You are on page 1of 65

2017

Transition reward
proposal for recycling
municipal waste

COCREATIONS.SPACE

1
Abstract

This is a report for municipalities, governments and stakeholders to analyze the effects of introducing
a new recycling container with an transition fund1: that would financially reward households2 per
kilogram of separated; packaged or food waste based on the packagings weight3.
The new public good termed recycling containers, are adapted underground bins and new part-
underground bins, with an advanced inspecting and financial rewarding mechanism. Upon correct
source-separated disposal in the recycling container the transition fund would redistribute back to
the disposer: approximately 2.1 percent of the total 21 percent v.a.t. that was previously paid upon
consumption, hereafter referred to as 10 percent of v.a.t.. In the short term it is also proposed that
2.1 percent to 1.05 percent of v.a.t. would be included in the transition fund to be allocated to the
recycling container owner.

The purpose of the transition fund is to fix the information asymmetry for source-separated
municipal waste and thereby remove the quality uncertainty; using a inspecting and rewarding
mechanism that enables an higher market price for a peach rather than an uncertain averaged
lemon Akerlof4 price for separated municipal waste. The recycling containers, inspect contents
for lemons, in order to secure a high return on investment from peaches, by receiving: the existing
EPR rewards5, the resale value of contents and a proposed portion of the transition fund in the short
term.


1
Setting up a stimulation - or transition fund or a sort of lending facility that can help municipalities to take the first
necessary steps towards the realization of ambitious policy objectives. P48, Uitvoeringsprogramma VANG Huishoudelijk
Afval

2
Mapping potential reward systems for improved waste separation for household waste and/or the reduction of residual
waste. P48, Uitvoeringsprogramma VANG - Huishoudelijk Afval
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2014/12/01/uitvoeringsprogramma-vang-huishoudelijk-afval
3
See P16
4
"Paper The Market for Lemons: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism" by George Akerlof
5
https://www.nedvang.nl/uploads/20170411_Vergoedingen_sheet.pdf

2
Table of contents

Introduction.... P4

Established EPR Rewards.. P6

Transition fund... P11

Financial numbers for the transition fund ..... P13

Recycling containers.. P21

Recycling container manufacturer. P28

Financing the recycling collection machinery P29

Recycling container return of investment... P31

Circular economy processing centres Netherlands. P45

Pilot project P48

Established DRS - deposit return schemes P52

Public demand for a circular economy .. P54

Economic demand.. P58

Final recycling in China. P61

Transition fund conclusion. P64

3
Introduction

The purpose of this circular economy innovation action6 is to enable citizens to participate in the
transition to recycle the majority complex municipal waste stream into circular raw materials, by
upgrading collection technologies for packaged household waste.
The recycling container should be able to properly inspect disposed municipal waste contents and
provide sufficient financial incentivize for
households to accurately separate obsolete
municipal waste per category of plastic, food,
glass, metal, paper, drink cartons and small electronics. The disposer will
7
be financially rewarded when the disposed separated municipal waste only contains one material
category; verified by the machines weight scale and x-ray baggage scanning inspection system.

The transition funds implementation could increase the supply of raw material to the optical sorting
recycling industry, whose outputs would increase the supply of raw materials market for the
packaging industry, this would: raise tax revenues, generate high skilled jobs in economy, lower
packaging production costs, reduce raw materials imports, fix market failure in the raw materials
production market, increase public goods made available by municipalities, redistribute government
income for desired behavior and contribute in the attainment of recycling rate targets.

In order to validate the transition funds and recycling containers proposal, first a pilot project
should be undertaken to test the projects potential in terms of: citizens acceptance/usage, augmented
recycling rate, economic revenues and costs, governments cost and gains and environmental impact.
In the selected municipality for the project, one to five recycling containers8 should be placed near
several local supermarkets. Providing residents living in a diameter of 5 Km with an access & balance
account card and various colored bin bags (70cm L x 45cm H x 34 cm W). The residents access card,


6
'innovation action' means an action primarily consisting of activities directly aimed at producing plans and arrangements or
designs for new, altered or improved products, processes or services. For this purpose they may include prototyping, testing,
demonstrating, piloting, large-scale product validation and market replication;
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/wp/2016_2017/annexes/h2020-wp1617-annex-d-ia_en.pdf

7
Behavioral studies show money matters and extrinsic rewards like money actually increase motivation.
Performance of recycling = ability to separate and inspect >< motivation of households to separate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reward_management
8
Recycling machinery that will maximize the separation and recycling of produced waste. P7 Uitvoeringsprogramma
VANG - Huishoudelijk Afval

4
unlocks any of the recycling containers nearby, where-in the separated household waste contents can
be placed, weighted, x-ray baggage scanned, transported internally and stored on site for collection.

5
Established EPR Rewards

The financial return for the financier or municipality investing in the recycling container should arise
in part from existing EPR rewards extended producer responsibility rewards: The EPR reward
mechanism has already been established in multiple countries, in the Netherlands the EPR reward
scheme is regulated by Nedvang who allocates the EPR rewards to support municipalities in
reaching waste recycling rate targets,9 whom in turn pay recycling businesses in the region to sort non
treated household packaged waste into upgraded to be further recycled content. Nedvang provides
financial rewards, per 1000 K.G. or 1 ton of sorted household waste, ranging from 0.7 cents per K.g.
to 76 cents per k.g of recycled municipal waste: for Paper carton A - 46.78 Euros per ton, carton B
7.31 Euros per ton, Glass fur - 46.78 Euros per ton, Glass colour separated 58.48 Euros per ton,
plastics 756 Euros per ton, Metal packaging 70.17 Euros per ton, drinking cartons - 398 Euros per
ton.


https://www.nedvang.nl/uploads/20170411_Vergoedingen_sheet.pdf
9

6
https://www.nedvang.nl/uploads/20170411_Vergoedingen_sheet.pdf

A large quantity of household waste consists of obsolete plastic packaging, in different hard and
mainly soft polymer types. Even when plastic packaging is collected solely as a separate source, the
different types of plastic waste still need to be sorted into the various types of polymers categories to
become a further recyclable market product, this is done through optical sorting and costs around 200-
300 Euros per ton against the EPR revenues of 756 Euros per ton received by the municipality.
Other recyclable materials like paper 47 E and metal 70 E, provide lower EPR rewards, they
however shouldnt need sorting first and should provide a higher resale value of around 100 E per ton,
based fluctuating recycling market prices in the Far East.

The established EPR rewards are financed by an EPR tax charged to producers of household
packaged products. In the Netherlands Afvalfonds verpakkingen charges the EPR fees to producers
for bringing household packaged product onto the national marketplace, they charge producers the
following: glass - 56 Euros per ton, paper - 22 Euros per ton, plastics - 640 Euros per ton,
biodegradable plastics - 20 Euros per ton, aluminium - 20 Euros per ton, other metals 20 Euros per
ton, wood 20 euros per ton, average tariff 770 Euros per ton, drinking cartons - 180 Euros per ton,
deposit bottles - 20 Euros per ton, plastics without deposit 750 Euros per ton, expressed in Euros per
kilogram:

7
https://afvalfondsverpakkingen.nl/verpakkingen/alle-tarieven

Similar EPR scheme regulators present in other EU countries are; DSD Duales system Deutschland10 -
Germany, Fost plus - Belgium and others11, these organizations manage national EPR regulations and
are members of EXPRA12- an international organization that deals with producers of household
packaged items. A household packaging producer that signs a contract with an EXPRA member
becomes exempt from its own responsibility to take back and/or recycle used packaging material


10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oylK48Y1xDc
11
The current members of EXPRA are Fost Plus (Belgium), Ecopack (Bulgaria), Green Dot Cyprus, EKO-KOM
(Czech Republic), Valorlux (Luxembourg), Greenpak (Malta), CONAI (Italy), Eco-Rom Ambalaje (Romania),
ENVI-PAK (Slovakia), EcoEmbes (Spain), Nedvang (the Netherlands), Green Dot Norway, ko Pannon
(Hungary), TMIR (Israel), CEVKO (Turkey), Herrco (Greece) and PAKOMAK (Macedonia).
http://www.expra.eu/en/about/faqs
12
https://www.expra.eu

8
within the scope of the functioning of the programme13 and gets to place a recycling "Green Dot"14
trademark logo on their packaging. The producers of packaged waste do however pay EPR taxes to
members of EXPRA such as Nedvang, who in turn would ensure the recovery and recycling of
packaging waste is done in the most economically efficient and ecologically sound manner.15

financial return for inspecting recycling containers

To enable municipalities and private funders to make the recycling containers available in the
market for households to deposit their separated municipal waste, it is necessary to provide the
investors in the bins with a market based financial return. It is questionable if a sufficient financial
return can be achieved by solely earning the existing EPR rewards and through the resale of the
collected material.
Existing EPR taxes and rewards, have been in place for while and have increased household recycling
rates considerably, however a large portion 56%16 of the complex household waste stream, is still
being incinerated and landfilled: Some sources suggest Fifty percent of plastics that are collected
separate are burnt in German incineration ovens17. Even though established EPR taxes and rewards
are gradually increasing recycling rates; a large portion of sourced-separated prepared for recycling
municipal waste is still shipped by European recycling businesses to advanced Asian final recycling


13
http://www.expra.eu/en/about/faqs
The payment of EPR taxes enables producers to evade Verpakkingenbesluit that makes companies responsible for the
collection of their produced packaging.
Sinds 1 januari 2006 is het Besluit Beheer Verpakkingen en Papier en Karton (het Verpakkingenbesluit) van kracht. Dit
besluit maakt bedrijven verantwoordelijk voor de organisatie en kosten van de inzameling en recycling van hun
verpakkingsafval. Hiertoe is Stichting Nedvang opgericht.
14
"Green Dot" trademark and focuses its work on the protection and promotion of this symbol.
http://www.expra.eu/en/about/faqs
15
http://www.expra.eu/en/about/faqs
16
only a limited share (43%) of the municipal waste generated in the Union was recycled, with the rest being landfilled
(31%) or incinerated (26%).
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52015PC0595&from=EN
17
Fifty percent of the plastic that is collected separately is not re-used but burnt in German incineration ovens
Vijftig procent van het plastic afval dat in Nederland gescheiden is ingezameld wordt niet hergebruikt, maar verbrand in
Duitse afvalovens.
http://www.levensmiddelenkrant.nl/node/68557
CBL and FNLI state 80% of collected plastic is being re-used and falsify the statement
CBL en de FNLI zien 80 procent van het plastic afval dat in Nederland wordt ingezameld hergebruikt en beide organisaties
ontkrachten hiermee de uitspraken van Ruud Sondag dat maar liefst 50 procent niet wordt gerecycled.
http://www.levensmiddelenkrant.nl/node/68529
Inspection suggest there is mismatch of 15% and re-use percentage is 27%
inspectie komen er afwijkingen in de cijfers voor van 15 procent 2008 een hergebruikpercentage van 27 procent is gehaald.
Onderzoek van de inspectie toont echter aan dat dit percentage een stuk lager ligt.
http://www.levensmiddelenkrant.nl/node/67329

9
markets in sea containers, thereby statistically registering the material as having been prepared for
recycling or having been recycled domestically.
The recycling container would improve the European industry for the final recycling industries,
since advanced inspecting recycling containers can increase the supply of peaches - high quality,
low cost sorted municipal waste, on the domestic processing market.

The recycling container would make it cheaper to sort household municipal waste for businesses in
the optical sorting industry, since its contamination stream would be minimal, thereby increasing
accuracy and reducing the complexity of the optical sorting system.
In the long term and in some less developed countries with the existing EPR rewards, it could be
economically feasible to operate the recycling container and financially reward a group of
environmental conscious group of households. However, in advanced countries and to start the
industry, a transition fund is proposed; that re-distributes a small percentage of v.a.t. income for
household packaged products back to citizens that would have access to an recycling container.

10
Transition fund

Value added taxes are similar to extended producer responsibility taxes, since the taxes charged by
government organizations are passed onto the consumer through higher prices - and its revenue
stream goes towards financing the value creation around the product. Some consumers may feel an
helpless18 blame for negatively impacting the environment since they cannot go without packaged
food, high electrical or other technological developed consumption. These situations are however due
to economic market failure19 where low cost path of least resistance20 damaging market solutions
prevail over long periods of time without significant cost innovation or governments introducing,
market fixing support mechanisms.
We have seen governments addressing market failure in the energy market by implementing FIT
Feed in tariffs, that enabled higher production cost; solar, wind and biogas energy to be fed into the
electrical grid in an economical free market manner. With the FIT the government provided support
by refunding the cost difference between low cost polluting production methods and more expensive
clean energy production methods, with a small percentage of the budget expenditure covered by
carbon credits. The feed in tariff for recycling would allow municipalities and private businesses to
invest in and provide the recycling container for prosumers to participate in the value creation process
of producing new raw materials at a higher cost21 and redistributing income.
The financial support for the transition fund is at present collected by value added taxes, whose
government incomes are spent on other main priorities for value creation, such as infrastructure and
many other public goods.


Stevolende
18

Registered User
31-Jul-2017 14:23
I've been wondering about how to recycle things like squash bottles since all my rubbish is going to landfill. I apparently
have no control over who handles my waste, in as much as the landlord seems to control everything for the houses they own.
I have a communal bin set up which consists of several skip like containers that all go to landfill including food waste and
potential recyclables.
I would like to find somewhere that I could drop things off including plastic containers, cardboard, food etc. Missing the old
system where most of my rubbish was going into my own recycling bin or green compost one.
Feeling taht I can't be alone in being stuck with a waste set up controlled by a landlord. One designed to serve a number of
households and ignoring the greener aspects of waste disposal.
I live in Galway.
https://www.boards.ie/b/thread/2057705891
19
Statiegeld werpt barrires op voor de vrije markt. deposit return schemes put barriers on the free market
http://www.echteheld.nl/veelgestelde-vragen-over-statiegeld#vraag10
20
http://www.cewep.eu/events/m_1233
21
this is a process that costs money, it is a commercial venture and one of the big hindrances is the cost of virgin material
has been lower than the cost of recycled plastic partly because of the low oil price
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/29/stop-exporting-plastic-waste-to-china-to-boost-recycling-at-home-
say-experts

11
The current municipal waste infrastructure pay-as-you-throw system consists of a one way without
deposit22 system, where the local authority tax expenditure finances the waste disposal costs23. The
proposed transition fund mechanism would work in a similar manner to the one way with deposit
mechanism24: Where the initial costumer is redistributed with a small part of the previously paid
deposit v.a.t., upon adequate separated disposal, covering the waste disposal costs with the value
added consumption tax.
The transition fund proposal is similar to the well working deposit return fund for plastic pet bottles,
however with the new recycling container technology the proposal is to implement deposit money
on almost all household packaged items, based on a percentage of v.a.t. however at a much lower
cost. The transition rewards for recycling would be around 25 times cheaper25 per k.g. for plastics -
than the current deposit return fund pays out.
Disposers that don't recycle or allocate separated waste to the appropriate processing centres don't
receive the reward and thereby participate in a pay-as-you-throw scheme26; where citizens pay
indirectly for the waste they throw away.


22
One-way without deposit bottles/cans are used by the customer, the producer in the best case- will pay a fee to an
organisation to handle the waste or will just have nothing to do with their product once it becomes waste. The public
authorities will bear the costs and a good amount of the beverages will need to be landfilled or burnt. High litter, high
environmental impact but cheapest option for the producers.
https://www.zerowasteeurope.eu/tag/germany-deposit-refund-system/
23
Landfilled, burnt or exported.
24
One-way deposit bottles/cans are used by the customer only once, the producer can get back the materials or they will
go directly to the recycling company that will produce brand new bottles which then need to be refilled and transported back
to the customer. Zero litter but higher environmental impact.
https://www.zerowasteeurope.eu/tag/germany-deposit-refund-system/
25
1 pet bottle weights, 20 grams, meaning 83 bottles would go in 1 k.g., paying out 12.5 Euros. Whereas the transition fund
is only proposing 0.5 Euros for the disposer and 0.5 Euros for the administrator.
26
the citizen pays this through waste tax - afvalstoffenheffing P36 Uitvoeringsprogramma VANG - Huishoudelijk Afval

12
Financial numbers for the transition fund

In the long term the transition funds financial distribution should only finance the rewards for
households, 27 whereby the recycling container receives its income from the existing EPR rewards28
and contents resale value. 29
In the short term, due to high initial learning costs, high operating costs and for fast scaling purposes,
it is proposed, the transition fund also provides a five to ten percent reward - v.a.t. based packaging
weight - to the recycling container owner.
This would enable stimulating both private and municipal investments in providing the recycling
containers as a public good.
Establishing the transition fund to solely re-distribute twenty, ten or five percent of the collected v.a.t.
back to consumers based on the packaging weight could also be an option, especially in the long term
since the recycling container operator can already directly benefit from existing EPR reward schemes
and resale value.

Proposed transition rewards, based on 10%=2.1%+10%=2.1% of v.a.t. amounts

Separated household waste material 10% for disposer +10% for circular collector of
EPR rewards for v.a.t. per kilogram. of
separated waste

Plastic waste 50 cents, 50 cents per kilogram


27
Member States shall also take measures to create incentives for the waste holders to take part in the separate collection
systems in place, notably through economic incentives or regulations, when appropriate. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.C_.2017.017.01.0046.01.ENG&toc=OJ:C:2017:017:TOC
28
Member States shall also take measures to create incentives for the waste holders to take part in the separate collection
systems in place, notably through economic incentives or regulations, when appropriate
Member States shall also take measures to create incentives for the waste holders to take part in the separate collection
systems in place, notably through economic incentives or regulations, when appropriate
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52015PC0595
To raise levels of high-quality recycling, improvements are needed in waste collection and sorting. Collection and sorting
systems are often financed in part by extended producer responsibility schemes, in which manufacturers contribute to
product collection and treatment costs.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52015DC0614
29
(a) cover the entire cost of waste management for the products it puts on the Union market, including all the following:
costs of separate collection, sorting and treatment operations required to meet the waste management targets referred to
in paragraph 1, second indent, taking into account the revenues from re-use or sales of secondary raw material from their
products;
costs of providing adequate information to waste holders in accordance with paragraph 2;
costs of data gathering and reporting in accordance with paragraph 1, third indent. (b) are modulated on the basis of the
real end-of-life cost of individual products or groups of similar products, notably by taking into account their re- usability
and recyclability; (c) are based on the optimised cost of the services provided in cases where public waste management
operators are responsible for implementing operational tasks on behalf of the extended producer responsibility scheme.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.C_.2017.017.01.0046.01.ENG&toc=OJ:C:2017:017:TOC

13
Glass waste 53 cents, 53 cents per kilogram

Food waste 14 cents or 4 cents, 14 cents or 4 cents per


kilogram

Polystyrene waste 28 cents, 28 cents per kilogram

Metal waste 47 cents, 47 cents per kilogram

Paper waste 10 cents, 10 cents per kilogram

In the table above an estimate has been calculated for the transition funds financial reward on ten
percent of v.a.t.30, being allocated back to the initial consumer and ten percent to the recycling
container operator.
The proposed rewards are based on an approximate v.a.t. index per k.g. of separated plastic waste,
metal waste, food waste, paper waste and glass waste. An example calculation is for a small plastic
bottle, whose waste weight is 20 grams with an estimated 50 cents total market price, thereby
collecting 10.5 cents v.a.t.31 per bottle, at 10%disposer +10%colector EPR reward, this would indicate
providing 1 cent32 to the disposer and 1 cent to collector, per 20 gram plastic bottle. Per Kilogram of
separated plastic waste, the national transition fund would provide 50 cents per kilogram to the
disposer and 50 cents per kilogram to the collector.

Calculations for approximate EPR rewards based on 10%+10% of v.a.t. amounts reissued to cover
circular recycling costs

Material Value added taxes - 10% of v.a.t. for Height of EPR


product index, from disposer, 10% of v.a.t. rewards per kilogram
store consumption for collector, price of separated waste
index per k.g.

Plastic waste Plastic bottles, food A plastic bottle 50 cents per k.g. of
packaging or shampoo contains EPR rewards for
bottles approximately 20 disposer and 50 cents
grams of recyclable per k.g. of EPR


30
2.4 % of total 21 %
31
With 21% v.a.t. taxes
32
10% of 10.5 cents v.a.t. collected is approx. 1 cent per bottle provided back to the consumer.

14
plastic. At an average rewards for recycling
price of 50 cents per container owner
plastic beverage
bottle: this comes at
10.5 cents of v.a.t.
paid by the disposer.
10% of v.a.t. for
EPR rewards equals to
1 cent for the disposer
and 1 cent for the
collector/processor.

20 grams 50 bottles=
1 Kilogram.

50 times 1 cent EPR


for 1 kilogram equal
50 cents per k.g.

Glass waste Glass water bottles, Glass bottles range 52 cents per k.g. of
alcoholic bottles, from 50 cents to 10 EPR rewards for
Euros. Average taken disposer and 53 cents
5 Euros. per k.g. of EPR
rewards for recycling
Glass bottle on
container owner
average weights: 200
grams at 5 Euros,

5 Euros 5 bottles=25
Euros per k.g. 0.21
v.a.t.= 5.25 Euros total
v.a.t paid per k.g.

5.25 10%-10%= 52
cents and 52 cents per
k.g.

Food waste Vegetables, meat, Price of meat per k.g.: 14 or 4 cents per k.g.
bread, Estimating 30% of EPR rewards for

15
of food is thrown Beef: 25E, chicken: disposer and 14 or 4
away 10E, pork: 7E, cents per k.g. of EPR
other:10E rewards for recycling
container owner
Average taken: 14E

Price of vegetables per


k.g.

Low:2E Medium:5E
high:10E

Average taken: 5.67 E

Price of fruit per k.g.

Low:2E Medium:5E
high:10E

Average taken: 5.67 E

Price of carbohydrates
per k.g.

Low:1E Medium:2E
High:3E

Average taken: 2E

Total average taken


average: 6.8 Euros per
kilogram

0.21v.a.t. = 1.428
10%,10%

= 14 cents per k.g.

0r if only 30% of food


is thrown away 4.2

16
cents per k.g.

Metal waste Metal beverage cans, Metal beverages: 47 cents per k.g. of
food cans, tins covers, EPR rewards for
In a beverage can 20
disposer and 47 cents
grams of metal is left
per k.g. of EPR
over without the cans
rewards for the
liquid.
recycling container

1 can costs between owner

20-70 cents.

taken average store


price: 45 cents

50 empty beverage
cans makes 1 kilo (20
grams 50 cans = 1
k.g.)

45 cents 50(to get a


kilogram) = 22.5
Euros

22.5 Euros 0.21


v.a.t. =

4.7 E per k.g. of v.a.t.


collected

10% - 10%

47 cents per k.g.

Paper waste Paper for printing, Printing paper 10 cents per k.g. of
textbooks, juice storefront cost: EPR rewards for
disposer and 10 cents

17
cartons, tissues, 3 kg of printing paper per k.g. of EPR
costs approx. 3 Euros rewards for the
recycling container
Books/Magazines
owner
costs:

330g for magazine for


3 Euros.

Taking the average


price per kilogram: (1
+9 =10 /2 =5E)

Average 5 Euro per


Kg. ><0.21 v.a.t.

1.05 per k.g. v.a.t. at


10%-10%= 10 cents
per k.g.

18
1. Households in the region will be given an access card with a credit account on that unlocks
the recycling container. The recycling container inspects and determines the value through
an weight scale measurement and x-ray baggage anomies scan, where-after the inspected
contents is allocated to the adequate material category and the disposer is rewarded based on
weight by the transition fund on the cards account.

2. When one of the categorized separate containers is full (image) or when the collection truck is
nearby, the contents will be collected and transported to a nearby processing centre. The
processing centres registers the delivery on Nedvangs wastetool and the existing EPR
reward can be claimed by the recycling container owner.

3. The funds reward, similar to helicopter money makes it possible to pursue a circular
economy, starting at the very beginning of a product's life. Nearby processing centres can
be supplied high quality inspected non food contaminated packaged waste material, often
directly processable into a new valuable raw material.

19
The transition reward for households would incentivize a chain of private recycling
businesses to compete for the disposers separated municipal waste functioning in an
inverse manner to how the current economic consumption model. Upon disposing, the
collector buys the waste from the consumer, who sorts and transports sorted waste to
the remanufacturer33, with the remanufacturer reprocessing the disposed product back
into a raw material.
Countries who want to conserve resources or without natural resources can thereby to
some extend become resource product producers through urban mining.


33
Remanufacturer also named recycling waste processor

20
The recycling container

The recycling container is a machine that weights and inspects separated household waste for
accuracy in separation, allocates disposed content to the according container, stores the content and
arranges collection destined for recycling. The recycling container would be an automated self-service
technology; replacing an high uneconomical amount of labour hours that would be needed to
administrate, inspect and measure the payments for the all the routine disposed sorted municipal
waste.

Waste pays

Entrepreneur van Rijn34 rewards environmental and economical households per kilo for most of their
separated waste and sells it for more as an free market
business: van Rijns action program Afval loont system
started as a joint project with the municipality of Hoogvliet.
Now Afval loont has established six Afval-waste shops:
in various towns that function as a store front where an
labour subsidized operator in the store or mobile truck
inspects, weighs and digitally registers the
reward disposed contents.

Afval loont pays out yearly amounts of 20-30


Euros to households, with a quarter of the
supplying residents taking the household rubbish from other residents. 35 Without extra subsidies
waste pays /waste shops are able to pay separating household waste disposers: 4 cents per
kilogram of paper, 7 cents per kilogram for drinking cartons, 10 cents for textiles, 5 cents per
kilogram for small electronic items, 10 cents per kilogram for frying fat, 5 cents per kilogram for
drink cartons.36


34
https://www.afvalloont.nl/over-afval-loont/
35
https://www.trouw.nl/home/afval-inleveren-is-geld-verdienen~afb6ade7/
36
https://www.afvalloont.nl/vragen/geld-sparen/

21
Door-to-door collection

In Gipuzkoa, Spain, after an local anti-incineration movement37, town Hernani started a door-to-door
collection program for source-separated
municipal waste, each category designated
to be picked-up on a different day. The
program reduced the amount going to
landfills by 80%, boosted the local
economy with 16 jobs, produced a 40%
discount for households composting waste
and was at a lower net cost to the local
municipality, due to the high resale values
of source-separated collected waste.

The recycling container works in a similar manner to the waste pays and door-to-door collection
system, it would automate the storefront waste shops concept and would enable households to place
the coloured trademark bags outside their houses to be picked up and disposed at any time. If the
trademarked bags were left outside the door or on the street it would represent financial and
environmental value whereby others could be interested in disposing the trademarked bags in the
recycling container.


37
https://www.zerowasteeurope.eu/tag/hernani-waste/

22
The recycling containers compatibility

The recycling container would instigate higher recycling rates in the digital economy38, automating
the registration, inspection, weighing, sorting and logistics process. The recycling container would be
very compatible with the recycling technologies on the market today, that have been in part already
been funded by municipal EPR rewards. Recycling technologies that have increased recycling rates
have mainly composed of optical sorting
systems:
Optical sorting systems can separate two
streams of waste per machine often with several
optical sorting machines connected in series,
they separate contents through air blow
technologies and can operate fast, however are
relatively expensive39, use a high amounts of
electricity and are not fully accurate with highly
mixed streams. The optical sorting operations could be improved by a complementary recycling
container since optical sorting machines can rapidly and accurately remove any minimal anomalies in
single content waste streams and are especially great for separating mixed plastic sources. Final
recycling processors set contamination limits, staying within those limits signifies direct processing,
increasing processing centre output.


38
support of research and innovation will be a major factor in encouraging the transition; it will also contribute to the
competitiveness and modernisation of EU industry.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52015DC0614
39
around 200,000 Euros per machine

23
The recycling container

The x-ray inspection system

In the complex municipal waste stream, it is sometimes not possible to recycle the contents when its
contaminated with food. Today, only around 40% of the waste produced by EU households is
recycled.40 Household sourced-separated inspected waste has a high market value41, due to there
being a routine demand to routinely supply bulk municipal waste as a routine basic need, enabling
investment in long term capital. In order to upcycle municipal waste, one way to secure the right
supply would be to weigh and inspect its content, and reward the disposer at the source.


40
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52015DC0614 (COM/2015/0614)
41
regenerative source of raw materials. The value of the raw material will be obtained by disposers, consumers,
municipalities and businesses.

24
The only inspection system capable of seeing what is inside a bag or scanned object is an security
cabinet x-ray system that is cheaper and emits much lower radiation than an medical x-ray scanner42.
The shielded cabinet43 is made of lead and thus prevents most of the x-ray radiation from escaping, in
addition to second metal wall of the recycling container. The use of baggage x-ray scanners in public
areas is safe and has been certified by EU bodies listed in the appendix44.

The cabinet x-ray machine


produces a coloured x-ray
image45 based on the atomic
number of the materials
scanned.
Separated household waste,
if accurately separated in
terms of only plastic, metal,
glass, paper or organic
should display a single
colour; if 3-10% other
colours are displayed in a
separated source, it would

be transported internally to the mixed waste container for


incineration, with a potential penalty for the disposer.


42
medical X-rays are considered more dangerous because of their longer exposure times
43
Cabinet X-ray Systems: Contain an X-ray tube installed within a shielded enclosure. The enclosure is made up of a
material, usually lead, that prevents most of the X-ray radiation from escaping the cabinet.
44
P
45
by radiating ions that generate backscattering x-rays.

25
It is the intend to use or to build an automated software that can match the image with pre-set
characteristics.

Detecting anomalies: metal beverage can,


mixed with plastics

26
Recycling container trademarked bags

In some EU countries, bags marked grey for recycling are more expensive than standard black bags.
The recycling container would function optimally if full bags with an approximate dimension of
approx. 70 cm L X 45cm W X 34 cm H were placed inside.
We intend to provide these standard size bags for free to actively participating households or at a low
cost per bag, we also intend to collaborate with local supermarkets to make the plastic bin bags
available.

27
Recycling container manufacturer

The manufacturer for the recycling container is based in the Netherlands, whom defines itself to be an
added value supplier and partner for businesses in the entire product lifecycle, operating in high
precision metal and mechatronic solutions. The manufacturer is a system supplier and integrator, from
draft to prototype, from project to series production, from onsite assembly to full maintenance. They
have built machines for ASML, automated post selection machines and the projects below:

When the funding is provided, the


manufacturer will study the final submitted
designs, make improvements in the digital
design, purchase selected electronic
components and can build various versions of
the recycling container for the pilot project.

28
Financing the recycling container

Municipal ownership

One of the core municipal governance tasks, is the collection of municipal waste46, normally
municipalities own the bins and contract businesses to do the collection, further processing or regional
sorting. Governments and transnational governments set recycling rates and provide rewards,
subsidies or incentives for municipalities to attain those rates.

In some regions municipalities provide citizens access to underground disposal bins with an opening
card that charges households 9 Euros to dispose 30 bin bags47. Citizens might feel discouraged to
supply; non food contaminated48, cleaned, separated, household waste, due to the high charge and non
inspection of contents. Small levels of contamination on separate sources of municipal waste generate
lemons and require costly cleaning and sorting first before being able to be processed into new raw
materials.
Inspecting the contents at the source would certify the quality of material by meeting certain pollution
levels that processing centres have and would directly place value on the disposed contents, saving
considerable costs.

Private ownership

In the case that municipalities or national policies would want to shift ownership and handling of
municipal waste from public ownership to private ownership, municipalities could provide standard
installation license applications49 and make EPR reward schemes funds available to entrepreneurs,
local citizens and businesses.


46
costs for disposal are charged to pay for collection services, investment in underground containers and to make use of
environmental stations.
Deze Afvalstoffenheffing gebruiken wij om de kosten te betalen van het ophalen van afval, het legen van de ondergrondse
containers, verbranden van afval en voor het gebruik van de milieustations.
http://www.afvalstoffendienst.nl/page/kosten
47
U betaalt voor de prepaidpas 9,00 voor 30 stortingen.
http://www.afvalstoffendienst.nl/page/kosten
48
In addition bio-waste should be collected separately to contribute to an increase in preparing for re- use and recycling rates
and the prevention of contamination of dry recyclable materials.
49
leveraging on a collection businesses logistics and fixed capital.

29
There should a relatively high private investment demand to invest in recycling container as van
Rijn Waste shops, received an 90,000 Euros crowd investment50 within 8 days, to fund several
reserve vending storefronts that pay households for their sorted waste.


50
Waste Shops, borrow money at an 8 % interest rate for four years, next investment is in planning stage
Van Rijn wil uitbreiden, en dat doet hij onder meer door de introductie van crowdfinance, een alternatief voor
crowdfunding. Hij heeft in acht dagen tijd bij vijftig investeerders 90.000 euro opgehaald die dit bedrag tegen een rente van
8 procent voor vier jaar aan hem lenen. Een volgende financieringsactie staat op stapel.
https://www.trouw.nl/home/afval-inleveren-is-geld-verdienen~afb6ade7/

30
Recycling container return of investment

van Rijns crowd finance strategy shows there is a relative large crowd of investors interested in
financing a store front version of the recycling container. It has also been shown that municipalities
have committed their efforts at attaining targets by upgrading infrastructure through underground
containers51 and by building underground tunnels52. Whether private investors or municipalities will
invest in the proposed recycling container will depend on the rates of return for the investment.
Firstly, we will investigate the scenario where there is no transition fund and the only returns arise
from established EPR rewards, resale value and municipal collection fees for recycling rate increase.

Individuals throws away between 135-245 kilogram a year53, in this example we will use an
estimation approximate of 500 grams of municipal waste generated per person everyday54. Each
recycling container intends to target 250-1500 individuals who recycle their daily municipal waste
contents. Since there are no established EPR rewards for recycling organic household waste, we
intend to assume a municipal reward of 20 cents per kilo, due to the high portion of municipal organic
waste that can be economically composted.
To provide an ungrounded intuitive example of numbered percentages for each material category for
recyclable packaged household waste, we will assume: 25 % plastic, 20% metal, 15% paper, 15%
food, 15% glass, 1% electronic waste and the rest consisting of larger and other content. Based on
approximate 200 kilograms this would provide: 50 kilograms of plastic, 40 kilograms of metal, 30
kilograms of paper, 30 kilograms of plastic, 30 kilograms of food and 2 kilograms of electronic waste,
totalling 182 k.g.

Numbers without transition fund

In the model without transition rewards, the recycling containers could potentially be owned by
market parties if the number of active participants were relatively large: - around a 1000 participants
per recycling container, actively recycling all contents, could provide a yearly gross return of 36,750
Euros signifying a fast return on investment. Initially it could be possible to reach a larger number


51
Subject to Article 10(2), by 2015 separate collection shall be set up for at least the following: paper, metal, plastic and
glass. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1450190084649&uri=CELEX:02008L0098-20150731
52
http://www.stream-environment.com/how-does-stream-work
53
the amount of household residual waste is around 240 250 kilogram per habitant per year P11, Uitvoeringsprogramma
VANG - Huishoudelijk Afval
https://nos.nl/artikel/2128685-we-blijven-veel-voedsel-weggooien-135-kilo-per-persoon.html
54
De hoogbouwwijk kent op dit moment 2.700 'spaarders', die in vijftien maanden tijd samen zo'n 780.000 kilo afval
inleverden. Papier scoort het hoogst, gevolgd door plastic en textiel.
780,000 x 0.75 = 585,000 /2700 = 216 kilo
https://www.trouw.nl/home/afval-inleveren-is-geld-verdienen~afb6ade7/

31
of users per recycling container if a niche of actively recycling sensitive persons can be attracted and
the recycling container can be established near supermarkets with easy car access. In the example
numbers model hereafter, an active user recycling all their waste can be rewarded around 18 Euros a
year, based on the current free market situation.
It is also assumed in this model that municipalities will pay for the standard transport collection costs
and pay five cents per kilogram extra for increasing regional recycling rates, in addition to the
municipality paying the full national government provided Nedvang EPR rewards for recycling, to the
recycling container operator.

With municipalities owning the recycling containers they would pay for the collection and processing
costs therefore - reducing the 5 cents per kilogram reward fee. With a 1000 active participants using
the recycling container, the municipality would have a an gross financial return of around 24,150
Euros a year55, would contribute 36,770 Euros a year in resale value in terms of new raw materials
supply, receive 46,750 Euros a year in EPR reward from the national government and redistribute
15,820 Euros a year in income as a reward for its accurately sorting participants.

184 K.g. annual EPR reward Resale Municipal collection Reward Operational Profit per
waste disposal for value payment transport deposer cost disposed
per person municipality quantity
assumed
Plastic 75,6 cents -20 cents 25 cents 20 cents 20 cents 2 cent per 39 cents per
1 k.g., per K.g. sorting per k.g. per k.g. per k.g. k.g. k.g.
cost per
K.g.

50 k.g. 37.8 E y/pp -10E y/pp 12.5 E y/pp 10 E y/pp 10 E y/pp 1 E y/pp 19.5 E y/pp
(value 40
E y/pp)


55
50.82 Municipal payment - 38.22 collection cost= 12.6 E difference with the 5 cents (however this is re-
earned though increased output) profit 36.75= 24.15 E profit x 1000users = 24150 Euro

32
Metal 1 k.g., 7 cents per 10 cents 25 cents 20 cents 7 cents per 2 cent per 16 cents per
k.g. per k.g. per k.g. per k.g. k.g. k.g. k.g.

40 k.g. 2.8 E y/pp 4 E y/pp 10 E y/pp 8 E y/pp 2.8 E y/pp 0.8 E y/pp 6.4 E y/pp

Paper 1 k.g., 5 cents per 5 cent 25 cents 20 cents 5 cents per 2 cents per 10 cents per
k.g. for paper resale per k.g. per k.g. k.g. k.g. k.g.
value per
1.05 E y/pp k.g.

40 cents per 1.05 E 7.5 E y/pp 6 E y/pp 1.05 E y/pp 0.6 E y/pp 21 k.g. - 2.1 E
k.g. for y/pp y/pp
drinking
cartons recycling 10 cents 15 cents per
cost per k.g. k.g.
(Estimate
d 15 cents
per k.g.)
(resale
value 10
cents)
3.6 E y/pp 9 k.g. -
30 k.g. -1.05 E 0.9 E y/pp 1.35 E y/pp
y/pp
(2 storage
containers
30% of paper
is drinking
cartons)

food waste 1 Unknown/0 Compost 45 cents 25 cents 3 cents per 2 cent per 16 cents per
k.g., unknown: per k.g. per k.g. k.g. k.g. k.g.
2 cents
per k.g.

33
30 k.g. 1.5 E y/pp 13.5 E y/pp 7.5 E y/pp 0.9 E y/pp 0.6 E y/pp 4.8 E y/pp

Glass waste 5 cents per 1 cent per 25 cents 20 cents 3 cents per 2 cents per 6 cents per k.g.
1k.g., kilogram kilogram per k.g. per k.g. k.g. k.g.

30 k.g. 1.5 E y/pp 0.3 E y/pp 6.6 E y/pp 6 E y/pp 0.9 E y/pp 0.6 E y/pp 1.8 E y/pp

Electronic Unknown / 0 Resale 25 cents 25 cents 5 cents per 2 cent per 9 cents per k.g.
1 k.g., unknown: per k.g. per k.g. k.g. k.g.
15 cents
per k.g.

2 k.g. 0.07 E 0.12 E y/pp 0.12 E 0.1 E y/pp 0.04 E y/pp 0.05 E y/pp
y/pp y/pp
Textiles Unknown / 0 Resale 20 cents 20 cents 5 cents per 2 cents per 23 cents per
1 k.g., unknown: per k.g. per k.g. k.g. k.g. k.g.
30 cents
per k.g.

3 k.g. 0.9 E y/pp 0.6 E y/pp 0.6 E y/pp 0.15 E y/pp 0.06 E y/pp 0.75 E y/pp

Total for 1 46.75 36.77 50.82 38.22 16.72 3.7 36.75


person Euros per Euros per Euros per Euros per Euros per Euros per Euros per
recycling all year year year year year year year
184 k.g.
EPR Resale Municipal collection Reward Operation Profit per
rewards for value payment transport deposer al cost disposed
the quantity
municipality

34
Number of Profit per
people using transaction,
container per year/users
everyday
250 11,687.5 E 9,192.5E 12,705 E 9,555 E 3955 E 1000E 9,187.5 E

500 18,375 E

1000 36,750 E
1500 55,125 E

2500 116,875 E 91,925 E 127,050 E 95,550 E 39,500 E 10,000E 91,875 E

Numbers with transition fund

The transition fund can be used to upgrade the recycling container infrastructure for a numbers of
years, with a fixed budget for each year and a limit on the number of licenses issued for installing
recycling containers.
In the short term for a fixed period of 2-5 years, the transition fund could be used to incentivize
municipalities and private businesses to install recycling containers by rewarding 10% of v.a.t. weight
reward to the recycling container owner and 10% of the v.a.t. weight reward to the disposer.
In the long term for a period of ten years, with learning costs overcome, the national government
could provide only 10% of v.a.t. weight based return to initiate the concept of helicopter money for
good behaviour and to incentivize households to actively participate.

With the transition fund, licenses can be provided to install the recycling containers in less densely
populated urban areas and can be installed per 500 people. In the short term with an 10% reward for
the disposer and 10% administration reward for recycling container, 500 users could generate 50,600
Euros gross revenue per year. Each person would thereby be receiving a reward of 63 Euros a year,
about 4 times higher than the 16.72 Euros the free market could provide. If the recycling container
were to have a 1000 active users it would generate a gross revenue of 101,200 Euros a year.
The transition reward amount of 10% for the recycling container owner could be provided for early
learning costs for the first 100 units and 5% to incentivize investment for the first 1000 units for 2-5
years, however in the long term rewards for the recycling container owner might not be necessary.

35
In the long term only 10% of v.a.t. based reward will sufficient for the disposer to maintain actively
engaged in accurate separation as learned behaviour, whose expenditure will probably become
recirculating consumption.

EPR rewards for v.a.t. per kilogram. of separated waste Separated household waste material

Material EPR Resale Municipal collection Operational Transition Transition Profit Profit
disposed reward - value payment transport cost Reward fund per per
municipal deposer reward disposed disposed
recycling quantity quantity
container only 10%
10% disposer
disposer 10%
admin
costs
Plastic 75,6 cents -20 cents 20 cents 20 cents 2 cent per 50 cents 50 cents 53 cents 103
1 k.g., per K.g. sorting per k.g. per k.g. k.g. per k.g. per k.g. per k.g. cents per
cost per k.g.
K.g.

-10E
50 k.g. 37.8 E (value 40 10 E y/pp 10 E y/pp 1 E y/pp 25 E y/pp 25 E y/pp 26.5 E 51.5 E
y/pp E) y/pp y/pp

Metal 7 cents per 10 cents 20 cents 20 cents 2 cent per 47 cents 47 cents 15 cents 62 cents
1 k.g., k.g. per k.g. per k.g. per k.g. k.g. per k.g. per k.g. per k.g. per k.g.

40 k.g. 2.8 E y/pp 4 E y/pp 8 E y/pp 8 E y/pp 0.8 E y/pp 18.8 E 18.8 E 6 E y/pp 24.8 E
y/pp y/pp y/pp

36
Paper 1 5 cents per 5 cent 20 cents 20 cents 2 cents per 10 cents 10 cents 8 cents 18 cents
k.g., 30 k.g. for resale per k.g. per k.g. k.g. per k.g. per k.g. per k.g. per k.g.
k.g. paper value per
k.g.

1.05 E 1.05 E
y/pp y/pp

40 cents recycling
per k.g. cost
for (Estimated
drinking 15 cents
cartons per k.g.)
(value 10
cents)

3.6 E y/pp -1.05 E 6 E y/pp 6 E y/pp 0.6 E y/pp 3 E y/pp 3 E y/pp 2.4 E 5.4 E
y/pp y/pp y/pp

2 storage
containers:
assumed 1
has 30%
drinking
cartons

food Unknown Compost 25 cents 25 cents 2 cent per 4 cents 4 cents 0 cents 4 cents
waste 1 /0 unknown: per k.g. per k.g. k.g. per k.g. per k.g. per k.g. per k.g.
k.g., 30 2 cents per
k.g. k.g.

1.5 E y/pp 7.5 E y/pp 7.5 E 0.6 E y/pp 1.2 E y/pp 1.2 E y/pp 1.2 E
y/pp y/pp

37
Glass 5 cents per 1 cents 20 cents 20 cents 2 cents per 53 cents 53 cents 4 cents 57 cents
waste kilogram per per k.g. per k.g. k.g. per k.g. per k.g. per k.g. per k.g.
1k.g., kilogram

30 k.g. 1.5 E y/pp 0.3 E y/pp 6 E y/pp 6 E y/pp 0.6 E y/pp 15.9 E 15.9 E 1.2 E 17.1 E
y/pp y/pp y/pp y/pp

Electronic Unknown Resale 25 cents 25 cents 2 cent per 0 0 7 cents 7 cents


1 k.g., /0 unknown: per k.g. per k.g. k.g. per k.g. per k.g.
15 cents (5 cents
per k.g. per k.g.)

2 k.g. 0.07 E 0.12 E 0.12 E 0.04 E y/pp 0.1 E y/pp 0.14 E 0.14 E
y/pp y/pp y/pp y/pp y/pp

Textiles Unknown Resale 20 cents 20 cents 2 cents per 0 0 12 cents 12 cents


1 k.g., /0 unknown: per k.g. per k.g. k.g. per k.g. per k.g.
estimated (5 cents
30 cents per k.g.)
per k.g.

3 k.g. 0.9 E y/pp 0.6 E y/pp 0.6 E 0.06 E y/pp 0 36 E 0.36 E


y/pp y/pp y/pp

Total for 45.5 36.77 38.22 38.22 3.7 64.15 63 36.6 101.2
1 person Euros per Euros per Euros per Euros Euros per Euros per Euros per Euros Euros
recycling year year year per year year year year per year per year
all 184
k.g.
184 K.g. EPR Resale Municipal collection Operational Transition Transition Profit Profit
waste reward - value payment transport cost financial fund per per
material municipal Reward reward disposed disposed
for the recycling quantity quantity
deposer container only 10%

38
10% disposer
disposer 10% rc
admin
costs
Number
of people
using
container
everyday
250 11,375 9,192.5 9,555 9,555 925 16,037.5 15750 9150 25,300
Euros per Euros per Euros per Euros per Euros per Euros per Euros per Euros Euros
year year year year year year year per year per year
500 - 18,300 50,600
Euros Euros
per year per year
1000 36,600 101,200
Euros Euros
per year per year
1500 54,900 151,800
Euros Euros
per year per year
2500 113,750 91,925 95,550 95,550 9250 Euros 160,375 157,500 91,500 253,500
Euros per Euros per Euros per Euros per per year Euros per Euros per Euros Euros
year year year year year year per year per year

The transitions funds expenditure

In the short term to install the first 1000 containers for a targeted 1,000,000 active participants, this
would cost 378,000,000 Euros rewarding the disposer 10% and recycling container owner 10% for
3 years.

39
In the medium term for the additional 10,000 recycling containers and an active 5,000,000
participating disposers, this would cost 1,890,000,000 Euros for 4 years, rewarding the disposer 10%
and recycling container owner 5%.
In the long term it is the objective to only fund the disposer 10% a year, for an installed capacity of
30,000 containers this would cost 945,000,000 Euros per year of v.a.t. funds given back to the
consumer.

Recycling Number Number of active Financial reward transition fund budget expenditure
container units of years users per machine conditions and total cost
installed
1-1000 units 3 1000 active 10% v.a.t. return Redistributed income disposer:
participants disposer, 63,000 - 63,000,000
Euros per year
1000-1,000,000 (63 Euros 1000 people 1 unit)
total active 10% v.a.t. return for
participants recycling container Administration / operational costs
recycling container
63,000 - 63,000,000
Euros per year for 3 years

(63 Euros 1000 people 1 unit)

Total per year combined expenditure:


126,000-126,000,000

((63 Euros+63 Euros) 1000 people


1 unit)

Total expenditure for 3 years for


1000 units:
378,000,000 Euros

(1000 units 126 Euros 1000


active users 3 years)

40
1000-10000 4 500 active 10% v.a.t. return Redistributed income disposer:
units participants disposer, 31,500,000 315,000,000 Euros per
year
500,000- 5,000,000
total 5% v.a.t. return for (63 Euros 500 people 1000 units)
active participants recycling container
Administration / operational revenue
5% v.a.t. based recycling container:
15,750,000 - 157,500,000 Euros per
year

(31.5 Euros 500 people 1000


units)

Total rewards combined:


47,250,000 - 472,500,000 Euros per
year

Total expenditure 4 years:


1,890,000,000 Euros

((63 Euros + 31.5 Euros) 500


people 10000 units 4 years)
30000 units 10, long 500 active 10% v.a.t. return Redistributed income to disposer:
term participants disposer, 945,000,000 Euros per year

15,000,000 total 0% v.a.t. return recycling


active participants container (30000 units 500 people 63
Euros)

The transition funds financial income should re-arise in v.a.t. revenues due to increased earnings
hence consumption, however part of the transition fund could also be sourced from the yearly 23
billion56 collected environmental taxes.


56
https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2017/33/milieubelastingen-brengen-ruim-25-miljard-euro-op

41
The majority of the transition fund could be sourced from the households v.a.t. expenditure and most
of the funds resources would be spent on rewarding households with part of their v.a.t. back. The
other amount of the fund is provided to municipalities, production businesses and indirectly
processing centres.
Once learning costs have been overcome and the technology is developed, foreign municipalities
could apply for the EU cohesion fund; that in some cases can finance up 85% of a projects cost57.
There is also the regional development fund for regional infrastructure investments58 that foreign
municipalities could apply for. It is however important to have a strong support market where the
transition fund is implemented to supply the recycling machinery from, such as Tomra has in Norway.

Marketing

Whether owned by municipalities or private businesses, and with or without the transition fund, the
marketing and branding is crucial to maintain a large number of active participants enabling the
maintenance of a high return on investment in the short term and in the long term. With the transition
fund, the financial reward for disposers might be sufficient branding in itself.
The right kind of marketing would inform disposers; what is made of their waste and where its
processed. Sourcing additional waste and collection from schools59, street cleaners, environmental
groups, local catering restaurants /bars, offices and special financial rewards for at home collection.
Upon installation everyone living in the radius of 2-3 kilometres of the new recycling container will
be sent a brochure with information, recycling bags and an access card: with which they can open the
recycling container and on whom to accumulate financial rewards. Businesses in terms of restaurants,
offices and cafes will be provided with a business card, still receiving some reward from existing EPR
rewards but not the transition reward.


57
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_5.1.3.html
EU Cohesion Policy has a key role to play in closing the investment gap for improved waste management and supporting
the application of the waste hierarchy
58
https://www.fi-compass.eu/esif/erdf
59
Stimulating the youth to prevent waste and engage in separation of household waste P60, Uitvoeringsprogramma VANG
- Huishoudelijk Afval
advertise for younger ones to collect recyclables for pocket money or for responsible individuals in the neighbourhood to
collect and dispose.
challenging all citizens nearby to contribute to a cleaner environment and to earn some money
http://www.leeuwardernet.nl/18262/op-10-maart-zijn-plastic-flesjes-010-cent-waard/

42
Transport collection

Where space and construction allow it, existing underground (image)


containers could also be converted to inspecting rewarding underground
recycling containers. The collections truck attachment mechanism to
connect to full compartments in underground container is the same for the
above the ground recycling
container. Therefore, in municipalities where underground
containers are situated and collected,
those trucks could also be used to
collect contents from the recycling
container.
It could also be that municipalities do
not yet have underground containers but are looking to invest in new bins
and upgrading collection trucks. Municipalities could work in joint ventures with the collecting firm
in the municipality to purchase the new truck whose price range from 70,00060 second hand to
200,00061 new.
A collection truck is usually also equipped with a presser and could probably
collect the contents of two to ten recycling
containers in a sequence depending on the
compartment size, collecting up to 9 tons per
collection round.
The recycling
container can lift containers up to 9.7 meters high carry approximate
for 2 tons for that height.
When collecting separate streams, there would be no landfill or incineration gate fee, however the
contents may have to be transported to more distant processing locations. The price for collection
shouldnt be higher than existing collection fees are, around 200 Euros per ton62, coming at lower
costs when the market scales.63


60
https://cleanmat.eu/stock/daf-fan-75-cf-250-euro-5-hiab-21-ton-meter-kran-6
https://cleanmat.eu/stock/volvo-fm-11-330-euro-6-hiab-21-ton-meter-kran
https://cleanmat.eu/stock/mercedes-benz-econic-2633-euro-5-hiab-21-ton-meter-kran
61
cleanmat.eu sales representative
62
based on the kg costs of 22 cent per kg for waste bin collections
http://www.barnarecycling.com/understanding-pay-by-weight-county-leitrim/
Charges are 154 per tonn with a minimum charge of 79 154/1000 kg =0.15 cents per k.g.
https://www.york.gov.uk/info/20090/commercial_waste/558/commercial_waste_disposal_sites
63
If many recycling containers were to be installed, there is also the option that the market develops a new collection service
that solely focuses on collecting and transporting contents where multiple different owners of recycling containers leverage
on the fixed transport infrastructure.

43
The recycling collection businesses will be enabled to divert their collection flows to nearby
processing centres that are already registered by the municipality on Waste tool64 provided by
Nedvang.

Initial final recycling processing centre for the recycling container in the Netherlands

Treatment material Company Revenue/ cost per k.g. Circular product


Soft Plastics Suez 200-300 Euros per ton Redistributed to other
for separating recyclers for further
municipal plastics recycling
Metal Infra & Recycling 100 Euros per ton Exported to China by
Oldebroek sea container

Food waste In progress In progress In progress


Paper Infra & Recycling 50 Euros per ton Exported to China by
Oldebroek sea container
Glass Martha 10 Euros per ton Recycled back into
glass
Electronics Aureus France / Recycling electronics
for gold


64
https://wastetool.nedvang.nl/Account/Login?ReturnUrl=%2F

44
Pilot project

The pilot projected is intended to be launched in one municipality where five to ten recycling
containers can be placed. It may be optimal to collaborate with the local collection firm that already
works with the municipality and can lease a truck and driver for the duration of the one to two-year
project.
Otherwise a collection truck can be leased and an operator hired for the duration of the pilot project.

The pilot project should enable the proof of concept by first researching and developing certain
solutions, overcoming learning costs in order to implement the recycling container in other
municipalities. The pilot project should develop:
- X-ray scan software, that determines material, anomalies and suitability of material
- Develop anti fraud systems
- Optimize sales to processing centres final optimal local recycling technologies
- Optimize logistics transport
- Select optimal collection truck and collection speed
- Optimize recycling container design and functioning
- Optimize component suppliers and manufacturing procedure
- Optimize maintenance costs
- Optimize licensing and funding procedures
- Investigate the number of disposers per location
- Investigate the height of reward needed for the disposer
- Develop automated software for national financial reward to the card holder

Steps to pilot project initiation

1. Select municipality willing to participate in pilot project


2. With municipality select suitable locations to implement five or ten recycling containers
3. Select recycling container truck lease or purchase or established collector firm
4. Prepare budget, final application and consortium
5. Submit final application to funding body65
6. If successful order recycling containers for manufacturing


65
The European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI)
any legal entity may participate in a Fast Track to Innovation ("FTI") action. Actions funded under FTI shall be innovation
actions. ERC frontier research and FET (Future and Emerging Technologies)

45
7. Initiate digital x-ray testing prior to implementation
8. Implement recycling containers with x-ray inspection technology
9. Initiate pilot project marketing
10. Proof of concept and expansion to other municipalities

Work packages

Recycling container manufacturing


Budget:
Organization:

Installation cost
Budget:
Organization:

Transition fund reward


Budget:
Organization:

Operational costs
Budget:
Organization:

Collection truck lease and staff


Budget:
Organization:

Software construction
Budget:
Organization:

46
The pilot project can be initiated when funding is provided by the national governments institute for
innovation, a municipal order, regional infrastructure investment66, EU Horizon 2020 subsidy
application or a private investment fund. With the initial funding, the first components and recycling
containers can be ordered and maintained by the specialized contractor manufacturer. The budget
should also encompass the costs of leasing or purchasing of the collection truck with personnel, the
R&D of the x-ray software the EPR rewarding budget for households.

The pilot project should determine if the drawbacks versus the benefits are worth it. The project will
investigate how the level of reward will affect number of active participants per recycling container, if
the number of users are low <250, the project is economically not worth proceeding with. If the
contents inspection system falters, there is no public support for the proposed mechanism, unforeseen
costs arise, the project could not be worth proceeding with.
If there are a large number of users per recycling container, the technology works well, there are low
logistics costs, returns are high, the inspection system is reliably automated, there is a lot of public
support and low economical production costs, then the project can be expanded to other
municipalities.


66
https://www.fi-compass.eu/esif/erdf

47
Established DRS - deposit return schemes

Several developed countries have


implemented deposit and return
schemes. In Germany the
dosenpfand-regelung has enabled
98.5% of plastic bottles to be
recycled67, with a large 25 cents
deposit being paid for by the
retailer68. In the U.S.A., 11 states
provide 5 cents for bottles and cans,
with Michigan providing 10 cents.69
In Norway its 10 cents for a small
bottle and 25 cents for a large bottle.70
In Denmark its 30 cents and recycled
33 times.71 In Finland there
is a 40 cents return for a large plastic bottle72. In these schemes the consumer pays where
unclaimed deposits73are said to fund the scheme.

Since the deposit is paid by the costumer, the deposit also returned to the costumer,
reducing the actual price of the item by the deposit, however adding the effort. Inflationary
fears however may have prevented Britain from implementing an DRS scheme, A 20p
deposit on drinks containers would result in a price increase of over 100% on a six pack of
Tesco Everyday Value still water raising the cost from 95p to 2.15.74
With the deposit returned, the consumption price should stay the same in theory however In
Germany, cola and cola-mix market consumption fell by 9.1% after the introduction of the DRS75


67
http://www.haveyougotthebottle.org.uk
68
in Germany, the retailer paid, in other countries, unclaimed deposits fund the system (meaning the consumer pays).
British Plastics Federation Stakeholder Briefing Deposit Return Schemes (DRSs) the cost is is passed onto the consumer
ofcourse.
69
http://litterheroes.co.uk/bottlebill.htm
70
http://www.plasgranltd.co.uk/norwegian-approach-bottle-recycling-revolutionise-british-approach/
71
Denmark: collected washed recycled up to 33 times: current incentives lead just to recycling
http://www.cewep.eu/events/m_1233
72
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/29/could-a-money-back-scheme-clean-up-the-uks-plastic-bottle-
plague
73
British Plastics Federation Stakeholder Briefing Deposit Return Schemes (DRSs)
74
British Plastics Federation Stakeholder Briefing Deposit Return Schemes (DRSs)
75
British Plastics Federation Stakeholder Briefing Deposit Return Schemes (DRSs)

48
Online remarks suggest Coca cola is against DRS schemes76 and lobbies EPR regulator Expra and its
member groups77 to prevent deposit scheme implementations, even though coca cola is currently
doing a DRS pilot project is Scotland78 its views oppose DRS schemes79.
The main government objections to expanding DRS are that the disposed content only consisting of
small part of the total stream and that the costs are high80. The cost to set up Germanys DRS scheme
was 726 million in 2003 and costs 793 million Euros annually for maintenance. 81

The difference between the transition fund proposal and the established deposit return schemes is that
the transition fund has a lower cost per ton for recycling and encompasses a recycling container that
can take in a larger quantity and range of packaged waste goods.
The set up costs and maintenance cost for the transition fund be would be much lower due to the
ownerships maintenance costs of recycling containers belonging to the municipality and new
developments in fintech crypto currency82 transactional software having advanced in the last 15 years.
The transition fund should function simply by an instant recognition software that registers the
weight, material type and disposal location, with the central funds balance being issued digitally and
automatically to a users registered credit card details.83

The deposit return scheme in the Netherlands provides 25 cents for a big plastic bottle and 10 cents
for a glass beer bottle. This works out to be a 12.5 Euro reward per kilogram for plastic84 - paying out


76
Magazine P+ wrote Lidl and Aldi were paid by coca-cola and the central Bureau of Grocery to stop deposit money
Enige tijd geleden schreef het tijdschrift P+ dat Aldi en Lidl zouden zijn afgekocht door Coca-Cola en het Centraal Bureau
Levensmiddelenhandel (CBL) om te stoppen met statiegeld.
http://www.outofhome-shops.nl/node/43887
77
this large hidden lobby consists of main payers such as cocacola and Supermarkets, FLNI, and Expra members
deze lobby gaat een breed front schuil, met hoofdrolspelers als frisdrankgigant Coca-Cola, grootwinkelbedrijf Albert Heijn,
de koepel FLNI die de reputatie van de levensmiddelenindustrie in gort maalt, en een reeks van stichtingen waarvan het
Afvalfonds Verpakkingen de diepste zakken heeft.
http://www.p-plus.nl/nl/nieuws/Ionica-Smeets-statiegeld
78
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/22/green-campaigners-welcome-coca-cola-bottle-can-recycling-
scheme-scotland
79
Cocacola sells good that can be termed normal, when prices rise inferior goods: supermarket cola sales increase.
Cocacola makes several good arguments and white papers studies for DRS:
http://www.prgs.org.uk/write/MediaUploads/Submissions/Coke_-_Coca-
Cola_Enterprises%27_submission_to_ZWS_deposit_return_scheme_%27call_for_evidence%27,_15.06.15.pdf

80
Two recent independent reports which looked at the feasibility of a deposit and return scheme in Ireland were carried out
in 2009 and 2014, with both concluding the cost would outweigh the benefits. http://www.thejournal.ie/recycling-bottles-
cans-3488090-Jul2017/
81
British Plastics Federation Stakeholder Briefing Deposit Return Schemes (DRSs)
82
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8cC7q6LljQ
83
Centralized system is cheaper for DRS according Penart study on DRS implementation analysis for Ireland
84
1 big plastic bottle weights 12.7-20 grams that goes approx. 50 times in a 1000 g or 1kg.
25 cents X 50 = 1250 cents = 12.5 euros per k.g. = 12,500 Euros per ton

49
166 million approx. million Euros a year85, whereas for the transition fund the proposal is solely 0.5
Euros reward per kilogram and would pay out: 6.65 million86.
The transition fund financial reward proposal for glass is the same as for the current DRS, where the
DRS scheme pays out around 0.5 Euro per kilogram87 paying out approx. 216 million euros a year.88
If there were a 5 cent deposit reward for cans, the DRS would pay out 2.5 Euros per kilogram,
whereas the transition reward would only be 0.5 Euro per kilogram.

Statistics show the majority of the citizens are enthusiastic89 about the
deposit return scheme and would want to implement it or expand it. In
the Netherlands 94 percent of the member the association of
municipalities, supports the expansion of the existing DRS system.90

The DRS implementation in Norway has enabled the investment in large facilities91 that directly
recycle plastic bottles, competing with the mass Asian recycling processing infrastructure. Norway
has also developed top of the shelf exported Tomra reverse vending92 recycling containers.


85
van de bijna 700 miljoen flessen keert wel 95% terug. http://www.echteheld.nl/veelgestelde-vragen-over-statiegeld
0.95 recycling rate ><700,000,000 bottle purchases = 665,000,000 bottles recycled ><0.25cent= 166,250,000 Euro
86
665,000,000 bottles recycled /50 bottles per kilogram = 13300000>< transition reward 0.5 E = 6,650,000 Euro.
Not suggesting the current deposit scheme should be sacrificed due to the well functioning set up of the recycling
infrastructure and secure stream coming from that source.
87
10 cents per bottle, 1 bottle weights 200 grams, 5 go in one kilo = 50 cents per k.g.
http://www.cockeyed.com/science/weight/beer.html
88
In Nederland worden jaarlijks zon 4 miljard blikjes en flesjes op de markt gebracht. Meer dan 60% daarvan zijn glazen
bierflesjes, voornamelijk met statiegeld.
http://www.echteheld.nl/veelgestelde-vragen-over-statiegeld
0.6 percent glass bottles><4000000000 consumed ><0.9 recycled=2160000000><0.10 cents= 240,000,000 Euro
89
Have You Got The Bottle? claim to have the support of 79% of the Scottish people.
https://www.expertskiphire.co.uk/deposit-return-scheme
Slechts 19% en niet 46% van de Nederlanders is positief over de mogelijke afschaffing van statiegeld. 30.000 ondervraagden
aan http://www.outofhome-shops.nl/node/80771
90
Vereninging Nederlandse Gemeenten. Van de NVG-leden is 94 procent voorstander van het behoud en uitbreiding van de
huidige statiegeldregeling.
http://www.outofhome-shops.nl/nieuws/algemeen/tomra-maakt-statement-voor-statiegeld
91
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AbAlRq5OyE
92
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cAqoe8kM3Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbnORmqMqmc

50
51
Public demand for a circular economy

Household93 and municipalities94 both demand the implementation or expansion of deposit return
schemes, one reason might be is because this fixes the market for lemons95 non accurate separators
by directly rewarding accurate disposers for delivering peaches accurate separators. In the U.S.
some recycling is done in recycling centres that take in
the contents and reward the disposers96. There is a
demand to be rewarded for recycled waste and a desire to
find alternatives for landfilling and incineration97 to
develop an recycling society98.

The circular economy provides an alternative waste treatment to disposal methods such as
incineration and landfilling. Incineration pollutes the air and burns a valuable resource. Incineration is
only 65% efficient99, maybe signifying that after burning 100% fuel energy only 65% of energy is left
over, in addition the incineration of residual waste costing around 15.6 cents per kilogram100.
Landfilling posses dangers to ground water and to the soil101 in addition to yearly public landfill
ownership and maintenance costs. Landfilling costs around 113E/tonne102, in the Netherlands in 2015
2,342 103 kilotons were landfilled thereby costing the private sector 264 Euros million approximately


93
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FtHK00C1tM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1Q6yquDwT4
94
Vereninging Nederlandse Gemeenten. Van de NVG-leden is 94 procent voorstander van het behoud en uitbreiding van de
huidige statiegeldregeling.
http://www.outofhome-shops.nl/node/62121
95
"The Market for Lemons: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism" George Akerlof
Preventing information asymmetry of quality by behavior reward and inspection, Preventing Quality Uncertainty.
96
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gKNmklDxYw
97
Citizens are motivated to contribute to waste prevention and waste separation. P14 Uitvoeringsprogramma VANG -
Huishoudelijk Afval
politicians believe in the holy free market, the industry determines and municipality pays, theres a lot of pollution, put
deposit money on it so that I can earn an extra buck
In de jaren 90 pleite Remi Poppe ook voor uitbreiding van statiegeldsysteem, maar alle Nederlandse kabinetten na Den Uyl
geloven heilig in de markt. De industrie bepaald de gemeente betaald in dit geval.Je wordt bijn gek van vervuiling. Hier
tegenover speeltuin en 10tal parkeerplekken blikjes flesjes en mazzel af en toe een met statiegeld. Zet op alle flessen flesjes
blikjes 20 cent verdien ik ook nog wat extra.
https://joop.vara.nl/nieuws/frodo-in-de-ban-van-het-statiegeld
98
EU closer to a recycling society, seeking to avoid waste generation and to use waste as a resource. In particular, the
Sixth Community Environment Action Programme calls for measures aimed at ensuring the source separation, collection
and recycling of priority waste streams. In line with that objective and as a means to facilitating or improving its recovery
potential, waste should be separately collected if technically, environmentally and economically practicable, before
undergoing recovery operations that deliver the best overall environmental outcome.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1450190084649&uri=CELEX:02008L0098-20150731
99
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/pdf/guidance.pdf P5
100
http://www.incovo.be/assets/475 P3
101
https://www.aiginsurance.nl/content/dam/aig/emea/netherlands/documents/brochure/schadevoorbeelden-brochure.pdf
102
http://www.competitiveness.ie/Publications/2016/Costs-of-Doing-Business-Press-Release.pdf P3
103
https://www.google.es/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwionOGZtqnUAhVD6xQKHeIfC
FsQFggzMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rwsleefomgeving.nl%2Fpublish%2Fpages%2F116060%2Fafvalverwerking_in
_nederland_gegevens_2015.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHG8JsqqBfTcDnpv3IW5TxOPTq3vA&sig2=UcRBT0fw3T0VPMomatNeg
wP8

52
every year while preventing circularity of resources and generating future maintenance costs.

An alternative to landfilling and incineration is much demanded by the public and can be initiated by
setting up regulations to follow up on initiatives that enable higher recycling rates and circularity.
Alternative options for increasing household recycling rates can be achieved by more expensive
unhygienic heavy work manual labour or futuristic costly waste separation by robotics. By setting up
the infrastructure to inspecting accurately and by being able to reward recyclers for their obsolete
disposed content, only then can disposers be incentivized to separate waste properly.104


104
https://www.trouw.nl/home/afval-inleveren-is-geld-verdienen~afb6ade7/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BOdmcVW9eU

53
Economic demand

In 2013, total waste generation in the EU amounted to approximately 2.5 billion tons of which 1.6
billion tons were not reused or recycled105 and therefore lost for the European economy106. Municipal
waste compared to business waste is the most complex waste stream to manage with the lowest
recycling rate,107consisting of 10% of the total EU waste flow108. The EU is the words largest
exporter of non-hazardous waste destined for recycling109. EU targets for 2020, are set at recycling 50
% municipal household waste and recycling 75% by 2030110. To meet these targets the EU or its
nation states should provide funding for new technology research, 111 thereby stimulating innovation
in recycling, creating new waste management practises, limiting the use of landfilling and establishing
incentives to change consumer behaviour.112

In the municipal waste flow a large portion of waste consists of low-cost one-way product plastic
packaging113. At present less than 25% of collected plastic waste is recycled114, about 50% goes to
landfill and in Germany 60% of plastic waste is incinerated (2013)115.

Final recycling processing

Waste prevention should be the first priority of waste management116, and perceived as a valuable
resource from the start. It is important for the community as a whole to become self-sufficient in
waste disposal disposal installations and final recycling installations. European enterprises should
be guided technocratically to compete in the global market for eco-innovate final recycling
processing solutions, that can be duplicated across member states and exported overseas. Several pilot


105
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:b68494d2-999f-11e5-b3b7-
01aa75ed71a1.0019.03/DOC_1&format=HTML&lang=EN&parentUrn=COM:2015:596:FIN 1.1
106
There are enormous profits to be made in the effective re-use and recycling of our resources. P7,
Uitvoeringsprogramma VANG - Huishoudelijk Afval
107
the collection and sorting of packaging waste from households is usually more expensive than the collection and sorting
of industrial packaging waste
http://www.expra.eu/en/about/faqs
108
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Municipal_waste_statistics
109
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/import-and-export-rules/export-from-eu/waste-shipment/
110
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/target_review.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/
111
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52014DC0398 P2
112
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:b68494d2-999f-11e5-b3b7-
01aa75ed71a1.0019.03/DOC_1&format=HTML&lang=EN&parentUrn=COM:2015:596:FIN P1.2
113
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A52013DC0123 P5
it is a challenge to collect plastic packaging P33 Uitvoeringsprogramma VANG - Huishoudelijk Afval
114
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-6204_en.htm
115
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52013DC0123
116
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32008L0098

54
projects for new plants are being carried out, such as melting plastics back to crude oil117 or
converting PET plastics waste back into virgin materials118. With a growing modernizing population,
packaged waste is going to keep increasing, signifying sorting and processing technologies will play a
vital future industrial and environmental role. Free market forces increase exports of recyclable waste
to China to attain higher recycling statistics: is not objectionable in itself, it may be argued that
recycling plastic waste in Europe is, in environmental terms, a better option and that plastic waste
exported to non-EU countries119
In order for the recycling container to maintain an informed loyal base it is necessary to advertise the
'best available technique for local processing in the nearest appropriate installation, by means of the
most appropriate methods and technologies. Where recycling containers are installed it could create
local geographical demand for regional services in specialized processing installations or enable
surrounding businesses to increase output in the final recycling industry, increasing the production
of recycled raw materials placed back onto the market.120
Unfortunately, currently in European recycling industry it is easier and more economical to resell
sorted waste to China by depositing it in sea containers, rather than having to encounter difficult to
find distant B2B specialized processing centres. Nedvangs waste tool monthly registration does
however directly have confidential access to all specialized processing companies nearby and in the
country.

Multiplier effect

When increased government spending stimulates aggregate demand and also


increases long term productive output, it wont cause inflation but economic
growth, proportionally through innovations (P to P1).
The short term transition reward for recycling container owners will enable
the facilities to be made available in the short term and effecting in long term
expansion potential. The 2.4% of v.a.t. redistributed by the government would
probably be spent again, regaining the v.a.t. balancing the multiplier.

The full implementation of EU waste legislation could save 72 billion a


year, increase the annual turnover of the EU waste management and recycling sector by 42 billion
and create over 400,000 jobs by 2020 more than 170.000 direct jobs could be created by 2035, most

117
http://www.fuenix.com
118
http://www.ioniqa.com
119
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52013DC0123
120
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%2013097%202011%20INIT P4

55
of them impossible to delocalize outside the EU121
Recycling is a complex labour-intense resource based industry, with Processing facilities having a
far higher employment intensity than incineration plants122 does, therefore contributing to the EU's
jobs and social agenda. Creating Positive effects on the competitiveness of the EU waste
management and recycling sectors as well as on the EU manufacturing sector (better extended
producer responsibility schemes, reduced risks associated with raw material access)123

In the modern world being able to dispose packed waste properly is a modern basic need. In the
Netherlands municipalities disposed 9519,000 tons of municipal waste in 2015124. If waste is recycled
and final recycling happens locally, with an economic trade activity of 1 euro per kilo of recycled
waste that would be worth 9,519,000,000 Euros of GDP income, a year.

Critical raw material

EU industry owns 25% of world wide plastics production125, with the plastic polymer raw material
being manufactured from 99% imported petroleum raw material. High rates of recycled municipal
plastic could ensure a cost efficient rate of circular raw material supply for industry, one that China
benefits from now. The Unions economy currently loses a significant amount of potential secondary
raw materials which are found in waste streams126 and also critical raw materials present in
electronic devices.

After a few years of recycling a continuous stream raw


materials, supplies become accumulative, lowering the
demand for new earthly raw materials and lowering the cost
of supply for new recycled raw materials, that should lead in
turn to lower cost products. That is ofcourse if recyclable
content is not sold to China but used in the production
industry domestically.

Food waste is a major contaminant of separated recyclable municipal waste. There is no reliable


121
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0123
122
http://www.terraqui.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/RDF-Export-Report-FINAL_PUBLISHED-2.pdf
123
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/Legal%20proposal%20review%20targets.pdf
124
http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=7467
125
http://www.plasticseurope.org/Documents/Document/20100309151634-
Final_FactsFigures2007_PublishedOct2008_final-20081020-002-EN-v1.pdf P9
126
http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c2b5929d-999e-11e5-b3b7-01aa75ed71a1.0018.03/DOC_1

56
method to measure food waste in the EU, which makes it more difficult for public authorities to assess
its scale, origins, and trends over time.127 Food waste can be a valuable component for generating
renewable green energy when compositing it into a green gas, with one kilogram of food waste being
transferable to one kilowatt hour of electrical energy.128 The biogas processes mineral based fertilizer
by-product, can be returned to soils as fertilisers. Their sustainable use in agriculture reduces the
need for mineral-based fertilisers129.


127
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52015DC0614
128
Converting separated fruit and vegetable waste into (together with Waternet): from 200 kilotons to 217
TJ http://www.aebamsterdam.com/about/
129
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52015DC0614

57
Final recycling130 in China

Europe depends on exporting to China (87% wt of exports)131, Between 2000 and 2008, European
exports of plastic waste increased by 250% and about
87% of these exports ended up in China.132 China
controls a
large
portion of
the
recycling
market,
importing about 70% of the world's 500m tonnes of
electronic waste and 12m tonnes of plastic waste each year133. Chinas virtual monopoly on
processing made it so US manufacturers imported raw materials mostly from China.134 a used
Stonyfield Farms yogurt container is actually valuable raw material to Chinese manufacturers, which
use the plastic resin from the processed tub to make everything from laptop cases to cosmetics.

Much of this recycling is done by small-scale, family owned, low tech, poor worker health safety,
coal fired extruder recycling plants,135 family-run plastic recycling mills sort, clean and break up
the rubbish before putting the pieces into furnaces where they are melted and remoulded, eventually
to be processed into small granules.136 because of importation of plastic scrap. The reason that
people cant breathe in Beijing is plastics emissions,137 The environmental and health impacts of
China's unregulated plastic recycling business were immense: the cleaning process pollutes
waterways, melting and burning the scraps released toxic pollutants into the air, and leftover pieces
unfit for recycling were dumped directly into riverbeds, Wang said.138"Plastic waste that has no value
for recycling is either burned directly or dumped in waterways and eventually ends up in the sea. This
is very common in China's rural areas, where there is no waste management in place,"139 experts judge


130
"final recycling process" means the recycling process which begins when no further mechanical sorting operation is
needed and waste materials enter a production process and are effectively reprocessed into products, materials or substances;
131
http://www.cewep.eu/events/m_1233
132
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/14/waste-trade-china-recycling-rubbish
133
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/china-green-fence-global-recycling-innovation
134
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/chinas-green-fence-blocking-us-plastic-recycling/311059/
135
http://www.cewep.eu/events/m_1233
136
http://www.scmp.com/article/1711744/china-produces-about-third-plastic-waste-polluting-worlds-oceans-says-report
137
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/chinas-green-fence-blocking-us-plastic-recycling/311059/
138
http://www.scmp.com/article/1711744/china-produces-about-third-plastic-waste-polluting-worlds-oceans-says-report
139
http://www.scmp.com/article/1711744/china-produces-about-third-plastic-waste-polluting-worlds-oceans-says-report

58
that around 80% of marine plastic waste comes from land.140 To solve this issue spokesperson Chris
Brown from firm clean tech advices the government to end the incentives for export of post
consumer plastic to China and other countries. Currently the economic model of least resistance
path is followed141 if China were still a closed market economy, advanced countries would be forced
to focus on developing and investing in large recycling plants and new technologies, unfortunately
optical sorting is not ideal for highly mixed streams however is for separated content. optical sorters
exist, those are expensive too. And will raise costs for US cities142, however will also raise domestic
income and output. North America hasnt actually built a new recycling plant since 2003 since all
our excess goes to China.143 Each day across the United States about 1,500 shipping containers are
packed full of recyclables and trucked to seaports, where they are loaded onto cargo ships and
dispatched to China.144 The market for waste is now worth an estimated $443bn145 EU legislation
is fuelling a multibillion-dollar market. As landfill charges increase, it is often cheaper to send rubbish
abroad146 And we dont have strong enough markets in the US.147 However Environmental
services firm Veolia UK recently invested 5m in a cutting-edge plastics recycling facility in Essex
and wants to invest 1bn in UK recycling infrastructure over the next six years 148 - 2013 the lack
of stocks for creating recycled plastic is a global problem. In the UK particularly there is a
shortage of post consumer plastic to turn into recycled plastic for bottles because the collection
systems are so poor149 The chicken and egg problem with large complex recycling facilities, is the
supply of the contents and B2B resale markets are needed before long term investments in final
recycling processing centres can be made.

Recycling statistics

Citizens dont know what happens with their waste as soon as its thrown away, they can only hope for
the best, municipalities want to impress national governments and citizens. What happened to the


140
UNEP (2005). Marine litter, an analytical overview:
http://www.unep.org/regionalseas/marinelitter/publications/docs/anl_oview.pdf.
141
http://www.cewep.eu/events/m_1233
142
https://qz.com/82640/china-doesnt-want-your-trash-anymore-and-that-could-spell-big-trouble-for-american-cities/
143
https://aqenvecon.wordpress.com/2015/12/09/operation-green-fence-chinas-power-over-world-recycling/
144
http://www.waste360.com/business/what-operation-green-fence-has-meant-recycling
145
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/14/waste-trade-china-recycling-rubbish
146
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/14/waste-trade-china-recycling-rubbish
EU legislation is fuelling a multibillion-dollar market. As landfill charges increase, it is often cheaper to send rubbish
abroad writes Moses, standard subliminal anti EU propaganda provided by an English newspaper is again blaming the EU
for something (2013)
147
https://qz.com/82640/china-doesnt-want-your-trash-anymore-and-that-could-spell-big-trouble-for-american-cities/
148
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/china-green-fence-global-recycling-innovation
149
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/29/stop-exporting-plastic-waste-to-china-to-boost-recycling-at-
home-say-experts

59
exported waste is not 100% known to us150 if you cannot measure it you cannot manage it151 and
is a loss of resources for domestic industry. It might be that recycled rates overestimated when
exported. 152
Sweden is almost there, more than 99 per cent of all household waste is recycled in one way or
another,153 while actual statistics show that in Sweden 50% is incinerated and only 50% recycled.154
Member States should be allowed, under strict conditions, to report recycling rates on the basis of the
output of sorting facilities while In the UK recycling rates are based on collection rates155, to
measure circular recycling rates, final recycling processing centre output should be registered.

The recycling container will hold and maintain a cloud connected electronic registry wherein there is
a reporting system available to authorities, that records real time data on the quantity, nature, origin,
destination, frequency of collection, mode of transport of that waste collection, waste material flows
and foreseen treatment method. The data shall be complete, reliable, timely and consistent. The waste
shall not be considered waste but value from the start and shall be digitally administered156

The implementation of the transition reward should be so that they can only be collected digitally,
since using human operated storefronts would create an opportunity for fraud for overestimating
delivery. Digital recycling is better to obtain recycling statistics and keep transition fund
administration costs low.


150
Environmentally, a lot depends on the local (mostly Chinese) management of recyclables - which is not 100% known to
us http://www.cewep.eu/events/m_1233
151
http://www.cewep.eu/events/m_1233
152
Overestimation by considering rejects as recycled http://www.cewep.eu/events/m_1233
153
https://sweden.se/nature/the-swedish-recycling-revolution/
154
recycling means any 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 or for backfilling operations;
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Glossary:Recycling_of_waste
155
British plastic federation DRS scheme briefing
If underground container content is solely shredded, pressed into bales and exported to China, its counted as having been
recycled.
156
It is important therefore that Member States take appropriate measures to prevent waste generation and monitor and
assess progress in the implementation of such measures. In order to ensure a uniform measurement of the overall progress in
the implementation of waste prevention measures, common indicators should be established.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52015PC0595

60
Transition fund conclusion

Transition fund Implementation plan

According to Directive 2003/35/EC any citizen has the right to contribute and present an proposal for
the domestic recycling industry157. We intend to engage in a Citizens initiative158 where the proposal
will need at least 40,000 signatures with support evidence name, address and birth of date.
We will also present the proposal to various commission services such SG, ECFIN, GROW, CLIMA,
JRC, and ESTAT.

There is large economic potential in mining urban waste that is yet to be benefitted from by
communities and economies. New processing technologies are being developed and increasingly
investments are made in the domestic final recycling industry159, initiating a much improved recycling
industry over todays exported environmental effect and heavy labour in markets abroad.
The success of the deposit return schemes is clearly visible in the countries where it has been
implemented, shown by the investments made in domestic local final recycling processing plants and
increased recycling rates for EPR reward based products; indicating Economic instruments can play
a crucial role in the achievement of waste prevention and management objectives. Waste often has
value as a resource, and the further application of economic instruments may maximise environmental
benefits.160

Upgrading underground bins to recycling containers with a transition rewards would affect a wide
range of private and public stakeholders in the Member States and will have an important impact on
future investments in waste management infrastructure. It would most probably guarantee that
objectives (i.e. protecting human health and the environment, increased resource efficiency, and
ensuring the functioning of the internal market and avoiding obstacles to trade and restriction of
competition within the EU) would be achieved.161


157
Stakeholders, as well as the general public, should have the opportunity to participate in the drawing up of the
programmes, and should have access to them once drawn up, in line with Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and
programmes relating to the environment
158
https://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerleden_en_commissies/commissies/verz/burgerinitiatieven
159
https://fd.nl/ondernemen/1170345/rotterdam-maakt-kans-op-afval-verwerkende-methanolfabriek
160
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32008L0098
161
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/?fuseaction=feedbackattachment&fb_id=FF54F26A-E514-D230-
FD51A7AA24F5E256

61
The recycling containers would provide citizens with a type of helicopter - basic income, disposable
spending money, this expenditure however would also increase economic output. The transition
budget would only be for a number of years, capped of and enough to get a large portion of the
population sorting accurately.

In-case the transition reward is not implemented in a specific country, the already established EPR
reward schemes, already form an essential part of efficient waste management162 and could be
sufficient for municipality to still reward the disposer and earn a market based return.163 It could even
be feasible for private investors, if enough separating disposers can be maintained per recycling
container.

Plan B: no transition fund implementation

The municipality has the responsibility for the collection of household municipal waste164, and the
motivation of citizens, the creation of knowledge, facilities for waste separation, is an important task
for municipalities.165 The installation of recycling containers could increase output and profitability
of local final recycling processing centre or attract additional high employment processing businesses.
If private market entrepreneurs could bring the costs down and revenues up by developing new
innovative services166 for processing municipal waste.

Several countries might want to implement an transition fund after an pilot project for the recycling
container has shown success, the project should therefore start with filing an public procurement for
innovative solutions application.167


162
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/?fuseaction=feedbackattachment&fb_id=FF54F26A-E514-D230-
FD51A7AA24F5E256
163
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52015PC0595
163
Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the waste holders targeted by the extended producer
responsibility schemes established in accordance with Article 8, paragraph 1, are informed about the available waste
collection systems and the prevention of littering. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52015PC0595
they should
163
(a) cover the entire cost of waste management for the products it puts on the Union market, including all the following:
costs of separate collection, sorting and treatment operations required to meet the waste management targets referred to in
paragraph 1, second indent, taking into account the revenues from re-use or sales of secondary raw material from their
164
P7 Uitvoeringsprogramma VANG - Huishoudelijk Afval
165
P15 Uitvoeringsprogramma VANG - Huishoudelijk Afval
166
increasing the marketing, sourcing of materials, lowering transport costs, optimizing processing, web B2B markets for
trading recycled materials.
167
'public procurement of innovative solutions' means procurement where contracting authorities act as a launch customer
for innovative goods or services which are not yet available on a large-scale commercial basis, and may include conformity
testing; http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32013R1290

62
report conclusion

Claims that collected content destined for recycling is incinerated or landfilled might not be true,
however that some stated recycling rates are lower and environmentally worse that registered is
highly probable.
For the recycling efforts to pay of in terms of building an real circular economy, final recycling
processes should occur locally and its produce be benefitted from by local industry.
By enabling the supply of cleaner municipal waste streams, it could generate local demand for
investment in new processing centres and technologies.

63
APPENDIX

This paper and proposal is largely based on the VANG Policy programme, In 2013, State Secretary of
Infrastructure and the Environment Mansveld launched the Van Afval Naar Grondstof (VANG)
policy programme. This programme is aimed at reducing the amount of incinerated or dumped waste
by half within ten years. The Netherlands can make even better use of raw materials by preventing
waste production and improving the recycling and separation of the produced waste. One of the
objectives is to reuse or recycle 75% of household waste in 2022.

64
X-ray public safety certification
2006/42/EC Machinery Directive, 2014/35/EU Low Voltage Directive, 2014/30/EU Electromagnetic
compatibility

65