| dc.description.abstract | This research aimed to understand, analyse, and ultimately scrutinise, the government-wide ambitions to transition to a circular economy (CE) in the Netherlands by 2050. Within this topic, waste management (WM) arose as a suitable area of study due to the direct link to circular concepts and the established nature of the policy field which allowed for an investigation of relative changes. Crucially, the research aimed to determine alliances and differences of interests, ambitions and strategies amongst actors as a result of the ongoing transition since 2016. This was achieved by analysing three core policy documents – ‘A circular economy in the Netherlands by 2050’, ‘Towards an economy without waste, and the most recent ‘National waste management plan’ (‘LAP3’) – along with a number of other reports, and seven interviews with a range of actors who had responsibility to implement WM and circular policies, an interest in processing, utilising or preventing waste, or expert knowledge on WM, the CE or sustainability science.
Policy analysis clearly indicated that the government ambitions have been translated into a wide variety of policies covering five “priority sectors” of the economy – manufacturing, consumer goods, plastics, construction, and food and biomass. ‘Progress’ towards the CE is not consistent across the nation at the regional and municipal level and competing governmental priorities exist. This means there are ‘conflicts’ between governmental departments, between municipalities, and between priorities. Meanwhile the WM system is only a component of the wider socio-economic system. All of this amounts to fragmented strategy for WM and inevitable trade-offs against other national and regional priorities, and against the wider sustainability agenda.
The government-wide programme made extensive references to waste throughout the programme and WM policies and WM plans for actor groups (producers, households, government, and waste processors). Furthermore the ‘LAP3’ has now been modified to account for the government ambitions and it has indicated how WM policies can contribute to the transition to the CE and how the CE itself can make positive contributions to solving challenges around waste. Within the WM sector few profound structural changes were reported, aside from law changes to domestic and private waste material classifications and new logistical innovations connecting residual waste flows. The most significant policy development in the ‘LAP3’ was the focus on establishing a “minimum standard” which aimed to both prevent waste and increase the supply of high quality recyclates. However several interview respondents expressed concerns that waste prevention – by tackling ‘unnecessary’ or ‘excessive’ consumption – was not featuring strongly enough in policy activities, despite direct reference in all three policy reports.
At the same a variety of business actors have their own interests for the CE that involves developing new business models to prevent excess waste or to utilise secondary raw materials. Within the private sector actors are both stimulated and legislated against to varying degrees. Furthermore, the degree to which policy instruments can accelerate the transition is a contested area which forms possible “policy pathways”. A combination of strategies and policy instruments is required to achieve this, the balance of which is far from agreed upon. Meanwhile, preventing waste on a large scale by the widespread implementation of circular policies and practices is made problematic by the ‘lock-in’ of established linear actors and habits. Policy makers and citizen organisations are making efforts to impose stricter regulations and new standards on producers, such as Extended Producer Responsibility, but progress is currently slow. | |
