Page 21 - Waste-to-Energy in the Danube Strategy Region. Challenges and Prospects

2.1 Political & legislative

Political support for WtE technologies varies throughout the countries of the Danube region. In

general, on one side are states with a long tradition of supporting these projects and distancing
themselves from landfilling of waste. On the other side are countries where WtE projects are not

politically or legislatively supported and where landfills still play an important role in waste

management (Malek 2012). A handful of countries represent a sort of middle ground.
Furthermore, the WtE sector is part of mainly two jurisdictions—waste and energy policies.

Therefore, these legislative debates encompass broad topics related to waste treatment, including

everything from failing recycling goals and other waste-related objectives to poor legislative

coverage of WtE, lack of interest from the public, and derelictions in introducing effective landfill
fees. The results of these multi-layered and interconnected debates have deep implications for

WtE projects (Stengler 2008).

Firstly, the issue of supranational support of WtE technologies needs to be discussed.

Based on the goal of achieving a circular economy (see section 1.1 above), the European Union is
setting new rules in order to become a front-runner in waste management and recycling. Although

WtE technologies are part of this concept, the EU has decided that for now it will focus (both

politically and financially) on achieving greater recycling rates of waste and preventing WtE

overcapacities. For example, EU institutions have set a target to reduce landfilled MSW to a
maximum of 10% and to increase the amount of recycled MSW to 65% by 2035. Depending on

the technology and its efficiency, WtE may be considered a recycling, recovery or disposal

operation. This legislation may therefore favour certain WtE technologies over others, and these

obligatory targets can make a significant difference in waste management practices for the
majority of DSR countries (EC 2017b, 2018c). For those DSR countries outside the EU framework,

this supranational pressure would be less influential, which situation could itself prove to be

another challenge to the dissemination of WtE technologies.

Secondly, for most DSR states, WtE plants are not clearly defined by national law and are
subjected to a wider range of legislative acts. In BiH, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia and Ukraine, for

example, national legislation offers no definition of WtE projects (Wolf Theiss 2016). Furthermore,

Project co-funded by the European Union
15