IN Brief:
- European recycling organisations want a 70% recycling target for inert construction and demolition waste, excluding backfilling.
- Public procurement, national waste strategies, electronic registries, and harmonised quality rules form part of the recommendations.
- Recycling performance varies sharply between Member States, while recovered aggregates continue to face weak market demand.
FEAD, FIR, and Recycling Europe have called for a European recycling target covering 70% of inert construction and demolition waste, with backfilling excluded from the calculation.
The three organisations want the forthcoming Circular Economy Act to establish a more consistent market for recycled aggregates and move construction waste towards higher-value reuse and recycling rather than disposal or low-grade recovery.
Construction and demolition waste accounts for more than one-third of all waste generated in the European Union. Recovery rates range from below 10% to above 90% between Member States, although inconsistent definitions and the inclusion of backfilling make direct comparison difficult.
The proposed target would focus specifically on inert material such as concrete, bricks, tiles, ceramics, and suitable mineral fractions. Excluding backfilling is intended to distinguish material recycling from the use of processed waste to fill excavations or replace other fill.
Backfilling can provide a legitimate outlet where material meets technical requirements, but it generally preserves less value than producing a recycled aggregate capable of returning to roads, concrete, drainage, or other engineered applications.
The associations also want Member States to prepare national construction and demolition waste strategies explaining how the target will be achieved. Governments would need to connect demolition practice, sorting infrastructure, landfill policy, product standards, procurement, and regional demand rather than relying on a headline percentage.
Electronic registries are proposed to improve tracking. Operators treating construction waste would record consistent information on source, quantity, classification, processing, destination, and recovery through a system intended to avoid repeated submission of the same data to different authorities.
Better records could reveal where material is being lost from legitimate recovery routes and provide investors with a clearer view of available volumes. Recycling facilities need predictable feedstock and reliable outlets before committing capital to crushers, screens, washing plants, laboratories, storage, and transport fleets.
Public procurement sits at the centre of the recommendations. Roads, public buildings, utilities, and civil-engineering programmes consume large quantities of aggregate, giving government clients the ability to establish repeatable specifications and minimum recycled-material requirements.
A mandate without technical flexibility could create its own difficulties. Recycled aggregate must be suitable for the intended application, available within a reasonable distance, and supported by consistent testing.
Requirements should therefore distinguish between structural concrete, unbound road layers, drainage, landscaping, and lower-risk uses rather than imposing one percentage across every product and application.
Quality perception remains a persistent barrier. Clients and designers may prefer virgin material because its source and grading appear more predictable, even where recycled aggregate can satisfy the same specification.
Harmonised end-of-waste criteria, quality protocols, and recognised test evidence would make comparison easier. Consistency is particularly important where material crosses regional or national boundaries and must be accepted by several clients.
Pre-demolition audits and selective dismantling provide essential upstream controls. Mixed demolition can contaminate concrete and masonry with gypsum, timber, insulation, plastics, hazardous substances, and soil.
Once those materials have been crushed together, producing a reliable higher-value aggregate becomes more difficult and expensive. The quality of the recovered output is shaped well before material reaches the recycling plant.
Contractors need sufficient programme and space to separate material. Dense urban sites may have no room for several containers, mobile processing, or long-term storage, while demolition sequencing may be driven by structural safety rather than the optimal recovery order.
Procurement documents must recognise those constraints if recovery targets are to remain practical. Allowing sufficient planning time, defining contamination thresholds, and identifying local outlets before work begins can improve results more effectively than retrospective waste reporting alone.
Commercial incentives also influence behaviour. Low landfill prices, cheap virgin aggregate, and long transport distances can make recycling uneconomic even where the technical process is established.
Taxes, disposal restrictions, procurement demand, and investment support need to reinforce one another. A recycler cannot create a functioning market where policy encourages recovery but public specifications continue to default to virgin material.
Traceability will become increasingly important as construction products carry more detailed lifecycle information. A recycler must understand what material has arrived, while the client purchasing a secondary product needs confidence in composition, performance, and legal status.
Digital records can support that process, although physical inspection, sampling, and production control remain necessary. Data quality cannot compensate for contaminated material or inconsistent processing.
Transport presents a further constraint because heavy mineral material has relatively low unit value. Moving it long distances can eliminate both the commercial and environmental benefits of recovery.
Regional processing networks and temporary project-based facilities may therefore be needed around major demolition and infrastructure programmes. Planning and permitting systems will have to accommodate those facilities if material is to remain close to its source and end market.
The proposed 70% target would give the market a clearer direction, but the percentage alone cannot guarantee high-value circularity. Europe could meet a broad recovery measure while continuing to place large quantities into backfilling or low-grade applications unless definitions and quality thresholds are tightened.
The organisations are seeking a package that combines targets with demand, data, standards, and national delivery plans. Contractors would face greater scrutiny of pre-demolition information, waste separation, documentation, and the eventual destination of mineral material leaving each site.
Europe already has the crushing, screening, washing, and testing technology required to recover considerably more construction material. The remaining task is to establish a market structure that rewards careful separation, supports processing investment, and gives clients confidence to specify the resulting aggregate again.
