specific campaigns for separate collection of glass, paper, hazardous waste, bio waste, weee,...

Successful strategies for waste prevention and minimisation in the Netherlands

waste management adminstration

Uitvoering Afvalbeheer

Contents• General information on the Netherlands

• Development stages in waste management

• Economic and Financial Instruments:

• polluter pays principle: producers responsibility and variable charging household waste

• Environmental taxes: tariffs in accordance with waste hierarchy

• Subsidies to stimulate companies, municipalities,

• Benchmarking

• Instruments to enhance participation of citizens

• Concluding remarks



General information on the Netherlands

• 16.3 million inhabitants • 450 inhabitants per km2

• 12 provinces; 467 municipalities• 61 mln. tons waste/year, excluding manure, dredging sludge• high level ground-water: special care to prevent soil/water

pollution by landfills• flat country, many roads+waterways > low transport costs• Downstream large European rivers (Rhine, Meuse)• Surrounded by highly industrialized area’s in Belgium and

Germany



Capacity, ownership, gate fees, turnover waste processing number public

stockholders %

Gate fee €/ton

turn over (mln €)

MSWI cap. 5.5 Mton

11 63 61-125 557

Landfill cap 49 Mm3

27

86 45-135 258

c composting cap 1.5Mton

24 75 35-80 120

Total waste market 5.7 bln euro

Costs municipal waste management 2006 (collection and disposal) 1,67 bln € Average municipal waste tax: 242 € househould/yr. Cost coverage 97%



Waste management development stages and scale of government

Local issueMunicipal scale

Provincial scaleconcessions

RegionalNationalmarket

EU Internationalmarket

1975 1990 2005

ScaleOf government



Responsibilities in waste management

• Municipalities have duty of care for household waste:• Weekly door to door collection of municipal waste and

financing with municipal waste tax• Offer facilities for delivery of bulky domestic waste

• Provinces: Licensing facilities and enforcement, physical planning

• State government• Legislation, Waste shipment directive, Enforcement,

National Waste Management Plan

• SenterNovem- Waste management department (Agency): • Implementation, administration, monitoring



Decoupling

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

2000 2002 2004 2006

Am

ount

(Mto

n) 3,5 Mton prevention

Waste

Economy



Household waste and GDP: continuous growth

90

100

110

120

130

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

Economy

Household waste



Decline of land filling

0

3

6

9

12

15

1993 1995 1996 1999 2001 2003

Am

ount

(Mto

n)

- 75%



Results: development total waste production

0

25

50

75

1995 1998 2001 2004

Amou

nt w

aste

(Mto

n)

Consumers

Industry

Building-demolition



Results: development waste treatment

0

25

50

75

1995 1998 2001 2004

Tota

l am

ount

was

te (M

ton)

Recovery

Incineration

landfilling



Results: actual waste treatment in the Netherlands

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Hoev

eelh

eid

(Mto

n)



Economic and financial instrumentsfor steering waste

• Instruments to restrict and discourage land filling– Landfill decree (technical requirements and standards; financial covering of post-

closure costs)– Landfill ban: (35 waste streams)– Landfill tax (85 euro/ton): land filling more expensive than recycling and

incineration

• Environmental taxes: tariffs in accordance with waste hierarchy

• Producers responsibility• Variable charging of municipal waste • Economic incentives: competition, benchmarking,

transparency



Landfil tax

• Goals• restrict and discourage land filling• waste processing tariffs in accordance with

waste hierarchy• Stimulate recycling and incineration with energy

recovery • Tax income for Treasury department (greening

of taxation)• Introduced in 1995: 13 €/ton. Increased in 3

steps till 86 € in 2006• Very effective instrument to steer waste



development tariffs wasteprocessing

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1995 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003

yr

€/to

n

landfilling comb

landfilling non

incineration

composting

landfill tax

l



Landfill tax in 13 EU countries (€/ton)

Euro/ton

0

20

40

60

80

100

Euro/ton



Producers responsibility: when do we choose this instrument ?

• For products as waste • For Hazardous components, which threaten land filling or

incineration (batteries, WEEE) • To finance chain deficit of state of the art recycling • To address responsibility for the whole lifecycle from product

to waste stream (tyres, PVC piping)• Optimise recycling & reduce residues (ELV, PVC window

frames)• To fulfil objectives of EU directives for specific wastes (ELV,

Batteries, WEEE)



Systems of variable charging

• Goal: financial incentive to reduce volume residual waste, to stimulate recycling and to impose a fair and equitable tax system based on polluter pays principle

• Volume: Tariff based on the volume of the container (39 municipalities)Weight: Tariff based on weight of the waste (19 municipalities)Frequency: Tariff based on how often the container was put on the curb side to be emptied (always in combination with the volume of the container (55 municipalities) or weight (4 municipalities)

• Expensive bag: Only special waste bags are accepted which are sold by the municipality (20 municipalities)



Supply of residual waste and separate collected fractions (kg/inh)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

No variablecharching

Volume Volume andfrequency

Weight Expensivebag

glasspaperorganic wasteresidual waste



Municipal waste tax

150

175

200

225

250

275

1998 2000 2002 2004

Was

te ta

x (e

uro/

hous

ehol

d)

Variable charging

fixed waste tax



Benchmarking municipal waste management:three Performance area’s

Waste triangleWaste triangle

Service costs

Environment



Municipal benchmark (example Nijmegen)Costs performance

0%

100%Gft en rest

Papier

Glas

Kca

GHA

Indirecte kosten

Nijmegen Gemiddelde kring 1



Municipal benchmark

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

€ 160 € 180 € 200 € 220 € 240 € 260 € 280 € 300 € 320

kosten (in € per aansluiting)

% b

rons

chei

ding Nijmegen

Krimpen a/d IJssel

Enschede

Amsterdam ZO

Amstelveen Hengelo

Deventer

Maastricht

Arnhem

Alkmaar

Capelle a/d Ijssel

Gem: € 226,-

Gem: 41%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

€ 160 € 180 € 200 € 220 € 240 € 260 € 280 € 300 € 320

kosten (in € per aansluiting)

% b

rons

chei

ding Nijmegen

Krimpen a/d IJssel

Enschede

Amsterdam ZO

Amstelveen Hengelo

Deventer

Maastricht

Arnhem

Alkmaar

Capelle a/d Ijssel

Gem: € 226,-

Gem: 41%



Looking for Good/Best Practices

• Benchmark circles and online benchmark• What’s the cause/origin of the differences• The story behind the data• Learning from each other• Important in areas without competition

(municipal service)



Results: declining numbers and area of landfill

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

num

ber o

f site

s

area landfill in ha



Development Waste Management

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Mton

DischargeLandfillingIncinerationRecovery



Development treatment household waste

0

2.500

5.000

7.500

10.000

1995 1998 2001 2004

Am

ount

(kto

n)

Incineration

landfilling

Recovery



Results: increasing recovery rate of household waste (2003)

16%

12%

4%

1%

20%

47%

Biowaste

Paper

Glass

Textile

Bulky waste

residual waste ( incl. bulkywaste)

b



Municipal waste in EU: destination

landfill57%

inc ineration16%

recyc ling13%

rest7%composting

7%



Intensification of prevention and recycling

• A programme for stimulating separate collection and prevention of household waste started in 2002.

• Goal: a new impulse to separate collection to reach 60% recycling and recovery of household waste.

• Subsidy scheme for municipalities to start projects

• Municipalities start with collection of data (sorting out residual waste, comparing actual data with policy targets) and draw up plan for action; next they choose the most promising fractions or actions (f.i paper/cardboard, coarse domestic waste)



Instruments to enhance public participation

• Supply Information: continual publicity, promotion and education campaigns (waste is everyone’s responsibility), communicate (positive) results, regular consultation, waste calendar

• Create Facilities: curbside collection, recycling centers, municipal depots (bulky domestic waste), banks for bottles/paper, refund systems, one size doesn’t fit all, sweeping/cleaning;

• Enforcement: inspections, tagging, warning letters, penalize and reward, face to face contact



Changing the attitude of citizens

• Social instruments used to change attitude of citizens• Constant & large scale awareness campaigns begin 1990’s;

“a better environment starts with your own behaviour”• Specific campaigns for: separate collection of : glass, paper,

hazardous waste, bio waste, WEEE, textile, batteries• Teaching programs on primary schools• Positive reaction: full cooperation in households AND in

business (coherent behaviour !)• But: financial “drive” for waste reduction in business much

larger than in households



Emphasis on improving waste behavior of households

• WHY• Continuous growth of volume of household waste • Increasing costs and thus increasing municipal tax• Post-separation of household waste has poor results• Therefore participation of citizens is indispensable• Neglecting the aspects prevention and separate

collection for recycling could lead to less support, at home AND in offices, shops, factories,

• Education of young people (new waste generators) necessary



How to improve waste behavior of households

• Specific mix of instruments: sticks, carrots, marketing, education• Sticks: variable charging of municipal waste tax. Risks: tax evasion

(waste tourism), contaminated streams for recycling, litter, illegal dumping. Municipalities are free to choose: no national obligation

• Carrots: lowering the barriers, providing positive incentives, create facilities. Reward good behaviour

• Municipality stimulates citizens, ministry gives support• Subsidy arrangement “Reduction environmental impact”: 3.3 mln euro

in 2006 for local projects to: improve separated waste collection & street litter abatement

• Knowledge-networks, benchmarks and tools



Improvement of local knowledge and expertise

• Agency SenterNovem (SN) carries out tasks for Ministry:• organises networks of municipal experts for: bulky

household waste, variable charging, waste paper/cardboard, benchmarking waste separation

• publishes a periodical with appealing examples of municipal actions

• supports benchmark (learning to improve within the triangle of service, costs, environment)

• Tools: cost models available (costs & profits) for municipalities for collection of waste paper and glass



Better offers and marketing

• Offers. F.i.: additional curb side collection of Paper/cardboard, municipal yard for bulky household waste open on Saturday

• Marketing. Improve internet selling of used articles. Second hand shops offer citizens to sell articles in consignment

• Producer-responsibility organizations (f.i. for batteries) tempt people to bring batteries: much more collection points, lotteries for travel when 10 batteries are delivered, education projects



Concluding remarks

• An important barrier towards higher recycling rates is a cheap alternative

• The economic scale of operation should not be hindered by the (small) scale of government

• To keep the costs of waste management low, economic incentives should be introduced: competition, benchmark, transparency

specific campaigns for separate collection of glass, paper, hazardous waste, bio waste, weee,...

Business