Researchers find Norway's waste policy falls short of goals

October 10, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

trusted source

proofread

by Sølvi Normannsen, Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Norway's waste policy falls short of its goals because of inaccurate measurement methods, unreliable data and a lack of transparency about where Norwegian waste ends up, researchers say.

Norwegians throw away and burn increasing amounts of waste that could easily be recycled, in spite of a waste policy that envisions a different result.

Norway's waste policy aims to ensure the transition to an economy that helps stop the loss of natural habitat and significantly reduce environmental emissions. The goals for a circular economy of this nature have been established in accordance with EU policy and are based on government statistics compiled by the Norwegian Environment Agency and Statistics Norway (SSB).

NTNU researchers have now taken a critical look at Norway's waste policy over the past few decades. Their analysis shows that 65% of all collected and processed waste is incinerated, which is an increase from 49% in 2009. The research shows that there are major gaps in the information being collected by the Norwegian Environment Agency and Statistics Norway. In some years, Norwegians have actually recycled 40% less than what the authorities have reported.

"Inadequate data, imprecise measurement methods and a lack of transparency from the recycling companies are weakening the platform of knowledge on which the waste policy is founded. That's why we have ended up with plans that don't work," says Kim Rainer Mattson.

Mattson is a Ph.D. research fellow at the Department of Energy and Process Engineering at NTNU and one of the authors behind the new study, along with Professor Helge Brattebø and Associate Professor Johan Berg Pettersen.

This is the first time researchers have tracked the afterlife of our waste, all the way from when it is collected, delivered and processed, to when it ends up either as incinerated particles in the atmosphere, buried mass in landfills, as soil, compost, fertilizer, or as materials in new products.

Among other things, the study shows that private individuals, politicians and decision-makers are given excessively positive figures by the authorities about the results of the system of waste collection, recycling and recovery. From 2009 and 2019, Statistics Norway reported a material reuse and recycling rate of 44% and 41%, respectively. That is significantly higher than the figures found by the NTNU researchers, which show a recycling rate of 28% and 29% for the same years.

"All of this gives cause for concern because it creates a false impression that we are on the right track. In reality, we are helping to develop an incineration economy, instead of working purposefully towards the ambitious goal of transitioning to a circular economy," says Mattson.

In 2009, 49% of all collected and processed waste was incinerated. Ten years later, this had increased to 65%.

"It is clear that even though the defined goal is to increase circularity in society, we are still completely reliant on processing waste by incinerating it," says the researcher.

Mattson and his colleagues have recommended what is needed to move Norway towards the goals set by the EU. They proposed as many as 18 more precise methods of measurement so that the authorities can manage waste streams more efficiently.

Their article, "Incineration Economy: Waste Policy Failing the Circular Economy Transition in Norway," was recently published in Resources, Conservation and Recycling.

Much of Norway's incinerated waste comes from the sorting category called residual waste. Almost 70% of residual waste consists of materials that could have been sorted and processed in a more environmentally friendly way. On average, 10% of the waste that is actually sorted at source is incorrectly sorted. Plastic, cardboard, paper and electronic waste pose major challenges. People don't sort things correctly and a lot of resources are lost. When other options are more demanding, costly and uncertain, incineration becomes the easiest and cheapest solution.

The goal of Norway's waste policy is to move away from an environmentally harmful, linear, throwaway economy to a circular economy where we consume far fewer natural resources.

Every year, Statistics Norway and the Norwegian Environment Agency report on the status of this effort. In theory, at least, their official waste statistics show how well the policy, plans, and practices are working. How much we recycle indicates our progress towards a circular economy, and household waste in particular receives a lot of attention.

Mattson has worked in the waste industry for five years. He thinks it's good that Norway has a system for collecting figures and data, since this can provide a good overview of overall trends.

"But we also need to make sure we are measuring things in a meaningful way. The data must reflect what actually happens after our waste is delivered to the waste processing plant," Mattson said.

Plastic is a composite material and one of the most challenging types of waste, resulting in little being recycled and recovered. When the researchers looked at the entire processing chain, they identified significant losses.

"When Statistics Norway reports that we recycle 40% of plastic waste, that's not the final figure of how much has actually been recycled. It is just an indication of the information they have, which states that 40% of it has been sent for recycling," says Mattson.

"The figures are overestimated. They do not take into account that losses occur further along during processing," he said.

He emphasized that the authorities themselves are not at fault. They get their figures from the waste processing companies, which report what they collect and send for recycling. But they also don't necessarily know what happens to the waste after they have sent it further down the processing chain.

According to the NTNU analysis, one of the problems is that the recycling companies are not very transparent. It's not possible to be sure that everything that is sorted for recycling is actually recycled. Some types of waste are complicated and demanding.

"We lack an overview of what actually happens to the waste we sort in Norway that is sent elsewhere for processing," Mattson said.

The researchers scrutinized Norwegian waste statistics, different databases, scientific publications and studies on how the waste is processed. They have also tracked the stream of electrical waste, cardboard, paper and plastic from Norway to processing facilities in Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden. They have also spoken with manufacturers and importers who have been given additional responsibility for their products throughout their entire lifecycle.

Mattson describes it as demanding detective work.

"For example, there are very few recycling companies and industrial facilities interested in sharing data from their plants," Mattson said. He nonetheless believes that their models effectively illustrate what happens in all phases of the waste's afterlife.

Statistics Norway uses "recycling rate" as an indicator of how close we are to achieving a circular economy, but the researchers believe this indicator is not very useful in the design of waste policies. It doesn't take into account energy consumption during processing, the final products we end up with, or what we replace in terms of virgin materials.

The researchers believe that the Norwegian Environment Agency's calculations of greenhouse gas emissions from the waste system are also an imprecise measurement.

"The Agency reports emissions related to waste management in Norway and does not take into account emissions that occur outside the country's borders," Mattson explains.

For example, all plastic waste that is sent for recycling is exported out of Norway. According to the report "PlasticTheFacts," Norway ranks number 1 when it comes to plastic recycling in Europe. In 2020, 29.5 million metric tons of plastic waste were collected in the EU, Norway, Switzerland and the U.K. According to Green Dot Norway, just over a third of this was sent for material recycling, almost half was incinerated, and the rest was buried in landfills.

Some 15%–20% of Norwegian residual waste is sent to Sweden where it is incinerated. The emissions from the incineration of Norwegian waste abroad are not included in the official Norwegian emissions statistics.

The researchers believe that Norway should look more critically at how we measure waste management to ensure a more precise picture of reality. The country will benefit from measuring what we are interested in knowing, and authorities must take measurements over time to track progress.

"Seeing headlines claiming that we are becoming ever better at sorting and recycling our waste, while in reality, it ends up being stored in Finland or incinerated in Germany, is damaging for the waste industry. And further, it is hardly likely to motivate people to sort their waste at home," Mattson said.

While it is true that when waste is incinerated, we get energy back in return, this energy is not clean and it creates polluted air and ash. When society continues to help itself to materials and exploit nature in order to create products that are then incinerated, waste policy feeds the linear economy that Norwegian policy says the country wants to move away from.

"This is a problem we have created and we must take responsibility for it. Sending waste to the other side of the planet and thinking that we are solving a problem and reporting it as circular economy statistics is not good,"

The NTNU researchers propose legislative changes and new national strategies for the waste sector. Everything needs to be integrated; lifecycle emissions of greenhouse gases and various measurements of sorting and recycling must be included. Only then can a comprehensive overview of how Norwegian waste policy really works be established.

The most important thing we can do to achieve a circular economy is to avoid waste from occurring in the first place. The message about consuming less must be given higher priority, and we need to be better at sorting our waste.

The NTNU analysis only focuses on household waste, which accounts for 25% of the total in Norway. Mattson says if the statistics for household waste are unreliable, then the situation is absolutely terrible regarding all the other waste generated at workplaces and in trade and industry.

Mattson believes that Norway's waste policy should impose stricter requirements on manufacturers to ensure that what they produce can actually be sorted at source.

Furthermore, the authorities must work to increase transparency on how waste is processed. The documentation requirements on the effectiveness of material recycling must be stricter. We need to know what the value chains look like, what the material losses are, and what the real value of recycled materials is.

"It is complicated, but I don't think it is an impossible task," Mattson says.

More information: Kim Rainer Mattson et al, Incineration economy: Waste management policy failing the circular economy transition in Norway, Resources, Conservation and Recycling (2024). DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2024.107838

Provided by Norwegian University of Science and Technology