Court of Audit: Rutte government's plastic waste policy does not meet EU obligations
The Court of Audit has criticised the Rutte cabinet's policy on plastic waste. According to European and Dutch legislation, prevention and recycling must have priority in waste policy, and the Dutch government fails to do this.
According to European and Dutch legislation, prevention and reuse must be prioritised in waste policy, and the Dutch government is failing to do this, according to the Court of Audit.
The Court of Audit also points out that the minister is “reluctant to use legislation and regulations to enforce the objectives”. This is stated in the Results of the 2018 accountability audit of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, which the Court of Audit published on Wednesday.
Environmental organisation Recycling Netwerk Benelux shares the opinion of the Court of Audit. “We expect the government to develop additional and new legislation on plastic waste. With this, the government must make its European legal obligation to focus on prevention and reuse concrete and legally enforceable,” says director Rob Buurman.
Analysis
The Dutch government does not follow the legally established waste hierarchy
The Court of Audit indicates that the Waste Hierarchy must be respected. This is contained in the European Waste Management Act and the Dutch Environmental Management Act, with which the minister must therefore comply. The Court of Audit emphasises this three times, on pages 41, 43 and in the recommendations on page 48.
This hierarchy clearly states that “prevention” and “preparing for reuse” take priority over “recycling” and “incineration”.
p. 41
p. 43:
Lansink's Ladder has a similar hierarchy. Waste prevention and product reuse come before recycling and incineration.
At the moment, State Secretary Stientje van Veldhoven (D66) is steering towards plastic recycling of packaging. According to the court of audit, this leads to approximately 15% recycling of plastic in total.
The Court of Audit rightly points out that Dutch policy only has legally established objectives for recycling, and is therefore limited to only 1 aspect of the problem: “There are no objectives to reduce the production and use of plastics. Current Dutch policy is therefore aimed at a limited part of the plastic chain,” writes the Court of Audit (p. 39).
Recycling also plays a major role in the voluntary ‘Plastic Pact’. For example, the pact contains a recycling target of 70% of single-use plastic products and packaging for the parties that sign it. The signatories of the Pact also commit to using 20% less plastics. “Participation in this pact is voluntary. There are no financial sanctions if the targets are not met,” underlines the Court of Audit (p. 39)
Recommendation Court of Audit:
Recycling Network Verdict: The Court of Audit states quite explicitly that Dutch waste policy does not comply with the obligations of European legislation. These stipulate that priority must be given to prevention and reuse, but the Dutch government's priority lies with collection, recycling and incineration. Legally, this is not permitted.
Prioritising prevention and reuse is a legal obligation under both Dutch and European legislation. Currently, this is only addressed with a completely voluntary, non-sanctionable, and non-enforceable target in the Plastic Pact, while the recycling target for plastic packaging can indeed be enforced.
The high degree of non-committal nature of the Plastic Pact, which in Article 18 literally stipulates that “compliance with the agreements in the Plastic Pact is not legally enforceable”, was already a thorn in our side before.
We expect the minister to adhere to the legally determined waste hierarchy and immediately work on a legal framework that focuses on reducing the production of plastics (prevention) and encourages reuse over single-use plastics.
Products made from virgin plastics only must be banned in order to halt the production of new plastics. Mandating a percentage of recycled material in plastic products or plastic raw materials will also strongly help decouple the economy from new plastics. A shift from disposable to refillable and reusable must be stimulated, for example through targets and taxes on single-use plastics.
The Dutch government is “reluctant” to use legislation and regulations to enforce targets
“We see that the minister wants to achieve the targets in a directing and stimulating manner and
is reluctant to use legislation and regulations to enforce the targets
”, writes the Court of Audit. To achieve prevention, reuse and a circular economy, more is needed, writes the Court of Audit:
Also when it comes to the introduction of deposits on small plastic bottles, the Court of Audit notes that the minister is “reluctant”. (p. 42)
This leads to dependence on third parties such as the Packaging Waste Fund, Nedvang, municipalities, collectors, sorters, producers. The collection and processing of plastic
According to European and Dutch legislation, prevention and reuse must be prioritised in waste policy, and the Dutch government is failing to do this, according to the Court of Audit.
The Court of Audit also points out that the minister is “reluctant to use legislation and regulations to enforce the objectives”. This is stated in the Results of the 2018 accountability audit of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, which the Court of Audit published on Wednesday.
Environmental organisation Recycling Netwerk Benelux shares the opinion of the Court of Audit. “We expect the government to develop additional and new legislation on plastic waste. With this, the government must make its European legal obligation to focus on prevention and reuse concrete and legally enforceable,” says director Rob Buurman.
Analysis
1. The Dutch government does not follow the legally established waste hierarchy
The Court of Audit indicates that the Waste Hierarchy must be respected. This is contained in the European Waste Management Act and the Dutch Environmental Management Act, with which the minister must therefore comply. The Court of Audit emphasises this three times, on pages 41, 43 and in the recommendations on page 48.
This hierarchy clearly states that “prevention” and “preparing for reuse” take priority over “recycling” and “incineration”.
p. 41
p. 43:
Lansink's Ladder has a similar hierarchy. Waste prevention and product reuse come before recycling and incineration.
At the moment, State Secretary Stientje van Veldhoven (D66) is steering towards plastic recycling of packaging. According to the court of audit, this leads to approximately 15% recycling of plastic in total.
The Court of Audit rightly points out that Dutch policy only has targets established in legislation for recycling, and is therefore limited to only 1 aspect of the problem: “There are no objectives to reduce the production and use of plastics. Current Dutch policy is therefore aimed at a limited part of the plastic chain,” writes the Court of Audit (p. 39).
Recycling also plays a major role in the voluntary ‘Plastic Pact’. For example, the pact contains a recycling target of 70% of single-use plastic products and packaging for the parties that sign it. The signatories of the Pact also commit to using 20% less plastics. “Participation in this pact is voluntary. There are no financial sanctions if the targets are not met,” underlines the Court of Audit (p. 39)
Recommendation Court of Audit:
Recycling Network Verdict: The Court of Audit states quite explicitly that Dutch waste policy does not comply with the obligations of European legislation. These stipulate that priority must be given to prevention and reuse, but the Dutch government's priority lies with collection, recycling and incineration. Legally, this is not permitted.
Prioritising prevention and reuse is a legal obligation under both Dutch and European legislation. Currently, this is only addressed with a completely voluntary, non-sanctionable, and non-enforceable target in the Plastic Pact, while the recycling target for plastic packaging can indeed be enforced.
The high degree of non-committal nature of the Plastic Pact, which in Article 18 literally stipulates that “compliance with the agreements in the Plastic Pact is not legally enforceable”, was already a thorn in our side before.
We expect the minister to adhere to the legally determined waste hierarchy and immediately work on a legal framework that focuses on reducing the production of plastics (prevention) and encourages reuse over single-use plastics.
Products made from virgin plastics only must be banned in order to halt the production of new plastics. Mandating a percentage of recycled material in plastic products or plastic raw materials will also strongly help decouple the economy from new plastics. A shift from disposable to refillable and reusable must be stimulated, for example through targets and taxes on single-use plastics.
2. The Dutch government is “reluctant” to use legislation and regulations to enforce targets
“We see that the minister wants to achieve the targets in a directing and stimulating manner and
is reluctant to use legislation and regulations to enforce the targets
”, writes the Court of Audit. To achieve prevention, reuse and a circular economy, more is needed, writes the Court of Audit:
Also when it comes to the introduction of deposits on small plastic bottles, the Court of Audit notes that the minister is “reluctant”. (p. 42)
This leads to dependence on third parties such as the Packaging Waste Fund, Nedvang, municipalities, collectors, sorters, producers. The collection and processing of plastics is financed by the business community. The Court of Audit states that the financing method of the plastic chain needs to be evaluated.
Recommendation: The Court of Audit points out that the current coalition agreement expresses the ambition that the Netherlands will be 100% circular by 2050. But for a fully circular economy in 2050, much still needs to be done, according to the Court of Audit (p. 41).
Recycling Network Verdict: we share the opinion of the Court of Audit that additional new policy is urgently needed that leads to 100% circularity in 2050. At the moment, the Dutch government is still leaning on outdated policy that focuses purely on collection and recycling. Moreover, the government has become too dependent on the goodwill of third parties. The ideal of cooperation with the business community prevails over setting clear, enforceable rules. The most important changes currently come from Europe, such as the Single-Use Plastics Directive SUPD.
3. The recycling policy for plastic packaging is still assessed too optimistically by the Court of Audit based on incorrect figures from the business community
Although the focus should be more on prevention and reuse, the recycling policy is worse than the Court of Audit thinks. The Court of Audit states that the Netherlands is a frontrunner in Europe in recycling plastic packaging based on figures supplied by the Dutch business community. Those figures would show that 52% of packaging is recycled.
In reality, the recycling rate is heavily overestimated. This is because European calculation rules currently still allow a sorted waste stream to already be counted as recycled. As a result, moisture, dirt, and incorrectly sorted materials are counted in the recycling. Realistically, perhaps 20-35% of plastic packaging is recycled. And that percentage then says little about the quality of the recycling: many plastics are used in low-grade products and lead to plastic pollution again in new applications, such as with plastic textiles that lose millions of plastic fibres in the washing machine.
The European calculation rules will be adjusted from mid-2020. The Dutch recycling figure for plastics will then drop sharply. Until then, comparing Dutch recycling figures with other European countries makes little sense.
Finally, the Court of Audit proposes broadening producer responsibility so that, in addition to packaging, other plastic streams are also recycled. At the moment, too much usable plastic is still lost in incinerators.
Recycling Network Verdict: in order to conduct policy, it is necessary to have reliable figures. After years of overestimating the recycling of plastic packaging, it is important that the Dutch government communicates clearly about the upcoming drops in recycling figures and makes an estimate of their reliability.
In addition, it is important that recycling yields concrete environmental benefits. However, too many applications raise questions. The use of plastics in street furniture and textiles cannot be called sustainable because they lead to plastic pollution. The government should apply strict standards for recycling. Success stories such as bottle-to-bottle recycling made possible with the help of deposits must serve as a blueprint for other plastic packaging.
This page is automatically translated. A human review will follow soon.
