102 M. M. Bugge and A. M. Fevolden
The biggest challenge is to get people to recycle more.
(Respondent from the Agency for Waste Management in the
City of Oslo)
In this sense, a waste prevention mandate or mission contrasts with the
current institutional rationale or logic of the municipal Department for
Energy Recovery. Thus there is reason to question whether the focus and
mission to create a circular recycling system is really the best and most sustainable solution for a city such as Oslo – at least if such a system requires
constant flows of waste to be economically viable, and thus constitutes disincentive to strive for waste reduction or prevention. One of our respondents
confirmed that this is often the case.
We in the waste business are constantly talking about processing waste
instead of reducing waste. And to reduce must be done early on and
intelligently and with the right design.
(Respondent from the Agency for Energy Recovery in the
City of Oslo)
One may argue that the capacity and demand for waste shown in the Oslo
case constitutes a system that is oriented towards developing new value chains
stemming from urban (organic) waste, and where the transition agent (EGE)
has made heavy investments into the physical infrastructure enabling this production. At the same time, EGE has no financial incentives or political
mandate to reduce the amount of waste in the first place. This type of sustainability mode, oriented towards recycling, is thus in conflict with demands for
more circular eco- design aimed at limiting or preventing waste. In consequence, other types of actors – such as civic organisations (e.g. the student
association) or private enterprises (e.g. Kutt Gourmet restaurant at the
University of Oslo, and Matsentralen) – are now the ones pushing the waste
prevention agenda forward as the next stage of system change in urban waste.
The Renovation Department and the Energy Recovery Department are
the most central actors in any attempt to achieve higher levels of waste recycling in the municipality of Oslo. As we have seen, the Renovation Department is in charge of collecting and transporting waste from citizens, whereas
the Energy Department is in charge of processing the different types of waste
collected.
Our impression is that there is not much collaboration across departments
in the municipality in relation to waste reduction, due to contrasting roles
and mandates.
They [the Agency for Waste Management] have a responsibility for waste
reduction, and that is the opposite in relation to what we do if we only
see ourselves as a producer of energy. So far, waste reduction has not
been debated as much as recycling. I don’t know how much they’re
The biggest challenge is to get people to recycle more.
(Respondent from the Agency for Waste Management in the
City of Oslo)
In this sense, a waste prevention mandate or mission contrasts with the
current institutional rationale or logic of the municipal Department for
Energy Recovery. Thus there is reason to question whether the focus and
mission to create a circular recycling system is really the best and most sustainable solution for a city such as Oslo – at least if such a system requires
constant flows of waste to be economically viable, and thus constitutes disincentive to strive for waste reduction or prevention. One of our respondents
confirmed that this is often the case.
We in the waste business are constantly talking about processing waste
instead of reducing waste. And to reduce must be done early on and
intelligently and with the right design.
(Respondent from the Agency for Energy Recovery in the
City of Oslo)
One may argue that the capacity and demand for waste shown in the Oslo
case constitutes a system that is oriented towards developing new value chains
stemming from urban (organic) waste, and where the transition agent (EGE)
has made heavy investments into the physical infrastructure enabling this production. At the same time, EGE has no financial incentives or political
mandate to reduce the amount of waste in the first place. This type of sustainability mode, oriented towards recycling, is thus in conflict with demands for
more circular eco- design aimed at limiting or preventing waste. In consequence, other types of actors – such as civic organisations (e.g. the student
association) or private enterprises (e.g. Kutt Gourmet restaurant at the
University of Oslo, and Matsentralen) – are now the ones pushing the waste
prevention agenda forward as the next stage of system change in urban waste.
The Renovation Department and the Energy Recovery Department are
the most central actors in any attempt to achieve higher levels of waste recycling in the municipality of Oslo. As we have seen, the Renovation Department is in charge of collecting and transporting waste from citizens, whereas
the Energy Department is in charge of processing the different types of waste
collected.
Our impression is that there is not much collaboration across departments
in the municipality in relation to waste reduction, due to contrasting roles
and mandates.
They [the Agency for Waste Management] have a responsibility for waste
reduction, and that is the opposite in relation to what we do if we only
see ourselves as a producer of energy. So far, waste reduction has not
been debated as much as recycling. I don’t know how much they’re