Recovery of C&D waste

Changing under different economic constraints

EU: differences in GDP / cap~€

• 7.500-10.000– Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary

• 10.000-17.000– Lithuania, Czech Rep., Latvia, Portugal, Greece,

Cyprus, Slovenia

• 17.000-21.000– Spain, Italy, Germany, Estonia

• 22.000-30.000– Belgium, France, Austria, UK, Netherlands, Sweden,

Denmark, Ireland, + Luxemburg

Turnover P/c Eco-industry

SWM& Rec ~ € 20,-/cap

SW & Rec ~ € 50,-/cap

SWM & Rec ~€ 250,-/cap

Ratio SWM cost/GDP

• GDP<20.000: 0,1 - 0,2 %

• GDP>20.000: 0,5 - 1,0 %

• Low: Estonia, Spain, Belgium

• High: Slovenia, Denmark, Austria

A guess

• Prices for C&D waste recycling are about 1/3 of cost of waste management per capita, e.g.:– € 7,- at a level of € 20,-– € 17,- at a level of € 50– € 70,- at a level of € 200

A general model for cost accounting

• Full costs:– Internal:

• Process cost• Product costs and revenues

– External “community” cost:• Generation of pollution & deterioration of renewables

exceeding natural absorption level &

Depletion of natural resources:– Difficult to count, change with wealth

– Difficult to address: local, regional or global

– For someone else or the next generation

– Diluted

Conservation of misery

• Law on conservation of matter:

• the GOOD,

• the BAD and

• the UGLY

A dynamic arena of interacting parties

• Consequences of goods with negative value

• Recycling breakeven• Profitability regarding different public

policy instruments• Choice of market match• Economy of scale• Economic depreciation of investments

Consequences of goods with negative value

• Cash flow +

• Stock value -

• Risk management +/-

• Loss reward +

Recycling Breakeven

– Competition with other treatment chains (e.g. land filling or incineration): dominant competition

– Built-in percentage of other treatment: BAD can become worse for residues

Competing chains

Landfill

C

R-20

50% GOOD

10% UGLY( = Community)

40% BAD-40

-70

Tipping fee-30

Transport-40

Transport-201

2

A guess

• Prices for C&D waste recycling are about 1/3 of cost of waste management per capita, e.g.:– € 7,- at a level of € 20,-– € 17,- at a level of € 50– € 70,- at a level of € 200

Competing chains

Landfill

C

R-20

80% GOOD+3

10% UGLY(-100 = Community)

20% BAD-5

-10

Tipping fee-5

Transport-5

PRICE ??

Transport-51

2

MAXPROFIT??

Low cost competition

Landfill

C

R-5

80% aggregate+3

10% UGLY(-100 = Community)

20% BAD-5

-10

Tipping fee-5

Transport-5

PRICE 4,90

Transport-51

2

MAXPROFIT1,30

Wood, Metals,

Plastics

After technical regulation

Landfill

C

R-20

70% GOOD+12

10% UGLY-100 community

30% BAD-20

-25

Tipping fee-20

Transport-5

PRICE 19,90

Transport-51

2

MAXPROFIT2,50

After technical regulation and taxing

Landfill, incinerator

C

R-35

60% GOOD+2

5% UGLY-100 tax

40% BAD-70

-75

Tipping fee-70

Transport-5

PRICE 69,90

Transport-51

2

MAXPROFIT3,10

5%

debris, wood, metal

Selective Landfill ban for unsorted waste: BINGO

Landfill

C

R-35

60% GOOD+2

5% UGLY-100 = Tax

40% BAD-80

-104

PRICE 99

Transport-51

2

MAXPROFIT28,20

X 5%

Finding a match of markets

• A. waste product markets

• B. Resources markets (Energy and raw materials)

B

A

Sophiticated

specific

Economy of scale

collect Sort 1 Sort 2 Sort 3 end

Innovation and governmental reliability

• When investing, parties want a “innovative” public policy guaranteeing change, to be able to invest;

• After investment parties want a “reliable” public policy to have a optimal depreciation of their assets;

• It would be a coincidence if all the parties would be in the same stage at the same moment:

countervailing lobbying causes delays

Instruments of public authorities creating a artificial market

– Technical regulations (IPPC, BAT)– Treatment regulations (BREF’s)– Economic measurements: grants and taxes– Economic actor: client, supplier, manager

Effective regulation

Thesis:

• A combination of technical regulation and taxing the remaining external cost is sufficient for the creation of an effective diversified market

• More is politics and can be used as temporarily accelerator

Concluding remark:Design your system(-role) back to

forth

• Start in the future, count ten years back;• Question what scarce resources are and what can be

paid;• Count internal and external cost;• Design the whole system of end-treatment, recycling and

collection (In that order);• Find efficient rules for the play and roles for the players.