International Review of Waste Management Policy - Department of ...

873
ban only ensures the best use of those resources where complementary
measures ensure waste is moved up the hierarchy and to options where the
environmental impact is superior. Our research indicates that success in this
regard is, at best, mixed. The wording of some bans tends to imply that the
objective is to ensure that waste which can be combusted to generate energy
is used for that purpose. If sufficient measures are in place to promote
recycling strategies, this might be acceptable. In many cases, however, this is
clearly not the case;
7. Limit Limiting Limit Limiting
ing the the the quantity quantity quantity of of of waste waste waste sent sent sent for for for incineration incineration;
incineration
Whilst there appear to be no specific targets for this, again, there are some
measures which imply a desire to ensure environmental standards are not
compromised. Waste sorting in many municipalities in Japan distinguishes
between ‘burnable’ and ‘non-burnable’ waste, with plastics being treated as
‘non-burnable’ owing to problems with dioxins in the past. In Denmark, treated
wood is banned from incineration, presumably owing to the potential for
emission of furans and possibly brominated dioxins from its combustion. In
Flanders, a ban on unsorted waste being sent to incineration is intended to
ensure that the ban on landfilling does not lead to a simple switch from landfill
to incineration. This reflects the fact that in Flanders, the aim is to promote
prevention, re-use and recycling. In Denmark, on the other hand, the effect of
policy has been to shift waste away from landfill and into incineration. A brief
comparison of recycling rates in Flanders and Denmark highlights the fact that
as regards household type waste, Denmark’s recycling rate stood at 29% in
2001, with the aim to increase this to 33% by 2008. 61% of waste was
incinerated in 2001, and it was intended that this should be reduced to 60%
by 2008. In Flanders, source separation rates now stand at 71%, a level which
would be very difficult for Denmark to achieve given its existing infrastructure;
and
8. Reducing Reducing Reducing GHG GHG emissions from waste management
management;
management
The England strategy includes an objective of this nature though no specific
policy mechanism to deliver this. Rather than being an objective, this seems to
be an assessment of the consequences of doing what the strategy seeks to
achieve. There is a serious problem with setting this as an objective in the way
that the English strategy has calculated it. The assessment is carried out ‘as if
waste prevention does not matter’. The consequence is that because of the
methodology and baseline used, then as growth rates increase, the claimed
benefits increase under a given apportionment of waste across the different
management routes. Caution would need to be used if this measure was
deployed, and one might argue that it should only be used once the energy
used in manufacturing materials in the first place enters into the equation.
Finally, there are objectives which relate to the waste sector but in an indirect
manner, and where key drivers might relate to sectors other than waste per se. These
might relate to, for example, the application of waste-derived organic matter on land,
or the generation of renewable energy from waste, and the related drivers might be
found in other sectoral strategies.
International Review of Waste Policy: Annexes