Promoting waste prevention in industry – search for policy instruments

Front cover picture: Copyright Seppo Leinonen. Printed with permission

Aalto-D

D 9

4/2

016

9HSTFMG*agibcb+

ISBN 978-952-60-6812-1 (printed) ISBN 978-952-60-6813-8 (pdf) ISSN-L 1799-4934 ISSN 1799-4934 (printed) ISSN 1799-4942 (pdf) Aalto University School of Chemical Technology Department of Forest Products Technology www.aalto.fi

BUSINESS + ECONOMY ART + DESIGN + ARCHITECTURE SCIENCE + TECHNOLOGY CROSSOVER DOCTORAL DISSERTATIONS

Raim

o Kalevi Lilja

Promoting w

aste prevention in industry – search for policy instruments

Aalto

Unive

rsity

2016

Department of Forest Products Technology

Promoting waste prevention in industry – search for policy instruments

Raimo Kalevi Lilja

DOCTORAL DISSERTATIONS

Aalto University publication series DOCTORAL DISSERTATIONS 94/2016


Raimo Kalevi Lilja

A doctoral dissertation completed for the degree of Doctor of Science (Technology) to be defended, with the permission of the Aalto University School of Chemical Technology, at a public examination held at the lecture hall Ke 2 (Kemistintie 1) on 5th of August 2016 at 12 am.

Aalto University School of Chemical Technology Department of Forest Products Technology Environmental Technology within Process Industry

Supervising professor Professor Olli Dahl, Aalto University, School of Chemical Technology, Department of Forest Products Technology Preliminary examiners Docent Dr.Sci (Tech) Eva Pongrácz, University of Oulu, Faculty of Technology, Finland Doctor of Laws, Research Professor in Natural Resources Law Jukka Similä, Arctic Centre, University of Lapland, Finland.

Aalto University publication series DOCTORAL DISSERTATIONS 94/2016 © Raimo Lilja ISBN 978-952-60-6812-1 (printed) ISBN 978-952-60-6813-8 (pdf) ISSN-L 1799-4934 ISSN 1799-4934 (printed) ISSN 1799-4942 (pdf) http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-60-6813-8 Images: front cover picture copyright by Seppo Leinonen Unigrafia Oy Helsinki 2016 Finland

Abstract Aalto University, P.O. Box 11000, FI-00076 Aalto www.aalto.fi

Author Raimo Lilja Name of the doctoral dissertation Promoting waste prevention in industry – search for policy instruments Publisher School of Chemical Technology Unit Department of Forest Products Technology Series Aalto University publication series DOCTORAL DISSERTATIONS 94/2016 Field of research Environmental technology within Process Industry Manuscript submitted 3 May 2016 Date of the defence 5 August 2016 Permission to publish granted (date) 27 April 2016 Language English

Monograph Article dissertation Essay dissertation

Abstract The research challenge was to assess the benefits and limitations of using the concept Material Efficiency (MEf) as a proxy for the concept of Waste Prevention (WPr) in the context of designing policy instruments to promote WPr actions in the industry. The materials and methods for the thesis included studies of the statistics of hazardous industrial waste, observations from several cases of policy design processes in Finland, stakeholder interviews, an empirical study of environmental permits and elements of discourse analysis and policy evaluation. The results of the thesis support the view that MEf discourse can be used to translate the WPr goal into practice, with some limitations. A typology of MEf categories was developed and used as a tool for assessing the present scope of regulating WPr and MEf in a sample of environmental permits for industry in Finland. The study verified that in practice the waste hierarchy is not applied in most of the permits. The Industrial Emission Directive gives permitting authorities the mandate to regulate many categories of MEf. MEf is an important aspect of best available technique. There are legal and pragmatic limits to regulating MEf through permits. MEf policy is more complex than traditional pollution abatement policy because the use and choice of materials is directed by powerful sector-specific practices and policies, whereas WPr is more purely an environmental concern. Maximizing MEf in one phase of the life cycle of a product may not be the optimal solution. The findings suggest that a negotiated agreement or "green deal" could be feasible in Finland for promoting certain elements of circular economy. The case studies illustrate that the framing of MEf affects the choice of policy instruments. The thesis concludes that WPr would be easier to promote if it were clearly distanced from waste policy. Both quantitative and qualitative WPr can be better promoted through the concept of MEf in the broader cleaner production or circular economy context as compared to the current linkage with waste management policy.

Keywords waste prevention, material efficiency, policy instruments, hazardous waste, negotiated environmental agreements, pollution prevention, cleaner production

ISBN (printed) 978-952-60-6812-1 ISBN (pdf) 978-952-60-6813-8 ISSN-L 1799-4934 ISSN (printed) 1799-4934 ISSN (pdf) 1799-4942 Location of publisher Helsinki Location of printing Helsinki Year 2016 Pages 148 urn http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-60-6813-8

Tiivistelmä Aalto-yliopisto, PL 11000, 00076 Aalto www.aalto.fi

Tekijä Raimo Lilja Väitöskirjan nimi Jätteen määrän ja haitallisuuden ehkäisy teollisuudessa - ohjauskeinoja etsimässä Julkaisija Kemian tekniikan korkeakoulu Yksikkö Puunjalostustekniikan laitos Sarja Aalto University publication series DOCTORAL DISSERTATIONS 94/2016 Tutkimusala Prosessiteollisuuden ympäristötekniikka Käsikirjoituksen pvm 03.05.2016 Väitöspäivä 05.08.2016 Julkaisuluvan myöntämispäivä 27.04.2016 Kieli Englanti

Monografia Artikkeliväitöskirja Esseeväitöskirja

Tiivistelmä Tutkimushaasteena oli arvioida, missä määrin materiaalitehokkuuden käsite voisi korvata jätteen ehkäisyn käsitteen suunniteltaessa ohjauskeinoja, joilla voitaisiin vähentää teollisuuden jätteitä ja niiden haitallisuutta. Tutkimuksen materiaalit ja menetelmät käsittivät vaarallisten teollisuusjätteiden tilastojen tutkimusta, tapaustutkimuksia useista ympäristöpolitiikan suunnitteluprosesseista Suomessa, sidosryhmähaastatteluja, ympäristölupien empiirisen tutkimuksen sekä diskurssianalyysin ja arviointitutkimuksen elementtejä. Tulokset tukevat käsitystä, että materiaalitehokkuuden diskurssilla voidaan tulkita jätteen ehkäisyn tavoitetta paremmin käytäntöön soveltuvalla tavalla - eräin varauksin. Tutkimuksessa kehitettiin materiaalitehokkuuden keinojen luokittelua, jonka avulla arvioitiin, miten jätteen ehkäisyä ja materiaalitehokkuutta on edistetty teollisuuden ympäristöluvissa Suomessa. Tutkimus vahvisti, että jätehuollon ensisijaisuusjärjestystä ei ole toteutettu useimmissa luvissa. Teollisuuden päästödirektiivi (IED) antaa lupaviranomaisille valtuudet antaa lupamääräyksiä monista materiaalitehokkuuden kategorioista. Materiaalitehokkuus on myös yksi parhaan käyttökelpoisen teknologian (BAT) näkökohdista. Materiaalitehokkuuden lupasääntelyllä on kuitenkin juridisia ja käytännöllisiä rajoitteita. Materiaalitehokkuuden ohjaus on monimutkaisempaa kuin perinteinen pilaantumisen ehkäisyn ohjaus, koska materiaalien käyttöä ja valintaa ohjaavat voimakkaat sektorikohtaiset käytännöt ja politiikat, kun taas jätteen ehkäisy on etupäässä ympäristöpolitiikan intressi. Materiaalitehokkuuden maksimointi yhdessä elinkaaren vaiheessa tai tuotantolaitoksessa ei välttämättä johda optimaaliseen ratkaisuun. Tämän väitöskirjan tulokset viittaavat siihen, että neuvoteltu materiaalitehokkuussopimus eli "vihreä diili" hallinnon ja teollisuuden edustajien välillä voisi soveltua keinoksi, jolla voidaan edistää eräitä kiertotalouden elementtejä Suomessa. Tapausselostukset osoittavat, että viitekehyksen määrittely on tärkeää materiaalitehokkuuden edistämisohjelmien suunnittelussa. Jätteen määrän ja haitallisuuden vähentäminen voidaan saavuttaa materiaalitehokkuuden parantamisen keinoilla. Tätä koskeva dialogi voidaan paremmin käydä kestävän kulutuksen ja tuotannon, luonnonvarapolitiikan tai kiertotalouden viitekehyksessä kuin jätehuoltopolitiikan yhteydessä.

Avainsanat jätteiden määrän ja haitallisuuden ehkäisy, materiaalitehokkuus, ympäristöpolitiikan ohjauskeinot, vaarallinen jäte, vapaaehtoinen ympäristösopimus, pilaantumisen ehkäisy, puhtaampi teknologia

ISBN (painettu) 978-952-60-6812-1 ISBN (pdf) 978-952-60-6813-8 ISSN-L 1799-4934 ISSN (painettu) 1799-4934 ISSN (pdf) 1799-4942 Julkaisupaikka Helsinki Painopaikka Helsinki Vuosi 2016 Sivumäärä 148 urn http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-60-6813-8

1

Acknowledgements

The origins of this thesis date a long time back and the history covers most of my professional career. In 1988 I worked for two months in the Danish Environmental Protection Agency through the Nordic civil servant exchange scheme. I was impressed by the innovative environmental policy in Denmark and brought home some ideas for improving waste policy in Finland. I could apply these ideas as an environmental inspector of the Provincial Government of Mikkeli in its Environmental Office. Ilkka Stén, the head of the office inspired me with his passionate love of nature.

Managing director Kalevi Puukko invited me to join the engineering office Rejlers Ltd. in 1991. My task was to productize and lead environmental consulting services. For example, we developed waste management plans, waste prevention audits, environmental profiles for products and life-cycle analysis for industry.

As the project manager for technical assistance to the Egyptian Pollution Abatement Project with Soil and Water Ltd. in 2000…2004 I had the chance to look into cleaner production opportunities in the context of a developing country. The project succeeded in supporting several cleaner production improvements in Egyptian industrial companies and promoted cleaner production policy and legislation. I learned a lot from my Egyptian counterparts, among them project director Hanan el-Hadary, professor Mahmoud el-Rifai and Dr. Reem Ettouney.

Since the establishment of my consultant company Ecolabel Partnership waste prevention and material efficiency issues have been my areas of specialization. When applying for a grant from Ekokem Ltd. in 2004 for conducting doctoral research on hazardous waste minimization I couldn’t imagine how long it would take to reach the goal. My parallel work as an environmental consultant gradually transformed the original research plan into a dialog between consulting assignments and academic analysis. A decisive step was being contracted for a full-time task of drafting the National Waste Plan for Finland in 2005-2006. This offered me an insider view of the challenges and opportunities for waste prevention policy. I revised the scope of my research from hazardous waste minimization to waste prevention in the industry in general. My focus turned more towards the governance of waste prevention, dropping the fieldwork at the individual factory level. What remained was the insistence of looking at the issue from both sides of the regulator-regulated table.

2

I want to thank my assistants Sari Liukkonen, Markus Saloranta and my co-writer Gary Watkins. I am grateful to Kaarina Saramäki, Hanna Salmenperä and Petrus Kautto from SYKE and Tarja-Riitta Blauberg, Sirje Stén, Riitta Levinen and Taina Nikula from the Ministry of the Environment of Finland for cooperation in many projects related to this thesis. My brother, professor emeritus Kari Lilja has been a role model in his deep passion for scientific work.

I thank my supervisor, professor Olli Dahl from Aalto University for his encouragement and advice. I thank the pre-examiners Professor Jukka Similä from The University of Lapland and Docent, Dr. Sci. Eva Pongracz from the University of Oulu for their comments. Dr. Pongracz challenged me with her comments to edit my manuscript and I think they helped significantly in improving the logical flow and the clarity of my conclusions.

This thesis work would not have materialized without two grants from Ekokem Ltd. I also received a travel grant from the Foundation for Aalto University Science and Technology.

Mikkeli, 30th April 2016 Raimo Lilja

3

to Marianne, my love

5

Contents

Acknowledgements ................................................................................... 1

List of Abbreviations and Symbols .......................................................... 7

List of Publications .................................................................................. 9

Author’s Contribution ............................................................................ 10

1. Introduction ................................................................................. 11

1.1 The research challenge ............................................................. 12

1.2 The thesis objective, scope, and approach ............................... 13

2. Theoretical background ............................................................... 15

2.1 Definition of waste prevention and some related concepts ..... 15

2.2 Environmental management in implementing WPr/MEf ...... 17

2.3 Environmental policy instruments ..........................................18

2.4 Framing and the environmental discourse ..............................18

3. Materials and methods ............................................................... 20

4. Results ........................................................................................ 24

4.1 Industrial hazardous wastes in Finland – trends related to the waste prevention goal .............................................................. 24

4.2 From waste prevention to promotion of material efficiency: a change of discourse in the waste policy of Finland ......................... 25

4.3 Negotiated environmental agreements in promoting material efficiency in industry – first steps in Finland .................................... 26

4.4 Promoting material efficiency in environmental permits – present state and new opportunities ................................................. 28

4.5 Policy instruments for promoting material efficiency: case of Finland ........................................................................................... 29

5. Discussion .................................................................................... 31

5.1 Comparing the concepts of WPr and MEf ............................... 31

5.1.1 The benefits and limits of the MEf discourse ......................... 33

5.1.2 The typology of MEf measures ............................................... 35

5.1.3 Qualitative WPr ....................................................................... 36

5.2 Policy instruments for promoting WPr or MEf ...................... 37

6

5.2.1 How to regulate MEf in environmental permits ..................... 37

5.2.2 Voluntary MEf agreements and other forms of co-governance and self-regulation ............................................................................. 41

5.3 Framing matters ...................................................................... 43

6. Conclusions ................................................................................. 47

6.1 Material efficiency as a proxy for waste prevention ................ 47

6.2 MEf can be regulated through environmental permits .......... 48

6.3 MEf has potential for co-regulation ........................................49

6.4 Significance of this work in policy design ...............................49

6.5 Future research recommendations ........................................ 50

References .............................................................................................. 51

Errata and corrigenda ........................................................................... 60

Annex 1. Other relevant publications ..................................................... 61

Figure 1. The cross-cutting themes of the dissertation. ................................... 14 Figure 2. Methods and materials of the thesis ................................................. 20 Figure 3. Interaction between case studies and policy processes and the articles .............................................................................................................. 23 Figure 4. Positioning MEf in the field of environmental policy. ...................... 32 Figure 5. Relations between MEf, WPr and some other environmental concepts ............................................................................................................ 32 Figure 6. The scope and limits of MEf categories that can be regulated in environmental permits ..................................................................................... 40

Table 1. A generic checklist of MEf categories that can be regulated in environmental permits ...................................................................................... 35

7

List of Abbreviations and Symbols

BAT Best available technique

BEP Best Environmental Practices

BREF BAT reference manual

CP Cleaner production

EC European Commission

EEf Energy efficiency

EIONET European Environment Information and Observation Network

EIPPCB European IPPC Bureau

EMS Environmental management system

EPL Environmental Protection Law (Act)

EU European Union

GDP Gross Domestic Product

HW Hazardous waste

IED Industrial Emission Directive

IPPC Integrated pollution prevention and control

LCA Life Cycle Analysis

MEf Material efficiency

MIPS Material input per service unit

MoE Ministry of the Environment (of Finland)

MoEE Ministry of Employment and the Economy (of Finland)

NEA Negotiated environmental agreement

NGO Non-governmental organization

8

NWP National waste plan

OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

RAMATE Finnish program for promoting material efficiency in construction

REACH European Union regulation concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation & restriction of Chemicals

SCP Sustainable consumption and production

SMM Sustainable Materials Management

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organization

WFD Waste Framework Directive

WPP Waste Prevention Plan

9

List of Publications

This doctoral dissertation consists of a summary and of the following publications which are referred to in the text by their numerals: 1. Lilja, R., Liukkonen, S. (2008). Industrial hazardous wastes in Finland – trends related to the waste prevention goal. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16 (3), 343–349.

2. Lilja, R. (2009). From waste prevention to promotion of material efficiency: change of discourse in the waste policy of Finland. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17 (2), 129–136.

3. Lilja, R. (2009). Negotiated environmental agreements in promoting material efficiency in industry – first steps in Finland. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17 (9), 863–872.

4. Lilja, R., Saloranta, M., Watkins, G. (2012). Materiaalitehokkuuden edistäminen lupaohjauksella – nykytila ja uudet mahdollisuudet. Ympäristöjuridiikka, 4/2012, 45–76. in Finnish

5. Lilja, R.K. (2015). Policy instruments for promoting material efficiency: case of Finland. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 17 (7), 2029–2040. DOI: 10.1007/s10098-015-0929-6.

10

Author’s Contribution

Publication 1: Industrial Hazardous Wastes in Finland – trends related to the waste prevention goal Raimo Lilja designed the research approach. Sari Liukkonen (maiden name: Malola) conducted the interviews of company representatives and the quantitative study of waste statistics under the supervision of Raimo Lilja as part of her B.Sc. thesis. Raimo Lilja was responsible for the qualitative conclusions and writing the article.

Publication 2: From waste prevention to promotion of material efficiency: change of discourse in the waste policy of Finland Raimo Lilja fully conducted the study and wrote the article.

Publication 3: Negotiated Environmental Agreements in Promoting Material Efficiency in Industry – first steps in Finland

Raimo Lilja fully conducted the study and wrote the article.

Publication 4: Materiaalitehokkuuden edistäminen lupaohjauksella – nykytila ja uudet mahdollisuudet Raimo Lilja was responsible for formulating the research questions, drafting the methodology, formulating the main findings and editing most of the text. Markus Saloranta conducted the empirical study of environmental permits and produced the graphics of the results under the supervision of Raimo Lilja. Gary Watkins was responsible for part of the literature search, contributing to the theoretical framework, some structural editing and editing the English summary.

Publication 5: Policy instruments for promoting material efficiency: case of Finland Raimo Lilja fully conducted the study and wrote the article.

11

1. Introduction

Natural resources are the physical basis of welfare, but on the other hand, materials are the carriers of environmental impacts. Renewable raw materials can be overused and non-renewable materials depleted. Harmful substances may enter material flows and cause negative health and environmental impacts. Waste prevention (WPr) is an environmental policy concept that strives to address some of these environmental challenges.

WPr was emphasized in the European Union (EU) waste policy when delivering the Thematic Strategy on Prevention and Recycling of Waste (EC 2005a). WPr was given a legal endorsement in the revised European Council Waste Framework Directive (WFD) that came into force in December 2010 (EC 2008a). WPr is also recognized as an important tool in implementing the European Commission (EC) Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources (EC 2005b), which aims at decoupling resource consumption from economic growth. The waste directive requires each Member State to prepare a Waste Prevention Plan (WPP). In Finland this obligation was anticipated by already incorporating a WPP into the National Waste Plan (NWP) for the period 2007–2016 (MoE 2007). The process of preparing the WPP revealed the difficulty of defining which actions should be labelled as furthering WPr. It also became clear that there is much overlap between policy actions promoting WPr and those proposed in the Finnish National Programme for Sustainable Consumption and Production (MoE 2005). When considering the prevention of hazardous wastes (HWs) there are linkages between WPr and chemical policy (EC 2006a; MoE 2012a).

As with other pollutants, solid and HW can be prevented with a multitude of technical and management actions. Freeman (1980) suggests the following broad categories of WPr or “source reduction”:

• input material changes • technology changes • good operating practices • product changes. The waste hierarchy stipulated in the WFD requires that WPr has priority

ahead of waste recycling, energy recovery, or final disposal (EC 2008a). The requirement of WPr has been applicable to issuing environmental permits to industries since the adoption of the integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) directive in 1996 (EC 1996), renewed in 2008 (EC 2008b). Later the

Introduction

12

Industrial Emission Directive (IED) (EC 2010) replaced IPPC. It states WPr as one of the basic obligations of the operator (article 11 d).

In addition to direct regulation in environmental permits, various policy instruments can be applied to persuade or enforce industrial stakeholders to adopt such WPr measures. Suvantola and Lankinen (2008) conducted a review of the policy instruments used in eight Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries for promoting WPr. The authors point out that most of the current waste policy instruments actually promote waste recycling, not WPr. The authors concluded that Finland should consider the following policy instruments, among others:

• WPr targets and obligations are to be included in the Extended Producer’s Responsibility schemes

• WPr criteria are to be built into public procurement procedures • co-governance schemes, such as the Australian Packaging

Covenant, set targets for WPr • government subsidies for WPr auditing services.

Huhtinen (2009) reviewed policy instruments for WPr that are used or proposed in the Nordic countries. As a summary of the interviews of Nordic stakeholders the following policy instruments were considered to have the most potential:

• setting requirements for WPr in environmental permits • product policy instruments, such as requirements for the

repairability or recyclability of products • reduced value added tax for maintenance, fixing, and repairing

services or products with ecolabels • taxes on natural resources.

The research gap is the interdisciplinary understanding of the interplay between the technological changes and the national level policy instruments and practices that translate the policy objective (WPr) into practical results. One dimension of this challenge is to assess whether there is room for a specific “waste prevention policy” in Finland and, more widely, in the EU. Alternatively, it may be that all relevant policy instruments for promoting WPr are more applicable in the context of other policy goals, such as Cleaner Production (CP), sustainable consumption and production (SCP), or a sustainable natural resources policy.

This thesis studies the benefits and limitations of using the closely related concept Material Efficiency (MEf) as a proxy for the concept of WPr in the context of environmental law and from the point of view of designing policy instruments to promote WPr or MEf actions in industry.

1.1 The research challenge

WPr, as an environmental goal, is challenging because waste generation trends are driven by several factors, including levels of economic activity, demographic

Introduction

13

changes, technological innovations, lifestyle, and, more generally, patterns of production and consumption. This close link makes it difficult to deal with WPr in isolation from resource management and product policy. This is likely to be the main explanation for the limited success of existing policies in promoting WPr in general and setting WPr targets in particular. Previous attempts to define WPr targets have focused on the weight or volume of waste generated. However, it is questionable whether weight or volume are always the most appropriate indicators of the environmental burden of waste (EC 2003).

When the research work for this thesis started in 2004, the policy instruments proposed for promoting WPr were quite vague. The EU prepared a strategy for WPr and recycling but, in practice, most of the policy actions proposed were focused on recycling, not prevention. Policy instruments and WPr targets were left on a “national, regional or local level” (EC 2005a, p. 17). The examples of regulation in environmental permits in EU countries were few and were often ambiguously formulated (Lindström et al. 2005). The research challenge was to screen, propose, and scientifically assess policy instruments that have potential in promoting WPr and MEf in industry in the context of EU legislation, using Finland as a practical case.

1.2 The thesis objective, scope, and approach

In this dissertation and in several of the articles, the abbreviation WPr is used for waste prevention and MEf for material efficiency. The relation and comparison of these two concepts is one of the research issues. The author of this study was deeply involved in the process of drafting the NWP and WPP in 2005–2007 and these experiences formed the foundation for this thesis.

This thesis focuses on the interaction between the technical aspects of WPr/MEf in industry and policy instruments that could be applied to enhancing WPr/MEf in industry. The approach is inter-disciplinary, utilizing aspects of technical, juridical, social, and communication research.

The research challenge was formulated into two cross-cutting themes. Each of the articles of this dissertation contribute to one or both of these themes:

A) How are the concepts of WPr and MEf defined in environmental discourse and what is their interrelation? In article 1 the historical trend of HW generation in Finland is studied and the reasons for success or failure in preventing HW generation are discussed. The linkage between WPr and chemical policy is reflected.

In article 2 the concept of WPr is compared with the concept of MEf. The paper discusses the justification and the implications of the recent shift in discourse in Finland from WPr to MEf.

In article 5 case studies of national policy processes related to WPr/MEf are analyzed by constructing several framing alternatives for defining the problem and its scope. The article studies the role of framing in the screening and

Introduction

14

prioritization of policy instruments and discusses how this framing could be made more deliberate and transparent.

B) How are different policy instruments applicable in promoting WPr or MEf? In article 3 a negotiated environmental agreement (NEA) for promoting WPr/MEf is drafted, and the strengths and weaknesses of such an instrument are discussed.

In article 4 the legal mandate for regulating WPr or MEf in the environmental permitting procedure, based on IPPC and the IED, is analyzed. What is the current state of regulating MEf in environmental permits in Finland? What are the benefits, downsides and limits of such regulation?

Article 5 is a qualitative analysis of cases of policy design for promoting MEf in Finland. Alternative categories and other elements of the framing of MEf are identified from the discourse. The relevance of framing in the process of prioritizing policy instruments is discussed.

In figure 1 the contribution of the five papers to the two cross-cutting research themes is illustrated.

Figure 1. The cross-cutting themes of the dissertation.

15

2. Theoretical background

The theoretical framework of the dissertation is extracted from several disciplines. The background of the author is in chemical engineering and environmental technology, so the basic theoretical approach comes from the technological world of materials use, industrial processes, material losses, waste generation, and environmental management. This view is merged with the juridical and social science aspects of environmental policy (while not going too deeply into the discourse of these disciplines). A third angle comes from the discipline of communication theory: the methods used in discourse analysis and political science are applied to selected policy processes related to WPr/MEf.

2.1 Definition of waste prevention and some related concepts

According to the WFD (EC 2008a, Art. 3 [1]) the definition of waste is: “‘Waste’ shall mean any substance or object which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard.”

Eva Pongracz (2002) points out that the EU definition is vague and the definition can even be counterproductive to the utilization of wastes. Pongracz proposes a more dynamic definition that reflects the reason why an object becomes waste: “Waste is a man-made thing that has no purpose; or it has failed to perform according to its purpose.” She stresses that by changing the approach in the definition, one can avoid the present problems of actually constraining opportunities for preventing or recycling waste. Her definition challenges and encourages the reader to identify strategies for preventing waste or transforming waste into a non-waste resource.

WPr is defined in the WFD (EC 2008a article 3): ‘prevention’ means measures taken before a substance, material or product has

become waste, that reduce: (a) the quantity of waste, including through the re-use of

products or the extension of the life span of products; (b) the adverse impacts of the generated waste on the

environment and human health; or (c) the content of harmful substances in materials and products

Theoretical background

16

OECD (1999) defined WPr as any of the following three types of actions: • Strict Prevention: Strictly avoiding waste generation, by virtual

elimination of hazardous substances or by reducing material or energy intensity in production, consumption, and distribution.

• Reduction at Source: Minimizing use of toxic or harmful substances; minimizing material or energy consumption.

• Re-use: Multiple use of a product in its original form, for its original purpose or an alternative, with or without reconditioning.

An EU-funded inter-regional project uses slightly different categories: “strict avoidance” and “quantitative and qualitative reduction at source” (Pre-waste 2012).

MEf is not clearly defined in promulgated EU legislation but it is mentioned as a key indicator in the Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Resources (EC 2005b, p. 4). In that context MEf was defined as the ratio of used material inputs to Gross Domestic Product (GDP). A parallel term, energy efficiency (EEf), is defined in the horizontal best available technique reference manuals (BREF) document for EEf (EIPPCB 2008) and, by analogy, MEf can be defined simply as the ratio of the products or services produced to the material input used. Resource efficiency is a similar concept, but encompassing both MEf and EEf (EC 2011).

Allwood et al. (2011) define MEf as “providing material services with less material production.” Allwood et al. (2013) use the concept of physical MEf in emphasizing that, in the environmental context, it is the mass of material consumption and the accompanied environmental impacts that matter. The unit of output should rather be the service or welfare provided, not the consumption of goods per se. Economists prefer to use efficiency in the monetary sense, in other words, the cost of inputs per unit of revenue.

MoE of Finland (MoE 2012b) defined material efficiency in the government bill for the revision of EPL as “production of products and services with decreased and less harmful material inputs. On the plant level material efficiency means less waste, less harmful waste and also the choice of raw materials and the assessment of the environmental impacts of alternative inputs.” This definition is used as the primary reference in this thesis.

Eco-efficiency is a concept promoted by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (Lehni 1998). Erkko et al. (2005) studied eco-efficiency and its indicators in the reporting of industrial companies. Eco-efficiency is usually defined as the ratio of the economic value added to the environmental impact. The ecological indicators they recommended in monitoring eco-efficiency were:

• reduced materials intensity • reduced energy intensity • reduced dispersion of toxic substances • enhanced recyclability • maximized use of renewables • extended product life • increased service intensity.


17

Sustainable Materials Management (SMM) is a broader concept that adds additional economic and social sustainability dimensions to that of environmental sustainability (OECD 2005):

Sustainable Materials Management is an approach to promote sustainable materials use, integrating actions targeted at reducing negative environmental impacts and preserving natural capital throughout the life-cycle of materials, taking into account economic efficiency and social equity.

The Netherlands is a frontrunner in Europe in developing waste policy in the

direction of SMM or material-flow policy. The Dutch Second National Waste Management Plan 2009–2021 aims at a product chain oriented policy in which separate policy areas are made more coherent across the whole material chain (EIONET 2009).

Cleaner production (CP) is the continuous application of an integrated preventive environmental strategy to processes, products, and services to increase overall efficiency and reduce risks to humans and the environment. CP can be applied to the processes used in any industry, to products themselves, and to various services provided in society (UNEP 2004; UNIDO 2015). By this definition, CP is a broader term than MEf: it covers both WPr and eco-efficient waste recycling. CP includes the efficient use of water and energy, and the prevention of all types of emissions into the air and water that are not in the scope of WPr. CP logically covers both the aspect of reducing the waste quantity and reducing the harmfulness of waste. The term SCP is gradually taking over the CP discourse (UN 2002). SCP merges the aspects of environmental protection, and social and economic sustainability with the development agenda. SCP mostly replaced CP on the United Nations agenda after the 2002 World Summit for Sustainable Development (Clark 2007).

2.2 Environmental management in implementing WPr/MEf

The management tools available for the practical implementation of WPr/MEf in industry include, among others:

• audits for identifying material losses and practical remedies for minimizing losses: environmental or pollution prevention audits (LaGrega et al., 1994), CP audits (Telukdarie et al. 2006; UNIDO, 2015) or MEf audits (MOTIVA 2015)

• life-cycle analysis, material input per service unit (MIPS) analysis (Ritthoff et al. 2002)

• environmental management systems (ISO 2004) • material flow cost accounting (Jasch 2009) • industrial symbiosis (Watkins 2014) • material efficient services and product-service systems

(Anttonen 2013).


18

2.3 Environmental policy instruments

A simple typology of environmental policy instruments is to define them as regulatory instruments, economic instruments or information instruments or symbolically: “sticks”, “carrots” or “sermons” (Bemelmans-Videc et al. 2010). Conventional environmental regulation was evaluated, for example by Hildén et al. (2002). Environmental permits related to eco-efficiency were studied by Honkasalo et al. (2005). Similä (2007) presented a comprehensive study of regulating industrial pollution in Finland. Kautto et al. (2000) reviewed the policy instruments used in waste policy in Finland.

Voluntary approaches, such as voluntary agreements, also called negotiated environmental agreements (NEA), are covered by many sources (OECD 2003; Croci 2005; ten Brink 2002; CAVA 2001; Bizer & Jülich 1999; Cunningham & Clinch 2004; Enviroplan 1999; DeClercq et al. 2001; Hazewindus 2000; Sairanen & Teittinen 1999). Voluntary approaches and other approaches related to “co-governance” were studied by Glasbergen (2001) and Bleischwitz (2007). Voluntary agreements have been proposed as one of the means of implementing “better regulation” in the EU (EC 2006b).

The main policy instruments studied in this dissertation are regulation by environmental permits (article 4) and co-governance through NEAs (see article 3). Supporting instruments are also discussed, such as sponsoring MEf audits, information dissemination (articles 2 and 5), and setting WPr targets (article 1). Economic instruments, such as environmental taxes or waste fees, are not in the scope of this thesis.

Intervention theory (e.g., Mickwitz 2003) and guidelines for regulatory impact assessment (OECD 2008) provided approaches for assessing the existing or proposed new policy instruments.

2.4 Framing and the environmental discourse

The framework developed by Kingdon (2011) regarding the setting of the public policy agenda and the struggle between alternative policy instruments inspired much of the methodology and discussion in article 5 and this summary of the thesis. His model uses the allegory of three streams: a stream of problems, a stream of policies, and a stream of politics. Defining the problem is an important phase in setting the agenda and much of the struggle over problem definition centers on the categories that are used to frame the problem (Kingdon 2011, p. 111).

Fairhurst (2011) describes framing as defining the situation in ways that connect with others. Framing “involves the ability to shape the meaning of a subject, to judge its character and significance through the meanings we include, exclude and emphasize when communicating.” For example, the following elements in a discourse can be used in framing a subject:

• placing the subject in a category


19

• using analogy with another subject • contrasting with another subject • metaphorical discourse • spin: places a subject in a positive or negative light • the use of rational arguments or feeling statements. Hajer and Versteeg (2005) summarized the significance and power of

discourse analysis in environmental policy-making: Concepts, such as sustainable development, are not and cannot be simply imposed

in a top-down way but are continuously contested in a struggle about their meaning, interpretation, and implementation. […]. Actors use simple storylines as “short hand” in discussions, assuming that the other will understand what they mean. The assumption of mutual understanding, however widespread, is often false, concealing discursive complexity. Even when actors share a specific set of storylines, they might interpret the meaning of these storylines rather differently. Interestingly enough, actors that can be proven not to fully understand each other can still produce meaningful political interventions. Actors exercise power through trying to impose a particular frame or discourse onto a discussion. The analysis of discourses can help to illuminate why certain definitions do or do not catch on at a particular place and time, and help to explain the mechanisms by which a policy does or does not come about. Feindt and Oels (2005) observed that environmental discourse competes with

other discourses, for example economic or development discourses; on the other hand, environmental discourse is internally interwoven with other discourses. Environmental discourse partially defines the range of available policy options by classifying problems as governable or non-governable.

Joutsenvirta (2006) presented a practical example and a methodology for the discourse analysis of an environmental conflict. She documented how the opponents in the struggle over the conflicting uses of forest resources in Finland used different storylines in framing their argumentation. In some of the framing alternatives, quite a lot of common ground could be observed.

Mickwitz et al. (2011) see environmental programs and strategies as instruments of discourse rather than concrete planning. Strategies and programs may help in the “transition” to sustainable consumption and production. To do so, they should provide a basis for reframing. Reframing at the political level is only the first step. Support for transitions requires reframing as part of a learning process that also includes the systematic evaluation of the measures involved.

20

3. Materials and methods

The main approach in this thesis was to observe practical cases from Finnish waste policy design and implementation and to analyze them retroactively against academic frameworks. The model developed by Kingdon (2011) regarding the setting of the public policy agenda, and the struggle between alternative policy instruments was used as a background for the analysis.

The dissertation operates by alternating between the technological aspects of defining and identifying WPr/MEf actions, and the policy instruments applicable for promoting these actions in industry. These policy instruments include the traditional regulatory instruments provided by environmental law and related soft law and complementing, co-regulatory instruments. The analytical tools used to study the policy design cases emerge from discourse analysis, intervention theory, and other methodologies of policy evaluation. The technical aspects are studied using analysis of waste statistics and industrial waste reporting, interviews of industrial establishments and other stakeholders and technical analysis of environmental permits (figure 2).

Figure 2. Methods and materials of the thesis

Materials and methods

21

In the following the methods and materials used in each article are summarized: Technological means of improving MEf were classified as part of the effort to

define MEf and its relation to WPr. These categories were developed in articles 2, 4, and 5. Elements of discourse analysis and elements from communication theory (Veivo 2006, Fairhurst 2011) were used in article 2 and 5 and in the compilation of this synthesis of the thesis.

The official statistics on HW generation in Finland from 1992 to 2003 was used as the starting point of article 1. An extract from the environmental monitoring database of the Finnish environmental administration was used for a detailed sector-specific look at HW generation in metal workshops and the metal finishing industry between 1996 and 2003. The environmental permits of 47 industrial plants were studied to verify trends in HW generation and to calculate specific HW generation factors (Malola 2005). Twelve industrial companies were interviewed about their waste minimization practices.

The material for article 2 emerges from the design of the NWP and National WPP for Finland, conducted from May 2005 to January 2007. The process was observed and the discourse of the stakeholders was analyzed based on interviews and public hearings, written statements, and the findings of the strategic environmental assessment of the NWP (Huhtinen 2007; Kautto & Mela 2006).

In article 3 the generic arguments for and against voluntary agreements in academic literature (ten Brink 2002; Bressers & de Bruijn 2005) were applied to a hypothetical model of a MEf agreement. Experiences from EEf agreements (KTM 2007; Lilja 2008; Heikkilä et al. 2005) were reviewed and reflected through an analogy to a MEf agreement. The analogy and the differences between MEf and EEf were used as a method for revealing the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the voluntary agreement instruments. The draft model was introduced in two group interviews and to 14 representatives of industry, research, and administration, and the feedback was used to refine the model.

Article 4 presents findings from an empirical study of a sample of Finnish environmental permits issued by the permitting authorities between July 2007 and June 2009 (a sample of 63 cases representing 39% of all industrial permits granted by state authorities) and, in addition, a sample of 23 cases from the recycling business. A typology of MEf actions within the context of permit regulation was developed and applied to the sample. The quantitative study revealed the state of the art in regulating WPr/MEf in environmental permits. The juridical and practical limits of regulating MEf through permits were discussed.

Article 5 was based on the analysis of four policy design cases in Finland. These were:

• a study of industrial chemical wastes and the evaluation of selected policy instruments in promoting the prevention and recycling of chemical waste (Lilja et al. 2014)

• a summary of stakeholder statements on the draft guideline for promoting MEf in environmental permits (Suomen


22

ympäristökeskus 2010); a proposal for the revision of Finnish Environmental Protection Law (EPL) (MoE 2012b); and the summary of stakeholder comments on the draft revision of the EPL (MoE 2012a; Attila et al. 2013)

• findings from the preparation and launching of the Finnish program for promoting material efficiency in construction (MoE 2010, 2013; Kojo & Lilja 2011)

• a proposal for a National MEf program (MoEE 2013). In addition, the synthesis part of this thesis uses findings from the following

materials: • a study of MEf categories in environmental audits of industrial

small and medium sized enterprises that participated in the EcoStart scheme, sponsored by the Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment (Lilja 2010)

• a pre-feasibility and screening study of ideas related to waste recycling and the use of secondary raw materials (MoE 2012c; Kojo & Lilja 2012)

• a screening study of potential provincial or local policy instruments for promoting MEf (Lilja 2009).

Different ways of framing MEf were observed using qualitative methods, and proposed policy actions were categorized. The implications of framing on the choice of policy instruments were observed. In the assessment of the policy instruments, aspects of intervention theory (Mickwitz 2003) were used. Concern-focused evaluation methodology was applied (Mermet et al., 2010) to distinguish environmentally motivated policies from de facto instruments that had other sector-specific motivations. Life-cycle thinking (Heiskanen 1999) was used as a method for breaking down the policy goal into life-cycle phases with different sub-goals and indicators.

The interaction between the academic articles and the case-studies is illustrated in figure 3.


23

Figure 3. Interaction between case studies and policy processes and the articles

24

4. Results

The results arising from the articles are presented in the following sections one by one.

4.1 Industrial hazardous wastes in Finland – trends related to the waste prevention goal

The goal of the study (article 1) was to assess the effectiveness of the NWP of Finland in reaching one of its goals: the relative reduction of HW generation by 15% between 1992 and 2005 (MoE 2002). Contrary to expectations, the total amount of HW reported in Finland increased by 133% over the studied period. Meanwhile the GDP of Finland grew by 74% and total industrial production grew 97%. This means that, so far, no decoupling of HW generation from economic growth could be verified. However, several changes in the definition and classification of HW and changes in the statistical methods distort the statistics and explain a major part of the increase in HW.

In a more detailed sector-specific study, mixed trends were observed. Of the studied seven waste groups typical of the metal industry, the trend of two (namely hazardous foundry dusts, and wastes from adhesives and sealants) presented an absolute decline. All other groups showed a growing trend. Changes in HW classification explain a portion of the changes. The number of registered HW producers had grown strongly, even doubled, in several waste groups. The studied time period represents a phase where inspection and enforcement of HW legislation has been continuously improving, and also the obligation to report waste generation to the national database was gradually extended. Some wastes that do not fall into HW categories were disposed of at HW treatment plants because they were not accepted at municipal landfills. These wastes were included in the HW statistics.

Of the 47 cases from the metal workshop industry only a few environmental permits had enough data for the calculation of specific HW generation or the “HW factor” (HW kg per ton of product). In seven cases the HW factor had declined and in four cases it had increased. The range of the HW factor for hazardous foundry dust, and waste acid from hot zinc treatment and spent pickling acid could be calculated.

Results

25

The interviews of selected companies from the metals sector indicated that all of them had been taking action to prevent waste, including HW. However, in the national or waste-group specific data, this trend towards CP is overshadowed by changes in classification, statistical errors, increased production, improvements in enforcement, and by conflicting technical trends (such as increased HW output from wastewater treatment or air pollution control systems).

4.2 From waste prevention to promotion of material efficiency: a change of discourse in the waste policy of Finland

The focus of this paper (article 2) was on the comparison of the alternative concepts of WPr or MEf and on the shift in discourse from the former to the latter concept (which happened during the preparation of the NWP – between 2005 and 2007). The paper argued that (based on the interviews and observations of the paradigm shift) the environmental objectives behind the WPr concept can be promoted just as well, or even better, by approaching these goals from the perspective of improving MEf. The definition of MEf fully covers all actions that can be defined as WPr. In addition, MEf covers waste recycling and industrial symbiosis actions. The MEf concept is not dependent on difficult interpretations of the definition of waste and the waste hierarchy. All types of material losses – whether they end up in waste, air, water, or the actual product – can be dealt with by the MEf concept. Qualitative issues, such as the hazardousness of waste, can be incorporated in the MEf concept. The article observes that different categories of MEf can be conflicting: for example, lightweight products can have a shorter time span than the conventional product and the recycling of waste can cause additional emissions and energy consumption.

The study used the Greimas semantic rectangle (cf. Veivo 2006) in illustrating key elements of the discourse of different actants in the WPr/MEf discourse. The different variants, for example, reflect the linkage of WPr with de-growth issues. MEf carries more connotations of economic profitability and for this reason it is easier to “sell” to industrial stakeholders. It is not easy to visualize actions that prevent waste, that is to say, “actions that generate non-waste”. For this reason, it is also easier to find practical indicators for MEf than for WPr.

Although the industrial stakeholders were more comfortable with the concept of MEf, some of them raised concern over the proposal to introduce the MEf concept into the NWP. The reason may be their fear of increased regulation. In the new NWP, WPr was separated from waste management themes into a separate WPP chapter. WPr was reframed as MEf and as part of sustainable materials policy. The findings of the article support the effectiveness of this change of discourse. For example, in a subsection on MEf in construction, the maintenance and repair of houses to extend their useful lifetime were raised as key actions. In a WPr approach the policy proposals would probably have focused on the source reduction of construction wastes and disregarded the other phases of the life cycle of the building.

Results

26

The weakness of the MEf concept is that (at the time of writing) it is not explicitly supported by the EU and national legislation. Another weakness is that the issues related to absolute consumption or the depletion of natural resources are not usually included in the concept of MEf.

4.3 Negotiated environmental agreements in promoting material efficiency in industry – first steps in Finland

The aim of this article (article 3) was to analyze the challenges and opportunities in applying a sector-specific negotiated agreement for promoting WPr and MEf in Finnish industry.

The overall response from the interviews to the concept of a MEf agreement as a policy instrument was positive. The attitude reflected the general interpretation that the national EEf agreement has been a success. Actually the impacts of the EEf agreement (running from 1998 to 2005) have been modest, but the coverage of EEf audits has been high and probably the program has promoted the internalization of EEf thinking in industry (Heikkilä et al. 2005). Obviously the positive reaction to MEf also stems from the opposition to alternative policy instruments (direct regulation and resource taxes). Environmental taxes were advocated by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the interviews but opposed by the industry and the Ministry of Finance, and thus considered as politically unlikely by the environmental administration. The strength of an NEA approach was seen to be in its long duration compared to project type interventions. The access to government-sponsored technical assistance was regarded as an important incentive for SMEs to participate in the agreement. A MEf agreement could function as a two-way dialog process in implementing the national SCP program. Benchmarking MEf results with other countries would provide arguments for defending these industries in Finland. The main concerns articulated in the discussions were related to:

• the workload, time, and consultant costs needed in the auditing, and monitoring system for the agreement

• the uncertainty of government finance for subsidizing the auditing services

• the fear of a low ambition level in setting the targets for the NEA.

Most experts recognized that the system boundary for a MEf NEA could not be limited to the factory gates. Externalizing some resource-intensive production steps would give the false impression of improved MEf. The production chain commonly crosses boundaries of industrial sectors or sub-sectors and the boundaries of countries. The MEf auditing model must include a mechanism for assessing the changes upstream of the MEf. Not all companies

Results

27

are interested in the hidden material flows1 of the raw materials, but the interest in these issues is growing as a result of the improved management of risks and the practices of corporate social responsibility. The environmental impact of different materials should be reflected in the system. Most of the participants were critical of only using the MIPS (material input per service unit) as the indicator for MEf because it gives the same value for a ton of sand as it does for a ton of toxic material. However, the environmental “weighing” procedure should not be too complicated.

Many participants were in favor of including downstream MEf issues in the NEA. The recycling ratio of end-of-life steel products was mentioned as one potential indicator for the metal industry. A sector-specific NEA could incorporate some targets for improvements in the life cycle of end products.

As a result, the proposed model represents a platform for dialogue between the relevant ministries and industrial organizations in regard to setting sector-specific targets for MEf, waste recycling, and WPr. The targets could also include some qualitative issues concerning MEf in the value chain and cover several actors in the life cycle of targeted industrial products. One approach is to incorporate MEf issues and continuous improvement in the environmental management systems of the companies in the same way that EEf is incorporated. Some doubted that industrial associations would be willing to commit themselves to a binding quantitative target. Companies would need to perform the MEf audit before they could estimate their own potential. Perhaps the quantitative targets could evolve after an initial round of MEf audits. Merging MEf targets in the existing energy NEA was an attractive idea for many informants. Materials are the carriers of hidden flows of energy.

The study concluded that the target level of a MEf NEA could easily be compromised to maximize participation – as happened with the 1997–2005 EEf NEA. This could be avoided by targeting the early adopters rather than the broad majority of companies. The process should be designed to allow periodical adjustment of the target level. Development leaps could be promoted by a link to R&D financing. Engaging environmental and consumer NGOs through a public participation process, and the transparency and disclosure of information would add pressure to setting more radical targets and implementing them.

The agreement should focus on only a few priority material streams in each sector. Most participants ranked the metals industries and building materials as the most interesting pilot sectors for testing the MEf NEA. The main motivations of the participating companies would be: competitive advantage from cost savings, benefits from the information and innovation financing, and the dissemination of MEf practices within the sector or horizontally between sectors.

1 “hidden flow” is used for the natural resources that were extracted, but did not end up in the raw material supply, e.g. waste rock in mining, trimmings in timber production

Results

28

4.4 Promoting material efficiency in environmental permits – present state and new opportunities

In this paper (article 4) a typology for MEf categories was developed aiming

to cover all the technical strategies that can prevent waste. This typology was used as a tool for assessing the present scope of regulating MEf in a sample of 63 environmental permits for industries in Finland. Based on the empirical study, a broad range of MEf categories is covered in the descriptive part of the permits. On average 15 examples of MEf technology or action were mentioned in one permit document. The most common categories were waste recycling, process control, the efficient use of water, waste water circulation, chemical recovery, and changes in packaging systems. This indicates that MEf aspects were already included in the best available technique (BAT) assessment performed by the permitting authorities between 2007 and 2009. Permit conditions related to some of the MEf categories were required commonly. On average a permit contained two permit conditions related to MEf. Thirty-six percent of all such conditions were weakly enforceable generic “recommendations” to prevent or recycle waste.

There was much variety in the occurrence and number of MEf descriptions between individual permit documents and between different permitting authorities. Mostly the descriptions focused on the technology aspects of MEf, whereas the describing of the MEf aspects of environmental management practices were not common.

The mandate for regulating MEf in environmental permits is to some extent a contentious issue. Before 2012 the Finnish EPL (based on the IPPC directive) did not recognize the term material efficiency. Permit conditions for WPr could be required if these were necessary for the prevention of pollution. The minor revision of the EPL (647/2011 article 43) stated that, in addition to requirements for WPr measures, the permit conditions must “take into consideration the efficiency of energy and material use when relevant.”

The EPL (86/2000) had seven objectives, of which relevant to this theme are: the “prevention of pollution,” the “prevention of waste and the harmful impacts of waste,” and the “promotion of the sustainable use of natural resources.” The paper points out that MEf is a tool for promoting all of these three objectives. But only the MEf categories and actions that have a direct linkage to WPr and pollution prevention qualify as issues that can be regulated by permit conditions. MEf categories or actions that aim at the sustainable use of natural resources can be “taken into consideration” in permit conditions, but this goal cannot be used as the sole justification. For example, the potential to minimize the specific consumption of a certain raw material could be mentioned as one justification for requiring the improvement of materials management practices in addition to the pollution prevention benefits.

The study verified that in practice the waste hierarchy is not followed in most environmental permits, because WPr was rarely prioritized compared to waste recycling. In many cases WPr was nominally required in the permit conditions, but the requirement was often formulated so vaguely that the operator could not

Results

29

deduce from the permit condition whether operational changes were required or not. Other MEf actions were required or encouraged, such as process monitoring, automation, loss prevention, and internal recycling. The justification for these conditions was obviously pollution prevention and the MEf actions targeting the sustainable use of resources can be interpreted rather as a side effect of the condition.

The paper argues that in some cases the requirement of the law to take MEf into consideration could mean that in specific cases the benefits of recycling of a waste stream or the substitution of a hazardous chemical in the regulated establishment are offset by negative impacts in other phases of the value chain. In these cases, the MEf consideration might speak against such permit conditions.

Regarding the recycling industry, the study verified that on average MEf is poorly addressed in the environmental permits. The information provided in the permit documents about recycling efficiency was generally poor. The article argues that MEf is a crucial aspect of BAT in the recycling industry, but this aspect had been largely neglected in BAT consideration.

The paper recommends that the permit authority should document the environmental management practices related to the continuous improvement of MEf. Although the EMS or a MEf audit is formally a voluntary management tool for the industry, it is difficult to verify that the company applies Best Environmental Practices (BEP) if there is no documentation or management system in place. The paper observes that the new obligation in the Waste Act regarding the self-monitoring of the specific waste load of the process (Waste Act 646/2011 article 119) will enable the comparison of the level of MEf between companies in the same industrial sector.

4.5 Policy instruments for promoting material efficiency: case of Finland

This paper (article 5) studies how the framing of the policy problem affects the design of policy actions in the case of promoting MEf. Four recently performed policy design cases in Finland dealing with MEf were analyzed. The discourse used by different stakeholders was screened to identify different categories for framing MEf and the corresponding indicators. The following categories of framing were constructed based on the cases:

1) MEf as a strategy for pollution prevention (especially WPr) 2) MEf as a concept of plant-level resource efficiency 3) MEf as a concept of product design 4) MEf as a concept of sustainable materials management. Different options when defining the problem are part of the power struggle

that is normal in any process of policy formulation. It is not always possible to agree on a common framing. Furthermore, the problem perceived by a stakeholder (for example, excessive regulation) is not always expressed as such

Results

30

but is veiled in “strategic” problem definitions, which are selected to serve the interest of the stakeholder.

The choice of indicators for MEf is an important practical tool that supports the framing of the concept. For each category of MEf a different indicator is usually appropriate. For example, the eco-efficiency of an industrial plant can increase while the eco-efficiency of the supply chain decreases.

The study demonstrated how life-cycle thinking is useful in grouping the policy instruments so that policy toolboxes are designed separately for each phase of the life cycle, for example, in the case of promoting MEf in building construction.

Environmental framing has to struggle with other established framing approaches that also have to be recognized in the policy design and, if possible, merged together in the policy action. As an example, there is the conflict between preserving old building constructions and new energy conservation requirements. The findings illustrate that framing MEf affects the choice of policy instruments. In the pollution prevention category, administrative regulation can be justified, especially if WPr is taken seriously as a policy goal. In the other categories conventional regulation is difficult to justify, because it would interfere with technological choices, product design, and supply chain management – all core issues for businesses and encompassing the risk of market distortions. The policy options that remain politically feasible are informative instruments, some types of network governance tools, and incentives for frontrunners to integrate sustainable materials management aspects in their market strategy.

The conclusion was that framing should be made more deliberate and transparent in policy programs aimed at promoting environmental goals that constantly have to struggle with other interests and existing regulation. Elements that can and should be used in the framing process are:

• defining the system boundary (plant level, sector, product family, supply chain, global, etc.)

• focusing on each life-cycle phase one by one – with different framing and different indicators of MEf for each phase

• analyzing and making visible the non-environmental policy goals, de facto instruments, and the corresponding indicators that may be in conflict with or may have synergy with MEf goals

• recognizing the interests of the targets of regulation, finding the common ground in framing the problem, and identifying win-win opportunities: these opportunities abound in the case of MEf.

In practice a policy design can use several framing approaches. In such a case the policy actions should preferably be grouped under different topics or themes so that a set of instruments refer to only one framing approach with the corresponding achievement indicators.

31

5. Discussion

The findings in the articles related to the research questions are discussed in the following and reflected against academic literature and the discourse of stakeholders in relevant policy debate.

5.1 Comparing the concepts of WPr and MEf

Together the articles of this thesis attempt to define the position of the WPr and MEf concepts in the field of environmental policy. MEf is primarily a tool for implementing sustainable natural resource policy (OECD 2013), also framed as sustainable consumption and production policy (UN 2002; Zaccai 2012) or material flow policy (van der Voet 2003). MEf is one element of the CP concept (UNEP 2011). A new EU-level framing concept is circular economy (EC 2014; Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2013). It advocates all the different aspects of MEf. It is still to be seen if this new paradigm provides any new benefits. Allwood (2014) criticizes the concept of circular economy, claiming that recycling alone cannot solve the problem of the growing demand for raw materials. In fact, this skepticism was given additional ground by a communication of the EC on circular economy (EC 2014). Practically all the policy actions proposed in this document were related to stricter obligations to recycle waste. For example, the European Environmental Bureau issued a statement lamenting the framework’s lack of focus on WPr (EDIE 2014). At the time of writing this synthesis a new version of the communication is pending.

MEf is a tool that covers aspects of resource policy, SCP, pollution abatement and sustainable chemical policy (figure 4).

Discussion

32

Figure 4. Positioning MEf in the field of environmental policy.

The core of the thesis is the translation of the WPr concept in the EU and national waste legislation into technological discourse by using the MEf concept. The work claims (articles 2 and 4) that any technological action that can be classified as WPr in the context of an industrial plant can be covered with the concept of MEf.

MEf is a broader concept than WPr because it also includes the recycling of waste, reducing material losses to air or water, making products lightweight, etc. On the other hand, WPr can be framed in the context of more radical cultural change, whereas MEf is usually more limited to technological means of change.

Both WPr and MEf contribute to pollution prevention. EEf has characteristics analogous to MEf. Together they can be named resource efficiency. Together, resource efficiency and pollution prevention roughly cover the scope of CP. The interrelations of these concepts are presented in figure 5.

Figure 5. Relations between MEf, WPr and some other environmental concepts2

2 adopted from Lilja & Saramäki, 2012, p. 14

Discussion

33

5.1.1 The benefits and limits of the MEf discourse

Many policy instruments proposed for WPr also fit and can be more easily justified to stakeholders in the context of resource policy than waste policy. Hardly any stakeholder in Finland is against the WPr goal in principle. The discourse of industrial stakeholders, the technology administration, consumer institutions, and some research institutions verify that it is easier for them to commit themselves to promoting MEf than WPr and to identify the practical means of implementing this goal. This thesis argues that the WPr discourse easily focuses too much on technical issues alone, while the MEf discourse also directs attention to the performance and choices made by organizations and actors. The MEf approach is more easily translated into intervention theory. It is important to realize that MEf can sometimes clash with other policy goals, such as EEf or indoor air quality goals (in the construction sector case). Only keeping an eye on the waste aspect may result in overlooking findings concerning synergy or conflict with other policies.

Halme (2009) formulated a similar conclusion (translated from Finnish by the author of this thesis):

[…] waste prevention is a problematic term for a number of reasons. Firstly, regardless of the aim of prevention, once the term “waste” is mentioned, psychologically it has already been created. Thoughts turn into ways of treating waste: reuse, recycling, and energy recovery. […] Another problem with the term waste is that in business enterprises waste issues are usually delegated to environmental or EHS personnel, or to facility managers or the like. Managers and experts in these positions have little means to influence at a strategic level to procurement, production and process decisions. These are the levels and areas where the major waste avoidance or source reduction need to take place, because they are tightly interwoven with production, product, and process decisions. Thus major waste prevention potential remains at the discretion of the top and line managers, who in turn consider waste issues outside of their scope of operation – and often also find them uninteresting; a necessary duty, that is best to be taken care of by someone else. Therefore, if any paradigm shift in waste prevention is aimed at, new terminologies such as material efficiency or the like are called for. WPr has a higher priority than waste recycling or energy recovery as a default

assumption in the Waste Directive (EC 2008a). When substituting WPr with the concept of MEf this is not always the case when looking at the entire value chain. The assessment should be done case-by-case and based on a combination of environmental impacts and cost-benefit calculations. In the MEf paradigm the conflicts arising from the definitions of waste, by-product, or product seem easier to avoid (article 2).

Despite the strengths of the MEf concept compared to the WPr discourse, this thesis recognizes the limit of the concept in solving some challenges of SMM. Several authors have cautioned about the limits of MEf as a solution to the problem of the increasing global consumption of raw materials. For example,

Discussion

34

Honkasalo (2011) points out that over the last ten years, the material flows associated with the Finnish economy had remained fairly constant, with any gains in MEf cancelled out by increasing levels of consumption. He emphasizes that it is important to consider the harmful environmental impacts generated in other countries by Finland’s increasing material consumption and production. These material flows have been steadily increasing. He concludes:

Sustainable consumption and production can no longer be defined at the national level alone, if the material flows behind imports and exports and their environmental impacts are of the same order as domestic consumption. Factor targets alone cannot lead to the sustainable scale of economy, because rebound effects seem to partly consume those environmental benefits that have been achieved by improving material and energy efficiency. However, quantitative efficiency targets are important, since they give at least a rough idea of where we should be aiming. In the de-growth paradigm, the relative decoupling of material consumption

from economic growth is dismissed as being far from sufficient. In the eyes of de-growth proponents, economic growth, even if disguised as sustainable development, will lead to social and ecological collapse. De-growth thinking delinks the notions of sustainability and growth (Martínez-Alier et al. 2010). In de-growth thinking the ethical aspects of the division of resources and welfare between the North and South is an important driving force (Kerschner, 2010). Berg and Hukkinen (2011) studied the narrative of stakeholders in the Finnish SCP discourse. They noted that de-growth economy has the makings of a viable counter story but is, in its current form, logically incomplete. Thus, it does not qualify as a story for alternative policy development. They suggest that constructing a complete de-growth story is essential for supporting democratic deliberation on sustainability.

The environmentalists have actively represented the de-growth paradigm in Finland. For example, during the preparation of the NWP in 2005-2007 the Nature Conservation League associated the WPr discourse with the de-growth concept and the need to radical behavioral and cultural change in addition to technological approaches (Lettenmeier 2007, translation from Finnish by the author):

The target and the basic scenario of the NWP proposal is based on the assumption that the increase in municipal and industrial waste generation would cease and turn to slightly negative by 2016. Although this assumption is a marked change compared to earlier programs, it is not anywhere near the needs of an ecologically sustainable development […] The NWP should have taken as its target […] the Factor 10 -target, which means about 4,5 % decrease in the use of natural resources annually. […] The NWP should have taken these [global environmental concerns] as its starting point instead of encouraging the construction of such a waste management infrastructure in the country that assumes the current level of MSW generation for the next 30 years.

Watkins (2014) notes that concepts such as eco-efficiency or industrial symbiosis are useful in small systems to focus on local efficiencies. These concepts appeal to those seeking incremental and continuous change, in other words the sort of economic growth that can be achieved whilst simultaneously

Discussion

35

protecting the environment. However, even if great gains have been made in relative decoupling over the last several decades, these gains have been entirely swamped by economic growth. To achieve a sustainable economy absolute decoupling is needed, a situation in which resource impacts decline overall. Watkins uses the metaphor of industrial ecology to describe a radical transition wherein industrial production uses ecological processes as a model. In this thesis MEf and SMM constitute a corresponding pair of concepts as industrial symbiosis and industrial ecology; the former providing an indicator for the direction of small improvements and the latter providing long-term goals.

5.1.2 The typology of MEf measures

A rough typology of MEf actions was presented in article 2. The MEf categories

that can be applied in the environmental permitting process of an industrial applicant were presented in article 4. This list was slightly modified and developed into a generic checklist in a Ministry of the Environment (MoE) guidebook (Lilja & Saramäki 2012). In the guidebook each category is illustrated by real cases from the environmental permits that constituted the main material for article 4. The proposed checklist is based on the basic typology presented by Freeman (1980). MEf strategies were identified for each step from raw material reception to product finishing. Cross-cutting issues such as MEf in maintenance and water use were included. Based on the findings from article 4 new categories were added to cover MEf in pollution control and MEf in waste management. The final proposed checklist based on this thesis work is presented in table 1.

Table 1. A generic checklist of MEf categories that can be regulated in environmental permits3

MEf category Examples 1 MEf in raw material choice and material

procurement Eco-labeled raw materials; limits for contaminants; the recyclability of materials and components

2 Substituting and minimizing the use of hazardous substances

Reducing or totally eliminating hazardous raw materials, auxiliary chemicals; reducing the concentration of hazardous chemicals

3 Material-efficient production technology Major changes in production technology resulting in MEf

4 Material-efficient process monitoring, control, automation, and optimization

Changes based on the improved control of process parameters

5 MEf in material storage and transfers The management of shelf-life; the prevention of losses and damages in material transfers

3 partly published in Finnish in Lilja & Saramäki, 2012

Discussion

36

6 Efficiency in water usage Internal recycling; waterless cooling and cleaning systems; leakage control

7 The minimizing of the rejection of intermediate or final products

Learning from deviations in quality control systems; internal recycling; bonus systems

8 Material-efficient packaging and logistic systems Reusable containers; bulk transport; minimizing packaging material loss

9 Maintenance in promoting MEf leakage prevention; corrosion prevention; overload warning systems

10 MEf in wastewater treatment and air pollution abatement

The efficient use of chemicals; waterless air pollution control; sludge minimization

11 Minimizing waste and HW at source Actions taken after the waste has been generated but before transfer off-site: source separation, de-watering, on-site neutralization

12 Off-site waste recycling and energy recovery from waste

Minimizing the reject percentage; avoiding recycling to low-grade uses (“down-recycling”)

The contribution of this work is to use the typological approach in the analysis of the legal mandate for regulating MEf in environmental permits. The typology utilizes operative mandates within a factory in identifying MEf categories.

This thesis has surveyed the potential and the limits of MEf, and presented evidence on how technical aspects of MEf spill over and merge with the economic and social aspects of SMM. These observations are compatible with the findings of Allwood (2014). He proposes a shift from “waste management hierarchy” to “material management hierarchy” because the label “waste” easily disguises options not related to waste that can be used to reduce the impact of materials use. In his framing of the material management hierarchy he boldly expands the typology from technical aspects to dematerialization and de-growth issues, such as reducing the demand for material services, intensifying the use of existing products, and the life extension of products.

5.1.3 Qualitative WPr

The definition of waste prevention in EU legislation includes the “prevention of the hazardousness of waste.” In the draft strategy for the prevention of waste (EU 2003) this was named “qualitative waste prevention” and the quantity of HW was proposed as the indicator for this goal.

This thesis argues that framing hazardous chemical issues as primarily a waste policy issue can be misleading. In the framework of chemical policy or material

Discussion

37

flow policy the quantity of collected and treated HW can be seen as a positive indicator of improved inspection and compliance. The study verified that a big percentage of HW generated from industry arises from pollution control: dust from air pollution control or sludge from wastewater treatment (article 1). These findings are consistent with the conclusion in a paper by Brunner and Kral (2014) that argued that waste management should be framed as a filter for directing hazardous substances to appropriate final sinks.

Article 1 also revealed that the statistics of HW generation are difficult to use as an indicator for the qualitative WPr goal because of changes in the classification of wastes and the exclusion of hazardous emissions into wastewater. The statistics of the industrial use of hazardous chemicals would in some cases offer more straightforward indicators of the risk. However, the linkage between chemicals use and HW generation is not at all straightforward (Lilja et al. 2014).

The problems and costs of HW management may be one argument for regulating the use and management of a specific hazardous substance. The logical framing is the health and safety risks during the entire life cycle of the material flow. Waste law is not the best context for regulating the material flows of hazardous chemicals.

5.2 Policy instruments for promoting WPr or MEf

The intention of this thesis was not to present the full range of policy instruments that have been or could be applied to promote WPr or MEf. The focus of this discussion is on the following aspects:

a) Studying the legal aspects and limits of the opposite ends of regulation; namely command-and-control through environmental permits versus co-governance through voluntary agreements and encouraging voluntary environmental management systems.

b) Studying the reaction of key interest groups to proposed new or revised policy instruments by analyzing their arguments and framing of the problems.

5.2.1 How to regulate MEf in environmental permits

The current IED (EC 2010) is to some extent ambiguous regarding the relation between WPr and MEf. Only those categories of MEf that result in the prevention of waste or other pollution seem to qualify as justification for setting environmental conditions in environmental permits. However, in the definition of BATs and in several BAT conclusions other categories of MEf are also listed. This thesis (article 4) predicts that the development of revised BREF documents and binding BAT conclusions (IPTS 2015) will gradually shift the boundary of regulation towards a broader scope of MEf aspects that can and will be used in

Discussion

38

permit conditions. PlanMiljø AS (2009) has presented similar conclusions regarding cleaner production (CP) requirements for metal finishing industries.

Lilja et al. (2014) conducted a survey of the BAT conclusions published by the end of 2013 and listed MEf aspects that, according to these conclusions, can be considered as BAT. The authors observed that through the BAT approach the regulation in environmental permits can include direct prohibition of formerly conventional production technologies that have more material efficient reasonable alternatives. For example, in the BAT conclusions for chlor-alkali production the following examples of MEf conditions are given:

The mercury cell technique cannot be considered BAT under any circumstances. […] In order to reduce the quantity of spent sulphuric acid sent for disposal, BAT is to

use one or a combination of the techniques given below. The neutralization of spent sulphuric acid from chlorine drying with virgin reagents is not BAT. Some authors have warned that the BREF documents may have a negative

impact, causing the stagnation of technology by listing some production technologies as BAT and not mentioning some other technologies. Hillary and Thorsen (1999) expected that the negotiation and consensus for these BREFs will be time consuming and consequently their basis for CP will be outdated.

Article 5 describes the definition struggle in Finland concerning the regulation of WPr versus MEf. The more restricted interpretation of the mandate to regulate MEf prevailed. Even the MoE has traditionally held the position that the choice of technology is the full right of the operator and the regulator can only set limits to environmental emissions or impacts. This right was considered to also apply to the choice between CP solutions and end-of-pipe pollution control solutions. This is contrary to the approach in some other countries where CP has been the default option for a long time and the permit applicant must justify why CP options are not feasible before an end-of-pipe alternative is approved (Hillary & Thorsen 1999; Cunningham 2000). The intervention of environmental administration in issues dealing with the technological choices of industrial actors is a contentious question. Some authors argue that the permitting authority is usually in a weak bargaining position because of the “regulative capture” (Stiegler 1971), that is to say, the imbalance of technical knowhow in favor of the industrial operator. Other authors see such intervention as “regulatory creep,” in other words, entering into a zone that was not intended by the legislator (UK 2004). Pushing for a specific CP technology may cause liability problems for authorities if a specific clean technology does not work (Hillary & Thorsen 1999). This view is in line with Wagstaff’s (2007) concept of “principles based regulation.”

Figure 6 illustrates the scope and limits of MEf categories that can be regulated in environmental permits according to the interpretation of this thesis. The figure represents the legislative situation in Finland in 2012. There are legal and pragmatic limits to regulating MEf through permits. MEf in product design, for example, is not within the scope of IED regulation. Regulating MEf is different from regulating pollution prevention, because pollution (from the regulators’ point of view) is always a negative impact. The consumption of materials cannot be infinitely decoupled from the welfare

Discussion

39

gained. MEf is difficult to assess without a life-cycle framing because the costs and benefits of material choices are reflected in all upstream and downstream phases. Maximizing MEf in one phase of the life cycle may not be the optimal solution. In many cases it is more relevant to assess MEf in the context of a value chain than in the context of an industrial plant. This became clear in a case where the MEf of industrial chemicals use was studied (article 5). The application of the current models of the extended producer’s responsibility was not practical in the case of industrial chemicals.

The enforcement of MEf with environmental conditions in individual permits has many downsides as a way of promoting MEf in industry. Improving MEf is compatible with the economic interest of an enterprise so external enforcement may be an unnecessary intervention. Instead of direct regulation the permit process can be used in keeping up the pressure for the project proponent to continue a proactive approach to MEf and so to preserve full control of the timing and choice of MEf actions. Persuading a company to add more MEf aspects in the environmental management system, to conduct an external MEf audit, or to commission a feasibility study of the different MEf options are examples of soft regulation, compared to the direct enforcement of specific MEf actions (article 4). EMSs were rarely mentioned or required in the environmental permits as a tool for improving MEf or pollution prevention in general. This indicates that the permitting authorities may still interpret that the law does not provide the mandate to intervene in the contents of the corporate EMS, because it is a “voluntary scheme.” It is obvious that the authority cannot demand the applicant to acquire a specific, certified, voluntary system, but it is also clear from the BREF documents and the recent BAT conclusions that some kind of environmental management system is part of BAT (e.g. Horisontal BAT for EEf: EC 2009). The article also suggests that the attention given to MEf in the permitting process can activate the permit applicant to participate in the voluntary MEf audit schemes currently piloted in Finland (cf. Motiva 2015).

Discussion

40

Figure 6. The scope and limits of MEf categories that can be regulated in environmental permits4

4 a version of this image is published in Finnish in Lilja & Saramäki 2012

Discussion

41

Article 1 proposed another instrument of soft regulation. Companies should be required to keep track of and report their specific waste generation to authorities. This would support the internal setting of MEf goals more than the current practice of merely reporting the absolute figures. It would also enable comparison and benchmarking between industrial plants.

5.2.2 Voluntary MEf agreements and other forms of co-governance and self-regulation

It is no surprise that the industrial stakeholders prefer voluntary policy instruments rather than strict regulation or environmental taxes. Interviews and discourse conducted during this thesis work provide additional evidence of this. Ecolabels, voluntary environmental management systems, and voluntary or negotiated agreements are examples of environmental co-governance or self-regulation (e.g. Hillary & Thorsen 1999; CAVA 2001). Deregulation is one of the trends in the political stream that forms the undercurrent for the discourse of the choice of environmental policy instruments.

Article 3 presented a vision of a negotiated MEf agreement scheme and assessed its pros and cons (see sub-subsection 4.1.3). The conclusion was that there is a window of opportunity open for this instrument in Finland. The scheme could be partly based on the Finnish model of the EEf agreements, but targets should include sector-specific qualitative MEf issues. MEf cannot be measured by one simple indicator, unlike EEf. Article 5 developed the concept further. It noted that a voluntary MEf agreement was proposed in the draft National MEf Program for Finland (MoEE 2013). Article 5 argued that the merits of MEf are biggest when framed as a supply chain issue or sector-specific material flow issue. The paper confirms the conclusions of policy work conducted in the Netherlands (De Bruyn & Soest 2004; Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment 2010) and encourages Finnish stakeholders to consider the application of the Dutch Green Deal (Rijksoverheid 2013; Kwink groep 2013) approach to sector-specific MEf goals. Suggested practical examples are the commitment to the use of recycled or end-of-waste materials in construction or promoting the use of returnable containers in shipments of hazardous chemicals to prevent hazardous packaging waste. In the Green Deal model a limited number of frontrunner private sector or NGO actors endorse ambitious environmental targets and the government, as the counterpart, commits to public interventions (for example in public procurement, new regulations, or revising harmful regulations).

In Finland several public R&D financing programs already include co-governance and Green Deal features. For example, the programs enhance networking among private sector stakeholders and with public sector. Companies participate in the program design and management. Reframing of environmental problems is pursued to identify win-win opportunities (TEKES 2015; SITRA 2015; CLEEN 2015).

Discussion

42

Academic literature is abundant with skeptical assessments of such soft instruments. For example, Hukkinen (1995), Neumayer (2000), and Bizer and Julich (1999) consider voluntary agreements as a threat to effective environmental policy. Braathen (2005) views voluntary agreements as a weak alternative to environmental taxes and argues that government support to the implementation of NEAs is against the polluter pays principle. Other authors have studied the circumstances in which a NEA can succeed. Cunningham and Clinch (2004) list clear quantitative targets, reliable monitoring mechanisms, and third party verification as such preconditions. Bressers and de Bruijn (2005) list the following features of success stories:

a consensus-seeking tradition and atmosphere the stakeholder is convinced of the inevitability of the

change and of the threat of strict regulation in the case of the failure to take voluntary measures

the stakeholder can legitimately represent the concerned sector

the signatories to the NEA can expect a competitive advantage in the market

Glasbergen (2000) and Bleischwitz (2007) interpret NEAs rather as an implication of a new co-governance culture than just a policy instrument. They emphasize the role of frontrunner companies in such partnerships with the government. Hillary and Thorsen (1999) studied the role of regulation and self-regulation in promoting CP. They recommended the integrated employment of self-regulation and regulation, and for the effective co-ordination of these two paradigms.

Suvantola et al. (2008) conducted a survey of WPr and MEf policy instruments in OECD countries. They concluded that a combination of policy instruments – both regulation and co-governance – is more efficient than traditional command-and-control. Successful combinations were in the setting of MEf targets, using green public procurement as a driver, and the trading of “landfill waste allowances” together with extensive WPr information support. They found that strict norms were rare (examples of these were from Japan and Australia). Mostly the regulation was of the reflexive type, where the government sets a target and the means were left for the regulated community to choose. The authors proposed a model for consideration in Finland wherein sector-specific MEf targets are set using a co-governance model. Companies that fail to reach the sector-specific targets are required to prepare a MEf improvement plan. The authors also discuss the use of public subsidies for MEf investments and consultancy. They conclude that direct economic support is not efficient. They recommend public support of MEf audits but hint that it may be more effective to support a “cluster of companies” rather than the individual companies, as the practice is with EEf audits. This thesis provides evidence that the single industrial plant is not the best system boundary for MEf, because the benefits of MEf often spread across the value chain and the entire life cycle should be considered when assessing MEf benefits.

Discussion

43

This thesis aligns with the proponents of a combination of regulation and self-regulation. This thesis confirms that the consensus-seeking political culture in Finland is conducive to the potential success of a MEf NEA scheme, but the sense of the threat of alternative, stricter regulation nationally by administrative or economic instruments is not strong.

Lilja et al. (2014) concluded in their study that the interviewed stakeholders were willing to accept sector-specific quantitative MEf targets but not sanctions. The findings of the study were positive regarding the tailoring of qualitative sector-specific goals as part of a dialogue between industry and the government.

Article 3 concludes that the MEf NEA should be based on similar procedures, structures, and the financial support of audits as those of the present EEf agreements in Finland. However, the MEf NEA would have to incorporate elements of MEf in the production chain, not only plant-specific issues. The input from LCA research would be significant in setting the priorities for each sector. The role of the industrial sector federations would be bigger and the qualitative targets would differ by sector. The target group should be the frontrunners of each sector, rather than trying to reach the majority of companies.

The findings of this thesis suggest that a negotiated agreement could be feasible in Finland for promoting circular economy in the life cycle of selected materials and products. Candidates for MEf categories where conventional regulation is difficult and sector-specific negotiated agreements could have a role are: re-use of products or product parts, improving the durability of products, the substitution of harmful chemicals, and the substitution of virgin raw materials with recycled materials.

5.3 Framing matters

The thesis work as a whole emphasizes the relevance of the framing of an environmental objective. It is obvious that the framing of the environmental problem has implications on the screening and choice of policy instruments. These findings about the relevance of choosing the framing of policy objectives are in line with the theory of Kingdon (2011, p. 196–208) who points out that problem recognition and problem definition are critical in agenda setting. Framing is a tool for making the strategic goals behind a specific policy instrument transparent. On the other hand, framing can be used to cover up the strategic goals and make only the tactical goals transparent (Bourblanc, 2014). For interest groups, framing is a tool for influencing other participants in the dialogue and obstructing policy instruments that are seen as negative for the interest group. Such strategic goals can be deregulation in general, maintaining a high level of freedom in issues related to raw materials and technology, global competitiveness, the promotion of new business concepts, etc. The struggle for and against the regulation of MEf in environmental permits in the revised EPL illustrates these aspects (article 5).

Discussion

44

Saarikoski (2006) describes how environmental controversies are essentially discursive conflicts in which opponents employ contrasting and often incompatible models, metaphors, and interpretative schemes to make sense of contentious policy issues. Her case study is the Finnish incineration debate: “burn it or prevent it.” Her main finding was that the environmental NGOs employed the “natural resources” frame, wherein wastes are seen as proof of excessive consumption. The other policy network – consisting of municipal waste management administration, the MoE, and industry representatives – employed a pragmatic waste-management frame wherein WPr is seen as theoretically desirable but in practice unrealistic goal that has little relevance to the waste problem to hand. Saarikoski demonstrated how the different frames easily lead to communication breakdown where adversaries focused more on dismissing each other’s arguments than on looking for common ground. However, in another framing context – the “green markets frame” – the parties found shared storylines, such as eco-efficiency, substituting products with services, consumer education, etc.

This thesis confirms the findings of Saarikoski and takes the conclusion a step further by arguing that WPr would be politically easier to promote if it were clearly distanced from waste policy. WPr can be substituted by the MEf concept and the dialogue can take place in the context of SCP, sustainable materials policy, or circular economy.

The articles highlight some of the practical positive effects of the change of discourse from WPr to MEf that has occurred in Finland within the time frame of this thesis work. The change in the framing of the problem appears to be attractive for stakeholders in the industrial sector. Both the industrial lobby and the MoEE have been eager to adopt the MEf goal, whereas they have not embraced the WPr goal in a similar way.

Another benefit from the change of discourse has been that some conflicts arising from the hierarchy in the waste directive can be avoided when using the MEf concept. When using the MEf concept, the mistake of assessing waste prevention as an alternative to waste management can be avoided. WPr is not an element of waste management; it is an element of materials management. Waste management actions are needed to address problems caused by waste that is already generated. MEf operates on a different time scale, aiming to prevent waste that is not yet generated, and it requires a life-cycle management approach.

In the cases studied in article 5 it was common that the framing of MEf was not clearly presented during the early stages of the policy drafting process. In some cases, this weakened the logic and transparency of the screening and prioritization of policy instruments. The thesis argues that the design of programs for promoting MEf should start by looking at different categories of MEf and different phases of the life cycle of relevant material flows. The program can consist of different frameworks for different categories of MEf. Each category or life-cycle phase can have different targets and indicators, and often the same policy instrument cannot promote two different targets. For

Discussion

45

example, WPr and waste recycling require different policy instruments (articles 2, 3, and 5).

This thesis supports the strengthening of deliberation in environmental policy (as defined by Korkea-aho 2011, p. 86–87). She breaks down the concept of deliberation into the following requirements:

the reason-giving requirement, which ensures that arguments are weighed on their merits, the result being more reason-based decisions and a greater understanding of the reasons for public disagreements

problem-solving orientation, which contributes to the willingness to compromise

responsive participation, which guarantees more informed stakeholders and a stronger interest in political decision-making.

Participatory policy design is common in Finland, but the consensus-seeking policy may lead to a watered-down policy if the choice between policy instruments is taken by the principle of the least opposing opinions of stakeholders. For example, in the RAMATE policy program for promoting MEf in construction, actions were prioritized based on stakeholder voting in workshops in which each participant could give points to pre-screened policy instruments. This kind of procedure may lead to a random selection of policy actions that have poor synergy and may disregard important aspects or the life-cycle phases of MEf. Deliberate framing of the different aspects of MEf gives structure to the screening and prioritization process and provides support for selecting appropriate indicators and for linking the existing and new policy instruments into synergic “packages.”

For policy programs to be effective and for them to have broad support, it is important that the framing also covers concerns beyond purely environmental concerns. This thesis verifies that it is typical for MEf policy to have complex linkages with sector-specific “de facto” policy instruments (cf. Mermet et al. 2010). This means that each sector, such as construction and housing, has policy goals of its own – not driven by environmental concerns. Some of these goals are supportive of MEf goals (e.g., the obligation to prepare a long-term maintenance plan) and some may contradict them (e.g., EEf requirements that may lead to the premature demolition of buildings or building parts). Also, environmental policies may contradict MEf goals, such as the requirements of REACH that may create obstacles to waste recycling. This thesis (article 5) emphasizes the need of framing a MEf program so that these sector-specific concerns are properly acknowledged, synergies are identified, and compromises are sought in cases of contradictions. This is consistent with the finding of Korkea-aho (2011) who observed the lack of coordination between environmental and sectoral policy-making (p. 12).

The use of analogy is a framing tool (Fairhurst 2011). This thesis includes an assessment of a potential MEf agreement in which such a hypothetical instrument was compared with the existing EEf agreement. The analogy with EEf is not as straightforward as it appeared in the first hypothesis. EEf can be

Discussion

46

more easily promoted on the individual-plant level, but the full potential of MEf is often reaped if framed in the context of material chain management. Also the indicators for MEf are more complex and sector-specific than with EEf.

Metaphors are another element of framing. Watkins (2014) studied the relevance of metaphors in comparing two concepts that have much common ground with MEf, namely industrial symbiosis and industrial ecology. He concluded that industrial symbiosis has engineering practicality as a firm driving force but that it also opens one’s eyes to wider industrial ecology ideas as a bridge to thinking more realistically about truly sustainable systems. Metaphors are important in challenging world views, acting as prisms through which we begin to understand the world around us in different ways. Consistent with this work, Watkins emphasized the importance of defining the system boundary when assessing eco-efficiency. For example, in some cases the generation of a process residue can be beneficial for the larger symbiosis system if it results in a gain in the overall system eco-efficiency.

According to the theory of Kingdon (2011), conditions in the political stream significantly influence which problems are raised on the governmental agenda and especially which qualify for the actual decision agenda. The political stream is composed of such things as political trends or pressure group agendas (p. 145). The policy stream is conceptualized in his theory as a Darwinian metaphor; as a “primeval soup” in which ideas float around, confront one another, and combine. The emergence of policy proposals resembles the process of biological natural selection. A “hidden cluster” of interest groups, academics, and consultants are more influential in amending or inserting preferred alternatives (policy instruments) than in setting agendas (p. 19, p. 55). Interest groups are often active in blocking policy alternatives (instruments) that conflict with their interests (p. 49). He doesn’t describe the decision-making process as rational (as it is usually described). It is common that groups are persuaded to agree on a specific proposal without defining the problem and goal very clearly. One example of a hidden agenda is the battle for “bureaucratic turf” between sectors of government. Kingdon argues that changes in the policy stream occur more incrementally compared to the agenda stream in which sudden, radical changes can take place. In the search for policy instruments it is feasible to build on the new packaging of already familiar elements. Stakeholders have to be “softened up” to accept new policy instruments and their recombinations. Policy instruments have to pass tests of technical feasibility, value acceptability, and budget constraints.

This thesis supports Kingdon’s view of the interaction between the political and policy streams, and the available policy instruments or implementation alternatives. The importance of framing the problem for choosing the preferred instruments is also illustrated in this study.

47

6. Conclusions

In the following sections the main conclusions are presented addressing the two research questions:

How are the concepts of WPr and MEf defined in environmental discourse and what is their interrelation?

How are different policy instruments applicable in promoting WPr or MEf?

6.1 Material efficiency as a proxy for waste prevention

WPr is a concept defined in the EU Waste Directive (Directive 2008/98/EC) and WPr is ranked in the Directive as the first priority within the waste management hierarchy. This thesis argues that all the technological means of waste prevention can be covered with actions that can also be classified as categories of material efficiency. The WPr concept is not explicitly defined in the EU or Finnish environmental law, but it is described in soft law sources. MEf is defined in this thesis as the production of products and services with decreased and less harmful material inputs. On the plant level material efficiency means less waste, less harmful waste and also the choice of raw materials and the assessment of the environmental impacts of alternative inputs. The system boundary for MEf assessments depends on the case, e.g. the plant level, the product life cycle, the value chain or an industrial branch.

The classification of the categories of MEf on the industrial plant level was developed in this work (article 4) and published with some reformulation in the guidelines for promoting MEf in the Finnish environmental permit process (Lilja & Saramäki 2012). This typology can also be used by the industry as a tool for including MEf in its environmental management system. Consultants can use the categories as a checklist in auditing industries and their environmental management practices. The findings could be used in developing schemes for promoting MEf in small and medium-sized enterprises.

MEf is a broader concept than WPr because it also includes the recycling of waste, using secondary raw materials, reducing material losses to air or water, making products lightweight, etc. MEf has advantages to WPr as a policy

Conclusions

48

concept, because it avoids the challenges caused by the disputes over the definition of waste and the periodical changes in the classification of wastes.

MEf is a concept that can be used to identify practical means of preventing waste and to prevent pollution of water and air. MEf has been so far overshadowed by energy issues on the public environmental agenda, but its significance is growing. MEf is a tool for implementing sustainable consumption and production goals. Materials are carriers of environmental impacts, such as greenhouse gas emissions. MEf has implications in three environmental sectors: sustainable materials management, pollution prevention, and sustainable chemicals policy.

MEf has its limits in its capacity to solve the unsustainable use of natural resources. Rebound effects, population growth, and the absolute growth of material consumption easily cancel out the gains from improved MEf. Deep-rooted changes in consumption patterns and in the mechanisms of the global regulation of resource allocation are needed. In the discourse of some stakeholders, WPr is framed in the context of more radical cultural change such as the de-growth paradigm, whereas the MEf concept is usually more limited to technological means of change.

MEf policy is more complex than traditional pollution abatement policy because the use and choice of materials is directed by powerful sector-specific practices and policies, whereas WPr is more purely an environmental concern.

6.2 MEf can be regulated through environmental permits

Because the WPr goal in the environmental legislation can be realized through MEf action, the IED gives permitting authorities the mandate to regulate specific categories of MEf. MEf is also one important aspect of BAT. By applying BAT conclusions and BREF documents in environmental permits the scope of regulation can be extended to further categories of MEf. However, the regulation of MEf in product design is not within the mandate of permit regulation.

The regulation of MEf in environmental permits should be flexible, as a rule leaving the technical choices and timing of investments to the project proponent. MEf offers win-win opportunities, even though the priority order of actions may differ when evaluated from an economic or environmental point of view.

The recommended interventions include: “soft” regulation by requesting focused clarifications of measures taken and planned to improve MEf; using persuasion to incorporate MEf indicators in the EMS and to conduct voluntary MEf audits; specific conditions for monitoring the specific waste generation of significant waste streams. Keeping up the pressure for improving MEf is only needed for those cases where continuous improvement cannot be seen. The demolition and recycling industry for example is a sector where the stricter regulation of MEf may be needed in some cases (article 4).

Conclusions

49

Regulation of MEf and WPr through environmental permits should be coupled with information dissemination instruments. Guidelines for permitting authorities were edited as an intervention conducted parallel to this research.

6.3 MEf has potential for co-regulation

Cost-efficiency is the major driving force in taking MEf actions so there is a strong interest in industry to endorse MEf programs. There is a limit to what individual industrial units or companies can do. The broadest MEf gains can be reaped in the context of product life cycle, the value-chain or sector-wide approaches. Negotiated agreements between industrial stakeholders, the government and other actors could be used as an instrument for promoting MEf in such a context. The analogy with EEf agreements is only superficial, because the relevant indicators for MEf are much more sector specific and the MEf improvements are more complex.

The findings of this thesis suggest that a negotiated agreement could be feasible in Finland for promoting circular economy in the life cycle of selected materials and products. Candidates for MEf categories where conventional regulation is difficult and sector-specific negotiated agreements could have a role are: re-use of products or product parts, improving the durability of products, the substitution of harmful chemicals, and the substitution of virgin raw materials with recycled materials. The agreements could incorporate also some aspects of social responsibility.

The key features of the Dutch Green Deal scheme seem applicable to Finland. Co-governance is needed to incorporate the social and environmental aspects in the prioritization of the material flows to be targeted. The government can play a role in bringing together unlikely partners, in disseminating experiences, and in transforming the playing field by using other policy instruments. These can be, for example, public procurement schemes, revising regulations related to product policy, or subsidies for information dissemination and technical assistance. Such a negotiated agreement would have defined environmental targets and would involve a more active role for public administration than in the existing green innovation promotion programs.

6.4 Significance of this work in policy design

This work demonstrates the deliberate and transparent use of framing in designing policy programs for WPr or MEf. Participatory policy design is the standard practice in Finland, but the consensus-seeking policy may lead to watered-down policy. Consensus can mean that policy instruments are ruled out one by one because of the opposing opinion of a significant stakeholder alone. This kind of procedure may lead to a random selection of weak policy actions

Conclusions

50

that have poor synergy and may disregard important aspects or life-cycle phases of MEf. The deliberate framing of the different aspects of MEf/WPr gives structure to the screening and prioritization process, and provides support for selecting appropriate indicators and for linking the existing and new policy instruments into synergic “packages.” An important aspect in framing MEf is the system boundary, which is crucial in identifying and screening policy instruments. Framing approaches illustrated in this work are:

1) MEf as a tool for waste and pollution prevention 2) MEf as a tool for plant-level resource efficiency 3) MEf as a tool for product design 4) MEf as a tool for sustainable materials management in the value-chain

or sector-wide context This thesis suggests that WPr should be distanced from waste policy. Both quantitative and qualitative WPr can be better promoted through the concept of MEf in the broader SCP or circular economy context as compared to the current strong linkage with waste management policy. WPr in industry and in the economy in general requires improvements in procurement, process, product and service design, and in management systems. Decisions and obstacles regarding such actions are rarely the mandate of those in charge of waste management. Comparing WPr options with choices in waste management policy (recycling, energy recovery, or final disposal) is usually not relevant.

In article 1 the authors proposed that the waste monitoring and reporting system in the industry should be improved to provide data about the specific generation of waste from specific industrial processes. Such data could then be used in describing the BAT for these processes, as pointed out earlier by other experts. This proposal was actually endorsed in the 2011 revision of the Waste Act (119 §) and is starting to be implemented.

6.5 Future research recommendations

Interdisciplinary research of SMM is important in improving the understanding between the technically oriented researchers and representatives of environmental law and environmental policy. Action research of policy processes leading to new policy instruments and programs is important in documenting the discourse and the challenges of deliberation. Action research of the economic instruments that have potential in the national and international regulation of natural resource use is especially needed.

Research cooperation with the universities and governments of developing countries is important in order that they can apply experiences of MEf policy instruments in their country context.

51

References

Allwood, J.M., Ashby, M.F., Gutowski, T.G., Worrell, E. (2011). Material

efficiency: A white paper. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55, 362–381.

Allwood, J.M., Ashby, M.F., Gutowski, T.G., Worrell, E. (2013). Material efficiency: providing material services with less material production. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 371: 20120496. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0496.

Allwood, J.M. (ed.) (2014). Squaring the Circular Economy. The role of recycling within a hierarchy of material management strategies. In Worrell, E., Reuter, M. (eds.). Handbook of recycling, state-of-the-art for practitioners, analysts, and scientists. Elsevier, 445-477. ISBN: 978-0-12-396459-5

Anttonen, M. (2013). Eco-efficient Services as a Route towards Sustainable Development: Between the traditional and the radical. Aalto University, Doctoral Dissertations 181/2012. Helsinki: Unigrafia Oy.

Attila, M., Suoheimo, P., Pennanen, J. (2013). Summary of stakeholder comments on the government proposal for the revision of the EPL and related other laws. (Kooste luonnoksesta hallituksen esitykseksi ympäristönsuojelulaiksi ja eräiksi siihen liittyviksi laeiksi annetuista lausunnoista 14.2.2013) (in Finnish). Unpublished. Helsinki: Finnish Environment Institute (Suomen ympäristökeskus).

Bemelmans-Videc, M-L., Rist, R.C., Vedung E. (eds.) (2010). Carrots, sticks and sermons: policy instruments and their evaluation. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Fifth edition.

Berg, A., Hukkinen, J.I. (2011). The paradox of growth critique: Narrative analysis of the Finnish sustainable consumption and production debate. Ecological Economics, 72, 151–160.

Bizer, K., Jülich R. (1999). Voluntary agreements – trick or treat? European Environment, 9, 59–66.

Bleischwitz, R. (ed.) (2007). Corporate Governance of Sustainability. A Co-Evolutionary View on Resource management. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Bourblanc, M. (2014). Framing Environmental Problems: Problem entrepreneurs and the issue of water pollution from agriculture in Brittany, 1970–2005. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 16 (1), 21–35, DOI: 10.1080/1523908X.2013.817944.

Braathen, N.A. (2005). Environmental agreements used in combination with other policy instruments. In Croci, E. (ed.), The Handbook of Environmental Voluntary Agreements. Environment & Policy, 43, 335-364. ISBN: 978-1-4020-3355-1.

Bressers, H., de Bruijn, T. (2005). Conditions for the success of negotiated agreements: partnerships for environmental improvement in the Netherlands. Business Strategy and the Environment, 14, 241–254.

References

52

Brunner, P.H., Kral, U. (2014). Final sinks as key elements for building a sustainable recycling society. Sustainable Environment Research, 24 (6), 443–448.

CAVA (2001). Concerted Action on Voluntary Approaches. International policy worshop, Brussels.

Clark, G. (2007). Evolution of the global sustainable consumption and production policy and the United Nations Environment Programme's (UNEP) supporting activities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15 (6), 492–498.

CLEEN (2015). Cluster for Energy and Environment. Retrieved 23.3.2015 from: http://www.cleen.fi/en/.

Croci, E. (ed.) (2005). The Handbook of Environmental Voluntary Agreements. Design, Implementation and Evaluation Issues. Environment & Policy, 43. ISBN: 1-4020-3355-9.

Cunningham, J.A., Clinch, P. (2004). An organizing framework for the implementation of environmental voluntary approaches. European Environment, 14, 30–39.

Cunningham, D. (2000). IPPC, BAT, and voluntary agreements. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 78,105–121.

de Bruyn, S.M., van Soest, J.P. (2004). Resource productivity and policies – a Dutch perspective. Delft: University of Delft.

De Clercq, M., Suck, A., François, D., Dielman M., Ameels B. (2001). National patterns in the use of voluntary approaches in environmental policy. Gent: Centre for Environmental Economics and Environmental Management.

EC (1996). Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 257, 10/10/1996, 26–40, Brussels: EC.

EC (2003). COM/2003/301: Towards a thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste. Brussels: EC.

EC (2005a). COM/2005/666 final: Taking sustainable use of resources forward – A Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions SEC (2005) 1681, 1682, Brussels: EC.

EC (2005b). COM/2005/670 final: Thematic Strategy on Sustainable Use of Natural Resources. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, SEC (2005) 1683, 1684, Brussels: EC.

EC (2006a). Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 – Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH). Official Journal of the European Union, L 396/1. Brussels: EC.

EC (2006b). EC Communication COM/2006/689 final: A strategic review of better regulation in the European Union. Brussels: EC.

EC (2008a). Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste and repealing certain directives. Official Journal of the European Union, L 312, 22/11/2008, pp.3–30, Brussels: EC.

EC (2008b). Directive 2008/1/EC: concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (codified version). Official Journal of the European Union, Brussels: EC.

References

53

EC (2009). Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for Energy Efficiency. February 2009. Retrieved 23.3.2015 from: http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/

EC (2010). Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions (IED). Official Journal of the European Union, Brussels: EC.

EC (2011). COM/2001/21 final: A resource-efficient Europe: flagship initiative under the Europe 2020 Strategy, Brussels: EC.

EC (2014). COM/2014/398 final/2: Towards a circular economy: A zero waste programme for Europe, Brussels: EC.

EDIE (2014). EU circular economy framework proposals lack teeth, critics say. EDIE newsroom 11 June 2014. Retrieved 2.4.2015 from: http://www.edie.net/news/5/EU-circular-economy-framework-proposals-lack-teeth--critics-say/.

EIONET (2009). Factsheets/Waste management plans/Netherlands. Retrieved 29.8.2011 from: http://scp.eionet.europa.eu/facts/factsheets_waste/2009_edition/wastemanagementplans/#NL

EIPPCB (2008). European IPPC Bureau, Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for Energy Efficiency. Seville: EC Joint Research Council.

Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013). Towards the Circular Economy: Economic and business rationale for an accelerated transition. Ellen MacArthur Foundation.

Enviroplan (1999). Study on Voluntary Agreements Concluded between Industry and Public Authorities in the Field of Environment. An Assessment. Copenhagen: OECD.

Erkko, S., Melanen, M., Mickwitz, P. (2005). Eco-efficiency in the Finnish EMAS reports – a buzz word? Journal of Cleaner Production, 13, 799–813.

Fairhurst, G. (2011). The power of framing – Creating the language of leadership. Jossey-Bass: John Wiley & Sons Inc. ISBN: 978-0-470-49452-3

Feindt, P.H., Oels, A. (2005). Does discourse matter? Discourse analysis in environmental policy making. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 7 (3), 161–173.

Freeman, H. (ed.) (1990). Hazardous waste minimization. New York: McGraw-Hill: p. 5

Glasbergen, P. (2000). New Steps in Environmental Governance, Agreements as Institutional Change. Environmental Law Network International ELNI, 2000 (1), 87–94.

Hajer, M., Versteeg, W. (2005). A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics: Achievements, challenges, perspectives. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 7 (3), 175–184.

Halme, M. (2009). Foreword. In Huhtinen, K., Instruments for Waste Prevention and Promoting Material Efficiency – A Nordic Review. TemaNord, 2009, 532, Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.

Hazewindus, P. (2000). The integration of covenants in the Dutch legal system. Environmental Law Network International ELNI, 2000 (1), 25–30.

Heikkilä, I., Pekkonen, J., Reinikainen, E., Halme, K., Lemola, T. (2005). Evaluation of the energy conservation agreements, Helsinki: MoEE.

References

54

(Energiansäästösopimusten kokonaisarviointi, Kauppa- ja teollisuusministeriö, in Finnish).

Heiskanen, E. (1999). Every product casts a shadow: but can we see it, and can we act on it? Environmental Science & Policy, 2 (1), 61–74.

Hildén, M., Lepola, J., Mickwitz, P., Mulders, A., Palosaari, M., Similä, J., Sjöblom, S., Vedung, E. (2002). Evaluation of environmental policy instruments – a case study of the Finnish pulp & paper and chemical industries. Monographs of the Boreal Environment Research, No 21. Helsinki: Finnish Environment Institute.

Hillary, R., Thorsen, N. (1999). Regulatory and self-regulatory measures as routes to promote cleaner production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 7 (1), 1–11.

Honkasalo, A. (2011). Perspectives on Finland’s sustainable consumption and production policy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19 (16), 1901–1905.

Honkasalo, N., Rodhe, H., Dalhammar, C. (2005). Environmental permitting as a driver for eco-efficiency in the dairy industry: a closer look at the IPPC directive. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13 (10/11), 1049–1060.

Huhtinen, K. (2007). A summary of the statements received on the workgroups proposal of the NWP, Helsinki: Finnish Environment Institute (Kooste VALTSU-työryhmän mietinnöstä annetuista lausunnoista, Suomen ympäristökeskus, in Finnish).

Huhtinen, K. (2009). Instruments for Waste Prevention and Promoting Material Efficiency – A Nordic Review. TemaNord 2009: 532, Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.

Hukkinen, J. (1995). Corporatism as an impediment to ecological sustenance: the case of Finnish waste management. Ecological Economics, 15, 59–75.

IPTS (2015). BAT-conclusions. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. Joint Research Centre. European Commission. Retrieved 24.3.2015 from: http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/

ISO (2004). ISO 14001:2004: Environmental management systems – Requirements with guidance for use. International Standardisation Organisation.

Jasch, C. (2009). Environmental and Material Flow Cost Accounting. Principles and Procedures. Eco-Efficiency in Industry and Science, 25, 1–194.

Joutsenvirta, M. (2006). Common values in environmental debate: discourse analysis of environmental writings of Enso and Greenpeace. Dissertation. (Ympäristökeskustelun yhteiset arvot, Diskurssianalyysi Enson ja Greenpeacen ympäristökirjoituksista, väitöskirja, in Finnish). Helsinki: Helsinki School of Economics, A-273.

Kautto, P., Melanen, M., Saarikoski, H., Ilomäki, M., Yli-Kauppila, H. (2000). The policy instruments, impacts, effectiveness and development needs in Finnish waste policy, Suomen ympäristö 430/2000. (Suomen jätepolitiikan ohjauskeinot, vaikutukset, vaikuttavuus ja kehittämistarpeet, in Finnish).

Kautto, P., Mela, H. (2006). Regulatory impact assessment of promoting material efficiency. Background study part II for the National Waste Plan 2016. Suomen ympäristökeskuksen raportteja 9/2006. (Materiaalitehokkuuden edistämisen vaikutusten arviointi,

References

55

Valtakunnallinen jätesuunnitelma vuoteen 2016, Taustaselvitys osa II, in Finnish).

Kerschner, C. (2010). Economic de-growth vs. steady-state economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18 (6), 544–551.

Kingdon, J.W. (2011). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Updated Second Edition, Boston: Longman Classics in Political Science.

Kojo R., Lilja R. (2011). Promotion of MEf in building construction. Ympäristöministeriön raportteja 21/2011. Helsinki: MoE. (Talonrakentamisen materiaalitehokkuuden edistäminen, in Finnish).

Kojo, R., Lilja, R. (2012). Study of development needs in recycling to MoE of Finland, (Esiselvitys kierrätyksen kehittämistarpeista, in Finnish). Helsinki: Finnish Consulting Group FCG & Ekoleima Ay. 1907-P18358.

Korkea-aho, E. (2011). New Governance and the EU Courts. The Experimentalist architecture of judicial decision-making. Dissertation. Faculty of Law, University of Helsinki. ISBN 978-952-10-7376-0. Juvenes Oy: Helsinki.

KTM (2007). Framework agreement on the increasing of the energy efficiency of Finnish Industries. (Puitesopimus elinkeinoelämän energiankäytön tehostamisesta, in Finnish). Helsinki: MoEE

Kwink groep (2013). External evaluation of the Green Deals (Externe audit green deal aanpak, in Dutch). Den Haag: Rijksoverheid.

LaGrega, M.D., Buckingham, P.L., Evans, J.E. (1994). Hazardous waste management. Singapore: McGraw Hill Inc. ISBN 0-07-113454-9.

Lehni, M. (1998). WBCSD project on eco-efficiency, metrics & reporting. State-of-play report. World Business Council on Sustainable Development.

Lettenmeier, M. (2007). Minority report on the proposal of the working group for the NWP. Helsinki, 5.1.2007. (Eriävä mielipide työryhmän esitykseen valtakunnalliseksi jätesuunnitelmaksi, in Finnish). Suomen Luonnonsuojeluliitto ry.

Lilja, R. (2008). Negotiated agreements in promoting material efficiency. Pre-feasibility study. Ympäristöministeriön raportteja 21/2008. Helsinki: MoE. (Toimialakohtaiset materiaalitehokkuussopimukset – Esiselvitys, in Finnish).

Lilja, R. (2009). Regional policy instruments for promoting material efficiency. Joint Action on Climate Change. Conference in Aalborg, Denmark. European Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption and Production.

Lilja, R. (2010). Material efficiency in EcoStart-audits and environmental programs. Unpublished report to Ekokem Ltd. (Materiaalitehokkuus EcoStart ympäristökatselmuksissa ja yritysten ympäristöohjelmissa. Tutkimusraportti Ekokem Oy:lle, in Finnish). Helsinki: Ekoleima Ay.

Lilja, R., Saramäki K. (2012). Material efficiency in the environmental permitting process. Environmental guide, Ympäristöopas 2012 (Materiaalien käytön tehokkuus ympäristölupamenettelyssä, in Finnish). Helsinki: MoE.

Lilja, R., Anttonen, M., Liukkonen, S. (2014). Policy instruments for material efficiency in industry. Industrial chemicals and chemical wastes as an example, Ympäristöministeriön raportteja 13|2014 (Teollisuuden materiaalitehokkuuden ohjauskeinot. Esimerkkinä teollisuuskemikaalit ja kemialliset jätteet, in Finnish). Helsinki: MoE.

References

56

Lindström, M., Attila, M., Fitch, T., Pennanen, J., Salmenperä, H., Siberil, T. (2005). Waste related conditions in environmental permits. The Finnish Environment, 761. Helsinki: Finnish Environment Institute.

Malola, S. (2005). Hazardous Waste Minimization in Fabricated Metals Industry. BSc. thesis (Ongelmajätteiden vähentäminen metallituotteiden valmistuksessa, in Finnish). Mikkeli: Mikkeli University of Applied Sciences.

Martínez-Alier, J., Pascual, U., Vivien, F-D., Zaccai, E. (2010). Sustainable de-growth: Mapping the context, criticisms and future prospects of an emergent paradigm. Ecological Economics, 69 (9), 1741–174.

Mermet, M., Billé, R., Leroy, M. (2010). Concern-Focused Evaluation for Ambiguous and Conflicting Policies: An Approach from the Environmental Field. American Journal of Evaluation, 31, 180–198.

Mickwitz, P. (2003). A framework for evaluating environmental policy instruments. Evaluation, 9 (4), 415–436.

Mickwitz, P., Hildén, M., Seppälä, J., Melanen, M. (2011). Sustainability through system transformation: lessons from Finnish efforts. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19 (16), 1779–1787.

Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (2010). Getting ahead with a successful chain approach. Brochure. Retrieved 3.1.2014 from: http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/ministeries/ienm.

MoE (2002). Revised National Waste Plan (Tarkistettu valtakunnallinen jätesuunnitelma, in Finnish). Helsinki: MoE of Finland

MoE (2005). Getting more and better from less. Proposals for Finland's national programme to promote sustainable consumption and production. Retrieved 25.4.2007 from: http://www.ymparisto.fi/default.asp?contentid=149254&lan=en.

MoE (2007). Proposal for the National Waste Plan until 2016: the final report of the working group (Ehdotus valtakunnalliseksi jätesuunnitelmaksi vuoteen 2016, Valtakunnallista jätesuunnitelmaa valmistelleen työryhmän mietintö, in Finnish). Ympäristöministeriön raportteja 3/2007. ISBN 978-952-11-2561-4. Helsinki: MoE.

MoE (2010). Obstacles for Material Efficiency in Construction. Terms of reference for the study (Talonrakentamisen materiaalitehokkuuden esteet – selvityksen hankesuunnitelma, in Finnish). Ministry of the Environment of Finland. Unpublished.

MoE (2012a). National program for the management of hazardous chemicals. Mid-term review and revision (Kansallinen vaarallisia kemikaaleja koskeva ohjelma. Väliarviointi ja tarkistus 2012, in Finnish). Suomen ympäristö 2/2013. Helsinki: Ministry of the Environment of Finland.

MoE (2012b). Committee proposal for revising the environmental protection law. Details of the proposal and the articles of the law (Työryhmän esitys hallituksen esitykseksi ympäristönsuojelulain muuttamisesta, Yksityiskohtaiset esitykset ja pykälät, 15.11.2012, in Finnish). Helsinki: Ministry of the Environment of Finland.

MoE (2012c). Announcement of grants for development and demonstration projects promoting recycling and the use of recycled materials (Kierrätystä ja uusiomateriaalien käyttöä edistävien kehittämis- ja kokeiluhankkeiden hankehaku, in Finnish). Helsinki: Ministry of the Environment of Finland.

References

57

MoE (2013). Program for promoting material efficiency in construction. Final report of working group (Rakentamisen materiaalitehokkuuden edistämisohjelma, Rakentamisen materiaalitehokkuuden toimenpideohjelmaa valmistelevan työryhmän loppuraportti, in Finnish). Helsinki: Ministry of the Environment of Finland.

MoEE (2013). Sustainable Growth with Material Efficiency – proposal for a National Material Efficiency Program (Kestävää kasvua materiaalitehokkuudella – työryhmän esitys Kansalliseksi materiaalitehokkuusohjelmaksi, in Finnish). Työ- ja elinkeinoministeriön julkaisuja 33/2013. Helsinki: Edita Publishing Oy.

Motiva (2015). Material Efficiency Audit Tools for Companies. Retrieved 23.3.2015 from: http://motiva.fi/en/areas_of_operation/material_efficiency/material_efficiency_audit_tools_for_companies

Neumayer, E. (2000). German packaging waste management: a successful voluntary agreement with less successful environmental effects. European Environment, 10 (3), 152–163.

OECD (2003). Voluntary approaches for environmental policy. Effectiveness, efficiency and usage in policy mixes. Paris: OECD.

OECD (2005). Working Group on Waste Prevention and Recycling, Outcome of the first workshop on SMM. Seoul, 28-30 November 2005.

OECD (2008). Building and Institutional Framework for Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). Guidance for policy makers. Retrieved 23.3.2015 from: http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/40984990.pdf

OECD (2013). Material resources, productivity and the environment: key findings. Retrieved 17.3.2015 from: http://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/.

PlanMiljø AS (2009). BAT and Cleaner Technology in Environmental Permits. Part 2: Surface Treatment of Metals. TemaNord 2009:585. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers. ISBN 978-92-893-1947-8.

Pongracz, E. (2002). Re-defining the concepts of waste and waste management. Doctoral Thesis. Oulu: Department of process and environmental engineering, University of Oulu.

Pre-waste (2012). What is waste prevention? Pre-waste. Retrieved 12.3.2015 from: http://www.prewaste.eu/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=55:what-is-waste-prevention?&Itemid=41.

Rijksoverheid (2013). Progress report of the Green Deals 2013 (Voortgangsrapportage Green Deals, in Dutch). Den Haag: Rijksoverheid.

Ritthoff M., Rohn, H., Liedtke, C. (2002). Calculating MIPS. Resource productivity of products and services. Wuppertal Spezial 27e. Wuppertal: Wuppertal Institute. ISBN3-929944-56-1e.

Saarikoski, H. (2006). When frames conflict: policy dialogue on waste. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 24, 615–630.

Sairinen, R., Teittinen, O. (1999). Voluntary agreements as an environmental policy instrument in Finland. European Environment, 9, 67–74.

Similä, J. (2007). Regulating industrial pollution: the case of Finland. Dissertation. Helsingin yliopiston oikeustieteellisen tiedekunnan julkaisut 2007:107. Helsinki: Forum Iuris.

Sitra (2015). Towards resource wisdom. Retrieved 23.3.2015 from: http://www.sitra.fi/en/ecology/resource-wisdom.

References

58

Stigler, G., (1971). Theory of economic regulation, Bell Journal of Economics, 2, 3–21.

Suomen ympäristökeskus (2010). Summary of stakeholder statements on the draft manual for promoting MEf in environmental permitting (Lausuntokooste YM:n lupaoppaan luonnoksesta annetuista lausunnoista) (in Finnish). Helsinki: Finnish Environment Institute

Suvantola, L., Lankinen A-J. (2008). New policy instruments for waste prevention (Jätteen synnyn ehkäisyn uudet ohjauskeinot, in Finnish). Ympäristöministeriön raportteja 24/2008. Helsinki: MoE.

Tekes (2015a). Green Growth. Retrieved 23.3.2015 from: http://www.tekes.fi/en/programmes-and-services/tekes-programmes/green-growth/.

Telukdarie, A., Buckley, C., Koefoed, M. (2006). The importance of assessment tools in promoting cleaner production in the metal finishing industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14 (18), 1612–1621.

ten Brink P (ed.) (2002). Voluntary Environmental Agreements. Process, Practice and Future Use. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing. ISBN 1874719 411.

UK (2004). Avoiding regulatory creep: UK Better Regulation Task Force report. UK Cabinet. Retrieved 12.4.2010 from: http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/brc/upload/assets/www.brc.gov.uk/hiddenmenace.pdf.

UN (2002). Sustainable Development knowledge platform. Retrieved 24.3.2015 from: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/sustainableconsumptionandproduction

UNEP (2004). Understanding Cleaner Production. United Nations Environment Program. Retrieved 5.10.2004 from: http://www.uneptie.org/pc/cp/understanding_cp/home.htm#definition.

UNEP (2011). Understanding Resource Efficient and Cleaner Production. The United Nations Environment Programme. Retrieved 2.1.2012 from: http://www.unep.fr/scp/cp/understanding/.

UNIDO (2015). UNIDO Cleaner Production Toolkit. Retrieved 9.3.2015 from: www.unido.org/fileadmin/import/85710_PR9Textbook.doc

van der Voet, E., van Oers, L., Nikolic, I. (2003). Dematerialisation: not only a matter of weight. CML report 160, Leiden: Center of Environmental Science, Leiden University.

Veivo H. (2006). The basic concepts, schools and the philosophic basis of semiotics, lecture (Semiotiikan peruskäsitteet & koulukunnat ja filosofiset perusteet, Helsingin yliopisto, in Finnish). Helsinki: Helsinki University.

Wagstaff, M., (2007). Principles Based Regulation: Stability, Risk and Trust. 2nd Annual Cambridge Conference on Regulation, Inspection & Improvement, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK. Retrieved 12.4.2010 from: www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/pdf/Wagstaff_Paper.pdf.

Watkins, G. (2014). Department of Forest Products Technology: Opportunities and Barriers in the Beneficial Utilisation of Process Industry Residues. Aalto University publication series: Doctoral dissertations 56/2014. Espoo: Aalto University.

References

59

Finnish laws and regulations referred to in the thesis Chemicals Act 599/2013: latest revision 554/2014. Chemicals Decree 675/1993 Environmental Protection Act 86/2000 Revision of the Environmental Protection Act 647/2011 Environmental Protection Act 527/2014. Environmental Protection Decree 713/2014 Waste Act 646/2011 Government Decree on Waste 179/2012

60

Errata and corrigenda

Raimo Lilja Promoting waste prevention in industry – search for policy instruments School of Chemical Technology, Aalto University publication series DOCTORAL DISSERTATIONS Any post-publication errata will be as shown on an insert at this page location.

Publication 2

page 130 row 4: qualitative preventions; should be: qualitative prevention

Publication 4

page 48, row 13: ympäristönsuojelulaissa muutoksessa; pitää olla: ympäristönsuojelulain muutoksessa

page 63 row 1: puulajit on lajiteltava; pitää olla: puujätteen lajit on lajiteltava

page 72 row 28: Irlannin lupajärjestelmässään; pitää olla: lupajärjestelmässä

Publication 5

page 2030, row 35 in first column: pointint; should be: pointing

Front cover picture: Copyright Seppo Leinonen. Printed with permission

Aalto-D

D 9

4/2

016

9HSTFMG*agibcb+

ISBN 978-952-60-6812-1 (printed) ISBN 978-952-60-6813-8 (pdf) ISSN-L 1799-4934 ISSN 1799-4934 (printed) ISSN 1799-4942 (pdf) Aalto University School of Chemical Technology Department of Forest Products Technology www.aalto.fi

BUSINESS + ECONOMY ART + DESIGN + ARCHITECTURE SCIENCE + TECHNOLOGY CROSSOVER DOCTORAL DISSERTATIONS

Raim

o Kalevi Lilja

Promoting w

aste prevention in industry – search for policy instruments

Aalto

Unive

rsity

2016

Department of Forest Products Technology


Raimo Kalevi Lilja

DOCTORAL DISSERTATIONS

Documents

Promoting waste prevention in industry – search for policy instruments