30 June
2006 - The initial goal of the report "Paper
and cardboard – recovery or disposal" is
to find out if studies that pass a quality test
reach the same conclusion. The second, and more
important, objective is to find our why results
of such studies differ. Here, the report looks
at how definitions of system boundaries, i.e.
how much of the full life cycle system is included
in the assessment, and other parameters influence
the results.
The report uses the findings
to discuss the possibilities and limitations of
LCA and CBA studies as tools in guiding decisions
on waste policy, particularly at European level.
The reviewed LCA studies, which
pass a quality control test, all reach the same
conclusion on treatment options - namely that
from an environmental point of view recycling
is better than incineration or landfilling. For
the CBA studies, it is not possible to set a common
quality standard due to large variations between
the studies. However, it is noted that the analysed,
quality selected CBA studies, do not reach a consensus
on what is environmentally the best option.
The two ways of approaching
the problem are quite different: LCA is based
on natural sciences and analyses environmental
impacts from "cradle to grave" of a
specific product or process. CBA is based on welfare
economics and attempts to place a monetary value
on the environmental and social impacts of a policy,
and add them to its commercial costs. Individually,
these tools are not able to explain all relevant
aspects of a project, and they should rather be
seen as complementary.
All nine LCA studies conclude
that recycling results in fewer overall environmental
impacts than both landfilling and incineration.
More than half of the nine CBA studies conclude
that recycling is the preferred waste management
option, whereas incineration and/or landfill are
preferred in the remaining studies and scenarios.
If the time cost is excluded, the preference for
recycling becomes more explicit.
Overall, the nine CBA studies
differ a lot with regard to both system boundaries
and methodology. A key parameter such as the price
put on the time individuals spend on recycling
tends to influence conclusions a lot. This, and
the limited number of studies, makes it impossible
to draw any firm conclusions from the CBA studies
on what is the preferable option for waste paper
management.
The EEA report thus notes that
the outcome of the studies depends a lot on the
implicit assumptions made. Furthermore, while
LCA methodology is fairly well developed, there
is not yet a generally accepted methodology for
CBA studies. This of course complicates comparisons.
Also, LCA studies tend to be less bound to national
geographical limitations than CBA studies, though
they do attempt to say something more general.
When offered to policymakers as a support for
their decision-making, it is important that they
are made aware of such limitations.
