The management of the waste generated by the population has become a matter of great importance in the municipalities and the deputies. This debate has been very intense in Gipuzkoa, especially since the incinerator project started in Txingudi and the Provincial Council of Gipuzkoa also foresees incineration in its waste plan.

The Waste Plan (PIGRUG) was approved in 2002. This plan is in line with the definition that prevails in European directives and considers waste as an issue that can be energetically validated, inter alia, through incineration. It also delves into the field of selective collection. For example, in 2008, when the plan was revised, the projection for the collection of organic waste increased as the so-called “fifth container” was expanded. However, this system leaves the segregation of waste to the will and customs of the population, which has resulted in a low level of recycling in the localities where it has been put into operation. This plan and system is supported by the PNV, PSE, PP and H1! groups of the General Assemblies, which are currently the majority, and this system of collection and treatment is also defended mainly in the municipalities by the councilors of these parties.

The incinerator projects generated immediate opposition in Gipuzkoa. But alternatives have also been put into practice during this legislature, specifically to deal with the plant that is to be carried out in the Bridges. Taking the example of Italy and Catalonia, in several municipalities they have started collecting trash door to door (in Usurbil, Hernani, Oiartzun and Antzuola) and have indicated their intention to install the same system in other localities. A recycling rate of more than 80% implies the collection of waste without anonymity and makes the incinerator unviable, in line with the idea of “zero waste”.

In 2010, numerous political parties, trade unions and social actors signed the Treaty of Usurbil against cremation and in favor of door-to-door collection. They asked the Provincial Council for a moratorium on the non-construction of the incinerator and to start a “zero waste” program. The following political forces are included in this Treaty: Patriotic Left, Alternative, EU, Greens, Aralar, EA and Standing. The demand for moratorium will undoubtedly be one of the main topics of discussion in the next legislature and the political correlations in public institutions. It can condition.

Battle in the Commonwealth

Although the authority to manage waste belongs to the municipalities, the litigation has been fully captured by the Commonwealth, which has the power to promote one system or another. Each municipality decides which representation in the communities and the content of the negotiations and the pacts are of immense importance. An example of this is the change of direction in the San Marcos Community, where at the end of the legislature the supporters of the PIGRUG became the owners of the leadership.

However, the issue of competition is complicated. The autonomy of municipalities has been questioned by proponents of incineration, leaving the responsibility for the collection and treatment of waste in the hands of institutions that are above the municipalities. In 2007, the Consorcio de Residuos de Guipúzcoa was created by the Provincial Council and the Comunidades. This consortium is pulling the project car from the Zubieta plant.

With this in mind, there are several fronts open and many things at stake: the construction of new composting plants; the clarification of the terms of the agreement signed with the banks to finance the incinerator; the implementation of the door-to-door system or the fifth container; the control of the communities and the Consortium that will be in charge... and, of course, the construction of the incinerator or the approval of the moratorium. The bridge plant, which will cost 580 million euros, will have the capacity to burn 260,000 tons of garbage, and in a radius of two kilometers lives more than 25,000 people. n n n n n n n