4. Results

Figures 4.1 to 4.4 show the changes of primary abiotic resource consumption and its drivers between 1996 and 2022. The Figures tell the same tale but in different visualisation formats.

• Figure 4.1 (line graph) shows the relative changes since 1996 (in percentages of the 1996 level). Figures 4.2 to 4.4 (bar diagrams) add all annual changes to a net balance of total change (in megaton) in the respective periods. ⁸⁾
• Figure 4.1 shows all short term changes, whereas Figures 4.2 to 4.4 aim to highlight structural (longer term) changes.
• Figure 4.3 and 4.4 divide the period 1996-2022 into two subperiods of 13 years, with 2009 as the split year. This year was also a watershed year in some respects. In 2009, the first SDE subsidies were committed to applicants. ⁹⁾ SDE has had a large influence on the use of biomass for energy. Furthermore, the global financial crisis of 2007-2008 started to have large impact on the Dutch economy.
• The orange line or bar ('Abiotic resource consumption') shows the change in primary abiotic resource consumption. The other lines or bars represent the contribution of drivers behind this change: 1) substitution of biotic for abiotic materials, 2) changes in recycling of secondary materials, 3) changes in resource efficiency and 4) economic growth. The Figures should be read as follows. For instance, the dark green line or bar ('Economic growth') shows the resource consumption which would have been taken place if only economic growth determined this consumption and other factors did not have had a dampening effect. If one adds up all four contributions, the result is the size of the change in resource consumption in the orange line or bar ('Abiotic resource consumption').

The main line of our results is that between 1996 and 2022, that substitution, recycling and resource efficiency apparently go hand in hand with dematerialisation over time. These factors were mitigating the upward pressure of economic activity. Only in more recent years, this apparently led to a substantial decrease of primary abiotic resource consumption.

In the time period 1996-2022, an overall decline of 15 percent in abiotic resource consumption (solid orange line in Figure 4.1, 'Abiotic resource consumption') can be observed. The orange bar ('Abiotic resource consumption') in Figure 4.2 also shows that resource consumption decreased on balance. However, if we look at the two subperiods 1996-2009 and 2009-2002 (Figures 4.3 and 4.4), it is clear that nearly all of the decrease took place after 2009. Then apparently more efforts were made to reduce materials use.

Turning to the potential drivers behind the reduction on material consumption, we see in Figures 4.1 and 4.2 that the strongly increased economic activity is the main driver behind increases in resource consumption. That is, without the mitigating contributions by the other three drivers, primary abiotic resource consumption would have increased substantially. But in the period before 2009 the upward pressure of economic growth on material consumption was larger than in the period thereafter (Figures 4.3 and 4.4).

As mentioned above, the three other drivers play their expected role. They all exert a downward pressure on primary abiotic material consumption, dampening the impact of economic growth. Substitution, recycling and resource efficiency apparently go hand in hand with dematerialisation over time.

But we see that substitution and recycling seem to have a small impact on balance (Figure 4.1 and 4.2). Increased substitution had a somewhat larger contribution to the decline of resource consumption than increased recycling. The recycling rate is already around 80 percent in the Netherlands. Therefore, in the near future we cannot expect recycling to have much additional impact on resource use reduction. The contribution of recycling was larger before 2009 than after 2009 (Figure 4.3 and 4.4). The contribution of substitution of abiotic by biotic materials is probably overrated because food and feed are also included. However, this driver can have more impact in the future, because currently the biobased economy is still small but might take flight. In the period after 2009, the downward pressure of substitution was clearly present, while it is apparently nearly absent before 2009.

The driver that counteracts the effect of economic growth most is resource efficiency. If the increase in resource efficiency had not taken place, consumption of resources had grown significantly. However, this driver is not well defined. Resource efficiency is defined as total material consumption divided by GDP. These two variables are different in nature, being physically or economic. A direct link between the two is difficult to establish. The reasons behind increase of efficiency can be manifold. These may lie in specific developments of the numerator (total materials consumption), in the denominator (GDP), and/or in the interplay between the two elements of the ratio. A reduction in material consumption while holding GDP constant leads to a decrease of the ratio, hence an improvement of resource efficiency. On the other hand, an increase in GDP while holding material consumption constant, also leads to a decrease of the ratio. Hence what is actually happening in the nominator or denominator of the ratio is important to know.

For instance, the ratio decreases (and resource efficiency improves) when resource intensive industry moves abroad and is replaced by a more service driven sector. This structural change of the economy affects the use of primary abiotic resources as the production of goods is more material intensive than the production of services. Such a structural change took place in the Netherlands after the Second World War. However, if we look at the share of various sectors in gross value added in more recent years, we see rather a shift out of mining as a consequence of the downward re-evaluation and closing of the Groningen natural gas field, than a shift out of manufacturing. The share of manufacturing remains relatively stable. We observe only a small further shift to services. Another possible factor is a change in importance of certain economic activities like repair, refurbishment or re-use. Without further sectoral analysis with data of higher quality, we cannot state that the Dutch economy actually produces with a higher material efficiency (less materials per unit of value added).

For government policy that aims for a transition towards a circular economy it would be relevant to know what exactly is behind the observed ‘resource efficiency’ improvement. Further investigation is needed to divide the resource efficiency driver into relevant components, including the shift of producing goods to producing services. Tentative experiments with a sectoral shift model stumbled on lack of long run data on materials use by sector. Whether there are real improvements in resource efficiency probably has to be assessed at a lower aggregation level, in particular at the sectoral or company level, or even at the product level. In this, we need more detailed data of high quality on materials use at a lower aggregation level.