Problem overview:
Awareness and visions: Proper treatment and disposal of toxic waste is a crucial matter. Different factors and circumstances should be incorporated into the decision making process of how toxic waste should be treated and disposed.
Policies and measures: There are many legal alternatives for the disposal of toxic waste. Here is the story on how the Singaporean government policy managed to create business interest in the area of waste treatment.
Background in summary:
Determining the best alternative for toxic waste management
Singapores policies for toxic waste management: Since 1986, the Ministry of the Environment (ENV) in Singapore has put in place comprehensive legislation and action programmes to control the generation, collection, transportation, treatment / recycling and disposal of toxic wastes.
Management of toxic waste house treatment or treatment plants: These ensure that industries which generate toxic wastes either set up their own in-house treatment/recycling facilities to treat/recycle their toxic wastes or engage a licensed toxic waste collector to collect, treat/recycle and dispose of such wastes.
Waste management trend shift towards using specialized services: The trend in the 1980s showed that major generators of toxic wastes, such as the MNCs preferred to set up their own toxic waste treatment facilities to treat and disposed of their toxic wastes. This trend, however, changed in the 1990s, with more major generators of toxic wastes preferring to send their toxic wastes to approved toxic waste treatment/recycling facilities for treatment/recycling and disposal.
Setting up specialized private waste collecting and management companies: This has in turned generated interests among the industries in the private sector to invest in the setting up and operations of specialised toxic waste treatment/recycling and disposal plants. There are currently over 100 companies, which are licensed to collect such wastes.
Reasons against setting specialized waste treatment plants: In the early 1990s, ENV launched an effort to encourage the private sector to set up a centralised and integrated toxic waste treatment plant in Singapore. Several local and foreign consortiums carried out their studies and decided against investing in such a plant in Singapore for the following reasons:
- Adequate supply of domestic facilities: They felt that the existing numbers of established specialised toxic waste treatment plants have already captured the entire market;
- Non-importation of toxic waste that requires disposal: Singapore does not allow the import of toxic wastes destined for final destruction and disposal.
The consortiums, therefore, concluded that there would not be sufficient toxic wastes for such a centralised plant to collect and treat viably.
See document in full
Good practice rating:
(1 for the best, 5 for the lowest score) |
|
Sustainability
|
Efficiency
|
| - |
 Improvement in either the environment of economic condition with no harm to the other. |
2 |
Cost efficient. |
| 2 |
Sustainable over time (not one-off) |
Process |
| Adaptability |
2 |
Participation of the community |
| 2 |
Location adaptability (can the project be done in other places?) |
- |
Participation of resource owners/users |
| 2 |
Socio-cultural adaptability. |
2 |
Partnerships between various actors (Governments, NGO, Academia, Private) |
| 3 |
Level of development adaptability. |
2 |
Degree of coordination and cooperation between government departments. |
| 2 |
Style of government adaptability. |
- |
Ability to attract political interest/support |
| 2 |
Degree of decentralization adaptability. |
2 |
Procedures for feedback and review. |
Comments on this example:
The idea of setting up a centralized toxic waste treatment facility was found to be unsustainable because there was already sufficient supply of industries doing similar functions. This has shown that it would always be an advantage to conduct project studies and assessments before carrying on any further so that certain aspects that project developers were unaware of, could be realized. Hence, this example demonstrates a good example of how prior assessments could prevent project developers from making wrong decisions.
Another important aspect to be considered is the fact that only larger sources of hazardous waste is taken at large, while the little items (batteries etc) are not taken care of, although in numbers their use is much more.
The example also proves a good point, prevention better than cure. Take necessary safeguards in preventing hazardous waste coming into the country, rather than let them come in and then take action, which may also be not feasible in terms of cost.
|
Sustainability of the project:
|
Awareness and visions: In many parts of the World, management and disposal of toxic waste has been done illegally by dumping into the ocean or burying under the ground. This is because the cost for proper treatment is significantly high and treatment plants are insufficiently provided throughout the country. Illegal dumping, although risky, but is the cheapest and simplest alternative to get rid of toxic wastes.
Improvement in either the environment or economic condition with no harm to the other: Peer review ratings was omitted because the project of setting up a central treatment plant itself was unsuccessful but because it has been realized before hand from assessment results, no losses have been created. Consequently, there has been no improvement or unimprovement.
|
Adaptability of the project to other situations:
|
| Process of decision making and implementation: |
Policies and measures:
- The Singaporean case in most in instances is a good example of adequate resource availability that assisted in environmental management in a big way. More over than lack of knowledge, lack of resources has been the major impediment in taking necessary action in management of hazardous and toxic waste. Imposing regulations alone will not work, if the necessary facilities for disposal are not in place or provided for. In most developing countries locating a dumping ground or a hazardous facility have been a major problem as the protests from the people backed by NGOs have been so strong. In this part of the region much emphasis is paid towards the political agenda and all work carried out is usually aimed at staying in power. This acts as a major barrier in making things that need to be done carried out.
- As for Singapore, management and disposal of toxic waste has been done effectively, due to strict regulations and efficient enforcement. When regulations are set up, the act of enforcement is to get industries to comply. A widespread and meticulous monitoring system is required to bring those violating the law to justice. The Singaporean government was successful in doing so because of sufficient man power and money resources.
|
Documentation: |
Literature or other written project review references
|
Source of Information: |
Ministry of the Environment
Environment Building
40 Scotts Road
Singapore 228231
Tel: 732 7733 / Fax: 734 7763
Website: http://www.gov.sg/env
|
Contacts: |
|
Submitted by: |
Ms Koh Kheng-Lian, Director, Asia Pacific Centre for Environmental Law, the National University of Singapore, 10 Kent Ridge Crescent, Singapore 119260
|
|
