Policy priorities at the intersection of zero waste and energy systems decarbonisation

Achieving the COP31 Presidency’s goals for zero waste will require governments to put in place the policy conditions for a step change towards a circular economy. Governments may wish to prioritise the high-impact areas identified below, with the right mix and sequence depending on the national context. Robust monitoring and reporting are important to ensure progress towards national and international objectives.

1. Place value on resource efficiency across government policies: Resource efficiency is often not the default choice as it may require higher upfront planning, labour costs, investment in infrastructure or behavioural shifts. Yet it can pay dividends over time, both in environmental outcomes and in driving higher value economic activity. Governments can examine the full spectrum of major policies to strengthen the value placed on resource efficiency, including through progress indicators, taxation, public procurement and permitting. Doing so could better align incentives towards productivity, competitiveness, repair, reuse, recycling and less waste, ultimately helping decouple economic growth from material use. Governments may also consider integrating circular economy and waste-reduction objectives and measures into their emissions reductions policies, plans and reporting frameworks, such as their Nationally Determined Contributions.

2. Examine design regulations to prioritise circularity: Product and buildings design is a key intervention point as many aspects of material inputs, use patterns and end-of-life outcomes are partially pre‑determined during this stage. Revisiting design rules can ensure that product and building design considers material inputs and is easier to use for longer, repair, reuse and recycle. Starting with design regulations for the largest end-uses of energy-intensive materials – including buildings, vehicles and packaging – could have the largest impact on reducing GHG emissions. Policy options include extended producer responsibility, repairability and durability standards, and whole-life carbon rules.

3. Allocate sufficient funds for better collection, sorting and recycling and establish robust waste governance: Finance for collection, sorting and recycling – both infrastructure investment and ensuring ongoing operations are sufficiently funded – is integral to keep materials in use and reduce uncontrolled disposal, both of which also substantially reduce emissions. Public finance is key and when used well can leverage additional private finance. Extended producer responsibility schemes can also enable funding by placing responsibility for end‑of‑life management on those who shape product design. The focus of intervention depends on a country’s current stage of waste management and may range from expanding MSW collection to offering separated organic waste collection to funding innovation for plastics recycling. Institutional or financial barriers may need to be overcome, especially where waste collection and controlled disposal are limited. Strengthening waste governance – including greater stakeholder inclusivity, financial sustainability, robust institutions and clear lines of responsibility – is also important. Collaboration among local and national governments can help, including sufficient funding allocated to local governments.

4. Incentivise the use of organic waste as bioenergy: Reducing, collecting and managing organic waste is a priority stream for reducing GHG emissions, as poor management leads to methane emissions while energy recovery can displace fossil fuels and support energy security. Investment in separated collection or sorting for organics, alongside targeted incentives for biogases and solid bioenergy use, can support the sustainable use of organic waste. Policies include tax credits, renewable energy quotas and streamlined permitting for relevant facilities demonstrating low leakage rates and fume treatment, all the while prioritising waste prevention.

5. Make resource efficiency and sustainable waste management part of core curricula and professional training: Embedding resource efficiency in curricula and training for designers, engineers, architects, construction site managers and waste sector executives would help build the capabilities to deliver circularity and maximise response to policy incentives. The highest impact awareness interventions can target those who design and build systems (including the policies referenced in the first priority action), in turn making resource efficiency the easier and automatic choice for society. Topics to cover could include life cycle emissions, material-efficient design, repairability, and how resource efficiency can improve productivity and capture higher value-added markets. Capacity building could also extend to municipal officials, operational staff and waste workers, particularly where practical skills are needed in service delivery, maintenance, financial management and community engagement.

6. Strengthen international collaboration, knowledge exchange and access to finance: Countries are at different stages of developing circularity and waste management strategies, creating valuable experience-sharing opportunities. Participation in international platforms can support knowledge exchange, capacity building and technology collaboration, particularly for EMDEs, while international finance and technical assistance can help bridge funding and institutional capacity gaps and support design and implementation of effective policies. Collaboration is also important among governments, the private sector and civil society.