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
16
80
14
70
12
60
10
50
8
40
6
30
4
20
1
2
10
0,5
0
0
1991
1993
1995
1997
supply
1999
2001
2003
2005
year number of landfills
2007
2009
number of landfills
Mton per year
Landfilling
3
2,5
2
Mton 1,5
0
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Landfilling combustible waste
Incineration
8,000
7,000
OMRIN
E.ON Delfzijl
AZN
6,000
Sita ReEnergy
ZAVIN CV
5,000
AVR Afvalverwerking Rijnmond
AVR Afvalverwerking Rotterdam
AVR DTO
4,000
HVC afvalcentrale locatie Dordrecht
Afval Energie Bedrijf
3,000
HVCafvalcentrale locatie Alkmaar
AVR Afvalverwerking Duiven
2,000
ARN
Twence Afvalverwerking
NL aanbod voor verbranding
1,000
Totaal verbrand incl import
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
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
Curb side
Bring facility
Bio waste
Every other week
Recycling Centre
Paper / Cardboard
Monthly
Street container
Glass
Street container
Textile
Quarterly
Street container
Plastics
Monthly
Street container
WEEE
Recycling Centre / shop
Hazardous Waste
Recycling Centre
Bulky waste
Differs
Recycling Centre (> 20 streams)
Residual waste
Every other week
Recycling Centre
Results
Separate collection
Kg / cap
Residual waste
Kg / cap
Diversion
%
Biowaste
76
84
48
Paper / cardboard
64
28
70
Glass
21
10
68
Textile
4
8
33
Plastic packaging
5
20
20
WEEE
5
Hazardous waste
1
0,07
95
Other separated
73
Over-all recycling rate: 51%
Who pays the bill?!
Extended Producer Responsibility
Environment
Ministry
EPR
Batteries
WEEE
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
New Ambitions
Towards 65% recycling of household waste
Target
46,5%
65,0 %
49,8%
47,8%
49,8
31,7%
0,0
1993
1999
Other separated
Textile
Plastic packaging
Paper
2005
2010
2012
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
Municipal ambitions
for residual waste?
500
450
Hoeveelheid restafval (kg/inw)
400
350
300
Stedelijkheidsklasse 1
Stedelijkheidsklasse 2
Stedelijkheidsklasse 3
Stedelijkheidsklasse 4
Stedelijkheidsklasse 5
250
200
150
100
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Aandeel hoogbouw (%)
70
80
90
100
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
Design
Resources
Carpet /
Fashion
Production
Sector
Design
Electronics
X/Y/Z
Design
Ecodesign
Resources
Producers
Responsibility?
Production
Reimbursement
schemes?
Industry
Retail
Marketing
Consumption
Consumption
Instruments
Positive
triggers?
Consumption
- Knowledge
Waste Management
In a unique position!
- Sorting (treatment)
- Logistics
2009 © NVRD
Relevance Waste Management & Recycling
Motor of the green economy, with cross-cutting impact
36
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
Pay as you throw
Raw material label
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
Hoeveelheid (kg/inw)
Plastic verpakkingen (in kg/ inw)
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Deventer
1
7
8
9
19
Benchmark klasse C
3
6
8
8
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
Revenue per kg
Textile
€ 0,05
Plastic packaging
€ 0,25
Paper & Cardboard
€ 0,25
Small WEEE
€ 0,05
Possible saving up to € 75 / household / year
Results of Cash for Trash
Development of participation
Visitor frequency
7 24
16
Collection Result
Twice per week or
more
28
5
10
Between once or twice
per week
Once per two weeks
Paper & cardboard
Plastic packaging
15
Textile
Once per month
70
42
Less than once per
mont
Small WEEE
Extra or shift?
Shift: 37% ; Extra: 24%
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
Before
Hoonhorst
- PAYT-system (volume /
(pilot area)
frequency) on organic waste and
- 1900
residual waste
inhabitants - Kerbside collection of residual
- small village
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?
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
Why?
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:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
n.
o.
p.
q.
r.
s/z.
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;
Hard plastics;
Mattresses;
Metals;
Paper and cardboard;
Textiles, not being carpet;
Flat glass
…..?
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
Design
Resources
Carpet /
Fashion
Production
Sector
Design
Electronics
X/Y/Z
Design
Ecodesign
Resources
Producers
Responsibility?
Production
Reimbursement
schemes?
Industry
Retail
Marketing
Consumption
Consumption
Instruments
Positive
triggers?
Consumption
- Knowledge
Waste Management
- Sorting (treatment)
- Logistics
2009 © NVRD
Relevance Waste management & Recycling
Motor of the green economy, with cross-cutting impact
78
Meanwhile
Outside the waste industry
Prices for commodities
System challenge
Current,
linear
system
- Extraction
tekstof natural material resources
- 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
Urgency
- Conservation of a stable and prosperous society
- Prevention of further environmental damage and degradation (loss)
- Economically unsustainable future
- 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