Despite having a waste policy designed for better recycling outcomes, Norwegians are increasingly discarding and incinerating waste that could be recycled.
The aim of Norway’s waste policy is to facilitate a transition to a system that curbs natural habitat destruction and significantly lowers environmental emissions. These objectives for a sustainable circular economy align with EU standards and are supported by data gathered from the Norwegian Environment Agency and Statistics Norway (SSB).
Plans That Are Ineffective
Researchers from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) critically evaluated Norway’s waste management practices over several decades. Their findings revealed that 65% of the waste collected and processed is incinerated, rising from 49% in 2009. This study highlighted significant shortcomings in the information provided by the Norwegian Environment Agency and Statistics Norway, showing that authorities have at times reported recycling rates 40% higher than actual figures.
“The weak data, unclear measurement techniques, and lack of transparency from recycling firms are undermining the foundation of our waste policy,” notes Kim Rainer Mattson, a PhD candidate at NTNU and one of the study’s authors, alongside Professor Helge Brattebø and Associate Professor Johan Berg Pettersen.
Overly Optimistic Estimates
This research is the first to trace the life cycle of waste – from collection and processing to incineration or being buried in landfills, to its transformation into compost or new materials.
Among other findings, the study indicates that individuals, policymakers, and decision-makers receive excessively optimistic reports on the effectiveness of waste collection, recycling, and recovery systems. For instance, in 2009 and 2019, Statistics Norway reported recycling rates of 44% and 41%, respectively—significantly higher than NTNU’s findings of 28% and 29% for those same years.
Incineration Instead of Recycling
“These misleading figures create a false sense of progress. In reality, we are unintentionally fostering an incineration-based economy rather than effectively transitioning to a circular economy,” explains Mattson. Incineration of collected and processed waste rose from 49% in 2009 to 65% a decade later.
“Even though our goal is to enhance circularity, we still heavily depend on burning waste,” states the researcher.
Recommendations for Improved Waste Policy
Mattson and his colleagues suggest how Norway can align better with EU goals by implementing 18 precise measurement methods to enhance waste stream management.
Their paper, ‘Incineration Economy: Waste Policy Failing the Circular Economy Transition in Norway‘, was recently published in the journal Resources, Conservation and Recycling.
A large portion of the waste incinerated comes from the category known as residual waste. Approximately 70% of this consists of materials that could have been sorted and recycled more sustainably. On average, 10% of the waste that is sorted at the source is incorrectly categorized. Challenges arise particularly with materials like plastic, cardboard, paper, and electronic waste. People often misclassify these items, leading to significant resource loss. When more complex and expensive recycling methods are needed, incineration becomes the more attractive and economical option.
Transporting waste across the globe, while claiming to solve the problem and reporting it within circular economy metrics, is not a valid strategy.
Aim: Reduced Resource Consumption
The ultimate goal of Norway’s waste policy is to transition from a harmful linear disposal economy to a circular one that significantly reduces resource consumption.
Every year, Statistics Norway and the Norwegian Environment Agency provide updates on waste management, assessing how effectively the policies and practices are being implemented. The recycling rate helps gauge progress toward a circular economy, with household waste receiving particular focus.
Mattson, who has spent five years in the waste sector, views the data collection system positively as it offers insight into development trends.
“However, it is equally essential to ensure that we are collecting and interpreting this data accurately. It must reflect the reality of what happens to our waste after it reaches the processing facility,” he insists.
The Statistics Miss Out on Losses
Plastic, being a complex material, presents significant recycling and recovery challenges, resulting in low actual recycling rates. Analyzing the entire processing chain reveals considerable losses.
“When Statistics Norway claims a recycling rate of 40% for plastic, that figure doesn’t represent the actual recycling outcome; it’s merely an indication of what has been reported as sent for recycling,” says Mattson.
Much Remains Unclear
“The statistics tend to be overstated, as they fail to account for losses that occur during later processing stages,” underscores the NTNU researcher.
He clarifies that the responsibility doesn’t lie solely with government agencies, as they rely on figures from waste processing companies, which in turn report what they collect and send for recycling. However, the processing companies often do not know the fate of the waste as it moves further down the processing chain.
Sorted, Incinerated, and Buried
According to NTNU’s analysis, a key issue is the lack of transparency from recycling companies. It’s uncertain whether all the sorted recyclables actually get recycled. Certain waste types are complicated and challenging.
“We currently lack complete visibility into the journey of sorted waste in Norway that is dispatched for further processing,” concludes Mattson.
Tracing Waste Streams
The researchers have examined a variety of sources, including Norwegian waste statistics, databases, scientific papers, and studies related to waste processing. They have tracked electronic waste, cardboard, paper, and plastic from Norway to processing facilities in Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden, while also engaging with manufacturers and importers responsible for the lifecycle of their products.
“For example, very few recycling companies and processing facilities are willing to share data about their operations,” says Mattson, who remains optimistic that their models can effectively represent what occurs in the waste management system.
“`
all stages of the waste’s lifecycle.
Emissions from abroad are ignored
Statistics Norway currently uses the ‘recycling rate’ to gauge our progress toward a circular economy. However, researchers argue that this metric is not particularly helpful for shaping waste management policies. It fails to consider energy usage during processing, the types of products we create, or the virgin materials we substitute.
The researchers contend that the Norwegian Environment Agency’s estimates of greenhouse gas emissions from the waste system are not accurate.
“The Agency only reports the emissions related to waste management within Norway and overlooks emissions occurring internationally,” clarifies Kim Rainer Mattson.
Exporting sorted plastic for incineration
For instance, all plastic waste intended for recycling is shipped overseas from Norway. According to the report ‘PlasticTheFacts’, Norway holds the top position for plastic recycling in Europe. In 2020, 29.5 million tonnes of plastic waste were collected across the EU, Norway, Switzerland, and the UK. Green Dot Norway notes that slightly more than one-third of this waste was processed for material recycling, nearly half was incinerated, and the remaining was sent to landfills.
Approximately 15-20 percent of Norway’s residual waste is sent to Sweden for incineration. The emissions produced from incinerating Norwegian waste abroad are excluded from Norway’s official emissions data.
Lack of incentive for source sorting
The researchers emphasize that we need to reassess how we evaluate waste management to gain a clearer understanding of the situation. It is beneficial to measure what truly matters and to track our progress over time.
The table displays data from Statistics Norway (SSB) indicating how various waste types have been treated. The total recycling percentage, encompassing material recycling, biogas, and composting, is 42%. Source: Kim R. Mattsson, NTNU.
“It’s concerning to see headlines announcing our improved sorting and recycling efforts, when in reality, a lot of this waste is either stored in Finland or incinerated in Germany. This misrepresentation is damaging to the waste industry and likely does not encourage people to sort their waste at home,” states the researcher.
Although energy is recovered when waste is incinerated, this energy is not clean and results in air pollution and ash. Continuing to extract materials and exploit natural resources to produce goods that we later incinerate keeps us trapped in the linear economy we aim to escape.
Need for a new waste management policy
“We’ve created this issue, and it’s our responsibility to address it. Shipping waste to far-off locations while believing we are solving a problem and reporting these actions as circular economy statistics is not acceptable.”
Researchers from NTNU recommend legislative reforms and fresh national strategies for the waste sector. An integrated approach is essential; lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions along with various sorting and recycling metrics must be assessed. Only then can we form a complete understanding of the effectiveness of Norwegian waste policy.
Prevention of waste creation is key
The foremost action we can take towards a circular economy is to prevent waste generation from the outset. The emphasis on consuming less needs to be raised, and we should improve our waste sorting practices.
The NTNU analysis specifically addresses household waste, which constitutes 25% of the total waste in Norway. According to Mattson, if our household waste statistics are inaccurate, then the situation regarding waste from businesses and industries is likely even worse.
Greater transparency and stricter standards
Mattson argues that Norway’s waste policy should impose more stringent requirements on manufacturers to ensure their products can be easily sorted at the source.
Additionally, authorities should enhance transparency regarding waste processing. The documentation needed to verify material recycling efficiency should be more rigorous. We require clarity on the value chains, the extent of material losses, and the actual worth of recycled materials.
“This is complex, but I believe it is not an impossible challenge,” remarks PhD candidate Kim Rainer Mattson.
