Mr. Jean-Pierre Schweitzer:

Good evening, Chairman, Deputies and Senators, others making statements and the public audience. I thank the committee for this opportunity to participate in the development of the circular economy Bill.

I work as policy officer at the European Environmental Bureau, EEB. The EEB is the EU’s largest federation of environmental NGOs. We support our 170-plus members in advocating for environmental protection and justice. We have eight members in Ireland, including Friends of the Irish Environment, Zero Waste Alliance Ireland, the Irish Environmental Network and VOICE, which is represented by Ms O'Brien who just made her excellent statement. I have familiarised myself with the committee's work in this area and consulted our members.

The Bill is welcome and I hope it is adopted. I will focus my statement on interesting practice from across the EU and developments in Brussels. Targets were raised in the last meeting. Knowing the extraction of natural resources causes more than 90% of biodiversity loss and at least 50% of greenhouse gas emissions, the most important thing the circular economy can achieve is to reduce our consumption of natural resources. Ireland does not report on material footprint in its national statistics and does not have detailed material flow accounts. Without this capacity it will be difficult to measure the circular economy in a holistic way. The European Commission will this autumn add material footprint to its monitoring framework, making reporting on this indicator mandatory. The Netherlands, who several Deputies already regarded as a leader for circular economy, have set a target to reduce their material footprint by 50% by 2030. Even if Ireland may not be ready for a target, why not establish the necessary statistical capacity and commit to political debate on consumption targets in the future?

As noted in Deputy Bruton’s very good report, Ireland has one of the highest levels of municipal waste in Europe. At above 600 kg per capita, it is almost a quarter above the European average. In Brussels, revised packaging legislation is expected to be proposed next spring. Policy options being discussed include reuse targets for products like drinks and takeaway food. Alongside a headline target on reducing consumption, I encourage members to consider targets on waste prevention and reuse, notably for food, packaging and municipal waste. We already have some of these in other EU countries.

Targets will not achieve themselves. The Bill seems very focused on waste and more could be said about the enabling factors of the circular economy.

As I said in the previous meeting, I would not rely too much on EU Single Market measures. I will give an example. While the recent eco-design provisions adopted for white goods may help to make washing machines technically repairable, they do not address the cost of repair or the need for making the repair market competitive, including for independent operators and repair cafes. The circular economy will require local labour to reuse, repair and refurbish. Sadly, hours of Irish labour are more expensive than the latest gadgets on Amazon. Ireland will need all the tools at its disposal to nudge the economy away from its linear model. On fiscal incentives, the EU has no competency, but you can introduce differential VAT rates, or a tax shift from labour to resource this practice. Belgium and Finland have included subsidies in their government programmes. A number of states, such as Germany and Austria, have also introduced repair bonuses, where up to 50% of the cost of repair is reimbursed to citizens, with a cap of €100. Italy and France have also been increasingly targeting multinationals that blatantly build obsolescence into their business models. Italian competition authorities fined a major printer manufacturer €10 million for blocking cartridge reuse, and France has made obsolescence and the destruction of unsold goods illegal.

Extended producer responsibility, EPR, can also be a more effective tool in financing the circular economy. Although I welcome that Ireland will introduce a modulation of EPR fees to support recycling, EPR should also enable reuse and repair. The French solidarity reuse fund earmarks 5% of EPR revenues for reuse and social economy actors. Ireland its own social economy initiatives, including good ones like Rediscover Fashion in Dublin. Such small-scale projects will always need support, as they cannot compete with fast fashion and goods bought online. One of our members has also raised concerns about the amount of recyclable waste covered by the EPR which is still being diverted to cement kilns and incinerators. I am also curious about how Ireland’s awaited deposit return scheme, DRS, will fit into the Bill. When is this system expected to be implemented? Will it also enable reuse?

I will conclude by making some challenging points to reflect on. The first is about mining. Part 5 of the Bill, which relates to natural resources, is welcome. As well as preventing the extraction of coal and shale, how can the Bill ensure the recovery of other resources is prioritised over virgin extraction? For example, the EPA estimates that there are 75 million tonnes of untapped secondary mineral resources in Ireland. Lastly, with a view to COP26, how can embedded initiative products better be accounted for in climate policy, such as throughput printing of products, or providing credits for waste prevention? I thank the committee for its time and I am happy to answer any questions members may have.