Following the original package’s withdrawal, you said the revised version would be more ‘country specific’. How does the new package reflect this aim? The diversity of starting points among EU member states – 64 per cent of recycling in some, 10 per cent in others – is huge. The success for making the transition to the circular economy depends on making real progress on the ground, across Europe, so that no member state is left behind. The clearest reflection of this is that member states which in 2013 recycled less than 20 per cent of their municipal waste can, if they so wish, get additional time to comply with the EU recycling and landfill targets. The commission is also committed to providing technical assistance: €5.5 billion (£4 billion) from Structural Funds is earmarked for waste management projects to help lagging regions catch up. If progress is steady, we will review the targets in 2025 to increase to 70 per cent of municipal recycling.

Along similar lines, which member states do you think the lower-performing countries should look to for models of best practice?

Best practices for separate waste collection, use of economic incentives, waste infrastructure investment planning, high recycling and low landfilling rates can be found in many parts of the EU. In 2013, Germany, Slovenia, Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands recycled and composted more than half of their municipal waste. Among the ‘new’ member states, Slovenia has made very rapid progress in waste management and Ljubljana has committed to becoming the first Zero Waste Capital.

Launching the plan, Commission Vice- President Jyrki Katainen said: “We will remove barriers that make it difficult for businesses to optimise their resource use.” What barriers currently exist, and how will they be removed?

There are still many types of barriers to optimised resource use. Some arise from individual pieces of legislation not always being well aligned or a lack of regulation (for example, lack of quality standards), some from differences in implementation across member states. One of the most important barriers, which we will have to tackle in the coming years, is how waste, chemicals and product legislation interact with each other.

Katainen also said: “We will boost the internal market for secondary raw materials”, but some say the proposals neglect ‘pull mechanisms’ to encourage the use of recycled material. How do you think the EC can help in driving demand for recycled content?

The package focuses on areas where we believe that EU action can provide the biggest added value. Strengthening the single market for secondary raw materials by creating a level playing field, confidence in them and facilitating their movement is needed to provide a boost for the development of healthy markets. Moreover, pull measures can be provided for specific materials through instruments such as green public procurement. Here the commission will lead by example, making sure green public procurement is used as widely as possible in its own purchases.

The action plan says a methodology for measuring food waste will be developed, as will quality standards for secondary raw materials. What will this involve, and what is the timetable for their introduction?

We now have [a UN] agreement on Sustainable Development Goals where, under international law, all member states agreed to ‘halving per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer level, and reduce food losses along production and supply chains by 2030’. We are serious about meeting this goal, which is now the EU target for food waste. In our proposal, for the first time, we will develop a method to measure food waste.

We will work closely with member states and all actors in the food chain to understand and quantify food waste, and to define relevant and useful indicators. First elements of the methodology will be shared with the dedicated platform on food waste prevention in 2016. Likewise, as of 2016, we will work in cooperation with concerned industries to develop standards for secondary raw materials, in particular for plastics.

What will the EC do to ensure that the goal of halving food waste by 2030 is met?

What is critical now is to ensure EU-wide action, and implement food waste prevention programmes, bringing together all stakeholders. This is clearly reflected in the new waste proposal, which calls on member states to reduce food waste at each stage of the food supply chain, monitor food waste levels and report on progress. We will also take measures to clarify EU legislation relating to waste, food and feed to facilitate food donation and use of safe unsold food for animal feed. To this end, the waste proposal formally excludes feed materials from its scope.

Measures in the package’s ecodesign Working Plan for 2015-2017 will promote reparability, durability and recyclability of products, in addition to energy efficiency. Can you give us examples to illustrate this?

Our aim is to broaden the scope of ecodesign from energy efficiency to resource efficiency. The ecodesign tool is a very efficient tool for consumers. We want to empower their choices and ensure a level playing field for businesses. Flat computers and TV screens will be the first products for which the commission will propose design requirements so that they can be [more easily and quickly] dissembled, reused and recycled. In addition, these issues will be systematically considered for all new products and when revising existing rules on, for example, washing machines, dishwashers, fridges and freezers.

How might the eC provide the right encouragement for producers to invest in a circular approach and improve capture of materials at the end-of-life (especially as it might not suit the producers to make products with a longer shelf life)?

Generally, it is important to point out that smart product design and production processes create new business opportunities. In the area of waste management, extended producer responsibility schemes can provide incentives for businesses to take better account of recyclability and reusability aspects at the design stage. This is why we propose to differentiate the financial contributions to be paid by producers into such schemes on the basis of the end-of-life costs of their products, so that companies with greener products are rewarded.

What is likely to be included in the strategy on plastics?

Waste from plastic is one of the biggest issues in terms of recycling. So long as plastic remains a difficult material to recycle at high quality, we will not be able to have high recycling rates. The new proposal sets the ground for innovation in the area of plastics. We want to produce better plastics that can be recycled easier, with less chemical substances. The strategy supports the idea that innovative plastic should come from the EU. One of these challenges is to increase plastic recycling, as well as the quality of the material recycled. For this, we need smarter separate collection and certification schemes. We will also need to address the issue of hazardous chemical substances and the issue of biodegradability. The strategy also needs to contribute to fulfilling our objective of reducing marine litter – which the EU also committed to under the [UN] Sustainable Development Goals.

Can you give us examples of how the revised package will promote reuse and stimulate industrial symbiosis?

The waste proposals contain various provisions to promote reuse – for instance, in relation to electrical and electronic equipment, textiles and furniture. Also, the commission supports industrial symbiosis projects through Horizon 2020 and Cohesion Policy funds. Moreover, with the revised waste package, we want to clarify rules on byproducts and end-of-waste criteria. This should help the use of and cross-border movement of byproducts and thus facilitate industrial symbiosis so that the waste of one company can become the resource of another company.

The revised package includes a new 10 per cent limit on landfill. How was this figure reached, and why was it decided not to institute landfill bans on recyclable and biodegradable material?

The new waste proposals contain a more stringent and binding landfill reduction target than the previous proposal while giving member states more time to meet it. This approach sends out a strong political message on the importance of phasing-out landfilling and the need to ensure synergies with recycling targets and to avoid structural overcapacities in incineration. In other words, only 10 per cent of waste can end up in the landfill. The rest of it will either be recycled or incinerated. At the same time, we also propose to ban landfilling of separately-collected waste, so that anything that is recyclable cannot end up in landfill. Our approach looks to increase the ambition on landfills, to unclog materials stuck in the landfill and create a secondary raw material market that makes them valuable again.

What will be done to ensure that material is not simply diverted to incineration?

To prevent this, we need a coherent policy framework allowing public and private actors across the EU to develop long-term investment strategies focusing on prevention, reuse and recycling. In preparing the new legislative package, we have strived to achieve the right balance. For instance, that is the reason why we have set a 2025 intermediate target for recycling, but not for landfilling.

How is this version more ambitious than the withdrawn package? Are there aspects of the original package you would like to see reinstated?

To say it in a nutshell: With this package, we are closing the loop. We tackle all phases from product design to waste. This is a clear signal to economic operators that the EU is using a mix of instruments to reduce our environmental footprint and to make the transition to a stronger and more circular economy.