300 A. Klitkou et al.
incineration plants – required a steady flow of organic waste and provided
little incentive for the municipality of Oslo to pursue more sustainable option,
such as reuse or prevention of food waste. Second, they should be aware that
regulations can have a strong effect on the innovative activity within a sector.
In Chapters 7 and 8, we have seen that environmental and health and safety
regulation influenced the innovative activity in the dairy and aquaculture
sectors. The lesson is not that these types of regulations should be abolished.
Rather, it is that these types of regulations should be implemented in a way
that encourages rather than prevents innovation. Third, they should be aware
that extensive outsourcing of services to private subcontractors can easily stifle
innovation. In Chapter 5, we saw that the tender system the Oslo municipality used when it outsourced waste collection neither allowed for any
mutual learning or exchange of knowledge between the private contractor
and the municipality nor provided any incentives for the private contractor to
improve the sustainability of the waste treatment system.
Policymakers should be aware that the bioeconomy consists of actors with
varying and sometimes conflicting agendas. In Chapter 2, we learned that
three different visions of the bioeconomy exist – a bio- technology, a bioresource and a bio- ecology vision. We saw in Chapter 12 that these three
visions were represented by different groups of actors and that their different
visions resulted in both conflicting and complementary interests and agendas.
For policymakers it is important to note that if they try to introduce policies
that run counter to one or more of these visions, they will meet considerable
opposition. Conversely, if they can align these visions, they will receive
support for their policies from the whole bioeconomy. Nevertheless, policymakers should be aware that regulating the bioeconomy will, in many cases,
involve trade- offs between these visions and that they must balance the need
for sustainability against demands for economic growth.
There are many interesting avenues for future research on policy and regulation of waste valorisation. There is a lack of systematic and comparative
studies on how policymakers can increase and improve valorisation of waste,
and studies that compare policies and regulations across different countries
and across different waste resources should be very welcomed. Another interesting research avenue relates to how different actors try to influence waste
valorisation policies. Do they attempt to form alliances with others of similar
interests? Do they seek to affect policymakers through popular opinion or
through concealed lobbying operations? Where and at what level are the
most important policies developed – local, national or supranational?
15.6 Final remarks
This book has attempted to cover a broad range of issues related to the valorisation of organic residues and side- streams. It is situated within the wider
scientific discourse about a circular and sustainable bioeconomy and tries
to bridge different disciplinary approaches such as case studies, quantitative
incineration plants – required a steady flow of organic waste and provided
little incentive for the municipality of Oslo to pursue more sustainable option,
such as reuse or prevention of food waste. Second, they should be aware that
regulations can have a strong effect on the innovative activity within a sector.
In Chapters 7 and 8, we have seen that environmental and health and safety
regulation influenced the innovative activity in the dairy and aquaculture
sectors. The lesson is not that these types of regulations should be abolished.
Rather, it is that these types of regulations should be implemented in a way
that encourages rather than prevents innovation. Third, they should be aware
that extensive outsourcing of services to private subcontractors can easily stifle
innovation. In Chapter 5, we saw that the tender system the Oslo municipality used when it outsourced waste collection neither allowed for any
mutual learning or exchange of knowledge between the private contractor
and the municipality nor provided any incentives for the private contractor to
improve the sustainability of the waste treatment system.
Policymakers should be aware that the bioeconomy consists of actors with
varying and sometimes conflicting agendas. In Chapter 2, we learned that
three different visions of the bioeconomy exist – a bio- technology, a bioresource and a bio- ecology vision. We saw in Chapter 12 that these three
visions were represented by different groups of actors and that their different
visions resulted in both conflicting and complementary interests and agendas.
For policymakers it is important to note that if they try to introduce policies
that run counter to one or more of these visions, they will meet considerable
opposition. Conversely, if they can align these visions, they will receive
support for their policies from the whole bioeconomy. Nevertheless, policymakers should be aware that regulating the bioeconomy will, in many cases,
involve trade- offs between these visions and that they must balance the need
for sustainability against demands for economic growth.
There are many interesting avenues for future research on policy and regulation of waste valorisation. There is a lack of systematic and comparative
studies on how policymakers can increase and improve valorisation of waste,
and studies that compare policies and regulations across different countries
and across different waste resources should be very welcomed. Another interesting research avenue relates to how different actors try to influence waste
valorisation policies. Do they attempt to form alliances with others of similar
interests? Do they seek to affect policymakers through popular opinion or
through concealed lobbying operations? Where and at what level are the
most important policies developed – local, national or supranational?
15.6 Final remarks
This book has attempted to cover a broad range of issues related to the valorisation of organic residues and side- streams. It is situated within the wider
scientific discourse about a circular and sustainable bioeconomy and tries
to bridge different disciplinary approaches such as case studies, quantitative