On 10 June, the EU's MEP Group on Climate Change, Biodiversity & Sustainable Development held a meeting on Navigating the Circular Economy Act: Implications and opportunities for a sustainable EU.

It brought together Members of the European Parliament and representatives of the European Commission, industry associations, businesses, NGOs, civil society organisations and experts in circular economy and sustainability. Corina Murafa, a member of the European Economic and Social Committee connected to the ECESP, and Eva Bille, representative of the European Environmental Bureau which is a member of the ECESP Coordination Group, both contributed.

The speakers made a number of interesting points. It was pointed out that the CEA was an opportunity to make the EU's economy less overwhelmingly linear. A more circular economy (it is still 90% linear!) would make the EU more strategically autonomous (which can only be an advantage with geopolitical risks on the rise) as well as more sustainable. 

The CEA is intended to create a market for secondary raw materials: boosting supply is a dead end if there is no demand for recycled and recyclable or reusable products. Barriers must be removed and legislation and standards harmonised. A key point is to ensure that secondary raw materials are competitive, and don't keep losing out to primary ones.

In terms of gaps in the CEA to be addressed, decarbonisation must not mean creating a market for China and EU companies should be the first to capitalise on the circular economy. Recycling must be diversified, industrial symbiosis must be developed and the links between the circular economy and bioeconomy must be enhanced. Reuse and prevention must be prioritised and targets set for resource consumption. Priority must be given to urban mining to make the EU less reliant on other countries for its critical raw materials. The CEA also needs to factor in organic materials, and create a market for bio-based goods.

Permanent materials such as steel are very important: steel is circular by definition, with an 84% recycling rate. 

EPR schemes are useful – but they become less so when there are too many of them and confusion results. They are also a burden on SMEs and are more successful in some countries than in others.

The European Economic and Social Committee's opinion on the CEA in fact calls for EPR schemes to be reformed. It also advocates for the CEA to go hand in hand with mapping all the various components of the circular legislative framework to see how they interact. Other recommendations include emphasising circular business models, and repair and remanufacturing.