On 15 October 2024, during its 47th session, the Congress unanimously adopted a resolution and a series of recommendations on the circular economy. The presentation of the report was followed by a debate that provided practical examples of the circular economy’s positive impact on the environment and also on employment and the social climate. Being closest to citizens’ concerns and needs, local and regional authorities are set to play a key part in the process of transforming practices and mentalities in terms of production and consumption.
Drawn up by the Congress Committee on Governance, Civic Engagement and the Environment, the report on the urgent need to transform the linear economy into a circular one takes account of the latest (2023) – very alarming – data from the IPCC concerning the exhaustion of resources and degradation of the environment. The co-rapporteur, Linda Gillham, United Kingdom (L, ILDG), stressed that it was the “take-make-dispose” economic model of linear production – and the related consumption practices – that were the source of the problem. Hence the need to tackle it more resolutely than ever, not only to achieve the goal of a sustainable economy but also to bring about greater social and environmental justice, which would ensure better respect for human rights. Breathing cleaner air, having better quality food and water and living together in greater harmony were the goals that should persuade people to adopt environmentally responsible consumption habits. According to the co-rapporteur, Kristoffer Tamsons, Sweden (R, EPP/CCE), recycling waste and reusing materials and also technological products whose manufacture required the extraction of precious metals, for instance our mobile phones, could not only have an impact on the environment and solve the problem of the exhaustion of resources but also curb practices such as the exploitation of children and cheap labour. The circular economy model relied on local producers and entrepreneurs in Europe, with emphasis on short production-consumption circuits. That was why it was also based on the commitment of local and regional authorities on the ground, working hand in hand with business, civil society, universities and schools.
In his view, persuasion and encouragement were the keys to the success of the expected transformation. “It is better to use the carrot than the stick,” he said, adding that the report set out a real roadmap for local and regional authorities, which could address the issue of establishing the circular economy by employing both incentive measures and educational strategies, while using the evaluation tools it included. The recommendations on incorporating the principles of the circular economy in local authorities’ policies emphasised the establishment of public-private partnerships to adopt sustainable manufacturing methods through changes in the supply chain and eco-designing. Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine – which was a terrible scourge in both human and environmental terms – and the repercussions of the Covid‑19 pandemic had both highlighted the major weaknesses in the global supply chain, encouraging Europe to give priority to local, sustainable and resilient circuits.
The debate highlighted a series of challenges which local and regional authorities faced when it came to introducing policies to promote the circular economy, in particular the lack of adequate funding from national budgets for local authorities. For that reason, Anthony Buchanan, United Kingdom (ILDG), believed that the polluter-pays principle should always be applied, which would act as a deterrent while also funding circular economy projects. Several members shared details of best practice in this area from their municipalities and regions, including policies in the agrifood and construction sectors in Fribourg in Switzerland, where the universities trained specialists in the use of recycled materials, public-private partnership projects established in Cheltenham in the UK and the transformation of the chemical and textile industry in Sweden, etc.
The importance of co-ordinating policies at local, regional, national, European and, indeed, global level was emphasised, in particular in terms of regulating the market where all too often environmentally unsustainable products were cheaper and more readily available to consumers, according to Gunes Pehlivan, Türkiye (SOC/G/PD). In this connection, Eke Fryslan Folkerts, Netherlands (EPP/CCE), commented that innovation had to be central to green policies in order to achieve innovative and less costly solutions. Lastly, all relevant policies had to converge so as to offer the possibility of responsible and consensual choices to citizens who, as consumers, were the driving force behind transformation of the economic and social model. The youth delegates from Romania and Albania also took part in the debate, stressing how ready the younger generation was to take up the challenge, as young people were already fully in favour of this economic model.
