Transcript Dia 1 - Webdog

Recovery of C&D waste
Changing under different
economic constraints
EU: differences in GDP / cap
~€
• 7.500-10.000
– Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary
• 10.000-17.000
– Lithuania, Czech Rep., Latvia, Portugal, Greece,
Cyprus, Slovenia
• 17.000-21.000
– Spain, Italy, Germany, Estonia
• 22.000-30.000
– Belgium, France, Austria, UK, Netherlands, Sweden,
Denmark, Ireland, + Luxemburg
Turnover P/c Eco-industry
SWM& Rec ~ € 20,-/cap
SW & Rec ~ € 50,-/cap
SWM & Rec ~€ 250,-/cap
Ratio SWM cost/GDP
• GDP<20.000: 0,1 - 0,2 %
• GDP>20.000: 0,5 - 1,0 %
• Low: Estonia, Spain, Belgium
• High: Slovenia, Denmark, Austria
A guess
• Prices for C&D waste recycling are about
1/3 of cost of waste management per
capita, e.g.:
– € 7,- at a level of € 20,– € 17,- at a level of € 50
– € 70,- at a level of € 200
A general model for cost
accounting
• Full costs:
– Internal:
• Process cost
• Product costs and revenues
– External “community” cost:
• Generation of pollution & deterioration of renewables
exceeding natural absorption level &
Depletion of natural resources:
–
–
–
–
Difficult to count, change with wealth
Difficult to address: local, regional or global
For someone else or the next generation
Diluted
Conservation of misery
•
•
•
•
Law on conservation of matter:
the GOOD,
the BAD and
the UGLY
A dynamic arena of interacting
parties
• Consequences of goods with negative
value
• Recycling breakeven
• Profitability regarding different public
policy instruments
• Choice of market match
• Economy of scale
• Economic depreciation of investments
Consequences of goods with
negative value
•
•
•
•
Cash flow
Stock value
Risk management
Loss reward
+
+/+
Recycling Breakeven
– Competition with other treatment chains (e.g.
land filling or incineration): dominant
competition
– Built-in percentage of other treatment: BAD
can become worse for residues
Competing chains
C
-70
Transport
-20
1
Transport
-40
Tipping fee
-30
Landfill
50% GOOD
2
R
-20
40% BAD
-40
10% UGLY
( = Community)
A guess
• Prices for C&D waste recycling are about
1/3 of cost of waste management per
capita, e.g.:
– € 7,- at a level of € 20,– € 17,- at a level of € 50
– € 70,- at a level of € 200
Competing chains
C
-10
1
Transport
-5
Tipping fee
-5
Landfill
2
Transport
-5
PRICE
??
80% GOOD
+3
R
-20
20% BAD
-5
10% UGLY
(-100 = Community)
MAX
PROFIT
??
Low cost competition
C
-10
Plastics
1
Transport
-5
Tipping fee
-5
Landfill
Wood, Metals,
2
Transport
-5
PRICE
4,90
80% aggregate
+3
R
-5
20% BAD
-5
10% UGLY
(-100 = Community)
MAX
PROFIT
1,30
After technical regulation
C
-25
1
Transport
-5
Tipping fee
-20
Landfill
2
Transport
-5
PRICE
19,90
70% GOOD
+12
R
-20
30% BAD
-20
10% UGLY
-100 community
MAX
PROFIT
2,50
After technical regulation and
taxing
C
-75
1
Transport
-5
Tipping fee
-70
Landfill, incinerator
debris, wood,
metal
2
Transport
-5
PRICE
69,90
R
-35
40% BAD
-70
60% GOOD
+2
5%
5% UGLY
-100 tax
MAX
PROFIT
3,10
Selective Landfill ban
for unsorted waste: BINGO
C
-104
1
2
X
Transport
-5
PRICE
99
R
-35
40% BAD
-80
Landfill
60% GOOD
+2
5%
5% UGLY
-100 = Tax
MAX
PROFIT
28,20
Finding a match of markets
• A. waste product markets
• B. Resources markets (Energy and raw
materials)
B
Sophiticated
specific
A
Economy of scale
collect
Sort 1
Sort 2
Sort 3
end
Innovation and
governmental reliability
• When investing, parties want a “innovative”
public policy guaranteeing change, to be able to
invest;
• After investment parties want a “reliable” public
policy to have a optimal depreciation of their
assets;
• It would be a coincidence if all the parties would
be in the same stage at the same moment:
countervailing lobbying causes delays
Instruments of public authorities
creating a artificial market
– Technical regulations (IPPC, BAT)
– Treatment regulations (BREF’s)
– Economic measurements: grants and taxes
– Economic actor: client, supplier, manager
Effective regulation
Thesis:
• A combination of technical regulation and
taxing the remaining external cost is
sufficient for the creation of an effective
diversified market
• More is politics and can be used as
temporarily accelerator
Concluding remark:
Design your system(-role) back to
forth
• Start in the future, count ten years back;
• Question what scarce resources are and what can be
paid;
• Count internal and external cost;
• Design the whole system of end-treatment, recycling and
collection (In that order);
• Find efficient rules for the play and roles for the players.