The effects on material savings of such actions
should only be accounted for once (similarly products, which are designed to be
recycled or have recycled material content, are already accounted for under the
contribution of recycling). In this chapter, only the amounts of material saved from
avoided waste are considered, or in other words, measures that lead to:
• more efficient use of materials/ minimising waste during production/
construction (reduction at source);
• increased reuse/refurbishment/repair/remanufacturing of products and
buildings, which prolongs product life – this includes measures that increase the
sharing of products, e.g. by offering services instead of products; and,
• reduced use of substances, consumption of products and waste production, e.g.

avoiding food waste, junk mail, etc. (strict avoidance61)
The different forms of waste prevention explained above will be considered in the
following sections.
4.2. WASTE PREVENTION RELATED POLICIES
The following EU policies that provide criteria for waste prevention and/or require
the establishment of regulations for waste prevention (as defined in section 4.1.
were examined to determine their impacts on material use:
• End-of-Life Vehicles (ELV) Directive

• Waste from Electric and Electronic Equipments (WEEE) Directive
• Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive
• Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) Directive
60
Often improvements in product design are also considered as waste prevention
61
OECD (2000) OECD Reference manual on strategic waste prevention, ENV/EPOC/PPC(2000)5/FINAL,
Paris.

53
• Eco-management and Audit Scheme (EMAS)
• Environmental Technologies Action Plan (ETAP)
Further information about evidence and estimates for waste prevention can be
found in Annex D.
Although waste prevention is a priority in EU waste management policy, not many
specific policies dedicated to waste prevention have been identified compared with
recycling. Even though many of the recycling targets include reuse (a waste
prevention strategy), the evidence from WEEE and ELV suggest that recycling is by
far the preferred waste treatment option. A reason for this could be that waste
prevention, compared to recycling, is more difficult to account (i.e., measurability of
waste not generated).
At present the impact of prevention initiatives is considered to be limited. The
Waste Framework Directive, which was adopted in 2008, has not resulted in many
strong waste prevention policies. MS are only required to have national waste
prevention programmes by December 2013. The waste prevention measures that do
exist are still in an early stage of development, even though there are a number of
waste prevention initiatives at Member State level (see section Annex D).
Furthermore there is a lack of studies and measurement of the effects of waste
prevention. The data gathered in this study are mostly based on case studies at a
local level.
The amounts of hazardous substances annually avoided each year due to RoHS is
taken from the Commission’s impact assessment, whilst the amount of
manufacturing waste is derived from a recent report on the potential of waste
prevention in the EU62.
Table 4-2 presents the estimated material savings based on the above contributions
of waste prevention instruments. It should be noted that it is not clear whether the
reduction in using the banned substances in RoHS actually result in a net reduction
of resources. It is not known what amounts of other materials that are needed to
substitute the hazardous substances. As mentioned since the current waste data
often does not distinguish between recycling and reuse, reuse could actually be a bit
higher that what the table below suggests. For example, if assuming the experience
from France that 1.5% of WEEE generated is reused, at an EU-27 scale this would
correspond to 46,230 tonnes of material (of which 31,890 tonnes is metal and 7,965
62
reduction and the scope of waste prevention. Study commissioned by the European Commission, DG
Environment.

54
tonnes is plastic). These are minor amounts compared to recycling, and in any case
already accounted for in the previous chapter.
4.3. THE POTENTIAL OF WASTE PREVENTION APPROACHES
The above section has presented the various EU and MS policies related to waste
prevention. Except in the case of RoHS and EMAS (which is nonetheless anecdotal)
there is little evidence of actual waste prevention that can be attributed to
implemented policy. In order to estimate the total potential contribution of waste
prevention policies, the following provides a broad overview of different feasible
waste prevention approaches with estimates of what could be achieved. The main
waste prevention strategies considered are:
• Lean production (more efficient use of materials/ minimising waste during
production/ construction);
• Reuse (including refurbishment/repair/remanufacturing of products and
buildings);
• Sustainable consumption behaviour (reduced consumption of products/waste

production, e.g. avoiding food waste, junk mail, etc.
Each approach is briefly described and the potential for contributing to material
productivity is estimated. Further information about evidence and estimates for
waste prevention can be found in Annex D.
4.3.1. LEAN PRODUCTION

The main idea of Lean Production (or Lean Manufacturing)63 is the systematic
elimination of waste by focusing on production costs, product quality, delivery, and
employee involvement. Initially developed by Toyota for the car assembly lines64,
the principles in lean production have been widely adopted in the manufacturing
sector and has even proved to be applicable to other different sectors (such as the
food and construction industries65 as well as public service offices66). In the context
of this study, lean production is used as a term to cover all types of strategies that
can be used in organisations to increase material efficiency in work processes
(including manufacturing plants, offices, construction sites, etc.).
Although lean production can involve the feeding back of waste materials into the
manufacturing process and reducing the amount of materials used in the final
63
US EPA (2000) Pursuing Perfection: Case Studies Examining Lean Manufacturing Strategies, Pollution
Prevention, and Environmental Regulatory Management Implications.
64
Womack, James P. and Jones, Daniel T. (1991) The Machine that Changed the World. New York:
Harper-Collins.
65
Lean Construction Institute, www.leanconstruction.org
66
www.leanamerica.org

55
product, these aspects are covered in the other chapters on recycling and product
design, respectively. Here, only the contribution of material savings achieved by
reducing material consumption and waste in production is considered. Lean
production is guided by some key principles on eliminating waste and minimising
inventory in a culture of continuous improvement. This is achieved by mapping the
value chain and eliminating any steps that do not create any value (as perceived by
the customer). The process flows are then rearranged to respond to customer
demands. The main reasons that companies adopt lean production techniques is
that it often results in better quality, together with a reduction of production costs
and lead times. Although not environmentally motivated, lean production can be
compatible with environmental management systems such as EMAS or ISO 14001.
As lean production is already best practice in many manufacturing companies, it is
assumed that it already contributes to approximately 2% waste reduction67.
4.3.2. REUSE
Reuse and the related strategies are often mentioned as waste prevention
approaches. These are different from recycling because they involve preserving the
whole or parts of products. In contrast, recycling activities require the destruction of
the product to its component materials so they can be reprocessed into new forms.
Reuse strategies can be classified as68:
• Direct reuse: the product is passed on to someone else by reselling or donation.
• Refurbishment: cleaning, lubricating or other improvement.
• Repair: rectifying a fault.

• Redeployment & cannibalisation: using working parts elsewhere.
• Remanufacturing: the only option that requires a full treatment process – like
new manufacture – to guarantee the performance of the finished object.
67
Own estimate based on various sources:
- COWI (2010) Economic Analysis of Resource Efficiency Policies. Study commissioned by the
European Commission, DG Environment.
- Mollenkopf, D., Stolze, H., Tate, W.L. & Ueltschy, M. (2010) Green, lean, and global supply
chains, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 40 No. 1/2.
- University of Cambridge (2008) Towards a sustainable industrial systems
- US EPA (2000) Pursuing Perfection: Case Studies Examining Lean Manufacturing Strategies,
Pollution Prevention, and Environmental Regulatory Management Implications.
- US EPA (2009) “Green Servicizing” for a More Sustainable US Economy: Key concepts, tools
and analyses to inform policy engagement.
- WRAP (2009) Meeting the UK climate change challenge: The contribution of resource
efficiency. WRAP Project EVA128. Report prepared by Stockholm Environment Institute and
University of Durham Business School.
68
Environment.

56
Reuse strategies contribute to material savings by providing an alternative to
purchasing new items. This leads to the reduction in the amount of new materials
and resources used to manufacture new products. However, this is only true if the
reused item is not replaced by a new item.
Approaches that seek to prolong and/or optimise product life by increasing the
sharing/ renting/ leasing/ pooling of products, e.g. by offering services instead of
products, are considered to have the potential to further encourage the above
mentioned reuse strategies. Communal use refers to the sharing of products among
a number of individuals, either simultaneously (such as carpooling) or in succession
(such as renting items). Communal use of products or equipment can lead directly to
waste prevention by providing individuals with the option of sharing a product
instead of buying one of their own. This contributes to less consumption of certain
product types, and ultimately less raw material extraction and manufacturing. An
indirect result of communal use is also a decreased need for related infrastructure
(for example, less car parks needed for vehicles).
Direct reuse refers to the reuse without the need for repair, refurbishment or
remanufacturing of a product. This often occurs through passing on of items from
one individual to another, such as through second hand purchase (e.g. eBay’s
Rethink Initiative69), or by donation (e.g. Freecycle70). Remanufacturing and repair
involves the reprocessing and repair of waste products to be reused for their
originally intended use. As with direct reuse, remanufacturing can result in deferring
the purchase of a new item, in favour of an older item which has been restored to
good working condition, or even upgrading parts to increase an older product’s
efficiency (particularly the case with modular products). This again results in less
need for the manufacturing of new products. However, unlike direct reuse, this
process can involve steps similar to manufacturing, in that new components or
repairs may be needed to restore an item. Although less material intensive than
when producing new items, the amount of resources needed for remanufacturing
can depend heavily on the extent of damage or wear a product may have suffered.
In some cases, this may be less cost effective than producing a new product to
replace an old one. Although hard to quantify, a conservative estimate could be that
already 2% of the waste from manufacturing is currently avoided due reuse in some
or another form and reduces the need for new materials.71
69
Enabling consumers to find others that can put old products to new use.
www.pages.ebay.com/rethink/
70
A non-profit movement that helps people give (and get) used products for free. According to
Freecycle, their 7 million members help keep 500 tonnes a day out of landfills. www.freecycle.org/
71
- Steelcase - Office furniture through leasing and management services:
www.steelcase.co.uk/en/services/pages/ecoservices.aspx
- Caterpillar – equipment rental and remanufactured products
www.cat.com/cda/layout?m=94942&x=7

57
Reuse of WEEE equipment is specifically seen as a form of waste prevention. In
France, recent figures indicate that of the 364,613 t of WEEE generated, 5,776 t have
been reused. This amounts to a 1.5% reduction in the amount of WEEE appliances
recycled or disposed of72. Assuming the same reduction figure throughout the rest of
Europe (based on the total amount of WEEE collected73), a total amount of 22,290 t
of WEEE is reused.74 An older study in Scotland (2001/2002) indicates a higher
potential for WEEE reuse75. The study identified that of the 7,149 t of WEEE being
managed by recovery companies, 2,492 t were reused; approximately 35%. Again it
is unclear what waste streams are affected by this practice. At a more local scale, the
Network Worcestershire Appliance Re-use Centre has estimated that of the total
amount of WEEE goods collected, 30% can potentially be re-used76. This figure is
closer to that determined in Scotland; however, this figured looks only at the
potential for re-use, and not the amount currently reused. Applying this figure as a
potential maximum throughout the EU would amount to savings of 637,500 t (or just
under 7% of all EEE put on the market).
For cars, it is assumed that 1 out of 10 cars could be avoided with a combination of
increased car sharing, preventive maintenance, taxes and better public transport
options77. This corresponds to 10% of vehicles annually registered or 1.5 Mt of
materials. In the construction sector, the reuse of materials is also thought to be
able to reduce C&D waste with 10%78. The savings is assumed to follow the same
distribution of the current material composition of waste. Finally, Chemical
Management Services79 seems to be able to reduce 30% of the wastes of spent
- Rolls-Royce – complete engine management: www.rolls-

royce.com/civil/services/corporatecare/index.jsp
- Tukker, A. & Tischner, U. (eds) (2006) New Business for Old Europe. Product-Service
Development, Competitiveness and Sustainability. Greenleaf Publishing.
72
ADEME (2009) French WEEE Register
73
Available at: epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/waste/data/wastestreams/weee
74
Based on breakdown figures in EC (2008), Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of
the Council on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) (Recast).
75
SEPA (2003) Priority Waste Stream Project: Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment
76
Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (2007) Postnote - Electronic Waste. No. 291.
77
- Streetcar – a self-service pay-as-you-go car in the UK: www.streetcar.co.uk/
78
- Bioregional (2008) Pushing Reuse : Towards a low-carbon construction industry
- www.communitywoodrecycling.org.uk/woodwaste.htm
79
- CMS Forum website, www.cmsforum.org
- COWI (2008) Promoting Innovative Business Models with Environmental Benefits. Study
commissioned by the European Commission, DG Environment.

58
solvents, acid, alkaline or saline wastes, used oils, spent chemical catalysts, chemical
preparation and chemical deposits and residues. Current material savings from the
reuse of car parts and WEEE are already accounted for in the previous chapter on
recycling as the registered data does not distinguish between the two types of waste
treatment.
4.3.3. SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOUR

Sustainable behaviour orients individual consumption not just towards more
environmentally efficient solutions, but also towards sufficiency. In many cases,
consumers are tempted to buy more than they need (e.g. “buy one – get one free!”
offers) and/or have the choice between options ranging from low to high
environmental impacts (e.g. ecolabels). As a strategy, sustainable behaviour and
consumption patterns requires increasing consumer awareness about
environmental topics and individual responsibility.
Modifying behaviours towards sustainable consumption will lead to waste
prevention. There are two general types of incentive and dissuasive instruments to
encourage sustainable behaviour: economic instruments (e.g. deposits, subsidies,
levies, taxes, etc.); and, communication instruments (e.g. environmental labelling,
information campaigns) to raise awareness and educate consumers. Financial stimuli
are mainly a response action influencing the pressure executed on the environment.
This preventive effect can be seen both in qualitative and quantitative terms. Taxes
and subsidies can be applied to the amounts of raw materials extracted / imported
or waste generated (e.g. landfill tax) in order to increase material productivity.
Levies can be put on hazardous substances (e.g. tax on PVC foils for packaging80) in
order to shift consumption to products with lower environmental impact. In both
cases financial stimuli is used to change producer / consumer behaviour.
Another important instrument for encouraging more sustainable behaviour is
environmental labels. Often products that have the same functionality can have very
different environmental impacts. The European Ecolabel and specific Member State
labels such as Nordic Swan and Blue Angel, are all examples of environmental labels
that seek to guide consumers to purchasing more environmentally friendly products
and services. Material reduction and avoidance of certain substances are typical
criteria for environmental labels and do contribute to waste prevention. The
contribution of the European Ecolabel in this study is examined more closely in the
next chapter as a product design approach to achieving material productivity.
An area for significant material savings is ‘Green Public Procurement (GPP)’. It is
estimated that public authorities have a budget of 17% of GDP81, which represents a
corresponding large amount of products and materials consumed. If guided by
80
Introduced in Denmark in 1999 for food packaging.
81
Green Public Procurement: www.ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/what_en.htm

59
environmental labelling GPP does have the potential to reduce the waste generated
and increase material productivity. However, in some instances, there may not be a
practical choice between equivalent products. For example, consumers can choose
between different kinds of meats: even though red meat (e.g. beef) is more resource
and land-use demanding that white meat (e.g. chicken meat), they are not always
substitutes as each has its own tastes and traditions. Nonetheless following the
guidelines of a healthy diet would reduce the portion of meat and increase the
consumption of vegetables82. This would lead to a reduction of biomass demand as
meat is a more resource demanding way of providing food when compared with
vegetables. No estimates for the reduction of meat have been provided.
The recent “Preparatory study on food waste across EU-27”83 provided a first
estimate for the reduction of food waste in the EU due to waste prevention
initiatives. Based on WRAP’s “Love food, Hate waste” campaign’s results so far, it
was assumed that food waste could be reduced with 1.8% of total food waste or 3%
of avoidable household food waste. It should however be noted that the preparatory
study specifically states “there is simply not enough data available to extrapolate the
scale of potential food waste prevention to the EU-27”, so this first estimate is not
considered very reliable.

MATERIAL SAVINGS FROM WASTE PREVENTION
To estimate the current contribution of waste prevention measures to material

savings, the following data and assumptions were used.
Table 4-1: Overview of the data and assumptions used to estimate the current
contribution of waste prevention policies and related approaches
Instrument Assumed impact on material savings

84 89 800 t of lead, 4 300 t of cadmium, 537 t of hexavalent chromium,
RoHS
22 t of mercury, and 12 600 t of octa-BDE
Lean production
2% of current manufacturing waste
(including EMAS)
Reuse strategies 2% of current manufacturing waste
82
McMichael, A.J., Powles, J.W., Butler, C.D., Uauy, R. (2007) Food, livestock production, energy and
health. Series Energy and Health 5. The Lancet, pp. 55-65.
83
BIO Intelligence Service, AEA, Umweltsbundesamt, (2010) Preparatory study on food waste across
EU-27. Study commissioned by the European Commission, DG Environment.
84
European Commission (2008) Impact Assessment – Commission staff working paper accompanying
the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste electrical and
electronic equipment (WEEE) (recast). COM(2008) 810.

60
Table 4-2: Summary of material savings achieved from current waste prevention
policies and measures (amounts in ktonnes)
Reuse strategies
RoHS Lean manufacturing Total
in manufacturing
Material Manufacturing Material

Material Material savings Amount
avoided waste savings
Metals 94.1 29 160 583.20 583.20 1 260.50
Iron and
26 244 524.88 174.96 1 049.76
steel
Aluminium 2 041.2 40.82 17.50 81.65
Copper 583.2 11.664 361.58 23.33
Lead 89.8 291.6 5.83 29.16 101.46
Cadmium 4.3 4.30
Non-metallic
19 230 384.60 384.60 769.20
minerals
Glass 1 290 25.80 25.80 51.60
Hazardous
13.2 13.16
substances
Plastic 1 680 33.60 33.60 67.20
Paper &
11 680 233.60 233.60 467.20
board
Wood 54 210 1 084.20 1 084.20 2 168.40
Food 8 140 162.80 162.80 325.60
Other
29 160 583.20 583.20 1 166.40
biowaste
Other
Total 107 154 550 3 091 3 091 6 289
This study estimates only about 6.3 Mt of materials are currently saved due to
current waste prevention measures and policies. This is less than 2% of the current
amount of recycled material (388.8 Mt) and almost insignificant compared to the
total amount of waste generated in 2004 (2,920 Mt).
4.5. ESTIMATION OF POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO

MATERIAL SAVINGS FROM WASTE PREVENTION
As waste prevention measures have not been fully put in place and the impacts of
these measures are not well documented, the estimation of potential material
savings that could be achieved from waste prevention was based on evidence from a
variety of different sources. The waste prevention strategies considered include lean
production (in the manufacturing and construction sector); the full range of reuse
strategies (e.g. refurbishment, repair, remanufacturing, servicising, communal use);

61
and, more sustainable behaviour (e.g. green public procurement, consumption
patterns, dietary changes, etc.). The data and the assumptions used in this study to
calculate the potential feasible material savings that could be achieved through
stronger waste prevention policies, more sustainable consumption and new service-
oriented business models are listed in the following table.
Table 4-3: Overview of the assumptions used to estimate the potential
contribution of waste prevention policies and related approaches to achieve
greater material productivity
Instrument Assumed impact on material savings

89 800 t of lead, 4 300 t of cadmium, 537 t of hexavalent
chromium, 22 t of mercury, 12 600 t of octa-BDE, 40 000 t
RoHS
of non-reacted TBBPA, 210 tonnes of HBCDD, 29 000 t of
DEHP and 1.5 t of beryllium oxide
Lean production
10% of manufacturing and construction waste
(including EMAS)
Reuse, repair, 10% of WEEE
remanufacturing and 10% of registered vehicles
sharing/servicising 10% of construction waste
Chemical Management
30% of chemical wastes
Services
MSW waste prevention
through sustainable 7% of MSW
behaviour
Assuming that green public procurement and that more intensive waste prevention
programmes are launched, it would seem feasible that MSW could be reduced with
7% (same target as France as set). The material savings is assumed to follow the
same distribution of the current material composition of MSW waste. These
amounts would also include any reductions arising from specific waste streams such
as food waste prevention, banning/taxation of plastic bags and limiting junk mail.
Using the above evidence and assumptions the potential for material savings
through the variety of different waste prevention strategies were calculated. Table
4-3 lists the material savings according to each strategy and the composition of
materials (the material savings are assumed to follow the same percentage fraction
as the composition of materials in current waste streams).
Waste prevention measures have yet to realise its potential for material savings.
Leaner production and construction methods, reuse and more sustainable behaviour
shows great potential for material savings, particularly regarding non-metallic
materials, chemicals and metals. The total potential for material savings due to
waste prevention based on current best practices is estimated to be about 156 Mt
annually. This is over a third of the material saved through current recycling. The
main savings come from better use (and reuse) of construction materials, but also
from overall changes in consumption behaviour.

62
Table 4-4: Summary of potential material savings achievable from waste prevention policies and measures (all amounts in ktonnes)
RoHS Lean Lean Reuse of EEE Car sharing Reuse in CMS Sustainable Total
manufacturing construction construction behaviour
Material Amount Manu- Material Construc- Material Amount Material Amount Material Construc- Material Chemical Material MSW Material Amount
facturing savings tion savings of WEEE savings put on savings tion savings waste savings savings
waste waste collected market waste
Metals 94.1 29 160 2 916 10 839.2 1 083.9 1 169 350.7 11 400 1 140 10 839.2 1 083.9 7 817.6 547.2 7 215.9
Iron and
26 244 2 624.4 10 297.3 1 029.7 1 052.1 315.6 10 200 1 020 10 297.3 1 029.7 6 254.1 437.8 6 457.3
steel
Aluminium 2 041.2 204.1 433.6 43.4 87.7 26.3 1 020 102 433.6 43.4 1 329.0 93.0 512.2
Copper
583.2 58.3 108.4 29.2 8.8 180 18 108.4 234.5 16.4 123.2
10.8 10.8
Lead 89.8 291.6 29.2 119.0
Cadmium 4.3 4.3
Non-
metallic 19 230 1 923.0 401 567.4 40 156.7 401 567.4 40 156.7 82 236.5
minerals
Concrete
and 294 207.5 29 420.7 294 207.5 29 420.7 58 841.5
masonry
Asphalt 77 423.0 7 742.3 77 423.0 7 742.3 15 484.6
Gypsum 1 548.5 154.8 1 548.5 154.8 309.7
Other
mineral 28 388.4 2 838.8 28 388.4 2 838.8 5 677.7
waste
Glass 1 290 129.0 500 50 15 635.4 1 094.5 1 273.5

63
RoHS Lean Lean Reuse of EEE Car sharing Reuse in CMS Sustainable Total
manufacturing construction construction behaviour
Material Amount Manu- Material Construc- Material Amount Material Amount Material Construc- Material Chemical Material MSW Material Amount
facturing savings tion savings of WEEE savings put on savings tion savings waste savings savings
waste waste collected market waste
Chemicals 13.2 41 100 12 330 12 343.2
Hazardous
13.2 13.2
substances
Plastic 1 680 168 5 419.6 542.0 531.0 159.3 1 500 150 5 419.6 542.0 28 664.4 2 006.5 3 567.7
Oil 4 200 1 260 1 260
Paper &
11 680 1 168 6 384.4 7 552.4
board 91 205.0
Wood 54 210 5 421 15 484.6 1 548.5 15 484.6 1 548.5 8 517.9
Food 8 140 814 52 117.2 3 648.2 4 462.2
Other
29 160 2 916 13 029.3 912.1 3 828.1
biowaste
Other 98 069.2 9 806.9 425.0 127.5 1 800 180 98 069.2 9 806.9 52 117.2 3 648.2 23 569.5
Total 107.3 154 550 15 455 531 380 53 138 2 125 637.5 15 200 1 520 531 380 53 138 45 300 13 590 260 585 18 241 155 827

64
In the recent study: “Analysis of the evolution of waste reduction and the scope of
waste prevention”85, the full (theoretical) potential for waste prevention was
estimated. Here the study investigated the amount of waste at different stages of
the life cycle of materials. Using the assumption that all waste at the production and
end-of-life stages is potentially preventable, the study estimated that 155 Mt of
production waste could be prevented and correspondingly 141 Mt of end-of-life
waste. Even though the study only counted waste that is clearly related to the
production process of each industry, e.g. metal waste from the metal producing
industries, the potential amounts of material saved are at present only theoretic
figures, as industry is still far from a ‘zero-waste’ situation. In general, the potential
for waste prevention in this study is estimated to be around 10% of the current
waste streams.
Table 4-5: Waste prevention potentials – a comparison between this study and
theoretical amounts with ‘zero waste’, all amounts in Mt
Analysis of the evolution of waste reduction and the
scope of waste prevention
Total in Percent of
End of life
this total waste
Waste Extraction Production waste (incl.
study Total
type waste waste household
waste)
Metals 7.2 0.0 29.2 34.4 63.6 11%
Glass 1.3 0.0 1.3 25.0 26.2 5%
Paper and 7.6 0.0 11.7 92.2 103.9 7%
cardboard
Plastic 3.6 0.0 1.7 26.9 28.6 13%
Wood 8.5 0.0 54.2 21.3 75.5 11%
Food 4.5 32.6 37.3 90.1 160.0 3%
Mineral 82.2 736.7 19.2 886.8 1642.8 5%
Total 155.8 769.4 154.6 1176.7 2100.6 7%
85
Environment.
January 2011 European Commission DG ENV

65
5. PRODUCT DESIGN
Design can play a critical role in material use and material savings since these are to
a large extent determined at the design stage of a product’s life. For example, the
shape and dimensions of the product; the choice of materials used in the
manufacturing process or during its life time; the possibility of reusing, recycling or
any other end-of-life option after its use, are all defined during product conception.
Each one of the aspects listed above directly influence the type and amounts of
materials used and their corresponding environmental impacts during the product’s
life cycle.
This section provides an overview of possible contributions of product design to
material savings and productivity. First the relevant existing policies and measures
are studied by looking at the methods and approaches that could or have affected
material use after their implementation. This part forms the basis for the estimation
of the contribution of product design to material savings and to material
productivity under the current state of policy implementation as well as an
estimation of future potentials.
5.1. DEFINITION OF ECODESIGN
The concept of ecodesign lies in the process of creating a product that delivers a
specific functionality whilst taking into consideration the environmental impacts
throughout its entire life cycle. The aim of this product life thinking is to reduce the
environmental impacts related to each stage from raw material extraction to end-of-
life. Since environmental effects are determined during the development of the
product, design plays a critical role when the goal is to reduce the negative effects
on the environment. According to a guide to improve environmental performance
through development, 80% of the products environmental profile is fixed under the
concept creation stage86. Likewise it is claimed that around 80% of a product’s
environmental impacts can be eliminated through better design.87
86
McAloone, T. & Bey, Niki, B. (2008) Environmental improvement through product development – a
guide. Danish Environmental Protection Agency. Available at:
www.kp.man.dtu.dk/English/Research/areas/Ecodesign/guide.aspx
87 th
House of Lords (2008 ) Waste Reduction. Volume I: Report 6 . Report of Session 2007–08. Science
and Technology Committee, UK.

66
Ecodesign principles
A list of common strategies to develop environmentally sound products, also known
as ecodesign principles is presented below88:
• Reduce the material intensity: using less material for the same functionality
(product lightweighting)
• Reduce the energy intensity: consuming less energy for the same output
• Eliminate or reduce the dispersion of harmful substances
• Increase the amount of recycled and recyclable material: design for recycling
• Optimise the product’s durability: increase the product’s lifetime by making it
durable, repairable and upgradeable (design for longevity)
• Incorporate environmental features into the product: e.g. duplex printing,
standby functions, eco-programmes
• Signal the product’s environmental features: make them visible to the user or
setting them as a default
• Maximise the use of sustainable resources and supply chains: using resources
that have small environmental impacts, ethically produced and require minimum
transport
• Optimise the product’s performance: an effective product is the most efficient
way to meet user’s needs
• Design the life cycle first then the product: consider all the environmental
impacts throughout the product’s life cycle stages and develop the product
based on user’s activities and needs
The above principles are not independent and sometimes even contradictory, e.g.
reducing material intensity and optimising product’s durability. Trade-offs often
have to be made by designers and manufacturers. They must consider these
principles carefully by taking into account the overall environmental impacts for
each specific product. Furthermore, not all of these strategies are directly relevant
for material productivity. In the context of this study only reducing material
intensity (lightweighting); design for recycling; the elimination/dispersion of
harmful substances (already covered in Chapter 4); and, design for longevity; are
considered in relation to how they can lead to material savings.
5.2. ECODESIGN RELATED POLICIES
In this section current policies that have lead to material savings and productivity
through product design are analysed. Only the policies that have provisions for
ecodesign parameters and that have entered into force are included, these are: the
88
McAloone, T. & Bey, Niki, B. (2008) Environmental improvement through product development – a
guide. Danish Environmental Protection Agency.

67
Ecodesign Directive; EU Ecolabel; WEEE Directive; Packaging and Packaging Waste
Directive: and, the End-of-Life Vehicles Directive. Although policies that aim to limit
or prevent the use of hazardous substances, e.g. RoHS, can be seen as a design-
oriented policy, these have been dealt with in the previous chapter.
Further information about evidence and estimates for ecodesign can be found in
Annex E.
From the five types of design related policies, the Ecolabel presents the most
important contributions to resource savings at present. The total amount of
materials saved was estimated to be 0.53 Mt for an assumed 5% market share of
Ecolabelled products (see Table 5-1). If the market penetration increases and/or
product categories are included in the forthcoming years, greater savings could be
achieved.
Table 5-1: Total estimated materials saved (in ktonnes) due to EU Ecolabel89
Ecolabelled products market
Material stream
share (5%), in ktonnes
Reduced use of hazardous substances 13.80
Material savings
Pesticide 1.58
Fertiliser 45.41
Granite 233.81
Peat 113.30
Titanium dioxide 25.11
Others 111.49
Total materials saved 530.70
Actual contributions of the Ecodesign Directive to material use and efficiency have
not been significant for two main reasons: 1) the first implementing measures with
ecodesign requirements were only approved of in 2008, and 2) the methodology for
assessing products focuses on energy efficiency (for more details see Annex E).
Besides (indirect) material savings due to change in energy efficiency technology for
domestic lighting, the contributions of the Ecodesign Directive to material
productivity is limited as none of the implementing measures so far address material
issues.
For the WEEE, ELV and Packaging Directive the contribution of design to recycling
has already been accounted for in Chapter 3. There is evidence that significantly less
material per packaging is now being used (see Table 5-2), but it is not clear whether
this is a natural development or due to the Packaging Directive. Likewise,
technological development and ecodesign has resulted in considerable
lightweighting of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE).
89
AEAT (2004) The direct and indirect benefits of the European Ecolabel. Study for the European
Commission, DG Environment.

68
Table 5-2: Evolution of packaging weight90
Per cent
Type of packaging 1950s 1960s 1970s 1990s 2000 2008 91
change
Washing-up liquid bottle
– – 120g 67g 50g 43g 64%
(1 litre)
Soup can (400g) 90g – 69g 57g 55g 49g 46%
Yoghurt pot (165g) – 12g 7g 5g – 4g 67%
Plastics fizzy drinks bottle
– – 58g – 43g 40g 31%
(2 litre)
Metal drinks can (330ml) – 60g – 21g 15g 14g 77%
Glass beer bottle (275g) – – 450g – 325g 176g 61%
Glass milk bottle (1 pint) 538g – 397g 230g – 186g 65%
It was seen that in early stages (i.e. in the 1960s) material weight reductions were
significant, and changes of more than 50% in the weight of some packaging
materials was achieved. It would seem that the technical limits of packaging have
been reached as the weight reductions have been less in the later years There is
however still a potential for further weight reduction by substituting material, e.g.
from glass bottles to plastic or carton.92 A study conducted by PlasticsEurope claims
that the use of plastic for packaging helps in reducing the overall material
consumption of alternative packaging material by almost 4 times (by weight)93. For
example, by changing the material of their beer bottles, Carlsberg reduced the
weight of a beer bottle from 260 g (glass bottle) to 38 g (plastic bottle). 94
It has not been possible to determine the extent that packaging manufacturers use
more recycled material in their products, but it has been observed that higher
amounts of packaging waste are being recycled95. Regardless, the effects of
packaging recycling have already been accounted for under recycling in Chapter 3.
5.3. THE POTENTIAL OF ECODESIGN APPROACHES
This section aims to identify methods that could effectively contribute to material
savings and efficiency outside policies. It analyses the possible contributions of other
relevant methods besides policies, such as private sector initiatives. The aim of
looking at possible contributions beyond current policies is to find examples of
design approaches that have an impact on material use in a significant manner
which can then be used later on to provide grounds for new policy measures.
90
EUROPEN; Packaging and Packaging Waste Statistics 1998 – 2006.
91
The per cent change measures the weight reduction in 2008 compared with the first year of data
reporting for the product in the table
92
www.tetrapak.com/us/Documents/tetrapak_consumerminbrochure.pdf
93
Denkstatt AG (2010) The impacts of plastics on life-cycle energy consumption and greenhouse gas
emissions in Europe.
94
www.carlsbergdanmark.dk/omol/AtVide/Emballager/Pages/Flasker.aspx
95
Treatment of packaging waste in the EU-27, Packaging waste 2007, EUROSTAT, Environmental Data
Centre on waste.

69
Changes to a product’s design can be made on various levels: technology (e.g.
change from incandescent light bulb to LEDs), structure (e.g. use three wheels
instead of four), shape (e.g. decrease wall thickness) or material (e.g. substitute
plastic made from fossil fuel to plastic made from maize).
The following three design strategies to achieve material savings through design is
analysed in the subsequent sections:
• Design for recyclability - using recycled materials and designing the product so it
is easier to recycle
• Product lightweighting - reducing the material intensity of products by using
less material or choosing another material for the same functionality
• Design for longevity - increasing the product lifetime: by making products more
durable, repairable and upgradeable in order to increase product life time and
encourage reuse.
The reduction of the use and dispersion of harmful substances is also a design
strategy that could contribute to material savings, but as it is strongly linked to
waste prevention, this strategy was covered under the previous chapter in relation
to RoHS.
Further information about evidence and estimates for ecodesign can be found in
Annex D.
5.3.1. DESIGN FOR RECYCLABILITY

The methods and approaches found for this option are mainly related to:
• Using materials that can be recycled. This can be achieved by using materials
with compatible fixings/attachments as it greatly increases the product’s
recyclability, while incompatible materials, non-dismountable surface
attachments and factors reducing recycling performance increase the steps
required for recycling, making it both costly and resource-intensive. The
chemical structures of the materials need to be similar in order to be broken
down into their raw form together. For example, thermoset plastics and
composite materials are extremely difficult to recycle.
• Using recycled materials. Designing products to be made out of recycled
material stimulates the demand for recycled material and leads to higher
recycling rates. Avoid using virgin materials such as titanium, magnesium and
aluminium.
• Minimising number of parts involved in product components. Fewer parts mean
that sorting for recycling is made easier.

70
• Minimising the number of different types of material. Switching from using
several materials to mono materials for the same purpose.96 The main
advantage of using only one material is that it facilitates recyclability.
• Marking parts for easier identification. Plastic components are difficult to sort,
if they are not properly marked. For example, marking plastic parts weighing
more than 25 grams according to ISO 11469 international standards allows for
easier sorting.
• Eliminating labels or product components that have to be removed before
recycling. Labelling of products is often desirable for consumer information,
batch differentiation or be required by legislation. Eliminating incompatible
labels or metal inserts on plastic parts will help to improve the overall
recyclability of the product. For example, a choice between moulded-in legends
and/or compatible ink printing or paper labels with compatible adhesive, can
instead be made for polymer casings.
• Making the product easy to disassemble. One of the crucial aspects to carry out
product recycling is optimum disassembly so that the revenue gained from
recycling the parts is greater than the cost of carrying out the operations. Often
valuable parts of a product such as transformers, electric motors, etc. are
located in parts of the product that are not very accessible. In many cases, once
the parts have been removed any recycling value that they may have had is
cancelled out by the costly disassembly which is needed to access them.
Therefore, placing highly valuable parts in easily accessible places within the
product will encourage and facilitate its recyclability. Disassembly can be made
easier and faster by reducing the number of fasteners; making them easily
assessable; using snap-fits that are designed to be undone or break; avoiding
glues and adhesives to join parts made of different materials; etc.
Design for recycling is key to achieving higher recycling rates. As a strategy it allows
products to be more easily recycled (creating supply), but also increases the demand
for recycled material by using recycled material instead of virgin raw material.
However, the real contribution of design for recycling can only be seen in the
recycling amounts and the performance of collection and recycling systems. A
product that is designed to be 100% recyclable does not result in material savings if
it is not collected and recycled at the end of its life. The contribution of design for
recycling to material productivity has already been accounted for in the chapter on
recycling. Any further effects are not considered here as this would be double-
counting.
5.3.2. PRODUCT LIGHTWEIGHTING

The main idea of lightweighting is to reduce the weight of products during design
whilst considering the environmental impacts throughout its entire lifecycle.97 As it
96
Several examples are found in the database at: www.conseil-emballage.org/web/c_fiche.asp

71
involves producing the same product with less material, it contributes directly to
material productivity. However, caution must be taken as a ‘lightweighted’ product
is not necessarily a ‘rightweighted’ product. Sometimes a heavier product is a better
environmental choice when considering its function or the entire product life cycle,
e.g. it is often better to use more material in house walls to achieve better
insulation, or using more materials can make a product more durable (doubling the
product’s life corresponds to halving its material use). Likewise, a reduction in the
weight of materials used in a product may not be the best environmental option,
particularly where this involves substitution of materials which have far greater
environmental impacts during the extractive phase, or cannot be recycled. In
practice, product lightweighting is about redesigning the product’s shape and
structure, material substitution, and changes in production technologies and
processes98.
Although slightly different, two related approaches can also be considered as
lightweighting:
• Dematerialisation99 – reducing the amount of material needed to provide the
function or benefits of the product or service. This includes both the unused
indirect materials disturbed in the extraction of natural materials as well as the
direct material input to the product. The indicator material intensity per service
unit (MIPS)100 is often used to measure dematerialisation.
• Miniaturisation – as the weight of a product’s is a function of both the density of
materials used and the volume of the product, a reduction in the size or volume
of the product will automatically reduce the mass of the whole.
There is a clear overlap between all the concepts, but lightweighting is not just about
making things smaller (e.g. miniaturisation) or replacing goods with services (e.g.
dematerialisation through servicising). When lightweighting a product during design,
the entire system that the product is a part of should be taken into consideration.
Lightweighting a single component does not necessarily result in a lightweighted
product. In general, when considering the lightweighting of products careful
consideration must be made between the trade-off between environmental impacts
as well as the trade-offs between safety, cost and quality, e.g. using less durable
materials in packaging may result in more damaged/spoilt goods/food.
Often materials that have lower densities and are stronger are used to achieve
lightweighting, e.g. plastics, advanced steels and alloys, aluminium, magnesium,
titanium, berylium, lithium, composites such as glass fibre and carbon fibre, foams,
97
Oakdene Hollins & Cranfield University (2007) Product Lightweighting. A strategy to deliver a
sustainable economy? Resource Efficiency Knowlegde Transfer Network, DTI, UK.
98
Wallentowitz, H., Leyers, J., Parr, T. (2003) Business briefing: Global Automotive Manufacturing &
Technology.
99
CML (2003) Dematerialisation: Not just a matter of weight – Development and application of a
methodology to rank materials based on their environmental impacts.
100
Material Intensity per Service Unit. See
www.wupperinst.org/en/projects/topics_online/mips/index.html

72
biomaterials, etc. With the considerable research in nanotechnology and material
science, many new possibilities will be available in the future to improve the
properties of existing materials and break the link between strength, stiffness and
weight in materials. Within the context of this study, as already mentioned, it is not
only the reduction of weight that is the issue, but the environmental impacts of the
system over its entire life cycle. Lightweighting must be seen in relation to other
material productivity approaches such as recycling (e.g. carbon fibre is difficult to
recycle), the use of rare/scarce materials, prolonging product life, etc.
Figure 5-1: An example of a product providing the same function that has
undergone drastic lightweighting with digitalisation
A special case of lightweighting by dematerialisation is the provision of products as
services through digitalisation. Instead of physical materials (e.g. floppy disks, CDs,
books, paper letters, etc.), ICT can provide the same service as an information
service (e.g. email, music download, PDF files, etc.). This leads to the replacement of
material goods with ‘immaterial’ information. However, it is worth noting that the
embodied materials and energy of the electronic equipment, through which these
information services may be accessed, may also be significant. In the case of digital
books, certain products have been made (known as e-readers) which serve only to
access these products. Furthermore, although offices have become more digitalised,
the amount of paper consumed, contrary to what one might think, has also
increased101.
It is estimated that changing car manufacturing production structures may improve
material productivity up to 29%, substituting material can save 20% and product
design can reduce up to 84% of material usage in car production102. However, before
these technical potentials can be achieved, further R&D is needed.
101
Vowler, J. (2002) The end of paper?. Computer Weekly, 43.
102
Wuppertal Institute for Climate Environment and Energy (2007) The relation between resource
productivity and competitiveness.

73
Table 5-3: Selected potentials to reduce the usage of materials in compact class car
(VW Golf)102
Theoretical potential for reduction of material usage in

Option
car production (in % by weight)
Substitution of Plastics Up to 10% compared with conventional steel production

materials by
Aluminium Up to 20% compared with conventional steel production
Product design Ex. Loremo 49%
Ex. PAC-Car II 84%
Changing production structure 23-29%
Ecodesign has become common practice in most leading manufacturing firms. The
effects of these can be seen with the material intensity of each new generation of
product being improved. Given the evidence, it seems economically feasible that
packaging, electronic and electrical equipment (EEE) and vehicles could be
redesigned using less materials and/or substituting materials with less
environmental impacts. Packaging has already seen large weight reductions per unit
of about 50% on average, but it would still seem possible to further reduce the
weight of packaging by at least 5%. Likewise for EEE, miniaturisation and
digitalisation has resulted in products which on average are estimated to require half
the amount of materials compared with earlier generations of the same product.
From the achievements of individual firms on material savings through ecodesign, it
is assumed that a further 10% of materials could be saved and still provide the same
value. Finally, the evidence shows that although lightweighting has occurred in the
automotive industry, these savings have been outweighed by the increase in size
and features of the average car sold on the market. If consumers accept smaller cars
(which seems to be the case with the popularity of cars such as BMW Mini, Fiat 500,
Smart fortwo), it would seem plausible that vehicles could be designed with as much
as 30% less materials (see Figure 5-2).
Figure 5-2: Development of materials used in the design of a mid-sized car103
103
Wallentowitz, H., Leyers, J., Parr, T. (2003) Business briefing: Global Automotive Manufacturing & Technology.

74
It must be pointed that the above mentioned estimates assume that consumers are
willing to accept these changes to products and that these material savings do not
entail rebound effects in terms of increased consumption.
5.3.3. DESIGN FOR LONGEVITY

The methods and approaches under this option are normally related to increasing
the lifetime of products by making them more durable, repairable and upgradable.
This supports waste prevention measures for reusing/ refurbishment/ repair/
remanufacturing.
Unless specific targets are set for products to last longer, it is difficult to believe that
the industry will voluntarily design products that will last longer or that can be
updated easily, as their rationale is to sell as many products as possible. Products
that last longer and are easily updated are sold in fewer numbers and thus less
attractive from a commercial point of view. If, however, manufacturing companies
retained the ownership of their products and instead offered their products as a
service (e.g. you paying for using the product, not for owning it)104, this will enable
and motivate companies to reuse, rationalise and enhance their products
throughout their life phases in a more resource efficient manner.
Several designers believe that by creating products that induce emotional
attachment with their owners, consumption of products would slow down and
encourage products acquired to be used for a longer period of time.105 This is
typically observed with antique objects, e.g. clothes, furniture, cutlery, vintage cars,
etc., therefore by designing products that appeal more to people’s emotions, it
would be possible to reduce the need for more products. Design for longevity
supports various strategies to prolong product life including waste prevention
strategies such as reuse, repair, remanufacture, etc. The effects of these have
already been accounted for in the previous chapter on waste prevention.
104
As Product/Service-Systems (PSS) or ‘servicising’. See COWI (2008) Promoting Innovative Business
Models with Environmental Benefits. Study commissioned by the European Commission, DG
Environment.
105
See e.g.:
− Chapman, J. (2005) Emotionally Durable Design: Objects, Experiences and Empathy,
Earthscan.
− Norman, D.A. (2004). Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things, New York,
Basic Books.
− Chapman, J. (2005) Emotionally Durable Design - objects, experience and empathy, Earthscan
Publications Ltd, London, UK.
− Muis, H.,Odding, A., Bonekamp, L., Van Hinte, E. (eds.) (1997) Eternally Yours. Visions on
product endurance. 010 Publishers, NL.

75
MATERIAL SAVINGS FROM DESIGN
Table 5-4 presents the assumptions made to calculate the current contribution of
design to material productivity. The total amounts of savings in relation to the
various types of materials are presented in Table 5-5. Implementing measures for
lighting under the Ecodesign Directive have resulted in the phasing out of
incandescent light bulbs. Although the replacing technology, compact fluorescent
lighting (CFL), uses more material per light bulb, its life time is also much longer.106
Table 5-4: Overview of the assumptions used to estimate the current amount of
material savings achieved through product design
Instrument Material savings

Indirect material savings from the change from incandescent
Ecodesign
to compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs)
Ecolabel 5% market uptake
Packaging 50% reduction of material use
EEE 50% reduction of material use
In Table 5-5 this can be seen as negative savings (increased material consumption).
Currently, the increasing purchases of CFLs represents an annual increase in the
consumption of glass, plastic and other materials, however in the coming years as
the lighting stock is replaced with CFLs, this will lead to much less annual demand for
light bulbs (see Annex E for calculations).
Table 5-5: Summary of material savings from current design-related policies and
measures (all amounts in ktonnes)
Ecodesign Ecolabel Packaging EEE Total
Material Material Material Amount put Material Amount put Material Amount
savings savings on market savings on market savings
Metals 0.228 4 903 4 903 5 232 5 232 10 135
Iron and steel 3 922 3 922 4 709 4 709 8 631
Aluminium 0.228 834 834 392 392 1 226
Copper 147 147 131 131 278
Titanium
25.110 25
dioxide
Granite 233.810 234
Glass -7.923 16 597 16 597 16 589
Chemicals 60.790 61
Pesticide 1.580 1.6
Fertiliser 45.410 45
Hazardous
13.800 14
substances
106
MTP (2008) Impact Assessment of EuP Implementing Measures of Domestic Lighting. Defra, UK.

76
Ecodesign Ecolabel Packaging EEE Total
Material Material Material Amount put Material Amount put Material Amount
savings savings on market savings on market savings
Plastic -10.375 14 950 14 950 2 378 2 378 17 318
Paper &
31 771 31 771 31 771
board
Wood 12 852 12 852 12 852
Peat 113.300 113
Other -10.784 111.490 233 233 1 903 1 903 2 237
Total -28.9 544.5 81 306 81 306 9 513 9 513 91 335
The estimated total current contribution of design improvements to material savings

is 91.3 Mt. EU design-related policies such as Ecolabelled products constitute only a
small part of these savings. General ecodesign strategies such as lightweighting in
packaging and EEE (helped by miniaturisation and digitalisation) are assessed to
have contributed with the greatest amounts of material savings. The savings come
from the materials traditionally used for packaging (i.e. cardboard, glass, plastic,
wood and metals) and EEE (i.e. metals and plastic).
Regarding Ecolabelled product’s contribution it should be noted that it is not clear
whether the reduction in using the avoided hazardous substances and titanium
dioxide actually result in a net reduction of materials. It is not known what amounts
of other materials are used instead to replace these materials. Peat is replaced by
biowaste.
5.5. ESTIMATION OF POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO

MATERIAL SAVINGS FROM DESIGN
Currently only a limited amount of material savings can be attributed to the existing
policies in place. Although the evidence provided in this section is fragmented, it
clearly demonstrates that improvements in design have the potential for significant
material savings in the future. This is mainly due to increasing the material intensity
of products (lightweighting), but also by using design to support more recycling and
reuse.
The Ecodesign Directive does hold the potential to increase the material productivity
through implementing measures that directly address the use of materials in
products as well as extending the scope of the Directive to include any kind of
product (i.e. not just those considered energy-related). A review of the on-going
preparatory studies commissioned for the product groups covered by the Ecodesign
Directive does not provide any specific evidence on improvement potentials related
to non-energy carrying materials. In general, resource savings have only been linked
to energy savings especially in the use phase. The strong (and often only) focus on
energy consumption during the use phase in implementing measures for previous

77
product groups under the Ecodesign Directive is increasingly subject to criticism
from stakeholders. This could lead to future implementing measures also taking into
account the material productivity of products through any of the described design
principles treated in this chapter: design for recyclability; product lightweighting;
and, design for longevity.
The potential for expanding the Ecodesign Directive was considered in the report for
the Commission on “Technical support to identify product categories with significant
environmental impact and with potential for improvement by making use of
ecodesign measures”107. The report considers what opportunities the inclusion of
new product groups in the Ecodesign workplan might provide for material savings. It
analysed eight main product groups (food, building occupancy, transport,
construction materials, electronics and tools, paper products, clothing/textiles and
chemicals) and found that the improvement potential for some categories could
have an effect on material savings through product design. Unfortunately, the
potential for material savings was presented qualitatively as possible actions without
any quantification of material savings:
• Food: The link to material savings is found in actions to improve food packaging
that can extend product lifetime and prevent food waste.
• Transport: Car weight reduction actions have been quoted in the range of 5%,
12% and up to 30%. Possibilities for material substitution are also presented.
• Construction materials: Including building materials from recycled products (e.g.
windows from recycled glass, boards from recycled paper, etc.) and preventing
coatings from hazardous substances could present opportunities for material
savings.
• Textiles: Material savings could be achieved by reducing agrochemical use and
replacing cotton with alternative natural fibres (e.g. hemp, flax, etc.).
Based on the above and due to the lack of other studies and quantitative estimates
on the effects of product design on material productivity, rough assumptions were
made to calculate potential material savings from product design (see Table 5-4).
Table 5-6: Overview of the assumptions used to estimate the current amount of
material savings achieved through product design
Instrument Material savings

Ecolabel becomes
100% market penetration
Ecodesign
5% material reduction through lightweighting and changing
Packaging
materials
EEE 10% less material
Vehicles 30% less materials
107
BIO Intelligence Service (2010); “Technical support to identify product categories with significant
environmental impact and with potential for improvement by making use of ecodesign measures”
Final report.

78
If in the future, the EU Ecolabel is made mandatory by its incorporation into the
Ecodesign Directive, this would correspond to 100% market penetration of
Ecolabelled products. All of the above assumptions would seem economically
feasible given the evidence presented in relation to lightweighting packaging,
electrical and electronic equipment, and vehicles. The (indirect) contributions from
product design to increasing recycling and reuse have already been accounted for in
previous chapters. The resulting material savings are presented in Table 5-7.
Table 5-7: Summary of potential material savings achieved from increasing
material intensity through ecodesign (all amounts in ktonnes)
Ecodesign Ecolabel Packaging EEE ELV Total
Amount Amount Amount Material Amount Material Amount Material Amount
put on savings put on savings put on savings
market market market
Metals 5.63 4 903 245 5 232 523 11 400 3 420 4 194
Iron and
3 922 196 4 709 471 10 200 3 060 3 727
steel
Aluminium 5.63 834 42 392 39 1 020 306 393
Copper 147 7 131 13 180 54 74
Minerals 5 178.4 5 178
Titanium
502.2 502
dioxide
Granite 4 676.2 4 676
Glass 42.13 16 597 830 500 150 1 022
Chemicals 1 215.8 1 216
Pesticide 31.6 32
Fertiliser 908.2 908
Hazardous
276 276
substances
Plastic -13.30 14 950 748 2 378 238 1 500 450 1 423
Paper &
31 771 1 589 1 589
board
Wood 12 852 643 643
Peat 2 266 2 266
Other -13.80 2 229.8 233 12 1 903 190 1 800 540 2 958
Total 20.65 10 890 81 306 4 065 9 513 951 15 200 4 560 20 487
The potential for design to contribute with material savings is estimated to be about
20.5 Mt. Most of the savings are due to the expansion of scope of the Ecodesign
Directive and making current Ecolabel criteria mandatory for all products sold in the
EU. Lightweighting vehicles and purchasing smaller cars also represents a significant
potential for reducing material consumption. The largest savings are minerals
followed by metals and biomass (peat).
The above assumptions and estimates are based on what could be achieved with
current available technologies. Technological development in new (bio) materials
and nanotechnology could result in further reductions of material intensity.
Although not considered in this study, design also holds the potential of increasing

79
the added-value and competiveness of products.108 Product design is not just about
the functional utility and technical performance of the product, but also involves
consideration of the perceived emotional benefits of products. These ‘soft’ factors
often determine the premium manufacturers can command for their products on
the market, e.g. as is the case of unique or branded goods.
108
Design Council (2008) The impact of design on business. Design Council briefing. October 2008.

80
6. OVERALL IMPLICATIONS
In support of the European Commission’s work towards a ‘Resource Efficient

Europe’109, this study aims to make a first comprehensive estimate of the
contribution of different policy measures in the EU to material savings and material
productivity. Throughout the study a data and information has been sought to
develop an evidence base quantifying to what extent different policy measures,
related to recycling, waste prevention and ecodesign, lead to greater material
productivity. Hence, the study provides the Commission with an initial assessment of
the material savings which have been and can be gained, as well as the economic,
environmental and social impacts, generated by existing and possible future policies
and measures. The findings of this study inform of future policy measures and
possible targets for material saving and resource efficiency policy in the EU. Figure
6-1 is a diagram showing where the various types of EU policies considered in this
study focus on in relation to the general material flows in the economy.
Other economies
Product
Domestic environment design
policies
Domestic economy
Imports Exports
PRODUCTION
Recycling
Resource WASTE
use Domestic MANAGEMENT Domestic
CONSUMPTION
policies Extraction Processed
Output
Reuse
Waste Stock Recycling

prevention policies
policies
Figure 6-1: An overview of where the different resource efficiency policy areas
contribute to material flows
109
European Commission (2010) Europe 2020. A European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive
growth.

81
6.1. OVERALL MATERIAL SAVINGS AND MATERIAL
PRODUCTIVITY GAINS
In the investigation performed in this study of how much recycling, waste prevention
and product design contribute to resource savings and efficiency, recycling has by far
the largest contribution. This is partly because it is easily measured and actually
tracked in companies and sectors, where waste statistics make the data available.
The resource savings from waste prevention measures and product design are more
difficult to measure and currently not tracked in a systematic manner. The data for
waste prevention and product design is limited, and based on their recent
implementation, there is a lack of measurement and no economy wide estimates
exist. The estimates for waste prevention and product design are mainly based on
case studies of resource savings from local initiatives.
6.1.1. RECYCLING
The data for recycling was compiled from waste statistics for the year 2004 (see
Chapter 3. ). First of all the national waste statistics were used as a baseline, then
studies into the recycling rates of the various EU policies (e.g. WEEE, ELV, etc.) were
scrutinised for more detailed information. With this information four scenarios were
developed:
• Current situation in the year 2004 with the recycling situation as it was at that
time
• Targets fully reached means that all present recycling targets are achieved
already in 2004
• Potential stands for maximum recycling rates according to expert judgement are
achieved in 2004
• 100% recycling is a hypothetical scenario and represents 100% recycling of the
respective waste stream in 2004
For these scenarios the following recycling amounts and recycling rates could be
compiled and calculated.
It needs to be mentioned that data taken from waste statistics have a very high
uncertainty. Just to mention a few examples taken from the C&D waste data (the
most significant material stream): The figures provided for the recycled amounts of
masonry are between 20 Mt and 135 Mt. Another example is the sub-category called
miscellaneous, which ranges from minimum 5 Mt to a maximum of 90 Mt. In order
to deal with these figures, what seemed like the best estimate was checked with
waste experts and then used. The data uncertainty of the material saving estimates
is discussed at the end of this section. Additionally global savings for some materials
are estimated in order compare them with the results estimated for EU-27.

82
800
701
700 Iron
Recycling amounts in Mt (million tons)

574 Aluminium
600
Copper
500
461 Lead
400 Glass
313
Aggregates
300
Plastic
200
Paper
100 Wood
Biowaste
0
current targets potential 100%
Recycling scenarios
Figure 6-2: An overview of recycling amounts for all material categories EU-27
based on waste statistics for current situation, targets reached, potential and 100%
recycling, all values in million metric tonnes (Mt)
The recycling amounts for all materials are 313 Mt110 for the current scenario, and
the DMCc in 2004 was 7,714 Mt. In the scenario “targets fully reached” 461 Mt of
materials are recycled, in the scenario “further potential for recycling” 574 Mt are
recycled and with 100% recycling rates 701 Mt can be recycled. In all the scenarios,
the aggregates (C&D waste minerals) are the highest share of recycling amounts,
accounting for more than 50% of the total recycled materials. In the current
situation, the estimated recycling rate for aggregates is 47%, which means 188 Mt
recycled in 2004. The potential for the hypothetical scenario in which 100% recycling
rate is reached is 399 Mt.
Paper has the second highest recycling amount, with a 49% recycling rate in the
current situation (amounting 41.3 Mt) and a maximum of 8.7 Mt in the scenario in
which 100% recycling rate is achieved. Biowaste, glass, wood, iron and plastics also
have significant recycling rates and amounts in all the scenarios, whereas recycled
amounts of other metals such as aluminium, copper and lead are small compared to
the other materials studied.
110
Excluding material categories that are unaccounted for e.g. “other”, “misc”

83
Table 6-1: Detailed recycling amounts (in million metric tonnes, Mt) and recycling
rates (RR) for EU-27 based on waste statistics for current situation, targets
reached, potential and 100% recycling
Material current targets potential 100%

categories Mt RR Mt RR Mt RR Mt RR
Metals
Iron 13.9 55% 18.3 71% 22.8 82% 26.2 100%
Aluminium 1.7 52% 2.1 64% 2.5 76% 3.3 100%
Copper 0.3 48% 0.4 67% 0.4 83% 0.6 100%
Lead 0.2 15% 0.7 65% 0.7 64% 1.1 100%
Non-metallic minerals
Glass 19.3 43% 24.9 56% 33.6 76% 44.4 100%
Aggregates 187.5 47% 294.4 74% 360.7 90% 399.2 100%
Fossil fuels
Plastics 11.8 33% 16.1 44% 22.3 60% 36.7 100%
Biomass
Paper 41.3 49% 50.3 59% 58.6 69% 84.7 100%
Wood 15.1 41% 20.8 56% 29.1 78% 37.3 100%
Biowaste 22.3 33% 33.5 50% 43.5 65% 67.1 100%
Sum 313.4 461.4 574.2 700.5
In the table it can be seen that 13.9 Mt of iron and steel was recycled in 2004
(current scenario). This represents a recycling rate of 55%. In the scenario where all
recycling targets are fully achieved, the recycling rate of ferrous metals is 71%, which
corresponds to 18.3 Mt. Based on expert judgement 22.8 Mt can be collected
corresponding to a recycling rate of 82%. As a hypothetical reference in a 100%
recycling scenario 26.2 Mt of ferrous metals can be recycled.
Based on these recycling amounts, material savings were calculated employing the
methodology described in section 2.2. Due to methodological reasons, a fifth
baseline scenario had to be introduced in order to calculate material savings and
efficiency increases. This scenario represents the hypothetical situation in which
there is “no recycling”. The calculated material savings and efficiency increases are
shown in Figure 6-3 and Figure 6-4.
The scenario “no recycling” is a baseline scenario denoted by DMCo. This scenario
represents the consumption of materials that there would have been in the year
2004 without any recycling. Therefore the hypothetical DMCo is 8,027 Mt. The bar
shows the composition by major material categories. Due to recycling, it was
possible to reduce DMC in 2004 by 312 Mt (the actual DMC in 2004 with recycling
(DMCc) was 7,715 Mt). If targets are fully reached, this would reduce DMCo with 466
Mt. If all materials were recycled according to the recycling rates of current best

84
practices, this could reduce DMCo with 578 Mt, and finally, if all waste materials
were recycled (100% recycling) 701 Mt of material would be saved annually.
9,000
312 466 578 701
8,000 336
301 287 Resource savings
277 264
7,000
DMC in Mt (million tonnes)
DMC 0
6,000 DMCc DMCt DMC p
3,941 Metal ores
3,734 DMC 100%
3,621 3,546 3,497
5,000
4,000 Non-metalic minerals
3,000
1,960 1,949 1,944 1,938 1,924
Fossil energy carriers
2,000
1,000 1,790 1,730 1,709 1,686 1,644

Biomass
0
no recycling current target potential 100%
Recycling scenarios
Figure 6-3: An overview of the Domestic Material Consumption (DMC) for major
material categories in EU-27 for the scenarios: no recycling (DMCo), current
situation in 2004 (DMCc), targets fully reached (DMCt), potential recycling (DMCp)
and 100% recycling (DMC100%), all values in million metric tonnes (Mt)
800
701
700 Iron
Recycling amounts in Mt (million tonnes)
574 Aluminium
600
Copper
500
461 Lead
400 Glass
313 Aggregates
300
Plastic
200
Paper
100 Wood
Biowaste
0
current targets potential 100%
Recycling scenarios
Figure 6-4: An overview of material savings for all material categories in the EU-27
based on waste statistics for current situation (2004), targets reached, potential
and 100% recycling, all values in million metric tonnes (Mt)
Depending on the material category, recycling can result in various reductions in the
DMC. The recycling of 1 kg of copper saves in general about 20 kg of copper ores.

85
Since copper is mostly imported to the EU-27, on average recycling currently saves
about 8 kg of DMC (less material imported and less domestically extracted). The
figures for iron are in general 2.2 kg savings in ores and 1.8 kg less imports and
domestic extraction. For minerals, such as glass and aggregates, as well as for
plastics, wood and biowaste an approximate 1:1 reduction is assumed (1 kg recycled
material reduces imports and domestic extraction with 1 kg). Only in the case of
paper 1 kg recycled paper replaces just about half a kilogram of wood. Since there
are high uncertainties in these values, the uncertainly of this data will be discussed
at the end of this section. Recycling amounts, material saving and efficiency
increases for each material stream can be found in Annex F.
Global material savings compared to EU-27 material savings
To give an idea of what the material savings at global level (here all materials have to
be extracted) compared to EU 27 are the average ore grade was used to determine
the raw material requirements (see Table 6-2).
Table 6-2: Global material savings compared to material savings within EU-27 (all
values in metric tonnes)
Recycling Average ore Global EU-27 EU-27 material

amount grade in % material material savings in % of global
in Mt savings in Mt savings in Mt material savings
Iron 13.9 46% 30.2 25.5 84%
Aluminium 1.7 24% 7.1 4.3 61%
Copper 0.3 6% 5.0 4 80%
Lead 0.2 5% 4.0 1.3 33%
Total 16.1 46.3 35.1 76%
The calculated global material savings based on waste statistics are about 46.3 Mt.
The material savings within EU-27 countries amount up to more than 35.1 Mt. These
figures estimate that recycling in EU-27 saves 46.3 Mt globally of which 76% occurs
within the EU-27 countries.
Based on our calculation the hypothetical domestic material consumption (DMCo)
without any recycling activity would be 8,029 Mt for EU-27 in 2004. With recycling
activities as they were in 2004 the DMC was reduced by material savings to DMCc of
7,715 Mt. With GDP for the EU-27 in 2004 at 9,879 billion Euro, material productivity
is then calculated to be 1,230 €/t if there was no recycling and 1,280 €/t with current
recycling amounts. This means a calculated material productivity increase for the
current situation of 4.1%.

86
Table 6-3: An overview of increases of material efficiency due to recycling based on
waste statistics from current policies and potentials
Current Targets Feasible 100% recycling

policies reached potential rates
DMC0 (Mt) 8 029 8 029 8 029 8 029

DMC c,t,p,100% (Mt) 7 715 7 563 7 449 7 329
RE0 (€/t) 1 230 1 230 1 230 1 230
REc,t,p,100% (€/t) 1 280 1 306 1 326 1 348
Material productivity
increase due to 4.1% 6.2% 7.8% 9.5%
recycling %
Potentially the efficiency can increase to 6.2% with full implementation of policies
and recycling targets reached. It is estimated based on current best practice that
material productivity could increase to 7.8%. Finally even if 100% recycling rate was
possible for the materials considered, recycling would only amount to about 9.5% of
a material productivity increase. Due to the assessment of the data uncertainties, it
is assumed that the increased rates for material productivity are in a range of +/-30%
of the values presented.
10% 9.5%
7.8%
Material productivity
8%
6.2%
increase
6%
4.1%
4%
2%
0
0%
no recycling current target potential 100%
Recycling scenarios
Figure 6-5: An overview of the efficiency increases in EU 27 for the scenarios no

recycling, current situation (2004), targets fully reached, potential recycling and
100% recycling (all percentages)
The most significant material savings are from recycling of non-metallic minerals
(glass and aggregates). This represents about 66% of the total material savings
throughout all scenarios. In 2004 roughly 5% of the DMC of non-metallic mineral is
recycled. Potentially this could be doubled. The core benefits of recycling of these
materials are less disposal of waste and a reduction of extraction. Further potential
for improvements can be achieved if recycled material could replace processed
materials like concrete instead of raw materials.

87
Biomass recycling (biowaste, paper and wood) contributes about 20% to the total
material savings. Roughly 3.5% up to 6% (potential) of biomass can be recycled.
However, in the case of biowaste under a scientific point of view it is under dispute if
this is recycling or downcycling (e.g. compost or biogas).
Material savings due to metal recycling add up to about 11% of the total material
savings. In 2004 roughly 10% of DMC for metal was recycled. With increased
recycling activities this could be increased up to 18% (potential). Metal recycling
does not just save raw materials like ores, it can decrease import dependency and
thereby increase supply security.
Plastic
Paper
4%
7%
Wood
5%
Biowaste
7%
Metals
Aggregates 11%
60%
Glass
6%
Figure 6-6: Material savings EU-27 of metals, non-metallic minerals (glass and
aggregates), plastic and biomass (paper, wood, biowaste) for current situation in
2004 (100% equals 314 Mt)
It should be noted that the material saving results provided here involve high
uncertainties due to unreliable waste data and due to many assumptions necessary
for calculating material savings. With more accurate information the following
materials could gain higher significance for their contribution to the total material
savings (if only one material is altered to the highest plausible value):
• metals (from 11% to 22%, if energy savings are considered up to 26%)
• C&D waste (from 60% to 70%),
• paper (from 7% up to 13%).
The critical review of the data calls for an effort of improving data quality. Only this
would allow for a more differentiated analysis in future. One way is to improve
waste statistics. Another way is to develop a more reliable estimation procedure
using triangulation, where different methods and information sources (e.g. MFA,
trade statistics, industry estimates, etc.) are used to derive more reliable data.
6.1.2. WASTE PREVENTION

The only readily data available on the contribution of waste prevention to resource
savings was related to the hazardous substances banned under the RoHS Directive. It

88
is however not clear what the banned substances were replaced by (both in quantity
of material and their environmental impact). Instead an estimate based on case
study evidence on the following waste prevention strategies: efficient use of
materials, reuse and more sustainable consumption behaviour, was provided.
Currently, lean manufacturing and reuse strategies in manufacturing, e.g.
remanufacturing, leasing, preventive maintenance, etc. provide the greatest
contribution to material productivity from waste prevention (almost all of the 6.3
Mt). With stronger waste prevention measures and a broader uptake of lean
manufacturing and construction, reuse and more sustainable consumption, it was
assessed that 156 Mt of materials could be prevented from becoming waste. Most
of this would come from the construction sector with greater reuse of materials and
more efficient building processes. The potential for waste prevention in this study is
assessed to be about a tenth of the theoretical scenario of ‘zero waste’.
In the “Preparatory study on food waste across EU-27”111 a conservative estimate for
the feasible reduction of food waste from waste prevention measures was given. It
was estimated that 1.8% of all food waste could be avoided, corresponding to 1.6
Mt. The study only estimated that 8% of municipal solid waste is food waste. As
several sources quote shares of food waste to be higher in the range of 20-30% of
municipal waste, this study estimates that 4.5 Mt of food waste (corresponding to
5% of all food waste) could potentially be avoided. Based on this an attempt was
made to calculate the biomass savings from food waste prevention (see Table 6-4).
111
BIO Intelligence Service, AEA, Umweltsbundesamt (2010) Preparatory study on food waste across
EU-27. Study commissioned by the European Commission, DG Environment.

89
Table 6-4: Biomass resource savings from food waste prevention assuming that 5% of food waste is avoided. All amounts in million tonnes.
Material Biomass Food Distribution Waste Waste Amount Reduced Food Biomass Reduction of
consumed for consumed of types of generated prevented loss in food demand demand biomass
food food food demand without without demand
consumed supply (savings) waste waste
112
and waste chain prevention prevention
Food from primary crops 698.544 698.544 93.7% 83.352 4.179 6.097 704.640 704.640
Cereals 319.613 319.613 42.9% 38.137 1.912 33% 2.854 322.467 322.467
Roots and tubers 73.016 73.016 9.8% 8.712 0.437 30% 0.624 73.640 73.640
Sugar crops 137.716 137.716 18.5% 16.433 0.824 30% 1.177 138.893 138.893
Pulses 6.031 6.031 0.8% 0.720 0.036 30% 0.052 6.082 6.082
Nuts 1.077 1.077 0.1% 0.129 0.006 30% 0.009 1.086 1.086
113
Oil bearing crops 6.477 6.477 0.9% 0.773 0.039 35% 0.060 6.536 6.536
Vegetables 70.191 70.191 9.4% 8.375 0.420 30% 0.600 70.791 70.791 0.82%
Fruits 84.422 84.422 11.3% 10.073 0.505 30% 0.722 85.144 85.144
Food from meat
Fodder crops incl.
300.949 303.067
Corresponds to
grassland harvest
a)
Fodder crops 161.921 163.060

meat
37.096 5.0% 4.426 0.222 15% 0.261 37.357

Biomass harvested from
139.016 139.995
grassland
Grazed biomass 205.308 206.753 0.70%
Fish capture 9.907 9.907 1.3% 1.182 0.059 80% 0.296 10.204 10.204 2.99%
Hunting and gathering 0.330 0.330 0.0% 0.039 0.002 15% 0.002 0.332 0.332 0.70%
Total 1,215.04 745.876 100% 89.000 4.462 6.656 752.533 1,224.997
a) Meat data from Eurostat (2008) Food: from farm to fork statistics
112
Food lost in the supply chain from UNEP (2009) The environmental food crisis – The environment’s role in averting future food crises. A UNEP rapid response assessment. United Nations
Environment Programme, GRID-Arendal.
113
According to the FAO, approx 12% of oil bearing crops are available for human consumption (www.fao.org/economic/ess/chartroom-and-factoids/chartroom/36-world-cropped-area-yield-and-
production-of-oil-bearing-crops/en/)

90
The estimated amounts of avoided food waste were related to the consumption
(DMC) of biomass that is used as food (primary crops) or feed (for meat production).
It was assumed that the distribution of different food types in waste was the same
as that consumed. Food loss in the food supply chain was accounted for using data
from the preparatory study and UNEP114. Compared to the amount of food
consumed (1,215 Mt of biomass consumed for food), the savings achieved are minor
(around 10 Mt), but as this can be directly related to land use it should still be
considered.
There are several points in the food related biomass flows where screws can be set
in order to increase resource efficiency.
• In the food production improvements can reduce biomass waste by developing
further options to use them as by-products. The replacement of other biomass
would reduce biomass extraction.
• The concept of cascading offers further opportunities for down-cycling and
therewith it would replace other biomass extracted.
• A specific application of cascading is composting bio-waste. In this case compost
from bio-waste would substitute the extraction of top soil (humus) for
gardening.
6.1.3. PRODUCT DESIGN

Although there is considerable case study evidence of material savings due to
improvements in design, there are no studies that have assessed the total amount of
material savings in the economy due to reducing material intensity (lightweighting).
Design strategies such as design for recycling, and design for longevity do also
contribute to material productivity, but in this study these have already been
accounted for in recycling and reuse’s contributions.
This study estimates that of the two main design-oriented product policies in the EU:
the Ecodesign Directive and Ecolabel Directive, the Ecolabel Directive has resulted in
most material savings so far. About 0.5 Mt of materials (mostly granite and peat)
have been saved due to Ecolabel criteria. The Ecodesign Directive has not had any
direct impact on material savings, but changes in lighting technology will indirectly
also result in metal and glass savings in the future. Besides product policies, there is
evidence that considerable material savings have been achieved through
lightweighting of packaging and electronic and electrical equipment (due to
technological development: miniaturisation and digitalisation). Taking this into
account, this study estimates that 91.3 Mt of material is currently saved each year
due to improvements in design. The savings come mostly from the typical packaging
materials, e.g. cardboard, plastic, glass, wood and metal.
114
UNEP (2009) The environmental food crisis – The environment’s role in averting future food crises. A
UNEP rapid response assessment. United Nations Environment Programme, GRID-Arendal.

91
If current Ecolabel criteria were to become mandatory for all products in the EU and
ecodesign strategies were further applied to EEE and vehicles, it was estimated that
an additional 20.5 Mt of materials could be saved each year through design.
Minerals and metals would represent most of these materials that potential could
be saved. The estimate of potential contribution of improvements of design may
seem low, but this is because only lightweighting design strategies were accounted
for. Design for recycling and design for longevity both support increased recycling
and reuse, but the effects of these were accounted for separately.
The analysis of design strategies that could lead to greater material productivity
showed that design is key to achieving greater amounts of recycling and waste
prevention. At the same time some of the design strategies can be in direct conflict
with each other, e.g. product lightweighting is often opposed to design for longevity
as products which use more materials and are typically stronger and more durable.
Table 6-5 shows an overview of how the various material productivity strategies
considered in this study can either support or contradict each other.
Recycling is supported by lean production, sustainable behaviour and design that
restricts hazardous substances and allows materials to be easier recycled. Although
different design strategies may be applied to achieve greater material productivity,
they manifest themselves differently and need to be carefully considered in relation
to the entire life cycle of the individual product. For example, increasing the material
efficiency of a product may result in a less durable product with a shorter functional
life. Furthermore, lighter materials are not necessarily less material intensive than
heavier materials (e.g. many small portable electronic devices have large “hidden
material flows” that are necessary to produce them).
Table 6-5: Synergies and conflicts between key strategies for material productivity
haz. substances
lightweighting
Restriction of
recyclability
Sustainable
production
Recycling
Design for
Design for
behaviour
strategies
longevity
Product
Reuse
Lean
Legend
Recycling Not applicable

Lean
Strong synergy
production
Reuse
Weak synergy
strategies
Sustainable
No effect
behaviour
Restriction of
Potential conflict
haz. substances
Design for
recyclability
Product
lightweighting
Design for
longevity

92
6.1.4. DATA UNCERTAINTIES, RELEVANCE OF ASSUMPTIONS AND
CALCULATION UNCERTAINTIES
As discussed at the beginning of this section waste statistics have a very high range
of uncertainty. In many cases experts provided estimates that vary by a range of 2 to
18 times for minimum and maximum figures. Since these uncertainties are
extremely high – even for the waste streams of high significance (e.g. C&D waste) –
other methods were employed to check the plausibility of the data. For this purpose
the material flow accounts (MFA) were used. The MFA is based on a very simple, but
reliable approach with a reasonable statistical foundation. It accounts all the in and
out flows with other economies (e.g. import and export statistics) and all inputs
extracted from nature (e.g. various statistics like agricultural and forestry statistics,
mining statistics, etc.). The use of the MFA as a framework was linked with
production statistics (see section 2.2. on the methodology for calculating material
savings). Since this approach is already used to model the material streams, it could
also be used to check the plausibility of data.
The feasibility and plausibility check provides the following results:
• C&D waste recycling is by far the most important recycling activity relevant for
material savings.
• Metal recycling is plays a major role since it substitutes very material intensive
up-stream processes.
• The calculation of the potential based on production statistics assumes an
increase of the recycling rate for copper from 41 to 95%. This has a significant
effect due to the material intensity of the up-stream processes (the average ore
grade is below 18%).
Comments to differences in data for specific materials:

• Metals: Iron, aluminium and copper recycling amounts seem to be too low. This
could be due to data provided by industry associations include internal recycling
of production scrap that never gets registered as waste management. The waste
statistics rarely provide specific data on the different types of metals, which is
the reason why data for nickel and zinc are missing. Lead is assumed to have a
recycling rate (according to the data sources used) of 14%, but in opinion of the
experts this rate could be around 49%, and the International Lead Association
claims recycling rates between 60%-90%.
• Non-metallic minerals: The glass recycling amount seems to be too high. As the
reporting mechanisms for C&D waste are not well in place and registration is not
systematic, the data on this is very uncertain. The estimates for C&D amounts
range between 309 Mt and 727 Mt, whilst recycling rates are suggested to be
between 30 to 60%115.
115
BIO Intelligence Service, Arcadis & IEEP (2010) Study on management of construction and demolition
waste in the EU. Study commissioned by the European Commission, DG Environment.

93
• Plastics: The recycling amount from the waste statistics seems to be
overestimated by a factor two. This is probably due to the double counting of
packaging waste recycling in municipal solid waste and packaging waste
(packaging waste constitutes the greatest portion of plastic waste).
• Biomass: Paper recycling amounts from the two different data sources seem to
correspond and would therefore seem plausible. The amounts of recycled wood
according to the waste statistics seem to be too high compared with production
statistics. This again could be attributed to double counting of municipal and
packaging waste data (after C&D, the two greatest contributors). For biowaste
the estimated amounts seem to correspond to the assessment of other
studies116.
• Total amounts: The total amount of recycling estimated in this study is much
less compared to the amount that the Prognos study states117. The Prognos
study estimates recycling to be up to a factor 2.7 greater than what was found in
this study. The sum of recycling amounts from waste statistics and
MFA/production statistics is in the same range with less than 2% difference
(mainly due to the C&D waste dominating). However, since the composition is
different according to the two sources, it matters. While metals in waste
statistics seem to be underestimated, the categories glass, plastic and wood
seem to be overestimated. Since metals cause higher material savings than
other categories the material savings need to be checked as well. The difference
in material savings between calculations based on waste statistics and
MFA/production statistics is higher than the one in recycling amounts, however,
it is still below 7%.
The conclusion of this sensitivity analysis is that considering a mix of possible

changes the current scenario has an uncertainty range of 3.9% +/- 20% (assuming
that only half of the assumptions might become effective at the same time). The
uncertainties with the highest significance are the replacement factor (how much
recycled material replaces extracted material); aggregates (other waste and
miscellaneous); and, metal recycling. For a deeper discussion on uncertainties, see
Annex F.
For waste prevention, the estimates for lean production, reuse strategies and
sustainable consumption could be higher. To provide an upper estimate for potential
resource savings some of the assumptions made were changed (e.g. 20% reduction
of waste or material consumption through waste prevention measures). This
increased the potential considerably. Regarding product design, even by changing
some of the assumptions made (e.g. 20% material savings still possible through
lightweighting, etc.) this did not change the results considerably.
116
Arcadis & Eunomia (2009) Assessment of the options to improve the management of bio-waste in
the European Union
117

94
6.1.5. SUMMARY OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO MATERIAL PRODUCTIVITY
Of the three main approaches to material productivity, recycling contributes by far
with the largest contribution. This study estimated that recycling currently
contributes with 313 - 886 Mt of reduced need for materials (mostly construction
minerals). Recycling also has the greatest potential for greater material productivity
(see Figure 6-7). If recycling targets were achieved and current best practices fully
implemented, 467 – 1,015 Mt of materials could be saved annually. The effects of
waste prevention to contribute to material productivity have not been very apparent
yet (this study estimates 8.2 Mt of waste avoided), but there is evidence that this
could be increased considerably to 147 Mt of waste avoided (and thereby 147 Mt
less materials needed in the EU). It is in particular greater reuse strategies and more
sustainable consumption behaviour that could reduce waste.
Material savings contributions

1600
Amount in million tonnes (Mt)
1400
1200
1000
800 Product
design
600
Waste
400 prevention
200 Recycling
0
Current Current Ta rgets Ta rgets Fea s i bl e Fea s i bl e 100% 100%
pol ici es , pol i ci es , rea ched, rea ched, potenti a l , potentia l , recycl i ng recycl ing
l ow high l ow hi gh l ow hi gh ra tes , l ow ra tes , hi gh
es ti ma te es tima te es tima te es ti ma te es ti ma te es ti ma te es ti ma te es ti mate
Figure 6-7: An overview of material savings due to recycling, waste prevention and
product design from current practices and policies as well as future potentials.
Improvements in design have already demonstrated significant increases in material
productivity through lightweighting. In this study about 90 Mt less materials are
currently needed each year to produce the same amount of products with the same
or better functionality. Although current EU product policies do not contribute much
to material savings, they have a potential to do so with more ecodesign
requirements addressing material use. With the use of current best technologies and
manufacturing methods, it was estimated that a further 20-32 Mt of less materials
would be necessary to produce products with the same functionality. This would
mainly be a reduced need for metals and minerals to produce the same amount of
products with equivalent functionality. The analysis of contributions to material
productivity did however identify product design as key to achieving greater
amounts of recycling and waste prevention through design for recycling and design
for longevity.

95
Material
productivity
Waste
Recycling
prevention
Product
Reduce/eliminate
design
Design for toxic substances
recycling Product Design for reuse/repair/
lightweighting refurbish/remanufacture
Figure 6-8: Recycling and waste prevention is supported by product design to

achieve greater material productivity
Construction materials constitute the largest material flow in the economy. The
demolition waste flows are comparatively small to material inputs, as most of the
materials go into stock (buildings and infrastructure) for the benefit of future
generations. This still results in construction materials representing the most
significant share of recycled materials and increasing the recycling of construction
materials would be effective to reduce C&D waste.
Recycled metal replaces between 1.5 to 10 times the amount of virgin resources, but
the absolute amounts of recycled metals compared to all recycled materials is not
significant. However, as many of the recycled metals have a high value – particularly
rare metals, that are essential to increasing material productivity. Waste prevention
in the form of more sustainable consumption patterns is most suitable for
addressing increasing the ‘productivity’ of food (food packaging however can benefit
from recycling and design).
There are large variations across the different types of materials regarding their
contribution to material productivity (see Figure 6-9). In relation to the amounts of
raw materials consumed, 10% to more than 50% (depending on metal) of the
demand for metals is reduced through recycling, waste prevention and product
design. There is potential to increase this further. Material savings from recycling,
waste prevention and product design of aggregates, plastics and food are much
smaller compared to current material consumption, but their percentage potential is
significant (almost double).

96
Material savings per material in relation to DMC in EU-27 Material savings per material in relation to DMC in EU-27
current practices (conservative estimate) potential (conservative estimate)
100% 100%
90% Potential for
80% Current recycling,
80% recycling, waste
waste prevention
70% prevention and
and design practices
60% 60% design practices
50%
Domestic Material
40% Domestic Material 40%
Consumption
Consumption 30%
20% 20%
10%
0% 0%
es
ad
er
es
l
ad
r
ium
s
s
ee
s
ee
od
pe
as
as
d
tic
tic
pp
at
iu
at
Le
Le
oo
st
st
om
wo
in
eg
in
as
eg
as
Co
Co
dw
o
&
n&
um
um
Pl
Pl
gr
gr
Bi
nd
Bi
n
un
Ag
Ag
Al
Ir o
Al
Ir o
ou
ro
lr
ial
r ia
tr
st
us
du
d
In
In
Material savings per material in relation to DMC in EU-27 Material savings per material in relation to DMC in EU-27
current practices (high estimate) potential (high estimate)
100% 100%
90% Potential for
80% 80% recycling, waste
Current recycling,
70% prevention and
waste prevention
60% 60% design practices
and design practices
50%
40% Domestic Material
40%
Consumption
Domestic Material 30%
20% Consumption 20%
10%
0% 0%
es
ad
er
es
ad
l
ium
er
s
ium
s
cs
ee
s
ee
d
as
as
tic
pp
at
pp
at
Le
oo
o
Le
sti
st
st
om
om
in
wo
eg
in
eg
as
Co
Co
dw
a
n&
n&
um
um
Pl
Pl
gr
gr
Bi
Bi
nd
un
Ag
Ag
Al
Ir o
Al
Ir o
u
ro
ro
ial
ial
str
tr
us
du
d
In
In
Figure 6-9: Material savings for selected material streams in relation to Domestic
Material Consumption for current practices and future potential with best
practices implemented.
6.2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REDUCTIONS
According to the current framework of sustainable resource management, the

environmental impacts of the total life cycle of materials should be taken into
account. This sub-task presents the results of calculating the reduction of
environmental impacts of resource savings from existing and possible future policy
scenarios. Based on the method for calculating environmental impacts defined in
section 2.3. , the reduction of environmental impacts from resource savings from
existing and possible future policies and measures are determined by using the EMC,
Ecological Footprint, and looking at the effects on land use.
6.2.1. ENVIRONMENTALLY-WEIGHTED MATERIAL CONSUMPTION

This section assesses the environmental impacts of less use of materials, specifically
the avoided environmental impacts of the materials savings that were calculated in
section 6.1. In order to do that, the calculation of environmental impacts of material
use as proposed by van der Voet et al., 2009 by means of the environmentally
weighed material consumption (EMC) is used. The last version 1.7 (updated May
2010) was kindly provided by the Institute of Environmental Sciences at the Leiden
University. The EMC is calculated only for those material streams where material

97
savings were achieved under the current policy scenarios analysed in previous
sections: recycling, waste prevention and product design.
The factors relating environmental impact categories to materials provided by the
EMC can be used to calculate the effect of more than 55 different types of materials.
For this study only the effect of non-energy carriers and a selected list of materials
were assessed. An assessment of the environmental impacts of the entire EU
economy would require the DMC of all material streams to be assessed. Instead only
the major materials, where data of contributions were found were assessed (e.g.
plastics, aluminium, copper, iron and steel, lead, nickel, zinc, glass, concrete, wood,
biowaste, paper and board)118.
The factors provided by the EMC were applied to all the four recycling scenarios
used in this study (current, targets fully achieved, potential and 100% recycling rate)
and the comparison is done by environmental impact category. When assessing
environmental impacts using the EMC methodology, there are three different types
of factors to carry out the calculation:
1. Characterised impacts per kg of material: these factors provide a direct
translation of materials used (in kg) to each of the environmental impact
categories provided in the EMC. The assessment per material stream is then
given in the units of the environmental indicator (GWP in kg of CO2 eq.,
stratospheric ozone depletion in kg CFC 11 eq., freshwater ecotoxicity in kg
1.4 DCB eq., etc.). As an example, the use of 1 kg of iron and steel produces
747 kg 1,4-DCB eq. in marine aquatic ecotoxicity.
2. Normalised and characterised results per kg of material: a normalising factor
is used in order to present the results of material use as a fraction of the
world problem and thus the environmental indicators are unitless.
3. Weighted, normalised and characterised results per kg: a weighting factor is
used in order to compare or weight the effect of the different
environmental indicators to be able to aggregate them in a unique value.
For this study, the assessment was done by using the ‘characterised’ factors so that
the effect of material savings in each individual environmental impact category could
be studied. The results presented in Figure 6-10 correspond to the reductions
achieved in the major environmental impact categories. The avoided impact
potentials are only shown for the material streams under study. The rest of the
impact categories, in which some uncertainties or reliability of the relevance can be
questioned, are shown in Annex F. The main observations are:
• Metals are the material stream with the highest current contribution to impact
savings in 4 of 12 impact categories: human toxicity, marine aquatic ecotoxicity,
118
About 80-90% of the estimated material savings could be assigned to a material category available in
EMC. Recycled materials or prevented waste that was classified as “other” or “unknown” were not
included in the EMC calculations.

98
terrestrial aquatic ecotoxicity and photochemical oxidation, with non-ferrous
metals the most important in 4 of them.
• Plastics are the material stream with the highest contribution to impact savings
in 3 of 12 impact categories: abiotic resources depletion (plastic is mainly made
from fossil fuel, a limited resource), freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity and climate
change.
• Biomass is the material stream with the highest contribution in 4 of 12 impact
categories: land use competition, ozone depletion potential, eutrophication
potential and Ionising radiation, with paper the most important in 3 of them.
• Glass is the material stream with the highest contribution to acidification
potential impact reductions.
• Other minerals contribute in a significant manner to impact savings in
acidification potential and ozone depletion potential, and construction minerals
are significant in climate change, ozone depletion potential and ionising
radiation.
• In some cases (eutrophication potential, land use contribution) the “maximum

potential” scenario reaches higher environmental impacts savings than the
“100% recycling rates” scenario. This is because some specific material streams
(ferrous metals, copper and food waste) present slightly higher material savings
in the “maximum potential scenario” due to the contribution of waste
prevention and product design measures, than in the “100% recycling rates”
scenario, where no contribution from waste prevention and product design is
accounted.

99
Climate Change (kg CO2-Eq) Abiotic Resources Depletion (kg Sb-Eq) Acidification Potential (kg SO2-Eq)
4.00E+11 3.00E+09 1.60E+09
3.50E+11 1.40E+09
Other biomass 2.50E+09
Other biomass Other biomass
3.00E+11 1.20E+09
Food waste Food waste Food waste
2.00E+09
2.50E+11 Wood Wood 1.00E+09 Wood
2.00E+11 Paper 1.50E+09 Paper 8.00E+08 Paper

Plastics Plastics Plastics
1.50E+11 6.00E+08
Construction minerals 1.00E+09 Construction minerals Construction minerals
1.00E+11 4.00E+08
Glass Glass Glass
5.00E+08
5.00E+10 Non-ferrous metals Non-ferrous metals 2.00E+08 Non-ferrous metals
0.00E+00 Ferrous metals Ferrous metals Ferrous metals

0.00E+00 0.00E+00
actual savings policy targets max. potential 100% recycling actual savings policy targets max. potential 100% recycling actual policy targets max. 100%
reached rate reached rate savings reached potential recycling rate
Photochemical Oxidation (kg ethylene-Eq) Eutrophication Potential (kg PO4-Eq) Land Use Contribution (m2a)
1.40E+08 3.00E+08 3.50E+11
1.20E+08 2.50E+08 3.00E+11

Other biomass Other biomass Other biomass
1.00E+08 Food waste Food waste 2.50E+11 Food waste
2.00E+08
Wood Wood Wood
8.00E+07 2.00E+11
Paper 1.50E+08 Paper Paper
6.00E+07 Plastics Plastics 1.50E+11 Plastics
Construction minerals 1.00E+08 Construction minerals Construction minerals
4.00E+07 1.00E+11
Glass Glass Glass
5.00E+07 5.00E+10
2.00E+07 Non-ferrous metals Non-ferrous metals Non-ferrous metals
Ferrous metals Ferrous metals Ferrous metals
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
actual savings policy targets max. potential 100% recycling actual savings policy targets max. potential 100% recycling actual policy targets max. 100%
reached rate reached rate savings reached potential recycling rate
Figure 6-10: The estimated avoided environmental impact potentials of current and future contributions to material productivity

100
Regarding climate change, 135 Mt of CO2 equivalent is saved annually in the current
situation due to the contributions to material productivity from recycling, waste
prevention and product design. In 2004 the total GHG emissions of the EU-27 was
5,148 Mt CO2 equivalent (GHG emissions under the Kyoto Protocol)119. The avoided
impacts of global warming potential due to current contributions to material
productivity are significant as it represents almost 3% of the total GHG emissions.
Plastics, biomass and metals are the material streams with the highest contribution
to reductions in this impact category. If all the policy targets identified are reached,
176 Mt of CO2 equivalent (3.4% of total annual GHG emissions) would be saved
annually. In the cases of the maximum recycling potential and 100% recycling rates
achieved, the amount of CO2 equivalent emissions saved would be of 278 Mt (5.4%
of total annual GHG emissions) and 315 Mt (6.1% of total annual GHG emissions),
respectively. Plastics are the material stream with the highest reduction potential in
this impact category in both these scenarios.
The greenhouse gas emissions reduction due to material savings is slightly higher in
the case of plastics than for metals, even though the material saving amount is
higher in the latter. This can be explained by the lower greenhouse gas emissions
per kilogram of material associated to the most common metals (iron and steel)
compared to the average factor for plastics (2.9 times higher). The emissions factor
for aluminium is 1.8 times higher than for plastics, but the saving amounts are lower
in this case. These emissions factors are calculated from a life cycle perspective, and
take into account all the CO2 equivalent emissions during all the life cycle of the
material.
The results should be regarded bearing in mind that the material flows analysed are
only those for which significant savings or saving potential were found. The metals
taken into consideration were steel, iron, aluminium, copper, zinc, lead and nickel.
Precious and rare metals such as gold, indium or platinum are not investigated. The
use of these metals would have a higher environmental impact on abiotic resources
depletion, but the amounts consumed and the saving potential were not found
significant. Plastics, in spite of not representing the largest material savings by
weight, have a higher impact on abiotic resources depletion because of the use of
fossil fuels in the production. The abiotic resources depletion potential of paper is
slightly lower than for metals, but the recycled amounts are slightly higher and the
environmental impacts are similar. The construction minerals have a little
environmental impact in this category although having the highest recycling
amounts, due to their lower impact indicator.
The material stream that achieves higher savings in acidification potential is glass,
even though the material saving amounts are not the highest of the materials under
study. Construction minerals have little impact in this category in spite of having the
119
Eurostat (ten00072)

101
greatest material saving amounts in all the scenarios. Plastics, paper and non-ferrous
metals also have important environmental impact savings in this category.
The highest photochemical oxidation savings are achieved by ferrous metals,
whereas the highest environmental impact saving potential in the “100% recycling
rate” scenario for this category is achieved by plastics, even though the material
amounts saved are higher for ferrous metals. Construction minerals, despite their
higher material saving amounts, have a little importance in the environmental
impact savings in this category.
The greatest eutrophication potential savings are reached by paper in all the
scenarios analysed, although the material saving amounts are not the highest. This is
due to the high organic material emissions and residues of the paper making
industry, which have a high chemical oxygen demand. The case of food waste and
other biomass waste in the “maximum potential” scenario is similar to paper, but
these material flows were not accounted in the “policy targets reached” and “100%
recycling rate” scenarios. Ferrous metals and plastics also have a relative importance
for impact reduction in the theoretical scenarios “maximum potential” and “100%
recycling rates”.
Figure 6-11 shows the environmental impact reductions due to recycling, waste
prevention and product design, calculated using the EMC methodology and the
average weighting method EPA/BEES/NOGEPA explained in Annex F.
Environmental impact reduction (EU-27- characterised, normalised

and weighted results)
1.40E-02
1.20E-02
1.00E-02 Other biomass

Food waste
8.00E-03 Wood
Paper
6.00E-03 Plastics
Construction minerals
4.00E-03 Glass
Non-ferrous metals
2.00E-03 Ferrous metals
0.00E+00
actual savings policy targets reached max. potential 100% recycling rate
Figure 6-11: Environmental impact reductions (weighted results)

According to the weighted results of the EMC analysis, ‘plastics’ is the material
category with the highest contribution to reduced environmental impacts as a result
of greater material productivity. Paper and metals (ferrous and non-ferrous) also
contribute significantly to reducing environmental impacts. The improvement
potential is considerable compared with the current situation, with impact

102
reductions for feasible potential around double as high as for the current savings. If
all the current policy targets were reached, the environmental impacts saved would
increase in around 30%.
6.2.2. LAND USE

The reduction of land use in the EU due to material savings was only calculated for
biomass materials. The direct land use for mining, production and landfill sites is
very small in the EU and changes to this are considered insignificant.
Regarding land use, if best practices in recycling, waste prevention and ecodesign
were implemented, reductions for forestry, potential material savings of wood and
paper would reduce the demand for industrial roundwood with a further 21%
compared to current consumption. Based on the same assumptions as before this
corresponds to a reduction of 28 million hectares of forests for wood and paper
supply (see Table 6-6).
For agriculture land use, the reduction of biomass demand from food waste savings
was translated into land use savings assuming the same average yields of land in the
EU-27. The 5% reduction of food waste corresponded therefore to 0.82% of the total
consumption of crops and 0.70% of biomass for grazing. As the production of crops
and biomass for grazing on average is proportional to the land needed to grow
them, this amounts to a reduction of about 1,141,000 ha of cropland and 411,000 ha
of grazing land. This corresponds to about 1% of EU-27’s utilised agricultural area120.
Table 6-6: Potential land use reductions due to material productivity121
EU-27 Potential for

areas in Potential % reduction of biomass demand freeing bio-
2004 productive area
due to due to
due to
Type of land use (1000 ha) waste design Total (1000 ha)
recycling
prevention practices
Cropland 138 806 0.82% 0.8% 1 141
Grazing land 58 463 0.70% 0.7% 411
a)
Forest 132 124 14% 7% 1% 21.1% 27 922
Water, coastal
13 160 2.99% 3.0% 394
flats and salines
Built area 18 277
Other natural
73 656
areas
Total 434 486 29 868
a)
Based on the material savings for wood and paper. It was assumed that 1.16 kg of industrial
roundwood is needed to produce 1 kg of paper.
120
Eurostat (2010) Agricultural statistics. Main results — 2008–09.
121
Based on CORINE land use data

103
The Environmentally weighted Materials Consumption (EMC) methodology used in
the previous section suggests that the land use savings from the current situation is
about 15 million hectares (see Figure 6-10), whilst the potential with best practices
fully implemented is around 30 million hectares (using the characterisation factors
from Guinée et al., 2002122). The results from the two calculation methods are
almost the same.
6.2.3. ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

The reduction of Ecological Footprint is estimated using the same data for the
reductions in land use data and the reduction of greenhouse gases calculated using
EMC.
Table 6-7: Estimation of Ecological Footprint for EU-27 with and without the
contribution of recycling, waste prevention and eco-design as well as the future
potential
Ecological Footprint
Ecological Footprint without Ecological Footprint with future
with current recycling,
EU-27 (2005) recycling, waste prevention potential for recycling, waste Biocapacity
waste prevention and
and eco-design prevention and eco-design
eco-design practices
% %
Global ha Global Global Global Global Global Global
Global ha increase reduction
Land type per ha per ha ha per ha ha per ha
(million) of of
person person (million) person (million) person (million)
demand demand
Cropland 1.17 570.1 0.1% 1.2 570.4 0.8% 1.16 565.4 1 487.3
Grazing land 0.19 92.5 0.1% 0.19 92.5 0.7% 0.19 91.8 0.21 102.3
Forest 0.48 233.9 47.4% 0.71 344.7 21.1% 0.38 184.5 0.64 311.9
Fishing ground 0.1 48.7 0.2% 0.10 48.8 3.0% 0.10 47.2 0.29 141.3
Built-up land 0.17 82.8 0.17 82.8 0.17 82.8 0.17 82.8
Carbon 2.58 1257.2 2.5% 2.65 1 289.1 5.4% 2.44 1 189.3
Total 4.7 2 285.4 6.0% 5.0 2 428.3 5.6% 4.3 2 161.1 2.3 1 125.7
According to the calculations, without current practices in recycling, waste

prevention and design in the EU the Ecological Footprint would be 6% higher. It is
particularly the reductions of paper and wood from recycling and design
improvements that contribute to less need for commercial forest land. If best
practices in material productivity were to be fully implemented this could reduce the
EU’s Ecological Footprint by 5.6%. The reductions would come mostly from
additional recycling and waste prevention of wood and paper.
122
Guinée, J.B., M. Gorrée, R. Heijungs, G. Huppes et al. (2002) Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment.
Operational Guide to the ISO Standards. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

104
6.2.4. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
There have been other studies that have attempted to assess the environmental
benefits of resource efficiency. The results of these are discussed here compared to
the findings of this study.
A WRAP study123 concluded that resource efficiency could reduce greenhouse gas
emissions in the UK by 4-8% by 2050 without any significant negative effect on UK
GDP. The cumulative reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from 2010 to 2050 in
the UK due to waste reduction are estimated in the study at around 250 Mt of CO2
equivalent, and of 60 Mt of CO2 equivalent due to waste recycling. Lean production
and material substitution would contribute to an overall emissions reduction of
around 390 Mt of CO2 equivalent in the same period of time in the UK.
These results clearly show a higher importance of product design practices (lean
production, material substitution) than waste reduction or waste recycling practices.
However, it has to be noted that these amounts are cumulative reductions of
greenhouse gas emissions due to resource efficiency strategies applied to all the
goods and service sectors in the UK, using theoretical scenarios based on quick wins
and best practices. This approach is slightly different than the used in the present
study: improvement practices are assumed to be applied gradually in all the
economic sectors and the reduction of environmental impacts are calculated based
on actual emissions, while in the present study resource savings are calculated based
on existing statistics only for a selection of the most important material flows
excluding energy carriers, assuming zero improvement when data is not available,
and the environmental impact assessment is calculated using the material amounts
saved.
An Ökopol study estimated that an increase in recycling rate of MSW to 53%
(currently 33%) in the EU-27 would save 89 Mt CO2 equivalent annually, and if this
was further increased to 65%, then the EU would save 145 Mt CO2 equivalent
annually124.
Hasimoto et al.125 studied the factors that changed the resource-use intensity
(defined as the inverse of resource productivity) in Japan from 1995 to 2002.
According to the conclusions of this work, the effects of recycling are not great, but
the increased recycling of non-metallic minerals contributed to the decline in
123
WRAP (2009) Meeting the UK climate change challenge: The contribution of resource efficiency.
WRAP Project EVA128. Report prepared by Stockholm Environment Institute and University of
Durham Business School.
124
Ökopol (2008) Climate protection potentials of EU recycling target. This report states that most of
the valuation factors used in literature as well as the market value of carbon trading fall within this
range. However, some methodologies documented in the literature use higher values, for example the
EPS method uses 108.
125
Hasimoto et al. (2008) What factors have changed Japanese resource productivity? A decomposition
analysis for 1995-2002. Journal of Industrial Ecology, Volume 12, Numbers 5/6, 657-668.

105
resource use intensity. This resulted from progress in the recycling of cement
concrete and asphalt concrete rubble. Metallic minerals experienced an increased
influence on resource use intensity because of a decrease in recycling. Changes in
the structure demand, such as decrease in construction and increase in machinery
and services, produced the largest contribution to a reduction in resource use
intensity. In this study no theoretical scenario was built up or environmental impact
assessment was carried out, and all the results were calculated from existing
statistics.
A study carried out by Prognos AG in co-operation with Ifeu and INFU126 on the
contribution of waste management to resource savings and CO2 emissions reduction
showed emission reduction in year 2004 by means of recycling, recovery or energy
recovery of approx. 206 Mt CO2 equivalent. The study also analysed several
theoretical scenarios and improvement options and concluded that waste
management in Europe can achieve an additional reduction in CO2 emissions of
between 146 Mt and 244 Mt, which corresponds to between 19%-31% of the EU
climate reduction targets until 2020.
Allwood et al. (2010)127 carried out a study analysing the worldwide carbon
emissions from industry and the options to reduce them in order to meet the
emissions reduction targets for 2050. According to the conclusions of the study, all
existing and emerging efficiency measures in the actual scenario cannot provide
sufficient reduction to meet the 50% emissions reduction for 2050. The global
carbon savings estimated by Allwood et al. for existing known technologies (best
practices) for improving energy and carbon efficiency for five key materials (steel,
cement, plastic, paper and aluminium) are of 1,840 Mt of CO2 equivalent. A
theoretical scenario in which best practices are further improved (so called beyond
best practices) would reduce the worldwide emissions in 1,880 Mt of CO2 equivalent.
This study and other related studies demonstrate that increased material
productivity does go hand in hand with energy (and GHG emission) reductions, it
should however be noted that in some cases the opposite is more true128:
• lighter materials are not necessarily more environmentally friendly than
heavier materials;
• smaller products are not necessarily less material efficient, e.g. many small
portable electronic devices have large “hidden material flows” that are
necessary to produce them. Furthermore, in some cases, smaller products
are consumed in greater quantities, cancelling out material savings;
126
127
Allwood, J.M., Cullen, J.M., Milford, R.L. (2010) Options for achieving a 50% cut in industrial carbon
emissions by 2050.Environmental Science and Technology 2010, 44 (6), pp. 1888-1894
128
CML (2003) Dematerialisation: Not just a matter of weight – Development and application of a
methodology to rank materials based on their environmental impacts.

106
• using less material may cause side-effects due to reduction of life span, need
for more transportation (if alternative or less expensive technology to
produce these products is only available further away), tendency to throw
away instead of repair, reduced recyclability, less material used in buildings
decreases energy performance, more damaged/spoilt goods/food due to
less packaging used, etc.;
• lengthening of the life span may lead to energy inefficient products that are
kept in use for too long instead of replacing them with newer more energy
efficient models.;
• lengthening of life span may cause stock building in society, which may lead
to a “time bomb” of delayed waste generation;
• digitalisation, instead of reducing material requirements, leads to new
possibilities that may increase material flows and energy use (e.g. the quite
considerable energy use of electronic networks);
• recovery and recycling may have unwanted side effects due to extra
transportation and energy use;
• "rebound effects" where increased efficiency leads to cost savings that incite
consumers to shift behaviour or use money on other more environmentally
harmful activities.
This study estimates that current recycling, waste prevention and product design
practices correspond to 134 Mt of greenhouse gas CO2 equivalent annually
(calculated based on data for 2004). If material productivity were to increase further
to a level where current best practices were implemented in all Member States, the
annual potential for greenhouse gas reduction would be 278 Mt CO2 equivalent or
about 25% of the EU’s 2020 reduction target129.
6.3. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPACTS
Fostering material savings through waste prevention, eco-design, and recycling is

undoubtedly fundamental to reducing environmental impacts, but to be fully
implemented and successful in the long run it must also be economically and socially
beneficial. Increasing material productivity is partly a ‘natural phenomenon’ inherent
in the continuous process of economic and technological development, but also due
to less construction of infrastructure in developed countries and the displacement of
resource intensive industries to less developed economies. 130
129
GHG emissions in EU-27 under the Kyoto Protocol was 5,567 Mt CO2 equivalent in the base year of
1990. The target of 20% reduction by 2020 corresponds to a reduction of 1,113 Mt CO2 equivalent. The
annual potential reduction of 278 Mt CO2 equivalent is therefore represents 25% of the 2020 target.
130
Bringezu, S. & Bleischwitz, R. (editors) (2009) Sustainable Resource Management. Global trends,
visions and policies. Greenleaf Publishing.

107
Improvements in material savings and productivity often leads to environmental
improvements, but the question remains whether these are desirable from a welfare
and development perspective.131 In the following the benefits and costs due to
material savings are assessed in terms of employment and competitiveness based on
current state of the art findings of the relations between material savings and its
socio-economic impacts.
6.3.1. EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS OF MATERIAL PRODUCTIVITY

This section clarifies to what extend changes in material productivity (through
recycling, waste prevention and product design) impact on future employment
opportunities, and whether such initiatives create more jobs than they eliminate
(net jobs creation). The assessment of job losses, transformation, and substitution is
difficult to determine because no data is readily available.
However, in a communication132 the European Commission pointed out that the
environmental labour-intensive sectors, which the recycling industry is among, will
experience an increase in jobs133. This was confirmed by a ECORYS study which
found that in 2008 the direct employment in all EU-27 eco-industries reached
approximately 3.4 million, whereas it was at 2.8 million in 2004139. Moreover, while
the average growth in nominal terms was about 2% p.a. in previous reports, this
study estimates a rate of 7% to 8% p.a.
It was possible to calculate the correlation between recycling rates, and the level of
employment in the recycling sector (see Table 6-8).
Table 6-8: Compilation of recycling rate and employment rate in selected countries
Approximate recycling rate of Employment rate in the recycled

municipal waste in 2001 and materials and waste management
2005 (in % of generated sectors in 2008 (in % of eco-industries
134
amount) employment)
2001 2005 Recycled materials Waste

management
Italy ≈ 20% ≈ 25% ≈ 10% ≈ 59%
France ≈ 25% ≈ 25% ≈ 14% ≈ 38%
UK ≈ 10% ≈ 25% ≈ 33% ≈ 28%
Germany ≈ 55% ≈ 65% ≈ 30% ≈ 17%
EU-15 - - ≈ 10% ≈ 55%
EU-27 - - ≈ 12% ≈ 35%
131
CE Delft (2009) Resource productivity, competitiveness and environmental policies, Delft.
132
European Commission (2005) Commission staff working document on the links between
employment policies and environment policies, 17, SEC(2005) 1530.
ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/pdf/sec_2005_1530_en.pdf
133
See ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/employment_en.htm
134
Compilation on the basis of: ETC/RWM (2008) based on national reports and statistics.

108
It can be seen from the table that in countries such as Germany where the rate of
waste recycled is high (in comparison to other MS), the rate of employment in this
sector is also high. However, in the UK the rate of employment in the recycling and
recycled materials field is high, although its rate of waste recycled is equal to those
of France and Italy (around 25%). Countries with lower recycling rates seem to have
less employment rates in the recycled materials sector and rates in the waste
management sector.
It is likely that with the increased investment in sectors related to material savings
efforts, that new employment opportunities may become available in the future. If
there is a creation of direct and indirect jobs due to material savings in various
sectors, the number of jobs created needs to be compared to possible job losses in
order to provide an assessment of the overall balance, which results in net jobs
creation. Some important effects on employment in the materials production phase
are presented hereafter135:
• Recycling has impacts on all phases of process stewardship (from exploration to
smelting and refining), which means that it conduces to jobs losses in those
sectors.
• Remanufacture goes a step further than recycling in terms of jobs short-circuit,
for the fabrication level is overtaken.
• Re-use, at last, is definitely the greatest “jobs-killer” because it does not only
short-circuit all the process activities, but also remanufacturing and recycling. In
fact re-use implies only the “use” phase. Nevertheless the recycling phase
cannot totally be short-circuited as once a product is no more re-usable, it still
can be recycled.
• Improvements in product design is not expected to have any influence on
employment as it is expected that designers are able to integrate environmental
concerns in the design of products with little extra training.
It is important to remember that these aspects can also have transboundary effects.
A distinction must be made between activities developed inside or outside the EU.
Eliminating jobs outside the EU while creating jobs inside will have positive effects
for the EU employment rates, even if more jobs are destroyed than created. This is
particularly true as far as extraction activities are concerned. If they mainly concern
employment outside the EU then they are less detrimental for the EU employment
than the jobs losses in the waste management sector. For example, it is claimed that
material recycling of WEEE creates 5 to 7 times more jobs than disposal by
incineration and 10 times more jobs than disposal in landfills136.
135
Source: Dr John Atherton – Senior Programme Director, Resource efficiency in the minerals and
metals sector, UNEP/OECD Workshop – Paris 23-25 April 2008,
www.oecd.org/dataoecd/13/6/40798769.pdf
136
Commission of the European Communities (2008) Commission staff working paper accompanying
the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste electrical and
electronic equipment (WEEE), COM(2008) 810 final, www.eur-

109
6.3.2. COMPETITIVENESS DUE TO MATERIAL PRODUCTIVITY
This section aims to assess if waste prevention, eco-design and recycling have helped
the EU in its effort to become a more competitive economy. It is thus important to
first specify the way competitiveness will be understood and how competitiveness
could result from restrictive environmental measures.
Competitiveness is a complex notion. According to a Delft study, it can be applied to
firms and to nations, referring respectively to the ability of a firm to maintain its
operations in a given market and the ability of a nation to ensure future productivity
growth and wealth creation137. Being competitive would mean “having a high rate of
productivity growth”. While it was usual to consider that environmental regulation
imposes costs on companies and thereby affecting their competitiveness and having
negative socio-economic effects such as lower employment and welfare. However,
more stringent environmental policies can lead, if correctly implemented, to the
opposite outcome: higher productivity, or a new comparative advantage, which can
lead to improved competitiveness or in other words a win-win situation. The
complexity of this subject mean it is not always possible to quantify the effects of
changes on the competitiveness of businesses.
Waste prevention emphasises the reduced use of materials (not more that what is
necessary) and leads principally, when applied by companies, to the use of less
material to produce goods with the same functionality. This is certainly true in the
case of lean production and construction, where cost savings follow the material and
waste savings. Another aspect of waste prevention is the process of re-use, which
also leads to reduced use of materials. Thus, waste prevention can lead to more
competitiveness thanks to savings by the reduced amount of materials used.
The assessment of recycling participation to competitiveness is more subtle. First, a
distinction must be made between recycling and recycled materials use: the former
refers to a firm recycling its materials, products, substances rather than disposing of
them. The latter means that a firm uses recycled materials. The distinction is in the
production chain level: recycling is concerned with output of a company whereas
recycled materials deals with input to a company.
Recyling
At first sight, and without any regulation, recycling is a net cost for companies. It is
easier and less expensive to dispose waste than recycle it. In this sense, recycling is a
barrier to competitiveness, since it entails additional costs.
Nevertheless, this is highly dependent on legal regulations. If there is a tax or a fine
on firms which do not recycle, it can become more attractive, from a financial point
of view, to recycle than to pay taxes. The same applies for subsidies where recycling
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SEC:2008:2933:FIN:EN:PDF
137
CE Delft (2009) Resource productivity, competitiveness and environmental policies, Delft.

110
can become a source of revenue for the firm. These facts highlight the importance of
incentives (either positive or negative).
Recycled materials use
The financial interest of using recycled materials rather than raw materials depends
on the raw materials prices. If it is less expensive for a company to use raw
materials, using recycled materials decreases competitiveness. On the contrary, as it
happened during the 2003 material crisis, when the use of raw materials is more
expensive than the use of recycled materials, then the use of recycled materials
enhances competitiveness.
In conclusion, recycling and using recycled materials can both influence
competitiveness negatively unless there are legal measures (positive or negative) to
support more resource efficient behaviours. This emphasises the importance of legal
measures, but it also raises the imbalance between states created by differences in
legislations that lead to environmental or social dumping.
In this line, the prices of the raw materials play an important role in the decision of
recycling, not only for the companies involved but for the competitiveness and
productivity of the economy. Hagelüken and Meskers (2008)138 analysed the current
practices, improvement options and impacts of precious metals recycling in WEEE.
According to the conclusions of this study, metals recycling in WEEE has positive
impacts in the metals market, resource consumption and emissions.
This practice is already common in the industry, but the WEEE stream has an
important content of precious metals that is not always recovered. With a
systematic recycling of the most expensive materials, the material productivity
would increase considerably. The issue then is to assess the relevant weight of these
materials within the economy. The metal content of the total amount of mobile
phones and personal computers sold globally in 2007 add up to 3% of the world
mine supply of Au and Ag, 13% of Pd and 15% of Co138, and the monetary value of
the annual metals use in EEE worldwide in the same year represented 45.4 billion
dollar. The total value of gold and silver put in the market in 2007 is in the order of
iron or lead, but for the rest of precious metals no specific data has been found, and
the production data available show little metal amounts puts on the market per year
(see Annex F).
There are substantial differences among sub-sectors of the eco-industry in terms of
their driving forces. All eco-industries in the EU are well developed, but waste
management sector performs particularly well139. Policies and regulations as well as
prices and availability of raw materials are key driving factors. The same is true for
technological development, but its role is less important in the waste management
and recycling sub-sectors than in the other sub-sectors. Moreover, several sub-
138
Christian Gagelüken, Christina Meskers (2008) Mining our computers – Opportunities and
challenges to recover scarce and valuable metals from end-of-life electronic devices.
139
ECORYS (2009) Study on the Competitiveness of the EU eco-industry, Final Report – Part 1.

111
sectors are starting to become commercially viable and thus of interest for private
investments. This is a trend which is already underway in the US where investments
in eco-industries have until quite recently mostly been inspired by economic reasons
and less by ecological considerations. In the EU, investors interested in green
businesses are becoming more common and appear to be doing better in the
current economic crisis.
The recycling sector is expected to experience increase demand, at least in the
medium term, as integrated chain management becomes more prominent among
suppliers and customers of the recycling industry (especially with the WEEE
Directive) and raw materials extraction is becoming increasingly uneconomical as
regard to the recycling option. The same is true for the waste management sector,
where demand is also expected to increase.
6.3.3. SCARCITY AND MATERIAL SECURITY

Whilst material savings targets aim to decouple resource use and its environmental
impacts from economic growth, a sustainable economy is only really achieved when
non-renewable resources are not wasted and renewable sources are only exploited
in a way that allows the resource stock to regenerate itself in order to provide for
the needs of future generations. A danger with focusing on material savings as an
indicator, the threat of resource depletion still remains, because any progress made
through efficiency is offset by increasing volumes of consumption and growth140.
In the case of material security, however, material savings become a crucial strategy
towards preventing material scarcity. For example, metal ores and industrial
minerals are a mixed group from the very scarce and precious elements or gems
down to the ubiquitous minerals. For some of these materials scarcity issues play a
major role, but the scarcity constraints cannot easily be translated into policy
targets. One classical argument that applies here makes reference to recycling. By
accumulating previously extracted primary resources in our infrastructure and our
waste deposits, we create potential new sources for extraction. This argument,
though, does not apply to all minerals. Recycling is particularly difficult for the often
precious metals (used in very small but crucial quantities, for example in electronic
equipment or minerals which are used in a dissipative way such as fertilizer minerals.
These small and often rare materials are those under greatest threat of scarcity.
Additionally, the recycling of dispersed materials requires significant amounts of
energy. More generally speaking, as long as overall resource use is continuously
rising, the potential for recycling will always run short of demand.
Finally, abundant materials may also be affected by scarcity; For example, sand,
gravel and stone, and limestone for cement production, may be considered
unlimited, even though they are not exactly renewable resources and do not present
a scarcity challenge, except in perhaps some localities. However, increasing use of
140
OECD (2009) Eco-innovation in industry – Enabling green growth

112
land area for infrastructure for example, creates indirect scarcity for construction
minerals. Disregarding the need for construction minerals and thus sites to extract
them can turn these abundant minerals into a scarce resource. What we see today
as an abundant resource may become scarce in the near future. For these reasons,
material savings efforts may help to reduce the risk of scarcity in future, or mitigate
the effects of current material security issues.
The achievement of a more resource efficient economy will demand in the medium
to long term a radical and fundamental restructuring of economic activity and
societal structures.141 It is important to develop environmentally related skilled jobs
in the EU labour market, especially in the field of recycling, where the EU has proven
to be a leader. In terms of exploiting technological opportunities, the EU is in a
leading global position on water supply (30%), renewable energy (40%) and above all
on recycling (50%)142. It is thus important to avoid skills shortages and to promote
waste and material efficiency through adapted policies. Markets need guidance and
incentives to tap into the potential of eco-efficient technologies. Without clear and
ambitious policies, there will be under-investment in R&D and marketing of
technologies.
6.4. GENERAL IMPLICATIONS AND CONSEQUENCES
Waste prevention and product design policies considered in this study revealed that:
• Contributions from current waste prevention policies to material savings and
productivity have been difficult to track mainly for two reasons: i) they have
been implemented recently thus it is too soon to account for any measurable
effects so far, and ii) concrete actions are only requested after 5 years of being
adopted. Specifically, the Waste Framework Directive was adopted in 2008 and
the requirements of concrete actions by MS through waste prevention
programmes are only due to 2013.
• The European Ecolabel has proved to be an effective action for resource savings
through better product design; the impacts measured as materials saved in
certain material streams were quantified. In order to increase the potential
savings from this action in the future, the market share of Ecolabeled products
needs to be increased. Options for doing this can include increasing consumer
awareness and the number of products labelled.
• In relation to recycling and waste prevention, increased ecodesign practices can
actually lead to greater recycling and waste prevention. If recycling is carefully
considered in the design process by enabling quick and easy disassembly, proper
marking of components and their material composition or allowing parts of the
product to be easily replaced so consumables or components can be reused or
141
European Commission, DG EMPL, Employment in Europe 2009.
142
ECORYS (2009) Study on the Competitiveness of the EU eco-industry, Final Report – Part 1.

113
refurbished. Ecodesign can also apply design strategies to ensure the long life of
products or reduce their toxicity and in this way contribute to waste prevention.
Furthermore ecodesign can also increase the demand for recycled materials by
designing parts in a manner that allow recycled material to be used without
compromising the quality and performance of the product.
• The effect of having fully implemented policies that aim to increase material
productivity should be a reduction in material use. However, current
implementation trends show little improvement in terms of material productity
from waste prevention and product design. Rather than less material use in
order to provide the same functionality from the three main policy blocks (waste
prevention, product design or recycling), it seems that waste streams have been
effectively diverted from landfill (by increasing recycling and recovery) and thus
the effect of recycling is the only one having a measurable impact in material
use. Effects of the other two policy blocks would be measurable if a reduction in
the waste stream was occurring but there is no evidence that this is the case.
In the study it is assessed that recycling has by far the largest contribution to
material productivity and still holds the greatest future potential, but also waste
prevention through reuse and consumption behaviour has a significant potential to
increase material productivity. In order for material productivity to increase, product
design is the key to achieve greater amounts of recycling and waste prevention.
To increase material productivity through recycling, waste prevention and product
design policies, one must consider the various material streams and their
application:
• Construction materials constitute the largest material flow, but most go into
stock (buildings and infrastructure) for the benefit of future generations
• Waste prevention is most suitable for addressing food, whilst recycling and
product design can address the supporting systems (e.g. packaging) surrounding
the food cycle
• Rare metals play a critical role in high-tech products (incl. environmental
technologies), efforts should be made to ensure that these materials are never
wasted
Other policies studied revealed the following:
• Targets are set in order to increase reuse/recycling without prioritising any of
the options. Recycling is the ‘easiest’ action to achieve targets, leaving the
potential for reuse untapped.
• In general, the effect of recycling actions encouraged by those policies seems to
be more significant and measurable than those from waste prevention or
product design actions
• Effective actions in enhancing product design are lightweighting and/or
extending the product lifetime. However by implementing one of these options,

114
a negative effect seems to appear on the other one. The case of cars serves as
an example: light weighting has been done by increasing the amount of parts
from plastic. However in lighter cars, users tend to think that these parts will
wear out sooner than in heavier cars143. A sense of lightness can also affect
user’s perception of safety and the market share of these products has actually
gone down.
• Although there has been a general trend towards smaller and lighter products
particularly in electronics industry, the “ecological backpack” of the product
must be taken into consideration. Even though an end product only weights a
few hundred grams, it could very well represent much more in terms of the total
of material used over its life cycle to produce the product
Additional consequences and implications are:
• Resource efficiency and material productivity are indicators that measure the
input and output of natural resources in the economy in relation to GDP. EU’s
Resource Strategy has the dual objective of decoupling resource use from
economic growth and decoupling environmental impacts from resource use.
This study has investigated the contributions of recycling, waste prevention and
eco-design polices and measures that contribute to the overall resource
efficiency and reduction in environmental impacts. When considering whether
targets for resource efficiency should be put forth like they have been done for
energy efficiency, it should be noted that as resource efficiency is based on the
relationship of the input and output, it is possible to achieve this by focusing
more on the economic aspects than the actual reduction of overall resource use.
This is what seems to be the case in many Member States as the emphasis of the
promotion of resource efficiency is to achieve competitiveness rather than limit
the use of certain resources.144
• If the real goal of sustainability is to ensure that the non-renewable resources
are not wasted and the renewable resources are only exploited in a way that
allows the resource stock to regenerate itself and continue to fulfil the needs of
future generations, then the focus should be on the actual amounts of resources
that enter and leave the economy. Likewise resource efficiency cannot be used
as a proper proxy for reducing environmental impacts on for example
biodiversity as these often depend on actual amounts of emissions locally. The
amount of natural resources we have and the endpoints of environmental
impacts are absolute, whilst resource efficiency is relative.
143
Morley N. et al (2007) Product Lightweighting. A Strategy to deliver a sustainable economy.
Resource Efficiency Knowledge Transfer Network (RE-KTN).
144
Eisenmenger N., Cachia F., Steinberger J., Weisz U., Kotsalainen K., Reisinger H., and Labouze E.
(2010) Preparatory study for the review of the thematic strategy on the sustainable use of natural
resources. Contract 07.0307/2009/545482/ETU/G2, Final report for the European Commission (DG
Environment). Available at: ec.europa.eu/environment/natres/pdf/BIO_TSR_FinalReport.pdf

115
• It should also be clear that resource use should take into account in which sector
the resources are actually being used. For example resources for food are
needed for short term consumption, whilst resources for construction (e.g.
buildings and infrastructure) can be of benefit for many generations to come.
Each of the different sectors of the economy have different patterns of material
flow, some, such as food, do not add much to societal stocks, whilst others, such
as construction, contribute intensively to what is added to the national stocks.
This study has only considered existing proved technologies and approaches for
recycling, waste prevention and product design that can be directly applied more
widely. Recycling might be higher still as industrial recycling is not accounted for in
the waste statistics.
The environmental impact analysis shows that:
• A further reduction in the need of raw materials such as plastics, paper and
metals will result in a significant reduction in the total environmental impacts
derived from materials use in the economy. This effect will be considerable in
impact categories related to climate change, photochemical oxidation and
acidification potential.
• The reduction in the use of raw materials in the metals stream (e.g. aluminium,
copper, lead, nickel, iron and steel) has been attributed in previous sections to
current policies that have led to increased recycling rates. These policies account
for the major contributions in the reduction of adverse environmental impacts,
as assessed by the EMC.
• Regarding climate change, the reduction of metals, biomass and plastics
consumption by means of recycling, waste prevention and product design
contribute in a similar percentage to greenhouse gas emissions reduction,
leading to an overall annual saving of 135 Mt of CO2 equivalent. Plastics are the
material stream with the highest impact saving potential. If policy targets are
increased, the overall emissions saved annually would be about 278 Mt of CO2
equivalent. These calculations for greenhouse gas reduction do not take into
consideration any additional savings of fuel savings from reduced transport or
lighter vehicles.

116

Waste Oil

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Waste Oil

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Waste Oil

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

European Commission (DG ENV)

A project under the framework contract

ANALYSIS OF THE KEY CONTRIBUTIONS

Contact BIO Intelligence Service

BIO Intelligence Service

European Commission DG ENV March 2011

Executive summary .................................................................................................... 6

March 2011 European Commission DG ENV

European Commission DG ENV March 2011

March 2011 European Commission DG ENV

Waste Stock Recycling

An overview of where the different resource efficiency policy areas contribute to

European Commission DG ENV March 2011

March 2011 European Commission DG ENV

An overview of material savings due to recycling, waste prevention and product

Material savings in EU-27 compared to non-energy DMC and waste

Material savings in the EU-27 compared to non-energy related Domestic Material

European Commission DG ENV March 2011

March 2011 European Commission DG ENV

European Commission DG ENV March 2011

March 2011 European Commission DG ENV

1.1.1. THE CONCEPT OF RESOURCE EFFICIENCY

European Commission DG ENV March 2011

Figure 1-1: Resource productivity in the EU (EUR/kg)4

March 2011 European Commission DG ENV

Domestic Net Additions

Figure 1-2: Material balance and flow schemes used in MFA5

European Commission DG ENV March 2011

Material productivity = Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

March 2011 European Commission DG ENV

European Commission DG ENV March 2011

Figure 1-4: Contribution of waste prevention, recycling and improvements to

March 2011 European Commission DG ENV

1.3.1. MATERIAL USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

European Commission DG ENV March 2011

March 2011 European Commission DG ENV

European Commission DG ENV March 2011

1.4. REPORT STRUCTURE

March 2011 European Commission DG ENV

2.1. DATA SOURCES

Domestic Material Consumption (DMC) = Domestic Material Input (DMI) - Exports

Figure 2-1: Economy-wide material flow accounts and indicators22

European Commission DG ENV March 2011

Institute, Washington, D.C.

March 2011 European Commission DG ENV

European Commission DG ENV March 2011

Treatment of waste in EU-27

March 2011 European Commission DG ENV

2.1.1. MATERIAL FLOWS AND SECTORS

Construction Agriculture Industry Others

European Commission DG ENV March 2011

70% 14% Others

March 2011 European Commission DG ENV

2.2. METHOD FOR CALCULATING MATERIAL SAVINGS

European Commission DG ENV March 2011

EU-27 domestic environments

Figure 2-7: Recycling streams in the context of economy-wide material flow

March 2011 European Commission DG ENV