Waste Management in the Netherlands: an overview of policy and practice

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, <ascheinberg@waste.nl>