EU Waste Regulation in a Linear-Circular Economy Transition: Waste Management in Italy 3031281020, 9783031281020

Citation preview

SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science Massimiliano Agovino · Gaetano Musella

EU Waste Regulation in a Linear-Circular Economy Transition Waste Management in Italy

SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science

SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science present concise summaries of cutting-edge research and practical applications across a wide spectrum of environmental fields, with fast turnaround time to publication. Featuring compact volumes of 50 to 125 pages, the series covers a range of content from professional to academic. Monographs of new material are considered for the SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science series. Typical topics might include: a timely report of state-of-the-art analytical techniques, a bridge between new research results, as published in journal articles and a contextual literature review, a snapshot of a hot or emerging topic, an in-depth case study or technical example, a presentation of core concepts that students must understand in order to make independent contributions, best practices or protocols to be followed, a series of short case studies/debates highlighting a specific angle. SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science allow authors to present their ideas and readers to absorb them with minimal time investment. Both solicited and unsolicited manuscripts are considered for publication.

Massimiliano Agovino • Gaetano Musella

EU Waste Regulation in a Linear-Circular Economy Transition Waste Management in Italy

Massimiliano Agovino Department of Economics, Law, Cybersecurity, and Sports Sciences University of Naples “Parthenope” Naples, Italy

Gaetano Musella Department of Management and Quantitative Studies University of Naples “Parthenope” Naples, Italy

ISSN 2191-5547 ISSN 2191-5555 (electronic) SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science ISBN 978-3-031-28102-0 ISBN 978-3-031-28103-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28103-7 © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

While this journey ends, my thoughts go to you, my unforgettable love, who will be here forever, and to you, my rainbow, who are already with me. Dad To our families, to Flavia, Gaetano Yuri and Alessandro. To Sara and Andrea. You make every day a better day. Gaetano & Massimiliano

Foreword

Waste management is a topical issue worldwide. In recent years, several requests have been made by citizens and associations to political decision-makers regarding the need for a significant improvement in waste management methods. Particularly considering the significant increase in awareness of social and environmental impacts and the economic consequences of non-virtuous waste management. There is growing attention on legislation and regulation’s role in the waste sector. Regulation can help companies and citizens achieve a faster, more effective, and efficient transition from a linear economy, based on the take-make-dispose paradigm, to a circular economy, in which the potential of waste as resources and secondary raw materials is exploited. Waste has a significant value that should not be lost; instead, efforts should be made to discover new ways to capture and exploit it. A circular economy is nourished by the belief that scarce and, therefore, increasingly precious resources cannot be lost into the environment or burned, which may cause irreversible loss of value, adding up to potential damage to the environment and human health. Thus, a circular economy involves a total rethinking production, consumption, waste collection, and treatment choices. Collection and treatment should, therefore, be respectful of the waste hierarchy and aim to maximise reuse and recycling through methods and technologies that minimise the need for landfills and incinerators, even with energy recovery. Indeed, although energy recovery is a step above pure incineration and landfilling, it destroys resources and increases the need for landfilling ashes. Furthermore, investments in energy recovery plants can crowd out waste prevention and recycling efforts. Investments should be primarily allocated to innovations capable of making circularity effective and economically convenient. Conversely, approaches that do not foster circularity or leave the transition ‘halfway’ and generate incentives to limit reduction-reuse-recycle practices should be discouraged. Municipalities and waste utilities are at the forefront of accelerating the transition towards a circular economy by providing regulators and policymakers with timely inputs to shape targets and rules and by helping to modify production processes and create and sustain the necessary supply chains for reuse and recycling. Further, vii

viii

Foreword

citizen behaviour and the capability to adequately engage people on the need to be responsible regarding waste management significantly contribute to accelerating the transition. Innovation, shared responsibility, stakeholder engagement through communication and training, and knowledge sharing are the key drivers of good urban waste management (Romano et al. 2021). The drivers mutually reinforce each other and should be developed synergistically to generate advantages for citizens and local governments and beyond the territories served. Knowing past rules and targets and the results achieved by the different European countries and the different regions within the individual countries allows us to assess the performance, measure the deviations from the objectives, and understand why targets have not been reached and to what extent. A proper assessment will support the definition of future waste regulations by treasuring the past. The book by Massimiliano Agovino and Gaetano Musella helps to clarify not only the key steps that the regulation has implemented in recent decades in Europe and Italy, and through a series of accurate analyses based on solid methodologies, it contributes to the current debate by providing valuable information on the results achieved by European countries and various Italian regions, as well as on the factors that contributed to these results. Exogenous and endogenous factors will necessarily have to be taken into consideration in future waste management regulations to adequately differentiate targets and incentives, taking into account the different starting levels and complexity of waste management. Both political decision-makers and waste managers have the arduous task of stimulating and implementing the investments and organisational changes needed to achieve the zero-waste goal, based on an economic model fed by secondary raw materials effectively reintroduced into the production cycle. Committed policymaking and strategic and managerial actions in waste reduction and recycling are essential for fostering the transition process towards a circular economy and coping with recurring challenges. Examples of the forward-looking laws in Italy in the 1990s, the zero-waste policy of Ljubljana and Slovenia, and the responsible and zero-waste management of Treviso province in the Veneto region are highlighted. They showed the relevant role of the commitment of policymakers and utility managers in fostering sustainable waste management. A zero-waste economy will generate new opportunities and challenges. It will create and maintain a sustainable environment for citizens, firms, and public institutions in search of common goods. Department of Economics and Management, University of Pisa Pisa, Italy

Giulia Romano

Reference Romano G, Marciano C, Fiorelli MS (2021) Best Practices in Urban Solid Waste Management: Ownership, Governance, and Drivers of Performance in a Zero Waste Framework. Emerald Group Publishing

Introduction

The term circular economy refers to an economic model in which the residues resulting from production and consumption activities are reintegrated into the production cycle according to a logic of complete regeneration of resources to reduce the human impact on the environment. To achieve the completion of the cycle, this model requires a review of the phases of economic activity by acting: • On finding the resources necessary for the production of goods to increase the productivity of inputs • On the design of goods, to reduce waste and guarantee features that increase durability, reusability, and recyclability • On waste management, ensuring that all residues that still contain a useful margin are reintroduced into the system through recovery, making landfilling a remote option. To implement this economic model, the European Union has defined a package of Directives that modify the principal Community regulations on waste. Directive 2018/849/EU intervenes in end-of-life vehicles, batteries and accumulators, and electrical and electronic equipment waste. Directive 2018/850/EU regulates landfills. Directive 2018/851/EU amends the waste framework legislation. Directive 2018/852/EU tackles packaging and packaging waste. Further regulatory changes regarding the circularity of resources and waste are envisaged based on the latest European and national economic green plans, better known as the Recovery Fund – Next Generation EU and PNRR (the National Recovery and Resilience Plan). No ecological transition can take place without adhering to the circular economy. By honouring the 2050 commitments made at the UN summit of Paris in 2015, the chances of avoiding a climate catastrophe are linked to the relaunch of a circular economy, on which 39% of CO2 cuts depend. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to double the current rate of circularity of goods from 8.6% to 17% globally. This challenge sees Italy on the frontline. For the third consecutive year, the Peninsula is the leader in circularity raking among the five largest economies of the European

ix

x

Introduction

Union (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and Poland – after the United Kingdom left the EU). Many studies underline the importance of the contribution of the circular economy to the reduction of Greenhouse Gas (GhG) emissions: doubling the current rate of circularity would cut 22.8 billion tons of GhG emissions globally. Applying circularity criteria to the production and consumption of five materials (steel, aluminium, plastic, cement, and food) would cut 45% of their GhG emissions, for a total of 9.3 billion tons of CO2. The European Commission, in the recent second Action Plan for the circular economy, highlights that without a circular economy model, it will not be possible to achieve climate neutrality. According to Eurostat data, Italy ranks first for recycling urban and special waste, with a rate of 68%, against 56% in Poland, 54% in France, 53% in Germany, and 46% in Spain. Moreover, Italy is second in circular material usage with a rate of 19.3%, preceded only by France with 20.1%. Furthermore, Italy draws the highest added value from recycling in the three sectors (agriculture, industry, and services), i.e. 1.1% of its GDP against 1% of Spain, Germany, and Poland and 0.9% of France. Italy ranks first in terms of employment in the recycling sector. However, employment in the repair and reuse sector is comparatively low, with 13,178 workers against 31,364 in France, 26,383 in Germany, 26,102 in Spain, and 14,815 in Poland. Total investments and patents in the three sectors align with the EU average. This book is set in the wake of economic literature that tackles the transition from the linear to the circular economy. In particular, it focuses on the downstream stages of the waste management process (i.e. the waste treatment phase). In this regard, the authors propose a journey through the history of the European waste legislation to study the waste sector’s transition dynamics from a selfish and no longer sustainable economic model based on rampant consumerism to a far-sighted sustainable model addressing the well-being of future generations. Studying the changes in European waste regulations leads us to ask ourselves the following questions: How has waste collection changed in recent years? What are the new regulatory challenges that must be addressed to achieve the objectives of a circular economy? How successful has the EU legislation been in fostering the transition from a linear to a circular economy? Finally, has the European environmental legislation sprung a convergence process among European countries towards the circular economy, or has the definition of targets fuelled the already marked differences between EU countries? In this regard, the first part of the book, in addition to presenting the evolution of the European regulatory framework and its implementation in Italy, shows how the new targets, revised over time by the European legislator, have favoured or impaired the achievement of circular economy objectives in EU countries. Emphasis is put on the positioning of Italy with respect to the other Member States and on the substantial differences that emerge across the three Italian macro-areas (Northern, Central, and Southern Italy). The book’s second part covers the role of European environmental legislation in encouraging greener waste management practices (energy recovery, materials recycling, composting, anaerobic digestion, etc.). Furthermore, it emphasises the ability of EU regulations to favour cross-country convergence towards circular

Introduction

xi

economy objectives. The result is not obvious and is conditioned by European countries’ social, economic, and demographic characteristics. Given the uniformity that characterises any law, these aspects are not covered by the environmental legislation on waste and could alter the results once included in the analysis. From a practical point of view, these context factors (if scarce) generate delays on the part of some European countries in achieving circular economy objectives.

Contents

Part I

From Linear to Circular Economy: The Impact of Environmental Legislation on Waste Management

1

The Transition from Linear to Circular Economy: The Case of Waste in European and Italian Environmental Legislation . . . . . . . 3 1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2 From Linear to Circular Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.3 European Waste Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.4 Italian Waste Legislation in the Past: The Transition of Waste from a Threat to a Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.5 Italian Waste Legislation Today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2

From European Legislation to Its Implementation in Italy Between Past and Present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 The Evolution of European Waste Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Environmental Regulations in Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3

. . . .

11 11 17 20

The Transition from Linear to Circular Economy Induced by Waste Management Legislation: A Shift-and-Share Analysis of European Countries and Italian Macro-Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Stylised Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 The Shift and Share Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Empirical Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1 The European Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.2 The Italian Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23 23 24 29 33 36 36 47 54

xiii

xiv

Contents

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Estimation of Missing Values of the Italian Macro-Areas . . . . . . . . 55 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Part II 4

5

Convergence or Divergence from the Circular Economy Objectives: What Are the Causes?

The Integrated Waste Cycle in Italy and EU Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 The Transition to the Circular Economy of Italy: Between Ups and Downs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Plant Shortcomings as a Brake on Sustainable Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Waste Management in Italy: What Went Wrong? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

66 68 70

Convergence or Divergence in Waste Treatment Methods? The Impact of Waste Management Legislation in the Transition to the Circular Economy Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Method: β-Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 β-Convergence: Results of the Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

71 71 73 75 82 83

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

63 63 65

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Part I

From Linear to Circular Economy: The Impact of Environmental Legislation on Waste Management

Chapter 1

The Transition from Linear to Circular Economy: The Case of Waste in European and Italian Environmental Legislation

Abstract Circular Economy represents a proactive response to the crisis of the traditional linear economic model, which has often proved inefficient and expensive, relying only on resource exploitation to satisfy consumer needs. Ambitious policies supported by a clear legislative framework are needed to foster the transition from a linear to a circular model. This chapter aims to frame, first in Europe and then in Italy, the regulatory changes in waste management, aiming to foster the transition from a linear to a circular economic model that has occurred over the years. Keywords Circular economy · Environmental legislation · Waste management · EU countries · Italy

1.1

Introduction

Waste results from human economic activities, namely production and consumption. Societal concerns over waste and its exponential growth date back to the second half of the eighteenth century and coincide with the advent of industrial society (Bevilacqua 2009). Primordial waste management methods mainly aim to remove waste from sight. For this reason, the earliest landfills were placed outside city walls and followed by the first incineration ovens that sought to get rid of as quickly as possible produce. In industrial societies, the linear economy paradigm constituted a well-established standard. It rigidly described the lifecycle of an asset as a succession of phases: harvest, production, consumption, and disposal. Reuse and recycling were not considered. Economic development was paralleled by the exponential growth of waste under the benevolent and accomplice eye of economic theory, which back then assumed natural resources to be inexhaustible. Under this mistaken belief, capitalist economies grew stronger, focusing only on production and consumption phases, while waste was either accumulated in distant holes or burned in ovens. Over the last 50 years, however, solid anthropogenic pressure on natural resources and environmental degradation have pushed scholars and policymakers to overturn the production culture that came with a linear economy.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Agovino, M. Gaetano, EU Waste Regulation in a Linear-Circular Economy Transition, SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28103-7_1

3

4

1

The Transition from Linear to Circular Economy: The Case of Waste. . .

In view of sustainability, traditional disposal models need to be overcome, tackling the problem from a different perspective. Waste production may no longer be viewed as a negative externality of human activity and an inevitable consequence of economic progress. It is necessary to review the entire asset design and manufacturing process, aiming for a circular economy. To extend their value over time, assets reaching the end of their lifecycle may indeed be regenerated. In this view, waste is a resource, although it may be initially misplaced. Waste must thus be managed rigorously, maximising recovery and avoiding the dissipation of materials. According to this perspective, waste can no longer be considered something to get rid of, drop in holes or burn in ovens. On the contrary, waste must be valued as an input to complete the raw materials cycle.

1.2

From Linear to Circular Economy

In the EU, according to Directive 2008/98/EC, waste is defined as “any substance or object that the holder discards or has the intention or obligation to discard”. As a difference between what is produced and what is consumed, societal waste, therefore, derives from two macro activities that are closely related to each other: • Production, aimed at creating goods and services for the market (also known as special waste, of which less than 10% consists of hazardous waste); • Consumption, aimed at satisfying various human needs through purchasing goods and services offered on the market (also called urban waste). The waste generated in consumption activities mainly consists of household waste, i.e. the waste originating from private consumption on the part of citizens. Therefore, consumption (of either final or intermediate goods) does not represent the final phase of economic activity, as classical and neoclassical economic theories have long argued. Consumption is a productive action since it generates a product, i.e. waste. Suppose an asset of a certain value can turn into waste based on the intentions and preferences of those who own it. In that case, it will likely retain some of its original value, even when discarded. Although this value might be negative due to disposal costs, discarded assets are made up of materials that are all but useless. If appropriately managed, wasted materials may still be valuable. For the most part, waste represents “a misplaced resource”. For this reason, managing waste becomes an ethical duty on top of being a key element for economic efficiency. Discarded products may either re-enter the consumption circuit following a specific repair activity (preparation for reuse) or be recycled into new materials to be reused in subsequent production processes. In the worst-case scenario, about the fraction that may not technically be recycled, at least energetical recovered may be viable. All these strategies allow for to reduction of the entire waste flow, the part that is completely wasted, that is, the fraction disposed of in landfills. In this sense, the notion of waste itself should be ruled out. Discarded

1.3

European Waste Legislation

5

products should always be considered as nothing more than end-cycle products, which must be enabled to enter a new cycle. The transition from linear to circular economy allows us to draw the trajectory of waste over time: its evolution from a “bad”, i.e. a threat to be removed, to a “good”, intended as a source of recoverable and/or recyclable materials. The principles shaping the structure of the circular economy are borrowed from the circularity of natural resources. The circular economy, therefore, aims to decline the metabolism of natural systems into an industrial dimension so that any waste generated by production and consumption can become a resource for subsequent or parallel processes. In short, this model considers waste as a resource, although initially misplaced, thus overturning the linear economy paradigm. Firms are called upon to obtain the highest possible value from material resources through increases in efficiency and use these resources several times, decreasing waste production substantially. However, the paradigm shift towards the circular economy does not concern the supply side only, which should focus on efficient and continuous resource use. Demand also plays a decisive role since the effectiveness of circular models also depends on consumer behaviour. Specifically, consumers should be actively involved in asset usage and regeneration. The interaction between producer and consumer in this view is bound to change. While under linear economy, this interaction mainly exhausts after purchase, in circular models, it takes place throughout the product’s lifecycle, from design to withdrawal. Firms are encouraged to safeguard, reuse and recover the materials “trapped” in their products and production waste. To overcome the sources of waste typical of the linear economy, recycling is a central activity in this context, but it is not the only one. Waste recovery, in relation to the product’s lifecycle and unused capacity, occurs, in fact, through the development of other activities. These activities are related to extending the product’s life, creating and supplying products intended as services, and pooling unused resources (Lacy et al. 2016).

1.3

European Waste Legislation

Over the last 20 years, European institutions have committed to defining a European waste strategy to promote sustainable economic growth. On the other hand, environmental protection has always been an inevitable component of EU policies. Suffice it to recall that the founding treaty of the European Economic Community, signed in Rome on 25th March 1957, provided for the implementation of a common policy on environmental matters, defining its characterising principles and objectives: Community policy on the environment aims at a high level of protection, taking into account the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Community. It is based on the principles of precaution and preventive action, on the principle of correcting, with priority at source, the damage caused to the environment, as well as on the polluter-pays principle (art. 174).

6

1

The Transition from Linear to Circular Economy: The Case of Waste. . .

For more than a decade, the pillars of the European Union’s action coincided with the objectives formalised in the Framework Directive on Waste (Directive 2008/98/ EC). These objectives have nowadays been consolidated into a new Framework Directive (amending the previous one), issued as part of the “package” of rules on circular economy. The current objectives are: 1. To reduce the adverse effects of waste production and management on human and environmental health; 2. To limit resource usage; 3. To promote the adoption of a waste hierarchy to achieve correct waste management. In addition to the polluter-pays principle, the Framework Directive also introduced the principle of extended producer responsibility. Every firm that manufactures, transforms, sells or imports a product is thus held responsible for that product’s entire life cycle, including post-consumption phases, i.e. collection, recycling or – as a last resort – final disposal. In essence, the waste hierarchy (see Fig. 1.1) has been identified as a necessary tool to reach the status of a recycling society, where economic agents and citizens are called upon to transform waste into new resources as much as possible. Compliance with the hierarchy assumes an even more strategic weight, given the transition to circularity. At the top of this hierarchy lies prevention, which includes all actions to reduce the amount of waste generated. Prevention requires a specific willingness on the part of people to extend the product lifecycle as much as possible, while it requires producers to design suitably durable and versatile consumption goods. Prevention allows for postponing the transformation of goods into waste. Preparation for reuse (i.e. repairing) follows in the hierarchical scale. Although technically part of the treatment practices, it ultimately translates into preventive action, as long as checkups, cleaning and repair operations allow some discarded products to regain their status as goods for a new consumption cycle. Recycling, on the other hand, refers to all the industrial processes by which the materials that compose waste are treated to obtain new “raw” materials. The materials recovered after recycling are known as secondary raw materials. On the other hand, energy recovery is a reasonable option Fig. 1.1 The waste hierarchy. (Source: Directive 2008/98/EC on waste (Waste Framework Directive))

1.4

Italian Waste Legislation in the Past: The Transition of Waste from. . .

7

when waste can neither be recovered in regenerated goods nor in the form of secondary raw materials. This is the fourth action indicated in the order of importance in the hierarchical scale and refers to all the operations that allow waste to still perform a useful function, i.e. replacing other materials, such as fossil fuels, for the generation of energy in combustion plants. Finally, only when none of the actions illustrated is technically feasible the European legislation provides disposal in landfills as a last resort. However, disposal is implemented only until alternative management practices are made available. In this regard, the latest framework directive sets a maximum disposal target for 2035. By then, landfilled waste must not exceed 10% of municipal waste.

1.4

Italian Waste Legislation in the Past: The Transition of Waste from a Threat to a Resource

Until the beginning of the 1980s, waste management in Italy was regulated by Law 366/1941, characterised mainly by a health-oriented approach to managing urban waste, which was considered a source of pollution. In this view, waste represented a threat to be avoided, so it had to be managed (in a strictly municipal dimension), according to the remove and forget principle. Waste was mainly buried in landfills outside urban areas. At that time, in a world radically different from the present, per capita production of municipal waste was less than half with respect to recent years. Waste management followed a fully linear paradigm, with the successive phases of harvest, production, consumption and disposal. At that time, on the other hand, European regulations did not rely on an obvious legal basis. The main goal of EU directives was legislative harmonisation across Member States to avoid distortions in the common market, integrating environmental interests within the EU competition policy. Only with the Single European Act of 1986 environmental policies and waste management were identified as direct objects of EU provisions, later becoming one of the main pillars of European public policies. Meanwhile, in Italy, the Decree of the President of the Republic 915/1982 (from now on, DPR 915/1982) implemented the early directives the European Economic Community issued in the previous decade. Waste treatment became a public interest, and the risks related to air, water and soil pollution were granted explicit regulatory attention. DPR 915/1982 also introduced sanctions against violations of its provisions. A significant step was taken during the 13th legislature with the issuance of Legislative Decree 22/1997. This measure was named Ronchi Decree after the Minister of the Environment who presented it. The Ronchi Decree implemented an organic reform of the waste management sector, aiming to overcome the fragmentation of the provisions in force until then, which had stratified over time, creating a complex and articulated regulatory system. This provision attempted to orient waste management towards compliance with the criteria of effectiveness, efficiency and cost-effectiveness,

8

1 The Transition from Linear to Circular Economy: The Case of Waste. . .

aiming to induce service operators to assume an industrial configuration. The decree shifted the focus from disposal to recovery activities aimed at enhancing the waste intercepted in the wake of the changing theoretical approaches to waste management. Waste was no longer considered a threat but a resource to be exploited. Thus, environmental protection was identified as waste management’s main goal, with an autonomous consideration for health-related threats and urban decor. A hierarchy of waste management operations was established for the first time, prioritising prevention actions and banning incineration without energy recovery. Finally, the principles of accountability, co-responsibility and cooperation among production, distribution and consumption agents were incorporated into the regulatory framework. Subsequently, the goal pursued by part IV of the Environmental Code, containing the “Regulations on waste management and remediation of polluted sites”, was to “allow complete and exhaustive knowledge to operators and authorities of the various and often contradictory existing rules”. In the implementation phase, however, the general objectives enshrined in the legislation were not pursued with the necessary conviction. A certain tendency to devolve decisions to lower administrative levels (regions, provinces and local authorities) represented an obstacle to achieving the objectives set and a significant burden for administrative units invested with improper obligations. The institutional framework, therefore, remained unstable and burdened by disputes and uncertainty arising from the distribution of competencies between the State, regions and local authorities.

1.5

Italian Waste Legislation Today

Current Italian waste management legislation originates from EU principles and regulatory references. Its broad character tends to be chaotic, not always consistent and, in some cases, problematic. Some early legislative sources remain in force, including Royal Decree 1265/1934, Law 366/1941 and DPR 915/1982. However, Part IV of Legislative Decree 152/2006 (the so-called Environmental Code) and its subsequent amendments introduced by Legislative Decree 205/2010 – which mainly implemented Framework Directive 2008/98/EC – represent the cornerstone of current waste management regulations in Italy. With the Environmental Code, the national legislator continued the reorganisation and rationalisation of waste regulations undertaken for the first time by the Ronchi Decree, which was indeed absorbed into the broader set of provisions introduced by the Environmental Code. The main innovations in the Code concern the evolution of waste, clearly distinguishing the concepts of raw material and by-products, and the indication of the principles that must characterise treatment and waste management in general. Reuse, recycling and other forms of recovery are privileged, while disposal in landfills is considered a residual option. Waste is viewed not just as a problem to dispose of but as a

1.5

Italian Waste Legislation Today

9

potentially valuable resource. For this reason, art. 179 of the Code, detailing priority criteria in waste management, indicates recycling and recovery as options fundamentally different from the disposal, which is a mere operation of value destruction. If waste is a potential resource, legally speaking, it can also be seen as a good. As the subject of a property right, waste may as well become the object of a sale contract. Thus, as an “object of rights”, waste represents an asset in the legal sense. The Environmental Code strongly focuses on prevention, which includes all the measures adopted before a substance, a material, or a product becomes waste. The waste management hierarchy is reformulated in line with the renewed definitions of the operations of reuse, preparation for reuse, recycling, recovery and final disposal. It is important to stress that the waste management hierarchy of the Code requires taking all possible measures aimed at promoting the options that lead to the best environmental result. Waste status is, therefore, not irreversible: waste, through a recovery or recycling operation, can become non-waste (Pulcini and Di Lullo 2013). The dissociation of economic growth from the environmental impacts associated with waste production can mainly occur through a sharp decrease in the waste produced. Reducing dramatically waste disposal in landfills implies, in this sense, resorting to other forms of recovery. The whole discipline on the subject, however, revolves around the application of two cardinal principles. On the one hand, lies the polluter pays principle, which was already present in the founding treaty of the European Community. This principle, incorporated in the Environmental Code (art. 178), lays the burden of preventing ex-ante or repairing ex-post the environmental damage on the economic operators that cause it with their activities. Each producer of goods (and therefore, indirectly, of waste) is thus pushed to manage, directly or indirectly, treatment after consumption. Among the activities aimed at preventing the impacts generated by the circulation of certain goods, some duties are imposed on their manufacturers as a consequence of the extended producer responsibility principle. According to this principle, anyone who develops, manufactures, transforms, imports or sells certain products for professional reasons is responsible for the waste generated by these goods and is therefore called upon to take initiatives that comply with the rules relating to prevention and correct management of the waste associated with the goods themselves. Requiring to internalise environmental costs in the final price of the goods released for consumption, this principle, therefore, pursues the aim of consolidating prevention, reuse and recycling activities. Since waste is considered good and not a source of pollution, the current legislation is oriented towards increasing the integration between the waste management cycle and the phases of industrial production and commercial distribution. In this view, manufacturing firms are called to waste prevention, with various initiatives in adherence to the extended producer responsibility principle. Firms thus take on a social function, becoming part of the more general community policy on products.

10

1

The Transition from Linear to Circular Economy: The Case of Waste. . .

References Bevilacqua P (2009) I rifiuti e la metamorfosi dissipativa della natura. In: Meridiana, vol 64. https:// doi.org/10.1400/143210 Lacy P, Rutqvist J, Lamonica B (2016) Circular Economy. Egea, Milano Pulcini E, Di Lullo M (2013) Le disposizioni normative in tema di rifiuti: tra disciplina nazionale e diritto dell’emergenza. In: Italiadecide, Ciclo dei rifiuti: governare insieme ambiente, economia e territorio. Rapporto 2012–2013, il Mulino, Bologna

Chapter 2

From European Legislation to Its Implementation in Italy Between Past and Present

Abstract This chapter aims to comprehensively trace the time path of European legislation on waste management evolution. In the same vein, the historical framework of the transposition of European legislation in Italy will be presented, highlighting how the Italian legislation on waste management has imposed more ambitious targets, in quantitative and temporal terms, than those proposed by European Directives. Keywords Waste management legislation · European directives · Italian environmental regulations · Historical evolution

2.1

The Evolution of European Waste Regulation

Since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro in the early 1990s, waste management has increasingly become a pivotal element in European environmental protection policies. Several community guidelines have been proposed. This section aims to overview the main European policies introduced, highlighting their evolution over time. Table 2.1 summarises some of the most relevant. The Lisbon Treaty1 identifies the environment as one of the areas of shared competence between the European Union and the Member States. Figure 2.1 shows the time path of the main European guidelines and Italian regulations. In this section, we will discuss only the points referred to as European policies (i.e. the points shown in red in Fig. 2.1). Directive 94/62/EC (point 2 in Fig. 2.1) constituted one of the first attempts to regulate waste management, seeking to define the actions for proper management of packaging and packaging waste. This Directive applied to all packaging placed on the European market and to all packaging waste discarded by industries, shops, offices, laboratories, services, households, and any other level, whatever materials

1

The Lisbon Treaty was launched in December 2007, amending the Treaty of the European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Agovino, M. Gaetano, EU Waste Regulation in a Linear-Circular Economy Transition, SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28103-7_2

11

12

2

From European Legislation to Its Implementation in Italy Between Past. . .

Table 2.1 Summary of EU waste legislation Framework Landfill Waste management Plastics, packaging, and packaging waste

Batteries, electrical and electronic equipment

Ecodesign and industrial emissions PCB/PCT disposal Statistics, monitoring, and shipment

Directive 1999/31/EC 2018/850/EU 2008/98/EC 2018/851/EU 1994/62/EC 2015/720/EU 2018/852/EU 2019/904/EU 2000/53/EC 2006/66/EC 2012/19/EU 2018/849/EU 2009/125/EC 2010/75/EU 1996/59/EC 2002/2150/EC 2006/1013/EC 2011/753/EU

Main topics Waste disposal in landfill Basic concepts and definitions related to waste management Packaging waste Plastic bags Packaging waste Single-use plastic End-of-life vehicles Batteries and accumulators WEEE All previous topics Ecodesign of energy-related products Environmental impact of industrial activities PCB/PCT disposal Waste management statistics at the EU level Shipments of waste Monitoring activities

compose them (EEC 1994). Directive 94/62/EC came into force in December 1994, with the obligation to be transposed into law in all Member States by June 1996. In 1996, the council of the European Union established Directive 96/59/EC (point 3, Fig. 2.1), which came into force in September of the same year. It concerned the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT) and the decontamination or disposal of devices containing them (EEC 1996). EU countries were to integrate it into their national regulations by March 1998. With the aim to reduce the consumption of lightweight plastic carrier bags (i.e. plastic bags with a thickness of fewer than 50 microns), Directive 94/62/EC was amended in 2015 by Directive 2015/720/EU (point 20, Fig. 2.1). Member States were thus required to set annual targets for reducing plastic bags per capita consumption. The targets could be achieved through marketing bans or other restrictive measures, such as consumption taxes. Directive 2015/720/EU also introduced the pricing principle, which required charging higher prices for marketable plastic bags and prohibiting the free supply (European Commission 2015). In 2018, Directive 94/62/ EC was modified again by Directive 2018/852/EU on packaging and packaging waste (point 25, Fig. 2.1). Established within the circular economy framework, Directive 2018/852/EU sets long-term objectives for waste management in the EU and provides economic operators and Member States with precise indications for the investments necessary to achieve those objectives. Therefore, Member States must ensure that by 2025 (2030), at least 65% (70%) of all packaging waste is recycled. The deadline for the transposition of the directives of the circular economy package was July 2020 (European Parliament and the Council of the European Union 2018a).

2.1

The Evolution of European Waste Regulation

13

Fig. 2.1 Chronological sketch of the main EU and Italian waste regulations. (Note: red and blue points represent EU and Italian regulations, respectively. (For interpretation of the references to colours in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this book))

In 2019, the European Union focused again on plastic products with Directive 2019/ 904/EU (point 26, Fig. 2.1), aiming to prevent and reduce the incidence of certain plastic products on the environment, i.e. single-use plastics (SUP). This Directive tackled, in particular, the aquatic environment and human health. It also aimed to promote the transaction towards a circular economy by introducing specific measures, including the Europe-wide ban on single-use plastic products whenever alternatives are available, and the polluter pays principle. Member States are required to monitor the consumption of SUP and the measures taken, reporting to the European Commission on the progress made. Directive 2019/904/EU applies from July 2019 (European Parliament 2019). The EU regulated disposal operations in the landfill in 1999 with Directive 99/31/ EC (point 5, Fig. 2.1), which aimed to prevent (or at least reduce) the adverse effects

14

2 From European Legislation to Its Implementation in Italy Between Past. . .

of landfills on surface water, groundwater, soil, atmosphere and human health. Directive 99/31/EC identifies three categories of landfills: (1) landfills for hazardous waste; (2) landfills for non-hazardous waste; (3) landfills for waste that does not decompose and does not burn (e.g. gravel, sand, and stone). Moreover, it obliges Member States to minimise biodegradable waste in landfills and ensure that the price charged by waste managers covers all the costs associated with the establishment and operations of the landfill sites (EEC 1999). In this view, to reduce landfilled waste, the EU set three thresholds that the Member States had to reach: (1) less than 75% of the waste produced by 2001; (2) less than 50 by 2009; (3) less than 35% by 2016. Directive 1999/31/EC came into force on 16 July 1999, requiring transposition by 16 July 2001. In 2018, the European Parliament and the Council issued the new landfill Directive, i.e. Directive 2018/850/EU (point 23, Fig. 2.1), which amended Directive 1999/31/EC. It introduced new regulations on waste disposal in landfills, targeting a progressive reduction in landfill use. Member States must reduce the amount of municipal waste landfilled to 10% of the total amount of municipal waste generated by 2035. Moreover, Directive 2018/850/EU introduced new rules to calculate the attainment of the targets and prohibited landfilling waste suitable for re-use, recycling or another recovery (European Parliament and Council 2018a). Since motor vehicles that reached the end of their useful lives create between 8 and nine million tonnes of waste (Mehlhart et al. 2018), the EU issued Directive 2000/53/EC (point 6, Fig. 2.1). It set out measures to prevent and limit waste from end-of-life vehicles (ELVs) and their components by ensuring their reuse, recycling, and recovery. It also aims to improve the environmental performance of all economic operators involved in the life-cycle of vehicles. New vehicles must be reusable and/or recyclable to a minimum of 85% of their weight per vehicle and reusable and/or recoverable to a minimum of 95% (European Parliament and Council of the European Union 2000). Directive 2000/53/EC also introduced the concept of extended producer responsibility, aiming to include all the environmental costs associated with a product throughout the product life cycle to the product’s market price (OECD 2001). Directive 2018/849/EU (point 22, Fig. 2.1) amended Directive 2000/53/EC, granting the European Commission the power to ensure compliance with the ELV targets and exports and imports of ELVs. Moreover, the Commission introduced delegated acts to supplement the Directive by: (1) exempting certain materials and components containing lead, mercury, cadmium or hexavalent chromium if their use is unavoidable; (2) introducing coding standards on the components suitable for reuse and recovery; (3) establishing the minimum requirements for the certificates of destruction; (4) establishing minimum requirements for the treatment of ELVs (European Parliament and the Council of the European Union 2018b). Other measures covered the issue of electronic waste. In 2006, Directive 2006/66/EC (point 10, Fig. 2.1) was emanated, targeting batteries and accumulators. It aimed to cut the amount of hazardous substances – in particular, mercury, cadmium and lead – released into the environment by reducing their use or adopting treatment actions to reuse them (European Commission 2006). To this end, Directive 2006/66/EC promoted high collection and recycling rates for waste batteries and pushed for an improvement in the environmental performance along all the stages of

2.1

The Evolution of European Waste Regulation

15

the life-cycle of batteries, including their recycling and disposal. Moreover, it prohibited placing batteries (or accumulators) on the market if they featured a mercury or cadmium content above a fixed threshold. A few years later, Directive 2013/56/EU amended Directive 2006/66/EC. To counter skyrocketing increases in WEEE (waste electrical and electronic equipment), the European Commission issued Directive 2012/19/EU (point 18, Fig. 2.1), which modified Directive 2002/ 96/EC. According to the European Commission (2012), Directive 2012/19/EU aimed to: (1) reduce the waste of natural resources and prevent pollution (environmentally friendly design); (2) avoid the waste of critical secondary raw materials, encouraging the recycling of WEEE; (3) limit illegal exports of WEEE to developing countries; (4) reduce the current differences in the registration of producers in the different national registers of electrical and electronic equipment producers. Directive 2012/19/EU came into force in August 2012. The attention towards the measurement and control of collection operations took a step forward in 2002, adopting Directive 2002/2150/EC (point 7, Fig. 2.1), the so-called Waste Statistics Regulation. Thanks to this regulation, standard and comparable data on waste in the EU countries were collected and transmitted to Eurostat, allowing EU waste policy implementation to be monitored and evaluated. According to Directive 2002/2150/EC, which came into force in December 2022, Member States must transmit the statistical results (including confidential data) to Eurostat within 18 months of the end of the reference period, with a biennial frequency. Every third year, the Commission reports to the European Parliament and Council on the statistics observed, their quality and the burden on businesses (European Commission 2002). A further step was represented by the Waste Shipment Regulation, i.e. Directive 2006/1013/EC (point 9 in Fig. 2.1), which specified the procedures for controlling waste shipments to improve environmental protection and set out a control system for waste movement. It concerns almost all types of waste shipped with some exceptions, such as radioactive waste, waste produced onboard ships, shipments of waste from the Antarctic, and imports into the EU of waste from armed forces or humanitarian organisations during crises (European Parliament and the Council 2009). Moreover, Directive 2006/1013/EC established that all parties involved must ensure that waste is managed in compliance with EU and international standards throughout the shipment process and when recovered or disposed of. Directive 2006/1013/EC came into force in July 2006 and was amended in 2014 to strengthen the control systems. The modified Directive lays down minimum inspection requirements to address problematic waste streams (such as hazardous waste and waste shipped illegally, abandoned in illegal landfills, or treated incorrectly). EU countries were required to prepare inspection plans by 2017. The EU set the modern concepts and definitions of waste management through Directive 2008/98/EC (point 12, Fig. 2.1), also known as Waste Framework Directive (WFD). It established the treatment methods of waste within the EU, with the primary goal of protecting the environment and human health by preventing the harmful and hazardous effects arising from the production and improper management of waste (European Commission 2008). As one of the most relevant novelties, the WFD introduced the waste hierarchy, a priority order of waste treatment

16

2 From European Legislation to Its Implementation in Italy Between Past. . .

procedures based on their environmental impact. The hierarchy envisages the following priority order: (1) reduction/prevention of waste production; (2) reuse; (3) recycling; (4) other recovery, including energy recovery; (5) landfill disposal. While the EU recognises the pivotal role of the zero-waste goal (point 1 of the hierarchy), with Directive 2008/98/EC, the European Commission set the basis for the transition towards the circular economy model, further stimulated through the Circular Economy Package (EC 2014a, 2014b). Circular models are based on three main pillars, the so-called 3Rs principles, i.e. reduce, reuse, and recycle (Ghisellini et al. 2016; Agovino et al. 2019). Reusing represents the most beneficial approach in terms of environmental protection since it saves products or components that may be used again for their original purpose (European Commission 2008), thus avoiding new production. The recycling principle is based on recovery operations by reprocessing waste materials into products, components, or substances to serve the original or a different purpose (European Commission 2008). Recycling decreases the environmental impact of products since it shrinks the waste that must be disposed of in landfills (Birat 2015). In this light, the EU recognised the central role of separate waste collection (SWC hereafter) in the path towards the circular economy, where resources are used seamlessly, and residual waste tends to zero. The crucial role played by SWC in WFD became even more evident through the minimum reuse/recycling principle: Member States were called to achieve a minimum of 50% of reused and/or recycled waste by 2020 (Agovino et al. 2021). Another point that should be highlighted is the introduction of Directive 2011/753/EU (point 17, Fig. 2.1), which established rules and methods to calculate and monitor the objectives set by WFD (European Commission 2011). Directive 2008/98/EC was amended in 2018 by Directive 2018/851/EU (point 24, Fig. 2.1), which constitutes the package on circular economy together with Directive 2018/852/EU and Directive 2018/850/EU. The new waste management framework stated: “Improving the efficiency of resource use and ensuring that waste is valued as a resource can contribute to reducing the Union’s dependence on the import of raw materials and facilitate the transition to more sustainable material management and a circular economy model. That transition should contribute to the smart, sustainable and inclusive growth goals set out in the Europe 2020 strategy and create important opportunities for local economies and stakeholders while helping to increase synergies between the circular economy and energy, climate, agriculture, industry and research policies as well as bringing benefits to the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emission savings and to the economy” (European Parliament and Council 2018b). To comply with these objectives and move towards a European circular model with a high level of resource efficiency, Member States are required to take the necessary measures designed to achieve the following targets: (1) by 2025, the preparing for reuse and the recycling of municipal waste shall be increased to a minimum of 55% by weight; (2) by 2030, the preparing for re-use and the recycling of municipal waste shall be increased to a minimum of 60% by weight; (3) by 2035, the preparing for re-use and the recycling of municipal waste shall be increased to a minimum of 65% by weight (European Parliament and Council 2018b). Moreover, according to the extended producer responsibility principle,

2.2

Environmental Regulations in Italy

17

producers are financially and operationally responsible for the product life-cycle, including separate collection, sorting and treatment operations. In 2009, the European Parliament and the Council adopted Directive 2009/125/ EC (point 14, Fig. 2.1) to regulate energy-related products (ERP) to extend the scope of the Ecodesign Directive (i.e. Directive 2005/32/EC). The EU aimed to regulate energy consumption not only when products are in use (i.e. EUP – energy-using products) but also when they are turned off (i.e. on standby). Directive 2009/125/EC set the technical specifications to be met by ERP to be placed on the market and/or put into service. It contributes to sustainable development by increasing energy efficiency, environmental protection and improvements in the security of the energy supply (European Commission 2009). It came into force in November 2009, and it still is. The Industrial Emissions Directive (IED), i.e. Directive 2010/75/EU, is the main EU instrument regulating pollutant emissions from industrial installations (point 16, Fig. 2.1). It is based on a Commission proposal recasting seven previously existing directives (including, in particular, Directive 2008/1/EC, also known as IPPC Directive) following an extensive review. The IED aims to achieve a highlevel environmental quality and protection of human health by reducing harmful industrial emissions across the EU. The IED is based on several pillars, i.e. (1) the integrated approach, (2) the use of the best available techniques (BAT), (3) flexibility, (4) inspections, (5) public participation. In addition, through the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR), emission data reported by the Member States are made accessible in a public register, intended to provide environmental information on major industrial activities (European Commission 2010). The IED was adopted on 24 November 2010 and came into force on 6 January 2011, requiring transposition by all Member States by 7 January 2013.

2.2

Environmental Regulations in Italy

The evolution of environmental legislation in Italy has evolved through three major reforms: (1) in 1982, Decree of the President of the Republic 915/1982; (2) in 1997, Legislative Decree 22/1997; (3) in 2006, Legislative Decree 152/2006. The time path of Italian waste management legislation is shown in Fig. 2.1 (blue points). The DPR 915/1982 – point 1 in Fig. 2.1 – implemented the EU Directives on toxic, dangerous, and municipal waste (i.e. 75/442/EEC, 76/403/EEC, and 78/319/ EEC). As a first attempt to regulate the waste management system, it only set the basic principles, such as the administrative competencies of national and local governments (which remained in force under L.D. 22/1997 and L.D. 152/2006). In a nutshell: (i) the national government defined the guidelines and coordination; (ii) the regions established waste management plans; (iii) the provinces carried out the monitoring function; (iv) municipalities were responsible for collecting and disposing of. DPR 915/1982 also defined waste classification, taxes, financial provisions, and sanctions. Elimination and disposal were the key principles of DPR 915/1982. The SWC, reuse, and recycling were not considered.

18

2

From European Legislation to Its Implementation in Italy Between Past. . .

The L.D. 22/1997, also known as the ‘Ronchi Decree’ (point 4 in Fig. 2.1), introduced a more modern waste management system in line with EU directives on environmental sustainability. It implemented EU directives 91/156/CEE on waste, 91/689/CEE on dangerous waste, and 94/62/CE on packaging and packaging waste. The L.D. 22/1997 was based on two main objectives: (1) to reduce the amount of waste disposed in landfills (art. 4); (2) to increase the reuse, recycling, and recovery of waste through a strong enhancement of SWC activities (art. 24). Noteworthy, through the L.D. 22/1997 the Italian waste management system moved from a landfill-based to a SWC-based approach. Notably, the Ronchi Decree preceded by 2 years of EU Directive 1999/31/EC, also known as the Landfill Directive, which regulated waste management in landfills. According to it, the total quantity of municipal waste disposed of in landfill should be reduced to 50% by 2009 and 35% by 2016 (1995 is the reference year). The Directive recognised the leading role of SWC in reducing landfilling but did not introduce any SWC target, focusing exclusively on landfill disposal decrease. In other words, Italy has been able to outpace EU measures concerning the importance of SWC in environmental sustainability. Moreover, in 2003 the Italian Government introduced L.D. 36/2003 (also known as ‘Bosetti and Gatti’, point 8, Fig. 2.1) to guarantee the progressive reduction of landfilled waste. In particular, the Bosetti and Gatti Decree set the following targets: (1) a max of 173 Kg per capita disposed in landfills by 2008; (2) a max of 115 Kg per capita disposed in landfills by 2011; (3) a max of 81 Kg per capita disposed in landfills by 2018. The L.D. 152/2006, i.e. the Environmental Code (point 10 in the time path depicted in Fig. 2.1), reaffirmed the centrality of SWC in the Italian waste management system. The L.D. 152/2006 replaced Ronchi Decree, redesigning Italy’s waste management system by recognising the central role of SWC and considerably increasing the minimum SWC threshold to be met by municipalities. Specifically, Article 205 set a target of 65% differentiated waste by 2012. This reform preceded EU directive 2008/98/EC, i.e. the WFD, which laid the basis to turn the EU into a recycling society. As stated in the previous Section, WFD has put SWC at the centre of the EU’s environmental program following two lines: (1) setting a minimum target of 50% of re-used and/or recycled waste by 2020; (2) introducing the European waste hierarchy, where prevention lies at the top, and landfill disposal lies at the bottom. In the middle of the hierarchy, SWC emerges as a tool to pursue the reuse, recycle and recovery path. Therefore, it is clear that SWC is the primary tool for achieving the objectives of reuse, recycling and recovery. Since WFD introduced some novelties, the Environmental Code was restructured over the years (i.e. points 13, 15, and 21 in Fig. 2.1). In brief, the recycling and reuse thresholds for SWC items were updated, and the legislator introduced a system of incentives to improve the SWC in Italian municipalities. Finally, in 2013, the new waste tax (Fig. 2.1, point 19) was introduced. Among its aims, there is to reduce the use of landfill disposal through penalties and cost charging. We highlight the main characteristics and differences of these two Decrees (L.D. 22/1997 and L.D. 152/2006) in Table 2.2.

2.2

Environmental Regulations in Italy

19

Table 2.2 Main characteristics and differences between L.D. 22/1997 and L.D. 152/2006

Incentive

L.D. 22/1997 ‘Ronchi Decree’ 15% by 1999 25% by 2001 35% by 2003 No incentive

Penalty

No penalty

Recycling thresholds by item

Metals: 15% Glass: 15% Paper: 15% Plastic: 15% Wood: 15% Authorisation: 5 years duration; two different authorisations for building and management Monitoring: National observatory on waste Tariffs based on management costs and amounts of waste produced

SWC thresholds

Authorisation and Monitoring

Waste tax

L.D. 152/2006 (and subsequent amendments) ‘Environmental Code’ 35% by 2006 45% by 2008 65% by 2012 Incentive: reduction in waste tax for the units that have reached the SWC thresholds. The higher the surplus, the higher the incentive Penalty: additional 20% in waste tax for landfill disposal for the units that have missed the SWC thresholds Metals: 50% Glass: 60% Paper: 60% Plastic: 22.5% Wood: 15% Authorisation: 10 years duration; a single authorisation for building and management Monitoring: Supervisory Authority on water resources and waste In addition to management costs and waste produced, the new Waste tax also includes charges for landfill disposal

Source: Agovino et al. (2021)

As the first point to emphasize, L.D. 152/2006 defined new SWC thresholds to be achieved by 2012. The minimum SWC percentage increased from 35% (Ronchi Decree) to 65% (Environmental Code). It is important for two reasons: (1) local governments were forced to update their waste management plans to comply with the regulation’s requirement; (2) the normative did not consider the socio-economic characteristics of the territories (e.g., regions, provinces, or municipalities). While the improvement of SWC is positive, point (2) may constitute a limit of the Environmental Code since it sets goals without specifying the way to achieve it. This is important because many factors drive the SWC results, such as the collection methods used. For example, the door-to-door system – which replaced the bins in the streets in some territories – is a more modern and efficient collection method allowing for the reduction of citizen efforts towards SWC. However, this method (as well as other modern and more efficient methods) requires conspicuous economic resources, limiting their availability to wealthier areas. In other words, disregarding the socio-economic contest can be considered a limitation of the normative. Another limitation is the time given to regions/municipalities to achieve SWC targets. As regions/municipalities have different difficulties and starting points, the normative should take into account that high territorial disparities require

20

2

From European Legislation to Its Implementation in Italy Between Past. . .

different deadlines. A reasonable idea could be to set different thresholds in the different macro-areas. To stimulate the SWC, the L.D. 152/2006 was amended over the years through the modifications presented in Fig. 2.1. The Italian Government mainly introduced a system of incentives to reward the virtuous units (i.e., those exceeding 65%) through a reduction in waste taxes. The higher the surplus, the higher the incentive. However, this is a reward for the best-performing regions/ municipalities without considering how to improve the SWC in the other territories. Another modification to indirectly improve SWC was the introduction of some penalties to reduce landfills’ use. First, local administrations missing SWC targets are penalised with an additional 20% landfill disposal waste tax. This is an important measure to improve SWC because landfilling costs were lower (on average) in the Southern macro-area (Legambiente 2019), where the worst-performing regions are concentrated. Second, the waste taxation system reform introduced fees for the landfill, discouraging it and promoting SWC. The waste management system reform also involved authorisation and monitoring activities managed locally (i.e. by regional governments). Authorisation procedures improved bureaucratic efficiency since the number of authorisation required for building and managing waste treatment plants decreased from two (Ronchi Decree) to one (Environmental Code). Moreover, the authorisation duration is extended from 5 to 10 years, ensuring higher continuity of facility operativity. Regarding monitoring, Italy moved to form a specific waste supervisory body into a Supervisory Authority on water resources and waste. As a result, there is a risk of loss in efficiency merging waste and water monitor activities.

References Agovino M, Cerciello M, Musella G (2019) The good and the bad: identifying homogeneous groups of municipalities in terms of separate waste collection determinants in Italy. Ecol Indic 98:297–309 Agovino M, Ferraro A, Musella G (2021) Does national environmental regulation promote convergence in separate waste collection? Evidence from Italy. J Clean Prod 291:125285 Birat JP (2015) Life-cycle assessment, resource efficiency and recycling. Metall Res Technol 112(2):206 EC, European Commission (2014a) MEMO, questions and answers on the commission communication “towards a circular economy” and the waste targets review. http://europa.eu/rapid/pressrelease_MEMO-14-450_en.htm EC, European Commission (2014b) Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. Towards a circular economy: a zero waste Programme for Europe. COM, p 398 EEC (1994) European parliament and council directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste. Off J Eur Communities L 365:10–23. https://eur-lex.europa. eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:31994L0062 EEC (1996) 96/59/EC of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and (PCB/PCT). Off J Eur Communities L:243, 31. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ TXT/?uri=CELEX:31996L0059

References

21

EEC (1999) Council directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill. Off J Eur Communities 10:L182. https:// eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:31999L0031 European Commission (2002) Regulation (ec) no. 2150/2002 of the European Parliament and the council of 25 November 2002 on waste statistics. Off J Eur Union L 332. https://eur-lex.europa. eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32002R2150 European Commission (2006) Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing directive 91/157/EEC. Off J Eur Union L 266(26.9). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32006L0066 European Commission (2008) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives. Off J Eur Union L 312(3). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32008L0098 European Commission (2009) Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of Ecodesign requirements for energy-related products. Off J Eur Union L 285(10). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-cotent/ EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32009L0125 European Commission (2010) The directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the council from 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control). Off J Eur Union L 334:17. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri= CELEX:32010L0075#document1 European Commission (2011) 2011/753/EU: commission decision of 18 November 2011 establishing rules and calculation methods for verifying compliance with the targets set in article 11 (2) of directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the council (notified under document C (2011) 8165). Off J Eur Union L 310. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2011.310.01.0011.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AL%3A2011%3 A310%3ATOC European Commission (2012) Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the council of 4 July 2012 on waste electrical and electronic equipment, WEEE. Off J Eur Union L 197:38– 71. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32012L0019 European Commission (2015) Directive 2015/720/EU of the European Parliament and of the council of 29 April 2015 amending directive 94/62/EC as regards reducing the consumption of lightweight plastic carrier bags. Off J Eur Union L 115(11). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32015L0720 European Parliament and Council (2018a) Directive (EU) 2018/850 of the European Parliament and of the council of 30 may 2018 amending directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste. Off J Eur Union 150:100. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32018L0850 European Parliament and Council (2018b) Directive (EU) 2018/851 of the European Parliament and of the council of 30 may 2018 amending directive 2008/98/EC on waste. Off J Eur Union 50: 109–140. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32018L0851 European Parliament and the Council (2009) Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the geological storage of carbon dioxide and amending Council Directive 85/337/EEC, European Parliament and Council Directives 2000/60/EC, 2001/80/EC, 2004/35/EC, 2006/12/EC, 2008/1/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006. European Parliament and Council Directives 2000/60/EC, 2001/80/EC, 2004/35/EC, 2006/12/ EC, 2008/1/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ ALL/?uri=CELEX:32006R1013 European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2000) Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life vehicles – commission statements. Off J Eur Union L 269:34–43. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000L0053 European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2018a) Directive (EU) 2018/852 of the European Parliament and of the council of 30 may 2018 amending directive 94/62/EC on

22

2

From European Legislation to Its Implementation in Italy Between Past. . .

packaging and packaging waste (text with EEA relevance). Off J Eur Union 150:141–154. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32018L0852 European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2018b) Directive (EU) 2018/849 of the European Parliament and of the council of 30 may 2018 amending directives 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles, 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators, and 2012/19/EU on waste electrical and electronic equipment. Off J Eur Union L 150: 93. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32018L0849 Ghisellini P, Cialani C, Ulgiati S (2016) A review on circular economy: the expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J Clean Prod 114:11–32 Legambiente (2019) Rifiuti Zero, Impianti Mille. Legambiente. https://www.legambiente.it/wpcontent/uploads/dossier-Rifiuti-zero-Impianti-mille-2019.pdf Mehlhart G, Kosinska I, Baron Y, Hermann A (2018) Assessment of the implementation of directive 2000/53/EU on end-of-life vehicles (the ELV directive) with emphasis on the endof-life vehicles of unknown whereabouts. European Commission, Netherlands. https://op. europa.eu/it/publication-detail/-/publication/1ca32beb-316a-11e8-b5fe-01aa75ed71a1/ language-en OECD (2001) Extended producer responsibility: a guidance manual for governments. OECD Publications Service, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264189867-en European Parliament (2019) Directive (EU) 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the council of 5 June 2019 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment. Off J Eur Union 155:19. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri= CELEX:32019L0904

Chapter 3

The Transition from Linear to Circular Economy Induced by Waste Management Legislation: A Shift-and-Share Analysis of European Countries and Italian Macro-Areas Abstract The European environmental legislation aims to increase the efforts of the EU towards circular economy objectives. A limit characterising EU legislation is the failure to consider the economic, social and demographic characteristics of Member States when defining common targets. This chapter intends to evaluate the importance of country characteristics in achieving the circular economy objectives using Shift-and-Share analysis. The same analysis is extended to the macro-areas of Italy. Economic policy considerations follow. Keywords Waste treatment methods · Circular economy · Shift-and-share analysis · European countries · Italy

3.1

Introduction

Over the last decades, developed countries have been coping with the environmental challenge posed by increasing consumption levels, which came with increasing municipal waste generation. According to the European Commission (2010), 6 tonnes of municipal waste per capita are produced annually in the EU-27. In this light, the role played by waste management operations has become increasingly central since waste may negatively impact the environment, contribute to climate change, and lead to a significant loss of raw materials. Historically, waste was treated following the linear economy principles: production, consumption and disposal (Ness 2008). In this economic model, waste is disposed of in landfills or treated through incineration (without energy recovery). These options present many potential adverse impacts on the environment and public health. For example, landfilling may generate methane and explosions or release chemicals (such as heavy metals), resulting in leachate run-offs and contaminating local groundwater, surface water and soil (European Commission 2010). Addressing these critical issues requires treating waste as a resource. European Commission aims to shift towards a circular economy model where waste is reduced, recycled or reused (EC 2014, 2018). In this view, waste is not considered as something to be thrown away but rather as a secondary source of raw materials, © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Agovino, M. Gaetano, EU Waste Regulation in a Linear-Circular Economy Transition, SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28103-7_3

23

24

3 The Transition from Linear to Circular Economy Induced by Waste. . .

bringing benefits to both the environment and the economy (Cecere and Corrocher 2016). Separate waste collection (SWC) is the tool that allows EU Member States to transition towards circular economy model goals. Once the waste is sorted and collected, it may be treated by methods that produce energy, recycled materials, or compost. Over the years, the EU has introduced extensive waste management regulations (highlighted in Chap. 2), followed by specific national regulations to promote the transition from a linear to a circular economy. From a scientific point of view, a key question pertains to evaluating the effectiveness of EU directives and their implementation across Member States. This chapter’s objective is twofold. First, it gauges the effects of the main European Directives (i.e. 1999/31/EC and 2008/98/EC) in promoting the adoption of waste treatment methods consistent with the circular economy. Second, the reception of EU guidelines in Member States is evaluated focusing on the Italian case and analysing the effects of its main national regulations (i.e. L.D. 22/1997 and L.D. 152/2006) on adopting circular economy-related methods. The main issue that may arise is related to the socio-economic differences that characterise the Member States and, within them, their macro-areas. Establishing a regulatory framework consistent with the circular economy by introducing thresholds for landfilling and SWC might be insufficient without indicating the path to achieve them and without considering the economic, infrastructural, institutional, social, and demographic disparities that characterise territories. After defining linear economy treatment methods (i.e. landfill, incineration, and co-incineration) and circular economy treatment methods (i.e. energy recovery, recycling of materials, composting, mechanical biological treatment, anaerobic digestion, and aerobic and anaerobic treatment), we resort to Shift-and-Share Analysis (SSA) to jointly capture the effects of regulations and socio-economic characteristics on adherence to circular economy principles. This chapter is organised as follows. Section 3.2 shows some stylised facts focusing on the time series of landfill disposal and SWC in light of the thresholds set by EU and Italian regulations. Section 3.3 presents the methods used in the analysis. Section 3.4 illustrates the data. Section 3.5 discusses the empirical findings for Europe (Sect. 3.5.1) and Italy (Sect. 3.5.2), respectively. Section 3.6 and the Appendix conclude the chapter.

3.2

Stylised Facts

Chapter 2 highlighted the time path towards a comprehensive European regulatory framework to encourage sustainable development and promote the transition from a linear to a circular economy. In particular, the Waste Management Directive (1999/31/EC) on landfill and the Waste Management Framework (2008/98/EC) represented major policy changes at the EU level. These directives required Member States to adopt waste management plans targeting landfill disposal reduction and the

3.2

Stylised Facts

25

SWC operations’ enhancement. Italy incorporated these principles through L.D. 22/1997 and L.D. 156/2006. Figure 3.1 shows the time series of landfill disposal percentage in the EU Member States from 1995 to 2018, considering the thresholds set by Directive 1999/31/EC.

a 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

75% by 2001

50% by 2009

19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 9 20 9 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08 20 09 20 10 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18

35% by 2016

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

Latvia

Lithuania

Sweden

EU

Northern EU

b 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

75% by 2001

50% by 2009

19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 9 20 9 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08 20 09 20 10 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18

35% by 2016

Bulgaria

Croatia

Czechia

Hungary

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

EU

Central and Eastern EU Fig. 3.1 Time series of landfill disposal. Europe, 1995–2018

Poland

26

3

The Transition from Linear to Circular Economy Induced by Waste. . .

c 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

75% by 2001

50% by 2009

19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 9 20 9 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08 20 09 20 10 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18

35% by 2016

Austria Luxemburg

Belgium Netherlands

France United Kingdom

Germany EU

Ireland

Western EU

d 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75%

75% by 2001

70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

50% by 2009

19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 0 20 0 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08 20 09 20 10 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18

35% by 2016

Cyprus

Greece

Italy

Malta

Portugal

Spain

EU

Southern EU Fig. 3.1 (continued)

The thresholds consist of a maximum of 75% of waste disposed of in landfill by 2001, a maximum of 50% by 2009 and 35% by 2016. Figure 3.2 shows the SWC time series compared to the threshold established by Directive 2008/98/EC (50% by

3.2

Stylised Facts

27

2020). We group the Member States according to the EuroVoc classification.1 Northern EU countries (in Figs. 3.1a and 3.2a: Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia,

a 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 9 20 9 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08 20 09 20 10 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18

50% by 2020

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

Latvia

Lithuania

Sweden

EU

Northern EU

b 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 9 20 9 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08 20 09 20 10 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18

50% by 2020

Bulgaria

Croatia

Czechia

Hungary

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

EU

Poland

Central and Eastern EU Fig. 3.2 Time series of SWC. Europe, 1995–2018

1

More details are available at the following URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/browse/eurovoc.html?params=72,7206,5781#arrow_5781

28

3

The Transition from Linear to Circular Economy Induced by Waste. . .

c 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 9 20 9 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08 20 09 20 10 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18

50% by 2020

Austria Luxemburg

Belgium Netherlands

France United Kingdom

Germany EU

Ireland

Western EU

d 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 0 20 0 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08 20 09 20 10 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18

50% by 2020

Cyprus

Greece

Italy

Malta

Portugal

Spain

EU

Southern EU Fig. 3.2 (continued)

Lithuania, and Sweden) feature virtuous behaviours. In particular, Denmark and Sweden stand out for virtuosity. Their landfill shares are always well below the European average and the Directive thresholds. Moreover, from 2010 onwards, their landfill shares approached zero, while their SWC shares were close to 100%. Finland and Estonia are examples of virtuosity, albeit not constant over time. These countries

3.3

The Shift and Share Analysis

29

exceeded the thresholds well in advance for landfill and SWC since they were above the EU trend for a decade. Also Western European countries generally feature good results (Figs. 3.1c and 3.2c: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxemburg, Netherlands, and the United Kingdom). They managed to achieve the landfill and SWC objectives set by European regulations. Austria and Belgium were particularly successful in landfill (SWC), approaching zero (100%). The worst results are observed for Central and Eastern European countries (Figs. 3.1b and 3.2b: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia). Except for Slovenia – featuring good results for both landfill and SWC – all countries missed the 35% target set for the landfill in 2016, while Poland, Hungary, and Czechia barely reached the SWC target. Finally, Southern countries (Figs. 3.1d and 3.2d: Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal, and Spain) show poor results. Italy is a good exception since it improved its results significantly throughout the timespan. While the country was in line with the other Member States of this group at the beginning of the analysis period, its performance improved steeply. As a result, Italy met the EU goals with relative timeliness (landfill below 35% in 2016 and SWC above 50% in 2010). Figure 3.3 depicts the time series of landfill and SWC in Italian macro-areas and the thresholds set by the national normative. Regarding landfill, the thresholds are 173 Kg/pc by 2008, 115 Kg/pc by 2011, and 81 Kg/pc by 2018. For SWC, they are: no less than 15% by 1999, 25% by 2001, 35% by 2003/2006 (it is the higher threshold in L.D. 22/1997 and the lower in L.D. 152/2006), 45% by 2008, and 65% by 2012. The leading role of the Northern macro-area emerges, with performances well beyond the national average in both landfill and SWC. Moreover, it is the only macro-area that managed to meet the goals imposed by the normative framework. Figure 3.3 highlights how Northern Italy anticipated the objectives set by a few years and achieved particularly high SWC levels, close to 70%. Central and Southern Italy failed to meet the thresholds for both landfill and SWC. They performed better in SWC, with percentages above 50%, than in the reduction of landfill disposal, as they still had not reached the 2011 target in 2019.

3.3

The Shift and Share Analysis

Shift-and-Share Analysis (SSA) allows the breakdown of the growth rate of a phenomenon that occurs within a territorial unit (TU) into three components: a trend component, a structural component, and a local component. Introduced by Dunn (Dunn Jr 1960), it has been used extensively for economic analyses, such as the decomposition of the employment growth rate, to separate the contribution due to the sector mix of production from that of other local development factors (Bracalente 1991). In this book, we apply the SSA in the field of waste management studies. In particular, we consider two different areas of analysis: (1) European countries; (2) Italian macro-areas (i.e., North, Centre, and South). Formally, the growth rate of a phenomenon in a TU between time t and time t - 1 may be decomposed according to the following formulation (Dunn Jr 1960):

30

3

The Transition from Linear to Circular Economy Induced by Waste. . .

a 475 450 425 400 375 350 325 300 275 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0

173 Kg/pc by 2008 115 Kg/pc by 2011

20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08 20 09 20 10 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19

81 Kg/pc by 2018

Northern Italy

Central Italy

Southern Italy

Italy

Landfill b 75% 70% 65% 60%

65% by 2012

55% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5%

45% by 2008 35% by 2003/2006 25% by 2001 15% by 1999

19 96 19 97 19 98 19 9 20 9 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08 20 09 20 10 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 1 20 8 19

0%

Northern Italy

Central Italy

Southern Italy

Italy

SWC Fig. 3.3 Time series of landfill disposal and SWC. Italy, 2002–2019

gr: =

N N X X Δxr: x x = g:: þ ðg:i - g:: Þ ri þ ðgri- g:i Þ ri xr: x x r: r: i=1 i=1

ð3:1Þ

where x is the phenomenon of interest, i.e. in our case the total waste treated. r identifies the TU, that is, European Member States (or Italian macro-areas).

3.3

The Shift and Share Analysis

31

i indicates the waste management method, such as landfill, incineration, energy recovery, recycling of materials and composting and digestion, and so on. gr. is the variation rate of the parameter of interest (total waste). Applying SSA in the context of waste management studies entails a different interpretation of the components with respect to what is usually done in the studies on classical economic phenomena. In this context, and considering the European Member States as units of analysis, the decomposition obtained through Eq. (3.1) yields three components whose interpretation is the following: 1. g. is the trend component. It represents the growth rate of the whole European territory. We identify this component as the Continental Share. In greater detail, the growth rate of total waste in a European country is primarily influenced by the growth rate of the whole EU (continental share). For example, the change in the growth rate of total waste in Italy is driven by the change in the EU growth rate. N P ðg:i - g: Þ xxr:ri represents the structural component. It can be interpreted as a 2. i=1

measure of specialisation, as it expresses the local contribution of the mix of waste management techniques. We identify this component as the Treatment Mix. It indicates how the growth rate depends on the different mix of waste management methods of a Member State compared to the average EU trend. In other words, the treatment mix measures the effect of the greater (lesser) presence in a country of treatment methodologies that are the fastest growing in the EU (Faramondi 2007). In our context, this component can be interpreted as the effect of national waste planning in promoting, on the one hand, the reduction of waste production and, on the other hand, the use of virtuous and environmentally respectful management techniques (i.e. circular economy methods). For example, it is desirable that Member States plan to reduce the waste disposed of in landfills and increase the share of waste recovered through recycling materials or used to produce energy. In this perspective, it is of primary importance that national regulations aim at increasing the share of SWC, which will then be disposed of or treated using circular economy methods. N P ðgri- g:i Þ xxr:ri is the local component. It measures the growth differentials, for 3. i=1

each treatment method, between each Member State and the EU as a whole. In other words, it represents all the local contributions that cannot be attributed to the treatment mix. Since this is a measure of the peculiarities of individual countries, we identify this component as National Shift. The ability to achieve the objectives set by European directives and national regulations depends on the local specificities that characterise each Member State. That is, the national shift captures the part of the growth rate due to the national socio-economic and demographic characteristics. Country characteristics have been widely recognised as drivers of waste management performance. The previous literature has identified some key variables among the driving forces of waste management, including economic prosperity, usually measured through value added or unemployment rate (D’Amato et al. 2015), education level (Zhang et al. 2011), institutional quality

32

3

The Transition from Linear to Circular Economy Induced by Waste. . .

(Agovino et al. 2019a), and pro-environmental motivations (Agovino et al. 2019b). For example, countries with greater economic resources or high-quality governments may be able to implement more modern and expensive treatment methodologies, thus facilitating the transformation of waste into resources. Based on the above, this component measures the competitiveness of Member States in adopting circular economy methods. Considering the Italian macro-areas as units of analysis, the interpretation of SSA results is the same as in the European case. We introduce only two terminological differences to better fit the output with the units under analysis: (1) we refer to the Continental Share component as the National Share component. This label is more appropriate since the component measures the Italian national trend; (2) the National Shift becomes the Regional Shift component since it represents the local component capturing the competitiveness of Italian macro-areas. The Treatment mix label remains unchanged (it measures the specialisation of Italian macro-areas). Based on SSA, we define the specialisation-competitiveness matrix (Fig. 3.4). It classifies Member States (Italian macro-areas) according to the growth rates of circular/linear economy methods in treatment mix (specialisation) and national shift (competitiveness). For example, suppose the specialisation component of Italy features a growth in circular economy methods and a simultaneous drop in linear economy methods. In that case, we can classify Italy as a country characterised by a high circular economy specialisation. Four groups of Member States (Italian macro-areas) can be distinguished: 1. High linear economy specialisation and competitiveness. Member States (Italian macro-areas) in this group feature an increase (decrease) in linear (circular)

Fig. 3.4 Specialisation-competitiveness matrix

3.4

Data

33

economy methods in the treatment mix and national shift components. This is the worst-case scenario; 2. High circular economy specialisation and high linear economy competitiveness. This group includes Member States (Italian macro-areas) displaying an increase in circular economy methods in the specialisation component with a simultaneous decrease in linear economy methods. The contrary is true of competitiveness. This is a mixed scenario; 3. High circular economy specialisation and competitiveness. In treatment mix and national shift, circular economy methods increase and linear economy methods decrease. This is the desirable scenario. 4. High linear economy specialisation and high circular economy competitiveness. Similar to group (2) but the circular (linear) economy methods increase (decrease) in the competitiveness component. As in the case of group (2), this is a mixed scenario.

3.4

Data

In this chapter, we carry out two Shift-and-Share Analyses (SSAs). In the first analysis, we decompose the variation of the total waste treated in the EU using as units of analysis 28 Member States (Fig. 3.5a). The data source for this analysis is EUROSTAT and the reference period is 1995–2018. In the second analysis, we focus on Italy, particularly its three macro-areas, i.e. Northern, Central, and Southern Italy (Fig. 3.5b). Italian data are drawn from ISTAT (the Italian National Institute of Statistics) and ISPRA (the Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research) and cover the 1995–2019 timespan. Although the data sources of the two analyses are different, comparability is guaranteed since data for each country are collected following the definitions from the OECD/Eurostat Joint Questionnaire – section waste.2 In particular, data quality assurance is a joint responsibility of the Member States and Eurostat. The Member States collect data and describe their sources and methods in a quality report. Eurostat can make cross-country comparisons and discuss the issue of comparability with the Member States. Concepts, classifications and formats are agreed upon between Eurostat and the Member States. Countries remain free to choose the sources and collection methods that fit them best. Eurostat validates the data in close cooperation with the competent Authorities of each Member State. Eurostat validation routines include checks related to consistency, plausibility, and development over time. Clarification requests are sent to 2

• •

For details see the documents available at the following url: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/342366/351811/Municipal+Waste+guidance/bd38a44 9-7d30-44b6-a39f-8a20a9e67af2 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/342366/351811/Guidance+on+municipal+waste+data +collection/

34

3

The Transition from Linear to Circular Economy Induced by Waste. . .

Fig. 3.5 European countries (a) and Italian macro-areas (b)

countries in case of need. Methodology reports from countries are consulted during the validation process. Albeit in an environment of full comparability, European (first SSA) and Italian (second SSA) data are released with some differences. For the analysis of EU countries, we resort to information on the amounts of total waste treated (TW) and treatment techniques, i.e. landfill (L), incineration (I), energy recovery (ER), recycling of materials (RM), and composting and anaerobic digestion (CAD). According to Mazzanti and Zoboli (2009), the following mass balance equation should be considered: TW = L þ I þ ER þ RM þ CAD

ð3:2Þ

The municipal waste treated (TW) is mainly produced by households, but similar waste from sources such as businesses, offices and public institutions is included. This definition excludes agriculture, industrial plants, construction, and demolition waste. The variable is expressed in kilograms per capita so that the national amounts of waste generated and treated are divided by the average population of the reference year. According to the OECD/Eurostat Joint Questionnaire, municipal waste includes the following materials: paper, paperboard and paper products, plastics, glass, metals, food and garden waste and textiles. The definition also includes bulky waste (e.g. white goods, old furniture, mattresses), garden waste, leaves, grass clippings, street sweepings, the content of litter containers and market cleansing waste (if managed as waste).

3.4

Data

35

As stated above, municipal waste is treated through several management techniques. We can classify them into two main macro categories: (1) linear economy methods, namely landfilling and incineration. These techniques are associated with the old paradigms according to which goods become waste after use; (2) circular economy methods, i.e. energy recovery, recycling of materials, composting and anaerobic digestion. They allow for the reuse, in some form, of products discarded. The treatment methods are defined as follows: 1. Landfill (L) is defined as the deposit of waste into or onto land. This category also includes specially engineered landfills and temporary storage of over one year on permanent sites. Both internal sites and external sites are considered (EEC 1999; European Parliament and Council 2018). The facilities where waste is unloaded to prepare it for further transport in view of recovery, treatment or disposal are excluded. Similarly, are excluded: sites for storing waste before recovery or treatment lasting under three years; storage of waste before disposal for a period below one year (EEC 1999; European Parliament and Council 2018). 2. Incineration (I) represents the thermal treatment of waste in incinerators, or co-incineration plants, as defined by Directive 2000/76/EC (European Parliament and Council 2000). 3. Energy recovery (ER) is defined as a type of incineration that fulfils the energy efficiency criteria laid down in the Waste Framework Directive, i.e. Directive 2008/98/EC (European Commission 2008). 4. Recycling of materials (RM) indicates any recovery operation by which waste is reprocessed into products, materials or substances for either the original purpose or other purposes. According to the Waste Framework Directive, recycling includes reprocessing organic materials, but not energy recovery or reprocessing into fuel or materials for backfilling operations (European Commission 2008). 5. Composting and anaerobic digestion (CAD) are processes of biological decomposition of biodegradable waste under controlled aerobic (composting) or anaerobic conditions. These operations may be classified as recycling when the resulting compost is used on land or for growing media production (Darwin 2008). For the analysis of Italian macro areas, data are released according to the following mass balance equation (Mazzanti and Zoboli 2009): TW = L þ I þ CI þ MBT þ AD þ AAT þ C

ð3:3Þ

where TW is the total waste treated. L, I, and CI represent landfill disposal, incineration, and co-incineration, respectively. These techniques belong to linear economy methods. The circular economy methods include mechanical biological treatment (MBT), anaerobic digestion (AD), aerobic and anaerobic treatment (AAT) and composting (C). While ISTAT and ISPRA report data for Italian macro-areas with a different disaggregation with respect to Eurostat, the definitions of treatment methods are the same as those described for the European SSA (for instance, in the EU case the definition of incineration also includes co-incineration).

36

3.5

3

The Transition from Linear to Circular Economy Induced by Waste. . .

Empirical Results

The main question addressed by this sections – and the Sects. 3.5.1 and 3.5.2 – is whether the growth rates of total waste are mainly attributable to the treatment mix (the waste management plans of individual Member States) or the national shift (i.e. national socio-economic characteristics). In particular, we focus on the role of Italy in comparison to the other EU countries, aiming to answer the following research questions: 1. How much do social, economic and demographic characteristics influence the waste management performance of EU countries? 2. How does Italy perform with respect to the other EU countries? 3. Do performance differences depend on the marginal role of the central government in waste management and on the vast power granted to the regions, provinces, and municipalities? 4. Could heterogeneous regional plans have caused problems in the organisation of waste management operations?

3.5.1

The European Case

Following the chronological sketch shown in Chap. 2, we perform two SSAs splitting the reference period of analysis according to the main legislative events that shaped the framework under which EU countries operated between 1995 and 2018. According to EU reforms and directives, we split the timespan of analysis into two periods: 1. Period I, spanning from 1995 to 2008. In this period, the EU set the bases of its environmental regulation and started regulating packaging-based waste, electronic waste and the resort to landfill disposal. At the same time, the role of SWC remained marginal. This period ends just before the introduction of one of the most important waste management Directives, i.e. Directive 2008/98/EC. 2. Period II, spanning from 2009 to 2018. SSA mainly captures the effects of the Waste Management Framework (2008/98/EC), which introduced the waste hierarchy and assigned a pivotal role to SWC. This Directive deeply affected the regulatory framework, but other directives were also introduced, including, among others, the packaging and electronic waste. Period II ends with the introduction of the new Waste Management Framework (Directive 2018/851/UE) and the new landfill Directive (Directive 2018/850/UE). Unfortunately, due to a lack of data, we cannot assess the effect of these reforms on the growth rates of total waste within the EU. In both period I and period II, EU guidelines influenced the waste management techniques (i.e. incineration, energy recovery, recycling, composting and anaerobic digestion) employed to reach the thresholds set by the European Commission.

3.5

Empirical Results

37

In the SSAs, we decompose the total waste variations in the three components – namely continental share, treatment mix, and national shift – considering the role played by waste management techniques. Figure 3.6 shows the results of SSA in Period I (a), the territorial quantile distribution of the treatment mix (b) and the national shift (c). As highlighted in the previous Section, we briefly report the interpretation of the SSA components in the context of waste management studies: 1. The continental share represents the trend component capturing the growth rate of the whole EU territory; 2. The treatment mix measures specialisation in terms of waste management techniques, capturing the effect of national plans in promoting virtuous and environmentally respectful management techniques; 3. The national shift is the local component and a measure of the competitiveness of countries. It accounts for the socio-economic characteristics of Member States. Moreover, regarding the treatment mix, the Member States featuring positive values are characterised by specialisation. Negative values denote diversification in treatment structure. For the national shift component, positive (negative) values denote countries’ higher (lower) competitiveness with respect to the EU. That is, in quantile maps, the higher the quantiles, the higher the country’s specialisation (competitiveness). In the waste management context, specialisation/diversification is not a good/ bad feature per se. It is of primary importance to analyse the contribution of each management method to the treatment mix to identify a prevalence of techniques oriented to the circular economy (i.e. energy recovery, recycling of materials, composting and digestion) or the linear economy (i.e. landfills, incineration). Similarly, we check whether circular or linear economy methods drive competitiveness for the national shift. A first interesting point emerging among SSA results for Period I is that total waste increased (as proved by the positive growth rates) in almost all EU countries (the blue bar in Fig. 3.6a). Notable exceptions are Germany and some Eastern European countries. This result is not surprising since, in the 1995–2008 period, the EU was moving the first steps in defining its waste management framework. The importance of the zero-waste principle and the concepts of reuse and recycle were not yet at the centre of the agenda. In other words, linear economy models were still prevalent in this period. Products and materials were still meant to be disposed of as waste after use. Nevertheless, during this period, the EU focused on reducing landfill disposal through Directive 1999/31/EC, yielding indirect benefits to separate collection and associated management techniques. The treatment mix component (the grey bar in Fig. 3.6a) provides evidence of the impact of this Directive on the national management plans and, in turn, on their degree of specialisation. In general, only some countries of Northern and Central Europe are characterised by specialisation (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Luxemburg and Sweden), while the other countries exhibit a pattern of diversification. These results are inconclusive since a country might specialise in linear economy-related methods or diversify, embracing various techniques linked to circular economic paradigms.

38

3

The Transition from Linear to Circular Economy Induced by Waste. . .

Fig. 3.6 SSA results (a). Territorial quantile distribution of treatment mix (b) and national shift (c). Europe, 1995–2008

3.5

Empirical Results

39

In this view, the key aspect is to understand whether national plans in the 1995–2008 period at least laid the foundations for a circular economy orientation or whether the linear model was still predominant. To this end, Fig. 3.7f highlights the role of each treatment method in determining the treatment mix component. The UK represents an example of the good effects of diversification. According to the Waste Management Act, entered into force in 1996 (n. 634 of 1996), each local authority defined a waste management plan aimed at the prevention, minimisation, collection, recovery and disposal of non-hazardous waste. In particular, these plans were based on some principles: to prevent or minimise the production or harmful nature of waste, to encourage and support the recovery of waste, to ensure that waste that cannot be prevented or recovered is disposed of without causing environmental pollution, to introduce the polluter pays principle. The Act was amended in 2001 to incorporate the 1999 EU Landfill Directive. The Waste Management Act 2001 (n. 36 of 2001) established the “Environment Fund” to support waste prevention and reduction schemes.3 The territorial quantile distribution of the landfill component of the treatment mix (Fig. 3.7a) highlights that in some Eastern and Mediterranean countries, mainly characterised by diversification, the decrease in landfill disposal reached the highest levels, indicating a good planning phase. The results linked to national shift (yellow bar in Fig. 3.6a) highlight a reverse picture with respect to the treatment mix. As a first consideration, most countries seem to present higher competitiveness compared to the EU as a whole. The least competitive group includes some Central and Northern countries (the Netherlands, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany and Sweden) (Fig. 3.6c). As in the case of the treatment mix, it is difficult to interpret this result since linear economy methods, such as landfill disposal, may as well drive competitiveness. Naturally, this is not an ideal scenario. A clear example is Finland. While the country shows higher competitiveness with respect to the EU, this result is mainly due to linear economy methods. In other words, landfill disposal and incineration in Finland grew faster than in the rest of the EU. Conversely, Finland was less competitive in terms of circular economy methods. This is the typical scenario to avoid. Belgium represents an interesting case. The country’s national shift performance is clearly traceable to circular economy principles, as it reduced landfilling and incineration while increasing energy recovery, recycling of materials, and composting/digestion (Fig. 3.8f). Directive 99/31/EC required drops in landfilling, but the effort to increase recycling-based methods places Belgium as a benchmark country, at least during Period I. In other words, the ability of the country to implement cutting-edge collection methods and the commitment of Belgian people towards environmental issues allows for classifying the country as the most oriented to the circular economy. Italy shows noticeable results in the treatment mix and the national shift component. This can be

3

More details on Waste Management Act can be found at the following url: 1996: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/634/contents/made 2001: https://leap.unep.org/countries/ie/national-legislation/waste-management-amendment-act2001-no-36-2001

40

3

The Transition from Linear to Circular Economy Induced by Waste. . .

Landfill

a

b Incineration

c Energy Recovery

d Recycling - Materials e Recycling - Composting and Digestion

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 f Treatment mix by management techniques 0,7 0,5 0,3 0,1 –0,1 –0,3 UK

Sweden

Spain

Slovenia

Slovakia

Romania

Portugal

Poland

Netherlands

Recycling - Materials

Malta

Lithuania

Latvia

Italy

Ireland

Energy Recovery

Hungary

Greece

Germany

France

Finland

Estonia

Incineration

Denmark

Czechia

Cyprus

Croatia

Landfill

Bulgaria

Belgium

Austria

–0,5

Recycling - composting and digestion

Fig. 3.7 Treatment mix, management techniques variations by quantile (a–e), and relative variations (f). Europe, 1995–2008

explained at two interconnected levels. At the administrative level, the Italian government introduced L.D. 22/1997 (the Ronchi Decree) during Period I, which mainly oriented national waste management plans towards reducing landfill disposal. This planning change led to a significant reduction in landfilling, proving a good reception of the EU guidelines (Fig. 3.7f). Moreover, SWC-related achievements were foreseen in L.D. 22/1997, leading to a specialisation in methods related

3.5

Empirical Results

a

Landfill

41

b Incineration

c Energy Recovery

d Recycling - Materials e Recycling - Composting and Digestion

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 f National shift by management techniques 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 –0,2 –0,4 –0,6 UK

Sweden

Spain

Slovenia

Slovakia

Romania

Portugal

Poland

Netherlands

Malta

Recycling - Materials

Luxembourg

Lithuania

Latvia

Italy

Ireland

Hungary

Energy Recovery

Greece

Germany

France

Finland

Estonia

Incineration

Denmark

Czechia

Cyprus

Croatia

Landfill

Bulgaria

Belgium

Austria

–0,8

Recycling - composting and digestion

Fig. 3.8 National shift, management techniques variations by quantile (a–e), and relative variations (f). Europe, 1995–2008

to the circular economy (in particular, recycling of materials and energy recovery). At the socio-economic level, Italy shows a high circular economy competitiveness (Fig. 3.8f). It seems that the country was developing the right synergy between societal awareness of environmental issues and the enhancement of the availability of separate collection methods. Figure 3.9 shows the results of SSA in Period II (a), the territorial quantile distribution of the treatment mix (b), and the national shift (c). The first relevant difference from the SSA results of Period I is the decreasing trend of total waste generated in many Member States. This important result is not surprising since

42

3 The Transition from Linear to Circular Economy Induced by Waste. . .

Period II covers the 2009–2018 timespan, during which the EU strongly defined its waste management framework. The effects of Directive 2008/98/EC spread throughout the period of analysis, influencing national policies through the waste hierarchy principle and the 50% SWC minimum threshold set for 2020. As evidence of the change in European trend, the continental share (orange bar in Fig. 3.9a) is slightly negative, marking another relevant difference with the previous SSA. Looking at the whole picture, clear examples of the improvement are, among others, Italy, Hungary, Ireland, and Slovenia. Moreover, two interesting considerations emerge: First, Belgium, the benchmark country in Period I, worsened its performance in the national shift component, highlighting lower competitiveness in all circular economy-related treatment techniques. Second, many countries feature a mixed pattern in terms of treatment mix and national shift. Clear examples are Portugal, the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK. These countries share a decreasing trend in the total waste generated and a significant extent of specialisation but low competitiveness in circular economy methods. Interesting cases are Hungary, Ireland, and Slovenia (likely the benchmark countries for Period II) since their drops in total waste decrease are due to the combined effect of continental share and, more substantially, treatment mix and national shift. This means that these countries managed to match a regulatory framework capable of receiving EU guidelines with a socio-economic context in which citizens and administrations developed the necessary cooperation degree (made of pro-environmental attitudes and management and control of collection activities) to achieve the virtuous results highlighted by SSA. Focusing on the role played by waste management methods in treatment mix, and national shift (Figs. 3.10f and 3.11f, respectively), the decrease in waste generation was essentially due to landfilling and recycling of materials. Focusing on the national shift, the scenario looks even more oriented to the circular economy. While the socio-economic context has helped the diffusion of pro-environmental methodologies in Hungary and Ireland (energy recovery and recycling of materials), Slovenia emerges as the most virtuous country, thanks to the pivotal role played by all the ‘green’ treatment methods (energy recovery, recycling of materials and composting/digestion). The results of these three countries are very interesting since they highlight the role of citizen engagement and effective administration, which seems to be more decisive than the regulatory environment in which they operate. Regarding Italy, it shows overall satisfactory results. Total waste generation decreased, with a contribution of all three components (Fig. 3.9a). As obvious, the continental share has followed the EU trend. The contribution of treatment mix and national shift is quite balanced, but their comparison highlights a slight edge of the regulatory framework. This result is remarkable since the SSA results in Period II capture a relevant share of the effects of L.D. 152/2006 and its subsequent modifications. As stated in Sect. 2.2, the Italian regulatory framework of the time placed great emphasis on enhancing SWC by setting a minimum of 65% for 2012 and implementing a series of incentives/penalties linked to SWC/landfilling. As expected, these measures led to a relevant diffusion of pro-environmental methods (energy recovery, recycling of materials, and composting/digestion) and a significant reduction in landfill disposal, as confirmed by Fig. 3.10f. This highlights a planning

3.5

Empirical Results

Fig. 3.9 Territorial quantile distribution of treatment mix (b) and national shift (c). Europe, 2009–2018

43

44

The Transition from Linear to Circular Economy Induced by Waste. . .

3

a Landfill

b Incineration

c Energy Recovery

d Recycling - Materials e Recycling - Composting and Digestion

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 f Treatment mix by management techniques 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0 –0,1 –0,2 –0,3 UK

Sweden

Spain

Slovenia

Slovakia

Romania

Portugal

Poland

Netherlands

Recycling - Materials

Malta

Luxembourg

Lithuania

Latvia

Italy

Ireland

Energy Recovery

Hungary

Greece

Germany

France

Finland

Incineration

Estonia

Denmark

Czechia

Cyprus

Landfill

Croatia

Bulgaria

Belgium

Austria

–0,4

Recycling - composting and digestion

Fig. 3.10 Treatment mix, management techniques variations by quantile (a–e), and relative variations (f). Europe, 2009–2018

phase that seems to care about how the separate waste is recovered/treated. The scenario does not change significantly when looking at the contributions of the different methods to the national shift component (Fig. 3.11f). Also, landfill disposal plays a relevant role in this case, but Italy shows high competitiveness in recycling materials and composting/digestion. Unlike what happened in the planning phase, energy recovery is an area of weakness. In summary, the results achieved in Italy feature a significant balance between national planning and socio-economic context in the field of waste management, in line with what emerged in the SSA results for Period I. Besides the introduction of L.D. 152/2006, the general improvement of the

3.5

Empirical Results

45

a Landfill

b Incineration

c Energy Recovery

d Recycling - Materials e Recycling - Composting and Digestion

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 f National shift by management techniques 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0 –0,1 –0,2 –0,3 UK

Sweden

Spain

Slovenia

Slovakia

Romania

Portugal

Poland

Recycling - Materials

Netherlands

Malta

Luxembourg

Lithuania

Latvia

Italy

Ireland

Energy Recovery

Hungary

Greece

Germany

France

Finland

Incineration

Estonia

Denmark

Czechia

Cyprus

Landfill

Croatia

Bulgaria

Belgium

Austria

–0,4

Recycling - composting and digestion

Fig. 3.11 National shift, management techniques variations by quantile (a–e), and relative variations (f). Europe, 2009–2018

circular economy orientation seems to be explained by the use of innovative collection methods, such as the door-to-door collection (DtD), Pay-As-You-Throw schemes (PAYT) and the increased environmental literacy (fueled by the social transmission process, see Bucciol et al. 2015; Agovino et al. 2019b). Figure 3.12 summarises the distribution of Member States in terms of circular and linear economy specialisation/competitiveness in the two analysis periods. The SSAs results answer the following research question of this book: How does Italy perform with respect to the other EU countries? In both periods, Italy seems to perform in line with the best-performing countries, sharing their trend in terms of waste generated, treatment mix, and national shift. In brief, the proposed analyses

46

The Transition from Linear to Circular Economy Induced by Waste. . .

3

a

Specialisation Circular Economy

Linear Economy Circular Economy

Competitiveness

Linear Economy

Bulgaria

Greece

Lithuania

Austria

Germany

Portugal

Croatia

Hungary

Poland

Denmark

Luxemburg

Slovakia

Cyprus

Ireland

Romania

Finland

Malta

Spain

Czechia

Latvia

France

Netherlands

Sweden

Estonia

Slovenia

Belgium

Italy

United Kingdom

Period I: 1995 - 2008

b

Specialisation

Linear Economy Circular Economy

Competitiveness

Linear Economy

Circular Economy

Bulgaria

Latvia

Austria

France

Slovakia

Croatia

Malta

Belgium

Germany

Spain

Cyprus

Romania

Czechia

Netherlands

Sweden

Denmark

Portugal

United Kingdom

Greece

Lithuania

Poland

Estonia

Italy

Finland

Luxemburg

Hungary

Slovenia

Ireland

Period II: 2009 - 2018

Fig. 3.12 Specialisation-competitiveness matrix, Europe

highlight two main points: (1) the pivotal role of national planification in the 1995–2008 period in Italy and most EU countries, but a widespread growth of waste generated. However, Italy lies far away from the benchmark country (Belgium) in terms of the effect on waste management of both planning and socioeconomic context; (2) the treatment mix is a key component in the 2009–2018 period, leading to a clear drop in waste generation both in Italy and in the EU. With respect to the benchmark countries of Period II, Italy is very close to Hungary and Ireland but not as much to Slovenia. For these countries, the negative variation in

3.5

Empirical Results

47

total waste is mainly due to the specialisation in circular economy-related methods, while their contribution is mixed in terms of competitiveness. Hungary and Italy, in particular, are less competitive in energy recovery, while Ireland is less competitive in recycling materials. Comparing Italy with Slovenia reveals a weak balance between national planning and socio-economic context. Although the Italian results seem encouraging, it is important to highlight the existence of great disparities within the country (Mazzanti et al. 2008; Musella et al. 2019). Since the national results could be driven by the positive performance of the Northern macro-area (see Fig. 3.3), the case of Italy deserves a deeper analysis.

3.5.2

The Italian Case

The previous Section analysed the performance of the EU Member States between 1995 and 2018, highlighting the positioning of Italy compared to other countries. A positive performance emerges for Italy in terms of growth rates and a strong tendency toward the circular economy principles. However, the empirical literature on waste management in Italy points to a relevant territorial divide characterising the country’s macro-areas. Mazzanti et al. (2009a, b) show a clear division. On the one side, Northern Italy displays good results. On the other side, Southern regions feature poor performances in landfill disposal, incineration and, more markedly, SWC. Musella et al. (2019) indicate the difficulties of Southern Italy in pursuing a virtuous waste management system and the persistence of a significant territorial gap in terms of SWC. On this bases, we carry out an analysis of Italian macro-areas, aiming to investigate: (1) the existence of territorial divides in terms of total waste and growth rates of linear/circular economy-related management techniques; (2) whether the potential differences are due to the marginal presence of the central government; (3) whether the autonomy of regions in defining regional plans could exacerbate the differences among Italian macro-areas. As in the case of Europe, we conduct two SSAs by dividing the period of analysis according to the two major reforms that shaped the regulatory framework in Italy. In particular: (1) Period I: 1997–2006. This SSA captures the entire period during which L.D. 22/1997 (the Ronchi Decree) was in force. As already stated, this reform aimed to reduce landfill disposal, set the basis for SWC improvements and confirm the administrative hierarchy in waste management competencies. L.D. 22/1997 was developed in the wake of the European Guidelines emanated under Directive 1999/ 31/EC on landfill disposal. (2) Period II: 2007–2019. The second SSA monitors the effects of L.D. 152/2006 (the Environmental Code) and its amendments, emphasising improvements in SWC. The administrative distribution of competencies remained almost unchanged, with central governments setting guidelines, regions outlining waste management plans, provinces carrying out control operations, and municipalities in charge of the operational phases of collection and disposal. L.D. 152/2006 includes the principles of the European Waste Management Framework (Directive 2008/98/EU).

48

3

The Transition from Linear to Circular Economy Induced by Waste. . .

Data on Italian macro-areas are only available from 2015 to 2019 (ISPRA online dataset4). Consequently, we reconstructed the series backwards through statistical methods of the imputation of missing data. Specifically, we imputed missing the observations for Italian macro-areas from 1997 to 2014 (see the Appendix for further details). As stated in Sect. 3.3, the interpretation of SSA results is the same as in the European case. As a reminder, we introduce only two terminological differences: (1) Continental Share component becomes the National Share component. It measures the Italian national trend; (2) the National Shift becomes the Regional Shift component. It represents the competitiveness of Italian macro-areas. The treatment mix label remains unchanged (as a reminder, it measures the specialisation of Italian macro-areas). The SSA results for Period I show growth for total waste generation in the North and, more sharply, in the South. A significant decrease is observed in the Centre (blue bar in Fig. 3.13a). This result is in line with the European trend of the period and may be justified on the same grounds. Namely, in the presence of a normative framework mainly focused on reducing landfill disposal, the marginal role of SWC and the poor attention to the zero waste principle increased waste generation. While the contribution of the national regulatory environment seems to fail to incentivise the reduction of total waste generation (as proven by the National Share component, the orange bar in Fig. 3.13a), heterogeneity in the planning phase that characterises the Italian macro-areas is captured by the treatment mix component (grey bar in Fig. 3.13a). The treatment mix highlights a marked specialisation in Northern Italy but diversification in Central and Southern Italy. A deeper evaluation of the component reveals the divide among macro-areas. The first point of interest is the clear orientation of the Northern macro-area towards circular economy-related methods. Figure 3.13b indeed shows, on the one side, the reduction of landfill and incineration and, on the other side, the considerable improvement in pro-environmental treatment methods, such as anaerobic digestion, aerobic and anaerobic treatment and composting. Among the circular economy methods, Northern Italy features a low level of specialisation only in mechanical biological treatment. Clearly, the good performance of Northern Italy is related to the historically high pro-environmental efforts of its regions. A clear example is Veneto, which has been the leading region in waste management in Italy over the years (Bucciol et al. 2013; Agovino et al. 2019a). The significant results achieved by Veneto are rooted in history, as the region started proposing regional waste management plans focused not only on landfilling reduction but also on the reuse of materials and energy production from waste in the late 1980s (DCR 785/1988). Several regional plans have been proposed over the years – e.g. LR 3/2000, DGR 597/2000, and DGR 1189/2004 – up to regional plan DGR 59/20045 (ISPRA 2013), which aimed to reduce the amount of 4

The ISPRA online dataset can be found at the following URL: https://www.catasto-rifiuti. isprambiente.it/index.php?pg=&width=2560&height=1441 5 Details on D.G.R. 59/2004 can be found at the following url: https://bur.regione.veneto.it/BurvServices/pubblica/DettaglioDcr.aspx?id=177894#:~:text= Deliberazione%20del%20Consiglio%20Regionale%20n.%2059%20del%2022,comma%204%29. %20%28Proposta%20di%20deliberazione%20amministrativa%20n.%2077%29

Fig. 3.13 SSA results (a), treatment mix (b), and regional shift (c). Italy, 1997 – 2006

50

3 The Transition from Linear to Circular Economy Induced by Waste. . .

waste generated and to increase reuse through: (1) the promotion of information, training and educational campaigns; (2) incentives for the adoption of domestic composting; (3) the reduction of waste produced in offices; (4) campaigns to avoid single-use tableware; (5) the introduction of for prize competitions to actively involve citizens. A clear leading position of the region with respect to the concepts of circular economy and the zero-waste principle emerges, even in comparison with L.D. 22/1997. In this view, the results of Central and Southern Italy seem to simply comply with the national regulations of the time, highlighting a decrease in specialisation in linear economy methods – which is more relevant for landfill than for incineration and co-incineration – and a more limited increase of circular economy related methods. In particular, while the growth of composting is not very far away from that observed in Northen Italy, the increase in AAT is limited. The three macroareas share a lack of specialisation in MBT. The results of the regional shift component are more surprising. In light of the well-documented North-South divide in terms of economic resources (Ballarino et al. 2014), we would expect higher competitiveness of the Northern macro-area in circular economy-related methods. Figure 3.13c depicts a different scenario since Northern Italy is less competitive in almost all circular economy techniques. Considering that North Italy shows a leading position in terms of SWC (Fig. 3.3), the regional shift seems to suggest a shortage in waste treatment facilities related to the valorisation of the relevant amount of SWC carried out in the regions of this macro-area. While Central Italy shares the delay in adopting methods oriented to the circular economy, Southern Italy highlights relevant competitiveness in composting and mechanical biological treatment. Figure 3.14a shows the SSA results for Period II. This analysis period is very interesting since it captures the effects of L.D. 152/2006 and its modifications, an environmental regulatory framework Italy fully developed on the ground of the Waste Management Framework (Directive 2008/98/EC). L.D. 152/2006 incorporates all the circular economy principles, including the prevention and zero-waste goals. In this light, we expect a significant reduction in total waste and adopting circular economy-related methods. However, the growth rates of total waste in Italian macro-areas show an increasing trend in the North and the Centre, while a drop occurs only in Southern Italy. As a preliminary result, it seems that only the Southern macro-area improved its performance with respect to Period I (the North’s growth rate was positive also in the previous period, while Central Italy moved from a decreasing trend to an increasing one in terms of total waste generated). However, evaluating the effects of L.D. 152/2006 requires a deeper investigation to analyse its impact on the degree of specialisation (in circular economy-related techniques) in each macro-area. The treatment mix component provides relevant indications in this regard (Fig. 3.14b). A clear weakness emerges in the planning phase when it comes to promoting circular economy-related techniques across the country’s macro-areas. While Southern Italy shows a relevant specialisation in landfilling and a severe reduction in composting, the North (Centre) specialises in incineration (landfill disposal). In other words, the national regulation seems to fail to promote the circular economy in Italy. As a potential point of weakness, L.D. 152/2006 only sets the thresholds/goals to achieve, leaving excessive freedom to regions on how to reach

Fig. 3.14 SSA results (a), treatment mix (b), and regional shift (c). Italy, 2007–2019

52

3 The Transition from Linear to Circular Economy Induced by Waste. . .

them through regional waste management plans. The efforts put in by the most virtuous regions might as well be overshadowed by the outdated techniques used by the regions still linked to the linear economy principles. In the Southern macro-area, an interesting example is the region of Sardinia, since the local administrations managed to increase the extent of SWC from 9.9% in 2005 to 51% in 2013 (Agovino et al. 2017). This improvement may partly be explained by the enforcement of the regional waste management plan of 2008, which was based on integrated waste management, as prescribed by Directive 2008/98/EC. The plan introduced new collection methods (mainly door-to-door collection). It established a system of monetary rewards and penalties for local administrations: municipalities resorting to landfills over a certain threshold were penalised. In contrast, municipalities that reached high levels of SWC were rewarded. The effectiveness of this instrument is demonstrated by the growing number of municipalities obtaining rewards and by the substantial increase in regional SWC (Agovino et al. 2019a). Albeit an example of circular economy commitment, Sardinia’s story does not emerge from the SSA results of Period II due to the difficulties of the other Southern regions (Musella et al. 2019). In Period II, circular economy efforts are driven by socio-economic characteristics (i.e. the regional shift, Fig. 3.14c). This is another relevant change with respect to Period I, where competitiveness in circular economy methods was very limited for the three macro-areas. In Period II, Southern Italy had lower competitiveness in circular economy-related methods. Northern Italy, instead, is very competitive, mainly in composting and MBT. At the same time, Central Italy is characterised by a mixed output since landfill plays a relevant role jointly with composting, MBT, and AAT. The relevant weight of socio-economic endowment seems to suggest that the national normative should take into account the specificities of Italian macro-areas to favour a waste management system able to pursue the circular economy principles within the whole Italian territory. At present, the wealthier the territory (and the stronger the citizens’ pro-environmental values), the higher the circular economy efforts. The province of Treviso (in Veneto, in Northern Italy) stands out as an example of high circular economy commitment. Treviso is a rich province with an average GDP per capita in 2008 of € 30,274, against a national average of 26,278€. It represents the most successful Italian provinces in terms of SWC (Bucciol et al. 2013). The decisive turning point for the province was the introduction of the door-to-door waste collection system (DtD) and the PAYT (Pay-As-You-Throw) consumer charging system, to the detriment of a drop-off system and of the standard flat rate calculated considering only the number of family members and the square metres of the house (Bucciol et al. 2013). The new DtD waste collection system is innovative with respect to classic drop-off harvesting. With the old method indeed, waste had to be differentiated at home and then brought to the places where the bins were placed, along roads and sometimes not straightforward to reach. Regarding the PAYT tariff system (Kinnaman 2006, 2010), the main innovation lies in saving on the urban waste bill. Thanks to this system, individual waste taxes are no longer calculated solely based on the size of the dwelling and the number of family members (Agovino et al. 2021) but also according to the amount of undifferentiated waste produced: a

3.5

Empirical Results

53

variable cost based on the number of times the bin containing unsorted waste had to be emptied added to the fixed cost linked house and family size. This dual and concomitant innovation has had an extraordinary and almost immediate effect on two fronts: (1) reducing the production of non-recyclable solid waste by increasing the SWC rates and (2) reducing the cost of waste disposal that weighs on the household budget. Bucciol et al. (2015), decomposing the effect of PAYT and DtD waste collection, showed that the former had generated a 17% increase in SWC in the municipalities of the province of Treviso, while the latter increased recycling by 15.7%. It is quite clear that many regions lack the economic resources to implement these methods. Figure 3.15 shows the specialisation-competitiveness matrix for Italian macro-areas in the two analysis periods.

a

Specialisation Circular Economy

Linear Economy

North

Central

Circular Economy

Competitiveness

Linear Economy

Period I: 1997 - 2006

b

Specialisation

Linear Economy Circular Economy

Competitiveness

Linear Economy

Circular Economy

South

North

Central

Period II: 2007 - 2019

Fig. 3.15 Specialisation-competitiveness matrix, Italian macro-areas

South

54

3

The Transition from Linear to Circular Economy Induced by Waste. . .

The SSAs results answer this book’s third and fourth research questions: Do performance differences depend on the marginal role of the central government in waste management and on the vast power granted to the regions, provinces, and municipalities? And Could heterogeneous regional plans have caused problems in the organisation of waste management operations? In both periods, a significant heterogeneity among Italian macro-areas emerges. In Period I, the specialisation in circular economy methods is high, but competitivity is low. In Period II, the planning phase does not manage to promote specialisation, and socio-economic characteristics play a prominent role. Only the wealthier North shows high competitiveness in circular economy methods. Based on the above, the path towards the circular economy seems to be increasingly conditioned by socio-economic drivers. A regulatory framework that only sets thresholds and goals without considering territorial specificities could increase territorial divides. To avoid this problem, the central government should devote more efforts to improving infrastructural facilities in the lagging regions and stimulating the diffusion of pro-environmental values among the citizens.

3.6

Conclusions

This chapter aimed to analyse the contribution of EU guidelines and Italian regulations on reducing total waste and adopting treatment methods that allow the pursuit of circular economy principles. To this end, we resorted to shift and share analysis using official data drawn from institutional sources, namely Eurostat and ISTAT/ ISPRA. Following the main legislative changes, we carried out two SSAs using as units of analysis either European countries (sub-periods: 1995–2008 and 2009–2018) or Italian macro-areas (sub-periods: 1997–2006 and 2007–2019). The European analysis highlights a polarised impact of the national planning phase in promoting specialisation within the EU in 1995–2008, with 15 out of 28 Member States featuring a circular economy specialisation and a limited contribution of socio-economic characteristics on circular economy competitiveness. In 2009–2018 the scenario improved, with more Member States featuring both circular economy specialisation and competitiveness. Italy has shown comforting results in both periods of analysis, standing out as the only country characterised by full circular economy commitment in the whole timespan. However, in a deeper investigation of the Italian case, macro-areas behave heterogeneously. In the 1997–2006 period, the three macro-areas shared a virtuous planning phase that managed to stimulate specialisation towards the circular economy, despite a penalising socioeconomic context (little competitiveness). This scenario reversed in the 2007–2019 period for Northern and Central Italy. Southern Italy emerges as an area anchored to the linear economy principles. In summary, the analyses carried out paint a highly heterogeneous picture. The next question pertains to the reasons for these mixed performances in light of the normative framework that characterises the EU and Italy.

Appendix

55

Appendix Estimation of Missing Values of the Italian Macro-Areas A problem addressed in this section is the lack of waste management variables for the Italian macro-areas from 1995 to 2014. Unfortunately, the variables provided by ISPRA are only available from 2015 onwards. To proceed for the entire period of analysis (1995–2019), we imputed missing values according to existing statistical methods for handling missing data. Current imputing methods include maximum likelihood estimation through the expectation maximisation algorithm (Dempster et al. 1977) and multiple imputation (Little and Rubin 2002; Rubin 1976; Schafer and Graham 2002). These methods produce superior estimates in comparison to older methods. Multiple imputation, in particular, is the general solution to missingdata problems in statistics (Rubin 1976; Schafer 1997). In our case, we use the ICE (imputation chained equations) or MICE (multiple imputation chained equations) approaches that feature many advantages. In particular, MICE is a very flexible method which models each according to its distribution. MICE can manage the imputation of variables defined only on a subset of the data and can also incorporate variables that are functions of other variables, and it does not require monotonic missing-data patterns. MICE represents a practical approach for imputing missing datasets based on a set of imputation models, given that there is one model for each variable with missing values. MICE imputes data on a variable-by-variable basis by specifying an imputation model for each variable. Suppose we have a set of variables X1, X2, . . ., Xk. Of this set, some or all variables feature missing values. If X1 features missing values, it will be regressed on the other variables X2 to Xk. Estimation is thus restricted to observations with X1 values. The missing values in X1 are then replaced by the predicted values, which are simulated draws from the posterior predicted distribution of X1. The following variable with missing values, X2, is regressed on all the other variables X1, X3 to Xk. Estimation is thus restricted to individuals with observed X2 values, using the imputed values of X1. Here again, the missing values in X2 are replaced by simulated draws from the posterior predicted distribution of X2. This process is repeated for all the other variables in turn for n cycles to stabilise the results and produce single imputed datasets. Royston and White (2011) and Van Buuren et al. (1999) all suggest that more than 10 cycles are needed for the convergence of the sampling distribution of the imputed values. In contrast, the entire procedure is repeated independently M times, yielding M imputed datasets. In our case, we consider 100 cycles. The variable used for imputing missing data is chosen using the empirical literature on waste and the factors that guide its evolution (Agovino et al. 2020). In particular, we use the unemployment rate and population density (see Agovino et al. 2020). Socioeconomic factors may affect waste-related activities in various ways. Grossmann et al. (1974) and Al-Momani (1994) found that the relationships obtained among

56

3 The Transition from Linear to Circular Economy Induced by Waste. . .

several socio-economic factors vary across countries. This has been attributed to variations in consumer behaviour and lifestyles (Stern et al. 1995; Kaiser 1998; Kaiser et al. 1999; Barr et al. 2001a, b). Several studies on recycling behaviours indeed (i.e. waste sorting at source) present mixed results on the influence of socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. In particular, the unemployment rate measures the economic wealth of territorial units (Italian macro-areas). As GDP rises, the unemployment rate is reduced. Adopting circular economy infrastructures is easier in wealthier macro-areas (Andersen et al. 2007). The following relationship emerges: the lower the unemployment rate, the higher the infrastructures related to the circular economy. The opposite occurs for the linear economy. For richer countries, the literature shows a strong positive correlation between wealth and the extent to which environmental protection measures are adopted (Grossman and Krueger 1995; Callan and Thomas 1997; Mazzanti et al. 2008; Andersen et al. 2007). In other words, significant economic resources are indeed required to implement an effective waste segregation model (e.g. mono-material collection). This is the first step in moving away from landfilling and incineration towards recovery and recycling (Xevgenos et al. 2015). The waste collection models applied in EU countries can be classified by: (i) type of waste segregation model (e.g. mono-material vs multi-material) and (ii) location of the collection system (kerbside collection vs bring points). The main collection systems operating in Italy are kerbside collection (primary for paper and organic materials), bring points (primary for glass material), and kerbside mixed-integrated systems (kerbside and bring points, see Ricci et al. 2003; BiPRO/CRI, 2015). Kerbside collection requires more economic resources than bring points, but it may reduce waste disposal in landfills. This implies a decrease in waste disposal costs if the cost of landfills is higher than the cost of recycling (e.g. due to high landfill taxes). Since the mid-1990s, integrated kerbside collection has spread out. This is especially true in the geographical areas where the costs of landfills were higher (e.g. Lombardy) or where regional policies encouraged the reduction of the organic waste from residual waste (e.g. Veneto, see Ricci et al. 2003). In summary, kerbside collection results both in the highest yields of recyclables (BiPRO 2012) and in higher costs. For these reasons, it may be more challenging to implement in low-income territories (especially where the costs of landfills are low). Finally, we use population density as a proxy for different land values and the presence of agglomeration and scale effects (Mazzanti et al. 2008; D’Amato et al. 2015). On the one hand, densely populated municipalities (with high urbanisation rates) imply shorter distances from public and private agents to sorting infrastructure and, other things equal, more viable actions to separate and collect waste. On the other hand, high population densities are likely to drive up land prices and increase the costs of landfilling and establishing recycling stations (Passarini et al. 2011). The variables imputing missing data (i.e. unemployment rate and population density) are drawn from ISTAT.

References

57

References Agovino M, Casaccia M, Crociata A (2017) Effectiveness and efficiency of European regional development fund on separate waste collection: evidence from Italian regions by a stochastic frontier approach. Econ Polit 34(1):105–137 Agovino M, Cerciello M, Musella G (2019a) The good and the bad: identifying homogeneous groups of municipalities in terms of separate waste collection determinants in Italy. Ecol Indic 98:297–309 Agovino M, Cerciello M, Musella G (2019b) The effects of neighbour influence and cultural consumption on separate waste collection Theoretical framework and empirical investigation. Ecol Econ 166:106440 Agovino M, Ferrara M, Marchesano K, Garofalo A (2020) The separate collection of recyclable waste materials as a flywheel for the circular economy: the role of institutional quality and socioeconomic factors. Econ Polit 37:659–681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40888-019-00153-9 Agovino M, Marchesano K, Musella G (2021) Inequality and regressivity in Italian waste taxation. Is there an alternative route? Waste Manag 122:1–14 Al-Momani AH (1994) Solid-waste management: sampling, analysis and assessment of household waste in the city of Amman. Int J Environ Health Res 4(4):208–222 Andersen F, Larsen H, Skovgaard M, Moll S, Isoard S (2007) A European model for waste and material flows. Resour Conserv Recycl 49(4):421–435 Ballarino G, Braga M et al (2014) Chapter 16 Italy: how labour market policies can foster earnings inequality. In: Changing inequalities and societal impacts in rich countries: Thirty countries experiences, p 369 Barr S, Gilg AW, Ford NJ (2001a) Differences between household waste reduction, reuse and recycling behaviour: a study of reported behaviours, intentions and explanatory variables. Environ Waste Manag 4(2):69–82 Barr S, Gilg AW, Ford NJ (2001b) A conceptual framework for understanding and analyzing attitudes towards household-waste management. Environ Plan A 33(11):2025–2048 BiPRO (2012) Screening of waste management performance of EU member states. Report submitted under the EC project “support to member states in improving waste management based on assessment of member states’ performance”. Report prepared for the European Commission, DG ENV, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/pdf/Screening_report.pdf Bracalente B (1991) Analisi di dati spaziali. Statistica economica, Marbach G.(a cura di), UTET, Torino Bucciol A, Montinari N, Piovesan M, Valmasoni L (2013) Measuring the impact of economic incentives in waste sorting. In: D’Amato A, Mazzanti M, Montini A (eds) Waste management in spatial environments. Routledge, pp 28–42 Bucciol A, Montinari N, Piovesan M (2015) Do not trash the incentive! Monetary incentives and waste sorting. Scand J Econ 117(4):1204–1229 Callan SJ, Thomas JM (1997) The impact of state and local policies on a community’s recycling effort. East Econ J 23(4):411–424 Cecere G, Corrocher N (2016) Stringency of regulation and innovation in waste management: an empirical analysis on EU countries. Ind Innov 23(7):625–646 D’Amato A, Mazzanti M, Nicolli F (2015) Waste and organized crime in regional environments: how waste tariffs and the mafia affect waste management and disposal. Resour Energy Econ 41: 185–201 Darwin SEC (2008) Green paper on the management of bio-waste in the European Union. SEC European Commission, 2936. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=14931220 80027&uri=CELEX:52008DC0811 Dempster AP, Laird NM, Rubin DB (1977) Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. J R Stat Soc Ser B Methodol 39(1):1–22 Dunn ES Jr (1960) A statistical and analytical technique for regional analysis. Pap Reg Sci 6(1): 97–112

58

3

The Transition from Linear to Circular Economy Induced by Waste. . .

EC, European Commission (2014) Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. In: Towards a circular economy: a zero waste programme for Europe. COM, p 398 EC, European Commission (2018) Circular economy. Closing the loop. http://ec.europa.eu/ environment/circular-economy/index_en.htm EEC (1999) Council directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill. Off J Eur Communities 10:L182. https:// eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:31999L0031 European Commission (2008) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives. Off J Eur Union L 312(3). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32008L0098 European Commission (2010) Environment directorate-general. In: Being wise with waste: the EU’s approach to waste management. Publication Office of the European Union Faramondi A (2007) Analisi shift-share con componente spaziale. In: AISRE XXVIII Conferenza Italiana di Scienze Regionali Grossman G, Krueger A (1995) Economic growth and the environment. Q J Econ 110(2):353–377. Selden and Song 1994 Grossmann D, Hudson JF, Marks DH (1974) Waste generation models for solid waste collection. J Environ Eng ASCE 100:1219–1230 ISPRA, Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale (2013) Rapporto rifiuti urbani – Edizione 2013. Available at: http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/files/pubblicazioni/rapporti/ rapporto-rifiuti-urbani-edizione-2013/Rapporto_rifiuti_urbani_edizione_2013.pdf Kaiser FG (1998) A general measure of ecological behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol 28(5):395–422 Kaiser FG, Wolfing S, Fuher U (1999) Environmental attitude and ecological behavior. J Environ Psychol 19:1–19 Kinnaman TC (2006) Policy watch: examining the justification for residential recycling. J Econ Perspect 20(4):219–232 Kinnaman TC (2010) Optimal solid waste tax policy with centralized recycling. Natl Tax J 63(2): 237–251 Little RJA, Rubin DB (2002) Statistical analysis with missing data. Wiley, Hoboken Mazzanti M, Zoboli R (2009) Municipal waste Kuznets curves: evidence on socio-economic drivers and policy effectiveness from the EU. Environ Resour Econ 44(2):203–230 Mazzanti M, Montini A, Zoboli R (2008) Municipal waste generation and socioeconomic drivers: evidence from comparing Northern and Southern Italy. J Environ Dev 17(1):51–69 Mazzanti M, Montini A, Nicolli F (2009a) The dynamics of landfill diversion: economic drivers, policy factors and spatial issues: evidence from Italy using provincial panel data. Resour Conserv Recycl 54(1):53–61 Mazzanti M, Montini A, Nicolli F (2009b) Waste Kuznets curves, regional policies and spatial effects. Evidence on waste generation and landfill diversion from Italy. https://citeseerx.ist.psu. edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.525.911&rep=rep1&type=pdf Musella G, Agovino M, Casaccia M, Crociata A (2019) Evaluating waste collection management: the case of macro-areas and municipalities in Italy. Environ Dev Sustain 21(6):2857–2889 Ness D (2008) Sustainable urban infrastructure in China: towards a factor 10 improvement in resource productivity through integrated infrastructure systems. Int J Sust Dev World Ecol 15(4):288–301 European Parliament and Council (2000) Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste. Off J Eur Union L 332(91). https:// eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32000L0076&from=EN European Parliament and Council (2018) Directive (EU) 2018/850 of the European Parliament and of the council of 30 may 2018 amending directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste. Off J Eur Union 150:100. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32018L0850 Passarini F, Vassura I, Monti F, Morselli L, Villani B (2011) Indicators of waste management efficiency related to different territorial conditions. Waste Manag 31(4):785–792

References

59

Ricci M, Tornavacca A, Francia C (2003) Gestione integrata dei rifiuti urbani: analisi comparata dei sistemi di raccolta. Federambiente. http://cms.utilitalia.it/openAttachment.aspx?IDFILE=04 851dba-3dec-41ea-8545-9cf3c9352189 Royston P, White IR (2011) Multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE): implementation in Stata. J Stat Softw 45(4):1–20 Rubin DB (1976) Inference and missing data. Biometrika 63:581–592 Schafer JL (1997) Analysis of incomplete multivariate data. Chapman and Hall, New York Schafer JL, Graham JW (2002) Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychol Methods 7(2): 147–177 Stern PC, Dietz T, Guagnano GA (1995) The new environmental paradigm in social psychological perspective. Environ Behav 27:723–745 Van Buuren S, Boshuizen HC, Knook DL (1999) Multiple imputation of missing blood pressure covariates in survival analysis. Stat Med 18:681–694 Xevgenos D, Papadaskalopoulou C, Panaretou V, Moustakas K, Malamis D (2015) Success stories for recycling of MSW at municipal level: A review. Waste Biomass Valoriz 6(5):657–684 Zhang N, Williams ID, Kemp S, Smith NF (2011) Greening academia: developing sustainable waste management at higher education institutions. Waste Manag 31(7):1606–1616

Part II

Convergence or Divergence from the Circular Economy Objectives: What Are the Causes?

Chapter 4

The Integrated Waste Cycle in Italy and EU Countries

Abstract This chapter presents in a descriptive key the territorial differences that have arisen over the years across EU countries and Italian macro-areas with respect to changes in European waste management legislation. In the case of Italy, the potential causes of these differences are investigated, including the transposition methods of European legislation and the division of powers among the administrative levels involved in the waste management processes. Other potential causes are identified and discussed. Keywords Circular economy · Waste management · EU countries · Italy

4.1

Introduction

Italy, although characterised by many situations of excellence, still retains a certain level of backwardness with respect to the circular economy objectives, as the use of landfills is still very consistent and concerns about a quarter of the urban waste produced. Extensive landfilling in an area traditionally poor in raw materials but particularly rich in a natural heritage like Italy represents consistent damage. Landfilling is harmful not only from the point of view of environmental and territorial protection but also from an economic point of view since potentially useful resources are wasted rather than used to start “new” production processes. Landfilling does not allow the waste management sector to develop fully from an industrial point of view, preventing, in other words, full economic exploitation of waste intended as a resource. The situation of backwardness in the integrated cycle of urban waste does not concern all regions. In Italy, contexts of considerable criticality are accompanied by cases of excellence. On the one hand, some territories feature considerably high recycling rates, which allow for managing small quantities of residual waste, valued mostly in terms of energy (with very low landfill disposal). On the other hand, several areas of the country show significant problems in managing the waste cycle. These differences between different territorial contexts concern all aspects of waste cycle management, including those of direction, those of a purely managerial nature © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Agovino, M. Gaetano, EU Waste Regulation in a Linear-Circular Economy Transition, SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28103-7_4

63

64

4 The Integrated Waste Cycle in Italy and EU Countries

and those of a purely technological nature. Furthermore, the different levels of efficiency naturally translate into different management costs for the waste collection and treatment services in the various macro-areas. In 2020, compared to the annual national average cost per capita of direct management of urban waste (sorted and unsorted), equal to 185.6€ per inhabitant, the values observed in the three reference macro-areas of the country are different (ISPRA 2021). Specifically, in more virtuous territorial contexts, such as those of Northern regions (where SWC rates are higher and there is a tendency towards overall waste recovery), this value was 165.6 € per inhabitant, a lower value than in Southern regions and Central regions (195.7€ and 221.7€ per inhabitant, respectively). At the national level, the configuration of a stable system aimed at efficient and effective waste management throughout the country is missing. In other words, the country would need waste management capable of overcoming the divisions created by regional policies, which have been implemented without adequate synergy and coordination over time. Instead, a proper mix of regulatory instruments, such as prohibitions, technical standards, targets and economic incentives/disincentives, must be defined to guide the country’s waste cycle in compliance with the European hierarchy. Many tools and as many deficiencies are found in the Italian waste cycle compared to the most virtuous countries of the EU. Germany and the Netherlands, for instance, translated into a harmonic form the principle according to which waste can become a precious resource. Both countries organised an integrated and efficient system to valorise waste in the two ways indicated by the European hierarchy, i.e. material recovery and, as a complement, energy recovery. Moreover, they implemented effective waste prevention strategies, thus decoupling economic growth and waste generation, which is the basis for every sustainable management system from an environmental point of view. The combination of different instruments of a regulatory and economic nature was decisive for this purpose. First, introducing high taxes or actual bans on landfill disposal raised the cost of landfilling, making it a highly inconvenient option. Then, the identification of punctual pricing systems encouraged virtuous behaviour on the part of users with respect to proper waste sorting, cutting the share of unsorted waste. Concerning the materials sorted, moreover, the environmental contributions paid by producers to collection operators were large enough to create an efficient recycling chain. Finally, energy recovery was carried out on the residual part of unsorted waste, guaranteeing electricity and thermal energy, which contributed to powering urban district heating networks. Landfill disposal instead was eliminated or at least reduced to a small incidence in the most virtuous European countries, in line with EU regulatory guidelines. Eliminating landfill disposal represents the ultimate outcome of the waste hierarchy. To this goal, countries like Germany and the Netherlands developed an adequate combination of guidelines, treating waste as a resource through an effective recycling chain on the one hand and fostering energy recovery on the

4.2

The Transition to the Circular Economy of Italy: Between Ups and Downs

65

other hand. With increases in material recovery, the latter option is, in any case, bound to decrease. Therefore, in these cases, an actual national strategy was designed and implemented, defining objectives and actions to achieve them. Setting a zero-landfill goal implies that energy recovery may not be wholly eliminated unless all of the waste produced is recycled. Beyond the best of intentions, a 100% recycling goal is not realistically achievable. As in the most virtuous EU countries, energy recovery can only be carried out in plants paying the most attention to environmental sustainability. Once landfill disposal is minimised, energy recovery will be progressively contained to make room for continuous increases in material recovery.

4.2

The Transition to the Circular Economy of Italy: Between Ups and Downs

The transition to the circular economy has been driven over the years by EU environmental legislation on waste through specific numerical targets implemented from time-to-time EU countries. Specifically, the goal set for 2035 by the new waste framework directive, recently issued as part of the circular economy package, is not to exceed 10% of landfill disposal. The transposition of EU directives differs from state to state and is conditioned by demographic, social and economic factors. In the case of Italy, a mixed, articulated and complex picture emerges, as the peculiarities of the Italian regions condition the waste management performance. In other words, situations of excellence exist, as in Veneto and Lombardy, where high recycling rates are coupled with high energy recovery levels, driving landfill disposal close to zero. Critical situations are also observed, as in the case of the regions of Molise, Apulia, Calabria, and Sicily, where landfill disposal still concerns at least half of the waste managed. In other areas, such as the cities of Rome and Naples, structural deficiencies lead to the violation of the EU principles of self-sufficiency and proximity in managing urban waste. In general, the most critical situations are rooted in planning deficits, to which some regional administrations have been exposed (often due to the inertia of their administrations). Having identified separate collection objectives as unrealistic concerning the amount of resources available and the time granted to achieve them, some administrations simply failed to pursue them tout court. This problem is amplified by the hierarchical administrative scale that operates in the waste management process, whose perverse effect is to generate delays and inefficiencies in achieving the circular economy objectives (see the Focus Box). Additionally, the deficits of some types of plants, such as those for treating the organic fraction and for the energy recovery of the dry fractions, determine territorial imbalances that impair sustainable urban waste management.

66

4

The Integrated Waste Cycle in Italy and EU Countries

Focus Box: The various levels of government in the waste management sector in Italy As stated in a sentence of the Constitutional Court (n. 249 of July 2009), the State holds the basic competence in waste management. Thus, it exercises a series of functions (art. 195 of the Environmental Code): direction, coordination, the definition of criteria and methodologies for integrated waste management, as well as the implementation of community legislation and the definition of guidelines on the minimum contents that the authorisations of regional competence must include. Conversely, regions plan, authorise and regulate (art. 196 of the Environmental Code). They devise regional waste management plans, which represent the only planning act envisaged on the subject, according to the obligations deriving from European law. They identify the Optimal Territorial Areas and the related bodies responsible for their management and define their territorial extent. Moreover, they regulate the management of urban waste and separate collection, promoting integrated waste management and approving new plant construction projects. Finally, they authorise landfill disposal operations. Provinces, therefore, oversee waste management activities and identify suitable and unsuitable areas for the location of recovery plants and waste disposal sites (art. 197 of the Environmental Code). On the other hand, the more strictly operational functions are carried out by municipalities, which exercise them mainly through the functioning of ad-hoc companies. With the aid of specific regulations, municipalities then establish the methods of collection and transport of urban waste, in addition to the separate collection models adopted to recover the various fractions.

4.3

Plant Shortcomings as a Brake on Sustainable Waste Management

Italy is among the EU countries that still feature a deficit in the treatment capacity of the fractions subject to differentiation to be sent for recycling (first of all, the organic fraction), but also in the energy valorisation capacity of sorted waste. This problem does not concern the overall absolute values of treatment and enhancement capacity at the national level but rather the distribution of this capacity at the territorial level, with severe shortcomings in some regions. This result testifies to an uneven distribution of plant capacity throughout the territory and contributes to explaining the extensive resort to landfills. The phenomenon can be traced back to regional planning and implementation limits. These limits have been the main cause of the infrastructural delay accumulated over time, mainly in Southern regions. Another reason for this uneven distribution relates to the attribution of legislative competencies in the environmental field

4.3

Plant Shortcomings as a Brake on Sustainable Waste Management

67

between the State and regions in light of the constitutional reform of 2001, which was not always smooth and precise. This situation of uncertainty sometimes resulted in institutional conflict, generating slowdowns and inertia in territorial planning. Therefore, regional administrations largely failed to plan waste management efficiently and effectively. In addition, the political and social opposition at the local level fought against the construction of the plants required to comply with the waste hierarchy, contributing to reinforcing this uncertainty. Furthermore, specific factors contributed to the determination of plant deficiencies. First of all, the long duration of commissioning spells in the areas of Central and Southern Italy that experienced waste emergencies in the 1990s, i.e. Campania and Apulia in 1994–1995, Calabria in 1997, Sicily in 1999, and Latium in 2000. The long duration of commissioning spells, within a logic of emergency management of the waste cycle, ended up inhibiting the normal programming process typical of ordinary management, with negative consequences that contributed to slowing down the construction of the systems necessary for an efficient and sustainable cycle. On the other hand, in the regions that experienced waste emergencies, the presence of organised crime manifested itself strongly. As a further factor in the necessary brake system, the tax policy proved too lenient with landfill disposal, as it did not manage to discourage landfilling through high rates. This generated negative consequences on activating other waste management methods and constructing the systems necessary to implement them. In general, however, the constant uncertainty of the regulatory framework did not favour the undertaking of plant engineering initiatives by private individuals. Private investments presuppose stability, especially from a regulatory point of view, which has often been lacking. Another problem that hindered the emergence of new plants was their low level of social acceptability. The risk of lack of social consensus arises from the absence of organic planning and the low credibility of institutions, whose choices tend to be always contested in the absence of real involvement on the part of the resident population. On the other hand, the local population’s broader involvement in the definition of plant strategies has represented the most successful factor in many EU countries. Together with very restrictive environmental policies, this has proved capable of activating the right consensus for implementing plants necessary for the correct treatment of waste. All these situations have generated a highly unbalanced geographical distribution of the existing treatment plants at the regional level in Italy. Therefore, of the 326 plants active on the national territory in 2016, 213 are in the Northern regions. This resulted in a continuous flow of large quantities of organic waste along the South-North axis that generates harm both due to the considerable environmental impact of transport. This solution induced a perverse income redistribution effect at the territorial level, where the waste tariff withdrawn in the less prosperous territories, covering all management and transport costs, contributes to remunerating private investments on plants located in the wealthiest regions of the North. Some regions indeed show substantial self-sufficiency (Valle d’Aosta, Piedmont, Veneto, Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Umbria, and Sardinia), while others require the construction

68

4 The Integrated Waste Cycle in Italy and EU Countries

of new plants (Emilia Romagna, Tuscany, Marche, Abruzzo, Basilicata, and Calabria). Still, others display a severe plant shortage (Lombardy, Liguria, Latium, Campania, and Sicily).

4.4

Waste Management in Italy: What Went Wrong?

Italy is a fragmented country where each regional system shows different peculiarities and results. Thus, in the face of the excellent results of some regions, particularly complicated conditions exist in other territories, with regions still struggling between chronic plant deficiencies, structural criticalities and temporary emergencies. These problems are rooted in many causes. First, national institutions completely failed to carry out a strategic planning function, which concerned the entire national waste management sector in the logic of an industrial consolidation according to the guidelines dictated by the EU. Contrary to what has happened in other countries (e.g. the Netherlands, and Denmark), in Italy, waste management operations have been left to the exclusive competence of regions and municipalities. The State has only kept the role of defining the legislation, often in a complex and contradictory way, thus failing to favour the development of the waste sector at the national level. On the other hand, criminal activities have entered the folds of organisational complexities and contradictions, not only damaging the environment but also creating unfair competition against the many companies that operate legally (Agovino et al. 2016; D’Alisa et al. 2010, 2012; D’Amato et al. 2015). Only in the face of the regional authorities’ manifest inability to plan and direct the waste cycle did the central government intervene through specific commissioners. It happened between 1994 and 2011 in Campania, Sicily, Calabria, Apulia, and Latium (Agovino et al. 2016; D’Alisa et al. 2010, 2012), with massive use of public money and results that have generally proved to be anything but satisfactory. After more than 20 years from the first commissioners, albeit with different situations across regional contexts, the same regions still experience critical situations, bordering emergencies. On the other hand, the lack of planning emerged as the main problem at the regional level. In some cases, the regional plans for urban waste management have failed to define the concrete actions to be taken and to identify the tools to be used. Regional plans have mostly resulted in a simple list of desired objectives and bureaucratic attention to distributing administrative skills and responsibilities among various institutional actors involved in waste management. The starting point of the latest plans was the assumption of achieving the 65% separate collection target defined by national legislation. Consequently, plans on managing the unsorted waste flow, which remains from the separate collection, concerned only 35% of the total waste to be handled. As a result, identifying the plants necessary for the treatment and disposal of those flows was much simpler in waste management plans than in reality. On the other hand, in some cases, the reference region already had sufficient plant engineering to manage those quantities. However, since SWC in critical regions over the years has been

4.4

Waste Management in Italy: What Went Wrong?

69

much lower than the objectives set, the actual volume of residual waste to be managed was much larger than that indicated in regional plans, generating managerial difficulties due to a systemic treatment and disposal deficit which was often denied. These conducts, by the regional and municipal bodies, represented the result of a transversal political fear with respect to the construction of new disposal plants (waste-to-energy plants and service landfills), strongly opposed by local populations. Decisions in this sense may indeed compromise political consensus at the territorial level in light of the resistance they generated in the local populations involved (Agovino et al. 2016; D’Alisa et al. 2010, 2012). As a consequence, administrations preferred to make plans for an unreal, albeit strongly desired, scenario. With a separate collection target of 65% that was magically missed in many regional contexts, the need to build new plants has become even more urgent. Citizens’ aversion towards the construction of new plants has pushed the system towards exporting waste outside the region or abroad to ensure final disposal. At the national level, over the last few years, the price paid, from an economic point of view but also an environmental point of view, for these transfers abroad, not only for the commissioned regions (in particular Campania), has been particularly high. As Fortini and Ramazzini (2015) indicated, in 2013, the entire Italian waste sector spent 110 million euros to export waste across the border. This has brought out an obvious paradox. In those years, treatment capacities had already been released in the waste-to-energy plants of Northern Italy due to the continuous growth of SWC in those areas, which reduced the need for treatment and disposal of the residual part of the waste. However, due to political vetoes in the Northern regions that were supposed to accommodate Southern waste, the transfer of waste from South to North would mostly not take place. Therefore, under the inertia of the national government, exporting waste beyond national borders became the only option. This solution provided major benefits for the energy recovery plants in the Netherlands, Germany and Austria. In addition to receiving payment for the service rendered, they obtained part of the energy necessary to “district heat” their cities with the waste-to-energy process on the materials coming mainly from Campania. The national government did not remedy this perverse transfer of physical and financial resources. In this sense, a first measure to try to contain the phenomenon of waste exports came with the approval of the Sblocca Italia Decree (“Unlocking Italy Decree”),1 which establishes, precisely, that all waste-to-energy plants in Italy must operate at the limit of their thermal load. Precisely in the logic of favouring, in plants that have become oversised due to the high levels of SWC achieved in the reference areas, the energy recovery of waste flows from regions with plant deficiencies. On the other hand, in terms of urban waste management, the results achieved by some regions of Northern Italy (e.g. Lombardy, and Veneto) constitute excellence comparable to those expressed by the most virtuous countries on the European

1

It is an intervention plan conceived in order to unblock the economic, productive and social situation in Italy.

70

4

The Integrated Waste Cycle in Italy and EU Countries

scene. Landfill disposal has been substantially eliminated, and the entire flow of urban waste managed is enhanced in the sense that it is, for the most part, recycled. In contrast, for the remaining part, its energy potential is recovered. These results, on average, have been achieved in the light of some peculiar evidence: 1. Achievement of high levels of cost efficiency; 2. SWC rates much higher than the national average and then the reference regulatory objectives; 3. Adequate, if not abundant, plant equipment with respect to local needs. About 55% of Italy’s selection, treatment, composting and energy valorisation plants are concentrated in the Northern regions. The average SWC in the Northern macroarea was almost 8% higher in 2020 than the national average (70.8% vs 63%, see ISPRA 2021). In recent years, experiences of sustainable waste management have generally grown throughout the country, based on the most virtuous practices: 1. Those aimed at prevention, which make use of the effectiveness of the introduction of the punctual tariff as a criterion that rewards the most virtuous behaviours in terms of limiting the production of undifferentiated waste; 2. Those that have started the repair and rearrangement of durable goods, with a view to promoting reuse; those aimed at achieving high levels of SWC (mainly through a wide extension of the “door to door” collection method), in the direction of effective recycling of materials; 1. Those that have adopted effective plant innovations, with a view to eco-districts, the anaerobic enhancement of organic waste, and the possible further interception of the fractions to be recycled downstream of collection through the so-called material factories.

References Agovino M, Garofalo A, Mariani A (2016) Effects of environmental regulation on separate waste collection dynamics: empirical evidence from Italy. J Clean Prod 124:30–40 D’Alisa G, Burgalassi D, Healy H, Walter M (2010) Conflict in Campania: waste emergency or crisis of democracy. Ecol Econ 70:239–249 D’Alisa G, Di Nola MF, Giampietro M (2012) A multi-scale analysis of urban waste metabolism: density of waste disposed in Campania. J Clean Prod 35:59–70 D’Amato A, Mazzanti M, Nicolli F (2015) Waste and organized crime in regional environments. How waste tariffs and the mafia affect waste management and disposal. Resour Energy Econ 41: 185–201 Fortini D, Ramazzini N (2015) La raccolta differenziata. Ediesse, Roma ISPRA, Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale (2021) Rapporto rifiuti urbani – Edizione 2021. Available at: https://www.isprambiente.gov.it/it/pubblicazioni/rapporti/ rapporto-rifiuti-urbani-edizione-2021

Chapter 5

Convergence or Divergence in Waste Treatment Methods? The Impact of Waste Management Legislation in the Transition to the Circular Economy Model

Abstract The EU legislation on waste and then the national regulatory framework through the transposition of European Directives have laid increasingly solid foundations to achieve the objectives of the circular economy over the years. While, on the one hand, the legislation has allowed transitioning from the linear to the circular model, it has failed to consider, on the other hand, the gap that has arisen among EU countries in terms of circular economy objectives. Divergence across EU countries, and in Italy among the three macro-areas, is driven by different economic, social, cultural and institutional endowments that characterise each territorial unit and influence the adherence to greener waste management methods. The latter requires substantial investments in very expensive infrastructures, which in some EU countries and Southern Italy, given the lack of economic resources, are difficult to achieve. This generates a delay in the waste management legislation objectives and divergence across EU countries and Italian macro-areas. In this chapter, we present a β-convergence analysis whose purpose is to verify the effectiveness of the waste legislation in promoting the growth of circular economy treatment methods and the convergence among EU countries and Italian macro-areas. Keywords GMM estimation · β-Convergence · Waste management legislation · Waste treatment methods

5.1

Introduction

Disparities across territories have been at the centre of the European agenda over the past decades. The EU Regional policy has been aiming to ensure a balanced development of the European territory and to pursue a path of real equality of opportunity among all regions (Agovino et al. 2016a). In other words, one of the EU’s main challenges is to trigger a convergence process on social and economic conditions. In the environmental field, convergence actions must respect environmental legislation. The EU waste policy promotes circular economy principles (as a reminder, prevention, re-use and recycling of waste). Separate Waste Collection (SWC) represents the tool that allows Member States to undertake the circular © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Agovino, M. Gaetano, EU Waste Regulation in a Linear-Circular Economy Transition, SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28103-7_5

71

72

5 Convergence or Divergence in Waste Treatment Methods? The Impact of. . .

economy path (Cecere and Corrocher 2016; De los Rios and Charnley 2017; Paes et al. 2019; Ford and Fisher 2019; Sanchez et al. 2020). In other words, SWC may be considered the circular economy’s upstream phase. As stated in Chap. 2, during the last decades, the EU has introduced several Directives, followed by specific national regulations, aiming to stimulate the adoption of virtuous SWC behaviours within the EU. A lively scientific debate exists on the impact of EU directives on waste management systems and on how they have been implemented across Member States (Mazzanti and Zoboli 2009; Agovino et al. 2016a, b; Malinauskaite et al. 2017; Agovino et al. 2017a, b). However, research on the effect of the legislative framework on convergence in the field of waste management is less developed, and only a few contributions exist. Agovino et al. (2021) analysed the impact of L.D. 152/2006 on convergence in SWC and its items (i.e. organic, plastic, paper and glass) in Italy. To pursue the circular economy path, the waste collected separately must be treated to become a source of new resources. In other words, waste treatment methods can be considered the downstream phase of the circular economy. Studies on the downstream phase of circular economy are rather scarce. Marin et al. (2018) tested convergence among EU countries, analysing the role played by environmental policies and green technologies in favouring recycling and incineration of waste. Another contribution by Nicolli (2012) analysed the Italian case, evaluating convergence for different waste disposal methods (i.e. landfilling, SWC, and incineration) between 1999 and 2008. However, these contributions considered a limited range of treatment methods and did not tackle the main regulatory changes that occurred in recent years. Our analysis focuses on the EU and Italy. It covers all the treatment methods reported by official sources (i.e. Eurostat for Europe and ISPRA/ISTAT for Italy), allowing us to define the linear and circular economy methods as described in Chap. 3. Moreover, this work considers the main European and Italian regulations introduced in the 1995–2019 period, namely Directive 2008/98/EC and L.D. 152/2006. Based on the above, this chapter’s aim is twofold. We first evaluate the effect of Directive 2008/98/EC and L.D. 152/2006 on the growth rates of circular/linear economy treatment methods. Second, we investigate whether European and Italian normative frameworks have triggered a convergence process in circular/linear economy or whether they have widened the differences across Member States and Italian macro-areas. For this purpose, we resort to β-convergence analysis, which tests whether the differences between backward and forward regions are narrowing over time. This occurs when backward areas display higher growth rates than developed areas. β-convergence has been extensively used in a wide range of studies on convergence, such as: (1) economic growth (Barro and Sala-i-Martin 2003; Rapacki and Próchniak 2009); (2) social expenditure (Attia and Berenger 2007; Agovino and Parodi 2016); (3) financial performance (Martikainen et al. 2015; Olson and Zoubi 2017); (4) air pollutants emissions (Strazicich and List 2003; Sun et al. 2020). In the waste management field, just the few abovementioned attempts exist (Nicolli 2012; Marin et al. 2018; Agovino et al. 2021). The rest of

5.2

Method: β-Convergence

73

the chapter is organised as follows. Section 5.2 presents the methods used in the analysis, while Sect. 5.3 discusses the empirical findings. Section 5.4 concludes.

5.2

Method: β-Convergence

To verify the impact of the normative environment on convergence among EU countries and Italian macro-areas towards the circular economy, we resort to β-convergence. In particular, we estimate two models. In the first model, we investigate the European case and the effect of Directive 2008/98/EC. The second model is based on the Italian case and tackles the effect of L.D. 152/2006 in promoting convergence across Italian macro-areas. β-convergence studies began in 1992 (Barro and Sala-i-Martin 1992; Mankiw et al. 1992). Early works on β-convergence studied the factors affecting economic growth and generating growth rate differentials. The postulate is that developing countries have the potential to grow at a faster rate than developed countries due to diminishing returns to scale in production (in particular for capital) so that disadvantaged economies can replicate the production methods, technologies, and institutions of developed countries. The study of convergence through econometric models is fundamental for verifying certain economic policies’ effectiveness in reducing territorial disparities. The literature distinguishes between absolute and relative convergence. In the hypothesis of absolute convergence, regression models include as a covariate the dependent variable lagged over time. To avoid estimation errors,1 absolute convergence has been extended, introducing the concept of relative convergence. In this case, β-convergence also depends on the basic characteristics of the statistical units under examination (Sørensen 2001), such as economic, demographic, and institutional factors. In particular, the absolute β-convergence equation allows us to verify whether an ongoing process of convergence among territorial units (in this book, EU countries and Italian macro-areas) is taking place. Formally, absolute β-convergence is estimated through the following equation: yi,t - yi,t - 1 = β0 þ β1 yi,t - 1 þ εi,t yi,t - 1

ð5:1Þ

where the dependent variable is the growth rate of circular (linear) economy methods in country/macro-area i at time t and yi, t - 1 is the level of circular (linear) economy methods of country/macro-area i at time t - 1. Coefficient β1 captures the potential β-convergence process. In particular, a negative sign of the estimated coefficient indicates absolute β-convergence, meaning that country/macro-area starting with lower initial levels of circular (linear) economy methods grow faster than those

1

For example, omitting relevant variables (regressors) could bias upwards the magnitude of parameter that measures the β-convergence.

74

5 Convergence or Divergence in Waste Treatment Methods? The Impact of. . .

starting with higher levels. The same equation will be estimated for the single components of circular/linear treatment methods as defined by the mass balance equation (Mazzanti and Zoboli 2009) presented in Sect. 3.5 (Chap. 3). That is, for Europe: (1) linear economy: landfill (L) and incineration (I); (2) circular economy: energy recovery (ER), recycling of materials (RM), composting and digestion (CD); for Italy: (1) linear economy: landfill (L), incineration (I), and co-incineration (CI); (2) circular economy: mechanical biological treatment (MBT), anaerobic digestion (AD), aerobic and anaerobic treatment (AAT), and composting (C). The relative β-convergence equation, in addition to addressing potential omitted variable bias, also introduces a dummy for the main normative changes, i.e. Directive 2008/98/EC for Europe and L.D. 152/2006 for Italy. It results in the following equation: yi,t - yi,t - 1 = β0 þ β1 yi,t - 1 þ γ 1 URi,t þ γ 2 PDi,t þ γ 3 Trendi,t þ γ 4 Lawi,t þ εi,t yi,t - 1 ð5:2Þ where parameters γ 1, γ 2, γ 3 and γ 4 measure respectively the effect of the unemployment rate (UR), population density (PD), the trend and the normative framework (implying that the Law captures Directive 2008/98/EC or L.D. 152/2006) on the growth of circular (linear) economy treatment methods. In particular, Law is a dummy variable defined as follows: in the EU case, it equals one from 2008 onward (i.e. the year in which Directive 2008/98/EC was introduced) and zero otherwise. In the Italian case, the Law variable is equal to one from 2006 onwards (i.e. the year in which L.D. 152/2006 was introduced) and zero otherwise. A significant estimate for this dummy variable would imply that legislative changes stimulate the growth of circular (linear) economy treatment methods. Finally, εit is the stochastic error term. Finally, we compute another regression, where we also consider an interaction variable, i.e. Law ∙ yi, t - 1. This interaction allows us to control for the effect of Directive 2008/98/EC (L.D. 152/2006) on the convergence process. Hence, Eq. (5.2) becomes: yi,t - yi,t - 1 = β0 þ β1 yi,t - 1 þ γ 1 URi,t þ γ 2 PD,i,t þ γ 3 Trend i,t þ γ 4 Lawi,t yi,t - 1
þγ 5 Law  yi,t - 1 þ εi,t

ð5:3Þ

If γ 5 < 0, then β1, whose expected sign for β-convergence is negative, will be reinforced, accelerating the convergence process. The opposite holds if γ 5 > 0. In all equations, endogeneity arises due to the lagged dependent variable among the covariates (Nickell 1981; Anderson and Hsiao 1982). Regarding the lagged dependent variable, yit - 1, the ordinary least square estimator (OLS) returns inconsistent estimates as yit - 1 and εit are necessarily correlated, even if the idiosyncratic component of the error term is serially uncorrelated.

5.3 β-Convergence: Results of the Analysis

75

Estimating this model presents several problems. First, using panel data, OLS coefficients are biased. We use the instrumental variable estimation applied to a dynamic panel model to tackle this matter. In particular, we refer to a generalised method of moments estimator (GMM) that uses the dynamic properties of the data to generate proper instrumental variables (Arellano and Bond 1991; Arellano and Bover 1995). We instrument the lagged dependent variable with a set of variables that includes: (1) external exogenous variables, i.e. unemployment rate and population density, and (2) the deep lags of the dependent variable. Introducing time lags implies losing periods, but this is a minor drawback since we have more than twenty periods in total. The hypothesis of uncorrelated disturbances guarantees that the time lags are exogenous, suggesting them as suitable instruments (Agovino et al. 2019a). Since the consistency of the parameters obtained using the GMM estimator depends crucially on the validity of the instruments, we consider two diagnostic tests: the Sargan test for over-identifying restrictions, which tests the null hypothesis of overall validity of the instruments used, and the test for serial correlation of the error term, which tests the null hypothesis that the differenced error term exhibits first-order serial correlation, but no second-order serial correlation. Failure to reject the null hypothesis of no second-order serial correlation implies that the original error term is serially uncorrelated and the moment conditions are correctly specified.

5.3

β-Convergence: Results of the Analysis

This section presents the empirical results of the two β-convergence analyses. In the first analysis, we look for a convergence process towards the circular (linear) economy across the Member States, focusing on the role played by Directive 2008/98/EC. The results of EU analyses are shown in Table 5.1 for the linear economy and each related method and Table 5.2 for the circular economy and each related method. In the second analysis, we evaluate convergence across Italian macro-areas, with special attention to the role of L.D. 152/2006. The results are shown in Table 5.3 (linear economy and related methods) and Table 5.4 (circular economy and related methods). For all models, the Sargan test fails to reject the null hypothesis, confirming the instruments’ validity (Tables 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4). In addition, the consistency of the GMM estimator requires the lack of higher-order serial correlation in the differenced error term. The first-order serial correlation emerges as the AR(1) test rejects the null in all models, whereas no second-order serial correlation AR(2) is unfolded. Since we resort to a relative β-convergence analysis, we control for some economic and demographic characteristics, namely population density and unemployment rate, that the related literature considers as relevant driving factors of waste management. In particular, population density (i.e. the number of residents per square km) is extensively used as a proxy for land value, congestion issues, and the presence of economies of scale (D’Amato et al. 2015; Agovino et al. 2019b). The influence of this variable on waste management is ambiguous, as confirmed by a

76

5

Convergence or Divergence in Waste Treatment Methods? The Impact of. . .

Table 5.1 Relative β-convergence for linear economy methods, Europe Variables Yt - 1 Unemployment rate Population density Directive 2008/ 98/EC Trend

Linear economy (1) (2) -1.384*** -1.347*** (0.002) (0.042) 0.112*** 0.127***

Landfill (3) -1.447*** (0.001) 0.011***

(4) -1.324*** (0.007) 0.021***

Incineration (5) -1.243*** (0.019) 0.058***

(6) -1.007*** (0.200) 0.125**

(0.007) 0.001

(0.009) 0.000

(0.001) 0.005***

(0.001) 0.005***

(0.015) -0.006***

(0.057) -0.006**

(0.001) -0.529***

(0.000) -0.433***

(0.000) -0.165***

(0.001) -0.467***

(0.001) -0.519***

(0.002) -2.533**

(0.018) -0.056*** (0.001)

(0.119) -0.057*** (0.004) -0.039

(0.002) -0.181*** (0.002)

(0.021) -0.167*** (0.004) -0.121***

(0.118) 0.111*** (0.015)

(1.161) 0.141* (0.085) -0.322*

Yt - 1 ∙ 2008/98/ EC Constant Observations AR(1) AR(2) Sargan test

111.6*** (3.533) 644 2.58** 0.83 8.25

(0.046) 114.3*** (8.201) 644 2.25** 0.84 8.35

360.1*** (4. 618) 644 2.78*** 1.08 2.40

(0.007) 333.4*** (9.552) 644 2.73*** 1.18 2.43

-222.9*** (31.83) 644 -1.82* -0.96 12.80

(0.173) -282.5* (170.3) 644 -2.04** -0.69 14.56

Note: Standard errors in parentheses; with Yt - 1 and Yt - 1 ∙ 2008/98/EC we denote the level of the dependent variable at time (t - 1) and the interaction term of the Directive 2008/98/EC with the level of the dependent variable at time (t - 1), respectively *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1

wide and open discussion in the literature. On the one hand, shorter distances between agents and sorting infrastructure imply that the actions required to manage waste are more viable, generating a positive expected sign related to transport costs and economies of scale. On the other hand, high population densities may lead to traffic and congestion issues, which are likely to drive land prices up, increasing the cost of establishing recycling stations and producing a negative expected sign (Simões et al. 2012; Agovino and Musella 2020). Our results seem to confirm the ambiguity of the relationship. In the European analysis, this variable has a negative effect on I and a positive impact on ER and CD. Its effect on RM is close to zero, although statistically significant. The estimates for the Italian analysis follow the same path. Population density is not statistically significant in circular economyrelated methods. In contrast, in the linear economy case, high population densities reduce landfill disposal, most likely through increases in land prices that drive the cost of landfilling up (Agovino et al. 2021).

Circular economy (1) (2) -0.401*** -0.386*** (0.012) (0.011) -0.002 -0.004** (0.002) (0.002) -0.002*** -0.002*** (0.0001) (0.000) 0.152*** 0.266*** (0.007) (0.028) 0.0157*** 0.012*** (0.002) (0.003) -0.049*** (0.008) -31.65*** -25.23*** (4.644) (5.464) 644 644 -1.94* -1.94* 1.38 1.39 79.65 78.77

Energy recovery (3) (4) -1.122*** -1.209*** (0.004) (0.004) -0.018*** -0.001 (0.003) (0.003) 0.0152*** 0.009*** (0.001) (0.001) 3.63e-05 0.582*** (0.010) (0.048) 0.087*** 0.083*** (0.004) (0.006) 0.286*** (0.018) -178.0*** -170.8*** (7.436) (13.20) 644 644 -1.96* -2.12** -1.60 -1.24 56.02 51.97

Recycling materials (5) (6) -0.218*** -0.243*** (0.004) (0.004) -0.004*** -0.008*** (0.001) (0.001) 5.62e-05*** 6.70e-05*** (1.12e-05) (1.61e-05) 0.243*** 0.487*** (0.015) (0.063) -0.006*** -0.011*** (0.001) (0.002) 0.089*** (0.021) 12.28*** 22.62*** (2.052) (4.454) 644 644 -2.85*** -2.86** 0.09 1.60 30.42 30.36

Composting and digestion (7) (8) -0.906*** -0.990*** (0.009) (0.073) 0.002 0.008 (0.002) (0.007) 0.001*** 0.001*** (0.018) (0.000) 0.047*** 1.439*** (0.017) (0.073) 0.068*** 0.059*** (0.003) (0.005) 0.512*** (0.018) -139.9*** -122.7*** (7.201) (10.98) 644 644 -2.23** -3.27*** 1.58 1.14 149.68 108.58

Note: Standard errors in parentheses; with Yt - 1 and Yt - 1 ∙ 2008/98/EC we denote the level of the dependent variable at time (t - 1) and the interaction term of the Directive 2008/98/EC with the level of the dependent variable at time (t - 1), respectively *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1

Observations AR(1) AR(2) Sargan test

Constant

Yt - 1 ∙ 2008/98/EC

Trend

Directive 2008/98/EC

Population density

Unemployment rate

Variables Yt - 1

Table 5.2 Relative β-convergence for circular economy methods, Europe

5.3 β-Convergence: Results of the Analysis 77

-9.280 (22.92) 72 -4.62*** 1.24 55.75

Landfill (3) -0.870*** (0.134) 0.005 (0.014) -0.009*** (0.004) 0.078 (0.111) 0.005 (0.012) (4) -0.967*** (0.212) 0.006 (0.015) -0.009** (0.004) 0.312 (0.401) 0.002 (0.013) 0.138 (0.228) -3.584 (25.84) 72 -4.34*** 1.35 50.12 4.893 (9.018) 72 -2.69*** -0. 59 68.03

Incineration (5) -0.407*** (0.096) 0.014* (0.007) 0.013*** (0.003) -0.031 (0.053) -0.004 (0.005) (6) -0.368*** (0.098) 0.017** (0.007) 0.014*** (0.003) -0.242 (0.174) -0.004 (0.004) -0.100 (0.079) 4.901 (8.716) 72 -2.74*** -0.72 71.13 106.8* (60.84) 72 -4.31*** -0.26 69.69

Co-Incineration (7) -0.422*** (0.106) 0.100*** (0.034) 0.023*** (0.008) 0.024 (0.251) -0.057* (0.031)

(8) -0.531*** (0.141) 0.091*** (0.031) 0.020*** (0.007) 1.165 (0.836) -0.047 (0.029) 0.230 (0.166) 87.98 (56.78) 72 -4.35*** -0.74 75.66

Note: Standard errors in parentheses; with Yt - 1 and Yt - 1 ∙ 152/2006 we denote the level of the dependent variable at time (t - 1) and the interaction term of the L.D. 152/2006 with the level of the dependent variable at time (t - 1), respectively *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1

Observations AR(1) AR(2) Sargan test

Constant

Yt - 1 ∙ 152/2006

Trend

L.D. 152/2006

Population density

Linear economy (1) (2) -1.097*** -1.140*** (0.125) (0.223) 0.026*** 0.028*** (0.00589) (0.00605) 0.009*** 0.009*** (0.002) (0.002) -0.030 0.0525 (0.0532) (0.250) -0.001 -0.002 (0.005) (0.005) 0.062 (0.244) -0.416 0.0962 (8.980) (9.726) 72 72 -2.75*** -2.95** 0.49 0.51 59.62 59.55

5

Unemployment rate

Variables Yt - 1

Table 5.3 Relative β-convergence for linear economy methods, Italy

78 Convergence or Divergence in Waste Treatment Methods? The Impact of. . .

29.15** (14.55) 72 -3.59*** -1.41 57.20

Composting (3) -0.164*** (0.062) 0.003 (0.002) 0.026 (0.098) -0.015** (0.007) 0.022** (0.009) (4) -0.101 (0.102) 0.003 (0.002) -0.166 (0.264) -0.018** (0.008) 0.022** (0.009) -0.111 (0.141) 35.72** (17.12) 72 -3.31*** -1.37 53.58

Aerobic and anaerobic treatment (5) (6) -1.095*** -1.078*** (0.141) (0.224) 0.075*** 0.075*** (0.019) (0.019) -0.575 -0.575 (0.408) (0.963) -0.046 -0.047 (0.043) (0.043) 0.095* 0.097* (0.055) (0.055) -0.019 (0.231) 72.39 75.54 (84.65) (85.15) 72 72 -2.44** -2.50** -1.26 -1.32 46.03 50.19 Anaerobic digestion (7) (8) -0.523*** -0.527*** (0.112) (0.107) -0.008 -0.009** (0.005) (0.005) -0.067 -0.092 (0.053) (0.058) 0.013*** 0.015*** (0.004) (0.004) -0.013* -0.016** (0.007) (0.007) -0.002 (0.002) -31.18*** -35.11*** (8.717) (8.743) 72 72 -3.14*** -3.13*** -0.96 -0.96 53.86 50.24

Mechanical biological treatment (9) (10) -0.350*** -0.243** (0.092) (0.109) -0.007*** -0.007*** (0.002) (0.002) -0.009 -0.163 (0.045) (0.118) 0.007* 0.007** (0.004) (0.004) -0.013** -0.013** (0.005) (0.005) -0.133 (0.096) -13.41* -14.37** (7.432) (7.176) 72 72 -5.48*** -5.90*** 1.54 1.60 72.06 81.40

Note: Standard errors in parentheses; with Yt - 1 and Yt - 1 ∙ 152/2006 we denote the level of the dependent variable at time (t - 1) and the interaction term of the L.D. 152/2006 with the level of the dependent variable at time (t - 1), respectively *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1

Observations AR(1) AR(2) Sargan test

Constant

Yt - 1 ∙ 152/2006

Trend

L.D. 152/2006

Population density

Unemployment rate

Variables Yt - 1

Circular economy (1) (2) -1.064*** -1.147*** (0.130) (0.250) -0.007*** -0.006*** (0.001) (0.001) 0.013 0.062 (0.035) (0.132) 0.002 0.003 (0.003) (0.003) -0.019*** -0.018*** (0.004) (0.004) 0.130 (0.267) -3.173 -4.532 (6.038) (6.698) 72 72 -2.25** -2.44** 0.05 0.10 51.97 51.02

Table 5.4 Relative β-convergence for circular economy methods, Italy

5.3 β-Convergence: Results of the Analysis 79

80

5

Convergence or Divergence in Waste Treatment Methods? The Impact of. . .

The Unemployment rate is the ratio of people aged 16–64 who are unemployed to the overall labour force. In this context (i.e. the final phase of the waste treatment process leading to the circular economy, see Sect. 5.1), the interpretation of its effect is rather different from the usual arguments proposed by the waste management literature. When considering the upstream stage of the circular economy model (i.e. SWC) indeed, which offers an analysis of items per capita, the unemployment rate captures the opportunity cost of time (Hage and Söderholm 2008). In other words, since unemployed people have more free time to devote to SWC, they are characterised by a lower cost of time with respect to employed citizens. In this view, the unemployment rate measures citizen behaviours, i.e. their propensity towards SWC operations. In our analysis, unemployment is a measure of economic prosperity, as it captures the provision of waste treatment infrastructures that enable the achievement of circular economy objectives. In short, the unemployment rate is countercyclical: as GDP grows, the unemployment rate drops and vice versa. Adopting infrastructures that achieve circular economy goals requires significant investments, which are more likely to occur in areas characterised by an economic upturn. It follows that, in the circular economic model (more expensive treatment methods), the lower the unemployment rate, the higher the circular economy methods endowment. The opposite occurs for the linear economy. The empirical analysis corroborates the expected relationships (with the few exceptions of CD in Europe and AAT in Italy). For the EU and the Italian case, a drop (rise) in unemployment incentivises circular (linear) economy-related methods. The results reveal a convergence process in terms of both linear and circular economy goals in the EU and Italy. In other words, the circular economy methods in European Member States (Italian macro-areas) starting in a worse position grow faster than those starting with higher circular economy methods. Concerning the linear economy, convergence means reducing the waste handled through the related treatment methods. We extend the analyses by considering the regulations and their interaction with the lagged dependent variable. Thus, we check whether Directive 2008/98/EC (European analysis) and L.D. 152/2006 (Italian analysis) influenced linear/circular economy growth rates. In particular, the interaction term allows us to test whether Directive 2008/98/EC and L.D. 152/2006 favoured convergence among Member States and Italian macro-areas, respectively. Regarding the European analysis, the coefficients associated with Directive 2008/ 98/EC are positive and significant for almost all the circular economy-related methods. As expected, the opposite occurs for the linear economy case. The interaction variables show that the normative shift accelerated the convergence process for L, I, and the aggregated evaluation of the circular economy (improvements are required for the single circular economy treatments). This allows us to conclude that EU regulations promote the circular economy and increase the cross-country convergence process, although with some weaknesses. The trend variable shows the expected sign: positive for circular economy targets and negative for linear targets. Exceptions are the positive trend of incineration in the linear economy and the negative trend of recycling materials for the circular economy, implying a reduction in the growth rate of recycling methods. In sum, it appears that EU countries feature

5.3 β-Convergence: Results of the Analysis

81

adequate infrastructural endowments to activate downstream phases of the circular economy model. However, recycling materials requires specific actions on the part of the EU to ensure a growing trend for the future. In the Italian case, L.D. 152/2006 does not show statistically significant differences with respect to L.D. 22/1997 in reducing the growth rates of the linear economy treatment methods. In other words, the normative change failed to encourage a reduction in these treatments. This result is not surprising since it is linked to (1) the lack of adequate infrastructure to facilitate the waste treatment processes of the circular economy and (2) the uneven distribution of facilities across Italian macro-areas. Both points are highlighted in Fig. 5.1, which shows the oldest and latest data available on plants in the ISPRA database. The analysis of circular economy-related methods confirms this intuition. In particular, the β-convergence

2015

L

2020

I

CI

C

AAT

AD

MBT

2015

2020

180

180

160 140

160 140

120

120

100

100

80

80

60

60

40

40 20

20 0 North Centre South

L 65 34 50

I 26 8 7

CI 11 2 4

C 162 43 58

AAT 22 1 3

AD 18 2 20

MBT 36 32 50

0 North Centre South

L 54 26 51

I 26 5 6

CI 9 1 4

C 177 43 73

AAT 30 7 6

AD 20 3 23

MBT 43 38 54

Fig. 5.1 The territorial distribution of circular and linear treatment method plants. Italian macroareas, 2015 and 2020. (Source: National waste register – ISPRA (https://www.catasto-rifiuti. isprambiente.it/index.php?pg=gestnazione&aa=2015®id=&mappa=1#p)). Legend: L landfill, I incineration, CI co-incineration, C composting, AAT aerobic and anaerobic treatment, AD anaerobic digestion, MBT mechanical biological treatment

82

5 Convergence or Divergence in Waste Treatment Methods? The Impact of. . .

analysis highlights that L.D. 152/2006 produced a positive impact on the adoption of new AD and MBT plants, a negative effect on the growth rate of composting facilities and no influence on aerobic and anaerobic treatment (Table 5.4). The current Italian environmental normative, in other words, is not perfectly suited to support the processes downstream of the circular economy model. The main issue seems to be linked to the lack in L.D. 152/2006 of objectives/targets that territories must achieve in terms of the number of facilities or amount of waste treated. The current normative defines these treatment methods (art. 218) but does not set any related goals. Moreover, the absence of statistical significance for the coefficients associated with the interaction terms confirms that L.D. 152/2006 does not play any role in accelerating the convergence process across Italian macro-areas. The plantrelated issue also emerges when considering the trend variable. The trends, in the linear economy case, are not statistically significant. Only CI presents the expected negative sign (albeit at a significance level of 10%), but only if the interaction term is not considered. The coefficients are statistically significant in the circular economy case, but the trend is positive only for C and AAT. A decreasing trend emerges for the other treatments. In summary, Italy shows a high capacity to meet the circular economy upstream objectives, as for example SWC (Agovino et al. 2016b, 2019b; Musella et al. 2019), but it seems to face relevant difficulties in achieving the circular economy downstream goals, likely due lack of investments and uneven territorial distribution of infrastructures and facilities.

5.4

Conclusions

The debate on the effects of European and national environmental regulations on circular economy adoption is lively, but it mainly focuses on the circular economy upstream phase, such as SWC. This approach features some limitations, as the literature has governments and citizens, leaving aside the important aspects of the downstream phase of waste management (i.e. waste treatment methods, such as landfill, incineration, recycling of materials, and composting). In other words, performing a virtuous SWC is only the initial step towards a circular economy since transforming waste into resources requires adopting infrastructure and plants. Moreover, no previous attempt has been made to analyse the growth rates of circular economy and the existence (or lack) of a convergence process among territories. The present chapter aimed to fill these gaps. First, we investigated whether European Directive 2008/98/EC and Italian L.D. 152/2006 promoted the growth of circular economy treatment methods in European countries and Italian macro-areas. Second, we examined whether these normative shifts triggered a convergence process in the circular economy (as well as in linear economy methods) or whether they widened the differences among EU Member States/Italian macro-areas. To this end, we implemented β-convergence analysis based on GMM estimation. The empirical analysis provides peculiar insights, including the existence of a convergence process at both the European and the Italian levels. The analysis

References

83

indicated that socio-economic drivers condition convergence. While Directive 2008/ 98/EC had a positive effect on the growth rates of the circular (linear) economy and the convergence among EU Member States, L.D. 152/2006 played no role, either in the case of the linear economy or in fostering convergence among macro-areas for both linear and circular economy. The impact of the regulation on the growth rate of circular economy methods turned out to be marginal and limited to AD and MBT. A difficulty emerged for L.D. 152/2006 to support the circular economy downstream processes because of an uneven territorial distribution of plants and facilities. This is a relevant limit of the normative. In fact, the territorial divide in terms of infrastructure has ended up increasing North-South differences in circular economy achievements and generating significant negative externalities. Moving waste from the South to the North causes diseconomies and high pollution due to waste transport.

References Agovino M, Musella G (2020) Separate waste collection in mountain municipalities A case study in Campania. Land Use Policy 91:104408 Agovino M, Parodi G (2016) An analysis of Italian regional social expenditure on disability and other social measures: a spatial econometric approach. Appl Spat Anal Policy 9(4):549–567 Agovino M, Casaccia M, Crociata A (2016a) The impact of European regional development fund on separate waste collection: evidence from Italian regions. Environ Sci Pol 61:97–107 Agovino M, Garofalo A, Mariani A (2016b) Effects of environmental regulation on separate waste collection dynamics: empirical evidence from Italy. J Clean Prod 124:30–40 Agovino M, Casaccia M, Crociata A (2017a) Effectiveness and efficiency of European regional development fund on separate waste collection: evidence from Italian regions by a stochastic frontier approach. Econ Polit 34(1):105–137 Agovino M, Garofalo A, Mariani A (2017b) Separate waste collection in Italy: the role of sociocultural factors and targets set by law. Environ Dev Sustain 19(2):589–605 Agovino M, Garofalo A, Cerciello M (2019a) Do local institutions affect labour market participation? The Italian case. B E J Econ Anal Policy 19(2):20180077 Agovino M, Cerciello M, Musella G (2019b) The good and the bad: identifying homogeneous groups of municipalities in terms of separate waste collection determinants in Italy. Ecol Indic 98:297–309 Agovino M, Ferraro A, Musella G (2021) Does national environmental regulation promote convergence in separate waste collection? Evidence from Italy. J Clean Prod 291:125285 Anderson TW, Hsiao C (1982) Formulation and estimation of dynamic models using panel data. J Econ 18(1):47–82 Arellano M, Bond S (1991) Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Rev Econ Stud 58(2):277–297 Arellano M, Bover O (1995) Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of errorcomponents models. J Econ 68(1):29–51 Attia N, Berenger V (2007) Social protection convergence in the European Union: impact of Maastricht treaty. Panoeconomicus 54(4):469–487 Barro RJ, Sala-i-Martin X (1992) Convergence. J Polit Econ 100(2):223–251 Barro RJ, Sala-i-Martin X (2003) Economic growth. MIT Press, Cambridge Cecere G, Corrocher N (2016) Stringency of regulation and innovation in waste management: an empirical analysis on EU countries. Ind Innov 23(7):625–646

84

5

Convergence or Divergence in Waste Treatment Methods? The Impact of. . .

D’Amato A, Mazzanti M, Nicolli F (2015) Waste and organized crime in regional environments: how waste tariffs and the mafia affect waste management and disposal. Resour Energy Econ 41:185–201 De los Rios IC, Charnley FJ (2017) Skills and capabilities for a sustainable and circular economy: the changing role of design. J Clean Prod 160:109–122 Ford P, Fisher J (2019) Designing consumer electronic products for the circular economy using recycled acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS): a case study. J Clean Prod 236:117490 Hage O, Söderholm P (2008) An econometric analysis of regional differences in household waste collection: the case of plastic packaging waste in Sweden. Waste Manag 28(10):1720–1731 Malinauskaite J, Jouhara H, Czajczyńska D, Stanchev P, Katsou E, Rostkowski P et al (2017) Municipal solid waste management and waste-to-energy in the context of a circular economy and energy recycling in Europe. Energy 141:2013–2044 Mankiw NG, Romer D, Weil DN (1992) A contribution to the empirics of economic growth. Q J Econ 107(2):407–437 Marin G, Nicolli F, Zoboli R (2018) Catching-up in waste management. Evidence from the EU. J Environ Plan Manag 61(11):1861–1882 Martikainen E, Schmiedel H, Takalo T (2015) Convergence of European retail payments. J Bank Financ 50:81–91 Mazzanti M, Zoboli R (2009) Municipal waste Kuznets curves: evidence on socio-economic drivers and policy effectiveness from the EU. Environ Resour Econ 44(2):203–230 Musella G, Agovino M, Casaccia M, Crociata A (2019) Evaluating waste collection management: the case of macro-areas and municipalities in Italy. Environ Dev Sustain 21(6):2857–2889 Nickell S (1981) Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects. Econometrica: J Econ Soc 49: 1417–1426 Nicolli F (2012) Convergence of waste-related indicators of environmental quality in Italy. Environ Econ Policy Stud 14(4):383–401 Olson D, Zoubi T (2017) Convergence in bank performance for commercial and Islamic banks during and after the global financial crisis. Q Rev Econ Finance 65:71–87 Paes LAB, Bezerra BS, Deus RM, Jugend D, Battistelle RAG (2019) Organic solid waste management in a circular economy perspective–a systematic review and SWOT analysis. J Clean Prod 239:118086 Rapacki R, Próchniak M (2009) Real beta and sigma convergence in 27 transition countries, 1990–2005. Post-Communist Econ 21(3):307–326 Sanchez FAC, Boudaoud H, Camargo M, Pearce JM (2020) Plastic recycling in additive manufacturing: a systematic literature review and opportunities for the circular economy. J Clean Prod 121602:121602 Simões P, Carvalho P, Marques RC (2012) Performance assessment of refuse collection services using robust efficiency measures. Resour Conserv Recycl 67:56–66 Sørensen A (2001) Comparing apples to oranges: productivity convergence and measurement across industries and countries: comment. Am Econ Rev 91(4):1160–1167 Strazicich MC, List JA (2003) Are CO2 emission levels converging among industrial countries? Environ Resour Econ 24(3):263–271 Sun H, Kporsu AK, Taghizadeh-Hesary F, Edziah BK (2020) Estimating environmental efficiency and convergence: 1980 to 2016. Energy 208:118224

Conclusions

The objective of this book was twofold. On the one hand, it aimed to analyse how the European legislation on waste management has influenced the transition from linear to the circular economy in European countries; on the other hand, it focused on Italy, aiming to verify how the national waste management legislation implemented EU principles and what impact it produced with respect to the transition towards the circular economy in Italian macro-areas. In the first case, the empirical indicated that few European countries have experienced a process of continuous transition to the circular economy over the years. Italy ranks among these countries, as it results to be very virtuous in comparative terms, with respect to both the objectives set by European Directives and the thresholds and timeframes defined. Nonetheless, Italian waste management still features several problems regarding the objectives of the circular economy model. Specifically, compared to other EU countries, Italy resorts extensively to landfilling and fails to invest in energy recovery through waste-to-energy plants. Furthermore, the most advanced waste treatment plants are mainly located in the Northern area, which generates significant waste traffic and consequent pollution within the country. Finally, infrastructural deficiencies are very marked in Central Italy, leading to increased landfill disposal. Therefore, infrastructural intervention in waste treatment is becoming increasingly urgent to reduce landfilled waste: the European objectives for 2035 aim to limit landfill disposal below 10%, but Italy is currently at 20.9% (Oservatorio Conti Pubblici Italiani 2022). The lack of adequate infrastructure to complete the circular cycle of waste clearly emerges in the analysis conducted on the Italian macro-areas (Chaps. 3 and 5). The three macro-areas are characterised by historical, cultural and economic diversities that also emerge in the transition towards the circular economy model. The differences show up significantly when considering the Italian legislation on waste management, failing to mirror the flattering data recorded compared to the rest of Europe. As shown in Chaps. 1 and 2, the transposition of EU legislation took place through the imposition of more ambitious targets and less dilated timing than those © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Agovino, M. Gaetano, EU Waste Regulation in a Linear-Circular Economy Transition, SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28103-7

85

86

Conclusions

defined by European Directives. Nonetheless, the Italian legislation on waste only defines targets for the phases upstream of the circular economy (SWC), but for the downstream phases (treatment methods), it provides definitions without setting targets or timeframes. This makes the national legislation ineffective in favouring the growth (decrease) of treatments that tend to a circular (linear) economy, producing local delays in achieving the circular economy objectives in all macro-areas. Additionally, economic differences across macro-areas amplify the problem of full implementation of the circular economy model. Moreover, the cost of waste collection in Italy has grown considerably over the last 10 years, from 159€ per capita in 2012 to 185.6€ per capita in 2020. In Italy, the polluter pays principle introduced by EU Directives does not apply. On the contrary, in the face of lower waste generation, no corresponding decrease in disposal costs is observed, thus discouraging virtuous behaviours. The rising costs of waste management are not an Italian issue only. Between 2012 and 2017, the service cost increased by an average of 6.4% across the Eurozone, with the most significant increases in Italy (+13.6%) and France (+10.7%). Spain underwent a smaller increase (+4.1%), while in Germany costs remained almost unchanged (+0.1%). To counter this problem, different solutions have been considered. Although recycling in Italy has indeed increased, infrastructural endowments remain inadequate. Dependence on imported fossil fuels, rekindled by the conflict in Ukraine, also revives the debate on the need for energy-producing treatment plants. In addition to the contribution of inflation, it is legitimate to attribute a large part of the increase in the cost of waste management in Italy to the lack of modernisation of disposal plants, which are still not very widespread in Italy. The waste sector faces a series of structural reforms, but many difficulties persist, especially regarding reducing administrative times, streamlining authorisation procedures, obtaining social acceptance and dealing with local governance. These reforms aim to activate the investments necessary to fill the plant requirements and to overcome management fragmentation. An analysis by Utilitalia1 estimates that for the overall exchange of waste, 62 million km are travelled, and 40,000 tonnes of CO2 are produced per year at the cost of 75 million euros. The ISPRA 2020 Report indicates that Campania and Latium are the regions that export by far the highest amounts of organic waste, sending out 25% and 14.5%, respectively, of the total organic fraction produced to non-neighbouring regions (mainly to Veneto, Friuli Venezia Giulia, and Lombardy). In this sense, the Italian National Recovery and Resilience Plan (Piano Nazionale di Ripresa e Resilienza, PNRR) can represent an opportunity for the component that aims to encourage the circularity of resources and, specifically, to improve waste collection and management systems throughout the national territory, helping to reduce the service divide. In this direction, in 2022, the Italian Ministry of the Environment and Energy Security published the proposal for a National Waste Management Programme (Programma nazionale di gestione dei rifiuti, PNGR),

1

https://www.utilitalia.it/notizia/8c60c9ea-8c8b-49ed-9004-e0851de6a4c2

Conclusions

87

which constitutes one of the structural reforms for the implementation of the PNRR in support of the identification and overcoming of management and plant engineering gaps that characterise the waste sector. Having said that, it seems clear that to achieve the objectives of the circular economy, Italy will have to move in several directions. The first concerns the limitation of the import/export of waste to and from Italy, which moves almost 10 million tons of waste every year: a diseconomy that, due to a lack of plants, produces a loss of material and energy potential. Second, Italy will have to equip itself with a plant system suited to its needs. In practice, over 20 plants are needed for the main recycling chains, 22 anaerobic management plants for recycling the organic fraction, 24 waste-to-energy plants, and 53 landfill plants to manage urban and special waste flows. Therefore, it is necessary to stop the so-called “waste tourism”2 within national borders: waste that is moved from one region to another due to the lack of treatment facilities. Finally, it is necessary to reconsider the management of landfills, referring only to modern and sustainable plants to which the appropriately treated residual fractions should be allocated exclusively.

Reference Osservatori Conti Pubblici Italiani (2022) Il trattamento dei Rifiuti Urbani in Italia ed Europa. Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Largo A. Gemelli, 1 – 20123 Milano. https:// osservatoriocpi.unicatt.it/ocpi-pubblicazioni-il-trattamento-dei-rifiuti-urbani-in-italia-edeuropa#_ftn4. Last access, 08.12.2022

2

https://assoambiente.org/