In its ‘indicative roadmap’ on the circular economy, the European Commission (EC) acknowledges that one of the main reasons it withdrew its 2014 Circular Economy Package was down to a “rather exclusive focus on waste management”. Whilst resource is the main subject of the policies and studies referenced, the previous administration’s Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources is conspicuously absent.

Under one of three main themes, the EC’s current (7th) Environmental Action Programme aims to “protect, conserve and enhance the Union’s natural capital”. As such, an overarching European natural resource strategy could bring a whole-life approach to the stewardship of natural capital and be central to the sustainable management of Europe’s resources.

A new resource hierarchy

A new resource strategy could also help decouple economic activity from resource consumption and embed resources within closed-loop systems, minimising leakage into the biosphere. What’s more, new metrics could be used to link resource extraction to economic use and quantify their impacts, which in turn could inform key resource targets reflecting the (un)sustainability of the continued extraction of resources, particularly those at risk.

Therefore, I think a more coherent and harmonised legislative and policy framework is essential to underpin the sustainable management of resources. This is necessary to not only address the main market failures that obstruct greater resource circularity but also to remove supply chain blockages through targeted interventions – legislative, regulatory, fiscal and voluntary – whilst mitigating unintended consequences, such as land taken out of food production to grow biofuel crops.

Unlike the EU’s waste hierarchy with its ‘end-of-life’ product focus, a new EU resource hierarchy (as illustrated in the diagram) would underpin and support an EU natural resource strategy. However, it has broader applicability, from the local through to the international level.

A discussion document has now been submitted to EC Directorate-General Environment to initiate debate on the ongoing role for a European natural resource strategy and supporting resource hierarchy. Without this overarching strategy, I have concerns there will not be sufficient legislative and policy coherence to address supply chain blockages and deliver more sustainable management of Europe’s natural resources. Systemic change within the productive economy cannot be delivered through prevailing market forces. For example, consider recent claims that users of recycled plastic are switching back to virgin polymers, as the former’s value falls due to low oil prices.

For me, linking resource extraction to consumption is perhaps most meaningful when considered for a specific industry sector (e.g. hydrocarbon flows through the plastic packaging sector), rather than at the individual product level. My proposed resource hierarchy begins with ‘unextracted’ natural resources. This is important because European legislation and policy needs to develop much better linkages between the extraction of natural resources and their subsequent whole-life stewardship through the productive economy. Turning back to the waste hierarchy, too much of the underlying policy emphasis has been on strengthening waste legislation to achieve greater progress towards sustainable resource management using end-of-life recycling targets. But, decisions made at the design stage (for example eco-design for disassembly enabling later closed-loop recycling) are crucial to all subsequent life-cycle stages in the productive economy.

Post-extraction, virgin resources undergo ‘conversion’ via various manufacturing and production processes. Subsequent tiers in the resource hierarchy broadly adhere to those in the waste hierarchy, where environmental preference reduces as options descend the hierarchy. Whilst waste would not exist in a functioning circular economy, transitionally, some landfill will be required. However, this would increasingly be only after all cascade recycling opportunities have been exhausted.

The resource hierarchy is not intended for rigid interpretation; in instances where independent evidence, such as that from life-cycle assessment studies, demonstrates greater environmental benefits, a lower-tier hierarchy option could take precedence.

Metrics for sustainable resource management

Employing appropriate supporting metrics would enable resource extraction to be better compared with proven reserves, indicating the extent of UK/European (un)sustainability in key areas of resource use (e.g. hydrocarbons). I believe annual environmental accounting would enable member states to report progress towards sustainable resource use, indicating Europe’s contribution to global resource depletion.

The sustainable management of resources also includes recognition of ‘environmental limits’. For example, where hydrocarbons are concerned, it is increasingly realised that, unless major economies rapidly accelerate towards embedding carbon, there is an urgent need to restrict carbon dioxide releases into the biosphere. In such cases where environmental limits are the primary consideration over resource scarcity, other choices such as material substitution would be necessary.

Read the full discussion paper on the new European Resource Hierarchy submitted to the EC.

Dr Stuart McLanaghan is a UK-based resource management professional for environmental consultancy Eden 21, and a member of the British Standards Committee SDS/1/10 Sustainable Resource Management.