A Dutch city’s ambitious plan to curb littering by imposing a steep €1,000 fine has been shot down by the national justice ministry. Enschede, a city in the eastern Netherlands, had hoped to emulate Singapore’s famously effective anti-littering policies, which involve substantial fines. Though, the Dutch government deemed the proposed penalty excessive and disproportionate.
The city council, inspired by a council member’s trip to Singapore, where “first-time offenders face a fine of up to S$1,000 (around €600), while repeat offenders will be fined up to S$2,000 (around €1,200) and community service,” voted in favor of the €1,000 fine in May. Council member Malkis Jajan championed the initiative, stating, “Our ambition is to make Enschede the cleanest city in Europe. We are not in that position now as people throw all kinds of stuff on the street.”
However, the justice ministry rejected the proposal. A ministry official, Bertine Steenbergen, explained in a letter to the council, “Fines for littering should be the same everywhere. If a person in Haaksbergen is fined €160, a person in Enschede cannot pay €1000.” Steenbergen acknowledged the city’s goal of cleaner streets, adding, “I do not wish to minimise the gravity of the offense of discarding cans and fast food wrappers in the street but the fine has to be proportional, and compare to other offences.”
While the €1,000 fine was rejected, Enschede did receive permission to increase its littering fine to €250 in 2025. This represents a compromise between the city’s desire for stricter enforcement and the national government’s concerns about fairness and consistency in fines across the country.The city also faces challenges in enforcement, with council wardens issuing only 12 littering fines last year. Jajan attributed this low number to council policy,noting,”That is not thier fault,it is council policy. they are now busy handing out fines for parking in the wrong place.”
the Enschede case highlights the complexities of balancing effective enforcement with equitable penalties. The debate mirrors similar discussions in the United states, where variations in littering fines exist across different states and municipalities. Finding the right balance between deterring littering and ensuring fairness remains a challenge for communities worldwide.
Cleaning Up City Streets: An Interview with Dr. Anya Petrov
Today we’re talking with Dr.Anya Petrov, a leading urban planning expert at Erasmus University Rotterdam, about a recent development in the Netherlands regarding littering fines. Welcome,Dr. Petrov.
Dr. Petrov: Thank you for having me.
Senior Editor: The city of Enschede recently proposed a €1,000 fine for littering, hoping to emulate the strict policies of Singapore.
Can you tell us what happened?
Dr. Petrov: Yes, EnschedeS city council was certainly aspiring. Inspired by a council member’s trip to Singapore, they thought a hefty fine would drastically reduce littering. However, the national justice ministry rejected the proposal, deeming it excessive and disproportionate to other offenses.
Senior Editor: The ministry emphasized national consistency in fines. What’s the reasoning behind that?
Dr. Petrov: Fairness is key. The Dutch government wants to avoid a situation where a person might be fined €1,000 for littering in one city, while only facing a €160 fine for the same offence in another part of the contry. This inconsistency could be perceived as arbitrary and unfair.
Senior Editor: So, was Enschede left with nothing?
Dr. Petrov: not entirely. They did manage to secure an increase to €250, a notable jump from their previous fine. This represents a compromise between the city’s desire for stricter enforcement and the government’s concerns about consistency.
Senior Editor: It seems ther are challenges in enforcing these fines even at a lower level. The article mentions very few littering fines being issued last year.
Dr. Petrov: That’s correct. you see, the focus of enforcing regulations in Enschede last year seemed to be on parking violations rather than littering. This highlights the division of resources and priorities within municipal enforcement.
Senior Editor: This case raises a question that resonates globally: How do cities strike a balance between deterring undesirable behavior like littering and ensuring fairness in penalties?
Dr. Petrov: It’s a complex dilemma.You need strong disincentives, but they must be proportionate and applied consistently. Perhaps a multi-pronged approach is best—combining stricter fines with public awareness campaigns, better waste management infrastructure, and community engagement.
Senior Editor: Dr.Petrov, thank you so much for sharing your expertise and insights on this crucial topic.
Dr. Petrov: My pleasure. It’s a conversation worth having as we strive to make our cities cleaner and more livable for everyone.
