Transcript Dia 1 - Green Alliance
Household waste separation in NL
Innovations in Holland More recovery of resources and energy via municipal waste management by local authorities and their waste management companies Erik de Baedts Managing Director, Royal Dutch Waste Management Association (NVRD) March 2015, London UK
Royal Dutch Solid Waste Association
• • • •
Founded in 1907 Members:
–
Municipalities
–
Public waste collection & treatment companies
– –
Private waste companies Institutions, suppliers etc.
Represents the public waste management sector Activities:
–
Serving of interests
– –
Knowledge and support provider Platform for networking
2015
The Netherlands
Some statistics
16.5 million inhabitants 7.2 million households 12 provinces 403 municipalities 500 kg waste per person/year 60 million tonnes waste/year +80% of all waste recycled, rest mainly W2E 8.5 million tonnes municipal waste/year +50% of mun. waste recycled, rest mainly W2E
EU Scorecard European Commission
Dutch waste market today
State of the art Treatment facilities Decrease of waste Result of recovery of resources
Landfilling
16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 10 0 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 0 40 30 20 80 70 60 50 supply year number of landfills
3 2,5 Mton 2 1,5 1 0,5 0 200020022004 2006200820102012 Landfilling combustible waste
Incineration
8 000 7 000 6 000 5 000 4 000 3 000 2 000 1 000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 OMRIN E.ON Delfzijl AZN Sita ReEnergy ZAVIN CV AVR Afvalverwerking Rijnmond AVR Afvalverwerking Rotterdam AVR DTO HVC afvalcentrale locatie Dordrecht Afval Energie Bedrijf HVCafvalcentrale locatie Alkmaar AVR Afvalverwerking Duiven ARN Twence Afvalverwerking NL aanbod voor verbranding Totaal verbrand incl import
So… import?
Municipal Waste Management Policy
• • • • •
One municipality = One policy Historically: driven by hygiene and public health Today: driven by resources management Diversity and unity in policies Approaches more and more regional
Public
Private in collection
Actual situation 2013: Market shares
– – –
80% of Dutch households (70% of municipalities) is serviced by a public service provider Municipal services being transferred to public companies Number of municipalities opting for outsourcing remains stable
Of the 20% of Dutch households serviced by a private company, 70% is serviced by just 2 national players, serving 14%
So 6% of Dutch households is serviced by private local/regional players
Financial instruments
• • •
Municipal Waste Tax, av. €250, per household Variable pricing (pay as you throw)
– – – –
Per kg of waste offered By size of the bin By frequency of collection Or combinations of the above National instruments:
–
Landfill tax
–
Incineration tax
Common collection scheme
Bio waste Paper / Cardboard Glass Textile Plastics WEEE Hazardous Waste Bulky waste Residual waste
Curb side
Every other week Monthly Quarterly Monthly Differs Every other week
Bring facility
Recycling Centre Street container Street container Street container Street container Recycling Centre / shop Recycling Centre Recycling Centre (> 20 streams) Recycling Centre
Results
Biowaste Paper / cardboard Glass Textile Plastic packaging WEEE Hazardous waste Other separated
Separate collection Kg / cap
76 64 21 4 5 5 1 73
Residual waste Kg / cap
84 28 10 8 20 0,07
Over-all recycling rate: 51% Diversion %
48 70 68 33 20 95
Who pays the bill?!
Extended Producer Responsibility
Batteries WEEE Environment Ministry EPR Packaging Car tyres ELV Window Panes
Products and some producers
Result Producers Responsibility
€408/ton plastics €65/ton furniture in France €60/ton textiles (France) €80/ton electronics
Structural income
• • • • • •
Compensations producers for collecting their streams
–
Electronics
– –
Packaging paper, glass, metal, plastics Textiles? Furniture?
Gate fees for landfilling & incineration Local municipal tax Revenues recovered materials (compost, metals, plastics, etc.) Revenues recovered energy // MWh Revenues district heating / cooling
As dumping of waste is cheapest: 1. Ban landfilling & introduce gate fees 2. Tax landfilling (So waste 2 energy becomes a market) 3. Organise incineration & energy recovery (EU RE’20: only for non-recyclable waste) 4. Minimum standards per waste stream / material for recycling 5. Producers Responsibility for recyclable products & materials 6. Ambitious targets for recycling 7. Monitoring of waste figures (Weighing, reporting) 8. Inspection on regulation, enforcement
31,7%
New Ambitions
Towards 65% recycling of household waste 46,5% 47,8% 49,8% Target 65,0 % 49,8 1993 1999 2005 2010 2012 Other separated Textile Plastic packaging Paper Separated bulk waste WEEE Glass packaging Biowaste Source-separated household waste (source: Dutch Central Bureau for Statistics (CBS)).
2012 data is extrapolated from 2010 data.
In practise, the separate collection of plastic packaging has increased substantially since 2010 2015 0,0
Municipal ambitions for residual waste?
500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Aandeel hoogbouw (%)
70 80 90 100 Stedelijkheidsklasse 1 Stedelijkheidsklasse 2 Stedelijkheidsklasse 3 Stedelijkheidsklasse 4 Stedelijkheidsklasse 5
From Waste to Resources
Coalition agreement 2012:
Works towards a circular economy Parliament Green Growth March 2013: From Waste To Resources (Catch): Opportunity for Green Growth
Parliament From Waste to resources, June 2013 Operationalised January 2014
Catch stimulates the transition towards a circular economy
2
Dutch policy
• • • • • •
Green growth (crisis <> sustainable solutions) Strengthen earning capacity & competitive edge Reduce environmental pressure and dependency on fossil energy Greening the economy passes frontiers See today’s issues as tomorrow’s markets 8 areas: food, energy, construction, mobility, climate, water, bio-based economy, and... waste as resource (Note: supply <> demand)
Dutch policy
4 pillars to achieve the ambitions: 1. Clever market incentives 2. Stimulating framework of legislation, focusing on dynamic and flexibility 3. Innovative Top business sectors 4. Government as network partner (e.g. National Energy Agreement (Resources Agreement?) (Government as regulator?)
Program From Waste to Resources
From linear economy, via chain management & recycling to circular economy
VANG /Catch/W2R
More and better recycling More sustainable Products on the market More sustainable consumption
Concrete ambitions
Ambitious program
• • •
The Netherlands example in circular economy for other countries Remove impediments wherever possible Half (!) the amount of materials going to incineration and landfill in 10 years
• •
Goal for 2015: 60-65% household waste separated, 75% separated in 2020; eventually 100% separated
• •
Targets residual waste per person: 100 kg by 2020, 30 kg by 2025...
Cooperate with and within chains of production & consumption
Resource efficiency in Europe: towards a green economy Textile Aluminium Electronics X/Y/Z Instruments Design Ecodesign Design Resources Carpet / Fashion Production Sector Design Resources Production Producers Responsibility?
Retail Industry Marketing Reimbursement schemes?
Consumption Consumption Consumption Positive triggers?
Waste Management In a unique position!
- Knowledge - Sorting (treatment) - Logistics
2009 © NVRD
36
Relevance Waste Management & Recycling
Motor of the green economy, with cross-cutting impact
Public Framework
Core of the vision:
Circular economy: close the loops 1. The polluter pays (finally) 2. Allow for dynamics enterprises and citizens 3. Correct market failure Focus on the role of governments: at all levels.
Toolbox
Raw material label Pay as you throw Ecodesign Service level degree Producer Consumer Use of secondary raw material Deposit return systems Communication Producer responsibility Municipality Knowledge sharing Optimization of logistics Treatment taxes Clear and feasible targets Inter municipal cooperation
Demand side
• • • • •
Desired: Quality of recyclable Volume Consistency, reliable delivery Stable competitive prices Partnerships
• • •
Stimulations?
CSR Prices?
... Regulation?
Packaging agreement, to be cherished ?
Supply of recyclables: New Methods in waste collection & separation
Good practices plastics
Deventer
Plastic verpakkingen (in kg/ inw) 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Deventer Benchmark klasse C 2009 1 3 2010 7 6 2011 8 8 2012 9 8 2013 19 9 - Deventer is BP plastic in class C (20 tot 29% highrise) - 2012: minicontainer for plastics (1 x 4 wk) - 2013: PAYT, volume-frequence, biowaste free
Good practices plastics
- Almere is Second BP plastic in class C (20 tot 29% hoogbouw) - 2010: minicontainer for plastics (1 x 2 wk) - 2010: collection frequency residual waste diminished (duocontainer: weekly => 2-weekly)
Good practices plastics
- Druten is BP plastic in class E (0 tot 9% hoogbouw) - 2009: start with plastic collection in bags (1 x 2 wk) - Prior to 2009 PAYT in place (costly bag residuals, biowaste free)
Technical separation
Promising results!
Quantities recycled compare to the best (Omrin will be tired of discussions about quality <> separation at source)
Collection innovations: Cash for Trash
• • Financial reward for separated waste Centralized collection points
Cash for trash in practice
How much Cash for Trash?
Waste type Textile Plastic packaging Paper & Cardboard Revenue per kg € 0,05 € 0,25 € 0,25 Small WEEE € 0,05 Possible saving up to € 75 / household / year
Results of Cash for Trash
Development of participation Visitor frequency
7 2 4 16 28 42 Twice per week or more Between once or twice per week Once per two weeks Once per month Less than once per mont 15
Collection Result
10 5 Paper & cardboard Plastic packaging Textile Small WEEE 70
Shift: 37% ; Extra: 24%
Extra or shift?
Conclusions on Cash for Trash
• • • • Paying for recyclables leads to an increase in separate collection results but also to a shift from the ‘free’ collection to the paid collection system System is probably less suitable in rural areas where reversed collection can have stronger effects at a lower cost System could be interesting in high urbanized areas where it’s hard to implement adequate infrastructure for separate collection System ties in with social municipal targets (work)
Collection innovations: Reversed collection
•
Currently:
–
High service level for residual waste
–
Relative low service level for recyclables
•
Desirable:
–
High service level for recyclables
–
Relative low service level for residual waste
Reversed Collection
Hoonhorst (pilot area) 1900 inhabitants small village -
Before
PAYT-system (volume / frequency) on organic waste and residual waste Kerbside collection of residual waste ( 140 L or 240 L) in both the heart of the village as in the more rural part. Kerbside collection of organic waste (140L or 240 L) only in the heart of the village -
After
PAYT-system (volume / frequency) on residual waste Underground collection system for residual waste (in the heart of the village) Change of collection frequency for residual waste in the more rural part of the village Organic waste (240L) collection in the whole village Extra container for plastic, metals and beverage cartons (240 L) Extra container for paper and cardboard (240 L)
Results Reversed Collection
New Methods: Reversed collection
11 bins of residual waste p/household/yr Bio-waste Paper / cardboard Plastic and other dry recyclables Waste prevention Bring to street container
Conclusions Reversed Collection
• • • • • An extensive kerbside collection system for recyclables combined with drop off point for residual waste can have strong effects Many variations in the system are possible Effects appear to be stronger when the residual waste container is at greater distance In urban environments great distances may sooner lead to negative effects (littering), though this has not yet been tested Many Dutch municipalities are now implementing a form of reversed collection
Collection innovations: 100-100-100 Background information
• • • • ROVA is a non-profit public waste collection company. Their stakeholders are 21 municipalities (800.0000. inhabitants) in the middle & east of the Netherlands. “From waste to resource” and “waste-free society” are keywords in ROVA’s strategy since October 2009.
ROVA introduced in 2011 the system of reversed collection:
resources are collected on the kerbside and residual waste has to be taken to drop-off facilities nearby
This system leads to good results (recycling rate up to 80-90%). But a waste-free society requires more.
100-100-100 Dutch social experiment in waste management What?
Why?
ROVA challenged 100 households (including alderman) to live 100 days a 100% circularly live for waste and raw materials:
0 kg of residual waste and a decrease in the total amount of household waste
Municipal waste management is at the end of the product lifecycle. Choices of producers and consumers (before products become waste), to a large extent determine the possibilities for product and material reuse. Although good results have been made in municipal waste management (with the system of reversed collection, ROVA municipalities reach 80% of recycling of household waste), a waste-free society requires more. Therefore ROVA started in 2015 a social experiment in which waste prevention is the central theme.
100-100-100 Dutch social experiment in waste management How?
Goals?
• • • • • • Recruiting households was no problem (great enthusiasm among citizens, local and national press) Among 500 household participate in the experiment Start 1-1-2015 In cooperation with University of Groningen (RUG), department Psychology and University of Utrecht (Sustainability) 50 households are intensively followed and are given a concrete action perspective appropriate to their specific situation, others receive support through communication Halfway (50 days) the participants have reduced their residual waste up to 30 kg per capita per year (average ROVA 166 kg and Netherlands 220 kg) This social experiment contributes to raising awareness. It also clarifies the • • • • (im)possibilities on the road towards a waste-free society, for example: willingness and leverage to further behavioral change among citizens gives insight on the remaining products in the household waste the possibilities in acting of producers, pressure on producers for recyclables the political discussion at national level
The real tonnes: bulky waste
• • • •
Higher service level (more collection points) More sorting, through
–
Service (at source)
–
Technology (afterwards) Chain deficit. More EPR ?
–
Mattresses
–
Furniture
–
Leather Technical separation obligatory <> service level
Adequate service level
Dutch waste streams to be sorted: h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
WEEE; Asbestos; A-wood & B-wood; C-wood; Soil, separated following legal classifications; Gas tanks, fire extinguishers, pressure equipment; Car tires; Roof waste; Expanded polystyrene foam; Mixed stone material, not being asphalt or gypsum; Gypsum; Gross garden waste; m.
n.
o.
Hard plastics; Mattresses; Metals; p.
q.
Paper and cardboard; Textiles, not being carpet; r.
Flat glass s/z. …..?
Flexible solutions for more innovations
Conclusions innovations
• • • • • • •
The Dutch recycling rate has more or less stabilized in the past decade A number of initiatives is emerging to set new steps in collection, separation and recycling It seems feasible to significantly decrease the amount of residual waste and to further increase the recycling rate Reversed collection seems to be setting the new standard in rural areas Cash for Trash seems promising in urban areas Technical separation seems to offer additional potential Bulky waste still has scope for improvements (EPR?)
In conclusion
• • • • • • • • •
Municipalities decisive role in local waste management Ambitious but feasible targets are inspiring Effective waste management needs an effective scale:
–
For policy making
–
For operations Inter municipal cooperation is key for success Financial instruments and service are key drivers EPR can have strong effects, when well implemented Innovations lead us to the circular economy But how do we deal with final treatment capacity?
Can we take up this service of general interest together?
Thanks for your attention.
Wishing you inspiration and succesful cooperation!
Erik de Baedts Royal NVRD The Netherlands, Managing Director Past-president, Municipal Waste Europe Past board ISWA, International Solid Waste Association [email protected]
www.nvrd.nl/english Twitter: @erikafval (Erik Waste)
EXTRA, IN CASE WE HAVE SOME TIME….
Planetary Boundaries
66
Global situation Production, consumption and…
Global situation Production, consumption and… waste!
The ideal for our current production process
Producer Consumer/ Citizen Municipalities/ Waste sector
The real end of our current production process… 90% landfilling in Brasil, no better in Asia & Africa Health, Hygiene Environment, Climate Social Responsibility => Sustainable?
70
Urbanisation and the trend in use of resources More urbanisation: (mega-)cities More use of material resources Yet collection and recycling is more difficult in (mega-)cities with highrise Sustainability is not just about energy, but surely also about recovering materials!
Scarce resources
Exporting resources still
Geo-strategy
EU Approach: The Waste Hierarchy
Instead of landfilling shift to sorting and recycling, organise waste to energy (sufficient but not too much) , then focus on prevention and reuse
Resource efficiency in Europe: towards a green economy Textile Aluminium Electronics X/Y/Z Instruments Design Ecodesign Design Resources Carpet / Fashion Production Sector Design Resources Production Producers Responsibility?
Retail Industry Marketing Reimbursement schemes?
Consumption Consumption Consumption Positive triggers?
Waste Management - Knowledge - Sorting (treatment) - Logistics
2009 © NVRD
78
Relevance Waste management & Recycling
Motor of the green economy, with cross-cutting impact
Meanwhile
Outside the waste industry
Prices for commodities
System challenge
Current, linear system tekst - Value chain of processes for production and consumption - Production of waste Stress factors - Reduction of availability natural material resources - Reducing margins and reducing of value in the chains - Depletion of the living environment System challenge • - Conservation of a stable and prosperous society - Prevention of further environmental damage and degradation (loss) - Economically unsustainable future Urgency - Incredibly fast growing global population - Average level of prosperity doubled globally Ecological ‘tipping points’ nearby
Solutions?
Opportunities
Opportunities Netherlands with Circular Economy (TNO):
•
Annual savings at least €7,3 billion on material costs
•
54.000 extra employment
•
very strong reduction of environmental pressure
Solutions?
Solutions?
Sustainable entrepreneurship
Scaling up innovation
• • • • •
Which connections are needed for further innovation?
How do we scale up innovations better and faster?
What is needed to incentivise the late majority?
What is needed to incentivise the laggards?
Is the playing field national, European or global? So...?
So, this circular economy Impossible, but doable