<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  	<channel>
    	<title>CE Delft - Food and material production chains</title>
		<copyright>Copyright (c) 2012, CE Delft</copyright>
		<link>http://www.ce.nl/ce/rapporten/114/</link>
        <atom:link href="http://www.cedelft.nlindex.php?go=home.showRapportenRSS&amp;pagenr=287" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<language>nl</language>
		<description>CE Delft Rich Site Summary</description>
		<webMaster>webmaster@ce.nl (Webmaster)</webMaster>
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[LCA: recycling of household plastic packaging waste ]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/lca%3A_recycling_of_household_plastic_packaging_waste_/1208</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/lca%3A_recycling_of_household_plastic_packaging_waste_/1208</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[This study answers the question whether current Dutch initiatives on collection, separation, sorting, processing and recycling of household plastic packaging waste yield significant environmental benefits compared with incineration of this waste as a power plant fuel. Consideration was given to systems of at-source separation (kerbside collection from households or delivery to neighbourhood collection points), post-consumer separation (removal of plastic packaging waste from household waste collected unsorted) and deposits on large and/or small PET bottles.&amp;nbsp;

The main conclusion is that both at-source and post-consumer separation of plastic packaging waste and a deposit on large PET bottles all have significant environmental benefits over incineration for power generation. A second conclusion is that this holds for all the types of plastic that are currently collected (PET, PP, HDPE, LDPE and mixed). The determining factor for overall environmental performance is the volume of recyclate emerging from recycling that can be used in new products. This is more important than any differences in separation routes or between the respective types of plastic.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;
In the report the full range of environmental impacts are calculated at midpoint, endpoint and single-score level using the ReCiPe methodology, accompanied by an extensive sensitivity analysis to assess the uncertainty margins of the results.&amp;nbsp;

This study for the Dutch Waste Management Association, conducted under the guidance of a broad supervisory committee, can support policymakers in drawing up future policy on plastic packaging waste.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2011 09:58:18 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Economic instruments for biodiversity]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/economic_instruments_for_biodiversity/1185</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/economic_instruments_for_biodiversity/1185</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[The Dutch Taskforce on Biodiversity and Natural Resources has set up an Economic Instruments workgroup to assess how the recommendations of the TEEB report can be worked up into concrete Dutch policy measures. Based on that report and internal discussions, the workgroup has selected a series of issues for further study and elaboration. For these issues CE Delft was asked to design policy proposals that are both practicable and lead to better protection of biodiversity, not only in the Netherlands, but also by reducing the ecological footprint of Dutch consumption patterns in other countries.

The following proposals have been investigated and/or elaborated in policy terms:

    lowering the social discount rate
    further greening of the tax system
    an import charge on bulk commodities
    a tax on non-sustainable timber
    a tax on development of greenfield sites
    a differentiated tax on animal protein
    a review of incentive schemes for biomass projects&amp;nbsp;
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2011 13:12:58 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Climate analysis Subcoal&reg;]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/climate_analysis_subcoal+en+reg%3B/1158</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/climate_analysis_subcoal+en+reg%3B/1158</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[This study compares the climate effects of the processing of coarse rejects from the paper industry by the Subcoal&amp;reg; route with incineration of the rejects in a waste incineration plant (WIP). A previous study by CE Delft revealed that for the paper-plastic fraction of household waste, the Subcoal&amp;reg; route scores better in terms of climate impact and overall environmental burden compared with incineration in a WIP. This report shows how the climate change comparison between the Subcoal&amp;reg; and WIP routes pans out for coarse rejects from the paper industry. In this case, too, the Subcoal&amp;reg; route has a significantly lower climate change impact than the WIP route. Per tonne of reject the Subcoal&amp;reg; route avoids 828 kilo CO2 emissions compared with an average WIP and 545 kilo CO2 compared with a high-performance WIP (Figure 1). 

Figure 1: Comparison of avoided CO2 emissions of rejects processed via the Subcoal&amp;reg;/lime kiln route and in a waste incineration plant


For the production of lime this means that when Subcoal&amp;reg; is co-fired at 30% (on a caloric basis), the CO2 emissions of the lime production process can be reduced by 17-18%. ]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 05 Jul 2011 08:34:15 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Feedstocks: A quick scan ]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/feedstocks%3A_a_quick_scan_/1197</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/feedstocks%3A_a_quick_scan_/1197</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[While there is no scarcity of biotic feedstocks, this does not hold for fertile farmland. Growing demand for feedstocks without a corresponding increase in fertile acreage will therefore lead to scarcity. This is the core message of CE Delft&amp;rsquo;s input to the &amp;lsquo;Feedstocks&amp;rsquo; discussion paper presented by the Dutch cabinet to parliament this summer. CE Delft&amp;rsquo;s main contribution was a study into expectations and impacts vis-&amp;agrave;-vis biotic feedstocks like timber and soy. The study is included in the larger study &amp;ldquo;En route to a feedstocks strategy. Quick scan for a &amp;lsquo;Feedstocks&amp;rsquo; discussion paper&amp;rdquo; carried out jointly by the Hague Centre for Strategic Studies, TNO and CE Delft. The main conclusion regarding biotic scarcity is that while biotic feedstocks are not scarce, there is not enough fertile land available for growing both food and (bio)energy and (bio)chemical feedstocks. This means prices will rise and growing competition among applications (food versus fuel, for example).]]></description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:58:57 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Climate impact of the half-litre PET bottle]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/climate_impact_of_the_half-litre_pet_bottle/1170</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/climate_impact_of_the_half-litre_pet_bottle/1170</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Over the past decade manufacturers have gradually improved the environmental performance of half-litre PET bottles. Bottle weight has been reduced, a certain amount of recycled PET is now incorporated and discarded PET bottles are to some extent recycled via the &amp;lsquo;Plastic Heroes&amp;rsquo; collection system. CE Delft has calculated that these three factors have together reduced the climate impact of the average half-litre PET bottle by 37% over the past 10 years. This improvement is equivalent to avoiding the emissions associated with 46 million showers being taken. It is anticipated that with increased recycling, further weight reduction and more use of recycled PET a similar improvement will again be feasible in the coming years.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 05 Jul 2011 10:21:09 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[The printerless office]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/the_printerless_office/1145</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/the_printerless_office/1145</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Whether or not use of an e-reader in an office environment is environmentally friendlier than printed paper depends entirely on the type of user. In this study lifecycle assessment was used to determine the respective environmental impact of e-readers and printed paper and establish the tipping point at which the impact of a certain number of prints equals that of e-reader use. Because the precise composition of an e-reader (with e-ink) is proprietary information, scenarios were used for this purpose. The tipping point at which an e-reader, with an assumed service life of 2 years, is environmentally friendlier than prints is between 3,000 and 13,000 prints a year. It therefore depend on the office situation what the best option is.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 04 May 2011 10:30:12 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[The environmental impact of mink fur production]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/the_environmental_impact_of_mink_fur_production/1131</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/the_environmental_impact_of_mink_fur_production/1131</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[This study reports on a life cycle assessment (LCA) of mink fur production, quantifying the environmental impact of the production chain 'from feed to fur'. To produce 1 kg of fur requires more than 11 animals. In the course of its lifetime, mink eat about 50 kg of feed, resulting in 563 kg of feed required per kg of fur. Although the feed consists mainly of offal and this is accounted for by very low allocation of environmental impacts, the 563 kilos required to produce 1 kg of fur knocks on considerably in the total environmental footprint of fur and for 14 of the 18 impact categories studied, feed is the predominant factor. Compared with textiles, fur has a higher impact per kg in 17 of the 18 environmental categories, including climate change, eutrophication and toxic emissions. In many cases, fur has impacts that are a factor 2 to 28 higher than textiles, even when lower-bound values are taken for various links in the production chain.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2011 10:20:17 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[The Netherlands: An import nationLand use and emissions from resource flows]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/the_netherlands%3A_an_import_nation%3Cbr%3Eland_use_and_emissions_from_resource_flows/1113</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/the_netherlands%3A_an_import_nation%3Cbr%3Eland_use_and_emissions_from_resource_flows/1113</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[This report analyses the environmental impact of the raw materials we import for domestic consumption in the Netherlands as well as the raw materials that are re-exported once they have been converted to products (thereby also contributing to our economic welfare). Using data from Netherlands Statistics (CBS), four kinds of impact are analysed: greenhouse gas emissions, toxic emissions, land use and biodiversity loss. The following raw materials are found to have a major impact on these themes: cacao, chemical feedstocks, coal, cereals, timber, paper, cotton, oilseeds, soy, steel, copper, aluminium, zinc, transport fuels, fish, meat, dairy and potatoes. For many of these commodities &amp;lsquo;cradle-to-grave&amp;rsquo; policies are under development in the Netherlands (e.g. soy, aluminium, paper and cacao), but for others this is not yet the case. To an extent, moreover, these are &amp;lsquo;one-track&amp;rsquo; policies focusing solely on energy issues, or on biodiversity loss. To ensure policies are not mutually incompatible, the various themes should be integrated. The report also presents a specific ranking of the commodities on the respective environmental themes.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2011 15:28:28 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Supply chain analysis: more than LCA alone ]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/supply_chain_analysis%3A_more_than_lca_alone_/1122</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/supply_chain_analysis%3A_more_than_lca_alone_/1122</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[There are serious sustainability issues with South American soy production, due largely to the rapid increase in soy acreage triggered by a marked rise in global demand. One of the main applications of soy is in the form of soybean meal for animal feed. A possible solution to the cited issues might therefore be to replace the soy-based feed used in Europe today with feed produced from home-grown ingredients. There are several leguminous crops eligible for this purpose, in particular peas, field beans and lupins.

To assess whether substitution of soy by European grain legumes would be a wise move requires thorough analyses of sustainability aspects. This report presents recommendations for guidelines for such analyses. These relate to two issues: assessment of sustainability as such, and comparative assessment of soy versus legumes. It is proposed to adopt a &amp;lsquo;stacked&amp;rsquo; approach comprising both sustainability criteria and LCA. In comparative LCA studies the definition of the system boundaries and the choice of impact categories are of pivotal importance for the results obtained.
&amp;nbsp;]]></description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:33:40 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[GHG emissions of green coffee productionToward a standard methodology for carbon footprinting]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/ghg_emissions_of_green_coffee_production%3Cbr%3Etoward_a_standard_methodology_for_carbon_footprinting/1117</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/ghg_emissions_of_green_coffee_production%3Cbr%3Etoward_a_standard_methodology_for_carbon_footprinting/1117</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[CE Delft and Plant Research International have examined current knowledge of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production of coffee as well as existing standards in the area of carbon footprinting to identify the main methodological issues and data gaps in carbon footprinting of coffee. Building on this report, the SAI platform working group on coffee will start working with stakeholders on &amp;quot;product category rules&amp;quot; (PCR) for green coffee footprinting.&amp;nbsp; 

The following challenges were identified:

    Science: soil organic matter, shade trees/intercropping, emissions due to fertilizer use, emissions from fermentation and residue treatment
    Methodology: inclusions of sources (soil/above-ground carbon), data quality, calculation procedure, allocation (farm management)
    Process: many stakeholders, mitigation is only one of the issues
    &amp;nbsp;
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:04:09 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Marginal land use changes for varying biofuels volumes]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/marginal_land_use_changes_for_varying_biofuels_volumes/1108</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/marginal_land_use_changes_for_varying_biofuels_volumes/1108</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[This report reflects on the RED-induced biofuels policies of individual EU member states in light of the recently produced EU studies on ILUC and in light of practical aspects such as (agricultural) feedstocks availability and fuel quality restrictions for blending of biofuels. It concludes that member states&amp;rsquo; biofuels policies and ambitions appear rather inefficient and focused on a suboptimal biofuels blend.

The National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAPs) of the individual EU member states indicate that the range of biofuels that will be applied in 2020 will consist for at least 1/3 but probably up to &amp;frac12; of biodiesel. Bio-ethanol will make up approximately &amp;frac14; of the total mix, with waste-based biofuels and renewable electricity making up the rest. This deviates significantly from the &amp;frac12; bio-ethanol, &amp;frac12; biodiesel blend considered in the IFPRI study currently used by the EU Commission as the principal source of information on the indirect land use change (ILUC) induced by EU biofuels policy.

Based on RED and recent ILUC studies the anticipated mix of biofuels will yield an estimated greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction of 6-17 Mt CO2 eq./a, deriving mainly from utilization of waste-based biofuels and renewable electricity and to a lesser extent from sugar-crop-based bio-ethanol. However, in contrast to the overall picture, the utilisation of oilseed-based biodiesel will probably give a net increase in GHG emissions owing to ILUC-related emissions of these gases. It is uncertain, moreover, whether there are sufficient rapeseed feedstocks for biodiesel available on the global oilseeds market to realize the projected volumes of 1st generation biofuels.

The above conclusion may serve as a guide for adjusting EU biofuels policy and further specifying the terms thereof. In this respect the EU might follow the example of the Swedish government, whose biofuels policy focuses on the use of biogas, bio-ethanol and diesel substitutes based on residues from chemical pulp production. Sugarbeet may be a land-extensive European alternative to tropical sugarcane.&amp;nbsp;]]></description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:53:20 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Improvements in the petroleum chainImproving the energy efficiency of the petroleum chain, outside refineries]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/improvements_in_the_petroleum_chain%3Cbr%3Eimproving_the_energy_efficiency_of_the_petroleum_chain%2C_outside_refineries/1107</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/improvements_in_the_petroleum_chain%3Cbr%3Eimproving_the_energy_efficiency_of_the_petroleum_chain%2C_outside_refineries/1107</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[In this study we identify ways in which the energy efficiency of the petroleum industry production chain can be improved in the Netherlands, outside refineries. The study was carried out in the framework of the Long-Term Agreement on Energy Efficiency for EU ETS industries (the so-called &amp;lsquo;MEE-covenant&amp;rsquo;) at the request of the VNPI with support from Agentschap NL.

To this end the scope for energy-saving during storage, transhipment and transport of the crude oil and petroleum products was investigated. The study also considered the potential for renewable energy generation at tank and storage facilities, heat and CO2 supply from refineries and use of biomass at refineries.

The greatest abatement potential was found to lie with CO2 and heat supply from refineries and use of biomass in refining processes. In other processing steps the scope for efficiency improvement may be as much as several dozen per cent of specific energy consumption, but over the entire chain this potential is limited. It is recommended to elaborate the Top 3 measures further and examine the scope for implementing them in&amp;nbsp; greater detail.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 03 Dec 2010 08:58:07 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Better high-efficiency incineration than incineration close to homeHow much waste transportation is useful for improving energy efficiency?]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/better_high-efficiency_incineration_than_incineration_close_to_home%3Cbr%3Ehow_much_waste_transportation_is_useful_for_improving_energy_efficiency/1106</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/better_high-efficiency_incineration_than_incineration_close_to_home%3Cbr%3Ehow_much_waste_transportation_is_useful_for_improving_energy_efficiency/1106</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[With municipal solid waste the aim is to restrict the volume (prevention) and recycle as much as possible. But even then there is still a considerable volume to be incinerated, with energy being recuperated in the process.

The Netherlands&amp;rsquo; ten operational municipal waste incinerators differ widely in terms of efficiency, with the best recuperating around twice as much energy from the waste as the worst. For much of the country the best-performing units are often relatively far away, though. Many local authorities therefore face the dilemma of whether to process their waste close to home or further away, at more efficient incinerators. In this study the CO2 benefits of higher energy efficiency are weighed up against the CO2 &amp;lsquo;costs&amp;rsquo; of additional transport (by road, rail or water). The main conclusion is that differences in energy efficiency knock on far more in overall CO2 performance than differences in transport distances. The study was conducted for SITA.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 03 Dec 2010 14:27:25 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Environmental assessment of paper and cardboard for lifecycle-based waste policy ]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/environmental_assessment_of_paper_and_cardboard_for_lifecycle-based_waste_policy_/1087</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/environmental_assessment_of_paper_and_cardboard_for_lifecycle-based_waste_policy_/1087</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[At the request of the Netherlands Environment Ministry, VROM, an analysis has been made of the lifecycle environmental impact of Dutch consumption of paper and cardboard, deriving from both domestic output and imported materials. Because a relatively large fraction of waste paper is collected in the Netherlands, the raw materials impact of the supply chain is relatively low, as a substantial share of the materials are recovered and then recycled. The overall environmental impact of paper and cardboard consumption per capita is equivalent to that of a little over 1,250 car-kilometres a year.

This &amp;ldquo;baseline assessment&amp;rdquo; was carried out to support the Dutch government&amp;rsquo;s new lifecycle-based waste strategy, as set out in the Second National Waste Management Programme (LAP2). A ballpark figure of 20% reduction of lifecycle environmental impact has been set for the year 2015. Three specific policy measures were analysed which together have a savings potential of 8%. The savings relate among other things to efficiency improvements at printing shops, including reduction of waste paper in this link of the chain, and use of alternative fibre feedstocks.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:40:16 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[On weighting - A review of LCA weighting methods ]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/on_weighting_-_a_review_of_lca_weighting_methods_/1056</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/on_weighting_-_a_review_of_lca_weighting_methods_/1056</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Product life cycle assessment (LCA) is an attractive tool for making environmentally-informed choices from among product alternatives. The results of an LCA &amp;ndash; the product&amp;rsquo;s &amp;lsquo;environmental profile&amp;rsquo; - is essentially a list of the product&amp;rsquo;s direct or indirect contributions to various kinds of environmental impact, such as climate change, acidification, eutrophication, toxicity, land use and resource depletion. Before a choice can ultimately be made, it is important that the various environmental impacts are made mutually comparable, enabling the impact scores for each product alternative to be translated into a one-figure final score. For this &amp;lsquo;weighting&amp;rsquo; step in LCA a variety of methods have been developed. It is a controversial issue, though, because in this kind of procedure value judgments are by definition inescapable. This report discusses the main LCA weighting methods available and the pros and cons of weighting in the LCA context.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:48:37 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[The environmental impact of the Belgian carpet supply chain ]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/the_environmental_impact_of_the_belgian_carpet_supply_chain_/1045</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/the_environmental_impact_of_the_belgian_carpet_supply_chain_/1045</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[At the request of the Public Waste Agency of Flanders (OVAM) a brief study was conducted on the environmental impact of the Belgian carpet supply chain, as part of the project &amp;ldquo;Partnership in the carpet chain to address sustainable resource use&amp;rdquo;. To this end a &amp;lsquo;rough and ready&amp;rsquo; LCA study was carried out to gain insight into three issues:&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;

    The respective impact of various pile materials.
    The impact of various scenarios for waste disposal of the entire carpet, diversified for two frequently used pile materials.
    The relative impact of the various links in the carpet product chain.

The supply chain was modelled with the LCA software package Simapro, using the EcoInvent database and existing LCA studies, supplemented with data from the literature. For the extraction/production of pile materials a range of environmental impacts were assessed, while for the other links the climate impact expressed as cumulative energy demand (CED) was taken as a measure of overall environmental impact.

Some of the main conclusions:

    Raw materials production contributes most to environmental impact. Product maintenance also accounts for a substantial share, but is preferable to no maintenance and premature disposal. Production processes come in the third place.
    High-quality recycling does not always bring climate benefits. This is due to the complexity of the polymer being recycled as well as the complexity of the processing method. Future developments, such as improved recycling techniques and a shift in the overall energy supply to renewable sources may change this picture, however.
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2010 14:51:21 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Environmental impact analysis of food and food losses]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/environmental_impact_analysis_of_food_and_food_losses/1031</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/environmental_impact_analysis_of_food_and_food_losses/1031</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[In the Netherlands&amp;rsquo; Second National Waste Management Programme lifecycle-based management had been adopted as a new strategy. During this second planning period (2009-2015) the strategy is to be elaborated for seven high-priority material flows, with a ballpark figure of 20% being adopted for the reduction in life cycle environmental impact to be achieved by the year 2015. 

One of these material flows is &amp;lsquo;food and food losses&amp;rsquo;. The overall environmental burden associated with food produced for Dutch consumption could be reduced by 15% if there were zero losses at the consumer end of the cycle. This would also mean additional gains of around 1% owing to savings on the associated packaging. For food and food residues the environmental impact of waste processing is negligible (under 1%). All in all, packaging contributes around 12% to environmental burdens. Consumption of animal protein, including losses, is responsible for over 50% of the total impact. 

A reduction of around 10% in aggregate environmental burden between now and 2015 is feasible, about half of this through efficiency improvements in the production phase. The rest of the envisaged reduction will require efforts to encourage behavioural change, to achieve a limited change in protein consumption patterns. This kind of reduction is equivalent to an individual reduction of around 900 car-kilometres per year (a 5% reduction).]]></description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 15 Apr 2010 16:40:12 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Exploration of an improved methodology for the packaging tax]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/exploration_of_an_improved_methodology_for_the_packaging_tax/920</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/exploration_of_an_improved_methodology_for_the_packaging_tax/920</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[The rates employed in the Dutch packaging tax, introduced in 2008, are based on the lifecycle CO2 emissions of the packaging in question. An earlier study had shown that 
CO2 emissions provide a good metric for the overall environmental impact of packaging. The CO2 indices were calculated for the Environment ministry by CE Delft in 2007 in dialogue with the industry. During that study it emerged that particularly with &amp;lsquo;biomaterials&amp;rsquo; like paper and bioplastics, CO2 emissions no longer provide a full approximation of overall environmental performance. Land use and efficient use of biomass also merit inclusion in the methodology.

In the present study CE Delft elaborates and assesses six ways of improving the methodology. These were all discussed extensively with a scientific panel (CML, Ecofys, UU, WUR and CE Delft). The panel came to the unanimous conclusion that a calculation based on greenhouse gas emissions and total energy consumption (fossil and non-fossil) would provide a better as well more practical metric for setting packaging tax rates from 2010 onwards. At the end of 2008 the Environment ministry sent this brief report to Parliament, with a formal proposal to adopt this recommendation.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:30:43 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[A sustainable dairy sector]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/a_sustainable_dairy_sector/850</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/a_sustainable_dairy_sector/850</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[The report examines &amp;lsquo;facts and figures&amp;rsquo; concerning climate impacts in the dairy sector. Recent studies point to the relatively large share of meat and dairy products in the total environmental impact of our consumption. The context for dairy as a separate sector is provided by this report. One of the main conclusions of the report is that dairy livestock emissions contribute 1.2% to the total global greenhouse gas emissions.   Methane is the major contributor and while on-farm methane emissions have decreased in Annex-I countries, the share of dairy remains relatively stable as other sectors also reduced emissions. Next to these on-farm dairy emissions, global cradle-to-farm-gate emissions are estimated. Cradle-to-farm gate emissions are 0.8-1.4 kg CO2-eq. per kg milk and in total contribute 3% to total global climate emissions. Enteric fermentation is the main source of climate impact over the life cycle, but reducing these emissions may lead to trade offs if emissions in the production of feed increase. For a better understanding of such life-cycle effects, a more consistent life cycle assessment practice for dairy systems is necessary. Finally, post-farm emissions add 10-20% to cradle-to-farm gate emissions, partly due to product losses and cooled storage in the house. Therefore, consumer options may be effective in lowering climate impacts in the dairy life cycle.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:29:08 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Future Dutch waste policy: priorities and leverage points]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/future_dutch_waste_policy%3A_priorities_and_leverage_points/816</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/future_dutch_waste_policy%3A_priorities_and_leverage_points/816</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[The Netherlands&iuml;&iquest;&frac12; new National Waste Management Plan is to focus more on the environmental impacts of the entire supply chains of wastes and waste products. In this study this lifecycle environmental impact was assessed for the main categories of waste, from raw materials production all the way through to waste disposal. Besides a series of waste streams traditionally ad-dressed by waste policy, in this lifecycle approach there also emerge streams associated with high energy consumption in the use phase (end-of-life cars and tyres and gas discharge lamps). Other streams scoring high are those with a relatively high environmental impact in the production phase (animal, textile and metals waste), generally independent of the environmental weight-ing method employed.   On the basis of several different rankings, a number of priority waste streams were identified that merit additional focus in drawing up the new Waste Man-agement Plan. This does not necessarily mean modification of current waste disposal methods, because this study did not consider the cost effectiveness of disposal methods or alternative courses of action. As is to be expected in a lifecycle approach, the scope for government leverage is partly beyond the traditional remit of waste policy. At the same time, though, there are clearly synergies between the waste phase and the rest of the lifecycle, as embodied in &iuml;&iquest;&frac12;design-for-recycling&iuml;&iquest;&frac12; and greater focus on materials selection when design-ing energy-efficiency measures. Some of these leverage points can be elabo-rated in the Netherlands&iuml;&iquest;&frac12; new waste policy, while others are already being exploited in other policy areas.  This is an exploratory study and the results are not suitable for detailed analy-ses or conclusions. The Environment ministry, VROM, for which the report was prepared, sees it more as an initial step in further elaboration of the coun-try&iuml;&iquest;&frac12;s waste policy.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 2011 11:59:27 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Environmental indices for the Dutch packaging tax]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/environmental_indices_for_the_dutch_packaging_tax/724</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/environmental_indices_for_the_dutch_packaging_tax/724</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[On 1 January 2008 a packaging tax is to be introduced in the Netherlands. In line with wider government policy objectives, tariffs for the new tax are to be indexed to the environmental burden of the packaging material in question. In an earlier study, CE Delft concluded that the climate impact of the packaging chain (cradle to grave) is a good and relatively simple measure of overall environmental impact. This report examines existing data on the greenhouse gas emissions of the various packaging materials in each of the key steps of the chain: raw materials extraction, primary materials production, packaging shaping, recycling and waste disposal. 

In discussion with the packaging materials industry, environmental indices for the various materials have been established which in CE’s assessment can serve as a reasonably robust ranking basis for introducing a packaging charge in the short term, in 2008.

For the 2009 tax year it is recommended to refine the ranking by:Incorporating environmental differences in the use phase between different types of packaging (in particular, differences in product spoilage and cooling requirements).Incorporating additional environmental themes (particularly land use and biodiversity), especially to improve coverage of paper recycling.Incorporating differences between production sites (primary production and shaping) in more detail, as well as environmental differences between sites.Further refinement of tariffs for specific submaterials (individual grades of cardboard and plastics) and incorporation of current recycling rates.After this date, an update every two years would be useful to encourage ongoing innovation.

]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:35 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Nappy waste disposal]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/nappy_waste_disposal/562</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/nappy_waste_disposal/562</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[This study, an update of a study from 2003, analyses the environmental impacts, costs and hygiene pros and cons of various means of nappy waste disposal. Four routes were examined:

    collection with the residual fraction of household waste and incineration in a municipal waste incinerator;
    collection with the green waste fraction, with subsequent composting;
    collection as green waste, with subsequent bio-digestion;
    separate collection and processing using the Knowaste process.

The study concludes that the first route, municipal incinerator, is the most attractive. In the composting and bio-digestion routes the presence of super-absorbent polymers (SAPs) and faeces are a problem. Separate nappy collection and processing causes by far the highest greenhouse gas emissions, owing to the high energy consumption of the processes.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 08 Oct 2010 13:07:11 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Impact of an ecotax on cans and bottles]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/impact_of_an_ecotax_on_cans_and_bottles/394</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/impact_of_an_ecotax_on_cans_and_bottles/394</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[The end of 2005 sees the expiry of the 3rd Packaging Agreement, one of the aims of which was to reduce the number of beverage cans and bottles in street litter by 80% compared with 2001. If this target is not met, the Environment secretary may opt to introduce a compulsory financial deposit on beverage packaging.

One alternative to compulsory deposits would be a flexible ecotax/deposit system under which producers or retailers would have a choice of either imposing a fixed charge per beverage packaging or introducing a deposit. CE has assessed the impact of two ecotax variants: € 0.10 and € 0.25 per can or bottle. An ecotax/deposit system is less of a burden to industry than compulsory deposits and industry support for this option is therefore likely to be greater than for compulsory deposits.

The impact of an ecotax will depend on the exact response of producers, retailers and consumers, and the scope for interaction between them makes it difficult to predict with any precision. In this study an attempt was nonetheless made and it was estimated that an ecotax of € 0.10 could lead to a 20-60% reduction in the number of cans and bottles in street litter and a € 0.25 charge to a 40-80% reduction. Under a compulsory deposit system, an 80% reduction might be achieved. With the two ecotax options, the impact depends very much on the response of the various parties. If deposit scheme meets  with strategic resistance, it will probably be less effective than calculations of economic optimisation would suggest. A compulsory deposit scheme is far less susceptible to strategic response of whatever kind. 

Finally, it should be noted that a generalised policy for all types of litter, not just for bottles and cans, is also an option. This broader approach appears fairly promising, too, and the report sketches some of the possibilities in this direction.
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:35 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Trends in bottles and cans in Dutch street litter: The 2001-2005 dataset]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/trends_in_bottles_and_cans_in_dutch_street_litter%3A_the_2001-2005_dataset/414</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/trends_in_bottles_and_cans_in_dutch_street_litter%3A_the_2001-2005_dataset/414</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Under the terms of the 3rd Packaging Agreement the Dutch beverage industry pledged to ensure, by 2005 at the latest, that the quantity of bottles and cans ending up as street litter would be reduced by at least 80% compared with the year 2001. By combining data from various studies that in themselves left this question unresolved, CE has attempted to assess trends in the number of bottles and cans in Dutch litter between 2001 and 2005, to provide a basis for answering the question whether the target has been met.   The ultimate conclusion of this CE study is that no reliable pro-nouncement can be made as to whether the number of bottles and cans in Dutch litter has indeed fallen by 80% during the period 2001-2005. The research findings available are at odds with the definitions of the Packaging Agreement, comprise too few data or are subject to too great statistical uncertainty.  	 Although it appears that the 80% reduction target for the period 2001-2005 will not have been met, there are insufficient reliable data available to underpin this conclusion.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2011 14:22:41 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
			</channel>
</rss>

