CONSTITUCIÓN POLÍTICA DE 1993

Mirroring Zaman’s (2015) findings, the objectives of the ZW policy were identified in the data as a specific target and as a wider philosophy for resource use. These goals were not mutually exclusive and most interviews showed that both definitions were represented simultaneously within ZW policy in Scotland, however, for the purposes of analysis it is useful to differentiate between the ideas.

Box 5.1 Think Tank Visions of Characteristics and Behaviours of a ZW Scotland

• Zero Waste is a business and economic opportunity for Scotland; • Producer Responsibility has increased

• Consumers have the information they need to make the right choices; • Carbon based decision making is understood and is the norm; • The sustainable approach underpins everything;

• Society has developed a bottom up approach to governance of waste management; • There is a focus on local solutions

• The planning system is streamlined and empathetic • Building practices minimise waste;

• Effective conversion of bio-waste products to energy/delivers climate change and resource benefits;

• There are formal and informal financial incentives • Wastefulness is designed out

• Everything is reused; and • Policy is joined up

One of the most common ways to understand ZW as a policy goal is to envisage the concept as a defined target and a number of interviews described the concept as such. However, there was a clear distinction made between the idea of absolute ZW (i.e. the elimination of all waste in society) and ZW as a predefined target for waste management: most usually interpreted as ZW to landfill (again echoing academic findings (Zaman, 2015).

A number of interviews made reference to the impossibility of absolute ZW society, yet there was little in the documentary data to suggest that this was the goal. Admittedly earlier documents presenting ZW offered caveats such as “waste is unlikely to be eliminated completely in the foreseeable future” (Scottish Executive, 2003: 90) which might account for some ambiguity, but later documents - produced after the creation of the idea of a ZW Scotland - were much more clear. For example the ZW Plan itself states:

“what a ZW Scotland means – [is] not a country where we never throw anything away, but a new approach to making the most effective use of all resources, and avoiding wasting resources or making them unusable wherever we can” (Scottish Government, 2010a: v).

Nevertheless, within some interviews there was a concern that while most experts might recognise the aspirational nature of the ZW goals, the general public could misinterpret the idea as meaning the elimination of all waste. Some interviewees feared that this unrealistic goal would potentially undermine waste policy in Scotland. There are no studies that consider the public perception of the idea of ZW, nor have any empirical works considered the extent to which ZW is unrealistic. Instead research suggests that claims of absolute ZW objectives are usually confined to particular policy objectives (Young et al. 2010; Matete and Trois, 2008).

This ‘workable’ definition of ZW (Zaman, 2015) appears to be how many have interpreted the concept, with a number of empirical studies highlighting that ZW has

and reducing waste to landfill (i.e. Murphy and Pincentl, 2013; Phillips et al. 2011; Zotos et al. 2010).

Targets play a visible role in the ZW Policy. Many of these targets are set by the EU. Earlier waste strategies stated that they were driven to achieve “European landfill reduction targets” (Scottish Executive, 2003:6) but the ZW Plan appears to move away from this rhetoric and instead presents Scotland as an ambitious achiever in waste management stating “the European target to cut the amount of biodegradable waste sent to landfill more than 4 years earlier than the deadline of 2013” (Scottish Government, 2010a: v). Data from the interviews, commissioned reports (Fogarty et al. 2008) and academic analysis (Tainsh, 2011) show that EU targets still play a key role.

Targets were identified for most levels of the waste hierarchy (see Box 5.2 p141). However, notably reduction targets were not included until the publication of later policy documents and, as yet, no national targets exist for reuse. The lack of visibility of the top end of the hierarchy is also reflected in the literature. Zaman’s (2014a) study of ZW indicators offers few – and questionable – examples for either reduction or reusing waste. Like the ZW policy, he equates waste reduction with consumption levels which contrasts with findings from other research which suggest that waste is not necessarily linked to consumption (Gregson et al. 2007).

In contrast to reuse, recycling targets were clearly identified and well communicated in the data. They were also the targets most readily associated with the ZW policy by the interviewees. This is a recognition perhaps that these are the targets that most closely correlate with EU objectives. EU directives were identified by interviewees as a key driver in Scottish waste policy; however, it should be noted that in most instances, the Scottish policy has set more ambitious targets than those legally required by the EU (see Box 5.2 p141).

Reasons for the predominance of recycling are not easily identified within existing literature. One potential explanation might be the relative ease by which concrete data can be collected on recycled materials. It was found that there was a strong focus in the research data on improving collections of technical information (i.e. volumes, weights, composition), a view that was also voiced by individual interviewees. Academic

literature also supports the notion that the waste industry both values and strives for better technical knowledge (Davoudi and Evans, 2005; Davoudi, 2006). Recycling data is usually calculated post-collection and so is presumed to be more accurate, more concise and more easily accessible than data on reuse or reduction. As a consequence, it is arguably easier to create and validate targets. This idea is supported in Zaman’s (2014a) identification of ZW indicators where the largest category ‘management’ focuses most heavily on post-collection indicators. It is also supported by the work of Geng et al. (2012) who suggested that one of the major barriers to encouraging a more circular economy in China was the lack of relevant indicators for a closed-loop system. Moreover, recycling as an ‘end-of-pipe’ process also marks the smallest shift in infrastructure or organisation and so represents a low-hanging fruit option for both local authorities and individual businesses. This theory is by supported by Watson et al.’s (2008:494) observation that existing policies “largely reproduce the political and institutional framing of municipal waste that developed under the disposal paradigm” which they suggest has led to a focus on recycling. Recycling targets may therefore predominate because they are also the easiest to achieve.

Whilst the goals for recycling were found to be clear, energy recovery targets were more ambiguous. Despite the ZW Plan clearly stating that “ensuring energy from waste treatment is only used to recover value from resources that cannot offer greater environmental and economic benefits through reuse or recycling” (Scottish Government, 2010a: 10), for the interviewees ambiguity surrounding this method remained. The ZW Plan notes that the existing 25% cap on municipal waste for EFW would remain in force but be subject to future review. This opinion was confirmed in North Lanarkshire Council v The Scottish Ministers and Shore Energy [2013] CSIH 58 which considered both the question of national targets and sources for EFW plants. It was thought by some interviewees that this limit to EFW a barrier to achieving ZW goals.

The reluctance of the Scottish Government to engage with discussions over specific targets for EFW is explained by the literature as a potential reflection on the controversy which surrounds EFW facilities. Historically associated with pollution and health consequences (Clark, 2007a), EFW or incineration of waste has attracted public criticism both in Scotland and elsewhere. It is widely recognised in both policy and academic literature that objections are often based on out dated assumptions which do not reflect technological advances (i.e. Sustainable Development Commission Scotland (SDSC), 2007; McCauley, 2009; Tainsh, 2011) but yet the topic remains politically contentious. The EIA of the ZW Plan (Scottish Government, 2010b:4) suggests that the

Box 5.2 Key Targets Associated with ZW Policy

Waste Hierarchy Target Source

Reduce

7% reduction on waste arisings by

2017 (baseline year: 2011) _{Safeguarding Scotland’s Resources} (Scottish Government, 2013:12) 15% reduction on waste arisings

by 2025 (baseline year: 2011)

Reuse No targets identified N/A

Recycling

40% (2010) 50% (2013) 60% (2020) recycling rate for household waste by 2010

Zero Waste Policy Announcement (Scottish Government, 2008a) 50% of household waste to be

recycled or reused by 2020 EU Policy

(Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC)

70% recycling rate for

Construction and Industrial Waste by 2020

70% recycling rate for all Scotland’s waste by 2025

ZW Plan

(Scottish Government, 2010a)

Recovery No targets specified N/A

Landfill

Limit of 1.26 million tonnes of biodegradable waste to landfill by 2020 (Council Directive

1999/31/EC)

EU Policy

(Council Directive 1999/31/EC))

Limit of 5% on all waste to Landfill by 2025

ZW Plan

(Scottish Government, 2010a) Ban on biodegradable municipal

waste to landfill by 2021

Scottish Government Regulations (Waste (Scotland) Regulations 2012) 70% recycling rate for

Construction and Industrial Waste by 2020

EU Policy

(Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC)

level of public concern is such that “the levels of anxiety and concern about health implications experienced by the local community (regardless of the accuracy or validity of these concerns)” posed a potential risk to the public. Moreover literature suggests that EFW is viewed by many as incompatible with goals of ZW (Connett, 2013: Zaman, 2015). However, within the Scottish context, both Tainsh (2011) and the SDCS (2007) suggest that EFW should not be seen as a barrier to but a complement to Scotland’s recycling targets.

In contrast and in sync with ZW goals, the ZW policy appears to be clear that reducing waste to landfill is a key goal. Targets that relate to both general and specific waste streams were identified (see Box 5.2 p141). Regardless of what stage of the waste hierarchy they focus, these targets show that there is a clear policy aim to reduce waste to landfill and encourage a move up the hierarchy for waste management. This suggests that ZW goals are, at the very least, a shift away from waste governance as waste disposal to resource management.

It was recognised within the interviews that targets are a central focus for many in the ZW policy and yet there was also a concern that efforts to reach these targets would overshadow the more transformational goals of ZW. Academic work has also highlighted the limitations of target-setting; Watson and Bulkeley (2005:423) suggesting that the “pursuit of targets” leaves little space for the type of reflexive practices that engage with the “deeply embedded systemic issues, economic and cultural dynamics that underlie ever-growing volumes of waste production”. Interviewees were also aware of the limitations of targets and within the interview data there was a clear opinion voiced that prescribed and quantifiable targets should not be substituted as the main goal of the policy. Most interviewees believed that ZW should be seen as much as a new philosophy of resource use as a pre-identified or quantifiable goal.