• Energy Research
• 11. Sustainability close
• FI close
• CH close
• NL close
• English close

As the concept for circular economy gains traction in the world and the EU pushes for the transition from a linear economy to a circular economy model, the role of waste-toenergy is crucial in a circular economy as it is the last chance to extract value out of material at the same time as providing an alternative energy source, henceforth bringing together a closed-loop system. A functioning circular economy will also have minimal waste generated which is sync with the idea of zero-waste. How all these aspects really work together is the focal point of this Master’s thesis where the aim is to see how the three factors of waste-to-energy, the circular economy and a zero-waste goal work together in accomplishing their respective objectives and to access their performance and potential in Finland using other Nordic countries as benchmarks. A qualitative research method of four semi-structured interviews with experts in Finland involved in various circular economy was supported by secondary sourced data on the other Nordic countries and if found that WtE has additional benefits to Nordics compared to other countries due to district heating utilization of excess steam that provides heat during the long winter months so henceforth offers higher energy efficiency. The state of the circular economy in Finland was harder to ascertain with the difficulty in showing concrete examples of a CE due to misunderstanding of the relatively new theoretical term and the many related terms. The overall conclusion for Finland was that a zero-waste goal was not the correct aim to have as this could still mean high incineration, instead Finland should look at the exemplarily example of Denmark which aims to be incineration free in the future. There would still be a role for WtE, only to a less extent, dealing with hazardous and residual waste. The role of recycling will grow in line with a true CE model which means that energy sourced from WtE will decline, As a result Finland should plan accordingly and invest less in WtE infrastructure and more in other alternative energy sources.

As the concept for circular economy gains traction in the world and the EU pushes for the transition from a linear economy to a circular economy model, the role of waste-toenergy is crucial in a circular economy as it is the last chance to extract value out of material at the same time as providing an alternative energy source, henceforth bringing together a closed-loop system. A functioning circular economy will also have minimal waste generated which is sync with the idea of zero-waste. How all these aspects really work together is the focal point of this Master’s thesis where the aim is to see how the three factors of waste-to-energy, the circular economy and a zero-waste goal work together in accomplishing their respective objectives and to access their performance and potential in Finland using other Nordic countries as benchmarks. A qualitative research method of four semi-structured interviews with experts in Finland involved in various circular economy was supported by secondary sourced data on the other Nordic countries and if found that WtE has additional benefits to Nordics compared to other countries due to district heating utilization of excess steam that provides heat during the long winter months so henceforth offers higher energy efficiency. The state of the circular economy in Finland was harder to ascertain with the difficulty in showing concrete examples of a CE due to misunderstanding of the relatively new theoretical term and the many related terms. The overall conclusion for Finland was that a zero-waste goal was not the correct aim to have as this could still mean high incineration, instead Finland should look at the exemplarily example of Denmark which aims to be incineration free in the future. There would still be a role for WtE, only to a less extent, dealing with hazardous and residual waste. The role of recycling will grow in line with a true CE model which means that energy sourced from WtE will decline, As a result Finland should plan accordingly and invest less in WtE infrastructure and more in other alternative energy sources.

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

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.

The global forest carbon (C) stock is estimated at 662 Gt of which 45% is in soil organic matter. Thus, comprehensive understanding of the effects of forest management practices on forest soil C stock and greenhouse gas (GHG) fluxes is needed for the development of effective forest-based climate change mitigation strategies. To improve this understanding, we synthesized peer-reviewed literature on forest management practices that can mitigate climate change by increasing soil C stocks and reducing GHG emissions. We further identified soil processes that affect soil GHG balance and discussed how models represent forest management effects on soil in GHG inventories and scenario analyses to address forest climate change mitigation potential.Forest management effects depend strongly on the specific practice and land type. Intensive timber harvesting with removal of harvest residues/stumps results in a reduction in soil C stock, while high stocking density and enhanced productivity by fertilization or dominance of coniferous species increase soil C stock. Nitrogen fertilization increases the soil C stock and N2O emissions while decreasing the CH4 sink. Peatland hydrology management is a major driver of the GHG emissions of the peatland forests, with lower water level corresponding to higher CO2 emissions. Furthermore, the global warming potential of all GHG emissions (CO2, CH4 and N2O) together can be ten-fold higher after clear-cutting than in peatlands with standing trees.The climate change mitigation potential of forest soils, as estimated by modelling approaches, accounts for stand biomass driven effects and climate factors that affect the decomposition rate. A future challenge is to account for the effects of soil preparation and other management that affects soil processes by changing soil temperature, soil moisture, soil nutrient balance, microbial community structure , processes, hydrology and soil oxygen concentration in the models. We recommend that soil monitoring and modelling focus on linking processes of soil C stabilization with the functioning of soil microbiota. Peer reviewed

The global forest carbon (C) stock is estimated at 662 Gt of which 45% is in soil organic matter. Thus, comprehensive understanding of the effects of forest management practices on forest soil C stock and greenhouse gas (GHG) fluxes is needed for the development of effective forest-based climate change mitigation strategies. To improve this understanding, we synthesized peer-reviewed literature on forest management practices that can mitigate climate change by increasing soil C stocks and reducing GHG emissions. We further identified soil processes that affect soil GHG balance and discussed how models represent forest management effects on soil in GHG inventories and scenario analyses to address forest climate change mitigation potential.Forest management effects depend strongly on the specific practice and land type. Intensive timber harvesting with removal of harvest residues/stumps results in a reduction in soil C stock, while high stocking density and enhanced productivity by fertilization or dominance of coniferous species increase soil C stock. Nitrogen fertilization increases the soil C stock and N2O emissions while decreasing the CH4 sink. Peatland hydrology management is a major driver of the GHG emissions of the peatland forests, with lower water level corresponding to higher CO2 emissions. Furthermore, the global warming potential of all GHG emissions (CO2, CH4 and N2O) together can be ten-fold higher after clear-cutting than in peatlands with standing trees.The climate change mitigation potential of forest soils, as estimated by modelling approaches, accounts for stand biomass driven effects and climate factors that affect the decomposition rate. A future challenge is to account for the effects of soil preparation and other management that affects soil processes by changing soil temperature, soil moisture, soil nutrient balance, microbial community structure , processes, hydrology and soil oxygen concentration in the models. We recommend that soil monitoring and modelling focus on linking processes of soil C stabilization with the functioning of soil microbiota. Peer reviewed

Modern conceptions of progress, based on the dominant Cartesian reductionist paradigm, are associated with a linear drive towards ever greater ascendancy, order, organisation, homogeneity, hegemony, performance, efficiency, and control. Similarly modern conceptions of progress are associated with positivist approaches to overcoming and extinguishing disorder, inchoateness, uncertainty, redundancy and risk. In this framework, diversity is conceived as a threat to system organisation, efficiency and control. Many contemporary conceptions of sustainability and sustainable development, framed within this paradigm, envisage sustainability as aligning with such ideas of progress. By this narrative, sustainable systems are achievable through ever greater efficiency, through for example, technological prowess, improved organisational structure/control, taming of “big data” and through risk reduction/extinction. Similarly, corporate sustainability would be advanced through growth, mergers and acquisitions, rationalisation, pruning of smaller operations/sites within firms, layoffs, increased corporate control, accountability and managerialism. “Bigger is better” is the apposite maxim. From a complex systems perspective however, a very different picture is evident. In the ecological domain, sustainable ecosystems have been quantitatively shown to be those which maintain an appropriate (context, time and space dependent) dynamic balance between opposing tendencies of ascendancy and efficiency on one hand and diversity and redundancy on the other (Ulanowicz, 2009; Goerner et al., 2009). Ecological biodiversity is an absolute requirement for ecosystem endurance since it facilitates system resilience in the event of significant perturbation (whether sudden shock or longer term stress). For example, a species which can feed on a selection of available prey species is more resilient against partial ecosystem destruction/prey extinction than one which relies on a single species for food. While the latter scenario represents a situation of greater efficiency, it is also more rigid and less resilient. Moreover, while the tendencies of complex systems towards ascendancy (organisation, efficiency) and disorder (redundancy, diversity) are antagonistic at local levels, they are in fact mutually dependent at higher levels (Ulanowicz et al, 2009): “A requisite for the increase in effective orderly performance (ascendency) is the existence of flexibility (reserve) within the system. Conversely, systems that are highly constrained and at peak performance (in the second law sense of the word) dissipate external gradients at ever higher gross rates”. This model has been mirrored across techno-economic and social domains wherein similar sustainability models have been proposed (e.g. Stirling, 2011). This framework has manifested itself in research outputs across virtually every discipline, where in different guises sustainable and persistent systems have been shown to require a balance between tendencies of control, structure and organisation and those of diversity and disorder.