The European Union (EU) circular economy action plan aims to double its use of recycled material by 2030. We argue that waste-centric approach to resources may have adverse consequences to this ambition. The aim of the work was to find out the factors limiting or promoting the use of waste from primary food sector in countries with the same cultural background and similar climate in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Norway. Biomass from the primary food production sector is of good quality and excellent to use, but its use may be limited if given waste status. From numerous management decision trigger clusters, which may affect valorisation of the biomass, we focus on technology and policy. Our semi-structured interviews addressed the analysis and management of waste or by-products and explored the end-of-waste and alternative mechanisms that allowed the biomass to be valorised. However, the interviews revealed that none of the companies regard anything becoming waste, but as raw material or production left-over. Any obstacles hypothesised turned out not to be acknowledged by companies at all. This appears to be a very good example of the use of resources, but the approach is haphazard and may conflict with official understanding and waste reporting requirements. Definition of waste is the same in the EU, and arbitrary treatment can be misleading. There is a need for better management of the material flow to ensure effective biomass circulation avoiding its becoming waste. We recommend that this be addressed by introducing environmental, social, governance and a self-control system.
BennettEMSolanMBiggsR, et al. (2016) Bright spots: Seeds of a good Anthropocene. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment14: 441–448.
3.
BezamaA (2016) Let us discuss how cascading can help implement the circular economy and the bio-economy strategies. Waste Management & Research34: 593–594.
4.
BoloyRAMdaCunhaReisAMedeiros RiosE, et al. (2021) Waste-to-energy technologies towards circular economy: A systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution232: 1–25.
5.
BorgströmS (2018) Reviewing natural resources law in the light of bioeconomy: Finnish forest regulations as a case study. Forest Policy and Economics88: 11–23.
6.
BraungartMM (2007) Cradle-to-cradle design creating healthy emissions – A strategy for eco-effective product and system design. Journal of Cleaner Production15: 1337–1348.
7.
BrunnerPHMorfLS. (2024) Waste to energy, indispensable cornerstone for circular economy: A mini-review. Waste Management & Research. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1177/0734242X241227376.
COM/2020/98 (n.d.). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A New Circular Economy Action Plan for a Cleaner and More Competitive Europe.
16.
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2772 of 31 July 2023 supplementing Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards sustainability reporting standards, ELI. Available at: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2023/2772/oj (accessed 18 April 2024).
17.
Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (EU) 2022/2464. Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Directive 2013/34/EU, as regards corporate sustainability reporting.
18.
Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009L0028&from=EN (accessed 3 July 2024).
19.
DonnerMV (2021) Critical success and risk factors for circular business models valorising agricultural waste and by-products. Resources, Conservation and Recycling165: 105236.
20.
EC (2018) European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, a sustainable bioeconomy for Europe – Strengthening the connection between economy, society and the environment – Updated bioeconomy strategy, Publications Office, 2018. Available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/792130 (accessed 3 July 2024).
21.
EC (2019) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – The European Green Deal (COM (2019) 640 final of 11 December 2019).
22.
EC (2020) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – A Farm to Fork Strategy (COM (2020) 381 final of 20 May 2020).
GliessmanS (2016) Transforming food systems with agroecology. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems40: 187–189.
32.
GołębiewskiJ (2023) The significance and essence of ESG in the food sector in Poland. Annals of the Polish Association of Agricultural and Agribusiness Economists XXV: 75–90.
33.
GorissenLSpiraFMeynaertsE, et al. (2018) Moving towards systemic change? Investigating acceleration dynamics of urban sustainability transitions in the Belgian City of Genk. Journal of Cleaner Production173: 171–185.
34.
HaberlHE-H (2013) Bioenergy: How much can we expect for 2050?Environmental Research Letters8: 031004.
35.
HaberlHG (2000) Cascade utilization of biomass: strategies for a more efficient use of a scarce resource. Ecological Engineering16: 111–121.
36.
HerreroMThorntonPKMason-D’CrozD, et al. (2020) Innovation can accelerate the transition towards a sustainable food system. Nature Food1: 266–272.
37.
HidanoAGatesMCEnticottG (2019) Farmers’ decision making on livestock trading practices: Cowshed culture and behavioral triggers amongst New Zealand dairy farmers. Frontiers in Veterinary Science6: 320.
38.
HoernigJ (2022) Towards ‘secondary raw material’ as a legal category. Environmental Law Review24: 111–127.
39.
HoogstraAGSilviusJde OldeEM, et al. (2024) The transformative potential of circular agriculture initiatives in the North of the Netherlands. Agricultural Systems214: 103833.
40.
JohanssonNForsgrenC (2020) Is this the end of end-of-waste? Uncovering the space between waste and products. Resources, Conservation and Recycling155: 104656.
41.
KalmykovaYS (2018) Circular economy – From review of theories and practices to development of implementation tools. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 135: 190–201.
42.
KirchherrJPiscicelliLBourR, et al. (2018) Barriers to the circular economy: Evidence from the European Union (EU). Ecological Economics150: 264–272.
43.
KirchherrJR (2017) Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling127: 221–232.
44.
KorhonenJHonkasaloASeppäläJ (2018) Circular economy: The concept and its limitations. Ecological Economics143: 37–46.
45.
LeesE (2018). End of waste status and the re-establishment of the definition of waste panel. Environmental Law Review20: 233–239.
46.
LiJ (2015) Wastes could be resources and cities could be mines. Waste Management & Research33: 301–302.
47.
LoorbachDWittmayerJAvelinoF, et al (2020) Transformative innovation and translocal diffusion. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions35: 251–260.
48.
LuSM (2018) Resource recycling and waste-to-energy: The cornerstones of circular economy. Invention Journal of Research Technology in Engineering & Management2: 4–22.
49.
MairCSternT (2017) Cascading utilization of wood: A matter of circular economy?. Current Forestry Reports3: 281–295.
50.
McDonoughWB (2010) Cradle to cradle: Remaking the way we make things. New Work: North Point Press.
51.
MuscatAde OldeEMKovacicZ, et al. (2021a) Food, energy or biomaterials? Policy coherence across agro-food and bioeconomy policy domains in the EU. Environmental Science & Policy123: 21–30.
52.
MuscatAde OldeEMRipoll-BoschEM, et al. (2021b) Principles, drivers and opportunities of a circular bioeconomy. Nature Food2: 561–566.
53.
MuscatAE-B (2020) The battle for biomass: A systematic review of food-feed-fuel competition. Global Food Security25: 100330.
54.
O’CallaghanK (2016) Technologies for the utilisation of biogenic waste in the bioeconomy. Food Chemistry198: 2–11.
55.
Pahl-WostlC (2009) A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change19: 354–365.
56.
PloegmakersHRaaphorstKMCKooijHJ, et al (2020) Analyse debat kringlooplandbouw: Eindrapport. Nijmegen: Radboud Universiteit.
57.
PongráczEPohjolaVJ (2004) Re-defining waste, the concept of ownership and the role of waste management. Resources, Conservation and Recycling40: 141–153.
RaimbaultJJ (2020) A spatial agent based model for simulating and optimizing networked ecoindustrial systems. Resources, Conservation & Recycling155: 104538.
60.
SancakIE (2023) Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. Journal of Environmental Management330: 117165.
61.
SilviusJHoogstraAGCandelJJ, et al. (2023) Determining the transformative potential of circular agriculture initiatives. Ambio52: 1–13.
62.
SmilV (2012) Harvesting the biosphere: What we have taken from nature. London, England: The MIT Press.
63.
SmithARavenR (2012) What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability. Research Policy41: 1025–1036.
64.
SutherlandLBurtonRJFIngramJ, et al. (2012) Triggering change: Towards a conceptualisation of major change processes in farm decision-making. Journal of Environmental Management104: 142–151.
65.
TermeerCJAMMetzeTAP (2019) More than peanuts: Transformation towards a circular economy through a small-wins governance framework. Journal of Cleaner Production240: 118272.
66.
TrokanasNCeceljaFYuM, et al. (2014) Optimising environmental performance of symbiotic networks using semantics. Computer Aided Chemical Engineering33: 847–852.
Van CaneghemJVan AckerKDe GreefJ, et al. (2019) Waste-to-energy is compatible and complementary with recycling in the circular economy. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy21: 925–939.
69.
VillanuevaADelgadoLZhengL, et al. (2010) Study on the selection of waste streams for end of waste assessment (Report No. EUR 24362 EN – 2010). Luxembourg: European Commission Joint Research Centre.
70.
VisMMantauUAllenB (2016) Study on the optimised cascading use of wood, No 394/PP/ENT/RCH/14/7689. Final Report. Brussels 2016, p. 337. Available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2873/827106 (accessed 20 April 2024).
71.
WilkinsonD (1999) Time to discard the concept of waste?Environmental Law Review1: 172–195.
72.
ZanettiMPanepintoD (2023) Waste framework directive: Analysis of the end of waste (EoW) criteria, E13 (2) workshop: Open issues in EU regulations on end of waste. In: 19th International Symposium on Waste Management and Sustainable Landfilling, Sardinia, Italy, 9–13 October 2023.
73.
ZorpasA (2016) Sustainable waste management through end-of-waste criteria development. Environmental Science and Pollution Research23: 7376–7389.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
