Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top

2002 | Book

Introduction Read chapter Read first chapter

Municipal Waste Management in Europe

European Policy between Harmonisation and Subsidiarity

Editor: Nicolas Buclet

Publisher: Springer Netherlands

Book Series : Environment & Management

Included in: Professional Book Archive

Login to get access
insite
SEARCH

About this book

Nicolas Buclet Waste management issues can be approached in several ways. The question of which treatment technique to adopt is essentially a downstream problem. In our view the issue needed to be tackled further upstream. Waste management is not only a technical problem, it is also an area which involves various actors throughout society. In this book, as in the previous volume (Buclet, Godard, 2000), the organisation of waste management is seen in terms of regimes. A regime is an entire form ofinstitutional, technical, economic and social organisation relating to a specific field, no matter how complex that field is. Regime formation is generally a long-drawn-out process, rooted in the multiple interactions of the actors involved. Legislation plays a crucial role but would not, of itself, lead to the formation of a regime. There is always the old question of causality and which element occurs first: the behaviour of actors who constitute the reality, or the legislation that models their behaviour? Besides legislation, other formal or informal conventions influence the behaviour of actors approaching a common path, making co­ ordination easier between them. In this book we have insisted on conventional principles. They are the real guides for actors within each national regime.

Table of Contents

Frontmatter
Introduction
Abstract
Waste management issues can be approached in several ways. The question of which treatment technique to adopt is essentially a downstream problem. In our view the issue needed to be tackled further upstream. Waste management is not only a technical problem, it is also an area which involves various actors throughout society. In this book, as in the previous volume (Buclet, Godard, 2000), the organisation of waste management is seen in terms of regimes. A regime is an entire form of institutional, technical, economic and social organisation relating to a specific field, no matter how complex that field is. Regime formation is generally a long-drawn-out process, rooted in the multiple interactions of the actors involved. Legislation plays a crucial role but would not, of itself, lead to the formation of a regime. There is always the old question of causality and which element occurs first: the behaviour of actors who constitute the reality, or the legislation that models their behaviour? Besides legislation, other formal or informal conventions influence the behaviour of actors approaching a common path, making coordination easier between them. In this book we have insisted on conventional principles. They are the real guides for actors within each national regime.
Nicolas Buclet
Chapter I. Comparison of National Solid Waste Regimes in Trajectories of Change
Abstract
This chapter compares the national regimes for the management of municipal solid waste in the five countries concerned: France, Germany, Greece, Italy and the Netherlands. The analysis is based exclusively on national case studies carried out in these countries according to a common methodology, and published in a previous volume in the Kluwer Environment and Management series.1
Wim Hafkamp
Chapter II. Interactions and main sources of friction between national regimes
Abstract
The previous chapter emphasised the differences between European countries. Although these countries share many common characteristics and, with the exception of Greece, have embarked on similar economic development, the differences are important. The countries are the product of specific historical development, and have evolved for many years with few outside influences. In each country, patterns of co-ordination were adopted and reinforced over time, producing conventions. Within each regime, composed of conventions and based on a foundation of principles, economic activity has followed a different course. As a consequence, the categories of actors and, more to the point, the importance of each actor within regimes, are far from homogeneous throughout the EU. Therefore, with the growing economic ties between countries sharing a common economic space (first the EEC, subsequently the EU), any interaction involves the confrontation of regimes based on very different premises and representing different interests. In other words, interactions between EU Member States are asymmetric, sometimes leading to the negative influence of particular national regimes.
Nicolas Buclet, Wim Hafkamp, Sylvie Lupton, Ulrich Petschow
Chapter III. The dynamic effects of interactions between national regimes:towards harmonisation
Abstract
The analysis of interactions, leading on from the previous chapter, has revealed the nature of potential friction between national regimes. These are not the only interactions which may be encountered. In some cases, harmonisation is a relatively natural process involving the progressive circulation of standards and technological and organisational solutions, through a number of channels of transmission. The aim of this third chapter is to develop this second form of interaction, which cannot a priori be classified regarding its positive or negative impact. Many forms of interaction exist which contribute to harmonisation, although they lie outside the institutionalised process. Even if some of these are sometimes raised by debates at the European level on common measures to be adopted, this is not even always the case. The interactions already mentioned in the previous Chapter (3), the informal and formal circulation of standards and (4) the patterns of competition in the waste collection and disposal industry belong to this category.
Paolo Bertossi, Nicolas Buclet, Lilo Fischer, Antonio Kaulard, Antonio Massarutto
Chapter IV. The consequences of implementing directives in the national context: the correct answer to the friction between national regimes?
Abstract
The several forms of interaction examined in the previous two chapters fall into two categories:
  • those originating in the activities of the European economy — activities which assume greater importance because of the Single European Market;
  • those originating in common rules adopted by European institutions
Lilo Fischer, Ulrich Petschow, Nicolas Buclet
Chapter V. Opportunities and constraints on implementing a European waste management strategy
Abstract
Besides developing an economic viewpoint, this chapter also deals with the conventions which finally led to different standards and approaches in the Member States. The fundamental values of European policy include the transition to a Single European Market (SEM) on the one hand and the orientation of sustainable development on the other. This later objective, however, is interpreted in a rather different way. Tensions between national interests and common objectives, as well as interactions between national waste management regimes represent the main sources of conflict in European waste policy. The question thus arises as to where contradictions exist between the basic principles of national and supranational waste policies. The aim of the chapter is to characterise the opportunities and constraints required to smooth out or even avoid negative impact and benefit from positive dynamics between waste management regimes.
Lilo Fischer, Ulrich Petschow
Chapter VI. Three scenarios for the organisation of MSW management in Europe
Abstract
The previous chapters have highlighted two important points. The first concerns the numerous observable differences between Member States. It was obvious from the beginning that such differences existed; less obvious was trying to understand these differences and how they emerged. Different historical processes, the varying importance of the categories of actors involved in waste management, the structure of the industry and, more generally, of the economy; many elements lie at the origin of different waste management regimes. Beliefs, routines and conventional principles were reinforced with the passage of time and through the actions of those involved, until they eventually formed a common and coherent framework of action, inscribed within an institutional trajectory (Godard, 1995). The most important point to underline is that, when comparing one regime with another, we cannot ascribe a hierarchy of regimes, or the superiority of one over the others. They represent different sets of compromises; they evolve and constitute coherent and balanced frameworks in which the national actors involved can work
Nicolas Buclet, Lilo Fischer, Wim Hafkamp, Ulrich Petschow
Chapter VII. Alternative scenarios for a sustainable MSW and the national and European Trajectories
Abstract
The development of what we termed scenarios in Chapter VI is the culmination of a long process, which began with the analysis of several national waste management regimes (see Buclet, Godard, 2000) and has been further developed in this volume in a comparative approach. This has allowed us to delineate several trajectories in household waste management in Europe. These trajectories do not constitute three separate or alternative directions, mostly due to the nature of scenario 3, the development of which should follow on from the adoption of scenario 1 or 2. However, the adoption of scenario 1 or 2 does not automatically presuppose that the process has to continue with the adoption of scenario 3. The only element of certainty is the incompatibility of scenario 1 with scenario 2. They inculcate opposed methodological directions, even if it is not certain that their adoption would also yield opposite results. They constitute very different ways of reaching the same point, as they both assume that, ultimately, standards and processes will improve, both technically and environmentally speaking.
Nicolas Buclet
Backmatter
Metadata
Title
Municipal Waste Management in Europe
Editor
Nicolas Buclet
Copyright Year
2002
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Electronic ISBN
978-94-015-9910-8
Print ISBN
978-90-481-5987-1
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9910-8