Transcript UWEP Plus - AmbienteFuturo

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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Dutch municipalities have a legal obligation for organisation of
prevention, separate collection recycling, MSW collection, and financing
of solid waste
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.
There is national, regional, and local responsibility for environmental
protection, following specific policy decisions, without reference to the
cost.
The responsibility for recycling is split between the National
government, the municipalities, and producers.
Producers in EPR “covenants” organise and guarantee recycling
markets and floor pricing.
Fully mature & modern, depoliticised system
Law
Policy
Governance
Norms
Values
Vocabulary
Technology
Practice
Control
Financing mechanisms
Institutions
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
Desirability
Re
du
ce
Reuse
and
Recycl
e
•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
Recover energy by incineration,
anaerobic digestion or similar processes
Dispose
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 protection
2. 1985-2002: rapid modernisation / change
3. 1992-2002 and 1995-2005:
• 10-year waste management plans
• Lansink’s ladder, materials-based plans
• de-coupling GDP and waste generation
2. 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
Strategy: consult with stakeholders in policy
formation
Law/legislation
e.g.: landfill ban, EU
decrees, convenants,
waste management law
Public sector: EU, national,
provinces, municipalities, district
water boards, research institutes
Policy: consensus model,
collective decisions, AOO
Planning e.g.:
National
environmental plan,
National waste
management plan
Private sector:
Civil society:
waste generators, waste
and recycling sectors,
branche organisations
e.g. environmental
NGO’s
Financial instruments
e.g.: landfill tax, diversion credits,
service fees
Monitoring and
control: (national)
ministry of public
housing, physical
planning and
environment (VROM)
Information
and research
e.g.: collectivities,
AOO (= waste
management
coordinating
council)
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
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
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
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
Households
Pay a yearly “waste tax” which is a
separate line in a water-sanitation-waste
invoice received once per year.
Pay a lower “waste tax” and must pay
per volume based on buying special prepaid garbage bags
Households
in
DIFTAR*
cities
Businesses
Institutions
and other
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
private institutions pay as businesses,
public institutions may have special
arrangements
Sample amount
in 2004
E 225
waste tax 2004
= E 175
price per week =
E1
varies
How Dutch municipalities pay for recycling
Organic
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
Glass
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
Paper
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
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
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 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
du
ce
Reuse
and
Recycl
e
Recover
Dispose
EPR 1: covenants with advanced
disposal fees
disposal fee (verwijderings
bijdrage)
deposits on beverage
containers
other fees and deposits
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.
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
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 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, C&D
New EU and global Developments affecting
Dutch waste management
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
WEEE and RoHS: new aspects of producer responsibility
End of Waste declaration: enables de-regulation of waste
streams that can be (largely) recycled
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)
Opening of EU waste borders 2006: places NL disposal
facilities in competition with landfills elsewhere in the
EU, especially in SEE
(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 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
What the Netherlands can learn
from Zero Waste
1. The whole is more than the sum of the
parts
2. Rational behaviour doesn’t 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 noncompliance
6. Dutch stakeholders know nothing about
Thank-you very much.
Questions and discussion -and especially disagreement -are welcome.
Anne Scheinberg, <[email protected]>