LA GESTIÓN DE CENTROS DEPORTIVOS

As noted above the international review’s summary report contains twenty-five recommendations. Before commenting on those recommendations, it is important to flag

a couple of significant omissions from the summary report. In developing a framework to draw lessons from the international experience the Eunomia consortium do not only have to pay attention to the multitude of research questions discussed above but also give regard to certain technology issues. The DoEHLG make reference to the international review making a contribution to the best mix of technologies for Ireland. Various government documents have made clear a preference for certain technologies. For example, in the waste management section of the Programme for Government - which is reproduced by the international review in its summary report (Eunomia et al., 2009, Box 1, p.2) – there is a commitment to “the introduction of Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) facilities as one of a range of facilities” (Department of the Taoiseach, 2007, p. 22).

In this context it is surprising that the summary report contains little or no coverage of the lessons that have been learnt internationally about the pitfalls and potential issues associated with MBT-led approaches. Moreover, MBT systems vary enormously in their suitability. The variation in MBT is recognised by the international review in that it estimates externalities for six different MBT technologies. (See Table 8.2 below for details).

For the international review to be regarded as robust it needs to have considered international experience in the context of MBT being a preferred technical option; in particular we would have expected it to identify the constraints, if any, that this commitment has on the international review, the extent to which the results/findings from those countries and/or regions in which MBT is not the preferred technical option may be distorted or not relevant, and equally, consider in detail the lessons from those countries in which MBT is the/a preferred technical option. This would also helpfully address concerns expressed in some quarters that the international review has in fact been written with this commitment in mind.

While government statements demonstrate a clear preference for MBT, there is also a clear preference against the use of incineration as a waste management technique. In the Section 60 policy directive for a cap on incineration and other matters, analysed in Section 7 above, the growth of incineration was limited by placing a cap on its share of MSW. In addition various complementary measures designed to increase the cost and reduce the viability of incineration as a waste treatment option have been advocated by the DoEHLG.

Just as it is surprising that the summary report contains little or no coverage of MBT, it is also surprising that there is little or no coverage of the lessons that can be learnt about the pitfalls and potential issues associated with waste management systems that impose arbitrary limits on the share of one technology, as is proposed for incineration.52 Incineration does vary considerably in its importance by country and region so there is no reason that lessons could not have been learnt from that experience.

In Table 8.1 we present the importance of incineration as a method of disposal of MSW, for EU Member States for 1996, 2001 and 2006. This shows that at the overall EU level incineration has been increasing in importance, accounting for 14% of all MSW in 1996 and 19% in 2006. Thus a policy of placing less reliance on incineration is inconsistent with overall EU trends.

Turning to individual Member States it is clear that there is no break in the share of incineration in accounting for MSW that suggests 30% or 25% are in any sense justifiable or ‘natural’ limits on the share of incineration in MSW. Furthermore, Table 8.1 suggests that if Ireland wishes to draw lessons from the international review with respect to incineration then it should look to Greece, Romania, Lithuania, and Bulgaria, all of which have zero incineration, rather than Denmark or Sweden or the Netherlands..

The closest that the summary report comes to commenting on incineration is in the lessons from the international experience where it is stated that: “[S]ome countries clearly focus upon ensuring that waste is not landfilled, and seem comfortable with a high proportion of waste from households being incinerated” (Eunomia et al., 2009, p. 34). In Vienna, for example, has an incinerator located in the city centre (see Figure 8.1 below).

Figure 8.1: Incinerator, Vienna, 2009

Source: photo by John Fitz Gerald

No reference is made to the observation made in Section 7 that incineration and MBT normally exist side by side, implying that they are complements and not – implicitly at least – substitutes. Indeed, the DoEHLG acknowledged in 2005 that incineration and MBT are complements (Comptroller & Auditor General, 2006, p. 77).

Table 8.1

The Importance of Incineration in Accounting for Municipal Waste, EU Member States, Selected Years, 1996, 2001, 2006

Member State % municipal waste incinerated 1996 % municipal waste incinerated 2001 % municipal waste incinerated 2006 Panel A: EU-15 Belgium 34 34 33 Denmark 50 57 55 Germany 16 21 22 Ireland 0 0 0 Greece 0 0 0 Spain 5 6 7 France 35 33 33 Italy 6 9 12 Luxembourg 52 42 38 Netherlands 30 32 34 Austria 30 32 34 Portugal 0 22 32 Finland 0 9 9 Sweden 38 38 47 UK 7 7 9 Panel B: Accession Countries Bulgaria 0 0 0 Czech Rep 0 13 10 Estonia 0 <1 <1 Cyprus 0 0 0 Latvia 0 1 <1 Lithuania 0 0 0 Hungary 7 8 8 Malta 0 0 0 Poland 0 0 <1 Romania 0 0 0 Slovenia 0 0 <1 Slovakia 10 10 12 EU-27 14 16 19

Source: Eurostat (2008, Table 10.4, p. 417)

Thus a major omission from the international review’s summary report is the lack of lessons or commentary on either MBT and/or incineration as part of the mix of technology and infrastructure in Ireland’s waste management policy. As noted above in

international review of waste management strategy, which was going to address “how best to implement … the emergence of new technologies in waste management.” In that respect the international review’s summary report is clearly a failure. It thus further undermines the case for the Section 60 policy direction to place a cap on incineration.53 It could, of course, be argued that the international review claims that the effects of its recommendations will be to achieve the objectives on the limitation on incineration envisaged in the Section 60 policy direction to cap incineration and other matters

(Eunomia et al. 2009, p. 60), while, although not a recommendation Eunomia et al.

(2009, p. 40) suggest that all MBT plants are strategic and hence the planning process should be fast tracked. These two policy strands are complementary in that the MSW that would have been disposed of by means of incineration will now (presumably) have to be sent to MBT plants if Ireland is to comply with the Landfill Directive targets and hence avoid potentially large EU fines. However, the international review – as we shall see below – does not provide any guidance as to the feasibility, location, timing, nature, cost and legality of fast tracking the building MBT plants nor does it provide any credible evidence that its recommendations will lead to a limitation on incineration consistent with the Section 60 policy direction to cap incineration and other matters that at the same time conforms with the Landfill Directive.