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

1
Waste Management in the Netherlands an overview
of policy and practice
2
Overview of this Presentation

• Historical perspectice on waste management in
  Netherlands
• Recent Developments
• Relevant aspects for Zero Waste
• Questions and discussion
• This presentation is too long --
• you can read skipped slides later on the website

3
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.

4
Fully mature modern, depoliticised system

• Technology
• Practice
• Control
• Financing mechanisms
• Institutions

• Law
• Policy
• Governance
• Norms
• Values
• Vocabulary

Most Dutch stakeholders consider that the work is
finished!
5
Contamination Crises, 1972-2002
6
Frame Lansinks Ladder 1979

• Prevent creation in waste in product design and
  packaging
• Reduce toxicity or negative impacts of waste
  generated

Desirability
Re-duce
Reuse and Recycle

• 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
Recover energy by incineration, anaerobic
digestion or similar processes
Dispose
Dispose of waste in an environmentally sound
manner, eg Sanitary Landfills
7
Historical review

• 1976-85 pre-modern period
• foundations for the modernisation of solid waste
  policy as environmental protection
• 1985-2002 rapid modernisation / change
• 1992-2002 and 1995-2005
• 10-year waste management plans
• Lansinks ladder, materials-based plans
• de-coupling GDP and waste generation
• 2002-2012 the national waste management plan-
  (LAP) 1, revisions,
• March 09 LAP 2 will be released

8
Strategy Research best approach for 29 key
materials, and make producers pay
9
Strategy consult with stakeholders in policy
formation
10
Goal decoupling GDP and waste generation per
capita

• 1985-2000, waste increased 24, from 46 to 57
  Mton,
• During the same period, GDP increased 54.

Decoupling avoided 71 Mton of waste, 19
reduction
11
Objectives (1) decrease disposal, (2) increase
recycling, (3) increase reuse/energy recovery

• incineration from 5 to 10
• landfill from 35 to 10
• recycling from 25 to 40 (in 2004) to 80
• water discharge slight decrease

12
Landelijk Afvalbeheer Plan (LAP) 1 and 2

• National policy related to all waste materials
  and streams
• First period 2002-2006 and looking towards 2012
• Second LAP due in March 2009
• Goal is 83 recovery

13
Costs paid by cities in 2004
14
Costs paid by users in 2004
15
How Dutch municipalities pay for recycling
Organic
Glass
Paper

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
Municipalities or their agents organise most
collection
16
Recycling Shared Responsibility
PAPER / METAL / GLASS / TEXTILE/ BATTERIES

• 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

17
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
   streams
3. 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

18
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

19
(No Transcript)
20
Organic materials GFT waste management

• Organics represent 65 of hh waste
• Ladder of Lansink directed banned from landfill
  and not welcome in incinerator (organics do not
  burn well)
• No producers so no covenant
• Separate collection almost universal
• Centralised composting and marketing
• Value of compost not considered important
• Financed directly by municipalities based on
  negative value of disposal

Re-duce
Reuse and Recycle
Recover
Dispose
21
EPR 1 covenants with advanced disposal fees
22
Extended producer responsibility covenants

• Paid at point of purchase
• Builds up a private recycling fund
• Money never goes to government It is designed to
  be large enough to provide for uncertainty risk
• Government inspects on results, not on process
  and management
• Good example of Caesar-God Principle

• Branch organisations and recycling daughters
• Organised by character of waste streams
• Start voluntary, Ministry then requires 100
  participation
• ICT, white-brown goods, autos, batteries, tires,
  CD

23
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 dont 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

24
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

25
ZW issues in Netherlands

1. System is fragmenting at the edges
2. Loss of refillable PET 1,5 litre deposits serious
3. Packaging convenant has never really worked
4. Incineration small but significant
5. Opening of EU waste borders is too interesting
6. EPR agreements focus on recycling, nicely ignore
   potential for prevention/reuse
7. Pay-as-you-throw extremely limited

26
What the Netherlands can learn from Zero Waste

1. The whole is more than the sum of the parts
2. Rational behaviour doesnt prevail
3. New EU developments have unanticipated impacts,
   and should be studied
4. Even limited incineration reduces emphasis on
   valorisation side, as in Rotterdam
5. 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

27
Thank-you very much.
Questions and discussion -- and especially
disagreement -- are welcome.
Anne Scheinberg, ltascheinberg_at_waste.nlgt