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

78
29/09/09
the period to 2013, has been in place since 1998; this was re-affirmed in the
current Government programme and is now reinforced further by this
document.
The replacement of regional waste management planning by a single national
plan has also been advocated in terms of potential cost efficiencies and the
opportunities for the provision of a smaller number of larger facilities for
managing our wastes. However, such considerations have to be balanced
against environmental factors, particularly the need to respect the “proximity
principle” which encourages the management of waste in close proximity to
the location of its production. Essentially, what must be achieved is a balance
between optimising the costs and efficiencies of waste management facilities
and the energy and air pollution costs of transportation, and the impacts of
large-scale developments on a local area.
It is not evident that a national plan would bring any marked improvement in
terms of the delivery of services and infrastructure, or that it would offer
greater refinement or flexibility in addressing local and regional requirements.
Against this background, it is considered that the focus should continue to be
on implementation
implementation of regional waste plans, rather than effectively suspending
current progress on implementation pending the completion of a national
plan.
However, it would appear that this view is not shared by other key stakeholders in the
waste management sector. Indeed, Forfas takes an opposing view:
The regionally based waste planning framework is hindering the delivery of
cost effective, commercially viable, sophisticated waste treatment options
along the waste hierarchy as it tends to result in smaller scale facilities than
would be the case if infrastructure planning was done at a national level. The
regional waste management plans need to be coordinated at national level to
attract investment in waste infrastructure in a way that maximises potential
economies of scale, competition and enables the market to pass on the
benefits to businesses and households.
The EPA attributes the low level of necessary infrastructure development to the lack
of national waste management plan. 113
Waste contractors face considerable uncertainty in developing much needed
infrastructure because there is no integrated national plan that outlines
detailed waste infrastructural requirements, which in turn informs regional
waste management plans. The National Biodegradable Waste Strategy does
not provide the level of detail necessary for such a national waste
management plan – an integrated plan should outline not only the targets but
also where, by whom and how these targets should be achieved, as well as a
113 EPA (2008) Hitting Targets for Biodegradable Municipal Solid Waste: Ten Options for Change,
Wexford: EPA, available at:
http://www.epa.ie/downloads/consultation/epa_bmwoptions_discussion_2008.pdf