Overview of this Presentation
1. Historical perspectice on waste management in Netherlands
2. Recent Developments
3. Relevant aspects for Zero Waste
4. Questions and discussion
This presentation is too long --
you can read skipped slides later on the website
Waste, a public responsibility in the Netherlands and EU
1. Dutch municipalities have a legal obligation for organisation of prevention, separate collection recycling, MSW collection, and financing of solid waste
2. The responsibility for assuring safe disposal has shifted from the municipalities, to the national government, to provinces, and has now gone back to national government.
3. There is national, regional, and local responsibility for environmental protection, following specific policy decisions, without reference to the cost.
4. The responsibility for recycling is split between the National government, the municipalities, and producers.
5. Producers in EPR “covenants” organise and guarantee recycling markets and floor pricing.
Fully mature & modern, depoliticised system
LawPolicyGovernanceNormsValuesVocabulary
TechnologyPracticeControlFinancing mechanismsInstitutions
Most Dutch stakeholders consider that the work is finished!
Contamination Crises, 1972-2002
Pre-modern problem:Removal of waste
•Keep waste out of sight•Remove it to outside the city limits •Bury or burn it
Modernisation drivers and characteristics:
•Crisis of soil and land contamination•High water table•Dense population•Culture of consensus
Frame: “Lansink’s Ladder” 1979
Re-duceReuse
and Recycle
Recover
Dispose
Desirability
•Prevent creation in waste in product design and packaging•Reduce toxicity or negative impacts of waste generated
•Reuse of materials in their current when recovered from waste stream•Recycle, compost of recover materials for use as direct or indirect inputs to new products
Recover energy by incineration, anaerobic digestion or similar processes
Dispose of waste in an environmentally sound manner, eg Sanitary Landfills
Historical review
1. 1976-85: pre-modern period : • foundations for the modernisation of solid waste policy as
environmental protection2. 1985-2002: rapid modernisation / change3. 1992-2002 and 1995-2005: • 10-year waste management plans• Lansink’s ladder, materials-based plans• de-coupling GDP and waste generation2. 2002-2012: the national waste management plan- (LAP) 1,
revisions, 3. March ’09 LAP 2 will be released
Strategy: Research best approach for 29 key materials, and make producers pay
waste
29 specific substances
and materials
Planning e.g.: National
environmental plan, National waste
management plan
Financial instruments e.g.: landfill tax, diversion credits,
service fees
Law/legislation e.g.: landfill ban, EU
decrees, convenants, waste management law
Monitoring and control: (national)
ministry of public housing, physical
planning and environment (VROM)
Information and research e.g.: collectivities,
AOO (= waste management
coordinating council)
Private sector: waste generators, waste
and recycling sectors, branche organisations
Civil society: e.g. environmental
NGO’s
Public sector: EU, national, provinces, municipalities, district water boards, research institutes
Policy: consensus model, collective decisions, AOO
Strategy: consult with stakeholders in policy formation
1985-2000, waste increased 24%, from 46 to 57 Mton, During the same period, GDP increased 54%.
Goal: decoupling GDP and waste generation per capita
Decoupling avoided 71 Mton of waste, = 19% reduction
•incineration: from 5 to 10% •landfill: from 35% to 10% •recycling: from 25 to 40% (in 2004) to 80+%•water discharge: slight decrease
Objectives: (1) decrease disposal, (2) increase recycling, (3) increase reuse/energy recovery
National policy related to all waste materials and streamsFirst period 2002-2006 and looking towards 2012Second LAP due in March 2009Goal is 83% recovery
Landelijk Afvalbeheer Plan (LAP) 1 and 2
Costs paid by cities in 2004
landfills € 81 / tonne
incinerators for domestic waste € 80-200 /tonne
hazardous waste incinerators € 1800 /tonne
composting facilities € 25-40 / tonne
recycling sorting and processing facilities
€ 15-65 / tonne
Costs paid by users in 2004
Generator / disposer
Fee description Sample amount in 2004
Households Pay a yearly “waste tax” which is a separate line in a water-sanitation-waste invoice received once per year.
E 225
Households in DIFTAR* cities
Pay a lower “waste tax” and must pay per volume based on buying special pre-paid garbage bags
waste tax 2004 = E 175
price per week = E 1
Businesses pay a service fee per week PLUS a removal fee per week based on the size of the container, PLUS a rental fee for the container
varies
Institutions and other
private institutions pay as businesses, public institutions may have special arrangements
1. Income from service fees funds municipal budget for collection /
transport. 2. Fee per hh is about €
325 per year for all services together
3. Municipalities use the service fee to comply with policies and laws
Costs for collection, transporting and
sorting are calculated per stream or fraction
“avoided disposal costs” finance
diversion credits to 3rd parties
Organic Glass Paper
Municipalities or their agents organise most collection
How Dutch municipalities pay for recycling
Recycling: Shared Responsibility
•Municipalities organise collection and transfer, not marketing•Intrinsic value is established in the global commodities trade•Packaging, battery EPR agreement compensates municipalities for low market values when necessary
PAPER / METAL / GLASS /TEXTILE/ BATTERIES
Municipal support: diversion credits
1. Transparent transfer payments acknowledge the public benefits of recycling/composting, especially when the market value is less than the environmental benefit
2. Vary per material, based on analysis of 29 streams3. Never paid directly to the household or system user 4. Paid to third party NGO, public, or private intermediaries;5. Serve as recycling price supports, when market value does not cover
the cost to municipalities of collection. Examples: paper, bulky waste, batteries, and reusables.
6. Lower the cost of mandated, legal disposal by diverting materials to lower-cost, higher-benefit alternatives
Features of diversion credits
• in general paid when there is a consensus that collection / marketing costs or environmental protection demands for recovering materials are too high to be recovered in commercial sale at market value. Thus there is not a diversion credit paid for scrap metal, which “pays for itself”;
• this is a form of support which is independent of any EPR fees paid by producers;
• It is made possible by the fact that all users pay a flat fee for all waste services, so-called: “afval-heffing;”
• is a mechanism for municipal governments to support third party recovery without having to contract for it
Organic materials: GFT waste management
Organics represent 65% of hh wasteLadder of Lansink directed: banned from
landfill and not welcome in incinerator: (organics do not burn well)
No “producers” so no covenantSeparate collection almost universalCentralised composting and marketingValue of compost not considered important Financed directly by municipalities based on
“negative value” of disposal
Re-duceReuse
and Recycle
Recover
Dispose
EPR 1: covenants with advanced disposal fees
disposal fee (verwijderings bijdrage)
point of purchase fee on appliances, autos, fluorescent lamps, bicycles, white, brown, and grey goods. These are almost always explicit, and the purchaser receives a brochure at the time of purchase.
deposits on beverage containers
point of deposits on glass and large plastic refillables for beer, water, soft drinks, milk, sometimes included in the price, sometimes separate. The deposit is refunded when the container is returned. This system is being dismantled
other fees and deposits fees on parts or components, such as tires, oil. Sometimes these are included in the price, other times explicitly charged separately.
Extended producer responsibility “covenants”
Paid at point of purchaseBuilds up a private recycling fundMoney never goes to government It is designed to be large enough to provide for uncertainty riskGovernment inspects on results, not on process and managementGood example of “Caesar-God Principle”
Branch organisations and recycling daughtersOrganised by character of waste streamsStart voluntary, Ministry then requires 100% participationICT, white-brown goods, autos, batteries, tires, C&D
New EU and global Developments affecting Dutch waste management
1. WEEE and RoHS: new aspects of producer responsibility
2. End of Waste declaration: enables de-regulation of waste streams that can be (largely) recycled
3. REACH: registration of chemicals, comes into play when “end of waste” is declared, or for streams like textiles that don’t enter waste (very worrisome/controversial)
4. Opening of EU waste borders 2006: places NL disposal facilities in competition with landfills elsewhere in the EU, especially in SEE
5. (Economic Crisis): recyclables prices are crashing
Dutch waste meta-issues
1. Waste in the Netherlands is even more de-politicised than environment
2. There is not really any private waste industry, but many para-statals
3. Regional “companies” with municipal shareholders
4. Few municipalities are involved in marketing of recyclables or compost
ZW issues in Netherlands
1. System is fragmenting at the edges2. Loss of refillable PET 1,5 litre deposits
serious3. Packaging convenant has never really
worked4. Incineration small but significant5. Opening of EU waste borders is too
interesting6. EPR agreements focus on recycling, nicely
ignore potential for prevention/reuse7. Pay-as-you-throw extremely limited
What the Netherlands can learn from Zero Waste
1. The whole is more than the sum of the parts2. Rational behaviour doesn’t prevail3. New EU developments have unanticipated
impacts, and should be studied4. Even limited incineration reduces emphasis
on valorisation side, as in Rotterdam5. There is a tendency to be smug: as a result
the EU has fined Netherlands for non-compliance
6. Dutch stakeholders know nothing about financial incentives
Thank-you very much.
Questions and discussion -- and especially disagreement -- are welcome.
Anne Scheinberg, <[email protected]>