Scottish Government

SECTION SIX NETHERLANDS

6.1 While the Netherlands have achieved one of the highest rates for recycling and composting municipal waste in the EU, it highlights the restrictions on achieving high rates of recycling in urban areas were the population density is high and a high proportion of inhabitants live in flatted accommodation.

6.2 RRF (2004) reports that across the Netherlands, the best performing areas are sparsely populated rural areas where recycling and composting rates can be 50% or more mainly due to higher organics recycling (typically diverting 250-300 of waste material kg/person/year). By contrast, urban areas achieve a significantly lower rate of recycling and composting with only two cities achieving a rate higher than 30% and the biggest cities achieving 15% (Amsterdam and Rotterdam).

Targets and trends

6.3 Recycling and composting rates in the Netherlands have grown steadily but appear to have recently reached a plateau at around 45-50% around five years ago ( RRF, 2004) . However the most recent figures from Eurostat (2008) show that recycling and composting of municipal waste in the Netherlands has reached 64%.

Drivers of change

6.4 In addition to a physical constraint on landfill development, Hill et al (2002) report that there has been growing public pressure to manage waste more effectively, particularly given the awareness about dioxin emissions from incineration plants, and their impact on milk quality, and pollution from landfill sites.

6.5 RRF (2004) reports that prior to 2002, planning for waste management was a provincial responsibility but now a national activity and co-ordination between national government and municipalities is provided by Afval Overleg Orgaan ( AOO).

Waste Infrastructure

6.6 There are mandatory separate kerbside collections of recyclables (introduced in 1990) and kitchen and garden wastes (since 1994) by municipalities and it is estimated that 80% of households participate ( RRF, 2004). Household plastics are not collected as studies have shown their collection and processing to be uneconomic ( RRF, 2004).

6.7 REMADE Scotland (2007) reports that PAYT schemes for household waste are operated on a differentiated tariff by 21% of municipalities with volume or volume/frequency being the most common methods to differentiate charges. Also, deposit-refund programmes are in operation for bottles and batteries.

6.8 With regard to processing infrastructure, the Netherlands has 23 composting plants with a combined annual capacity of 1.6 million tonnes and 11 EfW plants with a capacity of 5 million tonnes per annum ( RRF, 2004). Hill et al (2002) report that the government controls 10 out of 11 incinerators and incineration capacity has been voluntarily kept under optimal capacity to prevent incineration from competing with recycling.

Market for recyclates

6.9 There is a government certification scheme to ensure recycled product quality in an effort to encourage the development of markets for recyclates. Recycled goods are thought of as being priced competitively (due to the lower cost of secondary resources compared to primary resources), although, according to some, there is some resistance because consumers and producers tend to favour primary materials (Hill et al, 2002). A covenant between the paper industry and municipalities guarantees that industry will accept all the paper materials collected at a price that covers costs ( RRF, 2004).

Policy levers

6.10 An overview of policy packages that have been used, and are in use, are provided in the table below.

Fiscal

6.11 Taxes haven been levied for waste sent to landfill and incineration in the Netherlands since 1995 ( EEA, 2005). RRF (2004) reports that the introduction of landfill taxes caused a reduction in the landfilling of municipal waste by a factor of three, from 3.5 million tonnes in 1992 to 1.2 million tonnes in 2001. Landfill tax for combustible waste currently stands at €89.91 per tonne ( CEWEP, 2007). The gate fee for incineration plants was €70-75 per tonne in 2004, and was set high to incentivise recycling ( RRF, 2004).

6.12 The Netherlands make variable charges for the collection of household residual waste with payment according to either the weight or volume of waste. In addition, the compulsory separate collection of recyclables has increased recycling and composting rates (see section 4.4 above).

6.13 Eunomia (2006) cites a study conducted for the VROM (The Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment) by KPMG in 1995-1996 which concluded that differentiated tariff ( DIFTAR) schemes resulted in a 12%-30% reduction in the collection of household refuse which can be broken down as follows:

• 6 - 8% due to improved sorting by householders
• 3 - 10% due to 'unintended activity'
• 3 - 12% due to genuine prevention measures (calculated)

6.14 REMADE Scotland (2007) reports that there are pre-paid levies on some goods e.g. electric and electronic appliances and Hill et al (2002) report that grants are available to consumers buying energy efficient households goods. Revenues generated by waste disposal charges and taxes in the Netherlands are not tied to funding environmental schemes but contribute to the general budget ( EEA, 2005).

Legislative

6.15 In 1995, the Dutch government prohibited the landfilling of wastes such that only waste that cannot be reused or recycled can be landfilled, at the same time, banning 32 categories of waste, including combustible wastes and bio-wastes. The landfill ban has since been extended to 35 categories of waste ( CEWEP, 2007).

6.16 As noted, there are mandatory separate kerbside collection of recyclable (introduced in 1990) and kitchen and garden wastes (since 1994) by municipalities.

Information campaigns

6.17 An awareness campaign is run to stimulate waste separation and prevent of household waste ( REMADE Scotland, 2007).

Research and Development

6.18 REMADE Scotland (2007) reports that in 2001, the government introduced grants schemes for innovative collection techniques.