下载掌阅APP，畅读海量书库
立即打开
Eckard Rehbinder
The transition to a low resource economy and society belongs to the established demands of the policy for sustainable development，although competing with other or more specific aims such as global climate protection，energy efficiency and protection of biodiversity. Since the Rio+20 Conference，the concept of a “green economy” has become a recognized paradigm of a modern sustainability policy. In essence，“Green economy” means a “low pollution，low energy and low resource” economy. Against the backdrop of a growing world economy associated with exponentially growing consumption of natural resources it appears evident that resource consumption must be reduced in relative and even absolute terms in order to avoid depletion of resources in the long run and protect the environment adversely affected in the whole supply chain，including mining operations abroad. A decoupling of economic growth and consumption of resources would also contribute to improving competitiveness on the world market as resource costs are a highly important cost factor in major industrial sectors.
Natural resources policy deals with two different aspects：the supply of natural resources（renewable and non—renewable ones as well as land）as necessary inputs into the production process and the adverse impacts of resource use on the environment. The first aspect can be attributed to the economic “pillar” of sustainable development，the second one to its environmental “pillar.” From sustainability of the point of view of environmental protection，resource use is not nomic scarcity of natural resources indirect environmental impacts that much a question of ecology rather of the direct and are associated with resource use in the supply chain. However，most resource policies address both aspects，that is，ecological and economic scarcity of resources，in conjunction. Since the degree of environmental impacts of resource use and economic scarcity does not necessarily coincide but there is an overlap，this may be the source of some difficulties in defining consistent policy targets and devising appropriate instruments. The paper focuses on the environmental impacts of resource use without losing the economic impacts out of sight.
In the field of resource policy，quite different，somewhat confusing terms are used. The aim of a low resource economy and society may have the following different meanings：
— increasing resource一productivity or，conversely，reducing resource一
intensity（resource efficiency），
— increasing eco—efficiency of resource use（relationship between resource productivity and environmental impact per unit of resource use），
— reducing absolute resource inputs，or
— reducing absolute environmental impacts associated with resource use.
In the context of environmental policy，the focus must laid on the environmental parameters and the ideal certainly is reaching absolute rather than relative targets，however difficult this may be to achieve.
At the outset one must address the role of regulation and law in this field. For a variety of reasons，especially its very complex and long一term nature，the transition to a low resource economy and society will to an ever increasing degree have to rest on modern governance concepts. This implies reliance on voluntarism and on cooperation between all actors in the economy and civil society including consultation，research and development，sustainability management and disclosure systems at firm level，standardization，certification and environmental labelling and promotion of recycling of waste. However，the role of the state will vary，depending on the political system of a given state，and in any case the emergence of the governance concept does not mean that the role of the state will become marginal. Rather，the state will at least have to set the framework conditions for social activities，in particular by adopting strategic programmes which set the targets of resource policies，organizing the cooperation of the relevant actors，supervising performance and intervening where warranted. Legal regulation will partly have an enabling function，partly supplement social activities in key areas of resource policy.
Any regulation of natural resources and the associated environmental impacts may employ two fundamentally different strategies：effects-based and activity-based regulation. Effect
—based regulation seeks to directly protect the natural resources and environmental media potentially affected by resource use（ranging from exploitation to waste management）. Activity-based regulation addresses the economic and social activities which are associated with resource use（including regulation of
products）and thereby provides indirect protection.
One could argue that if there were a comprehensive and sufficiently stringent system of direct resource and media regulation，there would be no need for comprehensive activity-based protection of natural resources. Direct（effects-based）resource and media regulation would set the thresholds of tolerance for all substance（material）flows. Within these constraints the relevant resources could be used according to private business and consumer decisions and demand on the market. However，this would require binding quantitative targets for direct resource use coupled with complex allocation systems. Moreover，the state would need to have comprehensive，including prognostic，knowledge about economic scarcities as well as about all environmental impacts associated with resource use. This suggests that at best a rather selective use of this strategy appears feasible.
Activity-based strategies for resource saving and promoting the production of secondary raw materials are more common. They may address production or service processes or products. Such strategies are in particular employed with respect to
production-and product-related waste. For example，operators of industrial facilities may be required to prevent the generation of waste or recycle or reprocess waste generated in the production process. However，operators may also be obliged to save natural resources such as water and raw materials in the production process. As regards products，there may be obligations of manufacturers with respect to the design of their products so as to enable a recycling or reprocessing of product-related waste，to save materials and eliminate hazardous components of their products.
Product life cycle regulation constitutes a more comprehensive activity-based approach which addresses environmental and economic scarcity throughout the life cycle of a product（“from cradle to grave”）. It supplements the traditional activity-based strategies and can fill existing regulatory gaps. This strategy has the advantage that it is liable to avoid unnecessary environmental burdens caused by resource use. However，for ruling out simple “shot-gun” solutions，the probable environmental impacts associated with the use of a particular natural resource for a product with a defined use function throughout its life cycle should be identified and assessed in setting targets. There is no rational basis for a general dematerialization policy if the objective is environmental protection rather than resource saving as an economic requirement.
Since life cycle—based regulation may overlap or even be in conflict with conventional environmental regulation，consistency and coherency with existing environmental law must be ensured. This may be a problem with respect to existing regulation for waste prevention，recycling and recovery. Finally，it must be noted that life cycle-based regulation cannot address all drivers of resource use but for pragmatic reasons must be limited to business activities（excluding public infrastructure and consumers）and in this framework to significant，that is resource-intensive，sectors of the economy.
There are a number of examples of activity-based regulations in the EU that are intended to promote resource saving，especially with respect to preventing waste or converting it into secondary raw materials. Under the EU Industrial Emissions Directive（Directive 2010/75/EU），plant operators，inter alia，are obliged to use energy efficiently and in order of priority prevent，recycle and reprocess waste generated in the production process，provided this is technically and economically possible. However，beyond this rather selective resource-saving policy，the Directive does not directly address the use of resources in the production process. At best，natural resource consumption can be considered in defining reasonably available technology which operators must use in the production process.
The EU Waste Framework Directive（Directive 2008/98/EC）establishes a five-tier waste management hierarchy comprising prevention，preparing for re-use，recycling，other recovery and disposal. The option that delivers the best overall environmental outcome shall be promoted and life-cycle thinking be considered. Moreover，the Directive empowers the Member States to introduce extended producer responsibilities regarding the take back and re-use，recycling or reprocessing of used products and packaging.
In the more recent past，the EU has developed some novel activity—based instruments for regulating resource use that partly rest on life—cycle thinking，partly follow simpler resource saving concepts，both in the field of command—and—control regulation and that of framework setting for voluntary action. These are the Eco-Design Directive，Energy Labelling Directive，Renewable Energy Directive（with respect to biomass），Eco—Labelling Regulation，EMAS Regulation and the Directives on public procurement. Although I would not claim that these pieces of regulation are amenable to simple transplant into legal systems outside Europe，one can at least get inspirations for the development of future policy in the field of resource saving. This is in particular true for the Eco-design Directive.
The Ecodesign Directive（Directive 2009/25/EC），which now applies to all products that are energy—relevant（previously only to energy—consuming products），covers key environmental aspects over the whole product life cycle，including consumption of materials and other natural resources and the anticipated emissions associated with each phase of the product life cycle. The Directive is based on two pillars.
Under the first pillar the European Commission is empowered to set generic ecodesign requirements. In view of the complexity phases of the task，especially the need to weigh the different of the product life cycle and the need to balance the various aspects of sustainability against one and another and against product functionality，the requirements can only provide a broad framework for product design. It will then be the task of the manufacturer to establish the product’s ecological profile and evaluate alternative design solutions and the respective environmental performance that can be achieved. In essence，the generic eco-design requirements establish procedural obligations and grant the manufacturer a wide margin of discretion as to the product design. The generic eco-design requirements may also be used as a basis for voluntary labelling or for recognizing voluntary commitments on the part of industry as equivalent to regulation. However，only two voluntary schemes have been proposed and accepted by the Commission.
Under the second pillar of the Directive，the European Commission is empowered to set binding limit values that aim at improving a selected environmental aspect of the product，for instance，water consumption in the use phase，the quantities of materials to be incorporated in the product or a minimum amount of recycled materials to be used. In determining the limit values，other best performing products（“top runner” concept）and technology available on the market shall be considered. It is safe to say that the second pillar of the Directive which does not really embody the product life cycle approach is easier to apply in practice. In the past，it was relied upon by the Commission to adopt numerous product standards relating to the energy consumption of particular product groups. Even at present，the Commission is still focusing on energy consumption although it intends to natural resources in the recent future. Therefore，for the time being there has not been a practice test of the second pillar’s potential regarding the saving of natural resources. Since the saving of natural resources poses much more complex regulatory problems than energy consumption，industry anticipates a cumbersome regulatory process and，as regards the possible requirement of using more secondary raw materials，also difficult coordination problems with the recycling sector.
It should be noted that the European Commission has published a number of programmes for natural resources efficiency，especially in the year 2011. In 2014，the Commission has given resource policy a new push. In July 2014 it submitted a number of proposals which aim at increasing recycling quota for waste，would introduce a “green action plan” for small and medium-sized industry and require more resource efficiency in the building sector. However，it remains to be seen to what extent these proposals will be agreed upon by the other European institutions.
There are a number of regulatory options for specifying a resource saving policy which may serve a basis for strategic planning or regulation. The aim could be in a sliding order of ambition：
—minimization or reduction，according to targets，of absolute resource
input and associated environmental impact，
—raising resource productivity and eco—efficiency as far as reasonably
achievable or according to targets，
—considering resource saving in taking policy or producer decisions，
—carrying out product life cycle analysis，or
—providing consumers information about eco—efficiency of products
（eco-efficiency labelling）.
In making a selection among these options，it must be underlined that there are potential conflicts between resource saving and other goals of sustainability such as global climate protection，energy efficiency and protection of human health. Moreover，the relevant environmental goals must be balanced against economic concerns（including functionality of products）as well as social concerns，which may work against opting for too radical policy innovations. National quantitative targets for increasing resource productivity within a particular period of time，such as they exist in Germany，may serve as a benchmark for delineating the path towards a “green economy”. However，they lack a sufficient justification if they are meant to establish obligations of economic sectors，enterprises and consumer in the sense that they have to be allocated to them irrespective of countervailing concerns. Arguably，there is no other rational way than specifying resource-efficiency targets according to particular action fields and economic sectors in which the problem structure is comparable and which can be addressed in a uniform way. Examples are increased recycling quota for waste or resource-efficiency requirements regarding the building sector.
In selecting instruments to implement a resource saving policy，the normal policy criteria such as environmental effectiveness，efficiency，contribution to innovation，international competitiveness，administrative expediency acceptance by industry and the consumer and distributional justice are in principle applicable. In view of the complexity of the transition towards a low pollution，low energy and low resource economy and the enormous differences between countries and even between different economic sectors in one and the same country，the idea that such transition could proceed in a harmonized and linear way within the framework of regulation appears illusionary. Therefore，uniform solutions should be avoided. Procedural instruments and flexible regulatory instruments that are not associated with automatic sanctions should be considered first. However，targeted command—and—control regulation and economic instruments in appropriate sectors should not be ruled out as a matter of principle. In introducing instruments，possible inconsistencies with the existing requirements under the Eco-design Directive need to be considered.
As an example of procedural regulation，a fundamental duty of enterprises to achieve resource efficiency could be introduced. It would primarily function as a signal for voluntary action but could also justify later mandatory regulation，for instance an enrichment of the existing fundamental duties of plant operators under the Industrial Emissions Directive with an additional duty to achieve resource efficiency. More strongly interventionist measures would be sector—or product—specific target values of resource productivity and eco—efficiency or use of secondary raw materials. However，for the time being it appears difficult to find a rational policy basis for quantitative targets of this kind if this regulatory technique is to be used in a comprehensive way.
Among economic instruments，following the British Aggregates Levy which is imposed on building materials such as sand，gravel and crushed rock，a resource input charge might be the best choice. Such a charge is favored by the European Commission，which，however，does not have legislative powers to introduce charges. Moreover，public procurement could be used in order to promote environmentally friendly works，products and services. While at present，the public buyer is free to decide whether and to what extent it wants to include environmental and natural resource criteria in the bidding conditions，the Japanese Green Purchasing Law of 2000 already contains some mandatory requirements such as procuring environmentally friendly products，low—waste products and timber from sustainably managed forests. In the EU，a number of energy—related regulations and directives already contain such mandatory green procurement requirements. Although further discussion may be needed in order to tackle the complexity of resource efficiency and in particular life cycle thinking，a broadening of environmental and resource-related procurement requirements is worth being discussed.
We are facing a long-term learning process in gradually limiting our resource use and reducing associated environmental impact without stifling our economy. In this process regulation is important，but will only play a limited role. Due to its very complex and long-term nature，the transition to a low resource economy and society will to an ever increasing degree have to rest on modern governance concepts，which implies reliance on voluntarism and on cooperation. A major aspect to the remaining frame-setting role of the state is the establishment of long-term strategic plans and programmes. Where regulation is needed，it should be “smart” in order to provide adequate and flexible solutions to very complex and long-term problems.