Beyond The Bin

It is interesting to compare the UK approach with the Netherlands. Relative to the UK, this is one of the countries furthest advanced in recycling and composting. There may be some lessons transferable to the UK in seeking to meet Landfill Directive targets, not least in the extent to which the UK could achieve Article 5 targets through recycling and composting. Like some other European countries, the Netherlands focuses more on a reproduction, almost by administrative fiat, of the hierarchy rather than a supposedly detailed analysis of pollutants, and costs and benefits, for different streams which suffers from shortcomings that have been discussed above. Such an approach will always be open to criticism that the level of recycling is above what is 'optimal', and that the financial and environmental costs are not justified by the supposed benefits. The Swedish approach to waste management has recently been criticised for this reason (ENDS Daily 1999). But for the same reasons as costs and benefits are difficult to estimate with certainty, so such criticisms are, in general, quite difficult to sustain.

We are grateful for the co-operation of AOO (the Waste Management Council) of the Netherlands in helping with this chapter. Much of the information comes from Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (u.d.) and Waste Management Council (1995), as well as from the AOO directly.

8.1 Netherlands

As environmental problems in the Netherlands came to be perceived as more serious, from the late 1960s, sectoral environmental legislation was drafted. A reappraisal of the sectoral approach occurred in the 1980s. The lack of what we might now call 'joined up governance' led to dysfunctional approaches between sectoral policies as interdependencies were downplayed. More cohesive legislation was seen as desirable and this was reflected in the 1980 General Environmental Provisions Act. The decision to convert this legislation into a single integrated environment act led, in 1993, to the Environmental Management Act entering into force. This effectively integrated the two major Acts concerning waste, the Chemical Waste Act of 1976 and the Wastes Act of 1977. A 'Wastes' chapter to this act was added in 1994 (see below).

The amount of household waste generated in the Netherlands is believed to have tripled in the years between 1960 and 1990. This growth has kept pace with increases in national income. In 1998, household waste was of the order 7 million tonnes. In the late 1980s, measurement of dioxin emissions resulted in closure of a number of waste incineration plants and concern also grew for the lack of environmental protection undertaken at some landfills. Because there was so little support for the development of new final waste management options, waste actually began to be stored temporarily in inland shipping barges. The problem had reached crisis levels.

Reflecting the waste management hierarchy that has been more or less universally agreed (though in the Netherlands, the order of preference is termed Lansink's ladder - see Figure 4), the focus of policy became waste prevention. Wastes that could not be prevented were to be re-used or recycled where possible. Note that this appears to have reflected not just debate concerning the environmental impacts identified, but also the fact that there was almost no social and political support for new landfills or incinerators. For the wastes that could not be re-used or recycled, disposal has to occur in such a way as risks to the environment are 'acceptable' (the concept of 'leakproof disposal' was developed).

Figure 4 : Lansink's Ladder - Preferences for Waste Treatment in the Netherlands

As in the UK, the ladder is oriented by the desire to reduce landfill, and by the perceived desirability of waste minimisation. Methane emissions from landfill are frequently cited as a reason for placing landfill at the base of the ladder.

The publication, Waste Management in the Netherlands states that 'Radical measures are required in a number of cases to achieve the aims of waste policy.' The Waste Chapter of the Environmental Management Act (1994) makes it compulsory for local authorities to introduce separate collection for organic household waste. Further reinforcing the ordering reflected in the ladder, the Waste (Landfill Ban) Decree came into force in 1995 and prohibits landfilling of waste if there is a possibility for reusing, recycling or incinerating the waste. As of mid 1998, the Decree covered 32 types of waste including household waste, as well as tyres, car wrecks and remediable contaminated soil. The Waste Incineration (Air Emissions) Decree regulates incineration plants whilst the Landfill Decree includes rules for the establishment of landfills. The former sets some of the most stringent standards for incineration plant anywhere in the world. It is believed that the effects of legislation on the costs of final disposal have been important in promoting waste minimisation, re-use and recycling. In 1996, the average costs of incineration were 220 guilders (£87.56 in 1999 terms) per tonne (including VAT) for non hazardous waste. Hazardous and hospital wastes were charges at 1000 guilders (£398 in 1999 terms) and 10,000gld (£3980 in 1999 terms) respectively (again, inclusive of VAT). Landfilling of non-hazardous wastes cost 145 guilders per tonne in 1996 (including VAT) (£57.71 in 1999 terms) in addition to a landfill levy of 29.2 guilders (£11.62 in 1999 terms) for non-combustible waste and 70 guilders (£27.86 in 1999 terms) for combustible waste. Landfilling of hazardous wastes cost between 200-300 guilders per tonne (£79.60-£119.40) at suitable 'ordinary' landfills and 800 guilders (£318.40 in 1999 terms) per tonne at the special storage facilities known as C2 depositories.

An important aspect of Netherlands waste policy has been the discussions around the responsibility for specific waste streams. The question of where responsibilities of specific actors begins and ends has been important in shaping the approach to household waste management. The principal of co-responsibility is intended to be a mechanism that gives some substance to the Polluter Pays Principle. Producer responsibility has been introduced on a voluntary basis for car wrecks (where a similar system to the Swedish vehicle scrapping levy in operation), PVC cladding, PVC pipes, photographic hazardous waste and paper/board. In general, producers may be obliged to take back and reprocess products at their end of life under the Environment Act. Statutory measures exist to enforce the principle of co-responsibility in the cases of car tyres, batteries and white and brown goods. For plastic agricultural films and packaging, a combination of voluntary instrument and statutory measure exists.

Note that the system of co-responsibility is tailored to the product under examination. Product groups seek a balance between incentives for prevention, re-use and recycling, and the internalisation of environmental costs, and the impact on the macro-economy, the operation of market forces, effect on free movement of goods, and effects of possible fragmentation of disposal infrastructure (see VROM Fact Sheet 5 for more details). Note also (in the light of UK attempts to meet Landfill Directive targets) that the Netherlands believes it has covered some 80% of the bulky household waste items which could feasibly be covered by such schemes (i.e. where it is possible to attribute the ownership to a specific producer).

8.2 Household Waste

In the Netherlands, the definition of household waste covers all wastes arising from private households with the exception of wastewater and car wrecks. Bulky household waste items are usually analysed separately however.

Responsibility for collecting household waste lies with the local authority. The basic pattern is once a week collection near each premises. As mentioned above, authorities are obliged to collect organic household waste separately, door-to-door, though there may be deviations in specific circumstances. Local authority bylaws mainly include rules on disposal of household waste, for example, which components have to be kept separate, frequency of waste collection and the agencies carrying out collection.

Provincial environmental bylaws for the collection of household wastes by the local authority where the disposal of household waste is a matter that extends beyond the interests of the local authority. As a result of provincial environmental regulations, local authorities are obliged also to collect paper and board, glass, textiles and small chemical waste separately. Under the Environmental Management Act, options such as compulsory deposit return systems also exist.

The role of information is seen as critical: 'the most appropriate instrument to get consumers to restrict the amount of waste they produce and motivate them to separate their waste is the provision of information'. The 'Less Waste - It's In Your Hands' campaign is believed to have been important in increasing recycling of one way glass packaging from 40% to 74% between 1985 and 1996.

8.3 History of Targets

Several targets for materials re-use and recycling have been laid down in Netherlands environmental policy.⁵⁵ Generally, waste policy has taken account of the European context and has sought to respond positively to this. However, the 1988 Memorandum on the Prevention and Reuse of Wastes (MPRW) which includes targets for household wastes, bulky household waste and other waste streams, coincided with the period of crisis in waste management discussed briefly above. Obligatory targets for 50% materials collection (from household waste) by 2000 were set, with 60-70% being the target for the collection and useful application of bulky household waste. Materials targets were also set, some of these (for non-returnable glass and ferrous metals) being set at 100% for materials collection.

[⁵⁵ The document speaks of re-use targets. In fact, the re-use targets mentioned are actually targets for the collection of waste. The language is rather confusing, so I have tried to interpret the targets unambiguously as collection and recycling targets, the 'recycling' target referring to the actual percentage of material converted as a fraction of the total in the waste stream.]

Packaging Covenant targets set in 1991 include a target (60%) for the reprocessing and 'upgrading' of materials not reused, and a target for re-accepting waste that is not destined for re-use but is collected separately (90%) on the part of industry. The former again contains specific materials targets whilst the latter is intended both to encourage separate collection of wastes by local authorities, and to reinforce the notion of producer responsibility.

8.4 National Programme on Household Waste

Between 1993 and 1995, work was undertaken to see whether a national, broadly uniform system could be developed for separately collecting dry components from household waste in an attempt to meet targets specified. The MPRW targets include targets for collection (the document specifies 're-use') of paper / board of 70%, plastics 35%, ferrous waste 100%, non-returnable glass 100% and packaging waste 60%. The research programme led to publication of a document (amongst others) entitled 'Programme on Separate Collection of Household Waste' (Waste Management Council 1995). A basic model was developed in which:

• Textiles to be collected door-to-door at least once every quarter as well as by textile banks.

It was expected that for individual components of the waste stream, performance could be improved, though equally, the targets of 100% collection for non-returnable glass and ferrous metals were unrealistic. For the non-bulky wastes, the overall recycling target is 60%. Since the Waste (Landfill Ban) Decree prohibits the landfilling of household waste except where there is temporary shortage of incineration capacity, almost all household waste in the Netherlands is incinerated. A decision has been made to remove metals from ashes post-incineration allowing an estimated minimum of 80% of metals to be recycled.

The discussions around this model are illuminating, and they echo some of the difficulties which UK systems of recycling are already facing. In particular, one can note the following:

• In discussions concerning the responsibilities of the different actors (under the rubric of co-responsibility) the decision was made to leave the collection function in the hands of the governmental authorities for the time being since the municipal collection infrastructure offers the best opportunities for achieving recycling targets by 2000. It was also thought that having separate industry-led collection structures might make matters more confusing for the public and reduce response rates. Hence, the costs of separately collecting dry components are for the local authorities to deal with up to the point at which materials are transferred to an agreed point (a depot or transfer station, or a local dealer in secondary materials). From this point onwards, producers are responsible for the material. Authorities may offer the material at a positive market price, or at zero cost, but the producers are obliged to accept the material at no less than zero cost (i.e. they cannot charge the local authority a fee for accepting the material). Where producers impose conditions of acceptance which go beyond what is regarded as reasonable on the part of the authorities, the incremental costs incurred can be charged by the authorities to the producers (and the separation of glass by colour is given as an example of this). The costs of transport, trans-shipment, treatment and reprocessing of waste collected separately, or of post-collection separation from the residual component, final processing and sales are to be met by producers. Arguably, to the extent that producer responsibility can be introduced, the costs of waste management shift away from the waste levy and cleansing charges imposed by authorities and towards the product price (so that there is a more direct relationship between the costs of waste management for householders and the costs of dealing with the waste they themselves generate).

• Apart from the basic collection system for waste outlined above and the compulsory collection of organic household waste, the discussion concerning waste separation (for metals, plastics, drinks cartons and other small streams) tended towards consideration of post-collection separation from the residual. The report states 'post-separation is not yet a proven technique, however. In addition, there is still some uncertainty about the yield and feasibility of recycling plastics. It is desirable to wait and see whether this waste separation develops into a system that could be introduced nationally.' The prospects for post-separation were thought most promising for metals and for plastics but the report notes that in tonnage terms, the yield is likely to be insignificant relative to the basic collection system.

• Other enhancements to the basic system considered were can banks, plastic bottle banks, can/bottle banks and possibilities for collection only of drinks cartons (where producers, motivated by the Packaging Directive, have guaranteed a payment of 50 guilders per tonne collected). It is interesting that, possibly because of the fact that municipal waste goes principally to incinerators, there appears to have been little discussion of the collection of metals at kerbside.

Here one has a model of household waste policy which appears to be the complete opposite to that of the UK. In the Netherlands, the political opposition to new linear waste management facilities has driven policy towards targets which one can safely say were unrealistic. In the UK, the continuation of landfilling, taking place alongside the continuing extraction of minerals and ergo, the creation of holes in the ground, has led to an apparent lack of concern regarding waste management matters.

In the Netherlands, the approach has been to set out ground rules, and to delineate basic approaches which local authorities can follow. In the UK, the approach is more technocratic and is based upon the belief that technical tools can guide decision making on a supposedly rational basis, hence, the development of WISARD. The lesson from the Netherlands, and arguably elsewhere (including, increasingly, the UK) is that decisions concerning waste management facilities are first and foremost political ones, and supposing that they are merely technical in nature is likely to generate quite considerable resistance in the political sphere.

8.5 Results and Commentary - Relevance for the UK?

In 1996, waste arisings were 6.18 million tonnes from 15.5 million inhabitants (in 6.5 million households). Of this, 44% was collected separately for recycling / re-use. Percentages for separate collection by material were:

This is quite interesting for a number of reasons. Firstly, the Draft Strategy for England and Wales suggests limits to the degree to which one can collect recyclables and compostables. With the exception of textiles and plastics, all of the implied collection rates for materials, even in the high participation rate scenarios, are roughly what the Netherlands is already achieving. If one then looks at what the programme on separate collection regards as feasible, all of the targets apart from that for textiles are much lower than in the Netherlands. Whilst there may be reasons for these differences, it is not entirely clear what those would be (the composition of waste in the Netherlands is similar, though the arisings per household seem slightly lower). In particular, the Netherlands appears to be more persuaded by the fact that if local authorities have to, and indeed, do collect waste from all households, there is no reason why, in principle, they could not do this for specific fractions of material.

Why is this important? In setting a framework for meeting Landfill Directive targets, it is widely believed that there is likely to be resistance to the construction of large numbers of incinerators. To what extent therefore could the targets be met not through incineration, but through recycling and composting. If one diverted biodegradable fractions of municipal waste at rates already being achieved in the Netherlands (i.e. organic household waste at 58%, paper and board at 47% and textiles at 21%) then under different scenarios for waste arisings growth and composition, the following are true:

Assuming 30 million tonnes arising in 1998, and assuming that the total biodegradable fraction is 62%, the level of recycling one achieves by applying the Netherlands rates is 45% of all biodegradable wastes. The biodegradable fraction of household waste used here, which is that used in the Draft Strategy for England and Wales, and which we used in work for DETR on the Landfill Directive, is openly disputed. There are those who believe the putrescible fraction is closer to 40% of the total, and that probably, as a result, we are looking at a higher proportion of MSW that is biodegradable. Indeed, the biodegradable fraction may be as high as 70% with each of paper and putrescibles accounting for more than 30% of the total. Supposing one takes figures of 34% for putrescibles, and 31% for paper and card, with a total MSW fraction of 70%, then applying the Netherlands rates, one obtains 50% of all biodegradables. Note that whilst there may be discards from processing of these wastes, our understanding is that actually these would not then fall under the Directive (as they would be industrial wastes). If this interpretation is correct, our own earlier work has been slightly inaccurate. We will term the two scenarios discussed here the low, and high, biodegradable content scenarios (LBC and HBC). We now address the issue of targets in the context of different growth rates of the municipal waste stream.

At 0% growth, under the LBC option, one needs to recycle or compost between 14 and 19% of all biodegradable waste in 2010, 38-43% in 2013 and 53-58% in 2020 to ensure the landfill Directive targets are met. The lower figures apply if one assumes all already planned capacity for EfW is on stream. Doing what the Netherlands does today, we would meet all but the final target. We would be at most 13% short (in terms of diversion of total biodegradable waste) of a target which does not fall until 2020. This is equivalent to a need for capacity that can divert 2.3 million tonnes of BMW. Alternatively, with planned EfW capacity on stream, the additional capacity requirement would be a mere 1.4 million tonnes of BMW diversion. The time horizon allows for considerable thought and activity to occur in the meantime.

Under the HBC option, one finds a similar situation. Though the total biodegradable content is greater, one recovers greater fractions of the putrescibles under the Netherlands figures, so higher proportions of putrescibles improve the overall diversion of BMW. On the other hand, the allowable quantities to landfill fall as the proportion of BMW in the waste stream increases (Landfill Directive targets are based upon 1995 levels of landfilling of BMW).⁵⁶ The additional capacity requirement actually remains the same.

[⁵⁶ It would be awkward, to say the last, to argue to the Commission that the composition of household waste had changed dramatically in the period 1995-1999.]

The effect of compounded growth rates is significant. In this case, one succeeds in meeting the 2010 target under both LBC and HBC scenarios, but fails to meet the 2013 target under either scenario. The shortfall is of the order 8-13% of total BMW at the time, which translates to some 1.9-3.2 million tonnes of BMW diversion capacity in 2013.

Once compounded growth rates go beyond about 2.3%, one fails even to meet the 2010 target under either scenario.

One of the most obvious messages of this exercise is that it confirms what was already known - that the most important measures in meeting Landfill Directive targets are likely to be those that target the minimisation of the (biodegradable) waste stream. In this respect, the focus is likely to fall upon paper and board, and possibly nappies, especially since the sorts of producer responsibility approaches which one could adopt for these waste streams are simply inappropriate for putrescibles. As regards putrescibles, the fact that collection of these from households may become mandatory under the proposed Composting Directive makes it possible that collection rates may increase to levels similar to those in the Netherlands. Education will need to play a crucial role, just as it has done in the Netherlands. Note that the Waste Management Council estimated that by 1994 around 73 per cent of all households were separating their wet waste (kitchen and garden waste) at source, and representatives now claim that this proportion has increased to almost 100 per cent.

8.6 Costs

None of this has happened free of charge. The costs of waste management in the Netherlands have increased significantly since 1991. The per capita waste levy more than doubled between 1991 and 1997 and now stands at 377 guilders (£122). It is expected to peak at around 435 guilders (£141). Table 51 gives more detail on costs. Note that data on costs and quantities is collected in the Netherlands every two years, and that since 1995, more and more municipalities (two-thirds in 1997) transmit financial data electronically. The response rate for the surveys (by inhabitants covered) are 94% (waste quantities) and 79% (waste costs) (the survey is split in two parts).

One of the most interesting observations appears to be that both the costs of collection and the costs of treatment are greatest for large and small municipalities (in terms of numbers of inhabitants). In both cases, the municipalities of 10,000-50,000 inhabitants perform best in terms of collection and treatment costs per tonne. The economy of scale thesis appears not to hold necessarily. It is difficult to tell why this should be the case without closer examination of specifics, but there may be diseconomies of scale in terms of management and logistics.

Table 51: Costs And Income From Removal Of Waste By Main Activity And Region, 1997