Developing the strategy for biodegradable waste management in GreeceS. Skoulaxinou1, A. Mavropoulos1, A. Karkazi1, K.E. Lasaridi21. EPEM S.A., Athens, Greece2. Harokopion University, Athens, Greece

1. IntroductionThe Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste, places targets on Member States to reduce the quantities of biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) going on landfill. Greece taking advantage of the four-year extension allowed for those countries landfilling more than 80% of their waste in the year 1996, is formulating its strategy by placing targets for the years 2010, 2013 and 2020. The aim of this paper, is to present the approach for the formulation of the Greek Strategy, given a wide array of economic, cultural and geographic constraints coupled with a lack of reliable data-series on waste production.

2. Current Situation regarding SWM - BMW management 2.1 Current Institutional Infrastructure for MSW management

Municipalities and Communities are mainly responsible for the waste collection and disposal, but also some aspects of planning. In many cases, waste disposal comes under the competence of the so-called Waste Management Authorities (WMA), which can be for instance, associations of local authorities. The most important are the Association of Communities and Municipalities of Attica (ACMAR) covering some 3,5 million people and the Association of Greater Thessaloniki. Until recently there existed 5.600 communities and 360 municipalities contributing to local conflicts and opposition regarding the siting of waste disposal facilities. By the end of 1998, municipalities and communities were merged to less than 1.000, facilitating among else waste management planning.The second level of local government consists of the 51 Prefectural authorities, also directly elected. The development of solid waste management master plans and the approval of some of the new works scheduled by the municipalities, fall within their jurisdiction, although from the year 2002 a requirement for waste management planning on Regional level was placed by the central government as a prerequisite for project funding. By planning on a more central level it should be possible to achieve economies of scale, as larger facilities for the treatment and disposal of the waste may be considered. The 13 Regional authorities, are part of the public administration and may be regarded as the regional representatives of the ministries and the state. They are not directly elected but are appointed by the central government. At a national level, the Ministry of Environment, Physical Planning and Public Works is responsible for policy making, national planning, technical matters, as well as licensing and regulating the financing of large waste treatment and disposal facilities. The ministry is also responsible for preparing the sectoral waste management strategies to ensure compliance with the EU legislation, including the most challenging and often-controversial strategy for BMW.

2.2 SWM ManagementWaste quantities in Greece reached 3,9 mil. tones in 1997 and 4,57 mil. tones in 2001. About 39% of the waste is produced in Attica Region. Waste disposal until 1994 was characterised by the numerous dumpsites (4.850) recorded officially, 70% of which, were uncontrolled (corresponded to 35% of the total waste quantities). The proportion of the population served by regular collection system was around 70%, while in numerous small islands and isolated villages collection was rarely organized. Recycling activities were relatively developed with remarkable results, mainly due to private sector efforts, providing a diversion rate of 5,96 %.Currently, situation has improved in the field of collection, recycling and final disposal while there is much more to be done in the field of waste pre-treatment / treatment prior to landfill. More specifically:i. MSW collection rates have increased up to 90% (served population), while the rest 10% concerns isolated

communities and small islands with less than 500 inhabitants.ii. Six big uncontrolled or semi-controlled landfills are under restoration (two in Attica, three in Thessaloniki and

one in Crete Island). Currently, six projects are under implementation while twelve (12) more under preparation.

iii. Recycling rates for paper and metals (especially aluminium) have been satisfactory as already mentioned. Additionally to the private sector’s activities, four MRFs currently operate successfully, based on citizens’ participation in separation at source systems (in Zakynthos, Patras, Athens and Larissa). Some recycling results are available in table 1. However, recycling schemes have not spread to many areas of the country yet and in many cases people are indifferent towards MSW management in general.

iv. The total amount of waste to be treated prior to landfill will reach 597.000 t/y by 2005 (12% of total in 2005). A new Mechanical recycling - Biological Treatment (MBT) facility is being constructed in Chania (70.000 t/y),

while the Athens MBT is expected to operate shortly (495.000 t/y). The existing MBT plant in Kalamata (32.000 t/y), while operating, faces many problems.

v. Regarding final disposal in sanitary landfills (SLs), 53% of the population is currently served, while it is expected to reach up to 74% by 2005, based on the projects under preparation/construction.

[Table 1]

Also, important steps have been made with regards to environmental legislation:i. The packaging directive was transposed to Greek legislation by issuing the 2939 Law in 2001. Its

implementation started with the formulation of a private – public partnership, the Packaging Waste Management Company (PWMC), in 2003. This company has undertaken the task to organize packaging waste management activities all over the country and to assure increase in recycling rates for all recyclable materials, by enhancing citizens’ participation and constructing new MRFs.

ii. The landfill directive has been transposed to Greek legislation by issuing a Ministerial decree in 2002 (29407/3508). The implementation of this directive now presents a great challenge for Greece since the results already achieved, though quite important, are simply not enough to achieve the targets and a change in waste management culture needs to be made.

Another important area that characterizes current situation is the secondary raw materials market. Currently, no market for compost or RDF exists. This is due to two main reasons: Greek legislation imposes compost specifications, in order to utilise it for agricultural use, while its application

on fields is allowed for a limit of years in order to avoid bio - accumulation of heavy metals. Currently, no positive results exist for composts produced by MBTs (i.e. Kalamata plant) and farmers are used to the commercial products they apply for years

Strict specifications apply for RDF especially when it comes to its moisture. Besides, the use of RDF as an alternative fuel presupposes modifications and additional air pollution treatment units, for industries willing to use it as a fuel (i.e. cement factories). The related costs for these modifications are significant and it is doubtable that industry will afford it.

Additionally, existing markets for plastics and glass are not well developed, while markets for paper and metals are mostly defined by private sector activities.

In the following, a proposal for creating a National Strategy for Biodegradable Municipal Waste (BMW) will be presented based on quantified targets for BMW diversion from landfill.

3. Setting the Targets3.1 Basis for calculations

On the national level, a major drawback is the existence of a limited data sequence regarding waste quantities. As it is set by the 1999/31 Directive, the year 1995 should be the basis for quantified target formulation (or the earlier year for which official data are published by EUROSTAT).Based on EUROSTAT, official data for Greece exist for years 1985, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1997 and 2001. The majority of the data reported to Eurostat are based on estimations, since in the ‘80s and the early ‘90s uncontrolled or semi-controlled dumping was the common practice in Greece.

3.2 MSW compositionFor Greece, data from field measurements exist for only a few areas such as Athens, Creta, Thessaloniki, etc. Even those measurements, however, were made at a certain year and there is no data repeatability. Official data on national level were published in the Ministerial Decree 14312/1302 as presented in Diagram 1, for year 1997.[Diagram 1]

Additionally, data for Greece are published by EUROSTAT and by the European Topic Centre on Waste and Material Flow – ETC/WMF. EUROSTAT reports a total quantity of 3 million tones in 1990 of which 2,688 million tones are biodegradable (89,6%). Such a percentage is rather high and most likely far from reality. On the other hand, ETC/WMF reports a total quantity of 3,9 million tones in 1997 of which 2,613 mil. tones are biodegradable (67,0%), based on the Ministerial Decree aforementioned.Based on the above, year 1997 was chosen as a basis for calculations and waste composition was assumed the one shown in Diagram 1. Year 1990 was not used as a basis, because waste quantity reported is very low (3 million tones), while the percentage of the biodegradable fraction is unrealistic (89,6%).

3.3 Estimating BMW quantitiesSeveral alternative methods for making estimations were checked in the study such as the model created in 1998 by the Dutch Ministry of Health and the Environment (RIVM), which is based on the assumption that waste generation is proportional to private consumption. Another model for estimating waste quantities is the one developed by EEA (2002), in which four different scenarios were developed for each country. Two of the scenarios assumed different yearly increase in waste generation, while the rest connected GDP and private consumption with waste generation. The main conclusion from the evaluation of the existing models is that connecting GDP or private consumption data with waste generation is not applicable to the case of Greece. Greek GDP presented a continuous increase in the decade ’90-’00 equal to 2,4%. However, the estimation of a constant GDP growth in the next decade is not safe. GDP arisings for the last five years are quite positive, but its composition (primary/secondary production and services) limits the credibility of any future indications. The statistical data available with regards to GDP growth indicate a reduction in GDP growth after 2004. For the same reasons, a continuous increase in private consumption is also unjustifiable.Based on the above, new scenarios for estimating waste growth were developed and evaluated, assuming different growth rates in waste production: 1 st scenario: Waste grows by 1% yearly – “Optimistic” scenario2 nd scenario: Waste grows by 35% in the 20-year period 2001-2020 – “Realistic” Scenario3 rd scenario: Waste grows by 3% yearly – “Pessimistic” scenario

Concluding, the 2nd scenario was considered realistic because an increase of 35% in the period 2001-2020 is constituent to the increase in the previous decade (47%), while population slightly increased and per capita waste production tends to become constant.

Additionally, two scenarios regarding waste composition were made:Composition Scenario 1: The biodegradable fraction of waste equals to 67% (47% putrescibles+ 20% paper) minus the paper recycled. The paper recycled is considered constant after 2005 and equal to 435.000 tons (current quantity recycled 230.000 tons+ 205.000 tons until 2005) - pessimistic scenario. Composition Scenario 2: The hypotheses in this scenario are (optimistic):

1. After 2005 the putrescible fraction is reduced to 35% of MSW and remains constant for the period 2005-20202. Paper quantities increase up to 30% of MSW while paper recycling equals to 50%.

Finally, BMW quantities were calculated, according to the realistic scenario for waste growth and the pessimistic scenario for waste composition.

3.4 Setting the targets on the National levelAccording to the above-described assumptions, the targets set are presented in Table 2:[Table 2]

4. Creation of the Greek Strategy for BMW ManagementBefore presenting a proposal for strategy development with regards to BMW management, some interesting comments and conclusions arise from the work made to quantify the targets for Greece in the years 2010, 2013, 2020: Assumptions need to be made in order to estimate waste quantities as well as composition evolution in time.

This is not only the case in Greece since heterogeneity of information and reporting exists among different EU countries (for instance, BMW has a different meaning among several states). Besides, the very need for estimations in order to quantify the targets makes it unsafe to set them now for 17 years ahead, because waste generation and composition change over life status.

Greece is a country with a special morphology, (mountainous areas, lots of small islands and isolated areas, etc), thus many differences in life status exist leading subsequently, to heterogeneity in waste production and composition from area to area. So, after quantifying the targets on the national level, one comes to realize how tricky it is to allocate these targets to the regional level.

Little has been achieved so far in the field of recovering materials from waste. While recycling results seem promising, paper recycling cannot alone be enough to reach the vast quantities of BMW that should be diverted from landfill, taking into account that Greek MSW contain mostly putrescibles (47%). Current treatment facilities with a total amount of MSW treated equal to 597.000 t/y, contribute only by 30% to the target set for year 2010 (1,1 million tones of BMW to be diverted).

Based on the above, it seems only logical that urban areas like Athens, Salonica, Patra, etc., will have to take drastic measures in the short-time to meet the targets (nationally and regionally). Referring to the calculations made, Attica region for instance, has to divert 430.000 tons of BMW from landfilling, by 2010. This may appear

to be fare since the country’s capital is the main waste producer, but waste quantities to be treated have to be increased, in order to cover up for areas that cannot contribute a great deal to achieving the national target.

From an engineer’s point of view and taking into account the comments so far, it seems difficult to meet the targets in urban areas without a large incineration-energy recovery plant, which is the only way to avoid the production of tremendous quantities of secondary materials. On the other hand, planning now for the year 2020 may lead to technical and economical mistakes that will in the future create an unsustainable system.

Results from another similar study conducted on the regional level, indicate that separate collection systems of organic waste in order to process it in decentralized simple composting units, costs the same with establishing a centralized plant. Therefore, when developing the strategy one comes to face the dilemma: “Should the country invest on people’s environmental conscience which is undoubtedly enhanced by separate collection systems or on centralized treatment plants that could more easily achieve the targets”?

4.1 A proposal for BMW strategy4.1.1 The strategy core

The strategy has to be based on the hierarchy: reduction of waste quantities produced, increase in reuse/recycling/recovery (including energy recovery) and reduction of BMW being landfilled.Some basic elements of the strategy should be: Setting up two types of targets. The first one, maximum quantities of BMW, is in accordance with the

requirements of the 1999/31 directive. The second one, minimum quantity that has to be diverted, (treated, recycled, recovered etc.), has to be included in the National Strategy to indicate the need for an integrated waste management system that will result at the achievement of the first target.

Application to all the regions of the country and inclusion of modifications by area, if necessary Combined actions to all levels: design, collection-transfer, reuse, recycling, treatment and disposal Changes in facilities licensing system as well as in the way waste producers are charged Enforcement of institutional infrastructure and creation of national and regional centres for solid waste

management Use of a system to monitor progress by setting up specific monitoring indicators

4.1.2 Waste ReductionThe targets proposed are: i. Reduction in yearly MSW growth by 1% up to 2005, ii. Total increase in MSW quantities for the period 2001-2010 should not exceed 15%, iii. MSW quantity should remain constant in the period 2010-2020.Such targets obviously imply a change in eating and consuming habits, which especially in urban areas, are hard to change. So, a well-designed informing campaign is necessary, while a new way of charging households for the waste they produce may have positive results.

4.1.3 Reuse / RecyclingSeparation at source of organic waste and composting in simple systems is one of the best ways of utilizing organic waste especially in rural, agricultural areas. Even though such systems cannot lead to target achievement alone, their application is necessary for alteration in environmental conscience of citizens, which is, in the long run, necessary for reducing waste production. Such systems should be favoured at the local level and local authorities should encourage: Separate collection systems of organic waste in hotels, restaurants, etc. Treatment of organic waste with the use of simple, “mild” technologies Use of the produced compost in several applications The targets proposed are: i. Composting of 5% of BMW by 2010, ii. Composting of 8% of BMW by 2013 and iii. Composting of 15% of BMW by 2010

4.1.4 Diversion from landfill – treatmentEstablishing treatment plants seems to be a one-way solution for meeting the targets. However, no technology can vanish waste but it simply converts existing pollution to a different form (from solid to liquid or to air, etc). Additionally, as already mentioned centralized treatment does not help in altering the way people think about MSW. Therefore, the choice of the kind, the capacity and the number of treatment plants should be decided with caution. Some things to keep in mind are:

1. Central MBT plants should not be chosen unless: Separate collection of organic waste is not feasible Compost quality is of no importance Waste to be treated exceeds 50.000 t/y

2. Central energy recovery plants should not be chosen unless: Separate collection of organic waste is not feasible Ground resources are limited

Waste to be treated exceeds 100.000 t/y Heating value of wastes (in case of incineration) or the amount of organic waste (in case of

anaerobic treatment) is appropriate Special attention should be paid to the high recycling rate of paper that might affect heating value Incineration of “green” waste and other similar waste streams should be avoided

Independently of the technology chosen, central treatment plants should be designed and established in a way that separate collection systems are not inhibited. Such plants must be part of an integrated management plant and not isolated solutions.

4.1.5 Regarding final disposalSanitary Landfills (SL) are the end point of any waste management system. They are also the cheapest and perhaps the most feasible solution for rural, isolated areas in Greece. However, the environmental impacts from landfiling biodegradable waste (odours, biogas, leachate), makes it compulsory to reduce BMW landfilling.Therefore, the targets proposed include: No landfilling of untreated MSW should take place after 2003. New SLs or existing ones until 2004 should apply waste pre-treatment/treatment. The alternatives are: i. A

treatment plant, ii. Recycling of materials from waste (paper at least which is biodegradable), iii. Separate collection and composting of garden waste, iv. Separate collection and composting of kitchen waste

Central authorities should set minimum recovery rates that should be achieved by each alternative.Regional authorities, via regional waste management, should decide upon the measures to be taken in order to reduce BMW quantities reaching landfills. Some tools to be used in this direction are:

1. Complete banning of BMW landfilling2. Complete banning of landfilling certain BMW streams (paper, garden waste, etc)3. Closure of certain Sanitary Landfills (SLs)4. Limitation of BMW that can enter SLs (application per SL)5. Limitation of BMW that can enter SLs (application at the regional level)6. Upper and lower limit of BMW treated (per facility)7. Landfill tax

Advantages and disadvantages of the above measures if applied in Greece are presented in Table 3.[Table 3]

All the above measures as presented in table 3, have advantages and disadvantages. In all cases however, what appears to be a prerequisite is the existence of field measurements regarding waste composition and a common method to allocate BMW quantities at case level (area, landfill, region, etc). Also, important element of any planning is the need for flexibility instead of creating a system that relies solely on a landfill or on a treatment facility, while it is obvious that targets need to be reset after a certain time (i.e. every 3 years) in order to depict waste quantity and composition evolution as well as possible achievements in management.

4.1.6 Institutional infrastructureThe confrontation of all the issues for the management of solid waste imposes coordination, cooperation and complete utilization of public staff at all levels. Taking as a fact that environmental offices and regional staff as well as personnel in prefectures, acquire important experience on design, licensing and projects’ preparation issues, their broader possible utilization is considered a prerequisite for the success of any management plan.Certain tools that can help authorities to modernise and strengthen their infrastructure are:

i. Waste Management Offices at the Regional LevelIn addition to MSW issues, increased needs over hazardous waste, special waste and wastewater issues require the establishment of Waste Offices, as separate department of environmental offices in regions, at least in those this is possible. The establishment and sufficient staffing of such an office would significantly assist the achievement of the results that should be performed and provide the ability of developing waste specialists. The Waste office could operate as a focal point for Waste Management Authorities (WMA) and municipalities, but also as information and documentation centre on legislation issues. Overall it will be the official representative at Regional level. Roles and responsibilities of the Waste office (solid, wastewater and hazardous) could be as following: Systematic monitoring of legal development on waste issues and direct notification of the involved offices and

local authorities on regional/prefectural level. The coordination and continuous contact with involved offices of the Ministry of the Environment, over all those

issues require national design and informing of the central governing mechanism. The coordination and continuous contact with the involved prefecture staff.

Systematic monitoring of the implementation progress of the solid waste prefecture management plan and the assistance of the involved authorities and WMA.

The organization and supervision of required design studies on prefecture level. The development and monitoring of a recording mechanism for dumpsites remediation on regional level. The assurance of transparency and providing of information to everyone interested on waste management

issues. The control of environmental terms’ implementation on waste management projects. 6 months and annual progress reporting over design and projects realization issues.

ii. Business Plan for Waste Management Authorities (WMA)WMA have to be strengthened in order to meet with the new needs coming from the operation of more complex facilities, setting up extensive separation at source systems and imposing strict environmental terms on landfills operation. A way to set the basis for their feasibility is to develop a Business plan that includes: Action plan for the next decade regarding various waste streams Development of an information system for monitoring waste management progress that includes a full cost

accounting computer software to monitor all WMA activities Acquirement of an environmental certificate (ISO 14000 or EMAS) Establishment of an educational system for the staff Research for the options of cooperating with the private sector

iii. Formal or Informal NetworksFinally, setting up formal or informal Networks with the participation of both public an private sector can assist in brainstorming and in exchanging experiences, information, etc. Such networks can be assisted by NGOs like the Hellenic Solid Waste Association in order to spread up information and create an open dialogue channel between the various levels of public authority as well as between public administration and the private sector.

4.1.7 Monitoring IndicatorsThe progress of every strategy has to be monitored in order to correct mistakes and enhance good efforts. The establishment of monitoring indicators is rather helpful in this field since they can provide with lots of information in a short time, even to those with no technical/scientific expertise. Proposed indicators are presented in table 4[Table 4]

5. ConclusionThe implementation of EC goals in Greece, as they are expressed through packaging waste and sanitary landfill directives, will result in a great SWM market transformation. This transformation will create new problems, relating with:

Increased operational cost Difficulties in secondary raw materials disposition.

While it is obvious that the reduction of the landfilled biodegradable fraction will have positive environmental impacts, it is not sure if such a reduction can be achieved without central facilities and in particular incineration plants which lead to massive volume reduction and produce energy that can be sold more easily. In this case, one comes to face the dilemma: “Should the country invest on people’s environmental conscience which is undoubtedly enhanced by separate collection systems or on centralized treatment plants that could more easily achieve the targets”? Additionally, increased recycling and recovery rates will lead to a need for expanding the secondary raw materials market, which is currently available only for certain products (paper, ferrous and non-ferrous metals). Such an expansion cannot ensure the disposition of the treatment products and thus there is an urgent need for additional research and studies, on a European level, on this issue. The uncertainty of the market behaviour and capacity provides with a crucial conclusion. Landfills will be necessary not only for the treatment residues and the untreated wastes but also to secure the system and to allow the final disposal even for treatment products that their markets will not absorb them. There is a need to combine common sense with waste hierarchy. Waste hierarchy is a rule of thumb, but it may be in contrast with the common sense, especially if it is too expensive. A cost – benefit analysis is always required, including environmental and social costs and benefits besides the economic values. This is also another field for research and studies, on a European level, because there is not a clear and generally accepted way to implement environmental cost-benefit analysis. The implementation of EC directives presupposes, among others, an increased involvement of the private sector since the advanced needs for the construction of new treatment facilities drive to private sector funds. The involvement of the private sector may give a solution to waste treatment needs, but it means also that SWM activities have to be profitable. This is a very critical point because as SWM becomes a profitable activity, the

interest for waste reduction and consequently for profit reduction, may decrease and thus a long-term solution will not be promoted. Finally, the market transformation will generate new SWM products and services, leading to new needs for human and data resources management. A lot of efforts should be implemented in Greece in order to achieve new control systems and training organisations.

6. List of Referencesi. EEA, (2002). Biodegradable municipal waste management in Europe, Parts 1-3, Copenhagen, Denmark ii. ΕΕΑ, (1999). Waste generation and management, Copenhagen, Denmark iii. EEA, (1999). Baseline projections of selected waste streams, Copenhagen, Denmark iv. EPEM S.A, (2003). A Plan for the management of the Biodegradable fraction of Municipal Solid Waste,

Athens, Greecev. ETC/WMF, (2003). Zero study: Resource Use in European Countries. ETC/WMF, Copenhagen, Denmark vi. Fraklin Associates, (1998). Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1997 update. US

EPA, Office of Solid Waste, Report No. EPA530-R-98-007.vii. Imppola U., Veijanen A., Hänninen K., Kyriacou M., Kotsou M., Protopapa I., Kavoussanos M. and Lasaridi

K.E. (2003). Comparative Evaluation of Process Performance of Composting Plants in Greece and Finland. Oral Presentation. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology (CEST), 8-10 September, Lemnos, Greece.

viii. Lasaridi K.E., (2003). Organic Waste Management in Greece: Current Status and Trends. Conference Proceedings. ORBIT 2003 Conference on “Biological Processing of Organics: Advances for a Sustainable Society”, 29/4-5/5/2003, Perth, Australia.

ix. Linstaed C. Ekins P., (2001). Mass Balance UK: Mapping UK resource and Material Flows. Royal Society for Nature Conservation, UK.

x. Mavropoulos A., Fountoulis K., Kolokotroni K., (2003). The Greek Strategy on the implementation of landfill directive 1999/31/CE. 4th International Technical Conference on Solid Waste, Leiria, Portugal.

[Table 1]: Recycling rates in Greece

MaterialExisting

Recycling rates, %

Recycling planned by PWMC, t/y

Total packaging,

tons

Recycling Rates planned by PWMC, %

Total, %

Glass 19,0 21.865 178.950 12,1 31,1Plastics 3,3 11.624 242.500 5,0 8,3Metals 8,8 12.626 77.000 16,4 25,2Paper/cardboard 64,6 77.403 356.000 21,7 86,3Total packaging 32,6 123.518 855.000 14, 0 47,0Printed paper NA 127.800 NA NA NA

[Diagram 1]: MSW composition as reported in 14312/1302 Ministerial Decree

[Table 2]: Targets for BMW management in Greece TARGETS FOR LANDFILLING AND DIVERSION 2010 2013 2020

Paper20,0%

Plastics8,5%

Glass4,5%

Other15,5%

Putrecibles47,0%

Metals4,5%

Putrescibles 47%

OF BMW (million t/y) (million t/y) (million t/y)Maximum BMW that may be driven to Landfills 1,95 1,30 0,90Minimum BMW that should be diverted 1,10 1,90 2,70

[Table 3]: Measures for reducing landfilling of BMWMeasure Advantages Disadvantages Application

1. Complete banning of BMW landfilling

-BMW diversion from SL enhanced-SL lifetime increases

-Rigid-Detailed data on BMW quantities and systematic control of incoming waste loads is needed-Increased management costs

Certain SL located closely to treatment facilities

2. Complete banning in landfilling certain BMW streams (paper, garden waste, etc)

-BMW diversion from SL enhanced-Separate collection systems encouraged-Environmental conscience developed

-Rigid-Detailed data on BMW quantities and systematic control of incoming waste loads is needed-Separation system in landfills is required-Increased management costs

Certain SL located closely to treatment facilities or to areas where separate collection systems operate

3. Closure of certain Sanitary Landfills (SLs)

-Number of SLs reduced-Increased quantities “available” to be treated

-Transfer costs increase Small SL reaching the end of their lifetime

4. Limitation of BMW that can enter SLs (application per SL, inclusion in the licensing documents)

-Offers flexibility if quantities allowed to enter SL decrease over a time period-Encourages the setting up of systems for diverting BMW from SL-SL terms of operation are clearly defined-SL environmental impacts minimised-SL operation and rehabilitation costs decrease

-A common method to estimate BMW quantities at case level is necessary -In case diversion systems fail a temporary disposal area for BMW is required-Overall management costs increase

Large SL serving urban areas

5. Limitation of BMW that can enter SLs (application at the regional level)

-Accordant to 99/31 philosophy-Offers flexibility if targets are redefined over a time period-Encourages the setting up of systems for diverting BMW from SL-SL terms of operation are clearly defined-SL environmental impacts minimised-SL operation and rehabilitation costs decrease

-A common method to estimate BMW quantities at regional level is necessary -Increased complexity-Inadequate institutional infrastructure in many areas-Overall management costs increase

Where regional authorities have the necessary infrastructure

6. Upper and lower limit of BMW treated (per facility, inclusion in licensing documents)

-Facilities can accept quantities from various areas thus competitiveness is

-A common method to estimate BMW quantities at regional or case level is necessary

In any case

Measure Advantages Disadvantages Applicationencouraged-Encourages the setting up of systems for diverting BMW from SL especially if combined with measure 4 -Room available for separation at source systems-Flexible system, not depending on a certain facility

-Increased complexity

7. Landfill tax -Motivates against landfilling-May be a source of money to invest on recycling/recovery

-Need to change waste producers are charged-Landfill gate fees must increase up to 250-300% to reach treatment costs

Should be considered by central authorities and applied by case if considered applicable

[Table 4]: Progress monitoring indicatorsMonitoring indicator Definition Goal

MSW productionUnit: tons/yr

Quantity of municipal solid waste based on weighing measurements in Sanitary Landfills and treatment facilities

Creation of database for the monitoring and assessment of the systemMonitoring of the “decrease of waste production” target

MSW production per person per GDPUnit: tons/per GDPcapita

Annual quantity of municipal solid waste per person per GDP

Monitoring of the relation among MSW generation and consumer habits (definition of the relation: MSW generation – GDP development)

Daily MSW production per personUnit: Kg/capita*day

Daily quantity of municipal solid waste per person according to the population data of 2001 inventory

Creation of database for the monitoring and assessment of the systemMonitoring of the “decrease of waste production” target

MSW compositionUnit: % w/w of material

Composition of MSW based on composition field measuring programs

Creation of a database for the monitoring and assessment of the system

Safe disposal Unit: %

Solid waste percentage disposed to sanitary landfills over the total waste generated

Monitoring of the “decrease of uncontrollable waste disposal” targetAchievement of 99/31 targets

Recovery rate (RBMW)Unit: % w/w of generated BMW

BMW recovered over the total BMW generated

Achievement of 99/31 targets

Disposal rate (DBMW)Unit: % w/w of generated BMW

BMW disposed to sanitary landfills over the total BMW generated

Achievement of 99/31 targets

Packaging waste recovery rate indicator (RPW)Unit: % w/w of generated packaging waste

Packaging waste recovered over the total generated

Achievement of 99/31 and national law 2939 targets

Packaging waste pecovery rate per material (Rpaper, Rglass, Rmetal, Rplastic) Unit: % w/w of the specific generated material

Material recovered over the total generated

Achievement of national law 2939 targetsDevelopment of database for the quantity of paper left for

treatment