W hen regulatory bodies make a request for stakeholders’ inputs, this can be an opportunity. Certainly some fringe groups may be sceptical of such actions, seeing only delays and lack of decision making as the short-term result. As part of rule-making efforts, stakeholder requests and surveys can serve to test the waters of current thinking, establish priorities, obtain clues on emerging technologies, and establish stakeholder alliances. Or, if a consensus has been challenging to establish in the past, such stakeholder requests may serve to confirm the disparity of opinions, leaving the rule-making task in no better shape than before.
Recently (December 2008), the European Commission offered such a request to a broad range of stakeholders with respect to biowaste management in the European Union. The green paper (COM (2008) 811 final) summarized current EU bio-waste practices and treatment methods as an introduction to eight questions for stakeholders’ responses and provision of detailed background information.
Granted, existing policy drivers have served the biowaste management field well. The Landfill Directive (1999) promotes the diversion of biowaste away from landfills, while the Soil Protection Strategy and Waste Framework Directive (as revised) serve to advance biowaste practices in co-ordinated ways. The field appears to be growing, both in the number of operating (in the order of 3500 facilities) and planned facilities, as well as the quantities of material being handled. The growth potential will attract investment. EU leadership in this part of the waste sector is readily acknowledged.
As we await publication of the comments and input received, apologies to the idiom-maker are in order: Even a blind squirrel finds the need for a biowaste strategy once in a while.
That is, one hopes a consensus arises so as to gain the benefits of a long-term EU strategy and shift from using policy drivers as the primary regulatory tool. While a few Member States and some jurisdictions have installed comprehensive biowaste policies, and including employment of source-separation as part of day-to-day waste management practices, other Member States will lag behind for the conceivable future. As a consequence, compost usage, land applications, and quality standards differ, leading to varying sets of standards. A constructive biowaste strategy might serve to set clear regulatory provisions, define pathways for separate collection-to-composting, MBT-to-composting, and home composting – and overall reduce the risks to locally-based waste strategies that are exploring (and investing in) various management options. At a minimum, it should set priorities for the near-term, which constitutes a key objective.
To develop a workable, long-term strategy for biowaste management and treatment, requires significant work, time, and energy – even when assembling a consensus may not be so difficult. The good news is this industry generally rises to the occasion when it comes to rule-making support and input.
Greg Vogt is managing director of ISWA and ISWA editor of Waste Management World
e-mail: gvogt@iswa.dk
