The document summarizes the outlook for the Dutch waste management sector between 1990-2020. It describes the transition from primarily landfilling waste in the 1990s to increased recycling and waste prevention today. By 2020, 50% of household waste and 70% of construction waste in the EU must be recycled. The Netherlands has developed one of the top waste management systems in the EU, recycling around 80% of its waste. However, with overcapacity expected in waste incineration by 2020, the Netherlands may import more waste from other EU countries like the UK and Ireland that have yet to develop adequate waste treatment infrastructure.

1. 1
The transition of waste management
towards the materials roundabout
Ronald de Vries, Rabobank International IKT
ronald.de.vries@rabobank.com
Contact
R. de Vries, Rabobank International Industrial Knowledge Team (IKT), Croeselaan 28, 3521 CB Utrecht,
The Netherlands. Postal address: P.O. Box 17100, 3500 HG Utrecht, The Netherlands.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This paper gives an outlook on the Dutch waste management sector until 2020. In 2012 Rabobank
developed a waste management sector analysis for The Netherlands which has been accepted by the
Dutch Waste Management Association (DWMA, 2012). This paper summarizes the latest results.
Background of this paper has been related to a sector analysis “Renewable resources and waste
management go hand in hand”, (Vries de R, 2013) for the benefit of the Netherlands Waste
Management Platform (Rabobank, 2013).
This paper aims to summarize the outlook of the Dutch waste management sector in the 1990–2020
period: Three decades in which The Netherlands waste management system has entered a transition
from land filling (nineties) towards treatment, recycling and prevention (last decade), with an
outlook to play an international key role in the development of the circular economy of renewable
resources.
The methods for the assessment of the Dutch waste management sector consist of an analysis of (1)
the waste market (2) the trends in the 1990 – 2012 period in relation to the waste management plans
like LAP1 and LAP2 and the applicable regulatory framework (4) the waste sector outlook and
strategic options for the 2013 – 2020 period in relation to the latest insights of waste volume
developments, potential waste scenario’s and opportunities for waste import developments.
The growth in recycling market (volume and turnover) is stimulated by regulatory decisions and
increasing price levels, resulting into the trend of structurally higher recycling rates and a shift
towards the “materials roundabout”. In Europe the majority of recyclables are still produced as a
result of the obligation to comply with the regulations to reduce landfill activities. By 2020 50% of
household rubbish and 70% of construction and demolition waste must be recycled in the entire EU.
Due to the lack of modern treatment capacity in a number of European member states (we still have
18 landfill states), the Netherlands will be an attractive importing country for the coming decade.
Countries which start to depart from their landfill signature will invest first in a resilient recycling
infrastructure. The expectation is that in the 2013 – 2020 period the over capacity of energy from
waste facilities in the Netherlands can be mitigated by an increased import from the United
Kingdom and Ireland. Even in case some current landfill countries will build capital intensive
treatment capacity for residual waste, these import opportunities will remain present until 2020.

2. 2
1. INTRODUCTION
The level of the Dutch Waste Management practices belong to the TOP 5 of EU-27 countries. During the last
20 years the Dutch waste management sector has been developed to a fully mature and environmentally full
compliant level. Since the economic downturn, less waste is produced, and margins become under pressure.
The effect of economic downturn and higher recycling rates will lead to a decrease of volumes in the waste
treatment market. What will be the outlook in longer term?
2. Overview of the Dutch waste market in a European context
In Europe 2.7 billion tons of waste are produced annually, (EC, 2011). On average 40% of our solid waste is
usefully reused or recycled and the rest is going to landfills or incineration, see figure 1.
The landfill consequences for the environment are detrimental: air, water and soil pollution and the emission
of greenhouse gases. That is why the European Union (EU) has come up with policies and approaches to
stimulate (i) waste prevention, (ii) reuse, (iii) recycling (iv) recovery to reduce environmental damage. “If
waste is to become a resource to be fed back into the economy as a raw material, then much higher priority
needs to be given to re-use and recycling. A combination of policies would help create a full recycling
economy, such as product design integrating a life-cycle approach, better cooperation along all market actors
along the value chain, better collection processes, appropriate regulatory framework, incentives for waste
prevention and recycling, as well as public investments in modern facilities for waste treatment and high
quality recycling”, (EC, 2011). Therefore, the revised Waste Framework Directive 1
(EC, 2008) was
introduced to set the 50% target for recycling of municipal waste comprising at least paper, metal, plastic and
glass; and a 70% target for construction and demolition waste, both to be met by 2020.
Figure 1 Waste Volumes treated in the EU-27 Figure 2 Waste management in the Netherlands
(Eurostat, 2013) (Min. I&M, 2013a)
Within the EU, the Netherlands is a leading country in the recovery of raw materials from waste. In 2010,
approximately 60 Mton waste was produced annually, of which 84% materials was recycled and 11% energy
is recovered in energy-from-waste (EfW-) plants (at that time a mixture of D10 and R1 facilities), see figure
2. The remaining incombustible waste was land filled. As such, the Netherlands is part of the top 5 of the 27
EU member states when it comes to prevention, materials reuse and recycling, and energy recovery. Can it
be even better and more effective? The Dutch Government and businesses agree on this: first of all by more
1
Directive 2008/98/EC sets the basic concepts and definitions related to waste management, such as definitions of
waste, recycling, recovery. It explains when waste ceases to be waste and becomes a secondary raw material (so called
end-of-waste criteria), and how to distinguish between waste and by-products.
0
500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
2004 2006 2008 2010
Mton p.a.
Development of waste treatment
in the EU-27 in 2004 - 2010
Recovery (recycling, excl. energy recovery)
Incineration / energy recovery
Disposal (excl. incineration)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2006 2008 2010
MTon p.a.
Waste production and treatment
in the Netherlands in 2006 - 2010
Recovery (recycling, excl. energy recovery)
Incineration / energy recovery
Disposal (excl. incineration)

3. 3
prevention and by utilization of value from waste via reuse and recycling. And secondly by more cooperation
with other member states that need to improve their recycling and recovery targets, see chapter 4.
3. The trends in the 1990 – 2012 period
The total Dutch waste market developed from c. 50 Mton p.a to more than 60 Mton in the last two decades.
During the nineties waste volumes grew fairly quickly, with an average of 2.3% year on year (YoY), while
the gross domestic product grew with an average of 3.2%. In that decade the decoupling between GDP and
waste growth was present already: c. 1% YoY difference between GDP and waste growth. But after 2000 (in
which a peak of 64 Mton came available) the volume slightly decreased to 59.9 Mton (2010). In the last
decade the decoupling between growth of GDP (YoY 1.6%) and waste volumes (YoY -0.5%) was 2.1% over
the 2000-2010 period, see figure 3. In other words: the growth of waste volumes is c. 2% lower than the
growth of the GDP. This is an important trend development which will be used in forecasting waste volumes
for the next decade (see next chapter).
Figure 3 Growth of waste volumes in the Netherlands and the relation with GDP growth
[Min. I&M, 2013a
Due to the economic downturn (2009) waste production decreased with -3%, but even more in some
subsectors. In the 2008 – 2010 period municipal waste volumes declined with -2%, industrial waste with -4.6%
(in 2009 -11%), and construction and demolition (C&D) waste volumes declined with -3.4% in the 2009-
2010 period. The impact of the economic downturn is visible in figure 4 in which a breakdown of waste
volumes into waste categories is presented including the YoY growth rates for each and the average of all
waste categories over the 2005-2010 period.
Two third of all waste is produced by the private sectors, as industrial and construction waste. Industrial
waste and construction and demolition (C&D) waste represent c. 40 Mton waste volume. Recycling in these
categories has reached the highest levels: between 92% and 97%. Secondary materials such as rubble, (non)-
ferro, sand, wood, etc. are efficiently recovered.
One third (c. 20 Mton p.a.) comes from the public sector, as residential (municipal) and commercial waste
from trade, service and government. Recycling is organized via separate collection and / or post treatment
downwards in the value chain, at recycling rates between 52% and 60%.
For the 2011 – 2012 period (waste statistics are not available yet) it seems to be plausible that the growth of
waste volumes show an ongoing downward trend: c. -1.7% in the 2011 – 2012 period. GDP growth in 2011
and 2012 appeared to be 1% and -0.6% respectively. This will result into a total waste volume at the end of
2012E of c. 58 MTon p.a.
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
WasteproducedMTonp.a
Dutch correlation GDP and Waste Volumes
Waste Volume Mton p.a Waste Volume YOY % GDP %

4. 4
Figure 4 Waste volumes per category and their annual growth trends, [Min. I&M, 2013a]
Figure 5 depicts the results of these assumptions including a breakdown of subcategories of recovery via net
export and domestic re-use and recycling, recovery (R1 energy from waste), disposal (incineration under the
D10 classification and landfill).
Figure 5 Waste management practices according to the classification of the WFD (2008/98/CE)
4. The applicable regulatory framework
With the revision of the Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC), waste management practices are (re-)
defined by a classification which makes distinction between recovery (in which material recovery prevails
above energetic recovery). Below most of the definitions are given:
 preparation for re-use: checking, cleaning or repairing recovery operations, by which products or
components of products that have become waste are prepared so that they can be re-used without any
other pre-processing;
 recycling: recovery operation by which waste materials are reprocessed into products, materials or
substances whether for the original or other purposes; it includes the reprocessing of organic material but
does not include energy recovery and the reprocessing into materials that are to be used as fuels of
backfilling operations;
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
WasteProducedMTonp.a.
Waste categories in the Netherlands
volumes and growth rates
Municipal Commercial (trade / services / government)
Construction & Demolition (C&D) Industrial
Other (transport / agriculture / energy / waste / water) Industrial YoY [%}
Construction and Demolition YoY [%] Commercial YoY [%]
Municipal YoY [%] Average YoY [%]
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011E 2012E
Waste Produced MTon p.a
Waste management practises in
the Netherland 1990 - 2012
Recovery via net waste export Re-Use & Recycling Recovery of energy
Incineration Landfill Other
Recycling rate (incl. R1 EfW) Recycling rate (excl. R1 EfW)

5. 5
 energy recovery via digestion, co-firing in power plants, bio-energy plants and energy from waste plants
 disposal via incineration such as incineration of sewage sludge or thermal treatment of contaminated
soils, without energy recovery or in case energy efficiency rates are too low to achieve the status of
energy recovery (R1)2
 other disposal via discharge of non-contaminated water.
The new Waste Framework Directive applies waste recovery classifications which were translated into the
Dutch “Kader Richtlijn Afvalstoffen” (KRA). Recently, the Dutch waste statistics were recalculated by the
Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment (Min. I&M, 2013a). Recalculation has been provided for the
2006 – 2010 period, which gives a nice overview of the effectiveness of the Dutch performance in terms of
the new waste definitions. That’s the reason why in the period before 2006 the distinction between energy
recovery (R1) and incineration (D10, with or without energy recovery) is not presented in figure 5: From
2006 onwards two trend lines for recycling rates including - and excluding - energy recovery are presented.
The trend line for recycling - excluding energy recovery in R1-facilities – is 78% and relatively constant over
the last 5 years. In light of 2015 the goal was set to reach at least 83% materials reuse and recycling: 3%
more than in 2008. This increase of recycled materials should mostly come from municipal waste,
commercial services and the governmental sector, where recycling rates are relatively the lowest in the range
of 52 – 60%. This means that part of the waste that is currently still going to EfW plants – approximately 1.5
Mton per annum – is intended to circulate in the Raw Materials Roundabout in the near future.
In his letter: “More value from waste” (I&M, 2011) state secretary Mr. Atsma pointed out the consequences
of 3% more materials reuse in 2015 (in relation to 2008):
 1.5 - 2.0 MTon waste p.a. extra materials reuse as opposed to processing by EfW plants;
 from this, 1.0 to 1.5 Mton per annum is coming from household waste (source and post separation).
The focus is on more source and post separation of plastic packaging (+2%), textiles (+0.7%), electrical
equipment (+0.3%), compost waste and paper (+5% to +10%) and bulky household waste (+3%).
Meanwhile, the new state secretary Mrs. Mansveld has reported the initiative to shape the programme “waste
as a resource” (I&M, 2013b). Recycling and recovery targets are discussed and considered by the parties
involved (municipalities and the producers responsibility). By the end of 2013 it is expected to receive an
update on the existing waste management plan, “Landelijk Afvalbeheer Plan”, LAP2 (VROM, 2010), which
is still valid for the 2009 – 2015 period. In the new LAP-revision the new classifications (WFD and KRA)
will be available too.
An important subject for the new LAP will be the outlook until 2020, the impact of the new recycling and
recovery targets on future waste volumes, and the impact of future waste import and export developments
and expectations. Next to the recycling targets the development of waste import and export will have impact
on the Dutch waste management practices. Therefore, a closer look is given to the waste import and export
developments of the past years. In the next chapter the outlook until 2020 is evaluated, including an
assessment of future overcapacity in the EfW-plants and import expectations of combustible waste. With
regard to the ability to deal with import of combustible waste an R1-status of Dutch EfW facilities is an
important precondition. Already in 2010 the majority of EfW facilities (representing a capacity of c. 4.3
MTon waste incineration) received the R1 status. By 2011 all Dutch waste incineration plants – representing
7.5 MTon p.a capacity – were R1-registered. Because of efficiency improvements such as more heat/steam
2
The R1-status is related to 0,60 for installations in operation and permitted before 1 January 2009 and 0,65 for
installations permitted after 31 December 2008, according to the following formula:
Energy efficiency = (Ep ‐ (Ef + Ei))/(0,97 × (Ew + Ef))
In which:
 Ep: annual energy produced as heat or electricity. Energy in the form of electricity is multiplied by 2,6 and heat
produced for commercial use multiplied by 1,1 (GJ/year).
 Ef: annual energy input to the system from fuels contributing to the production of steam (GJ/year).
 Ei: annual energy imported excluding Ew and Ef (GJ/year).
 Ew:annual energy contained in the treated waste calculated using the net calorific value of the waste (GJ/year).
 0,97: the factor accounting for energy losses due to bottom ash and radiation.
This formula shall be applied in accordance with the reference document on Best Available Techniques for
waste incineration. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/pdf/guidance.pdf

6. 6
supply (district heating or process integration with neighboring industries). Figure 6 represents the latest R1-
values for the Dutch EfW-facilities. The average R1-value for all of them is c. 0.75 and slightly increasing.
Figure 6 Development of R1-values for Dutch EfW-facilities
This R1-status of EfW-facilities enables them to import waste from other EU-member states, for the purpose
of energy recovery. This is exactly what has happened in the 2010 – 2012 period: import of combustible
waste has grown from 2.1% (2010) to 6.4% (2011) up to 12.9% in 2012, (I&M, 2013b). In 2012 roughly 1
MTon was imported. 750 kton p.a came from the United Kingdom and the other 25% came from Ireland,
Italy, Germany and Belgium (c. 250 kton p.a.). With this import the existing overcapacity in Dutch EfW-
facilities– roughly 1 Mton p.a. – has been filled-up almost completely. Next to the waste import for energetic
recovery waste is imported and exported with the destination of material recovery (recycling): the “net waste
export” represented in figure 5. A detailed evaluation gives an indication of the size of the present materials
roundabout. Figure 7 and 8 represent the waste types whose import and export quantities were significantly
high; the 14 smallest types are gathered in the category “other”.
Figure 7 Waste import (recovery destination) Figure 8 Waste export (recovery destination)
(Min. I&M, 2013a) (Min. I&M, 2013a)
Waste import for recovery is fairly stable over the 2006 – 2010 period. Contaminated soil, sand and rubble
holds the largest share (c. 30%) share of the total import volume. In these figures the increase waste import
for EfW-facilities in the 2011-2012 period is not visible, but has grown to a 50% share in case the other
waste import volumes are assumed to be relatively constant. Waste export for recovery gradually decreases
with 5% (YoY) but after 2009 we see a slight increase. Wood export for chip board and energy recovery in
combined heat and power plants (Scandinavia) represent c. 40% share in the total export volume. The net
export gradually has decreased from c. 2 MTon p.a. in 2006 to 1.3 MTon p.a. in 2010 and in 2012 it is
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
1,2
R1Value
R1 value for EfW-facilities
Limit Value for R1 Value autumn 2011 Value summer 2012 Value summer 2013
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
waste volumes [kton p.a.]
Annual import for recovery
Other (14 waste streams) Remnants (mech. treatment)
RDF Non-hazardous waste
Hazardous waste Oily sludges
Wood Soil, sand and rubble
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
waste volumes [kton p.a.]
Annual waste export for recovery
Other (14 waste streams) Stony C&D
Remnants (mech. treatment) RDF
Non-hazardous waste Hazardous waste
Plastic / Rubber Wood

7. 7
expected that the net export is more than halved due to the large increase of waste import from the United
Kingdom (for energy recovery in energy-from-waste plants.
The next question is, how waste volumes will evolve towards 2020 including the impact of future
economical scenario’s, intended improvements of recycling and recovery rates, expectations of waste import
(for energy recovery) in relation to future expectations of over capacity. And finally the consequences for the
Dutch materials roundabout: future recycling rates including and excluding energetic recovery.
5. The waste sector outlook and strategic options for the 2013 – 2020
In the existing LAP2 waste scenario’s for 2021 assume an increase of waste production to a level of 66
MTon p.a (“Regional Communities”) or even 73 MTon p.a. (“Strong Europe”). Both scenarios assume a
growth of GDP of 0.7% and 1.2% respectively. These scenarios are designed in the period just before the
financial crisis and it was not possible to take into account the volume developments from 2009 onwards.
Therefore Rabobank has evaluated the waste volume developments including the latest intentions for higher
recycling rates (65%) for municipal waste, commercial waste and other categories. Two Rabobank scenarios
are assessed:
 Ongoing Recession: -0.4% (YoY) GDP without any further improvement of recycling rates, see figure 9;
 Recovered Economy: +1.4% (YoY) GDP including 65% recycling rates by 2016 for the targeted waste
categories, see figure 10.
Figure 9 Waste volumes in ongoing recession Figure 10 Waste volumes in recovered economy
Both Rabobank scenarios assume a decoupling between growth of GDP and waste volumes of -2%, the same
rate of decoupling in the last decade. In the most negative scenario (figure 9), the total waste volume will
decrease to c. 50 MTon p.a. in 2020. Recycling rates remain constant at 78%, but the recycled volumes will
decrease to c. 40 MTonp.a. The recycling rate including energy recovery (16% for EfW / co-firing etc.) will
remain constant at c. 93%.
In the most positive scenario (figure 10), representing the waste production in a recovered economy (after
2013), Rabobank assumes that the total annual waste volume production will remain constant at c. 60 MTon
p.a and the volume that will be recycled will arrive at c. 50 MTon p.a., the same level as before the
economical crisis. Figure 11 depicts the recycling rates in the two scenarios: in the most positive scenario,
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
MTon p.a.MTon p.a.
Rabobank waste scenario up to 2020
Recovered Economy
Other
R1 Bio-energy and co-firing
R1 EfW (excl. Import)
D10 (incineration and treatment)
Sludge incineration
Landfill
Re-use and recycling (right axis)
Total (right axis)
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
MTon p.a.MTon p.a.
Rabobank waste scenario up to 2020
Ongoing Recession
Other (left axis)
R1 Bio-energy and co-firing (left axis)
R1 EfW ecxl. Export (left axis)
D10 incineration and treatment (left axis)
Sludge incineration (left axis)
Landfill (left axis)
Re-use and recycling (right axis)
Total (right axis)

8. 8
the recycling rate will grow from 78% to 83% (in 2016), but the total recycling & recovery rate will remain
constant in both scenarios: c. 93-94%. In fact, more waste is recycled and less waste is applied for energy
recovery in EfW-facilities.
Figure 11 Recycling and recovery rates as function of waste scenarios of Rabobank International IKT
By the time of 2020 it is expected that the total waste for EfW-facilities will be c. 5 MTon p.a. If the existing
EfW-capacity of c. 7.5 MTon p.a. will remain in operation, the overcapacity will be c. 2.5 MTon p.a. in 2020
in both scenarios. This is half of the domestic combustible waste production in 2020: a significant level that
has to be filled up with structural waste imports, in case over capacity will not be reorganized. The question
is whether waste import for EfW-facilities can grow from 1 MTon in 2012 up to 2.5 MTon in 2020. In the
negative scenario these waste imports need to grow slower and more gradually. In the recovered economy
scenario – with higher recycling rates for household and commercial waste – waste imports need to speed up
to 2.5 MTon p.a in 2016, in order to fill up the rapidly increasing overcapacity.
Whereas 75% of the combustible waste import for energy recovery (750 kton p.a. in 2012) came from the
UK, the expectations of future import of UK-waste are assessed closer. A recent study performed by the
(CIWM, 2013) indicates that sufficient domestic supply in the UK and Ireland will not be available to treat
the residual combustible fraction of combustible waste, even if targets for landfill reduction in the UK and
Ireland are met until 2025, see figure 12.
Figure 12 Under capacity of EfW and co-firing options in the UK and Ireland (CIWM, 2013)
Combustible waste in the UK and Ireland is defined as Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) and Solid Recovered
Fuel (SRF). In the best case the present under-capacity (14 Mton p.a.) will be reduced to 5 Mton p.a. in 2025
in de UK and Ireland, assuming that all facilities with planning will be built. If no additional thermally
efficient plants will be developed on top of those which are planned already, we see a growth of export of
RDF and SRF to 5 Mton by 2025 but even more in the period before. It is a political choice of the UK and
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Recycling and Recovery Rates 2008 - 2021
Recycling & recovery rate (recovered economy) Material Recycling (recovered economy)
Recycling & recovery rate (ongoing recession) Material Recycling (ongoing recession)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Potential RDF/SRF
Production
Current Capacity Capacity under
construction
Current under-
capacity (2013)
Facilities with
planning consent
Undercapacity in 2025
Under-capacity in UK and Ireland
development in the 2013 - 2025 period

9. 9
Ireland to chose for extension of their domestic thermal treatment capacity, which surely will take 5 years
before it can have an impact on the predicted under-capacity trend. With increasing landfill taxes (£ 80 per
ton in 2014 in the UK) making the export of RDF the cheapest waste management option, the export route
becomes prevalent across the UK and Ireland in the period until 2020. In case the Netherlands are able to
secure 50% of this volume, 50% of the under-capacity in the UK will cover 100% of the over-capacity in the
Netherlands.
At present the level of over-capacity in the Netherlands and the proximity to the UK make the Netherlands
an attractive export market. The present top five countries receiving exports from England in 2012 were the
Netherlands (as the leading importer), Latvia (number 2), Germany and Denmark on a shared spot 3 and
Sweden and Norway as the fourth and fifth highest receivers of RDF/SRF exports from England and Wales.
A recent Swedish study has assessed the outlook of over-capacity of EfW-plants in 6 North West (NW)
European countries (Avfall Sverige, 2012) until 2020. These countries offer the opportunity to import
combustible waste from EU-states in which the majority of waste is still land filled (figure 13).
Figure 13 Waste management practices in 2009 (R1 and D10 distinction in EfW not foreseen)
(Eurostat, 2013) 3
According to this Swedish study the ability of these countries (The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany,
Denmark, Norway and Sweden) to import combustible waste for their R1-facilities will grow from 2.2 Mton
(2010) to 7.2 Mton (2020). But with the knowledge of the Rabobank waste scenarios presented in this paper,
the outlook of Dutch over-capacity seems to be under-estimated in the referred study. If the Dutch re-
calculated scenarios (figure 9 and 10) are compared to the study of Afval Sverige, then the ability to import
to the 6 NW EU countries will be c. 10 Mton in 2020. By that time the Netherlands need to maintain c. 25%
market share in the total import trade of combustible waste.
Waste export to R1 EfW facilities makes sense in case the alternative – disposal to landfills – can be avoided.
With reference to a report of CE (CE-Delft, 2012) an assessment of waste transport from the UK to the
Netherlands proves a positive CO2 footprint. The direct CO2 emissions from an EfW plant – c. 380 kg CO2
equivalent per ton waste – and the footprint from transport - c. 40 - 70 kg CO2 eq. per ton waste – will result
in c. 450 kg CO2 eq. per ton waste. But the avoided CO2-emissions as a result of energy recovery in the
EfW facilities – and thus avoidance of primary energy carriers in the Dutch energy mix – exceed the direct
emissions. In terms of life cycle analysis dimensions, the study confirms these conclusions in even higher
overall environmental footprint (due to the recovery of metals like aluminium).
With respect to the commodity prices of recycled and recovered secondary materials the latest trends show
modest price levels. Compared with the situation before the economical crisis, c. 2 Mton of old paper and
3
From Eurostat no more recent data could be retrieved
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php?title=File:Municipal_waste_treated_in_2009_by_countr
y_and_treatment_category,_sorted_by_percentage,_2011.PNG&filetimestamp=20110708153221
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Landfill Incineration Recycling Composting

10. 10
cardboard and the same amount of (non-) ferro’s were shipped to the Far East, (ICOVA, 2013). Nowadays
these exports have reduced significantly. One of the reasons is a lower economic growth in the Far East,
stricter quality demands and alternative supply by the US, which can take advantage of shorter transport
routes. These developments make it more relevant for the EU to create alternative markets for its recyclables,
especially since the targets to deviate from land filling and boost the material recovery from waste is
stimulated.
6. Conclusions
Rabobank scenarios for Dutch waste volumes indicate that the predicted growth in the LAP2 waste seems to
be too optimistic. Assumptions in the LAP2 are made before the economic crisis. In the view of Rabobank,
waste production will be limited to a volume between 50 and 60 Mton p.a. in 2020. Economic recovery and
the viability of recycling and recovery will be the most important drivers next to regulation and enforcement..
The Dutch over-capacity of EfW facilities is expected to grow to 2.5 Mton in the 2016 – 2020 period. The
recycling rate (including energy recovery) will remain c. 94%. In the next 2013 – 2020 period it seems
plausible that the Netherlands can strengthen its import position in the West European waste trade market,
where the majority of waste export comes from the UK and Ireland. In our view this will be the case for the
period until 2020.
The material roundabout struggles with lower world wide commodity prices. This confirms the assumption
that in the scenario of an ongoing recession the recycling rates will not grow fast, but need to be stimulated
or obliged by regulation. Meanwhile, import opportunities for energy recovery are growing to c. 2 – 5 Mton
p.a. in 2020.
Literature
CIWM, 2013 Research into SRF and RDF exports to other EU countries, Final Technical Report. AMEC
Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited, July 2013.
EC, 2013. European Commission, “Milieu: help mee van de EU een recyclingmaatschappij te maken”,
Reference: IP/13/509; http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-509_nl.htm
I&M, 2013a. Nederlands afval in cijfers, gegevens 2006 – 2010; 2013, February. Rijkswaterstaat,
Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu.
I&M, 2013b. Afvalbeheer, 15 april 2013. Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu.
Icova, 2013. Grondstoffen- en recyclingmarkt ontwricht door financiele crisis. Icova, 2013.
Rabobank, 2013. Netherlands Waste Management Platform, “Industry analysis and theme update waste
sector”, Rabobank International IKT
Avfall Sverige, 2012. Assessment of increased trade of combustible waste in the European Union. Rapport
F2012:04. Avfall Sverige utveckling.
CE, 2012. Verbranden in Nederland of storten in Groot-Brittanie?, Milieukundige analyse van de
verwerking van Brits huishoudelijk afval in Nederland, CE Delft, Februari, 2012.
DWMA, 2012. Dutch Waste Management Association, “Recycling benefits from combustible waste
imports”
EC, 2011. European Commission, “Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe”, Brussels, September
20th 2011.
VROM 2010 LAP2 “Landelijk afvalbeheerplan 2009 – 2021”, 16 februari 2010, naar een
materiaalketenbeleid. Ministerie van VROM.
EC, 2008. Directive 2008/98/EC on waste (Waste Framework Directive);
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/