Waste reduction, not incineration, FoE insists

The revision of the Waste Management Strategy comes 8 years after the original one was completed rather late, most will agree, particularly since the team revising the strategy started the job back in 2005. The document states that the strategy sets a five-year plan. The fact that drafting the revision took 3 years leaves us all wondering about the actual worth of the document.

A strategy document should set direction after different alternatives have been assessed. However, the strategy document gives the feeling that it is a modus operandi, aiming to seal current practices rather than examining the outside environment and eventually setting a strategy that aims to provide a sustainable waste management action plan. This, from a strategic point of view, is very dangerous since the strategy is heavily dictated by inside considerations.

The said document points out at the very beginning that Malta’s focus is going to be waste-to-energy. The very important aspect of waste minimisation is very scantily mentioned with the only measure being the implementation of an awareness campaign. We have heard ad nauseum some would say, that waste minimisation at source cannot or is very difficult to achieve. However, this is the preferred option in the waste management hierarchy and the most sustainable solution for the Maltese Islands. The decoupling of municipal solid waste (MSW) from Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth should form the basis of a sustainable waste management strategy particularly for a small island with limited space; however this is never mentioned in the document under review. An awareness campaign will be able to reach some objectives but campaigns are expensive to run, need to be continuous and, when they manage to reach the target population they are often blurred by noise and distortion.

A reliable waste minimisation strategy should focus on producers and importers in order to avoid the generation of waste itself. The creation of more incentives/disincentives together with having a lengthy period to achieve tangible results, often includes a hefty administration bill. Possible solutions should look into providing cleaner technology advice that coach producers/importers to reduce the waste they produce, for e.g. in the case of packaging. Alternative type of packaging should also be looked into. Other solutions, which would integrate products and the services they provide and which is nowhere to be seen in the document under review, are product-service systems. The latter would offer consumers the chance obtain the service of particular products without actually purchasing them. Product-service systems are nowadays used for car-pooling, washing machines etc.

The Strategy’s review has tackled the current situation by simplistically looking at waste disposal figures in recent years (including waste separation data) and searched for a technology to fix the figures when they appear to be unattractive. This means that instead of getting to the root of the problem and searching for the reason why the data is what it is, the team revising the strategy made an overall assumption that these figures remain constant.

Waste in itself has a human dimension and this dimension seems to have been forgotten by the review team. A technology-based solution is an end-of pipe solution but what we need for the Maltese Islands is a sustainable solution and sustainability needs prevention not incineration.

Points to ponder about in the Waste Management Strategy:

The document is not an end in itself but is based on a number of other documents that are not available to the general public;

There is no reference to a financial analysis as to how much the proposed waste-to energy solution will cost and whether it is more financially viable than other discarded solutions;
The strategy does not specify how much waste is planned for incineration, recycling and landfilling;
The strategy states that the Recycle Tuesday initiative should be encouraged, however, to date, no assessment has been issued stating how much it is costing the Maltese taxpayer and the pressure it is causing on the Sant’ Antnin Waste Treatment facility;
In the case of construction and demolition waste, no mention is made about the low price of local stone. The strategy mentions the possibility of an increase in the price for the disposal of construction and demolition, however increasing the price of stone will encourage its reuse, reduce wastage during production and lead to a higher appreciation of this mineral resource;
The document states that Government still intends to achieve the 400 bring-in sites target but also mentions that WasteServ Malta Ltd has been allocated funding from structural funds for 300 such sites. Where is the rest of the funding coming from?
The strategy states that one of the reasons for a waste-to-energy solution are the current oil prices, however these have gone down. Doesthis mean that the strategy is already outdated?
Waste-to-energy is presented as a solution for all woes. People deserve a more objective view of this technology and so far they are still waiting.

Related