Circular economy as a necessary ecological cross-cutting issue

Achieving the climate targets will lead to massive challenges in almost all sectors.The extent to which the geopolitical situation with regard to security of supply will affect these ecological efforts cannot be precisely estimated at present.However, the effects of the climate crisis are already evident even in this country: flood disasters in western Germany or prolonged periods of drought - with an impact on water supply or soil management - particularly in some eastern German states.
In addition to the relevant singular areas such as electricity generation or the transport sector, the cross-cutting issue of the circular economy is gaining importance in terms of climate change, as is thinking about material and recycling cycles as a whole, in product and recycling cycles or in the use of waste.
Climate change, such as the droughts mentioned above, is also bringing the issue of soil quality and water management into focus.It is clear that protecting the essential resources of water and soil in the future will only be possible by taking precautions against climate damage, adapting to climate change and protecting resources.The circular economy can make a contribution here.

Soil degradation leads to loss of water storage

The "National Water Strategy" of 2021 outlines the negative effects on the water balance caused by the ecological deterioration of the soil (soil degradation) as a result of the loss of humus, biodiversity, water and wind erosion. This leads to a significant loss of water storage capacity, which has an additional negative impact on periods of drought. Ecological and climate-adapted land use and management that integrates water storage and ensures groundwater recharge is therefore essential. However, biowaste, decomposed as compost, is still missing from the discussion as a water reservoir in soils and earths.

High potential for better waste utilization Potential in municipalities by no means exhausted

Studies show that the diverse potential of biogenic residues in Germany is not being sufficiently utilized. Yet there is great potential here with massive recycling volumes: firstly, a maximum recyclable material content can be determined in residual waste, and secondly, there is still room for improvement in the municipalities: as early as 2014, a study by the INFA Institute showed that 75 percent of districts and independent cities do not yet collect and recycle their waste at the highest possible level. Extrapolated to Germany, this amounts to around 7.8 million tons of recyclable materials per year that could be recovered from municipal waste. So far, not much has changed in this trend. Clear efficiency targets from politicians would be one way of paving the way for this. But regardless of this, every citizen and every company in Germany can already contribute to increasing the recycling rate by separating waste even more consistently.

The wasted potential is most obvious in the case of biogenic waste: Almost 45 kg per inhabitant per year could be collected additionally if the mandatory separate collection of biowaste, which has been in place since January 1, 2015, had been implemented consistently. Unfortunately, hardly anything has changed since then. According to the Federal Environment Agency, just under five million tons of biowaste are currently collected separately every year. However, the potential is estimated at over eight million tons. Far too much valuable biowaste ends up in the residual waste garbage cans. Experts assume that the proportion of biowaste in residual waste is still just under 40 percent today. This is
incinerated directly instead of first being fermented for energy and then recycled in the form of composting. This potential is being wasted, as the associated fermentation into biogas could also be part of the strategy to become less dependent on one-sided gas imports. The production of biogas from biogenic residues has long been a tried and tested practice in Germany, but is being held back by the lack of enforcement of the organic waste garbage can, as well as by a regulatory framework that is out of date.

The organic waste garbage can is therefore taking center stage so that large quantities of organic waste can be collected separately. However, it is estimated that only 55 to 60 percent of people use the organic waste garbage can. This means that almost half of households do not have an organic waste garbage can to dispose of kitchen and garden waste. The main reasons for this are the inadequate implementation of the legal obligation to separate collection and the decision at municipal level to opt for a voluntary organic waste garbage can instead of a mandatory garbage can, as actually prescribed by law. In 56 out of 402 districts and independent cities, i.e. in almost every seventh district, there is still no nationwide organic waste garbage can available.

Soil - water - climate: organic waste compost is an all-rounder

Compost - produced from organic waste - is also a sustainable source of humus and nutrients. Against the background of necessary climate adaptation, however, resilient soil systems are required that both secure yields and act as stable carbon sinks. The use of quality-assured composts as part of organic fertilization of soils used for arable farming and landscaping can make an important contribution to this.
The humus contained in compost acts like a large sponge in the soil with a high water storage capacity of around three to five times its own weight. The proportion of plant-available water in the soil is therefore significantly increased by increasing the humus content in the soil - an advantage when, for example, spring and summer droughts jeopardize the soil's ability to yield and the storage of rainwater is essential. This makes humus a perfect ecological tool - in water management, but also as a nutrient and carbon store. Greater organic fertilization with biowaste as compost should therefore be included in the national water strategy and its action programme as an integral part of more sustainable and resilient soil management, which ultimately also affects the amendment of soil protection legislation.
It is clear that the maximum utilization of the circular economy potential of biogenic residues in the form of compost and biogas is not only an important step in combating climate change and increasing the resilience of soils and water cycles, but also a contribution to energy production: to import independence from fossil fuels through climate-neutral production with the domestic energy source biomass.

Here you can also find the text as pdf.

The fairy tale of the steering effect of the BEHG (Fuel Emissions Trading Act)

I need a dollar, a dollar is what I need.And if I share with you my story would you share your dollar with me.(freely adapted from Aloe Blacc)

The BMWK (Federal Ministry of Economics and Climate) is proving to be an excellent thrower of smoke and mirrors. The ideological ultras of the Bundesliga will be happy if the protagonist of the BEHG draft joins them.

In the week before Whitsun, the BMWK published the draft amendments to the BEHG. Unfortunately, as was to be expected, the well-founded criticism of the underlying expert opinion by the associations was not taken into account. Thermal waste recovery is now to be included in emissions trading in a national solo effort. For reasons of simplification alone, it is not the person placing the waste on the market but the plant operators who are to pay the_CO2 levies to the DEHST (German Emissions Trading Authority).

To make it clear up front: The German waste management industry has already made a significant contribution to GHG (greenhouse gas) reduction through recycling and, above all, by restricting landfilling. It will continue to take on the task of reducing GHG emissions. However, we still face many challenges, as the recycling quotas in Germany, which are an unsuitable instrument for strengthening the circular economy, are still inadequate and the EU targets are unlikely to be met.

There is therefore a definite need for action, both to strengthen the circular economy and to protect the climate with and through the waste management sector.

The circular economy can be sustainably strengthened if a minimum quota for recycled input materials in all products is introduced at European level, as we already have for PET in beverage packaging, for example.

At least two aspects need to be considered when it comes to climate protection:

Thermal waste recycling makes a significant contribution to the heat transition by supplying many thousands of households with district heating. Even district heating pipelines over 20 km are worthwhile under today's economic conditions and make us less dependent on foreign energy imports. Waste-to-energy plants already play an important role in supplying steam to industry, and inquiries from industry show that there is still potential for expansion. To jeopardize this would damage the sustainability efforts of industry, the gas supply to households - due to the priority given to industry in the supply - and not least the climate.

Of course, the BMWK does not address this, but instead throws the smokescreen of high electricity revenues in recent months. However, with efficiencies of less than 30%, waste-to-energy plants are not effective electricity producers and the majority of German plants have marketed most of their electricity extraction one to two years in advance (forward). (If the plants do not succeed in decoupling the electricity, e.g. due to a lack of waste, the already marketed electricity has to be bought on the market at spot prices. Certainly a loss-making business). But the fairy tale of excess profits (what a new German word) just sounds better.

Another smokescreen is the expected steering effect of the BEHG towards more recycling through a national solo effort. Individual households cannot steer, as they do not know the disposal costs of the product when they buy it. They fill their garbage cans and pay the fees. These will rise as the operators of the thermal plants will pass on the_CO2 levy and the public waste disposal authorities will increase the fees. After the current increases in petrol and diesel prices, as well as gas and electricity tariffs and food prices, this is an unenviable task for local politicians.

A steering effect will be limited to commercial waste. At least half of the waste to be disposed of. But it will not have the desired steering effect in terms of climate policy. Anyone who has worked or is working in waste management knows that waste is like water and looks for the easiest and cheapest way to dispose of it. Commercial waste will be reclassified as household waste, and the European plants in Scandinavia, the Baltic states and beyond will accept waste from Germany. Even the Netherlands may become interesting despite_CO2 pricing, as they have adopted a scientific approach to the emission factor of commercial waste, while the BMWK is pursuing a political-ideological approach with a factor of 0.75. Of course, we will also see fantasies of delivering to cement plants and illegal waste disposal has already found ways to expand.

That is why only a European solution will lead to a level playing field. We can be sure that we will have this in the future. Taking the risk of unwanted shipments of waste abroad, the reclassification of waste and many incalculable legal proceedings for a short period of time in view of the scientifically questionable emission factors is evidence of the true background of the creators of the "new" BEHG. Collecting money and hiding it behind the veil of climate protection and the circular economy.

To summarize, the amendment to the BEHG will have three consequences in Germany and the entire EU:

1. More waste exports and more illegal disposal
2. Rising costs for households and companies, which will increase inflation
3. A lower energy supply from non-recyclable waste and a further increase in dependence on energy imports from abroad

The thermal waste industry is called upon to invest even more in research and development and, for example, to reduce its_CO2 emissions through CCUS (carbon capture utilization and storage). However, this is not favored by the BEHG and there is no incentive to invest in these technologies. As a result, we will lose touch with the UK, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries. The operators of waste-to-energy plants should focus on supporting the heat transition in households and industry and convert as much residual waste as possible into recyclable materials.

A European climate strategy should include not only thermal plants, but all treatment plants such as composting, mechanical-biological plants and, above all, landfills in emissions trading.

I am firmly convinced that the BEHG is an unnecessary instrument that will have the wrong steering effect, counteract climate protection and, for a short time (3 years), generate a high level of bureaucracy and implement a job creation program for lawyers. Let us rather work on a European solution that really relieves the climate and strengthens the circular economy.

Dr. Gerd-Dieter Uhlenbrauck, member of the DGAW Executive Board

It is clear that plastic waste in the world's oceans is not becoming a problem, it already is. The DGAW already dealt with this topic intensively at its 2014 general meeting and invited people to take part in a constructive discussion. The images shown at that time remain relevant and are not losing their horror.

But will the ban on straws, cotton buds and balloon sticks save us (to put it bluntly) or are we curing the wart on the elephant?

The largest quantities of plastics are processed in the packaging and construction industries. Let's assume that materials are processed in the construction industry in the long term. This means that we have the greatest short-term influence in the packaging sector.

German and European legislation will require high recycling rates for packaging waste in the future. The industry, both manufacturers and recyclers, are willing to meet these requirements. BUT: Only materials that end up in the recycling process can be processed. These must be recyclable. Unfortunately, certain multi-component materials can only be downcycled. But we probably don't need any more beacon feet.

This leaves us with two requirements:

1. In terms of product stewardship, products must be designed in such a way that they are accessible to recycling technology that also enables subsequent recovery. Recycling activities require markets that accept the fractions. When it comes to recycling technologies, we must be honest enough to ensure that fractions that cannot be used sensibly are sent for high-quality thermal recovery to generate energy. At the same time, pollutants can be removed from the biosphere.
2. We must all appeal to the public to be disciplined about waste disposal. Only collected waste can be recycled. Waste that is carelessly "dumped" into the environment will inevitably end up as microscopic fragments in the world's oceans. Of course, each and every one of us is called upon to think about how much plastic should be used for which application.

Conclusion:

Plastics per se are not the problem of marine littering. Plastics are and remain useful in many applications and enable technological progress. Responsible product design and responsible use of plastics are needed. Bans on side issues give the impression of a premature campaign kick-off for the 2019 European elections. After all, marine littering is not an exclusively German problem, nor is it an exclusively European one. Marine littering must be solved worldwide.

Thomas Obermeier, Honorary President of the DGAW

Plastics - the next pig to be driven through the village?

Plastics tax - proposal from Budget Commissioner Oettinger.100% of packaging plastic to be recycled, ban on single-use plastic items such as straws or microplastics in cosmetics - proposal by the EU Commission.China restricts the import of mixed plastics.Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand jump into the gap.

The press, NGOs and the EU Commission deplore a recycling rate of only 30% and equate marine pollution, landfill and thermal recycling for the remaining 70% as environmentally hazardous. To equate energy recovery with legal and illegal dumping on land or in the sea is a misinformation of the population based on vested interests.

It is true that we must stop plastic entering the oceans. Landfilling plastic is an irresponsible waste of usable material and energy resources. But it is precisely here that the EU has positioned itself against sustainable waste management with the trilogue compromise with long transition periods for an end to landfilling in Europe.

Recycling should be promoted, but this requires a product design geared towards recycling and quotas for the use of used plastics in products. Demonizing energy recovery is outrageous. If recycling is not technically possible or there is no market for the products, it is imperative that the energy content is used - throughout the EU - in order to prevent further discharge into waterways and landfill sites.

Thomas Obermeier, Honorary President of the DGAW
 

"Average loss rate" is poking in the fog

Germany has different objectives when it comes to the Commercial Waste Ordinance and positioning on the EU Circular Economy Package

On 19.06.2017, the Environment Council met with Mr. Rösgen, Germany's Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU, among others, to prepare for the trilogue procedure (EU Parliament, Council, EU Commission) regarding the EU circular economy package.

Mr. Rösgen once again appealed for the "average loss" method to be used when calculating the recycling rate. In other words, an average value that is deducted from the input of a recycling process because it is not recycled but (usually thermally) recovered or disposed of. Germany justifies this with the quote: "...a calculation of the quotas would otherwise often not be possible because statistical data cannot be generated due to mixing, separation and other processes".

Dear Mr. Rösgen, have you read § 5 para. 1 sentence 4 GewAbfV of 18.04.2017 with the requirements for determining the recovery rate for pre-treatment plants? In summary, the German legislator requires that the recovery rate must be determined taking into account the mass of waste that is recycled from the pre-treatment plant. According to the GewAbfV, the basis for calculating the recovery rate is therefore the actual quantities of waste that are actually sent for recovery.

In Germany, it therefore appears to be possible to determine the quantities actually recycled. Why this "average loss" trick? According to DESTATIS, there are over 1,100 sorting plants in Germany. Each one recycles a different percentage of the input. This depends not only on the input and the technology installed, but also on the market for secondary raw materials.

Are we creating an employment program for experts here? Are smoke and mirrors being thrown to make a compromise more difficult?

Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Klett, honorary member of the DGAW
 

Pros and cons of the chemicalization of waste legislation¹

Considerations on the standardization of substance legislation are connected with the amendment of the Waste Act 1986, with the idea of waste management as an integral part of "material flow management". The reason for this was that physically and chemically identical substances were treated unequally by environmental law.

However, the vision of a uniform substance law fails to recognize systematic differences. The understanding of waste management and the associated regulations is characterized by the concept of waste. The instruments are applied at the end of the material flows of products, substances and mixtures that have become "waste". At this point, there is generally no knowledge of the composition of the waste. In contrast to "thinking in terms of waste", materials management is based on the materials

from which the products are composed according to recipes, so that their ingredients are known from the outset. Such thinking bears no relation to real waste management conditions and circumstances.

The development of waste legislation has not taken these systematic differences into account. This did not matter as long as the distinction between hazardous and non-hazardous waste was adequately defined by an exhaustive list of waste requiring special supervision, formerly according to §2 para. 2 AbfG (1977/1990), later according to §57 KrWG (1996) in conjunction with the provisions of the EAKV.

The decisive change in the system for determining hazardous waste occurred with the introduction of the European List of Waste. In addition to waste types defined as hazardous (405 of 839), 173 waste types were also provided with a mirror entry; they could be hazardous or non-hazardous in individual cases. The substance legislation (Substances and Preparations Directive) with the definitions of certain properties classified as "hazardous" was used to determine the hazardous properties of waste. For this purpose, hazardous characteristics were assigned to the hazardous properties of the waste using R-phrases from the substance legislation.

As if that were not enough, the instruments borrowed from substance legislation have been further developed internationally, so that the influences of the REACH Regulation and CLP Regulation have become decisive for the definition of "hazardous substance" and the assessment of the hazard-relevant properties of waste via the Waste Catalogue Ordinance.

The result is that the description of the hazardous properties of waste using the instruments of substance legislation has reached a level of complexity that is almost impossible to manage in day-to-day waste management practice. In addition, the waste management company's lack of knowledge of the material composition of the mixtures to be classified under substance legislation has an impact. These difficulties also exist against the background that the conditions under which the waste is generated are not sufficiently known, also due to process/use-related impurities, and its analytical description poses problems from sampling to the method of analysis.

The lack of system suitability for assessing the hazard-relevant properties of waste ultimately has an impact on the responsibility of those who handle such waste as part of disposal processes. A large number of provisions of waste legislation link various legal consequences under waste law, as well as those of an administrative offense and criminal law nature, to the decision on the hazardous properties of waste. The players in the waste management industry affected by this must not be criminalized due to the almost uncontrollable difficulties in classifying waste in terms of its hazardousness.

For this reason, the demand must be made to return to a conclusively determined system of hazardous waste for the classification of waste required under waste legislation.

¹ Title of a presentation at the bvse hazardous waste disposal forum on 16.03.2017 in Göttingen

23.04.2017, 185/92 D 82-17

Thomas Obermeier, Honorary President DGAW
 

Quota magic

After the European Parliament decided on March 14, 2017 to set high recycling quotas (70% of municipal waste in 2030) as part of the procedure for the European Union's new "waste package" and, in particular, to follow the same calculation method as the Commission's proposal - namely input into the final recycling plant where no further mechanical processing is permitted - the Council is currently intensively discussing its position for the upcoming trialogue procedure.

While German waste management associations in particular welcome the high quotas and German MEP Jo Leinen praises the "ambitious waste package", some Member States are expressing doubts during the discussions in the Council as to whether these quotas can be realistically achieved. There are also increasing voices pointing out that the statistics can be manipulated, as "external quantities" can be "bought" into the final recycling plant and make the statistics look good. We are familiar with this practice from the past in the waste management sector from the Packaging Ordinance.

The DGAW has always criticized the currently published recycling rates in Germany. The >60% are window dressing. Using the calculation method of the EU Commission and Parliament, it would shrink to far below 50%. There are also justified doubts in Germany as to whether we can achieve the quotas.

But is this even a goal worth striving for? Do we really need quotas for recycling channels for waste paper or waste glass that have been functioning for generations? Aren't we counting on the wrong "currency" here? Don't we need to focus much more on the high quality and strategic value of recycling? There is a danger that we will return to "downcycling" just to meet quotas. Don't we need to focus more on the recycling of strategic metals, phosphorus, compound building materials, carbon fiber materials and bottom ash from waste incineration rather than carrying around a shiny monstrance with high quotas without really serving the right approach to a sustainable circular economy?

Aloys Oechtering, Member of the Board DGAW
 

Separate collection of organic waste

According to current surveys, there are still 35 districts in Germany that do not offer the organic waste garbage can system. In addition, many districts and independent cities have not offered the organic waste garbage can across the board, but only in some areas or on a voluntary basis - an indictment of the German circular economy.

Since 2012, Section 11 of the Circular Economy Act has stipulated the separate collection of biowaste. This has even been mandatory since January 1, 2015. The DGAW Board discussed this topic at the last closed meeting. Such disregard for legal requirements suggests that other legal regulations within the circular economy are also being ignored by the responsible authorities. If such a legal requirement is not taken seriously by either the municipal supervisory authorities or the responsible environmental ministries, the question remains as to which regulation should really still apply in the future.

The DGAW therefore appeals to those responsible to finally take the Circular Economy Act seriously in terms of climate and resource protection. An increase in separate collection could relieve waste incineration plants nationwide of several million tons of low-calorific waste and thus provide sufficient capacity for other waste materials requiring disposal.

Dr. Anno Oexle, Member of the Executive Board DGAW

Separate collection rate

Commercial waste: On February 10, 2017, the Federal Council approved the planned amendment to the Commercial Waste Ordinance with some changes that have already been accepted by the federal government. The ordinance is now expected to come into force on August 1, 2017. Probably the most practically relevant amendment concerns the separate collection rate regulated in Section 4 (3) sentence 3. According to this, the obligation to pre-treat waste (mixtures) that has not already been collected separately in exceptional cases is not only waived if pre-treatment is technically impossible or economically unreasonable, but also if the producer has achieved a minimum separate collection rate of 90% by mass in the previous calendar year. Previously, a producer could only invoke this exemption if he submitted proof of this to the competent authority by March 31 of the following year. This obligation to submit evidence has been removed at the instigation of the Bundesrat; now the evidence only has to be submitted to the competent authority if it expressly requests such a submission. The reason given for this change is the immense amount of inspection and testing that would be required of the waste producer by the authorities responsible for enforcing the Commercial Waste Ordinance. Irrespective of how this change and its foreseeable consequences for waste management are assessed in practice, its justification gives little hope that the new Commercial Waste Ordinance will be enforced differently to the old Commercial Waste Ordinance.

Thomas Obermeier, Honorary President DGAW:
 

First step towards phasing out the soil-related recycling of sewage sludge

On Thursday, 9 March 2017, the plenary session of the German Bundestag followed the recommendation of the BT Environment Committee and adopted the reorganization of sewage sludge recycling. The Bundesrat will probably deal with this in May. The DGAW has been calling for consistent phosphorus recovery from sewage sludge and an end to land application since at least 2004. I find the course of deliberations in the lead "Environment Committee" particularly interesting. Although the Greens did not support the resolution, they rightly pointed out an aspect that was not sufficiently acknowledged in the discussion, namely the increased occurrence of microplastic particles in sewage sludge. For this reason, the Greens also do not understand why a distinction is made between large (> 100 TEW or > 50 TEW) and small sewage treatment plants, as the aspect of plastics in sewage sludge does not depend on the size of the plant. Correct! Sewage sludge is one of our most important pollutant sinks and I am glad that it is obviously possible to remove microplastic fibers and particles from the wastewater flow and to accumulate them in the sludge. A few years ago, we were still debating whether this could really be achieved. The transitional periods of 12 or 15 years seem too long to me, but they are probably the result of a political compromise. In any case, the argument put forward, namely the technical and economic uncertainty surrounding phosphorus recovery processes, does not hold water. On the one hand, the processes are more advanced than the municipal umbrella organizations, for example, suggest, and on the other hand, a time-consuming implementation framework creates pressure on manufacturers to develop a process to economic market maturity. I hope that the Federal Council will not cause any further delays and that the market players will move swiftly towards implementation. Market distortions such as those that occurred during the implementation of the Waste Disposal Ordinance were not least due to the fact that the local authorities were playing for time for too long. Let's start with ecologically sound and sustainable sewage sludge recycling without delay.