• Energy Research
• 12. Responsible consumption close
• 15. Life on land close
• NL close
• DK close
• English close

Recent extreme weather events have resulted in an ongoing discussion on the issues of land use and compensation payments within Austrian agriculture. Building on a functional evaluation system for agricultural lands as developed within the Interreg IIIB project “ILUP”, the national project “Agriculture and Flooding” has as its goal to classify the flood-protection contribution and flood sensitivity of agricultural lands. This, in turn, enables the recommendation of targeted measures for potentially improving flood situations, as well as an estimate of their implementation costs. In addition to the digital soil map, other fundamental sources used for the project are the digital flood risk map, IACS land-use data and works by the Institute for Land and Water Management Research. Reference values and marginal returns sourced from the Federal Institute of Agricultural Economics also flow into the cost estimates for the recommended combination. The results will contribute to an understanding of the multifunctionality of agricultural lands and to the setting of priorities on a regional scale regarding packaged flood-prevention and damage-minimization. However, the results at hand can only serve as one step toward regional flood protection projects, whose development will require the cooperation of all interest groups.

Recent extreme weather events have resulted in an ongoing discussion on the issues of land use and compensation payments within Austrian agriculture. Building on a functional evaluation system for agricultural lands as developed within the Interreg IIIB project “ILUP”, the national project “Agriculture and Flooding” has as its goal to classify the flood-protection contribution and flood sensitivity of agricultural lands. This, in turn, enables the recommendation of targeted measures for potentially improving flood situations, as well as an estimate of their implementation costs. In addition to the digital soil map, other fundamental sources used for the project are the digital flood risk map, IACS land-use data and works by the Institute for Land and Water Management Research. Reference values and marginal returns sourced from the Federal Institute of Agricultural Economics also flow into the cost estimates for the recommended combination. The results will contribute to an understanding of the multifunctionality of agricultural lands and to the setting of priorities on a regional scale regarding packaged flood-prevention and damage-minimization. However, the results at hand can only serve as one step toward regional flood protection projects, whose development will require the cooperation of all interest groups.

Beyond the urgency of rethinking XX-century urbanization characterized by endless structural expansion strategy, we need to engage urban systems by means of emerging concepts of adaptability and systemic transitions due to climate change effects. Emission reduction and spatial compactness, reuse and recycle, flexibility and complex balances have a profound impact on the spatial dimension and the quality of the urban environment, therefore architectural and urban design are deeply involved in facing ecological transitions and envisioning new strategies to implement the quality of the cities we live in. How to face these emergent challenges? What are the ongoing design strategies for climate change effects? what will be the role of design in transitional systems? Do we recognize it as an opportunity to improve the public space? Design Actions for Shifting Condition is a collaborative effort, and aims to present, from an architectural and urban design point of view, methodologies, practices, and approaches to overcome existing and new fragilities for Cities in Times of Transition. Theory, Territories & Transitions Projects

Beyond the urgency of rethinking XX-century urbanization characterized by endless structural expansion strategy, we need to engage urban systems by means of emerging concepts of adaptability and systemic transitions due to climate change effects. Emission reduction and spatial compactness, reuse and recycle, flexibility and complex balances have a profound impact on the spatial dimension and the quality of the urban environment, therefore architectural and urban design are deeply involved in facing ecological transitions and envisioning new strategies to implement the quality of the cities we live in. How to face these emergent challenges? What are the ongoing design strategies for climate change effects? what will be the role of design in transitional systems? Do we recognize it as an opportunity to improve the public space? Design Actions for Shifting Condition is a collaborative effort, and aims to present, from an architectural and urban design point of view, methodologies, practices, and approaches to overcome existing and new fragilities for Cities in Times of Transition. Theory, Territories & Transitions Projects

The access to modern energy services are deeply embedded in most aspects of the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of human development. In Mozambique, just a small fraction of the rural population has access to electricity, as the electrification process so far has relied on a leastcost approach, only inciting the development and extension of the national grid. As the population of rural off-grid communities are often highly dispersed, having low purchasing power, low technical skill etc., keeping current unilateral electrification approach, will mean that the many isolated communities will be left in the dark in the many years to come. This therefore calls forward the need to apprehend other approaches to make electricity accessible in the rural off-grid areas of Mozambique. In present thesis the opportunities and constraints of providing electricity to rural offgrid areas are assessed. Meeting the potential of the rural off-grid challenge, which Mozambique currently faces, takes outset in the establishment of community-based electrification pilot projects.

The access to modern energy services are deeply embedded in most aspects of the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of human development. In Mozambique, just a small fraction of the rural population has access to electricity, as the electrification process so far has relied on a leastcost approach, only inciting the development and extension of the national grid. As the population of rural off-grid communities are often highly dispersed, having low purchasing power, low technical skill etc., keeping current unilateral electrification approach, will mean that the many isolated communities will be left in the dark in the many years to come. This therefore calls forward the need to apprehend other approaches to make electricity accessible in the rural off-grid areas of Mozambique. In present thesis the opportunities and constraints of providing electricity to rural offgrid areas are assessed. Meeting the potential of the rural off-grid challenge, which Mozambique currently faces, takes outset in the establishment of community-based electrification pilot projects.

During their lifespan, products can cause severe environmental and social impacts in all stages of their lifecycle. The circular economy with its focus on closing and slowing material and energy loops is a means to reduce these broad impacts. Circular economy forms the basis of the EU’s ambitions to reconcile present economic activities within the planetary boundaries while meeting its aim for climate neutrality by 2050. Electronic and electronics equipment is a key product focus area for the European Commission, during the waste stage. Similar to other EU Directives, current electronics waste legislation will be updated in the coming years. The transition to a circular economy will require new and modified roles and responsibilities for actors, e.g. government, businesses and citizens. This report provides a detailed exploration of the governance issues within the current electronics waste policy, focusing on the instrument of extended producer responsibility. Through three detailed case studies of Italy, France and the Netherlands, the key organisational and policy features are explained, and the strengths and weaknesses are outlined. Based on the analysis of the case studies, we argue the subsequent developments for extended producer responsibility for waste electrical and electronic equipment to include the four followings aspects in its development: 1. Introducing the modulation of fees at the European level: the fee paid by producers for the collection and recycling of their products should be modulated based on the circularity and sustainability of the product in question. Fee modulation is allowed under the current EU WEEE law. However, it is not applied systematically. This is already done in France for EEE based on the standardisation of components, weight and specific materials. Fee modulation guidelines have been developed by the OECD. However, the key aspect to the ability of the fees to affect product design is the size of the fee. Studies have illustrated that current fees are between 0.2 and 2% of the product price. Higher levels of fees, e.g. more than the 2% product price, combined with a visible fee are recommended to be implemented at the EU level; 2. Broadening the scope of which actors are included in national EPR systems while promoting high R-strategies: the types of actors and responsibilities within the extended producer responsibility schemes need to be broadened. This is possible under EU law and has partly been done in France, where civic actors are now included in the functioning and directing of the schemes. However, the transition to a circular economy requires the promotion of more than just recycling of EEE to the other R-strategies. This requires systematically integrating the other economic actors in the design and functioning of the system, e.g. Repair, Remanufacturing etc.; 3. Measures to promote the highest value recycling of collected WEEE: products that reach their end-of-life they need to be effectively collected and treated to the best standard. The current targets and quality measures promote the collection and recycling of electronics based on mass, not on a specific material or quality criteria. A standard for the treatment of WEEE EN 45558 is available, although it is not mandatory. We recommend this standard be made mandatory across the EU. In addition, we call for a systematic pan-EU assessment of available and future recycling technologies, possibilities for urban mining from WEEE, and funding options needed to direct this, specifically in the area of critical raw materials recovery from electronics; 4. Expanding the scope of EPR beyond national borders: the scope of extended producer responsibility schemes needs to be expanded to account for the multiple uses of the product and the responsibility when products move internationally. While EPR has shown great ability to shift WEEE away from landfilling. The complexity of systems, rules and their enforcement between member states and beyond has led to varying national rules and issues of transparency between jurisdictions. The quantity of producers, importers, distributors and second-hand sellers makes the tracking and monitoring of WEEE within and between national jurisdictions challenging, especially for the export of collected and secondary products. In particular, this relates to the need for a solid understanding of the quantities of WEEE moving between jurisdictions and suitable mechanisms in place to finance the appropriate disposal. The highly international nature of WEEE supply chains and global trade and flows of WEEE have led some to call for a ‘global EPR’ or ‘ultimate producer responsibility’ system.

During their lifespan, products can cause severe environmental and social impacts in all stages of their lifecycle. The circular economy with its focus on closing and slowing material and energy loops is a means to reduce these broad impacts. Circular economy forms the basis of the EU’s ambitions to reconcile present economic activities within the planetary boundaries while meeting its aim for climate neutrality by 2050. Electronic and electronics equipment is a key product focus area for the European Commission, during the waste stage. Similar to other EU Directives, current electronics waste legislation will be updated in the coming years. The transition to a circular economy will require new and modified roles and responsibilities for actors, e.g. government, businesses and citizens. This report provides a detailed exploration of the governance issues within the current electronics waste policy, focusing on the instrument of extended producer responsibility. Through three detailed case studies of Italy, France and the Netherlands, the key organisational and policy features are explained, and the strengths and weaknesses are outlined. Based on the analysis of the case studies, we argue the subsequent developments for extended producer responsibility for waste electrical and electronic equipment to include the four followings aspects in its development: 1. Introducing the modulation of fees at the European level: the fee paid by producers for the collection and recycling of their products should be modulated based on the circularity and sustainability of the product in question. Fee modulation is allowed under the current EU WEEE law. However, it is not applied systematically. This is already done in France for EEE based on the standardisation of components, weight and specific materials. Fee modulation guidelines have been developed by the OECD. However, the key aspect to the ability of the fees to affect product design is the size of the fee. Studies have illustrated that current fees are between 0.2 and 2% of the product price. Higher levels of fees, e.g. more than the 2% product price, combined with a visible fee are recommended to be implemented at the EU level; 2. Broadening the scope of which actors are included in national EPR systems while promoting high R-strategies: the types of actors and responsibilities within the extended producer responsibility schemes need to be broadened. This is possible under EU law and has partly been done in France, where civic actors are now included in the functioning and directing of the schemes. However, the transition to a circular economy requires the promotion of more than just recycling of EEE to the other R-strategies. This requires systematically integrating the other economic actors in the design and functioning of the system, e.g. Repair, Remanufacturing etc.; 3. Measures to promote the highest value recycling of collected WEEE: products that reach their end-of-life they need to be effectively collected and treated to the best standard. The current targets and quality measures promote the collection and recycling of electronics based on mass, not on a specific material or quality criteria. A standard for the treatment of WEEE EN 45558 is available, although it is not mandatory. We recommend this standard be made mandatory across the EU. In addition, we call for a systematic pan-EU assessment of available and future recycling technologies, possibilities for urban mining from WEEE, and funding options needed to direct this, specifically in the area of critical raw materials recovery from electronics; 4. Expanding the scope of EPR beyond national borders: the scope of extended producer responsibility schemes needs to be expanded to account for the multiple uses of the product and the responsibility when products move internationally. While EPR has shown great ability to shift WEEE away from landfilling. The complexity of systems, rules and their enforcement between member states and beyond has led to varying national rules and issues of transparency between jurisdictions. The quantity of producers, importers, distributors and second-hand sellers makes the tracking and monitoring of WEEE within and between national jurisdictions challenging, especially for the export of collected and secondary products. In particular, this relates to the need for a solid understanding of the quantities of WEEE moving between jurisdictions and suitable mechanisms in place to finance the appropriate disposal. The highly international nature of WEEE supply chains and global trade and flows of WEEE have led some to call for a ‘global EPR’ or ‘ultimate producer responsibility’ system.