The fight over a US$128
million waste incinerator
being built in Beijing with
German money appears to have
reached a stalemate.
Chinese campaign groups have
received no response to
their request that Beijing¡¯s
authorities make public the
environmental-impact
assessment for the
waste-to-energy plant
planned for the suburb of
Nangong, which critics fear
will pollute the
neighbourhood.
Meanwhile, the project¡¯s
German backer, state
investment bank KfW, has
come out to say it is
confident its technical
expertise and
project-management
strengths, combined with
German technology, will
ensure the scheme reaches
the highest standards.
These assurances have failed
to relieve the concerns of
the public and green groups,
who have become increasingly
anxious about the
environmental impact of
Chinese waste incineration
in recent years.
See also: Dirty truth about
China's waste incinerators
Pollution fears surrounding
the Sino-German project
prompted 18 Chinese green
groups to write to KfW on
August 8, setting out their
concerns, and kick-starting
China¡¯s first environmental
campaign directly targeting
an overseas investment bank.
KfW invited the campaigners
to its offices and, on
September 4, six
representatives of the
groups met with the bank in
Beijing, but little progress
was made.
The Nangong incinerator is a
project under the
Sino-German Financial
Cooperation Framework, a
financing agreement between
the two countries.
Ninety-nine million euros
(US$128 million) of
investment has been approved
for the scheme. Of this,
55-million euros (US$71
million) is Sino-German
cooperation funding,
administered by KfW. China
and Germany signed an
agreement in May 2010, but
no information has been
published on the progress of
the project or its
environmental impact.
China has a well-established
tradition of public
opposition to
waste-incineration plants
and critics fear problems
seen elsewhere will be
repeated at Nangong.
Environmental groups say
China¡¯s incinerators cause
serious pollution through
excessive emissions of
dioxins and heavy metals;
release of liquid toxic
wastes; illegal handling of
ash and more. In south
China¡¯s Pearl River Delta,
waste incineration accounts
for 21% of all manmade
emissions of mercury,
according to the network of
NGOs campaigning against the
Nangong scheme.
Li
Bo, secretary general at
China¡¯s oldest green NGO
Friends of Nature, said
KfW¡¯s project would
inevitably meet the same
opposition as other
incinerator projects. The
size of the Nangong project,
combined with the lack of
transparency, make their
concerns particularly acute,
he said.
Dirty truth about China's
waste-burning plants
The focus of the dispute
highlights the huge waste
disposal challenge faced by
China.
The project¡¯s funders say
they are entirely confident
they have the technology and
working practices necessary
to achieve the highest
Chinese and European
standards and calm public
nerves. In a written
response to the NGOs¡¯
complaints, KfW director
Christine Heimburger said:
¡°There is a proven
technology available to
reduce to environmental
impacts to an acceptable
minimum¡With our bank we
have significant technical
and managerial expertise
available to make sure that
only a solution will be
realized that is in line
with this approach.¡±
But environmental groups do
not believe this is such an
easy thing to do in China.
Mao Da, an environmental
historian focused on waste
disposal, argues that
technology is not the
biggest issue in China. On
the surface, he says, there
appear to be three major
problems with waste disposal
in China: the varied nature
of the waste, low levels of
technology and a lack of
investment. But at the root
of all these is a failure of
government oversight.
It is common for polluters
to escape proper sanction,
and for information to be
kept secret. Local people
are often disappointed by
shoddy construction or
operations, resulting in
widespread distrust of new
incinerator projects.
Planned rubbish-burning
plants around the country
have met with public protest
as a result. The West
Qinhuangdao project in Hebei
province, northern China,
for example, was halted
thanks to such opposition.
But what really worries
campaigners is the lack of
attention paid to waste
disposal by local
government. Most local
authorities in China don¡¯t
invest in waste disposal ¨C
instead, the majority of
plants are built on a
¡°build-operate-transfer¡±
model, meaning construction
and operation is contracted
out to investors. This makes
quality supervision even
harder. And there is also a
lack of strict enforcement
of waste disposal standards.
Some of China¡¯s incinerators
are better than others. As
waste-sorting is weak and
management poor,
incineration rates are low
in some regions ¨C this is
already an open secret in
the industry. To boost
waste-burning, some plants
spray diesel into the
furnaces (also see ¡°Dirty
truth about China¡¯s
incinerators¡±). To control
dioxin levels, furnaces need
to be kept at a certain
temperature ¨C but under
these conditions, this is
hard to achieve.
In 2009, the Chinese Academy
of Sciences completed a
year-long study of dioxin
emissions. Of 19 waste
incinerators surveyed, 16%
failed to meet China¡¯s own
standards, while almost 70%
did not meet EU standards.
The repeated protests over
waste incineration show the
problem is not that
waste-to-energy plants
cannot be cleaner. It is
that under China¡¯s current
system and market
environment, the public have
grave doubts about the
quality of management and
working practices at waste
incinerators.
Back at Nangong, KfW has
found itself firmly in the
sights of China¡¯s green
campaign groups.
In July 2007, the State
Environmental Protection
Agency (later the Ministry
of Environmental
Protection), the People¡¯s
Bank of China and the
Banking Regulatory
Commission issued guidelines
on environmentally friendly
lending, marking the start
of China¡¯s green credit
policy.
Under these rules, banks
should guard against
environmental or social
risks associated with the
construction, manufacturing
or operations of projects
that they fund.
Beijing¡¯s four main waste
disposal facilities all have
foreign investors. The two
largest landfill sites,
Beishenshu and Anding, were
financed by KfW. Five of
Beijing¡¯s waste-handling
sites are funded by Germany
¨C the Majialou and Xiaowuji
collection centres, the two
landfill sites and the
Nangong composting facility
.
German state bank's
controversial funding
Chinese waste isn¡¯t the only
item on KfW¡¯s agenda being
questioned by campaigners.
Currently, it is funding new
coal projects in South
Africa, Thailand and Chile,
as well as
coal-infrastructure projects
in Serbia and Australia.
German NGO Urgewald has
expressed concerns about
these activities: while KfW
claims it is fighting
poverty and improving energy
supply, its overseas coal
investments all have
negative impacts on the
local environments, it said
in a report. ¡°The bank needs
to stop promoting the global
expansion of coal-fired
power plants and coal
infrastructure and
concentrate instead on what
it is already doing well at:
supporting energy efficiency
and renewable energies. KfW
likes to point out its
positive aspects but there
is a dark side of the bank
that is the reverse of its
green front,¡± Urgewald
said.
In 2011, KfW invested over
100 million euros in the
expansion and construction
of coal-power plants, coal
mines and coal
infrastructure. According to
Urgewald and the Climate
Alliance Germany, the Medupi
and Kusile coal-fired power
plants in South Africa have
worsened energy imbalances
and regional water disputes,
while coal mining in
Indonesia to feed the KfW-funded
Krishnaptanam power plant in
India has destroyed large
areas of pristine rain
forest and driven out local
people. In Serbia, KfW
invested 74 million euros in
a modern quality-management
system for lignite, or
¡°brown coal¡±, mining ¨C
pointing the way for more
open-pit mining and greater
reliance on lignite in the
country, impacting its
ability to hit its 2015
energy goals.
Zvezdan Kalmar, climate
director at CEKOR, a Serbian
NGO, said that the project
gave no thought to climate
considerations, and resulted
in more use of lignite. He
wrote to KfW asking it to
cancel the contract. The
bank has also been
criticised for investing in
the Wiggins coal port in
Australia, a move critics
say will endanger the Great
Barrier Reef.
Back in Beijing,
environmental groups are
still awaiting a response to
their request that the
Beijing Commission of City
Administration and
Environment publish the
environmental impact
assessment for the project.
The story continues.
Zhang Chun is assistant
editor at chinadialogue¡¯s
Beijing office and Xu Nan is
deputy editor.
The fight over a US$128 million waste incinerator being built in Beijing with German money appears to have reached a stalemate.
Chinese campaign groups have received no response to their request that Beijing¡¯s authorities make public the environmental-impact assessment for the waste-to-energy plant planned for the suburb of Nangong, which critics fear will pollute the neighbourhood.
Meanwhile, the project¡¯s German backer, state investment bank KfW, has come out to say it is confident its technical expertise and project-management strengths, combined with German technology, will ensure the scheme reaches the highest standards.
These assurances have failed to relieve the concerns of the public and green groups, who have become increasingly anxious about the environmental impact of Chinese waste incineration in recent years.
See also: Dirty truth about China's waste incinerators
Pollution fears surrounding the Sino-German project prompted 18 Chinese green groups to write to KfW on August 8, setting out their concerns, and kick-starting China¡¯s first environmental campaign directly targeting an overseas investment bank. KfW invited the campaigners to its offices and, on September 4, six representatives of the groups met with the bank in Beijing, but little progress was made.
The Nangong incinerator is a project under the Sino-German Financial Cooperation Framework, a financing agreement between the two countries. Ninety-nine million euros (US$128 million) of investment has been approved for the scheme. Of this, 55-million euros (US$71 million) is Sino-German cooperation funding, administered by KfW. China and Germany signed an agreement in May 2010, but no information has been published on the progress of the project or its environmental impact.
China has a well-established tradition of public opposition to waste-incineration plants and critics fear problems seen elsewhere will be repeated at Nangong. Environmental groups say China¡¯s incinerators cause serious pollution through excessive emissions of dioxins and heavy metals; release of liquid toxic wastes; illegal handling of ash and more. In south China¡¯s Pearl River Delta, waste incineration accounts for 21% of all manmade emissions of mercury, according to the network of NGOs campaigning against the Nangong scheme.
Li Bo, secretary general at China¡¯s oldest green NGO Friends of Nature, said KfW¡¯s project would inevitably meet the same opposition as other incinerator projects. The size of the Nangong project, combined with the lack of transparency, make their concerns particularly acute, he said.
Dirty truth about China's waste-burning plants
The focus of the dispute highlights the huge waste disposal challenge faced by China.
The project¡¯s funders say they are entirely confident they have the technology and working practices necessary to achieve the highest Chinese and European standards and calm public nerves. In a written response to the NGOs¡¯ complaints, KfW director Christine Heimburger said: ¡°There is a proven technology available to reduce to environmental impacts to an acceptable minimum¡With our bank we have significant technical and managerial expertise available to make sure that only a solution will be realized that is in line with this approach.¡±
But environmental groups do not believe this is such an easy thing to do in China.
Mao Da, an environmental historian focused on waste disposal, argues that technology is not the biggest issue in China. On the surface, he says, there appear to be three major problems with waste disposal in China: the varied nature of the waste, low levels of technology and a lack of investment. But at the root of all these is a failure of government oversight.
It is common for polluters to escape proper sanction, and for information to be kept secret. Local people are often disappointed by shoddy construction or operations, resulting in widespread distrust of new incinerator projects. Planned rubbish-burning plants around the country have met with public protest as a result. The West Qinhuangdao project in Hebei province, northern China, for example, was halted thanks to such opposition.
But what really worries campaigners is the lack of attention paid to waste disposal by local government. Most local authorities in China don¡¯t invest in waste disposal ¨C instead, the majority of plants are built on a ¡°build-operate-transfer¡± model, meaning construction and operation is contracted out to investors. This makes quality supervision even harder. And there is also a lack of strict enforcement of waste disposal standards.
Some of China¡¯s incinerators are better than others. As waste-sorting is weak and management poor, incineration rates are low in some regions ¨C this is already an open secret in the industry. To boost waste-burning, some plants spray diesel into the furnaces (also see ¡°Dirty truth about China¡¯s incinerators¡±). To control dioxin levels, furnaces need to be kept at a certain temperature ¨C but under these conditions, this is hard to achieve.
In 2009, the Chinese Academy of Sciences completed a year-long study of dioxin emissions. Of 19 waste incinerators surveyed, 16% failed to meet China¡¯s own standards, while almost 70% did not meet EU standards.
The repeated protests over waste incineration show the problem is not that waste-to-energy plants cannot be cleaner. It is that under China¡¯s current system and market environment, the public have grave doubts about the quality of management and working practices at waste incinerators.
Back at Nangong, KfW has found itself firmly in the sights of China¡¯s green campaign groups.
In July 2007, the State Environmental Protection Agency (later the Ministry of Environmental Protection), the People¡¯s Bank of China and the Banking Regulatory Commission issued guidelines on environmentally friendly lending, marking the start of China¡¯s green credit policy.
Under these rules, banks should guard against environmental or social risks associated with the construction, manufacturing or operations of projects that they fund.
Beijing¡¯s four main waste disposal facilities all have foreign investors. The two largest landfill sites, Beishenshu and Anding, were financed by KfW. Five of Beijing¡¯s waste-handling sites are funded by Germany ¨C the Majialou and Xiaowuji collection centres, the two landfill sites and the Nangong composting facility .
German state bank's controversial funding
Chinese waste isn¡¯t the only item on KfW¡¯s agenda being questioned by campaigners. Currently, it is funding new coal projects in South Africa, Thailand and Chile, as well as coal-infrastructure projects in Serbia and Australia. German NGO Urgewald has expressed concerns about these activities: while KfW claims it is fighting poverty and improving energy supply, its overseas coal investments all have negative impacts on the local environments, it said in a report. ¡°The bank needs to stop promoting the global expansion of coal-fired power plants and coal infrastructure and concentrate instead on what it is already doing well at: supporting energy efficiency and renewable energies. KfW likes to point out its positive aspects but there is a dark side of the bank that is the reverse of its green front,¡± Urgewald said.
In 2011, KfW invested over 100 million euros in the expansion and construction of coal-power plants, coal mines and coal infrastructure. According to Urgewald and the Climate Alliance Germany, the Medupi and Kusile coal-fired power plants in South Africa have worsened energy imbalances and regional water disputes, while coal mining in Indonesia to feed the KfW-funded Krishnaptanam power plant in India has destroyed large areas of pristine rain forest and driven out local people. In Serbia, KfW invested 74 million euros in a modern quality-management system for lignite, or ¡°brown coal¡±, mining ¨C pointing the way for more open-pit mining and greater reliance on lignite in the country, impacting its ability to hit its 2015 energy goals.
Zvezdan Kalmar, climate director at CEKOR, a Serbian NGO, said that the project gave no thought to climate considerations, and resulted in more use of lignite. He wrote to KfW asking it to cancel the contract. The bank has also been criticised for investing in the Wiggins coal port in Australia, a move critics say will endanger the Great Barrier Reef.
Back in Beijing, environmental groups are still awaiting a response to their request that the Beijing Commission of City Administration and Environment publish the environmental impact assessment for the project. The story continues.
Zhang Chun is assistant editor at chinadialogue¡¯s Beijing office and Xu Nan is deputy editor.