[Inside Chodong] How Long Will the "Landfill Bomb" Keep Getting Passed Around?

Managing waste is a quintessential example of metropolitan administration. Just as we do not blame Gyeonggi Province residents for driving into Seoul and causing traffic congestion, or Seoul residents for drawing water from the Paldang Dam, waste management should be discussed and handled in a similar context. However, Seoul, Gyeonggi Province, and Incheon have been in conflict over the location of the landfill site for more than 30 years. This deadlock began after Nanjido, once known as the flower island along the Han River, was converted into a landfill in 1978 and reached its limit in 1993, sparking a long-standing game of 'passing the bomb.'

The current landfill, located in the Oryu-dong area of Seo-gu, Incheon, was established through government mediation and is now nearing the end of its service. Incheon, which has been accepting waste from both Seoul and Gyeonggi Province, is now declaring, "We will make no more concessions." No region is stepping up to take responsibility. Since 2021, Seoul and Gyeonggi Province have only been making a show of searching for an alternative landfill, but their efforts do not seem sincere.

With only half a year left before the current landfill reaches capacity, a fourth round of public bidding has recently begun. At this rate, it is clear that the process will go nowhere. If this attempt fails, it seems that only a "countermeasure for the sake of countermeasures" will remain, such as "seeking solutions within a four-party consultative body (including the Ministry of Environment)."

The metropolitan governments involved are offering "exceptional incentives." However, it is difficult to expect an optimistic outcome. According to the "Research on Waste Management Strategies and Alternative Landfill Site Creation in the Seoul Metropolitan Area," conducted last year by the four-party consultative body, it would take nearly 11 years to establish a new landfill site.

It is also puzzling that this fourth round of bidding is taking place ahead of both the presidential and local elections. Which local government head, who cannot help but be preoccupied with the elections, would willingly step forward to host an "unwanted facility" like a landfill? "Resolving the metropolitan landfill issue" was a shared pledge of both Yoon Suk-yeol, the People Power Party candidate, and Lee Jae-myung, the Democratic Party candidate, in the 20th presidential election in 2022. However, it remained a declarative slogan without any concrete master plan. In this early presidential election, held under the aftermath of the 12·3 martial law, the issue has been pushed even further out of the spotlight.

Rather than going through a meaningless application process, it is time to seek realistic alternatives. Utilizing private incineration plants, which have been difficult to access due to high costs, could be one solution. The government could also establish a cooperative framework with the private sector to lower usage fees. If there is neither land available nor the ability to build public incinerators, then at the very least, financial compensation should be provided.

Since extending the use of the landfill is unavoidable, the government should postpone the ban on direct landfilling of municipal solid waste in the metropolitan area, which was scheduled to begin next year. If confusion caused by a shortage of incinerators spreads, the waste crisis could engulf the entire metropolitan region.

If administrative agencies continue to shirk responsibility, the cost of preventing a metropolitan waste crisis could become even greater. Some Incheon residents are reportedly considering closing the roads to the landfill after its scheduled closure this year. There was even an incident in the past where residents of apartments near the Mokdong Waste Incineration Plant, who were in conflict with Seoul over waste intake issues, refused to send their children to school. Instead of building "unwanted facilities," authorities should actively promote cases where expanding infrastructure has improved residents' lives as a way to resolve the issue. The root of the problem lies not with the residents, but with the administrative agencies that have neglected a foreseeable metropolitan issue while managing it with taxpayers' money.