Waste management in the Netherlands. Herman Huisman RWS Environment

Transcription

1 Waste management in the Netherlands Herman Huisman RWS Environment Vancouver, July

2 The Netherlands 17 million Inhabitants km2 7,4 million households 12 provinces 400 Municipalities 60 million tons waste 9,2 million tons Household waste Downstream large European rivers Surrounded by Industrialized area's of Belgium, Germany 2 2 >> Focus on environment

3 Situation 1990/1991 Rapid growing waste volumes 157 landfills, partly not well equipped; capacity sufficient for only few years ahead Insufficient incineration capacity: 5 incinerators closed because of dioxin emissions Low recovery rates: 55% for all waste streams together Separate collection of household waste: only 16% Lack of cooperation between the three layers of government Provincial borders closed for waste transports Lack of data on waste and a small scaled, inefficient waste sector 3

4 Waste management Council Established in based on a co-operation agreement between the three layers of government Council (political level); scientific staff Advisory members from environmental- and, consumers organisations and industry Tasks: draw up national waste management plan Asked by NGO s: draw up special programs on separate collection of bio waste, residential and commercial recyclables and starting a information centre on prevention and recycling Council existed until 2005: waste at that time wasn t a political issue anymore and the authority shifted from provincial to national government 4

5 Elements of waste policy Waste hierarchy: prevention, re-use, material recycling, energy-recovery, incineration, land filling Economic instruments to steer the waste to the preferred treatment Stringent standards for disposal and recycling: decrees on landfill and incineration, standards for building materials, organic fertilizers, ban on landfill Planning at National level: starting with concessions for collection and treatment, nowadays market approach and integral national waste planning Cooperation between 3 levels of government: municipal, regional and national Education and communication to create awareness and enhance participation with separate collection schemes Producers responsibility: legal as well as non legal systems for car tires, batteries, Weee, ELV, packaging Notification and registration of waste transports: from separate to one integral system of registration and notification of waste transports Control and enforcement 5 5 >> Focus on environment waste management department

6 Netherlands performance in Municipal waste management

7 Hybrid responsibility Municipality -Residual waste -Bio waste -Bulky waste Producer/Importer -Cars/end of live vehicles -Car tires -Electronic and electric waste -Batteries -Paper and cardboard -Packaging Duty of care: Paid by citizens (municipal waste tax) EPR: Paid by consumers/producersimporters (recycling fee or included in price) 7 7 >> Focus on environment

8 Reduce losses: 10 to 5 million tonnes in 10 years Improve municipal solid waste recycling: 50% now, 75% in Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu 23 juli 2014

9 To Conclude Focus in EU and NL is at source separation of recyclables In NL targets are 60% recycling of residential waste in 2015 and 75% in 2020 Prevention/Re-use opportunity for a quantitative target? Recycling Increase the 50% MSW and 70 % C & D targets? Increase the existing packaging targets? New recycling targets for other waste streams which ones? Energy recovery limited to non-recyclable waste? Disposal "zero" landfilling/incineration of untreated waste Landfilling virtually eliminated 9

10 Thank you for listening! 10

11 High performance in waste management 1 Waste tracking And monitoring system High recycling rates All waste: 80% Residential waste: 52% Professional and competitive waste sector 11

12 MBT or WtE Low(er) investment cost, higher variable cost Uncertainty of RDF market: only way out are cement-kilns (high tariffs are stringent specifications) or WtE no complete decomposition of organic fraction (max 50%), therefore uncertainty of meeting the standards of EU Landfill directive Not final solution; only temporally Vulnerable solution with high risk Average gate fee (105 /t), prices going up No new facilities or extensions of capacity planned Higher investment cost, but revenues from energy production No problems with fractions or residues (slag's/ashes) No problem meeting air quality standards Possibilities for increasing energy production (steam and electricity); synergy possibilities with sewage sludge treatment Average gate fee 80 /t; prices going down Many initiatives for extensions and new plants 12

13 Responsibilities of EPR organisations (on behalf of PI s) Create a stable collection system Create awareness and environmentally responsible behavior Contribute to design for recycling and ecodesign Prevent illegal trade and export Annual Reporting on collection and recycling performance Environment Ministry EPR regulation and control Batteries WEEE Packaging Car tyres ELV Window Panes >> Focus on environment

14 Recent analysis 14 Data source: BIO IS, commissioned by the European Commission

15 Break down costs of municipal waste management 2010 treatment bulky 7% indirect costs 16% other 0% paper 2% collection organic 6% composting organic 5% collection residual 21% collection bulky 13% treatment residual 30% Landelijk Afvalbeheer Plan >> Focus on environment 15

16 Potential questions and answers 1. Key issues MSW today: slowing down increase recycling rate MSW. New policies and targets introduced: Circular economy 2. Prevention plans compulsory for all MS in 2013 (WFD). 3. Reducing waste difficult theme (freedom of consumption); source separation targets in Wfd, and different waste stream directives 4. EPR compulsory in many waste streams (directives on E-waste, car tires, ELV, batteries and accumulators) 5. Residual waste contains too much organics to landfill, therefore MBT and Wte reduce biodegradable content. 6. Landfill taxes turned out to be a very effective instrument to reduce landfilling and stimulate recycling (especially commercial, C&D and industrial waste reacts very quick) 7. Landfill bans of untreated waste, various waste categories (tires, hospital waste) and recyclables 8. Wte overcapacity in countries exists; but when Wte facilities have R1 status, imports are allowed 9. Waste tracking systems are compulsory (in EU regulation all facilities need to have registers, but several countries have electronic web-based systems in place 16

17 Landfill tax and landfilled waste Landfill tax ( per tonnes) Ammount land filled (Million tonnes) "Landfill Tax" "Waste land filled" year - 17

18 Driving sustainability UK waste management perspective Phil Conran and Vicki Cooper 360 Environmental Ltd

19 European diversion influences EU Emission controls saw widespread closure of mass-burn incinerators in late 90 s Waste Framework Directive requires waste management plans, applies a waste disposal hierarchy and controls standards Landfill Directive requires reduction of organic household waste to landfill European Renewable Energy Directive key driver for Anaerobic Digestion Extended Producer responsibility applied to packaging (since 1997), WEEE (2007) and Batteries (2010) Collection of source separated residential and IC&I materials from 1 Jan % Prevention Preparing for reuse Recycling Other recovery Dispose UK Renewable energy target 15%

20 Historical UK recycling policy Residential Government recycling targets late 90 s and early 2000 s European organic waste diversion from landfill targets IC&I European Producer responsibility General Landfill Tax Renewable energy support 7% 1997 Reduction from 1995 levels 75% 50% 25% 2000/ %

21 Current recycling policy Devolved governments now driving regional approach Circular Economy is the key long term strategic driver Government has stopped Private Finance Initiative investment in large scale infrastructure Flat-lining residential recycling causing a rethink on policy to meet EU 2020 targets 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,

22 UK waste economy Benefits Clear national borders that restrict movement of waste outside the UK for disposal One UK Landfill Tax rate Common European diversion drivers National renewable energy support However Increasing divergence between UK devolved Governments Strong ambition in Scotland and Wales Minimal ambition beyond EU requirements in England Waste collection and disposal devolved to local political level with little consistency of approach Widespread local resistance to large waste infrastructure projects

23 What has been achieved? Landfill Tax vs Landfill inputs Landfill Tax rate /tonne m tonnes /tonne Total waste to landfill IC&I waste to landfill Residential waste to landfill 0 0 UK Landfill Tax has been the biggest driver on reductions to landfill Majority of diversion achieved through recycling growth Mass-burn re-development delayed by widespread local resistance strong lobbying by Greenpeace and FoI in early 2000s Renewable energy policy has driven development of Anaerobic digestion market

24 English residential recycling statistics 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% England m tonnes Landfill % 40% 30% 20% 10% Mass burn % Recycled/ composted % Total 0% / / / / / / / / / / / / /13 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% London m tonnes Landfill % Mass burn % Recycled/ composted % 2000/ / / / / / / / / / / / /13 Total m tonnes

25 Expansion of source separated Government residential recycling targets set on Local Authorities in late 90 s/early 2000s Majority of growth through source separated diversion Recent recycling growth has been achieved through addition of source separated food collection

26 Waste food collection Focus has been on source separated collections AD plants eligible for renewable energy incentives Digestate can only be used for agriculture where waste is source separated food Waste into AD plants counts as recycling

27 Residual garbage processing Waste to energy mass burn 30 mass-burn incinerators with 30 in planning Siting challenges due to public perception on output and truck movements Finance challenges due to high capital cost and need for long term feedstock Refuse Derived Fuel exports now affecting UK mass-burn investment mtonnes UK RDF exports

28 Residual garbage processing MBT/dirty MRFs Not successful with dry recyclable recovery Main purpose is now to recover organics for AD Secondary is to extract more recyclables and prepare residual waste for mass-burn High capital and energy costs Described by one current operator as basket case in today s market MBT-source feedstock for AD creates unrecoverable digestate that attracts Landfill Tax if used for landfill cover

29 European targets From 1 Jan 2015, paper/card, glass, plastic and metals should be separately collected from residential and IC&I streams May demand removal of glass from source separated collections Domestic recycling targets 50% by 2020 rising to 70% by 2030 Packaging waste recycling targets (EPR) 55% rising to 80% by 2030 Ban on landfill of recyclable material by 2025 Reduction in food waste of 30% on 2017 levels by 2030 EU recycling targets 70% 43% 50% UK Packaging waste recycling targets 80% 55% 61% EU UK EU

30 Summary position Landfill diversion primarily achieved through increased source separation Main focus of government policy has been residential waste Landfill Tax has been key driver for IC&I and more recently, residential waste Most food waste now collected separately Renewable energy targets driving AD development MBT growth has been limited by output markets Stagnating recycling growth raising challenges for UK government in relation to EU ambition