In his article "Why incineration is not an option!" (December 27), Mr Julian Manduca, of Friends of the Earth Malta, calls upon those who support incineration to make their case with reference to facts and figures. I will try to take up the task and put things in their proper perspective.

Malta urgently needs waste management systems that have a realistic mix of waste prevention, reduction, recycling, incineration and residual landfill. Used as part of an integrated waste management system, incineration, with energy recovery, would be a beneficial addition to the waste management infrastructure.

The Waste Management Strategy Plan for Malta does consider the waste-to-energy option but at a later stage, when it envisages that all other options have failed. Why should Malta wait until 2014 when we can solve the problem now?

It is always being pointed out that well over 80 per cent of our waste is construction and demolition waste - waste which is mainly inert and can be reused. I would point out that the 80 per cent plus is a percentage based on weight. You do not have to be an Einstein to realise that one ton of C&D (construction and demolition waste) takes much less than one ton of any other waste.

Consequently, the volume of waste which makes Mount Maghtab is definitely not composed of 80 per cent plus C&D waste. Conservatively, 60 per cent will be nearer the truth.

Food and garden waste should be composted, but due to the recent scares of BSI and foot and and mouth disease, it is strongly being recommended (even in Malta) that such waste should only be used in one's own garden.

It is also a fact that at one time compost from San Antnin Plant was being dumped at Maghtab because the farmers refused to take it due to the high percentage of foreign material found in the compost. Hopefully, this problem should, by now, be solved.

In Malta it is not feasible to operate recycling plants, and consequently what is not recycled has to be exported. There is a cost to collect, sort and export. The total cost, sometimes, does not even cover the expenses incurred to transport the material to the port and export it to another country. If export of waste is not subsidised the whole operation will not be feasible.

What is incineration?

Incineration is basically a controlled burning process, which takes in waste, burns it at high temperatures and recovers energy in the form of heat or electricity. All emissions are strictly controlled by regulations, which ensure that there is no effect on human health and the environment.

There are emissions in the form of solid residues and gaseous emissions to air.

The solid residues are:

Bottom ash from the furnace: which can be landfilled in a non-hazardous facility or, as is the practice in other countries, used in road construction as fill material. Bottom ash makes up about 80 to 90 per cent of the solid residue.

Fly ash: This is the most hazardous component and must be disposed in a special landfill. This consists of only 10 to 20 per cent of the solid residue.

The gaseous emissions are:

Flue gases - These contain a mixture of gaseous products, which are removed in the scrubbing process. Modern abatement technology can deal easily with these gases.

Dioxins and furans - These are the most controversial compounds associated with incineration technology. Modern thermal treatment plants produce very low quantities of these compounds. I would point out that these compounds are also generated by most combustion processes (including motor vehicles), domestic fires, barbecues, fireworks and cigarettes.

In comparison, emissions from modern treatment plants will only be an insignificant fraction of the total dioxin emissions from all other sources.

Throughout the European Union, incineration is seen as a necessary part of waste management, contributing to a clean environment. In Malta there remains some support for the bizarre view that incineration is anything other than that.

In many countries, including Denmark and Austria, municipal waste incinerators are located in the centres of densely populated cities, near to where waste is generated and to where recovered heat or energy can be easily used.

The World Health Organisation's regional office for Europe has said:

"In general, properly equipped and operated waste incineration need not pose any threat to human health, and compared to the direct landfilling of untreated wastes, may have a smaller environmental impact."

Use of incineration in an integrated strategy does not necessarily mean a lack of commitment to recycling. Countries such as the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and Switzerland have both high recycling rates and high incineration rates.

Incineration as part of a waste management strategy yields the following benefits:

A reduction in volume of up to 90 per cent and in weight up to 75 per cent of the waste input.

Energy can be recovered from the process, thus utilising waste as a resource and reducing the use of fossil fuels.

Reliance of landfill is reduced, especially important for us in Malta, as space is very limited.

A modern, controlled, automated and efficient process is used.

As regards packaging, I would like to mention the following facts:

According to a leading expert of Lulea University and Stockholm-based think tank SNS, the cost to Swedish society of reaching the high recycling levels aimed at the packaging waste are as much as 20 times greater than the environmental benefit achieved.

A report by Denmark's Environmental Protection Agency concludes that there are no environmental benefits in collecting disposable plastic bottles and other plastic containers, and that the costs of recycling them are unacceptably high. The findings appear to confirm results of similar studies in other European countries.

Germany also has the same problem and is expected to increase its capacity of waste to energy plants. The German Environment Agency was even debating about small lightweight packaging items that might as well be incinerated as recycled on environmental grounds.

A high percentage rate of plastic waste recovery that is mostly put to energy recovery is prevalent in Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands.

France, Greece, Portugal and Norway have over 60 per cent energy recovery from recovered plastic waste.

To complement the above, another report concludes that too great an emphasis on recycling as a recovery option for plastic packaging waste could drive Europe to ever increasing waste management costs with very limited environmental gain. One important factor is the impact that increased recycling rates have on the total energy balance - the extra energy required to separate plastics packaging waste for recycling is not offset by the saving in resources from substitution of new material.

To conclude, I would like to quote Dr Jean-Francois Verstrynge, deputy director of the EU Environment Directorate. He was addressing a conference, which was organised by an NGO with the collaboration of the Malta EU Information Centre. The conference was held about two years ago.

"You have an interest in getting the energy back out from the waste. It is much better, from the standpoint of Europe, that you recuperate some energy and use waste instead of petroleum, than if you dump it".