On Monday 2nd March the Circular Economy Task Force co-hosted a conference with the Dutch Embassy in London on how to promote the trade in circular economy goods and services between the UK and the Netherlands. The Dutch ambassador Laetitia van den Assum welcomed an expert group of business, policy and academia representatives to a discussion organised around three issues: how policy can support a circular economy, how to deliver a ‘North Sea Resource Roundabout’, and what are the circular economy opportunities for plastics?

1. 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

2. 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

3. AGENDA
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

7. 2015

10. 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

11. EU Scorecard European Commission

12. Dutch waste market today
Decrease of waste
Result of recovery
of resources
State of the art
Treatment facilities

13. Landfilling
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
year
Mtonperyear
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
numberoflandfills
supply number of landfills
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
200020022004 2006200820102012
Mton
Landfilling combustible waste

14. Incineration
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
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

15. So… import?

16. 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

17. Public  Private in collection

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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%

26. Who pays the bill?!

27. Extended Producer Responsibility
Environment
Ministry
EPR
Batteries WEEE Packaging Car tyres ELV
Window
Panes

28. Products and some producers

29. Result Producers Responsibility
€408/ton plastics
€80/ton
electronics
€65/ton furniture
in France
€60/ton
textiles (France)

30. 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

31. 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

32. New Ambitions
Target
49,8%
47,8%46,5%
31,7%
0,0
49,8
65,0 %
1993 1999 2005 2010 2012 2015
Other separated Separated bulk waste
Textile WEEE
Plastic packaging Glass packaging
Paper 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
Towards 65% recycling of household waste

33. Municipal ambitions
for residual waste?
-
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Aandeel hoogbouw (%)
Hoeveelheidrestafval(kg/inw)
Stedelijkheidsklasse 1
Stedelijkheidsklasse 2
Stedelijkheidsklasse 3
Stedelijkheidsklasse 4
Stedelijkheidsklasse 5

34. 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

35. 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)

36. 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?)
Dutch policy

37. Program From Waste to Resources
From linear economy, via chain management & recycling to circular economy

38. VANG /Catch/W2R
More sustainable
Products on the
market
More sustainable
consumption
More and better
recycling

39. 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

40. Design
Carpet /
Fashion
Production
Retail
Consumption
2009 © NVRD
Design
Resources
Production
Marketing
Consumption
Resources
Sector
Design
Industry
Consumption
Textile Aluminium Electronics
- Knowledge
- Sorting (treatment)
- Logistics
X/Y/Z Instruments
Ecodesign
Producers
Responsibility?
Reimbursement
schemes?
Positive
triggers?
Waste Management
In a unique position!
Resource efficiency in Europe: towards a green economy

41. Motor of the green economy, with cross-cutting impact
41
Relevance Waste Management & Recycling

42. 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.

43. Toolbox
Consumer
Municipality
Producer
Pay as you throw
Service level degree
Deposit return systems
Communication
Knowledge sharing
Inter municipal
cooperation
Clear and
feasible targets
Treatment taxes
Optimization of
logistics
Producer responsibility
Use of secondary
raw material
Ecodesign
Raw material label

44. Demand side
Desired:
• Quality of recyclable
• Volume
• Consistency, reliable delivery
• Stable competitive prices
• Partnerships
Stimulations?
• CSR
• Prices?
• ... Regulation?
Packaging agreement, to be cherished?

45. Supply of recyclables:
New Methods in waste collection & separation

46. 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Deventer 1 7 8 9 19
Benchmark klasse C 3 6 8 8 9
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Hoeveelheid(kg/inw)
Deventer
Plastic verpakkingen (in kg/ inw)
- 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

47. - 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

48. - 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)
Good practices plastics

49. Technical separation
Promising results!
Quantities recycled compare to the best
(Omrin will be tired of discussions about
quality <> separation at source)

50. Collection innovations: Cash for Trash
• Financial reward for separated waste
• Centralized collection points

51. Cash for trash in practice

52. 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

53. Results of Cash for Trash
Development of participation
4
28
42
16
7 2
Twice per week or
more
Between once or twice
per week
Once per two weeks
Once per month
Less than once per
mont
Visitor frequency
70
15
10
5
Paper & cardboard
Plastic packaging
Textile
Small WEEE
Collection Result

54. Extra or shift?
Shift: 37% ; Extra: 24%

55. 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)

56. 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

57. Reversed Collection
Before After
Hoonhorst
(pilot area)
- 1900
inhabitants
- small village
- 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
- 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)

58. Results Reversed Collection

59. 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

60. 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

61. 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.

62. 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.

63. 100-100-100
Dutch social experiment in waste management
How? • 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)
Goals? 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

64. 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

65. Adequate service level
Dutch waste streams to be sorted:
a. WEEE;
b. Asbestos;
c. A-wood & B-wood;
d. C-wood;
e. Soil, separated following legal classifications;
f. Gas tanks, fire extinguishers, pressure equipment;
g. Car tires;
h. Roof waste;
i. Expanded polystyrene foam;
j. Mixed stone material, not being asphalt or gypsum;
k. Gypsum;
l. Gross garden waste;
m. Hard plastics;
n. Mattresses;
o. Metals;
p. Paper and cardboard;
q. Textiles, not being carpet;
r. Flat glass
s/z. …..?

66. Flexible solutions for more innovations

67. 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?)

68. 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?

69. 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
debaedts@nvrd.nl
www.nvrd.nl/english
Twitter: @erikafval (Erik Waste)

70. EXTRA, IN CASE WE HAVE SOME TIME….

71. Planetary Boundaries
71

72. Global situation
Production, consumption and…

73. Global situation
Production, consumption and… waste!

74. Consumer/
Citizen
Municipalities/
Waste sector
Producer
The ideal for our current production process

75. The real end of our current production process…
90% landfilling in Brasil, no better in Asia & Africa
75
Health, Hygiene
Environment, Climate
Social Responsibility
=> Sustainable?

77. 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!

78. Scarce resources

79. Exporting resources still

80. Geo-strategy

81. 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

82. Design
Carpet /
Fashion
Production
Retail
Consumption
2009 © NVRD
Design
Resources
Production
Marketing
Consumption
Resources
Sector
Design
Industry
Consumption
Textile Aluminium Electronics
- Knowledge
- Sorting (treatment)
- Logistics
X/Y/Z Instruments
Ecodesign
Producers
Responsibility?
Reimbursement
schemes?
Positive
triggers?
Waste Management
Resource efficiency in Europe: towards a green economy

83. Motor of the green economy, with cross-cutting impact
83
Relevance Waste management & Recycling

84. Meanwhile
Outside the waste industry

85. Prices for commodities

86. Current,
linear
system
tekst- Extraction of 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
- 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
System challenge

87. Solutions?

88. 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
Opportunities

89. Solutions?

91. Solutions?

92. Sustainable entrepreneurship

93. 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...?

94. So, this circular economy
Impossible, but doable