Greenpeace briefing: September 2000

THE WORLD BANK AND WASTE INCINERATORS

Should the World Bank be supporting an economically unsound, unsustainable and polluting technology?

Background:

The controversy surrounding waste incineration grows with each new insight into the economic, environmental and public health impacts of this technology. Pressed by the public sector, decision-makers in local and national governments, the healthcare industry and the manufacturing sector are turning to cleaner, safer and more economical waste management systems, particularly in industrialised nations. Yet, the World Bank continues funding projects that include incinerators for medical, municipal, hazardous and other wastes, particularly in developing nations.

According to publicly available World Bank documents, medical waste incinerators are included in at least 30 World Bank and International Finance Corporation projects in 20 developing countries. Incinerators for municipal, industrial, hazardous and other wastes are included in at least 16 World Bank Group projects in 15 developing nations (See annexed table below).

Incinerators are major sources of certain toxic pollutants. Municipal and medical waste incinerators are major sources of dioxins and furans. Because of their impacts on human health and the environment, these chemicals are two of the 12 persistent organic pollutants (POPs) that have been prioritised for immediate action under the impending global Pops treaty to be adopted in 2001. Authors of the European Dioxin Inventory note, "Despite considerable effort having been spent during the last years to decrease the emissions from municipal waste incinerators, this source type still dominates the input of PCDD/F [dioxins] into the atmosphere". In the US municipal and medical waste incinerators account for more than 60 percent of dioxin releases to air as well as a large portion of mercury releases.

Incinerators are costly to build, operate, and regulate. As more is learned about the toxic chemicals released by incinerators and their impacts on public health and the environment, the costs of reducing such releases drive incinerator costs higher. A UNEP expert estimates that a municipal incinerator built to German standards now costs about US$500 million. Moreover, most developing countries do not have the infrastructure necessary to oversee and regulate an incinerator and its residues. Simply assessing the dioxin content of the gaseous emissions and other residues requires either a specially-equipped, US$1.5-2 million laboratory or access to such a facility which typically charges US$1-2,000 per sample analysed.

Incinerators undermine sustainable waste management. Because incinerators depend on waste to operate, they encourage the generation of waste and undermine rational use of resources. Once municipalities, hospitals and industries invest in an incinerator, they are compelled by their need to cover this investment to resist programs that might diminish the quantity of waste destined for their incinerators. In other words, investments in incinerators are investments in continued resource consumption, waste production and pollution.

Incinerators thwart local economic development. When developing countries purchase foreign-made incinerators, millions of dollars leave the country and only a few jobs are created. In contrast, investments in waste reduction and recycling boost local economic development by creating jobs, providing inexpensive raw materials for local industry, and avoiding the environmental and economic costs of waste disposal. Recycling programs may create up to 10 times as many jobs as incinerators.

Incinerators are not needed. Alternative waste management strategies and waste disposal technologies are being successfully applied for medical, municipal, hazardous and other waste.

Incinerators raise Environmental Justice issues. In some venues, the World Bank stands accused of environmental racism for promoting a technology in developing countries that is increasingly rejected in the West (1).

Incinerators are not compatible with the pending global treaty on Pops While the World Bank is promoting a dioxin-producing technology, the world's nations are negotiating a treaty for global action on dioxin and other Pops At the opening negotiations in 1998, UNEP Director General Klaus Toepfer stated that the ultimate goal of this treaty must be the elimination of Pops production and use, not simply better management. The Bank's continued promotion of incineration undermines the global community's efforts to eliminate dioxin.

Incinerators face strong public opposition throughout the world. Last year the Philippines adopted a national ban on all forms of incineration. In July 2000, activists from Asia and the Pacific launched a regional coalition called Waste Not Asia which has vowed to resist incinerator proposals in the region. A new Global Anti-Incinerator Alliance is currently being developed by environmental groups from Asia, Africa, Latin America, Europe and North America.

Greenpeace Recommendations:

• The World Bank Group should review all proposed and pending projects to ensure that they do not include incinerators (2); and
  
  
• The World Bank Group must involve civil society in its current internal review of projects that will potentially lead to the generation and release of Pops or otherwise add to the global Pops burden.

Annex: A Partial Listing of World Bank Group Projects Involving Incinerators:

_______________________________________________________________________

(1) The personal and legitimate contribution made by World Bank President James Wolfensohn to an organization fighting a mixed waste incinerator near his vacation home in the US last year further fueled this accusation. (2) Alternative waste management strategies and technologies exist for each type of incinerator included in World Bank projects.