1. Recovery of C&D waste Changing under different economic constraints

2. 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

3. Turnover P/c Eco-industry

4. SWM& Rec ~ € 20,-/cap

5. SW & Rec ~ € 50,-/cap

6. SWM & Rec ~€ 250,-/cap

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. Conservation of misery Law on conservation of matter: the GOOD, the BAD and the UGLY

11. 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

12. Consequences of goods with negative value Cash flow+ Stock value- Risk management+/- Loss reward+

13. 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

14. Competing chains Landfill C R -20 50% GOOD 10% UGLY ( = Community) 40% BAD -40 -70 Tipping fee -30 Transport -40 Transport -20 1 2

15. 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

16. Competing chains Landfill C R -20 80% GOOD +3 10% UGLY (-100 = Community) 20% BAD -5 -10 Tipping fee -5 Transport -5 PRICE ?? Transport -5 1 2 MAX PROFIT ??

17. 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 -5 1 2 MAX PROFIT 1,30 Wood, Metals, Plastics

18. 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 -5 1 2 MAX PROFIT 2,50

19. 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 -5 1 2 MAX PROFIT 3,10 5% debris, wood, metal

20. 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 -5 1 2 MAX PROFIT 28,20 X 5%

21. Finding a match of markets A.waste product markets B. Resources markets (Energy and raw materials) B A Sophiticated specific

22. Economy of scale collect Sort 1Sort 2 Sort 3end

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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.