|
Julian Manduca’s contribution in the MaltaToday of 13 February 2005 is misinformed on many counts. His arguments are based on the assumption that a decision has been taken by government to go for incineration as the most effective way of achieving waste to energy.
A decision on which technology to acquire energy from waste has not been taken. Based on progress to date, the Solid Waste Management Strategy of 2001 is being revised as the strategy itself suggests. As part of this exercise, to get advice on which technology would be more beneficial to the country, the Government has recently appointed a team of experts (waste to energy advisory committee) which will be evaluating all the modern alternative techniques that are available in Malta and overseas. Once the recommendations are completed and incorporated into the revised strategy, the Government will then be in a position to make an informed decision in line with these recommendations.
It should be pointed out to Mr Manduca that a waste to energy project is already being proposed for the St Antnin Waste Treatment Plant and this is being done without resorting to incineration. Once upgraded, this plant will provide sufficient electricity to supply 1,400 homes from the 35,000 tonnes of organic waste that enters into the digestion plant.
Another reality Mr Manduca misses completely is that there are renewable energy targets which must be met. The Strategy of 2001 makes no reference to the fact that waste may become a renewable energy source, that is why the Strategy itself calls for regular updating to reflect progress. In view of this the Government has also appointed a committee to advise it on the necessary updating of the strategy to reflect this reality too. The revised strategy should also take account of the sewage sludge and agricultural waste as a potential energy source. This was overlooked in the original strategy.
With EU Accession there are a number of commitments that must be attained. The recycling targets must still be met irrespective of when the new technology is developed. That is precisely the reason why this country is investing 32 million euros to develop waste separation. The proposed 400 bring-in sites, the 5 Civic Amenity sites, the upgrading of the St Antnin facility are indispensable if we are serious in ensuring waste separation works. The facilities are a must! Out of these 32 million, some 24 million euros have been secured through EU funding.
The Strategy which Mr Manduca refers to assumes more than 60 per cent participation in households when it comes to waste separation. From our on-going work with pilot activities, providing bins and bags and furnishing households with a dedicated collection service, the rate of participation does not accede 40 per cent for organics. Ironically, this is exceptional when compared to other participation rates in other EU countries.
Waste separation is not set to change. The St Antnin upgrade will ensure that we recover 15,000 tonnes of first class compost. Naturally, Malta’s compost need not come from St Antnin alone. Those willing to compost direct, in homes or in farms, will also augment the production of this usable product. Government is aware of this and nothing of what is proposed hinders any of this thinking. On the contrary, WasteServ subsidises compost bins to encourage this further.
The mix with eco-contribution is confused in the article referred to. Eco-contribution pays for the costs to manage a product at end-of-life. All products put a cost on waste management irrespective of how eco-friendly they are. The responsibility for producers to recover products from the market is not bestowed as a result of eco-contribution but as part of the EU Accession. The eco-contribution provides further incentive for producers to come in line with their waste management responsibilities in time. Work is on-going to relay this responsibility to economic operators. When private schemes set in, these too will assist waste separation.
We should not continue to assume that waste management is cheap. Putting waste on the front burner, in direct competition with other national priorities, has been an achievement to date. We must remember that this must be done at a cost. What is also essential is that we always consider the various costs which come in a variety of forms. The cost of land to dump a potential useable material is costly too. The cheapest option to dump indiscriminately is also coming at a significant cost to rectify as the aerial emission control works for Maghtab, Qortin and Wied Fulija testify.
In conclusion, since its inception WasteServ Malta Ltd has set upon itself the mammoth task to put the Strategy in motion. Three years have passed since the Strategy was adopted and much more has been learnt in the process. Technologies have progressed, funding opportunities through EU Accession have materialised, synergies with the sewage sludge and agricultural waste have been identified and renewable energy sources have become a priority. WasteServ is committed not to be caught counting the cost of waste management. It therefore looks forward to the revised Strategy which should take these new realities on board.
Chris Ciantar
Head of Strategy and
Development
WasteServ
Editor’s note: Ing Chris Ciantar’ letter avoids addressing the central points of the article: the financial consequences of a decision to go for waste to energy eight years before originally planned; and that when the eco-contribution was introduced the opportunity was lost to reduce waste at source by influencing consumer choices on most products since the tax did not distinguish between environment friendly and not so friendly in most cases
|
