Advertisement

Enabling Resource Efficiency Investments: A Review and Outlook of the Resource Efficiency Agenda of the European Union

  • Manfred RosenstockEmail author
  • Florian Flachenecker
Chapter

Abstract

In times of volatile resource prices, possible disruptions in resource trade, re-industrialisation objectives, and concerns about environmental pressures arising from resource use, resource efficiency, i.e. ‘doing more with less’, is seen as one possibility to address these issues and deliver multiple economic and environmental benefits. All these challenges are particularly relevant for the European Union (EU) since it depends on resource imports, aims to increase industrial production, and has set itself the goal to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The EU attempts to achieve several objectives by increasing resource efficiency: reducing its dependency on resource imports, increasing the cost competitiveness of its industry, mitigating climate change, and working towards the UN Sustainable Development Goals. To this end, the EU declared resource efficiency a flagship initiative as part of its Europe 2020 strategy, introduced a Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe, and developed a Circular Economy Action Plan, among other initiatives. Additionally, the EU and its member states currently devote substantial capital to resource efficiency and circular economy investment projects. However, recent economic, political, and social circumstances have seemingly put other policy issues to the forefront of discussions, and slowed the political momentum for the resource efficiency agenda. Nevertheless, the implementation of the Circular Economy Action Plan and ensuring access to adequate finance for investments in resource efficiency and the circular economy remain key priorities. Accordingly, this chapter outlines the opportunities as well as challenges for advancing the resource efficiency agenda in the future, and discusses the role resource efficiency investments can play in that development.

Notes

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this chapter are entirely those of the authors, and should not be attributed to the institutions with which the authors are associated.

References

  1. Allwood JM, Ashby MF, Gutowski TG, Worrell E (2011) Material efficiency: a white paper. Resour Conserv Recycl 55:362–381.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.11.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bahn-Walkowiak B, Steger S (2015) Resource targets in Europe and worldwide: an overview. Resources 4:597–620.  https://doi.org/10.3390/resources4030597 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrett J, Scott K (2012) Link between climate change mitigation and resource efficiency: a UK case study. Glob Environ Chang 22:299–307.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.11.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bleischwitz R, Flachenecker F (2017) Sustainable resources: managing markets, increasing efficiency and establishing partnerships. In: Sustainable development policy: a European perspective. Routledge, Oxford, pp 1–342Google Scholar
  5. Bleischwitz R, Welfens P, Zhang Z (2009) Sustainable growth and resource productivity: economic and global policy issues. Greenleaf Publishing, Austin, TXGoogle Scholar
  6. Council of the European Union (2014) Council conclusions on greening the European semester and the Europe 2020 strategy—mid-term review 2013. pp. 1–5Google Scholar
  7. Distelkamp M, Meyer M (2016) Quantitative assessment of pathways to a resource-efficient and low-carbon Europe. Osnabruck, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  8. EBRD (2015) Green economy transition approach. EBRD, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. EC (2008) The raw materials initiative—meeting our critical needs for growth and jobs in Europe COM(2008) 699 final. The European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  10. EC (2010) Europe 2020—a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. The European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  11. EC (2011a) A resource-efficient Europe—flagship initiative under the Europe 2020 strategy—COM(2011) 21 final. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  12. EC (2011b) Roadmap to a resource efficient Europe—COM(2011) 571 final. The European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  13. EC (2011c) A roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050—COM(2011) 112 final. The European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  14. EC (2012) European innovation partnership on raw materials—COM(2012) 82 final. The European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  15. EC (2014a) For a European industrial renaissance—SWD(2014) 14 final. The European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  16. EC (2014b) On resource efficient opportunities in the building sector—COM(2014) 445 final. The European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  17. EC (2014c) Towards a circular economy: a zero waste programme for Europe—COM(2014) 398 final. The European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  18. EC (2014d) Report on critical raw materials for the EU. Report of the ad hoc working group on defining critical raw materialsGoogle Scholar
  19. EC (2015a) Closing the loop: an EU action plan for the circular economy—COM(2015) 614/2. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
  20. EC (2015b) Better regulation guidelines—SWD(2015) 111 final. Comm staff work doc. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(12)00047-9
  21. EC (2016a) Energy, transport and environment indicators—2016 edition. European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  22. EC (2016b) Capital markets union—accelerating reform COM(2016) 601 final. The European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  23. EC (2016c) Commission work programme 2017. Delivering a Europe that protects, Empowers and defends—COM(2016) 710 final. The European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  24. EC (2016d) State of the union 2016: the European fund for strategic investments—frequently asked questions. The European Commission, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
  25. EC (2016e) Ecodesign working plan 2016–2019—COM(2016) 773 final. The European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  26. EC (2016f) EU resource efficiency scoreboard 2015. The European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  27. EC (2016g) Raw materials scoreboard—European innovation partnership on raw materials. doi:  https://doi.org/10.2873/28674
  28. EC (2016h) Delivering the benefits of EU environmental policies through a regular environmental implementation review—COM(2016) 316 final. The European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  29. EC (2016i) The implementation of the 2011 white paper on transport—roadmap to a single European transport area, SWD(2016) 226 finalGoogle Scholar
  30. EC (2017a) Material flow accounts. The European Commission, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  31. EC (2017b) Review of waste policy and legislation. The European Commission, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/target_review.htm
  32. EC (2017c) Circular economy: commission delivers on its promises, offers guidance on recovery of energy from waste and works with EIB to boost investment—press release. The European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  33. EEA (2013) Environmental pressures from European consumption and production—a study in integrated environmental and economic analysis. EEA technical report no 2/2013Google Scholar
  34. EIB (2015) The EIB in the circular economy. LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  35. EP (2015) Report on resource efficiency: moving towards a circular economy—2014/2208(INI). Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  36. European Resource Efficiency Platform (2014) Manifesto & policy recommendations. Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  37. Flachenecker F, Bleischwitz R, Rentschler JE (2016) Investments in material efficiency: the introduction and application of a comprehensive cost–benefit framework. J Environ Econ Policy 6:1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2016.1211557 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. G7 (2015) Leaders’ declaration G7 summit 7–8 June 2015. Schloss ElmauGoogle Scholar
  39. G8 (2008) Kobe 3R action plan. Kobe, JapanGoogle Scholar
  40. IPCC (2007) Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change summary: summary for policymakersGoogle Scholar
  41. Krausmann F, Gingrich S, Eisenmenger N et al (2009) Growth in global materials use, GDP and population during the 20th century. Ecol Econ 68:2696–2705.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McGlade C, Ekins P (2014) The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2°C. Nature 517:187–190.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. OECD (2014) Green growth indicators 2014. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264202030-en
  44. OECD (2015) Material resources, productivity and the environment. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  45. Peake S, Ekins P (2016) Exploring the financial and investment implications of the Paris agreement. Clim Policy 17:1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2016.1258633 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. POLFREE (2014) D3.5 report on scenario formulation. pp 1–42Google Scholar
  47. Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K (2009) Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol Soc 14Google Scholar
  48. Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J et al (2015) Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347:1259855.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. UN (2015a) Paris agreement. United Nations framework convention on climate change 21st conference parties. Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  50. UN (2015b) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development—United Nations sustainable development goals. New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  51. UN (2015c) Outcome document of the third international conference on financing for development: Addis Ababa action agenda. In: Third international conference on financing for development A/CONF227, pp. 1–39. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
  52. UNEP IRP (2011) Decoupling: natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth. United Nations Environment Programme, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  53. UNEP IRP (2014) Decoupling 2—technologies, opportunities and policy options. United Nations Environment Programme, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  54. UNEP IRP (2016) Global material flows and resource productivity. Assessment report for the UNEP international resource panel. United Nations Environment Programme, NairobiGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.European CommissionBrusselBelgium
  2. 2.University College London, Institute for Sustainable ResourcesLondonUK

Personalised recommendations